|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 8, 2018 21:23:32 GMT
Yes it's me again, AndiTheSuckerForHypotheticalDuelSituations! Another hypothetical duel situation: (Katana vs. longsword is boring, everybody knows who wins ) Mid 18th century. Samurai and aristocrats lost their warfare background and became court drudges. Their swords became dresswords rather than real battle weapons. Battle-tachi changed to katana in modern size. Sideswords or rapiers changed to smallswords. Assume a duel situation between gentlemen/samurai. No armor (...guns, lightsabers, carriers, nukes etc.), both fighters are skilled duellists. The katana is heavier and a mean cutter. But has less reach. The smallsword is faster, a good thruster, lunging gives reach. But it's light, has less momentum and not much cutting ability. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 8, 2018 21:34:00 GMT
Rules matter. Duel to first blood? Advantage: smallsword. Fighting until not being able/willing to continue? The lack of stopping power of the smallsword will matter. Maybe advantage to katana (but with a significant chance that the samurai will die of infection in the next few days).
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 8, 2018 21:35:32 GMT
Poke'm inda eye? I mean a skilled smallsword duellist will see the danger from a heavier cutting weapon. What would he do? And reverse.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 8, 2018 22:28:33 GMT
It isn't like smallsword duellists were happy and willing to be wounded by their opponent's smallsword, and yet it happened a lot, in duels other than to 1st blood. Seeing the danger is one thing, and being able to do something about it is another.
Against a katana, maybe they could try to keep their distance after getting a few hits in, but running away will look bad in a duel.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 8, 2018 22:36:49 GMT
I think the samurai also doesn't want to get a few inches of steel in his chest or head.
The hard thing in this duel - I think - is that there is a low chance to win and survive.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Sept 8, 2018 22:47:24 GMT
I would put even money on this duel. I think it would come down to who got the first hit. I will make the assumption that while both duelists are skilled in their own weapon, they would be unfamiliar with their opponents'. HOWEVER, being a skilled swordsman does not translate into being an EXPERIENCED one. Spending 3 years in a training school learning how to use a specific weapon is not the same as having done that, PLUS spending 3 more years surviving multiple battles fighting for your King and Country.
I would tip my hat to the contestent with the most experience. My thinking is that with experience, they would see an unfamiliar weapon, take caution, wait until they can see a bit about how it works, then devise a strategy to minimize it's effectiveness. A skilled swordsman, but without experience, would perhaps be too confident in his training and rush right into a situation they don't understand and end up paying a terrible price for it.
Again, I would give even money and simply let them fight it out and see who wins.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 8, 2018 22:52:31 GMT
With "skilled" I meant a fighter who can use his own sword and is clever enough to see that his oponnent's weapon is different from his own with pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 8, 2018 23:01:01 GMT
I'd bet on the smallsword with no armor in play. I don't think a katana is suited to defend againt its quick disengages and feints. Besides, despite their size, small swords are viscous swords. They'll rip through you like you're a sheet of paper with those stiff triangular blades.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 8, 2018 23:20:30 GMT
IMHO, a lot depends on whether the European walks into a "sucker nukitsuke" to begin with. Then you have to consider that the samurai might come from a ryu where counters to being poked at with "yari-like-objects" are taught, as well as shinogi/mune based parries and blocks. The indications on my own collection, along with Nakamura's comment (in Spirit of the Sword) about the amount of blades he'd seen messed-up from sparring practice suggests that such counters were better-known than most of the current literature indicates. If the fencer had previously faced heavier single edged blades, he might be expecting a saber attack, which samurai styles emphatically aren't. One last point, having seen and handled historical smallswords at Gun Shows, the samurai might shear the other guy's blade at the cost of a chip or ding in his.
My point (p.i.), is that the samurai might not be at as big a disadvantage as some might assume. I also feel that if the European attempts a prise de fer of any description, he's toast.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 8, 2018 23:44:43 GMT
IMHO, a lot depends on whether the European walks into a "sucker nukitsuke" to begin with. Then you have to consider that the samurai might come from a ryu where counters to being poked at with "yari-like-objects" are taught, as well as shinogi/mune based parries and blocks. The indications on my own collection, along with Nakamura's comment (in Spirit of the Sword) about the amount of blades he'd seen messed-up from sparring practice suggests that such counters were better-known than most of the current literature indicates. If the fencer had previously faced heavier single edged blades, he might be expecting a saber attack, which samurai styles emphatically aren't. One last point, having seen and handled historical smallswords at Gun Shows, the samurai might shear the other guy's blade at the cost of a chip or ding in his. My point (p.i.), is that the samurai might not be at as big a disadvantage as some might assume. I also feel that if the European attempts a prise de fer of any description, he's toast. A number of tests have shown it is highly highly unlikely that one sword can cut through the blade of another. The only way that might happen is if the small sword is braced at two points so it cant roll with the strike, if its user had a firm grip while the tip was embedded in wood for example. Even then the blade breaking from a sword cut is not a likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 8, 2018 23:48:48 GMT
IMHO, a lot depends on whether the European walks into a "sucker nukitsuke" to begin with. Then you have to consider that the samurai might come from a ryu where counters to being poked at with "yari-like-objects" are taught, as well as shinogi/mune based parries and blocks. The indications on my own collection, along with Nakamura's comment (in Spirit of the Sword) about the amount of blades he'd seen messed-up from sparring practice suggests that such counters were better-known than most of the current literature indicates. If the fencer had previously faced heavier single edged blades, he might be expecting a saber attack, which samurai styles emphatically aren't. One last point, having seen and handled historical smallswords at Gun Shows, the samurai might shear the other guy's blade at the cost of a chip or ding in his. My point (p.i.), is that the samurai might not be at as big a disadvantage as some might assume. I also feel that if the European attempts a prise de fer of any description, he's toast.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Sept 9, 2018 0:18:47 GMT
As far as sword vs sword goes I'd have to go with the small sword. Lighter, faster and longer with an emphasis on thrusting definitely would give the advantage to the small sword user. Theres a reason why a whole continent transitioned from broader cut and thrust swords to smaller thinner thrust oriented swords and it wasnt all about being fashionable or with the times, lol.
Problem with the Samurai is they kinda stuck themselves in a rut regarding weapon and military evolution. Sure you could argue that such a rut allowed them to perfect the art of their swordsmanship but still theres a reason the rest of the world moved on from their medieval weaponry and transitioned to newer and more evolved weapon types.
I mean in regards to Japan think if say the British Isles rather than evolving with the rest of Europe up to the 19th century, stayed locked in their 14th century way of life and warfare. It'd be pretty odd seeing full plated knights charging into battle with arming swords and lances against a unit of French Dragoons with rifles and sabers.
Even though its been romanticized in Japanese culture and films, the best thing the Emperor did was modernise Japan and get rid of the Samurai.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 9, 2018 0:24:17 GMT
IMHO, a lot depends on whether the European walks into a "sucker nukitsuke" to begin with. Then you have to consider that the samurai might come from a ryu where counters to being poked at with "yari-like-objects" are taught, as well as shinogi/mune based parries and blocks. The indications on my own collection, along with Nakamura's comment (in Spirit of the Sword) about the amount of blades he'd seen messed-up from sparring practice suggests that such counters were better-known than most of the current literature indicates. If the fencer had previously faced heavier single edged blades, he might be expecting a saber attack, which samurai styles emphatically aren't. One last point, having seen and handled historical smallswords at Gun Shows, the samurai might shear the other guy's blade at the cost of a chip or ding in his. My point (p.i.), is that the samurai might not be at as big a disadvantage as some might assume. I also feel that if the European attempts a prise de fer of any description, he's toast. I didn't say break,............ Also, the blades I'd seen weren't that hard or springy. Maybe, maybe not. We'd for sure find out in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Sept 9, 2018 0:41:06 GMT
As far as sword vs sword goes I'd have to go with the small sword. Lighter, faster and longer with an emphasis on thrusting definitely would give the advantage to the small sword user. Theres a reason why a whole continent transitioned from broader cut and thrust swords to smaller thinner thrust oriented swords and it wasnt all about being fashionable or with the times, lol. Problem with the Samurai is they kinda stuck themselves in a rut regarding weapon and military evolution. Sure you could argue that such a rut allowed them to perfect the art of their swordsmanship but still theres a reason the rest of the world moved on from their medieval weaponry and transitioned to newer and more evolved weapon types. I mean in regards to Japan think if say the British Isles rather than evolving with the rest of Europe up to the 19th century, stayed locked in their 14th century way of life and warfare. It'd be pretty odd seeing full plated knights charging into battle with arming swords and lances against a unit of French Dragoons with rifles and sabers. Even though its been romanticized in Japanese culture and films, the best thing the Emperor did was modernise Japan and get rid of the Samurai. I agree. The Japanese perfected the art of war against other Japanese due to their isolationist mentallity, while the Europeans perfected the art of war against pretty much anybody they could find. This can clearly be seen in the development differences in arms and armor over a 4 or 500 year period in which the Japanese stagnated, the Europeans innovated. But in a duel scenario? Hard to say. I think it would still come down to which fighter was smarter or more experienced rather than a simple mechanical weapon vs. weapon comparison. Yes, the small sword is tops when it comes to thrusting vs. the kat, but Samurai were known for lighting quick strikes that usually left an arm laying on the ground. When the katana strikes, it strikes hard and devastating. It would be an interesting match-up. I might even pay money to see that....
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 9, 2018 0:44:22 GMT
I mean in regards to Japan think if say the British Isles rather than evolving with the rest of Europe up to the 19th century, stayed locked in their 14th century way of life and warfare. It'd be pretty odd seeing full plated knights charging into battle with arming swords and lances against a unit of French Dragoons with rifles and sabers. Even though its been romanticized in Japanese culture and films, the best thing the Emperor did was modernise Japan and get rid of the Samurai. Would the French still be charging into massed archery, through mud?
No question that the Meiji modernization saved Japan from being colonized, though it also created State Shinto, which gave rise to the bushido mythology.
Romance and myth has nothing to do with the questions I raised.
|
|
|
Post by mattjohn98 on Sept 9, 2018 0:46:55 GMT
I personally think the katana wielder has a higher chance of winning. Yes the small sword is a little longer, but the length difference is not big enough to make a huge impact. If it was a rapier then there would be no question (Katana would lose) but with small sword, no.
The katanas cutting ability makes it more versatile compared to the small sword which can only thrust.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 9, 2018 0:58:06 GMT
I personally think the katana wielder has a higher chance of winning. Yes the small sword is a little longer, but the length difference is not big enough to make a huge impact. If it was a rapier then there would be no question (Katana would lose) but with small sword, no. The katanas cutting ability makes it more versatile compared to the small sword which can only thrust. I definitely agree if you mean the heavier Renaissance rapier. Part of my original post was meant to imply that the smallswords I'd seen were crummy. IMHO, If the Spanish of Cortez and Pizarro's time had decided they wanted Japan, there'd be a lot of people in the Far East rolling their sushi in tortillas today.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Sept 9, 2018 1:34:49 GMT
As far as sword vs sword goes I'd have to go with the small sword. Lighter, faster and longer with an emphasis on thrusting definitely would give the advantage to the small sword user. Theres a reason why a whole continent transitioned from broader cut and thrust swords to smaller thinner thrust oriented swords and it wasnt all about being fashionable or with the times, lol. Problem with the Samurai is they kinda stuck themselves in a rut regarding weapon and military evolution. Sure you could argue that such a rut allowed them to perfect the art of their swordsmanship but still theres a reason the rest of the world moved on from their medieval weaponry and transitioned to newer and more evolved weapon types. I mean in regards to Japan think if say the British Isles rather than evolving with the rest of Europe up to the 19th century, stayed locked in their 14th century way of life and warfare. It'd be pretty odd seeing full plated knights charging into battle with arming swords and lances against a unit of French Dragoons with rifles and sabers. Even though its been romanticized in Japanese culture and films, the best thing the Emperor did was modernise Japan and get rid of the Samurai. I agree. The Japanese perfected the art of war against other Japanese due to their isolationist mentallity, while the Europeans perfected the art of war against pretty much anybody they could find. This can clearly be seen in the development differences in arms and armor over a 4 or 500 year period in which the Japanese stagnated, the Europeans innovated. But in a duel scenario? Hard to say. I think it would still come down to which fighter was smarter or more experienced rather than a simple mechanical weapon vs. weapon comparison. Yes, the small sword is tops when it comes to thrusting vs. the kat, but Samurai were known for lighting quick strikes that usually left an arm laying on the ground. When the katana strikes, it strikes hard and devastating. It would be an interesting match-up. I might even pay money to see that.... Do I have a movie for you! LOL!
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 9, 2018 2:57:30 GMT
Going back to “Swordsmen of the British Empire” when a sword bearing English sailor tangled with a katana wheeling Japanese the Brit generally lost. That frequently applied to a pistol carrying sailor, but the pistol evened the odds somewhat. Granted the sailor wasn’t armed with a short sword nor was familiar with its use. From other accounts in the book sailors with their cutlasses were a formidable opponent. I don’t know if the Japanese were samurais or just katana wheeling Japanese with some experience. I point this out to that the katana against western swords weren’t as one sided as some people believe from what I’ve read here. Thinking on it I don’t remember small swords being mention in any combat experience in the book, but I may have overlooked something.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by Scott on Sept 9, 2018 3:22:51 GMT
From memory neither Japanese not European swordsman had any clear advantage, which was in the late 19th century from the accounts I've seen. Personally I'd say smallsword would win if it was to first blood, katana if it was who dies first.
|
|