striderteen
New member
The effectiveness of Japanese secret techniques tends to be unknown, simply because (a) the guy it was used on found out exactly how effective it was the hard way and (b) the guy who used it died of old age afterwards.
Samurai Sword question
- Thread starter Jack Carson
- Start date
PaladinX13
New member
All that does is prove my point, that is, that there is little correlation between "secret techniques" and success... annecdotal examples on both sides.
To phrase it more clearly, hopefully, the age/elitism of a school has little correlation to quality when compared to practical experience. First age. There's only so much knowledge that can practically be retained, passed on, and be useful. Example: I don't think you're better off, necessarily, learning to shoot at a gun club in Europe that's 300 years old versus one that's only 15 years old in the States. Second, elitism. Musashi was almost entirely self-taught, developing his skill through combat experience. He regularly defeated elitist schools. I find it hard to say that it's impossible for a European knight to do the same... especially given more conflict and opportunities to gain experience in Europe.
I'm seeing a bizarre position here that would never fly in MMA, for instance, that is "We are an ancient elite school with techniques so good, we can't show them or use them often... be we know they work." We always say, "It's the Man not the Martial Art" why does this suddenly not hold true between European vs Japanese arts/schools? As I've been saying, the arts are roughly equal and there are simply more European men!
The only standpoint that remains is that the schools/art of the Japanese are vastly superior... even if that's conceeded, I'd rather be inclined to favor a talented warrior, with training, but a lot of experience "This works because I've done it!" It comes down to if you trust the talents of training more than of the warrior himself, personally I tends towards the latter.
Edit: I can tell I'm still not being clear, but another analogy I can think of is giving Cus D'Amato one random Heavyweight Champion against a pool of twenty HWt Champions w/o the benefit of Cus' experience. Then picking the best of the 20 v Amato's champ and betting on the outcome. You can't see Amato being such a big factor as to outweight the probabilities against him.... gah, nevermind, if I had numbers....
To phrase it more clearly, hopefully, the age/elitism of a school has little correlation to quality when compared to practical experience. First age. There's only so much knowledge that can practically be retained, passed on, and be useful. Example: I don't think you're better off, necessarily, learning to shoot at a gun club in Europe that's 300 years old versus one that's only 15 years old in the States. Second, elitism. Musashi was almost entirely self-taught, developing his skill through combat experience. He regularly defeated elitist schools. I find it hard to say that it's impossible for a European knight to do the same... especially given more conflict and opportunities to gain experience in Europe.
I'm seeing a bizarre position here that would never fly in MMA, for instance, that is "We are an ancient elite school with techniques so good, we can't show them or use them often... be we know they work." We always say, "It's the Man not the Martial Art" why does this suddenly not hold true between European vs Japanese arts/schools? As I've been saying, the arts are roughly equal and there are simply more European men!
The only standpoint that remains is that the schools/art of the Japanese are vastly superior... even if that's conceeded, I'd rather be inclined to favor a talented warrior, with training, but a lot of experience "This works because I've done it!" It comes down to if you trust the talents of training more than of the warrior himself, personally I tends towards the latter.
Edit: I can tell I'm still not being clear, but another analogy I can think of is giving Cus D'Amato one random Heavyweight Champion against a pool of twenty HWt Champions w/o the benefit of Cus' experience. Then picking the best of the 20 v Amato's champ and betting on the outcome. You can't see Amato being such a big factor as to outweight the probabilities against him.... gah, nevermind, if I had numbers....
I think the Western versus Easter style of fight, the same way I view the 'boxer versus martial artist', or 'Tae Kwon Do versus Aikido debate'. Either style in question has advantages and disadvantages, and any match-up to 'prove' which style is better, proves which person is the better fighter, or had a better day that fight. I do think it is valuable to understand the different styles though. Eastern armour is for protection against arrows, the primary Asian weapon in battle as I understand it. Western armour developed to protect against other swords. I see this as example of elitism in Western combat arts, as the arrow was the yoemans weapon, while Samurai practiced combat archery (can't remember the name of the archery-do).
I am partial to short swords myself. Call them commoners weapnons if you will. I've got a repro of a falcata, Toledo steel, hand forged, $150 bucks. (Commoners like me can afford one). A falcata is the great grand-father of the cutlass supposedly. It is a curved blade short sword that looks sort of like a big kukri knife (blade about 20", weight 2-3 lbs). Falcatas are Ibero-Celtic weapons, and routinely cut through Roman helmets! In my opinion the falcata has all the cutting power of a long sword, plus blade geometry desined for slicing cuts. They even have cut and thrust falcatas.
I've heard over and over how the falcata is a steel cudgel, and only big brutes can use it. Sure if you think of it as an axe for chopping. But as many of you have said before, the cut is in the draw, for both straight and curved swords. The falcata has the curve of the blade to enhance the drawing ability, and the mass to deepen the cut. Not bad for something you could fit under a coat or in a daypack. Plus if you think of the sword as a modern self defense weapon what tactics would you use in what situation. Since it's illegal to carry a long blade, it's got to be a farm or home defense weapon. Falcatas make great brush cutters, and you can't wield a long sword in a house (no room to swing).
So what do people think of swords as modern weapons. Tactics? Strategies? When would a sword come in handy? What sword would you pick?
I am partial to short swords myself. Call them commoners weapnons if you will. I've got a repro of a falcata, Toledo steel, hand forged, $150 bucks. (Commoners like me can afford one). A falcata is the great grand-father of the cutlass supposedly. It is a curved blade short sword that looks sort of like a big kukri knife (blade about 20", weight 2-3 lbs). Falcatas are Ibero-Celtic weapons, and routinely cut through Roman helmets! In my opinion the falcata has all the cutting power of a long sword, plus blade geometry desined for slicing cuts. They even have cut and thrust falcatas.
I've heard over and over how the falcata is a steel cudgel, and only big brutes can use it. Sure if you think of it as an axe for chopping. But as many of you have said before, the cut is in the draw, for both straight and curved swords. The falcata has the curve of the blade to enhance the drawing ability, and the mass to deepen the cut. Not bad for something you could fit under a coat or in a daypack. Plus if you think of the sword as a modern self defense weapon what tactics would you use in what situation. Since it's illegal to carry a long blade, it's got to be a farm or home defense weapon. Falcatas make great brush cutters, and you can't wield a long sword in a house (no room to swing).
So what do people think of swords as modern weapons. Tactics? Strategies? When would a sword come in handy? What sword would you pick?
striderteen
New member
Well...a sword doesn't SEEM to be illegal here in Kali, so long as you don't carry concealed.
I, as people might guess, favor the katana as a blade -- mostly because I'm better at the slashing two-handed draw cuts than the European styles. The over-the-shoulder back scabbard favored by ninjas isn't as fast-drawing as the more traditional belt scabbard, but it's not nearly as noticeable.
Have not had to use it in self-defense (and it's not very good anyway -- better than a wall-hanger, but not really combat grade nonetheless). I would dearly love to see the look on a street gang punk's face if I draw on him, though.
CLICK <punk pulls switchblade>
SHING!!! <fast draw to dramatic movie pose horizontal high guard>
I, as people might guess, favor the katana as a blade -- mostly because I'm better at the slashing two-handed draw cuts than the European styles. The over-the-shoulder back scabbard favored by ninjas isn't as fast-drawing as the more traditional belt scabbard, but it's not nearly as noticeable.
Have not had to use it in self-defense (and it's not very good anyway -- better than a wall-hanger, but not really combat grade nonetheless). I would dearly love to see the look on a street gang punk's face if I draw on him, though.
CLICK <punk pulls switchblade>
SHING!!! <fast draw to dramatic movie pose horizontal high guard>
striderteen
New member
Ah, a familiar article. I thought I posted it, but that might be at the OTHER place I'm having this argument.
PaladinX13
New member
Very old article, but he sums up my argument in his final words:
"Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter -- or at least the luckier one."
Which removes the argument that's being used for the Samurai (namely supposedly exclusive technical factors), my argument for the Knight is purely statistical. My argument would weigh in favor of Eastern arts today as there are more praticing Japanese sword arts than Western in modern times... again, no decision on which school is better, simply a larger pool from which to draw the greatest swordsman from.
"Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter -- or at least the luckier one."
Which removes the argument that's being used for the Samurai (namely supposedly exclusive technical factors), my argument for the Knight is purely statistical. My argument would weigh in favor of Eastern arts today as there are more praticing Japanese sword arts than Western in modern times... again, no decision on which school is better, simply a larger pool from which to draw the greatest swordsman from.
striderteen
New member
That is true to some degree...more practicioners = more not so good practicioners + more average practicioners + more exceptional practicioners.
Matt Wallis
New member
Striderteen,
Where else are you having this argument? I'd be interested to have a look.
Matt
Where else are you having this argument? I'd be interested to have a look.
Matt
striderteen
New member
Instant Messenger conversations, so I can't share. Sorry!
PaladinX13
New member
"...true to some degree..."
Sheesh, I'm trying not to insult your magical Samurai, but you've seem to keep putting those digs into the knights. Let's go point by point.
1. If we conceed individual skill being the most important factor, the magnitudes of difference between the amount of swordsman and their relative experience. Feudal Japan lasted only between the 12th and 15th centuries (compared to Medieval Europe starting in the 9th) with the Tokugawa Dynasty 1603 - 1868 being largely PEACEFUL and mobility restricted (samurai, peasants, artisans, merchants). From a small island, a select population become samurai, and only a select few of those get "decent" training (exclusive schools) or have talent (as samurai is a family class passed on) or have combat experience- considering only one-and-a-half centuries of actual turmoil out of their four centuries of Feudalism. This is compared to an ENTIRE CONTINENT at war for over SIX CENTURIES, from varying backgrounds, nationalities, schools of combat, etc. Point: There are magnitudes more experienced knights than samurai throughout history.
2. But by now, you don't care how many magnitudes more Knights existed throughout history than Samurai, you're immediately assuming they were better quality because of their schools. Well, until the peaceful Tokugawa period, they were trained nearly identically to the way you probably think Knights were trained (enmasse class of hack-n-slash)... it wasn't until the lack of work did the "modern" concept of a school arise. Many samurai became teachers of martial arts to deal with unemployment. So we've got dozens of competing teachers without field combat experience- you don't suppose they did what MAs do today and begin "marketing" secrect and special techniques to differentiate themselves, did you? They did gain experience through honor duels- but again, that was largely the result of individual ability (as Mushashi during this period, proved). Point: Japanese schools aren't as great as you think and at best have little correlation to one's ability.
3. Don't confuse ignorance about European arts as European arts being ignorant. Japan's cuture was both isolationist and very static giving us a more clear view of their arts. But just because we have to speculate on they Knight's swordsmanship does not mean that it was simple (as we must speculate on MUCH from the middle ages, from castle construction to the marvelous feats of engineering demonstrated in seige engines like the trebuchete). The Knight did not become a hereditary class as quickly as it did in Japan, before then, one had to EARN it. It's safe to assume at least some of those were pretty skilled. Also that it wasn't entirely class restricted (depending on period/place). Even after it became a noble class, they're no worse or better off than a Samurai... some will take their duty (and life) seriously and train hard, others will take advantage of their heredity and take it easy (just don't let your Lord catch you!). We know from modern interpolations that extremely fast, complex, and robust forms of fighting are possible with their equipment... and we are but dabblers, while they engaged in life-or-death training. Point: Knight skills aren't as bad as you think, but we really don't know. So again, at worst there's little correlation between schooling and one's quality as a warrior.
Conclusion: At worst, for me, points 2-3 are a wash in which case point 1 stands firm. At best, Samurai aren't so great, Knights were at least as good (if not better), and point 1 remains. Now what am I missing that would allow you to pick a Samurai?
Sheesh, I'm trying not to insult your magical Samurai, but you've seem to keep putting those digs into the knights. Let's go point by point.
1. If we conceed individual skill being the most important factor, the magnitudes of difference between the amount of swordsman and their relative experience. Feudal Japan lasted only between the 12th and 15th centuries (compared to Medieval Europe starting in the 9th) with the Tokugawa Dynasty 1603 - 1868 being largely PEACEFUL and mobility restricted (samurai, peasants, artisans, merchants). From a small island, a select population become samurai, and only a select few of those get "decent" training (exclusive schools) or have talent (as samurai is a family class passed on) or have combat experience- considering only one-and-a-half centuries of actual turmoil out of their four centuries of Feudalism. This is compared to an ENTIRE CONTINENT at war for over SIX CENTURIES, from varying backgrounds, nationalities, schools of combat, etc. Point: There are magnitudes more experienced knights than samurai throughout history.
2. But by now, you don't care how many magnitudes more Knights existed throughout history than Samurai, you're immediately assuming they were better quality because of their schools. Well, until the peaceful Tokugawa period, they were trained nearly identically to the way you probably think Knights were trained (enmasse class of hack-n-slash)... it wasn't until the lack of work did the "modern" concept of a school arise. Many samurai became teachers of martial arts to deal with unemployment. So we've got dozens of competing teachers without field combat experience- you don't suppose they did what MAs do today and begin "marketing" secrect and special techniques to differentiate themselves, did you? They did gain experience through honor duels- but again, that was largely the result of individual ability (as Mushashi during this period, proved). Point: Japanese schools aren't as great as you think and at best have little correlation to one's ability.
3. Don't confuse ignorance about European arts as European arts being ignorant. Japan's cuture was both isolationist and very static giving us a more clear view of their arts. But just because we have to speculate on they Knight's swordsmanship does not mean that it was simple (as we must speculate on MUCH from the middle ages, from castle construction to the marvelous feats of engineering demonstrated in seige engines like the trebuchete). The Knight did not become a hereditary class as quickly as it did in Japan, before then, one had to EARN it. It's safe to assume at least some of those were pretty skilled. Also that it wasn't entirely class restricted (depending on period/place). Even after it became a noble class, they're no worse or better off than a Samurai... some will take their duty (and life) seriously and train hard, others will take advantage of their heredity and take it easy (just don't let your Lord catch you!). We know from modern interpolations that extremely fast, complex, and robust forms of fighting are possible with their equipment... and we are but dabblers, while they engaged in life-or-death training. Point: Knight skills aren't as bad as you think, but we really don't know. So again, at worst there's little correlation between schooling and one's quality as a warrior.
Conclusion: At worst, for me, points 2-3 are a wash in which case point 1 stands firm. At best, Samurai aren't so great, Knights were at least as good (if not better), and point 1 remains. Now what am I missing that would allow you to pick a Samurai?
striderteen
New member
The fact that I'm Asian. 
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
PaladinX13,
I think you might need to check your figures re knights vs. samurai. Especially, during the warring states period. There were 210 daimyos just before the battle of Sekigahara that established the Tokugawa Shogunate. The single most powerful was Tokugawa Ieyasa. He had about 210,000 vassal samurai not including peasant levies. There were about eight daimyo that were nearly his equal. There were several dozen daimyo that could muster about half of that. The rest of the daimyo had varying numbers of samurai vassal from a couple of thousand to fifty thousand. Tokugawa Ieyasu had more troops all by himself than Philip V, Emperor of Spain could muster. I could be wrong but I believe that Spain had the most powerful land forces in Europe at the time by a large margin. The land area of Europe is much larger than Japan but I do not believe the population was many times larger. Japan has had a very high population density throughout its history and did not lose very high percentages of its population to plague as Europe did more than once in the Middles Ages.
I think you might need to check your figures re knights vs. samurai. Especially, during the warring states period. There were 210 daimyos just before the battle of Sekigahara that established the Tokugawa Shogunate. The single most powerful was Tokugawa Ieyasa. He had about 210,000 vassal samurai not including peasant levies. There were about eight daimyo that were nearly his equal. There were several dozen daimyo that could muster about half of that. The rest of the daimyo had varying numbers of samurai vassal from a couple of thousand to fifty thousand. Tokugawa Ieyasu had more troops all by himself than Philip V, Emperor of Spain could muster. I could be wrong but I believe that Spain had the most powerful land forces in Europe at the time by a large margin. The land area of Europe is much larger than Japan but I do not believe the population was many times larger. Japan has had a very high population density throughout its history and did not lose very high percentages of its population to plague as Europe did more than once in the Middles Ages.
PaladinX13
New member
striderteen, so am I but it didn't stop me from taking up boxing!
Spartacus, they only lost huge percentages (~50%) to the plague towards the end of the Middle Ages and knighthood had already begun it's decline roughly two centuries earlier (the "entire continent" and "seven centuries" was tongue-in-cheek, sorry)... population densities in the most populated areas (southern England, costal/northern Italy, etc.) was roughly equivalent to Japan.
I haven't been able to verify your samurai numbers but is it possible that the terminology here is unfair? Whereas I'm using knight to mean expensive, noble, mounted, etc... it's possible samurai is interchangable with swordsman or professional soldier? If I expand the European pool to be inclusive of swordsmen and professional soldiers (Roman Legions? Nah...) the numbers are nothing to sneeze at. True, still, each individual army would be smaller than the one (eight? - aside: The population density/population stats I got for Japan @ 1300 = roughly every 1 of 3 persons being a samurai in "urban" Japan with your numbers?) listed but I'm not sure about totals.
Combat experience would also play a role, it's questionable how much of a role you'd get to play amongst 210,000 clashing against another quarter-million people. I'd wager one would gain more experience in a smaller force.
Even if all this is a wash, there'd still be the individual being the most critical factor, meaning no absolute winner could be selected either way (again my choice for knight merely being statistical).
Spartacus, they only lost huge percentages (~50%) to the plague towards the end of the Middle Ages and knighthood had already begun it's decline roughly two centuries earlier (the "entire continent" and "seven centuries" was tongue-in-cheek, sorry)... population densities in the most populated areas (southern England, costal/northern Italy, etc.) was roughly equivalent to Japan.
I haven't been able to verify your samurai numbers but is it possible that the terminology here is unfair? Whereas I'm using knight to mean expensive, noble, mounted, etc... it's possible samurai is interchangable with swordsman or professional soldier? If I expand the European pool to be inclusive of swordsmen and professional soldiers (Roman Legions? Nah...) the numbers are nothing to sneeze at. True, still, each individual army would be smaller than the one (eight? - aside: The population density/population stats I got for Japan @ 1300 = roughly every 1 of 3 persons being a samurai in "urban" Japan with your numbers?) listed but I'm not sure about totals.
Combat experience would also play a role, it's questionable how much of a role you'd get to play amongst 210,000 clashing against another quarter-million people. I'd wager one would gain more experience in a smaller force.
Even if all this is a wash, there'd still be the individual being the most critical factor, meaning no absolute winner could be selected either way (again my choice for knight merely being statistical).
Matt Wallis
New member
Well, numbers aside, I still don't buy the whole "Japanese schools were highly selective" and "European schools took in any joe off the street" premise. I would need to see some sort of evidence for this (other than the behavior of modern day MA schools). Otherwise, it seems to me based on human nature that there would have been a variety of situations under which people were trained.
And I do know that there were "schools" in the West that taught developed martial systems (such as the Marxbruder and Federfechter). There's no reason to think that the fighters they were turning out were any less effective or "elite" than warriors being turned out by Japanese schools.
Regards,
Matt Wallis
And I do know that there were "schools" in the West that taught developed martial systems (such as the Marxbruder and Federfechter). There's no reason to think that the fighters they were turning out were any less effective or "elite" than warriors being turned out by Japanese schools.
Regards,
Matt Wallis
striderteen
New member
I have said:How am I "putting the digs" on knights, huh? Just because I don't share your opinions doesn't mean I'm a biased know-nothing.
PaladinX13
New member
Um, kinda odd for you to be replying like this a message "late" (a reply above with no problems then problems now?) but whatever....
"How am I 'putting the digs' on knights, huh?"
The implications here are clear: Japanese schools produce superior swordsmen. The second quote (the one which I replied to) shows you might be willing to conceed that there were more knights, but still believe the quality produced by the Japanese is likely greater. It may be fine to decide that as your own opinion but I can't see any factual basis for that belief.
"Just because I don't share your opinions doesn't mean I'm a biased know-nothing."
Well, I wouldn't go as far as "know-nothing" but you admitted your own Asian bais above!
Look I don't want to get into a whole personal war with you, but I'm looking for the basis of your opinion. The elite samurai would win because...
My opinion favored the knight based on statistics, which Spartacus challenged with his data, and I attempted to defend with mine. Some would call it mental masturbation, fine, but it's also not bad way to reach reasoned out opinions.
"How am I 'putting the digs' on knights, huh?"
And later, regarding more knights than samurai:
The implications here are clear: Japanese schools produce superior swordsmen. The second quote (the one which I replied to) shows you might be willing to conceed that there were more knights, but still believe the quality produced by the Japanese is likely greater. It may be fine to decide that as your own opinion but I can't see any factual basis for that belief.
"Just because I don't share your opinions doesn't mean I'm a biased know-nothing."
Well, I wouldn't go as far as "know-nothing" but you admitted your own Asian bais above!
Look I don't want to get into a whole personal war with you, but I'm looking for the basis of your opinion. The elite samurai would win because...My opinion favored the knight based on statistics, which Spartacus challenged with his data, and I attempted to defend with mine. Some would call it mental masturbation, fine, but it's also not bad way to reach reasoned out opinions.
striderteen
New member
No. I stated that I thought an elite samurai would beat a elite knight in a one-on-one fight. Japanese schools have access to highly effective "secret" techniques, but teach them only to a select handful of heirs; this leads to better swordsmen, but very few of them.
So, since there are more knights, there are more of all three kinds. Kinda like this:
10 Knights Total =
2 sub-par
5 average
3 elite
5 Samurai Total =
1 sub-par
4 average
1 elite
Even operating under the very stacked assumption that a single elite samurai can beat two elite knights, the knights would win in an overall force-on-force engagement.
So, since there are more knights, there are more of all three kinds. Kinda like this:
10 Knights Total =
2 sub-par
5 average
3 elite
5 Samurai Total =
1 sub-par
4 average
1 elite
Even operating under the very stacked assumption that a single elite samurai can beat two elite knights, the knights would win in an overall force-on-force engagement.