Hollywood Has Lied Again! Western Vs Eastern Martial Arts

[Conserative Morality]

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.

Not necessarily a flat field, but yes, leaders of equal thinking capacity, nothing beforehand that would affect morale of either side significantly, etc, etc.

[Avenio]

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.

Evidently I need to go back and re-learn quite a bit about Medieval weapons and armour. Hmm. Thank you.

[Marcurix]

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.

I'd suggest looking at European history if i were you, as it was used there. That is of course disregarding you comment of it being cowardly.

I would also like to say that you have never used a Katana or seen kendo.

[Conserative Morality]

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

No.

Medieval armies were notoriously bad disciplined, vassals were half-trained, knights, too proud/stupid to actually consider any amount of discipline, all you really had were a few professional mercenaries, like the Genoese, and later, the Swiss, who heralded the rise of a more professional infantry force.

The Mongolians, on the other hand, had incredible discipline and organization under Genghis Khan.

[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.

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.

Being a chick, and having practiced for a while the Kyujutsu, the "chick sport" you are mentioning, I think I have seen and used more yumis than you certainly have. Yumis, specially the mounted version, were composite bows pretty able to generate the same tension than a longbow. (Although, to be frank, I have never touched a british medieval longbow, but I have touched other kinds of european bows).

The fact that the longbow penetrated more horses is because guess what? Horses are bigger. Plus, I am sure plate armor can deflect arrows shot at a wrong angle or too far, but a direct shot to the chest from a longbow/yumi from a reasonable distance? No. It has been proven in TV several times. Go and find out.

[Aelosia]

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.

Yup, so lately, all those movies with Triad and Yakuzas...Nevermind.

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

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.

Kendo? The same Kendo that uses shinai to represent swords? It evolved out of kenjutsu. It essentially means "way of the sword". It can't really be any more about sword fighting unless they started trying to gut one-another with actual blades, Asanuma Inejiro-style.

Now, whether any of it is useful is a decent question. It's a surprising workout, though.

[Marcurix]

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.

Being a chick, and having practiced for a while the Kyujutsu, the "chick sport" you are mentioning, I think I have seen and used more yumis than you certainly have. Yumis, specially the mounted version, were composite bows pretty able to generate the same tension than a longbow. (Although, to be frank, I have never touched a british medieval longbow, but I have touched other kinds of european bows).

The fact that the longbow penetrated more horses is because guess what? Horses are bigger. Plus, I am sure plate armor can deflect arrows shot at a wrong angle or too far, but a direct shot to the chest from a longbow/yumi from a reasonable distance? No. It has been proven in TV several times. Go and find out.

Adding on that It actually depends on the distance when it comes to the longbow. Longer ranges it was certianly very hard to punch through knights' armor. However at closer ranges, as proven at the Battle of Agincourt and the invasion of Wales by Edward Longshanks.

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

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.

Being a chick, and having practiced for a while the Kyujutsu, the "chick sport" you are mentioning, I think I have seen and used more yumis than you certainly have. Yumis, specially the mounted version, were composite bows pretty able to generate the same tension than a longbow. (Although, to be frank, I have never touched a british medieval longbow, but I have touched other kinds of european bows).

The fact that the longbow penetrated more horses is because guess what? Horses are bigger. Plus, I am sure plate armor can deflect arrows shot at a wrong angle or too far, but a direct shot to the chest from a longbow/yumi from a reasonable distance? No. It has been proven in TV several times. Go and find out.

Adding on that It actually depends on the distance when it comes to the longbow. Longer ranges it was certianly very hard to punch through knights' armor. However at closer ranges, as proven at the Battle of Agincourt and the invasion of Wales by Edward Longshanks.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge it has been pretty well demonstrated that a good suit of plate armor was usually able to repel arrows from English longbows at everything but the most extreme ranges. At least at the Battle of Agincourt, the longbowmen went through all of their arrows and wound up engaging the French forces in melee combat when they got close enough. I think it was the effort of advancing while thousands of arrows clattered off of their armor that wore out the French forces, more than actual injuries inflicted by the barrage.

I'd be perfectly happy to be corrected, however.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

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

No.

Medieval armies were notoriously bad disciplined, vassals were half-trained, knights, too proud/stupid to actually consider any amount of discipline, all you really had were a few professional mercenaries, like the Genoese, and later, the Swiss, who heralded the rise of a more professional infantry force.

The Mongolians, on the other hand, had incredible discipline and organization under Genghis Khan.

I'd argue that discipline at the time was virtually always dependent on who led them. European armies of decent discipline were unquestionably extant - the English @ Agincourt & the Germans @ Lechfeld come to mind -, just not very common. Essentially the same applies to the Muslim armies of the time - Saladin appears to have managed a quite reasonable level of discipline, the same can't be said about his predecessors. I'm not particularly familiar with the chinese, but I'm willing to bet my left nut that the same applies to them. And of course, the Mongols ludicrously awesome dicipline under Genghis and his immediate predecessors wasn't matched either before or after, and within a hundred years, had deteriorated to the point where not much was left.

This said, the basic point is of course true - in medieval times, detecting a significant discipline gradient between east and west seems a bit... odd. The differences likely became significant during early modernity, with mercenaries becoming the dominant force on the western battlefields, and was cemented at about the time professional national armies appeared, roughly coinceding with the establishment of absolutist regimes, so between circa 1400- 1700.

[Conserative Morality]

I'd argue that discipline at the time was virtually always dependent on who led them. European armies of decent discipline were unquestionably extant - the English @ Agincourt & the Germans @ Lechfeld come to mind -, just not very common.

The English were not only an exception, but also Agincourt was during the Late Medieval period. When I say 'Medieval' I generally refer to the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, Lechfeld was hardly an example of discipline, but rather of determination in the face of an overwhelmingly mobile enemy.

Essentially the same applies to the Muslim armies of the time - Saladin appears to have managed a quite reasonable level of discipline, the same can't be said about his predecessors.

The Muslims tended to field larger numbers of professional or semi-professional soldiers.

I'm not particularly familiar with the chinese, but I'm willing to bet my left nut that the same applies to them.

The Chinese were fielding professional soldiers at that time.

And of course, the Mongols ludicrously awesome dicipline under Genghis and his immediate predecessors wasn't matched either before or after, and within a hundred years, had deteriorated to the point where not much was left.

Mongolian discipline, while not as impressive, was still amazing well after Genghis' death. They merely 'forgot' to adapt to changing tactics and technology.

This said, the basic point is of course true - in medieval times, detecting a significant discipline gradient between east and west seems a bit... odd.

Not at all. Europe, Middle East, Far East, all had incredibly different ways of doing things militarily during the High Middle Ages (Not even including the differences within those regions), and well into future. Saladin merely used Europe's Knightly Class against itself, luring them out to be rapidly attacked, killed, and then left for the vultures before reinforcements arrived. The Mongolians did something similar, only with more 'ambush' and less 'enemy reinforcements'.

The differences likely became significant during early modernity, with mercenaries becoming the dominant force on the western battlefields, and was cemented at about the time professional national armies appeared, roughly coinceding with the establishment of absolutist regimes, so between circa 1400- 1700.

Ignoring the fact that 'Absolutist Regimes' were rarer than you seem to think they were...

[Arthropoda Ingens]

The English were not only an exception, but also Agincourt was during the Late Medieval period. When I say 'Medieval' I generally refer to the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, Lechfeld was hardly an example of discipline, but rather of determination in the face of an overwhelmingly mobile enemy.

Late medieval is still medieval. And I politely disagree on the latter.

Not at all. Europe, Middle East, Far East, all had incredibly different ways of doing things militarily during the High Middle Ages (Not even including the differences within those regions), and well into future. Saladin merely used Europe's Knightly Class against itself, luring them out to be rapidly attacked, killed, and then left for the vultures before reinforcements arrived. The Mongolians did something similar, only with more 'ambush' and less 'enemy reinforcements'.

IU'm not entirely clear what different tactics have to do with a discipline gradient...?

Ignoring the fact that 'Absolutist Regimes' were rarer than you seem to think they were...

My statement was not at all dependent on the frequency with which absolutist regimes occured (Although they were rather more common than commonly believed. Frederick II & others tend to be... Missinterpreted), but merely narrowed down a timeframe.

[Conserative Morality]

IU'm not entirely clear what different tactics have to do with a discipline gradient...?

The knights would charge without orders. They would charge with orders not to. They would charge through soldiers on their own side. The knights of medieval Europe had no discipline.

[Dododecapod]

IU'm not entirely clear what different tactics have to do with a discipline gradient...?

The knights would charge without orders. They would charge with orders not to. They would charge through soldiers on their own side. The knights of medieval Europe had no discipline.

Even that's only partially true. There WERE well trained, professional military Knights with great discipline. There were also mobs of half trained younger sons out for glory and a name. Oftimes, on the same side in the same battle.

Medieval European soldiery ran the whole gamut of skill, experience and discipline. To breakdown a question into "East and West" when both sides changed dramatically over the period involved makes no sense

[Trollgaard]

IU'm not entirely clear what different tactics have to do with a discipline gradient...?

The knights would charge without orders. They would charge with orders not to. They would charge through soldiers on their own side. The knights of medieval Europe had no discipline.

You call yourself a history buff?

Geeze man, generalizations like that are just plain wrong.

[Conserative Morality]

Even that's only partially true. There WERE well trained, professional military Knights with great discipline.

Every conflict I can think of disproves this almost entirely. Richard I had to make the common troops entirely surround his knights while marching in the Crusades to prevent them from charging out on their own initiative as they so often did. Agincourt, well, we all know that story, and even that was in the Late Middle Ages.

[Conserative Morality]

You call yourself a history buff?

Geeze man, generalizations like that are just plain wrong.

Find me one, all I ask is one, High Medieval example, and I will eat my words.

[Trollgaard]

Off the top of my head I would say the Teutonic Knights.

[Conserative Morality]

Off the top of my head I would say the Teutonic Knights.

Seeing as I mostly remember them for the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War....

'Not even close' would be my answer, unless you have a more specific answer relating to the Teutonic Knights.

[Trollgaard]

Off the top of my head I would say the Teutonic Knights.

Seeing as I mostly remember them for the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War....

'Not even close' would be my answer, unless you have a more specific answer relating to the Teutonic Knights.

I was thinking more like the Prussian crusade time, but I don't think that qualifies as high middle ages.

[Dododecapod]

You call yourself a history buff?

Geeze man, generalizations like that are just plain wrong.

Find me one, all I ask is one, High Medieval example, and I will eat my words.

What about the Battle between Rudolph I of Habsburg and the King of Bohemia? (Otto - something, can't remember his name.) Rudolph hid most of his heavy cavalry in a forest for the majority of the battle, trusting them to remain there and quiet until he called for them. When he did, they rammed into the flank of the Bohemian army, shattering it. This was in 1278, and was one of the more important events in the rise of the Habsburgs.

(I can remember the date clear as a bell, but the name of one of the combatants? Oy...)

[Forsakia]

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.

I think you're selling short the training involved in the longbow. The training of it took at least a decade just to be competent, and many of the archers would go from learning smaller bows from a young age to graduating to the longbow as their strength developed. Apart from the legally required training they would also commonly use them for hunting for food. So archers at say Agincourt would have been training from childhood and using it all their lives either for war or food. They were peasants, but that doesn't mean they were poorly trained.