Knight vs. Samurai

[Vextor]

What the Mongols succeeded in Japan is to topple the ruling kamakura Shogunate. Because the war cost so much for the Shogunate, and Japan pretty much gained nothing from the wars (there were no spoils, and they killed all enemies except Chinese soldiers, whom they actively traded with). This resulted in discontent among the local lords--they were furious for not receiving land and gold they were promised. The Shogunate then proclaimed that the victory was won due to prayer done at the Ise shrine that summoned the "divine wind" (kamikaze). This type of attitude eventually led to a rebellion that toppled the Kamakura government and established the Muromachi Shogunate under the Ashikaga clan. Sadly, the whole "kamikaze" myth lived on as a credible story.

Oh yes, and Wahlstat is simply the German name for Legnica. Most sources I read say that the Teutonic Knights were present at the battle, but they don't detail the exact number so who knows. However, back then the Teutonic Order was not quite united wither due to them combining with the Livonian Sword Brothers by the decree of the Pope back then. The leadership didn't quite get along so perhaps the "Teutonic Knights" at Wahlstat were the Livonians (who were smaller in number).

[kuwaizair]

well at least this is a better topic than the "Ninja VS Pirate" one on deviant art.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

[Child of The Sea God]

In a straight swordfight with no armor I think a samurai would win. This is just my opinion though.
_________________
Life is like a play, you're given the role that fate hands to you.
-Me

[Zeik Tuvai]

I... personally don't get this concept. Either a European swordsman or a Japanese swordsman could be equally deadly to one another. It's a matter of technique, strategy, and will power. Nothing more can really be said about it unless you compare EVERY swordsman and have them all kill each other until only one remains, and ask them where they learned it.

I use the term swordsman because it's more accurate then Knight or Samurai. A Knight can be anyone who is deemed worthy the title from royalty, while Samurai literally means "to serve," and is also a title granted by a Shogun. Titles are nothing more then that; they're otherwise useless, and a title won't save your life like skill can. If you want to get technical, an old man with a stick can be more deadly then either a Knight or a Samurai. Again, skill is key, not title.

Nice comments Fox Hound and Sars. Do you two study ancient warfare often?
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.

[Starslasher]

Oooohhh....fascinating (speeling?).

[Fox Hound]

[Adrian Magicent]

Well, for knights, I'd go with the old-fasioned Crusade knights, and the samurai when they were at their heights. They are very different. The key element of the knights is not who was a better fighter, but oftentimes stamina due to the armor. They had to be in peak shape merely to go into battle with the armor. The samurai has to be in shape, too, but more due to cultural reasons than the armor. In the terms of a swordfight, the knight would stand a good choice due to the issue of slashing weapons against their armor. However, it would not be easy, due to the difference in mobility and the martial abilities of their opponents. However, if not limited to swords, then the samurai would have a clear advantage. They would be able to get through the armor of the opponents and deal fatal blows far easier than the knights - with less experience in many weapons not designed to deal with armor at the expense of other things. Also, most terrain and weather issues would be of more benefit to the samurai than knights.

However, if you went into tactics and strategy, it becomes far more difficult to tell whether Eastern or Western style is better.

[Vextor]

Concerning Damascus Steel, although people often refer to the process of pattern welding (combining a number of different grades of metal) as "Damascus", this is historically and matalurgically inaccurate. Damascus steel was originally forged in Damascus, Syria starting in the 900s, and the art was lost some time around the 1600s. Numerous attempts to re-create the same alloy ended in failure, resulting in the misconception that Damascus steel must be pattern welded steel (because it looked similar.

However, researchers discovered in the 1980s that Damascus steel (from preserved blades forged in Damascus) had different microstructures compared to pattern welded steel, notably the presence of carbide crystals forming a rigid "core" for the blade. Thus, it is currently postulated that Damascus steel was made by some form of chemical process involving extremely high smelting temperatures.

In Japan, pattern welding techniques became extremely refined after the 6th century (because it can be done at lower temperatures, and Japan lacked high temperature furnaces). Back then, there was a huge war going on in the Korean peninsula between the Kingdoms of Koguryo, Silla, and Paekche. Japan was allied with Koguryo, but eventually Silla defeated both Paekche and Koguryo (not so much through military might, but through marriage politics). As a result, many Koguryo aristocrats fled to Japan with their clan, including their artisans. This exodus brought a fundamental change to Japanese culture, including steel-making.

Until then, Japanese swords were basically copies of Chinese straight double edged swords. Single-blades (but still straight) swords appear in the 6th century, and you start to see curved blades by the 8th century. These are modifications seen only in Japan--it's not an imported concept but instead adopted from the northern Emishi tribe who used a curved blade called the "warabite no tachi." Due to the generally poor quality of Japanese iron ore, it was necessary to take extra steps to remove impurities from the steel (which is one of the purposes of pattern weld forging beside distributing carbon atoms equally). This resulted in swords being extremely expensive, meaning each swordsmith (called "Tatara Masters") tended to put extra effort into the manufacture of their swords. By the 10th century, straight swords were pretty much gone from Japan due to the superiority of curved blades in terms of durability.

Recognizing the quality of the katanas, China imported many katanas between the 11th and 15th centuries. At it's height, over 200000 katanas were exported (annually) to China as "Wadao" (Japanese blade).

An attempt to replicate the katana in China did not work due to the effort required, and because China had access to great amounts of ore, resulting in the production of massive numbers of "product line quality" weapons (there was less demand for high grade weapons).

Japanese sword smithing employed another technique called "differential hardening" which was done in other parts of the world. The purpose of this technique is to cool down the edge of the blade fatser than its spine, resulting in a sharp, durable edge while maintaining a flexible spine. This results in the spine being composed more of pearlite (flexible steel), while the edge being composed of martensite (harder form of steel about 4 times the hardness of iron). The same technique existed in Europe since around 700 AD, but the technology was lost around the 1200's for mysterious reasons, only to be rediscovered in the 18th century. Japanese smiths used various thickness of fine mud to create differential hardening, which is a unique process not seen anywhere else (other cultures often used clay to slow down the cooling process for the spine). This "fine mud" method allowed for an idea gradation of cooling to occure, resulting in a form of steel with carbon content between 3~1% carbon and a small amount of silicone, which gives the katana added flexibility.

As for the Japanese adapting Mongol armor and weaponry, there's little to no indication that such happened. The Japanese already had the Katana developed at its current state (smiths back in the Kamakura era were actually better than smiths today) back during the Mongol invasion. As for armor, the armor worn by mongol soldiers during their invasion of Japan was different from what was worn elsewhere due to the nature of naval combat. The soldiers were mainly infantrymen recruited from Korea and Northen China as well. Preserved armor from the invasion shows that the "armor" lacked lamellar, which means the mongol forces would have been very light, but also quite vulnerable to edged weapons.

[Fox Hound]

[Vextor]

Midieval blacksmith enthisiasts would likely not possess the requisite scientific knowledge of metallurgy to actually give you a full account of mechanical and chemical properties of the various grades of steel. "Enthusiasts" are also prone to believing in biased information, so it may be best if you diversify your sources.

Although the Tang dynasty sword may have some resemblance (I actually see no resemblance myself), there is no historical account that can show this. Japan had a rather vibrant trade relationship with the Tang dynasty, and many artifiacts and relics from the trade have been excavated. These swords from the Tang dynasty have been excavated, but these were used as decrations or as items to show status. Actual swords used in battle were made of lower grade metal (including bronze), and lacked a cross-guard.

The "Japanese historian" you quote is actually not a historian. That quote is from Nagayama Kokan's book, "The Connoisseus Book of Japanese Swords"--he is a well-known sword polisher and is considered to be a "living treasure" in Japan, but his personal views are also known to be towards the "ultra-nationalist" spectrum. He's not a credible source for historical accounts, although he would know a lot about polishing swords. He himself states in his Japanese treatiese that very little is known about how swords were made before the Muromachui era. His comment regarding the Mongols in the Japanese version of this book is that "faced with an enemy using swords with greater hardness and lighter armor, the styles of the smiths seem to have adapted. He then states that katana styles from then on actually became thinner with a wider tip (not to be confused with the thickness of the blade) so that the sword would be easier to repair (resharpen).

So what he is saying (at least in Japan) is that the swordsmiths were not influenced by the Mongolian weapons (meaning, they didn't copy them), but instead adapted their styles to make their swords better suited for these types of enemies (and to accomodate the new trend of lighter armors). Ofcourse, his comments are completely based on his own observation of swords, and he himself is not a specialist in history.

Also, Japanese samurai have already abandoned bow & arrows as their main weapons by the time the Mongols arrived. There is a very practical reason for this. With the creation of the Kamakura shogunate, the system of rewards changed. Samurai were then to be rewarded by bringing back the heads of their slain enemies. Bows were not very practical for this purpose because others would cut the head off of the felled enemy before you have the chance. This resulted in greater use of spears during the time the Mongols arrived. Kikuchi Takefusa was one of the samurais who was successful in defeating the Mongols, but he used a special type of spear (with a triangular edge) which is known today as a "Kikuchi Spear." The clear advantage of his type of spear was its strength (through thrusting) and ease of manufacture.

The discussion at this point has gotten way off track from the actual topic, but what I'm trying to say is that the katana was not really a weapon used for actual warfare. For that reason, whether the katana is "good" or "bad" is not quite relevant. In most wars in Japan, you had cavalrymen using spears, infantrymen with spears or naginatas, and later on they adopted firearms that they bought from pirates (and reproduced).

Also, Samurai rarerly used kama (it was considered to be a dishonorable weapon). A kama was cosidered to be a "peasant's tool" and was never a part of a samurai's official arsenal. However, there are schools in the use of "kusari gama" (kama with chains) which have been passed on secretly within samurai clans (there are fews samurai schools that focus on the use of shurikens as well). Also, it's not very well known but martial arts was widely practiced by samurai before the Muromachi era. It was apaprently a form of wrestling that also conbined kicking techniques, but somehow this was lost as Japan entered an era of intense civil unrest.

[Adrian Magicent]

Actually, I was well aware of the variety of the weapons, however, I was refering to the effectiveness in combat in the situation. The advantage of most of those weapons is that they are more affective against a well-armored foe at close range. The swords and hammer, particularly, would be very vulnerable. The axe could be wielded in such a way to make it more difficult for the samurai, however, for sure, depending on the weapon used itself. The flail would be more difficult to say, really, when it comes to results as I'm far less familiar with it. The pike, glaive, and spear would be the most useful weapons, likely, to a degree. However, I would have to say that the limits to mobility, stamina, and visibility of the armor would greatly hinder the use of these compared to the samurai spearmen. The most difficult thing for the samurai without bows would be the mounted cavalry with lances, really.

[Fox Hound]

[Adrian Magicent]

Knights that aren't mounted are NOT as effective as on horse in the terms of weapon selection and other things, though, which makes a big difference.. whether well trained or not. Which was my point there. However, I have to STRONGLY disagree with you about the armor, having first hand knowledge, second hand knowledge, and third hand knowledge. Armor suits from the times of the Crusades WERE indeed very cumbersome and all. The effects of helmets and visors were severe on eyesight and the armor itself was difficult. Trust me on this. As for the spears and glaives, the difference is the amount of use, where knights are behind the samurai. With the axes and hammers, while that's true that they can be easily used and aren't bad, certain elements about the weapon themselves, nonetheless the types used back then, which wouldn't work as well against a samurai as another knight.

[Fox Hound]

[Vextor]

I'd caution against trusting Chinese scholars in these matters because there is a tendency towards nationalism and politically motivated revisionism. This is typically due to governmental pressure, too. The belief is that "everything including the pot they piss in came from China." However, this would be incorrect because although Japan has been influenced by China very much, they also have been influenced from the north (by the Ainus and other tribal folk) and from the southern sea (polynesian, as seen thickly in Kyushu and Okinawa culture).

One thing brought up here that's interesting is how axes were never brought into Japan as a weapon. It existed as a tool, of course (to chop down trees, etc), but I don't know of it being used as a weapon. This may be because the "cutting" property that makes axes superior to the sword was already covered by the katana (or other common weapons such as the nagamaki). Hammers were used, but these were not weapons used against people, but were instead used during sieges (to take down gates/doors).

If axes are used against samurai (I don't think it ever has unless they were fighting against peasants), an axe should be effective against their armor. The blunt force along with the cutting edge would probably do some hefty damage. Actually, some naginata were pretty much axes, such as the Tsukuba-style naginata, which had the blade attached to it's side instead of having the tang inserted into the shaft (normal naginata).