posted 01-13-2002 03:29 PM               

Anyhow, I first have to say that in my youth I was a big fan of European arms and armor, and now that I am a bit older I have migrated to the far east.

To the question at hand: European vs. Japanese.

Ground rules: You must assume that the skill levels of each are reasonably similar (for reasons elaborated in other posts to this list). You must also assume that they are similarly armed and / or armored.

True, there really is nothing to rival a suit of Plate armor for protection. Yep, that tank cannot be simply cut by a japanese sword. But what about mobility? The Knight can be knocked over and slain relatively easy. Just ask any European peasant with a polearm.
This is compared to the japanese armor, which is generally lighter and more flexible. In fact, the japanese armor evolved to become less cumbersome. They allude to the fact that while this does not provide as good protection, it allows more freedom of movement so the warrior (not necessarily samurai) can get out of the way of his opponent.
So as to which Armored opponent is better off... I side with decreased protection for increased mobility. However, the European Knight is definitely better protected- coverage wise.

As for weaponry. The Japanese sword is argueably the best shape for cutting (which is what it was designed to do). However, the Samurai were trained in numerous weapon types, just as their European counterparts were. The Spear being more common than the katana (Spears belonging to even the common warrior). It is said that in one on one combat the Spear will win over the sword on open ground. I think the reasons are fairly obvious.

So if we equip our Knight and Samurai with spears, mobility probably wins out.
I also beleive the Asian warrior was better trained with the spear, but that is an opinion (based on never having seen a demonstration of European spear techniques).

Comments?

posted 01-13-2002 05:29 PM               

Basically, it might be a little easier to knock someone over in plate, but not drastically. Armor like that wouldn't be usefull on the battlefield, if you have people getting knocked over from sword blows. If that was the case, people would just carry tree limbs into battle

Also, I seriously dought that the peoples of the far East were better with the spear than the norse.

Anyway, glad to see some new faces on netSword!

------------------
"I have a fine hawk for the bush."
-William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor

posted 01-14-2002 08:43 AM               

Plate armor was superbly crafted to achieve excellent fit. Nor was it overly heavy. A complete plate suit could weigh anywhere between 15 to 35kg, but the majority of those intended for infantry use were in the 15-25kg range. This is considerably less than the weight of equipment carried by a modern-day infantryman and compares favorably with the Japanese armor.

That plate is cumbersome is a ridiculous myth perpetuated by those who've never tried wearing a good suit of armor themselves. In fact, the weight is evenly distributed over the entire body with a minimal adverse effect on mobility. A grown-up man in a reasonably good shape should be able to fight and move in a full suit of plate fairly easily even for a prolonged period of time. The only real problem is overheating, particularly in hot weather.

It's a simple fact that European armorers perfected their craft to a degree far surpassing anything known in Japan. Japanese armor may look good, but it doesn't fit the body anywhere near as well as a good plate suit. It's also extremely labor-intensive, requiring an extraordinary amount of work for a fairly mediocre level of protection. Then there is the question of mobility. People who have personal experience with both European and Japanese armor tend to prefer the European stuff because it provides far better coverage and is actually less cumbersome. Another serious drawback of the Japanese armor is the multitude of cords connecting the various pieces together. These are very vulnerable and a potential liability. A single slash across the opponent's back could easily sever the cords and straps, compromising the integrity of his armor.

Besides, plate was not the only kind of armor available in Europe. What about mail and brigandines? These were light, provided excellent protection but barely affected the user's mobility at all. If you're looking for the best mix of mobility and protection, a brigandine would certainly beat any Japanese armor and even European plate suits.

posted 01-14-2002 08:44 PM               

quote:

---

But what about mobility? The Knight can be knocked over and slain relatively easy. Just ask any European peasant with a polearm.

---

posted 01-17-2002 05:33 AM               

He likes as well medieval martial arts so i send him a copy of the rectors's talhoffer.

and his japaneses "father" (whos is a kendo/kenjutsu teacher) told him that he could not understand/did not see how certain
plate (about longsword) would work.

and I think that is exactly the point.
Myself practising both 2-handed and aikido (with jo and bokken). I see a tremendous common ground between the 2.
IMHO, all the aikido principles can be applied to longsword. I am talking about principles, what i would largely call tactical concideration, deplacement, boddy position when you strike, and blending into your opponent attack/motion and most importantly distance control.
However the most of the "ken" technique are based on getting out of the way with an eventual blade control and a stab or a slicing cut.
That of course can (and should)be used directly with a longsword.
But longsord enable you to parry or block and here your are getting into a world that kendo or aiki-ken do not cover.
(though open hand aikido can be used/extrapolated for that).

I am just starting to understand all the possibility behind a given block (and i have to say that it helped me to make sense of certain thaloffer cuts)
That it is a totally different world compared to japaneses sword techniques.
(not that it makes it better or worse).

so if you take a 1450 knight against a same period samurai both armed with a two handed sword.
In our case if a knight and a samuari would fight. I beleive that whoever is more skilled in his style is more likely to win.

they are both trained to fight armored opponent and will look for the soft spots (i beleive that a katana stab in the arm pit will work as well as a longsword one).
Armour wise the knight would have a certain adventage as the plate armour is almost unpenetrable with slicing device.
Japanese armour would be probably more vulnerable to chop than a full plate but the japanese approach (move to safe place and minimise possible opening) should if not compensate for both at least reduce those adventage.
grapling can be apply with both weapons as they both can use in one hand.

that is my opinion anyway

posted 01-17-2002 12:31 PM               

Now, I am not a fan of EMA, but I just think that we should start to face up to the facts here: WMA and EMA are two alien styles. The only true way to see which is the better art is to compare each to what it was up against.

------------------
"I have a fine hawk for the bush."
-William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor