View Poll Results: Samurai vs Medieval Knight

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Samurai

    20 62.50%
  • Medieval Knight

    12 37.50%
Page 10 of 49 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 728

Thread: Samurai against knight

  1. #136
    Regular Stuart Mackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Apr 05
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by korppi76
    Hmm thas weird, all medieval swords I have seen in museums weight max 12 lbs, but then again I am not expert with swords I know only how to handle Katana but not european versions.
    But I remember reading that Great Sword weighted 20 lbs.... (isnt lbs about 0,46 kg or something like that?)
    These things would be around 2.3-3.6 kg or 5-8 lbs




    Talk of european swords being large, heavy, blunt elongated bits of iron is just that, talk. Its like saying that an m16 rifle weighs 30kg. Such a weight would be impractical as a personal weapon now, and it was impractical in medieval and rennaisance times as well.
    Last edited by Stuart Mackey; 12 Apr 05, at 15:33.

  2. #137
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "Oh it might look like one, but I think you have been had, conned and suckered.
    A hand and a half would weigh in at 4.5 lbs or less."

    What you think is really rather irrelevant friend. I've had the hilt off. It has a 1" steel tang running the length of the hilt.

    It's real alright.

    It is so heavy beacause of the sheer mass of the blade. The blade is at least three times wider than those pictured in Stuarts post(the blade is 40"x6". I challenge you to find a piece of 40x6 steel bar stock that weighs 5lbs...lol). Almost the entire weight of a sword is in the blade. Triple the width of the blade...you're obviously going to roughly triple the weight of the weapon.

    If my damned digital camera hadn't broke i'd take some pictures of it with the hilt off. It's as real as a sword gets.

    PS: Considering that i paid exactly nothing for the blade, i'd say it would be quite hard for me to have been 'conned, had, or suckered'.
    Last edited by Bill; 12 Apr 05, at 17:22.

  3. #138
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "Just out of curiousity, was the blade ever blooded?"

    Used on a person?

    LOL...not that i know of...

  4. #139
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    OK, i just put the weapon on my bathroom scale.

    It weighs in at approx 23lbs.

    My best Katana(WWII Japanese officers sword) weighs just under 6lbs, in comparison.

  5. #140
    New Member
    Join Date
    08 Jan 05
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    "Oh it might look like one, but I think you have been had, conned and suckered.
    A hand and a half would weigh in at 4.5 lbs or less."

    What you think is really rather irrelevant friend. I've had the hilt off. It has a 1" steel tang running the length of the hilt.

    It's real alright.

    It is so heavy beacause of the sheer mass of the blade. The blade is at least three times wider than those pictured in Stuarts post(the blade is 40"x6". I challenge you to find a piece of 40x6 steel bar stock that weighs 5lbs...lol). Almost the entire weight of a sword is in the blade. Triple the width of the blade...you're obviously going to roughly triple the weight of the weapon.

    If my damned digital camera hadn't broke i'd take some pictures of it with the hilt off. It's as real as a sword gets.

    PS: Considering that i paid exactly nothing for the blade, i'd say it would be quite hard for me to have been 'conned, had, or suckered'.
    Thunar: be lucky then lets start off the description of the sword 40 inches are correct lenght but 6 inches wide is to wide and the blood gutter I think you called its actual terms is fuller. Its purpose is the lighten and strengthing the blade and you said it was gold inlaid? If so it also proves my point no knight in his right mind would bring that to battle because of its weight and gold inlay in the blade would make it to expensive to damage and as you said unwielding.
    My parents were born and raised in germany and the last time I visited over there I went to alot of museums and castles from my dad's home village Wombach to Rottenburg and then I visited my aunts in Austria and I visited Salzburg, Vienna and finally Rust and all the swords on display and the descriptions not one sword went above 8 pounds and that was the great two handers such as the flamberge.
    My friend has most of my european swordsmanship boods but I have one on me
    Medieval swordsmanship by John Clements and on page40 under bastard sword (or hand and half) 3 to 31/2 pounds and max out maybe to 4- 5 depending on the cross guard.
    My point is I don't doubt you have faithful repoduction of a medieval sword, its not a repoduction of a medieval sword a knight would use in battle. Like I said more like a parade sword in which they too have a full tang but the would be exaggerted like the one you have. Please don't use that sword as a reference point of european swords being heavy as 30 lbs when its simply not true.

  6. #141
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    I know i'd certainly love to get a chance to try some two handed bursting thrusts against good quality euro plate armor with a Choku-To. If any sword can penetrate euro heavy plate, the Choku-To is probably the one.
    The English longbow is estimated from surviving examples to have had 50 - 60lbs draw weight and was unable to penetrate the french knights armour at Agincourt. Partly of course this was due to the poor quality of of the iron in the English arrowheads but you'd still have to have an extremely powerful thrust to penetrate quality armour from this time.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  7. #142
    New Member yatri's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Apr 05
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6
    yeah, but the arrowspeed of something shot from a yumi far exceeds that of the english longbow. it's quite possible, and i'd personally argue that it's probable.

  8. #143
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    Hmm, quite possibly. The average draw seems to be 30 -40 lbs which is less than the english longbow but apparently some were made with a draw of 110lbs!! I'd like to see the guy who could draw that!
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  9. #144
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    A one handed 'row' motion with 110 lbs. resistance!?! I do NOT want to meet that guy!

  10. #145
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "The English longbow is estimated from surviving examples to have had 50 - 60lbs draw weight and was unable to penetrate the french knights armour at Agincourt. Partly of course this was due to the poor quality of of the iron in the English arrowheads but you'd still have to have an extremely powerful thrust to penetrate quality armour from this time."

    Bows are irrelevant, and act in a completely different manner to penetrate armor. And the Armor the Italian mercenary cavalry were wearing was the very best in the world.

    With a sword, if the tip penetrates(as the arrows did mind you), you have the full weight of your body and all your muscle strength continuing to push it home.
    Once the KE from an arrow is expended, it's gone. A melee thrust does not suffer from that limitation.

    Regardless, the Choku-Tu has about as good a piercing tip as you'll ever find on a sword.

  11. #146
    Regular
    Join Date
    05 Feb 05
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    61
    Hey...aren't we getting off-track here? Thought this was supposed to be about a duel between a Samurai and a Medieval knight....



    The following is taken directly from Sword Forum Magazine, in regards to a Gothic Bastard Sword...read more about it here

    There are swords that catch the eye of sword enthusiasts because they have "it" - the combination of graceful lines and lethal practicality combined into a piece of cold steel. One type of sword that has these traits is the long-sword. These swords were intended for use with both hands, allowing thrusts, cuts and parries. A sword of this type is kept in the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, UK. It is often glimpsed in books on medieval arms and armor, as it is included in one of the displays in the Royal Armouries. This display itself consists of a late 15th century Gothic armor together with horse armor, both of German origin, with the sword on the mounted knight's left side. Replicas of the sword are available, and it has become a favorite with many sword enthusiasts. What few people know is the true story behind the sword.


    The Sword

    The total length is 52.9" (134.5 cm) and the weight is said to be 3 lbs. 3 oz (1.45 kg). The inventory # of the sword is XXI.31 (not to be confused with the Roman numerals used in Oakeshott's typology). At the Royal Armouries, the XXI class designation is used for items that are considered "modern imitations." So, how did a reproduction end up in one of the most well known collections in the world? Before answering that, we'll take a closer look at the sword itself.


    The Blade

    The blade is a type XVIIIb according to Oakeshott's typology. Having a diamond cross-section, it tapers to a narrow point. It has a length of 42.5" (108 cm), a width at the hilt of 2" (5.1 cm), a width at point before curve of point of 0.7" (18 mm), and a thickness at the top of blade of 0.225" (5.7 mm). This type appeared around 1450, and seems to have been around for some 70 years before being replaced by other forms. It is designed to be both armor-piercing and able to deliver good cuts. The blade is believed by some to be genuine, but according to one of the curators at the Royal Armouries, it is somewhat roughly finished.


    The Cross

    The 10.8" (27.5 cm) wide spatulate cross is a style 5 according to Oakeshott's typology. The style is more common with swords of earlier types, but it isn't impossible that a type XVIIIb blade could have been fitted with it. The slight horizontal S-curve of the cross appears in period art around 1430, making it look like the blade and cross are contemporary with each other. The perforations are also very rare - another factor to weigh in when determining the authenticity of the sword. Perforations were usually less elaborate - often just a small, simple cross-shaped hole. Curiously enough, the very thing that lends the hilt elegance is what is probably not in style with period crosses.


    The Grip

    The 8.3" (21.2 cm) grip is slightly waisted, easily accommodating both hands. The lower half is leather-covered wood, where cord (?) shapes a distinct "X" under the leather, while the upper half is wood wound with metal wire. The style is one seen in many swords after 1350, which corresponds with the rest of the hilt. A similar grip can be seen on the effigy of Johan Georg von Waldburg, who died c. 1470. Few, if any, are preserved.


    The Pommel

    This is a 1.16" (29.6 mm) thick disc-shaped iron pommel with chamfered edges (thickness of the edge 0.5" (12 mm) and with a diameter of 2" (5.1 cm). This is clearly a type I according to Oakeshott's typology. The style was popular all through the Middle Ages, being common from the middle of the 13th century onwards. The pommel alone cannot be used to narrow down the time frame.


    Wielding the Sword

    The only information I have on the handling characteristics of this sword is that it is slightly blade-heavy. The point of balance isn't known, nor is the center of percussion. To learn more about it, it would have to be removed from the current display, something the curators are reluctant to do.


    Could the Sword be Authentic?

    So, could it be authentic or not? Based on the facts above, while it's possible that a sword looking like this could have been made in the 1400's, the curators at the Royal Armouries seem certain that it isn't genuine. The whole thing is simplified by the fact that the seller of the sword was most probably Ernst Schmidt, active in Munich (München), Germany. The sword was probably made in the 1890's in the atelier of Mr. Schmidt (quite possibly by Schmidt himself) and similar swords can be seen in his pre-WW1 (c. 1910) catalog. An interesting thing is the fact that there was an older sword, apparently kept in the National Museum in Munich, which was the inspiration for the sword. The older sword, or a copy thereof, might have been made in the 17th century (a most interesting feature of this sword is the crystal pommel), but the whereabouts of it isn't known today. The scabbard was made at the Tower Armouries, London, and the whole thing is used to embellish the Gothic knight display.

    Ernst Schmidt - Maker of Fine Reproductions

    Ernst Schmidt was the proprietor of a highly respectable firm (situated in Pfandstrasse 5, Munich), dealing in antique arms and armor (both reproductions and originals), and other fine arts items. He bought the atelier in the late 1870's and was active until about 1930. He employed several skilled artisans, whose skills were needed in repairing antiques as well as producing copies of attractive items. Everything was sold as reproductions, but it is possible that consecutive transactions were made by less honest dealers who claimed that the stuff was genuine. Schmidt's wares were popular, and found their way into many collections both in Germany and abroad, like the Higgins Armory Museum (http://www.higgins.org/) in Worcester, Massachusetts.


    Fakes, Forgeries and Reproductions

    So, if the sword was made in the 1890's, why was that? During the 19th century, there was an increased demand for medieval and renaissance arms and armor due to the renewed interest in the Middle Ages (of which Sir Walter Scott's novel "Ivanhoe" from 1819 is but an example). The supply wasn't as great, though, so a replica production as well as a flourishing fake business started. The fakes could be all new or put together from original parts of different provenance, with an original hilt fitted to a new-made blade or vise versa. The new parts were often treated with acid to achieve an antique finish, making it harder to tell the age of the piece. While the replicas were sold as just that, unscrupulous dealers passed off the fakes as genuine. Expert craftsmen made some of the fakes; restorers who had access to the great collections and who made a fast buck from producing a copy of the piece they were restoring. Much of this trade was based in the traditional sword-making areas in Germany. Today, many hundreds of fakes are around in museums and private collections. Some of them are recognized for what they are, but many are still believed to be genuine. As the 19th and early 20th century fakes have a tendency to crop up at auctions and antique dealers, the buyer should indeed beware. The fake business is still about, today mostly in areas of great collectability like Japanese swords and Third Reich swords and daggers.


    Conclusion

    The sword is very elegant, and it can be regarded as an impression of what a late 15th century sword could look like. There is no known preserved sword that looks quite like it, but Schmidt had a sure eye for the stuff, unlike many fakes that are too elaborate or clumsy. In his catalog, there are two swords that are similar to it. #346 have the aforementioned crystal pommel, and appear to have a longer blade than the Royal Armouries sword, while the other sword (#351) is shorter and has a metal pommel. The "Gothic Bastard Sword" stands as a fine example of the 19th century's idea of the medieval sword, and judging by its popularity today, that idea is still very much alive.

    Sources and bibliography

    Correspondence with Mr. P. J. Lankester graciously provided by Mr. Counts
    Letter from Mr. P. J. Lankester, dated 25 January 1999
    Clements, John: Medieval Swordsmanship, Paladin Press 1998
    Cope, Anne (editor): Swords and Hilt Weapons, Multimedia Books 1989
    Edge, David and John M. Paddock: Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight, Bison Books 1988
    Grancsay, Stephen (ed.): Arms + Armor From the Atelier of Ernst Schmidt Munich, Mowbray Company, 1967
    Oakeshott, Ewart: The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Boydell & Brewer 1964, 1994
    Oakeshott, Ewart: Records of the Medieval Sword, Boydell & Brewer 1991
    http://img51.exs.cx/img51/6518/TexasOutlaw_Sig.jpg

    A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends on the user - Theodore Roosevelt

  12. #147
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "The English longbow is estimated from surviving examples to have had 50 - 60lbs draw weight and was unable to penetrate the french knights armour at Agincourt. Partly of course this was due to the poor quality of of the iron in the English arrowheads but you'd still have to have an extremely powerful thrust to penetrate quality armour from this time."

    Bows are irrelevant, and act in a completely different manner to penetrate armor. And the Armor the Italian mercenary cavalry were wearing was the very best in the world.

    With a sword, if the tip penetrates(as the arrows did mind you), you have the full weight of your body and all your muscle strength continuing to push it home.
    Once the KE from an arrow is expended, it's gone. A melee thrust does not suffer from that limitation. And remember, with a double handed bursting thrust attack every ounce of your body mass is in forward motion, delivering a massive KE impact when compared to an arrow. Do the math on a 170lb warrior bursting in at 15fps(a lion attacks at 18fps, so 15 fps seems reasonable to me for a highly trained Samurai, or whoever).

    That's 557 foot-pounds of energy bro(more than a .357 magnum at the muzzle), all focused on the very fine point of the tanto tipped Choku-To.

  13. #148
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    He's talking about a longsword, and to be honest, for that length, i highly doubt those weight claims unless the friggin' thing is made of titanium.

    Hard to believe any 52" steel sword could weigh 3lbs. Very hard.(many daggers weigh that much).

  14. #149
    Regular Stuart Mackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Apr 05
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    "Oh it might look like one, but I think you have been had, conned and suckered.
    A hand and a half would weigh in at 4.5 lbs or less."

    What you think is really rather irrelevant friend. I've had the hilt off. It has a 1" steel tang running the length of the hilt.

    It's real alright.

    It is so heavy beacause of the sheer mass of the blade. The blade is at least three times wider than those pictured in Stuarts post(the blade is 40"x6". I challenge you to find a piece of 40x6 steel bar stock that weighs 5lbs...lol). Almost the entire weight of a sword is in the blade. Triple the width of the blade...you're obviously going to roughly triple the weight of the weapon.

    If my damned digital camera hadn't broke i'd take some pictures of it with the hilt off. It's as real as a sword gets.

    PS: Considering that i paid exactly nothing for the blade, i'd say it would be quite hard for me to have been 'conned, had, or suckered'.

    I see, perhaps I phrased myself poorly. I am sure your sword is real, in that it looks like what is ment to be, but that does not mean it is a genuine combat sword. A genuine combat sword does not weigh 23 ibs let alone 30. That you seem to think that your 'weapon' is an accurate reflection of medieval bastrd swords tells me that you have indeed been 'conned, had and suckered'

    But dont take my word for it, lets see what the current curator of European edged weapons, Robert C. Woosnam-Savage has to say shall we?

    "The fighting two-handed sword, weighed (on average) between 5-7 lbs. I give the following three examples, randomly chosen from our own collections, which I hope are adequate to make the point:

    Two-handed sword, German, c.1550 (IX.926). Weight: 7 lb 6oz.

    Two-handed sword, German, dated 1529 (IX.991). Weight: 5 lb 1oz.

    Two-handed sword, Scottish, mid 16th century, (IX.926). Weight: 5 lb 10o
    found here, +http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html .

    My concern in this thread is that you dont have you facts correct about what 'knights' were capable of, and have come to a grossly unimformed conclution in this thread as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Finally, i do not believe that a European knight would be able to land many blows against a lightly encumbered Japanese Samurai. I own several authentic European ancient weapons, they all have one thing in common. They are all heavy, and they are all slow to recover after a miss. The bastard sword is the epitome of those problems. What a stupid weapon.
    Here you show no evidence to back up your claim whatsoever, and demonstrate beyoned a shadow of a doubt that you do not own any authentic medieval European combat weapons at all. How can you come to any kind conclution with respect of Samurai vs Knight when you havent a clue about the actual capabilities of one of the combatants?

  15. #150
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    And you are a vastly well trained master of the European arts yourself?

    LOL.

    I was operating on assumptions that have apparently been shown to be quite flawed. It happens to everyone at times. I surely can't be expected to know everything, now can i?

    My knowledge base is primarily Eastern wrt ancient warrior types and weaponry, but i've read a quite a bit about Euro history as well. And i do have several Euro weapons, from the sword(which even if not authentic to any one style has an obvious European design theme), to several daggers. My cousin also has a really cool Morning Star.

    I think what i've got going on more than anything is a terminology problem. Because of the girth of the blade, despite it's 'hand and a half' hilt, i think upon further reflection i would more term my sword a broad sword, i suppose. The previous owner gave it me under the term 'two handed sword', but it was obviously not a 2 handed sword, so i classed it a bastard sword.

    To me, i had always differentiated a bastard and a longsword as two separate weapons. It now appears that in fact they are often referred to as the same thing. You may note, i never said a negative word about the longsword in this thread, anywhere. I like longswords just fine.

    What are the weights of Euro broad swords? I always have avoided the term WRT Euro weaponry so as not to confuse it with the Chinese Broad sword, which is a vastly different weapon.

    And from your link:

    "No major historical teachings detailing fencing with these specific weapons are known. "

    So it seems to me that it's not possible for any of us to form any solid hypothesis wrt a winner, as none of us know precisely how a knight would've employed said weapon. Of course, i allow that a large amount of conjecture and opinion must be interjected into the debate.
    Last edited by Bill; 13 Apr 05, at 09:33.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ninjas & Knights
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08 Jan 09,, 14:40
  2. Last Samurai gun question
    By Beaugeste93 in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11 Jul 05,, 00:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •