I just read John C.'s excellent article on the Knight versus the Samurai. This was a well balanced approach to the subject, something which both experienced and educated sword enthusiasts and utter neophytes tend to specualte on. John did a good job of balancing the analysis with historical and practical information on the differences, strengths and weaknesses of both types, and shedding light from his considerable practical experience.
Since this is a matter I've also thought about quite a bit, I thought I might with all due respect offer a few of my own observations.
First, I agree with John that the shield could be a potentially major factor, and I applaud him for raising this point. The shield is too often ignored for it's importance on the battlefield and effectiveness in combat.
Second, a couple of technical issues. John mentions the difficulty the Japanese had against Mongol and Chinese 'studded leather' armor. It's true the Japanese had a great deal of trouble with the Mongol armor, but I believe, as do a lot of historians, that the term 'studded leather' is actually a misnomer from role playing games, and is usually in most cases misidentified brigantine. Certainly in the case of the Mongols and Chinese the armor in use was actually brigantine or lamellar armor, which they used going back to ancient times (the famous terracotta soldiers wear it) As most readers here no doubt are aware, the 'studs' actually hold in place small plates of armor under a leather or cloth covering. Brigantine armor was also used in Europe, paritcularly in the late mideieval and early rennaisance period. The name Brigantine comes from the fact that it was hard to identify as armor from a distance, and hence worn by brigands seeking to wayaly travellers. (This is interesting because it emphasises the importance of armor in combat, since it was not unusual or necessarily threatening to see people carrying arms)
Also, I think more emphasis could have been placed on the issue of reach. I believe most Kataanas were in the range of 36- 39 inches, considerably shorter (as John does point out) than most Long Swords and even Arming Swords. But second, they were / are typically used two handed. I think we are aware here that the two handed style, particularly when used to make slashing or draw-cutting attacks, gives great power and control at the expense of reach. Even an Arming Sword of roughly the same length, would have a big reach advantage over a Kataana, due to the shorter grip and the reach with one arm. A greatsword or long sword would have a huge reach advantage, and attacks differently from the Yari (spears) which the Samurai would be used to. In defense of my using rather categorical language here, I'm not making this observation soley based on my reading. I do have some albiet secondary (sparring) experinece. In the old days of my sparring group back in the 80's we had several people participate who were experienced Kendo fighters, (as well as others with martial arts experience who claimed to be trained sworsmen) using padded weapons meant to represent Kataanas. To my experience, against an equally skilled opponent, these guys were vulnerable especially in the initial moments of combat, to a Greatsword, Zweihander, or Arming sword with shield. They did a lot better in close-in fighting, though, (but in those days we didn't have any knowlege of half swording <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />) Personally I faced these guys very confidently either armed with arming sword and shield or with my greatsword.
Also, I think the Samurais hands would be more exposed to being cut or smashed.
Finally, I could be wrong, but I believe the Japanese laminate armor, which is held together by exposed silk cords on the outside of the gear, is far weaker and more succeptible to battle damage than any comparable western armor including western mail. There are records of some battles between western knights lasting supposedly for hours, with remarkably few casualties. It's hard to imagine Japanese laminate armor lasting under that much abuse. It should also be noted that while mail did exist in Japan (via China), it was made differently and much weaker.
In this opinion though I bow to Johns greater experince in test cutting, I haven't had a fraction of his experience in how well armor really does hold up against attacks by different types of weapns.
As an afterthought, we know there was interraction between European sailors and traders in the 16th century. As John pointed out, Samurai and Japanese nobles did acquire European armor from Portuguese and Spanish sailors, (most notably cuirasses) which they incorporated into their own armor. There are some surviving panoplys which are built around European breast plates.
It is tantalizing to wonder, in all the interractions between European traders, knights and sailors and their Japanese counterparts, wasn't there ever any incidents of fighting that have been documented? A battle between a skilled Spanish Sword and buckler or sword and dagger man and a Samurai would have been fascinating, especially since this was close to the era in which the Spanish swordsmen were the most effective and dominant fighters in Europe.
One last thing, the Feudalism of the Samurai and that of the Knights were different. Based on what I have read, Samurai were actually from a unique cultural stratum, in between peasants and nobility. They were actually military specialists from the peasant class who were employed by the much smaller aristocracy, both as police against the pesants and as soldiers. Again, I could have read this wrong, but I believe that Samurai were generally barred from advancement into the aristocracy and even had severe restrictions on what personal property they could own.
European Knights on the other hand were themselves junior members of the nobility, who could at least in theory aspire to rise up the ranks through battlefield prowess or well leveraged financial success. I'm not sure how this cultural difference might have affected the fight, but I think it could somehow be significant.
Anyway, hope I enlightened more than I irritated!
JR
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
