question.. does reiters count as 'knights'?
:eek:
| James Lopez wrote: |
| WWWOOOeee man i love these topics anyway if we put a Knight in Armor and a samurai in Armor an about to fight sizing each other up .i,m thinking the knight seeing he has better equipment may get over confident and attack with brute strenth while the samurai seeing he is at a disadvantage of the better euqipment but more mobile will likely seize the opportunity and parry the blows or take a few step backs so that the knight misses and he is tiring out also there is holes and vunerable points in his(knights)armor and when he is tired the samurai will reach out and cut him to ribbons through the holes of course.(its kinda similar to a boxing match a Light Weight Boxer(samurai) vs. (Knight) Heavy weight Boxer)don't forget samurais are like 5'5 and knights are 6'0 or 6'3 i,m not sure how that is supposed to do something but again the knight will probaly get overconfident in his size of course hmmmm....yeah that bout it so far! :p
Oh yeah almost forgot i was watching Mansers and they put a Katana againt a .45 and the bullet got slices into 2 and the blade didnt even get scathed. :lol: |
You've much to learn on the knightly art of combat, but that's why you're here I'd assume :)
Anyways, the "brute strength" idea doesn't hold water. If an opponent is ordinary, sure, but knights are no ordinary people.
M.
| Quote: |
| Katanas do not cut through tempered 16 gauge plate armor! |
Nor do they cut into a japanese armor. Why do people always assume they do? I'ts a myth. If they wanted to defeat armor with a sword they would go for a thrust, all a blow could do was to create exploitable weaknesses, but you wouldn't want to count on that.
| Quote: |
| Instead of theorizing on the issue, why don't we simply look at the various combats that took place between Japanese and European fighting men, during the 16th and 17th centuries? |
Because there are so damn few with diverse outcomes and actors that there is no conclusion to get from them.
And how is this whole question important other than to help som D&D guys having a debate about it? You want to be a better fighter? Well go and train if you don't want to end up like those who didn't.
| Darryl Aoki wrote: | ||
I don't think that those pitted samurai against knights as such. Most of the European military presence in East or Southeast Asia in was there to protect various Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch trading interests; some of the trading companies even employed Japanese mercenary troops (whom I've also seen referred to as pirates, but that's another story.) Besides, by the 16th Century, I believe the trend in most European armies leaned toward employing forces of professional soldiers rather than groupings of knights. Also, the Japanese, for much of their history, have been rather, well, insular. Most of their foreign adventures prior to the Meiji Restoration were in Korea and Manchuria, and wouldn't have brought them into any meaningful contact with European forces. |
There are many documented battles between Japanese warriors (both samurai proper, as well as Sino-Japanese wako, who had Japanese warriors in their ranks), and Spanish, Portuguese, and English fighting men, during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The Spanish had fought on numerous occasions with the wako in the Philippines, and the Portuguese and English encountered Japanese warriors at sea.
While none of the European troops in question were likely to be "knights" in the sense of fighing as fully armored heavy cavalry, there were certainly nobles/higher class soldiers among their ranks, and both the high and low-born fought in the European fashion with pikes, shorter polerarms (half-pikes, halberds, etc), swords, targets, and firearms. As for the Japanese, they obviously had their share of both melee weapons and arquebuses (some supplied by the Portuguese, and plenty that were made by native craftsmen).
| Max Chouinard wrote: | ||
Because there are so damn few with diverse outcomes and actors that there is no conclusion to get from them. |
See my post above. There were actually quite a few battles between Europeans and Japanese, at that time.
| Quote: |
| And how is this whole question important other than to help som D&D guys having a debate about it? You want to be a better fighter? Well go and train if you don't want to end up like those who didn't. |
Tell that to those "D&D guys", Max.
I'm already very much aware of the importance of training.
| Quote: |
| See my post above. There were actually quite a few battles between Europeans and Japanese, at that time. |
Mostly with Wako pirates that are, at the time, composed mostly of lowclass chinese pirates. Not much to compare with that.
| Quote: |
| Tell that to those "D&D guys", Max.
I'm already very much aware of the importance of training. |
I should have mentionned it by I wasn't speaking about you.
| David Black Mastro wrote: |
| See my post above. There were actually quite a few battles between Europeans and Japanese, at that time. |
There was no salaried Samurai in those battles, and no European Knights. No knights at all... How exactly do those examples apply to this discussion?
It's not outright said, but it is kind of implied that this thread wants to scrutinise an imagined sword-on-sword, fully armoured scrap between the Japanese and European versions of a noble-born specialised fighting man.
That's what's meant, right?
| Max Chouinard wrote: | ||
Mostly with Wako pirates that are, at the time, composed mostly of lowclass chinese pirates. Not much to compare with that. |
"Low class Chinese pirates", of whom many were familiar with Japanese kenjutsu, which they ostensibly learned from the Japanese pirates in their ranks. By the 16th century about 2/3 of the manpower of the wako was Chinese, and yet period Ming accounts still take note of the Japanese weapons (eg., the no-dachi) and corresponding techniques used by these brigands.
| Quote: | ||
I should have mentionned it by I wasn't speaking about you. |
Fair enough.
| Bennison N wrote: | ||
There was no salaried Samurai in those battles, |
There most certainly were, against the Portuguese in the 17th century, at least.
| Quote: |
| and no European Knights. No knights at all... |
You had men of the knightly class fighting in lighter types of armor--3/4 and 1/2-suits of plate, with open helmets.
| Quote: |
| How exactly do those examples apply to this discussion?
It's not outright said, but it is kind of implied that this thread wants to scrutinise an imagined sword-on-sword, fully armoured scrap between the Japanese and European versions of a noble-born specialised fighting man. That's what's meant, right? |
My point is simply that you still had plenty of European fighting men in Asia, professional fighting men equipped in 3/4- and 1/2- plate armor, as well as lighter types of armor (maille, textile, etc), who fought with European swords (various straight, double-edged, cut-and-thrust types), in the European fashion--traditional modalities like espada y rodela (sword-and-shield), espada y daga (sword-and-dagger), and solo espada (single sword).
As for the Asians, in addition to the "salaried samurai" faced by the Portuguese, you had the Sino-Japanese wako, who were no slouches with their weapons either. As I mentioned to Max, 2/3 of wako manpower at that time was actually Chinese, but a proportion of even those Chinese warriors were skilled in Japanese swordplay. Also, we should not dismiss the actual Japanese element to the wako--1/3 is hardly a negligible figure.
| Quote: |
| "Low class Chinese pirates", of whom many were familiar with Japanese kenjutsu, which they ostensibly learned from the Japanese pirates in their ranks. By the 16th century about 2/3 of the manpower of the wako was Chinese, and yet period Ming accounts still take note of the Japanese weapons (eg., the no-dachi) and corresponding techniques used by these brigands. |
We can theorise that there were Japanese, maybe samurai/ronin in their ranks, even that they knew some kenjutsu (which would have been a very small proportion of their weaponry, if we can suggest they had any type of military training. Plus we have no idea where Bo Gengi had learned Kage ryu techniques, maybe from written material, or sending emmissaries in japan to learn it, but judging by the illustrations, it surely got influenced by Chinese practices) but we have no proof. No written account to say that there was at some point even one samurai or japanese in their ranks or that any of them used typical japanese fighting methods. Given that at the time of the european arrival in Japan the majority of Wako were empoverished Chinese farmers (were talking more than 2/3) we just can't conduct any serious comparaison from such encounters, theyre not representative.
We could say that about 13th-15th century raids, but except if they attacked Marco Polo, there weren't much europeans around.
Folks,
This is an excellent point, especially when we recall that the original question specified fourteenth-century knights and samurai. The documented contacts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are thus somewhat tangential. It seems likely that if the poster had wanted to know about that period, he would simply have looked at the historical record.
Best,
Mark Millman
| On Thursday 11 December 2008, Max Chouinard wrote: |
| We could say that about 13th-15th century raids, but except if they attacked Marco Polo, there weren't much europeans around. |
This is an excellent point, especially when we recall that the original question specified fourteenth-century knights and samurai. The documented contacts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are thus somewhat tangential. It seems likely that if the poster had wanted to know about that period, he would simply have looked at the historical record.
Best,
Mark Millman
Woot Go samurais i place everything on them cept my soul!
Now I could be diplomatic about my views, I could argue for and against and then counter argue, they are equal in their own respective cultures, times, styles and technologies... But what fun is being even handed!? :lol:
KNIGHTS WIN!!1!
KNIGHTS WIN!!1!
| Max Chouinard wrote: | ||
We can theorise that there were Japanese, maybe samurai/ronin in their ranks, even that they knew some kenjutsu (which would have been a very small proportion of their weaponry, if we can suggest they had any type of military training. Plus we have no idea where Bo Gengi had learned Kage ryu techniques, maybe from written material, or sending emmissaries in japan to learn it, but judging by the illustrations, it surely got influenced by Chinese practices) but we have no proof. No written account to say that there was at some point even one samurai or japanese in their ranks or that any of them used typical japanese fighting methods. Given that at the time of the european arrival in Japan the majority of Wako were empoverished Chinese farmers (were talking more than 2/3) we just can't conduct any serious comparaison from such encounters, theyre not representative. We could say that about 13th-15th century raids, but except if they attacked Marco Polo, there weren't much europeans around. |
Well, Max, various authors on the subject disagree with your assertions above.
In Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520-1840, Chris Peers wrote:
A distinctive feature of the wo-k'ou themselves was the Japanese swordplay employed by some of their infantry--both Japanese and Chinese who had learned their methods.
Regarding the national composition of 16th century wokou/wako forces, Stephen Turnbull, in Pirates of the Far East 811-1639, noted:
The official history of the Ming dynasty states that in the great wako raid on China in 1555 'about three in ten were real Japanese, and seven of ten were persons who subordinated themselves to the Japanese.'--math admittedly isn't my best subject, but that sounds like just a little more than two-thirds.
The use of Japanese weapons and techniques by the wako is also evident from the Ming reaction to their raids--in Ancient Chinese Weapons, Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming noted that large, two-handed sabers (Miao dao), became popular in China during the big wako raids of the 16th century. Such large sabers (Miao dao, changdao, etc) were very similar to the no-dachi used by the wako. Chinese sword researcher Thomas Chen has also noted the Japanese influence (via the wako) on the 16th century Ming, on his website here:
http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html
The great Ming general Qi Jiguang was impressed enough with the Japanese weapons and techniques of the wako, to include the use of nodachi-like sabers in his military manual, the Ji Xiao Xin Shu. You can see some illustrations of Ming soldiers using the changdao in the Ji Xiao Xin Shu, on Thomas Chen's site.
We also know about the wako from many period Spanish documents, relating to the Philippines. The Spanish had many clashes with both Japanese and Chinese pirates (and they distinguished between the two, FWIW), from 1574 onwards. The Spanish commented on how the Japanese pirates were well-equipped, and very skilled. So dismissing the Japanese swordfighting element of the 16th century wako seems rather... rash.
I present, exhibit 1:
"The twelfth-century Byzantine princess Anna Komnena wrote that the impact of a group of charging French knights "might rupture the walls of Babylon.""
I present, exhibit 2:
[ Linked Image ]
Paper walls.
I present, exhibit 3:
[ Linked Image ]
Stone walls.
Common sense dictates that Stone > Paper,
thus, Byzantine walls > Japanese walls.
Therefore, French knights > Japanese walls.
The existence of prolonged siege warfare in Japan proves that Japanese knights < Japanese walls.
There fore, French(European) Knights > Japanese knights.
QED.
"The twelfth-century Byzantine princess Anna Komnena wrote that the impact of a group of charging French knights "might rupture the walls of Babylon.""
I present, exhibit 2:
[ Linked Image ]
Paper walls.
I present, exhibit 3:
[ Linked Image ]
Stone walls.
Common sense dictates that Stone > Paper,
thus, Byzantine walls > Japanese walls.
Therefore, French knights > Japanese walls.
The existence of prolonged siege warfare in Japan proves that Japanese knights < Japanese walls.
There fore, French(European) Knights > Japanese knights.
QED.
| Bill Sahigan wrote: |
| I present, exhibit 1:
"The twelfth-century Byzantine princess Anna Komnena wrote that the impact of a group of charging French knights "might rupture the walls of Babylon."" I present, exhibit 2: [ Linked Image ] Paper walls. I present, exhibit 3: [ Linked Image ] Stone walls. Common sense dictates that Stone > Paper, thus, Byzantine walls > Japanese walls. Therefore, French knights > Japanese walls. The existence of prolonged siege warfare in Japan proves that Japanese knights < Japanese walls. There fore, French(European) Knights > Japanese knights. QED. |
Greatest post ever :lol: :lol: :lol:
| Quote: |
| The official history of the Ming dynasty states that in the great wako raid on China in 1555 'about three in ten were real Japanese, and seven of ten were persons who subordinated themselves to the Japanese.'--math admittedly isn't my best subject, but that sounds like just a little more than two-thirds. |
The annals of Jonseon actually specified that Wako, while they were headed by japanese feudal lords, were constituted primarly of japanese farmers and fishermen. So even if there were japanese, and may have been well equiped and trained, but still they were, in most part, not of bushi class (and that was 1395).
| Quote: |
| We also know about the wako from many period Spanish documents, relating to the Philippines. The Spanish had many clashes with both Japanese and Chinese pirates (and they distinguished between the two, FWIW), from 1574 onwards. The Spanish commented on how the Japanese pirates were well-equipped, and very skilled. So dismissing the Japanese swordfighting element of the 16th century wako seems rather... rash. |
Relying on the europeans to tell the difference is not necessarily a good thing, as many "fake" wako actually disguised themselves as japanese and used japanese names, probably to use the reputations the Japanese may have had to their advantage. It seemed to have been a known fact by the japanese, because those fake wako were giving them a bad name. But if we really suppose they were Japanese, then they battled well equiped and well skilled farmer/fishermen ( or even soldiers), we can say that both sides were equally matched.
| Quote: |
| A distinctive feature of the wo-k'ou themselves was the Japanese swordplay employed by some of their infantry--both Japanese and Chinese who had learned their methods. |
I'd like to know where he took that from, were not even sure of the Wako connection. And even then we would be talking about real japanese wako, probably even bushi. Something you don't encouter much in the 16th century.
| Quote: |
| The official history of the Ming dynasty states that in the great wako raid on China in 1555 'about three in ten were real Japanese, and seven of ten were persons who subordinated themselves to the Japanese.'--math admittedly isn't my best subject, but that sounds like just a little more than two-thirds. |
It still shows a preponderance of non japanese, while the others might had been anything but samurai.
Last edited by Max Chouinard on Sat 13 Dec, 2008 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| Stone walls.
Common sense dictates that Stone > Paper, thus, Byzantine walls > Japanese walls. Therefore, French knights > Japanese walls. The existence of prolonged siege warfare in Japan proves that Japanese knights < Japanese walls. There fore, French(European) Knights > Japanese knights. QED. |
That was a joke... right?
| Max Chouinard wrote: | ||
That was a joke... right? |
It was more sensible than most posts on this subject.
| Max Chouinard wrote: | ||
The annals of Jonseon actually specified that Wako, while they were headed by japanese feudal lords, were constituted primarly of japanese farmers and fishermen. So even if there were japanese, and may have been well equiped and trained, but still they were, in most part, not of bushi class (and that was 1395). |
My point is that the 16th century wako were still an example of both Japanese and non-Japanese kenjutsu exponents.
Does that not count for something, in this discussion?
| Quote: | ||
Relying on the europeans to tell the difference is not necessarily a good thing, as many "fake" wako actually disguised themselves as japanese and used japanese names, probably to use the reputations the Japanese may have had to their advantage. It seemed to have been a known fact by the japanese, because those fake wako were giving them a bad name. But if we really suppose they were Japanese, then they battled well equiped and well skilled farmer/fishermen ( or even soldiers), we can say that both sides were equally matched. |
Both sides were well equipped with both firearms (arquebuses), as well as melee weapons (pikes & other polerms, swords, etc). Both sides also had strong naval capability (armed junks, galleons, galleys, etc).
| Quote: | ||
I'd like to know where he took that from, were not even sure of the Wako connection. And even then we would be talking about real japanese wako, probably even bushi. Something you don't encouter much in the 16th century. |
I already mentioned the strong influence that wako swords and swordsmanship had on the Ming. Thomas Chen, Yang Jwing-Ming, and others have noted that. Given that strong kenjutsu element that was apparently there, Chris Peers' claim above doesn't sound all that surprising.
| Quote: | ||
It still shows a preponderance of non japanese, while the others might had been anything but samurai. |
There certainly were samurai and/or ex-samurai in their ranks. In Pirate of the Far East 811-1639, Stephen Turnbull noted that even the Chinese "wako bosses" of the 16th century "hired Japanese swordsmen as private armies, smuggled goods on a grand scale, and developed more overseas bases in Japan."
And, in addition to all the Spanish and English encounters with the wako, we also have the Portuguese fighting plenty of bonafide samurai, during at least one big incident in the early 17th century (I mentioned this earlier as well, but everyone seems to have blown that off, too).
Page 4 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum