European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[bushido_man96]

I believe he's referring to someone who practices Iaijutsu/Iaido. From a weapons sheathed starting point, I believe the Iaijutsu practitioner might have an advantage since I don't know if there was a counterpart in western sword fighting. If there isn't, the knight might not be as likely to be expecting a strong technique right out of the sheath.

Well, the only problem with that idea is that no-one goes into battle without their weapon already drawn. If the fight is impending, then both combatants are going to have the weapon out already...there is no "quick draw."

Now, if it was a duel, and it were me in the duel, I would approach with the weapon already drawn. If the opponent chooses to wait to try to Iajitsu me, I really think that a trained swordsman, with the sword already out, is going to have the advantage.

You can relate to the same disadvantages that LEOs have when trying to draw their weapon to defend against an already drawn knife. At 10 feet, or even at 20 feet, the advantage still goes to the person with their weapon already out.

[Kajukenbopr]

the knight would be dead before he could swing his sword.... first swing... knight loses his arms, second, the head

How do you justify this statement? What makes you so sure that a Knight could not land a hit on a Samurai? A sword is a sword, no matter where you go in the world; even at that time. I think that you seriously misjudge the skill and ability of the Medieval European swordsman.

a knight could be super strong, he would still be no match for the speed of a trained samurai.

remember that a broadsword was not intended to be used as swiftly as the katanas, but as much heavier weapons. Granted, they were not SLOW, but significantly slower than katanas.

if you meant a rapier or some other sword, they might be cut by the katana. The katana is a very powerful sword that doesnt weight too much and is used to dismember cleanly in one blow.

[Kajukenbopr]

you want to make it interesting?

debate chinese swordsmanship against japanese swords.

Katanas are much stornger than chinese swords, but the difference is the skill... who'd win?

[Kajukenbopr]

I would say samurai because they are also trained in jujitsu, but i think you dont have to be trained in an art to be good at fighting.

European knights also trained in hand-to-hand combat. They were well-versed in coming to grips with an opponent, if need be, and new just as much about manipulating an opponent, and using leverage against them.

the samurai sword would also be easier to handle and sharper...

This is another common assumption when it comes to the katana/long sword comparison. The long sword of the European knight was just as easy to handle, well-balanced, and easily controllable. The noticible differences are in the curvature of the katana, and the fact that the katana only had one edge.

hand to hand against expert martial arts? realistic martial arts??

[bushido_man96]

I would say samurai because they are also trained in jujitsu, but i think you dont have to be trained in an art to be good at fighting.

European knights also trained in hand-to-hand combat. They were well-versed in coming to grips with an opponent, if need be, and new just as much about manipulating an opponent, and using leverage against them.

the samurai sword would also be easier to handle and sharper...

This is another common assumption when it comes to the katana/long sword comparison. The long sword of the European knight was just as easy to handle, well-balanced, and easily controllable. The noticible differences are in the curvature of the katana, and the fact that the katana only had one edge.

hand to hand against expert martial arts? realistic martial arts??

Is there a reason why the martial training that the European Knights, professional warriors, would be so inferior to the training that the Japanese Samurai would have received? I have not seen this in any of the research that I have done. The arts of wrestling and boxing were in existence in Medieval Europe, and not as sports like they are today. They had proven ways of disarming opponents, coming to grips with them, taking them down, and delivering the killing blow.

[bushido_man96]

a knight could be super strong, he would still be no match for the speed of a trained samurai.

remember that a broadsword was not intended to be used as swiftly as the katanas, but as much heavier weapons. Granted, they were not SLOW, but significantly slower than katanas.

if you meant a rapier or some other sword, they might be cut by the katana. The katana is a very powerful sword that doesnt weight too much and is used to dismember cleanly in one blow.

The European long sword was not a heavy club, it was a precision weapon. The average European long sword weighed between 3 and 4 pounds. This is not a heavy weapon, nor was it a slow weapon. It wasn't swung with a huge wind-up motion, either. There are many, many different movements and variations in attack when it comes to using the European longsword.

If you go to https://www.thearma.org, you can find a lot of articles on how the Medieval European long sword was used.

[Kajukenbopr]

I would say samurai because they are also trained in jujitsu, but i think you dont have to be trained in an art to be good at fighting.

European knights also trained in hand-to-hand combat. They were well-versed in coming to grips with an opponent, if need be, and new just as much about manipulating an opponent, and using leverage against them.

the samurai sword would also be easier to handle and sharper...

This is another common assumption when it comes to the katana/long sword comparison. The long sword of the European knight was just as easy to handle, well-balanced, and easily controllable. The noticible differences are in the curvature of the katana, and the fact that the katana only had one edge.

hand to hand against expert martial arts? realistic martial arts??

Is there a reason why the martial training that the European Knights, professional warriors, would be so inferior to the training that the Japanese Samurai would have received? I have not seen this in any of the research that I have done. The arts of wrestling and boxing were in existence in Medieval Europe, and not as sports like they are today. They had proven ways of disarming opponents, coming to grips with them, taking them down, and delivering the killing blow.

Yes, you are comparing brawlers that trained when and how they could against people who kept perfecting their way of fighting. Their martial arts, studying and weapons mastery was their life, not something else they did when they had free time or as self-defense whenever they met a drunk around a bar. They constantly trained and their Martial Arts and Weapons Mastery was perfected in over 1000 years, getting better and better at it.

I am not saying they couldnt defend themselves in Europe, but you cant compare training for tournaments(not all knights fought constantly in wars) and street brawls to constant training for Battle.

[bushido_man96]

Yes, you are comparing brawlers that trained when and how they could against people who kept perfecting their way of fighting. Their martial arts, studying and weapons mastery was their life, not something else they did when they had free time or as self-defense whenever they met a drunk around a bar. They constantly trained and their Martial Arts and Weapons Mastery was perfected in over 1000 years, getting better and better at it.

The Medieval warriors were not "brawlers," and the East is not the only place where fighting originated. If you look into some books about medieval swordsmanship, you can find many leverage-based moves that echo the kind of moves that were performed in Jujitsu. The "barbaric" perception that you have of the medieval knight is forming the bias of your reasoning, I think. Professional European warriors trained hard, trained seriously, and trained to be victorious.

[ps1]

Bushido,

It was my understanding that the long sword was more of a perry and thrust type of sword. That is, it wasn't great at slicing, rather thrusts were the attack of choice. Since you seem to have a firm grasp on the subject, is that a valid statement?

[Kajukenbopr]

Yes, you are comparing brawlers that trained when and how they could against people who kept perfecting their way of fighting. Their martial arts, studying and weapons mastery was their life, not something else they did when they had free time or as self-defense whenever they met a drunk around a bar. They constantly trained and their Martial Arts and Weapons Mastery was perfected in over 1000 years, getting better and better at it.

The Medieval warriors were not "brawlers," and the East is not the only place where fighting originated. If you look into some books about medieval swordsmanship, you can find many leverage-based moves that echo the kind of moves that were performed in Jujitsu. The "barbaric" perception that you have of the medieval knight is forming the bias of your reasoning, I think. Professional European warriors trained hard, trained seriously, and trained to be victorious.

I am not saying Medieval Warriors were totally incompetent, but warriors in China, and then Japan(samurai and ninja) devoted their lives to it, not just some training.

Also, it is not impossible to come up with leverage techniques outside of jujitsu, I am saying they were better versed at it, though.

Remember this is just speculation on both our parts, you defend European knights, I root for Samurai warriors