Who were superior at combat in ancient times? The Japanese or the British?

[Towel Snapper]

So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.

It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.

Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.

 

[Tez3]

At the time you seem to be comparing there were no 'British'. There weren't really any 'Europeans' either, lots of different countries, lots of different strengths of armies, weapons etc have you an actual date in mind? Otherwise, to be honest, this doesn't make any sense.

 

[Towel Snapper]

At the time you seem to be comparing there were no 'British'. There weren't really any 'Europeans' either, lots of different countries, lots of different strengths of armies, weapons etc have you an actual date in mind? Otherwise, to be honest, this doesn't make any sense.

thats very negative and pedantic, its almost like you want to draw me into a trolling argument....

 

[Tez3]

Oh dear. negative would be me saying that you are a silly little boy who posts utter rubbish up without doing any research and then whinges like a child because he's not taken seriously but I didn't say that did I? I actually answered your post and even asked a question.

 

[Tez3]

Inane? :lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

 

[jezr74]

Inane? :lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

What if the British attacked from the left or right?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.

It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.

Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.

Are you under the impression that the Japanese did not have castles, archers, and cavalry?

 

[Towel Snapper]

Are you under the impression that the Japanese did not have castles, archers, and cavalry?

Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.

 

[Tez3]

Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.

 

[Cirdan]

What do you mean the Japanese "had more advanced swords"? In the real world I mean, not whatever video game you have been playing. Tiger riding cavalry??

 

[Chris Parker]

So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.

It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.

Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.

Oh for the love of jam and jelly and joyous little jezebels… what the hell are you going on about here?!?!

The history of the samurai in Japan was around 1,000 years… it covered a hell of a lot of time, and a hell of a lot of different formats in both locations… "ninja", as you understand them, didn't really exist… the samurai was ostensibly the equivalent of a European mounted knight… so it's not a matter of one being "better" than the other… the samurai had armour themselves, you know… as well as castles, and the whole nine yards (not so much shields… but then again, they had those built into their armour).

To be blunt, you're making your assessment based on absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of anything you're talking about… right?

Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.

What on earth are you basing that particular stretch of lunacy on?

 

[Tez3]

I found this, I don't have the knowledge of arms etc necessary to know how good the article is but I imagine many of the points are valid?

The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai

 

[donald1]

Personally i would favor the European medieval knights, I like the Armour

In a fight between samurai or knight? Honestly I could imagine that could go either way but would be something to see

 

[Tez3]

I like the conclusion to the article I posted up.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"So what can we really know?[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as who could defeat whom between knights and samurai. The fight cannot be reduced to any generalized statements about who had the overall historical advantage in skill or who had the superior array of arms and armor. In matters like this we certainly cannot not invoke mystical principles or endless "what ifs" and still engage in intelligent conjecture. All we can do is give an opinion of questionable value. Still, it is an intriguing comparison to ponder objectively. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is so much unnecessary emotion encountered when fervent proponents of one or the other schools of swordsmanship speculates wildly on this topic. Amusingly, before reflexively reacting with a strong opinion one way or another when thinking about this subject, we might want to stop and ask ourselves to ponder the same imaginary contest between two samurai, for example, a Muromachi era versus say, a [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Kamakura one. Or we could do the same for the knight, posing the problem of who would defeat whom, an 11[SUP]th[/SUP] century Flemish knight or a 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century Burgundian one? By doing this simple mental exercise we can see the inherent problems of arguing one way or another over such imaginary fights. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Keeping in mind that live demonstrations speak louder than any words, hopefully this writing has cleared away some of the prejudice on behalf of both kenjutsu students and Medievalists. I personally give only limited credit to occasions of cross-sparring by modern practitioners of each respective art, as they seldom can meet under mutually agreeable or equally advantageous conditions for very long. Personally, while I admire the techniques and principles of kenjutsu as generally being highly effective (but not specifically its modern methods of instruction), I cannot disregard the proven efficacy of the sword and shield method. Nor can I ignore the formidable utility and versatility of an excellent European longsword or great sword when combined with superior European armor –and the difficulty it offers when posed against the single sword. But a fine katana can be a truly awesome sword. I have long been an admirer of its form and function. However, not all of them were superb weapons and typically the quality of European blades is erroneously denigrated and dismissed. Also, my own understanding of the German and Italian longsword and great-sword methods of fence from the late 14th to early 17th centuries gives be considerable doubt that a skilled knight of any era would encounter anything too unfamiliar in facing a samurai swordsman of any era. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are many other factors that still could be raised when speculating on a hypothetical combat between a knight and a samurai. In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable...but would be an awesome experiment. Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter –or at least the luckier one."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

 

[Steve]

We have superheroes and they have giant mechs. I think it's a wash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xue Sheng]

We have superheroes and they have giant mechs. I think it's a wash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to be forgetting......the Japanese have.....this

 

[donald1]

You seem to be forgetting......the Japanese have.....this

The knights have crusaders and the crusaders and they had a cross and They believed that the symbol of the cross made them invincible

 

[Towel Snapper]

I found this, I don't have the knowledge of arms etc necessary to know how good the article is but I imagine many of the points are valid?

The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai

Where are the pictures man?

Just kidding thankyou!

 

[Xue Sheng]

The knights have crusaders and the crusaders and they had a cross and They believed that the symbol of the cross made them invincible

Yeah but the Japanese also have Sonny Chiba

 

[jks9199]

Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.

Where they hell did you get that silly idea? Some comic book?

The Japanese rode horses. Some fought on horseback, though I suspect that they never really developed extensive cavalry tactics since much of Japan isn't suited to it. Could be wrong on that, though...