On Knight vs Samurai

[Cameron Sharpe]

Ok, although I am slightly predisposed towards JMA having practiced a bit of it myself, I still believe that both sides would be more or less equal. Also, Atila, you are assuming that the two combatants would be of equal skill and armament. This was very rarely the case. And as far as I know, the samurai rarely (if ever) used katanas while armored, opting instead for the heavier Tachi, or even the dai-katana, the latter of which, is a good ten inches longer (if not more) than the katana, elimminating the knight's reach advantage.

So, while you could easily think up so-called, "equal situations," they would be quite non-realistic scenarios, as they are relying on the fact that the two combatants be of equal training and such. Also, there are a thousand other factors that decide the outcome of a battle, not the least of which is luck. That being said, I do not think there is any way to accurately predict what would happen every time a samurai and a knight met on the field of battle.

(I know I give no argument for the knight's case, but that is because I am only recently interested in WMA's, and therefore have nowhere near the amount of know-how on Western weapons that I do on Eastern ones.)

[Attila DeWaal]

Alright, thanks for the responses. There are too many I want to respond to to sum them up, so I'll just adress the posters who's posts I want to respond to:


@ Casper Bradak

Yes, this was what I was wondering. What would an "average" knight be carrying as secondary weapons when on horseback? Flails? Maces? Axes? I believe that when carrying a blunt instrument, the knight would have a significant advantage over the samurai attempting to close for grappling, especially since the knight is mounted on a larger, faster horse. On the other side, it would be very interesting to wonder what would happen if they did try to graplle each other, and both fell.


@ J Chandler

It depends on who initiates combat. You are forgetting that the gatana was designed to be able to draw and cut directly from the sheath. On the battlefield, if the gatana had to be used because the samurai had lost his main weapons, the sword would be carried sheathed, only to pull and attack in one motion when confronted. Add in to that that some samurai went with shorter blades for personal protection rather then longer ones in order to maximise on draw speed. A knight not prepared for this, seeing the samurai still standing unarmed, might be wholly unprepared and get a good hit on his wrists or head before he realises what happened.

"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."

That's why I've exactly stated how armored my two subjects are in each case.
And japanese do is actually a lot stronger then you'd expect (or perhaps you've seen some non-battle armor displayed). And on the subject of lamellar, you should know that lamellar body armor was one solid plate. The lamellar is made solid after being put together, and is theorised to be even better at dissipating force then a simple plate.

But as I've stated in my posts, I believe the many open areas on japanese armor would be advantagous to the knight. As for false edge strikes, it doesn't matter how well they cut meat, if they can't cut armor, and my combatants are armored. I would ask you to go back and read what I've written carefully again if you will.


@ S Taillebois

Actually, there were only few pieces of european armor adepted into japanese armors, and for all historical evidence, these all seem to be no more then fashion statements.


@ Bill Tsafa

Ah yes, I can see how this could be used. The false edge strike would not do much against a heavily armored head, but the surprise from getting hit could be very usefull.


@ Cameron Sharpe

There is no use in assuming combatants of different levels of skill. We all know that, nomatter the weapon (in close combat), the most skilled and experienced fighter is likely to win.

If you would read what I've written carefully, you'd note that I have not drawn up all "Equal situations". The armored longsword vs gatana is what I'm often asked. But I've added all more real situations in my posts of how a samurai and knight could meet for battle. unarmored backsword and buckler vs gatana, armored halberd vs naginata, and I've added the most likely scenario that a samurai and knight would meet, and that's on horseback. I suggest you read that part if you want a realistic contact scenario. And note that I'm also not predicting. I'm just indicating in which situations who has the advantage.

And please do not use the word dai-katana. If you are a practicioner of JMA, you should know that. It's a horrible mistranslation and should be forgotten asap. The weapon you mean is a nodachi. Looking realistically, a samurai in combat wielding a nodachi, would most likely encounter a knight wielding a halberd.



Thanks for the replies sofar gentlemen <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

But as I've stated in my posts, I believe the many open areas on japanese armor would be advantagous to the knight. As for false edge strikes, it doesn't matter how well they cut meat, if they can't cut armor, and my combatants are armored. I would ask you to go back and read what I've written carefully again if you will.

Respectfully, I read it. You'll notice in your own sentance above you stipulate that the Samurai would not have his entire body covered, so you could do false -edge cuts against unarmored or lightly armored parts. Frankly I think anything you could hurt with a long-edge cut you could hurt with a false edge cut. And as you yourself pointed out, the simple impact of a strike could have an effect even if it did not penetrate the armor.

Also, as for the Do being fused together, this took place later on in the Samurai era, did it not? I'm not an expert on Japanese kit but I seem to remember this from an Osprey military book or something.

I do belive the armor I saw was battle armor, but I grant you there was a signifcant range in quality in Japanese armor. I have actually seen photos of some Do which were made with Porguguese tempered steel breast plates integrated into them, which could have been bullet proof.

Jr

[Attila DeWaal]

The fused do was present ever since the first O-yoroi, I think even as early as the 9th century. For the exact date, I'll have to dig into my notes again. But the cuiras part itself has always been a rigid piece.

The false edge cuts might do something, but the location of these weak spots tells me the knight would be much much more succesfull half-swording and attempting to pierce the lighter protection in those areas. I'm not dismissing flase-edge or long edge strikes, but I believe half-swording would have been more advantageous. Whichever way however, the longsword still has the advantage.

[s_taillebois]

M. Dewaal, Quite true, the Japanese inclusion of European armour, may have been an affectation. Weapons oriented people often have a interest in the exotic, as this thread indicates.
Another more subtle, albeit profound, influence on this comparison of 'knight vs samurai", is the effect of cultural philosophies on any given conflict, individual or communal.
For example, Amida buddhism and Shinto, would have influenced the Samurai's fighting attitudes. Often, the samurai were noted for their tacit acceptance of fate. Which made them very dangerous, up to the point of defeat. And well into the 20th century, that fatalism often made them act rashly at that point of defeat. And adversaries often used that tendancy...provided they survived it...
The Crusader's, their effectiveness was often contingent on their belief that God was ordaining their actions. When they believed this, they were extremely couragous, when their faith waned, much of their effectiveness waned. But, they would do quite unexpected things under the influence of that fervor.
Counter-Reformation Catholicism (especially in Spain/Portugal due to the Cruzada), retained a lingering aire of the earlier crusades. But along with the counter-reformation, came a certain belief in the superiority of their faith, and their culture. This made them very effective, provided they were up agaisnt an opponent who's weapons technology couldn't compensate for theirs (ie Cortez in Mexico). But as a associated effect, it made them have a tendancy to under estimate opponents. For example, Cortez in Mexico (after the night of sorrows they would have lost without aid from Indian allies, who understood how dangerous the Aztecs were as fighters), and the Japanese (the European's tended to under estimate the samurai ethos, and continued to do so, well into the 20th century).

[Zach Palfreyman]

If you are a professional soldier, then I think luck is your enemy. Because even if it only makes you lose 1 in 100 fights (which I think would be a very small margin of chance for a fight), you are going to lose/die after 100 fights.

Okay that brings me to something I wanted to say about Guards. If they are predictable, this is actually very helpful for the professional soldier. IMO a good technique helps eliminate chance. The less that luck is a factor, the more that skill becomes a factor and this adds strength to all your training and experience. The predictability of guards also would go both ways, I don't think anyone else mentioned this yet. So if I am in Ochs guard, you will know better how I might attack (how well will depending on your level of training), but I will also better understand and predict how you will attack me, because my guard will effect the choice you make in attacking me. Now it starts adding more to how much I know and how well I know what you will do in this situation and that, taking away from chance and adding more factor to my skill.

So I am thinking that predictability is what a professional soldier wants. Somtimes you might have to make yourself more predictable to add to your opponent's predictability. But at least it is more determined by skill and brain-power, less chance for the Fates to screw you over. Any opinions or disagreements with that?

One other thing, I thought I saw some people mention that katana would be bad at thrusting. If I look at thrusting weapons, they are generally stiff and will have a thick spine like a bastard sword, right? The back of the katana is also thick and rigid, so it should be quite good at thrusting. I don't have a ton of swords to go try it out with, but just from the blade design I think it should be good on the thrust. But if there is some overwhelming evidence that they suck and thrusting, please point it out.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Zach

So if I am in Ochs guard, you will know better how I might attack (how well will depending on your level of training), but I will also better understand and predict how you will attack me, because my guard will effect the choice you make in attacking me. Now it starts adding more to how much I know and how well I know what you will do in this situation and that, taking away from chance and adding more factor to my skill.

I have used this fact to my advantage, I think you are right in some respect's.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

I think all the purpose of the fecthbuch is predictability.
All the idea of a fighting system whatever it is and wherever it comes from, the ideas is to reproduce winning technique in a consistent manner. So I defeinitly agree with Zach and jeff here

About winning the katana and tachi thrusting abilities it is like comparing the p51 d and the FW190 a weapon system.
It is quite clear that the mg 151/20 with minengeshloss is far more efficient than the 0.50&amp;#8221; mg (M1, M2 or M8 ammunition).
Well if you are shooting at Zeros, it does not make squat of a difference, I does when shooting at p47, FW190, F6F or corsair. But against lightly armored and relatively fragile aircraft, the damage differential does not make that much of difference
It is the same with a tachi katana trusting abilities. They are not as good as a 15 cent longsword but they are more than good enough to do one man.

phil

[JeanryChandler]

Sounds like another aviation nut in here:) I play Il2 online and often think of the comparisons between "flying" WW II fighters and fencing, an idea first brought to my mind by a quote from Saburo Sakai's that he considered the Zero to be his Katana...

Jr

[JeanryChandler]

Zach, though in one sense I disagree with your premise, I think you have hit the nail on the head in another.

On the one hand, I think the multiplicity of guards and numerous potential attacks from each does definately make a fighter much more unpredictable. We saw this dramatically in moving from stick fighting to actual WMA fencing.

On the other, I think to a very skilled WMA fencer, the 'predictablity' you speak of is accurate, because you have studied every possible attack and every possible counter. You could perhaps think of it a lot like a chess game. Speed chess perhaps more accurately <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />. As moves are made, certain counters present themselves, and certain reactions to those counters can be predicted. If you can either think a few moves ahead as the Italians seem to indicate, or think of moves in the instant before your opponent does as the Germans say, you can control the fight to some extent, and better ensure victory.

As we reached an intermediate level of WMA last year, the analogy to a chess game was often commented upon by numerous fighters, including both regulars, guests and observers...

Jr

[Casper Bradak]

Yes, this was what I was wondering. What would an "average" knight be carrying as secondary weapons when on horseback? Flails? Maces? Axes? I believe that when carrying a blunt instrument, the knight would have a significant advantage over the samurai attempting to close for grappling, especially since the knight is mounted on a larger, faster horse. On the other side, it would be very interesting to wonder what would happen if they did try to graplle each other, and both fell.

I haven't really been following this thread, I'm not here very often, so I hope this isn't redundant, but since you asked me...

I'll assume we're talking about a 14th-15th c knight. When on horseback, a knights secondary weapons varied quite a bit for personal preference, but if you take the primary weapons (in general) of lance and sword, it was commonly referenced that the next in line, carried on the saddle most likely, were another sword (of differing type, usually a single hand weapon), and a war hammer (though an axe or mace were often used in its place, but warhammers seem to have been slightly more common vs armoured opponents), and it was virtually unheard of for a knight to arm himself without at least one dagger at his strong side hip, as either a backup, or in case very close grappling ensued. Some apparently carried a light flail secondarily, since there are some nice ones around, but I haven't actually read about it specifically mentioned in the sources related to their combat loads.

On another note, many knights used a saddle, at least in competition, if nowhere else, that would make it very difficult to remove him from it.

[Zach Palfreyman]

Also I was only talking about being predictable from your point of view. From the enemy's, then you would want to be unpredictable. If the guards make you less predictable from the opponent's POV, then that is just bonus! Although it is possible that it only seemed less predictable at first because you probably just learned a bunch of new moves and stuff. Obviously you'd be less predictable if you went from knowing, say, 5 attacks, 2 counters to 7 attacks, 5 counters. Plus your opponent would also have to already know the system for something like you standing in a guard to give him a clue of what you are doing.

[s_taillebois]

Well, a very duplicitious chess game.
And that's the advantage to the linear approach to studying the fechtbuchs...once the basics are learnt, the ability to move two or three viable responses becomes viable.
In that sense, perhaps the Samurai and Knight, would have hacked each other apart quickly enough. Although there is some inevietable commonality-the two traditions are different enough that, perhaps, very rapidly, both would have done something for which the other had no counter.
And in that sense, one or the other would have to be more than proficient-random events play a role. To kick in an aviation example...Saburu Sakai, was jumped by a flight of F6F's, about 20-1. One of the reasons he survived was his experience compounded with very erratic flight which was provoked by his one good eye being blinded by sweat. The F6F pilots, although capable, couldn't quite compensate. Sakai, tripped over his rock, as it were, but was good enough to benefit from it.
So skill only benefits from chaos, when it's good enough to compensate for it.

[JeanryChandler]

Don't know how far to carry the aviation analogy but since we have even more knowledgable aviation buffs here I would add that ...

...Those Hellcat pilots, if there were indeed 20 of them (you always have to question numbers in these first hand accounts) also probably hadn't encountered a pilot of Sakai's quality in their careers, since most of the cream of the IJN pilots had been killed at Midway and Coral Sea, and in the early battles at Guadalcanal. Sakai's eye injury saved him for that battle and it's undoubtedly the reason he survived the war, unlike a lot of other Aces with twice his score...

Jr

[s_taillebois]

Quite true, and no doubt to Sakai it felt like 20.
That event, also demonstrates that sheer rage and aggression can be lethal, to the initiator. One of the pilots dove at Sakai, overshot and Sakai shot him down as he passed.
An analogy, closer to fencing, would be someone who goes Zornhau, or off of crown, and misjudges their distance. The balance between offense and defense is gone, and in reality, likely so they would also be...
On the hypothetical samurai vs knight, that could also be the balance of the fight...which one would make the first mistake out of frustration or rage. And that could be problematic for the knight, if he was crusade era, they did have a tendancy to fall into that trap. And once again, Saladin used that at Hattin.
This said though, a presumed loss of face might provoke a samurai into doing something equally disadvantagous.
That's where too many variables come into a discussion like this one...it's not simply a manner of training, or weapons, it's also random events. Which would include emotions and the attendent unpredictability arising thereof... It's just as likely to conjecture if the samurai and knight would have sat down, compared each others gear, and became rollickingly plastered on sake, plum wine, or port.