Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
Do4600 said:
My point was that it's weird to assume that a knight would have all his equipment and a samurai be denied his.
What you were doing was denying the knight access to his other weapons and giving the samurai access to theirs.
No, I wasn't, I was denying that a samurai would use his long sword against a knight, he would at least use his naginata or yari even dismounted before he drew his sword, and I don't know why you're so interested in this post I wasn't even responding to YOUR post.
demoman_chaos said:
Swords are simply iron/steel/bronze bars with sharp edges. There are only so many ways you can move them. A cutting sword can only be manipulated in a certain fashion. The minor details might be different, but a vertical cut is a vertical cut. The front edge can only be used in certain ways. The back edge throws a dynamic into the fight that the Japanese wouldn't be used to dealing with, while all sword arts teach how to deal with the front edge.
You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
I'm unsure what you mean by 'little more than a presentation of the blade'? Do you mean in terms of length (extension of the arm lets you strike the wrist) or that there's not much to the cut? You can get a reasonable amount of impetus behind even such a small cut, but it's hardly going to severe the wrist, for example. I would disagree entirely about the length side of things.

The name of the footwork I was referring to is an inquirtata. I mostly used it to counter thrust, but supposedly it's also useful as an offensive action. It wasn't followed by a lunge (hence takes place in a single fencing time).

I have done single rapier enough to know that it is a viable weapon in and of itself. I should point out that I made a typo in my last post, I meant to say that if both fencers have only a single rapier there is no disadvantage. There is an advantage to having an off-hand weapon. But that's kind of like saying that you can't do highland broadsword with a targe - which is simply not true, the style works extremely well without a targe, but it arguably works better with one.

Also from what I can tell you seem to be implying that the defense with the rapier requires a riposte? I wouldn't say that's true. It's advisable but not a strict requirement of staying alive (in that single pass).



cerebus23 said:
Supposedly in well made plate armour you were meant to be able to do cartwheels, so the being able to 'out move' part is probably not true.

Samurai were well trained in jujutsu, aikido has been around for less than a century, and even jujutsu isn't really that old (started around 1530, and this is coming from a jujutsu practitioner). And similarly knights were trained in wrestling etc. (in fact, Fiore has certain actions that are identical to actions in jujutsu, which I found very interesting). The point being, as you say, both are professional soldiers and trying to point out any inherent difference of skill is pointless (so we are in agreement here). Although one should note that the rapier is not a knightly weapon, so that point is kinda moot.

I would disagree that the Japanese had the most advanced forging techniques in the world, for a great variety of reasons mentioned in this thread alone (the fact that the Europeans were doing a lot of similar things earlier in their history and so on). This is not to say they weren't good at forging swords, they just weren't better than everybody else. In fact, I would argue that within reason 'better than' makes no sense here, because their weapons were all designed for different uses. The European swords were good at what they were designed to do, and the Japanese swords were good at what they were designed to do. In terms of rapier vs katana, the material differences don't really play a role. Perhaps they would for say, longsword vs katana, but that's not this discussion and probably equally pointless.

Otherwise, the katana is far from the only sword with a soft core design - differential tempering was not unique to Japan. The other thing is that the katana is actually quite short and heavy compared to European swords (e.g. the longsword is typically longer and lighter than the katana). The point is that the Europeans were doing a lot of similar things for similar reasons.

Also while I agree in principle that both parties can think on their feet to deal with the opponent's weapon, the point a lot of people are making is true - the rapier fencer was likely to have experience with combat against weapons like a katana (longswords, sabres, etc.), while the Japanese were (mostly) fighting themselves. I don't think that gives a huge advantage to the rapier fencer though.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
I'm unsure what you mean by 'little more than a presentation of the blade'? Do you mean in terms of length (extension of the arm lets you strike the wrist) or that there's not much to the cut? You can get a reasonable amount of impetus behind even such a small cut, but it's hardly going to severe the wrist, for example. I would disagree entirely about the length side of things.
Presentation is simply that - the arm is extended and a threat issued in a given line. If you are close enough that the tip of your blade extends past the tip of your opponent, there exists a viable target that can be reached with this simple action. Yes, the guard is a defense against such things and relatively small motions at the elbow would suffice as a defense but that does not detract from the fact that simple extension can reach the opponent and inflict a wound.

In modern sport Epee, a great many touches are achieved through this very action in spite of the enormous guard!

Wyes said:
The name of the footwork I was referring to is an inquirtata. I mostly used it to counter thrust, but supposedly it's also useful as an offensive action. It wasn't followed by a lunge (hence takes place in a single fencing time).
The inquirtata is a displacement action and I agree it is generally used as a counter attack. But the resulting position of the feet (i.e. they are often closer together) means that if a follow on lunge was attempted, you would gain distance on the resulting lunge.

Wyes said:
I have done single rapier enough to know that it is a viable weapon in and of itself. I should point out that I made a typo in my last post, I meant to say that if both fencers have only a single rapier there is no disadvantage. There is an advantage to having an off-hand weapon. But that's kind of like saying that you can't do highland broadsword with a targe - which is simply not true, the style works extremely well without a targe, but it arguably works better with one.
I think on this point we simply have to disagree. I can agree that it is possible to fence with a rapier by itself, I just think that one would be foolish to do so. Much the same as one could fence with a tiny guard on their blade.

Wyes said:
Also from what I can tell you seem to be implying that the defense with the rapier requires a riposte? I wouldn't say that's true. It's advisable but not a strict requirement of staying alive (in that single pass).
The rapier favored actions in single time which is to say that a reposte would follow in the same line as the parry in conjunction with a glide or similar action with the goal of maintaining control of the opponents weapon. Lighter and faster blades made this less necessary and the parry-reposte evolved into something that was more often two discreet actions rather than a single extended action. Again, this isn't to say that the rapier was incapable of such actions (they are described in various manuals after all), just that they were not widely favored.

But, in a broader sense, there is little practical reason to seize the offensive with a parry only to immediately relinquish it especially when both parties are using a weapon that would make a parry following an attack challenging. Given that a properly executed parry already places the attacking blade in a position where it has little control over the point, and further given that they are, by necessity, within range of attack (assuming their attack was not an ill conceived feint or merely a mistake) every possible condition for an offensive would have been set. That isn't to say you just just dive into the offensive of course - just that you are in a position where, on average, attacking would be prudent. Fully half of the fundamental actions have been completed following a successful parry - a line has been opened with blade work and the distance has been set leaving just the consideration of delivering the attack with the feet at the proper moment.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Do4600 said:
You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.
You never see THIS [http://www.celticbritain.net/tweehandig20.jpg] in Japan. Nor do you see stuff like this:

As you can see, I am quite knowledgeable on the subject of European martial arts. I am not an expert by no means, nor do I know as much about Eastern arts as I'd like. I don't claim either of those. I do know about the weapons themselves, both how they were forged and what they are capable of. I try to be as unbiased as I can, looking past the hype and myth and seeing what the real things can do. Needless to say, I've seen much more negative Western myths getting smashed and more pro Eastern hype getting debunked than vice versa.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Major Tom said:
cerebus23 said:
Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.
The 100lb figure comes from late period armour designed specifically for the joust, examples like this [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HJRK_S_XIII_-_Jousting_armour_of_Maximilian_I.jpg] and this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KHM_Wien_S_XVI_-_Jousting_armour_of_John_the_Constant,_c._1497-1505,_front.jpg]. Note the lack of articulation on the arms, the very thick faceplate on the helm and the first example has mountings to add extra armour to the breastplate. Pieces like these are at their core sports safety armour, they would never have seen a battlefield precisely because they were too heavy and lacked articulation. As already mentioned field plate was somewhere in the region of 50-70lbs, depending on place of manufacturer and style.

Interestingly enough, much like the term rapier, the armoured knight covers a period of some 600 years with huge evolutions in equipment and weapons. It's something I've not looked very deeply into, but on equipment terms alone the Samurai between the 10th through to the mid 13th century should be able to fight on equal terms with their European counterparts. However, once a goodly amount of plate starts appearing in western armour, then I think the advantage goes to the Europeans, with better materials, more coverage and the articulation and ergonomics to offset the increased weight.

Another interesting point is that the use of shields (as has been brought up several times) also depends greatly on which periods are being pitted together. By the 14th century shields were less common on the battlefield, and in the single combat we are discussing (with a knight in full plate), a shield wouldn't have been used at all, with our knight more than likely using both hands in the half-sword [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword] position.

Edit: More coverage is not quite the right term. More effective coverage would better describe what I'm getting at. Japanese armour has a lot of hanging pieces that could simply be pushed out of the way, whereas western armours conforms more to body contours, and thus more close fitting.

Edit edit: Another thing must be said, in relation to the whole samurai v. knight thing: If the Samurai is wearing an O-Yoroi and is bereft of his horse, he is a severe disadvantage no matter which period he's from. That armour was not designed for foot combat.
But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?

I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
snippy snippy

So he talks about a few of the things we were talking about before, it's a nice little video and I'll certainly have to revisit some of the things I thought before. In particular it seems you were right that two handed weapons don't cut any better than one handed swords.

Eclectic Dreck said:
Presentation is simply that - the arm is extended and a threat issued in a given line. If you are close enough that the tip of your blade extends past the tip of your opponent, there exists a viable target that can be reached with this simple action. Yes, the guard is a defense against such things and relatively small motions at the elbow would suffice as a defense but that does not detract from the fact that simple extension can reach the opponent and inflict a wound.
If the swords are engaged at the tips, there is no way to reach the hand with the blade by a simple extension of the arm. Some kind of lean, step, pass or lunge is necessary. At least, this has been my experience of Italian rapier. It's possible maybe that the hand could be reached, but that is defended by the hilt.

I don't have anything to say about modern fencing, because most of what I've seen of it is almost completely divorced from historical fencing (indeed we get modern fencers turn up at our school from time to time, and the only advantage they have over anybody else who has no historical fencing training is that they're not afraid to get thrusted and they know what the parts of the sword are called, almost everything else has to be trained or retrained from scratch, even the lunge).

Eclectic Dreck said:
The inquirtata is a displacement action and I agree it is generally used as a counter attack. But the resulting position of the feet (i.e. they are often closer together) means that if a follow on lunge was attempted, you would gain distance on the resulting lunge.
While I agree you could get more range out of the inquirtata with a follow up lunge, it seems you'd be too close to want to lunge anyway, unless your opponent had backed off.

Eclectic Dreck said:
I think on this point we simply have to disagree. I can agree that it is possible to fence with a rapier by itself, I just think that one would be foolish to do so. Much the same as one could fence with a tiny guard on their blade.
I'm just not sure where your opinion on this has come from. Mine has come from personal experience with Italian rapier. Also the most impressive (in a technique sense) fight I've ever seen was probably my instructor (using primarily Giganti) fencing Guy Windsor (fencing Capo Ferro I believe, not sure if you'll know the name, he's a renowned fencer/instructor in HEMA circles) in single rapier. They certainly had no problems fencing without an off-hand weapon, and they probably fought for 2-3 minutes before my instructor finally landed a blow. Unfortunately I don't have a video to show, because it was an informal night of free play before Guy flew back to Helsinki (from Sydney, so quite a long flight...). I did find this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Llfypc083g] video of Guy fencing Puck Curtis (Guy's the English chap). Unfortunately not as impressive as the fight I saw (at least not how I remember it), but you do see the cut being utilised, for one thing.

Eclectic Dreck said:
The rapier favored actions in single time which is to say that a reposte would follow in the same line as the parry in conjunction with a glide or similar action with the goal of maintaining control of the opponents weapon. Lighter and faster blades made this less necessary and the parry-reposte evolved into something that was more often two discreet actions rather than a single extended action. Again, this isn't to say that the rapier was incapable of such actions (they are described in various manuals after all), just that they were not widely favored.

But, in a broader sense, there is little practical reason to seize the offensive with a parry only to immediately relinquish it especially when both parties are using a weapon that would make a parry following an attack challenging. Given that a properly executed parry already places the attacking blade in a position where it has little control over the point, and further given that they are, by necessity, within range of attack (assuming their attack was not an ill conceived feint or merely a mistake) every possible condition for an offensive would have been set. That isn't to say you just just dive into the offensive of course - just that you are in a position where, on average, attacking would be prudent. Fully half of the fundamental actions have been completed following a successful parry - a line has been opened with blade work and the distance has been set leaving just the consideration of delivering the attack with the feet at the proper moment.
Yup, I agree with you there.



cerebus23 said:
But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?
That's likely the difference between jousting armour and combat armour.
As I stated in my post, reputedly you could perform cartwheels in the combat armour.

cerebus23 said:
I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...
As stated above, the knight's armour still allows for a full range of movement and perhaps has more coverage (or more effective coverage). The only foreseeable problem would be that you might expect the the plate armour to be heavier than the lamellar, but from the weight estimates people have given it looks like it'd probably be pretty even. The fact of the matter is that both knights and samurai fought in their armour in all kinds of conditions, including in the heat. Regardless, somebody using a rapier is not going to be wearing plate armour.

cerebus23 said:
Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.
The katana does cut at least somewhat better than its closest European analogue in the longsword, but the tradeoff is that the katana tends to be heavier and perhaps not quite as durable and versatile (see video above), depending on the quality of the swords in question.

cerebus23 said:
But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.
I've addressed the mobility thing above. As for the samurai horse archers - I'm sure there's no denying that they were good, although the way I hear it they were trounced by the Mongols (although obviously the Mongols ultimately lost, primarily because both attempts at invasion were foiled by severe storms crippling their fleets).
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Didn't the moguls basically invent the compound bow? Antlers and leather or something i forget, but their bows were nearly modern in their performance.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
If the swords are engaged at the tips, there is no way to reach the hand with the blade by a simple extension of the arm. Some kind of lean, step, pass or lunge is necessary. At least, this has been my experience of Italian rapier. It's possible maybe that the hand could be reached, but that is defended by the hilt.
Strictly speaking, it depends upon the guard in question. A massive one like the one you see on the Epee, certainly, while rapier guards varied tremendously in size and protection.

Wyes said:
While I agree you could get more range out of the inquirtata with a follow up lunge, it seems you'd be too close to want to lunge anyway, unless your opponent had backed off.
I'd agree that, in general, I perform the move as a counter attack most commonly in defense against a flech largely because the displacement only closes the one line. I have, from time to time, had cause to then lunge afterward but this is incredibly uncommon. Usually when I want to gain on a lunge, it is in an entirely different context.
Wyes said:
I'm just not sure where your opinion on this has come from. Mine has come from personal experience with Italian rapier.
Adherence to the Florentine school of thought. There were certainly others and I can recognize that it is indeed possible to fence with the weapon in isolation. I just don't believe the weapon is well suited to the task. It's as I said, having a secondary implement increases your options at any moment. With a court sword, a secondary implement offers you nothing you don't already have ready and effective access to.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Major Tom said:
cerebus23 said:
But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?

I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.
That would most definitely be true with armour for the joust, but field plate was designed with foot combat in mind. The nature of medieval warfare meant that being unhorsed was a distinct possibility. Then you get into earlier periods where maille was king, and the flexibility of maille doesn't inhibit movement much at all.

As for Japanese armours, ones like the Do-maru provide a similar range of movement to that of western harness. The O-yoroi however was a different beast altogether. It developed from a time where battles were decided by duels between warriors on horseback, shooting at each other with their yumi. The way it's worn makes it sit on the thighs when mounted, but on foot, the entire 60 odd pounds of armour hangs from the shoulders, making it exhausting to wear on foot for extended periods of time. The design of it is also much like a metal box, which inhibits the sort of movements needed to fence with a katana, hence the yari being their preferred weapon after the bow. The O-yoroi was eventually replaced by armours like the Do-maru because tactics shifted toward infantry blocks and the O-yoroi became a liability to its wearer.

As an aside, the Tatami style armours are very similar in construction to Turkish armours.

As for cutting....basically, when fighting in armour cutting is ineffective. Steels don't readily cut each other (and hardened and Lacquered leather, which was used extensively in Japanese armour, is surprisingly durable) which was the part of the reason European longswords and fencing evolved the way they did, becoming stiffer with more wickedly pointed tips, for thrusting into gaps and bursting maille rings. It is also the reason weapons like the warhammer and the poleaxe were popular weapons, you could injure or kill the man inside without ruining your expensive sword (and for the religious, a handy way to get around bible verses against killing people. See, you're not actually spilling blood when bludgeoning someone......) and overall more efficient when fighting in armour.

On bows....again, it really depends on the period, but it would be safe to say that decent European armour made after 1350 would be reasonably proof against bows. English accounts of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 make note that French armour stopped English arrows to the point where it was called 'invulnerable', and the Battle of Agincourt was much more of a royal French fuck up than the triumph of the longbow (considering the English had exhausted their arrows on the first of 3 waves). I haven't been able to find any definite numbers on the draw weight of the yumi, but if up to 90lbs is true, that's roughly equivalent to the longbow, so if the Samurai is up against plate and mail or full plate, he's going to have to be an extraordinary shot to land an arrow in one of the few places that are vulnerable to them.

Looking at armours of earlier periods, the Samurai definitely has a range advantage, but it's not an auto win and I don't think he'd be as quick as you'd think. If he's on wearing an O-yoroi (which would be likely if he's on horseback), his armour is close to being twice as heavy as a maille clad knight, so he probably wouldn't be able to just dart away. I haven't found firm numbers on the weight of the Do-maru but from what I've read it looks like they weren't significantly lighter than contemporary European armours, and due to the social status of those wearing them at that time would mean they're not likely to be on horseback to start of with. Due to the cost involved in getting one, the O-yoroi was also a status symbol, and it took some time for the Do-maru to make its way up to the higher social strata.

As for penetrating armour, there are many variables to take into account, such as range, angle of the shot and what the arrowhead is made of (if it isn't iron or steel, I'm pretty sure that the effort of punching through maille, if it does at all, would deform the head to such a state that it wont get through the padded garment underneath). Crusading knights in the Holy Lands during 11th and 12th centuries were often described as looking like pincushions, with all the arrows sticking out of them and still fighting strong. Plus, maille clad knights would invariably be using a shield as well, so a Samurai will have to place his shot very carefully. All in all knight in maille has a good chance of survival, so that leaves us with single combat. Against a Samurai in a Do-maru or something similar, the battle comes down to training and skill. In an O-yoroi, there's still a decent amount of training and skill involved but if the knight can get inside the Samurai's yari, then I think its advantage knight, he's simply far more mobile.
Interesting I have no idea what yumi arrows would have been made of, but samuri were very accurate while moving on horse.

Since you seem to be the armor guy did not the mongul's silk padded armors work as well if not better than the mails and plates and lacquerered armors of the day?

Seems silk can stop anything and do it better than kevlar and whatnot.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Major Tom said:
cerebus23 said:
Interesting I have no idea what yumi arrows would have been made of, but samuri were very accurate while moving on horse.

Since you seem to be the armor guy did not the mongul's silk padded armors work as well if not better than the mails and plates and lacquerered armors of the day?

Seems silk can stop anything and do it better than kevlar and whatnot.
I'm not too familiar with Mongolian stuff, but a cursory reading of some material seems to suggest that the rank and file and light cavalry went into battle in their everyday wear, so it would be comprised of wools, sheepskin and furs.

The Mongolians did make use of a lot of heavy cavalry, with lamellar armour constructed in a manner similar to Japanese armours worn over their everyday wear, and even constructing elaborate lamellar barding for their horses long before the Europeans were. There were differences, the main one being that the entire harness is more contoured to fit more closely to the body. They wore a silk shirt (if they could get one, again, as I understand), but I don't know much about the properties of silk. From what I understand, should an arrow piece the armour, the head would get tangled up in the silk, since it doesn't tear. This could rob the arrow of energy so it doesn't pierce the skin, or if it should the silk can be used to extract the arrow without doing anymore damage to the poor sap who got shot with an arrow, leaving a clean wound that will heal nicely.

That's about as much as I know right now. A topic for further reading.
More to the point, the mongols were not a dominant force on the battlefield due to equipment but rather because of an unconventional method of fighting, extreme strategic mobility, and absolute discipline and obedience among the rank and file. Indeed, the Steppe peoples were a huge threat across much of history provided they would band together. While rare, the super confederations were events notable enough that they are well remembered.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Wyes said:

So he talks about a few of the things we were talking about before, it's a nice little video and I'll certainly have to revisit some of the things I thought before. In particular it seems you were right that two handed weapons don't cut any better than one handed swords.
Already seen that and thought about posting it here actually. He does some really great work I must say. It is a different kind of cut, using other body parts for the leverage.

cerebus23 said:
Didn't the moguls basically invent the compound bow? Antlers and leather or something i forget, but their bows were nearly modern in their performance.
The composite bow was around even in the time of ancient Egypt. They adopted it after it being used on them (I don't recall who they adopted it from). It is made from wood, horn, and sinew and would take almost a year and a half for the Egyptians to make. The composite bow is great, but nothing really special. Bows are simply springs. The harder the spring is to bend, the more force it has when unbending to loose an arrow. The composite bow gave them an advantage in that they had a strong bow that was smaller.

cerebus23 said:
Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.
The last 1/3rd of the blade is called the weak for multiple reasons. The point you want to strike with a sword is not the tip, it is the point of percussion which sits at around 1/3rd of the blade length from the tip. That point gives the least vibration on impact. It gives the optimum balance of speed and mass. Too high on the tip and you don't have the weight behind the blow. Too low and you don't get the speed.

Refer to the videos below to see my response to your idea of the Japanese armor being a match for the longsword and the mobility of plate armor.

Unarmored, the longsword has the advantages. Reach, a much wider selection of attacks, and the long quillions are a very useful tool. A strong cut from either will split a man in two, so damage isn't a factor. They both weigh the same, but the longsword is generally better balanced. The katana doesn't really have an advantage in that fight.

Major Tom said:
On bows....again, it really depends on the period, but it would be safe to say that decent European armour made after 1350 would be reasonably proof against bows. English accounts of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 make note that French armour stopped English arrows to the point where it was called 'invulnerable', and the Battle of Agincourt was much more of a royal French fuck up than the triumph of the longbow (considering the English had exhausted their arrows on the first of 3 waves). I haven't been able to find any definite numbers on the draw weight of the yumi, but if up to 90lbs is true, that's roughly equivalent to the longbow, so if the Samurai is up against plate and mail or full plate, he's going to have to be an extraordinary shot to land an arrow in one of the few places that are vulnerable to them.

Looking at armours of earlier periods, the Samurai definitely has a range advantage, but it's not an auto win and I don't think he'd be as quick as you'd think. If he's on wearing an O-yoroi (which would be likely if he's on horseback), his armour is close to being twice as heavy as a maille clad knight, so he probably wouldn't be able to just dart away. I haven't found firm numbers on the weight of the Do-maru but from what I've read it looks like they weren't significantly lighter than contemporary European armours, and due to the social status of those wearing them at that time would mean they're not likely to be on horseback to start of with. Due to the cost involved in getting one, the O-yoroi was also a status symbol, and it took some time for the Do-maru to make its way up to the higher social strata.

As for penetrating armour, there are many variables to take into account, such as range, angle of the shot and what the arrowhead is made of (if it isn't iron or steel, I'm pretty sure that the effort of punching through maille, if it does at all, would deform the head to such a state that it wont get through the padded garment underneath). Crusading knights in the Holy Lands during 11th and 12th centuries were often described as looking like pincushions, with all the arrows sticking out of them and still fighting strong. Plus, maille clad knights would invariably be using a shield as well, so a Samurai will have to place his shot very carefully. All in all knight in maille has a good chance of survival, so that leaves us with single combat. Against a Samurai in a Do-maru or something similar, the battle comes down to training and skill. In an O-yoroi, there's still a decent amount of training and skill involved but if the knight can get inside the Samurai's yari, then I think its advantage knight, he's simply far more mobile.
I agree with most of what you say. The bit I start disagreeing (hence didn't snip out) is on the bows. The English longbows found on the Mary Rose were tested to have a draw in the 130 lb range, meaning they have much more oomph than a yumi can muster. The yumi used primarily cutting heads, which are ineffective against metal armor. The arrows of the yumi couldn't get past plate armor, and it would be a stretch to even dent well tempered plate.

The yumi could possibly outrange a longbow, due to the arrows. A yumi could use lighter arrows (you need thicker and heavier arrows to take the stress of launch) which will travel further. The issue with that is that they won't have the kinetic energy to give as hard of a punch (much like the 7.62mm of the AK-47 vs the 5.56mm of the M16).

Your idea of the knight being the mobile one is the reverse of what everyone else seems to say. The issue I have with your comparison there is that you are giving the samurai a polearm and leaving the knight with just his sword. If he has a sword and shield, he has the advantage there as he is covered and can use the shield to bind the spear as he closes the distance. If you give the knight a polearm, the fight depends on which. A long halberd will give him the reach advantage, but a poleaxe would mean he has to step in to get within range. The biggest issue I see is not who can hit who, but the armor. There isn't much in Japan that could do much against plate while the armor in Japan isn't a match for the weapons of Europe. Even if the yari tags the knight, odds are high it will either glance off or just leave a small dent.

Related videos:
The armor tests are the main interest in video 2.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
Do4600 said:
You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.
As you can see, I am quite knowledgeable on the subject of European martial arts. I am not an expert by no means, nor do I know as much about Eastern arts as I'd like. I don't claim either of those. I do know about the weapons themselves, both how they were forged and what they are capable of. I try to be as unbiased as I can, looking past the hype and myth and seeing what the real things can do. Needless to say, I've seen much more negative Western myths getting smashed and more pro Eastern hype getting debunked than vice versa.
That's just fine, but how can you compare two types of anything without educating yourself on both types? There are over 20 different forms of Japanese long swordsmenship and that doesn't include close combat wrestling, and this is in an area 26 times smaller than Europe.

There are posts about the dagger or main gauge giving the European fencer an advantage, but the most practiced form of Japanese swordmenship uses a long and a short sword for the same reason. People just have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm sick of it.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Do4600 said:
That's just fine, but how can you compare two types of anything without educating yourself on both types? There are over 20 different forms of Japanese long swordsmenship and that doesn't include close combat wrestling, and this is in an area 26 times smaller than Europe.

There are posts about the dagger or main gauge giving the European fencer an advantage, but the most practiced form of Japanese swordmenship uses a long and a short sword for the same reason. People just have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm sick of it.
Note my wording, I said I don't know as much as I would like. I would love to learn more, but I know enough about each style to know how the weapon behaves and to have a good picture of how it was used. I knew grappling and half-swording were present in some arts, but they aren't used to near the extent that they are in Europe. There are also a lot of things done in Europe that simply were not done in Japan (much of which is due to the design of the weapon in question, can't do back edge cuts with single edged sword for example).

The use of the wakizashi and katana would put the katana user at a further disadvantage. The katana is very blade heavy, and has no chance of keeping up with lighter and better balanced blades meant for 2 handed use. You can parry with the wakizashi, but to get within cutting range of the katana you need to have that side forward and a long step. In that attempt, it would be rather easy to withdraw the rapier as you step back enough to pull away from the wakizashi and allow the point to come back on line. You need the control two handing the sword gives to keep the rapier's point at bay.

I don't agree the notion that a dagger would be all that helpful in parrying, but the threat of the dagger would keep the samurai from going in as gung-ho as he would if it were not there. The presence of the dagger is the main issue, as it is very unlikely the samurai would venture into dagger range.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
I don't agree the notion that a dagger would be all that helpful in parrying, but the threat of the dagger would keep the samurai from going in as gung-ho as he would if it were not there. The presence of the dagger is the main issue, as it is very unlikely the samurai would venture into dagger range.
Using a dagger to parry does not, in reality, reduce the distance in which a parry can be achieved by much. Only the lower third if a rapier (the forte) is useful for the parry both because this is the strongest part of the blade but, importantly, because of simple mechanics. The lower on the blade you parry, the more control you have over the weapon in question. This is important because a parry does not serve to simply defend but to set the conditions for an offensive of your own.

Ponyholder said:
As you have said, Rapier is better at thrusting, however that requires the user to be at a considerable distance from the katana user. If the Katana user can close the gap between them, that user will win very easily.

In a long range dual, I would say a Rapier would have a better chance to win, however it is still inferior to the power of a katana in a close range duel, which is why you would pull out a sword to begin with.
The minimum effective range of the rapier (or any thrusting weapon for that matter) is roughly a foot or so shorter than the length of the blade. Those with longer arms or higher than normal flexibility can stretch this to a degree. There exist various techniques that can shorten this further but they're high risk and relatively exotic.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Using a dagger to parry does not, in reality, reduce the distance in which a parry can be achieved by much. Only the lower third if a rapier (the forte) is useful for the parry both because this is the strongest part of the blade but, importantly, because of simple mechanics. The lower on the blade you parry, the more control you have over the weapon in question. This is important because a parry does not serve to simply defend but to set the conditions for an offensive of your own.
I wasn't speaking of the range, but effectiveness as well as utility. It isn't in the persons best interest to really try to parry a sword like the katana with the dagger. With the standard fencing stance, the dagger is very far back. Trying to parry with it means you are letting the katana get far closer than you want. Simply voiding the parries and recovering your point would be far more useful. The dagger in this scenario should only be used to counter an attempt to close. Bind the katana with the rapier and step into their attack to deliver the dagger's point.