AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

A few things in this topic I will have fun pointing out.

First a small thing. The Mongol leader invading Japan when the origins of the word Kamikaze happened was in fact NOT Genghis, but his grandson Khubilai Khan who invaded Japan twice. The first time, he wasn't able to land troops due to the weather, the second time troops were landed but in such small numbers they weren't able to get a foothold.

Second, the Katana WAS made of high quality steel, but the sword as we know today was developed in the later end of Japanese history when the warfare started to change from the previous displays of Horse Archery that was shown. Once again I have to quote Wikipedia as I don't have access to my books as they are at home seen as I doing a Chemistry Degree, not a history one

But here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Katana. Also I am pretty sure whichever period of Japanese history you look at, while they were mindful about the memory of their ancestors, the Katana was just a sword, if I broke, any other katana would do until another was made.

Next is the actual armour which I have shown a picture of above. That is the O-yoroi armour which is otherwise known as "Great Armour" and is the Japanese equivilent of full plate. That being the best protection money and power could buy. Once more, I apologise for it only being a wikipedia book, when I get to my history books I will quote them too.

Also, one final point, whether or not the Europeans had better steel is also up for Debate seen as I heard that Archelogists found folded steel swords going back to the anglo-saxon era. I couldn't find a citation for this, but it is something I heard a while back on the likes of the Discovery channel.

Finally, I am going to comment on my view of the whole Japanese vs European weaponary. I would say for the most part the Weapons of Europe were on par with Japan, or more advanced, espiecially in the time when the Katana became the weapon of choice in Japan, Firearms were on their way to becoming the weapon of choice in Europe. Other than that, I would say they are made for different theatres, the Katana probably wouldn't have been taken up if Introduced into Europe and vice-versa.

Anyway, thats my say

Japan's boring. Bring on the Teutonic Knights I say!

If I may.

Hey, I'm the guy Yurell was talking about, and yes, I am currently partaking in forging a sword at the moment so points for added practical experience as well as sizeable knowledge.

Now.

Japanese Katana: Technique, same as a European Longsword. In fact I can move an Italian Longsword at almost the same speed as a katana as the weight does not actually reduce the speed as does the anatomical difficulties applied to two hands. In fact due to the use of pomel, I can easily move fast enough to equal anyone with a katana and beat them since it is very difficult for someone with a single edged katana to overcome all my advantages of having two edges and distance.

Forging technique: Folded steel. This is beaten by forged and beaten steel. Europeans could {and did} fold steel early in their history, which they VERY quickly abandoned because they found a better way of doing it. Folded steel is brittle. It doesn't bend. That makes it more liable to break when struck by a greater force easily {and demonstratably} produced by European weapons.

Quality of Metal: Again, Europe wins. European metal is bog iron and mined metals. It is of high quality with a forgeable mix of steel and iron. Japanese metal comes from sand. Yes. Sand. This is why they folded steel. Folding steel is the ONLY way the Japanese could make workable metal weapons. As mentioned earlier, the best katana ever made using original forging techniques, recognised as the best by contemporary Japanese makers, was made using Russian railroad tracks in, I believe, 1904. Europe had higher quality metal. Regardless of any other advantage, better material means better weapon. As stated earlier, the Europeans tried, succeeded, and abandoned folding steel very early in their history {actually it wasn't so much Europe as Mediterranean but for the purposes of this they're related enough to count as the same}.

Slashing/hacking/piercing: Someone mentioned rapier is the sharpest of thrusting weapons. Not so, rapiers are actually among the worst weapons with no practical use, recognised as such by all English manuals that cover the matter. Likewise the sabre wasn't actually that sharp. I would wager that the katana was sharper, don't know for certain as the sabre is not my speciality, but sharpness doesn't help much. Sharpness merely assists in the cut, to kill someone you need to hack or not cut them, spill blood, and not allow them medical attention. The thrust isn't that effective either. Katana? Not good at hacking. The rapier? Tended to end in double kills as thrusting without a shield or a secondary weapon to cover you in defence is a sure way to get stabbed in the face {believe me I know}. Broadsword? Now that's a good hacker. Long sword {which by medieval definition is two handed}, now that's a great cutter and hacker.

All that said, European knight vs Samurai. Knight wins. Ignoring everything said thus far, the knight has a shield. And armour the katana can't penetrate. Effectively, the knight can't lose. Now this isn't an automatic win but it means the Samurai will never win.

Theander
Medieval and Ancient Re-enactment training officer
Student of Capo Ferro, Fiore, George Silver and Hope's New Method of sword technique
Film fight Choreographer

Feel free to contest me on this but it's all pretty conclusive.

Last edited by tao_myst on Sun, Mar 22 2009, 11:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.

After watching that video I realise the secret to the folds is that inside the crystaline structure each fold adds crazy amounts of layers, well just watch that vid its all there. Grandmaster cuts an arrow in half...

Also I'd say the katana is probably lighter than the Euro longsword but for bashing power the latter. I wonder if a katana could cut through a bullet in flight..

I contest simply to be disagreeable.

I will!

Rumour is that Bronze weaponry was better then Iron and steel weaponry because it was less brittle and broke less. But the reason Iron replaced it was that Iron was easier to produce. That true?

according to google yes bronze is better at retaining its shape/less rust, but they ran out of tin.

Bronze is better than iron.
Bronze is better than pure steel
Steel/iron alloy is better than bronze.

Less rust has no effect on the quality of the weapon, simply the longevity of it. Retaining shape, steel/iron alloy wins {it's spring steel}.

They had iron for plenty of time. It's only when they first made steel that the Iron Age began (of course, this means that the Bronze Age lasted ~60 years if you go from the making of the first bronze weapons to the making of the first steel ones)

Oh, and the broadsword is faster to weild. Much faster. Longsword is about the same {though I would argue strongly that it is faster, since improving my knowledge of the long sword I have had no opportunity to test/compare top controlable speed}.

The pommel gives a massive advantage to European weaponry ... it meant that they were more balanced.

By the by, Yurell is poking me to add to the list of qualifications that I am currently reigning world expert in Mycenaean weaponry and by extension, infantry. As much as I like being world expert in something, this is pretty much entirely due to the lack of published material on the matter.

The only other person who give Mycenaean armaments time of day is someone who doesn't understand how armour, weapons, and shields work. Let alone the materials used to make them {according to him, shields are useless against arrows and only useful against rapiers assumedly also made of leather because he argues very adamantly that anything made of bronze is purely for show and was never used in war}.

What little Snodgrass has to say {like a paragraph explicitly on the matter, which is more than most books on the Mycenaeans} is infinitely more reliable.
So include that on the list only if you want.

I just found out a katana can't survive .50 caliber, but then nor did the wall, but it can cut a 9mm in half!! Link

also how can you say that big clunky thing would be faster to use than a katana?

Leverage.
The long sword isn't actually clunky unless you try and wield it like a club. Then it's so clunky as to be entirely useless. Grab a katana, learn how to use that, then use the same technique with a long sword. Then learn how to manipulate the pomel as well.

It is AMAZING how fast that thing can move.

As I said, I won't say that it definately is faster, but the sheer speed at which I can move it, and I'll admit I haven't had a lot of training in it, is faster than what I've seen most Asiatic students move it.

I plan to experiment further on this, but the fact is that the predominant factor is not the lightness of the blade but the biological factor of having two hands on the weapon. The majority inhibitor is the same on both weapons but the pommel of the long sword immensely reduces this difficulty.

It's really, really difficult to explain without having a video, but it's all about leverage, fulcrum points and so on.

mmhmm ... Theander is right. basically, with a longsword the centre of gravity is close to your hand, so moving it is easier than moving the katana.
Leverage is extremely important.

Edit: Basically, the higher the centre of gravity, the more your wrist acts as a fulcrum for the weapons applied 'torque' when you try to change its momentum.

Actually, that's true...ish.

Leverage is extremely important, as is centre of gravity. But the thing is that falsetto cuts with a two handed sword are very strong and very fast. It is much faster to turn your hands than move your arms and a long sword can cut really heavily into the flesh with a turn of the hand. This is something a katana cannot do due to lack of a false edge or the supporting force of weight.

Also, I find that katana type blades do not generate the same ammount of kinetic flow with attacks. The additional kinetic flow generated by the shape and structure of the long sword does grant extra speed which compensates a lot and brings an even playing ground even without the use of the false edge {granted my primary oriental experiment piece for this is a banshee, a korean katana style blade, something like half the weight and two thirds the size, but I think that proves my point more considering the banshee is, after all, faster than a katana}.

Centre of gravity IS as important as Yurell says but it's been a while since I picked up a katana and I can't recall measuring where the centre is. So I shan't be debating that here.

In this case, kinetic flow that Theander is referring to is the objects inertia, combined with what your physiology wants do with it.

Since katanas do not have a pommel, they physically have to have a higher centre of gravity unless the long sword is poorly made.

Which honestly {refering to poorly made long swords} didn't happen much. It happens more today than it did then {darn factory mass production}.

That said, I agree entirely about the higher centre of gravity, but until I physically feel one again and can ascertain definately, I don't want to commit. In theory though, due to the lack of counterweight and inherent weight of the blade, the distance between the centre on a long sword and a katana to the hand is probably about the same length up from the hilt, but proportionately it's to the long sword's favour.

{Assume long sword is .3 the length of a katana, then the katana centre needs to be .3 distance closer to the hilt rather than at the same distance, it's a percentile thing}.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic of discussion.

Full plate beats samurai. Regardless of anything else, the katana does not cut through full plate steel armour. In fact for that matter neither does a long sword. At that point in time the long sword is almost more for bludgeoning, grappling and dislocating than anything else, all things that the katana cannot do {and I mean cannot, the latter two make heavy use of the pommel}. Only once the man in full plate is prone do you kill him with the sharp bits, or if you get a clean shot with a thrust or falsetto cut to a fleshy bit {again, two things that a katana cannot readily do}.

Does that answer the original question?

Dispite popular belief, katana's aren't the end all of swords. Most swords in europe could easily have matched up to a katana, possiably even shattering them if the katana was used to block, it was simply the fact that everything a katana went up against in feudal japan sucked major balls. Of course in most war's and battles in any feudal era the sword was actually the last thing you'd ever see in battle, because it cost so much to have made. You'd be more likely to see a spear, mace or bow in battle then a katana.

Samurai armour always reminded me of splint mail. Some chain, and some plate. Alternatively, you could go old school samurai and wear a robe.

Theander said everything there is to say about this really. I have not seen many others who know so much about this on the internets.

European swords are severely underrated and katanas way overrated.

I am currently studying historical fencing(EDIT: School of European Swordmanship, very awesome), mostly Fiore's techniques with Longsword and can confirm all of his claims with personal experience. There is nothing clumsy or crude about the weapon or the techniques. Medieval European weapons and martial arts were quite awesome. It is quite sad how oriental techniques now dominate here as well and how European teachings are almost forgotten.

EDIT: Also thinking that medieval weapons and armour were heavy and hard to move is a common misconception. A two-handed longsword weighs easily less than an assault rifle(Two kilograms is much for a sword whilst a loaded rifle can be over three kilograms being still light and easy to manouver). Late medieval armour was also incredibly well made and nimble to move in.

EDIT: Or as my sword instructor puts it: A child can easily wield a longsword.

Just to make the point, any sword...or anything...with a sharp edge can probably cut a bullet in half. As long as the sides are smooth and the edge is sharp the bullet is probably going to be cut.

Also, the physics in this thread is poorly explained to the point it is almost nonsensical. Especially the resonating bit. I am not saying you are wrong but you explained it in a way that doesn't support the points raised. The center of gravity explanations were much more concise and the physics there supported the points.

Other than that...I learned a lot about sword making. Good thread.

Good thread indeed....

Galenson wrote:

I will!

Rumour is that Bronze weaponry was better then Iron and steel weaponry because it was less brittle and broke less. But the reason Iron replaced it was that Iron was easier to produce. That true?

There was a mysterious shortage of tin through the entire middle east (one surmises the cornish refused to trade) at about... 1200 bc or something. The Anatolians at the time (Hittites?) Figured out how to forge iron so it didn't go all bendy and useless or too brittle and snap. Still rusted very easily. By the time the tin shortage was over, everyone was using iron and nobody ever looked back.

The Japanese may have had their special forging and folding techniques, but their steel was of lesser quality than the European kind*. Armor was also mostly light. The combat with Katana and the longer and shorter variants of this kind of sword seems very flashy, efficient and stylized.. but you have to consider that they fought each other in usually weak armor. This armor was not full-body and thus certain strikes were taught to quickly dispatch of a foe. Generally, both sides did not deviate greatly in sword technique, of which the result are such famous scenes as two Samurai with each sword going towards the neck of the other, and the split of a second decides the outcome.

Comparing eastern to western war technology is silly, because war technology always strives to work best against what your foes present against you. Would the Japanese learn to fight against heavy French Knights, you bet that they would not use Katanas. They'd use long spears, the main cavalry breaker of any army that could not pay or maintain heavy cavalry themselves. Japanese war technology is very efficient against their own, and their neighbors.. where materials were not abundant and mechanization and industrialization did thus not happen to such a degree.

*Also, The Japanese had their studded armors, katanas and efficient handling of those much, much earlier than the western middle ages. It's like.. Revolver against M-16 - Who would win?

I don't understand how you can say european steel was better after seeing what goes into creating the steel in that video I posted, 20 folds, over 5000 layers heated for 3 solid days underground, a master forger checks the metals to find the perfectly mixed part if there is one, I heard earlyer euro steel was folded 10 times, please cite a source proving your theory that euro steel is superior.

There is one way to test it once and for all, get a real katana, a real european longsword, and see which one shatters first. watch the other persons head mind..

Like I said.. great forging techniques, but the Japanese iron sources were simply of lesser quality in comparison.

To throw a DnD spin into the issue, don't forget magic. The best made katana instantly loses to a +1 longsword. Just having a mage outdoes 40 million folds.

The strength of the mage enchanting the blade is also extremely important and do the Kara-tur have great wizards?

Phantom-D wrote:

Also, the physics in this thread is poorly explained to the point it is almost nonsensical. Especially the resonating bit. I am not saying you are wrong but you explained it in a way that doesn't support the points raised. The center of gravity explanations were much more concise and the physics there supported the points.

Most of the physics in this thread was me trying to point out quantum physics has nothing to do with it - nobody gives a damn about what pi-electrons are doing or 'resonance'

tao_myst wrote:

I don't understand how you can say european steel was better after seeing what goes into creating the steel in that video I posted, 20 folds, over 5000 layers heated for 3 solid days underground, a master forger checks the metals to find the perfectly mixed part if there is one, I heard earlyer euro steel was folded 10 times, please cite a source proving your theory that euro steel is superior.

There is one way to test it once and for all, get a real katana, a real european longsword, and see which one shatters first. watch the other persons head mind..

You don't see how it is better after watching all that work - do you understand what that work does? Do you know the different properties of the minerals for either? I cited a source earlier saying that they (katanas) crack easily .
A katana is not a magical 'resonant' sword - it was the Japanese attempt to get around poor materials

I believe, tis post was about armor, not swords.

Though, with no armor, I believe both styles of blade are equally effective. They do begin to show their differences when armor is thrown into the equation.

In my totally unprofessional opinion, it is the skill of the weilder, nondependent on armor

eternal789 wrote:

I believe, tis post was about armor, not swords.

Though, with no armor, I believe both styles of blade are equally effective. They do begin to show their differences when armor is thrown into the equation.

In my totally unprofessional opinion, it is the skill of the weilder, nondependent on armor

Without armour European sword is still faster to use. The capability of the wielder always one of the biggest factors in any combat, but with European plate armour the katana is gone.

What I find absurd is the assertion that a Rapier is a useless weapon? What in gods name gives you that idea? I would assume from you confidence in your research that you have also some degree of practical experience with the aforementioned weapons?

As far as superiority of weapons go, the debate is really dependent on the skill of the fighter not the relative sharpness of his blade. I would expect a trained samurai to make short work of an armored knight, the armor of a samurai sacrificed some protection for far greater maneuverability. Hence the samurai would simply flank, close distance and grapple. A quillion strike would not help much against Japanese close quarter training, that goes without saying.

A longsword is a quality weapon but in combat it is, compared to the far lighter katana and rapier, almost ponderous. Moves are telegraphed by the footwork, shoulder movements and the last cut made. Longswords are all well and good when cutting back and forward in ranked battle but the excessive upper body movements needed to use the pommels counter weight tends to leave a fighter comparatively flat footed.

In a small scale skirmish or a matched one on one fight the rapier beats all in western weaponry. It just comes down to speed, range and the ease with which one can deflect or avoid an opponents attack. A rapier can retake the priority of attack with a simple flick of the wrist. It's just way faster. A fully armored 'knight' with a mace or longsword is really really slow. An unarmored opponent with a longsword or backsword is faster but still too slow, added to that the fact that a rapier is almost always used with a main-gauche and it's just too much steel moving to fast. I have personally 'fought' both on more then a few occasions and have not lost, and I'm not that good either.

I have for the last eight or so years trained with longsword, backsword (highland), rapier, main-gauche, buckler and shield. Though I am not proficient in their use personally I have seen the katana used to great effect by those trained in it's use and to devastating effect by those trained in katana and in karate.

The Incognitos wrote:

A longsword is a quality weapon but in combat it is, compared to the far lighter katana and rapier, almost ponderous. Moves are telegraphed by the footwork, shoulder movements and the last cut made. Longswords are all well and good when cutting back and forward in ranked battle. In a small scale skirmish or a matched one on one fight the rapier beats all in western weaponry. That includes a fully armored 'knight' with a mace or longsword. I have personally 'fought' both on more then a few occasions and have not lost, and I'm not that good either.

In all honesty, Plate Armour isn't as cumbersome as you think. (unless you have to get up or get on a horse) But it doesn't matter how good your footwork is, if a longsword is swung properly and on target by someone who knows what they're doing, you're going to have to raise your Katana to attempt to block it if you can't get out of the way.

That's where the inferior materials comes into play. The Katana's going to crack and the longsword wielder's going to win.

But as I said earlier. You can't compare weapons and armour of different nations and periods unless you have the written records to back your claim. The reason we know Iron's better then Copper was coz the Egyptians recorded it from their encounters with the Hittites and Mitanni.

You can compare a 5th century BC Spartan Hoplite serving with Leonidas at Thermopylae (bronze weaponry and armour) against a 1st century BC Roman Legionaire under Julius Caesar (iron/steel weaponry and armour) all you want but in the end it's just theoretical work. We never will know which was better because the two never actually faced each other.

Same can be applied with Middle Age European Knights and 16th-17th century Samurai.

I've worn plate armor, it is very cumbersome in that it changes your natural centers of gravity. This limits foot work because you have to be very very sure that you can safely maintain the stance you change to. Armor may prevent a blade from cutting your skin but the force of that blow can still topple you. More so if it lands high on your body mid-stride or alters too much the direction in which you intend to move your weight.

Must add to that that I haven't trained in plate armor. I'm guessing it would be different for someone who was accustomed to fighting fully armored. Just not as dynamic I guess, i actually feel more vulnerable wearing any kind of armor (vest and helmet not withstanding) due to the restriction on range and speed of movement.

As far as sundering someones blade goes, the chance of that happening is a million to one. Taking the full force of an opponents blow upon ones sword would shatter your wrist long before it would shatter you blade and is generally considered to be a beginners mistake. Parrying is about deflecting the angle of the blow without stopping the cut. If they stop dead then they are closer to their guard position then if the blow is deflected and they are forced to follow through. You want the chance to make a riposte.

Obviously that plate armor was not fitted to you and yes as you said no training makes a huge, huge difference. I have fought in many types of armor and have studied various forms of Western Martial Arts. I have friends who wow audiences by doing cartwheels in a full plate rig and one actually can pull off a back flip. It was not uncommon for a fully armored knight to be able to vault into his horse's saddle from the ground, in fact it was more uncommon to not be able to do so. Before my knee surgery while I was training regularly and in fairly good shape I was able to move smoothly and quickly. Admittedly I wore a coat of plates designed roughly off the Visby (sp) coat and some other brigadine styles wich allowed for more mobility than a breastplate, but the weight was similar. My footing was solid and sure, there was no problem ducking, dodgeing, bobbin' an' weavin'. True maybe slower than some one who is unarmored, but not even close to letting them flank me with a simple feint, nor was I forced to being flat-footed. That is silly, anyone who goes flat footed in any form of martial art is doomed. As for being easily "toppled" over, not so much and I've been hit hard enough to knock snot out of my nose and give me the tinglies. When I have fallen over it was because of crappy footwork on my part and that I have done while fighting unarmored with rapiers.
I've never "fought" an unarmored opponent with a rapier while in armor because it is simply too dangerous for the unarmored opponent if you do anything past playing tag with your blades. That of course takes out most of the advantage the heavily armored opponent with a heavier blade would have and is just a pointless comparison. In a true fight I'd put my money on the full plated, longsword wielding bloke against an unarmored opponent with rapier, main-gauche, buckler or whatever sidearm you want. Excepting firearms of course. As long as the guy in the armor wasn't a complete noob who can't move in his own gear, the advantage would be his.
The rapier was good against unarmored opponents and was used mostly in urban settings where people were not running around in full plate like an adventurer in Cordor. The only reason lighter swords like rapiers and sabres outlasted the heavier weapons was gunpowder and it's result in making armor obsolete. Without the heavy armor the use of your heavier weapons dissipated.
It all goes back to training, two people trained in heavy armored combat can be quite dynamic and flowing, almost dance like in a fight. Unless of course they go right in for the grappling, knee-to-the-groin moves, then it's more a brawl.

This is so great. Hehe.

Have you tried those massive Nordic Greataxes? I've not got the strength for them but the grappling is awesome.

As far as the Rapier vs. Armor and Longsword goes; what about the endurance factor? I've found that in Rapier vs. Backsword, provided I can avoid being hit and encourage aggression (hence lots of swinging) the person with the backsword will tire and become sluggish far more quickly. Would it be the same for armor and longsword or would the significant reduction in target area mean that the armored fighter could just take it at their desired pace?

Just on what I said about footwork, i should have kept in mind that i move around almost constantly and that may explain why I hated armor so much.

As far as the not getting hammered by a sword goes, try modern ballistic armor if you can get it. One of our guys is a Major in the army and gets old vests, lines them with high density foam and it makes really great and really light armor. We still get a broken finger or wrist every so often (pretty often) but it's the best we could find.

The rapier did not outlast other sword types.
Neither did the small sword, a type of rapier half the length and a lot faster.

The entire duration of the rapier/small sword period was 70 years. 1560-1630.

Both George Silver and Mcbain, respectively English and Scottish sword masters of the period, hated rapiers {George Silver REALLY hated them, Mcbain got trained up in them, tried to take on his commanding officer who used a backsword, and got his arse handed to him}.

The rapier is fast, yes, but think of it like this. Rapier comes forward, a flick of the wrist can put it offline and because it's so damn long and only fights with the top end, if I advance with my broadsword I can kill you without coming into range of your dagger.
More importantly, let's say you thrust your rapier into me. It was not uncommon for people to suffer ten or so thrusts before falling down. In fact, a personal favourite of mine, we have records of a man being thrust THROUGH the heart with a rapier and walking home after. But let's say you thrust me through say, a lung. Your sword is now stuck in me. I still have mine. You are now in range for me to hit you REALLY hard through the head. I can then walk off and get medical attention while you lie with your head cut open {because, after all, the rapier was NEVER used militarily so you are a civilian}. If I'm using a longsword {two hander} you've got no chance, it is so easy for me to defend against you that you will never score a thrust against me, and the moment you do, there goes your head.

By the by, I'm trained in Capo Ferro, Italian rapier. I also know Spanish rapier. Rapier is a system of combat with hundreds of dead end techniques the only exception being when you have a main gauche {at which point having a rapier is often pointless if you don't want to have dead end techniques}.

Jumping back to skill of the fighter. Yes, agreed. But a couple points to remember. Flanking, not possible in single combat. If you're considering wraps as an option, that's an SCAism. Yes, they did exist, but not in the way the SCA teaches it {or at least not Australian or American SCA}. Doing a wrap properly looks nothing like those {nobody mentioned wraps, but I thought I'd cover it just in case, speaking of which, SCA does not train people in accurate combat, especially not two handed combat, that said, no offense meant to the SCA}.
As for close distance and grapple. A lot of Western training manuals include grappling, unarmed wrestling and dagger fighting as well as 'close' combat which includes things like pomel smashing. Quillion strikes didn't happen, so I agree with you there. Pommel bashing did and DAMN were they useful. Asiatics aren't the only people who trained in hand to hand, just the Asiatics are the only ones who's martial art was continuous to the modern day, Western Europe dropped it around the Napoleonic era and it died.
That said, it's called a shield. Believe me when I say the shield wins. I can fight people with just a sword and beat someone with sword and shield but DAMN is it hard. Especially when I'm not allowed to kick their shield or their knee, both techniques taught in the manuals.

All that done, plate armour and it being cumbersome. I am a very big fan of mail armour. But that's just me. Plate needs a bit of getting used to, but then so does mail, but then so does any armour. It doesn't limit your footwork at all unless you're not doing footwork correctly {I'd tell you how but I'd prefer not to publicly explain it online where anyone can take it and try it without supervision and that leads to bad things, if you're interested PM me how you do your footwork and I'll offer you some advice as to how you can compensate for whatever difficulties you're having}.

I know I haven't covered everything people have said, it's late where I am and I've been a bit haphazard in my reply. But a couple more points about comparing peoples, cultures and fighting styles.

See weapons in question and compare them. The table of elements will tell you if bronze is better than copper or what alloy of steel better than bronze. Follow that with the speed, strength and etc of the weapon AND their companion weapon. Two equal length weapons lose, one long one short isn't bad, one long and a shield or buckler do very well. Keep in mind that some cultures don't have a 'martial art' style. Hoplites with spears for example, it's a group combat tool, not an individual's art. Same with Romans. The medieval knight on the other hand is more focused on individual combat or individual against many.

Right, I'm going to stop me here because as you can see my structuring of this essay length post is not that great, but in theory you understand what I'm trying to convey.
If in doubt, reread my original posts, they cover everything I need to say rather well.

Ah! That's where you're coming from.

I was writing while you made that last post so now I see your problem.

The person who was swinging the longsword around uselessly is doing the bad thing there. Take a cue from Spanish rapier.

They stand there with their sword pointed at their opponent then work. IN order to get them, you have to knock their rapier out of the way, as soon as you do that, they use your momentum to cut you across the cheek while stepping back. How do you beat them? Wait until they get tired.

ONLY attack when you can hit your opponent or when you are putting yourself in a place to strike your opponent without threat of attack. The longsword person needs to meet the rapier in the middle of the field, push it offline, grab it with their free hand then go after you. Yes you can grab a sharp blade. I personally have tried grabbing a sharp blade and hammering the hilt against the wall several times. I received no cut flesh. So long as you don't resist the movements of the blade you will receive no injury. That said, the next thing is the long sword guy should be waiting for the rapier to thrust, once he lunges into a thrust he's lying spent and the longsword fighter should be able to kill him easily.

Almost all manuals {a couple german manuls are the exception} tell you to let your opponent attack first then you take the line and kill them. This is across all manuals {including those german ones about taking the line}. Be patient, and if that doesn't work, just take a step back to where they can't reach you without using several feet and order a coffee.

Haha... got tangents? Great info and stuff.
In the Complete Warrior book, it pretty much shows them to be heavy-armor wearing, dual-wielding characters (as they get the "Two Swords as One" feat).
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75398.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75470.jpg

In the end, it's what you want your character to look like. Probably gonna be hard trying to make non-fictional Samurai-looking armor with NWN's ability, but good luck! Hope it works out.

Last edited by Theander on Mon, Mar 23 2009, 12:58 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yes... go tangents.

By the by, since there is so little published material of Western Martial Arts, I will be over the next few years make a concentrated effort to get stuff published. It may take a while, but once I've got a few things out there go take a look at it.

That said, the best place to get stuff at the moment is the chivalry bookstore
http://revival.us/index.asp?PageAction= ... tegory=216
Spada I and Spada II include the medical facts about stabbing through the heart and other things. I warn you though, that this stuff is mostly written to an audience who have a certain level of knowledge already so if stuff eludes you feel free to contact the authors {who are very generous in their knowledge} or send me a PM if you'd prefer {at which point either I'll answer it or, since I know a couple of the authors, will contact them personally to acquire your answer for us both. In fact, contact me anyway, if you have a question I can't answer then frankly I wouldn't mind knowing the answer myself}.

Knock yourselves out {IC}.

Oh, and if I get anything relevant to this topic published {again this won't be for a good couple years or more}, I'll be sure to let you guys know.

To be fair, I know Kung Fu

For the last time, no you don't.

I just wonder where you get to learn all that stuff?

I've always been interested in swordplay and fencing, mostly with medieval weapons, yet it seems rather difficult to come by. Or is it just ordinary fencing academies who try out broadswords, longswords etc as well?

If you live in Australia, I can direct you to a few.
If you live in America, I know a couple and I could probably ask them for locations of other schools in America.

If you live in England or Australia or Poland I can probably direct you to some metal weapon groups that do re-enactment.

I started with metal weapon re-enactment, I did that for 6 years, I've done near three years of Western Martial Arts and a couple of years in SCA. I do not advise SCA if you want to learn anything about combat, but if you just want an excuse to dress up and enjoy yourself, go nuts that's what they're there for.

I live in Sweden.

Craptastic.

Sweden?
I'll see what I can do, there has to be a few viking groups up there somewhere, and knowing that part of the world they'll probably have a longboat too.

Are you interested in re-enactment {combat, fighting etc} or learning and studying techniques like a martial art {but without the option of tournaments because we don't tend to get covered by insurance}?

Why do so many people forget that the rapier was actually for home defense and civilian warfare?? Battlefields used the longsword or the side-sword. What is a side-sword?

The term "Side-Sword" is a recently-coined calque of the Italian spada da lato and is used to generally describe several types of swords popular during the late 15th through 17th Centuries. Because of this, the term will not be found in any actual sources from the 16th or 17th centuries.

It's directly descended from the Arming Sword:

The first swords carried by civilians for use in duels were generally arming swords. A military weapon turned to civilian use, their blades were generally less than 90 cm (35") in length, relatively heavy (680 grams to 1133 grams), and double-edged with a short point. The cross-section was varied with lenticular, hollow-ground, and flattened diamond and hexagon shapes.

Which is the cruciform sword the knights wielded. Which is in turn descended from a viking-sword! Now here's the fun part, the rapier was a "dress sword" used in duels between civilians. It wasn't really used in battle.

Allowing for fast reactions, and with a long reach, the rapier was well suited to civilian combat in the 16th-17th centuries. As military-style cutting and thrusting swords continued to evolve to meet needs on the battlefield, so did rapiers continue to evolve to meet the needs of civilian combat and duels, eventually becoming lighter and shorter. This is when the rapier began to give way to the small sword.

So on the battlefield, the Side-sword or Arming Sword was used. Back home the civilians fought with rapiers. I have no doubts that while good for use on unarmored people, the rapier would still be destroyed by an armored knight with a side-sword.

Kjetta wrote:

This is so great. Hehe.

Makes me feel I have a healthy social life and normal hobbies!

Seriously though, sounds like an interesting hobby. I don't suppose you can direct me to the right place, Silvarus?

NERDS

Yossarin wrote:

NERDS

Ah, but the thing is.......they are armed nerds.....

:wink:

Samurai vs full plate

Who is online