European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

SpartainXT**

Orange Belt
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
357
Reaction score
0
in sword fighting techniques...

can someone give me there styles between western and eastern sword fighting

were they based on counter fighting, or were they on the offensive.....
 
I'm taking fencing now and it's basically one handed techniques. I've also taken Kendo and Iaido and you grip the bokken or katana with both hands.
 
You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by based on offense or defense.

Both Eastern & Western sword fighting evolved over at least 1000 years of warfare. The number of variations within each hemisphere would be enormous. You could never say one was based on offense or defense without more definition.
 
European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

The first is straight on Jabs, (more/less) the second is More roundies.

You can look at it like that. One's a jab, the others a hook.
 
All i know is a samurai would fuck a western knight up. Samurai so more skilled and fast.
 
Don't see how a samurai would be any more skilled than a western knight. Knights were a warrior class as well, they likely spent as much time training for battle as a samurai would.
 
There are several styles to European swordsmanship just like Japanese. I have studied kenjutsu for 17 years (not kendo, I use bokken and shinken). Rapier skills are mostly stabs with a long thin blade, 'hand and a half' swords could be used one or two handed, and larger swords like claymores (Scottish) were purely two handed. While katanas are seen as two handed, they are easily used one handed. Stabbing with a katana is severely underrated. If you curve your stab slightly with the curve of the sword the stab is just as good as with any other pointy object.

To say who would win, knight v. samurai, would come down to the individual's skills involved as both had been fighting and training for their whole lives. Generally, a katana is a superior sword but not always true.

The techniques are surprisingly similar, some are speed techniques that interrupt, some are counters after dodges or parries, there is really only so many ways to use a sword and both the samurai and knights mastered them all because they had to-- their lives depended on it.
 
It's not just the sword fighting aspect, it's also the armor each warrior is wearing and whether the European knight has a shield.

By the 16th Century, plate armor was so developed that Japanese style swordplay would be useless.
 
and sport fencing is totally different than historical fencing -- or sword fighting.
 
well, while I'm bored and flitting around the forums like a majestic griffin. It really depends, chinese swordsmanship is pretty sweet, the straight sword would easily pierce a knights neck leather thingamijig but, its up to the speed and skills of the combatants, a samurai could use jujitsu as well. so if his sword is knocked out of his hand he still has weapons (skills) what does the knight have?
 
well, while I'm bored and flitting around the forums like a majestic griffin. It really depends, chinese swordsmanship is pretty sweet, the straight sword would easily pierce a knights neck leather thingamijig but, its up to the speed and skills of the combatants, a samurai could use jujitsu as well. so if his sword is knocked out of his hand he still has weapons (skills) what does the knight have?

Medieval knights had an extensive range of wrestling and grappling techniques used with and without weapons. a lot of the medieval swordfighting manuals look like wrestling and grappling manuals. If it came down to wrestling/grappling a knight would not be out of his element and due to his physique would prob pawn the asian warrior
 
Medieval knights had an extensive range of wrestling and grappling techniques used with and without weapons. a lot of the medieval swordfighting manuals look like wrestling and grappling manuals. If it came down to wrestling/grappling a knight would not be out of his element and due to his physique would prob pawn the asian warrior

There's no doubt that any warrior(in any culture) worth his salt would also be well versed in hand-to-hand combat.

However, I am really curious to know how it is that you know what "a lot of the medieval swordfighting manuals" look like. :icon_conf
 
There's no doubt that any warrior(in any culture) worth his salt would also be well versed in hand-to-hand combat.

However, I am really curious to know how it is that you know what "a lot of the medieval swordfighting manuals" look like. :icon_conf

I have been to a few libraries in Europe to research it
 
Well, I'm watching Deadliest Warrior on Spike right now and the match up is Ming warrior vs. Musketeer. I'll let you know how it shakes out.
 
Last edited:
Ok, out of 1000 simulated battles, the Musketeers won 674. That was due primarily to their vastly superior armor. The Ming warriors did have a more versatile, more effective sword.
 
:icon_chee

Would you care to mention where and which manuals?

codex wallerstiein is still in print and i am sure you can still get flos duelletorum on pdf. lot's of grappling are in the manuals for the same reason jujutsu was so prevalent in japan: it would suck to be foot soldier with little or no armour stuck under a fully armoured samurai/knight. you had to choke the dude out!
 
codex wallerstiein is still in print and i am sure you can still get flos duelletorum on pdf. lot's of grappling are in the manuals for the same reason jujutsu was so prevalent in japan: it would suck to be foot soldier with little or no armour stuck under a fully armoured samurai/knight. you had to choke the dude out!


Cool! Will have to look out for them. So what are they in Latin? Codex Wallerstein sounds German.. Any idea what time-period they're from?

Didn't think there would be manuals still existing. As education and printing for the masses were not big back then, I expected all the combat training to be taught by word of mouth/practically rather than through a written manuals.
 
Back
Top