European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[Rainbow_Warrior]

´´then Japan(samurai and ninja) devoted their lives to it, not just some training´´

What about Templars .They lived inside the moor´s world and many of ´em battled every day for their lives against much more than bigger troops

[lordtariel]

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.

As did the knights who wanted to live through more than one or two battles. Remember, we're not talking about pesants that had to fight daily to keep bandits at bay, as they did in China and Japan. Both fighters come from a relative "upper class".

[repz]

I would vote for the samuraii. There way of training is more precise an better thought out. Also the katana is a very fine weapon.

[bushido_man96]

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?

The European long sword was used for both slashing and thrusting. What you have to consider is the armor worn at the time would have an affect on what strikes/thrusts you would use. If your opponent was not heavily armored, then slashing would have more uses than it would against a more heavily armoured opponent.

In the most recent manual that I have read, there were many moves demostrated that were slashes that would lead into thrusts, and vise versa. It really had a lot to do with situation, and of course, the warrior's preference.

Also, thrusting came into vogue as the long sword began to remove itself from the battlefield, due to the onset of gunpowder usage, and the rising popularity of the more thrusting-oriented rapier, which became a "civilian" weapon.

[bushido_man96]

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.

As did the knights who wanted to live through more than one or two battles. Remember, we're not talking about pesants that had to fight daily to keep bandits at bay, as they did in China and Japan. Both fighters come from a relative "upper class".

Yes, very good points indeed.

Knights were professional warriors, just like the Samurai were.

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

This is fine, too. However, I am arguing the fact that the desparity between the two is not as large as many would perceive it to be.

[lordtariel]

If your opponent was not heavily armored, then slashing would have more uses than it would against a more heavily armoured opponent.

Would a longsword really be that effective against heavy armor? I thought that's why the focus of weapons shifted to the heavy two handers and polearms.(At least until gunpowder arrived on the scene)

[bushido_man96]

When armor got heavier, then the swords became more of a two-handed style, but they still weren't super heavy blades. Also, the sheild fell out of use, because of the affectiveness of the armor. There were also many half-swording techniques that could be used in close, that were done by putting the off hand on the blade of the sword, making it much like a quarter-staff like usage, but much shorter. It could then be leveraged or used to thrust more accurately.

[ps1]

The European long sword was used for both slashing and thrusting. What you have to consider is the armor worn at the time would have an affect on what strikes/thrusts you would use. If your opponent was not heavily armored, then slashing would have more uses than it would against a more heavily armoured opponent.

In the most recent manual that I have read, there were many moves demostrated that were slashes that would lead into thrusts, and vise versa. It really had a lot to do with situation, and of course, the warrior's preference.

Also, thrusting came into vogue as the long sword began to remove itself from the battlefield, due to the onset of gunpowder usage, and the rising popularity of the more thrusting-oriented rapier, which became a "civilian" weapon.

Ok. Thanks for the info.

[bushido_man96]

When armor really increased, with full suits of plate, many times half-swording techniques would come into play to help make a more controlled thrust with the blade. Also, the edges were not focused on as much, and would be more used to bludgeon and dent the armor, as opposed to cutting with the edge.

However, even with the advent of plate armor, not every warrior on the field would end up wearing a full suit of plate; it was just too expensive to outfit an army that way. So, you would still have soldiers wearing mail armor, which was more vulnerable to the cut and thrust style of fighting.

[TraditionalDan]

If I had to answer, it'd be the samurai.