Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Yora]

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".

Still, it's stories. I highly offended someone some years back when I commented that some US military honor code is as worthless as the chivalric code or the bushido. Sure, all warrior societies have their shining examples that a large portion aspires to and that almost every member would at least claim to honor. You can't just say "screw the code, I do what I want" and expect to advance in rank or gain comrades you can trust.
And on the other hand, all the exemplary soldiers and the well meaning soldiers will all want to propagate an image of their group that gets them all respect and praise. What about all the deserters, colaborateurs, and rogues? They are just never mentioned because it makes the other soldiers look bad.
Sure, I assume in every army all through history, there were numbers of soldiers who lived to the standards that were held high, but the stories of a few good examples doesn't tell you anything about what everyone else did.

And yes, soldiers are more likely do get killed, but their stories are pretty much the same as those of hunters and athletes. You remember it differently than it happened, and once nobody is left who does actually remember, all everyone cares about is making the story sound good and making the people who tell them also look good.

Also, the formal Bushido was written in 1899, a quarter of a century after the samurai class was abolished, by an agricultural expert and aspiring politician. Of course it was all revisionist propaganda.

[kugelblitz]

What does Deadliest Warriors say about this match-up?

Dunno, I don't tend to use television shows as historical references since I don't watch TV. I do recall a youtube video somewhere showing some noob hitting things with a late period european style pointed sword and a katana. I have wielded both weapons for various reasons (disclaimer - I am a polearm/spear fan) and have witnessed actual real world results from their use and abuse (sadly). Nothing mounted though.

[mcv]

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.

If there's one thing I've learned recently, it's that 1/4 of a second is a very long time during an engagement. As far as I know, the main use of the false edge is to make a very quick counter after (or during) a parry. You can also counter with the long (or true) edge, but that takes slightly more time, which gives the opponent that much more time to parry you. Twisting your sword or doing something else also likely takes a bit of time which your opponent will gladly use to parry you.

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.

This is a good point. From what little I know about Japanese sword fighting (not much, but my sister and brother-in-law are quite good at it), they don't parry much and practically ignore binding. Their defense is: step out of the line of an attack, and counter. The European defense is: step out of line, parry, and counter.

It's quite possible that by ignoring parries and binds, they have no need for a second edge or a cross guard.

[Dienekes]

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.

Most knight deaths in those battles were within very close range to the archer lines. Of course, inevitably if you fire enough arrows eventually something will break through, but that says more about the absolutely terrible positioning of the French knights.

As to the second bit, proof please. I mean could it happen, yeah, but nowhere near reliably. Hell weapons designed to bash or pierce through plate still find it hard to do.

[Hjolnai]

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.

It may not be the best source, but the Wikipedia article on Agincourt suggests that the battle was shaped more by thick mud than by arrows piercing armour. It also mentions that advancing French men at arms would lower their visors and face downward, since the various holes at the front of a helmet are the most vulnerable points in the armour, and that the cavalry were turned back more by inability to charge the archers due to stakes planted there, and their horses were shot where unarmoured.

I'm not denying that arrows could pierce armour, but it wouldn't happen often except when hitting the most vulnerable areas - instead, heavy infantry were killed more easily by trying to fight in melee after marching some distance through mud already churned up by horses, in heavy armour and with their heads held such that breathing was difficult and vision poor.

The sting of repeated arrow impacts would certainly have proven demoralising on top of that, but lethal arrow hits were not the greatest killer of the field (But of course, my understanding is not backed up by extensive research, and I haven't seen numbers on the portion killed by arrows).

[kugelblitz]

Most knight deaths in those battles were within very close range to the archer lines. Of course, inevitably if you fire enough arrows eventually something will break through, but that says more about the absolutely terrible positioning of the French knights.

As to the second bit, proof please. I mean could it happen, yeah, but nowhere near reliably. Hell weapons designed to bash or pierce through plate still find it hard to do.

Gah, my beautiful text was obliterated. Truncated Version.

So what? Close range is still resulting in bodkin points wrecking people in plate, or rendering them less effective for your follow up anti armor stuff (poleaxes, polearms, lochabers, hammers, stillettos and so on). Even the war of the roses had similar effects in battles with less congested terrain. A good general is supposed to make the outcome unfair for the other side.

I don't have anything reliable handy right now for the katana vs plate argument, aside from personal and therefore hearsay-ish stuff. Sooo, I will say that a poleaxe does a fine job of wrecking plate, if you get a good shot in and it is easier than you may think (although helms are really hard to hit square because of all the complex curves. Been there, done that.

Of course, in a battle you have a maneuvering target who really doesn't want to get hit, and h has his buddies along and so forth.

[Roguenewb]

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain?

'Cause in these games, Combat expertise plus rapiers and stuff can defect anything.

[Matthew]

So what? Close range is still resulting in bodkin points wrecking people in plate, or rendering them less effective for your follow up anti armor stuff (poleaxes, polearms, lochabers, hammers, stillettos and so on). Even the war of the roses had similar effects in battles with less congested terrain. A good general is supposed to make the outcome unfair for the other side.

So penetrating armour is a matter of degree. Plate and mail protect to an extent, maybe 99%, I dunno. Sometimes the English long bowmen had a significant impact and in other battles they were overrun because armour protected sufficiently to get in amongst them and the other conditions (terrain, numbers, and such) did not conspire to make arrows decisive.

[Kaeso]

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".

If I'm not mistaken, Hara Kiri was a common practice in Japan because the Bushido had no code about how you should treat prisoners. Chivalry did, and this (combined with the fact that suicide is a big nono in Christianity) explains why knights weren't into stabbing themselves to death when things went awry.

Yes, Richard the Lionheart did "break" this code during the Third Crusade, but that was mostly related to the fact that Saladin was purposely stalling the ransom negotiations to rob Richard of his momentum (and the fact that Saladin had made a habbit out of executing Templars and Hospitallers). The fact that Richard was willing to enter ransom negotiations at all indicates that he took this code seriously.

[kugelblitz]

So penetrating armour is a matter of degree. Plate and mail protect to an extent, maybe 99%, I dunno. Sometimes the English long bowmen had a significant impact and in other battles they were overrun because armour protected sufficiently to get in amongst them and the other conditions (terrain, numbers, and such) did not conspire to make arrows decisive.

Ok, I would point out that I never argued about whether bows were a decisive arm. Only that plate was not arrow proof.

The original comment that caught my interest was that the hypothetical samurai vs knight would wind up with the samurai losing if he did not dismount the knight by slaying his horse. Also, knights were very skilled riders, they know how to dismount under a variety of conditions so that act is not a decisive one.

Regards,

[Spiryt]

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain?

'Cause in these games, Combat expertise plus rapiers and stuff can defect anything.

It certainly does depend on what one means by parrying and blocking...

Because trying to just 'block' the path of something more 'momentous' would probably cause damage to rapier, wrist, or perhaps just fail to block the attack...

But that's generally true to fighting in general, just setting some hard 'block' like movies tend to show generally doesn't have much sense as far as economy of movement and effective defense goes.

Displacing, deflecting at most 'non violent' possible angle, intercepting blade/handle closer to enemy's hands...

Only that plate was not arrow proof.

Hell knows really. But number of actual sources about arrows penetrating plate armour are scarse, and better modern experiments show that it's hard while plate can easily get damaged indeed with hard enough impact, actually injuring the wearer would be rather hard.

Of course there's always bigger bow, and some worse/thinner armor, so some plate/mail was probably pretty damn arrow proof, while others not.

[Roguenewb]

It certainly does depend on what one means by parrying and blocking...

Because trying to just 'block' the path of something more 'momentous' would probably cause damage to rapier, wrist, or perhaps just fail to block the attack...

But that's generally true to fighting in general, just setting some hard 'block' like movies tend to show generally doesn't have much sense as far as economy of movement and effective defense goes.

Displacing, deflecting at most 'non violent' possible angle, intercepting blade/handle closer to enemy's hands...

Let me ask the more generic question then. Can fencing skill be used to effectively protect oneself with a rapier against the weapons I asked about? Can deliberate contact with the rapier blade (blocking/parrying/deflecting whatever) cause attacks that would otherwise hit you to miss? Or, as my common sense suggests, most of rapier-wielding defense against these weapons footwork and agility based?

[eulmanis12]

I'm not saying that a samurai has no chance against a knight, and I wasn't saying that the only chance was unhorsing them, nor was a saying that plate is 100% arrow proof. The scenario I brought up was a one on one fight between two warriors that were A, unlikley to ever fight eachother, and B, if fighting eachother would probably be fighting as part of an army not one on one.

That being said. My points were:
A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

Training would probably be a wash, both warriors would have trained since childhood with their respective weapons.

Arrows can be used to pierce armor but are not Ideally suited for the task, armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

Shields are useful. Samurai do not carry shields while knights might.

My conclusion from this, and I admit that I am not an expert, is that if a knight were to fight a samurai, assuming equal skill, the knight has a roughly 60% chance of victory compared to the Samurai's roughly 40%

[ForzaFiori]

A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

1) not sure about the armor thing. the Samurai armor was very good. I'm not saying that it would be better, but I think it might be close enough to nearly be a wash, especially against swords/arrows. The sharp angles in the armor tend to deflect blows.

2) Samurai carried more than just swords. A Yari could pierce, and a kanabo, jo, or hanbo could crush the armor of a knight.

3) see number two.

Your other points are good, but these three seemed off to me. Samurai used many more weapons than just the katana. It would be like a knight only ever training in the long sword. I can almost promise you that if a weapon was developed somewhere, a very similar one came up everywhere else. nearly culture needed a way to piece armor, attack at range and up close, unseat horsemen, etc. (I will admit that in places like mesoamerica, there weren't pole arms due to no horses, or armor piercing weapons due to no metal armor)

[Spiryt]

Let me ask the more generic question then. Can fencing skill be used to effectively protect oneself with a rapier against the weapons I asked about? Can deliberate contact with the rapier blade (blocking/parrying/deflecting whatever) cause attacks that would otherwise hit you to miss?

It can be used to deflect etc. as mentioned. Maybe someone will localize some period illustrations later.

Or, as my common sense suggests, most of rapier-wielding defense against these weapons footwork and agility based?

Every defense is generally based on agility and footwork.... Even with rather large shield just statically receiving strikes onto it's surface is rather suboptimal.

Ideal options with rapier against some bardiche or claymore would most probably be biding and displacing, while attacking in really the same motion. To take advantage of lesser maneuverability of something with axe motion mechanics.

A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

Well, anything to support it, in general?

Aside from the fact that both plate armor, and, especially, 'Samurai armor' is very broad term.

armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Armor would have been designed to stop stuff like polearms, spear and lanes as well, or probably in particular, as those all kind of polearms would obviously be major threat on the battlefield.

[kugelblitz]

That being said. My points were:
A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

Debatable, but only up to the point where knights are wearing something like Milanese plate or some of the german armors. The transition harness is roughly equivalent and the samuai gear permits better movement.

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

There are warhammers and large axes but broadly speaking you are correct, a knight would have a sword and a pretty good dagger. Maybe a mace.

Training would probably be a wash, both warriors would have trained since childhood with their respective weapons.

Yes.

Arrows can be used to pierce armor but are not Ideally suited for the task, armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Nah, this is a big arms race all the way through history. I would say that armor reduces the damage, or the chances of it happening. There was no perfect armor.

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

Katanas can slash, but they have a very nice, stiff construction and thrust just fine. There are plenty of thrusts used in kenjutsu.

Shields are useful. Samurai do not carry shields while knights might.

Very true. Even your lancer type of mounted samurai did not carry shields.

My conclusion from this, and I admit that I am not an expert, is that if a knight were to fight a samurai, assuming equal skill, the knight has a roughly 60% chance of victory compared to the Samurai's roughly 40%

As an aside, the Mongols did pretty well fighting the europeans depending on which histories you like, and they were slasher and archer types. Also my comment wasn't directed at you it was at Eulman1s12, but this it fun to talk about.

[Dienekes]

1) not sure about the armor thing. the Samurai armor was very good. I'm not saying that it would be better, but I think it might be close enough to nearly be a wash, especially against swords/arrows. The sharp angles in the armor tend to deflect blows.

I don't think anyone would say that samurai armor was bad, I personally think the overdesigned ones look a bit silly and I'm curious how odd feeling the more ornate helmets would be but that's something else. The one bit of evidence we have for how the armor really compares was that when European plate became available in Japan the wealthy immediately bought and used it.

[Hades]

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? [...]

A data point for you: Rapier Parrying Longsword.

Short version: with proper technique and skill, a rapier can indeed parry an attack with a longsword. Unfortunately no video.

[kugelblitz]

I don't think anyone would say that samurai armor was bad, I personally think the overdesigned ones look a bit silly and I'm curious how odd feeling the more ornate helmets would be but that's something else. The one bit of evidence we have for how the armor really compares was that when European plate became available in Japan the wealthy immediately bought and used it.

To a point. The european smiths had ben able to craft bullet resistant breastplates which the japanese hadn't, since muskets were not in common usage. If you look at, umm, the movie Ran some of the nobles are wearing european breastplates and everything else is samurai style armor. Given time, and access to more metals the japanese were able to improve on certain imports. For instance, japanese muskets were arguably superior to the ones that the portuguese, dutch and so forth sold to them.

[Joran]

Back to a gun question. Why is a standing position also known as an "offhand" position?

I was watching Top Shot last night and was thoroughly confused when the shooters were standing and were shooting with their dominant hands. Only when I got to a computer did I realize that "offhand" meant the same as standing.

[Yukitsu]

To a point. The european smiths had ben able to craft bullet resistant breastplates which the japanese hadn't, since muskets were not in common usage. If you look at, umm, the movie Ran some of the nobles are wearing european breastplates and everything else is samurai style armor. Given time, and access to more metals the japanese were able to improve on certain imports. For instance, japanese muskets were arguably superior to the ones that the portuguese, dutch and so forth sold to them.

By the time plate armour was prevalent in Europe, Japanese armies began incorporating mass gun volleys (such as at Sekigahara and the Imjin war) and began reducing armour, instead relying on mass formations and counter volleys. (The formation used during the Imjin war looked practically like a gun line from the 1700s in Europe) The armour the Japanese used during the Genpei war in 1200, such as the O-yoroi armour were considerably heavier and probably closer to bullet resistant than the 1500s Japanese armour.

By contrast however, unlike European knights, Japanese samurai learned how to use matchlocks by the 1600s in mass formations and at the time, were using what was probably a superior firearm. (Old Japanese firearms from the era have iron sights and in some specific cases, thicker, larger barrels for larger charges of powder and thus superior penetration). They likely didn't bulletproof their armour for the same reason armour fell into disfavour by the 1700s, where the mass volley could defeat armour even where full plate could stop a few errant bullets here and there. Probably exacerbated by the sheer size of some of their armies (160,000 matchlocks were sent to Korea alone) and the lack of high quality easily formed iron, focusing on superior offense while stripping back on armour likely made sense at the time.

[Mistral]

Back to a gun question. Why is a standing position also known as an "offhand" position?

I was watching Top Shot last night and was thoroughly confused when the shooters were standing and were shooting with their dominant hands. Only when I got to a computer did I realize that "offhand" meant the same as standing.

My etymology reference suggests that rather than just while standing, it also referred to firing without a rest or other support (whether or not this is still the case for shooting, unfortunately, is beyond my knowledge). The word itself refers to doing something freely or straightaway, usually without prep, as in an offhand comment or action.

[Joran]

My etymology reference suggests that rather than just while standing, it also referred to firing without a rest or other support (whether or not this is still the case for shooting, unfortunately, is beyond my knowledge). The word itself refers to doing something freely or straightaway, usually without prep, as in an offhand comment or action.

That makes a ton of sense, thanks. My gamer mind kicked in and I parsed it as "off-hand", like main hand vs. off-hand in RPG systems.

Is "off-hand" an actual correct term, or do people tend to use terms like "non-dominant" or "weaker" instead.

[Hawkfrost000]

Is "off-hand" an actual correct term, or do people tend to use terms like "non-dominant" or "weaker" instead.

When fencing i tend to use the term off-hand to describe the hand that is not holding my sword, but terms like "secondary", "shield hand", "weak hand" and "non-swordy-hand" are fairly common too.

Dm

[mcv]

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain?

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).

Many RPGs apparently think that since the rapier is considered a fencing weapon (by modern sport fencers; others call longsword fighting also fencing), it must have been good at defense, but that was really the smallsword.

[Raum]

Regarding the Westerner vs samurai issue (which comes up in almost every version of this thread), one of the previous two versions linked to documented cases of duels between Western visitors and local samurai. As I remember, the samurai got the worst of it and the city ended by banning Westerners from carrying swords. Check previous threads for more detail.

[Knaight]

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 think we're talking past each other. What I was saying is that you need some strength to use the center grip shields, but because of the options available* they become easier to use if you have it and as such better. That also appears to be your position.

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).

Silver probably holds the strongest anti-rapier position out of all the notable weapon masters, and I'd take anything he says regarding them with a mountain of salt.

*Actually being able to move your shield downwards, forwards movement to screw with an opponent's weapon's mobility, so on and so forth.

[Brother Oni]

The armour the Japanese used during the Genpei war in 1200, such as the O-yoroi armour were considerably heavier and probably closer to bullet resistant than the 1500s Japanese armour.

Generally yes, but there was a vogue of rich samurai importing or comissioning European style metal armour in the late Sengoku, called tameshi gusoku, literally 'bullet tested' armour, so called because they were sold with a dent in it as proof that it could stop a musket shot (ie they actually fired a musket at it).

Wikipedia has a picture of a chestplate with a clear mark where the round impacted: link.

Regarding the Westerner vs samurai issue (which comes up in almost every version of this thread), one of the previous two versions linked to documented cases of duels between Western visitors and local samurai. As I remember, the samurai got the worst of it and the city ended by banning Westerners from carrying swords. Check previous threads for more detail.

By that point (late Edo period), the samurai as a warrior caste had ossified due to extended peace so the (generally British) sailors with much more practical experience tended to beat the hell out of them.

The fact that the westerners also didn't fight in the way the samurai expected (due to having only practiced against each other) didn't help.

[Galloglaich]

By contrast however, unlike European knights, Japanese samurai learned how to use matchlocks by the 1600s in mass formations and at the time, were using what was probably a superior firearm.

I don't know what any of this is based on. By the 1600's most European knights carried wheellock or flintlock pistols and carbines on their horses with them, and matchlock muskets were ubiquitous among the infantry. The Dutch had invented volley fire in the 1500's and it was widespread by the end of the 16th Century.

As for the scale of battles, during the 30 years war in the first half of the 1600's over a million combattants fought.

(Old Japanese firearms from the era have iron sights and in some specific cases, thicker, larger barrels for larger charges of powder and thus superior penetration). They likely didn't bulletproof their armour for the same reason armour fell into disfavour by the 1700s, where the mass volley could defeat armour even where full plate could stop a few errant bullets here and there. Probably exacerbated by the sheer size of some of their armies (160,000 matchlocks were sent to Korea alone) and the lack of high quality easily formed iron, focusing on superior offense while stripping back on armour likely made sense at the time.

They were actually using an archaic form of matchlock, based on copies of firearms sold to them by the Portuguese in the 16th Century. The penetration of these weapons didn't match European or Ottoman muskets of the same period.

G

[Galloglaich]

A data point for you: Rapier Parrying Longsword.

Short version: with proper technique and skill, a rapier can indeed parry an attack with a longsword. Unfortunately no video.

That can be remedied

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=6r7VWIQCHvM#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKOrFns_ZT8


Also regarding another post:

By the time plate armour was prevalent in Europe, Japanese armies began incorporating mass gun volleys

Plate armor was prevalent in Europe by the late 14th Century. The arquebus was not introduced into Japan (by the Portuguese) until the mid 16th Century.


G