Who Wins: Samurai Master w/Katana vs. Fencing Maestro w/ Rapier?

[Sebastian]

According to Wikipedia, the katana shows up in the 12th century. That is consistent to the curriculum I teach which stresses the katana as crucial to the Kamakura Period.

At any rate, the style of swordfighting is completely different and the swords are completely different. That is the source of why this battle would be so different.

In my opinion, if this were to be an accurate fight the Samurai should be allowed their lightweight wicker and steel armor and their wakizashi. The assumption of the 16th century setting would be that Spanish Conquistadors land and attempt to colonize Japan on their terms and in their rules of dueling, not the other way around. Japan weren't Imperialist until the second world war.

Sorry I'm blowing up your hypo.

The katana was (re)-invented in that period, but it didn't see widespread use, especially by noblemen, until after 1400. That also coincides with the fighting style and cultural changes.

So if a samurai is going to use it, it closer to 1500 than 1200.

Also, if armor is going to be involved, the fencing master isn't going to use a rapier or saber. He'd be using a broadsword and it would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

 

[Randolphkeys]

The katana was (re)-invented in that period, but it didn't see widespread use, especially by noblemen, until after 1400. That also coincides with the fighting style and cultural changes.

So if a samurai is going to use it, it closer to 1500 than 1200.

Also, if armor is going to be involved, the fencing master isn't going to use a rapier or saber. He'd be using a broadsword and it would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

I wouldn't be a good history teacher focused on this period unless I pointed out which party would be the Imperialist. Additionally, you are also correct that gunpowder would play a huge factor in a real battle, therefore there is no point in factoring in what would "really happen" on the field of a battle... but it's a very Western biased point of view for a hypothetical.

We should instead assume that the katana, which was very much invented in this time period, and the rapier are facing off in a duel agreed upon by two gentlemen. Their rules, not the rules of battle... but the understanding a Samurai would commit suicide if he lost by points in a blood battle anyway.

 

[Sebastian]

I wouldn't be a good history teacher focused on this period unless I pointed out which party would be the Imperialist. Additionally, you are also correct that gunpowder would play a huge factor in a real battle, therefore there is no point in factoring in what would "really happen".

We should instead assume that the katana, which was very much invented in this time period, and the rapier are facing off in a duel agreed upon by two gentlemen. Their rules, not the rules of battle... but the understanding a Samurai would commit suicide if he lost by points in a blood battle anyway.

He doesn't have to commit suicide, they could become friends and have tea!

 

[Randolphkeys]

He doesn't have to commit suicide, they could become friends and have tea!

Again, ignores the social values of the time period... Which is why Western European perspective has an unfair bias in this hypothetical.

BTW - I enjoy talking history with you guys, took too long of a period off on the site. Thanks.

 

[Sebastian]

Again, ignores the social values of the time period... Which is why Western European perspective has an unfair bias in this hypothetical.

Look, I've seen Last Samurai bub, and fucking IBS guy was won over by Tom Cruise and the glory of Scientology!

Besides, I understand the perspective being part Japanese...

 

[Randolphkeys]

Look, I've seen Last Samurai bub, and fucking IBS guy was won over by Tom Cruise and the glory of Scientology!

Besides, I understand the perspective being part Japanese...

To be fair, I was just in a department meeting discussing best practices for teaching Medieval Japan this morning, and I'm co-leading a department meeting tomorrow. It's all very fresh on my mind...






...and I'm totally guilty of LOVING The Last Samurai.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

In my opinion, if this were to be an accurate fight....

But it's not intended to be -- is it?

To me, it's an interesting exercise in the sense that it tends to reveal there is no universally superior weapon or fighting style. The Samurai armed with katana would be the trendy pick, but if there's no armor and you're going up against someone with a much lighter weapon, it may not be. Likewise, it might also not be the best weapon if you're fighting in very heavy armor, and going up against someone also heavily armored. You may not be able to penetrate.

The truly "fair" fight would be a Samurai in his armor fighting a knight in somewhat equivalent armor, with a sword of his choice. But I personally think it is impossible to really predict that because the actual fighting ability of the knights is completely unknown. Samurai sword fighting was more systematized, and so has been passed down in a more complete form that can be roughly evaluated. It is still considered an art/sport. Modern people can look at that and "ooh" and "ah" over how flowing it looks.

But we really have no idea at all what great sword fighting looked like among knights. The training wasn't nearly as systematized on a large scale, but that doesn't mean it was inferior. There may have been boatloads of innovative styles, and surely some systems and stuff passed down while armored sword fighting still mattered. But that skill/ability/discipline was pretty much lost completely, and wasn't passed down as art or sport. The best we can do to figure it out is to have some wannabees swinging swords around at SCA events, but it is likely they'd be chewed to ribbons in very short order by a truly well-trained knight, who likely would be employing techniques the SCA guys would never expect.

 

[Jack Brickman]

The truly "fair" fight would be a Samurai in his armor fighting a knight in somewhat equivalent armor, with a sword of his choice.

This is basically the premise of the video game For Honor.

 

[Sebastian]

But it's not intended to be -- is it?

To me, it's an interesting exercise in the sense that it tends to reveal there is no universally superior weapon or fighting style. The Samurai armed with katana would be the trendy pick, but if there's no armor and you're going up against someone with a much lighter weapon, it may not be. Likewise, it might also not be the best weapon if you're fighting in very heavy armor, and going up against someone also heavily armored. You may not be able to penetrate.

The truly "fair" fight would be a Samurai in his armor fighting a knight in somewhat equivalent armor, with a sword of his choice. But I personally think it is impossible to really predict that because the actual fighting ability of the knights is completely unknown. Samurai sword fighting was more systematized, and so has been passed down in a more complete form that can be roughly evaluated. It is still considered an art/sport. Modern people can look at that and "ooh" and "ah" over how flowing it looks.

But we really have no idea at all what great sword fighting looked like among knights. The training wasn't nearly as systematized on a large scale, but that doesn't mean it was inferior. There may have been boatloads of innovative styles, and surely some systems and stuff passed down while armored sword fighting still mattered. But that skill/ability/discipline was pretty much lost completely, and wasn't passed down as art or sport. The best we can do to figure it out is to have some wannabees swinging swords around at SCA events, but it is likely they'd be chewed to ribbons in very short order by a truly well-trained knight, who likely would be employing techniques the SCA guys would never expect.

It is all conjecture. Maybe.

There is one incident, supposedly, of a Portuguese fencing master in Japan who dueled samurai.

I will release the results after a few days.

I want to make sure others share their opinions.


Edit: The Knight vs. Samurai thing is also dependent on the era of chivalry.

The katana is an amazing sword, but it won't cut through the steel plate of the 1300-1400s, while a broadsword of the same era is much, much more effective against Japanese lamellar armor of the same period.

 

[BobQCarter]

"

 

[BobQCarter]

This guy makes a sound argument for katana.

 

[Sebastian]

"

Woof.

I wonder if katana guy was on the same skill level because he lost that match handedly.

As I noted, the blade speed and footwork of a master fencer is not to be underestimated.

 

[Sebastian]

This guy makes a sound argument for katana.

He makes good points, but I don't think I would use a foil outside of practice.

The hypothesis uses a rapier as it is lighter than a broadsword, but heavier and more solid than the epee or foil.

It can parry more effectively, and is also designed for slashes as well as thrusts. Think the swords Wesley and Indigo used in Princess Bride, but in reality the 16th-19th Century models are slightly more robust.

While it slashes also, it is certainly not in the same department as a katana. It's is designed to cut to the bone, to cut tendons and blood vessels, but won't amputate the way the katana can.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Edit: The Knight vs. Samurai thing is also dependent on the era of chivalry.

The katana is an amazing sword, but it won't cut through the steel plate of the 1300-1400s, while a broadsword of the same era is much, much more effective against Japanese lamellar armor of the same period.

Additionally, Knights weren't necessarily out to kill by penetrating the armor. The steel was so thick on a knight's armor that a more common death was crushing rather than from stabbing/slashing.

I have a hard time believing a samurai would be able to defeat a knight easily.

 

[brownindian]

Fencing will make your home value go up, but i don't see how it can defeat a Samurai.