Longsword vs Katana

[Adam]

Ever wondered about the knight vs Samurai ??
(I know you have)

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

[Stuart]

When the Dutch started diplomatic relations with Japan in the 16th century, this topic was the subject of much discussion. Eventually one of the Shogans decided to settle matters with a dual. He selected one of his best warriors and a spanish swordsman was the opposite. The story goes that as the samuri raised his sword to cut, the spaniard ran him through. End of contest.
I did iado to a reasonable level and it all comes down to finding an opening on your opponent. As a medieval swordsman, the same is true.

[Callum]

I think that this story is an "urban legend" as to the best of my knowledge this type of duel has never been documented in any reliable period sources. It's a matter that has been discussed in many other fora over time.

But if I am wrong then I'm proved corrected

A true story though when I used to do fencing was that a Japanese Kendo exponent showed up at our fencing club wanting to see how Kendo would go against fencing. My instructor at the time (Dick Reynolds) took him on with both sabre and epee in two matches and basically handed him his arse on a plate in both matches.

Soon as the kendo guy raised his hands above his head to strike he was toast

[Vorschlag]

I've always been puzzled by this argument, correct any mistakes I make here but weren't the samari's weapon spear and bow, their swordsmanship schools being a development rather late into the piece.

Further to this there is a substantial difference in armour quality and quantity between the two in most periods, thus the samari 'might' win 'if' (and that is a big if) the knight doesn't make use of a long bow or arbalest (both of which I 'believe' out range the samari bow).

Further to this I have had it explained to me that samari swordsmanship relies on a first hit kill system with little or no emphasis placed on working from a bind, (thus much like later period European arts which pale in comparison to knightly arts)

I've never done any study into the facts around eastern swordsmanship (so again correct me if I’m wrong) but the idea of a samari coming up on top don't seem realistic.

Further to this as someone's bound to bring it up there is the annoyingly common pirate and ninja argument.

[Oskar der Drachen]

My Master At Arms was quite proficient at both. He added to his skill by being a Dancing Master as well.

He preferred the katana over the longsword because of the quillion issue. He felt that he could be more fluid in his movenemts through the combat without them.

Me I prefer the longsword, I find the use of quillions to be instinctive, and not a hindrance, I also use both edges fluently. I can use a katana, but I have to think too much about where the edge is to be better than "pretty good". It isn't an instinct as to where the edge is, even with the curve of the weapon.

[Vorschlag]

[Joel of Old]

The concept of Fencing taking on Kendo is laughable. It's like Baseball taking on Cricket - They are both sports that involve similar equipment, but orientated around different rules and completely different cultures.

In Kendo, for example, you can hit the guy in the head a hundred times... but if you don't shout it don't count. I believe you also have to be travelling forward and your cut has to be exact and not... 'wishy washy'.
Yes, fencing would take Kendo apart, by fencing rules.

As for the Knight V's Samurai (that's how it's spelled BTW), anyone who's read the Art of War would know that the warrior who chooses the battleground wins before the fight even starts. Musashi once turned up to a duel late, so as to enrage his opponent, who upon sighting Musashi rushed him in a frenzy. Subsequently he was cut down with ease.

Was Musashi a better fighter, maybe, did he win, yes.

Kenjitsu had several schools of thought, most were orientated around the single strike/kill principal. The one I am studying is called the 'Single Sword' school, based on the principal of a single attack straight and true down the centreline, taking your opponents weapon offline, whilst keeping yours on, being out of range (by millimeters) of their strike, and connecting with yours only by the distance needed.

Japan never developed shields for foot soldiers, except bowmen (and women), and the Sword was a symbol of the Samurai, and not worn nor wielded by any other class.

[stephan]

[Joel of Old]

I would love to see them swap weapons. Most weapons have very similar principals. For example, as I understand, if you have learned Silver's sword work then you can apply it to axe and mace, and even a heavy stick with ease - with the exception of a few tricks with each weapon they work in a similar fashion - hit with sharp/heavy end until they stop moving.

The same is true for Katana/Naginata/Unarmed (believe it or not)... and it makes sense not to teach a fighter ten different styles, but instead one style that applies to ten different weapons. I know that it Daito-Ryu Jiujitsu the application of strikes and pressure of locks follow the line of sword strikes (generally to the head/neck) and failure to follow this principal results in dramatically less effectiveness.

But back to the Ninja/Samurai/Western Soldier hypothesis... yes a good test of the Warriors would be to swap weapons, or to have no weapons, or to do a trial over several days... because at the end of the day if you beat someone, you are only better than them then and there... and that superiority extends no further.

Many warriors would do well to remember this with every victory.

Someone once told me, "It's easy to become better than another, but far harder to stop others from becoming better than you."

[Vorschlag]

Silvers sword work, works because it has a basket hilt without the basket many of the techniques he uses for single sword and sword and buckler are suicidal as the arm and hand is not protected (i.e he doesn't draw into a bind the same way earlier period systems do, he encourages you to seperate your sword and buckler/sword and shield).
So where I agree some of it can be adopted it doesn't function like a medieval masters system designed to function between weapons etc.

The lack of cross and the difference in pommel would mean a katana would likely be used in a harness fighting style, i.e used more a spear, handling half way down the blade.
This style in theory would not be needed against the samurai's armour, where the samurai would need to make use of such techniques against the knights plate.

As stated due to the armour of the knight I see the samurai being at a severe disadvantage, but for a true test of swordsmanship skills both would need to reduced to shirt fighting, i.e no armour just period clothing and a sharp of their style.

[stephan]

[Vorschlag]

[White Knight]

From what I have read from this discussion it seems that the samurai is at a disadvantage for two reasons, ignoring armour.

Firstly, if the samurais sole attack is to move straight down the centreline then all the longsword fighter would have to do is step off slightly to the right for his attackers strike to miss, putting himself out of his attackers range while he still has the range to strike the samurai.

Secondly, if the samurai stands with his sword in a non-striking position and has to raise his sword to strike then he has lost time by having to make this action in which time his opponent could strike him. I remember Dean McKinstry saying "if your opponent changes position (or wards) hit him". This technique, if I can call it that, works. It's all about timing.
If you waste time you give your opponent time to attack you.

[Inigo]

This is a no brainer question. The longsword would win.

Because this would only ever happen in a Hollywood movie, and most Hollywood directors are white.

Simple!

[Colin]

I would have thought it would have been the other way around for the very same reasons

Anyway, we've already answered this completely conclusively and without any trace of bias in the NZSEMA FAQ.