A few more prints of samurai with weapons that some people say were not used by samurai.




Samurai with a otsuchi (war mallet)
[ Linked Image ]


Samurai with various weapons, otsuchi, kanabo, and ono.


Samurai with kanabo.


Samurai with a ostsuchi

It is irrelevant to the outcome of a battle if one or two samurai used unusual weapons. It is also not helpful to trawl through the sources to find exceptions that make this discussion even harder to follow. The only way this topic can make any sense at all is to analyse typical warriors from both cultures.

well the kanabo,being used by deadliest warrior even isnt as uncommon as some others so i amend my thinking about that.

the ostuchi i know of thanks to scottbaioisdead and his shop korisuya.com where he sells one,



though for the samurai another well known SAMURAI weapon was the kusari gama

and the kusari fundo, which is essentially a chain with a weight on each end

according to wikipedia :
"There are several chain and weight weapons with one type known as a konpi being mentioned in manuscripts as far back as the Nanbokucho period (1336-1392).

The founder of the Masaki ryū Masaki Tarodayu Dannoshin Toshiyoshi (1689-1776) is said to have developed a version of the kusari-fundo[7] while serving Lord Toda as a bloodless weapon that could be used to defend the grounds of Edo castle.[8] "
they wernt usuallythat long, but they could be used on the battlefield.


that said id arm my samurai with tanegashima matchlock, katekama yari, katana (or tachi im not too fussed i guess) anf a kabutowari OR a yoroi toshi. which were japans answer to the misericorde or the ballox/ rondel style daggers. the yoroi -toshi was a tanto with a much thicker spine. essentially

Hachiwara were usually around 350mm long, some larger versions are around 450mm long. There were two types of hachiwara:

One type of hachiwara was forged with a sharp dirk like point[2], to parry an opponent's sword, to hook the cords of an armor or helmet, or like a can opener to separate armor plates. The sharp point could pierce unprotected or weak areas of an opponents armor like the armpit area.[3] The blade of this type of hachiwara was a curved tapered square[4] iron or steel bar with a hook on its back edge. [5]In combat one could parry and catch a blade with that hook, as with a jutte. Some hachiwara of this type were mounted in the style of a tanto with a koshirae.[6]

The other type of hachiwara was a blunt cast iron truncheon like weapon resembling a tekkan or a jutte.





dan, were not discussing these odd weapons like artillery and ono in regards to the discussed matchup but a side topic discussing the simple idea that the japanese were wierd in their fighting style compared to other nations of the same time period, who from china to italy shared some weapons unique to their geography but they pretty much all used battle axes with reasonable frequency.
halberds maces, shields, a combination of sword typs on any particlar battlefield. for example theeuropeans have the armingsword andlongsword and the falchion, messer and grossemesser, likewise china has jian big 2 handed jian and various types of dao and you see similar trends in the middle east and india

japan just stayed in its own little bubble pretty much, id say the only thing after about 1100 ad they took from other nations with much enthusiasm in the way of weapons was the matchlock which they were shown one or two.. then they go crazy and make as many as youd see in the english civil war (ok maybe im exaggerating but you get the idea)

they never introduced shields after facing the mongols OR the koreans. or the ming chinese nor did they start adopting complex or different hilt styles on their swords, or thin stabbing swords dring the edo period which are far more effective at urban duelling. especially considering the japanese didnt wear the numerous layersof clothing worn by north europeans due to their hotter climate and thrustingweapons likerapiers are as ive heard better for fencing, since a slicing swords neds room to swing it, wheras a thrusting weapon only needs enough room to standwith reasonable comfort.

the only ones who used shields were the native okinawans who likely adopted timbe rochin style from chinese sword and rattan shield. not to mention

they didnt even take to the idea of riveting maille and using it to protect gaps in the armour. thanks to my 20/20 21st C hindsight this looks like an unthinkablystupid idea., but i get the feeling they had their rreasons..

These type of comparisons can be almost silly sometimes. We are talking technologically a difference of about 2,000 years - may as well ask who would win, a Special forces platoon ro a group of Aztec warriors.

Quote:

Training a hoplite concentrated on formation drills, whereas training a samurai included a huge amount of single combat work.

I must say though that this paints Spartan Hoplites in a bad light, and I disagree. Maybe Hoplites getting rudimentary training get this - but with the training we know Spartans had, I'm sure they were not only adept in formation fighting but also in more one-on-one. I look at a Spartan more like a middle ages knight - as the warrior-elite of the culture, they spent much of their time training, and not just for large scale formation battles.

From what we know they were also effective in small unit actions and raiding as well.

The technology would favor the Japanese though of course.

The 5'10" 180 lb Spartan comment seemed a bit off also.

But from what I have researched, a Spartan was probably a hair taller than the 5'5" Roman, most estimates put average height in the 5'7" range. Perhaps better nutrition for being a warrior-elite helped, and Spartans DID do some selective breeding, though it was more weeding out the unfit, not breeding for size, and it was in plave for only a short period of time when you look at it in a geneological time frame.

Isn't the riveted clearly a European borrow? Its called nanban after all isn't it? So wouldn't that mean that their was no riveted mail until after European arrival?

If the question is based on one on one combat, what's to stop an early period mounted Samurai from riding circles around the spartan and pelting him with arrows from outside the reach of the Spartan's spear? Who says the Samurai must close in?

If both combatants are on foot, then are we not forgetting the famous story where a Macedonian foot companion in full kit, armed with his giant pike, was defeated by a Greek athelete armed with a club? Hoplites in full kit would have to modify their technique when fighting in a one on one scenario. I am curious though as to whether the Samurai using his spear with two hands would have the advantage over parrying or knocking aside the Spartan's spear due to better leverage?

If based on the idea of a whole Spartan army versus Samurai, then its more realistically Spartan versus Samurai and Ashigaru. What's to stop the Ashigaru spearmen, handgunners and archers from pinning down the Spartan Phalanx and then the mounted Samurai outflank the Spartans and wreak havoc on them with mounted archery and lances (yari)?

A better question would be who would win? A Togugawa era Samurai army, or Cromwell's New Model army?

The idea of samurai being inferior due to a shieldless fighting system does not make sense. If being shieldless means being inferior, in that sense, would not the 15th century European knight in full plate harness be inferior as well? Just my thoughts.

Sometimes you get the bear, ...sometimes, ...the bear gets you. :P