Hollywood Has Lied Again! Western Vs Eastern Martial Arts

[Aelosia]

What I am sure is that in a pitched battle, at least the first, the knights would massacre a group of samurais. Shock cavalry tactics.

Perhaps. If the Samurai were smart enough to keep their distance on horseback and exploit their mastery of the bow, then it could turn out very differently. After all, Mongol tactics proved to be extraordinarily effective against pretty much everybody back in the day.

Did you know that many knights carried crossbows, and were quite apt at firing them from horseback?
Crossbow quarrel vs bamboo armour... ouch.

Both the level of expertise and the range would give the advantage to the samurais in that kind of engagement. for the europeans, would be better to handle the lance and charge than try to fight in ranged combat.

[Vonners]

"Western [...] unarmed martial arts"

Come again?

Ever heard of boxing or greco-roman wrestling?

Wrestling in any of its forms is pretty gay, tbh.

Boxing OTOH, yeah. Classical greek boxing in particular was ridiculously brutal, and designed explicitly to cause severe injuries.

Savate is pretty ruthless...

[Arthropoda Ingens]

"Western [...] unarmed martial arts"

Come again?

Ever heard of boxing or greco-roman wrestling?

Wrestling in any of its forms is pretty gay, tbh.

Boxing OTOH, yeah. Classical greek boxing in particular was ridiculously brutal, and designed explicitly to cause severe injuries.

Savate is pretty ruthless...

The French do have a remarkable selection of fairly nasty martial arts, yes.

[Rambhutan]

Have you ever used or even seen a real yumi? You should know that they are in no way comparable to a longbow, Japan lacked any wood typically used in the creation of good bows.

Yumis are compound bows made from laminated bamboo and wood - and compound bows are superior to solid wooden bows. The yumis used by a mounted samurai were asymetrical and longer than a longbow and therefore more powerful.

[Ravea]

Have you ever used or even seen a real yumi? You should know that they are in no way comparable to a longbow, Japan lacked any wood typically used in the creation of good bows.

Yumis are compound bows made from laminated bamboo and wood - and compound bows are superior to solid wooden bows. The yumis used by a mounted samurai were asymetrical and longer than a longbow and therefore more powerful.

Of course, that's why it has the jawdropping range of 50 metres

I wasn't aware that range equaled power. The Yumi is a powerhouse of a weapon, even for a laminated bow; there's a reason why it was the primary weapon of the Samurai for hundreds of years.

[Rambhutan]

Have you ever used or even seen a real yumi? You should know that they are in no way comparable to a longbow, Japan lacked any wood typically used in the creation of good bows.

Yumis are compound bows made from laminated bamboo and wood - and compound bows are superior to solid wooden bows. The yumis used by a mounted samurai were asymetrical and longer than a longbow and therefore more powerful.

Of course, that's why it has the jawdropping range of 50 metres

I am no expert on this but I am not sure where you are getting the 50 metre figure from, it is the range the yumi was most effective at but it was by no means the maximum range according to this article at least
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_denig_0301.htm
which seems to suggest a range of up to 200 yards and similar draw weights as those used by medieval longbow men. The Japanese also used longer and heavy arrows.

That said I can't find any direct comparison between the two, and I do doubt the ability of either to penetrate curved plate armour.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

From what I can find, it appears that a Yumi would, on average, have half the draw weight of a longbow (With the top-end Yumi being roughly equivalent to lower-end longbows).

Which strongly suggests that a longbow would've considerably greater penetration capabilities, among other things.

[Dododecapod]

Have you ever used or even seen a real yumi? You should know that they are in no way comparable to a longbow, Japan lacked any wood typically used in the creation of good bows.

Yumis are compound bows made from laminated bamboo and wood - and compound bows are superior to solid wooden bows. The yumis used by a mounted samurai were asymetrical and longer than a longbow and therefore more powerful.

Of course, that's why it has the jawdropping range of 50 metres

I am no expert on this but I am not sure where you are getting the 50 metre figure from, it is the range the yumi was most effective at but it was by no means the maximum range according to this article at least
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_denig_0301.htm
which seems to suggest a range of up to 200 yards and similar draw weights as those used by medieval longbow men. The Japanese also used longer and heavy arrows.

That said I can't find any direct comparison between the two, and I do doubt the ability of either to penetrate curved plate armour.

I've fired a Yumi - it's a weak bow designed for accuracy and speed of fire, not impact. The arrows (which are indeed longer and heavier than the standard clothyard shaft) are weighted forward, providing a benefit in plunging fire, as when used en masse. The 50 meter range is the accurate range, from horse, of a direct shot, i.e.non-plunging fire.

BY comparison, the Mongol horse bow was short and heavy, with a prodigious draw. I have NOT fired one of those, but I would expect it to hit much harder, as hard as a modern recurve (which I used to use for recreation). And according to the histories, the Mongol bow had real problems when they went up against heavily armoured Bulgar knights.

[Rambhutan]

I've fired a Yumi - it's a weak bow designed for accuracy and speed of fire, not impact. The arrows (which are indeed longer and heavier than the standard clothyard shaft) are weighted forward, providing a benefit in plunging fire, as when used en masse. The 50 meter range is the accurate range, from horse, of a direct shot, i.e.non-plunging fire.

Looks like it is time for me to admit to being wrong.

[SaintB]

From what I can find, it appears that a Yumi would, on average, have half the draw weight of a longbow (With the top-end Yumi being roughly equivalent to lower-end longbows).

Which strongly suggests that a longbow would've considerably greater penetration capabilities, among other things.

The Yumi was designed for accuracy at 50 meters. Meaning if they wanted to shoot you in the eye, they could. The Longbow was built with killing power in mind first and foremost, accuracy was a secondary consideration. However an expert with a longbow could fire it just as accurately as any Samaria could fire their Yumi.

[Andaluciae]

Is fearless a Hollywood movie?

Have you seen any american old movie about the chinese? How they paint them like decadent delinquents usually?

I think Fearless wasn't so cruel about westerners as many western movies about orientals I have seen...

Eh, since the mid-seventies or so, Western culture has mythologized the far-east, clothed it in the robes of quasi-magical mysticism and the rest--all because the Japanese economy rebounded from the War. So, while early Hollywood was as racist as all get out, that's drastically changed.

[Conserative Morality]

Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)

The Western Bastard Sword was a multipurpose weapon made for smashing blows that broke bones and cut open the poor infantrymen, while disabling fellow knights for ransom. The Japanese Katana was a slicing weapon not meant to catch a thousand blows or be replaced ten or twenty times, it was meant for Noble Vs. Noble fighting, IIRC.

Nevertheless, Western Pike formations were undoubtedly more disciplined than most Eastern armies of similar time periods, though certainly not all, and their effectiveness would not necessarily be superior.

Although the well-trained Roman Legionaries would beat any Far-Eastern Army any day. Unless led by an incompetent.

Which happened worryingly often.

[Conserative Morality]

The Yumi was designed for accuracy at 50 meters. Meaning if they wanted to shoot you in the eye, they could. The Longbow was built with killing power in mind first and foremost, accuracy was a secondary consideration. However an expert with a longbow could fire it just as accurately as any Samaria could fire their Yumi.

If I remember, English Longbowmen would fire for knightly visors at fifty yards during the hundred years war.

[Betri]

The Western Bastard Sword was a multipurpose weapon made for smashing blows that broke bones and cut open the poor infantrymen, while disabling fellow knights for ransom.

I would have to disagree with that part about smashing blows.

Yes it is a multipurpose weapon, the blade is mainly designed for cutting, not smashing and the techniques for fighting with a Hand and a Half sword show this.

I can fight him at measure (the distance with which i can make an attack but easily avoid his attack) I can parry and grab his blade (this allows me to do all sorts of disabling techniques), i can get in close and grab my blade and hilt and use the Sword as effectivly a dagger, a club or if i am good enough i can manouver the attack into some sort of restraint.

Very few attacks turn into smashing blows unless you go into half sword and use the pommel or the "german murder stroke" which involved taking a sturdy grip on the blade and driving the cross into the opponants head.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I think it depends on which era you're considering. The story of Agincourt holds that several knights (Including the Duke of York, who died this way) fell off their horses into the mud and wouldn't be able to get up, and drowned. But over the years, the heavy, cumbersome armor became lighter and more practical than just big thick metal plates, discounting tourney armor of course. I am not discounting the effectiveness of the plate armor of the day, but it was a little cumbersome.

False. Well made plate permitted nearly the full range of motion that one would have without it. If you've ever tried fighting, you'll learn very fast that armour which overly restricts or encumbers you makes you very easy to kill.

I would also like to say something about armor. At their hights, both cultures had good styles of armor. For example ( As I' m French/ English Canadian and distantly related to knights of templar members and of the normal French knights, so I know more about them) wealthy, 15th century French knights had around 3.4 inch steel plate armor, ( for heavier preferances) iron mail, heavy leather vests( which makes the mail much more effective), and then, ordinary cloths. From my extremly limited knowledge of Japenese samuria armor (correct me please), it includes 1-2 inch steel armor, heavy studded leather, and something that involves pig intestine; while ninja armor is almost non-existant ( for the majority of cases) and Chinese warrior armor is slightly heavier than samuria, though not as widely found and not usualy well made. In popular culture, It usualy shows medieval armor as heavy, uncomferable, and inflexible, while Eastern armor is light and flexible, as well as almost impenetirble. I don't know about Eastern armor, But I know that well-made expensive armor fits the wearer like a glove, and there are some recordes of knights being able to cartwheel in heavy armor, as well as being almost impenitarble. So why does popular culture emphasise that Easternism is beter that Westernism, even at the West's forte: heavy armor.

I hope I have misunderstood your post. Are you really attempting to say that Japanese armour was based on an inch of steel? Or that European plate harness was 3/4ths of an inch thick?

Have you ever tried to lift a sheet of steel of that size?

Yes, but most noblemen of the medieval era would scoff at fighting off of horseback, as it was (If you'll forgive the pun) beneath them. The elaborate plate armour the nobility of Europe wore had to be built to be comfortable for use on a horse and rigid in order to assist the wearer in using their lance. The consequence of this was that much of the classical plate armour we see in popular culture would be very cumbersome when down on the ground in a melee, thanks to the lack of visibility from the helmet and the inflexibility of the plates. During the period in which infantry began to develop into its own, it would be much more common for the pikemen and spearmen of the Medieval period to wear lighter lamellar or chainmail for just this purpose.

What?

You are, I am afraid, entirely wrong. European plate harness was very suitable for use in fast melee fighting, including grappling techniques and other such maneuvers. This is shown by a myriad of sources -- examination of surviving harness, analysis of period fighting manuals, and reconstructions of period fighting, among other things.

You may be thinking of jousting armours, which are an entirely different kettle of fish.

I rather doubt the cartwheeling bit, unless the soldier in question was wearing something like plate mail instead, but the plate armour of Europe was meant to fit the wearer well, but not to impart a particular amount of flexibility, just comfort.

See above.

I probably know even less than you about Eastern armour, but I'll try to debate this as best I can. From what I can tell of Chinese military history, the Chinese military favoured the use of lamellar armour rather than the elaborate mail and plate armour of Europe. Lamellar was strong enough to take an arrow or a sword blow if partially deflected, and was much, much more flexible. In personal combat, this means that a soldier wearing Chinese-style lamellar would be much, much more maneuverable than a dismounted knight in plate mail, and this translates into better survivability. (The ability to dodge blows often means that the armour doesn't need to absorb as many shots and lowers the chance of a blow getting through)

I do not have the information to comment on Chinese armouring practices. However, your opinion on European armour is basically wrong. Furthermore, your conclusion is backwards -- your chance of surviving in plate harness is a good deal better, because they are much more protective and no more (indeed, often less) cumbersome than mail.

[Militire]

I would also like to say something about armor. At their hights, both cultures had good styles of armor. For example ( As I' m French/ English Canadian and distantly related to knights of templar members and of the normal French knights, so I know more about them) wealthy, 15th century French knights had around 3.4 inch steel plate armor, ( for heavier preferances) iron mail, heavy leather vests( which makes the mail much more effective), and then, ordinary cloths. From my extremly limited knowledge of Japenese samuria armor (correct me please), it includes 1-2 inch steel armor, heavy studded leather, and something that involves pig intestine; while ninja armor is almost non-existant ( for the majority of cases) and Chinese warrior armor is slightly heavier than samuria, though not as widely found and not usualy well made. In popular culture, It usualy shows medieval armor as heavy, uncomferable, and inflexible, while Eastern armor is light and flexible, as well as almost impenetirble. I don't know about Eastern armor, But I know that well-made expensive armor fits the wearer like a glove, and there are some recordes of knights being able to cartwheel in heavy armor, as well as being almost impenitarble. So why does popular culture emphasise that Easternism is beter that Westernism, even at the West's forte: heavy armor.

I hope I have misunderstood your post. Are you really attempting to say that Japanese armour was based on an inch of steel? Or that European plate harness was 3/4ths of an inch thick?

Have you ever tried to lift a sheet of steel of that size?

Sorry. My mistake. As I said, I have an extremly small knowledge about Samuia armor. As to plate armor, I ment centimeters. Could you please enlighten us to the concept of Samuria armor; from a couple of posts here, I don't think everyone knows what it consists of.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Sorry. My mistake. As I said, I have an extremly small knowledge about Samuia armor. As to plate armor, I ment centimeters. Could you please enlighten us to the concept of Samuria armor; from a couple of posts here, I don't think everyone knows what it consists of.

I am not particularly informed on Eastern armours.

The matter is complicated more by the fact that there is no single 'samurai armour'. It's as meaningless as 'knight armour'.

But from memory, late-period samurai had a full suit, based on medium sized metal plates. This included a torso harness, arm and leg defenses, and a helmet. Most of this involved at least one layer of metal, with padded cloth/leather underneath for further defense. This is a design that is more than sufficient to be quite effective against the weapon systems they encountered in combat, and on par with many types of European armour (although inferior in protectiveness to a full plate harness).

Incidentally, one reason for the differences in weapons and armour between Japan in particular and the West is that Japan is very poor in iron suitable for making high-grade steel.

[Vimeria]

Wrestling in any of its forms is pretty gay, tbh.

Only if you make eye contact.

[Iniika]

Indeed, there was a good reason why Europe conquered the globe.

Western armies have always had superior discipline to easterners, whom were more content with cowardly hit-and-run attacks.

I would also like to say that the Katana is a terrible weapon, and kendo is not swordfighting.

Kendo isn't about sword fighting. Maybe you're thinking of kenjitsu.

[Trotskylvania]

What I am sure is that in a pitched battle, at least the first, the knights would massacre a group of samurais. Shock cavalry tactics.

Perhaps. If the Samurai were smart enough to keep their distance on horseback and exploit their mastery of the bow, then it could turn out very differently. After all, Mongol tactics proved to be extraordinarily effective against pretty much everybody back in the day.

At least the first, I am aware that eventually samurais would work a way around that, but for the first time, I'm pretty sure they would countercharge, and get slaughtered in droves by the mounted scythe of knights.

And yes, japanese arrows fired from a yumi could easily punch through knights' armor. Those are equivalent in strenght to the british longbows. Crecy, Poitiers anyone?

Have you ever used or even seen a real yumi? You should know that they are in no way comparable to a longbow, Japan lacked any wood typically used in the creation of good bows. There is a reason why archery is considered a "chick sport" in modern Japan.

Also the longbow itself couldn't penetrate plate armor. What they could penetrate were horses, and annoy armoured infantry.

Not all bows are true bows.

Like any people, when technical considerations get in the way of killing others, they will find a way around them. The Japanese yumi is a composite bow, made of laminated strips of wood, bamboo and leather. Typically, they had draw strengths equivalent to English longbows. And, as an added bonus of their recurve shape, had slightly faster arrow velocities at the same draw pull.

But comparing the English longbow with the Japanese yumi is like comparing apples to oranges. The English longbow is a peasant's weapon, and it served as the great equalizing force in Europe. The training regime of English peasants, who were required by law to be proficient with the longbow, is part of the proto-democratic ethos of Medieval Europe.

The yumi, on the other hand, is the weapon of an elite, professional warrior. The skills required to use the yumi, including drawing and aiming from horseback, the care of the fickle composite bow, and the special drawing method (which allows the arrow to fly straight by rotating the bow out of the flight path of the arrow), require a lifetime of dedication to learn. If you have the time to learn those skills, the yumi is a superior weapon to an English longbow in terms of stopping power, accuracy and utility.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Hi. I'm too tired to read all the other pages tonight. If someone else mentioned this, well, sorry to waste your time.

You mentioned "Deadliest Warrior". In Spartan vs. Ninja, the ninja lost.

[Conserative Morality]

Hi. I'm too tired to read all the other pages tonight. If someone else mentioned this, well, sorry to waste your time.

You mentioned "Deadliest Warrior". In Spartan vs. Ninja, the ninja lost.

I went into a black fury on the Roman one. A Centurion using an engineer's weapon? That was incredibly accurate, yet he missed at, what, ten yards? He then threw his pilum at such a poor speed? And THEN tried to use the Gladius as a cutting weapon?

[Marcurix]

Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)

Well every generation has it's bias.

In truth no can whom honestly knows what they are talking about can pick a clear victor from either side. Or each side, or each time period weapons and tactics were made to adapt to the land, to the people, to its way of thinking. It is true that certain equipment, such as the Katana, are true marvels of engineering, in which kudos to the inventor, but a tool is only as good as it's user.

[Conserative Morality]

Well every generation has it's bias.

In truth no can whom honestly knows what they are talking about can pick a clear victor from either side. Or each side, or each time period weapons and tactics were made to adapt to the land, to the people, to its way of thinking. It is true that certain equipment, such as the Katana, are true marvels of engineering, in which kudos to the inventor, but a tool is only as good as it's user.

Mind you, in terms of army-level comparisons, one could very easily determine the victor, so long as you are very specific about time period.

[Marcurix]

Well every generation has it's bias.

In truth no can whom honestly knows what they are talking about can pick a clear victor from either side. Or each side, or each time period weapons and tactics were made to adapt to the land, to the people, to its way of thinking. It is true that certain equipment, such as the Katana, are true marvels of engineering, in which kudos to the inventor, but a tool is only as good as it's user.

Mind you, in terms of army-level comparisons, one could very easily determine the victor, so long as you are very specific about time period.

I suppose yes in a sense. Assuming you said two said armies met of a flat feild with leaders of equal thinking capacity and similar way of thinking, with soldiers of equal morale, fighting spirit and so on.