Sword question... East and West

Longden, is the guy with the shield armored or not? It would make a difference.

The best unarmored European swordsmen were possibly the Scots Highlanders, at least on the battlefield. A duelist with a Rapier is a different sort of critter, because with no shield he's open to arrowfire and armor would slow his style down too much. So we'll stick with "battlefield capable" for the moment.

A Highlander with a Targ shield, heavyish one-handed sword and no armor would have a hard time protecting his legs against a Samurai, esp. the Achilles tendon and hamstrings. The Samurai would want to side-step that massive smashing power and go straight for the legs in a "quick in, quick out" low pattern.

Armored legs would put a crimp in that plan? Things might be happening too fast to "find a chink" 'cuz Mr. European is gonna spin at some point and Samurai-San better be the hell out of range
smile.gif
.

Unarmored: A lot depends on the Scot...a fast unarmored one might have a dagger in the shield hand and spin in with that while parying with the main sword. But if the Scot blocks low yet fails the off-hand counterattack, the Samurai can bring his blade tip back up from his failed low attack FAST due to the two-handed grip...and he'll have too many targets for that shield to cover fully.

The Katana has awesome "tip speed from a dead stop". A basket-hilt Claymore can get up to the same speed but it takes longer.

It's a crapshoot. Personal skill would count, in spades.

Jim
 
Almost everyone is defacto giving the unarmored/lightly armored one-on-one victory to the Samuri over the European. I have one observation, the Katana is a slashing weapon, the motion for it's proper use reducing it's range even more than most edge using swords. A European fencer, using primarily the tip, in a thrusting motion has an incredible range advantage.
Dave

------------------
You are where you should be.
You are doing what you should be doing.
Otherwise, you would be somewhere else,
Doing something else.

seen on a T-shirt
 
Single katana vs. sword and shield, given equal levels of skills-katana most times because one person carries it but both people can hide behind it. A shield that is heavy enough to be useful is at its most useful against a similarly armed opponent. A most common tactic with a sword and shield man is to rush up and body slam the opponent with the shield and stab the opponent while he is trying to pick himself up. If you are bigger, heavier, or stronger than the opponent there is a good chance of success. Against the typically trained and armed Samurai, who depends on speed, timing and finesse, this tactic would , in my opinion, meet with success very rarely. In a match between a sword and shield man vs. a man with a 2-hand sword, the best tactic is to circle to the shield side of the opponent and wait for him to stick somethind outside of the shield's protection. All this assuming one on one combat. Japanese warriors carried shields called Sode, meaning "sleeves." They were in the form of large, flat, square covers for the upper arm. These SODE were designed as protection from arrows, not swords. Japanese swords were often used for thrusting as well as slashing, also the use of two katanas or a katana and waikazashi(short sword) was common.
The katana was originally designed as an armor cutter for use on horseback. It wasn't until the Tokugawa Shogunate began in 1603 that fighting unarmored opponents became common. Those fights shared alot in common with the Code Duello fights in Europe. War was forbidden under the Tokugawa and the country was at peace for 268 years. As peace reigned and the carrying of swords was more important than use, katanas got shorter, lighter, and less useful as weapons of war. The same thing happened as governments reacted to rapiers, saying "they are usless in war they are only useful to kill one's friends.)
I hope this helps

Kkimo-remember that the katana is not only a two hand weapon. It can and frequently was used one handed or used in conjunction with another weapon in the other hand. One effective technique is to start an attack two handed and then let go of the sword with one hand and lunge in a classic fencer's move. This gives a suprise 14-18" range increase.
------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict

[This message has been edited by fudo (edited 01-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by fudo (edited 01-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by fudo (edited 01-20-2000).]
 
Thanks for bringing this up Kkimo.

I took a class once in fencing (standard Euro style) but am otherwise clueless as to what techniques were actually used on a battlefield.

Tho the one-handed thrust of a fencer does confer a great range advantage, I believe most of the western combat style being described by Jim and the others deal with slashing more than thrust.

Maybe even with the range advantage, it may have been difficult to land a mortal wound, especially given armored (even light armor) protection. Landing a thrust momentarily opens the attacker to a fatal counter-attack, so a battle (not a duel) may favor a slashing attack to minimize the vulnerability. And if the defender successfully parries the thrust, there's possibly a window of vulnerability there too.

While I imagine fencing styles were somewhat still applicable on the battlefield using the saber (for instance), I'd imagine that the thrust was used with great discretion, no less so than with a katana. My guess.
 
fudo
In a match between a sword and shield man vs. a man with a 2-hand sword, the best tactic is to circle to the shield side of the opponent and wait for him to stick somethind outside of the shield's protection
Click to expand...

Sounds like a dull fight, with "2-hand" retreating as "shield" advances, waiting for the latter to get careless (which, since he's hypothetically a similarly skilled and alert fighter as "2-hand", is not likely to happen).

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 01-20-2000).]
 
The Scots knew all about that "body-slam-the-shield" gag. They'd mount a 6" metal spike in the middle of the shield PLUS carry a dagger in the shield hand. Body-slamming that side isn't recommended.

They'd also strap a backup large knife to the inside of the shield, so if they lost the sword they'd have quick access to a "plan B".

Jim (paternal's grandmother's maiden name was MacIver, an offshoot of Clan MacAnderson...)
 
Jim . . . Ouch! Your ancestors were really Sharp guys!

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. It seems to be going all over the world,back and forth in time, and lacks a little focus, but this is Clearly one of the best threads I've seen in a while. Thanks to all of you warriors!

Paracelsus, warrior of words alone. All of my heroism is imaginary.

Question: What is best in life? Fighting the good fight, or never having to fight at all?

Probably depends mostly on the Other guys, I guess
 
Paracelsus
What is best in life? Fighting the good fight, or never having to fight at all?
Click to expand...

.. supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Sun-Tzu
Click to expand...


Longden (son of farmers, fishermen and other assorted targets)
 
Depending on the size of the shield, main targets on the shield man are the top of the head, sword arm, and lower legs and feet.
This type of fight is only dull when you are talking about it at home. When yuo are watching or living it, it is quite exciting.

------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict
 
there is a post on swordforum.com that explores this issue as well check it out the site is good and so is the article



------------------
Sanity is overrated, simply a moonbeam spilling pearls on a dark and treacherous sea.
j . p hissom
 
ohoisin, thanks but I don't know my way around swordforum that well. I got into the general discussion forum but didn't notice the post you're talking about.

Do you have a link, or at least a subject line to search on?
 
Very interesting ohoisin, and full of good observations. I should point out however, that even tho there's valuable information to be gleaned there, the author and I differ in our basic assumptions.

My point in this thread was to raise the question of why eastern and western styles differed so much, and if western style were superior (for instance), why didn't it ever develop in the east. The issue really isn't one of superior style per se, but that given the natural evolution of combat techniques (what works generally stays around) you'd expect the arms and techniques for countries of the same technology to be roughly the same ... sort of a natural selection, or literally survival of the fittest.

The fact that Japan kept its bushido institutions for so long (several hundred years), relatively unchanged, made me wonder if their system was in fact, the best system possible given the climate, materials and culture ... or whether it was just fortuitous that those institutions were never put under a real test by a dissimilar system, until it was ultimately displaced by the gun.

The author (in that article) makes the assumption
Let us also assume armor is a non-factor in the encounter, as are any missile weapons or terrain factors. Further, lets assume that each swordsman is equally ignorant of the other's style of fight
Click to expand...

So he is clearly proposing an improbably chance encounter between two adversaries. In the evolutionary time scale of warfare, you can't discount terrain or knowledge of the enemy.

In my hypothetical case (more representative of my question), a 13th century Japanese warlord who's cognizant of western arms and techniques decides to arm and train his army in western style, using available materials. They probably would've been armored, tho that point's been discussed already, and it's questionable whether Japan had (in the 13th century) sufficient raw materials to arm and armor troops (in western style).

So in my case, we're talking about a warlord who's troops are knowledgable about eastern styles. Further, suppose these troops have already been engaged in several skirmishes and the eastern trained troops are aware of the western tactics now. Survival of the fittest ... only one style (or a mixture) should win out in the long run.

But the link makes for very fascinating reading, thanks ... certainly despite the differences in our assumptions, there are still a lot of valid points about style that are applicable and useful for this discussion.
 
A 13th century Western army would have been no heavier armored than a Japanese army. Until the 14th century knights only wore mail, which was relatively light. Footsoldiers would have had even less defensive harness.

Later, in the 14th century plates were introduced, at first as extra pieces worn over the mail. Full suits of articulated plate were very expensive, had to be individually fitted, and were generally only worn by rich feudal landowners in the 15th-17th century.

As far as firearms in the East, the Chinese were the ones who invented gunpowder, and used it to make rockets, flamethrowers, and grenades. At one point the jingal (a type of early firearm) was considered one of the 18 Legendary Weapons of China, and there were styles of Hojutsu (Gunnery Martial Art) and Kajutsu (Explosives Martial Art) in Japan. Crossbows were also known and used in China and Japan, in fact they seem to have been invented in China in the Warring States era (contemporary with Bronze Age), then later spread to the West. In the Three Kingdoms era (contemporary with Roman Empire), the great strategist Zhuge Liang invented a multishot crossbow, the "Zhuge Nu" (Zhuge's Crossbow). This design was never introduced to the West.

The technique of massed volley fire was first used by Nobunaga's Japanese troops armed with European-style arquebuses (firearms). It was not discovered in Europe for fifty years, even though the arquebus was a European invention.

As far as Martial Arts in the West, yes, there were Ancient Schooles of Fence in Europe that taught the equivalent of the battlefield techniques of the Koryu: Unarmed Striking/Wrestling/Grappling, Armed Striking/Wrestling/Grappling, Combat Archery, Firearms, Staff Weapons, Blade Weapons, Exotic Weapons, Terrain/Environment as Weapons, Massed and Individual Combat, Horseback and Foot Combat, Strategy and Tactics, would all be taught by a School. There were similar schools of Warrior Craft in all Asian (including Europe) and African countries in the era of history when such skills were needed.

While the popular stereotype has Westerners fighting only with Guns, and Easterners fighting only with Hand-to-Hand, historically both Guns and Hand-to-Hand were trained and used together (including transitioning from one range to another, using unloaded firearm as hand-to-hand weapon, bayonet-fighting, using a handgun in one hand and a blade in the other, all of which was even more important in the days of single-shot firearms!) by Warriors from many cultures, Eastern, Western, and African.
 
The point of this post was to question factors that might have led to the evolutionary differences between the katana and the saber.

I've found an interesting article that covers the development of western and eastern swords in the context of the factors that influenced their change:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm

this may be of interest to anyone still following this thread.

A related article that treats the katana more in depth and in relationship to its western counterparts:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

Many points are raised in those articles that echo the well-considered posts here by BF members.

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 01-25-2000).]
 
This is an old thread from January that was originally in the community forum. It is just chock full of good information and links.

I thought it deserved a re-read and a new home here in the Sword forum so I just moved it here. I hope this new forum has many more great discussions like this one. Enjoy!

Paracelsus
 
I might have missed it some place within this long thread; but, in a comparison between European swords and Japanese swords, we need to be first aware that either weapon was principally a sidearm and status symbol.

A Japanese swordsman would seldom use his sword against another swordsman, neither would a European knight; both, used their swords primarily against unarmored pesants.

The Mace, halberd, lance, bow, and spear; were the primary weapons on either battlefield.
 
I second not2sarp. When samurais fought in battlefields actually there was no bushido, no emphasizing katana before 1600 A.D. They fought with their spears, armors, guns, grapple arts, and katanas, all available. To win the game, hitting hard the enemyfs head by heavy spear to knockout was most popular, followed by grappling the enemy down to ground to take the mount position to cut throat.
But while three hundreds years of peace after that, it was enough time to purify bushido with katana as its symbol that used in battlefields no more. Martial arts evolved to pursue aesthetics and ethics than practicality. Therefs no need to confront armored soldier, they forgot spears, and omitted guns because guns forcee samurais an gdisgracefulh posture. Guns were rather new toys, easy for samurais to forget its existence. Retrophilic bladesmiths gevolvedh their katanas by concentrating on reproduing ancient (Kamakura era or earlier) masterpieces.
I donft know if the katana gives best geometry in all swords, but I believe many swordsmiths dedicated their lives to make the best quality and quality only in the SAME shape, where European swordsmiths could and did evolve swords by searching BEST shape as well as quality. It resulted in various shapes some of which are more effective in a certain situation by skilled soldiers than a katana.

About the gif its best why not everywhereh question, why do we all use Windoze?
History makes something popular not because itfs best but just itfs popular...

------------------
Did you enjoy today?
\(^o^)/ Mizutani Satoshi \(^o^)/
 
History makes something popular not because it's best but just (because) it's popular...
Click to expand...
Well said.

It's been over 6 months since I posted this question and I'll confess to a long hiatus from BF till friend Paracelsus resurrected me from the dead (actually the auto-email notification).

I'm still appreciative of all the good points that were raised in this thread, and so aptly summarized by WrongFriend.

While it seems clear that eastern weapons were developed in something of a technological vaccuum, there's also the issue of whether eastern cultures had sufficient resources (ie, ore) to develop western style weapons (and in sufficient quantities) even if that wanted to.

Tho doubtless they wanted to please their customers, patrons and masters, I'm sure the craftsmen and the smiths of the time were always working within the confines of available resources (just ask any knife maker), and that may have mitigated many a good idea (maybe they'll turn up a Kamakura era smith's sketch for a nobleman's knife that'll look suspiciously like a Sebenza
smile.gif
)

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 07-31-2000).]
 
I have to disagree with Wrongfriend and not2sharp.The Katana was primarily a weapon of war and used as a weapon of war and not as a mere symbol, nor as a tool for murdering peasants.
The Katana goes back as far as 940A.D. at least. I would recommend a reading of "Heike Monogatari" and stories of Minamoto no Yo****suni and his faithful retainer Benkei
I believe that the sword was a prominent feature of the battlefield, from its primary purpose as a backup weapon to the bow up until war was effectively outlawed in 1603 by the Tokugawa. Between 1603 and 1876 swords were NOT used as weapons of war(although often used a duelling weapon and as a symbol of rank.)

------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top