@mrmitro You are correct as far as armor-piercing capabilities go, but the impact would also severely damage the katana and there is no guarantee that it could be recovered, much less that the blow would be immediately fatal for the knight. On the other hand, samurai armor would not hold up well against a heavy sword such as that the European knight traditionally would carry.
Katana, a cutting/slashing sword is better at piercing armor than a sword specifically designed to pierce armor (like many Renaissance-era European swords were)?
And the swords European knights used to carry weren't heavier than a katana at all.
Depending on the era, in fact, they might actually be lighter...
@Zyamaman Well, maybe not. I wrote this when I still listened to people who owned katanas...
But you're right; European swords weren't heavy so much as it was simply tiring to wield one in a fight for a long time. Thus, the need for consistent training. I think people simply assume that anything from Asia is quicker and more based in intellect than anything from Europe, which I find to be annoying.
It's just that European martial arts suffered from decades of bad rep due to half-assed hollywood misinterpretation (they still do, actually).
It's true that eastern martial arts are intelligent and elegant. Few people actually know that the same can be said about their western counterparts...
Total nonsense - the katana is absolutely not suited for piercing armor.
It's not very for at stabbing to begin with, seeing as it's a cutting-oriented sword, let alone trying to puncture actual tempered steel - no way, no how.
Even with a European stabbing-oriented sword, like an Estoc, it's still gonna be very difficult - only in the gaps, and probably only by half-swording.
A cutting sword, no matter what kind, is simply not up to the job.
Why on earth do people think that the katana is naturally supreme? Not every man holding one is transformed into a martial arts master!! Get a grip! This was a purely fun video- I liked it!
This video is actually a decent mock up of what would happen. The samurai may score more hits, but the katana is ineffective against the knight's armor while the longsword is effective against the samurai's armor. Samurai had less coverage and it works against them.
@mahnahchichi808 Samurai have armor comparable to a medieval coat of plates, does that make them gay too? All warriors in history (and today) have some form of armor, and for good reason (it helps you not die).
@mahnahchichi808 Not necessarily. There are far far more things you can do with a longsword than you can do with a katana. Like a wrapping backedge cut, which is great for getting around defenses and is something the samurai wouldn't know about (dealing only with single edge blades). When half-swording, you can quickly swing the pommel around for devastating effect. You can even hold the sword backwards and turn it into a blunt weapon, then quickly swing the blade back around.
European swords are commonly double-edged, straight, semi-heavy swords, very good at stabbing, mediocre at slashing. Until about 987 AD, the Japanese used similar swords carried over from China. The revolutionary idea behind the katana was to make a sword balanced very well in both stabbing AND slashing.
As for the Japanese armor, it was there for IF you got hit, not when. While full plate european armor was strong, it was hard to move in. Samurai had more fluidity, thus making a harder target.
A lot of what you just said is actually very wrong. European swords tend to be roughly around the same weight as Japanese swords. I know of Japanese swords which are much heavier than typical European swords.
Additionally, they were also good at both cutting and thrusting; mixing both concepts is not revolutionary. The Chinese did it, the Europeans did it, the Koreans did it, the Arabs did it, and so on.
@HereTheArtBegins I'm going to use different terms here, the japanese sword was meant for slicing, that's why its blade is curved. The idea is to keep the blade in contact with the target as long as possible. The European sword is made to chop rather than slice, part bash, part cut just like an axe. The reason being chainmail's resistance to slicing. Curved swords avaliable to the Europeans at the time just didn't do the job. A katana is different to anything in Europe though.
The axe analogy doesn't really work. There is no "bashing" element in European swords. It's just a cut. It's not a "chop". Katana simply cut as well; they just have an additional element which makes use of the inherent circularity in cutting.
The katana isn't that different. Look up "Kriegsmesser".
@HereTheArtBegins The European sword uses a completely different swing to a katana. A katana is swung with the intent of sliding against an enemy's armour creating a slicing motion, which is why the sword is crescent shaped. The broad or longsword is straight and slightly wedge shaped ending in a point - continued
Both use relatively similar cuts. They are not "completely different swings".
There are a wide variet of cross sections for longswords; some are wedge shaped, some are not. The cross sections of katana can by and large be wedge-shaped as well.
@HereTheArtBegins I'm not talking about the cross section, I'm talking about the silhouette or profile of the sword. Japanese swords were specialised to a certain technique of use. The European two handed swords were built to be able to chop the legs off one side of a horse, bash armour, helmets, swords and shields beyond recognition, don't get me wrong, they'd cut through a person even slice, but they were built to handle a large amount of rough treatment.
No historical evidence details that European swords were used to bash armor helmets, swords or shields beyond recognition. The medieval fencing masters directly stated that the proper use was to utilize grappling and thrusts at the joints and gaps in armor.
@HereTheArtBegins There's proof in the armour and the swords themselves. Historians have documented the fact that as plate armour began to rise in popularity swordplay was forced to use brute force more in attacking, the most effective way of dealing with chain and plate armour was impact shots to create openings, rather than swap for hammers many knights and richer soldiers elected to modify the sword design, toughen it up for hitting as well as cutting.
Proof in the armor and swords themselves? Such as what? European swords didn't become heavier in general during the period of plate, and we actually saw more designs oriented for /thrusting/, not /cutting/.
Historians such as whom? Most experts on swords that I know of, such as John Clements, Ewart Oakeshott, and a plethora of other HEMA practitioners actually agree that there is /no/ evidence that swords were used for bashing. Who are these historians you refer to?
@HereTheArtBegins I'll track them down when I can walk to the uni library, they had a whole ballistic reasoning and swordplay diagrams, it was good stuff.
@Zyamaman That came with the addition of guns to the arsenal. As guns developed people realised that musket balls penetrate plate armour so they lightened the load for mobility, just breastplate and helmet like the spanish conquistadores and modern military, the best defence against guns is not being in their path. Swords got reduced to the cavalry and officers, a 'gentleman's weapon' then later for duels and tournaments where fighters wore no armour.
Nope, during the 15th-16th centuries (the "golden age" of the full plate), a distinct trend of shifting towards lighter/stabbing blades can be traced for the knight's sword.
During this time, you were much more likely to see a knight with a light side-sword, or a stab-oriented longsword or broadsword (a rather ambiguous term, that last one)
The process you described in your posts didn't start until the 17th century, a time when firearm development overshadowed armor completely.
@Zyamaman The stabbing lightswords, rapiers and the like weren't developed as a war sword. They were developed as a dress sword, during the 15th and 16th century they were still pumping out new designs for bastard swords, claymores and other beheamoth blades that worked on the premise of axe, spear and warhammer in one weapon while the rapier developed around dinner table squabbles, even the name is believed to be a coinage for "robe sword".
The idea that cut & thrust swords and rapiers weren't used on the battlefield is plainly false - they were utilized both by infantrymen and armored knights, and there is plenty of historical records and painting to prove it.
As for the idea that bastard swords and zweihanders (not claymores) were "behemoths" is nothing but uneducated nonsense - they never weighted more than 4 and 8 pounds respectively.
And what you're describing here as a "dress sword" is most likely a simple mix-up between the rapier and the small sword on your part.
The small sword is, indeed, a civilian development of the rapier, but those two terms are NOT mutually interchangeable - those are two fundamentally different weapons, make no mistake about it.
@Zyamaman A rapier is a small sword, despite being longer than 36 inches and weighing ten pounds-which does bring up the question of how they class them...I did make a mistake, you're right about countries like France, Italy and Spain heading towards lighter , narrower swords late in armour's glory days. However, what I said about mangling swords still holds true for England, Germany, Scotland and Norway. Mangle with a chop, stab the opening.
A "small sword" is a specific type of sword; it's also called a "court sword" or "Dress sword".
Rapiers did NOT weigh ten pounds; most were under 3 and I've never seen one more than 3.5 pounds. Could you direct me to some evidence for ten pound rapier? Most European swords in general weigh under 4 pounds; I don't know where this "ten pound rapier" shit comes from.
Rapier were used extensively in England, Germany, Scotland, and Norway as well. You have a poor image of swords.
Actually many stabbing oriented swords /were/ designed as war swords. Especially longswords, because the primary method of attacking armor was to go for the weak points in armor.
You're going to have to face it. There is no real evidence for European swords in general operating like you want them to; Europeans instead employed highly technical martial arts in order to exploit the weaknesses in armor; not to clumsily bash through it using weight and arm strength.
FYI; Bastard Sword is simply another name for a Longsword; a Medieval weapon which was highly sophisticated and used to employ a technical form of swordsmanship which relied upon skill, timing, and precision; not axe-like bashing.
@HereTheArtBegins The timing and precision came after you create an opening, I'm not saying they just hacked like a wood chopper, I'm saying it was a tactical descision (like a boxer opening cuts over an opponents eye to impair their vision) the spear part came when openings were created.
The openings aren't created via cutting however, you create the openings via halfswording and grappling. None of the fechtbuch suggest trying to cut an opponent in armor to "create an opening".
@HereTheArtBegins Many manuals didn't mention punching, kicking or shoulder charging your opponent either, but they are common tactics. I'm not talking about cutting, even axes don't truly cut plate armour, what they do is dent severely, as can swords. Whack an elbow joint or a shoulder and you can make it almost impossible for an opponent to move their arm. Like in boxing an underhanded tactic will rarely make the instruction manuals.
And how do you know they were common tactics? There really isn't much evidence for punching or kicking opponents, especially in full plate armor; you're more likely to break your hand or have them throw you to the ground, especially "shoulder charging". How do you know these were common tactics? None of the sources I've read have suggested so.
A sword does not have the kinetic force required to dent the armor in the way you suggest, especially not in combat situations.
@HereTheArtBegins If you're heavier than your opponent then shoulder barging is one of the best ways to deal with an upright grapple like locked swords, I doubt there would be any evidence on the armour to show for it or kicking, no more than falling off a stationary horse would leave at any rate. There's foot soldier armour with nice big knuckle spikes on the gauntlets and spikes on the knees, if it was on riding armour I'd believe they're all show, but not foot soldiers.
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
Why would cutting like that be considered an "underhanded tactic"? There are other techniques which target the groin area, or require pinning an opponent and then stabbing them in the joints of the armor. Why would cutting armor be considered underhanded and not those techniques?
How do you know that cutting armor "out of shape" would be employed at all? None of the period resources I've ever read have even suggested that knights would try and do that.
For example, an attack which targets the groin expressedly, from Paulus Hector Mair;
"As he is falling grip with your left hand to your sword’s blade and stab with that to his groin or wherever you want."
I don't see why cutting at your opponent's armor would be seen as "underhanded" and not this; not to mention other techniques like the Mordhau and so on.
@HereTheArtBegins "Using both hands on a weapon allowed for a stronger blow against more heavily armored combatants. Despite changing to meet the need for bashing and stabbing at plate-armor, a sword still needed to be able to cut effectively at other lightly armored opponents. " Even John Clements admits swords had a bashing, hacking element to them, it wasn't their whole game, but it was there.
That's an excerpt from his old, outdated book from the mid 90s. He's admitted many things he wrote in it were wrong and he doesn't utilize that as a primary form of his information any longer.
That's not a part of the system of armored combat he currently teaches.
A more modern quote from the ARMA website states thus;
"Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors."
If swords were used for a bashing, hacking element they'd be the rare exception, more an improvised technique in a bad situation, than something Knights were trained to do.
"Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors."
If swords were used in a bashing, hacking manner against armor they'd be the rare exception; more an improvised technique in a bad situation than anything knights were trained expressedly for.
@HereTheArtBegins -continued- European swords of that era were swung to bash armour against its wearer and deform both plates and chain to create openings that were then exploited by thrusting. The kriegsmesser didn't become popular until after the rise of guns and shedding of large amounts of armour. The closest the Europeans would have encountered to katana at that time would be scimitars on the crusade or possibly early cutlasses.
European swords were /not/ used to bash against armor; no medieval fencing manuals back up this assertion. The primary attempt was to try and use grappling and thrusting to defeat armored opponents.
Sorry, your comment about kriegsmessers actually made me laugh. Kriegsmessers saw their popularity in the 1400s and the early part of the 1500s. This is the /height/ of popularity of plate armor. This is not "after the rise of guns and shedding of large amounts of armor".
@HereTheArtBegins I think it depends more on who figures out their opponent's armour limitations first rather than who's sword is better, both swords would have what it takes to finish the job.
Additionally, all armor is hard to move in. Even Japanese armor. However, how hard it is to move is overstated, especially for people who are well trained in wearing said armor. Japanese armor is also roughly the same weight as European armor. In earlier centuries, Japanese armor is actually /heavier/ and /more/ restrictive than contemporary European armor based upon maille. There is really no evidence that the Japanese would be a "harder target".
@MegaAnonanimal Wow, myth upon myth. There are few better cutters then the Katana (they do exist, but are usually harder to actually use) but there are many better thrusters. There is NO better sword when it come to balancing cutting and thrusting then the European Longsword!!! The Longsword isn't far behind on it's cutting power and is far better in thrusting. The average Katana and average Longsword weigh the same and the armors weigh about the same, but European armor was easier to move in.
@gurkfisk89 the European steel wasn't that shitty kid; if it were made of shitty steel the swordsmiths would have been extremely broke from nobody buy crappy swords. Where do u get the idea that people i European never had a arms vs Armour race in durability.
And stop using Japanese books and locked and loaded as proof; and also don't use Japanese sword shows either(Japanese sword shows use shitty low grade metals).
Because it's not what I have heard. What I know is that if you hit a metal shield like a buckler or a metal rimmed shield it says *clink* and the shield stays intact. If it's a wooden shield the sword often bite into the shield about 10 cm and then get stuck. If you do this continuously the shield will break, but it's still not a cut straight through.
@gurkfisk89 It indeed depends on what of shield is used. A katana is of course unable to cut through a shield reinforced with iron. However, if the swing has enough momentum, it can cut at least halfway through a strong wooden shield. If the shield is not made from very strong wood, or is already battered, it will break. A katana is a lot sharper than other swords.
You can post youtubelinks if you skip the first part like
watch?v=sZOoBDaPNiY
would be the link to this video.
But if I shall find them, can you please give me any good keywords, because when I tried with for example "katana vs shield test" the only relevant videos I found contradicted what you said.
@lorder27 Actually, it really is just as easy as staying on horseback and perforating the little pissant with the lance. Unless you saw him from more than 20 yards out, you will not be able to side-step a charging horse.
As stated in another video, this is a bad video to use for the same reasons. It's basically rubbish packaged for TV that doesn't give us any useful information.
I'm not comfortable with assigning an "Advantage" or "disadvantage" to one or the other, but you shouldn't trust the video that was linked to you just now either. It's invalid for consideration for a number of reasons which I actually describe in the comments section of that very same video.
I go with Samurai. Simply if a samurai is able to knock down a knight and can't get up due to his heavy armor, game over for him. Do I prove my point?
Not really. Knightly armor was never heavy enough to prevent you from getting up, and in fact even full plate armor (Which weighs anywhere from 40-60 pounds typically) is weight-equal to Japanese armor and has /better weight distribution/, making it easier to move in for longer periods of time. This weight, when worn by someone who has trained for years to handle such things, is not going to hinder one's ability to get up from a fall. Think about it, would you wear such armor?
@dinunclv before you comment get the spelling right. its samurai. its even in the damn title, hell, its even in my comment that YOU REPLIED to. besides, what if the samurai hit the knights sword hand, the knight would drop the sword and be defenseless. as i said before, it depends on how well trained the knight or the samurai is.
@anon7096 the knight should be retarded to let the samurai hit his hand, because it is very easy to protect the hands with a knight sword, and don't fucking say anything about my spelling, I guess you can not speak and write in 4 languages
incorrect. knight in full plate armor would win against a samurai. japanese armor and metal is of lesser quality, there for, they would lose. not to mention a knights shield would hold up to every blow a samurai would swing.
meh im posting this cuase i cant reply to a forum some were els the samurai vs knight is epic but this video is wrong knights were SLOW 60-100lbs of armor or even more becaus eu had plate armor chain mail under and padding under that so thats like i said alot of weight to be moveing in and samurai didnt always wear armor and if they did it was lamalar or light leather with laquer lamalar is slow but leather is not and WILL stop a broadsword so this cant be answerd honestly so STFU
Medieval plate armor usually tops out around 60 pounds, with everything included.
The Samurai did not run around wearing just leather. "Lamellar" refers to a specific construction using small squares, often iron or steel, sewn together. It is not a material in its own right. The armor they wore was roughly weight-equivalent to Knightly armor. In fact, during the earlier years Knightly armor was substantially /lighter/ and /more flexible/ than Japanese armor.
@hellwolf882 In regard to cutting power of broadsword, I suggest watching this video on youtube: watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA (name broadsword vs katana). As you can see in the video, katana isn't that much sharper than broadsword.
@sagmann20 Unless there is armor. Or unless the faster blade just greases while the slower blade cleaves right through. And no, the actual swords are similar in all qualities, when a "documentary" adds non-existent sounds of swords unsheathing and tatami cutting, you know they're not about truth, but entertainment and, therefore, bullshit.
@Ranziel1 samurai swords are sharp enough to pierce armor, and strong enough to parry heavy knight swords, in the time it takes a knight to recover from his strong heavy swing a samurai can easily strike vital points. im not saying it would be a slaughter, but knight people often underestimate the samurai's strengths
@sagmann20 Uh, you're the one doing the underestimating here mate. Why would a knight make a big heavy blow that would leave him open? Oh wait, you throw around the "heavy" european sword thing. God. Ok. Just stop. European longswords of the same length as a katana weighed about the same. Also show where you found that katanas can pierce through armor and specify which type, as Knights would use anything from mail to plate harness, which is quite handy at making slashes useless.
@EvilCleric i never said anything about slashes...samurai also wore steel plate armor and were quite effective at killing eachother. fighting techniques employed by knights and samurai though similar in some respects are still different, the edge in speed and technique goes to the samurai
@sagmann20 Nonsense. Why would they be faster or more skillful? What knights and what samurai do you compare? When the institution of knighthood was still strong, prowess was considered one of the virtues and knights were trained from the age of 7.
@sagmann20 Actually no they didn't They wore lamellar armor which is a bunch of square plates of metal woven together. Basically, adanced scale armour. And Give me some proof that he samurai held an edge over the knight in speed and technique.
@sagmann20 Also it wasn't steel squares but iron. Due to the limited amount of iron, it was used only on the most vital areas. The rest of the o-Yoroi was leather
@sagmann20 Katanas are just hefty two handed sabers, they're nothing special, just an overhyped piece of culture from the "mystical east". It's the knight and the medieval Europe in general that's seen barbaric and uneducated by the masses, that, in contrast, idealize Japan. But that's all romantic crap. Swordsmen were grown men that tried to kill each other grown men by hitting them hard enough with sharpened steel bars. That's the essence, they were not much different, no matter the nation.
@Ranziel1 a katana is not hefty, it was designed to be light, considering the people weilding them are much smaller and less strong than knights. I dont care what studies you have done, it is ridiculous to state a knight's sword is equal in weight to a katana. you are right however that the differences are minute, as is the case with many styles, the more effective they are the more similar they are across the board
@sagmann20 It is hefty, blade heavy, it's overall mass is medium, but it's a designed cutter. There were way too many kinds of swords to generalize, but there are plenty of katanas with point of balance being further down the blade. Now, the second one. How funny you say "I don't cae what studies you have done", what are you basing your statements on? That tingling feeling inside that you got from anime, hollywood and discovery channel?
@sagmann20 Odd comment, considering a Knight's broadsword was intended to be a one handed design, whereas a Katana was a typically a two handed sword.
@sagmann20 ''Sharp to pierce armor''? The tip can surely go a little through the plate, but behind is chainmail so i doubt it would kill someone, and this is penetration not cutting. No cutting edge can cut through metal, not like you cut a tomato (that's cutting). Furthermore the knight's sword are per inch of blade actually lig
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD
JESUS CHRIST is the light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Turn to Jesus Christ !
MessageWarning 5 months ago
Debating the finer nuances of medieval warfare aside, why the hell is the samurai wearing geta clogs?
theanth 6 months ago
next video he would kill the dragon
Firanolfind 7 months ago
ate samuraes, like Knight
Firanolfind 7 months ago
The katana is 100% superior to all english made swords.When it comes to peircing armour it goes through plate better then a english broadsword.
mrmitro 7 months ago
@mrmitro You are correct as far as armor-piercing capabilities go, but the impact would also severely damage the katana and there is no guarantee that it could be recovered, much less that the blow would be immediately fatal for the knight. On the other hand, samurai armor would not hold up well against a heavy sword such as that the European knight traditionally would carry.
EschenbachClock 7 months ago
@EschenbachClock
How is he correct, exactly?
Katana, a cutting/slashing sword is better at piercing armor than a sword specifically designed to pierce armor (like many Renaissance-era European swords were)?
And the swords European knights used to carry weren't heavier than a katana at all.
Depending on the era, in fact, they might actually be lighter...
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@Zyamaman Well, maybe not. I wrote this when I still listened to people who owned katanas...
But you're right; European swords weren't heavy so much as it was simply tiring to wield one in a fight for a long time. Thus, the need for consistent training. I think people simply assume that anything from Asia is quicker and more based in intellect than anything from Europe, which I find to be annoying.
EschenbachClock 7 months ago
@EschenbachClock
It's just that European martial arts suffered from decades of bad rep due to half-assed hollywood misinterpretation (they still do, actually).
It's true that eastern martial arts are intelligent and elegant. Few people actually know that the same can be said about their western counterparts...
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@mrmitro
Total nonsense - the katana is absolutely not suited for piercing armor.
It's not very for at stabbing to begin with, seeing as it's a cutting-oriented sword, let alone trying to puncture actual tempered steel - no way, no how.
Even with a European stabbing-oriented sword, like an Estoc, it's still gonna be very difficult - only in the gaps, and probably only by half-swording.
A cutting sword, no matter what kind, is simply not up to the job.
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@mrmitro
please show me a sword, be it japanese or european that can cut through any plate armour and I'll agree.
FingonNL 5 months ago
@FingonNL its definitly not imposible he hit him in the joint were no armor is protecting
Kole208 1 month ago
Cool video =)
quillaja 7 months ago
lol epic
Falandorn 7 months ago
This the first I've seen Stikfas used to animate. Very cool.
aztekarrow 7 months ago
重装備の敵、相手な刀で受け流して組んで脇差で一撃で仕留めるように教わるぞ。
この侍は脇差も小柄も持ってない＞＜；
tsukasa4649ne 7 months ago
Why on earth do people think that the katana is naturally supreme? Not every man holding one is transformed into a martial arts master!! Get a grip! This was a purely fun video- I liked it!
TheLastVelkirk 8 months ago
@TheLastVelkirk i agree. its the man behind the sword that changes the battle.
nicothegreat795 7 months ago
samurai beat knights in real life. knights faget enough 2 wear armor das boo shiiit
mahnahchichi808 8 months ago
This video is actually a decent mock up of what would happen. The samurai may score more hits, but the katana is ineffective against the knight's armor while the longsword is effective against the samurai's armor. Samurai had less coverage and it works against them.
@mahnahchichi808 Samurai have armor comparable to a medieval coat of plates, does that make them gay too? All warriors in history (and today) have some form of armor, and for good reason (it helps you not die).
demomanchaos 7 months ago
@demomanchaos but samurais armor is weeker but if they both take out the armor samurai would win
mahnahchichi808 7 months ago
@mahnahchichi808 Not necessarily. There are far far more things you can do with a longsword than you can do with a katana. Like a wrapping backedge cut, which is great for getting around defenses and is something the samurai wouldn't know about (dealing only with single edge blades). When half-swording, you can quickly swing the pommel around for devastating effect. You can even hold the sword backwards and turn it into a blunt weapon, then quickly swing the blade back around.
demomanchaos 7 months ago
HAHAHA nice!
gczing 8 months ago
be a dictator, a revolutionary
you must face women, to complete the missionary
or if you seek men, then make them bow,
so you may deliver, a congress of the cow,
but if your lost, and your dreams are dark and foggy
you can never go wrong, with doing doggy
~fin
roush26 8 months ago
i am a master of bations,
feel my thrust, with a blade,
that pentrates the hole, of your despair,
cum in the battle, of blade thrusting men,
and penetrate your enemies, into submission
~fin
roush26 8 months ago
does anyone know the name of the music right at the beginning???
fuhrerschein2008 8 months ago
good work. thats original !
Davidsolo1 8 months ago 2
205 people disappoited because katana didn't win
AleksandarTadich 8 months ago
Ehhhhh...
TheOnlyInformant 9 months ago
oops triple post xD
MrXXMW2GLITCHESXx 9 months ago
i shit my self when i saw the likes
Horrible
MrXXMW2GLITCHESXx 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i shit myself when i saw the likes lol
bottom line this was horrible... -_-
MrXXMW2GLITCHESXx 9 months ago
i shit myself when i saw the likes lol
bottom line this was horrible... -_-
MrXXMW2GLITCHESXx 9 months ago
@MrXXMW2GLITCHESXx . It was amusing.
Ethendel 8 months ago
wtf
TheBlowerUp 9 months ago
if this was made in 2006, shouldnt there be a part two by now?
RobloxMan6 9 months ago
European swords are commonly double-edged, straight, semi-heavy swords, very good at stabbing, mediocre at slashing. Until about 987 AD, the Japanese used similar swords carried over from China. The revolutionary idea behind the katana was to make a sword balanced very well in both stabbing AND slashing.
As for the Japanese armor, it was there for IF you got hit, not when. While full plate european armor was strong, it was hard to move in. Samurai had more fluidity, thus making a harder target.
MegaAnonanimal 9 months ago
@MegaAnonanimal
A lot of what you just said is actually very wrong. European swords tend to be roughly around the same weight as Japanese swords. I know of Japanese swords which are much heavier than typical European swords.
Additionally, they were also good at both cutting and thrusting; mixing both concepts is not revolutionary. The Chinese did it, the Europeans did it, the Koreans did it, the Arabs did it, and so on.
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I'm going to use different terms here, the japanese sword was meant for slicing, that's why its blade is curved. The idea is to keep the blade in contact with the target as long as possible. The European sword is made to chop rather than slice, part bash, part cut just like an axe. The reason being chainmail's resistance to slicing. Curved swords avaliable to the Europeans at the time just didn't do the job. A katana is different to anything in Europe though.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
The axe analogy doesn't really work. There is no "bashing" element in European swords. It's just a cut. It's not a "chop". Katana simply cut as well; they just have an additional element which makes use of the inherent circularity in cutting.
The katana isn't that different. Look up "Kriegsmesser".
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins The European sword uses a completely different swing to a katana. A katana is swung with the intent of sliding against an enemy's armour creating a slicing motion, which is why the sword is crescent shaped. The broad or longsword is straight and slightly wedge shaped ending in a point - continued
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
Both use relatively similar cuts. They are not "completely different swings".
There are a wide variet of cross sections for longswords; some are wedge shaped, some are not. The cross sections of katana can by and large be wedge-shaped as well.
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I'm not talking about the cross section, I'm talking about the silhouette or profile of the sword. Japanese swords were specialised to a certain technique of use. The European two handed swords were built to be able to chop the legs off one side of a horse, bash armour, helmets, swords and shields beyond recognition, don't get me wrong, they'd cut through a person even slice, but they were built to handle a large amount of rough treatment.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
No historical evidence details that European swords were used to bash armor helmets, swords or shields beyond recognition. The medieval fencing masters directly stated that the proper use was to utilize grappling and thrusts at the joints and gaps in armor.
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins There's proof in the armour and the swords themselves. Historians have documented the fact that as plate armour began to rise in popularity swordplay was forced to use brute force more in attacking, the most effective way of dealing with chain and plate armour was impact shots to create openings, rather than swap for hammers many knights and richer soldiers elected to modify the sword design, toughen it up for hitting as well as cutting.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
Proof in the armor and swords themselves? Such as what? European swords didn't become heavier in general during the period of plate, and we actually saw more designs oriented for /thrusting/, not /cutting/.
Historians such as whom? Most experts on swords that I know of, such as John Clements, Ewart Oakeshott, and a plethora of other HEMA practitioners actually agree that there is /no/ evidence that swords were used for bashing. Who are these historians you refer to?
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I'll track them down when I can walk to the uni library, they had a whole ballistic reasoning and swordplay diagrams, it was good stuff.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
Too bad actual historical evidence indicate of a trend exactly OPPOSITE to what you described here.
Blades were gradually becoming lighter and stiffer, more suitable for stabbing, less suitable for cutting.
Otherwise, how do you explain the transition from the arming sword to the cut & thrust sword, and then to the rapier (100% stabbing blade)?
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@Zyamaman That came with the addition of guns to the arsenal. As guns developed people realised that musket balls penetrate plate armour so they lightened the load for mobility, just breastplate and helmet like the spanish conquistadores and modern military, the best defence against guns is not being in their path. Swords got reduced to the cavalry and officers, a 'gentleman's weapon' then later for duels and tournaments where fighters wore no armour.
psychedashell 7 months ago
@psychedashell
Nope, during the 15th-16th centuries (the "golden age" of the full plate), a distinct trend of shifting towards lighter/stabbing blades can be traced for the knight's sword.
During this time, you were much more likely to see a knight with a light side-sword, or a stab-oriented longsword or broadsword (a rather ambiguous term, that last one)
The process you described in your posts didn't start until the 17th century, a time when firearm development overshadowed armor completely.
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@Zyamaman The stabbing lightswords, rapiers and the like weren't developed as a war sword. They were developed as a dress sword, during the 15th and 16th century they were still pumping out new designs for bastard swords, claymores and other beheamoth blades that worked on the premise of axe, spear and warhammer in one weapon while the rapier developed around dinner table squabbles, even the name is believed to be a coinage for "robe sword".
psychedashell 7 months ago
@psychedashell
Utter nonsense - stop making stuff up.
The idea that cut & thrust swords and rapiers weren't used on the battlefield is plainly false - they were utilized both by infantrymen and armored knights, and there is plenty of historical records and painting to prove it.
As for the idea that bastard swords and zweihanders (not claymores) were "behemoths" is nothing but uneducated nonsense - they never weighted more than 4 and 8 pounds respectively.
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@psychedashell
And what you're describing here as a "dress sword" is most likely a simple mix-up between the rapier and the small sword on your part.
The small sword is, indeed, a civilian development of the rapier, but those two terms are NOT mutually interchangeable - those are two fundamentally different weapons, make no mistake about it.
Zyamaman 7 months ago
@Zyamaman A rapier is a small sword, despite being longer than 36 inches and weighing ten pounds-which does bring up the question of how they class them...I did make a mistake, you're right about countries like France, Italy and Spain heading towards lighter , narrower swords late in armour's glory days. However, what I said about mangling swords still holds true for England, Germany, Scotland and Norway. Mangle with a chop, stab the opening.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
A "small sword" is a specific type of sword; it's also called a "court sword" or "Dress sword".
Rapiers did NOT weigh ten pounds; most were under 3 and I've never seen one more than 3.5 pounds. Could you direct me to some evidence for ten pound rapier? Most European swords in general weigh under 4 pounds; I don't know where this "ten pound rapier" shit comes from.
Rapier were used extensively in England, Germany, Scotland, and Norway as well. You have a poor image of swords.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@psychedashell
Actually many stabbing oriented swords /were/ designed as war swords. Especially longswords, because the primary method of attacking armor was to go for the weak points in armor.
You're going to have to face it. There is no real evidence for European swords in general operating like you want them to; Europeans instead employed highly technical martial arts in order to exploit the weaknesses in armor; not to clumsily bash through it using weight and arm strength.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@psychedashell
FYI; Bastard Sword is simply another name for a Longsword; a Medieval weapon which was highly sophisticated and used to employ a technical form of swordsmanship which relied upon skill, timing, and precision; not axe-like bashing.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins The timing and precision came after you create an opening, I'm not saying they just hacked like a wood chopper, I'm saying it was a tactical descision (like a boxer opening cuts over an opponents eye to impair their vision) the spear part came when openings were created.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
The openings aren't created via cutting however, you create the openings via halfswording and grappling. None of the fechtbuch suggest trying to cut an opponent in armor to "create an opening".
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins Many manuals didn't mention punching, kicking or shoulder charging your opponent either, but they are common tactics. I'm not talking about cutting, even axes don't truly cut plate armour, what they do is dent severely, as can swords. Whack an elbow joint or a shoulder and you can make it almost impossible for an opponent to move their arm. Like in boxing an underhanded tactic will rarely make the instruction manuals.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
And how do you know they were common tactics? There really isn't much evidence for punching or kicking opponents, especially in full plate armor; you're more likely to break your hand or have them throw you to the ground, especially "shoulder charging". How do you know these were common tactics? None of the sources I've read have suggested so.
A sword does not have the kinetic force required to dent the armor in the way you suggest, especially not in combat situations.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins If you're heavier than your opponent then shoulder barging is one of the best ways to deal with an upright grapple like locked swords, I doubt there would be any evidence on the armour to show for it or kicking, no more than falling off a stationary horse would leave at any rate. There's foot soldier armour with nice big knuckle spikes on the gauntlets and spikes on the knees, if it was on riding armour I'd believe they're all show, but not foot soldiers.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@psychedashell
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psychedashell
Shoulder charging would also open you up to being thrown on your head by a skilled grappler; as most knights were. No one in Medieval Europe fought with "locked swords", as there are plenty of techniques which work off of crossed swords; such as close-range grappling.
I've never seen any foot soldier armor with spikes on the knees or on the gauntlets. Could you show me some? All the armors I've seen at most have fluting for defensive purposes, but I've never seen spikes.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@psychedashell
Why would cutting like that be considered an "underhanded tactic"? There are other techniques which target the groin area, or require pinning an opponent and then stabbing them in the joints of the armor. Why would cutting armor be considered underhanded and not those techniques?
How do you know that cutting armor "out of shape" would be employed at all? None of the period resources I've ever read have even suggested that knights would try and do that.
So how do you know?
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@psychedashell
For example, an attack which targets the groin expressedly, from Paulus Hector Mair;
"As he is falling grip with your left hand to your sword’s blade and stab with that to his groin or wherever you want."
I don't see why cutting at your opponent's armor would be seen as "underhanded" and not this; not to mention other techniques like the Mordhau and so on.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins "Using both hands on a weapon allowed for a stronger blow against more heavily armored combatants. Despite changing to meet the need for bashing and stabbing at plate-armor, a sword still needed to be able to cut effectively at other lightly armored opponents. " Even John Clements admits swords had a bashing, hacking element to them, it wasn't their whole game, but it was there.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
That's an excerpt from his old, outdated book from the mid 90s. He's admitted many things he wrote in it were wrong and he doesn't utilize that as a primary form of his information any longer.
That's not a part of the system of armored combat he currently teaches.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins Fair enough.
psychedashell 6 months ago
@psychedashell
A more modern quote from the ARMA website states thus;
"Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors."
If swords were used for a bashing, hacking element they'd be the rare exception, more an improvised technique in a bad situation, than something Knights were trained to do.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psychedashell
A more modern quote from the ARMA states;
"Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors."
If swords were used in a bashing, hacking manner against armor they'd be the rare exception; more an improvised technique in a bad situation than anything knights were trained expressedly for.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins -continued- European swords of that era were swung to bash armour against its wearer and deform both plates and chain to create openings that were then exploited by thrusting. The kriegsmesser didn't become popular until after the rise of guns and shedding of large amounts of armour. The closest the Europeans would have encountered to katana at that time would be scimitars on the crusade or possibly early cutlasses.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@psychedashell
European swords were /not/ used to bash against armor; no medieval fencing manuals back up this assertion. The primary attempt was to try and use grappling and thrusting to defeat armored opponents.
Sorry, your comment about kriegsmessers actually made me laugh. Kriegsmessers saw their popularity in the 1400s and the early part of the 1500s. This is the /height/ of popularity of plate armor. This is not "after the rise of guns and shedding of large amounts of armor".
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I think it depends more on who figures out their opponent's armour limitations first rather than who's sword is better, both swords would have what it takes to finish the job.
psychedashell 9 months ago
@MegaAnonanimal
Additionally, all armor is hard to move in. Even Japanese armor. However, how hard it is to move is overstated, especially for people who are well trained in wearing said armor. Japanese armor is also roughly the same weight as European armor. In earlier centuries, Japanese armor is actually /heavier/ and /more/ restrictive than contemporary European armor based upon maille. There is really no evidence that the Japanese would be a "harder target".
HereTheArtBegins 9 months ago
@MegaAnonanimal Wow, myth upon myth. There are few better cutters then the Katana (they do exist, but are usually harder to actually use) but there are many better thrusters. There is NO better sword when it come to balancing cutting and thrusting then the European Longsword!!! The Longsword isn't far behind on it's cutting power and is far better in thrusting. The average Katana and average Longsword weigh the same and the armors weigh about the same, but European armor was easier to move in.
Altonahk 9 months ago
That was pretty awesome. Nice work, cool film.
megaasdfgh1 9 months ago
What are the songs from this video called?
GeneralAnimator 10 months ago
That was sweet. Lol!
GuitarLinkPlayer 10 months ago
Nice ! ;d
94Rafix 10 months ago
作者凄いな。お気に入り
good move!!
zero123045607890 10 months ago
The kantana would break the knight's sword
aznfromhk 10 months ago
@aznfromhk maybe if the knight sword was made of shitty paper.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
@Sugardaddy501
But if you fold the shitty paper thousands of times...
gurkfisk89 10 months ago
@gurkfisk89 the European steel wasn't that shitty kid; if it were made of shitty steel the swordsmiths would have been extremely broke from nobody buy crappy swords. Where do u get the idea that people i European never had a arms vs Armour race in durability.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
look stuff up before you spew pop culture generalized and unproven bullshit. And what you say would never stand up to a real scientific test.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
And stop using Japanese books and locked and loaded as proof; and also don't use Japanese sword shows either(Japanese sword shows use shitty low grade metals).
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
@Sugardaddy501
Haha, I didn't make the ignorant post about any sword breaking an other. =)
I was just saying that folding your paper would give it magical strength (if it's done in japan, regular pattern folded paper will not do anything).
Have a nice day.
gurkfisk89 10 months ago
@gurkfisk89 lol i was aiming for aznfrohmk; my bad.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
gute arbeit, jungs........
ulgraf1 11 months ago
I wanna see the next part, the fight with the dragon.
henjokongo 11 months ago
from what song is the intro?
selftitled14 11 months ago
sword and shield is better than a two handed sword
Intheend4226 11 months ago
@Intheend4226 Not always. A strong warrior with a sharp sword, can cut straight through a shield.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe
Can you please tell me where you got that info?
Because it's not what I have heard. What I know is that if you hit a metal shield like a buckler or a metal rimmed shield it says *clink* and the shield stays intact. If it's a wooden shield the sword often bite into the shield about 10 cm and then get stuck. If you do this continuously the shield will break, but it's still not a cut straight through.
gurkfisk89 11 months ago
@gurkfisk89 It indeed depends on what of shield is used. A katana is of course unable to cut through a shield reinforced with iron. However, if the swing has enough momentum, it can cut at least halfway through a strong wooden shield. If the shield is not made from very strong wood, or is already battered, it will break. A katana is a lot sharper than other swords.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe
Do you have any video source for anyone doing this? Or any written sources?
gurkfisk89 11 months ago
@gurkfisk89 There are a few videos about it on Youtube, but since I can't post any links here, you'll have to find them yourself.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe
You can post youtubelinks if you skip the first part like
watch?v=sZOoBDaPNiY
would be the link to this video.
But if I shall find them, can you please give me any good keywords, because when I tried with for example "katana vs shield test" the only relevant videos I found contradicted what you said.
gurkfisk89 11 months ago
NONONO YODA WINS =)
Gerkan1997 11 months ago
¬¬ pq o samurai morreu? q paia
SamuxDuble 11 months ago
What is this Tomfoolery!?
g4GHornet 1 year ago
@g4GHornet a stop motion movie?
malevolenceXXXensues 1 year ago
this unrealistec a knight is not that agile with all that heavy armour
Spartajim112 1 year ago
@Spartajim112
Samurai wore about the same amount of weight in their armor.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
Excellent! Well thought out and produced.
perrymays 1 year ago
rofl @1:17
GraveUypo 1 year ago
GUNDAM
c00lb0y10 1 year ago
I really hoped the Samurai would win, but from what this eposide shown, the Samurai didn't really train that well. The Knight was lucky I guess X3
Where did you get the figures by the way? They look pretty neat :3
eth92 1 year ago
EPIC!
Zaeboshi 1 year ago
Dont get off the horse you stupid fucker! run him through with the lance!
WarrivarNeo 1 year ago 30
@WarrivarNeo It ain't that easy, especialy versus a samurai
lorder27 9 months ago
@lorder27 Actually, it really is just as easy as staying on horseback and perforating the little pissant with the lance. Unless you saw him from more than 20 yards out, you will not be able to side-step a charging horse.
TheKNH86 9 months ago
samurai should've won
ShadowDragoon09 1 year ago
stop fighting about who the better warrior is and appreciate the goddamn artist for fucks sake...
good video man, very well done and entertaining :)
spectraldistortion 1 year ago
That little flash-back was hysterical
smurfdance 1 year ago
Id say the samurai would have the disadvantage. Katana is for slashing... knights have metal armor
bobjoemagee 1 year ago
@bobjoemagee /watch?v=EDkoj932YFo&feature=related
;)
matrixwarsz 1 year ago
@matrixwarsz
As stated in another video, this is a bad video to use for the same reasons. It's basically rubbish packaged for TV that doesn't give us any useful information.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
Comment removed
matrixwarsz 1 year ago
@bobjoemagee
I'm not comfortable with assigning an "Advantage" or "disadvantage" to one or the other, but you shouldn't trust the video that was linked to you just now either. It's invalid for consideration for a number of reasons which I actually describe in the comments section of that very same video.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
I go with Samurai. Simply if a samurai is able to knock down a knight and can't get up due to his heavy armor, game over for him. Do I prove my point?
USArmyTheStrong 1 year ago
@USArmyTheStrong xm11yAXeegg
No, you don't, not really.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@USArmyTheStrong
Not really. Knightly armor was never heavy enough to prevent you from getting up, and in fact even full plate armor (Which weighs anywhere from 40-60 pounds typically) is weight-equal to Japanese armor and has /better weight distribution/, making it easier to move in for longer periods of time. This weight, when worn by someone who has trained for years to handle such things, is not going to hinder one's ability to get up from a fall. Think about it, would you wear such armor?
Caliburnis 1 year ago
lol thts so fail
adamardoin13 1 year ago
knight FTW every time. one hit
MrRazzeldazzel88 1 year ago
omg a dragon lol
zerosuper420 1 year ago 4
Really? So easy when you play with toys to stack the deck.
DeathDealer2469 1 year ago
OMG! WHAT WERE THESE TOYS CALLED AGAIN???
VinceMysta 1 year ago
I'd have answered to Hollow's quoting one of my comments, but he was already stomped, so why bother. Have a nice day!
Ranziel1 1 year ago
thearma.*org/essays/knightvs.*htm
Further reading for any interested parties. Remove asterisks to view.
TaliesinKyte 1 year ago
Hee hee...or were you leaving? Does little kid now wish to flee with dignity?
TaliesinKyte 1 year ago
Did you not notice any of the websites I gave you?
TaliesinKyte 1 year ago
Or...you COULD literally just scroll up to the top of this page, type "katana" and scroll down to the sixth option.
TaliesinKyte 1 year ago
thearma.*org/essays/longsword-and-katana.*html
middle-ages.*org.uk/knights-armor.*html
These sites, minus asterisks, will tell you all you need to know on these two concerns.
TaliesinKyte 1 year ago
Why the knight does bartitsu?
los4piromanosycompa 1 year ago
a samurai would easily win in real life. if not then chuck norris would come and slaughter the knight.
anon7096 1 year ago
@anon7096 how come? i think the knight would have won in real life
MrSindari 1 year ago
@MrSindari it depends on how well trained the knight or the samurai is.
anon7096 1 year ago 20
@anon7096 it doesn't a samury sword would get heavy damage in an impact with a knight sword, the samuray has no chance
dinunclv 1 year ago
@dinunclv before you comment get the spelling right. its samurai. its even in the damn title, hell, its even in my comment that YOU REPLIED to. besides, what if the samurai hit the knights sword hand, the knight would drop the sword and be defenseless. as i said before, it depends on how well trained the knight or the samurai is.
anon7096 1 year ago
@anon7096 the knight should be retarded to let the samurai hit his hand, because it is very easy to protect the hands with a knight sword, and don't fucking say anything about my spelling, I guess you can not speak and write in 4 languages
dinunclv 1 year ago
@anon7096
incorrect. knight in full plate armor would win against a samurai. japanese armor and metal is of lesser quality, there for, they would lose. not to mention a knights shield would hold up to every blow a samurai would swing.
dnothing23 9 months ago
lol nice job
Titleification 1 year ago
Very neat. Must have taken a long time.
JohnRaptor 1 year ago
short story of what would have happened. lanced in face!
patrickwise06 1 year ago
why would you ever get off a horse?
TehCthulhu 1 year ago 23
@TehCthulhu Horses are to guard and you tend to be much slower
kairiXII 11 months ago
So the guys in heavy armors does kung fu? :D
Tralfagal 1 year ago
meh im posting this cuase i cant reply to a forum some were els the samurai vs knight is epic but this video is wrong knights were SLOW 60-100lbs of armor or even more becaus eu had plate armor chain mail under and padding under that so thats like i said alot of weight to be moveing in and samurai didnt always wear armor and if they did it was lamalar or light leather with laquer lamalar is slow but leather is not and WILL stop a broadsword so this cant be answerd honestly so STFU
hellwolf882 1 year ago
@hellwolf882 Ever heard of punctuation?
mrbeast85 1 year ago
@hellwolf882
Medieval plate armor usually tops out around 60 pounds, with everything included.
The Samurai did not run around wearing just leather. "Lamellar" refers to a specific construction using small squares, often iron or steel, sewn together. It is not a material in its own right. The armor they wore was roughly weight-equivalent to Knightly armor. In fact, during the earlier years Knightly armor was substantially /lighter/ and /more flexible/ than Japanese armor.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@hellwolf882 In regard to cutting power of broadsword, I suggest watching this video on youtube: watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA (name broadsword vs katana). As you can see in the video, katana isn't that much sharper than broadsword.
justaguy08 1 year ago
much faster though, and when ur talking sword fighting, the blade that gets there first wins
sagmann20 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Unless there is armor. Or unless the faster blade just greases while the slower blade cleaves right through. And no, the actual swords are similar in all qualities, when a "documentary" adds non-existent sounds of swords unsheathing and tatami cutting, you know they're not about truth, but entertainment and, therefore, bullshit.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 samurai swords are sharp enough to pierce armor, and strong enough to parry heavy knight swords, in the time it takes a knight to recover from his strong heavy swing a samurai can easily strike vital points. im not saying it would be a slaughter, but knight people often underestimate the samurai's strengths
sagmann20 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Uh, you're the one doing the underestimating here mate. Why would a knight make a big heavy blow that would leave him open? Oh wait, you throw around the "heavy" european sword thing. God. Ok. Just stop. European longswords of the same length as a katana weighed about the same. Also show where you found that katanas can pierce through armor and specify which type, as Knights would use anything from mail to plate harness, which is quite handy at making slashes useless.
EvilCleric 1 year ago
@EvilCleric i never said anything about slashes...samurai also wore steel plate armor and were quite effective at killing eachother. fighting techniques employed by knights and samurai though similar in some respects are still different, the edge in speed and technique goes to the samurai
sagmann20 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Nonsense. Why would they be faster or more skillful? What knights and what samurai do you compare? When the institution of knighthood was still strong, prowess was considered one of the virtues and knights were trained from the age of 7.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Actually no they didn't They wore lamellar armor which is a bunch of square plates of metal woven together. Basically, adanced scale armour. And Give me some proof that he samurai held an edge over the knight in speed and technique.
EvilCleric 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Also it wasn't steel squares but iron. Due to the limited amount of iron, it was used only on the most vital areas. The rest of the o-Yoroi was leather
EvilCleric 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Katanas are just hefty two handed sabers, they're nothing special, just an overhyped piece of culture from the "mystical east". It's the knight and the medieval Europe in general that's seen barbaric and uneducated by the masses, that, in contrast, idealize Japan. But that's all romantic crap. Swordsmen were grown men that tried to kill each other grown men by hitting them hard enough with sharpened steel bars. That's the essence, they were not much different, no matter the nation.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 a katana is not hefty, it was designed to be light, considering the people weilding them are much smaller and less strong than knights. I dont care what studies you have done, it is ridiculous to state a knight's sword is equal in weight to a katana. you are right however that the differences are minute, as is the case with many styles, the more effective they are the more similar they are across the board
sagmann20 1 year ago
@sagmann20 It is hefty, blade heavy, it's overall mass is medium, but it's a designed cutter. There were way too many kinds of swords to generalize, but there are plenty of katanas with point of balance being further down the blade. Now, the second one. How funny you say "I don't cae what studies you have done", what are you basing your statements on? That tingling feeling inside that you got from anime, hollywood and discovery channel?
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@sagmann20 Odd comment, considering a Knight's broadsword was intended to be a one handed design, whereas a Katana was a typically a two handed sword.
KatakiDoragon 1 year ago
@sagmann20 ''Sharp to pierce armor''? The tip can surely go a little through the plate, but behind is chainmail so i doubt it would kill someone, and this is penetration not cutting. No cutting edge can cut through metal, not like you cut a tomato (that's cutting). Furthermore the knight's sword are per inch of blade actually lig