European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

[tlear]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who is big into Japanese history and fencing and mentioned this thread. One explanation he presented to why Japanese sharpened the swords so much and why such emphasis was made on attack is that Katana was basically a 1 shot kill weapon for every day (kinda like a not so concealed carry handgun for self defense). Many of Japanese schools concentrate mostly on draw and kill in 1 motion and Katana seems to be optimized for that. Being a cutting sword you can draw and hit faster then with a stabber (1 motion), being a cutter and extremely sharp not only will it kill but it will kill instantly, distinction is significant. You can be stabbed through the lungs or stomach and will die. but you just might take your opponent with you (old saying about knife fight with winner dieing in a hospital and loser at the scene). Blow with a katana inflicts such a massive wound that it disables opponent where he stands (think about stopping power arguments for guns), Katana is a stopper.

Another point he made is that what acceptable in term of fighting and duels is completely different in Europe and Japan. Look at how Musashi disposed of most of his foes, it was not from some extreme sword play but by surprising them. Once challenge is accepted if you can kill a person before he even draws he blade all the better. Even Japanese customs and rituals take it into account, when Samurai sat down he would place his swords in different location, some where he could draw instantly and some where he could not, that indicated the situation and status (if you are a lord your sword would be in the insta draw location, if you are vassal yours would not)

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Ghurkha: You wont cut yourself in such a manner with a chisel because the edge geometry is wrong. A chisel is very sharp, but a chisel is meant for chiseling. The edge geometry of a sword is going to be different.

Tlear: All swords aim for one shot, one kill. In a sword fight, the actual exchange of blows rarely lasts beyond a few seconds. Fiore Dei Liberi, one of the masters of longsword remarked that he had almost never seen a fight go beyond the first attack, the counter, and the counter to the counter. many fights are over in a single blow. All sword fighters train for speed and the quick kill, because Blossfechten sword fighting is utterly unforgiving of mistakes. You make a mistake, you die. So you meet an attack with an attack, then deflect and redirect. Or you bind and wind, or even hang and counter.

This gentleman in this video has broken ribs, and is performing a cut with a blade that is not razor sharp.

YouTube - ARMA Test Cutting-Cleaving a Deer Carcass

That blow will kill you just as dead as if the blade was sharpened to a razor point, with far less risk that the brittleness of the edge is going to cause fatal damage to the blade.

 

[tlear]

There is a bit of a difference though, straight stabbing blade take much longer then curved Kata or saber to hit with on first attack.

Second is that when you try to strike on draw you generate much less energy then with any normal cut, can not really use any body mechanics except your arm strength. Blow like that with semi sharp weapon will leave a mark but I doubt it will be instantly lethal.

Extreme example of stabbing sword non-lethality this is famous Jim Bowie fight where he was: hit in the head with a pistol butt(breaking the pistol), stabbed through the chest with a sword(sternum deflected it apparently), shot few times and still managed to kill the guy who stabbed him with his knife.. and survived himself

 

[Gurkha]

Ghurkha: You wont cut yourself in such a manner with a chisel because the edge geometry is wrong. A chisel is very sharp, but a chisel is meant for chiseling. The edge geometry of a sword is going to be different.

Tlear: All swords aim for one shot, one kill. In a sword fight, the actual exchange of blows rarely lasts beyond a few seconds. Fiore Dei Liberi, one of the masters of longsword remarked that he had almost never seen a fight go beyond the first attack, the counter, and the counter to the counter. many fights are over in a single blow. All sword fighters train for speed and the quick kill, because Blossfechten sword fighting is utterly unforgiving of mistakes. You make a mistake, you die. So you meet an attack with an attack, then deflect and redirect. Or you bind and wind, or even hang and counter.

This gentleman in this video has broken ribs, and is performing a cut with a blade that is not razor sharp.

YouTube - ARMA Test Cutting-Cleaving a Deer Carcass

That blow will kill you just as dead as if the blade was sharpened to a razor point, with far less risk that the brittleness of the edge is going to cause fatal damage to the blade.

Ok.. you were extrapolating about razor-sharp Vs chisel-sharp. We established that Japanese swords as well as other oriental, Indian, middle-eastern, african and even european blades were very, very sharp. Since you're a student of HEMA, do tell us how you establish whether your blade is chisel-sharp, and why is it called chisel-sharp in the first place when the blade geometry is so different.

 

[ElKarlo]

All i know is a samurai would fuck a western knight up. Samurai so more skilled and fast.

You serious? Samurai did no have any real armor, while knights did. No too mention height ans size differences. On top of Japanese just fighting Japanese, thus they had relatively little exp fighting other peoples, while Euros did.
The cutting edge would not do so much against actual armor. It was designed to cut people who were relatively unprotected.

 

[ElKarlo]

Japanese wore full body armor and even started utilizing light shields when closing distance the casualty rate of completely unarmored soldiers would be much larger. Idea was to inflict such a high casualty to break the column and make it retreat. Common British tactic of the day was to utilize rapid fire by very well drilled infantry forming a line to try and break the column. That is why Wellington wanted to do it, longbow effective range vs unarmored mass off men marching shoulder to shoulder would be very long.

This was also in the 1590's and the Japanese were basically using a varient of the tercio formation. Wellinigton was early 1800's. Let's not confuse eras here.

After 1550 even the Mongols really couldn't do as much to the Chinese. Even crappy firearms can mess up archers. At a distance armor protects from arrows, but bullets still mess people up. I also argue that at most times/eras the Japanese only had light armor on.

 

[ElKarlo]

Pray tell me, what happened to medieval knights? :icon_conf

The knights were not that great, have a look at what happened during the crusades. The thing with knights (and samurai) is that they required too much back-up (luggage trains, a number of horses, assistants and servants, good food and wine, armorers and fitters, farriers etc.) compared to that roman legionnaires, mongols etc. were self-reliant and mobile(they traveled light and fast). Also for all those who talk about superior size and strength as a plus for knights.. A good soldier is not determined by how much damage he can do, but by how much damage he can take and still fight. There's no better conditioning for a warrior than to lead a simple, hard life.. Knights and Samurai were not very well known for frugal living and hard-labour.

IMO I don't either of them was the best warrior. I think Alexader's Army, the Roman Legionnaire or the Mongol Horseman deserve that distinction.

They were simply the most effective warriors of their times.

What are yo even talking about? The Crusades were an AMAZING military success. They were in hostile territory, beyond resupply, and receiving no reenforments, in a different climate, and they beat everyone!!

The Romans had a supply train and a massive amount of camp followers, sometimes they outnumbered the army.

The Mongols, they were nomads, so their life didn't change much on the road. They also needed a massive amount of fodder/graslands, as many soldiers had 5+ horses.

The Knight gave way to armored horsemen, who did quite well till about circa 1700. It was gunpower and armor piercing bullets that beat the Knights, not pikes or something silly like that. Look at the the composition of 30 years war armies, and sometimes they were made up of nearly 50% cav. So really did you have an actual point?

 

[ElKarlo]

I'd like to add my 2 cents worth as a someone who is training in HEMA -Historic European Martial Arts

Firstly, I must dispel the myth of the heavy, blunt, crude european sword. European swords were as finely forged as any Japanese sword, and were often made with better steel. Take the longsword for instance. A longsword could be up 4 feet long, but weighed only slightly more than a Katana. The European one handed Arming sword, what people mistakenly call a 'broadsword' was often significantly lighter than a Katana.

Like all swords (including the Katana) they were sharpened to the level of a wood chisel, although they could, and sometimes were, honed to a razor sharpness.

Secondly, European swords were designed to cut flesh, not armour. Plate armour is not only very light (weighing in at about 65 pounds), it is also nearly impossible to cut with a sword. If you wanted to smash away at armour you used a polearm, a mace or a warhammer.

There were two main ways to use a longsword. The first way is blossfechten. Blossfechten is Bare Fighting, and was used against lightly armoured foes. This style is similar to everyones classic notions of how swordfighting is, with cuts, parries etc etc. Blossfechten was swift and deadly, with most fights over in a few exchanges.

YouTube - Zornhau training - Lichtenauers longsword techniques

The second way is Harnischfechten, Harness Fighting. Since plate is almost impossible to cut, you must pierce the weakspots. In order to do this the blade was grasped halfway down in length in a technique known as halfswording. The extra leverage and accuracy allowed the blade to stab into the seams of the armour. In addition the blade could be reversed and and the extending quillions of the hilt used like a mace to smash the face and the helmet. Harnischfecten was closely integrated with grappling, and fights often ended with daggers.

YouTube - SwArta Harnischfechten

There were also systems of battlegrappling known under the umbrella term Kampfringen, which translates to battle grappling. Grappling was closely integrated into weaponised combat.

YouTube - Hip Throw - Ringen am Schwert ("Wrestling at the Sword")
YouTube - ringschule Wroclaw
YouTube - Twirch Ringen (Updated)

We know a great deal about the fighting styles of the late medieval era because many of the fighting men wrote down what they knew in Fechtbuchs "FightBooks". These describe fighting techniques for everything from swords, to sickles, to clubs, to dueling shields, armed and unarmed. There are dozens known, with a concerted search underway to find more. The best known are Fiore Dei Liberi's Flos Duelletorum the Tower Manscript, which describes sword and buckler, the works of Talhoffer, Joachim Meyer, Liechtenauer and Paulus Hector Mair.

Since Mairs is the largest and finest illustrated, I'll link to it. The rest can be easily found with some googlefu.

Digitale Bibliothek - M

 

[Gurkha]

What are yo even talking about? The Crusades were an AMAZING military success. They were in hostile territory, beyond resupply, and receiving no reenforments, in a different climate, and they beat everyone!!

There's a reason that there were 9 crusades

The Romans had a supply train and a massive amount of camp followers, sometimes they outnumbered the army.

True, during peace-time they were like self-sufficient cities on the move as they were often on the road for several years at a time. However they also had the capability and were expected to operate without the additional support.

The Mongols, they were nomads, so their life didn't change much on the road. They also needed a massive amount of fodder/graslands, as many soldiers had 5+ horses.

Exactly why they were so effective in war. All they needed were mounts and all their mounts needed was fodder. Since they lived and fought on what is described as ' a sea of grass', it was not really a problem.

The Knight gave way to armored horsemen, who did quite well till about circa 1700. It was gunpower and armor piercing bullets that beat the Knights, not pikes or something silly like that. Look at the the composition of 30 years war armies, and sometimes they were made up of nearly 50% cav. So really did you have an actual point?

My point is that if you're looking to compare the best of East and West before the advent of fire-arms, you need not look further than the Mongols, Romans and Macedonians. They were simply the best and most effective warriors ever.

Knights and Samurai are heavily romanticised and far from the best warriors.

 

[ElKarlo]

My point is that if you're looking to compare the best of East and West before the advent of fire-arms, you need not look further than the Mongols, Romans and Macedonians. They were simply the best and most effective warriors ever.

Knights and Samurai are heavily romanticised and far from the best warriors.

What Roman army are you talking about? he Republican, Principate or Dominate? As they were all different, and have different equipment/purposes.

A late 1400's or even early 1500's western european army was well equipped/armed, what the Romans had was organization, as well as a massive Empire to support them, as raise troops from.

The Mongols were amazing, but they were eventually beaten by the Russians and the Mamlukes.

Knights did well against everyone save the Mongols, and no one did well against them untill the 1200's or later.

While the Samurai were just messing around with other Japanese. When they fough in Korea they had firearms.
Edit, don't quote me AND write inside my quote, I didn't see it at all.

9 Crusades, all of which were sent well past normal force projections of the day. All in hostile terrain/climate. They were able to maintain a good amount of land despite it being in hostile territory with few men. The Crusading ran out, and it was expensive to go Crusading, so it died out.

The Romans, had an awesome supply train, even had direct deposti. What's your point in this particular debate.

I like Rome, but I don't hug on it like others who think it could beat any other eras army up to 1500 or so.

The Mongols had speed+firepower+no supply line. They were good, problem is nothing they did lasted.
Also we are talking more hand to hand fighting not projectile fights.

 

[esotamoc]

What Roman army are you talking about? he Republican, Principate or Dominate? As they were all different, and have different equipment/purposes.

A late 1400's or even early 1500's western european army was well equipped/armed, what the Romans had was organization, as well as a massive Empire to support them, as raise troops from.

The Mongols were amazing, but they were eventually beaten by the Russians and the Mamlukes.

Knights did well against everyone save the Mongols, and no one did well against them untill the 1200's or later.

While the Samurai were just messing around with other Japanese. When they fough in Korea they had firearms.
Edit, don't quote me AND write inside my quote, I didn't see it at all.

9 Crusades, all of which were sent well past normal force projections of the day. All in hostile terrain/climate. They were able to maintain a good amount of land despite it being in hostile territory with few men. The Crusading ran out, and it was expensive to go Crusading, so it died out.

The Romans, had an awesome supply train, even had direct deposti. What's your point in this particular debate.

I like Rome, but I don't hug on it like others who think it could beat any other eras army up to 1500 or so.

The Mongols had speed+firepower+no supply line. They were good, problem is nothing they did lasted.
Also we are talking more hand to hand fighting not projectile fights.

Yeah- if we are talking about armies then organisation and numbers are paramount but on hand to hand then the equipment matters. We can assume that all warriors of all times were very skilled with their own weapons and equally focased on destroying their enemy.

Medieval knights didnt have the numbers or organisation of the ancients but they were better equipped.

 

[ElKarlo]

Yeah- if we are talking about armies then organisation and numbers are paramount but on hand to hand then the equipment matters. We can assume that all warriors of all times were very skilled with their own weapons and equally focased on destroying their enemy.

Medieval knights didnt have the numbers or organisation of the ancients but they were better equipped.

Yeah people were going radically off topic.

The Ancients basically had a 1800's level of org, which other people could not call on.
So it comes down to weapon, armor, and training. Also are we talking about a clash of arms, or an actual battle. I thought we were talking about a small group vs small group, but it spun off into armies.


Also look at the size of people, the avg Roman was a bread eater, and much like early industrializing societies, had a short avg height, 5'4" or so. While the Early Mid ages, had the warm period, with the intro of the metal plow that could break up the clay soil of N Eruo. So height actually increased a good deal, that and the amount of pork eaten gave the avg Eruo decent height. Not too mention Knights who were prolly inline with modern people 6'+.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

there is a bit of a difference though, straight stabbing blade take much longer then curved Kata or saber to hit with on first attack.

I'm not sure why this would be true. Curved swords were actually quite common in medieval Europe,including some that resemble a Katana, yet none of the texts mention this.

Second is that when you try to strike on draw you generate much less energy then with any normal cut, can not really use any body mechanics except your arm strength.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Any real blow is going to involve significant body mechanics, everything from the push/pull on the handle, to shoulders, hips and legs. We spend many many hours working on this. And this does not even take into account perfectling what we call True Time technique, that is the proper coordination of weapon and body mechanics to minimise the telegraphic effect.

Blow like that with semi sharp weapon will leave a mark but I doubt it will be instantly lethal.

That blow severed a deer carcass in half! This sword is not 'semi sharp'. It is very sharp. It just isn't razor sharp. When sharpening a sword, you sharpen it to the point where it can cut cleanly, and no more. Sharpening blades properly is very time consuming, and most swords were honed according to their use, with parts of the blade being sharper than other parts.

Any significant blow with a bladed weapon against flesh is a fight ender. You cannot shrug off 2 feet of steel in your stomach, or a deep 12 inch gash in your chest. That's why most sword fights are so short.

 

[RedNeckJiuJitsu]

After reading through this thread, it seems that some people confuse "chisel-sharp" with "dull". There's a certain point where a blade is sharp enough to cut cleanly through flesh and clothes, but not at it's "maximum potential sharpness". Just because it's not as sharp as a razor or better doesn't mean it's not sharp. It just means that getting it any sharper wouldn't increase the usefulness of the blade, and would probably actually decrease said usefulness, because it would dull quicker and easier.

 

[GhostZ06]

Is it worth taking Samurai sword training?

 

[Gurkha]

I'm not sure why this would be true. Curved swords were actually quite common in medieval Europe,including some that resemble a Katana, yet none of the texts mention this.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Any real blow is going to involve significant body mechanics, everything from the push/pull on the handle, to shoulders, hips and legs. We spend many many hours working on this. And this does not even take into account perfectling what we call True Time technique, that is the proper coordination of weapon and body mechanics to minimise the telegraphic effect.



That blow severed a deer carcass in half! This sword is not 'semi sharp'. It is very sharp. It just isn't razor sharp. When sharpening a sword, you sharpen it to the point where it can cut cleanly, and no more. Sharpening blades properly is very time consuming, and most swords were honed according to their use, with parts of the blade being sharper than other parts.

Any significant blow with a bladed weapon against flesh is a fight ender. You cannot shrug off 2 feet of steel in your stomach, or a deep 12 inch gash in your chest. That's why most sword fights are so short.

I have no idea why the texts don't cover curved blades, maybe because the texts cover only a specific time-frame and area. I think Sabers and other curved, light-weight, one-handed blades came into Europe around the time of the crusades during the cultural exchange of the time. Interestingly, as the Europeans adopted the curved one-handed sword, the North-Africans esp. in Morocco and Ethiopia adopted the European-style, straight, two-handed sword.

What he means by 'it' is that often in medieval Japanese culture one of the fighters is dead before he can even un-sheath his sword. This is because they had perfected the art of striking in the same movement an un-sheathing. This was a technique that allowed little body-mechanics behind it, with no chance to swing (unlike the video you posted, where the person cutting the deer had his entire body behind the swing). For a technique like that, you need a curved blade with a razor-sharp edge hence the 'Katana'.

Like you said "Any significant blow with a bladed weapon against flesh is a fight ender." The reason the Katana and many other blades are razor sharp is so that even an 'insignificant' blow with little body-mechanics behind it is still a fight-ender.

 

[Gurkha]

After reading through this thread, it seems that some people confuse "chisel-sharp" with "dull". There's a certain point where a blade is sharp enough to cut cleanly through flesh and clothes, but not at it's "maximum potential sharpness". Just because it's not as sharp as a razor or better doesn't mean it's not sharp. It just means that getting it any sharper wouldn't increase the usefulness of the blade, and would probably actually decrease said usefulness, because it would dull quicker and easier.

I want to know.. what exactly is 'chisel-sharp'? How do you define it? While sharpening a blade how do you determine it is chisel-sharp?

SweetDaddySiki said "When sharpening a sword, you sharpen it to the point where it can cut cleanly, and no more." But cut what cleanly with what pressure and speed behind it? A razor sharp blade may not cut through a rope cleanly without significant pressure and 'sawing' while a blunter blade would cut through a dried stick cleanly without much pressure or speed behind it. Is there a standard technique that you follow?

 

[Gurkha]

What Roman army are you talking about? he Republican, Principate or Dominate? As they were all different, and have different equipment/purposes.

A late 1400's or even early 1500's western european army was well equipped/armed, what the Romans had was organization, as well as a massive Empire to support them, as raise troops from.

The Mongols were amazing, but they were eventually beaten by the Russians and the Mamlukes.

Knights did well against everyone save the Mongols, and no one did well against them untill the 1200's or later.

While the Samurai were just messing around with other Japanese. When they fough in Korea they had firearms.
Edit, don't quote me AND write inside my quote, I didn't see it at all.

9 Crusades, all of which were sent well past normal force projections of the day. All in hostile terrain/climate. They were able to maintain a good amount of land despite it being in hostile territory with few men. The Crusading ran out, and it was expensive to go Crusading, so it died out.

The Romans, had an awesome supply train, even had direct deposti. What's your point in this particular debate.

I like Rome, but I don't hug on it like others who think it could beat any other eras army up to 1500 or so.

The Mongols had speed+firepower+no supply line. They were good, problem is nothing they did lasted.
Also we are talking more hand to hand fighting not projectile fights.

Was talking about the Romans as a whole. They had a massive empire supporting them and everything, but what is worth discussing is. 'How did they get so big?' Rome was made on the blood and sweat of their legions, and I definitely think they are one of the best armies of all time.

Am not hugging on the Romans or any other group for that matter.

I just wonder why most people are so enamored by the Samurai and the Knights. In my opinion, they are not the soldiers or warriors that they are made out to be. They were just romanticised a lot and represent a very feudal system where they were the landlords and had a large number of peasants working and getting taxed by them in order to support their life-styles. In my opinion, it's the peasants who make the best warriors. Having suffered deprivation, hardship and a tough life right from the time they're born, soldiering is sometimes much easier than the labour they'd be doing at home. In my opinion, this is what makes the best soldiers hence my regarding the roman legionnaires, macedonians and mongols as the best. Not to forget that all these groups were immensely effective during war.

 

[Gurkha]

Yeah people were going radically off topic.

The Ancients basically had a 1800's level of org, which other people could not call on.
So it comes down to weapon, armor, and training. Also are we talking about a clash of arms, or an actual battle. I thought we were talking about a small group vs small group, but it spun off into armies.


Also look at the size of people, the avg Roman was a bread eater, and much like early industrializing societies, had a short avg height, 5'4" or so. While the Early Mid ages, had the warm period, with the intro of the metal plow that could break up the clay soil of N Eruo. So height actually increased a good deal, that and the amount of pork eaten gave the avg Eruo decent height. Not too mention Knights who were prolly inline with modern people 6'+.

I am not sure how much of a role 'size' would play in a fight involving weapons. I think the very idea of employing weapons is to negate a size advantage and let technique and speed do the talking. Also what I once read and what stuck to my mind is 'How good a soldier is, is not determined by how much damage he can do, but how much damage he can take and still carry on.'

Also mate, you've watched the opening scene of 'Troy' haven't you?

 

[esotamoc]

I am not sure how much of a role 'size' would play in a fight involving weapons. I think the very idea of employing weapons is to negate a size advantage and let technique and speed do the talking. Also what I once read and what stuck to my mind is 'How good a soldier is, is not determined by how much damage he can do, but how much damage he can take and still carry on.'

Also mate, you've watched the opening scene of 'Troy' haven't you?

Size makes a `huge` difference. In order to negate the advantage of reach/height, strength and power you have to be much more skilled and or have superior weaponry.

In a gruelling campaign- a soldier who has endured more hardship in his lifetime would have an advantage. However on the day of the battle the warrior who has been better fed-hence bigger and stronger, more energy and has better equipment should have the edge.