HI Sirupati/Kobra vs katana?

[Don Nelson]

the Roman army was formed around a 24" piece of steel (the gladius) that was used to routinely defeat greek armies using the spear and the sarissa (pike), it was the discipline, training and mental attitude that won.

they also tended to grind up other barbarian armies that used long cutting swords. it was only later in the empire after that discipline broke down and standards fell that the pole-arms came back into fashion in the more undisciplined and barbaric melee's - an early roman legion would have made mincemeat out of most medievil armies which were nothing more than rabble led by a few horseman that thought too much of themselves.

The romans were soldiers, not warriors. thats why they won. the ghurka is a soldier who wins. it may be the warrior who wins duels, it's the soldier than wins battles.

The Romans placed more emphasis on the sword than most, but that still does not invalidate the fact the preferred weapon of choice for most armies was the polearm. For example, the Phalanx of earlier eras was a body of Pikemen, not swordsmen. I'll do some research tonight to see to what extent the Romans used polearms. It's been a while since I studied the Romans in particular.

I think you might be splitting hairs vis a vis soldiers versus warriors - sementics perhaps.

The Ghurka wins, but does he always win? And who does he win against, and when does he win, and how?

I agree that the typical Roman army would "probably" defeat a similarly sized medieval army. Your gladius armed Roman soldier would be hard pressed to stand in front of an armored knight's lance lead horse charge (shrug).

I agree that discipline counts for a lot.

By the way, I thought the topic here was a "duel" of sorts between a Ghorka and a Ninja.

Don

 

[Mark Nelson]

In a no-rules street contest, a top-ten middleweight professional boxer would rule supreme.
A olympic wrestler or judoka performing at the same level as the boxer would give him a run for his money.

QUOTE]


Man I had thought that I should stay away from this whole thread but couldn't resist . In the above situation I would put my money on the equally skilled wrestler or judoka and would win 9 out of ten time. There I said it. I feel free again.

 

[RipNTear]

You're all wrong. Ninja vs. Ghurka? Easy. Shaolin Monk wins. Picks off the "victor" after they've gone at it a few minutes

--Rip

 

[ichor]

you are asking us to compare people with two different job descriptions.
fair enough, but just remember that, ok ?

equally skilled warriors ?
if so, then the man with the longer weapon will probably win. its just a fact.
the best swordsman in the world is going to be nervous against a man with a halberd or spear.
distance is a major factor in combat.
major major.

an 18" knife against a 27 " sword, equally skilled...
distance wins.

I just recently read something on the internet to the effect that, in some places, military spearman were commonly paid more than swordsmen as they were considered the more effective and valuable soldier. I had a recent computer system crash and lost the website, darn it. Has anyone run across this website or other info on this subject (that is, compensation for soldiers in the "olden days").

As an aside, to reinforce Danny's assertion that the longer weapon, in the hands of equally trained/skilled opponents, I think it is a pretty well accepted idea that a warrior with the six foot "stick" (bo in the East or staff in the West) can give a swordsman a lot of trouble. I'm a big fan of "sticks" since very few places exist that the authorities are going to give you a lot of trouble over possession of a cane or walking stick. If I was attacked by someone with a knife, give me a 3-6 foot stick everytime. My 2 cents. YMMV

 

[kronckew]

Hi Don,

the roman army of course used the pilum, which was a heavy missle weapon thrown just before the shock of the two armies meeting, they also had spears and pikes in reserve justincase - usually if they knew they were defending against cavalry, they'd do the 'braveheart' shiltroon thingy. the main thing was they were flexible, well trained, and units supported each other in a disciplined fashion. (and they knew how to use artillery and combat engineers!) they were drilled to work together as a team. this is the difference between a soldier and the typical warrior of the age who was usually bigger & stronger with a huge sword, spear or pole-axe who would shout out his challenge and expect to engage the enemy in a honourable one-on-one duel of honour and by their tribal rules. he'd run in to the roman buzzsaw, while he was hacking at the guy in front, the legionairre on his right would stick 3inches of his gladius in him & keep marching. (just looked in 'the complete roman army' - by a. goldsworthy, not much mentioned about polearms (other than pilae & javelins (lancea) which were thrown missles - at least not inthe principate armies.)

the samurai were unequalled warriors with a very strict sense of honour who spent most of a battle shouting their ancestry and challenges to the other side before engaging in duels before the main battle. the one time they met the mongols they were rolled up in a ball & kicked hard, except for the 'kamikaze' - divine wind - the storm that sunk the khan's fleet they'd all have been speaking chinese by now. again, one-on-one they probably would win, army to army, no.

anyway the only encounter i've read about between a ghurka & khukri and a japanese officer cum katana, the ghurka lost a few fingers on his right hand and i believe was badly injured in the left arm. the japanese officer's head and sword was carried back to his unit by the ghurka. i'd imagine if he'd lost i'd never have heard of it, so it's still only anecdotal evidence.

 

[Josh Muller]

You're all wrong. Ninja vs. Ghurka? Easy. Shaolin Monk wins. Picks off the "victor" after they've gone at it a few minutes

--Rip

all of you are wrong. the sniper kills all three.

shaolin monks do rock though... from what i was told, the basis of their systems was to keep raiding armies/parties from destroying the temples, and was highly effective at just that...

ninja vs. ghurka - standoff style, i say ninja. on the feild of battle? luck of the draw.

 

[brantoken]

I have seen Bambi vs Godzilla( many times in fact) , and admittedly
Bambi not that tough , but I think Godzilla would still take the
prize overall...... If you gave him a Godzilla sized khuk( ang khola, of course),
Who could question the( or indeed any) outcome?
With the exception of Godzilla Vs the pasty Navel guy sitting underwater
and with an intercontential missle/ nuke combo ( and well, ok a katana) , but then again, Didn't they nuke godzilla once and didn't he just inhale the explosion ?

Now if mothra had a Katana.......

 

[Don Nelson]

Hi Don,

the roman army of course used the pilum, which was a heavy missle weapon thrown just before the shock of the two armies meeting, they also had spears and pikes in reserve justincase - usually if they knew they were defending against cavalry, they'd do the 'braveheart' shiltroon thingy. the main thing was they were flexible, well trained, and units supported each other in a disciplined fashion. (and they knew how to use artillery and combat engineers!) they were drilled to work together as a team. this is the difference between a soldier and the typical warrior of the age who was usually bigger & stronger with a huge sword, spear or pole-axe who would shout out his challenge and expect to engage the enemy in a honourable one-on-one duel of honour and by their tribal rules. he'd run in to the roman buzzsaw, while he was hacking at the guy in front, the legionairre on his right would stick 3inches of his gladius in him & keep marching. (just looked in 'the complete roman army' - by a. goldsworthy, not much mentioned about polearms (other than pilae & javelins (lancea) which were thrown missles - at least not inthe principate armies.)

the samurai were unequalled warriors with a very strict sense of honour who spent most of a battle shouting their ancestry and challenges to the other side before engaging in duels before the main battle. the one time they met the mongols they were rolled up in a ball & kicked hard, except for the 'kamikaze' - divine wind - the storm that sunk the khan's fleet they'd all have been speaking chinese by now. again, one-on-one they probably would win, army to army, no.

anyway the only encounter i've read about between a ghurka & khukri and a japanese officer cum katana, the ghurka lost a few fingers on his right hand and i believe was badly injured in the left arm. the japanese officer's head and sword was carried back to his unit by the ghurka. i'd imagine if he'd lost i'd never have heard of it, so it's still only anecdotal evidence.

I agree with most of your historical interpretation except with respect to the Samurai. It's important to not confuse the one-on-one duels they fought, with their full-scale military engagements. Also, the one-on-one duels were in the beginning, fought from horseback while shooting arrows at each other. The original weapon of the samurai was the bow. Eventually it became the Tachi (a slenderish, longer Katana like sword) used from horseback. As the Samurai became more of a foot army than a cavalry army the weapon of choice became the naginata (Japanese Halberd), and only later when the major warring periods were past did it become the Katana as we know it today.

It's true the occasional Samurai did step out into the middle of things and proclaim their lineage and fighting prowess, and then proceed to carve each other into deli meat, but they didn't have those hundreds or thousands of guys standing behind them there just for moral support.

Check out Stephen Turnbull's latest works on the Samurai. He's a great writer with an enormous wealth of knowledge about the Samurai, though I question his views on European Medieval swords and warriors (LOL). He's got a definite Pro-Japanese bias to his viewpoints (grin).

Don

 

[spiraltwista]

Hi Folks!

I was going to pull up a stool & enjoy my beer in the cantina, But thought I would just through this one into the pot first.


My understanding is that When the Gurkhas fought the British, The kukri was generaly a backup to a tulwar or more commonly of course the kora or khondra.

Of course it was also a peasents rather than a soldiers weapon.

As with all these "what if "posts its all a questian of the variables.

Gurkhas also like machine guns & hand grenades, I Expect Ninjas do to!

If I had room to swing it, I would choose a katana first & have a kuk for backup & corridor work.

Next rounds on me, drink up boys!

cheers!
Spiral

 

[Diamond Cut II]

What benefits does the Kobra or Sirupati have over a katana? Vise-versa?

 

[sams]

What benefits does the Kobra or Sirupati have over a katana? Vise-versa?



I think portability.

I am enjoying this dialog immensely.

How about Miyamoto Musashi and the book by Eiji Yoshikawa?

I go back to the statement I made regarding the best trained fighter.

 

[demon tessu]

he who fight's dirtiest wins

 

[Don Nelson]

What benefits does the Kobra or Sirupati have over a katana? Vise-versa?

Portability, and use in cramped quarters.

One reason why later period Samurai wore two swords was so that the shorter of the two (Wakizashi) would be used indoors. It was not uncommon for ceilings of homes to be built intentionally low to make overhand strikes with a full-size katana basically impossible, and for hallways to be made so narrow that horizontal cuts were precluded as well.

Samurai seldom wore their katana when indoors, but were rarely seen without their wakizashi (think 20-25" Sirupati or Kobra for size).

I'll tell you honestly though, as much as I love khukuri, if had a choice between a 20-25" Siru or Kobra or a wakizashi I'd take the wak in a heartbeat, hands down, no comparison.

But! If I had a choice between say, an 18" Gelbu Special and a Wakizashi....now THAT would be an interesting decision. The 18" Gelbu is much handier than its larger sibling or the 20" and larger Sirus, yet it can cut with incredible authority.

Don

 

[sams]

It is experience and training gents, no more no less.

I saw so many young heavly armed young men get wasted because they thought they knew sh#t.



Ahh, one more thing I should mention you all heard before. The mind, is the weapon , the knife, sword, gun, whatever just a tool.

That is why so many people back down from veterans in a fight. Been there done that, when sh*t starts and it is for real, sinew are cut, arteries severed, blood everywhere, slipping and sliding, and not many fighters can deal with the real world.

Rusty maybe it is time to close this thread.

 

[ichor]

Portability, and use in cramped quarters.

One reason why later period Samurai wore two swords was so that the shorter of the two (Wakizashi) would be used indoors. It was not uncommon for ceilings of homes to be built intentionally low to make overhand strikes with a full-size katana basically impossible, and for hallways to be made so narrow that horizontal cuts were precluded as well.



Don

Man, oh man do we live in different times. Can you imagine, today, building your new home and taking into consideration the height of the ceilings and the width of the hallways based on what weapons could be used against one in their own house?? Considering today's weapons I guess the equivalant would be steel plate rather than drywall???? To be honest, I think that would be overkill.....or paranoia. Do you think the Samurai were a little paranoid? (remember.....just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not after you.)

 

[Don Nelson]

Man, oh man do we live in different times. Can you imagine, today, building your new home and taking into consideration the height of the ceilings and the width of the hallways based on what weapons could be used against one in their own house?? Considering today's weapons I guess the equivalant would be steel plate rather than drywall???? To be honest, I think that would be overkill.....or paranoia. Do you think the Samurai were a little paranoid? (remember.....just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not after you.)

Do I think the Samurai were paranoid? Well, let's examine the term paranoid: an UNREASONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED or IRRATIONAL expectation that some one or some thing is out to do you harm.

If one has read the history of feudal Japan and how many Samurai leader's heads ended up on display in another daimyo's manor, I don't think I'd describe those expectations as unreasonable, unjustified or irrational.

Don

 

[DannyinJapan]

i appreciate hearing a newcomers description of the bujinkan, thank you.
it is hard to explain from the other side, and i never really studied anything else, so its hard for me to give comparisons.

 

[Don Nelson]

i appreciate hearing a newcomers description of the bujinkan, thank you.
it is hard to explain from the other side, and i never really studied anything else, so its hard for me to give comparisons.

Bujinkan rocks - pure and simple.

Don

 

[DannyinJapan]

i would love to hear more of what you found to be different from your other schools...

 

[Dimoak]

Just to interject a bit of ninja wisdom.
Ninjas were peasant assassins. Their katanas were ******. They weren't warriors, they would much rather poison or impale opponents on shuriken.
If a ninja every managed to beat a samurai he would take his sword just because it was that much better, people usually think of the hollywood ninja, which is 90% fictional.
So to be fair, samurai vs. gurkha. Sams had armor, horses, bows, and awesome swords, I can picture a khukuri getting sliced in half by a good katana. I'd have to say the samurai would win, in a 1 on 1 duel.