A word or two about monks samurais and knights

[Sir Kenyth]

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!

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: 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?!

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.

[Sir Kenyth]

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.

[Sir Kenyth]

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!

[Haddar - Servant of Talos]

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).]

[Oldrine]

I´ll resume all this mess in a few words:
Speed X Power

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 ) 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++

[Gedd]

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...

[DonkeyWan]

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...

[Gedd]

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.

[Sir Kenyth]

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!