# European Knight vs Asian Samurai



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

Its time for something other than airplanes:

This is a much debated match-up, with essentially the same amount of people voting for each to emerge the victor, there being lots of biased opinions out there from people using the equipment of both combatants. 

So who do think would emerge victorious in a clash between these two ancient icon's ? 

*The European Knight:*






*The Asian Sumarai:*


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

European Knight=well armored=heavier....
Samurai=not as well armored=lighter....
European Knight's sword=heavy with a good punch, double edged....
Samurai's sword=light and single edged....
Depends on who's got the most stamina to fight on I guess. Both probably need to get in a lucky strike.

I think that they both give up after a while, call a truth and head down to local waterhole for a few pints....


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

If the knight had his trusty steed..he'd win hands down. But he'd would have one hell of a fight dismounted


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 20, 2007)

Hmm, I reakon the Samurai because of his speed and mobility.


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 20, 2007)

I'd say the European Knight, only because of the amount of armour he's wearing. If the armour was even, then definetley the Samurai, hands down. That Samurai sword can do some damage


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2007)

The samurai with his speed and training, as well as his finer tuned sword and expert bow and arrow, would make short work out of the knight...


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

I haven't yet decided, they're both awesome warriors, however I'd like to dispell the myth's some of you guys have brought forth;

1: Contrary to popular belief medieval armour wasn't at all heavy, not even full plated armour, most were light and they were all very flexible providing no restriction to movement at all, allowing complete agility in combat. A full plate medieval armor suit typically weighed no-more than 35 - 40 pounds. 

2: The Katana was no light sword, it was infact quite heavy for its size, the two-handed European Great-sword weighing less than 4 pounds more than the Katana. The European single or 1½ handed sword being lighter than both. And despite what many people believe the swords were of equal quality, the Katana was however meant for cutting and slicing while the European sword was meant for striking, cutting and thrusting - the real difference being that the European sword can take more abuse as they were meant for striking against armour, on the other hand the Katana's very hard and sharp edge would be damaged upon impact with the european plate armour.

3. Medieval European Martial-arts were everybit as evolved as that of the Japanese Samurai, however it focused much less on the mental part and more on the physical.

So considering that the European knight is wearing full body armour and can carry either a Great-sword or a single to 1½ handed sword coupled with a shield, and his sword is lighter and has two edges which means he can do more swift and complex moves, and he's just as agile - I must admit I'm starting to lean toward the European knight...

Of interest is also the fact that original medieval european armour has been measured to have been made for individuals of 6ft in height with a small waist and broad shoulders, while on the other hand Japanese Samurai suits are measured to be made for individuals of 5.5ft in height with rather broad waists. This indicates that the average European knight was a big guy compared to the average Samurai, which besides having an effect on the fear-factor (Although I seriously doubt the fanatical Samurai let much scare them) also affects the strength factor which nonetheless is of some importance.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

Finally here's some very informative stuff I really recommend reading, written by an expert on the subject of swords and swordfighting John Clements:

_"*The Samurai’s Sword*

In major battles among each warrior, a suit of armor was typically worn and a sword wielded in one or two-hands. For the knight, the primary weapons had always been the long lance and the sword, and to a lesser degree the polaxe, dagger, and mace. The sword was always the foundational weapon of a Knight’s fencing training. For the samurai however, the sword was but one of three major weapons along with the bow and arrow and the yari (thrusting spear). We should consider that, despite their later acquired reputation for swordsmanship, the samurai’s primary weapon was, in fact, not the sword. The sword really did not even become a premier weapon of samurai culture and reach its cult status until the mid to late 17th century when the civil warring period ended. It is something of a myth that every individual Japanese samurai was himself an expert swordsman (no more true than every wild West cowboy was an expert gunfighter). After all, the expression so associated with bushido is "the Way of the horse and bow", not "the Way of the sword." Besides, unlike knightly chivalric tales and combat accounts, the majority of single combats between samurai described in feudal Japanese literature took place with daggers not swords. But for sake of discussion, let us assume such for both fighters in this imaginary case. 

As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (–but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword 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 not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. The primary technique for fighting nearly any kind of armor with most any kind of sword is not to cut but to thrust at the gaps and joints.

Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the “ultimate sword” some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana’s exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be. 

The katana’s design was not set in stone. It was changed and altered over the centuries like any other sword, being slowly improved or adapted to the different needs and tastes of their users in terms of cross section, curvature, and length. In the 13th century for instance, their points had to be redesigned because they were prone to snapping against the metal reinforced "studded" leather armor (essentially equivalent to European brigandine or armor) of the Mongols and Chinese. By the 18th century their blades, no longer used earnestly against armor, tended to be made longer, lighter, and thinner for classroom practicing.

True, the Japanese feudal warrior did have their own form of greatsword in the long no dachi blades, these however were employed specifically by lower ranking foot-soldiers against horses (and presumably, on occasion against pikes). So, we cannot draw an equivalency between these and Medieval greatswords used in knightly fencing arts or to the true two-handers of 16th century European battlefields.

Over all the katana was a very well-rounded design: excellent at cutting and slicing, yet good at thrusting, and suitable for armored or unarmored fighting on foot or horseback, either one or two-handed. It was a carefully crafted and beautiful weapon reflecting generations of artistry and fearsome necessity, but it was still only a sword –a man-made tool of well-tempered and expertly polished metal. Though the details of manufacture differed, they were made by the same fundamental scientific processes of heating and hand-working metal by shaping and grinding as were other fine swords around the world throughout history. Regardless of how they are designed or constructed, all swords have the same goals and perform the same functions: that of guarding against attacks while delivering their own lethal blows.
"_


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

_"*The Knight’s Swords* 

Having equipped our samurai, we must turn to the sword to be used by our knightly combatant. It must be understood there was such a great diversity of knightly swords and armor types. European swords were, in a sense, always specialized rather than generalized designs: there were ones for foot combat, ones for horseback, single and double-hand ones, straight and curved ones, ones for armored and for unarmored fighting, ones for tournaments, ones for civilian duelling, ones ideal just for thrusting or for cutting only, and ones only for training. 

A knight’s arming sword was typically a one-handed weapon originally (but not always) intended specifically for use with a shield. Their blades are wide and fairly thin and rigid, with chisel-like edges intentionally designed for cutting through maile armor and deep into flesh and bone with a quick, forceful blow. They were light, agile, and stiff, yet very flexible to withstand the trauma of use. They too varied with time from the wider, flatter kinds to those rigid, tapering, sharply pointed and well suited for stabbing both plate and laminated armors. The later wide-based and acutely pointed style of bastard sword was superb at thrusting. So, 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. 

Although the Medieval sword and shield combination was fairly common, longer blades useable in two hands were in widespread use from about 1250 to roughly 1600 in Europe. When we talk about Medieval European longswords or war-swords (or even greatswords), 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 blades of diamond or hexagonal cross-sections that tapered to hard, sharp points. They were used to whack and bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They were also employed as short spears and even warhammers, yet were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents. 

The difference between these two European blade forms is significant and once more underscores the distinction between the manner of using a katana and a straight Medieval European 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 fine point is capable of making quick, accurate, and strong thrusts. The wider style 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. Its proper techniques and style of use is rarely depicted with any accuracy in movies and staged performances. Almost never is the proper historical usage shown with its tighter movements, various thrusts, and infighting with the hilt.

The reach factor also cannot be overlooked. Although a skilled fighter can effectively use a short blade against a long blade or vice versa, and although neither longswords nor katanas had standardized lengths, overall the katana in general is significantly shorter than European two-handed swords and great-swords. A longer two-edged weapon does have advantages -especially if used by a taller man against a smaller with a shorter single-edge weapon. Surprisingly though, the weights between the two weapons are actually very similar and vary within the same degrees.

Surprisingly, the longsword or greatsword is arguably a more complex weapon that the katana. Though there were single-edge versions, it generally has two edges that can be used, as well as a versatile crossguard and pommel permitting a variety of specialized techniques. Another element to consider is that European swords could be used in "half-sword" techniques where the second hand literally grips around the blade itself to wield the weapon in bashing, deflecting, binding, and trapping in all manner of ways that virtually make it a pole-axe or short spear. This was especially effective in fighting against plate armor. We must ponder would this be unusual for the samurai or just very similar to fighting with a short staff? Either way, with its especially sharp edge, a katana is not employed quite like this.

Knightly blades could be excellent swords, but are often denigrated merely as 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 not discourage). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth. The bottom line is that Medieval swords were indeed well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they’re often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges." Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds."_


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

_"*The Swordsmanship*

It can be difficult for those not familiar with the nature of a Medieval longsword or greatsword 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 instead of a shield and sword we match a knight with a longsword or greatsword against the katana armed samurai this could make a significant difference. But, we must not fall into the mistake of judging the Medieval longsword in terms of what we know about classical Japanese fencing. 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 the two styles of swordsmanship (such as in stances and cuts), there are also significant and fundamental differences. They each make the same basic seven or eight cuts and can thrust. But as a curved blade with an especially keen edge, the katana is superior in the potential use of quick, short slices. Yet, as a long, straight blade tapering to a keen point, the longsword is a better thruster. Additionally, its dual edges, enabled by a graspable pommel, allow it to attack along more lines than just eight standard cuts. Having two edges to work with can quickly permit back-edge and reverse cuts. This permits a far larger number of strikes from different angles. These back edge cuts make up a significant portion of how the straight longsword was wielded and have seldom been appreciated or correctly demonstrated.

The katana is wielded in a quick-flowing manner with a torque of the grip as well as a push of the hips. Pulling a curved blade in this way makes it slice as it shears. The footwork is more linear with short quick hopping (even shuffling) steps. In contrast to the slicing slash of a curved, single-edged, Japanese blade, Medieval swords were made for hacking, shearing cuts delivered primarily from the elbow and shoulder and employing wide passing steps. The actions are larger with more fast whirling actions as the two edges are employed, the pommel alone gripped, or the hands changed to different positions on the hilt (such as placement of the thumb on the flat of the blade or upon the lip of the cross). As a straight blade it strikes more with a point-of-percussion on the first 6-8 inches of blade down from the point as opposed to the curved katana which uses more of just the first few inches. If we bring into the equation the Medieval bastard-sword with compound-hilt of side-rings and bar-guards as well as the waisted or half-grip handle using various methods of holding, this could also be a significant factor. Such hilts allow for a variety of significant one or two-hand gripping options and gives superior tip control for thrusting and edge alignment. 


When contrasting these two styles of sword we should probably also keep in mind a number of points. We classify each as longswords because both were blade weapons designed for the same purpose, killing. It is from this fact that they even have any similarities we can compare. Differences between them are result of the particularities of their functions and the ways they accomplish their goals. We should also keep in mind that Japanese swords and sword-arts reflect a living tradition, and one with a long standing interest group in the West promoting its study. While in contrast, our Medieval heritage has for decades had virtually nothing but Hollywood fantasy and role-players misrepresenting it. 

From this, it can be seen that a direct comparison of a European sword to a Japanese one is not possible. They are “apples and oranges”, so to speak. They’re both fruit, both delicious, but you can do different, though very similar, things with each."_


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 20, 2007)

I've heard (and I'm guessing that this is a Hollywood myth) that Katanas, when made properly, can have a piece of silk dropped on the blade, and slice clean through it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

A reproduction of an original 13th century Teutonic knights great helm:


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> I've heard (and I'm guessing that this is a Hollywood myth) that Katanas, when made properly, can have a piece of silk dropped on the blade, and slice clean through it.



I say thats pretty much impossible with the weight of the silk alone. The Katana is incredibly sharp though, a great deal sharper than the average european sword- wether or not this is an advantage is debatable.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

A miniature figure of the German knight Maximilian's armoured suit:


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

You didnt need to even say that armour was German. It just looks...very German


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The samurai with his speed and training, as well as his finer tuned sword and expert bow and arrow, would make short work out of the knight...



Hands down agree with you Dan. Knight has a horse.....Samurai shoots him with his bow......Longbow pentrates his armor with ease.

In hand to hand the Samurai is so quick and light on his feet.....the knight will get tired quickly and the Samurai finishes with ease not to mention the knights vison is hindered compared to the Samurai.

This has been well covered guys in Midevil books and history shows and shows on Midevil times. Knights lose every time.

Not to mention if you have trained in hand to hand combat you know how important stamia and mobility is, without either you are done for. I know, if you want to know more about hand to hand fighting check out my link in my sig.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

The main plus for the Samuri is the Bow. My son knows what he is talking about re Archery and in a number of ways the Samuri Bow is as good as the Longbow, lacking some penetration, plus can be fired accurately from a moving horse.

Sorens postings (which I found excellent) indicate that on foot it could be a close run thing. So with the bow, the Samuri has a significant advantage.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Soren - why don't you think 40 pounds or so is heavy? I have found your numbers to be slightly below most averages of plate armor. Plate armor, combined with the chain is going to offer good defense against the sam sword.

Les - you mentioned the samurai's training, but European Knights were professional warriors, it's not as though they were the same as men-at-arms.

There's the samurai's bow, but in reality that wouldn't make all too much of a difference because knights would likely have the support of archers (preferably the English longbowman!) The fight needs to be placed in context. With that said, in a hypothetical one-on-one melee, I believe the Knight would cut the samurai down like grass.

Hunter - experiments have shown that penetration of late medieval plate armor by the english lonbow was only moderately effective at extremely close range. This is largely believed due to "the english longbowmen mowing down the french knighthood at agincourt." There's much evidence that it didn't happen that way... it's a good debate though, what do you think?

Desert FOx - I wouldn't say hands down samurai would win with equal armor. That would entail a totally different type of melee that he was not trained for - and he's still get bowled over!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Medieval Knights typically fought either from horse on the ground in groups. Knights were notoriously vulnerable to rear attacks if caught alone, were slow, and subject to fairly quick fatigue with full plate armour.

The Samurai meanwhile, in a one on one fight could either as Les noted make use of their great bows of which plate was high vulnerable, or enter a swordfight of stamina which the Knight would surely lose to a skilled Samurai.

Samurai hands down.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Medieval Knights typically fought either from horse on the ground in groups. Knights were notoriously vulnerable to rear attacks if caught alone, were slow, and subject to fairly quick fatigue with full plate armour.
> 
> The Samurai meanwhile, in a one on one fight could either as Les noted make use of their great bows of which plate was high vulnerable, or enter a swordfight of stamina which the Knight would surely lose to a skilled Samurai.
> 
> Samurai hands down.



What evidence do you have that plate armor was vulnerable? I think that the bow is moot, for the reason stated above... the fictitious account would have to be in context. Most European armies had separate ranks as archers, which is a different approach.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

The Long Bow was well known to be capable of penetrating plate armour. And Samurai typically trained extensively with his daikyu (great bow) which was up to 7 feet in length. In addition to the typical broadhead arrows, Samurai also made use of armour piercing narrow spike head arrows.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

With the Knights limited vision, wearing armor......he would not even be able to keep the Samurai in front of him. Samurai does not need to penatrate his armor with his sword, there is many open spots in the front and rear of armor where Samurai would hit him.

Again the stamia of the Knight would quickly slow down his movements, don't believe me? When was the last time you actually fought a real person hand to hand......your stamia dies quickly (try swinging a sword around now while wearing armor not easy). Samurai would just defend himself for first few minutes using his sword and quick movement until Knight tired then Samurai finishes him off......like fish in a barrel.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> What evidence do you have that plate armor was vulnerable? I think that the bow is moot, for the reason stated above... the fictitious account would have to be in context. Most European armies had separate ranks as archers, which is a different approach.



The arrows did have a hard time penetraing the chest plate (and only if it was of top quality), I agree. But not the rest of his armor or his horse.............

Arrow threw the leg, arm, thigh..... still = death.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

My vote goes for the Samurai. While the Knight is certainly not a pushover and are brave warriors in there own right. The Samurai was quicker and more mobile and in that I give him the advantage and the victory.

The both belong on there own battlefields.

This ofcourse is just one one one.

I think if you had 100 Knights in there armour on there horses versus 100 Samurai the Knights would come out victorious but one on one the Samurai takes it.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> The Long Bow was well known to be capable of penetrating plate armour. And Samurai typically trained extensively with his daikyu (great bow) which was up to 7 feet in length. In addition to the typical broadhead arrows, Samurai also made use of armour piercing narrow spike head arrows.



All evidence seems to say the opposite of the long bow. Greatly overestimated accounts of its armor penetration likely from agincourt.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 20, 2007)

High ranking samurai fought on horseback too







http://www.steppenreiter.de/images/horse/samurai_speed_70.jpg


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

how is the samurai to deal with the knight's lance??? he can easily be dismounted...


----------



## Smokey (Apr 20, 2007)

There was the cavalry yari


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> how is the samurai to deal with the knight's lance??? he can easily be dismounted...



The Bow has a longer range than the Lance and its the knight who would be easily dismounted.

The secret of the Longows penetration was down to the quality of the steel in the armour, which differed hugely from person to person. The very best armour had a much better chance of deflecting the arrows, however Armour was very expensive and only the richest and wealthiest knights could afford the best. 
The vast majority of knights were very open to death and injury from the longbow.

My son has a large book on the subject (540 pages) called The Great Warbow which I reccomend if anyone wants to go into this in greater detail.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> The Bow has a longer range than the Lance and its the knight who would be easily dismounted.
> 
> The secret of the Longows penetration was down to the quality of the steel in the armour, which differed hugely from person to person. The very best armour had a much better chance of deflecting the arrows, however Armour was very expensive and only the richest and wealthiest knights could afford the best.
> The vast majority of knights were very open to death and injury from the longbow.
> ...



Good post. I don't think the experiments I've heard of have taken that into account, now that you mention it. I will see about that. You're probably right in that they likely used very high quality armor, which may account for the longbow's extremely poor penetration.

This is a good thread. I guess in the sense of "one on one" the whole bow issue is legit. However, it exposes different approaches to warfare. The question of one on one is not indicative of actual combat effectiveness. Here's an interesting twist. What about Turcopoles - some Knights adapted to the mid eastern climate, and these Knights did carry bows, in addition to being more lightly armed and armored and carried similar loads.


----------



## amrit (Apr 20, 2007)

Henry V or Seven Samurai? Samurai of course.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I will see about that. You're probably right in that they likely used very high quality armor, which may account for the longbow's extremely poor penetration.



Just hope he didn't turn around with a* Follow Me *kind of call when he was hit. An arrow in the back would finish anyone for sure.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 20, 2007)

me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say, 



that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

On that one he has. Early armour, little plate and mainly chain mail, little chance, if any.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Smokey said:


> There was the cavalry yari



Hmmm - I don't believe that the yari would stand up to a heavy charge of European knights. Lighter cavalry were not the equal of heavily armed and amored knights on powerfully bred horses in a charge.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Cool Pic Hussars!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Just out of curiosity, what defense does this samurai have against a broadsword? Other than the alleged superior training. All he has is mobility.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> All he has is mobility.



What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?


Mobility


Thats all thats needed. You can't hurt what you can't hit. 

Really mkloby have you ever fought hand to hand vs a real person ? I am just asking. Mobility is a huge part of winning a fight......a fighter that cannot move cannot not win.

You think a Samurai is going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone in armor heavier than his? no

He is going to stick and move before the knight can even react.

It looks like the majority of people agree that the Samurai would win.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say,
> 
> 
> 
> that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy



*"It's just a flesh wound!"*


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno_


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?
> 
> 
> Mobility
> ...



Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???




Hmmmm I don't remember getting smart with you.........thats not how I opperate. I would of thought you would of known that by now.....you have been here for a while. All I asked was if you actually ever fought hand to hand....not sure why you thought that was rude. If you took as rude I am sorry for that....it was not intended. Posting and emails often lose a person real intent......then it can be taken wrong way. (thats I why I put down, "just asking" trying not to be rude)

Prizefighter? Never called myself that, just have trained in full contact MMA for years. Unless someone actually has done that they don't realize some things.....training without full contact or just sparring is not the same. Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.

I have reviewed and watched military hand to hand....yes.

You sparring with guys who have a speed difference than you will not be much difference in speed. Fighting someone wearing heavy platemail vs someone wearing padded armor is a much bigger difference in speed.

Samurai armor not being sufficeint is a matter of opinion, you are looking at armor from one point of view only........how thick it is and how much can it stop. Some armor was not made for that point.....it was made to be more mobile, flexible....able to protect vs slashing attacks....not vs piercing attacks. Knight armor was made to protect vs blunt and piercing attacks, of course it also protected vs slashing attacks. But it was built for major stopping power, I am sure you would agree. But of course, it came at a cost.....less mobility and much heavier.

I never argued about knights charging, I never argued about them fighting on horse back......someone else perhaps but not me. I agree with you on the calvary charge point. Western Knights charging was a nearly unstoppable thing force......unless you had polearms.

My point about Ali vs Foreman is still valid and a perfect example.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

Isn't it just marvelous how much you can learn here....?? How about throw in a sympathetic Viking to stir things up a bit....

If it's one on one, wouldn't the longbow be useless then?

"A furore Normanorum, libera nos Domine" (From the fury of the north-men, God deliver us.)


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.


Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.

Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way.  Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...

There are definitely some good arguments made here. One problem I have with the reasons for the samurai's victory is that the envisioned battle is one that capitalizes upon all the samurai's strengths and the knight's weaknesses. I'm guilty of that too, which is why I see the Knight crushing the samurai in a charge. I actually don't think you can say in any case "matter of factly" who would win.

Your points about armor are noted - obviously samurai armor was designed with a completely different goal in mind.

If mobility was all that mattered, Knights would not have been as successful as they had across centuries. They routinely routed armies of more mobile, lightly armed and armored troops. Of course there are situations where mounted Knights were at a huge disadvantage, and suffered defeats. Terrain and climate also have a lot to do with effectiveness as well.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
> Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.
> 
> Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way.  Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...
> ...



My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.

I agree on horse back most likely Knight would win, on foot I would say Samurai would win. But you are right in a fight nothing is 100% going to happen the way it should.

No problem with the misunderstanding....it happens sometimes in this format. Not face to face I mean. All is good.

But to watch the two fight would be very cool.....everyone would have to agree on that.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.



Sidenote - I meant one guy weighed down with his gear, the other "aggressor" is not. We're not weighted down the same.

I definitely agree the samurai has a better chance of success if both are dismounted.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

The samurai did have armour, though it was of protective value, it was more ornamental in nature and construction. A work of art really. Some versions consisted of bands of plate connected with leather and lacquered.

Commensurate with a Knight in platemail?  Not hardly. But that was not the Samurai's game.

Whoever made the post that the outcome depends upon the scenario hit it upon the head. A single Knight vs a Samurai or Knights vs Samurai. The single combat goes to the Samurai all things being equal. The Knight is ill equipped to deal with a hard hitting but highly mobile fighter. But amassed and on horse. The Knight wins hands down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Whoever made the post that the outcome depends upon the scenario hit it upon the head. A single Knight vs a Samurai or Knights vs Samurai. The single combat goes to the Samurai all things being equal. The Knight is ill equipped to deal with a hard hitting but highly mobile fighter. But amassed and on horse. The Knight wins hands down.



Thankyou, thankyou, you may leave your donations in the box at the front door. I will be here all week.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2007)

Sir Gawain, Knight of Jerusalem, atop his mighty steed Fencer, bears down at a full gallop towards Ashikaga Takauji, Samurai Extroidinaire....

The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......

The Samurai smiles, lifts his war bow, and with a smile, launches his broadheaded arrow into the chest of Sir Gawain, who falls from Fencer in a heap of bent and twisted armor....

Shall I do the same commentary for a sword vs sword confrontation, or does this suffice enough to make my point???


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

You paint such a lovely picture with your pretty words...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Sir Gawain, Knight of Jerusalem, atop his mighty steed Fencer, bears down at a full gallop towards Ashikaga Takauji, Samurai Extroidinaire....
> 
> The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......
> 
> ...



Nice gesture, but I'm not happy with that explanation.  Why are these two placed on opposite ends of a long flat plain? What if superman misses his mark? I'm not an archer(that just sounds ridiculous saying that) but I cannot imagine it would be a free throw to hit a charging Knight, especially at longer distances.

Now, let's assume this Knight has very well made armor, and the arrow does not pierce. What does he do now, since his only hope for victory was a mortal wound at extremely close range. Oh, he's going to be John Deered... that's what  

Here's another thing to think about - knights were also trained in archery... but European armies employed separate ranks. Also, if falling a Knight was as simple as that, why were there Knights at all? Why weren't there just armies comprised solely of archers?

Excellent prose, by the way.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby, do you really think that the Wiki defined (45lbs? yeah right) of plain jane 13th century steel is going to protect against a great bow? No offense buddy, have you shot a bow? Likely the quote of 45lbs of plate is for the PLATE only. Underneath you have your chainmail or ringmail fastenings. These tunics add a huge amount of weight. This is why in medieval time squires were required for those knights in full plate. Once they had fallen, they literally could not get up because of weight and encumbrance.

Now 45lbs of plate spread across a full body armour cannot possible have resulted in plate of significant thickness to stop an arrow from piercing. For example, a 70# bow shooting 290 fps with an arrow weight of 420 grains will give you about 78 ft-lb of energy. While this may seem insignificant, consider that the arrow tip is extremely sharp. Thus this kinetic energy is pressing upon a surface area of plate about...what 1/4inch thick? 1/3inch thick maybe? of non-hardened steel. That arrow is going to penetrate.

As noted, the scenario set up is key. A hack for hack between the two is no competition. The samurai will lose everytime. But if there is an engagement distance, the samurai would out maneuver him everytime...all things equal.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2007)

Anyone remember The Highlander, where Macleod and his Katana match up with The Kurgan and his broad sword???


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> mkloby, do you really think that the Wiki defined (45lbs? yeah right) of plain jane 13th century steel is going to protect against a great bow? No offense buddy, have you shot a bow? Likely the quote of 45lbs of plate is for the PLATE only. Underneath you have your chainmail or ringmail fastenings. These tunics add a huge amount of weight. This is why in medieval time squires were required for those knights in full plate. Once they had fallen, they literally could not get up because of weight and encumbrance.
> 
> Now 45lbs of plate spread across a full body armour cannot possible have resulted in plate of significant thickness to stop an arrow from piercing. For example, a 70# bow shooting 290 fps with an arrow weight of 420 grains will give you about 78 ft-lb of energy. While this may seem insignificant, consider that the arrow tip is extremely sharp. Thus this kinetic energy is pressing upon a surface area of plate about...what 1/4inch thick? 1/3inch thick maybe? of non-hardened steel. That arrow is going to penetrate.
> 
> As noted, the scenario set up is key. A hack for hack between the two is no competition. The samurai will lose everytime. But if there is an engagement distance, the samurai would out maneuver him everytime...all things equal.



Come on, when did I ever quote wiki!? Seriously! All I said was that soren's quoted article I found to have been slightly below other estimates, which usually range in at about 60lbs for plate armor. You are right, however, on added weights of other items. I'm not sure about your claim that they had to be lifted if felled. I've fallen with over 100lbs of gear(many times, I might add), and my little butt could still get up. Also - did you notice the part where I said I'm not an archer and commented on how silly that sounded??? Could I have been more clear?  

Anyway - by the 1400's plate armor was made produced of hardened steel. With flutes and contours, it was not as simple as cutting through butter. Experiments that I have seen in the past have shown the difficulty of the longbow, in particular, of penetrating this high quality hardened steel.

Also - if the effectiveness of these arrows against armor was such as stated, why would Knights still have been employed in combat???


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

All
I have been reviewing the book my son has re the Longbow and its penetration. In the UK a Medieval Warship has been raised and inside were hundreds of perfectly preserved Longbows from Henry VIII's time. 
Tests showed that the pull of these bows was up to 140 lb but most were in the 90-120 area.
The tests were undetaken by experts in the era with staff from the Royal Ordnance and compared with other tests from well know experts such as the Royal Armories. I quote
_We may conclude with reasonable safety that even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from poundages in the mid to upper ranges of those found on the Mary Rose would have been capable of killing or severely wounding a equipped with armour of wrought iron.
Higher quality steel would give considerably greater protection._

Later the book goes into detail about the better armour and generally a hit to the body would be very unlikely to penetrate until you get down to around 33f
which is close enough for anyone. 
But and its a big But the British archers were well aware of this and aimed for the face.
I quote some examples from the book
At Poitiers the French noted that the Men at Arms of King Jean's division were thrown into confusion by vollys of arrows shot at their heads.
At Crecy Phillip VI was wounded by an arrow to the jaw
King David II of Scotland was badly wounded by two hits to the face
Henry VI was wounded by an arrow to the face in 1403
In 1356 the French Lord the Bastard of L'Isle (don't you love that name) was slain by an arrow that went through his head. 

All the above would have had the finest armour available at the time which is why they were quoted. 
As for range these aren't quoted but if it helps I would certainly be able to hit a head at 40 -50 yards with most of my arrows and have no doubt that a trained archer of the time would better that. I use a one piece wooden bow without any mod cons. It isn't a Longbow but its close.

Small point about Knight being trained in the use of a Longbow. They were but wouldn't come close to the ability of the foot archer and wouldn't be able to handle a true warbow. The foot bowmen were trained from a very early age and graduated to a warbow. Such were the forces on their bodies the bones in the left arm became thicker than the bones in the right arms (assuming you are right handed).
Even if they wanted to take a bow onto the field to hit the horses can you imagine trying to fight with a sword, shield, lance, wacking great longbow and arrows. It isn't going to happen.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2007)

Excellent info Glider...

May I ask - how easy would it be for you to mash the face of a Knight at full charge on horseback? Serious question - what do you think your odds would be? As Matt so lovingly brought up again - I'm not an Archer 

I would seem to think that they could not be too great; it doesn't seem to be an extremely common occurrence... I can't recall any epics of gallant charges of Knights all felled at close range by headshots... especially since at that range after that shot your about to be bulldozed into hamburger or turned into pink mist.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2007)

As in man to man gentlemen, weren't the knights most of the time NOT all the time armed with more than one weapon? I remember seen sometime a medium sized battle axe hanging on their side. Or am I wrong? What about shields? Another thing, they been a Knight, it's probably not the first time that they're wearing armour so they're probably used to dance around in it, with fellas in the same size as them and not not half pint sized men in silly looking hats...


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2007)

Well I am for one with Mkloby on this one.

As to the longbow and its penetrative abilities, well a typical longbow of the time could be pulled to around 160 -175 lbf, which is pretty powerful, enough power for an armor-piercing style arrow-head to penetrate thin plate armour at 100m - HOWEVER tests have been carried on english arrow-heads of the medieval period, and what was found was that all of them were of considerably lower metallurgical quality than the plate armor of the time, and they would simply bend or flatten out on impact with the plate armour with no penetration. And as to the famous incident at Agincourt where hundreds of french knights were mowed down by english longbowmen, well actually they weren't, it turns out that it was the muddy clay field on which the battle took place that spelled doom for the french knights. The clay'ish soil of the field created a vacuum when'ever a flat surface came in contact with it, a knight taking a step for example, which made it very hard to walk in - and if you fell over and your flat armor came in contact with the soil then you could forget about getting up again cause you were in effect sucked tight to the ground. Thats how an entire army of french nobles were defeated by English longbowmen.

And as to even the strongest longbow even being capable of partially penetrating a great-helm, well thats a big NO, it wasn't even close. Even a two handed war-axe has great trouble against the great-helm, it would sooner break the guys neck before it ever penetrates the helm.

Now lets hear what John Clements has to say on the subject of the traditions, physiology and armor of each warrior:

_"*The Warriors*

We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, age, health, 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 likely decisively stronger or faster than the other. Although, we can’t discount physiology as a factor and this reasonably would be an advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5’3”-5’5”, while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6’ to about 6’5”). Interestingly, while the European concept of physical fitness among knights by the 15th century emphasized the classical Greco-Roman youthful physique of a narrow waist and broad shoulders on a lean frame, the Japanese ideal was one of a more mature man having a wider base and broader middle –no doubt reflecting the natural ethnographic characteristics of each race, but also influencing the fighting techniques they employed. To what degree this occurred is worth contemplating.

We might also want to consider the forms of warfare each swordsman was experienced in and focused upon. The early samurai engaged in a ritualized style of warfare where individual champions might fight separate battlefield duels following established protocols, as opposed to a later mounted archery style of combat amidst pike formations of lesser foot soldiers. Their clan warfare was decidedly feudalistic yet with acquiring and honor and renown also being a goal. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. But most combat occurred in the environment of the home islands.

Whereas in contrast, knights emphasized mounted shock warfare with couched lances, and off the field a concern for chivalric and judicial duels as well as tournaments of all kinds. The Western way of war for knights was directed more at a traditional battle of annihilation as part of an overall campaign of conquest. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Knightly arms and armor were the result of a dynamic interaction of Latin, Celtic, and Germanic cultures as well as Turkish and Arabic influences. The environment knights fought under was extensive and diverse, ranging from the cold of Scandinavia to the deserts of the Middle East, from the plains of Western Europe to the deep forest of the East, and the swamps, fields, and mountains in between. There is also no question that athleticism, physical fitness and conditioning were integral parts of knightly chivalric virtue as considerable literary and iconographic evidence from the period testifies.

We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest. Samurai warriors existed in a hierarchical and conformist culture that rewarded obedience and loyalty over individuality. Knights existed in a more complex and fluid society that emphasized self-expression with a long tradition of reliance on individual initiative. Both cultures had experience fighting against outsiders and foreigners: the Europeans encountered the Turks, Mongols, Saracens, and others; the Japanese encountered the Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Thus, in considering the historical record on cross-cultural collisions in different locations, would we want to give the edge to the more socially diverse Europeans on this?

On an individual basis then, 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 noble knight to great feats, or of the ideals of chivalry that he might uphold to the death. It’s possible a Medieval European knight would have a certain disdain and scorn for his foreign, “pagan” adversary. Of course, the Japanese warrior’s well-known attitude of proud invincibility and readiness to die for his lord could equally make him vulnerable to an unfamiliar foe. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent you might underestimate can be a disastrous combination. While courage is important, fighting spirit alone is insufficient. There are surely intangibles here that we cannot be measured with any reliability. These and other non-quantifiable, psychological factors aside, we are left with weapons, armor, and training. "_


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2007)

_*The Armor*

Armor changes things in swordplay. If you’ve never trained in it, you can’t imagine how it affects your movements and execution of even simple actions. 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. The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question.

Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan. 

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move. 

Without 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 European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills)."
_


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2007)

_"*The Shield*

We must consider whether the knight in this hypothetical duel will be armed in the familiar shield and short sword style or will use only a single long-sword? If armed with a shield, we must ask what kind? 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? How about a thick steel buckler (a fist-gripped hand shield)?

There’s a reason virtually every culture developed hand-held shields for close-combat and why they continued to be used literally for thousands of years. They were very effective. In 15th century Europe, it was only the combination of the development of full plate armor and two-handed swords combined with heavy pole-arms and powerful missile weapons that finally reduced the long reigning value of the shield in warfare. The Medieval style of sword and shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval short 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. Strikes are thrown from behind the shield while it simultaneously guards, feints, deflects, or presses. A sword and shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword and shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks. 

A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side –the non-shield side. While a large shield does indeed close off a tremendous amount of targets to an attacker, it also limits, to a far smaller degree, freedom to attack by the shield user. As it comes out from behind their shield to strike, an attacker’s weapon can be counter-timed and counter-cut –and this is indeed one tactic to employ against a shield user. Yet a shield user’s attacks are not at all one sided. A shield can be used offensively in a number of ways and at very close range. 

Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even 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, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, 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 attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason.

Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn’t faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it.

"_


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2007)

Great read! Keep it coming Soren!


----------



## bigZ (Apr 21, 2007)

I seem to remmeber seeing a program demonstrating how diffcult it is to move through ground covered by arrows. Could this be a factor. At Agincourt didn't the arches butcher stranded knights in the mud.

I was always curious to see how knights would face upto to Roman legions in their prime.


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Excellent info Glider...
> 
> May I ask - how easy would it be for you to mash the face of a Knight at full charge on horseback? Serious question - what do you think your odds would be? As Matt so lovingly brought up again - I'm not an Archer
> 
> I would seem to think that they could not be too great; it doesn't seem to be an extremely common occurrence... I can't recall any epics of gallant charges of Knights all felled at close range by headshots... especially since at that range after that shot your about to be bulldozed into hamburger or turned into pink mist.



If I was being charged by a knight on horseback at 40 yards then I can safely say three things.
a) I would start hitting the horses at around 150 yards
b) If I screwed up (a) I would run somewhere safe
c) If I had screwed up (a) and had nowhere safe for (b) its probably to late and I am toast

At Agincourt the Archers banged stakes into the ground pointing out toward the threat in a similar manner to pikes and stood behind them. The horses, those that were left if they weren't stopped, would have to slow down to negotiate the obstacle.
It should also be remembered that the Archers were country people who knew how to use the ground more than a traditional army unit. At Poitiers the archers formed a rearguard to gain the main army to deploy. They then moved to the right flank and deliberately stationed themselves in a swamp making it all but impossible for the French to get at them. This in turn resulting in the French flank routing.

A man on a charging horse is in effect a stationary target. The body doesn't go up a down very much and he's getting bigger. Obviously I have never tried it but 1 in 5 allowing for the extra adrenalin and lack of time to steady yourself is probably not unreasonable.
Item (a) on the above list is not just a joke, I could almost guarantee a hit on a horse somewhere and the rate of fire for the time was significant, around ten aimed shots a minute. 
Note that the Archers are large in number and aiming at a large body of men as a target. Just aim for the middle at longer range and the chances of hitting something are high.

Re why the French lost at Agincourt. The reasons were many. 
a) No Leadership, they didn't have one leader 
b) No planning, they had an outline that was impossible to follow and the plan as was, was ignored by the knights
c) the failure to use the 4000 archers and 1500 crossbow men in their army to wear the English down and use up their Arrows. Some crossbow men were sent in just before the attack. However they were badly outnumbered and achieved little plus the French knights got frustrated and hacked them down.
d) The French held all the cards and didn't need to attack. The British advanced fist to draw them out and the oldest trick in the book worked. When the British got within effective bow range they stopped, prepared their defences and got to work. All through this period the British were at grave risk and the French did nothing.
e) The first to attack were the Light Cavalry who were decimated with the horses being the first target.
f) The vanguard then moved forwards moving slowly on the slippy sodden ground further slowed by the volleys of arrows. Many knights had to walk head down to reduce the risk of being hit in the head particularly those without shields and the French dare not raise their visors. _These are from French records of the battle_ 
g) Both French and British records say that the weight of the armour needed to protect people from the arrows, plus the distance walked in sealed armour, as well as the slippery ground meant that the French were exhausted when they reached the British men at arms who obviously had a huge advantage.
h) Knights who fell were in danger of not getting up because of the pressure from the people behind being pushed forward in a similar manner to people being crushed in modern crowds. It wasn't just because of the thickness of the mud although that was an added danger.
i) When they reached the British the French attacked in three places leaving the Archers to shoot at close range into the sides of the columns with deadly effect.
Up until this point the record of the battle by both the French and British participants were very similar, but at this point the records diverge and I will stop.

The point was that the French lost for a number of reasons including the poor ground. However the main reason was inept leadership and a lack of discipline.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Come on, when did I ever quote wiki!? Seriously! All I said was that soren's quoted article I found to have been slightly below other estimates, which usually range in at about 60lbs for plate armor. You are right, however, on added weights of other items. I'm not sure about your claim that they had to be lifted if felled. I've fallen with over 100lbs of gear(many times, I might add), and my little butt could still get up. Also - did you notice the part where I said I'm not an archer and commented on how silly that sounded??? Could I have been more clear?
> 
> Anyway - by the 1400's plate armor was made produced of hardened steel. With flutes and contours, it was not as simple as cutting through butter. Experiments that I have seen in the past have shown the difficulty of the longbow, in particular, of penetrating this high quality hardened steel.
> 
> Also - if the effectiveness of these arrows against armor was such as stated, why would Knights still have been employed in combat???



All good points. Sure you can get up with a 100lb ruck, but your not inside an articulated suite that would inhibit your ability to contort you body/arms/legs to center your gravity over your crouch (That's crouch...not crotch though the logic probably holds).

And I agree that the plate was not butter, but at close range 25yds, it it not going to be much protection for a relatively perpendicular incidence.

And why would knights still be employed in combat? Shock troops to break up formations of pikesmen. This is what led to longer and longer pikes and guisarmes/Faulchards/billhooks.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2007)

Cool argument. I didn't know all you guys had any interest in Mediviel warfare or swords.

I have been interested in swords quite a while now. I have my brother to thank a lot for that. He loves swords more than me, but still I like them a lot! 

There are a lot of swords forums you can learn more and I myself am no expert on swords but I think I while try to answer some questions.  

On the personal side, I have fought with rapier and dagger, and sport fencing with epee. No broadsword or Katana, But I think someday I would like to! Both of those sports have minimal wear, heaviest weight is your mask. You don't wear armour. 



> With the Knights limited vision, wearing armor......he would not even be able to keep the Samurai in front of him. Samurai does not need to penatrate his armor with his sword, there is many open spots in the front and rear of armor where Samurai would hit him.



Why is the vision of the Knight limited? He can open his visor, and still have the protection of a helmet. The Knight does not need to penetrate the Samurai's armour, he can hit HIM in the open spots, just like the Samurai would try to do to him. Neither has the advantage, for Samurai armour has open spots in front and rear, and even more on the legs. 



> Again the stamia of the Knight would quickly slow down his movements, don't believe me? When was the last time you actually fought a real person hand to hand......your stamia dies quickly (try swinging a sword around now while wearing armor not easy). Samurai would just defend himself for first few minutes using his sword and quick movement until Knight tired then Samurai finishes him off......like fish in a barrel.



The Knight would not neccesarily tire the quicker. Ask Rennasaince or medievial enthusiasts or renactors, they fight in knight armour, they claim you can fight all day in it. A Knight with proper training will not lose his wind in a few minutes. Fights are short, often under minutes. Plently of time to finish off the Samurai, who will also be tiring just as much as him if the fight goes on longer.

Why should the Samurai have the advantage of defending himself? The Knight actually has the advantage in that area. His armour is better, he doesn't have to tire himself out in defensive as much as attack. Why should the Knight attack first? He can wait, and when the Samurai launches into his aggressive attack finish him off. If the Samurai also decides to not attack then a smart Knight will not be stupid and may be just as caustious and save his energy. Thus both will attack, then defend, untill one wins. But don't say the Knight will just die out of a stupid attack since the Samurai is just as capable of it too! 

Anyway, the point is, even if the Knight has the heavier armour, if he conserves his energy, and is mobile in his defence, he can parry, retreat with ease in his armour and survive. Knights had great footwork, even he needs more muscle strength to move in his armour than the Samurai. 
When the opportunity to attack presents itself he can do so, but he has no need to go running after the Samurai to deliver it. 
Defend, and then counter attack. Thats all he needs to do.

And if the footwork is "shuffling" as the Samurai do, then he also doesn't have that much to worry about. 



> The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......
> 
> The Samurai smiles, lifts his war bow, and with a smile, launches his broadheaded arrow into the chest of Sir Gawain, who falls from Fencer in a heap of bent and twisted armor....



Don't be so sure. Don't be so sure Sir Gawains armour would even be penetrated by that eastern arrow, especially if he is wearing plate and not chain mail. And remember he had a shield too, like Soren said.

And naturally, anybody with a bow can shoot a man on horseback before they reach them, any culture at all. Now if that was a Samurai on horseback agains't a Knight with a bow on the ground, one on one the Knight might lose because of poorer aim. But if he was a good archer he could kill him with a longbow. 


Knights would not just go charging into arrows unless they had too, just like any mounted warrior. Knights had archers too, whether on horseback or on the ground, so they weren't helpless. Knights also had training in archery. So if there were a bunch of Samurai with bows, it's likely they would have their archers with their powerful longbows rain a hail of arrows on the samurai before they charged, or perhaps charge the Samurai shooting arrows on horseback. If they tried those tactics they wouldn't be so bad off.

One disadvantage of the Samurai bow is they are not longbows. A Samurai Bow does not have the penetration, or range, of a medieval longbow. If Agincourt had taken place with the English holding Samurai bows they may not have done so well! A Longbow penetrates metal plate better than a Samurai bow, and it's arrows can hit from a much farther range. 

So basically, while a charge of knights on horseback agains't samurai with bows might have disasterous results for the Knights, consider the scenerio switched. 
A group of armoured Samurai are on horseback. They face a group of Knights on foot. The Knights are not as well trained in markmanship as yeoman, but they have sufficent training to unleash their arrows in the right direction. 
The Samurai charge, with bows in their hands, confident of victory. They are hopeful of wiping out a lot of the Knights before they even reach them with their arrows. But they must wait untill they are in range before unleashing their arrows. 
What's this? The Knights are already drawing back their bows! Their volley can reach those charging Samurai, and they have nothing to worry about for themselves. They fire their arrows, the Samurai are starting to be hit, but they themselves are unable to fire. By the time they are in range, their numbers have been depleted, and the longbows penetration is becoming even more deadly. By the time they reach the knights, their numbers have been depleted. The Knights on foot with their helmets are quite well protected, and with some hamstringing of the Samurais horses are helping to lower their disadvantage.
The Samurai dismount and fight it out on foot. But the Knights are still not worried, they have plently of daylight left to fight WITHOUT getting tired. Their swords are mowing................


Who wins? Who knows. Those more skilled, those with better tactics. Both sides could win, but that longbow sure helped the Knights. Did my story make the Samurai look stupid? Well, just as Stupid as Sir Gawain doing what he did, which may not be that stupid at all. In the old days men charged on horseback agains't archers, and they died to win. In Asia or Europe. 

I don't think the Samurai is one on one better than the Knight, or visa versa. I'm biased to the Knight, so he would get my vote, but I realize a Samurai could take down a knights, for various reasons. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE INSTITUTION OF KNIGHTHOOD AND IT'S TRAINING.

Sure, say the Knights eventually died of impracticality. They couldn't hanlde archers, they couldn't handle cannon, they couldn't handle guns. But that happens with technology. 

The Samurai also became ineffective, because of the same reasons. Remember "The Last Samurai"

The Knights could have poor tactics, but couldn't that be said for the Samurai, or any group of warriors trained to fight as individuals.

So, for now, I guess I won't vote, even though I thin the Knight is being poorly thought of in this poll. But somebody could of put in the option of "They were a match."

Ideally, they were.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2007)

Just read somebodies smarter post about Knights and longobows.

Good and maybe it weakens my argument. But still, even Knights that are poor archers have the lonbows added range to the Japanese bow, and that is an advantage in a hail of arrows.

And to tell the truth, when trained Yeoman fired hails of arrows they couldn't aim either. For one the ton of arrows falling on the enemy were bound to hit somebody anyway, and they couldn't accurately aim as far as their arrows could reach. They fired in a general area, not at the leader in front.

So, a charging body of horsemen is good enough.

One last point. If the Knight gets a hit on his stronger and heavier armour he won't be as hurt as the Samurai will be in his weaker, lighter armour.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> And to tell the truth, when trained Yeoman fired hails of arrows they couldn't aim either. For one the ton of arrows falling on the enemy were bound to hit somebody anyway, and they couldn't accurately aim as far as their arrows could reach. They fired in a general area, not at the leader in front.
> 
> So, a charging body of horsemen is good enough.
> .



Trained Yeoman certainly could be accurate. At long range they would aim at the body of men, but as the range shortened things improved and at 60-70 yards would hardly ever miss a man on a horse. 

An aside but I read once that 1000 archers would have won Waterloo for the British way before the final victory. Those close packed French columns of unarmoured infantry, with the Bow firing five times faster than a musket and with twice the accuracy.
*Nasty*


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2007)

Yeah.

Sometimes the outdated stuff can have advantages. 

But I never thought Waterloo could have been won that way. Maybe Gettysburg too for the Union Forces?


----------



## bigZ (Apr 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> Trained Yeoman certainly could be accurate. At long range they would aim at the body of men, but as the range shortened things improved and at 60-70 yards would hardly ever miss a man on a horse.
> 
> An aside but I read once that 1000 archers would have won Waterloo for the British way before the final victory. Those close packed French columns of unarmoured infantry, with the Bow firing five times faster than a musket and with twice the accuracy.
> *Nasty*



The big drawback with archers is training. Any fool can fire a musket but to shoot a longbow with speed and accuracy requires strength,skill and constant practice.

Here in Cheshire we still have ancient laws that require every Cheshire man to practice for a least 1 hour every Sunday. The grooves are still visable where they would sharpen the arrows.

Going off topic I once heard that examples have been found of rifles packed and reloaded several times but not been fired from the the American civil war. Apparently it is thought that right upto WWII only 2% of front line troops where doing the killing . 1% where empathetic(the sarge looking out for his men) or the over 1% just plain nuts. Any truth in this?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 23, 2007)

Certainly not.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2007)

This is from Wiki:

_"While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer."_


----------



## Bernhart (Apr 25, 2007)

hard to believe the swimmimg part


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> This is from Wiki:
> 
> _"While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer."_



Bullfeces


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 25, 2007)

Well men in those old days were tough. They could take wounds and withstand pain that might kill a man today.

Some of their surviving fractured skulls attest to this. Of course this Viking died from his wound, but some of them didn't.







BBC - History - Viking Dig Reports


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Bullfeces




I'm afraid not Matt, its quite true.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 27, 2007)

I've seen reenactments. And they don't wear armour that would protect you from a Wustof kitchen knife. You load up with chain mail, gauntlets, boots, visored helm, full plate...YOU CANT BLOODY SWIM.

That's asinine.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2007)

With haevy mail as-well I would agree you Matt but we're talking well tempered full plate armour - in which case only smaller batches of mail is used at the arm-pits and back knee. And these suits are light, and I can easily imagine someone being able to swim in them, although it wouldn't be easy - would require alot of leg work.


----------



## Matt308 (May 1, 2007)

okay


----------



## Matt308 (May 1, 2007)

I would love to see a 100m relay between these blokes...


----------



## Soren (May 1, 2007)

Nice pictures Matt !


----------



## Matt308 (May 2, 2007)

Yeah. 

The third one from the bottom is German if I recall correctly. Now THATS how you make armour baby. That is a work of art. Beeeeautiful!


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2007)

Agreed Matt, but take a look at his suit 8)


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2007)

Is that in your house?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2007)

Here are some pictures of som German Armour that I took at a museum near where I live.


----------



## Joe2 (May 3, 2007)

It looks creepy, empty armour...


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

Nice pics Adler ! 8) 

Matt, no its not mine - wish it was though 

Btw, talked to one of my friends yesterday about the swimming in armour issue, well he like you didn't believe it to be a very good idea - however I've read that there was actually a competiotion between knights back then which involved who could swim the furthest in armour - it actually evolved into a sport.


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2007)

Yeah, conch diving.


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

Hey, who can hold his breath for the longest might be important when crossing the water-filled ditch surrounding a castle !


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2007)




----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 3, 2007)

Ain't this fun?


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

I have a bad feeling that I am going to bore alot of people here due to the way I think. I am not saying that my thinking is correct just that I have a certain approach to it.

In away I think that comparing to groups that never saw each other does not tell us much.

Do armies try to prepare to fight the enemy they expect to face? What I mean by this. My selection of tools and tactics will be centered on giving me an advantage over my likely enemy in the field. Also in the post Roman era of Europe were you not likely to face a mixed enemy. Heavy cavalry and Light cavalry both being used by the same side in different a different manner. Hordes of lightly armored men providing support for the heavily armored men. Archers being protected by Pikemen so they can stay in the fight longer when the distances close. 

I think if you show the two armies what they will face in advance with ample time to prepare. The armies you see that take the field might look very different then what we originally saw. If I were either group you give me a year to prepare. I also have to factor in the enemy is also changing and I might be surprised by what I see when time comes.

I think the methods and equipment used evolves as we have contact with the enemy. If you do not get destroyed on the first time out if you have a weakness. You plug those weaknesses and perhaps the winner over the long run goes to he who adapts the best and makes the right changes to the mix.

I also think if we measure one on one combat capability we lose something. A battle is very different. In a battle I am just as worried about the guy that takes out targets of opportunity as I am the guy that is in front of me. Perhaps the most dangerous guy in a Mid Evil mixed battle is the guy that might not even kill anyone. Imagine the guy would is a capable fighter on a mixed battle field that chooses to avoid direct on equal terms combat. Instead he backstabs a couple of engaged fighters. Knocks one down while fighting another. Distracts another while he is engaged. This guy is effective not because he kills anyone but opens opportunities for others. That tells me that one on one measurements are only part of the battle.

The Japanese didn't do that well against the forces of both Gengis Khan and Kubla Khan. Nature however did do well against the Khans. That needs to ba analized I think as well. In the early days of post Roman European Combat Charles Martel was able to stop a Muslim invasion. Why? 

I guess I think is that if we look at how to forces that are strangers to each other look does not tell us anything meaningful because given intellegence both sides may try and adapt.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

Another thought. Lets look at individual combat with no armor.

Kendo vs Rapier contest have been tried.

A guy from Spain ate up the Kendo man from Japan. Was it due to the men involved. Possibly but I think the rapier was in its element in this type of contest. I think the rapier is king of this kind of contest against almost any blade. Open ground one on one no armor.

Now lets stick the rapier into a battle even if no one has armor. I don't think I want many rapiers in my forces. For some specialized positons perhaps but I think the rapier is out of its element on the battlefield for the most part.

I think we need to look at armies the same way. Are they out of thier element. Can they change for the differences quickly and easily.


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

Just one question:

How do you think it would be for a Samurai to fight an excellently trained and mobile 6.2" tall European Knight dressed like this ??:





My answer to the question would be: Absolutely terrorfying ! I mean not only is the Knight just as fast with his weapons, has a two edged sword and shield, but where the heck do you make a blow at him ? 

The guy above is wearing very well tempered steel armour, something a Katana wouldn't want to come in contact with - a single impact could cause great damage to the Katana's fine cutting edge.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 4, 2007)

I do agree the Japanese would be in trouble in this matchup. They would have to make many alterations in order to cope.

I think it is mistaken however that European armies had the arI mored knight as the bulk of its forces. I thought they made up just a portion or even a minority of the fighting force. I thought most European armies utilized a mixed fighting force.

It does seem that the European knights are better protected from archers than the Japanese counterparts. The European knights are certain to have archers in the field with them. If I remember right it took about 10 years to get what was considered a competent useful archer prepared for his specialized task.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 4, 2007)

Thinking,

When full plate became more common didn't the Sword actually take a decline in use. War Hammers and the Battle Axe became more common on the field than before. When a number of guns came on to the scene full plate armor went onto the decline and swords became a more common sight again and the war hammers and battle axe went into decline.

If I am remembering this correctly, the sword was not the best weapon here.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2007)

You are not remembering correctly - the european swords were made specifically to be effective and withstand blows at plate armor. The most effective method was thrusting, however a well placed blow with the highly durable double edge sword could, while not penetrating the armor, break bones.

The sword was THE best infantry weapon throughout the middle ages.

However, war-hammers, maces, axes, halberds and chain maces were all effective as-well and could cause serious injuri to even the best protected knight with a well placed blow.


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2007)

One of the most common methods of killing mounted knights by unarmoured infantrymen, was to dismount them with fauchards/billhooks/halberds. And then make quick work of them since they were so encumbered.

And I think that jonsidneyb is on to something with respect to the sword. As platemail became more and more effective against the sword, this is what drove towards the use of weapons that relied less and less upon edged surfaces. Weapons that focused energy into a small point became much more efficient in penetrating platemail or causing crushing damage. Weapons such as the mace, flail, horseman's pick, war hammer, pike, fauchard and arrow suddenly were as effective or more effective than the sword "against armoured oppenents". The sword was still king against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.

Put a knight on horseback and force your fight to be up close and personal and the knight was damn near invincible. But force the fight to be at a distance or unhorse him and the tide quickly turns without mutual support to protect his flanks and rear. He was just too encumbered.


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

Being dressed in all that armor could be a problem if one had prostatitis. Is it true that English archers had arrows called bodkins that could penetrate plate armor? Some of the stuff I have read about the English longbow is fantastic.


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> One of the most common methods of killing mounted knights by unarmoured infantrymen, was to dismount them with fauchards/billhooks/halberds. And then make quick work of them since they were so encumbered.
> 
> And I think that jonsidneyb is on to something with respect to the sword. As platemail became more and more effective against the sword, this is what drove towards the use of weapons that relied less and less upon edged surfaces. Weapons that focused energy into a small point became much more efficient in penetrating platemail or causing crushing damage. Weapons such as the mace, flail, horseman's pick, war hammer, pike, fauchard and arrow suddenly were as effective or more effective than the sword "against armoured oppenents". The sword was still king against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.



I somewhat agree with this Matt, however the European double edged sword was effective against even a heavily armoured opponent, the well tapered point of the sword being very effective for thrusting attacks. And the excellent balance of the European broad sword also meant it could deliver breathtakenly hard blows which while it wouldn't penetrate plate armor however would break bones. And keep in mind that plate-mail is no'where near as strong as plate armour and is very vulnerable to the thrusting and chopping blows of the broad sword. The medieval broad sword was made specifically to combat an armoured opponent and was very effective at doing so, however a sword and shield won't do you much good if you're charged by calvary - hence the development of most of the weapons you just mentioned. The reason the Rapier was developed was that as armour got stronger and stronger and covered more parts of the body only thrusting attacks were really effective and the chopping and cutting blows became less effective, however the need was still there so although the Rapier was mainly a thrusting weapon it also featured a double cutting edge for blows at the less armored parts only protected by light chain-mail.

The war-hammer, mace and chain mace were not new developments, and were used from the beginning of the middle ages as alternative yet effective weapons against armoured opponents. Similar for all these is they were concussion weapons, which relied purely on the force of impact to stun their target. 



> Put a knight on horseback and force your fight to be up close and personal and the knight was damn near invincible. But force the fight to be at a distance or unhorse him and the tide quickly turns without mutual support to protect his flanks and rear. He was just too encumbered.



A dismounted Knight is arguably just as dangerous as a mounted Knight - however if your point is that his fighting ability emmidiately after having been dismounted is low then I agree, anyone just having been dismounted would be in a bad spot emmidiately afterwards.


----------



## Glider (May 10, 2007)

renrich said:


> Being dressed in all that armor could be a problem if one had prostatitis. Is it true that English archers had arrows called bodkins that could penetrate plate armor? Some of the stuff I have read about the English longbow is fantastic.



They could but only at very close range. Normally they would aim at the head when close. This was weaker and the visor was often open when close to hand to hand combat. It opened for visibility as if your close to that kind of fight you need that visibility.

At longer ranges say 40-50 yards there were better targets such as the legs, groin, its a nasty no holds barred business. Horses were vulnerable at much longer ranges 100-150 yards no problem. It depended on the quality of the armour which varied significantly, the type of arrowhead and the pondage of the bow, plus dumb luck at long range as to what you hit.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2009)

Glider said:


> ...They could (pierce armor) but only at very close range. Normally they would aim at the head when close. This was weaker and the visor was often open when close to hand to hand combat. It opened for visibility as if your close to that kind of fight you need that visibility... At longer ranges say 40-50 yards there were better targets such as the legs, groin, its a nasty no holds barred business. Horses were vulnerable at much longer ranges 100-150 yards no problem...



Not quite true.
True, a well trained archer could hit a person's head at close range. However, archers in mass would never aim for the head, it is just too small a target to be practical. English longbows are lethal against plate armor out to about 300 yards, thanks to a special (arrow)head they used with a metal disk that would push the tip into the armor. At close range, archers would usually run, not fire. But that is pointless, knights didn't use the longbow.
However, I doubt either the knight or samurai would engage with ranged weapons. While both knight and samurai used ranged weapons (crossbow for knight) few relied on them. Though, I would give a ranged battle to the samurai, because the bow is more rapid fire than a crossbow. I do question whither either could inflict a mortal blow through the other's armor.
As for a fight on foot, I believe that the fight would be a close, bloody one, finally decided by a mixture of luck and skill. Though I think that the longer the fight went on, the greater the chances for the Samurai. The knight would tire and become much easier to kill. That being said, the shock value of a six foot man in shiny plate armor, to a small, five foot asian man would be immense. If the knight pressed his advantage I believe he would have a decent chance to take the field. 
If by unlikely chance both were to meet each other on mount, I would give the fight to the knight. Few weapons beat a twenty foot lance in a charge.
So my vote? 2 to 1 the Knight.

Live with honor, or with honor die.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 11, 2009)

I too vote for the European warrior monks. The knight was a highly trained fanatic who was armed to the teeth and very physically fit. During the crusades the knights would fight some of the best light cavalry in the world who had accurate bows and light fast lances and scimitars. The knights would wade right through them outnumbered heavily and killing them in droves. Even the King of England, "The Lionheart", fought in the front of his men and he was very formidable. Salahadin admired his and his knights martial prowess.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 12, 2009)

European Knight hands down. Probably bigger and stronger which equates to faster. Samurai swords were slashers on the draw and weaker blades.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

I'd say the knight. Despite myths, and this was posted way earlier, well-made European armor was really the finest protection in the world and by the arrival of the cap-a-pied plate suit or harnisch, worked both defensively and offensively. Even if disarmed, the knight knew how to fight, and had a steel fist, elbow, knee, and head to strike with and deflect. By the 1400's it was very difficult to penetrate with the long bow, recent tests showing perferation only at 30 feet, and if we're talking a 16th century knight, his armor may be bullet-proofed, extraordinarily difficult to penetrate, but not all that heavy, as it was mostly the hardening and forging procedures that made the armor tougher. It wasn't until towards the 17th century that armor had to get thicker and heavier to stop bullets. The 15th-16th century harnisch averages 45-65 pounds, but that weight is distributed, and moves with the body, rather than against it, and only restrains it at the very maximum points of mobility.

The combination of his life-long training with many types of quick, deadly arms, but also unarmed and unarmored combat, as well as his assortment of weapons, physical charactersitics and to top it off the offensive and defensive capacity of his armor (espicially post-1350), I'd hand it to the knight.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 12, 2009)

It's been recorded over and over of battles during the medieval ages: the lowliest of pikemen made quick work of dismounted knights. If it's a contest of only armor and sword, then the Samurai wins with his ease of manuverability.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> It's been recorded over and over of battles during the medieval ages: the lowliest of pikemen made quick work of dismounted knights. If it's a contest of only armor and sword, then the Samurai wins with his ease of manuverability.



Well, if that's you vote, but actually, just the opposite has been recorded over and over in history: mounted knights were vulnerable to pike squares, dismounted knights tore the pikemen to shreds; read Machiavelli's Art of War or any account of pikes meeting armor from a primary source. The pikemen always lost unless they massively outnumbered the knights.

The main reason was that without the knights charging them on horseback, the pike didn't have enough force to overcome the armor, once the knights passed the tips, the pikes were useless, and they were so well protected by their armor that the pikemen simply could not cause sufficient casualties, while the knights floored the pikemen...or as Machiavelli put it "what a carnage! What a number of wounded men!"

EDIT: Also, an armored knight is no less mobile than an armored Samurai. Aside from a continuously misconstrued image of a bumbling idiot in armor, there is no evidence of knights being immobile. Why the heck would they even don the armor if it was a disadvantage? Reading Talhoffer, Ringeck, Dobrigner or any other fight master who covered armored techniques, we see that a man in the articulated harnisch was very mobile and maneuverable, able to fight armed or unarmed with ease in his armor.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 12, 2009)

20mikemike said:


> The main reason was that without the knights charging them on horseback, the pike didn't have enough force to overcome the armor, once the knights passed the tips, the pikes were useless, and they were so well protected by their armor that the pikemen simply could not cause sufficient casualties, while the knights floored the pikemen...or as Machiavelli put it "what a carnage! What a number of wounded men!"



My vote was based on what I've read on the Battles of Agincourt and Crecy, during which the English archers fell the horses from underneath the French knights, who were then rendered immobile under the weight of their armor. The pikemen would then kill them at their leisure. The danger to the knight was that as swords became heavier, their armor would correspondingly become thicker for better protection, but also much more heavy. There were plenty of cases where knights were simply knocked to the ground and killed afterwards since they were unable to move. Of course, the arrows of the longbow and later the cannon/musket balls practically rendered all personal armor of the knight as useless.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> My vote was based on what I've read on the Battles of Agincourt and Crecy, during which the English archers fell the horses from underneath the French knights, who were then rendered immobile under the weight of their armor. The pikemen would then kill them at their leisure. The danger to the knight was that as swords became heavier, their armor would correspondingly become thicker for better protection, but also much more heavy. There were plenty of cases where knights were simply knocked to the ground and killed afterwards since they were unable to move. Of course, the arrows of the longbow and later the cannon/musket balls practically rendered all personal armor of the knight as useless.



And who wrote the account, a historian, tactician, combatant? Considering that we still have armor from the times of the Battle of Crecy, we know that it did not weigh nearly enough to debilitate a man; most examples spanning from the 14th to mid-16th century only weigh between 45-65 pounds. If the French knights couldn't get back up it was because of the fall from the horse, being pinned by the animal or being trampled by their own men as they tried to advance, not because of weight. If anything, an author mentioning weight of armor was a slight at the enemy, calling them cowards "they are so afraid of death that they wear armor that weighs 200 pounds!" For that matter even without the surviving armor we can look at, feel and even wear, simple logic argues: "if it was that much a disadvantage, why would anyone wear it?"

Swords really didn't become much heavier, nor armor thicker: the typical Bastard weighing in at 2-4 pounds, the true two-hander at 3-7. Armor, from 1350-1550, became tougher from improvements in the forging techniques and the addition of carbon to the iron, making steel. It was not until after the 1550's with improvements to gun firing mechanisms that armor actually had to get thicker; but its weight was still around 65-75 pounds.

There are no cases I have ever heard of of a knight unable to get up due to the weight of his armor. The weight is distributed and works with the body, not against it. As for arrows, by the 1400's, the effective kill range of a longbow as about 10m or ~30 feet, and by the late 1400's-mid 1500's armor had the edge; it could deflect the harquebus at close range, pistols and crossbows at point blank. After the introduction of the musket, yes, armor was becoming thicker (as mentioned above) but it was still in use in some way, shape or form until around 1700.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2009)

It's a tougher call than it seems. Both are professional soliders. Both know their weaknesses and strengths. 

In a fight, on flat dry land, on foot, my vote would be to the guy who had the following advantages:

1. Best Training and Experience
2. Best Stamina
3. Most knowledge of his apponent. 

I guess the same would hold true for any dogfight as well!


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

THAT is truly the best answer!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2009)

havent read al the posts here, but thought I might put my knowledge up for consideration

The Samurai was the most highly trained professional soldier of his time, and was principally a mounted archer, wearing light armour, that was also extremely strong. The Japanese have a word to describe the method of Samurai warfare, in open battle. It is called Yabusame, or "the way of the horse and bow" The samurai was perhaps the best mounted archer in the world, equipped with a formidable composite recurved bow fully equivalent in power to the English longbow, but much smaller. other nationalities, principally the saracens and mongols used similar techniques, but none of them were able to produce bows of such compactness and accuracy. Moreover, the samurai, being a professional soldier that did nothing else other than train for war continuously, became extremely accurate at shooting man sized targets whilst at the full gallop. I know this because it is still a military art performed cermoniously today in Japan, at two places that I know of, in Kamakura, and the Toshugo Shrine at Nikko. A samurai bow in the hands of a fully trained warrior is said to be able to bring down a fully armoured man at 
more than 100 metres. 

Samurai armour did not protect the bow arm, so as to maximise the firing accuracy. Samurai did not use shields, and seldom the lance (these were carried into battle by the Yari Spearmen, which are different to the samurai warrior

Japanese metallurgy was unique in its heat treatment of its blades, which made them uniquely strong whilst also retaining the blade edge. Whereas in western europe, the ideas of hardening and tempering were not fully understood until the late 14th century, and therefore blades tended to be either over-hard, and brittle, the japanese from at least the fifth century had perfected a unque way of overcoming this. The blade edge of the sword was super hardened steel, exceptionally hard. Grafted onto the back of that was near spring steel, in order to give the blade the ability to absorb shock. Though not as good as a Damascus blade, it was better than anything coming out of Europe until the late 1300's. The result was that until that time the Japanese swords could be produced much lighter and more reliable than the European blades, which at the time had to be heavier and even then, less reliable.

The problem with relying on the european museum pieces that you guys are looking at is that in nearly every case, they arent even battle pieces, they are cermonial armour pieces that never were used in battle. they are light for that reason.....they never were intended for open battle. "Real armour", that used in battle was extremely heavy....Henry VIIIs battle armour weighed over 120 lbs, and he had to be bolted into the saddle, because he was unable to move otherwise. He had to be carried to the horse by his attendants. This is admittedly an extreme example, but I can assure you that proper battle armour does not weigh 40-45 lbs.

Similarly bastard swords are not the swords used by knights in battle. they are essentially the "handguns" of the middle ages, small light weapons used for personal defence when on the road. In Battle against a heavily armoured knight you needed mass, a two handed battle sword was the usual weapon of choice, if dismounted...if mounted it was a a single handed long sword, about 5 feet long, and still weighing about 20 lbs, because of the limits on metellurgy at the time (if mounted, the knight would usually also carry a smallish shield, and guide his horse either with his knees, or using his shield arm).... and the idea was as much to bludgeon the opponent as to cut him. I have handled one of these swords, and have seen replicas faithfully based on the "original" design. I can assure you they dont weigh 2-4 lbs....try 20-40 lbs and you are getting closer to what was carried into battle

The Europran knight was so heavily armed and armoured, that he had to have a draft horse (romantically referred to as a "war horse") to ride into battle. More lightly equipped support troops, called hobilars in French (literally "Hobby Horse") were much more lightly armed and armoured, and were there to protect the flanks of the heavy horse, as it rode into battle, to usually trample its opponents to death. These guys did wear light armour and carried small swords, but they are not your traditional Medieval Knights either. There were other forms of supporting cavalry, principally lancers, whose main job was to combat other cavalry that might be sent in to thwart the heavy cavalry as it charged the defending lines of Infantry 

There is no doubt in my mind that the Samurai was the more versatile soldier....despite the fact that he is less well armoured, and his melee equipment much lighter....faced with a heavy Eurpean knight on a heavy, but slow moving "warhorse", he is going to remain mounted, and mobile, firing arrows until he brings down his opponent,, and then, if necessary moving in on foot, which he was mobile enough to do, to finidh off his immobilised opponent


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2009)

I do not know enough on the subject to make a best vote, but I would say that I completely agree with timshatz and his quote here:



> It's a tougher call than it seems. Both are professional soliders. Both know their weaknesses and strengths.
> 
> In a fight, on flat dry land, on foot, my vote would be to the guy who had the following advantages:
> 
> ...



On a side not though, here are some pics of the Saxon royal families armor that I took in Dresden a few weeks ago (pics are not great due to lighting and glass).


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2009)

I cannot get over how beautiful and well crafted these suits are Adler, they really do show the excellent standards of workmaship that existed in ccentral europe at that time.

To me these look like ceremonial armour suits, produced much later, probably in the 18th century, and never actually intended for battle. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying that, but I think a misconception is developing in this thread, that the suits on display in museums throughout Europe are those actually worn in battle. The ones shown here at least are not battle armour....

To be fair in the discussion, the concept of the samurai being the swordsman par excellance is a later addition to the mythology, one that according to one authority on the matter (Kirk is his name) did not begin to emerge until after 1600, during the Sengoku era. Before that the Japanese Samurai tended to view the sword as a secondary weapon...and from that one gets the impression that they were not the mythological masters of sword play that Hollywood would have you believe. what the Samurai were good at was mounted archery. I have attached a link to the modern Yabusame competitions, which gives some idea of the skills needed to master this art...



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4t2k-Joc0_


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2009)

Yeah, really beautiful shots.

I gotta believe those suits weren't made for fighting, more for special occasions. Kind of like dress uniforms and utilities. 

Still, the craftmanship is amazing. Especially the second one down with the plume. Somebody had a few shekels lying around.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm afraid you've got a LOT of misconceptions taken as "facts":



parsifal said:


> The Samurai was the most highly trained professional soldier of his time



That's really a matter of opinion.



> The samurai was perhaps the best mounted archer in the world



Again, opinion. I know for fact that's one you can't give to Europe with regard to archery, but much was learned during the crusaids, and eventually, the Europeans would learn how to effectively use mounted archers.



> Moreover, the samurai, being a professional soldier that did nothing else other than train for war continuously, became extremely accurate at shooting man sized targets whilst at the full gallop.



As did the European knight following the 1100's.



> A samurai bow in the hands of a fully trained warrior is said to be able to bring down a fully armoured man at
> more than 100 metres.



Which was about useless against armor that defeated the bow at all ranges but under 10m.



> Whereas in western europe, the ideas of hardening and tempering were not fully understood until the late 14th century, and therefore blades tended to be either over-hard, and brittle, the japanese from at least the fifth century had perfected a unque way of overcoming this.



Mmmm...nope. European blades were made in many different ways at many different times, to include folding, damascine and false-damascine pattern-welding, stock removal and single forge; they knew what they were doing since the times of Rome.



> Though not as good as a Damascus blade, it was better than anything coming out of Europe until the late 1300's.



Again...nope.



> The result was that until that time the Japanese swords could be produced much lighter and more reliable than the European blades, which at the time had to be heavier and even then, less reliable.



Actually, the typical European blade is LIGHTER than Japanese blades and are just as "reliable" i.e. not likely to break.



> They arent even battle pieces, they are cermonial armour pieces that never were used in battle.



Again no. I'm referencing combat equipment.



> Henry VIIIs battle armour weighed over 120 lbs, and he had to be bolted into the saddle, because he was unable to move otherwise. He had to be carried to the horse by his attendants. This is admittedly an extreme example, but I can assure you that proper battle armour does not weigh 40-45 lbs.



No, that 120lb (IIRC, it was actually 90) monstrosity was an incomplete suit of Tournament armor, never used, and Henry may have needed assistance later on because of a horse-riding accident causing a horriffic leg wound. Yes, COMBAT ARMOR weighs between 45-65 lbs. It is TOURNAMENT ARMOR that weighs more and is less maneuverable as it is combat practice and safety was a bigger concern. Having had several years of researching real combat armor, real combat weapons, I assure you 45-65 is the accurate estimate, with outlying cases here and there, usually of poorer quality.




> Similarly bastard swords are not the swords used by knights in battle. they are essentially the "handguns" of the middle ages, small light weapons used for personal defence when on the road. In Battle against a heavily armoured knight you needed mass, a two handed battle sword was the usual weapon of choice, if dismounted...if mounted it was a a single handed long sword, about 5 feet long, and still weighing about 20 lbs, because of the limits on metellurgy at the time (if mounted, the knight would usually also carry a smallish shield, and guide his horse either with his knees, or using his shield arm).... and the idea was as much to bludgeon the opponent as to cut him. I have handled one of these swords, and have seen replicas faithfully based on the "original" design. I can assure you they dont weigh 2-4 lbs....try 20-40 lbs and you are getting closer to what was carried into battle



Yes, bastard swords were used by knights in battle (I can't count how many times they are the primary subjects of armored and unarmored combat in fechtbucher), average about 48" in length and weigh 2-4 pounds with outlying examples in the 5 pound range. The true two-hand sword was not the weapon of choice for knights but Dopplesoldner (double-pay men), who themselves employed it less often than the Halberd; the two-hander weighed between 3 and 7 pounds and had a length of between 60-78" on average, with outlying examples above and below. BEARING SWORDS or Paratschwert were the heavy SOB's and weighted between 6 and 14 pounds, and were not intended for combat at all.

I also have handled plenty of replicas, the heaviest two-hander I've ever handled weighs 6.5lbs. If you want a quality replica sword, go to Albion Arms, they're the closest you'll get without going to a swordsmith; they don't weigh anywhere near 20 lbs, they weigh around 1lb-6lbs, depending on make/model, and are all based on actual swords.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 12, 2009)

Light cavalry is offensively superior to heavy cavalry in that they can engage and withdraw at whim, forcing the action upon the heavy cavalry. Of course though if light cavalry had to face heavy cavalry and melee then the light cavalry would be wiped out. Heavy cavalry does not necesarily mean the knights were very heavy so much as it describes the formation tactics used in melee. in one on one the fight would go in eithers favor. In battle the victor would depend on tactics and use of light and heavy infantry as well. A crusading army with knights facing a samauri army my bets would be on the knights. One on one confrontation with armor the knight has the advantage, without armor the samauri has the advantage.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2009)

20mikemike said:


> I'm afraid you've got a LOT of misconceptions taken as "facts":
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I assume you have some references for all this......


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 12, 2009)

This is a silly dichotomy. Knights were primarily cavalry, Samurai were primarily infantry. It's apples and oranges.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2009)

No, actually samurai were primarily horse soldiers, and up to 1380 (approximately) were mounted archers. Later they utilized halberd style aimed at tearing off the opponents plates so as to make them vulnerable to attack. In Japan these are known (among other things) as the Yari spear.

A lot of contention exists about the weight of armour. It is true that the very best of the southern german and northern Italian armours could be as light as 45 lbs, but this was only at the very end of the age, and then only by the very few most elite troops. If we are talking the main stream knights, and including all of the kit, the helmets, the mail undervests, the belts etc, the weight does start to approach about 70lbs typically. It really does depend on the period you are talking about, and the quality of the workmanship of the armour. Most soldiers, even the nobility were lugging around inferir armours which also happened to be much heavier than 45 lbs

The other point of contention, and despite what anyone says it is an issue hotly contested, is the effectiveness of missiles, principally arrows against plate. Full Plate was not widely used in the 1300s, and was still a fairly rare form of protection in the 15th century. Long Bows had a draw strength in excess of 100 lbs, and at that rate were more powerful than a modern 303 out to ranges of 100 metres or so. I am relying on my own experience here, because for a number of years I was a member of the local archery club. I could just draw 75lbs, in a pinch, and at that draw stregth, at 50 metres, I could penetrate more than 2 inches of wood. One day as an experiment we placed a piece of mild steel up against a target, and fired a heavy gauge arrow at it, at range 50. It broke the arrow, and we could not penetrate. Next we had a mate who was a member of a historical society, and we put a piece of chain main up for the test. We could pretty consistently penetrate that. Lastly we pulled out the mother of all bows, a crossbow that fired steel quarrels at a whopping 150 lbs. It could penetrate the plate steel most times at ranges of 50 metres or less. Anyone who has fired one of these things knows just how powerful they are. 

In the period prior to 1400, when most bow combat occurred, the armouring systems used by the overwhelming majority of troops could be overcome by the bows of the time, including the Japanese composite, which at that time apparently had a draw strength of just under 100 lbs (I will need to check that). Plate armour was introduced more widely in the 15th century specifically to overcome that threat, as well as the threat from early firearms. However, it was eventually defeated by the use of halberds and other implements, designed to pull the plate off the weareer, which they did fairly successfully, not least because it was relatively easy to train a halberdier, and therefore one could have lots of them as opposed to just a few plate armour knights. This revolution in warfare affected the japanese as much as the Europeans, one Japanese Daimyo is credited with saying something like...."if you have a choice between 1000 Yari spearman (Halberdiers) and 100 samurai, choose the 1000 Yari"

By the time of the Plate armour era, the Japanese horse soldiers, the Samurai, were also moving away from the bow and using variations of the Yari "spear" as a counter to the heavily armoured foot soldiers they were beginning to encounter. They also began to develop the expert sword skill that Hollywood has made them famous for. But in the true medieval era (ie prior to 1400), they were mounted archers, able to defeat all who oppsed them, except those of the same class.....


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 12, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I assume you have some references for all this......



Aside from about a decade of in-depth research (note, about 5 of those years were before college), and a thesis, here's a partial list I had to compile a little while ago; I selected armors, parts of armors, and especially two-hand swords.

Also, the list does not include the collection of suits made by the Missaglia Family that were found in a monestary (no one quite knows why...) which were of the type used af Fornovo, 1495. They weigh around 60lb average.

BASIC
Higgen's Armory Quote:

-TYPICAL WEIGHTS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ARMOR-

COMBAT ARMOR: (45-70lbs)
PARADE ARMOR: (30-80lbs)
JOUSTING ARMOR: (80+lbs)


IN-DEPTH
-Higgins Armory-

--FULL SUITS

Armor, German, ca.1430 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Wrought Iron
Weight: 56lbs (30lbs of plate, 26lbs of maille)

--PARTS

---HALF ARMOR
Half-Armor - JOUSTING
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 39.83lbs - Helm: 23.5lbs, Breastplate: 16.33lbs

Half Armor, ca.1600-25 (Morion, Breast Plate, Tassets) - COMBAT
Smith: English, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 19lb 8oz

---HELMS

Comb Morion, Civic Guard, ca.1580-90 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 2lbs 9oz

-Reading Museum-

--FULL SUITS

Maximilian Armor, ca.1520-30 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 55lbs

German Laminated Cuirass, ca.1550 - COMBAT (Breast and Backplate, Gorget, Tassets)
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 27lb 1oz

--PARTS

---HELMS

Close Helm, ca.1535-40 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: 13in
Weight: 7lbs 8oz

Maximilian Close Helm, ca.1520-30
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: 11in
Weight: 5lb 8oz

-Metropolitan Museum of Art-

--FULL SUITS

Armor for Henry II of France, ca.1555 - CEREMONIAL
Smith: Etienne Delaune
Mateirel: Steel, embossed, blued, silvered and gilded.
Height: 74in
Weight: 53lb 4oz

Armor of George Clifford, Third Earl of Cumberland, ca. 1580-85 - COMBAT (with Garniture for Tourney)
Smith: Royal Workshops (Greenwich)
Materiel: Steel, etched, blued, and gilded.
Height: 69.5in
Weight: 60lb (COMBAT GARNITURE) - ? (TOURNEY GARNITURE)

Armor of Heavy Cavalry, ca. 1610-1620 - COMBAT (Note: One of the heaviest field armors known, bullet proofed)
Smith: Italian (Milan/Brescia), mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel, gold, leather, and textile
Height: ?
Weight: 86lb 8oz


--PARTS

---BREAST PLATES/HALF ARMORS

Elements of a Light-Cav. Armor, ca.1510 - COMBAT, (Note: Breast and Backplate, All arm protection, save for Gauntlets)
Smith: Italian (Milan), mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel, etched and gilded
Height: ?
Weight: 19lb 13oz

Harquebus Armor of Pedro II, King of Portugal, ca. 1683 - COMBAT (Note: Breast and Backplate, Helm and single Gauntlet
Smith: England (London), believed to be from Richard Holden
Materiel: Steel, etched, blued and gilded
Height: ?
Weight: 43lb 5oz

---HELMS

"Barbute" Sallet, ca.1470-80 - COMBAT
Smith: Italian, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 6lb, 9oz

Burgonet with Falling Buffe, ca.1555 - CEREMONIAL
Smith: French (Paris)
Materiel: Steel, blued and gilded
Height: 14in
Weight: 5lb, 6oz

Visored Sallet, ca.1470-85 - COMBAT
Smith: Hans Blarer the Younger (German)
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 7lb 2oz

War Hat, ca.1475
Smith: ? (Likely Bugundian, mfgr unknown)
Materiel: Steel
Height: 10.25in
Weight: 6lb 7oz

Armet with Wrapper, ca.1460-70
Smith: Armet - Italian, mfgr unknown/Wrapper - Italian, Missiglia Family
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 8lb (Armet) 4lb (Wrapper) TOT: 12lb


-WEAPONS-

-TRUE TWO-HAND SWORDS-

-LIVURSTKAMMAREN-

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 13639.
Swedish, c1658
Length: 1010 mm (39.7 inches)
Blade: 862 mm (33.9 inches)
Weight: 1735 g (3.47 pounds)

Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5666.
Swedish, c1658.
Length: 1025 mm (40.3 inches)
Blade: 933 mm (36.7 inches)
Weight: 1590 g (3.18 pounds)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12959.
Solingen, Early 17th century.
Length: 1350 mm (56.2 inches)
Blade: 961 mm (37.8 inches)
Weight: 3010 g (6.2 pounds)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16660.
German, 17th century.
Length: 1428 mm ( inches)
Blade: 1048 mm ( inches)
Weight: 2730 g (5.46 pounds)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12947.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1185 mm (46.6 inches)
Blade: 954 mm (37.5 inches)
Weight: 1240 g (2.48 pounds)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12667.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1225 mm (48.2 inches)
Blade: 904 mm (35.5 inches)
Weight: 1310 g (2.62 pounds)

Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370.
German. Late 16th century.
Length: 1422 mm (55.9 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.5 inches)
Weight: 2700 g (5.9 lbs)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12706.
German. Late 15th century.
Length: 1473 mm (58 inches)
Blade: 1066 mm (41.9 inches)
Weight: 2720 g (5.9 lbs)

Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5480.
Germany, 15th century.
Length: 1375 mm (54.2 inches)
Blade: 920 mm (36.2 inches)
Weight: 1600 g (3.5 lbs)

-KRAKOW-

Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Late 15th-Early 16th Century
Length: 65.7in
Blade: 46.1in
Weight: 6lbs

Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Early 16th Century
Length: 62in
Blade: 45.1in
Weight: 6.2lbs

Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Early 16th Century
Length: 64in
Blade: 49.21in
Weight: 6.5lb



If you need more examples, I can find 'em.

EDIT: Also of note, one of the reasons Italian, German and Spanish steel was so good was because of Manganese found in the ore; as Stephen V. Granscay (former curator at Higgins) wrote: "But in the 16th century, English iron was non-resistant; a musket ball could be shot through it, while the iron of Innsbruck or that of Northern Spain or of Italy tenaciously clung to the ball and was merely dented." (Granscay, Stephen V., The John Woodman Higgins Armory Catalogue of Armor, 1961)


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Light cavalry is offensively superior to heavy cavalry in that they can engage and withdraw at whim, forcing the action upon the heavy cavalry. Of course though if light cavalry had to face heavy cavalry and melee then the light cavalry would be wiped out. Heavy cavalry does not necesarily mean the knights were very heavy so much as it describes the formation tactics used in melee. in one on one the fight would go in eithers favor. In battle the victor would depend on tactics and use of light and heavy infantry as well. A crusading army with knights facing a samauri army my bets would be on the knights. One on one confrontation with armor the knight has the advantage, without armor the samauri has the advantage.



Nearest equivalent to that situation that I can think of is the saracens v crusaders. Not a student of the crusades, but I understand the Saracens horse archers similar to the Samurai (but IMO not as good) riding lighter Arab horses, much faster and more manouverable than the Crusader heavy horse. I think (but will stand corrected) that the Saracens could only be defeated if the battle degenerated to a set piece battle, like a siege, but generally, when charged by the crusaders, they would simply retreat, fire arrow, kill a few crusaders, and so on


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 12, 2009)

Perhaps one thing that many people overlook, is the fact that to be a European Knight, one had to train for years. A student usually became esquired to a Knight, and was tutored in battle techniques and trained constantly. Once his mentor thought him ready, he then had to prove his prowess, usually in contests during festivals. The time period could be about 8 - 10 years to become elligable for Knighthood, and not everyone would qualify.

This wouldn't make for good movie material, so people are usually left with the impression that to be a Knight, you have to save everyone in some climactic battle, and the King himself comes over and Knights you on the spot...

To be Samurai, you had a similiar scenario. A student would be taken under the tutelage of a "Sensei" who was a master of the art. The student would then be trained in the arts, much like his European counterpart, for years. Not everyone would qualify to be a Samurai, either.

I think that a classic battlefeild confrontation between the Knights and Samurai from comparable time periods would be a clash of the Titans.

The typical sword of the Knight would definately be an advantage, and tear into the Samurai's lighter armor, but if the Knight did not carry the battle in a short time period, I think that the Samurai would take a victory by wearing the Knight down. A Samurai is incredibly skilled in blow and thrust placement of thier sword, and would use that accuracy to thier advantage, as well.

The Portuguese soldiers were able to defeat Samurai with thier Rapiers not because it would cleave the Samurai's armor, but because in a thrust, it would penetrate in between the laquered iron shingles of the Samurai's armor.
The rapier also flexed when parrying a blow from a katana, and allowed the Portuguese soldier the ability to return a thrust to his enemy faster, and speed is your best defense against a Samurai.

All in all, I would say it's a draw.

By the way, the typical men of the middle ages stood about 5 foot, 6 inches on average. King Richard (the Lionheart) was referred to as "A giant among men" with his almost 6 1/2 foot stature.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 12, 2009)

Yes! I know that many of the Saracens considered King Richard invincible as he plowed furrows through them. The Knights lived a very strict and pious life. I know in the Holy Order of the Hospital of St. Germain(Teutonic Knights) the code was strict concerning morality and piousness. The disipline was harsh and life was very dangerous. But being a member of a Holy Order endorsed by the Pope was a way to get ahead in life and improve your families position. The Teutonic knights fought in the middle east as well as Poland ,Lithuania, and Russia.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 13, 2009)

Hi Mike

I acknowlwdge the quality of the information you are working with, but I do note a couple of things for you to consider.

At various points in your reply you mention the weight of armour plate as being 45-65 lbs, with a few exceptions. I believe that the all up weight of the soldiers armour was around 70 lbs. I also make the point that many of the soldiers were using second grade or worse standards of armour, and that this could well lead to an increase in weight. So, you are saying 45-65, and I am saying 70.....so why this big reaction????

Next, I do think you need to produce some further evidence, not because I question the veracity of the information you are presenting, but simply it is generally from the wrong time period, in order for us to compare apples to apples. I have said that the era of the Yabusame was about 1050 through to about 1380, and I note that the era of the great victories by archers in Europe was also about 1100 through to about 1420. Yet the references to armour and arms that you have presented are all from 1430 onwards, with most occurring in the 1550 through to 1650 period (roughly). That is not medieval to me, it is more the Renaissance age, or in the case of the British, the Tudor and Stuart Age. I dont think we can compare the weapons of 1100 with the weapons of 1550, and try and pass that off as a fair comparison. By 1550 the Samurai were using different tactics against their opponents, and the use of the Yabusame bows was beginning to die off.

So if you have information on the arms and armour of the period 1100-1350 or there abouts, that might help to make a proper comparison.


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Hi Mike
> 
> I acknowlwdge the quality of the information you are working with, but I do note a couple of things for you to consider.
> 
> ...



I apologize if that list makes it seem like I'm coming off harsh or jerk-like; I wanted to give a good number of examples to prove my point that armor is indeed pretty light, but primarily that my information was valid. I agree (and there's a lot of proof): there was heavier armor, which was usually of poorer quality and even though heavier, did not protect nearly as well as the lighter-weight, well-forged armors of Southern Germany and Northern Italy.

With regard to time periods: yes, my examples are from well later, really beyond the zenith of the knight, but when we consider the so-called "knight in shining armor" i.e. the cap-a-pie suit of plates or the "harnisch", these were from the later timeperiod. If we're talking about knights of 1100-1350, we're talking about maille and mixed maille/plate armors, still of good quality, but not as effective as the later armors. Maille coats, when well made, were exceptionally effective at absorbing and deflecting cuts and were fairly resistant to thrusts. During the Crusades, Muslim warriors did use hit-and-run tactics because the Crusaders were so well armored. The use of the bow and arrow helped them as well, but they noted the surprising resiliance of the armor against their bow and arrows (it wasn't always one-shot-one-kill.)

Something else I've noticed is that we all keep assuming the knight is going to be using a sword. During the 1100-1300's, a knight could have carried a sword and shield, but he might be using, say, a bearded axe, which is a pretty horriffic weapon in its own right, and can be pretty dicey for a swordsman to face. Protected by the shield, the soldier can use that axe to hook an opponent's leg or other appendage, and, even if the shaft is caught in the strike, there's still a few inches of steel axehead protruding towards its target.

Perhaps neither samurai nor knight is armed with sword, or instead they start with the Yari and Halberd. The Halberd hadn't evolved into what we normally think of it as by the 1300's, but it was getting closer. It still had a spear-like tip, and it had a wider, thinner and longer axehead, and could have a hook at the back. Both Halberd and Yari were of similar length and a solid strike from either the knight or the samurai would probably fell the opponent.

With regard to swords, there's the chance that the knight, by around 1300, is armed with a great-sword. While not quite as big as the true two-hander, it is a considerably long weapon, able to deliver an excellent cut, and sharp at the tip for thrusting. Similarly to the two-hander, it is better offensively than defensively, and lacked some of the tricky extras found on some two-handers: the parrierhaken (parrying hooks) and hand guard rings. If the samurai is armed with a yari, this would be a very interesting fight.

Outta time for now...I apologize again if I came off like an ass.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 13, 2009)

Hi Mike

No apology needed, I learnt quite a lot from your post.

I accept that the "era of Plate" reached its zenith after the "era of the bow" and moreover, plate was the technology that beat the bow. But really, its not a fair comparison to match the Samurai technology to the later plate technology. Some sources have Samurai sword technology dating as far back as the 5th century BC (although those blades bear little resemblance to the popular mythology of the Katana). Japanese mirror plate is older technology than the full plate you are talking about, and of course, their main medieval weapon, the bow, was falling from use, and had been made obsolete by the plate armour of the Renaissance period. By 1600 Japanese armies were using a large proportion of firearms, as well as halberdiers and the samurai were adopting/developing their unique forms of swordplay. Bottom line is that I dont think you can make a valid comparison. The knights technology....the "knight in shining armour" had reached its zenith, when the samurai....the real samurai technology was already obsolete. If you compare the "knight in Shining armour" to the classical "samurai on horseback" you are comparing technologies at least 250 years apart. in that situation the european knight is going to have the clear technological advantage. The only fair way to make a comparison, is to compare the samurai as it was in 1300, to the knights technology of 1300. 

The bow technology of the samurai at that time could defeat the mirror plate armour they (the Japanese) were using at that time (though not always, as you point out and less often then the mail armour of the 1100 era, although as you say I dont think archers were able to defeat mail every time either...the light bows of the mongols were not very successful at all against that technology for example) 

But IMO the Samurai of 1300 had the advantage over his 1300 era european counterpart, because he was mounted on a horse faster and more agile than the european warhorse, and because his primary weapon, his Yabusame bow was proven as able to defeat the mail armour of his opponent. In melee combat, I actually think the European knight would have the advantage, simply because swordplay was not the primary mode of combat used by samurai at this time, but was that for the euro knight. Whilst I am still unconvinced that the european metellurgy in 1300 was as good as the Japanese metallurgy of the same period, I will concede that I am not as sure of that now as I was some time ago.....and in any event its not a major consideration in the match up anyway.

So, to sum up my opinion....if the battle remains a "missile" fight (which i believe is likley, given the mobility advantages for the Japanese), I believe the Japanese warrior will have the advantage. However, if the fight closes to melee combat, the bigger horse of the european is going to make a big difference, moreover it is likley that the sword skills of the euro knight are going to be superior to those of his Japanese counterpart. In that circumstance the advantage lies with the european knight....IMO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> To me these look like ceremonial armour suits, produced much later, probably in the 18th century, and never actually intended for battle. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying that, but I think a misconception is developing in this thread, that the suits on display in museums throughout Europe are those actually worn in battle. The ones shown here at least are not battle armour....



Actually the armor room has armor dating back to the 15th Century and has ceremonial and battle armor in it.

In fact the last photo shows the battle armor that was worn by Johann Georg I of Saxony during the 30 Years War from 1618–1648.


----------



## DBII (Feb 13, 2009)

Most of my points have been already covered. The only thing I can add is the for Japan and China, the sword was a secondary weapon. The primary weapon would be a spear for foot soldiers or for a mounted soldier a long spear or a weapon similar to a kwon dao. Even dismounted the eastern fighter would use a sword only if the primary weapon was lost or damaged. Once the secondary weapon was deployed, the soldier would use mobility to get to a postion to thrust between the armor. Mobility was valued more than the protection of heavy armor. As a side note, in the 1800s the Fencing Masters from Europe would travel to Japan the fight against the Samurai. The Europeans would normally get several hits against the Samurai resulting in puncture wounds and cuts. The Europeans were fast. However, once the Samurai did strike, there was a loss of a limb or the strike was fatal.

DBII


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 13, 2009)

I'd take Mongols with horsebows over both of them.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 13, 2009)

I'd take the 11.Panzer-Division over the mongols!


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 13, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd take Mongols with horsebows over both of them.



Hmm, am I right in thinking that a horsebow is basically a short bow? If so, I would question whether the arrows would penetrate that knight's armour. The bowfire which decimated French knights at Crecy and Agincourt was from longbows, firing heavy arrows with narrow, penetrating tips on arcing trajectories. In short, a lot of force being concentrated on a very small point of impact, like a modern sabot round. I would imagine the horseman's bow to fire with less force on a much flatter trajectory. 

Of course, even mounted knights would struggle to engage the faster Mongols, but if a melee could be bought on, the Mongols would be butchered. Even if they kept the range, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of their arrows vs armour.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 13, 2009)

The Mongols were certainly a formidable mounted archery force. They incorporated a lightweight short (about 46 inch) bow, which incorporated a "snap bridge" which is somewhat like a guitar bridge. In function they gave a small increase to projectile velocity.

Great and handy as these bows were, they are still in the "Light Bow" category. Modern replicas of these magnificent bows have achieved draw strengths of 45-75 lbs, and maximum projectile velocities of around 200 metres per sec. They are composite bows, using a mixture of wood, bone, and sinew, which made them lightweight (about 2lbs), and very handy, essential for horseborne archers. 

However, at 45-75 lbs draw, they simply lacked the killing power to be effective against properly armoured troops. They were effective against lightweight mail armour, but could not penetrate the later "mirror plate" except at very close range. 

Why I think the the Japanese Yabusame bows are superior is simply because they were more heavy weight. A Yabusame bow had a draw weight of at least 100 lbs, which I believe makes it the heaviest mounted bow. It was less handy than the Mongolian bow, but far more powerful. Its superior ballistics of the arrows used meant that projectile velocities of around 250 metres per second were possible. This was still not quite up to the same standard of the the huge English Longbows, and considerably behind the performance of the English Recurve Longbows (some evidence exists that in the lead up to Crecy, the English used their mounted archers....the creme de la creme of their archer forces, to force the crossing of the Somme by using these archers in a mounted role, something not generally seen in western Europe at that time). 

If the British were using recurved longbows at Crecy, this goes some way to explaining how they could penetrate the French partial plate at the battle. My theory is that the standard bowmen, who lacked the power in their bows to be affective against even 14th century partial plate to concentrate on the French horse, bringing French Knights down. This then gave the master archers, now operating dismounted, and weilding these massively powerful six foot recurve longbows to pour fire into the temporarily immobilised French Knights with the most powerful bows of the day. It is estimated that these bows had an effective draw weight of about 150-180 lbs (but because it is recurved, it does not require that strength to drawl the bow), enabling the French Plate to be penetrated out to distances of about 30 metres. Generally, longbows could not penetrate plate armour beyond 10-20 metres. 

The Mongol Light bows against plate armour had no hope. Japanese Yabusame bows might penetrate plate at 10 metres, mirror plate could be beaten out to about 50 metres if a weak point could be found. I estimate that mail armour could be pentrated out to about 60 metres....but this is a guess


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 13, 2009)

I'll take a phalanx of Hoplites over Mongols any day!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 13, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I'll take a phalanx of Hoplites over Mongols any day!


unlike most of this board, I belive in scoreboard. Mongols crushed larger armies for hundreds and launched Chinese dynasties and several empires, Mughal for one, Timor's for another.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 14, 2009)

I think a good deal of folks here go for scoreboard, too...

Can't help but pop in fun stuff once in a while (sicking a panzerdivision on the Mongols wouldn't be fair anyways ).

Be that as it may, the Hoplites were a military force to be reckoned with, and once formed into a phalanx, impregnable. Of course, this was an effective military tactic of thiers almost 2,000 years before the Mongols founded thier empire.

In terms of "scoreboard", I'd say that the Mongol empire itself didn't rate up there with other empires as far as legacy. They basically swarmed down out of the hills, overwhelmed an adversary and absorbed it, and moved on. All the empires that evolved from the Mongols were because of the infighting and fractioning. The Turks (Ottomans) were a direct result of the fragmenting empire, and the Mughal dynasty came about 200 years after the Mongols were gone. They didn't develop any arcitecture, literary works, social/industrial innovations or any of the hallmarks of a great civilization.

Anyway, this really has nothing to do with Middle-age European versus Feudal Japanese martial comparisons, does it?


----------



## claidemore (Feb 14, 2009)

parsifal said:


> But IMO the Samurai of 1300 had the advantage over his 1300 era european counterpart, because he was mounted on a horse faster and more agile than the european warhorse, and because his primary weapon, his Yabusame bow was proven as able to defeat the mail armour of his opponent. In melee combat, I actually think the European knight would have the advantage, simply because swordplay was not the primary mode of combat used by samurai at this time, but was that for the euro knight. Whilst I am still unconvinced that the european metellurgy in 1300 was as good as the Japanese metallurgy of the same period, I will concede that I am not as sure of that now as I was some time ago.....and in any event its not a major consideration in the match up anyway.
> 
> So, to sum up my opinion....if the battle remains a "missile" fight (which i believe is likley, given the mobility advantages for the Japanese), I believe the Japanese warrior will have the advantage. However, if the fight closes to melee combat, the bigger horse of the european is going to make a big difference, moreover it is likley that the sword skills of the euro knight are going to be superior to those of his Japanese counterpart. In that circumstance the advantage lies with the european knight....IMO



Just a little note from an old horseman. 
In 1300, the horses being used by knights were not the big destriers like Clydesdales and Percherons. They were horses that looked more like Andalusians. Bigger than what they were riding in Japan, but definately not the draft types. El Cid for example (1100 ), rode Andalusian type horses, and there are few breeds that are quicker or more athletic. 
If you look at tapestrys and other artwork from the period, you won't see horses in any battle scene that will stand over 15 hands, most are about 14 hands. The big 'draft' breeds weren't developed until much later.
Illustrations from that time period nearly always show mounted knights with their feet well below the barrel of their horses. That doesn't happen on any horse over 14 hands and definately not on a Percheron, even the saddle horse type Percheron (I've ridden Percherons). 
The horses that Samurai were riding in 1300 were basically pony sized, 11-12 hands. No match for the larger western horses of that time period.
Also, my own research and involvement with Medieval weapons puts me in 100% agreement with Mikes postings on armor and weapons.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 14, 2009)

parsifal,

A 180 lb bow requires 180 lbs to draw it, the shape of the limbs (recurved or not) does not affect the amount of force needed to draw it, only the speed at which the bow reacts and the shock or vibration created when the arrow is released. Only in a compound bow with cables and wheels is there 'letoff', allowing the archer to hold the bow with approximately 50% of the draw weight. 
The bows recovered from the Mary Rose (1500s) were between 80 and 180 lbs, with the average being 100-120. "Primitive Archer" had several articles a few years ago about longbows penetrating plate armor. One article in particular mentioned an armor advocate who wanted to wear a breastplate and have the longbowman fire a bodkin arrow at him to 'prove' the armor would protect him. The archer persuaded him to test the breastplate without a human in it first. Suffice it to say the longbowman saved the armor advocates life that day.
Incidentally, even though the bow was not a weapon used by knights in warfare (archers were commoners), they did use them for hunting and sport.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2009)

Your right, 180 lb draw weight is 180 lb draw weight, however, 180lb put into a recurve delivers more punch at the "business end" than a non-recurve bow, I guess thats what happenss when I try ti cut corners in my explanation....I will try and explain 

It all depends on the design of the bow, whether that bow is a recurve or longbow. BOTH can deliver the same "power", but how far they will send arrow (and therefore the power contained in the projectile) is all up to the bow's efficiency....

Example: Two bows, one a recurve and the other a longbow, both with a draw-weight of 50# @ 28" (it takes 50 pounds of force to bring the bowstring back to 28"); the recurve is a modern recurve and the longbow is of the classic "English Long Bow" (ELB) style. Because they are both the same draw-weight, and designed for maximum efficiency, they both perform about the same -- but they are of different lengths. The recurve is shorter than the longbow, due to the recurved tips. This, incidentally is one of the unique features of the Yabusame bow....it is a recurve composite, with height similar to the ELB. Requires exceptional skills to operate from horseback, but the returns in projectile power are well worth the effort

Now, take two more bows, again a modern recurve and an ELB; this time, both bows are the same length, as well as the same draw-weight. Because of the recurve bow's design, it will out-perform the longbow, since those recurved tips will travel farther, effectively storing more raw "power" in the bow. I don't recall right now whether the stiff, "static" recurve is more powerful than the flexible, "working" recurve, but both types make the bow more efficient than an ELB of comparable physical length.

So, in order for an ELB to be as efficient as a recurve of the same draw-weight, it has to be physically longer (hence the name "longbow") so that the longbow's limb tips will move as far as the recurve bow's limb tips -- and also to store and deliver the same amount of raw energy. What makes the difference, really, is how fast the bow's limbs move, which dictates how efficiently they transfer the stored energy to the arrow...and how far the arrow goes, or how well it will penetrate the target.

A bow with heavy, slow-moving limbs -- whether it is a recurve or a longbow -- will not send an arrow as far as a bow with light, fast-moving limbs of a comparable size.

So to put my original argument into its proper perspective, a recurve properly designed that is a lower draw strength, provided it is properly designed (to get the same speed of its arms) can still get the same, or superior raw energy as its ELB counterpart. The recurve design is, IMO a more efficient design, able to deliever the energy that is stored in it when drawn, more efficiently than a straight bow


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2009)

Hi Claidemore, its not exactly tru that the archers at Crecy were exactly commoners. They were actually freedmen, somewhat higher in station to "commoners. this was reflected in their rates of pay.....a foot archer was paid 4 pence per day, whilst a mounted master archer was paid sixpence per day. English mounted master archers usually did not fire from horseback, but being mounted they could move with the other mounted elements of the army, and therefore were good at raiding and the like.

Even though the Master Archers did not fight from horseback, normally, there is some evidence that in the lead up to Crecy, during the chaotic crossing of the Somme, the Master archers fired from horseback,as they forced the forded crossing being defended by the Picardy militia. 

There is some evidence that the Master Archers were equipped with recurved "Longbows" This is unusual, but recent experiments shows that the illustrations of such weapons could be of real weapons....they have actually built a recurve bow from a single piece of Yew using a steambox....all technology available to the English Bowyers of the time


----------



## claidemore (Feb 14, 2009)

Hi parsifal,

OK, I'm understanding your point much better. BTW, there are illustrations of medieval (European) use of recurve bows for hunting, and Crusaders would have brought back recurved composite bows from the East. 

I'll include an interesting test of arrow penetration.

My understanding of the question in this thread is 'primarily' how would a European knight and Samurai compare in single combat with swords. At least that's the usual comparison made. 
In that context the western knight has all the advantages. He's taller, better armored, has a sword that is much more versatile, has a better diet, rides a much better horse. 
Also when I look at period illustrations of Samurai I see a lot of round faced, large waisted fellas, which I don't think can just be attributed to artistic style. Not at all the stringent fitness regime of Samurai legend.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2009)

Sorens original parameters for this discussiopn were:

_Its time for something other than airplanes:

This is a much debated match-up, with essentially the same amount of people voting for each to emerge the victor, there being lots of biased opinions out there from people using the equipment of both combatants. 

So who do think would emerge victorious in a clash between these two ancient icon's ? _

Now in melee combat, Samurai were not the sword master they are depicted to be in the Hollywood movies. That did not come until later, about from 1600 or so. In 1300, they were primarily mounted archers, and very powerful ones at that, wielding what is essentially a long bow on horseback. that means they are very mobile , and able to defeat the heaviest troops they are likley to face on the battle field. The Japanese were not riding Mongol ponies, they were an indigenous breed about the same size as the Hobilar mounts (literally "Hobby Horse") of the french Light Cavalry types. They were hardy little mounts, and adequately fast IMO. So, to reduce the fight to a melee combat only in the 14th century, you are right, the samurai is going to lose. He has some sword skills, but it is not his primary weapon at this time. Later the Samurai relied on the Yari Spear (actually a halberd) as his primary weapon, although there also specialist in firearms, NoDachi, and all manner of weapons used regulalry by the Japanese. However, this diversification came later, as did the training in swords. In the 14th century, the Samurai was an archer, and a wrestler (of all things) and a very good one at that.

By the time the Samurai was a swordsman, his role was fading. There was a general peace in Japan for more than 300 years, after the unification wars, and many of the samurai did fall into debauched life styles.....and they are the pictures of fat dudes with funny robes and weird hairdos that you often see. In the medieval period i can assure that this was not the case....they were fit, specialised soldiers

I read your attachment....your right its a good article,and consistent with what I understand as well, although I believe that Longbows up to about 120 lb were available (with the recurve longbows, the recurve gives them a draw weight equivalent to a 150 ELB. The curent longbow chanpion in England uses a bow with a draw strength of 150 lbs, apparently


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 14, 2009)

If both the knight and samurai are mounted, the samurai with bow and spear and the knight with lance and sword, both with armor at around the year 1350, I would have to estimate that the victor is going to be whoever plays smarter. Neither party is going to know his enemy's strengths or weaknesses, and making any assumptions could cost them dearly. If the samurai fires his arrows at the knight too far out, he will either miss, or his arrows will be ineffective. We also have to take into consideration the arrowhead used by the samurai - this is out of my area of experteise, but in Europe, the arrowhead that could punch through armor close in was known as the "bodkin" head. The bodkin looks nothing like a typical arrowhead, but instead was needle-like, putting all of the impact pressure on a very small point. Wider heads were not as effective against armor, even in 1350. Making a bad estimate about this while closing could put a lance through the samurai's neck, or through his horse.

On the other hand, the knight does have to be wary of getting his horse shot out from under him. Although horse armor did exist in 1350, just like the armor of the knight riding it, it was not as advanced, resiliant, or well-covering as later horse armor. I can think of a couple instances in later fechtbucher where the ideal target against a rider is his steed. In the event that the knight's horse is taken down while he is closing, it is very likely that the knight will be killed falling at high-speed and breaking his neck or skull, or if not killed outright, likely taking sufficient enough wounds/broken bones to put him out of the fight, just like the French knights at Crecy.

In the event that the samurai exhausts his arrow ammunition, and it goes spear against lance, I'd give the advantage to the knight based upon range. Both the knight and samurai were highly trained in the use of spear weaponry, the knight especially so on horseback, but the same could be said for the samurai as well. Knightly lances could be 12 or more feet in length, and the primary targets of lance strikes were the neck or the head. If the knight assumes, however, that the samurai isn't going to try to get out of the way, (as would happen at times during the Crusades, a Muslim rider would evade by sliding down on the side of his horse) there's a good chance he'll miss, and the samurai's own spear could find its target. On the other hand, if the knight were to play it safe and aim instead at the samurai's horse, he's got a bit more range, and at least could put the samurai on the ground.

If somehow all weapons were exhausted it would get very interesting. Knightly combat could include grappling _on horseback_ and examples of this type of combat can be found in Talhoffer's fechtbuch of 1467 and Wallhausen's fechtbuch of 1616 (this one also includes targeting horse), and although outside our time of combat (1350), the advanced techniques shown therein seem to have been well known for a while (I'll need to check some of the other fechtbucher for more examples.) THAT would be a sight to see (though quite gruesome as well!)

--ON FOOT CONSIDERATION--

On foot, I would give the advantage to the knight, as I've said before, but with the question of what are the knight and samurai armed with? Does the knight have a halberd or maybe poleax complementing his sword? Or is he using a sword and shield, or perhaps bearded axe and shield? What is the samurai using as his weaponry, and how often has he faced a shielded opponent? Both the knight and the samurai were amazing martial artists, both used strikes and wrestling often (most accounts of single knightly armored combat end up with wrestling, then a dagger to the face of whoever lost). The key differentiating factor that I give to the knight is his armor. That said, who would REALLY win is whoever is the smarter fighter, and also, whoever has luck on his side.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2009)

Mike

I think that sums up the issue pretty well


----------



## claidemore (Feb 16, 2009)

Did a little more research on the horses the Samurai and Knights would have been using in 1300.
Japanese breeds would include the Yonaguni (11-12 hands), Misaki (12-13.2hh), Miyako (bred up to 14 hands since WWII, much smaller before that), Noma (10 hh, breed is based on Mongolian stock), and Hokaido (based on the Nanbu which Samurai would have rode, 13-13.2 hh). All of these breeds originated from China. Technically there are no Japanese 'indigenous' breeds.
Only the Miyako exhibits 'horse' characteristics, all the others are definately 'ponies'. 

Learned some interesting things regarding the European war horses, particularly the destrier. 
Destriers were not the huge draft breeds that are commonly assumed to have been used. This myth is based on mistaken assumptions of the weight of a knights armor and 'logic' dictating that only the draft breeds would have been strong enough to carry it. This was false logic, knight armor was only 40-70 lbs (max), about the weight of a heavy modern roping or stock saddle! Research has shown that war horses from 1100 to 1400 were between 14 and 15 hands. Horse armour from 1400-1600 has been shown to fit heavily built horses between 15-16 hands, basiclly some of the smaller draft breeds. The big 17-18 hand draft breeds were not used as war horses, they were, as their name implies, draft horses. (they weren't used for jousting either, it hurts a lot more to fall from an 18 hand horse than a 14 hand one). 

Breeds which would be representative of 1300's war horses would include the Camargue (13.5 to 14.2hh), Byelorussian Harness (15-15.3 hh), Friesan (15 hh), Fell and Dales Pony (13-14hh), Carthusian (15.2hh) and Andalusian (modern ones 15.2hh, a little smaller in 1300s). When you compare the modern Carthusian and Dales pony to period artwork, they are a very close match.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 16, 2009)

Good information. The Andalusian is an excellent breed. Do you know how widespread the breed was among knights? Or were they primarily Spanish and French mounts?


----------



## claidemore (Feb 16, 2009)

Seems like almost everyone in Europe tried to get some Andalusian (or originally Jennet) blood in their war horses. Friesians were also popular, and it seems a lot of the English pony breeds were crossed with Friesians to get 'war' horses. IMO a small Friesian, or large Dales Pony, would be about as close as we could get in a modern horse to the type of horse preffered by European knights. 
The Spanish-Norman breed is a modern re-creation that is touted by their breeders as a medieval knights charger. Though this modern breed does exhibit many of the characteristics of the medieval horse, they are targetting the sport horse market, and IMO are much taller and more refined than medieval war horses. 
I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor. 
Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2009)

The armour worn by the samurai over the centuries was incredibly varied yet throughout the samurai age the principles of the armour remained largely the same save for a few subtle changes. It consisted of a kabuto (helmet) for the head; a do (cuirass) for the torso; a pair of sode (shoulder guards); one or two kote (armoured sleeves) for the arms; a kusazuri (armoured skirt or apron) to protect the upper thighs; and a pair of suneate (shin guards.) Haidate (thigh guards) were added in around the 14th century and by the 16th the mempo (face mask) was introduced. 
Each piece of armour consisted of a set of small iron plates called kozane laced together by leather cord. The resultant strips were then lacquered to protect the material against rust and then a series were tied together horizontally with silk cords called kebiki-odoshi to produce a light and fairly resilient armour plate. Beginning in the latter part of the Heian period this method produced the varying sizes and shapes of Japanese armour for several centuries. Japanese armourers tended towards manoeuvrability and preferred to sacrifice some elements of protection for this to be achieved; in the medieval period of Western Europe knights used their weight as well as that of their horses as weapons but that wasn't the case in Japan where mobility was deemed more important. 

Lacing the armour was an art in itself called odoshi and the colour and even the patterns produced by this method could enable a samurai to identify a member of a clan by the colour of the cord his armour was laced from. For example, the Taira clan adopted purple, the Fujiwara light green, and the Tachibana yellow. These cords also had their own names: light blue was called hanairo-odoshi and kon-odoshi for navy blue for example. It was quite common for armour to sport several different colours and this was known as iroiro-odoshi. White coloured lacing for a suit of armour signified that the wearer did not expect to survive his next engagement as white is the colour of mourning in Japan. The cord itself also identified the rank of the samurai. Tight, elaborate lacing was reserved for those of high rank while wide facing was used for the infantry troops.

Up to the 14th century the o-yoroi or 'great armour' was standard for the samurai. Its box-like appearance, large square sode, and equally large kusazuri was ideal for mounted warfare. Furthermore it looked beautiful and aristocratic with its multi-coloured lacing or odoshi. Finally the kabuto with its characteristic fukigaeshi (winglets or turnbacks) at the front of the shikoro (neck guard) and the kuwagata (twin horned crest) above the helmet's peak gave the samurai its enduring and appealing image.

This is an extract that I have concerning Japanese bows

_For centuries the bow and arrow was the principle weapon of choice in Japan and even after the introduction of the firearm in the 16th century, and the strict rule of the Tokugawa shogunate, archery remained a noble art.

It was from the use of the war bow or longbow in particular that Chinese historians called the Japanese 'the people of the longbow'. As early as the 4th century archery contests were being held in Japan. In the Heian period (between the 8th and 12th centuries) archery competitions on horseback were very popular and during this time training in archery was developed. Archers had to loose their arrows against static and mobile targets both on foot and on horseback. The static targets were the large kind or o-mato and was set at thirty-three bow lengths and measured about 180cm in diameter; the deer target or kusajishi consisted of a deer's silhouette and was covered in deer skin and marks indicated vital areas on the body; and finally there was the round target or marumono which was essentially a round board, stuffed and enveloped in strong animal skin. To make things more interesting for the archer these targets would be hung from poles and set in motion so that they would provide much harder targets to hit. Throughout feudal Japan indoor and outdoor archery ranges could be found in the houses of every major samurai clan. Bow and arrow and straw targets were common sights as were the beautiful cases which held the arrows and the likewise ornate stands which contained the bow. These items were prominent features in the houses of samurai. 
Training from horseback was obviously a lot more difficult and was the domain of the true samurai, as their origin was as an equestrian archer. Coordination had to be honed if the archer was to loose a well aimed arrow from the back of a galloping horse. A number of archery forms evolved for this purpose: yabusame or three-target shooting; kasagake or bamboo-hat target shooting; inuoumono or dog shooting, inuoi or dog hunt, oitorigari or bird hunt, and the grand hunt itself called makigari.

Yabusame, or three-target shooting, involved the equestrian archer galloping at full speed while loosing arrows at three targets along the horse's path. Kasagake or bamboo-hat target shooting was performed in the confines of a fenced course called the arrow way (yado). A shelf was set at one end at which bamboo hats were hung. The rider was required to shoot at them from distance and then close range while at full gallop. Inuoumono, or dog shooting, was quite literally that. A number of dogs were released into a bamboo-fenced arena after which the riders entered and shot them. Although this barbaric practice wasn't phased out and remained popular for centuries edicts were eventually introduced which forced the riders to use non-lethal arrows and the dogs wore padded jackets. Like in medieval Europe hunting was very popular. Groups of samurai and their retainers enjoyed setting up encampments in the countryside or mountains from where they would search and subsequently chase their quarry. Just as much honour and prestige could be attained by a samurai for carrying out a good kill on a deer or boar than if he killed an enemy in battle.

The typical longbow, or war bow (daikyu), was made from deciduous wood faced with bamboo and was reinforced with a binding of rattan to further strengthen the composite weapon together. To waterproof it the shaft was lacquered. The length of the weapon was considerable, just over two metres, and was bent in the shape of a double curve. The bowstring was made from a fibrous substance originating from plants (usually hemp or ramie) and was coated with wax to give a hard smooth surface and in some cases it was necessary for two people to string the bow. Bowstrings were often made by skilled specialists and came in varying qualities from hard strings to the soft and elastic bowstrings used for hunting; silk was also available but this was only used for ceremonial bows. The bow's draw-weight measured from between 35-90lbs so the archer would have to have some strength to use it properly. Factors contributing to the draw-weight were the types of materials used to make the bow.

Other types of bows existed. There was the short bow, one used for battle called the hankyu, one used for amusement called the yokyu, and one used for hunting called the suzume-yumi. There was also the maru-ki or roundwood bow, the shige-no-yumi or bow wound round with rattan, and the hoko-yumi or the Tartar-shaped bow._


A recurve composite at 75lb draw weight is going to have roughly the same performance as an ELB of roughly 120 lb draw weight 

Some images of the samurai weaponry, including horse sizes, arrowheads, armour and some contemporary paintings....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 16, 2009)

It is unfortunate that experts in either Samurai or European Knights tend to be only very knowledgeable about one and prone to making exaggerated and sometimes ignorant statements about the other.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor.
> Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.



A 100 lb ELB at range 30m is going to have the same penetrating power on entry as a 303 bullet. It will IMO penetrate about 4-6 inches of an unarmoured Horse. At 30 metres a standard ELB will have a hard time against even mild steel plate of the period, but will generally penetrate (or cause lethal damage) mailed armour. The recurved bows that are now thought to be the equipment of the master archers had an equivalent draw strength of about 150 lb, can could penetrate the steel plate and the mailed armour of the 1340 period at 30 metres (however, it could not penetrate the heat treated plate armour of the following century, which is one of the reasons I think the Europeans were developing their metallurgy in the 15th century)

The French were forced (by the terrain) to attack in waves at Crecy, each wave was about 1500 men. There were no less than 16 attacks made that day, with many knights returning from battle, to collect further horses and join in the attack (the kiing of France had two horses shot out from under him. With 5000 normal archers firing at the horses, and another 2500 master archers held back to shoot at the knights themselves, and about 3500 men at arms ready to race out and finish off any isolated individuals who made it to the English lines, the outcome and course of the battle should not be surprising. A horse with one arrow 5 inches into its hide might survive....a horse with 4 normal arrow, and one arrow likley to have passed right through it is going to be moving rather slowly and uncontrollably IMO. Moreover it is worse than that. Because the British had had more than a day to prepre, and the lines of advance were known, they had time to range the MLA with great accuracy. They could, and did, start shooting from further than 30 metres. There was in fact about a 40 second time frame in which each charge would be fired on....time enough for the English archers to lose off about 6-8 rounds each. That means that each horse could have up to 24 arrows each embedded into them. This theory would however require the English to go out and retrieve some of their arrows after each wave....


----------



## 20mikemike (Feb 16, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor.
> Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.



Good points. The main reason I brought up the possibility of injury from falling is that the weight of the armor wasn't keeping the French knights on the ground, but a concussion/broken neck/being trampled by other knights might just do so. I lack the knowledge of horses that you have, so I can only theorize. If I had to hypothesize about the effectiveness of those arrows, I'd say more blame can be put on the sheer volume finding their targets here and there or shooting through the less-developed pauldrons or maille around the neck/shoulder area. For that matter, their armor may not have been as effective against high-arching shots, considering that armor is not of uniform thickness, rather, it tapers getting thinner towards "less-vulnerable" areas (especially the shoulder and the side of the ribcage near the arm.) Put 7,000 arrows in the air and you're going to hit those spots. Do it a few times and well, there go the knights...

I submit then, that a wet field, combined with the ridge at the extremes of the field holding them in, and their impudent advance into literally thousands of archers is what killed the knights. Why they weren't getting up was a combination of death, wounds and disbelief. Of course, this is all pretty off-hand...

EDIT: Well, Parsifal seems to have done the research on this one!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2009)

Mike

I posted a series of pictures in one of my posts, including three arrowheads for you to have a look at. They are not bodkins, but they are still pretty narrow. Wouldnt mind your opinion on their capability....they are said to be from the 13th century....but I cannot verify the veracity of that date


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2009)

One other thing I forgot to mention about the battle of Crecy. Some scholars contend that specialised arrows ....known as broadhead arrows....were used by the british against the french. These were pretty much the opposite of the bodkin type arrowhead, designed for armour piercing capability

I have attached a picture of broadhead arrowheads. their potential effects should be self explanatory


----------



## claidemore (Feb 17, 2009)

> A 100 lb ELB at range 30m is going to have the same penetrating power on entry as a 303 bullet. It will IMO penetrate about 4-6 inches of an unarmoured Horse.



Hi parsifal: Horses and archery, two of my main interests over the past 30 years.  My brother in law shoots a 65 lb longbow, and put a 600 grn arrow right through a big mule deer buck at 30 yards this past fall. Thats 18-20 inches of penetration. 
I shoot a 54 lb recurve and put a 500 grn arrow into a bull moose with about 12 inches of penetration (35 yards). That arrow had a 1 1/2" three blade broadhead.
A 100 lb ELB should bury a 30 inch 1000 grn arrow right up to the fletching on an unarmored horse at 30 yards, providing it doesn't hit heavy bone. An arcing arrow at 250 yards will penetrate 4-6 inches. 
7500 archers, carrying 48 arrows each, = 360,000 arrows minimum.

Clay Allison: Yup, I hate it when people make exagerated and ignorant statements. Haven't seen it so much on this thread, there are some very informed statements, and some excellent conjectures, but I've seen some pretty bone headed stuff in some other threads.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2009)

I shoot a 50 lb composite at the moment.....i have lost a lot of strength over the past 10 years or so...I didnt want to overstate the effects of arrow hits, because i didnt think it would be believable. I agree with your summary incidentally.

On that basis the French Knights would have been cut to pieces...or at least their horses would have been


----------



## parsifal (Feb 17, 2009)

Yeah clay I dont hink these guys are attacking each other so much here. In fact I have enjoyed the exchange of information. No-one is ramming their ideas down the other guys throats. We present our knowledge, listen to what the other guys say, and go an make our own conclusions from what weve seen. Gee I hope I didnt come across as too dogmatic and stubborn....that was not my intent.

The conversation has ben laid back and enjoyable I thought


----------



## Amsel (Feb 17, 2009)

My post about putting a panzerdivision against Mongols was in fun and not intended to sour this very interesting thread. No offense intended.


----------

