[One Axe to Rule them All]

nad to deal with the knight vs. samurai thing, here is an article i found a while ago

The Medieval European Knight vs.
The Feudal Japanese Samurai

John Clements

From time to time it is interesting to ponder the outcome of an encounter between two of histories most formidable and highly skilled warriors: the medieval European knight and the feudal Japanese samurai. The thought of "who would win" in an actual fight between these martial experts of such dissimilar methods is intriguing. But who would emerge victorious or who was historically the better fighter is a question occasionally raised, but it is really a moot question. In the case of comparing a knight to a samurai, each warrior used armor, weapons, and methods oriented towards the particular opponents of their day and age. Therefore, neither can be looked upon as being universally more effective under all conditions against all manner of opponent. In one sense, it is like asking who are better soldiers, jungle fighters or ski troops. It depends upon the situation and the environment. Still, it's interesting to consider. Having some small experience in the methods and weaponry of each as well as cross-training opportunities, I offer my humble thoughts.

First of all, if we are supposing a clash between two "typical warriors", we must asked exactly what will be considered typical? The samurai of 1200 and the knights of 1100 were roughly evenly matched in equipment. But the same comparative warriors during the 1400's for instance, were quite dissimilar. Each of the two historical warriors in question did fight with equivalent technologies, under fairly similar climates and terrain, and for similar reasons. But, it's difficult to think in terms of a "generic" medieval knight or a "standard" samurai warrior. With respect to a European knight, it's not easy to choose what nationality, and what type of warrior from which portion of the overall Middle Ages. With the samurai though, we are dealing with a single, homogenous culture and one in which historical martial traditions have survived fairly intact. Thus we have a much better idea of the average samurai's training and ability through the centuries. We also have very active modern proponents to serve as examples.

Are we assuming the knight will be a mail clad Norman with sword and kite shield from circa 1200? An English or French chevalier of 1350 in partial plate with arming sword? Or will it be a Teutonic knight of circa 1400 in a full head-to-toe suit of articulated plate armor with bastard sword? Will the samurai be wearing the older box-like Muromachi armor and armed with a tachi blade? Or will he wear the later Kamakura close fitting do-maru armor and use the more familiar katana? These are significant matters that get at the heart of why such a question as who would win or who is the "better" fighter really is unanswerable. Of course, for the sake of engaging discourse let us hypothesize just what would happen if these two comparable individuals, each highly trained in the respective fighting skills of their age, were to meet on the battlefield in single combat to the death (!). As an amusing historical diversion we can at least make an educated guess to what would possibly be some of the key decisive elements of such an encounter.

We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, and courage, are fairly consistent between such professional warriors. Assuming we can somehow control for these attributes, we could match combatants with some equality. It would not be unrealistic to believe on a whole that neither was decisively stronger or faster (or significantly larger) than the other. If must be stated however, that we do know more about the training and skills of samurai than we do of their European counterparts.

Since conditions could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an imaginary encounter would best take place on a flat, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver. Interestingly, the same climate and weather for each would be just about right. It would also be conducive to have the fight occur dismounted, on foot and without use of missile weapons. The ability of each to read or size up their opponent and the threat posed would be an important consideration. Are both to be briefed on the nature of their opponent and his armaments, or will the encounter be a blind one in which neither knows anything about the adversary? We might want to just assume that each of our ideal combatants has been briefed on the other and so is therefore mentally prepared and composed.

We cannot overlook the role that cultural might play in this contest. We must consider what effect might be played by the quality of fatalism within the samurai code of bushido, or rather the resolute acceptance of death that motivated the fiercest samurai. But then, we cannot overlook the quality of piety and faith that could motivate a Knight to great feats, or of the ideals of chivalry that he might uphold to death. It's possible a medieval European Knight would have a certain disdain and scorn for his foreign, "pagan" adversary as Europeans did towards Arabs during the Crusades. Of course, the Japanese warrior's well known attitude of invincibility and readiness to die could equally make him vulnerable to an unfamiliar foe. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent can be a disastrous combination. Of course, fighting spirit alone is insufficient. These are surely intangibles that cannot be measured with any reliability. These and other non-quantifiable, psychological factors aside, we are left with weapons, armor, and training.

It is a myth that every individual Japanese samurai was himself an expert swordsman (no more true than every wild West cowboy was an expert gunfighter). But for sake of discussion, let us assume so in this case. For the samurai, the sword was one of three major weapons, along with the bow and the yari (spear). In major battles, the sword was typically wielded in two-hands and a suit of armor worn. The better Japanese armor was constructed of overlapping lacquered metal scales tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It was intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and was well-designed to absorb and lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of Japanese swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement.

Medieval European armor was designed more to deflect strikes and absorb blows. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of mail ("chainmail") that could absorb cuts and slices, to padded coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons. Complete suits of fully articulated plate armor were difficult or impossible to cut through. They were just invulnerable to sword cuts -even it can be surmised, those of the exceptional katana. Plate armor required different weapons to effectively penetrate or defeat it. Plate-armor was also well-suited for fighting in and is far from the lumbering, awkward cliché' presented by Hollywood. It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. There is a certain truth to this, but it's a simplistic view.

As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting metal. However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques to stab and thrust at armor as well as attack the gaps and joints. The katana is also wielded in a quick flowing manner with a torque of the grip as well as a push of the hips. Pulling the blade in this way makes it slice as it shears.

We must also consider then whether the knight will be equipped in the standard shield & sword style or will use only a single long-sword. A knight's sword was typically a one-handed weapon intended specifically for use with a shield. Their blades are wide and fairly thin, with chisel-like edges intentionally designed for cutting through mail armor and deep into flesh and bone with a quick, forceful blow. They were light, agile, and stiff, yet very flexible. They too varied with time from the wider, flatter kind to the rigid, tapering, and sharply pointed well suited for both plate and laminated armor. The medieval style of sword & shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval swords are properly wielded with more of a throw of the arm and a twist of the hips while making passing steps forward or back. There is generally more blade-on-blade contact and the hilt is used for a greater number of offensive and defensive techniques. A sword & shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword & shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks. So, if armed with a shield, will the knight employ a center-gripped type with front umbo or one worn by enarme straps? Will the shield be the highly effective "kite" shape with its superb defense or one of the smaller, more maneuverable convex "heater" styles?

Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword & shield combination will have a hard time. It is not used the way it's typically shown in theatrical stage-combat or the SCA. Fighting against a medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques. But thinking they could simply cleave through a stout medieval shield is absurd. Eve n with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through.

Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, but they highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason.

Although the medieval sword & shield combination was fairly common, longer blades useable in two hands came into use from about 1250 to 1525. When we talk about medieval European long-swords or war-swords (or even great-swords), we are not dealing with a single uniform style. There were wide, flat blades with parallel edges well suited to powerful cuts. Later swords specifically designed for facing heavier armor had narrower, much more rigid diamond or hexagonal shaped blades tapering to acute points. They were used to whack and bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents.

The difference between these two blade forms is significant and once more underscores the distinction between the manner of using a katana and a mediaeval sword. The tapering blade form has a different center of balance and is often a lighter blade. Its point of percussion is located farther down the blade and its slender, sharp point is capable of making quick, accurate, and strong thrusts. The earlier form can make a somewhat greater variety of strikes and delivers more effective cuts overall. But the later is more agile and easier to guard and parry with. It can also more easily employ its versatile hilt in binding, trapping, and striking. It's proper techniques and style of use is rarely depicted with any accuracy in movies and stage performance fights. Almost never is its proper or historical usage shown with its tighter movements, various thrusts, and infighting with the hilt.

It can be difficult for those not familiar with the nature of a medieval longsword to understand its true manner of use, since the general public as well as martial artists of Asian styles are far more familiar with the katana's style. So, if we match a knight with a long-sword against the katana armed samurai this can make a significant difference. But, we must not fall into the mistake of judging the medieval long-sword in terms of what we know about classical Japanese kenjutsu. It is a mistake to think the straight, double-edged medieval sword with cruciform-hilt is handled like a curved katana. While there are certainly similarities and universal commonalties between two styles of swordsmanship the (such as in stances and cuts), there are also significant and fundamental differences. In contrast to the slicing slash of a curved, single-edged, Japanese katana, medieval swords were made for hacking, shearing cuts delivered primarily from the elbow and shoulder. It strikes more with a point-of-percussion on the first 6-8 inches of blade. It has two edges to work with and can "back-edge" cut or reverse upwards). If we bring into the equation the bastard-sword with compound-hilt and half-handle using the fingering method of grip, this could also be a significant factor. Such hilts allow for a variety of one or two-hand gripping options and gives superior tip control for thrusting.

Even though Japanese armor for the most part was made up of the same quality steel as went into their weapons, European blades would likely not encounter anything especially difficult with it that they didn't already face. Medieval blades themselves could be excellent swords. European blades are often denigrated as mere crude hunks of iron while samurai swords are venerated and exalted sometimes to the point of absurdity by collectors and enthusiasts (something the Japanese themselves do little to curb). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth.

Thus, as our hypothetical fight ensued, any number of things might happen. In the course of striking at one another, a chance blow by either side could possibly end the fight. The katana may or may not be able to make a lethal or incapacitating cut (something difficult to do against plate armor, let alone a shield). But the knight, unfamiliar with the movements of Kenjutsu, may throw out a strike that makes him vulnerable to a well-timed counter-attack. Of course, the samurai might also underestimate the power of the medieval sword's hacking blows against his own armor. The long-sword can have more reach and has a versatile hilt, but the katana is a faster weapon. Despite its reach though, there are numerous techniques for infighting using the long-sword's guard. But then the katana is very good at close-in slices and draw-cuts, which a straight blade cannot effectively do well. Of course, against, good armor such actions can be negligible.

It could be justifiably argued that the samurai by nature could have a tactical advantage in attitude and fortitude as a result of the psychological elements of his training and fighting methods. He is well known to have integrated unarmed techniques into his repertoire as well as having a keen sense of an opponents strengths and weaknesses. Still, much of this is intangible and subjective. Besides, although not generally known, it is well documented from medieval Italian and German fighting manuals that European knights and men-at-arms fully integrated grappling, wrestling, and disarming techniques into their fighting skills. There is no evidence to the myth that medieval martial culture was any less sophisticated or highly develop than its Asian counterparts, its tradition only fell out of use with the social and technological changes brought about by firearms and cannon.

While it is known that the average samurai had a large inventory of unarmed fighting techniques at his disposal, these too would be unlikely to play a part against a shield wielding warrior or one in full plate armor. With out the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full plate armor with mail might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. If we there fore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say mail and partial plate for the knight as used about 1250 AD, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry a
thick, armor-piercing dagger of his own which would have been quite useful. Some could suggest that the samurai was simply a better swordsman and more tenacious warrior and would likely out-fight his European counterpart. Others could say no way and that a skilled knight in armor using the sword & shield combination would be invulnerable and brutally overpowering. Still others
could argue that such over-generalized statements as either of these are unprovable conjecture. There are so many elements to address and practitioners who are experienced in one form of art sword and not another will tend to favor what they're familiar with. It is rare to find individuals with a deep grasp of the attributes of each method and the arms involved.

While there is today an active subculture promoting and preserving historical Japanese bujutsu (war skills) or practicing modern budo and a great deal is also known about their practice, the equivalent can not yet be said for "lost" medieval fighting arts. Medieval sword fighting is often viewed as a wholly subjective matter either consisting of merely brute force and ferocity, or
else incapable of reasoned analysis and discernable principles. Both are equally inaccurate. It is sad when leading fencing maestros (experienced only with light foils, epees, and sabers) will issue naïve, unschooled statements about how "medieval swords weighed 10 pounds" or could only be used for "clumsy bashing and chopping". There is a definite prejudice that the modern refined fencing sport is "superior" to earlier, more brutal methods. Without going into the history of warfare, it's important to state it is a myth that fighting in medieval Europe was entirely crude, cumbersome, and never a science. It may perhaps be true that only in a cultural context it cannot compare to the systematized traditions of feudal Japanese sword arts. However, there is sufficient evidence surviving that when paired with contemporary research has given us a much better under-standing of the function and use of medieval European arms and armors to confirm that they were highly effective and dynamic skills.

Those who think the medieval sword & shield was and is just a "wham-bam, whack-whack" fight are greatly misinformed. Those who think the use of medieval long-sword merely involves a brutish hacking are also under a tremendous delusion. It is a mystery how such beliefs can be held independently of those who today assiduously study and train in the subject as a true martial art, and spend years in practice with the actual weapons. Perhaps this ignorance is due to watching too many movies or the influence of fantasy-historical societies with their costumed role-playing.

Considering the many issues brought out in describing the modern replication of medieval fighting skills, contrasting them with the practice of Asian martial arts is a legitimate area of speculation. If we had a time machine and for depraved research wanted to go back, grab a hundred random medieval knights and an equal number of samurai and throw them at each other, we might be able to come up some statistical averages (and some serious ethical problems, as well). In one sense we are talking about very different approaches to armed combat in this comparison. But, then again its all the same when reduced to two armed combatants fighting each other antagonistic combat.

As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a hypothetical question as who could defeat whom. The fight cannot be reduced to any generalized statements about who had the overall historical advantage in skill or who had the superior array of arms & armor. It is an interesting comparison to ponder objectively. All we can do is give an opinion of questionable value. Keeping in mind that live demonstrations speak louder than any words, hopefully this writing has cleared away some of the prejudice on behalf of both Kenjutsu students and Medievalists. I personally give only limited credit to occasions of cross-sparring by modern students of each respective art, as they seldom can meet under mutually agreeable or equally advantageous conditions for very long. Personally, while I admire the techniques and principles of Kenjutsu as being generally highly effective (but not specifically its modern methods of instruction), I cannot disregard the proven efficacy of the sword & shield method combined with superior European armor. Nor can I ignore the difficulty it offers the single sword. But a fine katana can be a truly awesome sword. However, the quality and utility of European blades is typically and erroneously denigrated and dismissed. Also, my own understanding of the German and Italian long-sword and great sword methods of fence gives be considerable doubt that a knight would encounter anything too unfamiliar. In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable ... but would be an awesome experiment. Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter -- or at least the luckier one.