Knights were heavily armoured, which is lack of mobility against fast, mobile and deadly Samurai who are excelent horse archers and in close combat is same- Samurai have more mobility and Samurai can easily get to the back of knight, knight is slower than Samurai.
@allforable Their armours weighed roughly the same, average weight of plate armour in the 1400s was 57 lbs. Samurai o-yoroi weighed on average 65 lbs, and Yukinoshita-do weighed around 50-55 lbs.
Very few warriors weighed themselves down so heavily that they would be unable to fight.
i had seen liechtenhauer but it said no document had survived yet it then claimed to be accurate portrayal of the 'style' so i gave that one a miss, will check out the others though. thanks
Liechtenauer seems to be the Sokrates of medieval martial arts. There isn't any manual that we know of that is written by Liechtenauer but a lot of the survived manuals are refering to him just like Plato and Aristotle refered to Sokrates.
In, for example, the Döbringer manuscript (MS 3227a) you will find things like this a lot:
"That is why Liechtenauer says; “I say truthfully, no man can defend without danger”."
In other places in the Döbringer manuscript the fighting art is refered to as "Liechtenauer’s swordsmanship" or "Liechtenauer’s art".
And that is why the german tradition sometimes called "the Liechtenauer tradition" despite that there are no surviving manuals made by him that we know of.
No direct work of Liechtenauer's exists, but what we have instead are the writings of his students, and the students of his students, and so on. Additionally, we have other works, other traditions, in other countries, including Italy, France, and England, and even Germany itself such as the Nuremberg tradition, separate from the Liechtenauer tradition. Gurkfisk's Socrates example is precisely on point.
i dont have time to research all these styles, all i asked for was a number of styles. i did however notice baritsu ( which does look pretty good but not a pure martial art as its a bastardisation. thats not me saying its innefective though ) you seem to think you know what you are talking about. so as i said just give me names of styles and ill look them up. thanks
@flayingTheDesperate Medieval combat instructors just referred to it as how to fight or the art of fighting, save for generalities such as "The German school of swordsmanship" or "the Italian style" (those are the most well known).
Rather than searching for styles, you will get more results looking for the names of instructors - Liechtenhauer, Talhoffer, von Danzig, Ringeck, Fiore dei Liberi - or google "fechtbuch" and get a list of the titles.
Asking for different "styles" of combat in Europe is to completely misunderstand the nature of Medieval society, and to privilege East Asian society. East Asian society is very clannish; with different cultural groups insulated from one another to a much greater degree than in Europe. Medieval Europe was much more universal; systems blurred and merged till there was one more or less universal culture from Spain to England, and from Italy to Germany.
The inertia in Europe then would not be to the development of multiple different "styles" of martial arts as in Japan or China, but to merge all of the varying traditions into a recognizable, holistic system. There would never be a "Yagyu shinkage ryu" as opposed to a "niten Ichi-ryu", or a "Chen-style" Taichi chuan vs a "Yang" style Taichi chuan; There would only be Kunst Des Fechtens, or "the art of fighting". "There is only one art of fighting".
The only problem is that since all we have to go by is manuals, no surviving masters, modern translations of the techniques may not be 100% accurate or correct; the interpretations are subject to, and have, changed over time.
That many techniques mirror that of the carefully preserved Japanese and Chinese sword arts, however, gives hope that they are heading in the right direction.
@WitheringintheDark Allow me to give you my personal opinion on the matter: Having done Kenjutsu i had to learn that in the same school there were variations depending of the fact that the teachings of the different headmasters varies. So while it's true that Kenjutsu is very much like in the past, i'm sure it isn't preserved as well as many think it is. On the other hand, the medieval manuscripts, while difficult to interpret have NOT changed during the ages. And because we (...)
@WitheringintheDark (...) have to work on them to find out what they wanted to say, there is a lot practical work on it. And while we never will know what would work or not in a real fight to the death we can still find out the basics. In short: The work done on HEMA until today insures the techniques comes from a practical use and not from a traditional cultural and ceremonial teaching that any jap. Master might want to change because he thinks he is right. Wow, damn my bad english!
Your english is fine. Compared with the horribad jibbringlish I had to deal with in UO, DAoC, and others you might as well be a professor of the english language =)
Yeah, i'd realized that even Jap. sword arts arn't perfectly preserved, and may even be quite different from what the Samurai themselves used back in their heyday, but ran out of time and space to add it in.
@WitheringintheDark Thank you, i appreciate the compliment. But you ignore how long it takes me to consider how to write so nobody would misunderstand me ;-)
They were just as well trained. Research Talhoffer, Liechtenauer, MS i.33, Sigmund Ringeck, von Danzig, the Codex Wallerstein, and Fiore Dei Liberi just to name a few of the masters and the surviving manuals. The evidence is out there, you just have to look for it.
Until you understand that samurai weren't mystical supermen who held the monopoly in martial skill you will continue to believe the bullshido myth that samurai > everything.
Knights trained in everything Samurai did. Samurai were essentially feudal Japan's equivalent of European knights.
Knights had kampfringen(combat grappling/striking) ringen am schwert(wrestling at the sword) harnisch and ross-fechten(armor and mounted fighting), half-swording, and more.
he said and i quote ' you will be hard pressed to get close to a trained polearmsmen with a 2-3 foot blunt club' weapon is irrelivant. people are misinterpreting me. if you explain to me, what knights were trained in, and ill look at it in a diffrent light. however nobody seems to know what they were trained in. just wild guesses and there is nothing i can find otherwise. we could go on and on all day but its ultimatly irrelivant. as its easier to see samurai training these days than knight
If you look at the german tradition they where trained in kunst des fechtens (the art of fighting). This includes a lot of things, from weapons like longswords and messers to pollaxes and kombinations like sword and buckler. It depends a little what time we are looking at. They also was trained in both armed and unarmed fighting. Both on foot and on horseback. They also trained in unarmed fighting. In the german tradition it's called Kampfringen.
If you want to read more I would recommend "wiktenauer" where you can read manuscripts by medieval masters like Hans Talhoffer, Joachim Meyer or perhaps the italian master Fiore de'i Liberi.
You can also look up HEMA which is what today's practitioner usually call what they do.
For the quote. I think I can see where the problem is. With that quote he didn't meant that the polearmsman had a 2-3 foot blunt club, but that the person trying to come close to the polearmsman had a 2-3 foot club. He just before that was talking about pollaxes so I think he was talking about having a 2-3 foot blunt club against someone with a 5-6 foot long pollaxe. I agree with him that it wouldn't be easy to get close.
Precisely what I meant. That he just butted into a comment I made to another person without appreciating the context in which it was in just fudged matters more. What is it with people doing that these days. It's annoying.
The original guy was talking about samurai war clubs(kanabo) jacking up the knight. I told him that the big blunt kanabo is not as effective as the knights pollaxe or warhammer, and would have difficulty facing a knight so armed with such a weapon.
@flayingTheDesperate Overall, the differences between samurai and knightly combat training (at least with similar weapons) are quite small. Knights will use the crossguard and both edges of the sword more, but the basic movements and techniques are simmilar since both warriors had human bodies and similar techniques served them well.
Check those videos I suggested, and I hope that helps.
Yea, sorry. Apparently you haven't been looking very hard; a simple google for "medieval martial arts", "knightly martial arts", and "european martial arts" returns numerous different hits which allow one to start research on the martial arts Knights trained in; and by no means is this "wild guesses". In fact, we have direct manuals which showcase the different techniques and combat theory; there is literally no evidence Samurai were more well trained.
fukin idiots knights were trained VERY well thats why they earned the title knight, not fukin peasent shit at arms
secondly, kantana's and other japanese weapons were designed to cut through flesh and bone with ease, not fukin metal, a knight carried an arsenal of blunting and slashing weapons, samauri was more agile but wore armour so light that he would die instantly from an arrow
if a samauri shot a knight with an arrow it would just bounce off thats why crossbows were invented.
witheringinthedark, untill you understand the training of a samurai ( which isnt jujitsu as is often thought ) you will understand that its not hard to close a 3 ft gap. im not saying knights were poorly trained, far from it. however there is a video on here that proves the katana was sharper than a long/broadsword. samurai trained in what we now call aikido o~sensei used samurai techniques in the aikido art. take it and then come back to me telling me it is hard to clse a 3ft gap.
Sorry but where did WitheringintheDark say that it's difficult to close a 3ft gap. He said it's hard to close a gap toward someone with a polearm that's trained, if you only have a 2-3 foot blunt club.
I think (but I can be wrong) Witheringinthedark knows more about samurai training than you know about knightly training.
@flayingTheDesperate Aikido was invented in the 20th century, for Morihei Ueshiba to use samurai techniques he had to find them from somewhere. Also, Aikido started off as a variant of jujutsu.
If you want to see some knightly martial arts, some good sources are "Jeu de la hache", "medieval wrestling", "SwArta" - search them on Youtube. Or longsword techniques by DarkFury or kohutovic.
proper research done ? so i can presume by this that you are trained in all weapons you have showed ? trained in the arts of samurai and knights ?
samurai were better trained than knights. their weapons were of better quality. and to those who say ' a samurai would be hard pressed to get close without getting a spike through the skull' actually train in what they did, then comment. because that statement, is total crap
@flayingTheDesperate I keep hearing claims that samurai were better trained than knights, but I have never seen any evidence for it despite lots of asking and lots of looking. Do you have any sources to support that claim?
Folded steel? Old news in Europe.
Jujitsu? Nothing new against kampfringen.
Kenjutsu? Again, look at the Talhoffer fightbooks.
Japan did not have the monopoly on sophisticated martial arts, and knights began training from childhood too.
in a fight? its usually the guy who is doing the fighting. but in terms of style that armor would be tough for the the samurai katana to get though...however the japanese samurai also used war clubs. and thos war clubs would jack up the knight if he gets hit.
but if both samurai and knight were wearing no armor the samurai wins hands down.
@choopdewoot Why would the samurai win hands down? In my experience, either a longsword or an arming sword and shield is very difficult to fight with a katana.
@choopdewoot Why is that? I'm sure a Samurai would be quite surprised if i use my longsword with a ''Scheitelhau'' exploiting his short blade against him ;-)
If you're believing the common misconception that men at arms in medieval Europe had no technique or skill, i would encourage you to search for the true ancient ways of fighting, like this for example:
A big blunt war club isn't as effective versus armor as the knights own dedicated weapons like the poleaxe or warhammer.
A samurai would be hard pressed to bring the kanabo to bear against a knight so armed, without getting a spike driven through their skull.
Unarmored it's a complete toss up. The knight would certainly have a reach and angle of attack advantage, though the samurai's shorter curved blade is quicker in close quarters, if he manages to get there alive.
they were open to trade meaning getting top quality materials were better
they had more places to fight and get better, and a varity of gear for a varity of opponets
also knights are slow as people think they are, their gear is LIGHTER than what soldiers carry now so the myth of them being unable to move quick is gone
the only effective weapon to do damage would be something akin to a mace, but the samuri lacked that(not counting the shelid breaker)
Im not saying their swords werent well made. It took 6 months to a year to make a katana. And the knights sword wasnt that sharp. it was mainly used for breaking bones not decapitating stuff. The knights helmet limits his visability. unless he uses an older style helmet. The knight has better horses ill admit. but that wont stand up to the naginata.
@sithpowner A bit of an FYI - the St Maurice sword of the 1200s is an antique still sharp enough to sharpen pencils with. Knights used maces and hammers for breaking bones, swords were a poor design for breaking bones (too light, too hilt balanced).
A visor on a knightly helmet could restrict vision but so could a face mask on a samurai helmet. Each warrior had to make a trade-off between vision and face-protection and had a range of options in that regard.
Everytime someone say that it takes a year to make a katana, I feel bad for the swordsmiths.
For one, you can make many katanas at the same time. When one katana is polished an other can be forged and at the same time new ore can be turned into steel.
But even if we look at the time from ore to katana the process can't take that much time.
Let's calculate, and let every process take a very long time (Month = M. Week = W)
Gather ironsand for the tatara, 2 M. The tatara process, 2 W. Transport to the swordsmith 2 M. Select the steel, 1 M. Let every fold take 3 days, and the sword is folded 20 times (at least a million layers). Makeing the edge, 1 W. Coating with clay, 1 W. Quench 2 days. That still leaves over 4 months for the polisher to do his job before 1 year has passed.
Man, has to be one lazyass swordsmith to take 8 months to make a sword. XD
Smelting should take a max of 1 week, forging should be done in a matter of days. Polishing it properly takes awhile but shouldn't take that long either; excessive polishing can wear down the blade.
It would be easy to produce a katana at most every month or so if they focused on it, had smelters constantly supplying the swordsmith with more material and Professional polishers polishing the blades
Yes, It's not only that the swordsmith can take his time when he's working. He can also go on vacation for most of the year if he only have to produce one katana that year. =)
What I have heard the polishing take about 10 days (I have no great source for this). 10 days is still a long time.
@gurkfisk89 They say to polish a Katana would take around 150hours, depending on the polishing style. But remember that it is to create the glorious surface on which you can see all the jihada pattern, details in the hamon aso. It's probable that during the times of war they just sharpened and gave it a smooth surface without all the cosmetic requirements wanted today. Thus you could make a Nihonto battle ready in a few days.
Actually, it appears that it took a lot less to "make" a katana, depending on how you define "make". For instance, modern Japanese law limits swordsmiths to producing two swords a month; not one or two a year.
Additionally, length of time to produce does not equate into quality. It takes a lot less time to make a rifle today than it did in the 1700s; would you say the rifle from the 1700s was of a higher quality?
do knights practice any martial art that do not involve weapons? (punching kicking take downs grappling). maybe pankration? or is that specifically a greek/ Mediterranean martial art? is it possible to beat an armored knight with nothing but martial arts techniques? what about savate (french kickboxing)?
@Aznflipstuh9469 Yes, the fighting manuals include unarmed techniques that focus mainly on grappling. The German name is "kampfringen" but the techniques were broadly similar throughout Europe.
Pankration was specifically Greek.
Joint locks and throws certainly help against an armoured knight, even with swords throws were used to gain an advantage.
A good article on the subject is "Getting Punchy" by ARMA (Association Renaissance Martial Arts) on their website.
@Railstarfish but would it be common to see an unarmed samurai or knight using martial arts on the battlefield or did they mostly rely on armor and weapons horses shields. Did all knights do unarmed martial arts and did all samurai do they same to?
@Aznflipstuh9469 Neither warrior would intentionally go onto the battlefield unarmed, since weapons & armour were obviously a huge advantage. Unarmed techniques were useful in case a weapon was disarmed, trapped, stuck in a foe, or used in combination with weapon attacks (wrestling at the sword).
If they were serious warriors (some of both might hold the title without being a warrior by trade, particularly after 1600) all would learn unarmed techniques too.
I would say that both the samurai and the knight relied on weapons and armor but used unarmed martial arts at the same time. No one went to war unarmred, but it is possible to lose weapons on the battlefield. You can also do hybrids by letting go of your weapon with one hand and use unarmored techniques with it, or do kicks for that matter.
I would say all knights and all samurai learned unarmored martial arts. For one because it's so similar to for example dagger fighing and so useful in all aspects of battle. An other thing that makes me think everybody did it is because we even today we teach soilders at least the basics and now the distances of a normal fight isn't 1-3 meters anymore.
Oh yea the samurais armour was better also. it can break thrusting weapons and you can manuver more in it. if you get knocked down once in a knights armor your done.
@sithpowner Actually samurai would disagree. Wealthier samurai would wear namban armours, if samurai armour was better they would buy the top local stuff instead of importing.
O-yoroi weighed 65 lbs, had larger gaps, and a boxy shape that restricted movement.
Plate armour weighed on average 57 lbs, earlier mail weighed the same, and knights would turn somersaults in both or climb up the underside of a ladder using just their arms.
There is literally no evidence that a knight cannot get up when he's been knocked down. In fact, it has routinely been shown to be a modern myth; not a historical reality. People are capable of extremely surprising feats of agility while wearing armor; including swimming.
@HereTheArtBegins Probably based on Deadliest Warrior, in which the samurai armour caused the Spartan spear to bend. But of course nothing in the show to support the quality of the spear (such as the tin content in the bronze).
@HereTheArtBegins Exactly. After all, samurai made extensive use of yari themselves, not something they would do if they expected thrusting weapons to break on the armour.
The samurai would completely destroy the knight. Sure he has a shield but the samurai is pin point accurate with his yumi bow. and the katana was better made, quicker, lighter, sharper, and served as a defense and an offense. who ever says a knight would win is stupid.
@sithpowner Yabasume seems to take place over very short ranges, implying the pinpoint accuracy of the yumi is exaggerated.
I think you are working from Hollywood stereotypes. European swords for the knightly classes were well-made, fast, light, sharp and served as a defence and an offence.
Stefan Mader & Amada Akitsugu (expert on nihonto) found layered construction and hamon on antique European blades. Both warriors had a lot more in common than people realised.
Pin point accuracy with the yumi is pretty exaggerated. No one stands still just letting their opponents aim.
Additionally, later era knights didn't use shields as often as they did in earlier years, relying more upon two handed weapons.
There is no evidence that katana were better made; they were not quicker, nor were they really lighter and I haven't seen any evidence they are universally 'sharper'.
European swords were /also/ used as a defense and an offense.
A standard long sword probably has a slight edge over the katana, when used in tandem with a shield. A katana has almost never sliced through heavy iron plate armor, and chainmail was worn under plate armor sometimes. The bushi would have to "injure the corners" and VERY precisely. Even without a shield, there are more techniques available to the knight over the bushi, such as stabbing or jabbing, trapping, snagging and tearing with the cruciform quillons...
Ok... The knight's sword is better than the katana... Really? You are actually talking about the weapon considered as the deadliest melee weapon that ever existed.
1- Knight's swords weren't THAT sharp. What use is a slicing weapon against a full plate? none. Knights even used their gauntlets to grab the enemy's sword ( not in mid-air ofc but sill proves that the swords dont cut that much to be effective. I could go on and on to prove that your hollywood-based video is nonsense
Actually there is plenty of evidence that European swords were very sharp; swords weren't designed to be used against armor exclusively, and there are many different variations of the longsword. Some are designed specifically with cutting in mind.
You can grab an extremely sharp sword bare handed; it depends upon the way you grab the blade, focusing the pressure upon the flats of the blade instead of the edge.
@HereTheArtBegins Hmm... Nice to see that certain persons can argue without being an a****le :P
You have a point there; There is indeed alot of variations of the longsword. But since there was no way to litteraly "cut" an armor in half, being sharp wasn't the first priority. The sharp weapons were useful in a fight without armor, i totally agree to that. I wont argue on how to grab a sword without cutting himself; you got the point. :P
That really depends; you're making a bad assumption in that all swordsmanship in Europe was designed for use in armor, against armored opponents. That's actually only 1/2 of european swordsmanship. There are two halves of European swordsmanship; Harnischfechten, armored swordsmanship, and blossfechten, unarmoured swordsmanship. Swords were designed to confront the needs of /both/ of these situations.
Longswords are best described as "Cut and thrust" swords. Hybrids.
@HereTheArtBegins Oh don't get mewrong, I've never said that swords are only used in armored combat :P just, in the case of the video where the author talks about the typical armored knight, I dont consider slicing that much a priority. I agree, and I know that the sword is used in alot of circumstances. I was just focusing on that one for the video
@HereTheArtBegins Still, thrusting the sword was (logically) the most efficient way to pierce the enemy's armor ( ofc there's the cut in unprotected place like elbow's inside or neck but they were usually protected so.)
AND, the katana can thrust as well as the longsword; it wasn't only sharp; the tip was deadly.
But do we agree that slicing in an armored fight wasnt the first priority, except to bash into the enemy's armor to deform it? ( im more on the samurai way than the knight one :P)
@AryanTheurgist i dont have video games, im a med student at Mcgill university so i dont have time. but i train with Masayuki Hisataka in montreal who is a desendent of the 56th emperor of japan.
@rapplejab I looked up Masayuki Hisataka. He seems very impressive, but he teaches Karate (Okinawan martial art first brought to Japan in the 20th century) and Judo (descendent of Jujutsu heavily modified for civilian rather than battlefield contexts). Neither of those are samurai training.
@rapplejab To back up what I said about knights moving easily in armour:
Jean le Maingre - Now cased in armour, he would practise leaping on to the back of a horse; anon, to accustom himself to become long-winded and enduring, he would walk and run long distances on foot…In order to accustom himself to the weight of his armour, he would turn somersaults whilst clad in a complete suit of mail, with the exception of his helmet, or would dance vigorously in a shirt of steel...
dude the samurai is much better their armour is light which gives them more freedom to move and swing their blade as the knight has no freedom to swing there blade they will also win in a horse back fight because of their bows which they will aim for the horse not the knight there long range weapons the samurai will win because they train as childs with range attacks then go to close combat so the samurai should have won this battle not the knight
@Railstarfish i dont think you have seen the effectiveness of training that a samurai would have to do. if you did, you would see how superior a samurai would be.
@rapplejab If you have any historical sources on the training of samurai I would appreciate you sharing them. However, historical research and martial arts training in both Japanese and European styles has not supported the glorification of samurai. I would be interested in seeing anything that puts samurai training on par with the regimens of Jean le Maingre or Regimento by Dom Darte of Portugal.
@Railstarfish you proably havent bothered to look because, lets face it, we all have our confirmation bias but one notable example would be Miyamoto Musashi, a famous duelist and ronin. But from personal experience, and from seeing how they had to condition their bodies and minds to be able to make a kill in an efficient single decisive manner, i believe that samurai would defeat a knight
I have a translation of the Book of 5 Rings, it is excellent strategy but describes no feats to indicate the quality of samurai training, good or bad.
The man? He outfought than other samurai, but it says nothing about the training of samurai in general.
What was it about how samurai had to condition their bodies and minds to be able to make a kill in an efficient single decisive manner that was superior to how other warriors did?
I thought the same as well the knight would wip the samurai but mabe not in all situations mabe just mabe the samurai might get lucky but I would say in direct combat the samurai would be facing oblivion at the tip of the knights sword.
There is no reliable way of saying one would win over the other. It depends on the quality of the warrior more than the equipment. If you put a crap knight up against an ace samurai, the samurai wins. Put a crap samurai up against an ace knight and the knight wins. Warrior > weapons.
@yamashisho That is a very fair point, although there have been efforts to reconstruct Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) from medieval fight books that survived from the 1400s. This rediscovery, while not perfect, points towards some pretty similar sophistication. If you are interested check out Talhoffer, Sigmund Ringeck, Peter von Danzig and Fiore de Liberi.
lol both the samurai and the knight will have 50% of winning becouse it comes down to skill to adept bcouse there fighting styles are very diffrend so wel it all depends on personal skill
if you look at the weaponry you can tell samurai weren't necessarily designed to fight each other or heavily armored opponents. all of there primary weapon choices are perfect for killing lightly armored units, i.e. peasants , which is synonemis with their social role of being enforcers of the ruling clan. even their armor was geared to stop peasant weapons. where as Europeans chose to kill heavily armored units with most of their equipment focused on negating plate armor, such as war-hammers.
@justplainly Medieval wrestling or kampfringen uses more or less the same techniques as jujutsu. Martial arts (arts of Mars - Roman god of war) were known in Europe too.
BTW, jujutsu was the samurai unarmed martial art - karate was Okinawan, only brought to Japan in the 20th century. Judo is the sports version of jujutsu.
@justplainly Trust me, Martial arts mean jack sh*t when the weight difference is 50 kilo.Trust me ive watched and also beaten the crap out of guys who were using that asian crap.Aaah ye Good ol brute streinght..
@kojbo Trust me. The people you fought were not professional fighters. You sound like a professional brute who knows how to throw around your superior physical strength. But if you fought a professional marshal artist you would find that (depending on the style) your brute strength means nothing.
PS. Knights were not Brutes, they used there own form or Marshal arts too. Every professional warrior of every race and culture, had a professional and effective form of marshal arts.
@kojbo Martial arts are not always Asian. Roman Armatura, Greek Pankration and German Kampfringen are examples.
Also just because the guy you fought was using an Asian fighting style doesn't mean he was necessarily any good at it. Anyone with a realistic view of how fights work does not get into a fight with someone 50 kg bigger than him unless he really has to.
I don't know why this video has so many dislikes. I knight would def win. It's not like I'm insulting samurais or anything, but plate metal armour is just too much for the katana to handle.
@cheeseintheair No. You might say one of the warrior has an advantage, the better equipment for example. But the outcome of a fight is NEVER sure. I've seen beginners win against experienced veterans in Kendo, i've done sparring in medieval warfare in which a group who was clearly at disadvantage in numbers and/or weapons but still won... I thinks that and the simplistic statements made this video have that much dislikes. Has the knight better weapons? Possibly. Would he inherently win? No.
@henrik9470 Yes, that's why there can't be a a certainty that one fighter would win and the other not. Except of course you assume that one warrior culture is inherently smarter and more skilled, which is of course not true in real human history but rather can be seen in popular myths and movies.
this whole argumentt is pointless/ its isent the wepons or the warrior class thet maters nut the warrior it self. a knight can beat a samurai if hes skilled. both samurais and knight were great warriors class thet hed their own style of fighting ( but i still think thet a samurai wolud had more chanse after all they made an entire martial art based war and fighting with or with out wepons)
I agree with you that it's the individual that matters. But don't forget that knights in Europe also made an entire martial art based on war and fighting with or without weapons.
To be honest, I think that the arts of war (martial art = art of Mars, roman god of war) is as old as war is.
you have a couple of things wrong there like the katana is more effective for thrusting than the longsword and deals more damage while slashing than a longsword also a naginata also has a stabbing point so you can also stab with the naginata and your partually wrong from the knight armor protecting him from the slashes and thrust from the katana i'd rather take a hit from a longsword than a katana in his armor
There is literally no evidence that a katana is more effective at thrusting than longswords; numerous tests have shown that thrusts from sharpened longswords are either just as effective, or far more effective at thrusting against soft and hard targets.
You're operating under modern myths, not historical reality. R. Lee Ermey's show is an amateurish display as well, so don't even refer to that. I have a whole argument lined up against that nonsense.
@HereTheArtBegins i also forgot to add the variasion in katana is high so you can't have everything right about the katana and what you didn't metion is by the time you have lifted your longsword the katana has already hits its target a couple of times
There is lots of variation in European swords as well.
No, by the time you have lifted your longsword the katana will /not/ have already hit its target a few times. That's another myth; that katana are faster than European swords. The longsword itself is just as fast, agile, and maneuverable as katana. Your information has been outdated for decades now.
@HereTheArtBegins I don't know who would win if these guys actually met on the battlefield but I can tell you that R. lee guy had no idea how to use a katana. Not only did he hold it wrong, but the way he used it was terrible! Not to sound rude but you and KevinKikkerColders should watch where you get your info, especially if you're getting it from youtube.... Oh and I have been taking kendo for six years so I know good bit of what I'm talking about.
Could you please show me where I mentioned that R. Lee Ermey used the katana correctly? My argument has always been that the test was in general shoddily put together.
My information comes from a variety of sources ranging from hands on experience, to primary source documents, to books written about the topics. There really isn't any evidence for the superiority of Japanese swords. How does your kendo experience grant you any information about European swords?
@HereTheArtBegins I never said you said that R. Lee Ermey used the katana correctly. I was actually agreeing with you that the video was no good, even if the katana did win in that video so I assumed that if he didn't use the katana right, he more than likely didn't use the European sword correctly. I also never said my kendo gave me experience with European sword, I was referring to the R Lee video letting you know that's how I knew he was using the katana wrong.
@HereTheArtBegins Oh and I see what you are trying to say to the Kevin guy. His information is outdated, and he has no clue on what he is talking about by the way, but I think you already knew that. I have done a lot of research and both weapons have there advantages and disadvantages, and at the end of the day I think it comes down to the warrior and not the weapon. However that's just my opinion, and sorry for the whole misunderstanding, I should made my point clearer.
@NECROLORDZ Everything is in favour of the knight. Samurai are not the mythical warriors you see in movies, why would they be trained to take down a knight?
No enemy ever fought by the samurai was as heavily armored as a Knight. How then, could they be trained to take them down? If you mean by martial arts, well, knights have that too.
The most effective weapon against a knight is a pollaxe, of which there is no real Japanese equivalent. They didn't really employ axes or warhammers either. That leaves the samurai with naught but his kanabo and yoroi-toshi.
@xtcarnage15586 No they weren't. Samurai were on regular battlefields just as knights were. While Samurai often engaged in combat with other Samurai in large scale fights, they were not exclusively limited to that. The entire misconception of Samurai only fighting other Samurai comes from the Edo period in which the number of Ronin (masterless Samurai) who often wandered around dueling each other or became body guards and mercenaries.
Considering samurai Themselves were armored warriors, yes, they were trained to fight them. However, samurai armor is different from european armor, it covers less. A katana is nigh useless against full plate outside of blunt force trauma.
The only weakpoints in full plate are at the joints, and even there, you have riveted mail covering it, which the broad tip of a katana has been demonstrated to not be able to pierce.
@WitheringintheDark That is if the opposing samurai were using the katana, They had many other weapons then just the katana, the Naginata might be enough to hack through the mail, and the Tetsubo would be more then enough to cave in the plates. Not trying to sound 'fanboyish' but it kinda irks me when one type of warrior gets typecasted with one weapon, kinda like vikings and axes, or Germans with halbards.
They Can have less armor, though this is not advisable. Samurai heavy armor was actually on-par with european plate in terms of weight. In combat however, as expert swordsman from ARMA(namely Clements and Pynenberg) have found, plate armor doesn't hinder you enough for an unarmored opponent to really capitalize; it's not so slowing that you can take advantage of it, you see small openings, but can't get to them, because he's all over the place.
Ultimately it doesn't make up for the loss in protection. Also, dodging is very tiring. More tiring then simply advancing, even in 55lbs of armor. The armored man can afford to take a glancing hit on his armor, you cannot. He doesn't need to move as much as hid armor protects him, conserving energy.
Obviously, while Aaron is not trying to strike Clements that hard since he's unarmored and could be seriously injured if hit in ernst, it shows the speed difference isn't so great; Aaron could just as easily have put Him down if he was really trying to.
It's no offense, I do think that the western style plate armours look cooler and offer more protection, but when it comes to swords I think the katana is the pinnacle of swordsmithery. And I think that this video is quite unbiassed, and contains many false data, as well as "broadbrush statements". I just wanted to reflect to that.
There is literally no evidence that the katana is the "pinnacle of swordsmithery". It basically used a form of sword manufacture similar to what Europeans were doing hundreds of years before the Japanese started folding.
The katana benefits from /hype/, not evidence.
So your solution to a biased and false video is to be equally biased and false? That's intelligent.
But if you still have doubts about how samurai armor provided more freedom of movement, you can also see youtube video titled: "A short history of Japanese Armour - Arms in Action - Military History channel"
And that video is also strewn with errors; nothing demonstrated therein cannot be done in European armor.
His statement that his "European armor" weighs 85 pounds is pretty nonsensical; the average weight for field armor according to Ewart Oakeshott is about 57lbs. He's off by almost thirty pounds, and other Japanese armors weigh upwards to 65 pounds.
All I see are unverified statements of someone who apparently isn't too clear on the actual qualities of armor.
The more I watch this, the more I see the errors. Lamellar armor was the dominant armor throughout all of Asia for a thousand years? Uh. No? The Muslims were enthusiastic in their use of maille armor; with lamellar only forming small components of the protection such as on the forearms in later centuries. Maille was also extensively used in central Asia and India. So they're flat out wrong.
As for the swords, the katana was in fact proven to be more effective at thrusting through a metallic armor than the longsword was. See youtube video titled "Japanese Katana VS European Longsword - Samurai sword VS Knight Broadsword". I do not doubt that the plate armor offered more protection than the samurai armor did, but the samurai armor do offered more agility. These techniques evolved in different environments. Note that Japan was poor in iron ore, and had an extremely rolly landscape.
Do note that A; They do not make use of actual experts of European swordsmanship.
B; They do not grant any information on the swords tested. We cannot ascertain that the two of them are of not only comparative, but decent quality for the sword types tested.
C; They only test one subtype of each form. How can you make the broadbrush statements you are with only one subtype of each form when there is tremendous variation in each type?
@HereTheArtBegins I do not think that those people were trained in either eastern or western martial arts, but the same person testet both swords, and the tests yielded different results. Im sure that a trained man could slice through an icebar even with a longsword, but with a katana even az untrainde person can slice through it. He can, becouse the katana was designed so. On the other hand, it was much more expensive, and had only one edge.
An inexpert person does not produce consistent results, even poor results. They produce random results.
The leather test is invalid because he used a much stronger cut (From above) with the katana as opposed to the longsword, which was used with a weaker cut from below.
The Ice block test is invalid because he cut with the longsword using the /lower/ half of the sword, not the upper half as he did with the katana.
D; They also have inconsistent testing conditions. They use different cuts for the same test, cut with different parts of the blade, and so on. Refer to the leather armor test specifically here.
E; They do not use a skilled swordsman for the test. This means that the natural randomness of an inexpert practitioner is going to take hold, ruining the ability to actually make a value judgment.
Japanese armor is about the same weight as European armor.
There really won't be an "attacking faster" nor a "more angles" advantage. Technically European swords offer more attack angles than Japanese swords due to the second edge.
@HereTheArtBegins That's not exactly true. An edo period japanese armor weighted about 16 kgs, while the finest made renaissance age full plate armor was about 20 kgs at the lightest. But the more serious problem with the full plate armor was that it seriously hindered breathing, so without a horse the knight would run out of stamina pretty quick. As for the samurai swort: it is undouptedly sharper than the longsword, and in fact it was used for thrusting quite often.
That's conceivable, but Edo era armor was primarily for display, not combat. By that point the Samurai increasingly stopped serving as soldiers and more and more as bureaucrats.
Armor that was designed for actual combat tended to much, much heavier. They tended to weigh about the same as European armor.
I would like to see more evidence that European armor hampered breathing; I know of a lot of guys who have breastplates designed for them and they don't have that much of an issue breathing. It seems to be more of an issue for people who don't have well fitting breastplates.
This also makes sense when we consider that knights would fight on foot for hours at a time, without the "running out of stamina" issue you're suggesting. There's a problem with your argument.
@HereTheArtBegins A BBC article concerning the effectiveness of full plate armors, called "Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles" says exactly: "The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy."
Knights were heavily armoured, which is lack of mobility against fast, mobile and deadly Samurai who are excelent horse archers and in close combat is same- Samurai have more mobility and Samurai can easily get to the back of knight, knight is slower than Samurai.
allforable 5 hours ago
@allforable Their armours weighed roughly the same, average weight of plate armour in the 1400s was 57 lbs. Samurai o-yoroi weighed on average 65 lbs, and Yukinoshita-do weighed around 50-55 lbs.
Very few warriors weighed themselves down so heavily that they would be unable to fight.
Railstarfish 5 hours ago
i had seen liechtenhauer but it said no document had survived yet it then claimed to be accurate portrayal of the 'style' so i gave that one a miss, will check out the others though. thanks
flayingTheDesperate 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate
Liechtenauer seems to be the Sokrates of medieval martial arts. There isn't any manual that we know of that is written by Liechtenauer but a lot of the survived manuals are refering to him just like Plato and Aristotle refered to Sokrates.
In, for example, the Döbringer manuscript (MS 3227a) you will find things like this a lot:
"That is why Liechtenauer says; “I say truthfully, no man can defend without danger”."
gurkfisk89 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate
In other places in the Döbringer manuscript the fighting art is refered to as "Liechtenauer’s swordsmanship" or "Liechtenauer’s art".
And that is why the german tradition sometimes called "the Liechtenauer tradition" despite that there are no surviving manuals made by him that we know of.
gurkfisk89 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate
No direct work of Liechtenauer's exists, but what we have instead are the writings of his students, and the students of his students, and so on. Additionally, we have other works, other traditions, in other countries, including Italy, France, and England, and even Germany itself such as the Nuremberg tradition, separate from the Liechtenauer tradition. Gurkfisk's Socrates example is precisely on point.
HereTheArtBegins 1 day ago
i dont have time to research all these styles, all i asked for was a number of styles. i did however notice baritsu ( which does look pretty good but not a pure martial art as its a bastardisation. thats not me saying its innefective though ) you seem to think you know what you are talking about. so as i said just give me names of styles and ill look them up. thanks
flayingTheDesperate 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate Medieval combat instructors just referred to it as how to fight or the art of fighting, save for generalities such as "The German school of swordsmanship" or "the Italian style" (those are the most well known).
Rather than searching for styles, you will get more results looking for the names of instructors - Liechtenhauer, Talhoffer, von Danzig, Ringeck, Fiore dei Liberi - or google "fechtbuch" and get a list of the titles.
Railstarfish 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate
Asking for different "styles" of combat in Europe is to completely misunderstand the nature of Medieval society, and to privilege East Asian society. East Asian society is very clannish; with different cultural groups insulated from one another to a much greater degree than in Europe. Medieval Europe was much more universal; systems blurred and merged till there was one more or less universal culture from Spain to England, and from Italy to Germany.
HereTheArtBegins 1 day ago
@flayingTheDesperate
The inertia in Europe then would not be to the development of multiple different "styles" of martial arts as in Japan or China, but to merge all of the varying traditions into a recognizable, holistic system. There would never be a "Yagyu shinkage ryu" as opposed to a "niten Ichi-ryu", or a "Chen-style" Taichi chuan vs a "Yang" style Taichi chuan; There would only be Kunst Des Fechtens, or "the art of fighting". "There is only one art of fighting".
HereTheArtBegins 1 day ago
Apples vs Oranges, who wins!!!
0hypnotoad0 1 day ago
@0hypnotoad0 BANANAS!?!
ImNoPokemon 6 hours ago
The only problem is that since all we have to go by is manuals, no surviving masters, modern translations of the techniques may not be 100% accurate or correct; the interpretations are subject to, and have, changed over time.
That many techniques mirror that of the carefully preserved Japanese and Chinese sword arts, however, gives hope that they are heading in the right direction.
WitheringintheDark 2 days ago
@WitheringintheDark Allow me to give you my personal opinion on the matter: Having done Kenjutsu i had to learn that in the same school there were variations depending of the fact that the teachings of the different headmasters varies. So while it's true that Kenjutsu is very much like in the past, i'm sure it isn't preserved as well as many think it is. On the other hand, the medieval manuscripts, while difficult to interpret have NOT changed during the ages. And because we (...)
Railriderchris 2 days ago
@WitheringintheDark (...) have to work on them to find out what they wanted to say, there is a lot practical work on it. And while we never will know what would work or not in a real fight to the death we can still find out the basics. In short: The work done on HEMA until today insures the techniques comes from a practical use and not from a traditional cultural and ceremonial teaching that any jap. Master might want to change because he thinks he is right. Wow, damn my bad english!
Railriderchris 2 days ago
@Railriderchris
Your english is fine. Compared with the horribad jibbringlish I had to deal with in UO, DAoC, and others you might as well be a professor of the english language =)
Yeah, i'd realized that even Jap. sword arts arn't perfectly preserved, and may even be quite different from what the Samurai themselves used back in their heyday, but ran out of time and space to add it in.
WitheringintheDark 1 day ago
@WitheringintheDark Thank you, i appreciate the compliment. But you ignore how long it takes me to consider how to write so nobody would misunderstand me ;-)
Railriderchris 1 day ago
They were just as well trained. Research Talhoffer, Liechtenauer, MS i.33, Sigmund Ringeck, von Danzig, the Codex Wallerstein, and Fiore Dei Liberi just to name a few of the masters and the surviving manuals. The evidence is out there, you just have to look for it.
WitheringintheDark 2 days ago
Until you understand that samurai weren't mystical supermen who held the monopoly in martial skill you will continue to believe the bullshido myth that samurai > everything.
Knights trained in everything Samurai did. Samurai were essentially feudal Japan's equivalent of European knights.
Knights had kampfringen(combat grappling/striking) ringen am schwert(wrestling at the sword) harnisch and ross-fechten(armor and mounted fighting), half-swording, and more.
WitheringintheDark 2 days ago
he said and i quote ' you will be hard pressed to get close to a trained polearmsmen with a 2-3 foot blunt club' weapon is irrelivant. people are misinterpreting me. if you explain to me, what knights were trained in, and ill look at it in a diffrent light. however nobody seems to know what they were trained in. just wild guesses and there is nothing i can find otherwise. we could go on and on all day but its ultimatly irrelivant. as its easier to see samurai training these days than knight
flayingTheDesperate 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
If you look at the german tradition they where trained in kunst des fechtens (the art of fighting). This includes a lot of things, from weapons like longswords and messers to pollaxes and kombinations like sword and buckler. It depends a little what time we are looking at. They also was trained in both armed and unarmed fighting. Both on foot and on horseback. They also trained in unarmed fighting. In the german tradition it's called Kampfringen.
gurkfisk89 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
If you want to read more I would recommend "wiktenauer" where you can read manuscripts by medieval masters like Hans Talhoffer, Joachim Meyer or perhaps the italian master Fiore de'i Liberi.
You can also look up HEMA which is what today's practitioner usually call what they do.
Here is a good youtube clip:
/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
gurkfisk89 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
For the quote. I think I can see where the problem is. With that quote he didn't meant that the polearmsman had a 2-3 foot blunt club, but that the person trying to come close to the polearmsman had a 2-3 foot club. He just before that was talking about pollaxes so I think he was talking about having a 2-3 foot blunt club against someone with a 5-6 foot long pollaxe. I agree with him that it wouldn't be easy to get close.
Sorry if i misinterpreted you.
gurkfisk89 2 days ago
@gurkfisk89
Precisely what I meant. That he just butted into a comment I made to another person without appreciating the context in which it was in just fudged matters more. What is it with people doing that these days. It's annoying.
The original guy was talking about samurai war clubs(kanabo) jacking up the knight. I told him that the big blunt kanabo is not as effective as the knights pollaxe or warhammer, and would have difficulty facing a knight so armed with such a weapon.
WitheringintheDark 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate Overall, the differences between samurai and knightly combat training (at least with similar weapons) are quite small. Knights will use the crossguard and both edges of the sword more, but the basic movements and techniques are simmilar since both warriors had human bodies and similar techniques served them well.
Check those videos I suggested, and I hope that helps.
Railstarfish 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
Yea, sorry. Apparently you haven't been looking very hard; a simple google for "medieval martial arts", "knightly martial arts", and "european martial arts" returns numerous different hits which allow one to start research on the martial arts Knights trained in; and by no means is this "wild guesses". In fact, we have direct manuals which showcase the different techniques and combat theory; there is literally no evidence Samurai were more well trained.
HereTheArtBegins 1 day ago
fukin idiots knights were trained VERY well thats why they earned the title knight, not fukin peasent shit at arms
secondly, kantana's and other japanese weapons were designed to cut through flesh and bone with ease, not fukin metal, a knight carried an arsenal of blunting and slashing weapons, samauri was more agile but wore armour so light that he would die instantly from an arrow
if a samauri shot a knight with an arrow it would just bounce off thats why crossbows were invented.
KnightOfTheRealm1 2 days ago
witheringinthedark, untill you understand the training of a samurai ( which isnt jujitsu as is often thought ) you will understand that its not hard to close a 3 ft gap. im not saying knights were poorly trained, far from it. however there is a video on here that proves the katana was sharper than a long/broadsword. samurai trained in what we now call aikido o~sensei used samurai techniques in the aikido art. take it and then come back to me telling me it is hard to clse a 3ft gap.
flayingTheDesperate 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
Sorry but where did WitheringintheDark say that it's difficult to close a 3ft gap. He said it's hard to close a gap toward someone with a polearm that's trained, if you only have a 2-3 foot blunt club.
I think (but I can be wrong) Witheringinthedark knows more about samurai training than you know about knightly training.
gurkfisk89 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate Aikido was invented in the 20th century, for Morihei Ueshiba to use samurai techniques he had to find them from somewhere. Also, Aikido started off as a variant of jujutsu.
If you want to see some knightly martial arts, some good sources are "Jeu de la hache", "medieval wrestling", "SwArta" - search them on Youtube. Or longsword techniques by DarkFury or kohutovic.
Railstarfish 2 days ago
proper research done ? so i can presume by this that you are trained in all weapons you have showed ? trained in the arts of samurai and knights ?
samurai were better trained than knights. their weapons were of better quality. and to those who say ' a samurai would be hard pressed to get close without getting a spike through the skull' actually train in what they did, then comment. because that statement, is total crap
flayingTheDesperate 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate
Obviously you know nothing about knights; your statement is 'total crap'.
Samurai were not better trained; knights trained from childhood as well. Their weapons were not 'higher quality'.
And yes, you will be hard pressed to get close to a trained polearmsmen with a 2-3 foot blunt club.
WitheringintheDark 2 days ago
@flayingTheDesperate I keep hearing claims that samurai were better trained than knights, but I have never seen any evidence for it despite lots of asking and lots of looking. Do you have any sources to support that claim?
Folded steel? Old news in Europe.
Jujitsu? Nothing new against kampfringen.
Kenjutsu? Again, look at the Talhoffer fightbooks.
Japan did not have the monopoly on sophisticated martial arts, and knights began training from childhood too.
Railstarfish 2 days ago
in a fight? its usually the guy who is doing the fighting. but in terms of style that armor would be tough for the the samurai katana to get though...however the japanese samurai also used war clubs. and thos war clubs would jack up the knight if he gets hit.
but if both samurai and knight were wearing no armor the samurai wins hands down.
choopdewoot 3 days ago
@choopdewoot Why would the samurai win hands down? In my experience, either a longsword or an arming sword and shield is very difficult to fight with a katana.
Railstarfish 3 days ago
@choopdewoot Why is that? I'm sure a Samurai would be quite surprised if i use my longsword with a ''Scheitelhau'' exploiting his short blade against him ;-)
If you're believing the common misconception that men at arms in medieval Europe had no technique or skill, i would encourage you to search for the true ancient ways of fighting, like this for example:
/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg
Railriderchris 3 days ago
@choopdewoot
A big blunt war club isn't as effective versus armor as the knights own dedicated weapons like the poleaxe or warhammer.
A samurai would be hard pressed to bring the kanabo to bear against a knight so armed, without getting a spike driven through their skull.
Unarmored it's a complete toss up. The knight would certainly have a reach and angle of attack advantage, though the samurai's shorter curved blade is quicker in close quarters, if he manages to get there alive.
WitheringintheDark 3 days ago
@WitheringintheDark Very good point, being able to stab with the dague or the queue is also a major advantage pollaxes have over kanabo.
Railstarfish 3 days ago
Hey everybody! still at it i see hows everyone doing?
40OldeEnglish 5 days ago
european metal lurgy> japan's metal lurgy
they were open to trade meaning getting top quality materials were better
they had more places to fight and get better, and a varity of gear for a varity of opponets
also knights are slow as people think they are, their gear is LIGHTER than what soldiers carry now so the myth of them being unable to move quick is gone
the only effective weapon to do damage would be something akin to a mace, but the samuri lacked that(not counting the shelid breaker)
xxdomoxxkunxx 6 days ago
Why is there so much competition between knights and samurai? its so gay. In a fight it would depend of the GUY DOING THE FIGHTING.
pleeeeep 1 week ago
@pleeeeep Mostly yes though the knight of the later middle ages would have been a little more advanced in terms of equipment
40OldeEnglish 5 days ago
Im not saying their swords werent well made. It took 6 months to a year to make a katana. And the knights sword wasnt that sharp. it was mainly used for breaking bones not decapitating stuff. The knights helmet limits his visability. unless he uses an older style helmet. The knight has better horses ill admit. but that wont stand up to the naginata.
sithpowner 1 week ago
@sithpowner A bit of an FYI - the St Maurice sword of the 1200s is an antique still sharp enough to sharpen pencils with. Knights used maces and hammers for breaking bones, swords were a poor design for breaking bones (too light, too hilt balanced).
A visor on a knightly helmet could restrict vision but so could a face mask on a samurai helmet. Each warrior had to make a trade-off between vision and face-protection and had a range of options in that regard.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@sithpowner
Everytime someone say that it takes a year to make a katana, I feel bad for the swordsmiths.
For one, you can make many katanas at the same time. When one katana is polished an other can be forged and at the same time new ore can be turned into steel.
But even if we look at the time from ore to katana the process can't take that much time.
gurkfisk89 1 week ago
@sithpowner
Let's calculate, and let every process take a very long time (Month = M. Week = W)
Gather ironsand for the tatara, 2 M. The tatara process, 2 W. Transport to the swordsmith 2 M. Select the steel, 1 M. Let every fold take 3 days, and the sword is folded 20 times (at least a million layers). Makeing the edge, 1 W. Coating with clay, 1 W. Quench 2 days. That still leaves over 4 months for the polisher to do his job before 1 year has passed.
gurkfisk89 1 week ago
@gurkfisk89
Man, has to be one lazyass swordsmith to take 8 months to make a sword. XD
Smelting should take a max of 1 week, forging should be done in a matter of days. Polishing it properly takes awhile but shouldn't take that long either; excessive polishing can wear down the blade.
It would be easy to produce a katana at most every month or so if they focused on it, had smelters constantly supplying the swordsmith with more material and Professional polishers polishing the blades
WitheringintheDark 1 week ago
@WitheringintheDark
Yes, It's not only that the swordsmith can take his time when he's working. He can also go on vacation for most of the year if he only have to produce one katana that year. =)
What I have heard the polishing take about 10 days (I have no great source for this). 10 days is still a long time.
gurkfisk89 1 week ago
@gurkfisk89 They say to polish a Katana would take around 150hours, depending on the polishing style. But remember that it is to create the glorious surface on which you can see all the jihada pattern, details in the hamon aso. It's probable that during the times of war they just sharpened and gave it a smooth surface without all the cosmetic requirements wanted today. Thus you could make a Nihonto battle ready in a few days.
Railriderchris 6 days ago
@sithpowner
Actually, it appears that it took a lot less to "make" a katana, depending on how you define "make". For instance, modern Japanese law limits swordsmiths to producing two swords a month; not one or two a year.
Additionally, length of time to produce does not equate into quality. It takes a lot less time to make a rifle today than it did in the 1700s; would you say the rifle from the 1700s was of a higher quality?
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
do knights practice any martial art that do not involve weapons? (punching kicking take downs grappling). maybe pankration? or is that specifically a greek/ Mediterranean martial art? is it possible to beat an armored knight with nothing but martial arts techniques? what about savate (french kickboxing)?
Aznflipstuh9469 1 week ago
@Aznflipstuh9469 Yes, the fighting manuals include unarmed techniques that focus mainly on grappling. The German name is "kampfringen" but the techniques were broadly similar throughout Europe.
Pankration was specifically Greek.
Joint locks and throws certainly help against an armoured knight, even with swords throws were used to gain an advantage.
A good article on the subject is "Getting Punchy" by ARMA (Association Renaissance Martial Arts) on their website.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@Railstarfish but would it be common to see an unarmed samurai or knight using martial arts on the battlefield or did they mostly rely on armor and weapons horses shields. Did all knights do unarmed martial arts and did all samurai do they same to?
Aznflipstuh9469 1 week ago
@Aznflipstuh9469 Neither warrior would intentionally go onto the battlefield unarmed, since weapons & armour were obviously a huge advantage. Unarmed techniques were useful in case a weapon was disarmed, trapped, stuck in a foe, or used in combination with weapon attacks (wrestling at the sword).
If they were serious warriors (some of both might hold the title without being a warrior by trade, particularly after 1600) all would learn unarmed techniques too.
Hope that helps!
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@Aznflipstuh9469
I would say that both the samurai and the knight relied on weapons and armor but used unarmed martial arts at the same time. No one went to war unarmred, but it is possible to lose weapons on the battlefield. You can also do hybrids by letting go of your weapon with one hand and use unarmored techniques with it, or do kicks for that matter.
gurkfisk89 1 week ago
@Aznflipstuh9469
I would say all knights and all samurai learned unarmored martial arts. For one because it's so similar to for example dagger fighing and so useful in all aspects of battle. An other thing that makes me think everybody did it is because we even today we teach soilders at least the basics and now the distances of a normal fight isn't 1-3 meters anymore.
gurkfisk89 1 week ago
Oh yea the samurais armour was better also. it can break thrusting weapons and you can manuver more in it. if you get knocked down once in a knights armor your done.
sithpowner 1 week ago
@sithpowner Actually samurai would disagree. Wealthier samurai would wear namban armours, if samurai armour was better they would buy the top local stuff instead of importing.
O-yoroi weighed 65 lbs, had larger gaps, and a boxy shape that restricted movement.
Plate armour weighed on average 57 lbs, earlier mail weighed the same, and knights would turn somersaults in both or climb up the underside of a ladder using just their arms.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@sithpowner
It can break thrusting weapons? Based upon...?
There is literally no evidence that a knight cannot get up when he's been knocked down. In fact, it has routinely been shown to be a modern myth; not a historical reality. People are capable of extremely surprising feats of agility while wearing armor; including swimming.
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
@HereTheArtBegins Probably based on Deadliest Warrior, in which the samurai armour caused the Spartan spear to bend. But of course nothing in the show to support the quality of the spear (such as the tin content in the bronze).
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@Railstarfish
My response to that, even if we accept the test as valid, would be;
Did the samurai armor break the weapon because it was a thrusting weapon...
Or did the samurai armor break the weapon because it is a /bronze/ weapon?
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
@HereTheArtBegins Exactly. After all, samurai made extensive use of yari themselves, not something they would do if they expected thrusting weapons to break on the armour.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
The samurai would completely destroy the knight. Sure he has a shield but the samurai is pin point accurate with his yumi bow. and the katana was better made, quicker, lighter, sharper, and served as a defense and an offense. who ever says a knight would win is stupid.
sithpowner 1 week ago
@sithpowner Yabasume seems to take place over very short ranges, implying the pinpoint accuracy of the yumi is exaggerated.
I think you are working from Hollywood stereotypes. European swords for the knightly classes were well-made, fast, light, sharp and served as a defence and an offence.
Stefan Mader & Amada Akitsugu (expert on nihonto) found layered construction and hamon on antique European blades. Both warriors had a lot more in common than people realised.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@sithpowner
Pin point accuracy with the yumi is pretty exaggerated. No one stands still just letting their opponents aim.
Additionally, later era knights didn't use shields as often as they did in earlier years, relying more upon two handed weapons.
There is no evidence that katana were better made; they were not quicker, nor were they really lighter and I haven't seen any evidence they are universally 'sharper'.
European swords were /also/ used as a defense and an offense.
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
The Hagakure told me this.
But before that, so did the old German zweihander fechtbuchen.
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
There IS NO "invincible system" OR weapon, or warrior.
There is only the truth of combat.
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
A standard long sword probably has a slight edge over the katana, when used in tandem with a shield. A katana has almost never sliced through heavy iron plate armor, and chainmail was worn under plate armor sometimes. The bushi would have to "injure the corners" and VERY precisely. Even without a shield, there are more techniques available to the knight over the bushi, such as stabbing or jabbing, trapping, snagging and tearing with the cruciform quillons...
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
@rapplejab: I don't give a fuck. The claims are fantastic and bogus.
A common clawhammer works just as well as a katana, at the right range.
There are too many variables in such a theoretical encounter to make a unconditional judgement.
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
Ok... The knight's sword is better than the katana... Really? You are actually talking about the weapon considered as the deadliest melee weapon that ever existed.
1- Knight's swords weren't THAT sharp. What use is a slicing weapon against a full plate? none. Knights even used their gauntlets to grab the enemy's sword ( not in mid-air ofc but sill proves that the swords dont cut that much to be effective. I could go on and on to prove that your hollywood-based video is nonsense
GabCormier 1 week ago
@GabCormier
Actually there is plenty of evidence that European swords were very sharp; swords weren't designed to be used against armor exclusively, and there are many different variations of the longsword. Some are designed specifically with cutting in mind.
You can grab an extremely sharp sword bare handed; it depends upon the way you grab the blade, focusing the pressure upon the flats of the blade instead of the edge.
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
@HereTheArtBegins Hmm... Nice to see that certain persons can argue without being an a****le :P
You have a point there; There is indeed alot of variations of the longsword. But since there was no way to litteraly "cut" an armor in half, being sharp wasn't the first priority. The sharp weapons were useful in a fight without armor, i totally agree to that. I wont argue on how to grab a sword without cutting himself; you got the point. :P
GabCormier 1 week ago
@GabCormier
That really depends; you're making a bad assumption in that all swordsmanship in Europe was designed for use in armor, against armored opponents. That's actually only 1/2 of european swordsmanship. There are two halves of European swordsmanship; Harnischfechten, armored swordsmanship, and blossfechten, unarmoured swordsmanship. Swords were designed to confront the needs of /both/ of these situations.
Longswords are best described as "Cut and thrust" swords. Hybrids.
HereTheArtBegins 1 week ago
@HereTheArtBegins Oh don't get mewrong, I've never said that swords are only used in armored combat :P just, in the case of the video where the author talks about the typical armored knight, I dont consider slicing that much a priority. I agree, and I know that the sword is used in alot of circumstances. I was just focusing on that one for the video
GabCormier 1 week ago
@HereTheArtBegins Still, thrusting the sword was (logically) the most efficient way to pierce the enemy's armor ( ofc there's the cut in unprotected place like elbow's inside or neck but they were usually protected so.)
AND, the katana can thrust as well as the longsword; it wasn't only sharp; the tip was deadly.
But do we agree that slicing in an armored fight wasnt the first priority, except to bash into the enemy's armor to deform it? ( im more on the samurai way than the knight one :P)
GabCormier 1 week ago
@rapplejab: Not true. Not usually.
Do a little more research, rather than rely on video games and hearsay.
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
@AryanTheurgist i dont have video games, im a med student at Mcgill university so i dont have time. but i train with Masayuki Hisataka in montreal who is a desendent of the 56th emperor of japan.
rapplejab 1 week ago
@rapplejab I looked up Masayuki Hisataka. He seems very impressive, but he teaches Karate (Okinawan martial art first brought to Japan in the 20th century) and Judo (descendent of Jujutsu heavily modified for civilian rather than battlefield contexts). Neither of those are samurai training.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
The myth of the "Hollywood-agile" bushi and the "plodding helplessly dismounted turtle knight" are quite silly.
AryanTheurgist 1 week ago
@AryanTheurgist lol if a knight fell down a squire would have to help him get back up.
rapplejab 1 week ago
@rapplejab No, he wouldn't. The knight would get up by himself far more easily than a samurai wearing o-yoroi armour.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@rapplejab To back up what I said about knights moving easily in armour:
Jean le Maingre - Now cased in armour, he would practise leaping on to the back of a horse; anon, to accustom himself to become long-winded and enduring, he would walk and run long distances on foot…In order to accustom himself to the weight of his armour, he would turn somersaults whilst clad in a complete suit of mail, with the exception of his helmet, or would dance vigorously in a shirt of steel...
Railstarfish 1 week ago
dude the samurai is much better their armour is light which gives them more freedom to move and swing their blade as the knight has no freedom to swing there blade they will also win in a horse back fight because of their bows which they will aim for the horse not the knight there long range weapons the samurai will win because they train as childs with range attacks then go to close combat so the samurai should have won this battle not the knight
TheRedguitar12 1 week ago
@TheRedguitar12 Knight and samurai armour weigh roughly the same. Average weights: full plate 57 lbs, o-yoroi 65 lbs, yukinoshita do 50-55 lbs.
A knight has just as much freedom to swing his blade.
Horse armour would reduce the effectiveness of the bow.
Both warriors trained from childhood.
Samurai were effective, but their level of training was far from unique.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@Railstarfish i dont think you have seen the effectiveness of training that a samurai would have to do. if you did, you would see how superior a samurai would be.
rapplejab 1 week ago
@rapplejab If you have any historical sources on the training of samurai I would appreciate you sharing them. However, historical research and martial arts training in both Japanese and European styles has not supported the glorification of samurai. I would be interested in seeing anything that puts samurai training on par with the regimens of Jean le Maingre or Regimento by Dom Darte of Portugal.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
@Railstarfish you proably havent bothered to look because, lets face it, we all have our confirmation bias but one notable example would be Miyamoto Musashi, a famous duelist and ronin. But from personal experience, and from seeing how they had to condition their bodies and minds to be able to make a kill in an efficient single decisive manner, i believe that samurai would defeat a knight
rapplejab 1 week ago
@rapplejab Do you mean Musashi's work or the man?
I have a translation of the Book of 5 Rings, it is excellent strategy but describes no feats to indicate the quality of samurai training, good or bad.
The man? He outfought than other samurai, but it says nothing about the training of samurai in general.
What was it about how samurai had to condition their bodies and minds to be able to make a kill in an efficient single decisive manner that was superior to how other warriors did?
Railstarfish 1 week ago
to bad they did a test with actual thinfgs the samurai won the katana the armour and the samuari is the deadlist warrior
Infamous4337 1 week ago
@Infamous4337 I doubt it. Who is "they"? Deadliest Warrior never got those results.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
I thought the same as well the knight would wip the samurai but mabe not in all situations mabe just mabe the samurai might get lucky but I would say in direct combat the samurai would be facing oblivion at the tip of the knights sword.
MrTylerplatte 1 week ago
@MrTylerplatte
Depends on the armor used. In their full kits, both warriors are covered nearly head to toe in plate and mail.
Really, it all comes down to luck and which individual fighter is better.
WitheringintheDark 1 week ago
There is no reliable way of saying one would win over the other. It depends on the quality of the warrior more than the equipment. If you put a crap knight up against an ace samurai, the samurai wins. Put a crap samurai up against an ace knight and the knight wins. Warrior > weapons.
NinjaxPrime 2 weeks ago
@NinjaxPrime Absolutely, although equipment can make the difference between two similarly skilled warriors.
Railstarfish 1 week ago
Horrible music, crap production, correct conclusion.
rchave 2 weeks ago
There is a lot still the martial arts that a samurai used in Japan.
The martial arts such as the kendo of Japan are not left in the Europe.
Therefore I cannot compare the skill of the knight with a samurai.
yamashisho 2 weeks ago
@yamashisho That is a very fair point, although there have been efforts to reconstruct Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) from medieval fight books that survived from the 1400s. This rediscovery, while not perfect, points towards some pretty similar sophistication. If you are interested check out Talhoffer, Sigmund Ringeck, Peter von Danzig and Fiore de Liberi.
Railstarfish 2 weeks ago
There are many a mountain and forests in the country of Japan. Therefore the combat uniform of the samurai was devised to be mobile.
Hoxever there are many plains in the Europe.
yamashisho 2 weeks ago
lol both the samurai and the knight will have 50% of winning becouse it comes down to skill to adept bcouse there fighting styles are very diffrend so wel it all depends on personal skill
imborgoss 2 weeks ago
A knight would definitely win. Not like how the video suggests, but something along those lines.
1169Timothy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you look at the weaponry you can tell samurai weren't necessarily designed to fight each other or heavily armored opponents. all of there primary weapon choices are perfect for killing lightly armored units, i.e. peasants , which is synonemis with their social role of being enforcers of the ruling clan. even their armor was geared to stop peasant weapons. where as Europeans chose to kill heavily armored units with most of their equipment focused on negating plate armor, such as war-hammers.
JAHogshead 2 weeks ago
sorry man but sammurai using Martial Art too, karate and judo ,jiu jitsu
justplainly 3 weeks ago
@justplainly Medieval wrestling or kampfringen uses more or less the same techniques as jujutsu. Martial arts (arts of Mars - Roman god of war) were known in Europe too.
BTW, jujutsu was the samurai unarmed martial art - karate was Okinawan, only brought to Japan in the 20th century. Judo is the sports version of jujutsu.
Railstarfish 3 weeks ago
@justplainly Trust me, Martial arts mean jack sh*t when the weight difference is 50 kilo.Trust me ive watched and also beaten the crap out of guys who were using that asian crap.Aaah ye Good ol brute streinght..
kojbo 2 weeks ago
@kojbo Trust me. The people you fought were not professional fighters. You sound like a professional brute who knows how to throw around your superior physical strength. But if you fought a professional marshal artist you would find that (depending on the style) your brute strength means nothing.
PS. Knights were not Brutes, they used there own form or Marshal arts too. Every professional warrior of every race and culture, had a professional and effective form of marshal arts.
1169Timothy 2 weeks ago
@kojbo Martial arts are not always Asian. Roman Armatura, Greek Pankration and German Kampfringen are examples.
Also just because the guy you fought was using an Asian fighting style doesn't mean he was necessarily any good at it. Anyone with a realistic view of how fights work does not get into a fight with someone 50 kg bigger than him unless he really has to.
Railstarfish 2 weeks ago
I don't know why this video has so many dislikes. I knight would def win. It's not like I'm insulting samurais or anything, but plate metal armour is just too much for the katana to handle.
cheeseintheair 3 weeks ago
@cheeseintheair No. You might say one of the warrior has an advantage, the better equipment for example. But the outcome of a fight is NEVER sure. I've seen beginners win against experienced veterans in Kendo, i've done sparring in medieval warfare in which a group who was clearly at disadvantage in numbers and/or weapons but still won... I thinks that and the simplistic statements made this video have that much dislikes. Has the knight better weapons? Possibly. Would he inherently win? No.
Railriderchris 3 weeks ago
@Railriderchris you are right but skills are important
henrik9470 2 weeks ago
@henrik9470 Yes, that's why there can't be a a certainty that one fighter would win and the other not. Except of course you assume that one warrior culture is inherently smarter and more skilled, which is of course not true in real human history but rather can be seen in popular myths and movies.
Railriderchris 2 weeks ago
Nice You rrrreally Professional!
Holly888Gan 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from xathanaric
this whole argumentt is pointless/ its isent the wepons or the warrior class thet maters nut the warrior it self. a knight can beat a samurai if hes skilled. both samurais and knight were great warriors class thet hed their own style of fighting ( but i still think thet a samurai wolud had more chanse after all they made an entire martial art based war and fighting with or with out wepons)
theassassin03 1 month ago
@theassassin03
I agree with you that it's the individual that matters. But don't forget that knights in Europe also made an entire martial art based on war and fighting with or without weapons.
To be honest, I think that the arts of war (martial art = art of Mars, roman god of war) is as old as war is.
gurkfisk89 1 month ago
you have a couple of things wrong there like the katana is more effective for thrusting than the longsword and deals more damage while slashing than a longsword also a naginata also has a stabbing point so you can also stab with the naginata and your partually wrong from the knight armor protecting him from the slashes and thrust from the katana i'd rather take a hit from a longsword than a katana in his armor
KevinKikkerColders 1 month ago
@KevinKikkerColders
There is literally no evidence that a katana is more effective at thrusting than longswords; numerous tests have shown that thrusts from sharpened longswords are either just as effective, or far more effective at thrusting against soft and hard targets.
You're operating under modern myths, not historical reality. R. Lee Ermey's show is an amateurish display as well, so don't even refer to that. I have a whole argument lined up against that nonsense.
HereTheArtBegins 1 month ago
@HereTheArtBegins i don't know who you're talking about i know ur wrong at some stuff and i'll leave it at that
KevinKikkerColders 1 month ago
@HereTheArtBegins i also forgot to add the variasion in katana is high so you can't have everything right about the katana and what you didn't metion is by the time you have lifted your longsword the katana has already hits its target a couple of times
KevinKikkerColders 1 month ago
@KevinKikkerColders
There is lots of variation in European swords as well.
No, by the time you have lifted your longsword the katana will /not/ have already hit its target a few times. That's another myth; that katana are faster than European swords. The longsword itself is just as fast, agile, and maneuverable as katana. Your information has been outdated for decades now.
HereTheArtBegins 1 month ago
@KevinKikkerColders He probably did not mention it because it would be false.
Railstarfish 1 month ago
@HereTheArtBegins I don't know who would win if these guys actually met on the battlefield but I can tell you that R. lee guy had no idea how to use a katana. Not only did he hold it wrong, but the way he used it was terrible! Not to sound rude but you and KevinKikkerColders should watch where you get your info, especially if you're getting it from youtube.... Oh and I have been taking kendo for six years so I know good bit of what I'm talking about.
kendolord 3 weeks ago
@kendolord
Could you please show me where I mentioned that R. Lee Ermey used the katana correctly? My argument has always been that the test was in general shoddily put together.
My information comes from a variety of sources ranging from hands on experience, to primary source documents, to books written about the topics. There really isn't any evidence for the superiority of Japanese swords. How does your kendo experience grant you any information about European swords?
HereTheArtBegins 3 weeks ago
@HereTheArtBegins I never said you said that R. Lee Ermey used the katana correctly. I was actually agreeing with you that the video was no good, even if the katana did win in that video so I assumed that if he didn't use the katana right, he more than likely didn't use the European sword correctly. I also never said my kendo gave me experience with European sword, I was referring to the R Lee video letting you know that's how I knew he was using the katana wrong.
kendolord 3 weeks ago
@HereTheArtBegins Oh and I see what you are trying to say to the Kevin guy. His information is outdated, and he has no clue on what he is talking about by the way, but I think you already knew that. I have done a lot of research and both weapons have there advantages and disadvantages, and at the end of the day I think it comes down to the warrior and not the weapon. However that's just my opinion, and sorry for the whole misunderstanding, I should made my point clearer.
kendolord 3 weeks ago
4:13 Isn't a kusarigama more of a ninja weapon?
aThingTrollsFEAR 1 month ago
samurai would decapitate a knight before he even raise his sword
SuperMrBentley 2 months ago
@SuperMrBentley hells no
TheSharkexpert 2 months ago
@TheSharkexpert lol, well i was joking.
SuperMrBentley 2 months ago
@SuperMrBentley the samurai would have killed him self before the fight
TheSharkexpert 2 months ago
A Knight would stomp a smaurai.
Samurai could only fight other samurai thay never had to fight knights so thay wouldent know how to take one down.
evil4563 2 months ago
the video is B.S but the end result is correct. A Knight would defeat a Samurai.
1169Timothy 2 months ago
This comparison is not true... what a coincidence all facts favor Knights. But... of which time?
Also, Samurai were trained to take down heavily-armored opponents, ¿why didn't you mention that?
NECROLORDZ 2 months ago
@NECROLORDZ Everything is in favour of the knight. Samurai are not the mythical warriors you see in movies, why would they be trained to take down a knight?
GodwinCarpenter 2 months ago
@NECROLORDZ
No enemy ever fought by the samurai was as heavily armored as a Knight. How then, could they be trained to take them down? If you mean by martial arts, well, knights have that too.
The most effective weapon against a knight is a pollaxe, of which there is no real Japanese equivalent. They didn't really employ axes or warhammers either. That leaves the samurai with naught but his kanabo and yoroi-toshi.
Not an auspicious start.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
@NECROLORDZ no they weren't. Samurai were trained to take down samurai.
xtcarnage15586 2 months ago
@xtcarnage15586 No they weren't. Samurai were on regular battlefields just as knights were. While Samurai often engaged in combat with other Samurai in large scale fights, they were not exclusively limited to that. The entire misconception of Samurai only fighting other Samurai comes from the Edo period in which the number of Ronin (masterless Samurai) who often wandered around dueling each other or became body guards and mercenaries.
Superninja5125 1 month ago
@Superninja5125 Nope your wrong
xtcarnage15586 1 month ago
@xtcarnage15586 They were not trained to fight armoed warriors your wrong
xtcarnage15586 1 month ago
@xtcarnage15586
Considering samurai Themselves were armored warriors, yes, they were trained to fight them. However, samurai armor is different from european armor, it covers less. A katana is nigh useless against full plate outside of blunt force trauma.
The only weakpoints in full plate are at the joints, and even there, you have riveted mail covering it, which the broad tip of a katana has been demonstrated to not be able to pierce.
Could still crack a rib and such though.
WitheringintheDark 1 month ago
@WitheringintheDark That is if the opposing samurai were using the katana, They had many other weapons then just the katana, the Naginata might be enough to hack through the mail, and the Tetsubo would be more then enough to cave in the plates. Not trying to sound 'fanboyish' but it kinda irks me when one type of warrior gets typecasted with one weapon, kinda like vikings and axes, or Germans with halbards.
YMS09D 3 weeks ago
you forget the samurai has less armor in case means much more swift and can dodge more on foot
Eatmymeow 2 months ago
@Eatmymeow
They Can have less armor, though this is not advisable. Samurai heavy armor was actually on-par with european plate in terms of weight. In combat however, as expert swordsman from ARMA(namely Clements and Pynenberg) have found, plate armor doesn't hinder you enough for an unarmored opponent to really capitalize; it's not so slowing that you can take advantage of it, you see small openings, but can't get to them, because he's all over the place.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
@Eatmymeow
Ultimately it doesn't make up for the loss in protection. Also, dodging is very tiring. More tiring then simply advancing, even in 55lbs of armor. The armored man can afford to take a glancing hit on his armor, you cannot. He doesn't need to move as much as hid armor protects him, conserving energy.
ww w.dailymotion.c om/video/xh5lw2_ngc-medieval-fight-book-part-3-3_shortfilms
Talks of plate armor, and showcases the Aaron/Clements fight.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
@Eatmymeow
Obviously, while Aaron is not trying to strike Clements that hard since he's unarmored and could be seriously injured if hit in ernst, it shows the speed difference isn't so great; Aaron could just as easily have put Him down if he was really trying to.
WitheringintheDark 2 months ago
haha u wish
OnEEmONErD 2 months ago
It's no offense, I do think that the western style plate armours look cooler and offer more protection, but when it comes to swords I think the katana is the pinnacle of swordsmithery. And I think that this video is quite unbiassed, and contains many false data, as well as "broadbrush statements". I just wanted to reflect to that.
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
There is literally no evidence that the katana is the "pinnacle of swordsmithery". It basically used a form of sword manufacture similar to what Europeans were doing hundreds of years before the Japanese started folding.
The katana benefits from /hype/, not evidence.
So your solution to a biased and false video is to be equally biased and false? That's intelligent.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
But if you still have doubts about how samurai armor provided more freedom of movement, you can also see youtube video titled: "A short history of Japanese Armour - Arms in Action - Military History channel"
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
And that video is also strewn with errors; nothing demonstrated therein cannot be done in European armor.
His statement that his "European armor" weighs 85 pounds is pretty nonsensical; the average weight for field armor according to Ewart Oakeshott is about 57lbs. He's off by almost thirty pounds, and other Japanese armors weigh upwards to 65 pounds.
All I see are unverified statements of someone who apparently isn't too clear on the actual qualities of armor.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
The more I watch this, the more I see the errors. Lamellar armor was the dominant armor throughout all of Asia for a thousand years? Uh. No? The Muslims were enthusiastic in their use of maille armor; with lamellar only forming small components of the protection such as on the forearms in later centuries. Maille was also extensively used in central Asia and India. So they're flat out wrong.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
As for the swords, the katana was in fact proven to be more effective at thrusting through a metallic armor than the longsword was. See youtube video titled "Japanese Katana VS European Longsword - Samurai sword VS Knight Broadsword". I do not doubt that the plate armor offered more protection than the samurai armor did, but the samurai armor do offered more agility. These techniques evolved in different environments. Note that Japan was poor in iron ore, and had an extremely rolly landscape.
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
Please watch that video again.
Do note that A; They do not make use of actual experts of European swordsmanship.
B; They do not grant any information on the swords tested. We cannot ascertain that the two of them are of not only comparative, but decent quality for the sword types tested.
C; They only test one subtype of each form. How can you make the broadbrush statements you are with only one subtype of each form when there is tremendous variation in each type?
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I do not think that those people were trained in either eastern or western martial arts, but the same person testet both swords, and the tests yielded different results. Im sure that a trained man could slice through an icebar even with a longsword, but with a katana even az untrainde person can slice through it. He can, becouse the katana was designed so. On the other hand, it was much more expensive, and had only one edge.
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
An inexpert person does not produce consistent results, even poor results. They produce random results.
The leather test is invalid because he used a much stronger cut (From above) with the katana as opposed to the longsword, which was used with a weaker cut from below.
The Ice block test is invalid because he cut with the longsword using the /lower/ half of the sword, not the upper half as he did with the katana.
His results are /random/, not consistent.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
D; They also have inconsistent testing conditions. They use different cuts for the same test, cut with different parts of the blade, and so on. Refer to the leather armor test specifically here.
E; They do not use a skilled swordsman for the test. This means that the natural randomness of an inexpert practitioner is going to take hold, ruining the ability to actually make a value judgment.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
Comment removed
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
... yeah but the samurai can attack faster becuase of his light armour and so he can attack faster and in a lot of angles for finally win thw fight
MrMaxGuy8796 2 months ago
@MrMaxGuy8796
Japanese armor is about the same weight as European armor.
There really won't be an "attacking faster" nor a "more angles" advantage. Technically European swords offer more attack angles than Japanese swords due to the second edge.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins That's not exactly true. An edo period japanese armor weighted about 16 kgs, while the finest made renaissance age full plate armor was about 20 kgs at the lightest. But the more serious problem with the full plate armor was that it seriously hindered breathing, so without a horse the knight would run out of stamina pretty quick. As for the samurai swort: it is undouptedly sharper than the longsword, and in fact it was used for thrusting quite often.
cnaeusflame 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
That's conceivable, but Edo era armor was primarily for display, not combat. By that point the Samurai increasingly stopped serving as soldiers and more and more as bureaucrats.
Armor that was designed for actual combat tended to much, much heavier. They tended to weigh about the same as European armor.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
@cnaeusflame
I would like to see more evidence that European armor hampered breathing; I know of a lot of guys who have breastplates designed for them and they don't have that much of an issue breathing. It seems to be more of an issue for people who don't have well fitting breastplates.
This also makes sense when we consider that knights would fight on foot for hours at a time, without the "running out of stamina" issue you're suggesting. There's a problem with your argument.
HereTheArtBegins 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HereTheArtBegins A BBC article concerning the effectiveness of full plate armors, called "Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles" says exactly: "The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy."
cnaeusflame 2 months ago