Samurai against knight

[Bill]

"How is it obvious that a man in plate armour is slower than a samurai ?"

That one seems pretty obvious(assuming the Samurai is not in armor as i had previously stated). Certainly top end Euro plate armor was only mildly restrictive, but it's still got mass which will slow attacks and recoveries, and your vision is highly restricted to boot. Also, while a good level of flexibility can be maintained, a swordsman without armor is still going to be much more agile IMO.

[Bill]

"Meant to ask you. The Chinese always had this inferiority complex vis-a-vi Japanese sword arts. What's your view since you've practised the Tai Chi sword."

I am HARDLY a tai chi master(though my cousin is probably not far from that level), but IMO against an unarmored opponent the Tai Chi sword possesses a level of speed, agility, and sensitivity that no other bladed weapon can match.
The Tai Chi sword is not intended for direct parrys and blocks, rather the user strives to not be where the strike is coming. With a tai chi sword one endeavors to maintain blade contact, such as the 'sticky hands' drills that are prevelant in the internal Chinese styles(tai chi, pa qua, yin yang). The reasoning is that the tai chi sword transmits the movement of your opponent into your wrist, so that a master tai chi practitioner knows what the opponents next strike will be the instant he begins to launch it.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, the Tai Chi sword is probably the most difficult sword of all to master(as is the fighting art of tai chi one of the most difficult systems to master), so true master tai chi swordsmen were always going to be very rare.

When compared to the Japanese martial arts, Tai chi(or any of the Chinese internal systems) is on an ENTIRELY different level of complexity and subtlety...and power.

[Jonathan Locke]

"How is it obvious that a man in plate armour is slower than a samurai ?"

That one seems pretty obvious(assuming the Samurai is not in armor as i had previously stated). Certainly top end Euro plate armor was only mildly restrictive, but it's still got mass which will slow attacks and recoveries, and your vision is highly restricted to boot. Also, while a good level of flexibility can be maintained, a swordsman without armor is still going to be much more agile IMO.

Thank you Snipe for answering my questions while i was occupied.

Yes, i do believe that most samurai did not wear armor, instead they opted for the comfortable silk tunic and wide-legged pants. Thougth some did wear light leather armors in the chest and abdomen areas. I think that the only "warriors" that wore metal armor in Japanese culture were, fighting shogun (which were extremely rare), guards, and what you migth call warlords/generals.

[Bill]

Samurai would wear armor in full scale battles, but not in a duel, or as part of their daily wardrobe.

Odds are if you ran up against a Samurai he would be un-armored.

[Jonathan Locke]

All of it, see below.



Your opinion is not fact, sorry. Having an opinion is fine, but dont post it as if it were fact. Above you have not shown how you arrived at your opinion and what information formed your opinion.

How is it obvious that a man in plate armour is slower than a samurai ?

How is it obvious that a man in plate armour is better in an enclosed space?

What evidence leads you to think a samuai can simply avoid the knights blows?

What evidence makes you think the samurai's weapon can penitrate plate armour?

Answer to first question: I believ Snipe has already answered that one

Question 2: I did not conclude that he was better in an enclosed space because of the fact that he has a plate armor, i did so, because he has a pike and because the samurai may not use most of his techniques, which involve large amounts of space both on air and on land.

Question #3: If it is an open space, a trained Japanese samurai will most likely be able to either predict the slow knight's attack or use his keen reflexes and lack of heavy armor to dodge or parry the blow.

Question Four: Again, Snipe has answered that one.

[Bill]

As for #2, i do not think there is any evidence to support the claim that the Knight would have any significant advantadge in a confined space, nor is their any evidence to suggest the Samurai would either.

A Chinese Win Chung martial artist in a confined space would kick either of their asses. ;)

As for #3, the Samurais style would be to parry with his sword, as would the knights(though a knight could also have a shield). A tai chi swordsman on the other hand would definitely attempt to evade his opponents strikes entirely.

[deadkenny]

'Knights' would fight dismounted, English ones at least, with their lances as pikes.
Your responce above, feel free to show why a properly trained man at arms or a knight, someone who was trained from age 6 or so to fight, would be so incompetent with a weapon ith which he would be familiar?
Moreover please show how the Knight would some how 'be dead' should he screw up so spectacularly and let the Samurai get past his guard? Did he forget his armour and sidearm perhaps?

Well, I'm not sure how I'm going to 'show' that, any more than you can 'show' any of your speculations. The fact is a 'pike', or any of the longer heavier pole weapons were intended for fighting in formation. One on one, they are not as effective. The Romans routinely 'got inside' spear carrying opponents and did them in with their short swords. When you ask if the knight forgot his 'sidearm', are you suggesting that the 'pike' wielding knight, having allowed the Samurai to get 'inside' his pike would then have time to drop it and draw another weapon? Not a chance. Finally, you ask why I say he would be dead - does the knight's armour have a visor? or the usual 'openings' (groin, underarm, neck etc.)

[Jonathan Locke]

As for #2, i do not think there is any evidence to support the claim that the Knight would have any significant advantadge in a confined space, nor is their any evidence to suggest the Samurai would either.

A Chinese Win Chung martial artist in a confined space would kick either of their asses. ;)

As for #3, the Samurais style would be to parry with his sword, as would the knights(though a knight could also have a shield). A tai chi swordsman on the other hand would definitely attempt to evade his opponents strikes entirely.

You are right the samurai could also win in a closed space, especially if he was trained in nay of these: Atemi, Battojitsu, Daito-ryu, Hakuda (the Japanese form of the Chinese Ch'uan Fa), Hojojitsu (which would be extremely helpful if the knight wields a pike), Iaido, Iaijitsu (a more perfectionized form of Battojitsu), Jodo, Simple Jujitsu, and of course the natural Kempo and Kenjitsu.

Actually i am not so sure about a "Beautiful Springtime" martial artist could beat a samurai, since such martial art is based on blocking using the opponents movement's, and avoids hard techniques. So pretty much, unless the martial artist had created a hybrid between "Beautiful Springtime" and some kind of Jitsu, i think he would be parrying and blocking most of the time. Plus "Beautiful Springtime" is mostly done unarmed, so the martial artist would be in a disadvantage.

As for your comment on question 3, that depends on the Samurai's techniques and fighting styles. If he chose a from Jujitsu, then he would not be blocking, and would be attacking instead. Not to mention if he chose Iaijitsu, then the knight would be in quite a lot of trouble.

PS: Isn't "sticky hands" a Win Chung move?

[Bill]

"Sticky hands" is a Pa Qua kung fu drill designed to boost your sensitivity to your opponents movements.

It involves close-in sparring where your forearms are in contact with your opponent at all times(unless of course one of you is striking).

Win Chung is a southern short style, with a lot of close combat moves. It's perfect for close-in confined space fighting.

[Jonathan Locke]

"Sticky hands" is a Pa Qua kung fu drill designed to boost your sensitivity to your opponents movements.

It involves close-in sparring where your forearms are in contact with your opponent at all times(unless of course one of you is striking).

Win Chung is a southern short style, with a lot of close combat moves. It's perfect for close-in confined space fighting.

I think that Sticky Hands is a Win Chung move, since Pa Qua is basicly based on circling around your opponent, adjusting and balancing yourself to gain an advantage, so it basicly does not need much predicting of the opponent's next attack. Meanwhile, Win Chung is all about predicting you opponents next move.

[Agent VE]

Do not foget: Japan has guns back then too! The knights didn't, guns vs. metal sticks... well, you figure it out.

Now how about ninja vs. vikings? Completly diffrent, but worth it to see what is better, stealth or raw strength.

[Bill]

" think that Sticky Hands is a Win Chung move, since Pa Qua is basicly based on circling around your opponent, adjusting and balancing yourself to gain an advantage, so it basicly does not need much predicting of the opponent's next attack. Meanwhile, Win Chung is all about predicting you opponents next move."

Nope, sticky hands is a internal style drill(and is often practiced while 'walking the circle').

Win Chung is a 'hard' style of kung fu.

[Jonathan Locke]

" think that Sticky Hands is a Win Chung move, since Pa Qua is basicly based on circling around your opponent, adjusting and balancing yourself to gain an advantage, so it basicly does not need much predicting of the opponent's next attack. Meanwhile, Win Chung is all about predicting you opponents next move."

Nope, sticky hands is a internal style drill(and is often practiced while 'walking the circle').

Win Chung is a 'hard' style of kung fu.

oh well, Win Chung and Pa Qua aren't my especialty anyways, i am more engulfed and trained in the art of Iajitsu and Battojitsu. I love a good hybrid of martial arts, dancing, and swordplay.

[FlyingCaddy]

I did some thinking, (amazing no???), and I just want to emphasize that the samurai is more based on the one heavy blow, as best charaterized in the Japaense bow staff tactics, however, the two handed sword tactics are based on mometum, once you start swinging you keep it flowing, late medieval manuscripts constantly emphasize this. Further, perhaps the most feared warriors in history were the vikings and thier bearded axes, which, by weight standards were totally unweildy, however using momentum the axe becomes a near instoppable weapon of death that no amount of parry and block can halt, one can only aviod the axe and most likely retreat.

[Jonathan Locke]

[QUOTE=FlyingCaddy]samurai is more based on the one heavy blow, as best charaterized in the Japaense bow staff tactics, however, the two handed sword tactics are based on mometum, once you start swinging you keep it flowing, late medieval manuscripts constantly emphasize this. QUOTE]


Depends on what art of swordfighting the samurai was trained in. He could have been trained in a Jujitsu art, in which case you would be right abou the flowing motions, but there are many other arts in Japanese culture that involve swordfighting and that are not related to Jujitsu.