European Vs Japanese
Moderators: Milu, The Motley Crew
Forum rules
There are a few things you should know before posting in these forums. If you are a new user, please click here and read carefully. Thanks a lot!
There are a few things you should know before posting in these forums. If you are a new user, please click here and read carefully. Thanks a lot!
European Vs Japanese
Just thought it would be interesting to hear what people think. Which had the better martial skills, who had the better smiths, the coolest looking swords, Who would win in a duel, a samurai or a knight? Anyone i've ever talked to has very interesting opinions on this subject, i want to hear more.
If there is anything out there bigger than my ego... I want it caught and shot.
-
Vagrant
- Self Appointed Authority
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:07 am
- Location: Live Free or Die
- Contact:
The Katana has assumed "myth-like" status. The truth is Katanas varied from excellent to awful. By the time Europeans "discovered" Japan they were largely armed withh firearms, in the few [very few] sword fights that occured they did just fine thank you. A Knight in armor and sword would have eaten a Samuri alive. Armor for foot soulders was very light but easily would stop a sword [that's why maces and battle axes were made]. A Knight could let the Katana bounce of his armor [or break in the attempt] and "finish off" the Samuri when he felt like it.
For the record Japan had virtually no iron all was imported and Katanas were many times made from scrap pieces welded togeather. Hardly the "super weapon" of legend. Obviously only the good ones survived so their quality has been used to further the legend they wwere all like that, untrue the bad ones broke [and frequently the pieces rewelded to make more bad one]. Yes some fantastic ones were made but the average "grunt" used what was given him.
For the record Japan had virtually no iron all was imported and Katanas were many times made from scrap pieces welded togeather. Hardly the "super weapon" of legend. Obviously only the good ones survived so their quality has been used to further the legend they wwere all like that, untrue the bad ones broke [and frequently the pieces rewelded to make more bad one]. Yes some fantastic ones were made but the average "grunt" used what was given him.
East verses West
I believe that it would depend more on individual skills of the combatents than on their homeland. And if the moon was in Scorpio, that day. Though as a 'given' the Westerner should be a larger and stronger guy; which would give him an edge. On the flip side; you feed a Japanese, and you get a Sumo Wrestler. They were trained in different 'systems', so it also depends on which, of them, can addapt and out think the other. And the element of chance, and luck can not be overlooked. I remember seeing an interview with a saber instructor,in Germany. ( Where duelling is making something of a minor comeback--- he with proper scars, on the cheeks ). When asked about difficulty in opponents, he replied to the effect that amatuers were some of the most 'dangerous'; because they do the totaly unexpected, not knowing anybetter. An interesting observation for sure. Take care; and strike them first and hardest, Bigfifty.
a good samurai would avoid the other sword and poke through that little gap in the helmet and right through the knight's head. the knights strategy was mainly brute strength. they had very strong armor. but it slowed them down. the samurai, if they were good, were very quick, and took the strategy of avoiding the blade rather than deflecting it. and about the cheap swords.... if they couldn't afford a good sword, and they had some very good swords available to them. I've seen some very old swords, and they have been of the highest quality. true not all swords were like this, but the ones that were used were good. otherwise they'd use wooden swords. like musashi and his oar. I saw a sword that was carried by a monk a couple years ago, and after 3 hundred years, it was still razor sharp. only used once, to test it, but not a scratch on it. I've had this discussion a million times, only with a samurai vs a fencer. fencing is linear, japanese sword is not. meaning the samurai would step to the side, and cut the sabre in half.
It is widely assumed that european knights battled in a slow and cumbersome fasion, that the armor slowed them down to that point. Much to the contrary, most men in the 1300's had a build and strength of a modern day competition Strongman. To assume that just because they were big, they were slow, is misguided indeed. And while fencing is linear, a man skilled with a rapier would be a fast opponet indeed even for a speedy little samurai.
If there is anything out there bigger than my ego... I want it caught and shot.
-
Vagrant
- Self Appointed Authority
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:07 am
- Location: Live Free or Die
- Contact:
The Samuri were smaller, there swords varied for fantstic - pure junk [The Euro swords were much more uniform]. Stabbing through a visor slit?Erasmus wrote:It is widely assumed that european knights battled in a slow and cumbersome fasion, that the armor slowed them down to that point. Much to the contrary, most men in the 1300's had a build and strength of a modern day competition Strongman. To assume that just because they were big, they were slow, is misguided indeed. And while fencing is linear, a man skilled with a rapier would be a fast opponet indeed even for a speedy little samurai.
Can you say dead before his sword came within 6" of the visor. [Europeans had much longer arms and legs]. The Katana is heavily oriented towards slashing with both hands [can you say overcommited].
The Japanese never even developed the "lunge" a basic in western sword work a big man [european] is imune from a small man that lunges, when the small man doesn't even know how he's toast the first time the big man does it. In WW-2 in hand to hand combat those trained in martial arts were literally beaten to death quickly by westerners who only knew the basic combatives taught them by the military. The invincable Samuri and unstopable martial artists are the result of Holleywoods imagination.
Japan was easily "opened up" by the west and subjugated by them for years. Swords and Judo [or, or, or] against guns and size were very one sided. Even in the FEW sword on sword contests SIZE mattered. Believe what makes you feel "warm and fuzzy" but the historical facts were written a long time ago. Samuris and Katanas did NOT save Japan from European exploitation.
-
Vagrant
- Self Appointed Authority
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:07 am
- Location: Live Free or Die
- Contact:
Vagrant wrote:Agreed foot armor was light and very tough probably lighter than the much less effective wood, cloth, paper, leather Samuri armor.Erasmus wrote:It is widely assumed that european knights battled in a slow and cumbersome fasion, that the armor slowed them down to that point. Much to the contrary, most men in the 1300's had a build and strength of a modern day competition Strongman. To assume that just because they were big, they were slow, is misguided indeed. And while fencing is linear, a man skilled with a rapier would be a fast opponet indeed even for a speedy little samurai.
The Samuri were smaller, there swords varied from fantstic - pure junk [The Euro swords were much more uniform]. Stabbing through a visor slit?
Can you say dead before his sword came within 6" of the visor. [Europeans had much longer arms and legs]. The Katana is heavily oriented towards slashing with both hands [can you say overcommited].
The Japanese never even developed the "lunge" a basic in western sword work a big man [european] is imune from a small man that lunges, when the small man doesn't even know how he's toast the first time the big man does it. In WW-2 in hand to hand combat those trained in martial arts were literally beaten to death quickly by westerners who only knew the basic combatives taught them by the military. The invincable Samuri and unstopable martial artists are the result of Holleywoods imagination.
Japan was easily "opened up" by the west and subjugated by them for years. Swords and Judo [or, or, or] against guns and size were very one sided. Even in the FEW sword on sword contests SIZE mattered. Believe what makes you feel "warm and fuzzy" but the historical facts were written a long time ago. Samuris and Katanas did NOT save Japan from European exploitation. Anything more we need to add to put this one to sleep?
Like some people point out here, a medieval European knight in full armor could easily kill a Samurai. As for the fencing comparison, there *is* actually such a thing as Sabre fencing, and calling that "linear" just because one fight at a piste is fairly misguided, in my humble opinion. Kendo practicers also usually fight on a line, and sabre parries can do very well against "side attacks" much contrary to what people would have you believe.
A good fencer with a blade that in the case of the rapier is much longer than your standard Katana, could easily bind the Japanese blade.
I've had this discussion a couple of times in my fifteen years' worth as a fencer.
A good fencer with a blade that in the case of the rapier is much longer than your standard Katana, could easily bind the Japanese blade.
I've had this discussion a couple of times in my fifteen years' worth as a fencer.
It's a fact that one emperor realized the Ninja were superior and recruted as many Ninja as he could as personal body guards inside the empire. The Ninja of old Japan were superior to the samurai, because their training allowed one to improvise and adapt instead of sticking to a fighting format. Kinda like early gorilla war-fair.
SD
SD
HO! HO! 
