I've noticed quite a few threads about these characters leaning towards their real life counterparts. In these threads, people seem to think that movie and game depictions are true to life. Let's talk a bit more realistic about martial arts and the sword saints. Yes, they were highly disciplined and trained. Yes, they were quick. That does not make them superhuman or exempt from the laws of science. Things were developed for reasons. Bare hand martial arts were developed because the people did not have access to weapons. Many of the unusual martial arts weapons are converted farming implements. Armor and weapons were developed, quite simply, because they worked. Heavier swords were developed to deal with light armor. Spiked hammers, battle axes, and flanged mace were developed to deal with heavy plate armors which were all but impervious to slashing and stabbing. If you were to pit a sword saint or a shaolin monk one on one with an equally trained elite European knight, the knight would likely win. I can hear the dissent already. Why, you ask, do I think this? It's not a matter of honed skill, but a matter of physics. The classic katana is a slashing weapon and not effective at piercing steel plate. The knights weapons (broad sword, axe, flanged mace, etc.), on the other hand would destroy the samurais beautiful bamboo and woven cloth armor within a few hits because the material is designed to withstand slashing, not hacking and bashing. An unarmored monk would REALLY have a bad time. A pole axe or long spear would be his only hope and a slim one at that. The best weapons against armored knights are high powered projectile weapons. Heavy draw bows, crossbows, and firearms were developed for this very reason! Hardened steel spikes and bullets have very little trouble penetrating light steel plate at sufficient velocity. Which is why an armored knight would stand little chance against a modern soldier. It's all in the science of fighting. The correct tool for the job. Remember though, all the equipment in the world cannot compensate for a case of "Dumb-ass-itis". The mongols proved that when they defeated numerous armies and knights with guerrilla tactics, light calvary and stout bows firing armor peircing arrows. The headstrong and disorganized knights charged blindly into many ambushes where they were peppered with armor piercing arrows from high ground. Completely helpless because they could not reach their attackers, who kept backing up to stay out of hand to hand range. I'm sure the knights cried "Dishonorable!" all the way to defeat. The development of effective ranged weapons and ranged weapon tactics made the armored knight, and all other hand to hand troops, obsolete.

------------------
The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

although, if your going to talk about the physics of it, you d0 have to realise that full plate mail is **incredibly** heavy. more often then not knights wearing it could hardly move.

I have seen Kights doing hand stands in Plate Mail.

------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/a.jpg

Not so! A common misconception. Only 40-50 lbs on average if I remember correctly. That weight is also distributed across the body evenly. Maille armor is actually heavier and more cumbersome for it's size. The finely crafted full plate armor was the pinnacle of the armoring craft. Custom fit and made, it took some months to make. No two sets were exactly alike. It also had an extraordinary cost. Buying armor of this calibre was an investment like buying a new car or house is now. Only the elite nobility wore this type of armor. In the finer sets, the plates were built to interlock impenetrably if you tucked your chin and twisted/bent your arms at a certain angle. Broad swords were also lighter than commonly thought. 2 1/2-5 lbs. on average. Edges were also only moderately sharp, as a fine edge would surely chip when striking metal armor or weapons. You were as likely to break ribs with a broad sword as cut. The broad sword was all right against maille, but not particularly effective at penetrating plate. This is when the heavy bashing/hacking weapons became popular. Whether or not you had metal plate, a heavy blunt blow to the head or a joint would still concuss or break bone. A spike was often used for penetration power. The lance is a good example of a mounted spike weapon. The war hammers primary striking surface is actually the spike on the other side. The battle axe generally had a spike on the other side also. The flanged mace was quite popular and effective against plate.

------------------
The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

In real life,
Plate mail (and noble knights wearing plate mail) sucks. Because it's unbelieveable heavy, it disincreases your movement ability. A schitar or cutlass and a light but protective armour (which made of elephant's ears-do you know who are using these armors?) can be much better for fighting. And we all know that the heavy infantries (crusaders) had very hard time during the crusades.

In real life,
Plate mail (and noble knights wearing plate mail) sucks. Because it's unbelieveable heavy, it disincreases your movement ability. A schitar or cutlass and a light but protective armour (which made of elephant's ears-do you know who are using these armors?) can be much better for fighting. And we all know that the heavy infantries (crusaders) had very hard time during the crusades in medieval age.

The crusaders suffered for reasons that effect all armies on the move. No supply line. They were suffering from starvation and dehydration constantly. The heat in the desert made wearing anything besides loose thin fabric unbearable. It was a very poorly thought out campaign until the end. Feudal Europe seemed to be plagued by poor planning. In the end they still won the seige. Some decent leadership finally arrived if I remember the story right. In my opinion, the crusades were somewhat senseless and mostly fueled by religious fervor instead of war planning. Many innocent towns and villages along the way were sacked to provide for the moving armies.

You wha? I'd like to see the broadsword - a heavy steel club with an edge, effectively - cleave through two inches of solid, hardened wood and still have much hitting power with a blunt edge. As for the katana, these things were incredibly dense, very well-balanced and terrifyingly sharp. I have seen katana simply cleave through steel plate with a decent swing, quite literally sheering through it - and not take more than a few nicks. I reckon samurai and knights would be far more evenly matched than you think.
As for the ninja, chances are he'd would simply run, hide, and come back to kill the knight while he slept in camp, unarmoured.

exactly. no monk or ninja would stand toe-to-toe with a knight and duke it out. He would go 'metal gear' style and slit his throat or break his neck making no noise.

as for the samurai vs. knight argument, it would all depend on the quality of the katana vs the quality of the knight's plate. and btw, that 40-50 pounds for a full suit of plate (+ shield too?) is a total joke. maybe 'carbon fiber' plate... http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/wink.gif

there are a lot ways to beat your enemy.

maybe plated mail knights form a unision can defeat a grouped monk (whatever) however, in one to one combat. a monk would use tactics much smarter than attack head-on

if I am the monk, I will use the advantage of my speed. maybe I will try to tripple the knight over, and do some shit to him when his back is expose, whatever

No, 50 lbs. is not a joke. I said nothing about plates over maille. I said plate armor. Fully armored re-enactors do simple gymnastics all the time to prove that very point. Do you think anyone in their right mind would don a couple hundred pounds to fight?! The other arguement is preposterous. In the same paragraph he claims a 3 1/2-4 pound broadsword would choke and die on wood and yet a 1 1/2-2 pound katana would easily cleave through steel?! Ginsu, eat your heart out!! Maybe you're saying that tempered steel is different when it's in a katana. Europe had mettalurgy down to a fine art, but they don't know nuthun bout makin swords, right? Japan was the only place that figured out that metal could be folded? Are you also saying that samurai armor is wood two inches thick?! I also hear "I would just knock him down and get him in the back!". Perhaps you think an elite European knight was a large untrained buffoon. Slow of mind and slower in arm. Just crawl between his legs and he won't figure out where you went? What do you think these guys do in their off-time? Pick Daisies?!?!?!?! Come on! Tournaments were held all the time. Fighting was their job! Book after book was written by the martial arms masters on fighting technique. There seems to be this idea that martial arts works just like it did in The Matrix. If you want to see real martial arts, watch a ring match. What do you know? There's no triple flips! No across the ring six feet in the air spinning jump kicks? Heck, it almost looks like they're just boxing! Hmmmmmmm! What's the problem? Are they amateurs? Nope! The problem is, they're not actors!

Weight has little to do with it. It's about cutting edges, the surface area over which the blow is applied, the direction of the swing... plate armour was designed to throw off a point, to prevent a sword from gaining a purchase and being able to hit with force. That was the whole point of the shoulder plates, the solid carapace, the way everything seems to point 'down'. A katana is a very well-designed sword, and is quite capable of hitting armour and making a dent in which to focus the force into the armour rather than across it - unlike a broadsword, which as someone has already mentioned is too unwieldy for such a precise attack unless in the hands of a master.
As for samurai armour, the armguards and shoulder guards were indeed around 2 inches thick. Samurai armour was designed to take a blow - in fact, the samurai used wooden armour because it could hold and trap a blade, unlike metal armour, which a katana, as I said, simply carves through. QED.
As for a monk toppling a knight... it's not that far-fetched, imo. The monk could probably evade the knight indefinitely, waiting for the point when the knight's frustration led him to overstep. Once that happens, all you have to do is push.

As far as slitting peoples throats in their sleep or poisoning. Anyone can do that given the opportunity, and don't think that it wasn't. Plenty of people died from asassination. I'm talking toe to toe here.

Swords in general are not particularly effective against plate. That was the exact point I was trying to make. Next point, if you were to subject a peice of steel and a peice of wood to a beating, which would you place your money on?Whether or not a katana is more effective at armor penetration is left for debate. A standard test is to see how far the sword can dig into a sheet of plywood stood on end. Those who are willing to damage their blades use steel drums. Weight does make a difference. It's called inertia and engineers constantly take it into consideration in all designs. Once again, it's assumed the knight would mindlessly chase someone around until exhausted and frustrated. Here's a bit of wisdom. If there are two men of equal stature fighting and one is armed and armored, put your money on the metal.

------------------
The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

It looks like an interesting topic.

It sounds as if you think the katana was an easy weapon to use. It was, in fact, a really really difficult weapon to learn to handle. But when you finally tuned in, it was a mighty blade as you probably already know.
The broadsword?? Nothing superior with it. But it's not the sword that makes the outcome. It is the combatant who wields it. Remember, we are talking highly trained elite European knights here - not the militia. The knights WERE master of arms. They could swing a blade with accuracy. Or a blunt weapon if necessary. Does it really matter if the sword COULD be trapped? The knight surely knew if a sword was the right weapon. If it wasn't, then he wouldn't use it. That's when the hammers and maces come to use. The samurai armor wasn't impenetratable. Even samurais died if you´didn't know. Yes, the samurai armor was probably lighter since it was made of wood and the knights' were made of metal. But did I hear the word physics? You get used to weight. After hundreds of hours in an armor made specifically for that person, and very well made indeed, it couldn't have been very cumbersome.

As for tactics and monks. It sounds as if you believe the knight would just rampage and swing his weapon like Minsc. Real life figting in the dark ages wasn't like BG - "designate a target and go exchange some damage. He who has the most HP's win the fight". Monks would surely use tactics. Who wouldn't!! And therefore, so would the knight. He is not blind, not def and for certain not dumb. Everybody was "scared". It's not like you could reload or ressurrect if you died in the battle. You had to be cautious not to make a mistake, because the enemy would use that mistake to his advantage in no-time. And that goes for both the knight and the monk.
A last little notification. Samurais used martial arts as a SECONDARY way of fighting. The swords were his primary weapon. The fist his second. Why?? Maybe they weren't AGILE ENOUGH in their armor to make real use of martial arts. Or maybe it's just as simple as swords being more deadly and effective at killing things.

My way of seeing it. You may have noted I didn't say who I thought would win a duel betwwen a samurai and a knight. I didn't say it because I just don't know. What makes me react is the statement that European knights were inferior (sp? Right word?) to the eastern fighters.

[This message has been edited by Haddar - Servant of Talos (edited 09-04-2001).]

I´ll resume all this mess in a few words:
Speed X Power
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/fight.gif
Do you really think that a duel between a Samurai and a Knight could end up, so easy? Probaly both would die.The oriental soldiers were trained to have an almsome precision(so they could easily hit the knight´s throath <for example>) but the ocidental soldiers were trained to inflict powerfull blows.
On a real battle the defenses are not made by equipament, the real victory stands on the warrior´s precision.

By the way -> I´m from Brazil,so if i wrote something wrong please tell me ´cause i´m starting to learn english. Thanks

------------------
++Pain/Oldrine++

and incidently french noblemen (i.e. knights) wearing full plate actually had to be *lifted* onto their horses by crude medieval pulley systems. OK, getting onto a horse is difficult but there is absolutely no chance if you were wearing plate armour.
Plate mailed knights were just designed to absorb as much as possible. A monk/sumarai could probably walk backwards and still move alot faster. A knight on a horse would be a COMPLETELY different scenario and could probably mow down a bunch of samurai warriors.
And i have tried to pick up a broadsword - and yes, they are VERY heavy

------------------
none shall pass...

Knights were lifted onto horses as swinging a leg over with armour was difficult, also horses are damn big and messing around with armour and getting on horses was difficult. Knights got off horses and fought as well you know. They were well trained and tactically aware. You lot have been watching too much TV again. Shaolin monks developed a system of fighting that was defensive due to their central city being sacked so often. In combat they were terribly effective not just because of their fighting abilities, but also because they carried religious icons into battle. Normal peasants often ran rather than engage in battle with fighting monks, from religious fear rather than physical. Ninja's were well trained assasins, first developed as part of a religious sect deicated to maintaining harmony and balance. They were never deployed as a fighting force, they were used individually to perform distasteful attacks on key enemy leaders. The argument that monks/ninja/samurai would run from knights or sneak behind them and kill them is to ignore the social aspect of fighting in the medieval period (an example of 20th century western thinking interpreting 14th-16th century lifestyles). Nobles in an army (Eastern and Western) sought out prominent enemy nobles and engaged them one on one. They slugged it out to the finish and then found another noble and contiued in this vain. Formation fighting would only be used in ranged attacks and much later on in cavalry charges. The idea of seeking prominent enemy leaders and engaging them one on one on the field of battle was especially true in Eastern warfare.

My real beef with weaponary in the game is Halberds. these were employed by pikemen and their equivalent to pull calvarymen from their seats and while others rushed around to finish them off. In the game they are used as swinging and slashin weapons, a neat trick all things considered...

Why do some ppl have this idea that battles were such ordered affairs?

"Nobles in an army (Eastern and Western) sought out prominent enemy nobles and engaged them one on one. They slugged it out to the finish and then found another noble and contiued in this vain"

In a battle situation in the 14th-16th centuries there was never any time to "seek out other nobles" that would be completely impossible in the total disorder and chaos. Also knights **ESPECIALLY** in the crusades were neither chivalrous nor alway well trained. All they were were nobles anyone rich enough to afford a good suit of armour/horse/weapons. SOME were well trained, others were naive and poorly prepared. ALso, knight on horsees were much happier slaughtering foot soldiers, easy kills and no danger to themselves.

Wow! Lot's of responses to this thread! Lot's of input and good debate! My primary points were upheld by some. I've been seeing a lot of negative comments about European knights and their equipment lately. This is mostly due to the large number of TV shows, books and movies depicting martial arts and Samurai as the ultimate in fighting machines. The katana has also been depicted as the ultimate fighting sword, able to cleave through anything including opponents weapons. I just wanted to put some of this in perspective and uphold the fact that the elite European knights were not a Monty Python kluge of idiots. I also wanted to show that Japan was not the only country that knew how to forge good steel. A good broad sword was every bit as tough as a good katana. In my opinion full plate was the most superior armor of its time for hand to hand combat. A labor of love and work of art. Much lighter, stronger and protective than maille. The comment about aiming for the throat was not correct. The neck and throat were protected by a flanged gorget. It was well padded and was designed to catch a blade tip trying to get under the helmet. Some helms, such as the sallet, were actually designed to ball joint with the gorget providing complete protection. Once again, the steel armors were not that heavy. I have personally seen fully armored people doing cartwheels and back flips on the learning channel. Heavy war horses are 5-6 foot tall draft horses! You've seen them at the fair I'm sure. Getting on one of these monsters unarmored is a feat! Trampling was a commonly used tactic with these huge beasts.

------------------
The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

the thing is, Knights were trained to fight knights, samurai were trained to fight samurai. Monks were training to fight bandits (the last one I am not sure about). In other words they were each more or less used to a certain kind of enemy. As for a duel between a knight and a samurai - it's very hard to tell right now who would win, since historically they never fought. The point is practically mute.

See this post for a jolly experience.
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/No...ML/002893.html

------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/a.jpg

I just wanted to dispel a few myths and misconceptions. It's so easy sometimes to mix up history with fantasy. With all the martial arts media, it's easy to overestimate the power and effectiveness of martial arts. The practitioners tend to become superhuman in the eyes of their fans. I remember reading a post where someone actually beleived Bruce Lee could dodge bullets. The slowest handgun round travels at about 800 feet per second, so I doubt it. He argued that Bruce was capable of defeating anyone regardless of size difference or athletic ability. He was very strong for his size, but he was still a man of small stature. If he were cornered by a heavily muscled 300 lb. fighter with nowhere to run he'd be in trouble just like anyone else. Sure, he'd get some good licks in, but he'd shortly be overpowered. Bruce was one of the most amazing martial artists to have ever lived, but he was not superhuman.

I explained a little bit about Kung Fu/martials arts in a thead named Shaolin vs the Dragon once...

The european knights fighting the Saracens were not trained for combat on the ground. They rode their horses with big lances. If they fell off, or their horse died, they could consider themselves dead.
The footsoldiers wore simple chainmails.

The monks DID use wepons. In many of the chinese Kung Fu arts, like wushu, you train to use Bo (staff), Sai, Tonfa, Nunchuku ect.

Yea, right. Do you practise martial arts? I do. When you see a hole in your opponents defences, you often have less than a second to attack. That means you must stand JUST out of for him to hit you if you want to be able to hit him.
A knight has got SHARP WEPONS. Would you dare stand two centimeters away from a sword held by a raging warrior? I would NOT!
And IF the monk would be able to attack, what would he do? The knights armour isn't that easy to break, and if he did, little power would be left for the knights chainmail (wich they often wore underneat the Plate).

No matter how cool it looks to do airkicks and so in movies, you can't use them on the street. Kicking someone in the head is like punhsing someone on the foot.
You punsh in the face, kick on knees and body. The only use with high kicks is to scare your opponent (it DOES look cool, I know http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

The ninja was NOT a warrior. He was a spy and assasin, on the same, low, level as a thief. Ninjas were despised by many.



There we have something else that is important in battle. The soldiers does NOT have HP (yes, it is true). Lee was a very srong and quick fighter, he could likely have won. Not by punshing him in the belly so he crashes into the wall, but if his fists reach the big guys throat, he is dead. If he can do a stomp-kick (called Sokto or Kekomi in karate) against the knee, the other will also be down.
BUT, he may also fall, and get the 150kg guy over him. In that position, BRUCE is the dead guy.
One of them may underestimate the enemy and relax... you see my point.
There is a game called utopia, where this is represented by random factor. Those that plays it understand what I mean.

------------------
We call him Bobby Corwen
http://www.finalfantasy.nu/forum/minichoco.gif

[This message has been edited by Istaron (edited 09-05-2001).]

A solid throat strike can cause death by crushing the larnx, but it is also one of the hardest places to get a solid strike. Some of the hardest places to hit are the eyes, throat, and groin. Fighters are trained to keep the chin tucked and the shoulder forward. Even untrained people instictively protect these areas. Trained fighters are not exactly slow either. Knees are also a lot harder to hurt than most think. Trained legs on a man that size are easily capable of handling 350-400 added lbs. of constant stress. Momentary stress tolerance probably goes into the 800-1000 lb. range. It is very difficult for a 150 lb. man to acheive the kind of force necessary to break or tear something. Do you have any clue how hard someone who bench presses 350-400 lbs. can hit? A small man can have his ribs cracked from one blow to the body! Don't get me wrong. In his weight class Bruce was king. Just don't take that to mean he can defeat trained fighters twice his size and strength without breaking a sweat.

The kick comes from upside. It can easly break a kneeclap. You kick with a high speed, alot of smucles, then you put your hole bodyweight on your leg. That is a very big pressure.

And shure, a strong person can break the ribs on another. Well, a trained martial artist can do that aswell.

------------------
We call him Bobby Corwen
http://www.finalfantasy.nu/forum/minichoco.gif

actually, a ninja would beat a knight, because they would fight smart, not hard. if they saw a knight wearing full plate armor, they would attack them from behind, or poison them or something. a samurai, would defeat a knight, just because they were masters of their blades. they were so damn fast that the knight wouldnt have time to react. both the ninja, and the samurai would also strike the spots that werent so armored. they would also run circles around the knight, and wear his heavy ass out, then cut him down. as far as the "QUALITY" of the samurais blade....... EVERY TRUE samurai sword, is of the highest quality. they didnt have factory made samurai weapons in the old days, and no honorable samurai would except a sword of inferior quality.

Just My Two Gold Pieces

------------------
Morgan Corbesant, Elven BladeSinger, Captain of the army of the Seldarine

and as far as the comment on knees, it only takes aproximately 20 pounds of pressure applied CORRECTLY to dislocate someones knee, if im not mistaken. just cause he can squat a million pounds, doesnt mean his joints are invincible, its just modern physics. besides, feints and things like that, will throw opponents off guard, and open up those "hard to reach striking zones"

------------------
Morgan Corbesant, Elven BladeSinger, Captain of the army of the Seldarine

I'm not sure exactly how this Bruce Lee business started, but let me tell you: Lee would never get cornered by a huge 300 lb pound man in the first place. And if you think his 150 lb was a liability, thats hilarious. He was nothing extraneous, nothing unnecessary, had the perfect weight for balance and speed. And have you ever heard the boxer's term "speed=power"? Look at Roy Jones Jr. He basically toys with his opponents, and could knock them out at any time with his blinding hand speed. Well, Bruce was even faster, and was actually trained to *kill* instead of just knock down the opponent. I wouldn't go so far that Lee was invicible (a bullet will kill anyone dead), but in hand-to-hand combat, he had no equal.

Is there some reason that a knight would necessarily fight dumb? He might not. He might fight as smart as the samurai.

Besides, I would say there are dangerous people, not necessarily dangerous weapons or styles. What makes a Samurai or a ninja more dangerous than a knight?

I'm sorry morgan. I forgot about all those medieval factories churning out milled bar stock swords. They must've hauled the bar stock from the royal steel mill with King Richards truck line? It's a good thing they had the horse shoers and sword slingers union to protect the common peasant, otherwise those poor assembly line workers wouldn't get a fair break from the nobility.
.
.
.
I rest my case about the media portrayal of the eastern warrior as superhuman.
.
.
.
Think for a minute without envisioning Dragon Ball Z.
Why do you think that the Samurai is so much stronger than a knight?
Why do you think that Japanese steel is superior to European steel?
Why do you think that broad swords are inferior in construction?
What do you know about metallurgy and smithing to back this up?
.
.
.
Remember, the katana is one of many variations of the asian scimitars. The katana is to the scimitar as the hand-and-a-half sword is to the broad sword. Every society had it's own versions of weapons, armor and martial arts. Not all of them have been portrayed quite as well as the asian styles in the media though.

[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 09-05-2001).]

Morgan, it sounds as if you've got it all figured out. Don't you think the knight was smart?? Sure, who would live if he was attacked by a ninja from behind? I wouldn't, and I don't think you would either. Not even a mighty samurai. Poison? Sure, that would work to. But not in hand to hand combat. Poisoning and assassination was what the ninja did. Not hand-to-hand combat.
I don't think the ninja was even very skilled at fighting in hand-to-hand combat.

The samurai? Circle and circle around him? A knight would surely have legs and feet to stand on and thus also MOVE or ROTATE. Yes, the samurai was master of his blade. But the knight was as well. Not all knights, but we are talking highly trained elite knights here, since a samurai was the japanese "elite knight". So, to hit " the spots that weren't so armoured" you do need the opportunity to strike, the skill to strike at precisely the right spot and the knight would have to fail his parry. As you may see, it would be quite hard.
As I said in a previous post: It's not the sword that determines the outcome. It is the fighter behind it. Even if you would call a broadsword factorymade, I for sure wouldn't want to be struck by it.

So what you're saying is Roy Jones Jr. can whup someone way outside his weight class? Should we ask him that? If he's already a heavyweight, then you prove my point further by acknowledging that heavyweights can be fast and smart too.

I used Bruce Lee as an example of a media-superhumanized martial artist in a previous post and opened up a whole new can of worms it seems.

Morgan, I've got a twenty five pound weight at home. Tell me how to correctly lay it on my knee to dislocate it if you would. I'm really curious.

Sir Kenyth- From all of your many postings it seems to me that you portray yourself as knowledgable on a great many subjects such as physics, ballistics, pressure points and weight/pressure required to crush a larynx or dislocate a joint, as well as the armor penetration abilities of certain types of swords and the chances of a 'martial artist' to defeat an armored opponent. Just out of curiosity- what is your background that you would be an expert in so many areas?

By the way- as an argument to some of the comments made in this thread:

1. Just because you see someone doing gymnastics in plate armor on the discovery channel doesnt mean it is an accurate representation of what was possible in the 14th and 15th century. Did it ever occur to you that metallurgy and the technology used to make that armor on tv might have advanced a bit in 500 years?

2. As far as what a Katana can and cannot penetrate- Well, I have never taken a well made Katana and hacked a 15th century eauropean breastplate and I seriously doubt any of you reading this have either, so who the hell knows. What I can say is that based upon documentaries published by several historical societies and universities that some Katanas which were forged for Japanese Nobility were tested for sharpness and penetration ability by the Nobility themselves- on slaves. By one account, some of the Nobility refused to accept a sword if it was not capable of cutting- with a diagonal downward stroke- completely through a person from shoulder to hip in one swing (there are quite a few bones between the shoulder and the hip to add a little challenge to the test..). I dont know about whether that would penetrate plate armor, but hot damn I would say that I have never heard or read of a broadsword doing any such thing.

3. As far as an unarmed and unarmored martial artist versus a much larger opponent- Well my friend you obviously speak from heresay and opinion versus first person knowledge. I have seen- with my own eyes- a 64 year old man weighing barely more than 136 pounds drop a man who was 6'7" weighing well over 256lbs quite effortlessly. Granted, the majority of the force used to disable the man was his own, this argument about not being able to defeat someone based upon a size differance is the opinion of a man who speaks from opinion and not experience (by the way, if any of you doubt this subject, the old man is still alive and well and travels the country invited by current day 'masters' to teach their students. He is available for private instruction, if you have an inkling and a fat wallet).

[This message has been edited by Ashen (edited 09-05-2001).]

I said nothing about a trained martial artist not being able to drop a common flabby oaf. I said that asian martial arts are no more effective and deadly than any other martial arts, boxing included and that technique can not always compensate for pure power. Enough pure power will ALWAYS overcome technique. I said that the knights martial prowess was no less impressive than the samurais. I said the katana was no more an effective or well made weapon than european swords and that the art of smithing was every bit as advanced in Europe, if not more so. I said Bruce Lee was not an immortal superhuman. I tried to bring the asian warrior into perspective and shed a little insight on the fact that the rest of the world had their heroes too, and that they were quite formidable in their own right. I said that steel is a superior armoring material compared to wood and cloth. I said that full plate armor of the elite European knight was the pinnacle of it's craft.


As for my qualifications? I'm not going to say that researchers everywhere are looking for my input, but I'm more than well versed. BTW the plate armors used in the discovery channel program were museum replicas. That means that they are accurate in weight, dimensions, and materials to an existing REAL peice.

A decade in the military which includes being part of a fire direction calculating crew for an artillery battery, and an ongoing firearms hobby including studying the ballistics of various calibers gives me a fair understanding of how velocity and mass work together in energy transfer to the target. Being a part of the artillery during desert sheild and storm also gives me a little insight into the reality of the war machine. Do you have better experience than this?

As far as metallurgy goes I've poured sand castings, forged and tempered a chisel and knife, arc welded, and worked with sheet metal. I try to collect blades but have found that true fighting quality blades are quite expensive. I still have one or two museum replicas. The interest has led me to read various books and articles about metalworking. About how alloys are made and their components. Do you know the additive that turns steel into stainless steel is chromium? Did you know your metal dental fillings are an alloy of copper and mercury. Mercury is usually deadly toxic, but in this alloy it's bound. A good portion of the articles were about the archaic smithy. The experience is amateurish at best but, do you have better?

My experience in martial arts is quite small. A year or two while I was a teenager. Since then, it has been nothing but what the military offers (not much) and the content of books and articles. I've watched some matches. Nothing I've seen outside of movies leads me to beleive that martial arts training endows you with superhuman powers or strengths, only discipline, coordination, and a knowledge of fighting. JUST LIKE ALL MARTIAL ARTS DO! As with anything, one grows with experience. Ask a wizened martial artist whether they think they can beat a trained boxer twice their size based purely on the virtue of their chosen martial art and I'm sure they'll smile coyly and change the subject. I am however a weight lifter and know what power enables you to do. It's not to be scoffed at. Perhaps my opinion is biased as I am a big guy.

My tertiary experiences include college classes, attending one or two SCA events to learn a bit more about middle age living, smithing, weapons and combat, and my own meandering conclusions which I try to base on clear thought and not "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". I'm currently working in the computer feild as a network administrator or computer technician depending on the job opening. I'm of a gifted (well above average) intelligence, but certainly no genius.

Outside of old "Kung Fu" re-runs, do you have a better experience base? If so please take over as I am eager to hear your educated opinion!

P.S. As far as an account of nobles not accepting swords that weren't capable of cutting someone in half in one stroke from shoulder to hip? Well, I just saw a magazine the other day that said Elvis was sighted in a local diner. You gonna beleive that s#!t too?


[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 09-06-2001).]

And if you use only schimitars and katanas with your kensai you will feel like a samurai. (Kensai can be modified as "cannot be specialized EXCEPT orientel weapons -so you can be GM in katana and schimitars but only proficient with lonsgword" and "cannot wear plate or chain" -a naked fighter is nothing so a samurai must wear something like leather-

Sir Kenyth (is your name Kenneth by any chance?) I dont think anyone doubts your qualifications.
Your knowledge on this subject is most impressive and I'm not going to say I know any more than the average Joe about how well a Plate could withstand a katana blow..
Rather a few things to think about..
I'd imagine that combat issint about exchanging blows, especially between say, a Knight and a Samurai. Its about scoring blows, meaning who gets to hit whom first. A blow by a weaponsmaster, or an expert at the craft of killing will hurt and maim no matter who you are, and how you're armored. A plate will protect you, no doubt, but if it hinders you to a point that a blow to the chest, while not lethal, is enough to topple you, you'd be at a serious disadvantage on your back in less-than-flexible armor against a trained swordsmen with a swift blade. Samurai didnt fence as much as wait for the right moment to take a swift, killing blow before sheathing the blade once more, to my knowledge of Japanese history (limited, I admit)

Also, these two cultures were never engaged in a fullscale engagement of knights vs. samurai, and therefore their martial arts forms and battle gear were NOT engineered to combat against each other. I'm sure that if Japan had to fight a war with medieval Europe, say English or French knights, with Samurai, their battle tactics would be very different. Armor was as much a form of rank and dress as well as battle gear, and, in the European case, was geared to face similarly equiped foes with lance and crossbow. Plate mail itself was only introduced because of the superiority of crossbow and bowmen during the hundred-years war, before that, it was just chainmail.
Nobody can doubt the potency of either Japanese, nor European battlestyle and tactics, because they were all equally adept to killing foes that they were armed and armored specially to face. Its almost like crossing a boxer with say, a judo black-belt. Its just unbalanced!

------------------
Resident Lurker Guy

visit
http://www.simagianstudio.com
for more of this stuff.


------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/a.jpg