Japanese Samurai VS. European Knights

[St Stephen]

Good post William however luck has nothing to do with it because we must ask our self; what is luck?! Combination of circumstances operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person. Therefore those "circumstances" would give victory to the better swordsman that's all, not luck!

Here and generally everywhere we like to talk about equal situations and opportunities but we all know there is no such a thing that two equal swordsman would meet under equal circumstances.

Oh one more thing I like to add here is that you all talking about armor weights, weapon types etc. those all make no difference between winning or losing a mortal combat. We all should concentrate all our effort about this issue on the training types and styles of the participants. We know little about the medieval knights fighting arts so we are just guessing about them (perhaps there wasn't a lot,this is why it disappeared in history)however on the other end we know a lot about the Japanese bushi fighting arts and to conclude here I think the bushido gave better preparedness to those "circumstances" in a fight against any opponent than the European style did!

Well this is my humble opinion.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-13-2002).]

[Lorenz Helmschmied]

"Oh one more thing I like to add here is that you all talking about armor weights, weapon types etc. those all make no difference between winning or losing a mortal combat. We all should concentrate all our effort about this issue on the training types and styles of the participants. We know little about the medieval knights fighting arts so we are just guessing about them (perhaps there wasn't a lot,this is why it disappeared in history)however on the other end we know a lot about the Japanese bushi fighting arts and to conclude here I think the bushido gave better preparedness to those "circumstances" in a fight against any opponent than the European style did!"

So basically, you admit you don't know anything about European training, and then confidently presume that Japanese training was superior? This is just logically laughable. BTW it's a speculation (possibly incorrect too) and not an opinion, as it concerns a question of fact and not a value judgment. AS William's post made perfectly clear, there exist DOZENS or Western training manuals. Certainly, not as much is known about Western Martial Arts as Asian, but ppl are learning more all the time. Don't judge something if you are ignorant of it.

"Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items"

Have you ever SEEN a real suit of Gothic plate? This assertion is ludicrous.

As far as the idea that horsemen needed helpers to get into saddles etc... this is garbage. In point of fact, the average field kit for a British doughboy in WWI weighed more than a good suit of "battlefield" plate. More to the point, the plate armor was better distributed than the field kit.

No doubt, the Japanese samurai had a wonderful martial tradition. It is quite impressive enough in its own right without the belittling other traditions or the exaggerated claims made by it's modern devotees.



------------------
As Above,
So Below

[Papewaio]

William that has to be the most impressive first post I have ever seen.

Not long winded as it was well thought out and was easy to read with very interesting information.

I always thought the Renaissance sword masters couldn't have sprung out of thin air and had to have had some sort of tradition that they came from. As during that period the sword was one of the lesser martial weapons, so it was hardly likely that the fencing had just materialised without the knights having developed something prior to that.

I suppose we should have figured out from Hollywoods portrayal of modern warfare how wrong they must have been about knights. BTW check out the history forum as they are very scared of Hollywood doing a remake of the Seven Samurai as they know how much it will be butchered.

In short thankyou for your most excellent post.

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Yep an post to include in an archive, not to be deleted. The links are interesting also.

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by Lorenz Helmschmied:
"

So basically, you admit you don't know anything about European training, and then confidently presume that Japanese training was superior? This is just logically laughable. BTW it's a speculation (possibly incorrect too) and not an opinion, as it concerns a question of fact and not a value judgment. AS William's post made perfectly clear, there exist DOZENS or Western training manuals. Certainly, not as much is known about Western Martial Arts as Asian, but ppl are learning more all the time. Don't judge something if you are ignorant of it.

"Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items"

Have you ever SEEN a real suit of Gothic plate? This assertion is ludicrous.

As far as the idea that horsemen needed helpers to get into saddles etc... this is garbage. In point of fact, the average field kit for a British doughboy in WWI weighed more than a good suit of "battlefield" plate. More to the point, the plate armor was better distributed than the field kit.

No doubt, the Japanese samurai had a wonderful martial tradition. It is quite impressive enough in its own right without the belittling other traditions or the exaggerated claims made by it's modern devotees.

[/QUOTE]

Well you see this is exactly what I meant. You start talking about armor etc. and being mad just because someone else have a different opinion. However please allow me to take on your challenge here. I feel from your post that you have never study martial art of any kind beside reading it from a book. I'm also sure that you have never handheld a real sword or train with it to "kill a person" therefore you have no idea how fast, precise and devastating a single katana with a superior training can be.

Do you know what makes a master swordsman a "master", not the knowledge how to cut someone head off because that everyone could do. To be a master swordsman you must understand a way of the sword therefore as long as we have two arm and two leg there are limited amount of movement you could do with ANY sword so a master could "read " ANYbody to get the advantage he would need to get the "kill" with ANY opponent regardless of the protection they are wearing (I'm talking single combat only here). Now in this kind of training we all must admit that the Japanese have the advantage over the European and please don't "throw" me books tell me instead how much experienced you have as a swordsman thanks! I'm myself studying eastern martial arts ( unfortunately there isn't many western martial art out there beside boxing and fencing)for 16 year and involved with Shinkendo for the last 4 year so for me it is a beginning only. However I know persons who's been studying the sword for over 20 year and still don't understand it , to do so takes a special talent only very few people have; that's why they had very few masters in Japan even in the Edo era.

[Skogul]

Hi everyone, this topic was brought to my attention via a forum post and i decided to toss in my two cents.

I see a lot of misconceptions about both European and Japanese martial arts. William has already covered a lot of information. (Great post William) so I wont rehash what he said, instead I am going to address some of the glaring problems.
First of all, I'd like to give you a bit of back ground on myself, Although it might not show from what I am about to post, my favorite sword is the Japanese Katana, and the Samurai are my favorite warrior class. I have studied Japanese martial arts since i was twelve years old, and I have been covering European martial arts myself using some of the many historical texts for about a year or more now. So I have a fair bit of understanding about both of them. I am no "master" but I feel confident that i could hold my own in the event of it becoming neccessary for me to defend myself with a sword against another swordsman.
Since St Stephen is checking for credientials..... I have fought, with blunted swords, wooden training swords (bokken, or waster in European Martial arts terms) and shinia and "boffer". I have kept my training as true to the martial side as possible without killing with a sharp sword.

I have fought in both limited plate and (chain)maille on the Euro side, but I readily admit I have never fought in Japanese armour. However I know people who have.

I also have handled, trained, and cut with both decent Japanese style swords (not the stainless steel crap here folks...) as well as decent European swords, and i've mentally amassed a fair deal of understanding about both swords from hours and hours of reading about both mettalurgy, edge geometry, distal taper, and many many other factors that go into a swords preformance, both modern copys and antiques.

Since most of the misconceptions are based on the Japanese katana, i will start there. I'm going to assume we're talking about antique and more or less historically correct modern made katanas, so this excludes super swords like Mr Howard Clarks L6 bainite katana, which is MUCH MUCH more durable then any antique could ever hope to be

First off, the japanese katana is obviously a complex, beautiful, and functional sword. They're the stuff of legends, no doubt about that, Unfortunetly these legends have become accepted as truth. I too was prey to this mentality when i first began learning about swords, I too was convinced the Katana was the most durable, best cutting, and superior handling sword out there. As i said, I still hold a great love for these swords, they are indeed my favorite.

However, it was not a super sword made of super steel. They would bend, they would break, and they would do it often. obviously, there are many tiers of sword quality, But even great swords are made of steel, and steel, no matter how tough will bend and break under duress eventually.
In fact, the katana is highly prone to bending. The katana is designed, as many of you know, with a hard edge and a softer spine. The reason being, the hard edge will hold an edge and cut better then softer steel, and the soft spine of the katana keeps it from breaking, as a through hardened katana (or any sword) at a very high RC (rockwell hardness) would snap on impact, rather then flexing.

The soft steel is not nice and springy, it would tend to bend, and stay bent. The katana is made the way it is so that on the event of a bend ( which happens even to master swordsmen sometimes) it can be easily straightend. Obviously this is much more desireable then having your sword snap in combat! But eventually if you bend your sword frequenlty, no matter how well made, it will fatigue and snap.
This is why the japanese sword arts are so hell bent on good technique and practice tamishigiri (test cutting) often, anything less and you run the risk of bending your sword.
Now that we've covered the durabilty issue on the japanese side, lets cover it on the european sword and then compare the two.

As many of you probably know, the european sword was constantly changing due to cultural issues, new armor to face, as well as just changing tastes. Since we're talking about knights, we'll assume the sword in question is your basic hand and a half (a sword that can be weilded effectively with one or two hands on the hilt), and since we're talking about the katana ( a predominatly cutting sword) we'll assume the knights sword is of the predominat cutting type as well, this would be a type XIIIa, which had a broad blade with very little profile taper for maximum cutting power, with the tradeoff of loosing some thrusting power.

However, the Europeans were not dumb brutes with big heavy swords that were poorly made. In fact, the vikings were doing sword construction by layering their swords at about the same time japan started doing it, if not a hundred years or so before them. They did it for the same reason the Japanese did it, the japanese sword smiths had poor quality iron, and limited quanititys of it to boot. As did many cultures in europe till the middle ages. They would layer steels of differant qualitys and fold it many times, to get a more homogenous quality to the steel. Rather then having some parts be of good steel while others were made of poor steel, the "mixing" of the two qualitys would create one middle quality bar of steel. As i said, both the vikings (and later Europeans) as well as the Japanese did this. This is called "pattern welding" and results in patterns in
the sword blade when it is properly polished. Frequently the pattern is called "damascus" ( a misnonmener) or in Japanese, it's called "hada".

But the europeans would also make swords by "stock removal' which is basically grinding a bar of steel into the shape you want. This became more common when steel in europe was becoming very well refined and the "pattern welding" was no longer needed to make a good sword. In Japan, their steel quality remained poor, so they still had to use (and do to this current day) the old method of forge folding a blade.
So you see, this process made a mixture of poor steel, and good steel, into decent steel, rather then making decent steel better. In fact, if you had two swords made of the same steel, one forge folded mostly to shape, the other ground into shape, with the exact same dimensions and heat treatment, both of them would be equal, or the preformance differance is so small that it is undetectable even to modern people with science, let alone our ancestors who didnt have the same benefits we do when testing swords.
In fact, when the Japanese did begin trading with Europe, and got some of their higher quality steel the smiths would often mark their swords with something along the lines of "made from barbarian steel". Because the Euro steel was just better
Sorry got off subject there anyways, we will assume that the knights sword is made via stock removal of the best available steel given the normal european "through" heat treatment, which results in a sword of about 50 or so RC all the way through. And we shall assume the samurai's katana is of given their normal heat treatment. Resulting in the hard edge, and softer spine.
The trade off for both swords is, the knightly sword would not hold an edge quite as well as the katana (arguable, considering that the type of steel used has as much to do with it as the hardness) and the katana is more prone to bending, whereas the knightly sword is made to flex and then spring back to shape, but the katana has that nice hard edge...


Another common misconception about katana's and "broadswords/longswords" is that the longsword is very heavy and clumsy, made for crushing through armor.

This also is not true. In fact, no sword is made for crushing through armour, Much like the samurai would attack gaps in the armour and try to get the soft parts underneath, so too would the knight, either thrusting through gaps, or using a technique called "half swording" (more on that later). As opposed to bashing away fruitlessly at an opponents armour.

Actually the sword was reserved for fighting either unarmoured or lesser armoured opponents in both cultures but both cultures would try and get around the armor if a sword was all they had at their disposal.

Therefore the knightly sword had to be just as manuverable and light as it's japanese counter part, in fact as William said, inch for inch, the average longsword was lighter then the average katana. Often the longsword is several inches longer, therefore they weighed about the same, and the handling ability is similar as well. (Remember, like i said I've trained extensivly with both).

One thing the japanese katana is legendary for is it's sharpness, it could cut, and it could cut very well. On the other hand, European swords are often seen as being dull. Many people back up this "fact" by pointing out the fact that European fetchbuchs. (fight books) often show combatants gripping their blade (halfsword again) Once again, this is simply not so.

For one thing, although gloves are ussually not pictured in fetchbuchs, they were ussually worn regardless, in fact, many of the books show unarmoured combatants doing techniques meant for amoured combat, this is for clarity and simplicity of illustrating the books. This made gripping the blade much safer, even when sharp, also, it is possible to grip a sharp sword even with a bare hand and as long as your hand does not slide on the blade and you keep a firm grip on the flat of it, you can safely grip the sword, The added protection of gloves make this even more safe.

Also, many europeans used a technique called "differantial sharpening". Rather then a razor edge all the way down the blade (you rarely cut with the lower half of the blade, there is no reason for it to be razor sharp) they would often have the last few inches or so be "razor" sharp, while the lower parts of the blade were given a "chisel" edge, one fetchbook put it like this. "The top part of the blade should be equivelant sharpness to a knife, while the lower part should be more like an axe". This allows a Euro sword to block edge on edge and sustain less damage then an edge on edge block with a katana would. (Two modern iaido instructors took traditionally (well)made katana and did a fast kata with lots of edge on edge blocking and the end result was two saw toothed katana and about 6 thousand dollars per sword tossed down the drain)

Blocking is avoided in both arts, with deflections and "voids" (dodging) being the preferred method of defense, but a European sword is capable of blocking with edge or flat (although it will take edge damage in the block) without breaking, as someone said earlier. Whereas a block with the katana on the edge will sustain more damage, and a block on the flat will likely result in a bent or broken sword. Therefore voids are even more heavily emphasised in Japanese sword arts.
One smith and martial artist on swordforum used two differantially heat treated wakizashi type blades on eachother and was able to cut through the differantially hardened sword when striking on the flat and spine, while sustaining only dings in the edge with edge on edge blocking. So you can see the importance of avoiding blocking with a japanese sword, especially with the flat.
Also note: An "axe" edge would still sheer your arm, head, leg, or even your torso, right in half disturbingly easily. But the three tiered system of gloves, grip, and differantail sharpening made it possible to halfsword safely, as well as letting a sword remain sharp enough to be a sword, rather then a crowbar.

As you can see, as far as manuverabilty, sharpness, durabilty, and use, the European sword is more or less on par with the Japanese sword, and possibly even better in some catagorys. (Such as durabilty, with the tradeof being slightly less sharp)

So where do all these legends of the katana's power come from? Well, in japan, the katana and it's kin are about the only swords that were used, therefore the katana is just as much symbolic to Japan as it is a weapon, and symbols are often given immense power. At least in legends. japan was a very cut off society, they rarely warred with anyone but themselves. In fact, when the mongols invaded Japan many katanas were snapping on the mongolian armour, this came as a shock to the japanese, the only thing that saved their keisters was the kamikaze (divine wind). A monsoon blew in and destroyed most of the mongolian force. Immedietly afterwords swordsmiths started working dilligently on the design of the katana so that it wouldnt break so easily on armour.
So other then a very few skirmishes with the "outside" it was Japan vs Japan, Samurai against Samurai, Katana against Katana. Hence the katana became symbollic and therefore legends were woven around it. In Europe, new armor and new enemys to fight resulted in the sword rapidly evolving and changing, and thus no one sword type became "symbolic" and had so many legends woven around it.
Europeans have always been a very practical people. If something doesnt work it is tossed out and replaced. In japan they just sought to improve what they had, Neither approach is better or worse, they're just differant. Although the katana did change over time, it didnt come anywhere near the differant phases of evolution the European swords did.
Also, the longsword is much more versitile then the katana, With halfswording, trapping and hooking with the qullions (guard) using them to trip your opponent etc. The japanese sword arts have none of this, and therefore the samurai wouldnt expect these things. But the European sword arts have plenty of cutting and thrusting, and this more or less covers the Japanese side of things.
Now that we've covered swords, lets breifly cover armor, this isnt my strong point(i have far more knowledge of swords then i do of armor), so I will be brief.
Many people have pointed out that European harness (full plate armor) is not as clumsy as commonly bealived, this is true, as are the facts that is not an extreme encoumberance, and that the weight isnt so bad, due to it being only 60 or so pounds and it's distributed all over the body (modern soldiers carry about 90 pounds just on their backs!)
So while the japanese armour may be extremely complicated to make as well as very beautiful and manuverable, so too is European plate armour, and the European plate offers superior protection as well, a katana would very likly bend or break on European plate. While a longsword would dole out a good bit of damage to the laminated armour of the samurai.
European armour offers more protection, with only a minor trade off in manuverabilty. Also, remember, armour was worn in both cultures on the battlefield ONLY. you did not stomp around in full harness in Europe, just like you didnt in Japan, and on our ancestors battlefields individual manuverability is not that important, as all fighting is probably taking place in very crowded confines most of the time, therefore the superior protecition of european armour is more then worth the trade off in manuverabilty. As much as hollywood would like you to bealive that running around in minimal armour and cutting through your heavily armored and much slower foes is the way to go about war on a medevil battlefield, this is not the case, otherwise everyone would have ran around in minimal armour rather then suiting up in as much as they could find.

In the end it is protection that would save your life, otherwise the peasents that had no armour at all would wipe the floor with an armoured knight or samurai, clearly this is not the case, and the higher classes of both cultures developed armour that impedes movement no matter how well made, but provides protection in it's stead.
That covers the plate mail that most people think of when you say "knight"
Likely, the only reason the Japanese didnt develop plate is their lack of steel in the first place.
As for chainmail which i fought in many many times, accompanied with a gambeson (padded garment under the maille) provides great protection against cuts, with decent protection against thrusts. (properly made maille with rivited links at least) but with only minimal protection against blunt trauma. (Although it disperses the impact over a wider area therefore you might havea bruise or even a broken arm, but you'll still have your arm at least)

Someone asked about thrusts against chain in this thread, to answer him, I have seen a video of a proper maille/gambeson combination stop a spear thrown at full force against a dummy. The spear didnt penetrate, at least not enough to where it would have injured the person in the armor other then knocking the wind out of him. Obviously however, the chain really shines against the cut, with the thrust being much more dangerous to the wearer, although some protection is provided against both. Now that i think about it, the rounded curving point of the katana (kissagi) coupled with the curve in the blade makes it likely that a katana thrust against chainmaille would skate off the armour on an off thrust.
Also, make a note that Japanese armour was mostly designed to protect against arrows. NOT swords and other weapons.
With what i know from cutting tests and my own experiance with armour, coupled with what i've read in numerous places, i would NOT want to be the guy with the katana against any form of common european armour, Lets say, a chainmail shirt and gambeson with a curassis (breast and back plate) over it with a decent helm, a fair sizedsheild and a hand and a half sword. With knee and elbow cops and other little "trinket" armour. (What an early knight would likely wear) Let alone against full plate armour. Your chances of winning, even if you're armoured in full samurai kit, is relativly less, and remember, I love katanas and japanese culture,(enough to be getting ready to drop about 12 grand on a daisho when i get the money) so i'm not just saying that because i am some kind of japan hater.

Since this is getting long winded I am going to paraphrase what i would like to say. Evidence from European fetchbuchs contains information on both armoured and unarmoured combat, as well as a variety of weapon and weapon combinations, as well as unarmed fighting. In fact many students of asian martial arts when they first look at a european Fetchbuch declare with surprise "but we do that in karate/jiujitsu/etc!" I too thought the same thing when i first came into contact with a European fighting manual.

It is safe to assume that both cultures had martial arts on more or less equal levels as far as swordsmanship and unarmed fighting. Including the more versatile longsword. This is discounting all the hubub about "ki" and other semi-mystical things that are likely little more then legends with no proof, and before you point out GrandMaster SoandSo that can use his ki to make him able to smash bricks with his barehands, i wish to point out that there is an american gentleman who can do the same thing, but only because he's been punching a steel plate 1000x's a day at full strength for 30+ years and his body is conditioned to take it. No ki, no "force" nothing but pure physical conditioning.
Anyways, onwards...
A few small points here before we get down to the actual comparison. Just as samurai were trained in their martial arts from a young age, so too were the European knights.
Neither culture was neccessarily "braver" then the other. I can assure you that samurai were not the die hard death mongering no fear warriors we see on TV. A brave man is a brave man regardless of his country of orgin, so any mental advantages the samurai would supposedly have by being ready for death are just myths. Any man who goes into combat against another knows he may die, but accepts it as a part of the risk.
I doubt a knight is going to piss his armour once the samurai draws his sword

Assuming that both men (single combat here) are master warriors (yes a European can be a "sword master" too Stephen, when you train to fight with something to save your life it doesnt matter if your European Japanese or Martian you can be a "master" and be just as good as any other culture ) from their respective cultures, with great deals of experiance, and with top notch weaponry and armour from the epitomy of their cultures (Fullplate for a knight and the highest caliber armour for the samurai etc). And assuming that they are both equipped with a single sword, katana and longsword. I would have to say that the knight would likely win being that the samurai cant really get to him through the armour, while the knight has dealt with armor of the samurai type before (although it might not look just like what the knight is familiar with, it is less protective and more mobile, hence the knight has likely dealt with similar armour protection before)
I would have to say that the fully armoured knight would have a better chance. Remember, the knight has fought many many people in many many differant configurations of armour, while the samurai has been pitted against mostly other samurai or "lesser" warriors, foot soldiers, etc.
Now, for the gentleman that pointed out that a samurai would just close and knock the knight down and attack him when he gets back up...well...heh...thats just silly, and this is why.
Balance is key to all fighting. The japanese are not by nature better balanced then Europeans, even with the armour a knight is going to be able to hold his balance even if a samurai rams into him. Remember, Europeans are ussually larger then japanese, and the combination of heavier (is it really though?) armour and a larger body mass on average is going to make the knight a little harder to knock down then you might think.
Also if the samurai attempted to close the distance he would of course have to get through the knights lognsword first (probably by sweeping it off to the side of course) in which case the knight would probably let the blade be swept off to the side and then slam his pommel into the samurai's face.
Plus we must remember, both men are master warriors, I find it hard to bealive that a samurai has that much better perception then a knight, a samurai in armour knocked to his back (and there is a lot of groundfighting in European martial arts as this is the best place to kill armored opponents) would have to get up the same way a knight would, Anything less flexible then chainmaille requires one to roll over and get to their feet. Unless the armour is exceptionally well tailored. This too, i know from experiance.
Therefore in full armour at the apex of hand to hand combat in both cultures i would have to give the knight about a 75% or greater chance of sucess.
Much as I'd like to see my "pet culture"(japan) win, and i'd surely root for the Samurai, you can be sure I secretly would have placed a 500 dollar bet on the knight
His armour is an advantage, not a disadvantage, or he wouldnt be wearing it. Also, his sword is longer, more versitile and ussually more durable provided they are both well made. Sharpness and edge retention in one on one combat that would likely last less then 60 seconds would not matter a lick. While while flexability would, a bent katana over the knights armour would be disastorous, a katana never faced full plate armour in history, it would be at a loss.

Now lets say the knight has a one handed sword and a shield. (very common) I dont even have to say then. Go fight someone who has a shield while you only have a katana or longsword and you'll see who has the advantage., and it wont be you! Also, samurai never faced a true shield, he would once again likely be at a loss for a tactic. (Experiance makes up about 60% of your combat effectiveness, with 20% being firmly planted in intangible unpredictable things, luck/ enviornment/ etc. and the other 20% is in your equipment this is just my opnion and applys mostly to hand to hand combat only) if you've never fought against a shield, you're not going to know what to do or what to expect, nor would you have a trained counter to it.

If we really want to get intresting, then lets strip away the armour and have the two fight unarmoured with longsword against katana, and nothing but your light clothing to protect you. ( A shield would still be to much of an advantage to be fair i think)

Here is where it gets hard to say and I am at a loss for an answer, it would be a much fairer match thats for sure. Here the sharpness of the katana could make a differance and durabilty is not so much an issue unless there is a hard sword on sword blow. On the other hand, the knight still has the more versatile weapon although he would be less likely to use halfsword and such when not facing armour. He also has a couple inches in reach (which might not seem like much but can make a tremendous differance in gaining as fetchmaster George Silver calls it "the true place" a place where you can strike your opponent but he cant get you.
Unarmoured combat is where the feces hits the fan and things are much more dangerous. I wont even hazard a guess at who would win here. I'd still lean towards the knight if i had to pick one. But it would still be a risky pick.
Truth is, we'll probably never know unless we can go back in time, snatch about 100 typical knights, and 100 typical samurai, and throw them at eachother one at a time and count up the averages. This is impossible and immoral however

I still think the typical knight has a slightly better chance in armoured or group combat, just like i think the longsword is a down and dirty superiour weapon that just isnt as mysterious or legendary, Or look as nice in my opnion, and the truth is i dont care that it's likely superiour, as i said, I like katana's better. If practicallity was the only issue in my preferance then i would say the guy with the M16 would win. But that might bring up a "who would win, the guy with the M16 or the guy with the AK47?" topic.
I could be wrong, but all of the samurai's supposed advantages (super sword, super armour and ku-ratty!) are easily disproven or have a european counterpart, Other then that, the only remaining advantages on the samurai side are intangible things like ki, increased perception, the ablity to jump 20 feet in the air, and shoot fireballs out of his hands (ok no one said that, but i'm sure someone was thinking it) and other anime bull$hit "facts".

We'll never know who would win, and it doesnt really matter. Both cultures evolved differant types of warriors and weapons that were top of the line in their time period and place. Neither one of them are substantially better then the other although both have advantages and disadvantages, many people say threads like this are pointless. I dont think that's so, as it can help clear up misconceptions about both cultures and warrior classes.
Sorry for the long winded post, but i hope someone learned something they didnt know and found it informative.

[William The Conqueror]

Quote Originally posted by St Stephen:
Well you see this is exactly what I meant. You start talking about armor etc. and being mad just because someone else have a different opinion. However please allow me to take on your challenge here. I feel from your post that you have never study martial art of any kind beside reading it from a book. I'm also sure that you have never handheld a real sword or train with it to "kill a person" therefore you have no idea how fast, precise and devastating a single katana with a superior training can be.

Do you know what makes a master swordsman a "master", not the knowledge how to cut someone head off because that everyone could do. To be a master swordsman you must understand a way of the sword therefore as long as we have two arm and two leg there are limited amount of movement you could do with ANY sword so a master could "read " ANYbody to get the advantage he would need to get the "kill" with ANY opponent regardless of the protection they are wearing (I'm talking single combat only here). Now in this kind of training we all must admit that the Japanese have the advantage over the European and please don't "throw" me books tell me instead how much experienced you have as a swordsman thanks! I'm myself studying eastern martial arts ( unfortunately there isn't many western martial art out there beside boxing and fencing)for 16 year and involved with Shinkendo for the last 4 year so for me it is a beginning only. However I know persons who's been studying the sword for over 20 year and still don't understand it , to do so takes a special talent only very few people have; that's why they had very few masters in Japan even in the Edo era.



[/QUOTE]

Well, I HAVE held a real sword, both nihonto (Japanese sword) and European, and I've been actively training in European swordsmanship for a couple of years now (and reading about it for longer), so while I'm no master, perhaps you will allow me to address the issue.

I find it baffling that you think your credentials in Japanese Swordsmanship somehow makes you an authority on European Swordsmanship and it's history. I beg your pardon, but that is NONSENSE! Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Trying to claim otherwise in the face of hard evidence just makes you look silly.

BTW, if my experience is too slim for your exaltedness, please do follow the links to the ARMA and Sword Forum International, where you will find many very experienced Western swordsmen practicing the very European Martial Arts you claim don't exist.

With all due respect St Stephen, I know and have conversed with alot of Shinkendo folk over the years, inclduing Mr Nathan Scott on various forums and the Shinkendo list itself, and, although I can't claim to speak for them, I have a sneaking suspician that he and most senior Shinkendoka would not agree with you at all. May I ask, btw, who your teacher is? I know some of the Shinkendo instructors from various forums.

I also suspect that you may not have read my post in it's entirety. In particular, it seems as though you have chosen to ignore the issures I raised about the very real European medieval masters who learned, practised and taught the arts of war to the European military class for centuries.

These Medieval masters were men who had trained for, fought and bled in real wars and duels for decades, and left details of their arts to us in the fighting manuals they published. I'm sure you'll agree, I should weigh their words more heavily over that of any modern Cyber-Bushi.

All the modern scholars and martial artists who have had a chance to study the surviving European manuals have concurred that they represent a sophisticated, complete system of martial arts to equal anything from Japan. Aan excellent overview of late medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts can be found in Dr Sydney Anglo's book "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe":
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/MAoREpreview.htm

There are distinguised teachers of Japanese martial arts, such as Mr Dale Seago, chief instructor in the Bujinkan (under Hatsumi), who attended a European longsword seminar a while ago, who would also disagree with you. The seminar was headed by John Clements of the ARMA (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts). Suffice it is to say that Mr Seago came away well impressed, and made the direct assertion that there was no doubt in his mind that the European martial arts were, in their day, every bit as effective as anything developed in Japan.

Mr Guy Power, high ranking instructor of Toyama Ryu batto do, who has studied the recently published edition of Talhoffer's 1467 fechtbuch (available as "Medieval Combat: A fifteenth century illustrated manual of swordfighting and close quarters combat" translated by Mark Rector), compared the medieval German longsword tradition favourably to kenjutsu and batto do, recognizing many of the techniques in Talhoffer's manual as having direct counterparts in Japanese swordsmanship (an example of parallel development: very common when two seperate cultures face similar challenges). Mr Power found the German tradition so interesting, I believe he bought and sent a copy to his Sensei, Mr Nakaumura.

Suffice it is to say that both of these gentleman have decades worth of experience, much of it studying directly in Japan, in the Japanese martial arts. You'll undertsand my beef with you then, when they, and others, see a comparable martial tradition between the martial arts of Europe and Japan, and make none of the inferiority claims you have made. Their opinions are all the more weighty for the fact that they have, unlike your good self, studied some of the manuals concerned and actually tried some of the techniques for themselves. Quite frankly, let me emphasize the fact that it is absurd for you to dismiss the fighting arts of Europe without having any knowledge of them.

My experience may not be sufficient enough to impress one such as yourself, but allow me to humbly submitt that I find neither cultural martial tradition superior. They are both very impressive and worthy of study. I also fail to see the need to insult and exalt one over the other. What purpose does it serve, especially when one clearly doesn't have all the requisite knowledge to make such assertions?

Please, do us a courtsey and study up on the subject before further asserting the lack of Medieval or Renaissance European martial arts or their inferiority. When in the face of indisputable evidence you assert otherwise, it makes you look rather silly to those of us who study this field, and KNOW better.

I think you really should follow the earlier links I provided. And before you fire off another pithy claim that there was no martial arts in Europe, take a look here for a small and incomplete selection:
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

Cheers

[St Stephen]

Well Gentlemen!

I apologize if you misunderstand me about the effectiveness and existence of the European Martial Arts, that wasn't my attention. Now you made me the "silly" one here by ignoring the real point of my post which is first: there is no such a thing is "luck" for a warrior if were any than non of them would train hours( 6-8 for the Samurai) per day to survive the next encounter; second: between the two fighting style I thing the Japanese ( without disrespecting the European)have the potential to make a exceptional swordsman out from anybody.That's all Gentlemen! No offence and disrespect were meant! I'm really not a master swordsman and probably never be one. Unfortunately the only way to find out the issue here is illegal this day's.

I was studied from the founder of Shinkendo Obata Toshishiro, Shinkendo Kaiso at Honbu and I personally knew Sensei Nathan Scott.

Please don't send me links what our "community" well known for a long time. Your not the only one who read Jonh Clement's essays, beside I do have all his books and I deeply recpect him as a real swordsman of our time! Just because you have the time to write pages on the issue does not mean you have the truth on your site does it!?



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Luck-
I beg to differ, you train to increase your chances at survival the better your training, the better your chances, if however, to be silly, a bird flying overhead were to poop and it was to land in your eye thereby blinding you and allowing your opponent the opportunity to cleave your skull. Then i think we can call it a stroke of bad luck, and on a slightly more serious note. If a stray arrow was to find it's way into your forehead, it's bad luck that no ammount of training can prevent. You may get more and more effective with more and more training, but sh!t happens, especially in the bird example and sometimes no ammount of conditioning can prevent it. Luck will always factor into combat, there is no preventing it.


And no offense was taken, at least on my part, I only singled you out because of some things you said that struck me as silly assumptions.
and i hope none was taken on your part as well, but i am truly curious as to why you think the samurai arts are superior?
I have given my reasons for bealiving the way I do, and tried to back them up with what I "know" to be facts, and I would like to hear the "opposing" side. Not really opposing though as i think it could go either way with no real deffinite for sure winner. Thus is the nature of combat, murphys laws while funny to read often turn out to be all too accurate

[St Stephen]

Ok, I understand you guys frustration about the armor and weapon differences of the cultures and you are right I never denial it if you read all my post here however I think the bushido training was superior to the European medieval training which was putting main important of the survivability on the battlefield and not single combat unlike the Japanese which developed a truly full spiritual and physical training method for both world. Actually my Sensei always said it that the old (Sengoku) training was completely different from a later (Edo) type, it don't take a brain surgeon to understand why!

Look it is my humble opinion that in single combat without armor the Japanese Master would have the better chance!

One more thing which you all ignored and I'd mentioned before that there is no way that in real life two equally good opponent would meet under equal conditions. The real question is how many master swordsman the European style produced and how many were in Japan in the same time. I have no doubt in my mind that Europe had great warriors however they mainly trained to be effective on the battlefield as I mentioned before. This is why they developed a superior armor which was second to non however this didn't mean they are good swordsman, on the other end well we all know the other end so I wont go there! I think you guys taking this issue a little bit to personal! I born in Europe so I have the same pride of my own history also but again that is only me and my two cent on the issue. Take it or leave it, it is up to you because we will never find the answer to our question here! Trust me when I say this that I would be the first to volunteer for the real life tryout if we ever could.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[St Stephen]

Skogul

Did you use any of Clark's L6 katana. I'm intrested of your thoughts about them because I'm about to get one of those "super" blades myself. Let me know what you think or know about them, please! Thank you.

I need a stong blade for cutting( Tameshi-Giri).

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Stephen, I've never personally gotten to handle a Clark L6 katana. That will be remedied soon enough, as that would be the 12k daisho i mentioned Just need to save a bit....
At any rate, i did have one of Mr Clarks 900 layer blades, fantastic worksmanship. I see no reason why his L6 would be differant, the trade off as you might know, is in the asthetics.
L6 doesnt have the subtle activities in the steel that collectors crave. But for martial artist, a Clark L6 under any semblance of normal use, including warfare I'd wager, is practically indestructable. There is a review on Mr Clark's L6 katana's in the backissues of swordforum magazine, not sure if you've read it, but it's an intresting read.
If you're looking for a tough sword for tamishigiri then an L6 katana would deffinitly be the way to go. Unfortunetly it's going to cost you about six grand unless you can find a used one for cheaper.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Luck - the deciding force in combat. Even today in modern warfare, luck is still critical to success. As I have said time and again, and posted a few times as well, its not the bullet with my name on it that worries me, its the one marked "To whom it may concern" that I am concerned with...

This discussion has turned into a very interesting one indeed. Now, in reading the posts I have missed, I must address a couple of points. First, to St. Stephen, you state that armor weight and weapon types have nothing to do with the outcome of battle. OK.... tell ya what - you put on "chain" mail, that by the way is not overly "light" given that it puts its weight on your shoulders, grab your large kite shield, and your "hand and a half" (sometimes known as a bastard) sword, and meet me on a nice field big enough for a major battle. To that battle I show up with no shield, no armor, and 3 weapons. A mace, a gunpowder weapon (with charges, wadding etc.) and a polearm of some sort. We will start combat at 25 yards - with my weapon unloaded. Think you can win? Consider it - I have the advantage of maneuverability. I don't have to just stand there and try to load my weapon, and I would not. I will "head for the hills" - and move away from you. Remember - its a very large area - and I can easily increase my distance over you given your armor and shield. Move you can, but not as well as I can. Once I have sufficient distance, I load my firearm, and take my shot. Repeat as necessary. Remember - you have the advantage of armor, I have the advantage of firepower.
Once you are wounded once or twice, then I can calmly walk up to your tired and bleeding self and, with my polearm, ensure that your no longer a danger to me, before I close in and blunt force trauma you to death with the mace.

Ok granted - this is a fanciful scenario - but its point is simple, armor weight and protection, weapon choice and other factors, all contribute to the outcome of battle. Just as luck does. You take a horse and lance, I will take a Patton tank. Unless lady luck decides to guide your lance just perfect and your able to slide the lance in thru my eye slits and into my head, or makes my main gun blow up in my face, my choice of weapons is likely going to determine the victor.

Skogal, the bit on the geometry of the European sword edge were fascinating - I learned much. Thank you.

As for the ability of a swordsman to knock an armored opponent to the ground, as you stated - groundfighting was much practiced as it was the best way to kill an armored opponent - so obviously it is possible that an armored knight could be knocked off his feet. As to the idea that a samuria would eat his teeth if he tried - well, no one knows, it was a hypothetical as I stated.

I think it should be noted, the mystical katana was not the only weapon used by samuria. While its a fine weapon, history shows that samurai were trained in a number of weapons, and often used them. In fact, the use of multiple blades in combat was not unknown in Japan, although ambidextrous weapons use is more commonly recognized as a European type of style.

One last thing, why is it that very few Japanese weapons are of the heavy crushing or heavy edged type, such as the european war hammer or mace, and "battle" axe? Was it a lack of resources? The reason behind the question is simple - from all I know of Japanese armor, it would provide very little protection from such weapons. Thus, a natural evolution to weapons suited to use against such armor would normally occur, but to my knowledge, it did not. Anyone have any thoughts as to why it didn't, or is my knowledge just too limited?

Q!
Skkz

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by BSM_Skkzarg:


This discussion has turned into a very interesting one indeed. Now, in reading the posts I have missed, I must address a couple of points. First, to St. Stephen, you state that armor weight and weapon types have nothing to do with the outcome of battle. OK.... tell ya what - you put on "chain" mail, that by the way is not overly "light" given that it puts its weight on your shoulders, grab your large kite shield, and your "hand and a half" (sometimes known as a bastard) sword, and meet me on a nice field big enough for a major battle. To that battle I show up with no shield, no armor, and 3 weapons. A mace, a gunpowder weapon (with charges, wadding etc.) and a polearm of some sort. We will start combat at 25 yards - with my weapon unloaded. Think you can win? Consider it - I have the advantage of maneuverability. I don't have to just stand there and try to load my weapon, and I would not. I will "head for the hills" - and move away from you. Remember - its a very large area - and I can easily increase my distance over you given your armor and shield. Move you can, but not as well as I can. Once I have sufficient distance, I load my firearm, and take my shot. Repeat as necessary. Remember - you have the advantage of armor, I have the advantage of firepower.
Once you are wounded once or twice, then I can calmly walk up to your tired and bleeding self and, with my polearm, ensure that your no longer a danger to me, before I close in and blunt force trauma you to death with the mace.

Q!
Skkz[/QUOTE]

Already, now you bring the gun in to the picture that is just wonderful why don't we talking about longbow against M-16 then.

Any of you who love to pick on me please read through my posts so you save me the time to repeat myself . I said it in my last post that in single combat without amore the Bushi have the better chance to win because of his training.

Finally I will say this for the last time that any of you ( I don't care how much you can write on the issue) who deny that training is primary to the amore and a weapon, is a fool. Without a training regardless of the weapon you holding and armor you wearing you are not a warrior. The knowledge to use those steel make you a effective fighting man. Thus there was a big difference in the training methods of the two culture therefore I strongly believe that the Japanese style of training have the advantage over the other. That's all please don't try to twist my words and send it back to me . Put your opinion here without disrespecting others. Nobody really knows the truth doesn't care how long your been swinging bastard sword over your head. I'm done here because I don't want to repeat myself again and I think I put my thoughts in to understandable English. Happy reading.

SKOGUL thank you very much for you thought about the L6 katana, I appreciated.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Yes, a knight could be knocked off his feet, no doubt about that. But it wouldnt be as easy as just stepping right up and tipping him over was what i meant , it would be just as easy for the samurai to get knocked off his feet as well, so that theory doesnt really hold.
Much like the japanese, the europeans had an advanced system of throws, grapples, and sweeps at their disposal, and therefore would be expecting something like that and by no means be caught by surprise like you reasoned they would.
If the samurai did manage to close and attempt a take down then it's reasonable to assume that both men will wind up on the ground, at which point both men will go for their shorter side arms.
But if you were to take an armoured knight, and an armoured samurai, and knock them both down, you can bet they'ed get up much quicker then you think.
It is unlikely, even if one of them were to loose footing, that they would land flat on their backs, they would more then likely land more on their sides and immedietly roll to a partial kneeling position (easily defendable here) and stand, in the space of about half a second. There wouldnt be much of a window of opportunity either way.

Re-reading this thread i found this gem posted by faisil-
"Full plate armor can be cut in half if you swing the sword with full force whilst when swung lightly it should only bend it"

To which i say, try it! Plate armour was defeatable by getting around it (going for joints, ect, which was protected by chainmail so it's not completely unarmoured) or by puncturing it with a spike from a warhammer or similar weapon, or by mass weapons which crushed it (including pole-axes and normal axes).
You cannot, with any sword, even modern ones cut through properly made plate armour, you might, MIGHT, (and i know from experiance here test cutting on steel that isnt even as thick, nor hardened and tempered like true armour) Make a half inch gash at most (that was my best cut in the steel that like i said, wasnt anywhere near the quivilent of true armour)

Armor was made of steel, just like swords, more to the point, good armour was made of hardened steel, just like swords, while it was not exceptionally thick, it was more then enough to defeat any sword.


A quote from BSM_Skkzarg
"Again, the original question was 1 on 1, "fully decked out" warriors facing each other in the open, on flat terrain. With this being the case, and the predominance of the Yari usage by samurai, it is likely the samurai in question would have a spear available to him, while the knight would have longsword and shield.
The way the question was posed, terrain would not be a major factor. Nor would # of men, as its a 1v1 battle.

Now - lets address this - would a yari have been useful against dismounted knight? This is one area I can not speak in - as I have never messed with a Yari. For those who have, and have some knowledge of the pierce resistance of European armor, what say you all?"


My orginal assumption based on sword combat, as this is what i have the most experiance with. But, The knight also would likely have a polearm. In allmost all warring cultures all over the world, the tiers of war is thus
First you have your missle weapons, arrows, early guns, slings and stones, etc. From there it's your pole arms, spears, halbreds, naginata, etc. Then and only then do the close range weapons come into play, this includes most swords (with the only sword exception being things like maybe a nodachi (rarely if ever used in battle), or a true Great-Sword, which could reach lengths of up to 6 feet, however it's use is more akin to a pole weapon then a sword.

I cannot say who would win if both men had spears or halbreds (naginata is basically a halbred), I have never seen a yari or naginata in use, however in the fetchbuchs poleaxes are often used for trapping grapling and tripping, i can see the same thing being the case with naginata, but am not for sure.

As for the peirce resistence of plate armour. It's pretty good, plate tended to be rounded so that spear and lance points would tend to skate off to the side. The spikes on warhammers and pole arms got around that by having a massive amount of force behind them so that they didnt really skate off so easily.

Poleweapons are extremely dangerous, even when just training, because they're part thruster, part cutting, part chopper, and part massweapon (spears being the exception of course). Therefore they're unpredictable really and it cannot be said who would win with any real certainty at all. (once again assuming both warriors are in full harness)
That does include spears.

It would be diffacult for both to get a nice thrust in with their spears due to armour (although i am inclined to bealive the the laminated construction of samurai armour would actually tend to catch spear points rather then allowing them to skate off) it would probably turn into using the poles more like staffs (a staff is a mass weapon of course, and all armour is vulnerable to mass weapons) so it would be very even match at that point. with the poles being used to trip, smash, and try and knock the other guy down before running the point into the soft stuff under the armour

Anyways, i'm almost done here...as for "light chainmail" chainmail typically weighed in the range of about 20 pounds or less, they used thin rings that were riveted and tempered, that were much stronger then todays butted mail construction which is made of thicker rings to compensate, thus adding more weight, but still offering no where near the durabilty, fighting with blunt steel in butted mail often tears your armour up and busted links litter the floor afterwards.
But anyways, even with all the weight on the shoulders it's not that bad.
I had a shirt that weighed just under 50 pounds (about 47 pounds) and i could fight in it (i actually got it for "weight" training) it did hurt the shoulders a bit, but it was tolerable for a period, however when you belted it much of the weight was supported by the belt, making it MUCH easier to wear. Belting 20 pounds of mail would make it like wearing almost no armour at all.

Too many things factor into combat to really go either way. training is good, but it cant prepare you for everything. But it does give you the "experiance" simulated at least, that I prize very highly. (At least 50% of your combat effectiveness in my opnion)

Grins, as for long bow against M16..both have their advantages. Of course the M16 has more firepower, but assuming both combatants have kevlar armour on, the longbow would shred through it. doesnt help much against headshots though Obviously the gun has the advantage. I give victory to the guy with better aim (training) and better luck, if your M16 jams thats one of those things training cant prevent, you might find an arrow through your lung, or if your bow string snaps...
grins... it all depends, train hard though, it increases the odd's at least

[This message has been edited by Skogul (edited 04-14-2002).]

[William The Conqueror]

Quote Originally posted by St Stephen:
Well Gentlemen!

I apologize if you misunderstand me about the effectiveness and existence of the European Martial Arts, that wasn't my attention. Now you made me the "silly" one here by ignoring the real point of my post which is first: there is no such a thing is "luck" for a warrior if were any than non of them would train hours( 6-8 for the Samurai) per day to survive the next encounter; second: between the two fighting style I thing the Japanese ( without disrespecting the European)have the potential to make a exceptional swordsman out from anybody. [/QUOTE]

But what is the basis of this assertion? Why are the very real European martial arts less capable of making an exceptional swordsman out of anyone than the Japanese?

I'm not sure whether or not this is perhaps a linguistic mis-understanding, but you seem to keep ignoring EVERYTHING I write about or link to the sophisticated martial arts practiced in medieval and Renaissance Europe.

Please, until you have studied all the surviving historical fencing manuals AND seen authentic medieval swordsmanship by skilled practioners in person (as I have), would you please hold off the superiority claims for the Samurai? How can you possibly compare them and declare the Japanese superior, when you haven't enough experience of the European side to make a balanced, accurate comparison?

If you are going to insist on claiming that the training and martial arts of the Samurai were somehow inately superior to those of the Knight, would you PLEASE provide some evidence for your assertion, or at least admitt that it is an unfounded and unproven assumption?

Quote
Please don't send me links what our "community" well known for a long time. Your not the only one who read Jonh Clement's essays, beside I do have all his books and I deeply recpect him as a real swordsman of our time! Just because you have the time to write pages on the issue does not mean you have the truth on your site does it!?



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).][/QUOTE]

Now now. I never sent you any links, I posted them for everyone (including yourself)to see on a public forum. And I haven't just read John Clements books, my instructor Craig Gemeiner has trained directly under John in Houston.

John Clements is the Director of the ARMA (formerly the HACA), so the links I provided are in essence his, and you said yourself that you respect him. I assume therefore, that you respect the information contained on the links. That information is easily verified in most cases by following some of the other, independent links I provided.

That's not to say that every opinion on the site (or any site) is gospel. Opinions are opinions. But the existence and sophistication of European martial arts and the survivng period manuals is a matter of FACT, not opinion. They exist and they refute your assertions, and nothing you or I say can change the facts as they are.

FYI I don't have a personal site (although I do frequent the linked sites, as do many others) and I didn't write the information on any of the links. I provided the links I did for the benefit of ANYONE else who might be interested, not just yourself. We are not talking in isolation, the rest of this community is reading (and I hope gaining something worthwhile from it).

I have tried to keep my posts here centred on the verifiable facts, and the facts are that European arms and armor were not demonstratably inferior to those of Japan, and the facts are that sophisticated martial arts existed and were practiced by the knightly classes in Europe, for both open war and personal and judicial duels. I have given links (and a couple of book recommendations) to just some of my evidence. The burden of disproving these, if you wish to publically disagree, now rests with you.

Anyway, we are getting a little off topic. I have said my piece, provided what information I can, and given my opinion about who would win in such an encounter. In any event, any conclusions drawn are speculation, since the protagonists in question are long dead and beyond the means to face off in a scientifically observable face off.

Cheers,


[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-15-2002).]

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by William The Conqueror:
Now now. I never sent you any links, I posted them for everyone (including yourself)to see on a public forum. And I haven't just read John Clements books, my instructor Craig Gemeiner has trained directly under John in Houston.

John Clements is the Director of the ARMA (formerly the HACA), so the links I provided are in essence his, and you said yourself that you respect him. I assume therefore, that you respect the information contained on the links. That information is easily verified in most cases by following some of the other, independent links I provided.

That's not to say that every opinion on the site (or any site) is gospel. Opinions are opinions. But the existence and sophistication of European martial arts and the survivng period manuals is a matter of FACT, not opinion. They exist and they refute your assertions, and nothing you or I say can change the facts as they are.

FYI I don't have a personal site (although I do frequent the linked sites, as do many others) and I didn't write the information on any of the links. I provided the links I did for the benefit of ANYONE else who might be interested, not just yourself. We are not talking in isolation, the rest of this community is reading (and I hope gaining something worthwhile from it).

I have tried to keep my posts here centred on the verifiable facts, and the facts are that European arms and armor were not demonstratably inferior to those of Japan, and the facts are that sophisticated martial arts existed and were practiced by the knightly classes in Europe, for both open war and personal and judicial duels. I have given links (and a couple of book recommendations) to just some of my evidence. The burden of disproving these, if you wish to publically disagree, now rests with you.

Anyway, we are getting a little off topic. I have said my piece, provided what information I can, and given my opinion about who would win in such an encounter. In any event, any conclusions drawn are speculation, since the protagonists in question are long dead and beyond the means to face off in a scientifically observable face off.

Cheers,


[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-15-2002).][/QUOTE]

"While there is today an active subculture promoting and preserving historical Japanese bujutsu (war skills) or practicing modern budo and a great deal is also known about their practice, the equivalent can not yet be said for "lost" medieval fighting arts."John Clement

I rest my case your honor! Let's call it even! I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else here! Take it easy, please!

[Papewaio]

Some little interesting ancedotes that I have come across over time about the so called non martial arts of Europe.

'To put your best foot forward' apparently comes from european sword fighting. It is to advance and kick your opponent.

French Kick Boxing (Savante) is apparently as deadly as Thai Kick Boxing. Which was proven in several tournaments.

The idea that using English boxing rules that it is unsportsman to kick comes about because the French used to and would beat the English, the French would be Kick boxing against fist boxers (possible where the phrase to have ones arse kicked). Hence instead of learning to counter it they made it against their rules.

----------

Onto what our two newest members have said about swords being not so good against armour and more of a weapon against lightly armoured troops. In most samurai paintings they are depicted in battle as being armed with polearms primarily and when sitting around just with their pair of swords, so it seems they to used polearms against other armoured opponents.

That comes to my point... swords seem to be of use against unarmoured peasants or for duels.

----------

And there is a history of knights fighting duels. So it would seem fair to believe they trained for such occasions. As to them not training very often that would seem false as the longbowmen trained quite regularly and they did not train anywhere as much as the knights. And as for starting age the knights might have been knights from about age 16 or so (depending on era, locality and other factors) but they did train as squires for quite awhile beforehand.

So their martial traditions would seem to point to have training for a length of time as boys to young men. Exstensively in a lot of weapons and armour.

Also as a lord you are not going to be too impressed by some knight turning up who isn't very good at combat. Just to point out one of the ways they tested this; was when orginally knighting a squire it was not by gently placing the sword on each shoulder, it was by ringing the helmet on his head with the sword. Also the various tourneys and duels, you didn't win fame and fortune from an absence of training.

Anyhow amongst us there must be some sort of linguistic and historical specialist on such matters who cam correct my vague claims

I'm off back to the Off-Topic forum to indulge in my hobby specialty, sarcasm

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Hmm... nobody jumped on the evolution state of weapons - gee - and i thought it had lots of promise.
Q!
Skkz

[Wavesword]

The introduction of the Kensai seems to suggest that CA believe in the enhancing the Japanese mystique -as in the Legendary Swordsman video- Anyone think that there will be an equivalent unit in MTW. I think a 'teacher' event is more likely.

[Nelson]

Another giant superman? I hope not.

God save us from Sigfrieds, Lancelots and Robin Hoods.

[Wavesword]

SHHH, you're giving their marketing department ideas, a weetabix theme for MTW anyone?