Samurai were not supermen with super weapons!

In My Humble Opinion
61

**

The first part of this statement and the second part don’t make sense when put together. I’d certainly agree that they were just human beings and not supermen. However if they are better gifted and especially better trained wouldn’t that make their martial skills and endurance superb?

**

I doubt anyone had trouble taking a crap in the past 2000 years. Even if they did what does this have to do with martial prowess?

**

So did everybody else. What does this have to do with martial prowess?

**

Doesn’t that vary by culture? The Spartans could afford all the training time for their warriors because they had so many slaves to do the bulk of the work. The knights could also afford all the time it took to train as well as the equipment necessary because of the culture they lived in. In a primitive society the skills one needs for hunting would be equally good for making war.

**

I don’t think fucking ever got in the way of a good fight. Hell, in the past one of the benefits of going to war was new nookie.

**

I suppose it can be hard to seperate the bullshit from the truth. Spartan males started training to be soldiers when they were around 7 years old. Do you really think that everything written about the Spartans was bullshit?

Marc

62

I agree with Mr Gibson… what the hell does any of that have to do with being a warrior? They probably went to church on Sunday too. Great. Whatever…

63

Styles and techniques often do not matter in one and one combat. The better fighter usually wins. It reminds me why Bruce Lee was such a great fighter and teacher-- he took from multiple styles and always was learning and was very adaptable. He used his physical limitations and tried to turn them into advantages. He did not preach strict katas and elaborate dance routines disgused as practice- rather the effortless effort and the concept of a flowing reaction to the situation. His book is a must read IMHO.

64

with regards to the OP blame the Media or whatever for giving us the sweaty hulking medieval armoured faceless knight who fights with many a grunt and exclaimations; and cool as ice (which they compensate by releasing huge sweat drops when embarrassed) wordless armourless brooding samurai that despatches his enemies with a single stroke, usually ending with some kinda pose for the camera.

the man hiding behind the invulnerable armour also always tend to be the invincible Bad Guy destined to die under the blade of the smaller vulnerable guy surmounting all odds.

65

I guess it’s too late to point this out, but “Samurai” were not a type of warrior. “Samurai” refers to a class, the warrior caste in feudal Japan (although membership in that class was sometimes a little more fluid than you would think.) Technically, same samurai weren’t trained warriors at all, or were dilettantes with weaponry.

Saying that “Samurai are well trained martial arts experts” is precisely the same as saying “English nobility are well trained sharpshooters.” It’s absurd.

To boot, I think you will find that during the history of feudal Japan, samurai bushi were likelier to be masters of the BOW, not the sword. It would be just as, if not more, logical to compare them with European bowmen as with knights. Samurai were not elite swordsmen, or most of them weren’t. They were the soldiers of feudal Japan. Some used bows, some katana, some used no-dachi or poles, pikes, or any number of weapons used in feudal times. Many samurai were cavalrymen. They used combined arms back then.

66

Most of us would wet ourselves if we saw a bout involving the Chevelier de St. George. It isn’t often one sees a deadly duellist who lives his life and fights his bouts in full lady’s dress.

67

Sorry for the late response…

Yes, I have researched medieval metallurgy but only just a bit and I claim no special experties in the subject. My reading thus far on this subject yielded the following info to me:

It may be more precise to say Japanese sword crafters were better craftsmen than their European counterparts of the same time. However, this is not because the Europeans were lazy or stupid but rather per force given the needs of the people they made swords for and the materials they had to work with.

The metal available to the Japanese was not as good as what was available to the Europeans. As such it required more labor on the part of the smith to get something useful out of the forge. This meant more time working the metal so that impurities and other shortcomings of the metal could be overcome. Realize these guys (Japanese or European) didn’t really know all that much about metallurgy. What came out of their shops was often inconsistent. A certain batch of metal might have more impurities than another, heating to specific temperatures was guess work and so on. It is assumed that this may be the cause of ‘magical’ swords appearing in these times. Every so often, by luck more than skill, a swordsmith would get everything right and produce a sword of exceptional quality. The next week he might turn out a crap sword (relatively speaking).

The katana is also a more difficult sword to make. The curve in the sword is not ‘made’ in that they slice out a curved metal blank and sharpen it. The curve is the result of uneven cooling of the blade (this is intentional). The back of the sword is supple while the edge is hard (which is what they want…supple back means the sword is less likely to break during use and the harder edge can be sharpened better and hold its edge). This uneven cooling causes the metal to bend giving the sword its characteristic curve. This is not an issue faced by smiths producing straight swords.

All of this adds up to a more technically advanced sword in the katana versus a bastard sword. This does not mean the bastard sword was ‘worse’. It wasn’t…it was made for a different purpose so there was no need to do anything else to it. If you’re facing armored opponents then you want the straight and heavier bastard sword. If you’re facing unarmored opponents you’re better off with a katana. The bastard sword can of course dispatch unarmored opponents quite well…the katana will just be more efficient at it.

Done with the above…on to another topic:

Earlier in this thread we had sword experts saying that they don’t miss their targets…that it takes a response from the opponent to avoid getting hit. Fair enough but this was used to argue that a swordsman would have a hard time getting inside the guard of their opponent (correct me if I summarised that inappropriately).

What puzzles me is that samurai were typically armed with a katana and a wakizashi. The wakizashi essentially being a shorter version of the katana. In my reading it was said that the wakizasho was used for ‘inside’ work where a katana’s length would hamper it (weilding two swords simultaneously was rare at best although there is a style devoted to it…very difficult from what I understand which is probably why it was rare).

So, if samurai went to the trouble of carrying two swords so they could do close in work this would suggest to me that getting ‘inside’ your opponent’s guard was common. Heck…one would think that it would be a taught skill in sword fighting.

Now take our knight. He is clad in armor and sporting a heavier sword than the katana. I realize that knights were pretty agile in their armor but there is simply no way (all other things being equal) that they are faster than a more lightly armored samurai with a lighter weapon. If samurai who were used to facing other samurai (i.e. faster opponents than the knight) and they still got inside the opponents guard often enough to carry a second sword just for that is it really unreasonable to assume they would have no trouble doing the same to the knight? (I also have a notion that both knights and samurai carried a heavy dagger for close work…the dagger in this case being sufficient to punch through any armor which would indicate knights expected the possibility of face-to-face fighting as well.)

68

All right, I’ve read almost all of the posts on this topic (I skimmed the bitchy ones) and haven’t seen what I think is a core issue addressed in this argument. I’m going on a couple of assumptions here that may or may not be correct. Nitpick as you see fit.

Assumptions:

The European knight in question is wearing full plate.

European knights in full plate were primarily used as cavalry. Note: This point is debatable up until the invention of the stirrup and the subsequent use of the heavy lance. Before the stirrup, the lance was a light weapon designed to be held in one hand and immiediately released on impact. Any attempt to use the horse’s power would blow you off the back of the saddle. According to James Whatshisface, of Connections fame, the original purpose of the pennant on the lance was to help you retrieve it when you turned around to pick it up. After the stirrup, you saw development of heavier armour and lances due to the tremendously increased striking power that the stirrup allowed.

Samurai also rode horses, but in a capacity that one might think of as light cavalry. In other words, light lances, bows, swords.

The Japanese never developed the heavy lance as a horse-mounted weapon.

The Japanese didn’t make use of large shields on their horse-mounted Samurai.

Samurai were intended to fight on the ground moreso than a fully armoured knight.

Soooo…

We seem to be comparing apples to oranges. The question as it stands now is the equivalent of “which is better, a tank or an aeroplane?” Better at what? What era tank? What era plane? Under what kinds of conditions? Can you compare them at all since removing their support troops drastically changes their effectiveness? For example, only a maniac would send tanks into urban combat without infantry support. Does this mean that tanks are inferior to infantry using guerilla tactics? No. Taking the tank out of it’s support network made it vulnerable. What I’d like to see is a more specific question. Until that happens, we may as well be asking if the Hulk could beat up Superman. The question is crap.

69

One more thing. A poster cited the difficulty in making Japanese swords as evidence of their superiority. This is incorrect. The Japanese used the techniques that they did (folding and beating layers of steel and carbon) because they had very poor iron ore. It’s a testament to their skill that they were able to produce good weapons at all from what they had to work with, but given better ore, they’d never have gone to the trouble.

70

Not at all. Both samurai and knights were the elite military units of their day and they existed at the same time. Only geography kept them apart but theoretically they could have met on the battlefield. Further, knights definitely fought on the ground and not just from horseback. It wasn’t all lances with knights by any means. A knight who isn’t exceptional at hand-to-hand combat is probably in trouble…relying on keeping his horse under him to keep him safe is a bad strategy.

Yes, you can say a saurai facing a mounted knight is in trouble but so what? There is nothing wrong with speculating on what would happen had these two guys ever met face-to-face as it is nowhere near wondering if Superman would beat the Hulk. Real people, same time frame, same planet…what’s the problem?

71

What an absurd topic.I’m not flaming anybody, heck, even thread participants have pointed this out. Have fun. :slight_smile:

72

Why?

This is IMHO and it is hardly a cosmic topic or relevant to anything but people are having fun with it so it seems worthwhile enough if only for entertainment purposes (which is ostensibly the purpose of this board…fighting ignorance just puts a better face on that). I am surprised it got heated enough to get someone banned but if I suspect it was just a matter of time for that person if this topic did them in.

If I wanted to put an ‘official’ face on this topic having any ability to fight ignorance then I would say it is a discussion (at the root) of whether mobility beats armor and to debunk the myths and/or misconceptions surrounding samurai and knights.

If you want absurd look for the (relatively) ancient thread on what wins…a Star Destroyer from Star Wars or the Enterprise from Star Trek. That one got one of the bigger responses this board has ever seen. Silly maybe but it was fun!

73

Whack-A-Mole,

There are two basic points that I’m trying to make.

  1. While the two types of soldier had overlapping abilities (knights better be able to fight dismounted, samurai better know how to ride), their primary functions were different. A dismounted knight coming for you may be a real cause for concern, but you’d probably be thankful that at least he wasn’t mounted. If I try to compare today’s premiere torpedo and today’s premiere land mine, I’ve got the same problem. The question makes no sense.

  2. Reductionism won’t work to answer this question. The fact is that European knights and Japanese samurai arose out of the social, political, and environmental constraints placed on them. Heavy emphasis on that last one. Knights existed in Europe because the social, political and environmental conditions existed to make them a good choice. Remove the knight from those conditions and he doesn’t make sense. Try pushing a siege engine up a mountain in Japan and see if it’s still a good idea. Ditto the samurai. If you want to phrase this question in a way that can be answered (or at least supported by evidence) try the following: Were European knights a more effective military force in Europe than the Samurai were in Japan. Phrasing it any other way gives you a question that not only can’t be answered, but the debate can’t stop.

74

Oh yeah, silly, but fun. I agree with you. (my enter key willnae work Capn’. Dunno why. :slight_smile: ) FTR, I think you are right to praise Japanese swords. I’ve worked with Japanese chisels, and they (Japanese) are very sophisticated smiths. Their work is typically excellent.

75

It’s not ‘overlapping abilities’ at all. Both were trained for horseback combat AND ground combat and were as proficient at both as you are likely to get. If i had to pick I’d wager they both were more focused on ground comabt than horseback combat. The horse gives you an advantage to be sure but it is also a big target and one your opponents will be trying to get rid of. They both simply had to be prepared for combat on foot.

Also, I’m a big fan of analogies but pick one that works. Land mine vs. torpedo does not come close to equating to knight vs. samurai.

Reductionism my foot. Knights and samurai could have met and fought. The only thing that really stopped it from happening was geography and even then it was possible. The Crusades saw knights in the Middle East from about 1100-1250 AD. The Mongols invaded Europe around 1240 AD (and of note to this discussion thoroughly stomped European opposition that included knights from several countries…superior tactics and mobility won big time with lightly armed and armored troops versus heavy European armor although I admit army strategy doesn’t necessarily apply to one-vs-one combat as we suppose here).

It doesn’t matter how or why knights developed in one place and samurai in another. Had they been closer geographically or if someone really had a bug up their ass about getting to the Japanese it could have happened. The only reason it didn’t is they were too far from each other to be worth the effort and had more pressing issues closer to home to worry about.

Is this question answerable in a definitive sense? Probably not without throwing a few thousand samurai and knights at each other and waiting to see who walks off the field. Still, we are taking about two fighting forces that existed at roughly the same time and were loosely comparable in terms of stature in their respective armies (the elite units). Hardly a stretch. If you want an anaology it’d be like trying to decide who wins in a fight of SAS vs. SEALS. Probably never happen in real life, different cultures and training and not definitively answerable. Nevertheless the comparison can be instructive.

76

Right - the term samurai means roughly “those who serve” and originally had no specific military connotation, just referring to country gentry who attached themselves to a particular major landowner. Gradually they became a generalized class of lower nobility and gentry, then, eventually ( in late 16th/early 17th century ), a true caste.

The correct generic word for warrior, as you noted by inference, is bushi.

True - though like most pre-modern members of the European nobility and gentry, most pre-modern samurai ( at least pre-18th century ) were taught at least some martial skills ( and by this I mean basic weapons training, not just hand-to-hand ) as a matter of genteel upbringing. Those skills may not have gotten used of course, depending on the individual’s career path.

Probably, at least earlier in Japanese history. But a sword and spear were also standard equipment from early on and by late medieval times swords were given a special reverence and value. All out of proportion to usefulness, really - Asakura Toshikage’s ( a 15th century warlord ) famous quote bears repeating, "Swords or daggers of famous warriors ought not to be coveted. A sword worth ten thousand pieces can be overcome by one hundred spears worth only one hundred pieces. Therefore, use the 10,000 pieces to procure 100 spears, and arm 100 men with them. You can in this manner defend yourself in time of war. "

Depends on the period and situation - the mounted archer was a part of Japanese military force from very early on, apparently adopted in part during the struggle with the Emishi, who made heavy use of them. Calvary was pretty esteemed in Japan, much as it was in Europe.

But you’re certainly correct they never really developed European-style super-heavy calvary.

  • Tamerlane
77

You’re talking individuals? With armies the chance was completely nil. in the relevant period. Your examples of the Middle East ( bordering Europe ) and the Mongols ( land-centered, incredibly mobile, and capable of traversing the entire, admittedly huge, stretch over familiar steep and desert terrain ) aren’t good counters in that respect, I’m afraid.

With individuals I’d just say it would be extraordinarily unlikely ( especially for a knight w/ full kit to make it to Japan or even China ) :).

Welllll…I’d be hard put to call the Mongol bow ‘light armament’ ;). And the Mongols did use heavier lance-armed calvary as an arm of decision ( and quite effectively so against the Russians on the Kalka River in 1223 ), though they certainly weren’t as heavy as 15th century knights, 'tis true.

I’ll note that the Japanese ( who had an easier task in a sense, since they didn’t have to deal with the full effect of Mongol strategic mobility in their brief engagements ) had some trouble with the Mongols as well, specifically dealing with their ability to fight in tight, disciplined formation, not a Japanese ( or European ) strength at the time.

  • Tamerlane
78

Just popping by to thank Maeglin for the AEMMA link. It’s really interesting. (Though I am a bit confused as to how one avoids slicing up one’s hands with that “half-swording” technique.)

79

Just a few comments.

This does not follow. Just to clarify on your first point. It is not so much that the “experts” strike unerringly, but that landing a blow accurately against an opponent “waiting for a missed stroke to strike” is. The hand is faster than the eye, hence the slow transformation in western martial arts to lighter weapons and a more linear style of fencing. Body avoidance is slower and more dangerous than actively defending onself with the blade.

This doesn’t really have much to do with infighting. If a fencer really wants to close and grapple or use a dagger, he can seize control of his opponent’s blade with a beat, bind, etc and just step in.

I can’t speak for eastern sword and dagger fighting, but I can speak for western. The dagger in rapier and dagger fencing is mostly not used for infighting. You have two weapons, one is forty inches and very fast, and the other is about twelve inches and fast. It is safer and infinitely preferable to work with the rapier. The dagger is used for defense and to control your opponent’s blade long enough to set up a successful attack with the rapier.

As I understand it, the katana is mainly a cutting weapon, so I can see that perhaps there is some desirability to closing the distance with surprise to prevent one’s opponent from getting a good cut in. I also don’t think it is likely that one can parry a katana with a dagger, especially without a robust knucklegard. But if someone can do it, I’d love to see it.

Right, I agree with some of this. Knights did carry daggers, actually. After fighting with the sword and forcing your opponent to the ground, the dagger was often used to deliver the telling stroke. There are many, many dagger techniques in the Flos Duellatorum of Fiore dei Liberi, as well as unarmed defense against a dagger.

However, I suspect that a problem would arise for a samurai who attempted to infight. There are many good longsword techniques to deal with infighting, many of them geared towards smashing someone’s face who is already wearing armor. Lacking heavy armor and a steel helm opens a fencer up to several dangers. Even a gauntleted punch to the face or collarbone is potentially devastating, not to mention the classical pommel smash.

Also recall that is is substantially easier to use a long thrusting weapon at close distance than it is a long cutting weapon. So even if a katana fighter closes in, a longsword fighter can still likely use his primary weapon against the samurai’s dagger.

Like I said earlier, that’s not really my thing. In armor, you wear gauntlets. And in unarmored longsword fighting, well, I don’t think half-swording is all that common. If you do it correctly and wear heavy gloves, you have a good chance of not losing any fingers.

80

Hey now, the Chevalier d’Eon did pretty well… :smiley: