Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Portugeuse vs Samurai Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 
Author Message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 10:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Now here's an interesting question. Who do you think might emerge victorious from katana versus kriegsmesser fight?

(Kriegsmesser image stolen from Albion Armorers http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/ne...awing.htm)



 Attachment: 47.89 KB
Kriegsmesser.jpg


 Attachment: 13.58 KB
Samurai katana.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Jason Hall





Joined: 17 Sep 2005

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 10:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Jason Hall on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Jason Hall





Joined: 17 Sep 2005

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 10:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Jason Hall on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 9:10 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Tyler Weaver




Location: Central New York
Joined: 05 Mar 2005

Posts: 44

PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 11:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Remember Tyler that the shield much of the time is not used "passively". That is to say, one doesn't just simply hold it in front of one's self. Rather, it is actively moved off to close the line of attack, or better still, it is used to actually smash aside the opponent's weapon. My point is that it's not going to be easy to simply attack a swordsman's arm when he has a shield and is skilled in its use. Keep in mind too that anyone skilled with the shield will undoubtedly be aware of feints to draw his shield away and leave himself vulnerable, so that tatic will not be easy either.


Very true. I'm not saying that this is necessarily easy, merely that it seems to me like an agressive attack to a sword-and-target man's sword-side is probably going to kill him in a single pass if he tries to fence with you then and there, forcing him to maneuver and bring his shield into play, which can be worked with. It's not a one-sided fight by any means, but I feel that a kenjutsu practitioner would have some advantage against his counterpart, especially if the fighters were wearing any amount of armor.

Quote:
And as I'm sure you've probably heard ad nauseam by now, historical European single handed swords are quite light and maneuverable themselves. I don't think that a katana could necessarily "out-finesse" one.


Of course - I'm not casting doubt on the finesse or quality of historical European swords. Just pointing out that Japanese swords of a comparable tactical role to a rondelero's sword and target are powerful and fast two-handed weapons that can be thrown around very dynamically, thus forcing a European fighter to use all the equipment at his disposal (both sword and shield) to have a chance at victory. I don't think a single-sword vs. katana bout would end very well for the European stylist most of the time.

Quote:
Now here's an interesting question. Who do you think might emerge victorious from katana versus kriegsmesser fight?


The weapons seem to be fairly similar, at least on the gross level. I don't know how much kriegsmesser technique relies on straight conversion from longsword technique or how highly developed it became, so the katana fighter may have something of an advantage from simple stylistic maturity and being highly familiar with two-handed, curved-blade swordplay.

Quote:
Further: classifying a sword as superior is overly melodromatic.


This is a valid, direct and historical stylistic comparison. Swords are very much products of societies, changing technology and martial culture, and certain ones are better in certain roles than others and vice-versa. It's worth noting that Japanese swords rode with the changing times (and through several major paradigm shifts) with few major design alterations for over a thousand years. They're a solid, time and battle-tested design. However, when people can quote Silver and his ultra-opinionated fighting manuals up and down here, I don't exactly see the harm in some idle, polite speculation.

Aku. Soku. Zan.


Last edited by Tyler Weaver on Thu 22 Sep, 2005 11:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Jason Hall





Joined: 17 Sep 2005

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 11:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Jason Hall on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 9:08 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 11:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason Hall wrote:
This was a good thread, it's getting grossly off topic, and certain people are dangerously close to "trolling."


Jason,

Leave the moderating to the moderators, and modify the belligerent tone you've displayed in your last few posts immediately.

"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 12:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:

The weapons seem to be fairly similar, at least on the gross level. I don't know how much kriegsmesser technique relies on straight conversion from longsword technique or how highly developed it became, so the katana fighter may have something of an advantage from simple stylistic maturity and being highly familiar with two-handed, curved-blade swordplay.


I do know that there's a fairly extensive amount of material on the use of the grosse messer, which is just a smaller version of the kriegsmesser. http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/d18.JPG Between it and any general knowledge of the long sword, my guess is that a warrior trained with kriegsmesser has a fairly developed system. Therefore, I'm not sure if someone using a katana would have much of an advantage in terms of "stylistic maturity," and certainly there were curved weapons throughout the middle ages and Renaissance, so that aspect would be nothing new.
View user's profile Send private message
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 7:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Very true. I'm not saying that this is necessarily easy, merely that it seems to me like an agressive attack to a sword-and-target man's sword-side is probably going to kill him in a single pass if he tries to fence with you then and there, forcing him to maneuver and bring his shield into play, which can be worked with. It's not a one-sided fight by any means, but I feel that a kenjutsu practitioner would have some advantage against his counterpart, especially if the fighters were wearing any amount of armor.

I personally believe the exact opposite: the sword & shield (or targe or rondell) encer is going to have a massive advantage over a person with a single sword, be they knight, samurai or whomever. The ability to close lines of attack with minimal arm movements whilst being able to similtaneously counter attack is a massive advantage. So much so that it formed the basis of European and middle eastern combat for well over 1500 years.

In your example only a minimal arm movement is needed to cover the side the samurai would attack on his pass. Surely you are not saying he could move his hands, body and feet and cut faster than the shield wielder moved his arm and body a few inches? I know a certain old English bloke who would argue he couldn't. Wink
I'm sure you'll agree pitting techniques against each other like this is pointless. It could go on forever.

One thing I will ask you though, why would a people pragmatic enough to relegate their weapons to symbolic status use the sword and shield combination for so long?
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 11:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Taylor Ellis wrote:

I personally believe the exact opposite: the sword & shield (or targe or rondell) encer is going to have a massive advantage over a person with a single sword, be they knight, samurai or whomever. The ability to close lines of attack with minimal arm movements whilst being able to similtaneously counter attack is a massive advantage.


Not to mention the fact you can attack somewhere else! The Kat is a fast sword with a good bit of leverage. If you are very fast, you can attack and defend almost at the same time with one, but even a Kat cannot be in two places at once. Sword + shield/target/buckler CAN be in two places at once, on account of being two items.

Also, a shield can be used (And should be used) to cover the arm as you attack.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 2:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Welcome back, Tyler.

On Tyler's "goals" on this thread

Tyler Weaver wrote:
My "goals" in this thread are fairly constrained - prove the historical effiacy of Japanese martial arts, preferably by direct contest with European ones, which are this forum's measuring stick as it were. Simple advocacy for my style. Perhaps you're reading into this too much?


No, it's just that you've gone out of your way at every turn to deny the historical accounts of Europeans besting the Japanese.

As for the "historical efficacy" of the Japanese arts, I don't think they were ever in doubt in the first place. You don't have to explain away or deny the wako defeats or Pessoa's skewering of a couple bushi. Does anyone doubt the fighting ability of the Romans? After all, they got slaughtered by the Parthians at Carhae (sp), and by the Germans in the Teutoburgerwald.

No, that would be silly to doubt Roman fighting prowess. You win some, and you lose some.

Same with the Japanese.

Same with the Portuguese.

Same with everyone.


On "discussion"

Quote:
Dismiss the historical record how? There are enough exploits of Japanese (or wako) skill-at-arms to satisfy anyone's appetite - I'm interested in discussion here. Are you?


Discussion is fine, though I could do without the katana-rattling agenda.


On the relative merits of European colonials, wako, Ming Chinese, Manchus/Jurchens, and Samurai

Quote:
Not really, given that the Ming Dynasty was descending into civil war at the time and the Japanese could certainly muster the manpower and European-style ships that could have done the job. Recall that the Manchu destroyed the Ming and claimed the Chinese throne only twenty years later.


Just because the Manchu did it, doesn't mean that the Japanese could have done it.

Take the MMA analogy--Vitor Belfort beat Vanderlei Silva. Kazushi Sakuraba beat Vitor Belfort. Using your logic, Sakuraba therefore should have been able to beat Vanderlei Silva, but he didn't. He lost.

3 times.



On WMW and AMA "attitudes"

Quote:
Ample evidence of it can be found in the thread on Ieyasu's namban-gusoku in the Historical Arms Talk forum if you think about the attitudes involved - WMA guys are as eager as anyone else to believe that their art is the ultimate one, and perhaps moreso. On the converse, lots of AMA guys are either unfamiliar with history or don't care about the issues at hand, so things slip by. It's a feeling that I get.


Well, I'll tell you the feeling I get.

Serious WMA/HEMA researchers have to fight on 2 fronts--the "Old School Fencing History" front, where we have to correct Western combat sportsmen on the history of their own sport, and the "Asia Holds Monopoly on Martial Knowledge" front, where we have to show AMA exponents and historians that WMA/HEMA was not about knights wielding 25-lb blunt swords and such.

WMA types encounter frustration at every turn in regards to the above--they find themselves explaining the same basic things over and over. This sometimes leads to heated arguments, rather than constructive debates. It's probably one reason why so may sites frown upon the whole "Knight vs. Samurai" schtick.

On WWII FMA vs. JMA accounts

Quote:
I heard that on another forum - personally, I wouldn't be surprised if many accounts had been elaborated over time, especially anecdotes that aren't confirmed independently. There's plenty of totally unfounded rumors running around about Ueshiba Morihei's experiences in China in the '30s, for example.


I see no reason to doubt the FMA accounts. You appear to have a vested interest to do so, and so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree there.

On katana vs. espada

Quote:
I don't have much experience with European swordsmanship besides watching a few commonly-available video clips that may or may not be representative of the style and hanging around on WMA forums, but I would like to think that my kenjutsu technique is workmanlike enough. With that said, I can say this - Japanese swords, properly used, are hellishly fast and maneuverable weapons (not to mention having loads of leverage thanks to their hilt length), and I don't see how a single-handed cutting sword alone could beat one without getting lucky.


First, let's get details correct. It's a single-handed cut-AND-thrust sword.

Quote:
That equation changes if our Portugese swordsman has a shield to facilitate single-time counterblows, but it seems to me that the Japanese swordsman could simply close in agressively on the sword-and-target man's sword-side and cut him down then and there without letting him get his shield into play, or at least force him to maneuver his shield over to his sword-side and hang himself up, opening him up to an attack to his other side in the process.


You make is sound so very simple, and yet it's clear that you totally underestimate the value of a shield.


Quote:
Of course - I'm not casting doubt on the finesse or quality of historical European swords. Just pointing out that Japanese swords of a comparable tactical role to a rondelero's sword and target are powerful and fast two-handed weapons that can be thrown around very dynamically, thus forcing a European fighter to use all the equipment at his disposal (both sword and shield) to have a chance at victory. I don't think a single-sword vs. katana bout would end very well for the European stylist most of the time.


Tyler, allow me to make a few observations.

You've already pointed out that you have no formal training in any European martial arts or combat sports. You list your background as kenjutsu. That's fine.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you don't have any practical experience in any other systems, Western or Eastern. You totally dismiss the utilitly of single-handed swords, which is a shame.

Frankly, I wouldn't count out the Portuguese fighting man, even if he only had his sword. For one thing, single-handed espadas of the type in question typically have at least as much reach as (if not more reach than) a katana. Secondly, when fencing solo espada, the European swordsman will typically be en guarde sideways-on, and thus will not present as much of a target at the Japanese fighter, who will obviously be facing his opponent more squarely if he maintains his two-handed grip. Also, we should take into account the far greater hand protection of the European hilts of that time, which give the swordsman more options as to what he can do defensively.

Nor should you regard the katana as a purely two-handed weapon. Miyamoto Mushashi, one of Japan's finests sword exponents, preferred the nitto style, did he not?

As for the katana being a weapon that can be "thrown around very dynamically", well, that's a given for any good sword. For any good weapon. For any efficient and powerful body movement. The espada is likewise very "dynamic". So is a bolo. Heck, a Western boxer can throw his hands "dynamically". A good judoka can throw you or me "dynamically". To use certain words as some sort of "strength" restricted only to the katana (or any other weapon) is rather amusing--and inaccurate.


On notions of "stylistic maturity"

Quote:
The weapons seem to be fairly similar, at least on the gross level. I don't know how much kriegsmesser technique relies on straight conversion from longsword technique or how highly developed it became, so the katana fighter may have something of an advantage from simple stylistic maturity and being highly familiar with two-handed, curved-blade swordplay.


There were both single-handed messers and two-handed ones used in German-speaking areas. The messer, and its wooden equivalent, the dussack, were traditional weapons in those territories, with a long history. According to Egerton Castle, the dussack also served as a training tool for the landsknechts' katzbalger.

I don't see any evidence of "stylistic maturity" on the part of the Japanese.


"Valid comparison" or MA ego contest? And Silver...

Quote:
This is a valid, direct and historical stylistic comparison. Swords are very much products of societies, changing technology and martial culture, and certain ones are better in certain roles than others and vice-versa. It's worth noting that Japanese swords rode with the changing times (and through several major paradigm shifts) with few major design alterations for over a thousand years. They're a solid, time and battle-tested design.


You're missing a couple of crucial things.

1. For most of that 1,000 years, the Japanese only fought amongst themselves.

2. Plenty of other cultures have swords which have, in basic design, lasted about 1,000 years or so. The most obvious would be the saber (of which the katana is admittedly and arguably a sub-type). The straight, double-edged European "knightly" sword also has a very old pedigree--in terms of basic design, it is very similar to the Viking and Frankish blades which came before it, and the Renaissance complex-hilted military swords that came after it. These are likewise, "solid, time and battle-tested" designs.

So again, there's no monopoly there.

Quote:
However, when people can quote Silver and his ultra-opinionated fighting manuals up and down here, I don't exactly see the harm in some idle, polite speculation.


Tyler, have you ever even bothered to read Silver's works?

There's a very good reason why people quote Silver "up and down" (and I've been doing it for the past decade, long before it became popular)--the man made a LOT of sense. Martial artists and combat sportsmen from various backgrounds recognize this immediately. Current WMA researcher/teacher/author Terry Brown had an extensive kung-fu background before discovering George Silver. FMAist extraordinare Ray Floro has likewise noted the brilliance of Silver's writings. So has FMAist and author Amante Marinas Sr., who quoted Silver in his last book to illustrate fighting concepts of his native Filipino arts. There's an obvious "universalness" to effective fighting principles, and Silver's writings embody this.

Best,

David

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512


Last edited by David Black Mastro on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
David Black Mastro




Location: Central NJ
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 279

PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 2:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Taylor Ellis wrote:
I personally believe the exact opposite: the sword & shield (or targe or rondell) fencer is going to have a massive advantage over a person with a single sword, be they knight, samurai or whomever. The ability to close lines of attack with minimal arm movements whilst being able to similtaneously counter attack is a massive advantage. So much so that it formed the basis of European and middle eastern combat for well over 1500 years.


And Far Eastern. We must not forget the widespread use of the single-handed dao (saber) and tengpai (round rattan shield) in China.

"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

People,

This thread is rapidly degenerating into a tit-for-tat fight over the proverbial sandbox, as such it has no value whatsoever to this website. As with nearly all "Which is better, A or B?" discussions, this argument has no logical or definitive conclusion.

I have already had to deal with one individual's behavior on this thread today, and that's one too many. I'm starting to see some borderline confrontational behavior from others as well, this is not a good thing.

Since no conclusion or agreement is likely to be reached on this issue, I strongly suggest that all parties involved agree to disagree and move on to more productive discussions.

"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep, 2005 2:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Good tactical comparisons by people knowledgeable in both or either western or eastern swordsmanship can be useful as long as the point is the search for understanding: The truth or as close as we can try to get to it, arriving at different conclusions based on the same information is also possible.

The eastern ( Japanese ) martial arts were never lost or forgotten and overall are impressive.

As far as I know with my limited experience the WMA where not transmitted from generation to generation in as clear or complete fashion i.e. a lot was lost and has only been painfully rediscovered and in part re-invented ( Filling in the blanks ! )

What I believe is that skilled and highly trained warrior from almost any culture either had or could have developed very advanced and impressive fighting methods.

In the old Knight versus Samurai debate a first fighting contact would have been equally confusing to both sides: Each being able to surprise the other with unexpected reactions and techniques. But two master swordsman from each would quickly adapt and improvise.

Now, a specific culture could have developed a more effective than an other at a specific point in time.
I just don't see automatically assuming that one group of humans have the monopoly of scary competent fighting skills.

In any case, good and interesting discussion becomes a waste of time if it turns into a stupid flame war.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Portugeuse vs Samurai
Page 3 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum