On Knight vs Samurai

[Attila DeWaal]

"Also, you mention arming swords. This term is generally meant to indicate a single handed sword normally used in conjunction with a shield. Knights in the period 1300 - 1500 would most often be equipped with a longsword, a "hand and a half" weapon.

It's worth noting that the longsword, in addition to the major advantage of the false edge, also out reaches both the katana and the tachi significantly, which is a major advantage.

IMHO the closer to the hilt balance provided by the heavier pommels of western swords is yet another advantage in agility, again particularly in conjunction with the false edge strikes."

Ah, sorry, my mistake. I meant the longsword with a tapered point meant for armored combat. I do not think the lenght would be that significant of an advantage (the samurai could try to grab and control the blade just as well as an european knight would), but that the advantage comes more from it's armor piercing capabilities and the ability to half-sword that weapon. False edge strikes however, seem to be less of a concern, as all accounts I've read on them seem to lose power in the strike in favour of quickness, and this would not seem to be tie-breaking if the other was well armored.

[M Wallgren]

What about Halfswording? How would a JMA warrior react to that?

It is the way I would fight in a armoured situation.

Martin

[philippewillaume]

Hello, attila
To be honest, that’s why taschy and katana have long handles so the blade nimbleness is not so much and issue.
I think we can only agree with you conclusion

I do not see the short edge as a fundamental advantage pres se. It is a nasty surprise when you are not use to it but does not fundamentally modify the fight. Anything can be replicated with a single-handed sword you just need to let the front hand rotate. Which I have seen done with Japanese sword. So I am not even sure that would be a surprise.

Japnesse medieval fencing have low guards and even the equivalent to the long tails. There was plenty of school and plenty of way of cutting before the Tokugawa pastorisation/ homogeneiastion of swords and fencing.
I know of some that even chop instead of chop-slice cut.

As well there is schnitt and pressing of the hand in kenjutsu.
Getting close will not give the samurai any special advantage mediavl ringen is for all intend and purpose similar to medieval ju-jitsu. And wrestling is really integrated with the use of the weapons themselves so much that it is part of the weapon training.

Essentially a 13-14 century knight is a samurai in o-yoroy. (Thou Japanese mail seems to have been less efficient against thrust due to the way it the rings are made, that being said I am not sure that it was always the way to make it)
The horse at the time were probably very similar. (Big warhorse seems to have appeared in the beginning of the 15-cent)
That being said we know that at te time of poiter man and beast could wistand longbow arrow at close range.

The sword is really a horseman secondary weapon, on foot knight usually used poles arms or boar spears.

As to fighting from guard to guard, it depends of the school, lichtanauer tradition is intereted in strikes and not guards.
A backhand or short edge cut can be very powerful, the Zwerchau pack a hell of a whallop and you need to bear in mind that slice/pressing of the is really for naked fencing (ie without armor) so it does not influence fight in Armour.
Some European tradition even advocate not to strike when you are in armour…

[Brian Hunt]

One other thing about striking from guard to guard, that doesn't mean you have to stop in the guard, the guard is just a position to transfer through, or strike from. It is just as easy for a longswordsman to pull up to Vom Tag, similar to the high guard used by a japanese swordsman, and from there he has the same striking options that the japanese swordsman has. A longswordsman can easily cut down from left to right, right to left, or to the middle, and go all the way through the cut, continue the rotation and be back in Vom Tag. Don't really see a difference or advantage in this one way or the other. Same thing, different weapons. Seems to me that this makes the Japanese cutting options no more or less unpredictable than the European ones.

One of the advantages of the longsword over the katana/gatana is going to be its reach. Because the European swordsman armed with a longsword can outreach the Japanese swordsman armed with a katata/gatana, he can step just out of range of the Japanese swordsman's cut and still be in range for his own counterstrike. This range would change some if we armed the Japanese Swordsman with the longer Japanese sword, that if I remember correctly is named the Tachi.

just some thoughts on this.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Attila DeWaal]

"One of the advantages of the longsword over the katana/gatana is going to be its reach. Because the European swordsman armed with a longsword can outreach the Japanese swordsman armed with a katata/gatana, he can step just out of range of the Japanese swordsman's cut and still be in range for his own counterstrike. This range would change some if we armed the Japanese Swordsman with the longer Japanese sword, that if I remember correctly is named the Tachi."

I think the knight would have a greater advantage when half-swording rather then staying at lenght. The main advantage when half-swording (imho) is the ability to aim precise thrusts with the tip. Even in the most "full" suit of japanese armor, the underside of the arms and armpits are protected by no more then padding.

[M Wallgren]

Another advatage is the grappling stuff you can do when halfswording, espessially in armour!

[Stacy Clifford]

Another interesting scenario is - if both had already lost their primary weapons and were still trying to take each other down from the horses. There has been no historical account of a samurai swinging a sword from horseback in battle vs another horseman. And this to good reason, the only chance you have of making a cut in armor is by targetting a weak spot, and hitting it with proper force and accuracy. Bouncing around on a horse trying to accuratly hit the other guy bouncing around on his horse too Isn't going to do any wonders for swordplay. Instead, the samurai tried to fight their opponent on the other horse bare handed, and try to grapple them to the ground, where combat would be decided by breaking the other or stabbing the other (we still practice it with these basics).

I do not know much about mounted knight combat with anything else then a spear or lance, and I refrain from making assumptions brought on by movies and games. So I'll have to ask you guys - what weapons would the knight have at his disposal here after loosing his lance, how would he use them, and how effective would he be?

While the sword does make a nice ride-by weapon against lesser armored opponents (mounted or on foot), don't forget that it was also very popular for knights to carry single-hand axes, maces and hammers, which would be exceptionally useful for opening the can on the horse next to you. I'm pretty sure there was some grappling from horseback in the western manuals, but I imagine that was a last resort. Why risk losing your horse when you can bash the other guy's head in and pick up a spare?

[Casper Bradak]

There's no shortage of mounted grappling techniques in our manuals, with great use, armoured or not. There is also no shortage of accounts and techniques for using the sword, when mounted, vs armoured opponents. Of course, you won't be cutting them, but you may very well be cutting their horse or his reins.
One book advised to use your thusting sword vs your armoured, mounted opponent before any other weapon, only resorting to impact weapons once that had broken, which was not only common sense (the easiest way to kill a man in armour), but what is advised in the fencing manuals as well. Couching the sword like a lance to thrust from horseback was also a common technique.
Other accounts, such as on the use of the battle axe when mounted, say that the harnessed opponents were using them almost exclusively to hook the opponent and his weapon, dragging him off his mount, or disarming him, not attempting to actually strike him, which makes a lot of sense to me.

[Mike Chidester]

One of the problems you may be having in your assessment of this match is that as you mentioned you're basing your it in part on the videos of floryshes on the site. Unfortunately, there are no good floryshe videos available, the very best being only mediocre. So you have no real example of the true variety and versatility in cutting that a longsword possesses. If you ever have ocassion to attend an ARMA seminar, your opinions on various things will probably change.

[JeanryChandler]

Ah, sorry, my mistake. I meant the longsword with a tapered point meant for armored combat. I do not think the lenght would be that significant of an advantage (the samurai could try to grab and control the blade just as well as an european knight would),

With all due respect, I don't know how much sparring experience you have, but I think you are making an error here.
A typical longsword was / is about 48", a typical Katana about 39". All other factors being equal, ten inches in reach is a huge advantage in terms of who gets cut (or pierced) first. Try it out yourself next time you do some sparring.

In unarmored combat this would be and is absolutely decisive.

And I don't know what you mean about grabbing and controlling the blade but it's pretty rare that anyone has ever managed to do so aginast me with my padded weapon while sparring, let alone a sharp. I don't think it's that easy to do outside of a grapple against an experienced fighter.

In armored combat it basically depends on how heavily armored we are assuming the opponents to be, (in terms of coverage) and how effective you believe Japanese armor was compared to European. As for the former, I think it was comparatively rare for Japanese Do to cover the whole body. With a major reach advantage, the longsword fighter would have a much better chance to target any unarmored area (face, neck, hands, thighs) and quickly end the fight.

As for the latter, it's much more subjective of course. I've seen some historical Do close up, (16th - 17th century) and they looked pretty flimsy to me, the mail in particular was very thin wire about the diamter of a paper clip, butted and not riveted, not even overlapping .... it definately would not stop even a cut from a typical longsword. I also believe the Japanese type of lamellar would be very vulnerable to being damaged due to being tied together on the outside, but that is definately just my opinion.

You also have to consider that most types of longswords had chisel-like edge geometry which was designed to cope with lighter types of armor, and could penetrate in the cut.

All in all, I do belive even an armored Samurai would be vulnerable to cuts from a longsword, as well as thrusts.

but that the advantage comes more from it's armor piercing capabilities and the ability to half-sword that weapon. False edge strikes however, seem to be less of a concern, as all accounts I've read on them seem to lose power in the strike in favour of quickness, and this would not seem to be tie-breaking if the other was well armored.

I think you are fare too dismissive of false edge strikes, and apparently, again with all due respect, not too familiar yet with WMA.

I'd reccomend getting a copy of Cold Steel knives little test-cutting DVD, it's free. They demonstrate how their replica swords easily cut through whole rib-flanks and pork shoulders, bones flesh and all, with false-edge cuts just as easily as long-edge.

In when test cutting you learn the fact that a proper cut doesn't even require that much strength as opposed to precision. The truth however is with a longsword you can cut almost as powerfully with the false edge as the long edge.

Jr

[JeanryChandler]

One of the problems you may be having in your assessment of this match is that as you mentioned you're basing your it in part on the videos of floryshes on the site. Unfortunately, there are no good floryshe videos available, the very best being only mediocre. So you have no real example of the true variety and versatility in cutting that a longsword possesses. If you ever have ocassion to attend an ARMA seminar, your opinions on various things will probably change.

there is a good one by Tim Sheets on here somewhere ...

Jr

[philippewillaume]

Surprisingly no,
Ringeck advises us to bypass the sword and go from the lance to the wrestling. (When on horseback)
The ideas are to use the time he draws to close on him.
And a few pieces in the sword manual end up or even go straight to wrestling

I have to say that the wrestling from the horse is right nasty. (but well you weight 700-1000 kg and you can go at 15 m/s)

[s_taillebois]

M. Chandler, quite true about the tentative conflicts between the Portuguese and the Japanese. The vex is, the Portuguese who followed after 1549, might not quite have fit the definitions of knight. And is well into the period of popularity of the rapier, of which the southern Europeans seemed very fond.
In some ways, a comparision of relative abilities of weapons and tactics, is much easier when comparing societies who developed such things as a result of repeated contact/conflict with each other. A bit harder with the Samurai/Knight comparision because the Shogunate very quickly restricted contact after the initial period. And it seems, although some Japanese adopted aspects of European armour (some had obtained plate cuirasses ie), and firearms tactics...the Europeans seemed to have integrated fairly little of Japanese military tactics and armour.
Inherently a lot of needed conjecture in a thread of this nature, just involving arms and individual tactics. If morale and attitudes get involved...much , much harder. Although there are some inevietable general similarities in attitudes...It gets harder to figure out when of the lack of continual contact is put into the situation...a samurai and knight's...morale and elan, would be much harder to ascertain than say, comparing, a Crusader and a Saracen noble. Those two groups, although out of very different traditions, had enough sustained contact/conflict to really pin down the advantages or either's arms and tactics.

[Bill Tsafa]

Aside from lenth, I find the double edge on the Longsword to be a massive advantage. A swordsman will typicaly look at his opponents hands to foresee where the strike will come come from. It is easier to follow the hands rather then the faster moving tip of the blade.

When you strike with the long (true) edge, your hands lead in front of the sword anouncing to your opponent where you are comming from. When you strike with the short(false) edge, the blade leads before your hands. It is a harder to follow. So while you sacrifice some power, you gain suprise.

You also have a chance of getting behind your opponents blade with the short (false) edge. It is posible to strike you opponets head before he meets you in the bind because the blade again is leading in front of your hands. Should his blade slide down towards your hands, as is likely in that sceenario, you will catch it with you crossgaurd while your short (false) edge is hitting the side of his head.

[Brian Hunt]

Sorry,

I was thinking unarmoured vs. unarmoured due some conversations I have recently had with other people. In armoured, I would agree completly that half-swording would be of great use.

Brian Hunt
GFS