Medival Knight VS Japanese Samauri (sp)

[Hardball]

Two books I would recommend on the samurai off of the top of my head: "Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879" by Noel Perrin, and "Autumn Lightning : The Education of an American Samurai" by Dave Lowry. Lowry's book is actually a memoir of his early education in the art of kenjutsu interspersed with historical tales of the samurai and feudal Japan, but is an excellent book I'd recommend to anyone.

I'll see if I can get it off amazon.com Used. Thanks for the bibliography, It's just what I was looking for.

[47MartialMan]

finally i was right about something!

Mullins

Right about what?

[RYO9]

read back further man.

Mullins

[Hardball]

Hey Mike Brewer,

Paradoxes of Defense and Brief Instructions .................................I've started reading/studying them and I believe it is right up there with the Book of 5 Rings. Seems to be a classic, though some of the 16th century english is hard to understand.

Thanks for making this a quality thread with your bibliography.

[47MartialMan]

read back further man.

Mullins

And......right about what?

[RYO9]

gunpowder being invented in China during the Han Dynasty.

Mullins

[47MartialMan]

gunpowder being invented in China during the Han Dynasty.

Mullins

I see. Who was disputing that it wasnt?

Strabne how China had many advances but lacked something to move forward in technology?. I mean, it only took a little over two centuries to have such modern technology we have, compared to a country that has been around for millineum. (Many other countries the same, but China had a lot of discoveries.)

When I was 13-15, 33+ years before the "Almighy Internet", I had taken a interest in China, Japan, War, and Buddhism. This coming from a average male and martial art interests.

Now, all one has to do is use "Almighy Internet". But caution, just as there is a cornucopia of information, such can be correct or incorrect.

[Hardball]

So far as of this post, 80% of the respondents think the samauri is better trained.

Have you voted yet?

[Tant01]

So far as of this post, 66% of the respondents think the samauri is better trained.

Have you voted yet?

No, but I will now. I have only scratched the surface of world history as it pertains to combat arts but I have good reason to think that European/ western combat was every bit as sophisticated and the battles just as bloody as the so called Samurai... Who trained more? I guess the soldiers of the west.


I vote for Musketeers...

[47MartialMan]

This is absurd.

How can anyone make such a choice?

Die hard martial artists are going to sway to the Samurai.

[HtTKar]

I havent done much research on the Knights, but I have researched Samurai and believe me I was stunned. People today think of the samurai as honorable fellows following a code of high morals. It wasnt really like that according to much of what I've read. In fact the history of Japan was very violent. Samurais were used more like hitmen for organized crime families. The winners of battles pillaged everything they could, that was their reward for victory. With rewards like that, there were always reasons to start wars over anything. It wasnt until the Edo period that Japan started settling down. This is why their was such a cultural and artistic revolution at that time. A great book on samurai
Samurai: An Illustrated History

Another (minor) thing to take into account is the horses the samurai used. While much slower, they were a wild horse and would actually attack other horses and people with bites and kicks. The Samurai preferred these horses to all others for a long time, until they were replaced with faster European horses.

On weapons you have to take into account that Japan is an island and had very little access to iron. Most of their iron was from Okinawa. This may be why their weapons did not progress as much as in other places. Even when they were attacked by the Mongols, and Koreans, the japanese were still fighting back with bows and arrows. Europe on the other hand has many raw materials, enough to experiment with to create new weapons. But Japan did have a lot of weapons that you dont see anymore, usually slight modifications of farming tools.

To answer your question though.
When it comes to the sword, noone was better trained than the samurai. However, samurai were subserviants and had to follow instruction. Knights on the other hand were delegated many of the leadership duties; therefore if I had to pick, I would say the knights were better trained in a multitude of areas, save the sword.

[47MartialMan]

Hmmnnn-interesting

(A) On weapons you have to take into account that Japan is an island and had very little access to iron. Most of their iron was from Okinawa.
Hmmnnn-I dont think I agree with this.


(B) When it comes to the sword, noone was better trained than the samurai.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The era and the environment dictated everything. Knights or Samurai are trained in accordance to their surrounding turmoil. (Though the knights had a hard time with mongolian forces that were lightly armoured in comparison to heavy-slow armour.) If you look on the History Channel about bladed weapons, (I bet there is a video which can be purchased on their website.), there was one that had a guy demostrating European fencing/combat. Very effective.



(C) However, samurai were subserviants and had to follow instruction. Knights on the other hand were delegated many of the leadership duties;
Knights were subserviants also. Knights had to follow instruction. Knight or Samurai delegated duty in accordance to rank.


(D) therefore if I had to pick, I would say the knights were better trained in a multitude of areas, save the sword.
Per (B). It is like stating who was better at armed combat-Western Indians or Western Calvary.

[HtTKar]

Western Indians or Western Calvary.

Western Calvary.
Didn't they almost destroy the western indians?
They had more advanced weaponry, more advanced diseases, and an attitude the western Indians had never experienced.

My vote
Western Calvary

Just kidding

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

Economy
GDP (2004 est.): $4.9 trillion ($3.57 trillion on a purchasing power parity-PPP basis in 2003).
Real growth rate (2004 est.): 2.7%.
Per capita GDP (2004 est.): $38,201 (PPP: $28,100 in 2003).
Natural resources: Negligible mineral resources, fish.
Agriculture: Products--rice, vegetables, fruit, milk, meat, silk.
Industry: Types--machinery and equipment, metals and metal products, textiles, autos, chemicals, electrical and electronic equipment.

Japan has few natural resources, and trade helps it earn the foreign exchange needed to purchase raw materials for its economy.

Deposits of gold, magnesium, and silver meet current industrial demands, but Japan is dependent on foreign sources for many of the minerals essential to modern industry. Iron ore, coke, copper, and bauxite must be imported, as must many forest products.

Great points on B&C; I agree. Thanks

[47MartialMan]

Western Calvary.
Didn't they almost destroy the western indians?
They had more advanced weaponry, more advanced diseases, and an attitude the western Indians had never experienced.

My vote
Western Calvary

No, not speaking of their (Indians) almost total demise, or the causes of it. They (the Indians), did pick up on guns and had learned how to shoot them well, even from moving horses.

I am not speaking of sheer numbers (which caucasians had increasing-or Gen Custer had to go against in one particular battle). I am speaking equal numbers. Or mono en mono.

See, this is what I was talking about. The moment I had posted Indians verses Cowboys, it is assumed that the Indians, being losers, were not battle efficient.

To compare one group of warriors as whom is better, can be chimircal. Each had unique qualifications to do battle in accordance to their environment and social order.

Remains me of some interesting facts and plunders of WWII.

[Hardball]

No, not speaking of their (Indians) almost total demise, or the causes of it. They (the Indians), did pick up on guns and had learned how to shoot them well, even from moving horses.

I am not speaking of sheer numbers (which caucasians had increasing-or Gen Custer had to go against in one particular battle). I am speaking equal numbers. Or mono en mono.

See, this is what I was talking about. The moment I had posted Indians verses Cowboys, it is assumed that the Indians, being losers, were not battle efficient.

To compare one group of warriors as whom is better, can be chimircal. Each had unique qualifications to do battle in accordance to their environment and social order.

Remains me of some interesting facts and plunders of WWII.

Even though the Indians lost; they went down as well respected by "Pale Face" Ever notice how many of our most advanced weapons are named from Indians or Indian Culture.