Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Beleriphon]

Thank you kindly. Do they have performance problems if they get wet? Could you shoot a bow out in the rain?

They're functionally a type of plastic so getting polymer strings wet shouldn't be too much of a problem, that said they are still braided so having them coated is better than not. The only thing I wouldn't recommend is extreme cold, and that's only based on what little information I have about the strings since polymers can do weird things in the cold.

Even very old bow strings can be made quite water resistant using waxing methods. That said wax usually works best on things like hemp or linen, the sinew bow strings are the ones that had real issues with moisture no matter what was done.

[Yora]

Well, in this thread, that was my response to a historical survey that lumped "Mongol conquests" from 1200 to 1450 as one conflict. I compared that to lumping in everything from Napoleon on as "European conquests." The exchange is about 1/3rd of the way into this thread.

Off the top of my head, I recall that the peak of WW2 the US fielded 61 divisions in Europe, or about 1.6 million pairs of boots on the ground. The WW2 troop figures should be wikiable.

I am mostly interested in German troop numbers. How much was actually left to surrender?

[Spiryt]

Modern bowstrings are synthetic, dunno what it preferred.

In the old days bowstrings were gut, which would become soft and ruined when wet.

Gut was sometimes used for strings, I guess, but more 'usual' material was flax, or similar fiber, later hemp. In the general 'East' silk was very popular as well.

Generally, despite common opinions, string is not that a big problem when the weather is wet - especially that keeping few spare ones dry is pretty easy.

Bow itself can be bigger problem, even well seasoned selfbows don't really like humidity, and most natural composites don't like it at all....

[Xuc Xac]

A few clarifications and additions...

As for weapons and armour, there are some significant differences between Europe and Japan. In Europe, high quality iron was quite plentiful. In Japan, it was rare. The famous technique for making katanas by folding the iron lots of times was not unknown in Europe, but it was largely unnecessary.

It was used in Europe in the 2nd century, one thousand years before it was used in Japan. They started doing it for the same reason that the Japanese would later use the technique: to make consistent pieces of steel that combined sharpness and toughness. By the 7th century, they were using it for purely decorative purposes (because it makes that cool "Damascus steel" pattern) by layering it on top of superior grades of steel that didn't need the pattern welding technique for structural reasons.

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer.

The katana was never the dominant battlefield weapon of the samurai. The dominant weapon was the bow and the secondary weapon was the spear. For European knights, the spear was primary. For both classes, the sword was an important symbol but not their primary weapon. For the Europeans, the sword fell out of favor and became almost entirely symbolic as other weapons came to dominate. For the Japanese, the sword became a powerful symbol when they stopped fighting all the time and became bureaucrats more than warriors: they couldn't carry bows and spears around all the time when they were off the battlefield, but they could still carry their sidearms everywhere. The katana started to take on its mystique after the samurai stopped fighting as full time soldiers and started sitting around writing poetry about falling cherry blossoms being metaphors for cutting off heads for honor.

Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

Europe kept fighting and eventually replaced their swords with guns and other weapons. Then Victorian "historians" came along and made up all kinds of outright lies about how stupid and barbaric their ancestors were and how swords were dumb and ineffective weapons. In Japan, the samurai glorified the sword during their peaceful periods and continued holding it in high regard as a symbol of their honor and glory. It fell out of favor for a while but was resurrected as a potent piece of propaganda during WWII. While the Europeans were spreading lies about how horrible the swords of their feudal ancestors were, the Japanese were spreading lies about how awesome theirs were. In both cases, the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. The feudal form of fencing survived in sport form in Japan, but the sport fencing in Europe was derived from much later forms (Late Renaissance to early Modern period).

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged.

The katana is one type of Japanese sword. There were other types before the katana came to be the standard form, including straight double-edged designs. Likewise, "European swords" include a vast array of weapons: single-edged, double-edged, straight, and curved. Europe had curved and straight swords in both single- and double-edged types (and even some that were not edged at all, like the estoc or tuck, which were entirely for piercing).

And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice.

Firearms didn't make steel armor obsolete. Firearms came into prominence and steel armor became less and less common for related reasons, but it wasn't a direct cause-effect relationship. Some cavalry sabers were straight and others were curved. The debate about which was the better design actually continued right up until the saber was discontinued as a battlefield weapon in the 20th century. The question was never settled before it became entirely academic.

So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting.
Being straight and double edged also means there are a lot of attacks you can make with a European sword that would be completely alien to a samurai.

Plenty of samurai were killed by thrusts to the throat or armpit with the point of a katana. Being better at slicing doesn't mean that thrusting is out of the question. Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana.

[Joran]

Gut was sometimes used for strings, I guess, but more 'usual' material was flax, or similar fiber, later hemp. In the general 'East' silk was very popular as well.

Generally, despite common opinions, string is not that a big problem when the weather is wet - especially that keeping few spare ones dry is pretty easy.

Bow itself can be bigger problem, even well seasoned selfbows don't really like humidity, and most natural composites don't like it at all....

Ah, good stuff, thank you.

This question was sparked by the Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet), but someone was remarking how the main character didn't seem to care much about keeping her bow dry or caring about weather conditions.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

[Spiryt]

It was used in Europe in the 2nd century, one thousand years before it was used in Japan. They started doing it for the same reason that the Japanese would later use the technique: to make consistent pieces of steel that combined sharpness and toughness. By the 7th century, they were using it for purely decorative purposes (because it makes that cool "Damascus steel" pattern) by layering it on top of superior grades of steel that didn't need the pattern welding technique for structural reasons.

To be exact, processes of tamahagane and most pattern welded blades used in Europe weren't really that similar - even though it looked a bit similar, Japanese process of folding steel many times was mostly process of purifying and refining the steel - to remove the impurities and 'unify' the steel.

So in result, layers of steel generally had the very same properties - although the very fact of existence of layers, their shape etc. most probably had it's effect on structural properties.

But generally layers had similar structures, carbon content etc.

Different steel were then usually used to make different parts of the blade - but that's another story.

Pattern welding, as the name suggests, consisted of welding together different bits of very differing metals, steels of various composition and purity, iron etc.

Partially because smith just didn't have enough homogeneous material, and partially to create blade of more interesting characteristics.

In any way, the very braided patterns in blade usually were indeed braids of slightly different metals.

Pattern welding is generally very broad topic, and were tonnes of different ways and combinations with tempering/annealing etc. but those are basic differences to best of my knowledge.

[Spiryt]

Ah, good stuff, thank you.

This question was sparked by the Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet), but someone was remarking how the main character didn't seem to care much about keeping her bow dry or caring about weather conditions.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

I guess it depends on 'modern bow', I don't really know a lot about those materials, but generally yes....

My fiberglass bow has unoriginal, a bit too short string, so it doesn't work very optimally, and it's also stored 'like that' in the wardrobe...

And it's still pretty much good, fiberglass as artificial material is pretty damn stable, and it lasts.

While wood obviously still 'lives', so extreme temperatures, too much, or not enough humidity etc. will cause it to change it structure, moisture, internal stresses and so on - and screw our bow in results, generally by loss of dynamics, and eventually some more 'critical' failure.

[Brother Oni]

Could I get a pic of that pistol dagger?

I don't have to hand at the moment, but it's not too far off this:

Spoiler

Show

The pommel and guard aren't as ornate, but the flintlock mechanism and bevelled blade are pretty much identical.

One point of note is that as far as I can tell, after firing its single shot, it would have been used primarily as an off hand stabbing weapon as its not very well weighted be used as a main weapon plus the pistol mechanism would get in the way of most slashing actions.

Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana.

From personal experience, it takes about 1/4 of a second to flick your wrist round so your single edged blade can cut with your backstroke. Obviously I can't say whether samurai actually used this technique, but that was what I was taught.

While you can't really strike with the hilt, since you're generally using it two handed, you can deflect a strike and smack someone in the face with the pommel, but that's probably equally possible for western swords.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

Further to Spiryt's reply, with a modern recurve, assuming the string is decently waxed you could shoot all day in the pouring rain and have no issues.

Even off the shelf, modern strings are decently water proofed for a day's shooting, but as soon she starts banging her bow around, you'll increase wear and tear, particularly if the limbs get damaged or dirt gets into the string, performance will tail off and chance of a potentially spectacular malfunction rises.

Compound bows are an entirely different kettle of fish and in my experience, can't be battered around like a modern recurve.

With traditional bows, while the bow itself is fairly durable, a natural string can get ruined fairly easily from various historical records I've read. That said, it's not particularly easy to get an all natural string and from what I've heard about Hunger Games, I doubt they'd go to the effort to get one.

[Straybow]

Plenty of samurai were killed by thrusts to the throat or armpit with the point of a katana. Being better at slicing doesn't mean that thrusting is out of the question. Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana.

The raking cut with the back of the blade was not the real reason for having a double edge. I am certain that in almost any other situation you turn your wrist for proper biomechanical alignment anyway, otherwise if your blow is blocked the sword can easily be knocked from your hand.

Based on that, I'd say that after you've bashed your sword into the other guys' helmets, shields, weapons and armor for a while the blade is all dinged up. You can rotate it in your grip to use the edge that is still sharp.

I'm even more certain that quillons and pommels were not invented for the mordschlag... the way people talk about it you'd think knights routinely drew their swords and immediately gripped the blades to bash each other with the blunt end. I'd love to draw a mock version of some of the classic medieval illustrations with everybody holding their swords that way.

Half-swording was what your did when you had no other choice, hard pressed in the front lines of a pitched battle with no room for the footwork and proper measure that blade use requires. Or what you do when that is the style of fencing one does to defend one's honor.

But that does not void the point. European swords are made for actual engagement, whereas the samurai ideal is the single stroke that masterfully weaves through the opponents mental and physical defense to slice him in half. They don't expect to need protection for the hand should a poorly deflected attack slide down the blade. The tsuba is treated as almost magical protection instead of practical. Whatever magic they attributed to swords, Europeans maintained a very practical approach to use and design.

The crossguard lets you safely block an opponent's attack, in the heat of battle when adrenaline and fatigue erode precision.

[Knaight]

Half-swording was what your did when you had no other choice, hard pressed in the front lines of a pitched battle with no room for the footwork and proper measure that blade use requires. Or what you do when that is the style of fencing one does to defend one's honor.

There are certain situations where half-swording is extremely useful, and is something one does when there are other options, which are just inferior. For instance, it has a lot of utility when it comes to dealing with polearms, and the only place no other choice comes in is in one using a sword to deal with polearms in the first place.

[Spiryt]

Well, no matter how little time, or whatever 'flicking' wrist could take, plenty of manuals explicitly suggests usefulness of false edge strikes.

And huge amount of generally one egded weapons has false edge near the point, even if it's unavoidably has very steep beveled, obtuse edge, it was still apparently considered worth having.

The pommel and guard aren't as ornate, but the flintlock mechanism and bevelled blade are pretty much identical.

One point of note is that as far as I can tell, after firing its single shot, it would have been used primarily as an off hand stabbing weapon as its not very well weighted be used as a main weapon plus the pistol mechanism would get in the way of most slashing actions.

There's metric tonne of stuff like that around the world, although I would guess that even if it was considered practical from time to time, it wasn't any primarily preferred weapon - rather something for self defence in your chambers, or whatever.

In one of the polish museums, can't recall which one, there's fully functional key, that's also fully functional pistol, even though from this reason it's obviously rather flimsy pistol, and rather huge key.

[eulmanis12]

I'd say it all comes down to the horse.

The knight and the samurai both traditionally fought mounted. Fights occurred on foot too, but generally if possible the two warriors preferred horseback.

If a knight were to fight a Samurai it would stand to reason that the fight would be a mounted one.

So here is the scenario.
(switches to announcer voice)

IN THIS CORNER! WEIGHING IN AT, WELL, A LOT ONE FULLY ARMORED KNIGHT.

IN THAT CORNER! WEIGHING IN AT, UH, SLIGHTLY LESS, ONE FULLY ARMORED SAMURAI!

DING DING!

The knight tends to fight hand to hand, as such will probably charge the Samurai, most likely using a lance as his weapon of choice. The Samurai, will also ride towards the knight, as Samurai tended to fire arrows from horses at full gallop towards the enemy.
A knight in full plate armor is nearly invulnerable to arrows. A horse is more vulnerable. If the Samurai is smart, he will aim for the knights horse, kill it, and watch as the knight and horse slam into the ground with an impact that will probably kill, or at least severely injure the knight.
If the Samurai fails to kill the horse, either by missing, or the horse being armored, the knight will most likely kill or unhorse him with the lance.

If neither succeeds in eliminating the other in the initial charge, the fight moves to close quarters hand to hand combat. If both sides wield swords, odds are niether will succeed in hurting the other seriously, unless you can wrestle your oponent to the ground and hold them still for a precision stab in a joint, swords just aren't the right tool for the job. This is where the Samurai runs into problems. Samurai use bows, several variations of sword, and spears on occassion. These are not the ideal weapons for fighting an opponent in place armor at close quarters. The knight on the other hand, could wield a sword, or a mace, or a flail, or any number of other medeval devices designed to punch through armor/ cause blunt force trama through armor, and probably has a shield (which the samurai does not have). I think that unless the Samurai kills the knight before he gets close, the knight has the advantage.



This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

If by knight you are refering to someone who got a title because they did something fancy and non-military the fight would go like this.

Sir Isaac Newton pees self, gets beheaded by Samurai.

[Beleriphon]

Further to Spiryt's reply, with a modern recurve, assuming the string is decently waxed you could shoot all day in the pouring rain and have no issues.

That assumes a fiberglass bow, one that is laminated using fiberglass, another material and then fiberglass can be affected by the weather, but that's more an issue of inconsistent temperature and moisture.

Even off the shelf, modern strings are decently water proofed for a day's shooting, but as soon she starts banging her bow around, you'll increase wear and tear, particularly if the limbs get damaged or dirt gets into the string, performance will tail off and chance of a potentially spectacular malfunction rises.

Compound bows are an entirely different kettle of fish and in my experience, can't be battered around like a modern recurve.

Given what a modern compound bow is made out of they can take a fair bit of abuse to the body and limbs but you need to be really careful with the cams. Those fail and you're taking a face full of high tension cable.

With traditional bows, while the bow itself is fairly durable, a natural string can get ruined fairly easily from various historical records I've read. That said, it's not particularly easy to get an all natural string and from what I've heard about Hunger Games, I doubt they'd go to the effort to get one.

Traditional bows can be affected by rain, but the big issue is non-plant based strings. Hunger Games it really shouldn't be a problem since I'm fairly certain the bow in the move is fiberglass to start with.

That said, composite bows (horn, wood and sinew laminated together) get nasty in wet weather. The belly of the bow (side facing the archer) needs to be able to store energy under compression which is why its typically made of horn, water buffalo for example, while the back (facing towards the thing getting shot) stores energy under tension and is usually made of some kind of wood. The Chinese bowyers like bamboo or mulberry, while the Turks seemed to like maple. In between the wood and horn you've got sinew for added elastic energy.

At any rate, since the bow is made of multiple organic compounds, some of them animal, rain can ruin them. You can shoot in the rain, but you really need to make sure the bow is dried and the proper shape before you use it too much more.

As an aside here, the Japanese yumi will actually deform during use, and from what I can tell this considered a good thing since it bends or flexes in the opposite direction from which it is drawn. I'm not sure about why this is good, but I'd imagine is has something to with the way the bow is traditionally used.

[Knaight]

This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

Why plate? Plate didn't really catch on until near the end of the medieval period, being particularly ubiquitous in the 15th and 16th centuries. Mail, on the other hand, was in use from the outset, with the mail hauberk being knight's equipment up until plate took over. Moreover, knights were significantly more important in the earlier era, as the emergence of professional standing armies, mercenary forces, so on and so forth in the later medieval period did a fairly good job displacing them. Mail seems like it has a significantly better claim as knight's armor as a result.

[Ashtagon]

This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

If by knight you are refering to someone who got a title because they did something fancy and non-military the fight would go like this.

Sir Isaac Newton pees self, gets beheaded by Samurai.

It also assumes we are talking about the martial samurai dudes. If by samurai you mean those big burly blokes who engage in haiku competitions, wear hakama (NOT skirts), and enjoy tea ceremony, then Isaac Newton probably stands a fair chance.

[Autolykos]

From personal experience, it takes about 1/4 of a second to flick your wrist round so your single edged blade can cut with your backstroke. Obviously I can't say whether samurai actually used this technique, but that was what I was taught.

If by "1/4 of a second" you mean "about 250ms" as opposed to "a very short time I don't care to measure", that's more than enough to get you killed or at least put out of the fight.
But IMHO the main advantage of a double-edged sword would be the ability to attack with the false edge while (or shortly after) pressing against the opponent's sword. If you need to turn the blade, you'll get either your hands or your body in a pretty awkward position for at least a short time, and will lack the strength to push the opponents blade away. Having blades stay in contact for some time seems to be more common with European swords than with Japanese ones though (as that's a very dangerous move without crossguards) which would explain why they never saw the need for a second edge.
There are a lot of people in this thread that have way more experience with European and/or Japanese swordfighting than I do (I have some martial arts experience, also with weapons, but don't know these styles), so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Brother Oni]

Given what a modern compound bow is made out of they can take a fair bit of abuse to the body and limbs but you need to be really careful with the cams. Those fail and you're taking a face full of high tension cable.

From Joran's description, it sounds like she's just rough handling her bow, something that a compound is less forgiving of compared to a modern recurve, for your given reasons of the cams.

As an aside here, the Japanese yumi will actually deform during use, and from what I can tell this considered a good thing since it bends or flexes in the opposite direction from which it is drawn. I'm not sure about why this is good, but I'd imagine is has something to with the way the bow is traditionally used.

About all I know of the yumi is the off centred use of it, but if it warps in the opposite direction, I assume it would gives more tension in the bow, much like the principle in a recurve bow.
That said, a variable poundage on a bow would really mess up your draw length, so either the bow deforms consistently, or it 'settles in; after a small period of adaptation to the user.

If by "1/4 of a second" you mean "about 250ms" as opposed to "a very short time I don't care to measure", that's more than enough to get you killed or at least put out of the fight.

The latter is more accurate as it's a bit hard to time yourself performing a very quick two handed technique.

But IMHO the main advantage of a double-edged sword would be the ability to attack with the false edge while (or shortly after) pressing against the opponent's sword. If you need to turn the blade, you'll get either your hands or your body in a pretty awkward position for at least a short time, and will lack the strength to push the opponents blade away. Having blades stay in contact for some time seems to be more common with European swords than with Japanese ones though (as that's a very dangerous move without crossguards) which would explain why they never saw the need for a second edge.

I'm not saying any of this is incorrect as I'm not familiar with western sword techniques - all I'm saying is this was how I was taught.

The other point I'd like to mention is that I was taught to deflect strikes with the flat of the blade, rather than flat out stop it with a parry - presumably this is to retain the sharpness of the katana edge.
This would lead to your observation of blades not staying in contact for very long, particularly in samurai versus samurai duels, where they used the same weapon and styles of fighting.

It would have been interesting to see a mongol duelling a samurai since they have relatively different equipment and fighting techniques.

[Dienekes]

It would have been interesting to see a mongol duelling a samurai since they have relatively different equipment and fighting techniques.

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

[Dead_Jester]

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

If you are referring to the Mongol invasions of Japan during the 13th century (under Kublai Khan), than it probably went more like "Mongols land on Japenese beaches, fight more or less disorganized Japenese forces who haven't had a real fight in half a century, all the while probably bombarding them with early explosive or incendiary grenade-like clay bombs. Then a typhoon comes, and there is no more Mongol fleet."

[Ellye]

How often were shields used as part of an offensive maneuver in a fight? I mean, the typical "shield bash" that is standard in pretty much every RPG nowadays. What type of shield would be more practical for this type of attack?

[Knaight]

How often were shields used as part of an offensive maneuver in a fight? I mean, the typical "shield bash" that is standard in pretty much every RPG nowadays. What type of shield would be more practical for this type of attack?

I'm assuming that by "part of an offensive manuever", you don't mean "blocking so as to open up an opportunity to strike with whatever weapon you have at the same time", as the latter is pretty much default operations. However, what constitutes an offensive maneuver? A shield bash does, but does jamming a shield up into an armpit so as to completely screw mobility? Does twisting the shield around when a weapon is caught in it to throw someone off balance count? So on and so forth. Also, what specific areas and periods should we be looking at?

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

[Beleriphon]

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

I think the idea of the "shield bash" is a specific attempt at injury or even killing your opponent with the shield. I'd assume that using the edge would be the best way to go, probably a strike to the throat if you can manage it.

I don't think anybody would ever be taught to use a shield as a primary offensive weapon, but in a sword and board training regime I can see attacking with the shield when an opening comes up as a valid concept. I figure its more about forcing an opening to make a follow up strike with your actual weapon.

[Brother Oni]

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

I know it happened - as Dead Jester said, the first Mongol invasion of Japan, hence why I said Mongol, rather than European knight.

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

Out of curiousity, how easy are those shields to use? The only shield I've used are kite or round ones, which are generally strapped to the arm or worn with a shoulder strap - I would have thought holding onto the shield would get tiring over time thus making it more likely for you to drop it when you block a sudden hit.

[Knaight]

Out of curiousity, how easy are those shields to use? The only shield I've used are kite or round ones, which are generally strapped to the arm or worn with a shoulder strap - I would have thought holding onto the shield would get tiring over time thus making it more likely for you to drop it when you block a sudden hit.

It depends. I don't have the upper body strength needed to use them well (what is really needed for a spear, my primary weapon, is somewhat lower), and as such can't use them for very long, but I've heard that they are actually easier than strap shields if you have the strength for it. Certainly, the extra mobility is helpful.

[Bouregard]

I am mostly interested in German troop numbers. How much was actually left to surrender?

Took me a while to find those, I can't say how accurate they are:

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

I'd say it all comes down to the horse.

The knight and the samurai both traditionally fought mounted. Fights occurred on foot too, but generally if possible the two warriors preferred horseback.

If a knight were to fight a Samurai it would stand to reason that the fight would be a mounted one.

Quite pointless to compare knights and samura because neither would manage to get to either to japan or europe for the fight.

However if they fight I would say knight wins. Samurais where too much about honor.

[GraaEminense]

It depends. I don't have the upper body strength needed to use them well (what is really needed for a spear, my primary weapon, is somewhat lower), and as such can't use them for very long, but I've heard that they are actually easier than strap shields if you have the strength for it. Certainly, the extra mobility is helpful.

My experience is the opposite: strap-on shields are easier to use and certainly less tiring, but the increased mobility makes center-grip shields better if you have the skills and physical conditioning to use it properly. They are far less forgiving though, partially because the center grip gives you less 'presence' on your shield than the arm-strap and so the shield is easier for an opponent to manipulate -hook, push or simply strike through the block.

I don't know how much it was taught, but based on my experience the shield bash is an excellent if highly situational tactic if a fight comes to such close quarters. It's not so much about hurting your enemy as it is about upsetting his balance, though -if you can control his weapon for a moment but can't get a good strike in, you take a step forward and push with the shield. If his balance is poor or you have superior mass, he may end up on the ground. If you hit him in the nose, all the better of course.

[Xuc Xac]

However if they fight I would say knight wins. Samurais where too much about honor.

Samurai cared as much about honor as the knights cared about chivalry.

Which is "not at all in actual practice, but they liked to write poems about it when they started spending more time off the battlefield than on it".

[eulmanis12]

Samurai cared as much about honor as the knights cared about chivalry.

Which is "not at all in actual practice, but they liked to write poems about it when they started spending more time off the battlefield than on it".

I think you give them (the samurai) too little credit. When talking about honor they tended to put their money where their mouth was. Hara Kiri (Seppuku if you prefer) is hard to dismiss as "just poetry".

[kugelblitz]

I would argue that the the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt may differ on the interpretation that mail and plate would stop a bodkin or in the case of a japanese arrow, a willow leaf point.

Also, a katana, despite being single edged can pierce or dent plate. A skilled swordsman would of course seek to attack perceived weak points, of course.

[Ashtagon]

What does Deadliest Warriors say about this match-up?