[HIST] Japanese Culture shock

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 10:09 PM +0200 6/23/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

But the point is that the Japanese culture disposed of the use of firearms in
war fair. There is a very good book about this called Giving up the Gun by
Noel Perrin. Ostensibly this was done as a method of making it harder for
upstart warlords to raise effective fighting forces. There were similar kinds
of aversions to crossbows and firearms in Europe as well, but none of those
movement's worked out.

> On 24-Jun-02 at 16:09, K.H.Ranitzsch (KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de) wrote:

> Nor was it that much of a hindrance as long as they and their enemies

One-on-one I'd give it to the Samuri, I read one commentary on a
"duel" between a knight in full armor with a greatsword against a peasant with
knife. The peasant, quit "dishonorably", moved out of visor view area and
hamstrung the knight. However, in mass combat I'd have to pick the knights.

> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Roger Books wrote:

> On 24-Jun-02 at 16:09, K.H.Ranitzsch (KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de) wrote:

*chuckle* the knight was a moron if eh took on the peasant with the visor
closer. Foot combat with closed visor is an awkward thing at best. Which is
why one can open them.

cheers,

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
I wouldn't bet more than
> even odds in a fight

My money is on the knight in armor!   The Japanese
are using the equal of the saber/simitar, and history
has shown the outcome of that fight.

Bye for now,

Noooo.... not this topic again:)

Actually for a fairly in-depth analysis go to:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

I'm just curious though, where did you read the commentary about the
"duel"?
It seems strange to me that a knight and a peasant would be fighting a duel,
especially one with a sword and the other with a knife. (how did they come to
be in that situation?) What time period is it? I assume the knight had full
Gothic or Milanese type plate, given the "full armour" description, and the
"greatsword", which would be later in time period than the High Medieval
longsword and arming sword. How did he get hamstrung by a knife in full
plate?  And how did the peasant, presumably less well-trained in combat,
move so quickly behind the knight in the face of a longer ranged weapon?

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 24-Jun-02 at 21:42, Control Robot (cqin@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:

> I'm just curious though, where did you read the commentary about the

Unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. The way they came into the
situation was the peasant (may have been a thief) requested trial by combat
and the knight saw it as a quick way out to just kill him.

> What time period is it? I

I may be wrong on the greatsword, it could have been a lighter weapon, but I
don't think so. Also, it was not Jousting armour, the joints, particularly the
back of the knee, was often open.

> How did he get

It could well have been back of the knee. All I would testify to in
court is the knight agreed to it,  the peasant/thief used his mobility
advantage to get behind the knight and stab him somewhere in the lower leg,
and the knight was finished with a dagger through the visor. The rest of the
story I wouldn't swear to.

I know this should be obvious, but a weapon and armour configuration
designed for mass combat could well not be optimal for one-on-one.

> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, John Leary wrote:

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

The katana was NOT designed to deal with plate armour. The european sword was
designed to be able to deal with armour comparable to the japanese armour. And
as for martial arts prowess, nothing I have seen so far indicates that
european martial arts and the training a knight received was at all inferior
to the japanese stuff. Regardless what martial arts movies may have one
believe;)

My money's on the knight, too.

Cheers,

> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, John Leary wrote:

OK, this is off-topic, but still interesting....

Could you elaborate, please? I guess you mean that sabers are inferior to
straight swords? How has history shown this?

Both sabres and straight swords continued in use (for different purposes)
until edged weapon were finally given up in the late
19th/early 20th century.

Greetings

From:  KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> I guess you mean that sabers are inferior

Saber is a curved sword, usually used with a slash/draw cut, best
against an unarmored opponent. European straight swords of this period
were used for chopping--you wouldn't necessarily expect to get through
the armor but you could batter your opponent. Katana were also curved
swords,used IIRC with a "push" cut. I imagine they'd do well at going through
padded or leather armor, don't know about going through mail or plate.

Wow... that site is really neat! Thanks!

> On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 21:37, Control Robot wrote:
description, and
> the "greatsword", which would be later in time period than the High

> At 7:28 AM +0200 6/25/02, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

Everyone should know you don't use Samurai against knights (wrong time
period). You use them against Cowboys (evil ones) and Indians. The man with
funny hair, dressed in women's pyjamas and carrying a big sword, leads the
bandits to overconfidence.

See the Mifune/Bronson movie Soleil Rouge.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:58:12 -0700 (PDT), John Leary
<john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> My money is on the knight in armor! The Japanese

Talking knights versus samurai is a little silly, since both developed armour
and arms based on entirely different criteria. The samurai's katana was a
beautifully made weapon* but it was intended to cut through lamellar armour
and padded armour. It could cut and thrust well. It would have problems with
plate.

On the other hand, the samurai had other weapons at his disposal. For most of
the period up to the 15th century, samurai actually played _down_ their
ability with the sword and played _up_ their ability with the bow. In
this period, against a European knight, you'd have a fight between a well
armoured, competent swordsman who was a better archer!

In later periods, obviously plate armour would have an edge, but plate armour
is heavier than samurai lamellar armour. Would the samurai fight as per
normal, or would he adapt and use a long dagger to slip in between the edges
of those plates, perhaps abandoning his katana for a naginata first? This
would give him a pole weapon that could, in theory, aid in dropping the knight
to the ground with sweeping attacks at the knights legs.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but if Europeans had fought against
samurai, both sides would have evolved their fighting techniques.

*Actually, samurai swords went through several periods of quality change.
Swords from the end of the Heien period to the Mongol invasion were well made,
but the Mongol's padded armour showed a weakness: they had a tendency to get
stuck in the armour and were easily snapped. After the Mongol invasions, sword
quality improved, but after the Onin war it started to slip again. There were
still those quite capable of making excellent weapons, but the quality dropped
heading into the "Age of the Country at War" due to the introduction of what
can best be described as "cheap knock offs". So many weapons were being
produced in such a short period of time that quality suffered.

> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:

> period, against a European knight, you'd have a

Maybe for a one-on-one, but. . .

Put 150 French Gendarmes, Polish Knights, Military Order Brother Knights, or
even Italians on a flat level field with 150 Samurai on the other end of the
field and every Samurai would be either dead or fleeing the field at a high
rate of speed.

Another amusing question would be to see the Samurai trying to go up against
the English
longbow/billman/dismounted men-at-arms combination.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't a horse archer on the planet that can handle
dismounted longbowmen or crossbowmen if they are properly protected by heavy
infantry. His firing platform just ain't stable enough.

Where Samurai would have a field day would be lighting up Swiss pike blocks,
as long as they weren't pinned in place by terrain. They'd ride up and down
the field evading the Swiss while shooting big ugly gaps in that formation.

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 08:08:17AM -0700, John Atkinson wrote:

Ah, but isn't that a special case of the soldier (teamworker) versus warrior
(individualist) argument? I don't think anyone would dispute that, other
factors being equal, the group of soldiers will beat the group of warriors,
but individually it's the other way round.

John said:
> Another amusing question would be to see the Samurai

Japanese had their own infantry, armed with yari or naginata or such. And the
samurai could be a dismounted, armored archer pretty quickly.

Not that this is at all on topic--unless someone is doing
HundredYearsWarGrunt or Full Cog/Full Junk or some such.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Put 150 French Gendarmes, Polish Knights, Military

Are the samurai mounted, or dismounted? Samurai were primarily mounted for a
good portion of their history, fighting dismounted only for one-on-one
battles. They could, and did, fight in a Mongol style of mounted archer, but
with a bow that was bigger than the smaller bows usually used by horse
archers.

I debate the "fleeing at high rate of speed". I had a short discussion on this
with Stephen Turnbull, the noted samurai scholar. I observed, and he agreed,
that samurai tended to break about as easily as any other force, particularly
when encountering a superior foe, but would rally far, far quicker than any
other force. There's a belief that they would fight stupidly, but they did
not. It was not considered dishonourable, for instance, for a samurai to run
away from two or more samurai. At the same time, samurai armies could take
horribly high rates of casualties, far greater than equivalent European
armies. One battle saw the loser take 74% casualties. This isn't unheard of in
a European battle of the same period (15th century), often because of losses
after the battle with the losers being pursued by the victors. However in this
case, the victors had over 67% casualties. The battle ended with both sides
withdrawing from the field in a draw.

So, a European army would have to deal with a foe that had no compunction
about not giving battle if it felt it was at a distinct disadvantage, but
which would fight far longer and harder than most of the opponents the
European armies typically saw.

But... having said all that... I agree with you. As horse archers (though by
the Sengoku Jidai they were mostly mounted spearmen), they would have trouble
with the afforementioned mounted troops.

Also, Samurai massed battle tactics, in a word, sucked. Until the Sengoku
Jidai, massed combat was usually just a series of one-on-one battles.
Even afterward, when gun powder weapons were used along side archers, various
types of foot soldiers, and cavalry, there was little in the way of proper
combined arms fighting.

> Another amusing question would be to see the Samurai

Samurai, though, would also go dismounted and would then be a dismounted
archer with swordfighting ability.

The English longbow would be superior to the samurai longbow, but in terms of
ability the samurai was pretty close to the English longbowman in ability. The
difference is that the samurai was better armoured and could also fight in
hand to hand combat. Again, depending on the period (let's say we're looking
at the 15th century, for instance) samurai armour was specifically designed
for hand to hand fighting and for use with the bow. For much of the 11th
through 15th centuries the right arm was less well armoured (it still had the
lamellar plates but didn't have the leather sleeve, just a cloth sleeve) to
aid in firing the bow. I think here the samurai would have a distinct
advantage, particularly.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:25:40 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> Not that this is at all on topic--unless someone is doing

However, this is an interesting discussion and _is_ of great use to
those of
us playtesting FMA. FMA _will_ be able to handle samurai versus knights,
if someone wanted to try it.

So, technically, this isn't on topic for any existing GZG products, but will
most definitely be on topic after FMA is released.

> At 19:37 2002-06-24 -0600, Control Robot wrote:

Agreed.

> Actually for a fairly in-depth analysis go to:

What a nice site! I really liked their practice video gallery
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/armored1.avi

Finally something to show the youngsters what some real fencing looks like!

(Without dragging them off to meet the shield-crushing viking reenacters

here in town ;-)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:30:25 -0500, Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
wrote:

> Samurai were primarily mounted for a

Not sure why I wrote that, as they also fought dismounted against other massed
dismounted samurai and as dismounted archers.

*slaps head* Need to get more sleep, I guess!

> At 10:35 AM 6/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:25:40 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"

Well, I do know that when I played WRG 6th Ed Ancients (way back in my youth,
and I'm only 30 now...) my Japanese army could and did make mincemeat of a few
European armies...

> At 6:05 PM +0200 6/24/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

I may be wrong, but what most people know of as Samurai (Yojimbo, Ran, etc)
takes place in 1600 and later. At that point firearms were reducing the size
and nature of the Heavily armored cavalry in Europe. Hussars =!

> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> Could you elaborate, please ? I guess you mean that

Elaboration as requested!

The purpose of the weapon is the real deciding
factor in the discussion!   The sabre/simitar/katana
are basic butcher knives, designed to cut meat,
by slicing.   The straight sword/broadsword/
hand and a half/ect. are designed to smash through
and destroy by forch of impact, consider them the kitchen equal to the
cleaver. (It should also be noted that the straight sword is more accurate in
the act of stabing, since the point is directly down the center of the blade,
this will also provide
a grater penetration because more mass/force is
behind the attack.)
     If one has a well protected chicken in chain-
mail, will the butcher knife cause more damage by cutting or the cleaver by
crushing? The crusades provide a large number of examples of the armored
knight with sword vs the lightly armored simitar using arab. The arabs did not
do well, even if the knights were dramatically outnumbered. While it is
possible to make the claim that the Japanese armor is superior to the arab,
this would only reduce the overall advantage the knight has, not eliminate it.
So a knight could (and did) fight at odds of 10 to 1 against arabs, perhaps
the Japanese could be fought at odds of 2 to 1, or even 1 to 1, but the knight
will still have a better than even chance to win the combat. The preceding was
a personal opinion.

Bye for now,

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I may be wrong, but what most people know of as

Ummm...

Polish Szlachta Hussars would lunch on Samurai. The can play the mounted
archer game just as well or better (they adopted composite bows from the
Turks), they can make massed charges with shock weapons (as they demonstrated
in the process of saving
Civilization in 1623), and they carry a semi-random
assortment of firearms.  They wear about 3/4 armor.
Plus they have decent supporting medium/light cavalry
Lithuanian Panceri and they have those damn musketeers who use bardiches as
musket rests.

Imperial Cuirassiers also wear heavy armor and would walk through Samurai
without breaking a sweat.

> At 8:39 PM +0200 6/24/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

"Developed" in the 10th Century. But what everyone really looks at as far as
imagery is from movies set in the later periods from mid 1500s up through. It
seems like the period just prior to the Shogun's expansion of power was the
exciting period. (sort of like how the West was popular in the era when
metallic cartridges were common (ie 10 years post Civil war). Cars weren't far
off (as illustrated in Big Jake).

And as I said, what people know of from the movies takes place in these later
periods not the far earlier periods. Tsubaki Sanjuro and Yojibo take place in
post 1600 Japan. The Battle of Sekigahara was in October 21, 1600. That's when
Tokugawa made his big victory and really started consolidating his power after
defeating his significant rivals.

> It's only from the early 17th century that the Shogun generals

And some of the other movies take place afterwards don't they.

My point is comparing Japanese Feudal technology of 16th or 17th century (or
even early 19th century) periods to pre 1600 European forms is a bit
anachronistic is it not? In the 1600's Europe was using what military
techniques for mounted combat? It certainly wasn't the Arthurian mounted
knight. The increased use of arquebuses by european militaries had changed
that.

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ryan Gill wrote:

> At 7:28 AM +0200 6/25/02, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

*blink* Dead wrong on that one. Please go check how long the samurai were
around for;) Of course, making CONTACT is another matter.

Cheers,

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ryan M Gill wrote:

> And as I said, what people know of from the movies takes place in

You are of course aware this is a silly argument?

"Yeah, sure, HISTORICALLY it spanned from 1000 onwards, but MOVIES only cover
the later period" "Therefore my statement that samurai were not around at the
same time as knights is correct"????

If one would believe movies, then the medieval period is a time that I can not
account for by studying history at all, as movies represent some silly fantasy
crap.

Cheers,

> At 12:16 AM +0200 6/26/02, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

The whole idea of Samuraii fighting Chevaliers or English Long Bow men is
silly in and of itself. I thought you Dutch had better senses
of humor than this...:-P

> "Yeah, sure, HISTORICALLY it spanned from 1000 onwards, but MOVIES only

Duh. The point was though, what people popularly know as Samurai is from
movies that depict a very short period spanning about 100 years. Probably mid
1500s to mid 1600s. The styles and weapons changed a great degree over that
time from 1000 to the time that Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Harbor with
the Black Fleet.

> If one would believe movies, then the medieval period is a time that I

The point is people are saying Samurai like its one finite fixed period. There
was development and change over that time. What was common in the Heian wasn't
true in the Nanbokuchou, more so for the Edo period.

Oh and you know the Federation could beat the Empire any day right?

Nope, the Empire from Star Wars has far superior technology to the universe of
Star Trek:)

Read www.stardestroyer.net

FT games wouldn't be very exciting:)

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ryan M Gill wrote:

> At 12:16 AM +0200 6/26/02, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

:P I do. But I like tearing apart arguments just as much;)

> >"Yeah, sure, HISTORICALLY it spanned from 1000 onwards, but MOVIES

Yeah, but then they'd have to fight the people wearing tin foil designer's
dreams that look nothing like armour, known as 'knights';)

> >If one would believe movies, then the medieval period is a time that

True. No argument there.

> Oh and you know the Federation could beat the Empire any day right?

Of course not. But let'snot go there today;)

Cheers,

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:29:18 -0400, Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> "Developed" in the 10th Century. But what everyone really looks at as

While there were developments in armour and weapons (as far as blades went,
blade quality took a nose dive in the 16th and 17th centuries), the "imagery"
of samurai hit its stride in the 12th Century, onwards.

> It seems like the period just prior to the Shogun's

The "exciting" period is the several hundred years between the Heien era and
the Tokugawa era. The period of the two imperial courts, and the Onin War
(where ashigaru started to form) are particularly interesting.

> And as I said, what people know of from the movies takes place in

What I know isn't from movies, but from reading. Everything I talked about
with regard to samurai versus knights was from the pre-Sengoku Jidai
period.

Oh, and Yojimbo and Sanjuro take place in the late 19th Century.

> My point is comparing Japanese Feudal technology of 16th or 17th

I was comparing Japanese 13th Century to European 13th Century. Lamellar
armour was used, though the sweeping portions of the helmet were much
different from later eras (indeed, the construction of the helmet was a bit
different), the armour had little metal in it, the body of the armour was box
like instead of rounded, and the samurai were still dual-armed (bow and
sword). It's still a valid comparison, though.

> At 9:07 AM -0500 6/26/02, Allan Goodall wrote:

> The "exciting" period is the several hundred years between the Heien

When warlords vied for power and bandits roamed the lands taking what they
wanted from the peasants.

Any idea when Shichinin-no Samurai takes place? It's post Portugese
visitors as there are three arquebus's in use by the bandits (one that
Kikuchio snags and the other that Gorobei takes).

> >And as I said, what people know of from the movies takes place in

From the accounts I've seen, they are placed some time in the Tokugawa likely
middle to late 17th century. I'll have to watch it again and read the
credits....

> I was comparing Japanese 13th Century to European 13th Century.
Lamellar
> armour was used, though the sweeping portions of the helmet were much

Sodesu...

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:10:05 -0400, Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> From the accounts I've seen, they are placed some time in the

Umm... the chief antagonist pulls out a pistol, a revolver. It also sets up
the final duel, with Yojimbo fighting the antagonist (armed with a pistol) and
the other henchmen (who are armed with swords) with just his sword. Clearly
Yojimbo is set in the 19th century, as must be Sanjuro (the sequel).

> At 12:36 PM -0500 6/26/02, Allan Goodall wrote:
Clearly
> Yojimbo is set in the 19th century, as must be Sanjuro (the sequel).

Duh, good point. I forgot about that...It was a colt as I recall. With brass
cartridges....

From: ~ On Behalf Of Derk Groeneveld
Sent: 25 June 2002 23:17
Subject: Re: [HIST] Japanese Culture shock

> If one would believe movies, then the medieval period is

Oi! What's wrong with putting scythes on a perambulator?

-- ======================================================