Samurai- Greatest Swordsmen in history?

[Zyke]

I've been a-thinking lately, and this is purely speculative, based off of true facts. I've been pondering this for some time, and do you guys think that the samurai was the greatest swordsman in history? Personally, I think so. Let's take a look at why:

- Their entire life was spent training and learning martial arts, swordsmanship, and whatever other weapons they used.
- They were completely devote, disciplined, and dedicated to their field. They spent their entire lives practicing and learning.
- They were not afraid to die and never tried to run from battle

Of course these could also be applied to other civilizations, such as the Greeks (most notably the Spartans), and to a lesser extent, the Romans. However, Spartans were only forced to be in the military from the age of 7 (when training began) and could retire by, I believe, 30 or so. The Romans were of a similar way, where soldiering became more of a profession than a lifestyle. If you look at the samurai, it was birth until death. There was no retirement, and no age restriction.

I could probably go more into this, but this is essentially the basis of my thinking and gets the point across well enough (or so I think anyway). What are all of your thoughts?

[Kuraku Hideaki]

you could say that they were, in fact, the greatest swordsman in history. Because they based their life on bushido, and honor, they pushed themselves to the greater extent that they did. If they were captured they lost honor, and would kill them selves. The greeks and romans did not do this, they just lived in discrace.

I beleive they were great also... but i dont know how they lept on those tatami mats o_0

[Arrak]

Don't forget the Chinese! They were awesome swordsmen and most likely showed the Japanese the way of the sword.

[Tekashi]

I dont beleave the chinese did. The japanese had some strong ties with the chinese sure but the samuria date back a long way they live by the sword and all. Chinese were all warlords back then fighting eachother for land while the emporer sat back and looked pretty.

[Kingsama]

well i would have to ask a few questions before moving on.

What aspect of swordsmanship are we talking about? The ability to get the job done? or the stylized aspects of sword play?
Are we discussing over all military might and tactics, meeting in melee, or dualing?

In any rate i think that it is a drastic over site to exclude the medievil knights from the discussion. Once you get beyond the modern misconceptions of "they had huge heavy swords" and "thier armor was bulky and slowed them down" you have a fighting force that not only was bred to fight, fought by a code, chivarly, but participated in battle very often not only within their own system of combat, but against other cultures with varying tactics, weapons, etc. Not to mention they had sheilds.

Also we as moderns have very misconstrude visions of what all cultures martial arts meathods were in reality. We have a cinamatic vision of the clunky knight, the noble samurai whose blade can cut through concrete and steel, and the shoalin monk that can regularly catch arrows in his hand. Dont get me wrong i too am enamored with the samurai sword and medieval japanese culture, but history is usually much different then the common modern perception.

All of this is not to say that the swordstyle x would defeat swordstyle y consistently, only to state that there are far more variables to consider and we all combined have far to little actual knowledge to draw any reliable conclusions. Take the old UFC tournaments for example. You would have these guys with multiple blackbelts and with national/world championship in varying disciplines get waxed by some dude who is a bouncer (Tank Abbott). Royce Gracie dominated the first two years, until he fought Kimo(who he still submitted, but took so much damage during the fight that he couldnt continue). The bottom line is that it all comes down to the over all skill of the fighters, the cercumstances they meet under, and a hole lot of luck. Again using the UFC as an example, to my limited knowledge even the most feared, dominant, and experienced fighters have losses on their record because of the unpredictablity of combat. A slip, and over zealous attack, a mis que, bad timing, punch or kick that lands just right and its all over. Now add blades and armor to the situation and you have even more rumor for error.



Sidebar: It is my understanding that while early medievil japanese periods were filled with combat, that during the final development of bushido and its application there after Japan was revalatively peaceful with little to no major millitary involvement other than from with in. Now granded this is being taken from a few discovery/history channel documentaries so i understand the info maybe suspect. Also iirc if it wasnt for a tsunami at the right time most historians believe that japan would have been ransacked by the mongols. Can any of the more well read japanese history buff confirm and deny these things?


Here are a couple articles to read if you have the chance...

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

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

[Tekashi]

King wow that post was fast and long *smited* :D

[Arrak]

I dont beleave the chinese did. The japanese had some strong ties with the chinese sure but the samuria date back a long way they live by the sword and all. Chinese were all warlords back then fighting eachother for land while the emporer sat back and looked pretty.

I would read a few books on the History of the Samurai. Specifically one that deals with the influences of the Han and Tang dynasties. Even the modern name Japan is from the Chinese spelling/sounding out of the countries real name.

EDIT: This is a decent book to read. Most public libraries will have it.

Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan's Military, 500-1300
By William W. Farris

[Kingsama]

I would read a few books on the History of the Samurai. Specifically one that deals with the influences of the Han and Tang dynasty. Even the modern name Japan is from the Chinese spelling/sounding out of the countries real name.

right, the chinese culture had many infulences on japanese culture. For instance, Buddism made its way into china and evolved into chan budism, picking up some influences from native culture including religion and philosophy. it then moved into japan and became zen buddism ater it was meshed with shintoism and other Native cultural and philosophical ideas. I am sure that with buddism came many other things...

[icedflames]

Just wondering, Between Japan and China, there is Korea
Did Korea have some kind of thing like Samurai because I many think only Japan when they think Samurai.
I mean Korea was inbetween both of the two countries and there has to be some contact between them.

Unless this never happened because of the closing of borders from the European traders. (Firearms are evil :mad: )

[Zyke]

I have to agree with your points there King. However consider that while some of those facts about the Knight were true, their armor really was heavy and constricting. A knight in full plate armor was pretty much constricted to a horse- once knocked down, they would have a difficult time getting up, and if they could, they did move much slowly than someone wearing lighter armor (such as leather). The medium here would be chain mail then, but then the Knight loses protection and becomes more vulnerable.

Also, while the shield of course means more protection, it also means the Knight is limited to a lighter, one handed sword, as opposed to a two handed sword, or a sword that can be used with two hands at least, ala the samurai. Lighter armor also means faster movement, and plate armor is anything but light and maneuverable.

As for more large scale conflict as opposed to one on one, the normal Knight was not an archer, while samurai were trained in archery as well. A medieval archer was usually a "normal" soldier, not a knight. In a large conflict, the side with archers and swordsman will most likely beat the side without archers. It's like 500 infantrymen of today taking on 500 other infantrymen with artillery and mortars. While victory is possible, the chances of it are greatly reduced because of the lack of a variety of weapons needed in different situations. In this case, that would be ranged and melee.

[Kingsama]

I have to agree with your points there King. However consider that while some of those facts about the Knight were true, their armor really was heavy and constricting. A knight in full plate armor was pretty much constricted to a horse- once knocked down, they would have a difficult time getting up, and if they could, they did move much slowly than someone wearing lighter armor (such as leather). The medium here would be chain mail then, but then the Knight loses protection and becomes more vulnerable.

Also, while the shield of course means more protection, it also means the Knight is limited to a lighter, one handed sword, as opposed to a two handed sword, or a sword that can be used with two hands at least, ala the samurai. Lighter armor also means faster movement, and plate armor is anything but light and maneuverable.

As for more large scale conflict as opposed to one on one, the normal Knight was not an archer, while samurai were trained in archery as well. A medieval archer was usually a "normal" soldier, not a knight. In a large conflict, the side with archers and swordsman will most likely beat the side without archers. It's like 500 infantrymen of today taking on 500 other infantrymen with artillery and mortars. While victory is possible, the chances of it are greatly reduced because of the lack of a variety of weapons needed in different situations. In this case, that would be ranged and melee.


i feel you on a number of points, but i have read repors that show that the average knight plate armor was between 60-80lbs where are the japanese armor would have been 55-70lbs, not much of a difference. The second point would be that the euro armor was dispersed through out the body and that they were trained to fight in it. So readings i have perused even report that knights could do hand stands in their armor. If you since the age of 12 trained to fight in something you would be much more adept to fighting in it. I have friends that have worn replica armor and they have been able to run in it with only a little strain. Imagine if they were raised in it. The author of the article above mentions this in his

here is a site http://www.slam.org/exhibits/armsandarmor/armor.html


As for large scale combat i was under the assumption that while knights were not trained in archery, they surely would have archers with them. The quality of archery in the west is a big question i really dont have any clue, though i would imagine that there was some mastery. Would it be the same as the samurai, probably not, but i am sure that they would have some mastery. You can conquer other civilizations with out ranged weapons...


here is a lengthy read, havent read it myself, but i will http://www.strolen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1664

[Zyke]

I think the weight of that samurai armor is because that armor probably had steel or iron plates in it, as opposed to just leather. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe anyone, despite how long you've been training in it, can do a handstand in an 80lb metal suit. I knew it was only about 80lbs., but think about it. Go find something that ways 80 lbs and imagine what that feels like around your body- it would be a lot heavier than most people think 80lbs to be.

Yes, archers would accompany the Knights, but this post isn't about archers :) It's about a warrior class, not as much about a soldiering profession.

[Kingsama]

I think the weight of that samurai armor is because that armor probably had steel or iron plates in it, as opposed to just leather. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe anyone, despite how long you've been training in it, can do a handstand in an 80lb metal suit. I knew it was only about 80lbs., but think about it. Go find something that ways 80 lbs and imagine what that feels like around your body- it would be a lot heavier than most people think 80lbs to be.

Yes, archers would accompany the Knights, but this post isn't about archers :) It's about a warrior class, not as much about a soldiering profession.

quite right on the archers. As for the weight i have run sprints and don agility/jumping drills with a 50lbs weight vest on, and that was all strapped to the chest, not distributed through out the entire body. Also modern US military men and women carry about 40-60 lbs of equipment(special forces run long distances with 45lbs plus plates strapped to their backs. A coach at the college i used to go to made the players do that for conditioning), and some suits of armor, check that link above, were only 45 lbs. I imagine if i trained in it regularly i could learn to do much with that weight vest on, including handstands...

[Zyke]

I suppose thats true. But armor isn't a weight. The weight doesn't need to bend, and doesn't cover joints and need to bend. Also, it's actually probably harder with the metal boots and such. They don't bend, flex, or give any real type of support that modern day army boots would. They are meant to protect and thats all they do. You may think it trivial, but just jog a few feet and notice how much you bend your ankle, how much energy your shoes absorb so it doesnt hurt your feet, and how cushioned your feet really are. Now imagine jogging that same few feet with metal shoes, it would be a big difference.

Regardless if they had footwear on underneath the metal armor, the metal is the outside shell and is what will be felt the most.

[Gryph]

I suppose thats true. But armor isn't a weight. The weight doesn't need to bend, and doesn't cover joints and need to bend. Also, it's actually probably harder with the metal boots and such. They don't bend, flex, or give any real type of support that modern day army boots would. They are meant to protect and thats all they do. You may think it trivial, but just jog a few feet and notice how much you bend your ankle, how much energy your shoes absorb so it doesnt hurt your feet, and how cushioned your feet really are. Now imagine jogging that same few feet with metal shoes, it would be a big difference.

Regardless if they had footwear on underneath the metal armor, the metal is the outside shell and is what will be felt the most.

The foot cover is made from a row of thin curved steel plates, each rivited to (usually) a pair of leather straps running under the armor. They move with the strap, which makes them very flexible.

Under the foot cover is the boot. Probably would be a knee high, though calf-high would not be unheard-of. It would be leather, just like a normal boot, with a leather sole and heel. Again, a normal, high-quality leather boot.

Since your foot does not flex left or right once you get past the instep, the foot covering does not impede motion much; it's only impeeding factor is in the slight weight of the metal and if it is too tight or too loose, of course that would cause trouble aswell.

Pauldrons and Spauldrons (shoulder coverings) as well as gauntlets, hip coverings and most elbow- and knee-joint covers used the same technology. A few curraises (body coverings) use the same. It makes for low-weight, high-protection, high-mobility armor.


EDIT:
The weaponry in use in heavily armored knights hardly qualifies for swordplay. You've got a couple options against a simliarly-armored opponent:

1: Riding--use a lance. Hit him in the head, chin, or neck, and his neck breaks. Hit him in the armpit, and he gets tossed off the horse, probably with a puncture wound and multiple fractures.
2: Riding--use a sword. Not terribly effective. Find a lance.
3: On foot--one handed sword and a shield. This will likely end when one of the bad guys comes behind you and puts a dagger between your gorget and your helmet.
4: On foot--longsword. Dent or bend his armor by using the hilt as a hammer, use it as a baseball bat and try to knock him about or break a joint, or hold it one hand on the hilt and one 3/4 down the blade, and use the front 20cm of the blade as a dagger to try to stab through a hole in the armor, while using the rest for defence.
4: On foot--mace, hammer, or pick and shield. Smack your enemy about enough, and he'll either have fractures, dented up armor, be unconscious, or all three. Use a pick or a pointey hammer to puncture the armor itsself and get at the goodies inside.
5: On foot--polearm/halbred. Same as 4.

Recent European swordplay really comes into its own as the bullet drives the armored knight off the battlefield. The longsword rises for a short time, then is replaced by the rapier (for a transision period, Shakespear's England. Romeo and Juliet includes both weapons.) The rapier is a very long, sharp, and pointed weapon, for stabbing. It is very heavy, contrary to popular belief (1-2kg) It is wielded with one hand, usually with a small shield or long dagger in the left hand. The left-hand weapon forms the core of the defence since it is fast, the rapier is offensive.

The epee, pronounced ay-pay in English (French for sword...how original) is a bizarre modification of the rapier. It is a thin, light piece of metal, folded into a w shape for strength. Only the tip is sharp, and it has a needle point. It is used for stabbing.

Other weapons of the more modern style are the cutlas (one-sided, shorter, for naval use), the foil (a military epee), the sabre (a curved cavalry weapon--curved so it comes out of the enemy, who is on foot, after it goes in rather than sticking).

As far as ascthetics and lethal capability, the rapier and dagger combination puts up a tough fight with the katana and wakizashi combination in Japan from my point of view.

[Me2]

I think that the best swordsmen in history would probably be modern day fencers or martial artists. I don't have any proof, but I'd just say that as an educated guess.

Reason 1: knowledge: A little bit of knowledge can go a long way. You can spend months drilling move after move and be ready for all of them, then have it all made moot because your opponent happens to use a move you don't know. I've been there. I figure that the best taught swordsmen ever would be modern ones. Knowledge has just kept on piling up.

Reason 2: population: The population of the earth has exploded recently. Thus the amount of natural talent floating around is probably higher then it's ever been. Some of it's getting tapped.

Counteragument: culture: swords just aren't as popular any more and people aren't as dedicated.

[Kuraku Hideaki]

I think thats because we have guns, tanks, jets, warships and missiles. You would be an idiot to bring a sword an expect to kill a guy 300 feet away who has a shot gun and pistol >.<

[Kingsama]

Again i think that many fall into the assumption that the euros were these hulking morons who simply strapped some chunks of heavy metal to themselves using some twine when in reality it was much different. Where as with the samurai we have this idea that they were these mystically gifted warriors that all carried razor sharp katana that could slice through steel, which is more than a little bit of a embelishment...

[Zyke]

Not at all about the moron statement Kingsama. It's more a matter of lifestyle and variety as opposed to the intelligence or integrity of them.

[Tekashi]

Well i hears that samuria armor was symbold and stuff for there family and crests on there helmit and i think we will be able to somewhat do that.

[Kingsama]

Not at all about the moron statement Kingsama. It's more a matter of lifestyle and variety as opposed to the intelligence or integrity of them.


i wasnt infering that you bought into that thought or were the euro discribed, only that the general public holds something as fact that is false. Further more i would think that this is in full effect with the wests perception of eastern culture. I imagine this is because we have so little knowledge of the subject that we mystify that which is foreign to us. Popular culture does nothing but reforce this. A prime example of this is with Martial Arts. People tend to think that just because someone has a blackbelt in some art that they are a superrior warrior to say someone who is a boxer, but as we have found out from the myriad of mma competition over the last decade or so, it really doesnt mean anything. I have seen multi blackbelt holding individuals get beat sensless by a bouncer with no real training. Here you have this mystic foriegn concept being brough back down to earth. So what does this have to do with the topic? Simple, we mystify or fear what we dont know and the things that we do know we generally take for granted. Thus the Samuai with his cool sword is a true warrior while the knight is the hulking mundane diry moron. In the end i think that the battle comes down to the individual one on one, add to that terrain, and random chance and anything can happen. I just have an issue with declaring a warrior who was isolated from the rest of the world and who experienced far less war a better swordsman/warrior than a group of people that were constantly battling all over there known world. For my money in full out war i would take the greeks, romans, mongols, medievil european, egyptians, persians, etc against the Japanese. Those cultures domanated their known world through force of arms for long periods of time, can the japanese say the same?

Also can you clarify what you ment by your statement i think i missed something...

[ToshiMaru]

Oh, has anyone seen the Xtreme Martial Arts video? I saw it on the Discovery channel, and wanted to see it again. I didnt really bothered to see it until i saw that one dude; the asian guy with the katana.

I saw him sparring with the katana, and it was AWESOME!!!! Its not like one of those generic slow sword slashes, but like a heavy quick strike, and slash. I wanted to see the video on him again, but i dont know where to find it.

By the way, i think the video of him, was a some sort a martial arts competition, If anyone has a link of it, please send it to me, i am desperate. :swordfigh

[Zyke]

in full out war i would take the greeks, romans, mongols, medievil european, egyptians, persians, etc against the Japanese. Those cultures domanated their known world through force of arms for long periods of time, can the japanese say the same?

You also have to consider that of those major civilizations you mentioned, every one of them was much larger than that of the Japanese population, due to the relatively small size of the Japanese islands. The island could also be why they were so isolated and xenophoebic, because earlier on the Japanese waters were treacherous to (non-modern) ships, and this would lead to almost an acceptance of isolation. There also was a lot of Japanese feudal warfare between warlords, you just hear less about that for the same reasons you mentioned in your post- we simply don't know about that culture and their history as much, since they played a much less integrel role in our own history (American and European).

[Redb@ck]

But then you have to analyse the seculsionist regime in later eras, particually the 1800s whereby the Japanese attempted to stop all western influence, which while it worked for a while it ultimately failed and Japan was westernised. Beebe out.

[Kingsama]

i cant remember the exact numbers, but if i remember correctly the roman empire's population was extremely slave heavy, aka more slaves than citizens, and they still managed to dominate...

[nobody4422]

I think you guys may be comparing the the wrong two groups of warriors.

Comparing Knights to Samurai, is comparing apples to oranges at best.

What we know of the Samurai (or think we know) stems from the romanticised history of the Samurai, and from only one section of thathistory in particular. It is my understanding that the Samurai as we know it, their martial arts, and the Bushido code, stemmed from the more peaceful times when Japan was unified (I think it was the Tokugawa Era, but Im not sure). This isnt to say that they didnt behave in the same fashion during the Warring States period, but it is pretty safe to say that what we "know" about the samurai is romanticised at best.

To this romanticised history your are then comparing it to a more gritty and warlike history of the Knight. Their history as we "know" it is more geared to wartime settings. They would spend most of their professional careers engaged in actual battle and didnt have the time to hone their skills and perfect them into an artform. So instead of the graceful, stylized movements that one would see from the samurai, their fighting was rough, gritty, and brutal. Its my personal belief that the samurai during the Warring States period would have been almost the same way.

So what is a more accurate comparison?

I believe a more accurate comparison would be the Samurai and the Cavelier (I think thats their name). The Cavelier, much like the Samurai as we know them, had long periods of peace in which they were able to refine their skills into an artform. The use of their weapon of choice,the Rapier(reading a back post this may be the epee), has been turned into a martial art, which we call Fencing, and has many different styles and schools. If you look at it they really do have a lot of similarities, the code of honor, the martial art, the attude of death and duty, and so on. Try comparing these two and lose the Knight comparison.

So who would win in a fight between a Samurai and a Cavalier?

Thats a tough call as each side has its strengths and weaknesses. The average Samurai was most likely better trained as they started at an earlier age, but the training for a Cavaliler would have been adequate. The Katana, a slashing weapon, provides much more power and devestating cuts, but the range and speed is somewhat restricted as it is usualy weilded by both hands. The Rapier, a piercing weapon, had a lighter wieght and generally had a faster strike. On top of this the Rapier, being wielded in only one hand, has a greater range and left the other hand open for defense (they used a small weapon called a parrying dagger for this). (*Note: The long and extremely thin blade that most people know as a Rapier is in fact a Foil. This tool was used for sport competitions and training purposes so that both people could participate without fear of getting hurt. The actual rapier is somewhere between 2-3 fingers in width and do not bend or flex with a strike.) Finally armor. Samurai armor (to the best of my undestanding) is composed of very small angular plates woven together with some sort of leather or silk. This leads to a lighter weight armor that is effecitive against arrows and slashing attacks. The thin and sharp tip of the Rapier however would most likely be able to wedge its way into one of the seems of the armor and injure the wearer. Cavalier armor is composed of thin and lightweight solid metal plates. The rounded shape of the armor is designed deflect piercing attacks, but could easily work just as well to deflect of stop a slashing attack so long as it wasnt a powerful and direct hit. The downside of this type armor is that it tends to be heavier, to prevent this a lot of the Cavelier armor is left incomplete, giving them better range of motion, but leaving gaps in the coverage. I am unsure whether or not cavaliers wore chain shirts under their armor to help fill in these gaps, but I dont think that it would have provided all that much defense against a direct hit from the razor sharp Katana.

So who would win? I dont have a friggin clue.

[Kuraku Hideaki]

Nobody, i think you just solved all the confusion on this forum, but have not solved the answer.

[KazeKuroi]

i cant remember the exact numbers, but if i remember correctly the roman empire's population was extremely slave heavy, aka more slaves than citizens, and they still managed to dominate...

I read recently funneh enough apporoximently 30% of the Roman Empire was slaves.

[Yagi]

Actually i think fencing was derived from mid 1800's duels. At least what im lead to believe. Back when they had to take 10 paces turn and fire times.

As for Cavaliers they were more of the inner noble courts of medievil England, France and Germany. They just acted more courtly to ladies and dressed themselves up.

It is true that Knights are knights and Samuari are samurai. Both are bred for war. Starting with knights at the age of 6. Where they were often squired to help the knight, by cleaning and preparing them for battle. I think if memory serves me right they were called Paiges. Then they grew up to the age of 10 where they maintained the knights armour and weapons and often looked after the knights horse and mended their belongings. They were then called Squires. After the age of 16 they were given their own suit of armour and heroldry from their former masters.

Nobody was very right to say all knowledge we have was very romanised.

Samurai as far as i can find were much better at swordsmanship than knights. Knights adhear to a code of conduct but have no set footwork nor tactics that the samurai have. The samurai practiced and practiced and practiced handed down from earlier generations a set of footwork that worked in battles and slowly refined their skills. Knights did not. Knights weapons changed every 100 years 8) they added shields took away shields, added maces, axes, flails, morning stars, spears, lances, two handed swords. Samurai stuck with a sword that retained it simmular farm. Sure it was extended shortened but fundimentally remainded the same. Thus their swordsmanship if put toe to toe with a knight probably would out match them. On the other hand the knights armour while being heavier and much more bulkier would have probably protected them for a little longer than the lighter samurai armour. This is where the samurai would have dominated. At lease a samurai would be able to move and circle and take the opponents weaknesses and exploit them to the fullest.

With saying all this, who is the greatest swordsmen?

I say your only as good as your enemey.

Knights fought knights Samurai fought samurai. Would make for an awesome movie to watch for a 1 on 1 knight vs samurai tho 8)

[Kingsama]

noboady, good post, but i think the comparison of knight to samurai is as apt as any. The initial question was "who is the worlds greatest swords man " ergo if you fight with a sword you qualify for the discussion.

[Isuiln Fellblade]

I believe that this topic is too much of an overgeneralization to even attempt to determine a better. Throughout history, there have been countless different styles of swords, swordplay, and armor utelized, and trying to name one the best is like trying to name the best kind of fruit... it relies on each person's opinion.

[KazeKuroi]

"who is the worlds greatest swords man "
If that where the question the answer would be one person's name. What is being spoken of here is the greatest sword style. The Newest type of Katana was designed to slip right into the armor of westerners. Katana is the sharpest sword ever created, but it will never make the wielders better swordsmen. It is [I agree] alot like asking who likes apples or oranges...

[Kelarael]

Well I'd just like to point out that comparing knights and samurai is quite difficult due to the circumstances of battle and who they were fighting.
Until the mainstream use of mace style smashing weapons, Knights took relatively little damage in battle, suffering bruising and broken bones, killing a knight was difficult unless you could get them in the eye or something.

And knights were the elite, not the main army... the rich people in all their big armour on their horses (horses arent cheap to keep) who got to trample the conscripted peasantry they were fighting, while their families sat up on the hill having lunch enjoying the battle.

The enemy of the knight was the polearm, you cant trample your enemies if they knock you off your horse before you get to them after all.

As for samurai, I dont know enough about them to comment, but I'd argue that the knights arent really the best in skill.

After all, if you put the best rifleman in the world against a tank, it doesnt matter how good the tank driver is, he can still obliterate the marksman.

[Gryph]

Well I'd just like to point out that comparing knights and samurai is quite difficult due to the circumstances of battle and who they were fighting.
Correct.

Until the mainstream use of mace style smashing weapons, Knights took relatively little damage in battle, suffering bruising and broken bones, killing a knight was difficult unless you could get them in the eye or something.
Incorrect. Weapon use progressed simultaniously with armor use. Maille can be penetrated by a point (sword or polearm tip), by a mace, by an axe or halbred, by a high-power arrow with a small head. Plate can be deformed or broken by a mase, penetrated by a longsword tip or spike, or split with an axe or halbred. Killing a knight, just like anybody else, is generally a matter of hitting him hard once, then a couple more times after he goes down.

And knights were the elite, not the main army... the rich people in all their big armour on their horses (horses arent cheap to keep) who got to trample the conscripted peasantry they were fighting, while their families sat up on the hill having lunch enjoying the battle.
War as a picnic didn't start until the age of musket tactics.

The use of heavy cavalry is this: One advances in a unit, knee to knee, lances leveled. One attempts to first outflank, then charge straight at, the enemy infantry. Your enemies are the shield wall and the polearm-equipped and well-trained infantry. Once penetration of the enemy ranks is achieved, the lance is usually left behind, broken or stuck in some poor bloke who didn't have his shield in the right place at the right time. Swords are drawn and decimation of enemy ranks begins.

After the invention of the flintlock, and the rise of pistols, heavy cavalry became equipped with numerous pistols and swords. The pistols took the place of the lances, and tactics remained roughly the same. The cavalryman's enemy became the musketier.

The enemy of the knight was the polearm, you cant trample your enemies if they knock you off your horse before you get to them after all.
Combined with the shield wall, yes.

As for samurai, I dont know enough about them to comment, but I'd argue that the knights arent really the best in skill.
Knights, like samurai, ranged from individuals trained from childhood for the arts of war (the Black Prince in the 100 Years' War for an example), to those whose only military training was a passable understanding of how not to get killed while leading ones men into battle. Neither samurai nor knights were an elite corps of highly-trained warriors. They were the landed nobility with the money to afford the latest weapons, equipment, and training, and with the free time to learn the arts of war if they so chose.

After all, if you put the best rifleman in the world against a tank, it doesnt matter how good the tank driver is, he can still obliterate the marksman.
Give that rifleman a rocket propelled grenade launcher and good cover, and the tank crew (pilot, gunner, loader, commander) is very dead, very fast.

The heavy cavalry of the ancient world, all accross the ancient world, was very much similar to the tank:
heavily-armed
highly fast and mobile
easily destroyed by well-trained and well-equipped infantry

The consept of the "tank" created in roleplaying games, which makes people think of knights as hulking monstrosities, slow and pondering and hard to kill, is entirely false.

[Yagi]

The consept of the "tank" created in roleplaying games, which makes people think of knights as hulking monstrosities, slow and pondering and hard to kill, is entirely false.



Take the knight off of the horse and see how fast they move. They didnt move very fast at all. They were just nobles encased in 10mm thick steel plating (in places not all over 8) ) nothing more. A long bow archer could kill a knight when they invented bonkin arrow heads. These arrow heads were long thin and designed to penetrate armour, mail or plate.

But armour and weapons are those. As armours increased so did weapons and vica versa.

Which makes us arrive back at the same point. You cant compare knights to samurai. Their oppenents were different so their technology is different. The samurai were a more disiplened force as a whole general vs the knights, who generally werent as martially structed. The knights even tho were kinda of taught in their arms were no where near as highly trained as the samurai with their chosen weapons.

[KazeKuroi]

Which makes us arrive back at the same point. You cant compare knights to samurai. Their oppenents were different so their technology is different. The samurai were a more disiplened force as a whole general vs the knights, who generally werent as martially structed. The knights even tho were kinda of taught in their arms were no where near as highly trained as the samurai with their chosen weapons.

How can you say one is more disiplined then the other?
It was the swords that makes any race cool.
Irish for their Claidhmorh (S?)
Europes fencing sword (What is it called?)
Chinese has the most selection of weapons
Japanese Katana, and other souri.

[Yagi]

if your refering to the Epee, Foil and Raiper they had absolutely no relevance to knights as they were imposed as fencing weapons for duels. How we got fencing today.

As for the disipline issue, it was a generalization. More often than not Nights were merely dukes, barons and other large land holders. Sure they were trained in swordsmanship but not to the large scale for like the infantry. They were trained in martial law, tactics and swordsmanship but not how to fight as a whole unit. As most of the books i have read about french, english and germanic knights go.

Ive only read some text on japanese samurai. These elite warriors of the Damiyos army's often trained together as a unit and did alot more unit training. Most knights did a little training with units but hardly enough to make them a super effective fighting unit. Not saying they werent effective just not to their huge potential. From the books ive read over the years.

And as you said i was the weapons that makes the civalizations cool 8)
From huge 14' Pikes that the greeks used as a shield against arrows and dismounting cavalry in their huge contingents(sp?) To the refined katana's of japan that everyone knows. So many to choose from every single race had its own defining weapon 8) I guess thats why we all like these periods 8).

[Arrak]

The quality of training Knights had varied greatly. If your talking about hereditary Knights in places like England and France then yes the training was not that great and their titles were something they were born into. Now if your talking about specific orders such as The Poor knights of Christ (Templars) and Knights Hospitalers these guys were trained well. There was no universal training program for Knights so you get the well trained ones and the not so well trained ones.

[Yagi]

Too true, the Churches knights were awesomely trained. Unfortunately the mass of the knights whom i was generalising about were poor as you said. Thanks for reminding me of the churches forces.

They were probably a more even comparision to samurai. As they trained together with a kind of martial art. Im not sure it would have been as refined as what the samurai's art was.

Thanks for the post Arrak youve start a new thought into me might go read a little more up on the templars 8)

Cheers

[Arrak]

Your welcome Yagi! The Templars are interesting but I always found the Hospitallers to be more so. They have a much longer history and were in some critical battles that were essential to western world we live in today. They were essential in the training of the Christian navy that won the Battle of Lepanto. They had learned naval tactics from fighting the Barbary pirates.

I would say that both the Templars and Hospitallers are good counterparts to the Samurai.

[ppharoah]

True about the Katana's sharpness, in the World Wars Western Soldiers were trained to use the steel portions of their rifles to deflect the incoming sword blows. The Katana was so sharp it would slice straight thru the steel barrel of the rifle!

[Tyrant]

What makes a swordsman great? how many people he kills? how big he is? how long they practice every day? how straight their cuts are? I think this post is a little bit biast *coughTATSUMAKIcough* but you gotta be a little more specific than this. A great swordsman is one person, not an entire culture.

[Shinoku]

Tyran, that's why he called it Swordsmen instead of Swordsman. Read other people's posts better before you judge ;)

... I'm becoming a grammar nazi like the other mods :squint:

[Arrak]

Actually Tyrant I think this thread has been fairly unbiased. Sure some people are saying Samurai are the best but others are giving differing views and presenting multiple arguments. I really think this has been an excellent thread and it has touched on some cool historical facts.

[Yagi]

Here Here Arrak, I also believe it has been a good debate for and against and lot of good historical info has been displayed.

Even if we do have to generalise 8) Japan didnt have a writing system for a long long time. Ill edit this post tonight when i get home to put a date roughly when they developed a writing system.

Edit: found the date it was stated at around 100AD Kanji entered Japan. Lots were lost and replaced. It wasnt until 800AD before a fixed set was created to work as a pronunciation and sounding of words.

So i have to discredit my own post and say with this there should be ample evidence on singlar and plural Japanese samurai for us to be both specific and general, with our Knights vs Samurai debate hahaha 8)

[Kingsama]

True about the Katana's sharpness, in the World Wars Western Soldiers were trained to use the steel portions of their rifles to deflect the incoming sword blows. The Katana was so sharp it would slice straight thru the steel barrel of the rifle!


is this a serious post or are you being sarcastic?

[Isuiln Fellblade]

Tyran, that's why he called it Swordsmen instead of Swordsmen.

Ummm... you just said swordsmen twice... I'm not exactly clear on what point you were trying to make, but yes, the thread name has "swordsmen" in it, and Tyrant was merely pointing out that it's too much of a generalization since everyone has varying degrees of skill... some knights may have been better swordsmen than some samurai, and vice-versa.

[ToshiMaru]

Getting back on the subject, Who was the most Greatest Samurai in history? Wel, it comes down to mostly just their rank, and popularity. Dont forget that the shoguns and daimyos are also samurai's.

A samurai is a type of person, who follows Bushido, and a Shogun is a person who holds high military ranking. SO i say the greatest was Oda Nobunaga, he was the one of the first to unite all of japan.

What i dont understand is why was he always pictures as Evil??

[Shinoku]

Ummm... you just said swordsmen twice... I'm not exactly clear on what point you were trying to make, but yes, the thread name has "swordsmen" in it, and Tyrant was merely pointing out that it's too much of a generalization since everyone has varying degrees of skill... some knights may have been better swordsmen than some samurai, and vice-versa.Typo has been edited.

Also I know that you two mean the person itself but the thread is about the order of warriors and the philosophy behind them.

[Tyrant]

"Tyrant was merely pointing out that it's too much of a generalization since everyone has varying degrees of skill... some knights may have been better swordsmen than some samurai, and vice-versa."

exactly, maybe im taking this too seriously but this isnt that far above "my dad is better than your dad" the word "better" doesnt mean much when your talking about one person compared to another. How is one best? or better? than someone else hmmm...

[Yoshimitsu]

im pretty sure musashi miyamoto was the best swordsmen when it came to individual battles

[OdaNobunaga]

i am very and truely sure that Oda Nobunaga was the one and only person in history. (replying to TomiVanG).
as to y he was called as evil..... that was because at that time, there where many monks and they have a place called the Mount Hiei(the holy mountain). which was given to them by the old shogen. it was established by Saint Dengyo for peace and preservation of the imperial house and the tranquility of the nation.
but through years the monks have invovle themself in the political affair and brough in arms and build castles which Oda called the warrior-monk.
Oda was in battle with Asai Nagasami and Asakura Kagetake when the warrior monk aided them, and they retreated to Mount Hiei.
in oda eyes Mount Hiei had been established to protect teh nation, and so had been granted special privileges. but the purpose has change because the monk through years had brought in fire arms and build castles.
And in a campainge he destroyed and burn the Mount Hiei and killed around 5000 monks. from that time onwards he was called the 'evil' or deemed as the 'demon'.
But what has he done wrong? to me nothing he has done been wrong, he did what have to be done. :P
repling to Yoshimitsu
And yes Musashi Miyamoto was the No1 swordman in japan. he roam around to inprove his skills after his master family was destroyed. :D
I know itz a bit long here sorry. :D

[Tekashi]

i am very and truely sure that Oda Nobunaga was the one and only person in history. (replying to TomiVanG).
as to y he was called as evil..... that was because at that time, there where many monks and they have a place called the Mount Hiei(the holy mountain). which was given to them by the old shogen. it was established by Saint Dengyo for peace and preservation of the imperial house and the tranquility of the nation.
but through years the monks have invovle themself in the political affair and brough in arms and build castles which Oda called the warrior-monk.
Oda was in battle with Asai Nagasami and Asakura Kagetake when the warrior monk aided them, and they retreated to Mount Hiei.
in oda eyes Mount Hiei had been established to protect teh nation, and so had been granted special privileges. but the purpose has change because the monk through years had brought in fire arms and build castles.
And in a campainge he destroyed and burn the Mount Hiei and killed around 5000 monks. from that time onwards he was called the 'evil' or deemed as the 'demon'.
But what has he done wrong? to me nothing he has done been wrong, he did what have to be done. :P
repling to Yoshimitsu
And yes Musashi Miyamoto was the No1 swordman in japan. he roam around to inprove his skills after his master family was destroyed. :D
I know itz a bit long here sorry. :D

he hit odas story right on the head and mukashi has a book he wrote you know that right?

[OdaNobunaga]

yes i know :p Oda stories and swordman Musashi Miyamoto. i have been in their history since i started playing computer games at 1980s. :P and i am realy glad that i found people here with same interest in their history and the way of styles.
Am very sure Tatsumaki will be a game that i have been waiting for :D
So those who are lovers of Japan history should really join the games and even those who are not, you should try it and i am sure you will not regret joining this big family here. :D

[OdaNobunaga]

Oh ya, swordmen and samurai is different in many ways. samurai are warrior who fight for a lord with family honour but swordmen only travel around to improve their sword skill or open a school and stay there. Swordmen do not wear armours like samurai do. Every Samurai has a family crest on their armour and banner normal to represent their family bloodline.

Regarding which is the best samurai? chinese, japanese or euro?

I guess we cant really compare as differnt country has their own way of view.
In chinese the romance of three kingdom a warrior name ZhaoYun single handle dashed into the mighty troops of CaoCao just to save his master(Liu Bei) son. His master after recieved his son throw him on the floor and said i nearly lost a able general. And there was ZhangFei who only a roar at the bridge frightened CaoCao 100 thousand troops without fighting and turn back.
His brother GuanYu(the beautifull beard) said Zhang Fei can kill a general and get his head in 100 thousand troops.And that was true! Guanyu, Zhangfei, Zhaoyun, Huangzhong,Machao these 5 were call the 5tiger generals. Who can kill people even he is in the middle his troops. strong and powerfull best warrior?
In Japan Musashi could kill a swordmen or anyone before he move in a duel because of his swordskill. Best in Japan. He could anticipate where the emeny can move and they normally wait for others to move.
In euro their sword fencing was a style of their way. using two hand sword with strength and power they cut down people. But if you taking about the fencing or modern fencing in which wear a mask type i guess that cant withstand a cut from the old swordskill from all 3 country.
thus i believe each country has his best swordmen and cannot be compared which is more superior.
All three country swordmen travel around to train themselfs that for sure. :P
And do you guys know that Japan was actually people from china? it was the Qing dnasty time the king that united china and build the greatwall. dated back 221bc when he died. i dont know when the chinese gone to japan but it was said that it was while QingShiHuang was alive time. some people migrate to an island east of china and there which now we call Japan.
And as for taiwan no doubt it belong to China :P china has never declared taiwan a indepent country from the time of democary of Sun ZhongSan till now :P guess a stop here too long :P

[ShininShado]

I like this thread, and especially Oda's take on things, good info! I think you can sum up all of the discussion about swordsmen and who would be the best with this statement. In Japan Musashi could kill a swordmen or anyone before he move in a duel because of his swordskill. Best in Japan. He could anticipate where the emeny can move and they normally wait for others to move.

Stories like this one are not uncommon, Samurai/Swordsmen with the ability to sense the next move of their foes, and some have like a sixth sense or extra abilities. These more than likely would come from the Zen Meditation and being in a state of mind that transcends anything I will ever know. Actually meditating while fighting was a great tactic used by Zen Samurai.

To that end, I'd say that a Zen Samurai/Swordsmen would be at the top of the list of swordsmen through Earth's History. Like a machine, a well trained mind would not falter in battle. Not only does meditation, especially Zen bring one closer to the realizations of one's life, it also can bring out special spiritual gifts as well. I've read stories of devout monks levitating, disappearing, etc, etc. Couple that with an ever-present training with their sword and you have a killing machine.

Coming close a second in my opinion, and what I know would be Norse Berzerkers. Warriors that ingested peyote and attacked everything in sight, often times killing entire armies in a deranged, bloodthirsty rage.

Third would be what Lao Tzu calls "Knights". Warriors trained in the Tao, they become one with the Tao to uphold virtue and Law.

Though the chivalrous code of the Medieval European Knight was admirable, it did not lend much to his fighting abilities. Fighting for honor and for his King, those things are noble, but I personally do not see where they could hold up to a Zen Samurai at all.

This is just may take.

[Fenris]

Coming close a second in my opinion, and what I know would be Norse Berzerkers. Warriors that ingested peyote and attacked everything in sight, often times killing entire armies in a deranged, bloodthirsty rage.


A good deal of the posts in this thread appear to have very little basis in reality, a lot of opinions and ideas influenced to much by movies and anime. So I will stay clear as much as I can.

This on the other had I wished to comment on. Simply as a correction. Peyote is a North American species (Lophophora williamsii), and while it is possibly that it could have become present in Europe I highly doubt that it was ever used by the Norse. Well, competely doubt it. Its a Cactus.

What the Berzerkers would have used to induce a hallucinagenic state would more likely have been Amanita muscaria a mushroom slightly less poisonous than its relation Amanita phalloides or the Death Cap, which is native to Scandinavia.

Also if by armies you mean 5-6 guys before they were hacked to pieces...then Yes.

[ShininShado]

Peyote makes you hallucinate, shrooms make you hallucinate. What the two do to the mind are identical. They have the same effect on the mind, there are also stories of Berzerkers just getting really drunk. Did I live during this time, noooo. Did Berzerkers exist, yes, were they fearsome fighters, yes. Are the specifics of what they used to excite themselves into a Berzerker rage really that imporant, nooooo. I'll be sure to double check a wiki before I post next time. Shoooot, doing that anyone could know anything about everything!! I'll admit when I'm wrong, I was wrong with peyote, not with the fact they were lunatic fighters. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
I'll be reading more and posting less for the time being. Noticed that my posts have tons of extra words and some are worded sloppily too.

[Sanctus]

I've been a-thinking lately, and this is purely speculative, based off of true facts. I've been pondering this for some time, and do you guys think that the samurai was the greatest swordsman in history? Personally, I think so. Let's take a look at why:

- Their entire life was spent training and learning martial arts, swordsmanship, and whatever other weapons they used.
- They were completely devote, disciplined, and dedicated to their field. They spent their entire lives practicing and learning.
- They were not afraid to die and never tried to run from battle

Of course these could also be applied to other civilizations, such as the Greeks (most notably the Spartans), and to a lesser extent, the Romans. However, Spartans were only forced to be in the military from the age of 7 (when training began) and could retire by, I believe, 30 or so. The Romans were of a similar way, where soldiering became more of a profession than a lifestyle. If you look at the samurai, it was birth until death. There was no retirement, and no age restriction.

I could probably go more into this, but this is essentially the basis of my thinking and gets the point across well enough (or so I think anyway). What are all of your thoughts?
Well, truly, I believe that any Swordsmen that stabs himself in the heart for honor and not disgrace, is Great in itself. He doesn't have to have killed hundreds before then, he mightve killed 2, he is Great just for being who he was, a warrior of honor.

[Fenris]

I've been a-thinking lately, and this is purely speculative, based off of true facts. I've been pondering this for some time, and do you guys think that the samurai was the greatest swordsman in history? Personally, I think so. Let's take a look at why:

- Their entire life was spent training and learning martial arts, swordsmanship, and whatever other weapons they used.
- They were completely devote, disciplined, and dedicated to their field. They spent their entire lives practicing and learning.
- They were not afraid to die and never tried to run from battle

Of course these could also be applied to other civilizations, such as the Greeks (most notably the Spartans), and to a lesser extent, the Romans. However, Spartans were only forced to be in the military from the age of 7 (when training began) and could retire by, I believe, 30 or so. The Romans were of a similar way, where soldiering became more of a profession than a lifestyle. If you look at the samurai, it was birth until death. There was no retirement, and no age restriction.

I could probably go more into this, but this is essentially the basis of my thinking and gets the point across well enough (or so I think anyway). What are all of your thoughts?

Personally I would like to see more reasoning here. Everything you listed, as you said, certainly applies to MANY other cultures so you really have not given any reason why the Samuari would be the greatest swordsman ever. Also you are slightly biased and selective in your arguments (aren't we all :D ). Will you honestly tell me that a young Japanese boy was NOT forced to learn the way of the Samuari at a young age similar to the Spartans?

As for retirement, read any account of a real Samuari, any time in that where you see the words "Attained Enlightenment" read that as "Retired".

For discussion if you want:
How would a Samuari defeat a typical Roman Centurion with Scotum and Gladius.

Pretty much a 50-50 shot here I would think. The Samuari could attack first and either be jammed with the shield and stabbed with the sword or attempt to roll to the Romans left for an open shot at the back. In either case the Roman has the defensive advantage at the disadvantage of the significantly shorter weapon.

The Centurion can, at will, simply extend the shield arm out and go immediatly on the offensive cutting the striking distance of the Samuari greatly, blocking his view and allowing slashes to the midsection, legs and arms.

The Samuari would, in turn, have to use the fact that the Centurion is weighed down to his advantage. Speed and deception are the key, getting the Centurion to raise the shield before his eyes will allow lower strikes and flanking to occur. Exposed Feet and Shins, a possible strike at the sword arm utilizing the greater reach of the Katana.

[Ichigo]

I say the musketeers of France. Their rapiers could slice the skin with minimal effort. Not to mention the immense aestheticism that was in their fighting style. I also like the whole dress up and elegance that went into it. I dunno, they might not be the strongest, or best in technique, but they're the best dressed! I think so anyway...... :D

[Osumi]

The Samurai may have been the best swordsmen of all time and they may not have been. But as far as deadliness in hand to hand weapons, I give credit to the Mawri. Without their feared skill with hand to hand weapons they would have never survived british invasion. While their weapons were not swords specifically, they still managed to go up against an enemy armed with guns and survive. I give them the highest credit. Samurai ceased to exist shortly after the introduction of foreign firearms.

-Osumi

[nobody4422]

Well, truly, I believe that any Swordsmen that stabs himself in the heart for honor and not disgrace, is Great in itself. He doesn't have to have killed hundreds before then, he mightve killed 2, he is Great just for being who he was, a warrior of honor.


Sorry, I disagree with you. Life is far to precious to throw away over such a trivial and subjective concept as honor. (One of my problems with the samurai)

I know its a little off topic, but what one holds as honor another holds in disgust. The ritualistic suicide of the samurai was considered the honorable path by them. But to a European Catholic during the same time period, suicide would be (and still is) considered a mortal sin and a hell worthy offense I believe. So basically my point is the concept of Honor is very subjective and thowing your life away over something so subjective is foolish and is not something that makes one great. (In my opinion it makes you pretty stupid).

Ok back on topic.

The berserkers and vikings, while feared in Europe for a long time, do not make the list. This is because the were eventually defeated by newer and more superior forces. Im pretty sure that they were driven out of England sometime during the middle ages, but I dont really have a clue when, 1100 and 1300 I think. Since they were in fact defeated by similar weapon (ie not guns) then the obviously can not be the greatest swordsmen. I do hold them in respect for who they were , how they fought, and what they accomplished. Berserkers, from what Ive heard about them were pretty feared and fierce fighters. (And if you want to get technical about it, Im pretty sure that the primary weapons of Vikings was the axe, not the sword.)

Another thing, Im surprised that no one has taken into consideration The Shaolin as they are often depicted as superior warriors and the fathers of all martial arts.

[ShininShado]

Samurai lived in the code of honor. Honor and in some cases status were more important than riches. To disgrace his clan or family would mean he survived, but in doing so he had forsaken everything the samurai lived for. Lower class warriors - IE: Ronin, yakuza did not commit suppuku, as that was something almost exclusively tied to samurai and his caste. Berzerkers were outlawed by the King Erik Bloodaxe of Norway around 1015 AD, so were never truly "defeated" by another nation.

[ToshiMaru]

I just realized something. I was watching The Last Samurai's DVD specials, and it said that the Shogunate had power, not the Emporer. <-- Not that i dont already know this, it just helped me remembered it.

So, in truth, i realized that for those of you who dont know. The Emporer was more like a Pope, he was Ultimately respected and stuff but had no real political power. The Shoguns were like Kings, they had power over their regions and stuff. What im kind of confused it...if the the power were to the Shoguns and not to the Emporer? What did he Do exactly? :newbie:

[ShininShado]

Basic difference between Shogun and Emperor is shogun held military power, and Emperor held political power, until the Onin War: The Hojo clan held power by changing the Emperor every 10 years, by doing this no one ever really established power. Go-Dagio came to power and that changed:

When Go-Daigo(1288-1339) ascended the throne, real power was with Hojo clan, who alternated the throne between a senior and a junior line of the Imperial family, for better control. Go-daigo, of the junior line, was intended only to hold the place until a member of the senior line could grow into it. But he refused to step down, and plotted to overthrow the Hojo. Betrayed, he fled Kyoto in 1331, taking refuge in the mountaintop monastery at Kasagi. The shogunate sent a huge army against him, and, despite the valour of the defenders, managed to overthrow the castle. Go-Daigo, who as Emperor was unused to walking more than a couple of steps at a time, was forced to flee during a thunderstorm in bare feet, disguised in a peasant's rain gear. The storm scattered his supporters, so that only the brothers Fujifusa and Suefusa were left to assist him in this new and unpleasant exercise.

Despite the assistance of the brothers, Go-Daigo was captured, deposed, and exiled to Oki Island. In 1333, his partisans overthrew the shogunate, and he returned to implement his reforms, establishing Imperial power in both civilian and military government. However, some of his supporters found that, without the bakufu, there weren't the perks they expected. Ashikaga Takauji expected to be appointed Shogun, and was refused. In 1336, he rebelled, establishing his own Emperor. Go-Daigo set up a rival Southern Court in Nan-cho that lasted until 1392.(http://www.sinister-designs.com/graphicarts/history.html)

Go-Daigo plans to overthrow the Hojo clan:

In 1318, upon the abdication of the Jimyōin-tō Emperor Hanazono (his second cousin), Go-Daigo became Emperor at the age of 29, in the prime of his life. In 1324, with the discovery of Go-Daigo's plans to overthrow the Kamakura Shogunate, the Rokuhara Tandai disposed of Go-Daigo's close associate Hino Suketomo in the Shōchū Incident.

In the Genkō Incident of 1331, Go-Daigo's plans were again discovered, this time by a betrayal by his close associate Yoshida Sadafusa. He quickly hid the Sacred Treasures in a secluded castle in Kasagiyama (the modern town of Kasagi, Sōraku district, Kyōto Prefecture) and raised an army, but the castle fell to the Bakufu's army the following year, and they enthroned Kōgon, exiling Go-Daigo to Oki Province (the Oki Islands in modern-day Shimane Prefecture), the same place that Emperor Go-Toba was exiled in 1198.

In 1333, Go-Daigo escaped from Oki with the help of Nawa Nagatoshi and his family, raising an army at Funagami Mountain in Hōki Province (the modern town of Kotoura in Tōhaku District, Tottori Prefecture). Ashikaga Takauji, who had been sent by the Bakufu to find and destroy this army, sided with the Emperor and captured the Rokuhara Tandai. Immediately following this, Nitta Yoshisada, who had raised an army in the East, destroyed the Hojo clan and captured the Bakufu.(http://www.answers.com/topic/emperor-go-daigo-of-japan)

The Court to the South and North clashed:

The Nanboku-cho (南北朝, lit. "South and North courts"), spanning from 1336 to 1392, was a period that occurred during the early years of the Muromachi period of Japan's history. During this period, there existed a North Imperial Court, established by Ashikaga Takauji in Kyoto, and the South Imperial Court, established by Emperor Go-Daigo in Yoshino.

The two courts fought for 50 years, with the South giving up to the North in 1392. Still, it is the South Imperial Court which is today considered legitimate, since it controlled the Japanese imperial regalia.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanboku-cho)

After which time, several different factions emerged, and the power shifted from the political power of the Emperor and to the the military power of the different clans - hence "feud" in Feudal Japan.

The Ashikaga Shogunate(1338-1567) was never an extremely powerful shogunate as the Kamakura Shogunate(11-1336) had been. Neither the shogun nore the emperor had enough power to restrict or control the feudal houses (daimyo), which by 1467 had grown to almost 260 in number. So, for all practical purposes, Japan by 1467 was in fact 260 separate countries, for each daimyo was independent and maintained separate armies. The political and territorial picture in Japan, then, was highly volatile. With no powerful central administration to adjudicate disputes, individual daimyo were frequently in armed conflict with other daimyo all through the Ashikaga period.
With the Onin War (1467-1477), this volatile situation exploded, and within a few years after the start of this war, practically every province in Japan was wracked by warfare, thus beginning what the Japanese call "sengoku jidai," meaning "the age of the country at war," or Warring States Japan. This period was a long protracted struggle for domination by individual daimyo and would result in a powerful struggle between various houses to dominate the whole of Japan. What would emerge from this struggle are three individuals who would become the three great heroes of Japan—Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu—who in the latter part of the sixteenth century devoted their martial energies to the unification of Japan under a single powerful house.Complete explantion here. (Complete story of Onin War what lead to Feudal Japan here (http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/TOKJAPAN/WARRING.HTM).)

Sooooo... I guess the power of the Shogun and Daimyo were born from the void of power left after the Emperor's court was weakened. The samurai were undoubtly strong swordsmen.

[KazeKuroi]

I just realized something. I was watching The Last Samurai's DVD specials, and it said that the Shogunate had power, not the Emporer. <-- Not that i dont already know this, it just helped me remembered it.

So, in truth, i realized that for those of you who dont know. The Emporer was more like a Pope, he was Ultimately respected and stuff but had no real political power. The Shoguns were like Kings, they had power over their regions and stuff. What im kind of confused it...if the the power were to the Shoguns and not to the Emporer? What did he Do exactly? :newbie:


Well, actually, The Emporer was considered a God. He didn't speak only to the Shoguns. They chose what they wanted to do because the emporer chose them to make his decisions. But when the emporer did speak He ment it and it would be passed right then.

What he mention above, is the time where everyone was trying to unite Japan. Was always under split rule, until the Tokugawa.

Is this believable? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13803&item=6187159968&rd=1

[BrainBandAid]

Getting a little off-topic...

I can split this if you want to continue this line of conversation. :)

[ShininShado]

Thanks for keeping us on target sir. I put a disclaimer at the end of my message as to state that the swordsmen were strong, and their power overflowed from military might to political.

[TheSporkedOne]

All I can state is how utterly amazed I am at everyones posts. Its amzing how many of you are history buffs, please continue this thread! It makes my head spin, but I like it!

[Chronor]

OMG i can't believe i read all of that....pages 1-8....ow...my eyes!
Ok, the best Swordsmen. I'll end the debate. A Samuari/Knight. A dude with a Katna on a horse. How 1337 can you get!

-Please excuse last statement. I'm extremely tired and a bit delirious.

[TheSporkedOne]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the samurai did use horses, so that wouldn't exactly make them any different then they already are....

[Chronor]

-Please excuse last statement. I'm extremely tired and a bit delirious.
Nuff Said! ;)

[ToshiMaru]

Througout the history of japan, there were hundreds/if not millions of great samurai warriors. Ranging from government loyalists to rebel leaders, to even unknown loners. But, i guess there isnt one TRUE great samurai warrior in history. In skills, or acheivements, i myself dont really know all of them.

[Akatsuki]

*smiles* After reading this thread, I'm truly impressed with some of the intellect that has gathered here. Referencing many of the great samurai in Japanese history, warriors from the Three Kingdom's period in China, as well as mentioning other warriors (Norse, Western European, etc).

I think, however, we can solve a bit of this by comparing how wars were fought before the widespread use of gunpowder as a significant weapon. Focusing specifically on East Asia for a minute, when you compare the wars fought with swords in general, the Japanese come out on top. They defeated the Koreans twice and held their ground in Korea against the massive Chinese army that came to help Korea in the 16th century. Although Korea was beginning to change the tide with the invention of an "armored" ship, the Japanese retreated from Korea because Hideyoshi was killed and a void of power was brought in the mainland. That's why I believe it is safe to say, generally, that Japan could be considered the better in the East Asian sphere of fighting.

Focusing on Europe as a whole and their wars, mainly highlighting the Crusades, you can see that the Arab armies they fought against spurned their attacks and attempts to reclaim the "Holy Land" for Catholism. Countless wars were fought between the other countries, so it would be difficult to really place a victor there, but clearly the Arab nations they fought against in the various Crusades had them beaten.

Obviously, this is skewed and cannot be taken as an end-all-be-all on the subject, simply because of tactics and the fact that these wars were not just fought with swords, but I think youc an come up with a pretty clear understanding of where they stood in an era of sword-based military fighting.

[HeniuriSaito]

Hell yeah, I read each post until now... Crap, am I tired now...

I still think that we can't say THERE IS THE GREATEST! because they have all their pros an cons... like... Still a Knight is a heavy dude with no technique that go slashing everything, there a Samurai may probably beat him up 'easly'... But against a phalanx or those men who I forgot the name, with their pocket-sized 4meters spears with shiels... Like 20samuraix20theseguys it's hard to imagine, since tat least 8~12 samurai would die before the infiltration process... unless they used somewhat like arrows... so it really depends on everything, we can't rely just on armor, technique or weapon... Okay, I did to the knights, but after all, they aren't really a big thing against samurai, now against a bunch of barbarians, they could just wipe them with few losses... It depends on the situation again... so... I may be saying nonsese, I slept 5 times typing this crap... sorry... it's around 3am and I only slept around 2~4 hours yesterday...

see you, reviving this topic, hehe, 6th time I slept >_>

[Akitora]

Jedi. They have lightsabers.... LIGHTSABERS!!!

Seriously though. It's simple. The greatest swordsmen in history were the ones that didn't die... in any culture. You're all assuming that every samurai was of equal skill... or every knight... or every mongol warrior... or every viking or roman or greek. Was the Samurai the equal of the 18th French deulist with rapier and main gauche? Would the Roman in formation beat a Royal Marine in the riggings with a cutlass? You get my drift...

Every type of warrior throughout history was at somepoint the pinnicle of thier technological development in thier chosen method of warfare and within thier own environment. The "Crusader Knight" in Gothic Heavy Platemail was the heavy tank of his time, but was of limited use in Middle Eastern campaigns in the middle of summer. The Prussian duelist would stand little chance on the actual battlefields of the Ancient Romans. Yet he was arguably the deadliest swordsman of his time in the late 1800's. And within those, some were good, some were not...

[water737]

knight vs samurai... if you want to resolve this pick settings each would come into and match them with a knight, pick characteristics etc.

hard to do and probably wont be definative but as stated eith the ufc example u can have all the style in the world built up over a hundred years and a samurai would learn this while knights styles were personalised for comfort and in jousts or tournaments that were pretty much medieval olympics (jousts later encompased sword fights etc etc) so samurai also has kendo, both would always carry a sword, now the bulky armour would mainly be bought by rich knights most common armur used by knights up until late would have been chain and sophisticated plate was still great on the ground and abolished the need for a shield.

i have forgotten my point actually but until you get say an iaido, kenjutsu, and kendo practitioner to cross swords with modern fencers, and european martial arts you wont know (people still practise the art of the broadsword etc) also when i think about it tho a samurai and knight meeting on a street id give it to the knight, broadswords can be used 2 handed, bladed are blunt enough to hold so the hilt is able to be used as a weapon and with both out of armour would be quite interesting.

meh lost my point but yeh modern euro martial arts vs kendo iai etc thats what you would havto do to even try to see who would win, but style and precision verse battle tested personalised methods who would win? but old school samurai like musashi, nevwer beaten, personalised style, battle tested and duel tested....

[sousui]

im pretty sure musashi miyamoto was the best swordsmen when it came to individual battles


He probably was one of the greatest swordsman ever, but he is also known as the first ninja. I think that the ninjas where the greatest swordsman, i practice ninjutsu and ninjas aren't people in black suits and a ninjato on there back. Ninjas where samurai's who where not bound to the bushido way of life and perfectionised the swordtechniques of the samurai.

My conclusion: Yes and no , a ninja was kind of a samurai and that means the samurai where indeed the greatest swordsmen in history.

[HeniuriSaito]

Samurai means Warrior, If I'm not wrong :D so... as Sousui(welcome, pal!) said, it's wrong to say that samurai are just the guys in armor, I did the same mistake, or rather not, I'm never wrong :saeevil:

Anyway, After my point, I agree with Akitora, the ones who survived were the best. And those we call heroes :D anyway, the ones who fought and survived, not the ones who ran, or anything, they may be "smart" to stay alive, but where's the honor, the pride on that?

[Ronin]

You don't need honor to be good with a sword, heniuri. I agree that the greatest warriors were the ones who lived, even if they fled in shame. How good could a swordsman be if they died? iff they died foolishly then they drop many ranks on my "Good Warrior" list, if i ever had one ^_^

[Kal Akodo]

Ok from water's post The katana or any Japanese weapon pretty much was designed to completely obliterate a person by cutting them in half. A "Knights sword" was a thrusting sword so there was no point for the entire sword to be sharp else it loss thrusting power. The thing is....moldern kendo and iaido is not ment for real combat unless you really just take the basics. Its a real sword art forms. The real samurai. Old bujutsu and all assuming a knight (assuming its a broadsword) out of full armor would leave a knight dead in his boots. Katana were built flexible plus on the battlefield and on the road samurai carry a tanto. I must disagree with you Sousui. Ninja's are not swordsmen for the reason that they are not samurai. They do not follow bushido. Swordsmen follow set moral code. Ninja do not they are trained to complete there mission at any cost by any means whether sly, devious, or just plain dirty. The only thing I disagree with Saito on is Bushi translates as warrior. Yeah..thats it You gotta give credit for those who died with honor else the ones who survived wouldn't of. Sengoku period sucked for everyone. Famine, warfare, rape the list goes on.

Wait how are the ones who ran good ones? You train your life in the way to kill man. To defeat those who stand against you to do nothing but run. If you wish to live a long life then you should not be a warrior.

[Akitora]

A "Knights sword" was a thrusting sword so there was no point for the entire sword to be sharp else it loss thrusting power.
Nope... the Gladius was the old Roman thrusting sword. No one else really used them until fencing came into style. Most knights swords were designed for hacking, pure and simple. From a horse it was a saber. For hand to hand, a broadsword, the saxon saex or longsword or whatever. Versus horses it was a flamberge. And so on.

The thing is....moldern kendo and iaido is not ment for real combat unless you really just take the basics. Its a real sword art forms. The real samurai. Old bujutsu and all assuming a knight (assuming its a broadsword) out of full armor would leave a knight dead in his boots. Katana were built flexible plus on the battlefield and on the road samurai carry a tanto. I must disagree with you Sousui. Ninja's are not swordsmen for the reason that they are not samurai. They do not follow bushido. Swordsmen follow set moral code. Ninja do not they are trained to complete there mission at any cost by any means whether sly, devious, or just plain dirty.

Flawed logic. A swordsman is by definition one who is trained in the use of a sword and uses it as their weapon of choice. Plenty of samurai were not swordsmen. Akechi Mitsuhide, the man famed as bringing down Oda Nobanaga was famed for his poor sword skills but also for his superior skill with the naginata. However you do not need any sort of moral code to be a swordsman. So yes, a ninja could be a swordsman, but wasn't necessarily.

That being said though, ninja (I'm assuming you mean guys in black outfits like in the movies, not real life ones from the 16th century) do follow a set moral code - its just that those morals are to complete a mission as you said - by any means necessary whether sly, devious or just plain dirty - or die trying. Thats pretty serious dedication just there. Many professional Special Forces in the modern age are trained to do just that, and it code not be said that they follow no code. And if, from your post, you speak of the real ninjas of the period, guys like Watanabe Hanzo, the ninja on loan to Nobanaga from Ieyasu, then they were more often than not born samurai, trained as samurai, but in secret did those things that could not be done in the open like rescue people from castles under siege, as Watanabe Hanzo was noted to have done more than one.

Wait how are the ones who ran good ones? You train your life in the way to kill man. To defeat those who stand against you to do nothing but run. If you wish to live a long life then you should not be a warrior.

No... if you wish to live a long life, don't lose. If running means I don't lose and live to fight another day, so be it. If that's flawed thinking then the Nazi's would be running things, cause the Allies would of died on the beaches of France in a last ditch suicide fight in 1940 instead of running and returning when they had the numbers and strategic advantage. Many other examples could be given, and even the Art of War advocates retreat when it is warranted.

Oh - and sorry Henuiri :( Samurai basically means "ones who serves". The word "samurai" comes from "samorau" (an Old Japanese verb), changed to "saburau" which means "to serve". But Akodo is incorrect as well - Bushi does not mean "warrior".

Samurai = Knight

Bushi = Buke = the aristocratic ruling class (nobles) of which samurai were only a single part of. In some cases buke translates as warrior class, but its inaccurate because it suggests that like in western culture that the warrior class was below a ruling elite class.

Ashigaru = Soldier (actually "Light Foot"), a type of conscript soldier used during the Sengoku period

Senshi = Warrior or Soldier - the actual Japanese word for either.

[Sokuku Ishimaru]

If I know correctly, the Samurai at best got there blades from the Koreans, regardless, the Korean's did not devote themselves like that, so judging by the life style, id say, yes, they where..But, in terms of warfare, they lacked.

Just wondering, Between Japan and China, there is Korea
Did Korea have some kind of thing like Samurai because I many think only Japan when they think Samurai.
I mean Korea was inbetween both of the two countries and there has to be some contact between them.

Unless this never happened because of the closing of borders from the European traders. (Firearms are evil :mad: )Korea did not have Samurai, but they did invent the Katana, though it was called a Kum something or other, and the Japanese edited it some.

[Kal Akodo]

This is falling off topic

[herozs]

I dont beleave the chinese did. The japanese had some strong ties with the chinese sure but the samuria date back a long way they live by the sword and all. Chinese were all warlords back then fighting eachother for land while the emporer sat back and looked pretty.

Wrong! Martial Arts started in China by a man named bodidharma
(sp?) back in 500ad the closest thing to a samurai in japan was in the 7th century

If I know correctly, the Samurai at best got there blades from the Koreans, regardless, the Korean's did not devote themselves like that, so judging by the life style, id say, yes, they where..But, in terms of warfare, they lacked.

Korea did not have Samurai, but they did invent the Katana, though it was called a Kum something or other, and the Japanese edited it some.

It was called geum

[Akitora]

Martial Arts didn't start anywhere. Or rather, they started everywhere at some point. The second anyone sat down and thought "there has to be a better way to hit someone with your fist/feet/elbow/knee/this big bit of wood" then you had martial arts.

Bodidharma was the South Indian buddhist monk credited with the foundation of Zen (essentially Buddhism meets Taoism) in China in the 6th century CE.

[SunWuKong]

Please get back on topic.

[Akitora]

This thread has long had a hard time staying on topic :/ I am prehaps partially to blame, but I can't help but try and correct where necessary. Honto, Hontou-ni moushiwake-gozaimasen. /deepBow

[Arakawa Nobuaki]

Were THE samurai the greatest swordsmen? No, no way. Just like THE European knights were not the greatest lancers in history.

I would, however, say that certain individuals may "battle" for this title. Let's say, Musashi, Sasaki Kojiro and Yagyu Munenori. Then we would have to add any great European fencers. And even then we can't really compare them, as the European way of fencing is completely different. Just like we can not compare samurai armies and their European counterparts (the discussion samurai vs knight is completely pointless, as one would be comparing apples with giraffes). We can not say that the samurai, as a whole, were the greatest fencers. That just doesn't work.

[Jahagwa]

The best swordsmen? I have skimmed over some of the posts and ill be more specific. Just like with every martial art, there is several weakness's so my opinion of the best swordsmen is based on the person. By person i mean a name of a single individual. I don't know much about long histories between countries with sword training but i was introduced to a book about a swordsmen. His name is Miyamoto Musashi, im sure many of you have heard of him. Check this linky out ^^ http://samurai.com/5rings/transintro/ the site looks plain but it will bring you in. If any of you know of any translated books from other swordsmen, share it... That way people can see that there are always masters in every country.

[masonicgamer]

As an amateur historian I would like to add this:

As said by another poster- clarify what criteria we are to look at?

One on One duel? Full military tactics? Style of swordplay? all those things make a difference, so let's look at each one.


One on One duel- OK if by magic we could create an arena that gives no advantage to anyone I would say lets have a tournament of duels between the following:

Japan would enter- Samurai and Kensai
China- Xia and Changdao
Islam- (in General) One of Saladin's Personal Guards
Europe- Welsh Highlander
Teutonic Knight
Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar
Roman Legionaire
Viking Berzerker

All would have relatively equal experience in combat (in other words- all would be veterans of combat and all would be the elite of the elite: i.e. The Samurai would be Hanzo Hattori, the Knight Templar would be Sir Hughes de Payens, etc..)

One on one we could watch the pros and cons of each nation's elite fighter.

Samurai and Kensai- Pros: Elegant style mixed with the discipline of martial arts training. Katana is absolutely a devastating weapon due to its sharpness and quickeness for a sword of its size. Trained since age 6 or 7 in every aspect of honor, duty and "Bushido". Cons: Great armor, as good as it is, gets cumbersome and heavy when wet, cannot protect the wearer as good as full plate metal armor would but gives better range of motion as the counterbalance. Bushido training can make the samurai to set his ways and not as creative as he could be.

Xia and Changdao- Pros: Martial arts training instilled from beginning. Use of larger weapons. Cons: Chinese swordsmen, arguably, were not as disciplined as one might think of when it comes to Asian styles. Larger, heavier swords are of course, slower (but do more damage as the counterbalance). How strong the fighter was in using "Wuxia" could make a huge difference in combat.

Saladin's Guards- pros: Scimitar wielding death machines- nasty weapons. Absolute loyalty to Islam and Saladin. Cons: Fanatical following of Islam could be used against the warrior and make him do something foolish during combat.

Welsh Highlanders- pros: largest sword of all, ability to deal instant death with that wicked Claymore. cons: no armor to speak of, the Highlanders are all offense all the time type of warriors.

Teutonic Knights- pros: the elites of the Holy Roman Empire were superiorly trained and superiorly armed and armored due to their wealth. Sword and shield or two handed sword combat was typical. cons: heavy plate mail protects well but restricts range of motion and reduces speed of wearer.

Knights Hospitallers and Knights Templar- The elite of the elite Knights of Europe. pros: hand and a half sword could be weilded in various (and deadly) ways. Extensive training required of all knights (starting as page boys, moving to knight errant and finally to knight). cons: medium heavy armor (usually chain mail) was all around good armor but not as protective as heavy plate. Little use of shields limits defenses against quicker opponents.

Roman Legionaire- pros: discipline, discipline, discipline. Short sword and shield combo is devastating. cons- could have trouble standing up quicker, movement based warriors

Viking Bezerkers- pros: absolutely fearless, rage, non-stop offense cons: all out offense could be used against warrior. Lack of substantial armor could be problematic against better armed and armored foes.


So there you go.. there are the combatants.. dueling one vs one.

later we can talk who is better in full army tactics..

I personally would love to see the elite Samurai vs the elite Knight Templar because being a Freemason, the Templar have great meaning and mythology for me.

as to who would win it all?? I couldn't begin to guess. It would be worth the price of admission to watch to be sure... Id love to see that tournament!

[Kakii366]

Those time japan is isolated so theres is no people from other lands maybe some gaiyin but very little people from toher places

[Gheari]

I would have to say that in 1v1 combat stamina, discipline, and patience would win over heavy weapons and armor. You see an intelligent person would just keep a good distance from their heavy opponent until they felt a certain degree of fatigue or decided to remove certain pieces of armor to allot them increased mobility. As for open combat I vote nomadic horse archers the ultimate pre-handgun army.

[Artoriu]

The Samurai of Japan were definately among the greatest swordsmen, let alone warriors, of the world. They rank alongside the Spartan and Roman soldiers in terms of skill. The katana in particular is perhaps the finest type of sword ever made.

[SunWuKong]

How would you compare the Romans vs. the Japanese as single fighters.
Romans worked great in legions, but how skilled were by themselves?

[Zorbon]

How would you compare the Romans vs. the Japanese as single fighters.
Romans worked great in legions, but how skilled were by themselves?

Getting semi off topic, but....

Romans = armor
samurai = lesser/no armor.

The win would most likely go to the romans. They had more mineral resources to develop defensive styles and devices, however the Japaneses only had the minerals to focus on offensive styles/devices.

Even with the supposed uber 1337ness of the samurai swordsmanship, I personally high doubt they could get a body blow on a well trained legionnaire with a tower shield and a javelin/gladius.

Now if it were pure swordsmanship(no armor, sword on sword) then the samurai would probably win. But in all honestly I think it comes down to the person and not the style.

You can think of a fancy name for skinning a cat, but in the end aren't you just skinning a cat?

[Tomoshibi]

Now if it were pure swordsmanship(no armor, sword on sword) then the samurai would probably win. But in all honestly I think it comes down to the person and not the style.


Bingo. As a history major with a special interest in ancient war, I agree with this. People put too much emphasis on style, when it really comes down to equipment, and, in the case of duels, the opponents themselves.

In a case of a naked duel, only using weapons, we got a man with a katana vs a man with a gladius. The katana is better at chopping, and the gladius is better at poking, thought both have been used in other fashions (the curved blade makes the katana not so good as a poker, but the gladius is double-edged and pretty decent at chopping).

What seals the deal here, for me, is that a katana generally has more reach than a gladius, even though it's used with two hands. For this and this alone, I'd give the duel to the katana-wielder. In the case of two footsoldiers happening to come across each other in battle though, at the height of their respective melee technologies, I'd go with the roman dude.

[Gheari]

True fighting skill is not your ability to fight against someone you have an advantage against. The power of the Roman legions came from its formations. It was flexible. The advantage of the samurai lies more with the individual. While legionaries were still highly trained, they did not dedicate their lives to practice and philosophy from early childhood. True greatness with the sword comes from adaptivity. And I would have to say that the samurai are truly adaptable. Also seeing as the hispanus or mainz is shorter than most ken, the legionary is bogged down by 40 to 60 pounds of armor, and many types of kenjutsu are focused on blocking and evasion... I think that the legionary might get worn out before he could get a hit in.

By the way Zorbon. Scutum aren't tower shields.

[Zorbon]

By the way Zorbon. Scutum aren't tower shields.

btw gheari I'm not writing a historically accurate essay on Roman weaponry and their usage against futuristic Japaneses Warriors.

True greatness with the sword comes from adaptivity. And I would have to say that the samurai are truly adaptable.

But how can you say this? Not every samurai is adaptable, not every Roman is a cookie cutter team player. It is not the styles they use but the people. To balloon an entire civilization's warriors as more adaptable than another civilization's warriors is asinine. Swordsmanship is something that can not be gaged between groups of people. Swordsmanship is an individual's skill not a group of people's skills.

What can be judged is equipment. Tomoshibi's assessment seems to be factual to me. A person using a Katana has a length advantage. So if samurais are classified as katana users, then they have a +1 on there side.

On the flip side, in a full equipment battle, the roman would have the advantage. Just for the sheer amount of defensive ability he posses. And don't think a dual will last so long that they'd get really tired of lugging stuff around. A dual rarely last more than a 3 or 4 strikes(sometimes less).
In the case of a samurai vs roman full equip battle, the main move of a samurai sword is a slash. The legionnaire would just have to move his shield in the counter direction of the sword to get an opening to his opponent's body. The "Scutum" is large enough that the samurai will probably have a hard time counter slashing in time before he is stabbed in the belly by the legionnaire's sword. That is why Europe developed more cleaving weapons, because slashing weapons are ineffective against heavy armor and shields.


a good read for knights vs samurais.... http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
granted its' not romans vs samurais....

[Tomoshibi]

I don't want to get into a pissing match or anything, but I'd just like to clear up a few things.

First off, Gheari is right, a tower shield isn't a scutum, though they are pretty close. The biggest difference I can recall off the top of my head is that a scutum is slightly larger. I think it might also be slightly more curved, but don't quote me on that.

I'd hesitate to call samurai adaptable. If anything, their culture was almost the opposite. I'd like to cite the wars where the Japanese samurai fought foreigners - the Mongol invasions in the late 1200s, and the invasion of Korea in the late 1500s.

During the Mongol invasions, I'd hardly call the Japanese adaptable. If it wasn't for the lucky weather famously known as the kamekazi (spelling?) and the heavy outnumbering, I think Japan history would be very different than it is today. If you look to the point before the two disastrous weather events, the Mongols were kicking ass and conquering at a alarming rate (Mongols tend to do that).

As for the Korean invasion, it was pretty much the same results switched around; except it wasn't luck that destroyed the Japanese fleet - the Koreans were simply better at naval warfare.

Like all cultures, Japanese warfare did evolve, but I'd say their isolation stunted them greatly, and their lack of related resources didn't help. With few exeptions until the modern era (like Oda Nobunaga), I'd hardly call samurais adaptable.

[Gheari]

First things first is I find ARMA biased. The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. They have to be biased, even just a little. Okay now that my opinion is out of the way (except for the bias thing, everyone has bias.) I'll get to my point.

Japan adopted the Mongolian style of all out war after the first invasion. I'd call that adaptable. Besides my concept of adaptability and yours may be completely different. My concept of adaptability has to do with observation, mental analysis and changing to any weakness you observe. However if we do want to get into a conversation about Mongolians... The Romans could do no better to stop them and the only reason they were not sacked by them was a crisis in the center of the Mongolian Empire. A major reason for the loss of the Japan-Korea wars was because Korea had cannons and could bombard Japanese ships.

Also swordsmanship is about your actual ability with the sword, not relying on heavy armor to be able to charge like a madman to be able to get close enough to stab your opponent (that's an exaggeration). I might like to hear a conversation about gladiators. I find that they have a fascinating way of fighting.

Proper spelling is Kamikazi. Plural of samurai is samurai. That would eat at me if I didn't correct it.