|
|
| Author |
Message |
lapulid2
Yellow Belt


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 87
Location: Houston
Styles: Hapkido
|
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| given the criteria, the samurai. he has the lightest most efficient and perhaps the sharpest weapon. if you give both a katana or both a broadsword then to each their respective mastery. now, hand to hand no weapons... i would have to give it to the samurai who is most likely a skilled Aikidoist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay
Red Belt

Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 795
Location: England
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
european knite their swords are a lot stronger than katanas athough heavier if they are skilled the katana would break in one hit if hit hard enough _________________ “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”
Bruce Lee |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Menjo
Black Belt

Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1786
Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| possibly but would a samurai randomly hit swords with the knight, the samurai actually didnt clash swords over and over again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isshinryu5toforever
Black Belt


Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 1685
Location: New York University, usually Wisconsin
Styles: Isshin-Ryu Karate, Judo, Aikido, WTF Tae Kwon Do (college team)
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
A samurai would never allow his sword to take a direct hit from another sword. That is how many swords break katana or broadsword. Also many broadswords were forged, not forged and folded like katana. The folding process made the blade stronger. The curve of the blade in a katana also allowed for greater strength than a straight sword. _________________ The highest aim of a warrior is to lay down his sword. (sorry no Chinese anymore)
He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened.
- Tao Te Ching |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jnpnshr411
Orange Belt

Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 200
Styles: Shotokan, jujitsu, Alpha Blocks
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would think the samurai would win also for reasons already said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Menjo
Black Belt

Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1786
Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isshinryu5toforever wrote: |
| A samurai would never allow his sword to take a direct hit from another sword. That is how many swords break katana or broadsword. Also many broadswords were forged, not forged and folded like katana. The folding process made the blade stronger. The curve of the blade in a katana also allowed for greater strength than a straight sword. |
Thanks for putting that in a better out together post, well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IRKguy
White Belt

Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 24
Styles: Isshinryu (currently), Mu Duk Kwan (years ago)
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The word Chivalry comes from the old French, meaning horsemanship. The very meaning of being a knight was to be cavalry. The idea of a fair fight between a smarai and a European knight on foot is, by definition, not fair. Furthermore, armor was part of the European martial system. The existence of armor and the expectation that he would be on horseback played into everything from how he trained to the design of his weapon. It didn't take samarai skills for the English footsoldier to defeat French cavalry, once they were unmounted.
Back to the weapon: the broadsword was not the primary weapon of the knight. In most cases, the lance was. After the introduction of plate armor, the broad sword lost favor to thrusting swords, hammers, and maces. Even when the broadsword was being used, it was not considered a weapon. It was considered half a weapon and was almost always paired with a shield of some sort. Throughout Medeival times and into the Renaissance, European sword arts assumed that there would be something in the left hand, usually a shield, at least a buckler. It is later dueling arts such as Italian fencing that involved using only one weapon, and these were not war arts. These were dueling arts. Even in dueling, these Italian masters were routinely beaten and humiliated when they tried to teach in England and were challenged by Londoners skilled in sword and buckler.
As you've set the situation up, the Japanese would certainly win, but the comparison is meaningless.
So who would win in a fair fight, a shark or a lion? _________________ You have a right to your actions
But never to your actions' fruits.
Act for the action's sake,
And do not be attached to inaction.
Bhagvad Gita 2.47 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
granmasterchen
Black Belt

Joined: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 1027
Location: japan
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nicely put.....shark or lion.....well it all depends if it is on land or in the water...lol
maybe we should alter the situation some.
give them both horses....and their armor...shield or what not....
if you start them at a distance the advantage would go to the samurai for their knowledge and art of the bow.....but.....if it was samurai on horse with a yari or naginata versus a knight on horse with a lance....hmmmmm
or a battle on foot with armor. The knight in plate or chain with sword and shield or any other weapon of choice against the samurai in their armor with katana, or kama or sai or what ever other weapon....
hmmmmmm _________________ That which does not destroy me will only make me stronger |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sengra
Purple Belt

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 522
Location: Philippines
Styles: Fencing
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IRKguy wrote: |
.
So who would win in a fair fight, a shark or a lion? |
Hmmm...comparison is irrelevant,as a shark could never live on land but a knight can certainly fight on land, because he has legs and arms, unlike the shark.. . Yes, knights evolved from the cavalry,chevalier, a fact I very well know, as I am a history major. Meaningless?C'mon, why would it be meaningless...You pointed out the french knights being defeated by the English infantry..which battle, Crecy? Poiters?Henry never foresaw the outcomes. He recruited yeomen because they were cheaper. That is why I made it a point to have a knight from the Hundred Years war...just to point out that the knight had experienced the realities of war...Terrain was not level, weather was not good, crowd dynamics was bad(discovery channel)... many factors were involved. I really had this in mind when I posted the question. That's why, no armors, and no horses. Many knights were killed by just falling off their horses duting the arrow showers,and being trampled because of their heavy armors. That is why I eliminated the armor...I hope you understand...I anticipated this... ..but it's alright though...let us just stick to the question...Thank you...  _________________ The stronger swordsman does not always win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kzshin
Orange Belt

Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 236
Location: OC, CA
Styles: Shindo Jinen Ryu Karate
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think it still comes down to individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|