I think that people tend to forget just how conservative martial arts are because they watch too many movies and have seen too much sport fencing. In these two venues, the participants really do jump around like lunatics.
For the record, I have no idea how and where I got this “reputation” from. I am very, very privileged to live in a place where I can receive instruction of real quality. Everything I know, I know from my teachers and from years of practical experience. Only now am I getting more heavily involved in the scholastic aspects: translations, articles, etc. But believe me, there are much bigger fish in the WMA pond than me, at least much louder fish. I don’t tend to participate much in the WMA community for various reasons, so I don’t really have a reputation. I am usually too busy training.
Hi, Woeg! Thought I’d swipe one of your paragraphs, since it applies to me too (as far as the kind of fighting we do in the SCA goes).
I’ve never used full, 15-th Century plate, but I have fought in a shirt of mail and a coat of plates. It doesn’t slow you down that much. I’ve never worn Japanese armour, but this might be significant: after 1600, when the Japanese had been having considerable contact with Europeans, you see definite changes in Japanese armour. It’s clear that they’re imitating the European forms.
Also, I’d have to differ with the assertion that a well-trained medieval knight wouldn’t be able to show a samurai any new techniques. Give the knight a greatsword suitable for half-swording and my money says the samurai will get a painful learning experience.
Knights and Samurai were both well-trained and equipped for their particular functions, and they both only make sense in the context of their cultures.
Question: Would a samurai facing off against a knight be terribly inclined to make this a sword fight? I mean, assuming the knight’s armor was bare (which is to say not covered by a tabard or what have you), and knowing his own limitations, would he still stick with a katana, or would he grab the first polearm that presented itself? And if he did, do his chances of winning improve any?
Well, again, it boils down to training. Knights are also trained to fight against the polearm as it is too the most widely used weapon on the erupoean field of battle.
In order to accurately judge this more factors other than just armor and weapons need to be factored in. If we assume both are extremely fit adults of the same age and are average in height and weight for there time period then the knight as a significant height advantage. 4 or more inches. Japanese were also slimmer and trained for use with lighter weapons and armor so its reasonable to assume that the Knight has the advantage in strength and reach. The Knight is not slow; plate armor was fitted to wearer to maximize movement but still allow for nearly full range of motion. Despite this though the Samurai would still be faster.
Now armor. The Knight obviously has the advantage here. Weak points in the Knights armor weren’t as weak as you might think. A Gambeson(thick armor padding) was always worn under plate. Chainmail or Maile was worn under the plate and on top of the Gambeson as well. The show Deadliest Warrior tested a Katana vs Medieval chainmail and Slashing attack did nothing vs the Maile. In order to Injure the Knight the Samurai will have to thrust to pierce the Maile and a Katana was not ideal for piercing. The Samurais armor is lighter but offers significantly less protection. And the protection it does have is just not as effective as a knights. Its chest piece will likely not be able to stand up to a half-handing thrust from a bastard sword.
If this is a fight with each combatant using there most iconic weapons, the Samurai using a Katana and the Knight using a bastard sword, then the advantage goes to the knight. The Samurai may be faster but he has a much more difficult time injuring the Knight. Not only does the Knight have a significant reach advantage being taller and having a much longer weapon the Samurais weapon has a harder time getting past the Knights armor. The Samurai will have to get a number of lucky hits in order to make a killing blow while the Knight only needs one lucky hit to take away the Samurais only real advantage, his speed.
Now if the the combatants are allowed to use whatever weapon will give them the best advantage over his opponent things could get a bit more interesting. The Samuria could opt for a polearm like a Naginata will give him the reach advantage and a better chance at piercing the Knights weak points. While the Knight could opt for a Mace/Shield combo for better protection. In this matchup i think things are a little more even. If the Samurai can get past the shield and into the Knights weak points a few times he can win. The Knights best tactic would be to break the Naginata with his Mace but he might need to take a hit from Naginata to do it.
Ultimately i think the Knight has the advantage but its not a cut and dry fight. Im sure there are other factors that can be taken into account that i have overlooked.
Hard to say. I have been photos of Samauri and they look very small and weak.
The key question is can the Samauri sword get past the knights shield and pierce the armor? Slashing won’t likely work for the samurai. He would need to stab.
With light armor the Samauri might not survive one or two good blows.
