Hello gentlemen, this is my first post here on the board, on a little subject I was pondering on after reading the "knight vs Samurai" article on the board.
I should maybe explain a little about myself first. I'm a malaysian born cultural mutt, currently living in holland (and I will have to ask you gentlemen to pardon my sometimes abhorrent english <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ). Weapons of all kinds and all places have always been of great interest to me. I also have this annoying urge to... "Discover the Truth" (cough) behind things, and this has now lead me into studying WMA (and also still studying EMA's).
I have had prior training with various martial arts, and have always found them, unsatisfying, until I have found one that finally seems to teach fighting as it is supposed to be done, instead of how we percieve in these modern times as how it should be done (movies, theatrics, etc).
With the things I have learned from my training and my studies into japanese history (the amount of bull one has to shovel through is amazing and an entire study on human psychology can be done based just soley on that), I believe I might offer a different view on the Knight versus Samurai matchup than the one offered in the article.
Okay, here goes:
First of all, I would ask you gentlemen to forget what you know of JMA's trough modern school of iaido, aikido, kendo and karate. The techniques and trainings offered by these school are admirable and well suited to our modern, sport-seeking society. But they are completely inept for actual combat or to demonstrate how Samurai in particular fought in medieval japan. I will also have to ask you gentlemen to let go of all views of japanese supposed customs and rituals on the battlefield as portrayed in stories we hear nowadays. These are heavily romantiscised and do not de the warriors of old justice. Like most european knights, samurai were professional and practical warriors in the field.
Now, as to fighting style: Researching the info offered in the vechtboeken and on the site, and cross referencing it to what I learn of JMA, I have come to the conclusion that combat techniques and tactics trained by european knights and japanese samurai are actually, almost identical. There is ofcourse the obvious difference in combat by weapons, because, ofcourse, the weapons used are different. But when it comes to grappling techniques and combat tactics, both fought in almost identical ways (this can for example be seen in physical locks, where you can see that both use exactly the same "entrances" into a move, and use the same kind of locks. This is not odd, considering all humans are anatomically the same).
I have only picked up on two fundamental differences in fighting styles between the two. All attacks in JMA are thought to be made with enough force and follow-through to be instantly deadly if possible. In other words, every hit with a sword should be able to lob of an arm, nomatter what you were actually trying to do (create an opening, feint, etc). In WMA, I have noticed sometimes that some strikes willfully sacifice power for speed of the attack (attacks from the wrist, backhand attacks, etc). How this will actually play out in a fight is unknown to me however, since both a samurai and a knight could be extremely fast and capable with the weapons they fought with. I do not want to speculate on the effects of this difference, and I prefer to call it a draw between both styles for now.
The second difference is something I might be mistaken in: WMA style of swordfighting seems to move the blade from guard to guard through strikes. JMA however, does not do that. Instead, say when fighting with a gatana, almost all strikes come form above the head (what you have named zornhau) (note: guards are ofcourse used, but these are to start an attack from, not to end an attack in). This is done for unpredictability. When all strikes come from above (this not including other, more specialised and situational strikes), you can not predict where the next attack will come from. This could be a slight disadvantage to the european knight, as the samurai (if he caught on to it) would be able to predict the general direction of some of the knights attacks. However, my knowledge of WMA is still limited, and if some of you gentlemen might shed some more light on this subject, I would appreciate it.
Having taken these and several other minor differences in thought, and after a little more research, I have come to a little conclusion:
Say we take two warriors, a knight and a samurai. Both are highly trained and well experienced, and expert at handeling all the weapons of their period and class. In this case, ignorance of each other's abilities and styles of combat is not a point, since two veteran fighters faced with an unknown foe will know how to start catious and learn what their opponent is made of. Cultural and philosophical differences are a moot point too, two men locked in mortal combat want to come out of it alive and in the least damaged way possible. This is universal (for professional warriors that is).
All things considered, I have to conclude that the eventual outcome of the fight will be determined by two things: Armor and Weapons.
So... how Do they effect such a fight? Well, let me take a few situations:
Knight vs Samurai - unarmored - gatana vs backsword and buckler (period circa 14th - 15th century)
This is the most even matchup. Both weapons are well adept at cleaving flesh, and both are weapons which would be found in an unarmoured situation. The knight has the advantage of having the buckler as a 'second weapon' and to defend himself with, as well as having a fast weapon in the backsword. The samurai would have an advantage in the unpredictability of his fighting style and the semi-predictability of the sword and buckler style. This matchup is quite even in my opinion.
Knight vs Samurai - armored (14th century) - spear vs spear
This matchup is quite even too. Both are adequetly armoured (knight in half plate, samurai in contemporary do-maru with all addons), and spear combat is extremely similar for both parties. Halberd vs Naginata in this particular period would still be a reasonably even match, slightly in favour of the knight as the halberd is more capable of piercing armor.
Knight vs Samurai - armored (14th century) - arming sword vs gatana
Now this is where things start to go lobsided. As nice and enjoyable a weapon such as the gatana is, it is Not designed for fighting armor. The arming sword however, Is. Unless the samurai gets in close quickly without getting taken down first, and manages to grapple the knight, he is not going to win. The gatana just isn't meant for attacking armor, and although it's possible, the arming sword Is designed for armored combat and will prevail most of the times.
Knight vs Samurai - armored (full plate vs full tosei-do) - arming sword vs gatana
And here is where the samurai bites it. The knight is armored from top to toe, with very little weak spots, and armed with a weapon designed for attacking armor and piercing weak spots. The gatana just isn't an anti-armor weapon, and the fullest suit of japanese armour still has large "weak spots" which can be fully exploited by the arming sword (especially when thrusting while half-swording). Unless the samurai can get in for a grapple and disarm, he is at a huge disadvantage.
So, in conclusion, when everyone's two favourite stereotypes (knight in full plate and longsword vs samurai in full armor and gatana) duke it out in one on one combat, the samurai will be at a huge disadvantage and will most probably lose the fight.
My 2cents on the subject. I hope you guys enjoyed it and found it informative. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
(ps: feel free to point out grammatical errors and typo's in my post. I hate it when I make them)
Edit: whow, um... and sorry for the long post <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
