Posts: 782 Location: Upstate New York
Wed 25 Oct, 2006 9:26 am
Hello all!
To seriously ask this question (if it can truly be asked seriously), don't we need to ask what period, especially when the European knight is concerned? Is it a knight of the First Crusade, clad in a hauberk and possibly a gambeson (although the existence of padded garments this early is debatable), nasal helmet, kite
shield, but without mail chausses? Or, is it a knight of the 13th century, clad head-to-foot in mail, with a gambeson or aketon beneath, with a
great helm upon his head, and a "heater" shield on his arm? Or, is it a knight of the 14th century, when knights really began fighting regularly on foot (just a gross generalization, I know), and began to add all sorts of reinforcements to the mail hauberk or haubergeon, including a coat-of-plates, greaves,and vambraces? Or, is it a knight of the 15th century clad cap a pie in an "all white" harness?
I'm not so sure about the changes in a samurai's armour, but does it change somewhat also? Is this the period when European influences began to show, or is it the period when Japan was more isolated?
Japanese armour and weapons evolved under the specific conditions encountered in Japan, with a definite traditional influence. European armour evolved under different conditions and different traditions. The two classes might be a bit disparate in equipment. However, I think both warrior classes would have adequate training. Remember, a knight trained constantly in tournaments and on the hunt as well as during his upbringing.
Again, it's a bit outside my area of interest, but I was under the impression that the katana was a wonderful cutting tool, but perhaps not an "armour cracker". Would a katana make much of an impression on a knight in full plate harness? I am aware that thrusts can be delivered, but how prevalent was the "thrust" ideology in feudal Japan?
I think if a samurai clad in the typical lamellar, brigandine, and partial plate of traditional Japanese armour encountered a 15th century knight clad in full plate, it might be a bit like the Polish cavalry charging the German panzers in World War II. The Japanese katana might find it hard to defeat the plate armour. I think the knight's poleaxe or bastard sword would not find it too difficult to exploit gaps or weak points in the Japanese armour. After all, that's what they were designed to do! Of course, if the samurai also carried a pole arm, things might become a bit more even.
Another difference, more important to the earlier European period, would be the use of a shield. The katana is basically a two-handed weapon, isn't it? A knight clad in mail with a shield might be able to catch the katana on the edge of his shield and render the samurai momentarily weaponless. His slashing sword may not be able to penetrate the samurai's armour, but he could still batter him senseless! And, the thrust was still a viable option even with the earlier slashing swords.
As hard and skilled a fighter as the Japanese samurai was, I think he would find a medieval knight, especially one in full plate, to be a hard nut to crack! I think Dan Howard's point about the adoption of European-style armour by the Japanese is a good one! The Japanese themselves seemed to understand the effectiveness of European-styled armour.
I hope I wasn't being too general with regard to my comments about Japanese arms and armour. I know a bit, but it's not my main period and place of interest!
Stay safe!