European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

[RedNeckJiuJitsu]

As far as bringing Rome, the Mongols, etc, into the discussion, it's a bit pointless. The discussion is knight vs samurai, and which is better in a one on one battle or duel. The strength of the legion was in their numbers and the tactics they used were based on those numbers and the men fighting as a unit. That was definitely impressive, but it's not where this discussion is at. Were they as well trained for singular combat as a knight or samurai?

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

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.

I think you misunderstood. The texts do cover curved blades in great detail. There is a whole family of weapons known as Messers that came in a huge variety of shapes and sizes, from machete-like blades to things that resemble an Arab saif to a two handed weapon very similar to a katana. They evolved from the German Seax, and were originally just a big knife.

File:Long Knife Vienna.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But no where in the texts does it mention anything about curved blades being faster in any way.

These guys here are performing some one handed messer styles

YouTube - Langes Messer

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'.

In any duel or fight the two opponents will *already* have their weapon drawn before the bind.

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.

By significant, I mean anything other than light nick. If you constantly keep your blade razor sharp you risk destroying the blade. Japanese fighters often wacked their swords into bags of sand before battle to dull the blade for this very reason. Not to mention the fact you will grind the blade down very quickly with the constant honing required to keep a blade so sharp.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

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?

You can't really. People use the term because wood chisels are damned sharp but rugged

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?

It depends on what you want to cut. Knowing how much to hone a sword takes experience. You need to understand edge geometry. But the rule of thumb is to hone it just enough to cleanly cut the stuff you want to cut without altering the edge geometry. Razors have a particular edge geometry that is designed to perform a certain job. Most swords will not share this edge geometry because swords are designed to cut different objects in a different way.

 

[Chillout010]

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.

I think you're right to an extent. There's no doubt that the Romans (post Marius reforms) where one of the toughest sobs ever. These were professional soldiers, fighting was their living. I mean we're talking about guys that (while on campaign) marched for 20kms with 30kgs on their back! And when reaching their destination they didn't catch a break, they had to build a freaking mini fortress with palisades and all. Every single night.

BUT, I think people are talking about single battle, one guy against another guy. The roman legionary, his equipments, his tactics, everything about him was for the purpose of fighting in groups. When their formation was broken, they didn't do well (I know, you can say the same thing about any army). Look what happened to them in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest. That day they didn't have the benefit of their maniple formation, they had instead to fight a bunch of small, single battles and got slaughtered by Arminius and his Germanic warriors.

The Romans were not THAT amazing in single combat, not because they were not tough sobs, 'cause they were, but because that is not what they were trained to do.

 

[Gurkha]

I think you misunderstood. The texts do cover curved blades in great detail. There is a whole family of weapons known as Messers that came in a huge variety of shapes and sizes, from machete-like blades to things that resemble an Arab saif to a two handed weapon very similar to a katana. They evolved from the German Seax, and were originally just a big knife.

File:Long Knife Vienna.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But no where in the texts does it mention anything about curved blades being faster in any way.

These guys here are performing some one handed messer styles

YouTube - Langes Messer



In any duel or fight the two opponents will *already* have their weapon drawn before the bind.



By significant, I mean anything other than light nick. If you constantly keep your blade razor sharp you risk destroying the blade. Japanese fighters often wacked their swords into bags of sand before battle to dull the blade for this very reason. Not to mention the fact you will grind the blade down very quickly with the constant honing required to keep a blade so sharp.

I read somewhere that it's the Seax that the saxons got their names from. Is that correct? I know for fact that the saxons came from 'saxonia', which is a region in North-eastern Germany (Dresden etc.).

In a 'western' duel, you have your swords out, not always true in other cultures. Reputedly, fights often broke out at the blink of an eye while your weapons were still sheathed (and the aim was to kill or debilitate your opponent before he was ready or got his blade out.)

For this reason, tlear (have a look at post #61) even mentioned that during a sit-together the leader would have his sword close at hand and in a favorable position (which facilitated a quick draw and strike) while someone of lower status deliberately placed his sword at a disadvantageous position.

In such a situation, a 'razor-sharp' katana would be advantageous over a straight, 'chisel-sharp' blade because even an 'insignificant' blow (akin to an arm-punch in boxing terms) with a razor-sharp blade will cause a major wound and hemorrhaging when compared to the other sword.

A curved sword is preferred for a single edged-sword as it is quicker and more balanced for slashing, nothing fancy, it is just weight-distribution and a bid to increase your sweet-spot. Also for a blade of the same length it is much quicker coming out of the scabbard (pertinent to our katana discussion).

 

[KnightTemplar]

I think you're right to an extent. There's no doubt that the Romans (post Marius reforms) where one of the toughest sobs ever. These were professional soldiers, fighting was their living. I mean we're talking about guys that (while on campaign) marched for 20kms with 30kgs on their back! And when reaching their destination they didn't catch a break, they had to build a freaking mini fortress with palisades and all. Every single night.

BUT, I think people are talking about single battle, one guy against another guy. The roman legionary, his equipments, his tactics, everything about him was for the purpose of fighting in groups. When their formation was broken, they didn't do well (I know, you can say the same thing about any army). Look what happened to them in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest. That day they didn't have the benefit of their maniple formation, they had instead to fight a bunch of small, single battles and got slaughtered by Arminius and his Germanic warriors.

The Romans were not THAT amazing in single combat, not because they were not tough sobs, 'cause they were, but because that is not what they were trained to do.

This. Roman soldiers had to be able to fight in groups, due to their genetic inferiority to true "warrior races" such as Celts, Picts and Germans. If/when the Legions were forced into situations where they could not fight as a cohesive unit they were slaughtered.

The Romans eventually gave up on the idea of conquering Scotland because the country at that time had no natural resources and the Picts were past-masters of hit and run warfare. There is a legend that the Romans lost an entire Legion(the Ninth)who were ambushed and wiped out to the last man by the Picts. Wether or not this is true, it is a historical fact that the last attempted Roman invasion of Scotland lasted four years, cost the Romans thousands of casualties and ended without a the vast Roman army winning a single battle.:icon_twis

 

[My little Tony]

There is a legend that the Romans lost an entire Legion(the Ninth)who were ambushed and wiped out to the last man by the Picts. Wether or not this is true, it is a historical fact that the last attempted Roman invasion of Scotland lasted four years, cost the Romans thousands of casualties and ended without a the vast Roman army winning a single battle.:icon_twis

this sounds more like the battle of teutoburg forest, which was in germania (like northern Germany nowadays). The romans got ambushed in the woods, and lost 3(i'm not sure if it were 3) legions, led by general Varus.

But yeah, they got tired of Britain as well =P

and about the knight vs samurai, my money is on the samurai (in case it's a duel), since that is what they specialised in.

The heavy armor medieval knight wore (very depending on what century and place), was mostly build to resist pike formations and arrows. It still had the same openings that the samurai armor had (armpits, for example). Notven chainmail would be able to stop that

 

[Gurkha]

You can't really. People use the term because wood chisels are damned sharp but rugged



It depends on what you want to cut. Knowing how much to hone a sword takes experience. You need to understand edge geometry. But the rule of thumb is to hone it just enough to cleanly cut the stuff you want to cut without altering the edge geometry. Razors have a particular edge geometry that is designed to perform a certain job. Most swords will not share this edge geometry because swords are designed to cut different objects in a different way.

Chisels are rugged because of their blade-angle (there's a lot of metal directly behind their edge) and their lower carbon content.

Razors have a completely different shape and grind (sharp but weak) but a sword or knife(even with a different geometry/grind) can still be razor-sharp (sharp enough to shave the hair off your arm with ease).

Curious to know, what kind of grind and geometry do medieval, European blades have? In my culture we generally have saber grinds and sometimes convex grind, the cross-section is normally a gentle taper, with finer blades having fullers.

Despite all the discussion, I still haven't found out how sharp a battle-ready medieval european sword would be :icon_conf

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

The heavy armor medieval knight wore (very depending on what century and place), was mostly build to resist pike formations and arrows. It still had the same openings that the samurai armor had (armpits, for example). Notven chainmail would be able to stop that

Plate armour was designed to protect against any pre gunpowder weapon. Plate is essentially blade proof. You need to attack the joints. However, the joints are covered by mail and they are extremely difficult to hit in a fight, especially with a slashing weapon and doubly so while the target is moving and fighting back. In order to fight a man in mail you should use polearms and percussive weapons such as hammers and maces. If you want to use a sword you have to grip the sword in two hands and stab the point into a seam. Duels between men in plate often ended in grappling with daggers simply because it was so difficult to actually hurt a man in plate.

YouTube - Some techniques from Hans Czynners treatise
YouTube - SwArta Harnischfechten

 

[KnightTemplar]

this sounds more like the battle of teutoburg forest, which was in germania (like northern Germany nowadays). The romans got ambushed in the woods, and lost 3(i'm not sure if it were 3) legions, led by general Varus.

But yeah, they got tired of Britain as well =P

and about the knight vs samurai, my money is on the samurai (in case it's a duel), since that is what they specialised in.

The heavy armor medieval knight wore (very depending on what century and place), was mostly build to resist pike formations and arrows. It still had the same openings that the samurai armor had (armpits, for example). Notven chainmail would be able to stop that

Yeah, the Romans lost 3 Legions in the Battle of Tuetoburg Forest. The Ninth legion was a seperate incident. Nobody is quiet sure what happend, since the Picts left no written records and the Romans certainly were'nt about to advertise that they got their ass kicked by a bunch of half-naked, hairy savages covered in blue paint(and that was just the women ).

Hmmm...savage guerilla fighters using hit and run tactics and local knowledge/terrain to inflict massive casualties on a technologically vastly superior army: Anyone else see a comparison to recent events? :icon_sad:

 

[esotamoc]

I read somewhere that it's the Seax that the saxons got their names from. Is that correct? I know for fact that the saxons came from 'saxonia', which is a region in North-eastern Germany (Dresden etc.).

In a 'western' duel, you have your swords out, not always true in other cultures. Reputedly, fights often broke out at the blink of an eye while your weapons were still sheathed (and the aim was to kill or debilitate your opponent before he was ready or got his blade out.)

For this reason, tlear (have a look at post #61) even mentioned that during a sit-together the leader would have his sword close at hand and in a favorable position (which facilitated a quick draw and strike) while someone of lower status deliberately placed his sword at a disadvantageous position.

In such a situation, a 'razor-sharp' katana would be advantageous over a straight, 'chisel-sharp' blade because even an 'insignificant' blow (akin to an arm-punch in boxing terms) with a razor-sharp blade will cause a major wound and hemorrhaging when compared to the other sword.

A curved sword is preferred for a single edged-sword as it is quicker and more balanced for slashing, nothing fancy, it is just weight-distribution and a bid to increase your sweet-spot. Also for a blade of the same length it is much quicker coming out of the scabbard (pertinent to our katana discussion).

One of the fastest draws is a thrust to the chest with the other hand(usually left) pushing on the back of the sword. The Jyaps used thrusts to great effect. the yari was more effective than the sword in battle.


Regarding the sharpness of a blade- even a completely blunt blade will open you up with even an `insignificant` blow. With a thrust its even easier- i have had a completely blunt fencing blade nearly go through my hang and i was wearing protection. A coach in Japan died a few years ago when his student thrust a blunt fencing blade into his heart when it entered his sleave.

BTW when i got hit on the hand from a blunt fencing weapon- i countnt continue - immediately. If that blade were sharp it wouldve ccreated permanet damage.

to end a fight with a thrust you dont have to attack a deep target-ie bchest or head. an injury ro the hand, arm, or legs will severly effect you adversary.

 

[tlear]

But no where in the texts does it mention anything about curved blades being faster in any way.

It is a simple test really, put a straight blade and a curved into scabbard.. now pull either out while striking in same motion. If anything Katana is optimized for that purpose, actual lack of crossguard even makes sense for this. Japanese used crossguards on their spears and polearms but not swords, why? Probably so that the guard does not get caught in the clothing (pure guess here).

In any duel or fight the two opponents will *already* have their weapon drawn before the bind.

So are we talking about a formal duel now? Because in a fight thats a huge assumption to make. Ability to have the weapon out first is a huge deal. You are having somewhat heated conversation, then next thing you know the other guys hands are moving towards the hilt..

 

[Gurkha]

Yeah, the Romans lost 3 Legions in the Battle of Tuetoburg Forest. The Ninth legion was a seperate incident. Nobody is quiet sure what happend, since the Picts left no written records and the Romans certainly were'nt about to advertise that they got their ass kicked by a bunch of half-naked, hairy savages covered in blue paint(and that was just the women ).

Hmmm...savage guerilla fighters using hit and run tactics and local knowledge/terrain to inflict massive casualties on a technologically vastly superior army: Anyone else see a comparison to recent events? :icon_sad:

Pretty common occurrence even in modern times. :icon_sad:

Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
and so many others..

 

[Gurkha]

It is a simple test really, put a straight blade and a curved into scabbard.. now pull either out while striking in same motion. If anything Katana is optimized for that purpose, actual lack of crossguard even makes sense for this. Japanese used crossguards on their spears and polearms but not swords, why? Probably so that the guard does not get caught in the clothing (pure guess here).



So are we talking about a formal duel now? Because in a fight thats a huge assumption to make. Ability to have the weapon out first is a huge deal. You are having somewhat heated conversation, then next thing you know the other guys hands are moving towards the hilt..

I agree. Sometimes situations can be very explosive. In such a situation being able to draw, strike in a heart-beat and ensure that the strike inflicts maximum damage is of paramount importance.

An ambush would also present a similar situation, where you have to have your blade out and capable of inflicting debilitating damage in an instant while not having the benefit of being prepared (blade out, correct stance or chance to make a full blow).

 

[ElKarlo]

[/B]


Pretty common occurrence even in modern times. :icon_sad:

Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
and so many others..

Not in Korea, that was a different kind of warfare. It was much like WWI, or WWII France 1944.

While int he other conflicts the Vietnamese and Afghanis got their @$$es handed to them every time. It was giving up, not being out right beaten, like the Romans were. Not really the same thing at all.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Not in Korea, that was a different kind of warfare. It was much like WWI, or WWII France 1944.

While int he other conflicts the Vietnamese and Afghanis got their @$$es handed to them every time. It was giving up, not being out right beaten, like the Romans were. Not really the same thing at all.

I beg to differ. IIRC, a US Army officer once spoke to a captured NVA officer, and pointed out that the US Army had not lost a single major battle in Vietnam.

"That is absolutely true", replied the NVA officer, "But it is also utterly irrelevant."

From the Picts to the Taliban, if you can force your enemy to withdraw ahead of schedule and without total victory - you've won. End of.

 

[Gurkha]

Not in Korea, that was a different kind of warfare. It was much like WWI, or WWII France 1944.

While int he other conflicts the Vietnamese and Afghanis got their @$$es handed to them every time. It was giving up, not being out right beaten, like the Romans were. Not really the same thing at all.

Wonder what made the USSR leave Afghanistan or NATO forces leave Vietnam..

Anyway, my post was in response to:

Hmmm...savage guerilla fighters using hit and run tactics and local knowledge/terrain to inflict massive casualties on a technologically vastly superior army: Anyone else see a comparison to recent events?

Also, we have to remember:
- The difference in weapon technology between romans and picts/celts/other tribes was negligible when compared to what it has been in more recent wars.
- No idea what numbers the Roman legions were up against in those instances... anyone has any idea?
- The legions that got into these wars were isolated, had walked most of the way and had no back-up, logistical support or the means to request it.

 

[ElKarlo]

I beg to differ. IIRC, a US Army officer once spoke to a captured NVA officer, and pointed out that the US Army had not lost a single major battle in Vietnam.

"That is absolutely true", replied the NVA officer, "But it is also utterly irrelevant."

From the Picts to the Taliban, if you can force your enemy to withdraw ahead of schedule and without total victory - you've won. End of.

That's not the point. We were talking about Roman forces not doing well in the forests of Germany, and it was pointed out that it was from irregular guerilla warfare. I pointed out that it was a battle, and Vietnam and the such were not battles, Also Korea was not like Vietnam by any means.

 

[ElKarlo]

Wonder what made the USSR leave Afghanistan or NATO forces leave Vietnam..

Anyway, my post was in response to:

Hmmm...savage guerilla fighters using hit and run tactics and local knowledge/terrain to inflict massive casualties on a technologically vastly superior army: Anyone else see a comparison to recent events?

Also, we have to remember:
- The difference in weapon technology between romans and picts/celts/other tribes was negligible when compared to what it has been in more recent wars.
- No idea what numbers the Roman legions were up against in those instances... anyone has any idea?
- The legions that got into these wars were isolated, had walked most of the way and had no back-up, logistical support or the means to request it.

Lose of material and lack of will. The military in no way lost those fights. The govt and politicans did.

My point again is that the Romans were beaten in Tuetenberg (sp) forest in an irregular battle, and not by guerillas. The Romans were poorly led, and many knew they were walking into an ambush. Read about it a long time ago. It was pretty stupid, and yes they had no hope of relief.

 

[tlear]

Romans got betrayed in that battle. German commander was roman trained, I think he even been to Rome himself. Basically what happened is all of the regional Roman allies turned on them.. also Germans were far from some random dirty barbarians, they were well organized and very well lead, romans did not expect battle and got caught on the march basically.

If you talk about French in vietnam then they got schooled. Dien Bien Phu is a good example.