Samurai were not supermen with super weapons!

In My Humble Opinion
21

I read a biography on the legendary samurai Musashi. This guy dedicated his life to the way of the sword. He slept, ate, and drank sword fighting. I’ve forgotten just how many opponents he beat (killed) in one on one staged combat (I think around 13 or 14). He even spent some time living as a hermit in a cave.

One of his fights typifies his psyche.

He has to hitch a ride on a boat and travel up the coast to meet his opponent (which had been formally arranged). The ride was several hours. He didn’t even bring a sword. He first took a long nap. Then he woke up and confiscated one of the boat oars and fashioned a crude wooden sword. As the boat grounded on the shore he jumped out of the boat and ran at his opponent that was waiting for him stoically on the shore. Apparantly the site of this madman running at him with his crude weapon must’ve had quite an effect because Musashi wacked him up side the head and killed him before the guy could react.

My own personal opinion is that a well-trained samurai vs. an armour clad, relatively slow-moving knight would favor the samurai simply because they were quicker and extremely accurate with their strokes and could easily find those spots in the armour where a blade could penetrate.

Anyone watch that history channel show recently where medeival combat was recreated with mock combat and all the weapons of the time showcased? It was really good. I just think an agile, nimble, well-trained, disciplined samurai would be too much to the knight. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!

22

I was also thinking of Alexander the Great, whose empire extended into India, and Britain’s Opium Wars with China.

23

OK, stop. Click on the links that astro provided. Knights in armor were not slow moving, they were, in fact,extremely agile. They were also extremely accurate with their strokes and were very good at protecting their weak spots. The difference is that European armor would stop the katana completely in most blows, whereas the Japanese armor would not do the same against the European.

Second, you referenced the History Channel episode of Conquest. And even these out of shape, beginners were able to run an obstacle course in armor that wasn’t even fitted properly to them. Now imagine someone who had trained all their life in armor and had properly fitting suits. They wouldn’t be slow at all.

24

(Hello Neurotik)

O.K. I probably will review those links. However…

Yes, I’m not saying they weren’t agile but we’re talking relative speed. Samurai strokes can be with blinding speed. They were also good at “getting inside”. And, I must admit, I was refering to a knight using a broadsword. Once they miss with a stroke they are completely wide open to counter from an experienced samurai using a STABBING type stroke for a weak spot. Don’t forget either that they carried two swords, one long and the other short. And if they weren’t using a broadsword then the playing field becomes more leveled. Also, then the Japanese armour would be more able to provide a modicum of protection. But the samurai’s goal was not to get hit, period. It would be an interesting match but I think the well-trained Samurai with the well-honed sense of balance and center of gravity, accuracy, speed, acrobatic abilities, martial arts type moves, patience, and discipline, might have the edge in a one-on-one encounter. Then if you’ve got a guy like Musashi, he’d probably wait for a missed stroke, speed inside then step behind and kong him over the head and knock him senseless and deliver the coup-de-grat.

25

I hate saying this but…

…cite?

Have you ever researched European metallurgy? Have you done any comparisons between two swords of the same period, say 16th century, one European and one a katana? Have you ever done test cuts on flesh and bone to see which would have the advantage?

Where is your evidence that the katana was anymore advanced than its European equivalents?

26

Please, please, PLEASE read some of the links. Your concept about how much a broadsword weighed, how it handled, and how it was used is entirely off base. Then come back when you have been properly educated about the effectiveness of a medieval European weapon.

.
.
.

Ok, wait…that was really snarky, and I apologize. I am just so tired of hearing how ineffective a knight’s weapons were when I have experienced the exact opposite.

The purpose of this board is to fight ignorance, not spread it.
Unless you have actually put on armour, trained as a knight, and read the fighting manuals of the period and tried them yourself, then making assumptions because you read a book about Musashi (very likely apocryphal, as most stories of legendary heros are) and claiming a samurai would win is the spreading of ignorance, pure and simple.

I’ll step off my soap box now. Sorry.

27
28

…ho …hum
foot taps…

29

Alright Artemius…here goes:

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote in your previous post:

By saying a knight using a broadsword would be completely open to a counter because they missed a stroke is saying that the weapon is ineffective, in that, a weapon, to be effective must not be a burden or weak point.

The truth is, a medieval broadsword was wielded quite effectively without leaving a knight completely open after a miss, by using a technique called half-swording, in which one hand was used along the blade to help guide it quickly in to attacks and defences.

When a person says things that are wrong, and draws conclusions based on those wrong things, then tells those wrong things to the world as fact, is that not the spreading of ignorance?

Is watching an hour of television is easily the equivalent of picking up a book or, perchance, putting on armour and seeing for yourself? Is that what passes as research and documentation?

Please reread my posts. NEVER ONCE do I claim that a knight could defeat a samurai. I simply state that the arguements being used to say why a samurai could allegedly beat a knight are faulty, then I proceed to give reasons why. I have had experience and training fighting with the weapons of a late 15th Century/early 16th Century knight, and only wrote of my own experiences.

I would thank you to read what I wrote, and not put words in my mouth.

My apologies, I didn’t realize that this board was only a place where we could post opinions that agree with each other, and never could there be a difference of opinion.

How ignorant of me.

30

um… Wouldn’t the “knight in armour” be on a hourse? I thought the samurai where foot soilders. If this is right, and both fought as intended, one on one, the samurai would not win without quite a bit of good luck.

31

Knights could and did fight on foot, when necessary. Suits were often designed for their best purpose…there were suits made specifically for mounted combat, and suits made strictly for foot combat. A good example of the later is the Tournament suit of Henry VIII, a suit designed and articulated so well that there was not a single exposed part of the body, and a pin could not fit through its articulations.

32

I remember watching an episode of Mail Call where they put R. Lee Ermey and another guy in armor and being surprised at just how nimble they were.

33

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Woeg *
**Alright Artemius…here goes:

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote in your previous post:**

By saying a knight using a broadsword would be completely open to a counter because they missed a stroke is saying that the weapon is ineffective, in that, a weapon, to be effective must not be a burden or weak point.

[l]What kind of logic is that? By your own reasoning ALL weapons would be ineffective because ALL weapons have some burden or weak point. To say the knight is open to counter attack after a missed stroke is not saying the weapon is ineffective; just that it could be in this situation against a samurai who:

-weighs 50-60 lbs less than his opponent (because of the armor) and is thus quicker and more agile and would tire less easily
-was purportedly more savvy about center of gravity, had great balance (lower center of gravity due to shorter legs), and possesed lightening speed and great agility[/l]

The truth is, a medieval broadsword was wielded quite effectively without leaving a knight completely open after a miss, by using a technique called half-swording, in which one hand was used along the blade to help guide it quickly in to attacks and defences.

*How would you know he wouldn’t be open to a samurai’s counter attack? Ever fought one? What was it like? Also, I saw that move demonstrated and although, IMO, it does improve the situation I’d still like to see what a skilled samurai could do.[/l]

When a person says things that are wrong, and draws conclusions based on those wrong things, then tells those wrong things to the world as fact, is that not the spreading of ignorance?

You haven’t pointed out anything wrong so what’s your point? You do seem to have a mighty high opinion of your OPINION’s though. You dress up and play knight and all of a sudden you’re a frickin’ expert. Therefore it is you that is closely associated with ignorance and the spreading of same.

Is watching an hour of television is easily the equivalent of picking up a book or, perchance, putting on armour and seeing for yourself? Is that what passes as research and documentation?

[l]Ah, BUT, that’s not what you originally accused me of. You originally just claimed I read some book about Musashi. Are you conceding you didn’t get your facts straight from the get-go?Maybe if you had gotten a few things straight you wouldn’t have jumped to conclusions and posted your ridiculous, incorrect accusations.[/l]

**Please reread my posts. NEVER ONCE do I claim that a knight could defeat a samurai. I simply state that the arguements being used to say why a samurai could allegedly beat a knight are faulty, then I proceed to give reasons why. I have had experience and training fighting with the weapons of a late 15th Century/early 16th Century knight, and only wrote of my own experiences. **

[l]I’ve no desire to read your frickin’ posts and I never said a knight couldn’t defeat a samurai; RATHER, IMO, I thought the samurai might have the edge fer chris’sakes. And I’m so very impressed with your knight role-playing. You’re not one of those civil war weekend warriors too, are you? [/l]

I would thank you to read what I wrote, and not put words in my mouth.

[l]I didn’t, what’s your problem? You had no problem with putting words in mine.[/l]

My apologies, I didn’t realize that this board was only a place where we could post opinions that agree with each other, and never could there be a difference of opinion.

[l]I agree but quit going around sanctimoniously accusing people of spreading ignorance just because you go around playing knight.[/l]

34

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Woeg *
**Alright Artemius…here goes:

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote in your previous post:**

By saying a knight using a broadsword would be completely open to a counter because they missed a stroke is saying that the weapon is ineffective, in that, a weapon, to be effective must not be a burden or weak point.

[l]What kind of logic is that? By your own reasoning ALL weapons would be ineffective because ALL weapons have some burden or weak point. To say the knight is open to counter attack after a missed stroke is not saying the weapon is completely ineffective in all situations; just that it COULD be in this situation against a samurai who:

-weighs 50 lbs less than his opponent (because of the armor) and is thus quicker and more agile and would tire less easily
-was purportedly more savvy about center of gravity, had great balance (lower center of gravity due to shorter legs), and possesed lightening speed and great agility[/l]

The truth is, a medieval broadsword was wielded quite effectively without leaving a knight completely open after a miss, by using a technique called half-swording, in which one hand was used along the blade to help guide it quickly in to attacks and defences.

*How would you know he wouldn’t be open to a samurai’s counter attack? Ever fought one? What was it like? Also, I saw that move demonstrated and although, IMO, it does improve the situation I’d still like to see what a skilled samurai could do.[/l]

When a person says things that are wrong, and draws conclusions based on those wrong things, then tells those wrong things to the world as fact, is that not the spreading of ignorance?

You haven’t pointed out anything wrong so what’s your point? You do seem to have a mighty high opinion of your OPINION’s though. You dress up and play knight and all of a sudden you’re a frickin’ expert. Therefore it is you that is closely associated with ignorance and the spreading of same.

Is watching an hour of television is easily the equivalent of picking up a book or, perchance, putting on armour and seeing for yourself? Is that what passes as research and documentation?

[l]Ah, BUT, that’s not what you originally accused me of. You originally just claimed I read some book about Musashi. Are you conceding you didn’t get your facts straight from the get-go?Maybe if you had gotten a few things straight you wouldn’t have jumped to conclusions and posted your ridiculous, incorrect accusations.[/l]

**Please reread my posts. NEVER ONCE do I claim that a knight could defeat a samurai. I simply state that the arguements being used to say why a samurai could allegedly beat a knight are faulty, then I proceed to give reasons why. I have had experience and training fighting with the weapons of a late 15th Century/early 16th Century knight, and only wrote of my own experiences. **

[l]I’ve no desire to read your frickin’ posts and I never said a knight couldn’t defeat a samurai; RATHER, IMO, I thought the samurai might have the edge fer chris’sakes. And I’m so very impressed with your knight role-playing. You’re not one of those civil war weekend warriors too, are you? [/l]

I would thank you to read what I wrote, and not put words in my mouth.

[l]I didn’t, what’s your problem? You had no problem with putting words in mine.[/l]

My apologies, I didn’t realize that this board was only a place where we could post opinions that agree with each other, and never could there be a difference of opinion.

[l]I agree but quit going around sanctimoniously accusing people of spreading ignorance just because you go around playing knight.[/l]

35

And what evidence do you have that European fighting men did not practice accuracy?

Really good? Do you actually believe that a one-hour infotainment show is an adequate resource by which to understand an art as involved as European schools of armored combat?

36

Keep fighting the good fight, gentlemen. Sadly, it is because of the prevalence of attitudes like this that we in the WMA community have to struggle so hard to be taken seriously. And dare I say it is because of moronic shows on television partly financed and produced by HACA/ARMA that western martial artists look like a bunch of weekend warriors with more paunch and old boy racism than social skills. We have a lot of work to do.

I wish I had more personal experience playing with eastern-trained swordsmen. I once fenced Italian rapier with bokken-armed kendoka and roundly spanked him, but sadly, that hardly counts. I haven’t really found anyone who studies iaido or kenjitsu or some other more martial discipline of swordplay.

I don’t really want to steal any of your thunder, but one or two remarks really merit discussion.

The idea that somehow a “broadsword” (and I detest that term) wielder would somehow be “open to counterattack” after “missing a stroke” reveals that the owner of this remark is unfamiliar with a few of the most fundamental principles of swordplay.

First and foremost, this is not a role-playing game. Attacks don’t spontaneously “miss”. Even if I were to pick up an arming sword, a weapon earlier and heavier than those I am accustomed to, I will hit you. It does not require superb levels of coordination to land a blow successfully against an opponent supposedly waiting for a “missed stroke” to counterattack against.

When I present a threat with my weapon, either by contracting my arm for a cut or placing my point in line for a thrust, my opponent must defend himself. He does not wait for a miss. He raises his guard and performs some technique, whether it is a parry, a beat, a bind, a body movement, etc. The possibilities are legion. But all require some positive action on the part of the opponent. A stroke doesn’t miss. It behooves the individual about to be attacked either to scotch the attack or to perform a stesso tempo technique, that is to say, seize the time from his opponent and counterattack into his own attack while closing his attacking line.

At no time do you wait for a “miss” that leaves the attacker “wide open.”

However, for sake of argument, let’s pretend that this were the case. After a “missed” cut or botched thrust, it is very easy to bring one’s point back in line. Take the weapon known as sidesword, or spada da lato, which figures prominently in the great treatise of Achille Marozzo in the late 16th century. This is primarily a cutting weapon, and intuitively, one assumes that cutting weapons require that one displaces the blade farther from the body in order to create the arc necessary for a successful cut. Hence a “missed” cut would leave the attacker “wide open.”

Unsurprisingly to those familiar with western martial arts, this is not the case. Marozzo codified a highly sophisticated system of cutting whereby the only actions of the arm are expansion and contraction. The wrist governs the placement of the cut, and said cut can be aborted at practically the last minute and transformed into a defensive action. Furthermore, should a cut fail, a simple contraction of the arm brings the blade back in line defensively. This is elementary sidesword technique: the constant play between offense and defense is one of the first thing sidesworders train for. I have seen some really good ones at work: their cuts come seemingly out of nowhere and their points are back in line before someone such as myself can launch a counterattack.

Though the technique for 15th century longsword is very different, it bears some similarity in result. Cuts are not made like swinging a baseball bat: they are levered using the elbows and wrists. I am not much of a longsword fencer, but even when I do it, my arms never really leave the front of my body. If I need to redirect my weapon, I just lever it.

Woeg already made an excellent point with respect to half-swording, a technique that I know very little about, other than that it is quite effective against infighters.

One of these days, I really ought to write a book deconstructing the idea of the innate superiority of the eastern martial artist. How this myth arose and its connections to anti-consumerism, non-materialism, and conformist patriarchy are fascinating. The sheer number of people who accept as a lemma that samurai were “lightning fast” and “balanced” is incredible.

Were many of them this skilled? Absolutely. My girlfriend’s great-great-grandfather was a master swordsman from Japan, whose practice regimen is still the stuff of family legend. I’d probably wet myself if I saw a bout between him and the Chevalier de St. George. :slight_smile:

37

Maeglin,

That was in informative post. And let me just answer you briefly.

My original post that Woeg read into what he wanted to read was a mere opinion based on some experiene using the bokken during 3 yrs of ninjitsu training in a Stephen Hayes dojo, the Conquest History channel special,and some thinking. The conquest show was informative and it matters not whether or not the players were in shape or not. The host made it a point to bring up all the pros and cons.

Trust me, there is an inside move designed specifically for the missed swing involving a lead shoulder to the opponent, timing, unconscious reaction, balance, agility, and fluidity. And I don’t agree that no swing misses because I’ve seen otherwise. You WILL miss some of the guys I’ve seen. Don’t be so arrogant since by your own admission don’t have the experience with eastern trained swordsmen. Yes, there is always a reaction as you say and faced against a grandmaster Japanese swordsman it is my opinion you would be one surprised, albeit dead Knight.

I would have to see the two different opponents together NOT to be convinced that someone ladened with 50 lbs of armour and a higher center of gravity NOT be less agile and balanced than someone who isn’t. And don’t forget, they wear those pants that hide the movement of their feet and legs so you don’t have that to react against.

And, I would have to see this stroke of yours where your hands never leave the front of your chest. This, you have to admit, would greatly diminish the kinetic energy of your thrust and might be good for accruing points in a non-lethal match but, IMO, of questionable value in a life-or-death scenario as in real combat.

I also had the opportunity to watch a film of the grandmaster slicing and dicing cantaloupe placed on varying heights of stakes in a circle. You can critique all you like but had you seen for yourself the economy of movement combined with blinding speed and accuracy as he neatly dispatched the enemies was awesome. True, not a knight and only cantaloupes.

I am not attempting to perpetuate any sort of superhero mytical samurai. I’m also not saying knights were pussies. Quite the contrary, I think they were formidable adversaries and a lot of knights could dispatch a lot of samurais. However, IMO, based on some things that I’ve seen and know that you don’t, it would be an interesting match between two equally skilled opponents with my money on the samurai. But I am saying that you might want to reflect upon your own prejudices regarding the subject. And before you go deconstructing the idea of the innate superiority of the eastern martial artist (how arrogant is that?), you might want to learn something about it fist. Suggestion: lay down your broadsword (or whatever) and take up the Katana.

38

I think some people just don’t want to give up the mystique of the samurai.

39

Ah, well India is generally not considered ‘Far East’, but rather South Asia. Even Southeast Asia isn’t usually considered part of the Far East - as I noted the term generally refers to China, Japan, and Korea ( still a mighty big area ).

Anyway Alexander, who was anomalous because he beat everybody, fought only a single major battle in India ( a tough one ), so its not much of a benchmark. As it was his successor in the east, Seleucus I Nicator, surrendered his Indian territories without a fight to the rising power of the Mauryan empire in return for some elephants ( it was actually not a bad trade - he probably couldn’t defend that area adequately at the time and those elephants proved very useful when he helped confront his biggest impediment to founding his own dynasty, Antigonus Monopthalamus, at Ipsus ).

As with most of Asia, European penetration into India ( Alexander aside ) had to wait until the colonial era and the period of real European dominance on land didn’t begin until mid-eighteenth century.

Right, but that’s 19th century again and in the context of a ( comparatively ) excellent British military vs. a badly declined Qing China.

  • Tamerlane
40

Artemius…

Never once in your previous posts did you mention anything about having any experience outside of “reading a book once about Musashi.” Having read many books about the feats of knights that were, frankly, definitely bordering on fantasy, and knowing the human nature of transforming heros in to legends as opposed to men, I know the value of experience vs. reading stories of ancient warriors. Also, I do not role-play being a knight, though others involved in my hobby may. What I do is learn, through documents and manuals of the time period, the techniques and skills practiced by a medieval knight, and then I try my best to duplicate them. There is a big difference; one is an attempt to achieve historical accuracy and understanding, the other, playing for the sake of playing.

I apologize for any hostility I have displayed. Rereading my posts makes them come across a lot more hot than I intended them to be. Please understand that this quickness to aggression comes only from years of trying to combat the myths of Eastern superiority over Western prowess. As I have stated before (which you don’t wish to read, so I will state it again), I think that the European Knight and the Eastern Samurai would be nearly evenly matched. Each was the top of their warrior class, each had special skills and training, and would take advantage of whatever they could to make the fight be to their advantage.

I will not be replying any longer to this thread. It is clear to me that you do not think my experience is valid, and therefore, it is of no use posting it. Again, I offer my apologies for my rudeness above, and I wish you the best.

Maeglin, thanks for your defense, and your expertise. I can only hope to one day have your prowess with a blade.