vibius wrote:

LOL! You dismiss me with such utter disdain there!

After your statement about military training and "top-gun training missions" being based on competition, what other conclusion am I suppose to come to? If you knew anything on how military training is conducted, you would not have made such an absurd statement.

Quote:

And you continue to try to belittle my position.

I didn't belittle or mock you at all. But when you put on armor and compete, it is still just a game. The armor, when referring to actual historical type you said you wore, is not there to save your life. So it's a costume. It's no different from paintball, Civil War reencating, or a Renaisance fair. Call it whatever you want, but in the end it's still playing. A few bruises, but every one goes home at the end of the day.

Quote:

My position is that someone who is better trained and more skilled is more likely to prevail in a real duel. I don't think this is just me, it's been expressed by others in this thread too. Furthermore, I contend that a competition duel is a reasonably good means of determining who has more skill.

You are either not reading my posts, or you are intentionally misdirecting. I have ALWAYS contended that competition is a good place to test skills, and even included that I participate in them to do such. But what is being debated, and you are now avoiding, is that a winner of a competition is not proof of what will happen in real fight for your life. How good is all your skill if you freeze when you need to use it? How good are your techniques when the opponent doesn't play by competition rules? Can you bring yourself to take another's life? Anyone can pound their chest and answer these questions, but when you're not thinking clearly and the pucker factor is on hard squeeze because you know your life is in danger, it's a whole different story.

Quote:

"If *I* have done any testing of (theory/technique/equipment)?" I've done loads, but this argument isn't about me, is it?

No it isn't about you. It's about the correct way to do testing. Even if you fought a thousand opponents, it would mean nothing to this whole debate. Why? Because there isn't enough diversity. For all we know, you may be a modern-day Musashi, some kind of sword saint. You could defeat every sworsmen in the the world with a hot dog. But any other person using your techniques and teachings would be killed in an instant.

Quote:

I still think the evidence I cited is interesting. Of course it isn't conclusive! I never said it was. At least it gives some hope that somewhere in some dusty archive, someday, someone may find some well-recorded accounts of east/west duels that may shed some light on this topic.

It can't even be called evidence. There is no validation, and even on it's own it wasn't written with concern. It's no more than hearsay. I've heard that "evidence" before. I've also heard other versions where it's common that both fighters died, "samurai" by stabbing, and rapierist(not knight) by slashing. There are also "records" of samurai swords breaking European broadswords. My point is that you should not using a questionable source to support your argument because it detracts from credibility.

Quote:

You put forth an argument that leaves no room for reasonable debate.

When the matter is life and death, there is no room. Only results matter. Those who debate and squabble about what could happen are nothing more than bleacher "experts".

Quote:

You call into question the other guy's argument and evidence without providing but your own opinion, and then you condescendingly tell your opponent to lighten up!

Fine. Let's start in the beginning.

Quote:

Based on my experience, I think the knight would easily win.

Tell me, how many samurai have you fought in a death match? How many men with swords of varying skill have you fought in a death match? How much real knight training and lifestyle have you had? How many Japanese sword practicitioners of different styles have you fought? How many life and death situations have you ever been in? Considering that there isn't a man alive who could make the decision based on their experience, why is it that you can? Flaw one.

Quote:

Did you read mooncaller's post? And the J. Clement's article? Even ordinary (unarmored) Portuguese sailors are known to have consistently beaten samurai: http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpost.php?s=c746e231422e9afa9acb626bb4deb368&p=103077&postcount=15

First off, they were not knights, but rapeirist(not sure if that's the correct term), so you're using misdirection to prove your point. We also know nothing of the skills of the Japanese fighter, nor the situations of the battles, or even the truth behind them. Second, taking twelve questionable cases, and calling it "consistently beating" is practically lying. So you used recorded hearsay, calling it fact, of a very limited scale to prove your point. Flaw two.

Quote:

A Knight would have easily been as skilled in using his weapons as a Samurai, having trained from an early age (like 6).

Most records show they enter service at that age. Actual military and combat training do not begin until around 14. So essentially until 14, they were nothing more than servants, kinda like the Mr. Miyagi school of karate. Here you are using a falsehood. Flaw three.

Then you began the whole tirade of how modern US military practice is based on competition, even starting screaming "baloney" to give yourself a sound of authority. Well, let's make this clear. You are WRONG. We've already gone through this, but competition only serves a small part of military training, and doesn't prove who will win wars. Fighting wars prove who will win wars. Speaking authority of a subject you have little or no knowledge about. Flaw four.

The only thing you got right was that it was not as easy to get behind a long sword and I conceded that to you. And I haven't spoken condescending to you at all. If you've taken any offense, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.

Kijinnmaru wrote:

The only thing you got right ...

Frankly I think you are taking this far too seriously for someone who previously admonished others not to and to lighten up. And I think you've been a little too rude about it too.

I think a number of things we disagree on are matter of opinion. I've formed what I feel is a reasonable opinion on the subject based on the interesting discussion here. Maybe you have too, and we just disagree. Not a problem for me!

Let's meet again on some other thread and have a good laugh. This one seems too have gone off into the wrong direction.

vibius wrote:

Let's meet again on some other thread and have a good laugh. This one seems too have gone off into the wrong direction.

I can drink to that.

A quick search brought up articles by Clements on this subject. Food for thought:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

Kijinnmaru wrote:

I can drink to that.

Cool. I'll buy the first beer. I like it dark and strong.

Quote:

A quick search brought up articles by Clements on this subject.

Those are good reading. Very interesting background material. I think he chickens out by not picking a winner though! But he has lots more experience than me.

Good golly Miss Molly..we are off on a rampage here.

It is a moot point about who would win..Knight or Samurai. I don't know of any such battle. The samurai effectively put a stop to themselves actually. I think they knew about guns and firearms and decided to banish them and go back to the fencing schools again, It was their way of life and kept them in their high station. They were stylish and stylised and that proved their downfall at last.
As for knights...well anyone can be a knight these days. Even Elton John.Can't quite see him on a horse in armour taking on a samurai.
It is rather unfortunate that the idea of knighthood has been given a coating of thick romantic icing. When it came to battlefield tactics they were kill or be killed and heaven help the horses.
I love the legends of Arthur and Merlin...Hey there Man..I am an old Welsh witch myself so you know I talk to Merlin now and then. There was an 'Arthur 'and he was a leader of the pack. Lots of actual 'things' around my home area still in existence. It's not all Geoffrey's imagination.

Ah well..It would still be a hard duel.

Peg

Kijinnmaru wrote:

If we went through Japanese archives, how many "recorded" cases of samurai cutting down foreigners would we find?

you are wrong.... the "foreigners" you are referring to would be chinese masters, korean grand champions and pacific islanders... a samurai NEVER fought ANy knight... we're talking middle ages here not the industrial revolution...world history..study study....

oh and everyone seems to go back to the "kata is the sharpest sword ever" while it is true..especialy now with lazer sharpening technology...but the katanas of old were folded metal which made them increadibly strong and sharp... but IT COULD NOT PENNETRATE A KNIGHT fullcasted plated armor...... show me a katana which can slice a plated armor and i'll eat.... i dunno natto or something... u guys seem to think it could slice trought it like it was a tin can or something...

The Man wrote:

Also . . . c'moooon, folks, where are those Age of Empires samurai v. knight results? .

hey u know for a guy ur age u sure know alott about games... and in there my samurai get TORE UP by basic long swordmen... no joke.... they're useless againt normal units... only good againts specialunits...

that beign said i also voted for the samurai...cuz i like the samurai... (except for all that money that they took from commoners)...

lovelessemotion wrote:

you are wrong.... the "foreigners" you are referring to would be chinese masters, korean grand champions and pacific islanders... a samurai NEVER fought ANy knight... we're talking middle ages here not the industrial revolution...world history..study study....

How can I be wrong when my statement doesn't even take a position. In fact, since it's a question, I can't be wrong.....or right for that matter. And I'm aware of the time period which is why I brought up the difference between knight and rapier user. Never said that knights fought samurai so I'm not really sure where you got that from.

Quote:

... but IT COULD NOT PENNETRATE A KNIGHT fullcasted plated armor......

When you say fullcasted, are you referring to pouring molten metal into a mold? I'm not an expert, but as far as modern metallurgy, this is suppose to be the least favored method for high stress metal parts(behind barstock and MIM). Even with today's quality control, it has the highest rate of imperfections of the mentioned methods. So, it would be possible for a good hit to break cast armor given the right circumstances. Or do you mean forged armor?

Quote:

I think they knew about guns and firearms and decided to banish them and go back to the fencing schools again, It was their way of life and kept them in their high station. They were stylish and stylised and that proved their downfall at last.

They did. In fact, at Sekigahara, the battle was fought with massive amounts of both firearms and traditional weapons. But after that battle, Japan entered over two hundred years of peace and isolation, so the sword took the foreground until the Bakumatsu. But even then, the samurai and ronin, like the Shinsengumi, began using firearms and guerilla tactics.

This thread has turned out to be a..... QUOTE WAR!!!


Oh, and, geezer, Grimstad is not far from my place. I even know people there.

I can't believe this thread is still rolling. Amazing.

Anyways, an experiance of intrest. A couple weeks ago I was at a european martial arts seminar and we had the rare opportunity to test cut on quality (chain)maille armor. Despite being given very favorable circumstances for penetration no sword blow cut through, thrusting through it was also extremely diffacult. The axe would get through maybe 40 percent of the time. The only melee weapon that consistently defeated maille was a thrown spear.


I reiterate, even more firmly then before. Very rarely, if ever, will any sword cut quality maille, and no sword will ever cut quality plate.

If you think about it, samurai had and used firearms.(as in Sekigahara and Toba-Fushimi) Does that count in this contest?

Good-bye plate armor!

History of the World?
_________________

Well, i dont have vast knowledge on historical japanesse swordsmanship, i am however, a practitionor of historical medieval european swordsmanship and i have sparred and won against many kenjitsu students who have been practicing much longer then i have (dont get me wrong, ive lost against many too) Kijinnmaru, you are right in the fact that training is different from life or death, however, my opponent and i were both using sparring swords that simulate the actual weight of the swords used by european knight or japanesse samurai (u can get these at www.rsw.com.hk) If we were using real swords, the result would have been the same, except instead of my opponent getting a couple of bruises he would have been dead. Imagine if i were wearing platemail.

Am i saying a knight could kill a samurai? no. My point is that you shouldnt take what you see in movies seriously (and im not saying you are!!!) The truth is, the fighting movements of a knight's longsword (a two handed weapon) and a samurai's katana are pretty similar, and both begin training at an early age (around 6-7 years old) I just cant imagine that somehow....a samurai is just magically much more skilled with a sword then a knight when both have the same amount of weapons training and both styles are similar. I just cant concieve it....

ps. im sure you heard of john clements, the guy that went into an open weapons martial arts tournment and won 1st place using the longsword fighting style. and also, if you go to this site www.rsw.com.hk, you can download a video where a teen practing the longsword techniques used my the european knights defeating a gumdo instuctor.... dare I say.... INCONCIEVABLE...lol, sorry, couldnt resist (gumdo is a korean sword art very similar to kenjitsu, and if i recall correctly, historically, the koreans kicked the samurai's ass)

JDemick wrote:

u can get these at www.rsw.com.hk

I just looked at the pictures, and it looks like some good clean fun. Brings back fond memories of donning protective gear and getting stabby

The feature of "Full Contact Full Body Targeting Safety" for these sparring weapons sounds really cool. I'd always used plenty of protective gear in the past.

Kijinnmaru wrote:

How can I be wrong when my statement doesn't even take a position. In fact, since it's a question, I can't be wrong.....or right for that matter. icon_mrgreen.gif And I'm aware of the time period which is why I brought up the difference between knight and rapier user. Never said that knights fought samurai so I'm not really sure where you got that from. .

woops MY BAD then.. i tought that was a point u tried to make.. statement willfully withdrawn.. kekekekeke

Kijinnmaru wrote:

If you think about it, samurai had and used firearms.(as in Sekigahara and Toba-Fushimi) Does that count in this contest?

Indeed, but dont think about it to hard or you might think that the firearm is a european invention and that the Japanese didnt pick up on them till quite a while after Europeans abandoned the tools and techniques of war used by their ancestors

mooncaller wrote:

Indeed, but dont think about it to hard or you might think that the firearm is a european invention and that the Japanese didnt pick up on them till quite a while after Europeans abandoned the tools and techniques of war used by their ancestors

But did the knights use it? After all, it's knights vs. samurai, not European history vs. samurai. Why don't we go further and say, knights vs. Japanese jet fighters, because they had built those in World War 2 before much of the world.

JDemick wrote:

...

It's been discussed for pages. You're not bringing anything new to the table.

I always thought that the Gloster Meteor built and tested in England during the 1939-1945 War was the first jet fighter. It was not flown over Europe because they didn't want to take the chance of one beng shot down. Jet engines in planes were kept very secret for some time.

Peg

Kijinnmaru wrote:

But did the knights use it? After all, it's knights vs. samurai, not European history vs. samurai. Why don't we go further and say, knights vs. Japanese jet fighters, because they had built those in World War 2 before much of the world.

Indeed, for a while armored knights did utilize early firearms, as a matter of fact one of the selling points of some armor was that it had a dent in it from being shot and not penetrated (proof mark). But As early firearms became more prolific much of the armor designed for melee combat was abandoned as well as the vast majority of melee combat.

Of course, I think it's fairly obvious that the intent of the orginal poster was to enquire about melee combat and hence projectile weapons as a whole are moot But if we want to play the "but but" game...the knightly class is still technically in existence and I would not be surprised if some modern day knights have used some pretty heavy duty equipment.

Of course...I think we both know that's not the point

A few countries had the jet engine at about the same time. Germans had one, British had one, and the Japanese were able to build one smaller than the others. Still had one before much of the world, like I said before. I believe the British were the only one to actually employ it in combat though. Germans canked their project and the Japanese wanted smaller and better, which took longer.

We all know where the firearm came from, and that the Dutch brought them to Japan. It wasn't some huge secret that we needed to be enlightened on. But if you didn't get the humor in the original firearms post, even with the giant picture, or the whole jetfighter vs. knight or atom bomb vs. samurai, then forget it. Why don't we go so far as to say the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Japanese are descendent from the Chinese, therefore....or who created the first sword, or club, or used fire......

Boy can you guys ruin a joke sometimes.

brad2 wrote:

It's not all Geoffrey's imagination. Peg

Did you mean Sir Thomas Mallory, milady?