Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thoran · 11-23-2004, 04:51 PM

The blade is only relevant if the combatants are evenly matched in skill, if not then the more skilled will win the majority of engagements regardless of weapon. The idea that the Samurai were somehow "More fit" than their western counterparts is baloney, the martial tradition in Europe would field men easily as capable in single combat as the Samurai.

And if it comes to weapons, don't let the Katana worshipers give you an unrealistic view of the subject, Katana's were indeed wonderful weapons, but experts feel there were Western blades that matched them in craftsmanship... additionaly the western Knight had a RANGE of well crafted blades to choose from depending on his opponent.

For those who imagine a Samurai slicing and dicing a Knight with his much faster and lighter Katana, here's a few tidbits.

The contemporary european blades were somewhat longer than the katana, but weighed about the same, contemporary european blades also had dual edges and a hilt and pommel that were both employed during combat... the range of attacks available to a European knight were numerous.

The contemporary european knight was also taller than the average Samurai, longer blade reach plus longer arm reach would put the Samurai at a physical disadvantage.

For those who imagine the Katana "cutting through" a long sword... it would never happen, it could probably mark the european blade (who's edge wasn't quite as hard as the Katana's), but that wouldn't really alter the effectiveness of it.

Additionally there's armor to consider, the Katana wasn't a wonder weapon, and a Samurai wielding one would have had a VERY hard time with a Knight in full plate (Western armor surpassed anything the Japanese had, a distinct advantage). The likely result of a katana strike against full plate would be a chipped katana (the edge was exceeding sharp, but also quite brittle). Additionally the Knight may have had the excellent Kite shield at his disposal, another tool that the Samurai would have been tested by (never having faced one in his homeland)

So is the Katana a great weapon... absolutely, a killing machine wielded in skilled hands against lightly armored opponents. Is it "better" than western blades? Well... in that narrow field I'd say generally yes, but there is no perfect blade. There are western designs for a WIDE variety of fighting conditions, with blade quality that meets or exceeds anything available in Japan (Damascus and Toledo come to mind as mentioned earlier)

Who'd win... the Katana wielding samurai in painted overlapping plates or the Sword and Shield wearing Knight in Maile or Plate?

Who knows, there's too much we've lost over the years to truly know the capabilities of these foes, but I'll go back in time to set up the fight if you all will chip in for the time machine. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-23-2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

11-23-2004, 04:51 PM	#11
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	The blade is only relevant if the combatants are evenly matched in skill, if not then the more skilled will win the majority of engagements regardless of weapon. The idea that the Samurai were somehow "More fit" than their western counterparts is baloney, the martial tradition in Europe would field men easily as capable in single combat as the Samurai. And if it comes to weapons, don't let the Katana worshipers give you an unrealistic view of the subject, Katana's were indeed wonderful weapons, but experts feel there were Western blades that matched them in craftsmanship... additionaly the western Knight had a RANGE of well crafted blades to choose from depending on his opponent. For those who imagine a Samurai slicing and dicing a Knight with his much faster and lighter Katana, here's a few tidbits. The contemporary european blades were somewhat longer than the katana, but weighed about the same, contemporary european blades also had dual edges and a hilt and pommel that were both employed during combat... the range of attacks available to a European knight were numerous. The contemporary european knight was also taller than the average Samurai, longer blade reach plus longer arm reach would put the Samurai at a physical disadvantage. For those who imagine the Katana "cutting through" a long sword... it would never happen, it could probably mark the european blade (who's edge wasn't quite as hard as the Katana's), but that wouldn't really alter the effectiveness of it. Additionally there's armor to consider, the Katana wasn't a wonder weapon, and a Samurai wielding one would have had a VERY hard time with a Knight in full plate (Western armor surpassed anything the Japanese had, a distinct advantage). The likely result of a katana strike against full plate would be a chipped katana (the edge was exceeding sharp, but also quite brittle). Additionally the Knight may have had the excellent Kite shield at his disposal, another tool that the Samurai would have been tested by (never having faced one in his homeland) So is the Katana a great weapon... absolutely, a killing machine wielded in skilled hands against lightly armored opponents. Is it "better" than western blades? Well... in that narrow field I'd say generally yes, but there is no perfect blade. There are western designs for a WIDE variety of fighting conditions, with blade quality that meets or exceeds anything available in Japan (Damascus and Toledo come to mind as mentioned earlier) Who'd win... the Katana wielding samurai in painted overlapping plates or the Sword and Shield wearing Knight in Maile or Plate? Who knows, there's too much we've lost over the years to truly know the capabilities of these foes, but I'll go back in time to set up the fight if you all will chip in for the time machine. [img]smile.gif[/img] [ 11-23-2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]