Forums of the Megaverse®

darkmax wrote:It seems so.

But I maintain what I said is historically correct.

It's not, and the historians don't agree with you.

Max, while you are right that Seppuku did existand that it was use as a measure to remove shame from one's honour, family honour or lord's honour, I suspect you are wrong about how common it was and that minor transgressions would require it.

All Samurai are warriors ad they all know that a sword will break. So it is unlikely that a broken sword in battle is enough to trigger seppuku.

Being defeated, captured and having your sword broken in front of you would likely be such a stain.

darkmax wrote:Any of those actually live in Japan and study their culture? Do they understand the concept of honor and shame like an Asian? I'm not saying they aren't experts, but studying the culture and living it is very very different.

Yeah, I've lived in Japan, so have several historians that I know.

My sources are books translated from Japanese texts. I read historical culture very fervently, because I am very interested in culture with respect to history.

I recommend that you read some actual history texts on Japan, not these fictional accounts you claim to have read.

Having shopped in Singapore quite a few times, I recommend the following:
Kinokuniya Book Stores Of Singapore Pte Ltd

# Singapore Main Store
391 Orchard Road Ngee Ann City
#03-10/15 Takashimaya Shopping Centre
Singapore 238872
Tel: (65)6737-5021
Fax: (65)6738-0487
(Opening hours: Sun to Fri - 10am to 9.30pm & Sat - 10am to 10pm)

# Liang Court Store
177C River Valley Road
#03-50 Liang Court
Singapore 179036
Tel: (65)6337-1300
Fax: (65)6338-1278
(Opening hours: Daily - 10.30am to 9.30pm)

# Bugis Junction Store
200 Victoria Street
#03-09/12 Bugis Junction
Singapore 188021
Tel: (65)6339-1790
Fax: (65)6339-1792
(Opening hours: Daily - 10.30am to 10pm)l

You can talk all you want about your ninjas, your knights, your pirates, your samuri, your Romans, and your horse archers all you want. I'll still be sticking with my M16 and my radio.

Alejandro wrote:

darkmax wrote:Wait... just what are you contending about, Kuseru Satsujin?

He was calling you a liar because his sources say your sources are wrong in the whole "broken sword = suicide"

Actually, I'm saying he's wrong and if he wants to try and prove his point, he needs something more than "I think I know what I'm talking about because I live in Singapore."

For what it's worth...
I have limited weapons training, kendo mostly.
I have beaten fencers, SCA'rs you name it.
I can not, however beat other kendo students
Go figure...
My old roomate was a fencer in the Air Force back in the late 70's and early 80's. We were playing a GURPS game, the infamous "you be you" campaign, and we were "discussing" who would have the highest sword skill. He assumed, that since he competed nationaly, he would have a base 12 skill, while the rest of us would be lower. I told him he was nuts, and we went out into his backyard, him with his foil, me with my shinai. I used basic, standard stances, with very little improvisation.
I won 3/3 matches, all 3 of them him losing because he was eventually disarmed, then be-headed. (My favorite was the "riposte his lunge, 'cut' stomach, spin around and place shinai on back of neck" move...over in like 5 seconds).
I'm not good. I can't stress this enough. But I am better than alot of european style trained fighters.

My hat's off to the Landsknechte though..those were some tough bastards.
I own a Katzbalger and a Flamberge Zwei-hander. Those guys were in top shape to throw those weapons around.

I would love to learn Wu Shu (is that right? Mao's art?)
That has some awesome katas for a whole bunch of different weapons.
But alas, no one here to learn it from, and I don't think I have the years left on this earth required to do it justice.

(Just so ya know Darkmax, whenever I play a martial artist character, he's Chinese:P)

Kryzbyn wrote:For what it's worth...
I have limited weapons training, kendo mostly.
I have beaten fencers, SCA'rs you name it.
I can not, however beat other kendo students
Go figure...

Well the fencers, you must remember, are not trained in a combat art, they practice a sport.

SCAers, you've not given us any indicaitons as to the quality of SCAers you have faced.

Neither group accuratly reflects the capabilities of trained knight who regularly engaged in life or death sword fights.

Awww you said I was a real gun
Well, seeing as how I don't run around slaying peasants with my katana, I'd say I practiced a sport as well.
Usually the SCA'rs aren't as good as they claim to be. Most of the ones around here that I've heard say that their fighting style is European, and its better than ________, they've won tournaments, etc. Then you fight them, and you get all kinds of excuses as to why they suck. I can't say that I've met a really good SCA'r. I've met good swordsmen who aren't in the SCA, though. Coincidence?
The fencer in question was my roomate, and he had awards.

I guess all I was trying to say is that from my own experiences, Japanese swordsmanship is better than others.

Now to speculate on who would win, knight vs. Samurai.
Samurai would win for any number of reasons, the first and foremost would be the musket pistol on their waist. All kidding aside though, the samurai were still in power in the 1860's...when did the knights die out? If you look at length of practice, kinghts are hobby swordsman compared to the centuries Samurai lived and breathed swordsmanship.

Kryzbyn wrote:Now to speculate on who would win, knight vs. Samurai.
Samurai would win for any number of reasons, the first and foremost would be the musket pistol on their waist. All kidding aside though, the samurai were still in power in the 1860's...when did the knights die out? If you look at length of practice, kinghts are hobby swordsman compared to the centuries Samurai lived and breathed swordsmanship.

The knight did not die out, his tactics and training evolved based on the changes in technology and the nature of warfare that occured in europe in the early modern period.

Changes the Japanese purposefully forbade within thier nation until 19th century.

Once those changes were focibly introduced to Japan, the Samurai had to adapt or die much like the knights did.

When it comes to Western and Eastern medieval style martial arts is that while both have a break in the continity, that break is only a couple of generations for Eastern forms while several centuries for Western forms. Those who have tried to recreate Western forms are therefore left with having to make a lot of educated guesses at technique. Guesses that are being made without the life or death necessities of the times the origional techniques were created in.

No turkey for me, I'm in Cannuckistan.

It was however the first post of the morning and I had yet to transition from the full size keyboard typing I do at work to the laptop size keyboard typing I do at home.

I also didn't bother to proof read at the time, which I have since done.

darkmax wrote:Where's Cannuckistan?

Canada

Cannuckistan is a name that a prominent American politician used for Canada trying to imply muslim that terrorists were using Canada as a base of operations for easy entry into the United States to launch attacks such as 9/11.

None of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada.

Alejandro wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Now to speculate on who would win, knight vs. Samurai.
Samurai would win for any number of reasons, the first and foremost would be the musket pistol on their waist.

Where do you think they got those muskets? Quick hint...it wasn't a home grown technology nor did it come from China...

Kryzbyn wrote:All kidding aside though, the samurai were still in power in the 1860's...when did the knights die out? If you look at length of practice, kinghts are hobby swordsman compared to the centuries Samurai lived and breathed swordsmanship.

Length of practice means nothing if it can't keep up with the times to be useful in modern combat. There's a reason knights left the battlefield in Europe before the samurai did. Guns. Europe switched to guns & cannons while Japan (being the isolationist that it was) was only trading marginally with the Dutch in 2 ports. Again, to call knights merely "hobbyist" swordsmen in comparison to samurai is pretty ignorant.

The samurai were still on the field of battle because the rest of the modern world had surpassed them in. Samurai were still in use when Matthew Perry showed up with the Black Fleet...they did nothing to deter the Americans and Japan opened its borders to the States immediately.

Wow. The musket thing was a joke. I brought that up just to show that they incorporated them into their way of combat/life instead of letting them dictate it.

Alejandro wrote:Saying something is better because it's been around longer is saying that Italy is better than America because it's older; yet the opposite has been proven....lots of times.

Not a real good example. We did kinda use their (Roman) gov't as an example for ours.
"Older" isn't exactly the picture I was trying to paint there either. Refined would be better maybe? It's not better simply becasue its older, but practiced and refined over time to what it became, I guess is what I was trying to say. Swordsmanship was actively practiced longer on Japan, and it became an art, a philosophy and way of life. The combination of Bushido and Kenjitsu makes a samurai a better warrior than a knight.
IMHO.

I believe that a knight at the height of it's history would fall in one-on-one combat to a samurai at the height of it's history.
I could be wrong, and I'm not tryin to jump on a "samurai are cool" bandwagon. I truly believe this.
So, since it is ultimately a matter of opinion, I'm right in my own mind

Jefffar wrote:Cannuckistan is a name that a prominent American politician used for Canada trying to imply muslim that terrorists were using Canada as a base of operations for easy entry into the United States to launch attacks such as 9/11.

None of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada.

Who did? I missed that one.

Darkmax wrote:talk about groundless claims, like WMD in Iraq.

I wouldn't say groundless. They were used against Kurds and the Iranians.
They may not have had anymore, but they definately had them and used 'em.

I agree. I'm not saying that they were there 6 years ago or even 10 years ago. I am saying that they did have them at one time, and did use them against people. Saying that to accuse them of having them is groundless seems a bit naive.

Hindsight is always 20/20.
I think that pretty much anyone at the time who had a pile of them to sell sold them to Iraq.

My musket comment was a joke, just without a smiley.

Got me good on that one

Our opinions differ, no worries there. I'm not of the mind that a knight would trounce a samurai...but I don't even have the slightest belief that a samurai would easily take a knight. Both were incredibly trained warriors and the only reason we know much more about the samurai's fighting styles is that it was preserved. Social differences between the two different warriors' locations prevented the mass preservation of the multitude of knight fighting styles. Remember, while the vast majority of Japanese nobility was literate, most of Europe was not. When guns came along and showed that knights as they were were no longer the kings of the battlefield, Europe moved on.

Agreed. I did not mean to say a Samurai would "trounce" a knight, merely that he would be triumphant.

As for more refined, again that isn't really true. Both the knight & samurai have been around for the same amount of time; each coming into titular recognition in 1100 AD. The samurai fighting style was created and adapted to face the types of armor and combatants they faced. The armor of Europe's knights was unlike anything the samurai had ever faced and the knights were by no means the lumbering barbarian clowns that popular media has made them out to be.

That's true. Knights in general are given a bad rap. I have studied the Landsknechte, German mercenary fighters from 1100 to 1300 (i think). They were first organized my Maximillian, and they were modeled after Swiss fighters of their day which were known as "undefeatable". They were a bunch of tough hombres. They fought with a mentality, like the samurai, where they expected to die in combat. They also developed tiered fighting, fighting in ranks, and pikes vs. calvary (no it wasn't Braveheart ). They were very impressive fighters.
I do not mean to belittle or degrade knights by saying samurai would beat them.
As far as the armor, I dunno how big of a difference that would really make. A Daikyu could easily puncture it, and I think its more hindering than a samurai's laminate armor. Sword to sword, I think a samurai would just have to wait till the heavy-metal clad warrior couldn't swing his sword any longer. As far as the swords, katanas are superior. That should not be in question.
A true test would be a knight in leathers and a sword of his choice vs. a samurai in his silks with a katana. Who do you think would win? Do you think that a knight is defined by his armor? Would be a good fight...

One other massively important thing that must be pointed out when comparing the two fighters is experience. The European knight will most likely have fought a much more varied type of opponent than the samurai. The knights of Europe fought each other, the Moors, the Huns....the samurai had a much more limited list of opponents. I'm not saying the samurai weren't skilled, I'm saying that their own fighting abilities have been...exaggerated...over history's passing. Japan is a nation with a loooooooooooooooong history of twisting the truths of history for its own benefit.

Agreed, but remember, I specified one-on-one combat. Fighting various types of folks might help develop better group or tactical strategies, and a group of knights might take a group of Samurai (as long as they weren't using bows) but I think one-on-one it would make less of a difference.
I have read alot of books about Japanese culture and the history of the samurai, and you are right about how the Japanese skew their history to a more favorable light. But then again, so did the English. History is written by the victors. But then again, they both lost to nothing more than armed peasants (the Scotts, and in Japan the Peasants Revolt) at some point in their history as well.
This is a great discussion. keep it comin'!

Very good points. Well done.

Romans and Spartans and hoplites, oh my!
Really good fighters, and not very heavily armored either.
They REALLY had to fight as though their life depended on it, eh?

Dunno if the english or japanese would have fallen for a wooden horse though...

Alejandro wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:Now to speculate on who would win, knight vs. Samurai.
Samurai would win for any number of reasons, the first and foremost would be the musket pistol on their waist.

Where do you think they got those muskets? Quick hint...it wasn't a home grown technology nor did it come from China...

Actually, contrary to popular belief, firearms and black powder weaponry were introduced to Japan via China and Korea prior to the Portuguese arrival at Tanegashima in 1542 (or 1543 depending on which calendar you're using).

Length of practice means nothing if it can't keep up with the times to be useful in modern combat. There's a reason knights left the battlefield in Europe before the samurai did. Guns. Europe switched to guns & cannons while Japan (being the isolationist that it was) was only trading marginally with the Dutch in 2 ports. Again, to call knights merely "hobbyist" swordsmen in comparison to samurai is pretty ignorant.

No, it wasn't guns that caused the decline of knights on the battlefield, though the use of guns were one of the factors that led to their decline. However, the political and economic considerations of warfare in general caused the decline of knights on the battlefield.

The samurai were still on the field of battle because the rest of the modern world had surpassed them in. Samurai were still in use when Matthew Perry showed up with the Black Fleet...they did nothing to deter the Americans and Japan opened its borders to the States immediately.

Not immediately, but the arrival of Matthew Perry did put an end to the isolationist* Tokugawa Bakufu.

*Isolationist in that Japan prefered not to have widespread contact with other countries, not in that they completely cut themselves off from the world.

Our opinions differ, no worries there. I'm not of the mind that a knight would trounce a samurai...but I don't even have the slightest belief that a samurai would easily take a knight. Both were incredibly trained warriors and the only reason we know much more about the samurai's fighting styles is that it was preserved. Social differences between the two different warriors' locations prevented the mass preservation of the multitude of knight fighting styles. Remember, while the vast majority of Japanese nobility was literate, most of Europe was not. When guns came along and showed that knights as they were were no longer the kings of the battlefield, Europe moved on.

Actually guns did one thing for the battlefield, they allowed soldiers to be cheaply trained and equipped for the battlefield while still being effective. The economic effect compared to the cost of training and outfitting a knight is vastly different, making low quality quanities of troops as effective, or more effective, for a lower price. In addition, this allowed the rulers of the various European countries to make war with standing armies of troops or conscripts, which means they no longer had to depend on feudal levies of knights (who expected to be heavily compensated in return for doing their "job") in order to deal with international conflicts.

As for more refined, again that isn't really true. Both the knight & samurai have been around for the same amount of time; each coming into titular recognition in 1100 AD. The samurai fighting style was created and adapted to face the types of armor and combatants they faced. The armor of Europe's knights was unlike anything the samurai had ever faced and the knights were by no means the lumbering barbarian clowns that popular media has made them out to be.

While I agree that knights weren't lumbering barbarian clowns, or at least the lumbering part, the samurai did face the armor of Europe's knights.

One other massively important thing that must be pointed out when comparing the two fighters is experience. The European knight will most likely have fought a much more varied type of opponent than the samurai.

Might have, not "will most likely have."

The knights of Europe fought each other, the Moors, the Huns....the samurai had a much more limited list of opponents.

Hmm... let's see, the samurai of Japan fought each other, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Europeans, the Vietnamese, the Filipino...yeah, much more limited list of opponents.

I'm not saying the samurai weren't skilled, I'm saying that their own fighting abilities have been...exaggerated...over history's passing. Japan is a nation with a loooooooooooooooong history of twisting the truths of history for its own benefit.

I think I'd say "glamorized" over "exaggerated" myself. Of course, as has already been pointed out, every country has a long history of twisting history for its own benefit.

Kryzbyn wrote:That's true. Knights in general are given a bad rap. I have studied the Landsknechte, German mercenary fighters from 1100 to 1300 (i think). They were first organized my Maximillian, and they were modeled after Swiss fighters of their day which were known as "undefeatable". They were a bunch of tough hombres. They fought with a mentality, like the samurai, where they expected to die in combat. They also developed tiered fighting, fighting in ranks, and pikes vs. calvary (no it wasn't Braveheart ). They were very impressive fighters.

Actually, it wasn't just pikes, they were also fond of halberds and crossbows.

I do not mean to belittle or degrade knights by saying samurai would beat them.
As far as the armor, I dunno how big of a difference that would really make. A Daikyu could easily puncture it, and I think its more hindering than a samurai's laminate armor.

But how do you think it compares to a samurai's plate armor, plate and chain armor, brigandine, scale, mock scale, mail or leather armor?

Sword to sword, I think a samurai would just have to wait till the heavy-metal clad warrior couldn't swing his sword any longer. As far as the swords, katanas are superior. That should not be in question.

Actually, it's not in question, katana aren't necessarily superior. Especially the mass produced bundle swords. Nor is the katana the only sword of the samurai.

A true test would be a knight in leathers and a sword of his choice vs. a samurai in his silks with a katana.

Why? To test just sword against sword?

Who do you think would win?

It depends on too many factors to calculate, but just for fun, create a PF Knight, then (using any one of the many conversions) create a PF Samurai, get two good friends who know how to game well and have them get into a fight, see who wins.

Do you think that a knight is defined by his armor?

No more than a samurai is defined by his sword, which is to say not.

Would be a good fight...

Entertaining possibly, good maybe.

Alejandro wrote:My point on the varied opponents was that the knights were more likely to not be caught off-guard by different fighting styles and would most likely adapt faster to their opponent while a samurai would do well against another samurai opponent, but facing off against someone like a knight would really throw off their ability to predict movements.

Your point assumes facts not in evidence. Sure a knight MIGHT have fought several diffrent types of opponents, but this doesn't mean they necessarily have, nor does it have any effect on whether or not the samurai has fought several different types of opponents.

The heavy armor of a knight wasn't something that would quickly tire them out, again this is one of those things that irks me about Hollywood. These men trained in their armor constantly and to them it was nowhere near the problem it would be for people like us.

Yes and no, I think the scene in A Knight's Tale where the protagonist jumps on his new horse with the new, lighter armor best illustrates the sort of problems faced. Tire a knight out quickly, maybe not, tiring them out and make some movement more difficult (due to weight and some bending restriction, not this nonsense about a knight being a turtle on it's back if the knight gets knocked off a horse), yes it will.

While the laminate armor of the samurai was lighter,

Again, and this really applies more to armor in general than this nonsense about the differences between knight and samurai armor, metal armor intended to provide protection is HEAVY, it may not be as heavy as a different suit of metal armor, but it's still going to have some significant weight.

it was also designed to protect more against cutting than it was meant to guard against stabbing, which was the medieval style of combat.

Actually, that's not true at all. Japanese armor evolved to protect the wearer against the main weapon of the day, early on this was arrows, a "stabbing" attack (to use your terminology), later spears became more prominent, dictating a shift to armor able to withstand spear attacks. Then there's the highlight of the Sengoku Jidai (and my personal favorite detraction of "the gun made armor useless" nonsense), where armor (as in Europe) was made shot proof against firearms. When the sword became the primary weapon of the samurai, they weren't in massive warfare on a regular basis, and consequently, not using their swords against armor in the majority of their fights.

Chain mail vs a katana is very much in favor of the chain mail as a katana is a cutting tool and its training is much more focused upon that (you even demonstrated that in your earlier tale of dueling other sword aficionados).

Ironically, somewhat true, as chain mail was the typically worn armor (when armor was worn) during the period when the samurai would be using the katana on armor. Doesn't mean those folks wearing the chain mail still didn't get killed though.

While the construction of the katana made for a far superior cutting edge, it has also been noted that its effectiveness against plate armor wouldn't be nearly as good due to the design of most plate suits.

Actually, a katana, at least a well made one, would be more effective against plate armor than chain armor. And, as has been noted, regardless of whether the attacker is a knight or samurai, weak points and joints in the armor would be the likely attack points of any sword against plate armor.

I don't mean to infer that the katana's construction is inferior.

But it often was, contrary to what the hype-believing people think.

It is reknowned around the world as the premier cutting weapon.

I'd rather have a kukri.

I just think that the knight's armor (be it chain mail or plate) serves as an excellent counter to the katana's strongest ability.

You seem under the mistaken impression that the Japanese hadn't encountered or used these armors.

As for European sword construction, their own swords were actually amazingly well balanced and designed. Swordsmiths still exist in Europe (many in Spain) that create beautiful and VERY useful killing weapons. Plus, after the Moorish invasions, the Europeans adopted several swordcrafting techniques from the Muslims that greatly enhanced their swords' durability and destructive capability.

Just different techniques of making excellent quality swords, you'll never hear me claim some nonsense about "katana R teh bestest swards evar!" BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!

I don't mean to say a knight is defined by his armor but I also don't believe a samurai is defined by the katana. Were we to truly test a knight vs a samurai, I fully believe that the truest test of the two would be to pick one from an exact same date, using the weapons of their time, and outfit them as they would be in battle. A 12th century samurai would not be the same type of swordsman as a 17th century samurai.

A good point.

However, when all's said and done.....I believe a Spartan warrior would beat any samurai or knight. They were simply THE premier fighters of this world.

Too bad that steel weapons and armor trump bronze weapons and armor...

I also think a Roman Legion would decimate a Japanese or European army of equal size.

Ah, another contest that depends on many factors, which phalanx would you use from each? An early Roman Legion of the Republic or a later Imperial Legion? A Sengoku era legion of Ashigaru or a Tokugawa era one? A swiss company or a company of landsnechkt?

I am of the opinion that there is always someone better than someone else.

I'd agree with that, in general.

darkmax wrote:It's call PRIDE!

BTW, the katana will probably cut through the knight's plate, but whether it cuts deep enough to slash the knight inside is yet another problem.

Also it has been compared that the lamented armor that the samurai wear is actually quite resilient. In fact they are compared to chain-mails of the west despite being made out of wood and bamboo......

:thwak: Japanese armor was NOT made out of wood and bamboo.

Not really. Yes the spartans were tough hombres, but they were tough hombres in the context of ancient grece where the primary method of war was a contest of formation strnegth and endurance.

An individual confrontation with a skilled, well armoured swordsman was almost unheard of.

Wow. You guys are out of control!

Anyway, I can't say much about the Japanese (as I am woefully ignorant compared to some of you) but, as I said earlier, the sword/armor combos are generally optimized.

Chainmail was the best armor that the Euros had in the 11th and early 12th centuries, and their weapons were the best that there were, all around, for going through that stuff. Later in the twelfth century, plates began to be introduced, and the swords became longer and thinner. A longer, thinner, straight sword is the best for stabbing though metal plates. And thinner (while still retaining strength) is better for chopping through them too.

I have two (manufactured) katana replicas. If the blade thickness of them is in any way accurate, then they would have been next to useless against late medieval/early rennaissance plate armor. Fine weapons, for what they were designed, but no sword is good against everything. These swords were obviously not designed to go through plate armor. And neither were many types of european swords, even during the age of plate armor! These (my swords) would have bounced directly off of any large plate, or (even worse) get stuck in it. Maybe leaving a small gouge or dent. Going for the weak points with them might be the way to go, but my adversary would be aware of said points and defend them.

My longsword with the thinner blade would have had a much easier time at going though armor, but I don't know about you guys, but I can barely swing the thing. I wouldn't take that against a lightly armored or unarmored opponent. I'd take the shortsword against an unarmored opponent, or the larger Katanas or arming sword if I need a bit of reach and defense.

So: Questions to ask, in addition to the ones already opened.

Does the knight know the equipment and fighting style of the samurai? (if so, then he will choose a lighter and faster weapon, a more open helmet, a wooden shield, etc. etc.)
Does the Samurai know what he could face in the knight? (then he will similarly vary his armament)

If these questions are answered in the affirmative, and all else is equal, then it would lead to a really good fight! If not, then it could be a gross (and poorly representative) mismatch.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:I'd rather have a kukri

Amen brother, I carried mine on 5 continents from the jungles, deserts and mountains of god know how many countries . I found no better combat blade...But hey thats just me.

I'd rather have a Para-Ord P14-45 myself.

I think some folks forget that katanas are good thrusting weapons as well...one of the strongest and most basic attacks is a full body thrust. Might penetrate plate armor, I dunno.
As far as the duel i suggested, i meant unarmored knight vs un armored samurai for a contest of swordsmanship. Not sayin the knght needs leather armor while the samura does not. Or even wooden longsword vs shinai or bokken, just fighting style vs fighting style.
katanas aren't the best at cutting, scalpels are. But for a sword..mmm yeah it is.
Ladsknechte used crossbows, muskets, toothpicks...whatever they could get their hands on. They were KNOWN for their pikes n katzbalgers n Zweihanders...and it also depended on their status in the army at the time. The laymen used pikes and katzbalgers while the Doppelsoldners used Zweihanders or Flamberges, and usually got paid twice as much for it (hence the name).
I own a kukri, a friend from Nepal brought one back for me.
I don't, however know how to fight with it as the handle and oreintation of the blade isn't the best for "normal" knife-fighting.
I do know how to fight with a katana, so I'll stick with that or my ninja-to.
I've got one that looks like crap, but its solid carbon steel with a cord-wrapped handle. Very functional.
I guess i could teach myself to fight "florentine" with ninja-to and kukri.
For "sick" factor, I'm trying to find a functional No-Dachi (60-70 in long).
I don't like buying non-functinal swords...
Do they have sword-sized (36in+) kukris? Ive never seen one of those...

kk im done rambling.

darkmax wrote:seriously unless we get the Mythbusters to do it, it is almost impossible to tell.

I wouldn't trust them to test whether or not water is wet.

The reason the Kukuri is difficult to use with knife fighting techniques is because it wasn't built with knife fighting techniques in mind.

If you treate it like a machette or a hatchet you'll be a lot further along in the game (and will find out that it is aparently powerful enough to sever clean through a thigh or neck).

Wow...you can tell by lookin at it that someone's gonna lose an arm, but thigh! damn...

Ther have been reports of severed torsos, though I am skeptical.

More information on the Khurkuri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khukuri

Wikipedia wrote:Ceremonial versions can be up to 70 cm (27 inches) long. Ceremonial blades used to sacrifice water buffalo are much larger.

HA HA HA

I want a 27 in Kukri!!

He'll just slip on a plate mail breastplate..no worries

darkmax wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Ther have been reports of severed torsos, though I am skeptical.

More information on the Khurkuri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khukuri

hmm... that looks distinctively like a Malayan Parang.....

It seems to be a generic configuration that either arose independantly in several places or develoed in ancient Greece / Midlde East and migrated eastwards or some combination of the two.

It's basically a sword/knife configured to act like an axe/hatchet.

Kryzbyn wrote:.....I own a kukri, a friend from Nepal brought one back for me.
I don't, however know how to fight with it as the handle and oreintation of the blade isn't the best for "normal" knife-fighting.
........Do they have sword-sized (36in+) kukris? Ive never seen one of those...

kk im done rambling.

I got mine when i first got into the Army...And I found it works quite well in a pinch. Learning to fight with it was much easier than learning to throw it. The greeks used a Falcata and Makhaira that looks like a kukri with less of a curve..And there is the ceremonial Kukri thats a big one..The thing to remember with the Kukri is good at chops as well as slashes. For a good modern Kukri the cold steel is a fine blade.

Actually guns did one thing for the battlefield, they allowed soldiers to be cheaply trained and equipped for the battlefield while still being effective. The economic effect compared to the cost of training and outfitting a knight is vastly different, making low quality quanities of troops as effective, or more effective, for a lower price. In addition, this allowed the rulers of the various European countries to make war with standing armies of troops or conscripts, which means they no longer had to depend on feudal levies of knights (who expected to be heavily compensated in return for doing their "job") in order to deal with international conflicts.

True. The bow and crossbow were generally superior weapons, even into the 19th century. It wasn’t until late in the 19th century that repeaters, etc. made the handgun a truly superior weapon. But it was cheap, and easy to learn. You could have 100 handgunners for the “price” of 10 archers. By the time these rolled around, the knight was already on his way out. Far from being an elite force, by this time the titled knight in the military was serving as sort of a regular officer, in charge of a company of men (mostly archers, in some armies…). The longbow and arbalest ruled the western battlefield long before the gun, not the lance and sword.

I think some folks forget that katanas are good thrusting weapons as well...one of the strongest and most basic attacks is a full body thrust. Might penetrate plate armor, I dunno.

Might, but might not. Remember that plate armor is designed to deflect, not absorb. The chisel point and thick curved blade of a katana, vs. a moving plated target like a knight, is not an optimal matchup. It would be great against an absorptive type like chain. Wicked. But, the samurai may not be able to bring power to bear properly against plate with such a thrust. I think that most such attacks would likely slip off without penetrating. Not saying that it can’t be done, just that the katana as we know it is probably not the best weapon for this. An armor piercing arrow would be a better bet (a Samurai with a daikyu would easily be able to bring that to bear. It would be the weapon of choice against the classical western knight.) Or a straight, thin, pointy and strong European blade.

As far as the duel i suggested, i meant unarmored knight vs un armored samurai for a contest of swordsmanship. Not sayin the knght needs leather armor while the samura does not. Or even wooden longsword vs shinai or bokken, just fighting style vs fighting style.

Well, I guess that’s why this is such an argument. A: We don’t know the fighting style of the knight, not that well anyway. The SCA and ARMA may be the best so far, but they are still reconstructing the styles, they cannot be considered fairly against the Japanese schools. Not yet anyway, maybe in a decade or two. Hell, we may not be all that sure about the Japanese styles! (though I certainly can’t say for sure). Even when that is somewhat accomplished, there is also that the Japanese styles have had hundreds of “extra” years to develop. So in that context, the question is unanswerable. B: In any case, the fighting styles themselves would (should!) also incorporate the use of armor. A knight without armor would be at a double disadvantage: No armor, and may not know how best to fight without it. Indeed, at most points in history the style certainly included a shield, at least. The samurai would also be used to his armor and both would be very familiar with how to defend their own weak points and use their strengths. No need to handicap both warriors. A “point fight” type arrangement, where a strike anywhere is a point (especially if it might be truly damaging or lethal) is not fair if such strikes would have been ineffective or less effective vs. armor. The aforementioned thrust to the center chest might be deflected and laughed at by the knight in plate armor, but it’ll impale the unarmored fighter. There is no throat-slitting when the victim is wearing a gorget. There are reasons that advanced armor was developed in both the East and the West, and those armors are certainly part of this argument!

I think the optimal matchup would be 50 separate fights, one from each decade 1000- 1490. Say, 25 year olds, at or close to their physical peaks, fully trained, and with at least some battle experience. Their choice of weapons, armor, and horses (from their respective eras), and they know the results from the previous fights (what worked and what didn’t). Impossible, I know, but I can’t think of anything less to actually answer this question.

atkindave wrote:

Actually guns did one thing for the battlefield, they allowed soldiers to be cheaply trained and equipped for the battlefield while still being effective. The economic effect compared to the cost of training and outfitting a knight is vastly different, making low quality quanities of troops as effective, or more effective, for a lower price. In addition, this allowed the rulers of the various European countries to make war with standing armies of troops or conscripts, which means they no longer had to depend on feudal levies of knights (who expected to be heavily compensated in return for doing their "job") in order to deal with international conflicts.

True. The bow and crossbow were generally superior weapons, even into the 19th century. It wasn’t until late in the 19th century that repeaters, etc. made the handgun a truly superior weapon. But it was cheap, and easy to learn. You could have 100 handgunners for the “price” of 10 archers. By the time these rolled around, the knight was already on his way out. Far from being an elite force, by this time the titled knight in the military was serving as sort of a regular officer, in charge of a company of men (mostly archers, in some armies…). The longbow and arbalest ruled the western battlefield long before the gun, not the lance and sword.

I think some folks forget that katanas are good thrusting weapons as well...one of the strongest and most basic attacks is a full body thrust. Might penetrate plate armor, I dunno.

Might, but might not. Remember that plate armor is designed to deflect, not absorb. The chisel point and thick curved blade of a katana, vs. a moving plated target like a knight, is not an optimal matchup. It would be great against an absorptive type like chain. Wicked. But, the samurai may not be able to bring power to bear properly against plate with such a thrust. I think that most such attacks would likely slip off without penetrating. Not saying that it can’t be done, just that the katana as we know it is probably not the best weapon for this. An armor piercing arrow would be a better bet (a Samurai with a daikyu would easily be able to bring that to bear. It would be the weapon of choice against the classical western knight.) Or a straight, thin, pointy and strong European blade.

As far as the duel i suggested, i meant unarmored knight vs un armored samurai for a contest of swordsmanship. Not sayin the knght needs leather armor while the samura does not. Or even wooden longsword vs shinai or bokken, just fighting style vs fighting style.

Well, I guess that’s why this is such an argument. A: We don’t know the fighting style of the knight, not that well anyway. The SCA and ARMA may be the best so far, but they are still reconstructing the styles, they cannot be considered fairly against the Japanese schools. Not yet anyway, maybe in a decade or two. Hell, we may not be all that sure about the Japanese styles! (though I certainly can’t say for sure). Even when that is somewhat accomplished, there is also that the Japanese styles have had hundreds of “extra” years to develop. So in that context, the question is unanswerable. B: In any case, the fighting styles themselves would (should!) also incorporate the use of armor. A knight without armor would be at a double disadvantage: No armor, and may not know how best to fight without it. Indeed, at most points in history the style certainly included a shield, at least. The samurai would also be used to his armor and both would be very familiar with how to defend their own weak points and use their strengths. No need to handicap both warriors. A “point fight” type arrangement, where a strike anywhere is a point (especially if it might be truly damaging or lethal) is not fair if such strikes would have been ineffective or less effective vs. armor. The aforementioned thrust to the center chest might be deflected and laughed at by the knight in plate armor, but it’ll impale the unarmored fighter. There is no throat-slitting when the victim is wearing a gorget. There are reasons that advanced armor was developed in both the East and the West, and those armors are certainly part of this argument!

I think the optimal matchup would be 50 separate fights, one from each decade 1000- 1490. Say, 25 year olds, at or close to their physical peaks, fully trained, and with at least some battle experience. Their choice of weapons, armor, and horses (from their respective eras), and they know the results from the previous fights (what worked and what didn’t). Impossible, I know, but I can’t think of anything less to actually answer this question.

Very nice. I enjoyed reading that.
Now...who does your gut tell you would win?

Very nice. I enjoyed reading that.
Now...who does your gut tell you would win?

Thank you  !
See below.

Still too many variable.

Not really. WARNING: The following is my opinion, and may be countered by anyone possessing a greater grasp of relevant facts. General analysis: Daikyu wins. The penetrative power of a large bow and useable from horseback, the knight has little chance in this free fight. He may have a longbow of his own, but he can’t use it from a horse. Any western bow or crossbow small enough to use from a horse suffers range and power disadvantages against the daikyu. Range wins, mobility wins. Range plus mobility is almost a guaranteed victory.

Up close and personal, if the knight can get there without serious wounding, or of the fight starts there, Hmm. If his skill is anything like ARMA thinks it is- that is, equal or nearly equal to the Japanese styles-, coupled with the defensive (and offensive) power of his shield, and, later, deflective armor, the knight should have the advantage. That is, if he is smart and uses the proper weapon etc. etc.. The Katana may be a good sword, but the later medieval knight has a good sword too, and some definite advantages in armor. If ARMA is wrong about the relative skill, then samurai should have the advantage at any range.

If you take the armor suits away and give the knight his sword and shield, vs. the paired swords (only) of the samurai, (and, again, if ARMA is right) then the knight will still have an advantage. Not an entirely fair one, though, as the logical reason not to use a shield is the use of a bow. If I had to choose between shield and bow in battle, I’d choose bow every time. I could do more damage that way. So it’s really a bit like apples and oranges at that level. (And the previous one, come to think of it.)

Longsword vs Katana, only, could go either way. It depends on the skill and condition of the warriors, and little else. Though, if those are equal, I would weigh slight advantage to the Katana in this fight, it is easier to wield and could get under the reach advantage of a longsword. But this also does little to answer the underlying question no matter who wins.

The samurai is a mounted archer and swordsman. He is optimally equipped as such. A knight is a mounted hand to hand combatant, and his different equipment has advantages in the more specialized role, but he can’t use a bow at the same time. The question of who wins one type of contest or the other really must be taken in the context of what each is supposed to do. A samurai could be compared to the knight, the longbowman, and the mounted archer. As a mounted archer his daikyu has no equal. He probably compares favorably as a footed archer to the longbowman. Even if he may fall slightly short of the knight in HTH combat, when both are equipped for battle, that’s not all that he is. And he certainly brings more to the table than any of the more specialized Western warriors. The fully trained and equipped samurai is truly a force multiplier, a concept that didn’t hit the west until the end of the last century.

Very nice again, Atkindave.

You're right DM. I laid it out as best as I could, (and I think that I'm reasonably accurate with my opinion, but then it's my opinion, so of course I do!) but as long as the martial arts skills of the medieval knight are unknown or in dispute, this question can never be answered.

Step outside of the limited "swordfight" question, though, and you can quickly see that the samurai were lords of the battlefield in ways with which the Western knights simply could not compete.

Actually, the japanese had samurai techniques for swimming in armor. IIRC, Kuseru did conversions of them in his martial arts netbook.

Mr. Wongburger wrote:So make with the historic cartwheel info now.

Given the historical flexibility of armor, be it western or Japanese, it could be possible that any armor in which a person could lie down, get up, run, jump, and climb in (most armors, contrary to popular belief), they could POSSIBLY perform a cartwheel in (I guarantee a knight or samurai who can NOT do a cartwheel out of armor is NOT going to be doing one in armor). Unlike darkmax however, I think it would be less likely for the samurai than the knight, as the sode would get in the way of proper arm placement for a cartwheel.

Fortunately for you all I can do both. Not really tried it in armor (I don’t have any), but I’ve pushed my limits with weight while doing so…

Nobody is swimming with 40-60# of negatively buoyant metal kit. Except maybe Beowulf. Scuba gear weighs this much, but the BCU- essentially a controllable balloon- compensates for it. Anyway, 10# is heavy, 20# is pushing it, very difficult and quickly exhausting. 30#+ is next to impossible for more than a few seconds. At least it is for me. The chain-armored knight should be able to yank off the mail fast enough to avoid drowning. The plate guy is doomed unless he can grab on to something. Checking how much samurai kit weighs, the katana alone is about 6#. Short sword might add 4# or so. So if his armor adds 20# or more of negative buoyancy in water (I don’t know, depends how much is metal vs. leather or other buoyant materials, but an o-yoroi is even heavier than western plate in toto) he’s in a similar boat. Or out of one, as the case may be! Lose gear fast or die.

A chain hauberk is sort of a shirt, really, so flexibility should not be much of a problem. I can do a cartwheel with difficulty while wearing a 40# backpack. (Weight distribution is similar to chain, probably). (Don’t ask me why I did that.) It is dangerous and probably looks stupid too, but it’s doable. Plate has a more even distribution- that is, easier to wear and move in- so as long as he can get his arms over his head (it depends on the exact type of armor, whether and how much they sacrificed flexibility for protection of joints, i.e., whether it’s combat or jousting armor.) he should be all right with that. Samurai should have no trouble with a cartwheel either, as long as they take off the sode and any particularly outrageous decorations of the kabuto.

Why are we discussing athletics? Are these warriors or circus clowns?

In any case, DM, it seems you think that European battle armor was unnecessarily restrictive. Why do you think this? It’s similar to the notion that samurai were running around chopping people’s heads off over undercooked sushi and committing suicide for spilling a cup of tea. Just silly, really. [url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour] read and learn [/url]

Anyway, did a little reading about Japanese armor and that little refresher about western plate. By my estimation, the opposite is true. If skill and strength are equal, then the armored gymnastics contest (A contradiction in terms? Because in Greek gymno means… nevermind) would go to the guy with a good set of western battle plate or chain vs. contemporary o-yoroi armor. Again it goes with the specialization: The knight’s armor was for made for HTH combat, whereas the O-yoroi was primarily for an archer.

No they did not. Read up on plate, seriously. Start with the linky above and go wherever you will with it, but you won't come to that conclusion about plate armor!

And why aren't we talking about field plate or plate and mail combos? The plate and mail might be the most restricting, or at least the most heavy, of the western armors, short of jousting armor. What we should not do, is mistake jousting armor for battle armor, which it seems that you are doing. (even then, knights could get on the horse without assistance...)

I need to find a link, but there is a tale of a wounded man in full armour managing to swim a river that was considered difficult for an unfettered individual.

I beleive the individual was fleeing a defeat of a European army at the hands of the Mongols.

I also beleive he was a noble, so his armour would have been the best (and likely most protective) available at the time.

But like I said, I need to find a link, so don't hold me to this quite yet.


Update, from the Wikipedia article on Plate Armour:

Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget, pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a chainmail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer. That it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and has no historical base. Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and the design had to be extremely thick to prevent severe accidents, such as the one causing the death of King Henry II of France.

Italics mine.

Though apparently King Henry VIII did have to winched onto his horse in armour in his later campaigns, but at the same time, he personally was wiehging around 300 lbs and had sevre arthritis in his legs at the time.

Second Update:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/art ... ture.shtml

Alleges that 14th Century Knights could swim in armour.

So does http://www.worldwideaquatics.com/historyswim.htm

A half a dozen other sites have a similar chronology to that.

And from the Wikipedia on the history of swiming:

Swimming was initially one of the seven agilities of knights during the Middle Ages, including swimming with armour.

From the Wikipedia bout the Roman Legions, who's armour was also pretty hefty:

As a minimum, it was expected that all troops would be at least minimally competent at swimming, so as to be able to ford any rivers where it was necessary to cross without the aid of a bridge and also some of them would have to swim in their armour so they could continue fighting

To be fair, I found about as many results about the Samurai and swimming in armour.

Jeffar: I stand corrected about the swimming. Can you give me a reference for what the other 6 agilities are? (I googled it, and all I can find is that swimming is one of the "seven agilities." Nothing about the other six.) I'm intensely curious as to what we know these men were capable of doing. Or were supposed to be capable of doing.

I'm looking for them Dave, not having much luck though.

I would guess that at least one or two involve doing interesting things with a horse. Others may involve weapons and/or armor, and others may involve athletics similar to swimming. Maybe one has to do with poetry (the samurai weren't the only warrior-poets around), especially if the list was generated later than 1100 or so. Those guesses made, I really need to see that list!

Arrrgh!

I dunno, but I hope the samurai cat brings some pizza

Samurai cat wins because it can eat sushi. The European cat would mistake it for raw fish. And eat it.

OTOH, caterwauling in chain mail was apparently one of the six instincts of the Sacred Order of the Felines of Nobility. No one knows what the other five were. I'm sure that the Samurai cat had no equivalent training. The Western cat may have had an edge in the armored caterwauling department.

Umm. Yeah. Works for me.

Accept it in the spirit with which it was given.

On second thought, armored caterwauling might just carry the day, not the sushi.

Alejandro wrote:Hmmmm....but what about their cats?

Would the knight's win....or would the samurai's?

THAT is ri-goddamned-diculous.

My cat's a big enough a$$hole don't put him in armor