I know that many of you don't care about my niche with historical weapons, but this made me sigh.
QuoteDepends on the particular Katana being used and the skill of it's user. The Rapier wouldn't really be much of a challenge for a Katana in real combat, because sooner or later a parrying will happen and its good bye to the Rapier's when the Katana cuts through that skinny little blade like a hot knife through butter. But that's OK, I let the Rapier fencer have his little fantasy about taking on Japanese steel in the hands of a master swordsman. It makes for a great laughs.
>:(
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 03, 2013, 05:43:58 PM
I know that many of you don't care about my niche with historical weapons, but this made me sigh.
>:(
meh, a fail is a fail. So post away!
and I happen to agree with you: this comment from that guy was fail.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 03, 2013, 05:43:58 PM
I know that many of you don't care about my niche with historical weapons, but this made me sigh.
>:(
As I understand it, samurai in real life were all talk. Lots of politics and ceremony, not all that much real fighting if you don't count cutting down unarmed civilians.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 03, 2013, 07:20:55 PM
As I understand it, samurai in real life were all talk. Lots of politics and ceremony, not all that much real fighting if you don't count cutting down unarmed civilians.
I think we can say the same thing for the knights in medieval europe.
Quote from: Skm1091 on February 03, 2013, 07:35:44 PM
I think we can say the same thing for the knights in medieval europe.
Knights did fight each other a bit more. Until later on in history, europe has incredibly fragmented. Plus there were tourneys and duels. Most people of all classes dueled, Except ladies of rich families would duel. There's even some fight books that show men and Women deuling each other.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 03, 2013, 08:57:56 PM
Knights did fight each other a bit more. Until later on in history, europe has incredibly fragmented. Plus there were tourneys and duels. Most people of all classes dueled, Except ladies of rich families would duel. There's even some fight books that show men and Women deuling each other.
Yeah those knights were something. I believe that thing about the samurai bit also depended on the time period. For example a samurai from the Sengoku era (warring states period) would be a better warrior than let say a samurai during the mid or late Tokugawa era.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 03, 2013, 05:53:28 PM
meh, a fail is a fail. So post away!
and I happen to agree with you: this comment from that guy was fail.
I sent a few articles from Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA) to teach the guy about wesern swords and I get.
QuoteYou've watched way too many Earl Flynn movies. Tell you what though, I don't need to go to a website to hear European propaganda. Go ahead take your little sword to Japan, challenge one of their masters to a duel. Don't worry though, they won't kill you, they will cut your sword, slap you on the ass, and their students will have a nice laugh at your expense. Good luck with that!
ARMA already tried to do that.
goo.gl/s7xqA
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 03, 2013, 10:55:15 PM
I sent a few articles from Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA) to teach the guy about wesern swords and I get.
ARMA already tried to do that.
goo.gl/s7xqA
Ai yai yai. Im asian and I think these samurai sword plunkers are idiots.
Quote from: Skm1091 on February 03, 2013, 11:07:34 PM
Ai yai yai. Im asian and I think these samurai sword plunkers are idiots.
A good portion of the "fantastic" things katans can do was propaganda spead by the Japanese Imperialist.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 03, 2013, 11:35:00 PM
A good portion of the "fantastic" things katans can do was propaganda spead by the Japanese Imperialist.
I believe the vikings or the norse had a myth of sword that can cut through solid rock. The real swords that they built weren't all that bad either. They actually had very complicated and sophisticated forging methods such as pattern welding. Knights did not just swing their swords wildly like idiots, in fact they had very complex sword fighting technique nearly identical to kenjutsu. They also had sophisticated hand to hand, grappling and disarming techniques.
But that does not mean that the knight, even in full plate armor should underestimate the samurai. Remember that a sword does not have to cut through or penetrate the armor to do damage. Blunt Trama can cause serious injuries and even death. And samurais did have other weapons than the katana.
Quote from: Skm1091 on February 04, 2013, 12:06:06 AM
I believe the vikings or the norse had a myth of sword that can cut through solid rock. The real swords that they built weren't all that bad either. They actually had very complicated and sophisticated forging methods such as pattern welding. Knights did not just swing their swords wildly like idiots, in fact they had very complex sword fighting technique nearly identical to kenjutsu. They also had sophisticated hand to hand, grappling and disarming techniques.
But that does not mean that the knight, even in full plate armor should underestimate the samurai. Remember that a sword does not have to cut through or penetrate the armor to do damage. Blunt Trama can cause serious injuries and even death. And samurais did have other weapons than the katana.
That depends on the era. I don't think a samurai has anything, other than firearms, that could get through Gothic plate armor. When it was at the height of its evolution. The raised ridges and the plates that overlap. In order to get through the stuff, you had to do what was called half swording, where you grab the bottom of the blade with the other hand and make one big stab and the gaps were hard to get to.
I've heard some japanese master say that samurai didn't use shields because they thought were a sign of weakness. (might bullshit for all I know", but the knights stopped using them because they were wearing them.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 04, 2013, 12:33:10 AM
That depends on the era. I don't think a samurai has anything, other than firearms, that could get through Gothic plate armor. When it was at the height of its evolution. The raised ridges and the plates that overlap. In order to get through the stuff, you had to do what was called half swording, where you grab the bottom of the blade with the other hand and make one big stab and the gaps were hard to get to.
I've heard some japanese master say that samurai didn't use shields because they thought were a sign of weakness. (might bullshit for all I know", but the knights stopped using them because they were wearing them.
Like I said before you dont have cut or pierce through the armor to do damage to the wearer. You could crush or smash it with something heavy like a club/mace, flail, war-hammer or a battle axe. Japanese had something equivalent to the club, it was called the Kanabo or Tetsubo, this was a giant iron or wooden club embedded with metal studs or spikes. They also had a battle ax called Ono, Otsuchi a giant war hammer and a whole variety of pole arms. These weapons you rarely hear of because of the katana fanatics, however these weapons have the potential to crush and smash armor and smash and break the bones under it. And the japanese were known to adapt if they had to. So in a real war/battle it could really come downs to who makes the first blow, or who makes that one fatal mistake etc.
Going to firearms. That really depends of the type of bullet. Muskets balls were pretty low velocity, i believe buck or grape shots wold be the best because the smaller pellets fly faster.
The part about the shield is true because the katana was designed for mainly two handed use and they thought it was dishonorable. However if you go back in japanese history to pre heien or kamukara period warriors did use sheilds
Again we have Gothic Plate here. The raised ridges can absorbe alot of punishment. It would take most blunt weapons several blows just to dent it and usually just knocked them on thier butt. Most fights ended with putting someone on the floor and getting into the open areas of the joints.
Here's a pic of the armor. Really look at the breast plate ridges and overlapping plate. This was the highest evolution of plate armor. Stronger and lighter than most that came before it.
(http://i42.servimg.com/u/f42/15/62/93/63/sigfro10.jpg)
Could a samurai do it? Ya, but the odds are not in his favor.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on February 04, 2013, 02:29:52 AM
Again we have Gothic Plate here. The raised ridges can absorbe alot of punishment. It would take most blunt weapons several blows just to dent it and usually just knocked them on thier butt. Most fights ended with putting someone on the floor and getting into the open areas of the joints.
Here's a pic of the armor. Really look at the breast plate ridges and overlapping plate. This was the highest evolution of plate armor. Stronger and lighter than most that came before it.
(http://i42.servimg.com/u/f42/15/62/93/63/sigfro10.jpg)
Could a samurai do it? Ya, but the odds are not in his favor.
Ok fair enough.
One question though.
How would other style of plate armor, like the Milanese design, hold up?
Quote from: Skm1091 on February 04, 2013, 04:40:35 AM
Ok fair enough.
One question though.
How would other style of plate armor, like the Milanese design, hold up?
Probaly wouldn't hold up as well as the gothic, but would be pretty good.
Quote from: skm1091
Going to firearms. That really depends of the type of bullet. Muskets balls were pretty low velocity, i believe buck or grape shots wold be the best because the smaller pellets fly faster.
actually, a musket would have usually gone right through a knight's armor (or a samurai's), even at distance. while they were low velocity (about that of a modern pistol or shotgun, so ~300-400 m/s), they were pretty large caliber (between .55 and 0.80), with suitable balls (slightly smaller than caliber) and charges, which made up for the low velocity. further, muskets were never used in Japan in the Sengoku era IIRC. unsurprising, as the earliest forms (in the 16th century) were ~5-6 feet long, and required a heavy monopod forked rest to aim with, and would have therefore been a pain for Portuguese travelers to lug around*. they also were very very slow to reload: because of how cumbersome they were, as well as the lack of suitable means of carrying ball and powder, they could take up to 2 minutes to load (the 2 shots a minute, no monopod is later--when it got lighter: 3 shots and more was possible when the matchlock gave way to the flintlock, and cartridges were introduced).
what was actually used, both in Europe and Japan itself, for you everyday shooting (battlefields included), was a weapon called the Arquebus (or Caliver): these were smaller, easier to wield (no rests), and could fire a shot every 30 seconds or so. downside was that they were smaller (i.e shorter barrel). therefore, it wasn't always reliable when penetrating armor at a distance, though it did better than an Arbalest or a war-bow at medium to close range.
either way, one things neither weapon would have been used to shoot at a knight (or any armored target), is buck-shot**/pellets: they're almost completely useless against armored targets at all but the closest of ranges, as the pellets are too small (the velocity is little different from a single bullet). they aren't even that good against unarmored targets: in the Battle of Zorndorf (http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1758-08-25_-_Battle_of_Zorndorf) in 1758, the Russians partly used them against the Prussians, and it didn't help them much. (because of this, the Prussian officers suspected the Russians wanted to encumber the Prussians with wounded: it didn't work, as Prussian soldiers were forbidden to help the wounded. the battle was a draw--32,919 total casualties later, with 11,680 of those dead).
grapeshot of course, is for cannons, and the balls were typically larger than those in either a musket or an Arquebus: Canister (which didn't exist in the middle ages, or Sengoku era Japan), did use musket balls. those can penetrate a knight's armor, as velocity is higher.
*
the Portuguese introduced them to Japan: some lord was apparently impressed with the duck-shooting skills of the travelers, and had copies made. **not to be confused with buck and ball: that is definitely effective, though at close range (~30-50 yards and inwards)
The bullet hitting the armor would actually make the wound bigger.
Just In case you hear something that doesn't sound right.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm
Seriously, Warrior Graveyard (tv show) on Netflix now., you have very realistic fights for the episodes about European battles, but you do one on samurai, the fights are OVERLY stylized! Provided Japanese duels were stylized, but, jumping in the air towards one another, REALLY?
And European broadswords are heavier than katanas?!? What the fuck? Why is it that scientist turn off their scientific process when it comes to samurai and their overrated katanas?
How hard is it to do actual research?
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm