Welcome to Gaia! ::

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

Well stated opinion in the OP. While katana may not be the perfect swrod I do find that one that is made correctly can be well balanced and efficient for most people. Of course, each weapon comes with it's own style. therefore, a martial artist must learn the style of the weapon of choice. I belive anyone who is not physically retarded has the capability to wield any weapon efficiently.

And as for blocking bullets, get yourself some 3 ft thick steel, 5 ft thick rienforced concrete, and a couple of sandbags. Then go build yourslef a bunker 'cause it's the only thing stopping the bullet from tearing you to tiny bitesize pieces that your enemies will feed to their dogs.

In conclusin, no sword matches a pair of good pistols at your side. Then again, I can always beat you down bare handed.

I can't believe that this myth is still being perpetuated. First of all, samurai armor is not made of bamboo. That's the kind of crap that karateka says in justification of practicing board breaking. Samurai armor were made of pieces of lacquered steel woven together by silk, along with hardened leather (in which quite abundant). Just because a country has little iron, doesn't mean they are incapable of producing a lot of armor with steel in them. As you may know, a samurai's armor was not "complete" in the same sense as the full plates worn by medival knights.

There are plenty of gaps/holes in a samurai armor. The arm pits are an exposed area, as are the joints (elbows, wrists, behind the knees) and parts of the thighs. The dueling method of the samurai is to cut at these expose areas to disable their opponent. No one strikes their sword directly at the armor. The sword takes a beating from clashig with another sword, so it wouldn't be such a smart thing to further damage the sword by striking at armor.

This is much the same with European knights. It is highly unlikely that a knight would try to use their sword to strike at another knight's armor. The sword would be employed to strike down unarmored opponents. Against another knight, the sword would be used as a means of disarming. More likely, they would have used mace to dent the armor in order to break it down. Only when there is a sizable hole would they actually stab their opponent (and more likely with a dagger than a sword).

Bottom line, no sword was ever meant to be used against armor. That's why armors were invented in the first place.

Alright, first post Knight vs Samurai

What time period samurai, if it was a particular samurai who?
Same goes for the Knight.

Was the samurai in japanese armor or the later european armor?
How long has he been training?
Fitness levels?
Endless points that make a comparison IMPOSSIBLE, as each one plays a major role.

And for people who think a Samurai always used a katana (for their sword) you are wrong, orignally it was the Tachi. Along with a shield (early samurai) they would have a tachi,and a spear/naginata...and some with bows.

Since you automaticly strike me as being able to carry a non biased debate in this subject (from this post anyway) I am inclined to join in, as so far, this guild has failed to warrant any sort of attention from me.

For us to develop as accurate a picture as possible for the hypothetical fight, we must scrutinise and analyse every bit of the proposed counter untill we reach a satisfactory outcome. With that in mind then, the first thing for us to consider would be the environment in which the fight would occur.

For the sake of argument let us assume that the duel would be performed in an area with as little variables as possible, the weather would be cool and breezy, with a subtle summer warmth, the ground would be flat and open and the sky clear of cloud or rain. Since the debate is centred around each combatents sword skills and not their military skills within the general melee then let us assume that:

- Pole arms are not involved within the fight.
- Both men are unarmoured.
- The fight shall commence from the ready position with a reasonable distance bewteen each combatent.
- It is a one on one encounter.
- Their blades are equally strong, in accordance to modern standards.

Also, we shall assume that each fighters are equally conditioned and trained, and that they both come from an era that, sword fighting was highest developed, rather then during war time where polearms were upon more concentrated. If you would like however, we may go through various periods of each culture and examine them vs. each other at a later date, for now we are just scratching upon the surface.

Secondly, let us examine the equipment in use by each fighter. As one of the few here with as strict Martial Education in East and West I believe that here, at least, I am qualified to make distinctions.

The Espadon or rapier

Contrary to popular belief circulated through watching modern Fencing the Espadon, or Rapier as it is now more commonly known, was not the weak pitiful blade modern olympic fencers employ within their discipline.

As one may automatically assume from the sight of a western blade, its primary function would be delivering lightning sharp thrusts, puncturing the opponent where he stands, using circular (rather then the linear) footwork to evade aswell as utilise and capitalise on any oppurtunity that may occur.

However, just as a Renasscience Fencer may employ the vast range and rigid straightness of his blade as a weapon to strike and puncture, slashes and cutting and movements could also easily be made through careful employ of the hilt, however these movements were often defensive manouvers. Interestingly, much like modern Martial Arts, defencively speaking the western fencer had a distinct hierarchy concerning blade combat.

1. Would be to evade, indeed, due to the regular use of grappling with a side arm known as a main gauce, the Fencers primary weapon would be his lightning fast, circular/triangular mix of footwork. Indeed, the mindset was to never differentiate from attacking and defending, every movement, every strike was meant to attain victory.

2. Would be to parry, at once one can see the severe disadvantage to parrying vs. the above method, as not only would doing so restrict your actions for however brief, it would bring ones sword in contact with another,which, regardless of the outcome will enfact some rather costly repairs. By sweeping ones body to around 45degrees of the oncoming blow whilst effecting a counter strike, one would parry.

3. Would be blocking. Mow, many do not understand the variation bewteen blocking and parrying. To block, one would raise the blade in accordance with the opponents attack, causing the edges to strike together in a meeting of force, where, as stated, a parry would be to redirect the attack, causing an opening for a riposte and damaging the blade far less then a block.

Obviously as we are discussing a hypothetical duel to the death, any applicable repair costs would be null and void in comparision to ones life, however it would be prudent to inform oneself of the various methods of defence the westerner would enact.

If one were to study such swordmanship in a legitimate manner. Immediatly one would find that the method of attacks made by the westerner would be far different from those used in modern fencing. Primarily, let us assess the lunge, or fletch, arguably the bread and butter of modern fencing.

The Flech it the main point scorer, used to initiate a bout aswell as employed during riposte, the movement itself has evolved solely to lend great advantage in modern Fencing. The attack is initiated when the exponent lunges forth from the guard position, extending the arm as far as possible in order to utilise the blades range.

However in the now defunct forms, such an attack would be ritual suicide, I don't believe I have to lecture anyone on the pros and cons of such high commitment strikes.

The archaic flech was infact a session of quick lunges, each one closing the distance as the fencer was propelled foward by his lightning quick footwork, rather then constantly stab in a continuous direct, quick, sweeping movements wove the fighter around in a circle, raining pressure down upon their opponent, attempting to drive them into a frenzied flurry as the picked them apart piece by piece.

Even now, bewteen two suchly schooled swordsman, a constant barrage of fleches thrown back and forth is something to be seen.

Finally let us assess the stance used. Fencing utilised a multitude of stances, however none were more common then the engarde position.

To execute the en garde, a fencer would have his legs have his feet slightly further apart then his shoulders width, the knee's shall be bent slightly, firstly to protect from lunging low kicks and enable the fencer to launch rapid, non telegraphic, strikes in quick sucession. The back however would be straight, the eyes employed in a peripheral state to enable the fencer to keep an eye on every tool his opponent has.

The position of the arms however, would vary depending on the fencer, traditionally the main gauche would be held high up in the furthest back hand rather then retracted where the sword arm would be held lower, the elbow bent to a degree where it would be able to resist force, the blade brought sharply up across the centre line, never overly extent nor overly contracted, indeed the blade would be held at a diagonal line from the body to relax the arm more, enabling less sharp movements and prolonging stamina.

Already one can see that, with more then a proverbial nod towards unarmed techniques such as kicking and wrestling that the traditional fencer intended to employ his blade in a manner that would be required to defend oneself, a different breed from todays fencer.

The Katana

Due to various factors, to date no other weapon is surrounded by such an incredulous mythos as the Katana. Indeed, with little legitimate training facilities one can understand how such rumours could spread.

To truly understand the correct use of the Katana one must train in Ju Jutsu, KenJutsu and perhaps Iaido/Iaijutsu (no, Kendo is a sport, like modern fencing, and is just an inaccurate portrayal of the blades use)

The Katana is a blade made for cutting, hence the distinct curved edge, it was, as all swords, used as a sidearm...a last resort when unmounted, despite this, due to its weight and relevence to unarmed combat needed for everyday life untill the Meiji period Katana was studied reasonably indepth (no more or less then the rapier truth be told)

Unlike Kendo, thrusts weren't utilised when using a Katana. To do such would be to waste the Katana's main strength: The Cut. Much of Kenjutsu is based around the ability to utilise rapid footwork, using defensive cuts untill one is able to cleave through an opponent (hence why unused unless absolutely required for war, armour would just laugh)

Suprisingly, the Kenshi's stance would much resemble the fencers, with the exception of the hands. Where as Miyamoto Musashi sagely recommends a sword in each hand, due to the fantastic limitations on speed that would prove (hence giving the Fencer an easy win) We shall assume that the Kenshi shall use the Katana two handed.

Though in tactics there are some...albeit vague...similarities the Kenshi's style is invariably unique. The back foot would be lifted slightly off the ground, enabling the Samurai to use toruqe rotation in such a manner as to enchance each strike with impressive speed and power.

Indeed one of the swordsmens most famous attribute was the ability to fluently transition from stance to stance, masterfully employing a wide variaty of attacks with never failing strength and speed, indeed, if one were to lunge, chances are they would be met with a low parry before being hit with a foward knee thrust (clearing the distance enough to utilise the katana's arc but not the opponents range) before being cleaved in two.

Indeed where the Fencer has a multitude of tricks to employ, as does the Samurai.

To the duel An educated guess

First of, there are a myriad of things that can occur during the fight, the Fencer may underestimate the Samurai's impressive speed only to find himself cleaved in half, The Samurai may likewise misunderstand the western Stylist only to fall down, punctured through the lungs or throat, like any fight it may swing either way.

For example, let us not forget the use of the westerners main gauce, where the Samurai to parry the rapier, he would have to quickly rotate in order to deal with the dagger if an opening for a lethal blow is unable to made, indeed the Fencer may even be able to keep the Kenshi outside of his range.

Indeed, it would all come down to the individual rather then the style.Theoretically the fighter quickest to recognise the general method of the opponent and suitably adapt would be the winner, regardless of technique.

It is a hard decision to work out who, if similarily abled, would win on the basis of technique, and perhaps that is the real debate here, regardless of weapons and tactics and ability, it, as per usual, comes to down to style.

Much like unarmed combat I'm going to utilise the general consensus, that Individual is more important then the Style employed, the degree in which the individual has upon the style and vice versa is, in this case, something fairly matched.

Perhaps if the match was to be carried out in full armour, then the outcome would be different? That, however, is a different, and (from experience, I've argued this to the death with maaany people) very lengthy debate that would take several, several pages to reach a conclusion. As mentioned, perhaps as a later date, we, as a guild, shall discuss this.

Or maybe they'd call it a tie and go for boozeahol. >.>

I'm saying, both these guys will probably have some respect for the other's skill.
If it lasts long enough, they'll both wear out and maybe call it a tie.
And then decide to be friends and drink to their new friendships...
I dunno. Just providing an alternative to the "Either way, one will die." attitude.
Damned long hair. Makes me feel all hippyish.
Next thing you know, I'll be hugging a tree. <.<

...I also have long hair...Ok...is there a point to this? I've completely lost it?

To be honest, if it came down to the kind of scenario I have above mentioned I have no idea who would win, as I've stated, as its all down to the individual. Down to technique then the Kenjutsu fighter would be a safer bet I guess.

I'm suprised how many people view Kenjutsu as a delicate and sophisticated art, indeed one of its biggest advantages is that it is taught through principle (rotation of body to maximize the attacking range within a given area when launching from defence, torque movements etc) aswell as that its very. very, brutal.

There's even a chance, that our combatents would kill one another, for example if, once closing the distance, the Kenshi attempts an upper body strike, it is easily possible for the Fencer to puncture an artery or some such.

Theoretically where as the footwork of the Kenshi would control the cadence of the fight, despite the Fencer Artists range, the Kenshi's ability to employ various JuJutsu techniques whilst in close range against the Fencer (enabling him to gain a superior, unchallenged, cutting position) would be heavily comprimised because:

In order to be able to match/suceed the speed of the fencer are therefore have a fighting chance against him, the Kenshi would be required to use the Katana two handed and without an off hand, whereas the light, strong, Espandon retains its lightning speed even when paired (and more then modestly assisted) by a main gauche.

In light of this, I believe that the fight would be decided in the close range, something that the Fencers lowered sword position (see other post) and clever employment of the offhand may prove a problem for the undoubtedly skilled wrestler that is the Kenshi.