Medival Knight VS Japanese Samauri (sp)

[Sensei Saki]

Sorry I can't see annything right now. My eye is off.Oh those people.Are you serious? When was this exactly?How do you know? I know a lot of people and pets named Mike.Interesting
reason. "I heard other people use wire base monitors and cameras too" this thread died I have seen several more knight and samauri movies ?
Does that make sense?I have never heard about The Samauri were Bad Bad Boys but the Knights were not Wuss's and the Knights were not to be F$#%@ with.
Try to determine if this is a person or a computer responding.Why? What is your real name?

[MatthewAlphonso]

Did you see the poll results? The people who voted in this poll are experts at martial arts and the history of combat.

No offence intended to anyone but I would hardly call anyone here (myself included) experts at anything except practicing martial arts.

No disrespect intended but the voting was lop sided. I know, Mike Brewer was a dissenting opinion and probably agrees with you.

of course the poll was lopsided, I'm probably the only member of this forum who actually practices the Eastern Martial arts, or at least practices them uncoreographed and at full contact. I'm surprised anyone voted for the knights at all.

Since the time that this thread died, I have seen several more knight and samauri movies. I'd have to say that the Samauri were Bad Bad Boys but the Knights were not Wuss's and the Knights were not to be F$#%@& with.

You should know better than to judge something like that by movies, for one thing movies don't show anything near the protective ability of Feudal era armor, secondly it's usually a bunch of untratined extras shaking swords around and yelling alot.

Either way, you were in for a battle. I think the Samauri had the advantage with their philosphy on practicing but I'd give the edge to the Knight with their Philosopy of being Defensive.

Knights practiced just as much, they were also trained to make their own clothing and stitch their own wounds, they were well practiced. Hell, I think anyone that trained every from the time they were seven until they were twenty was damn well practiced in their art.

Furthermore the idea of the Samurai that we have now have came from the Tokugawa period a long period of relative peace where the Samurai had to find a new place for themselves because they were no longer called to the battlefield. Before that period I doubt if the Samurai were anything more than (for the most part) illiterate , barbaric, killing machines, I'd be willing to wager that the Bushido didn't really come into being until this era either. This is similar to the fact that the European ideal of chivalry did not come into play until the high rennaisance (another period of relative peace) when Feudal Knights had to carve out a new niche for themselves because they were being slowly phased out. Perhaps that skewed the poll results slightly we are only able to argue with what little we know of an ideal.


http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm That links to an excellent essay on what might occur in an encounter between a samurai and a well trained Rapier duelist, more links to European combat info can be found at

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

http://www.arador.com/links/index.html

I wish I had gotten my internet sooner so perhaps I could have contributed more earlier.

[Hardball]

The movies i saw since this thread enlightened me because they were historically based in Scotland and France. Not England. By-the-way, did you read the above manuscript by George Silver--Paradoxes of Defense. You can download them for free. Just do a google search. And also the other manuscript by George Silver, I believe it was called the Summary of paradoxes or something to that effect. You can find it early in the thread.

Did you read this whole entire thread?

[Tant01]

Syluer?

The movies i saw since this thread enlightened me because they were historically based in Scotland and France. Not England. By-the-way, did you read the above manuscript by George Silver--Paradoxes of Defense. You can download them for free. Just do a google search. And also the other manuscript by George Silver, I believe it was called the Summary of paradoxes or something to that effect. You can find it early in the thread.

Did you read this whole entire thread?

This one? http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/brief.html


Brief instructions to his paradoxes...



Nope, never heard of him.

[MatthewAlphonso]

The movies i saw since this thread enlightened me because they were historically based in Scotland and France. Not England. By-the-way, did you read the above manuscript by George Silver--Paradoxes of Defense. You can download them for free. Just do a google search. And also the other manuscript by George Silver, I believe it was called the Summary of paradoxes or something to that effect. You can find it early in the thread.

I fail to see how the historical placement of a movie makes it any better, and I never said anything about England.

Did you read this whole entire thread?

yes, I did.

[Hardball]

Once I remember the name of the two movies, I will post them. I'm only saying that most of the major movies were about the samauri or the Roman gladiators. These two movies made the medival knights look very good and spartan. I mistaking thought knights were strickly British. That's all I'm saying.


P.S. The forumn moderator and the defend community must think we are nuts for discussing this very old thread.

[MatthewAlphonso]

Once I remember the name of the two movies, I will post them. I'm only saying that most of the major movies were about the samauri or the Roman gladiators. These two movies made the medival knights look very good and spartan. I mistaking thought knights were strickly British. That's all I'm saying.

sorry for the misunderstanding. knights were pretty much universal though they weren't only called knights, in Germany they were called landshnects or ritters (if they were mounted) and I can't really think of any others.

P.S. The forumn moderator and the defend community must think we are nuts for discussing this very old thread.

probably, I was hoping more interest could be generated.

[Hardball]

probably, I was hoping more interest could be generated.

The only way you are going to revive this thread and generate more interest is if you Present a new angle with coorborating footnotes and bibliography. As you can see above this topic was thoroughly discussed and documented with some serious bibliographies. That is what made this thread a hit; the bibliograhies that were presented. Do you have new documents? Can you reference your points? Not just the internet but with Books or magazines. What is it that you want to discuss?

What issue was left uncovered?

[MatthewAlphonso]

The only way you are going to revive this thread and generate more interest is if you Present a new angle with coorborating footnotes and bibliography. As you can see above this topic was thoroughly discussed and documented with some serious bibliographies. That is what made this thread a hit; the bibliograhies that were presented. Do you have new documents? Can you reference your points? Not just the internet but with Books or magazines.

unfortunatley my books and magazines went away with the floods brought by hurricane Katrina. The references I did post we essays written by and for feudal era reenactors and also for those hoping to learn more.

What is it that you want to discuss.

Everything, skill alone does not decide battles. For instance I believe that European weapons such as the morning star (a spiked flail) would have had a devastating effect on the Japanese battlefield.

What issue was left uncovered?

No one really argued in favor of the Knight, it was like having a trial but not allowing the defendant to be there or be represented by anyone. Though I was glad not to see any of the, "OH YEAH? well a katana could cut the knights sword in half, keep going and cut his head off!"

And also remember, a fight between a knight and samurai probably would not have been sword to sword. a minority of knights actually had a sword or, if they did, used it in battle. The same goes with Samurai, I'm willing to bet that a smaller percentage of samurai actually owned daisho. the typical English knight probably would have used a pole axe and the samurai probably would have used a naginata. After all, why get too close when you don't have to. Swords in all cultures were weapons of last resort.

[Hardball]

No one really argued in favor of the Knight, it was like having a trial but not allowing the defendant to be there or be represented by anyone.

Go Back an reRead the responses By Mike Brewer. He argued heavily in favor of the Knight.

[Sensei Saki]

Where is that?I get it. argued heavily in favor of the Knight.

[Tant01]

Old threads never die? RIP!

Go Back an reRead the responses By Mike Brewer. He argued heavily in favor of the Knight.

I keep dumping links for folks to visit that actually held my interest and enjoy the discussion they generate. I held my vote for some time in the hope that contributors to the poll might actually read (or try to read) the information I offered. Some of you were familiar with my Man At Arms "Gentleman" George Silver but what of his contemporaries of the Spanish schools that he so detested?


Ahh well, what can we expect? Too many members in Ninja Pajamas to keep it real, eh?


Thanks again to all that put some thought into this interesting topic!

~Raymond G.

[BoarSpear]

No one really argued in favor of the Knight, it was like having a trial but not allowing the defendant to be there or be represented by anyone. Though I was glad not to see any of the, "OH YEAH? well a katana could cut the knights sword in half, keep going and cut his head off!"

HMMM i could have sworn i chimed in with some points to consider in the knights "chances".

[MatthewAlphonso]

HMMM i could have sworn i chimed in with some points to consider in the knights "chances".

That's just one or two, against how many to drown them out?

[Hardball]

That's just one or two, against how many to drown them out?

You still have not produced an intellectual argument in favor of the knights. You did produce one internet link but you have to overcome how glorified the Samauri are. Look at all the hollywood samauri movies{some recent}Look at the books. One of the most famous Samauri who comes to mind is Miyamoto Mushashi. He is a legend, captured in a novel, a movie and the Book of 5 Rings. Miyamoto killed 63 men in duels before he retired to a cave to write the book of 5 rings. Can you produce at least one Knight who is an Icon? If you do a google search for Samauri you will get at least 100 different stories about Japanses Samauri. What intriqued me about the Samauri was the fact that they carried two swords and a dagger. If the Samauri was caught unarmed then he would break out in an ancient form of unarmed combat similar to Ju Jitsu. The Samuauri would rather die with Honor then to go on living in disgrace. Thus, the ritualistic suicide that the Samauri are famous for.

I could help you with your argument for the Knights but I am not. I voted for the Samauri and that is what I am sticking with. You just got to do the research and come up with documentation.