Western Weapons VS Japanese

Uath

Uath

Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
703
There's always been a historical debate as to the effectiveness of Western weapons when pitted against Japanese ones. I realize that there are many practicioners of Japanese swordcraft that surf these pages. Oriental martial arts are practiced and trained in every small town in America.
For years, I've been involved in replica European weapons and have tried my best to train myself in their use. Reinactment groups are springing up all over and steel to steel challenges are gaining in popularity. A frequent question is how a well-trained man man using European weapons would fare against an equally trained man using Japanese weapons.
To put that question to the test requires information about Oriental martial art sword fighting I don't know.
Would it be fair if the two combatants faced off as follows:

Small space (say a ten meter circle)
E man: cutlass (up to 25 inch, curved blade, with a hand guard) and buckler (16 inch dia. round shield)
O man: Trad. 2 swords

Large space (25 M)
E man: cut-and-thrust sword (Blade up to a meter long with hand guard) and small shield (any size shield in actuality, most would be from 20-30 inch dia.)
O man: trad. 2 swords

Those choices would be my own preferences for single combat without spears. Exactly what practice weapons would be the best for this? Reed? In the interest of safety, identical foam armor would, of course, be used by both.
 
Are there any sacred cow you haven't tipped over yet? This has to be one of the classic (read endless) running debates for sword enthusiats:D

Forget the weapon. It is up to each man to react to his opponents strengths and weakneses. The guy who does the best job of it usually wins. It is just that simple.

n2s
 
so how about western martial arts and artists vs oriental....
 
Depends on the martial artists, and situation. Every martial arts and every weapon must have its good points, but also have bad points. For example; karate -- too many rules, no head hitting, etc. Boxing -- too many rules, always use gloves, no kickings, etc.

Depends on the fighter.
 
It's almost like some guys aren't really understanding the martial aspect of the martial arts.

Martial arts are not intended to give you a specific finite number of "moves," then teach you when specifically to use those "moves." It's not really about the techniques anymore after you reach a certain degree of proficiency. Beyond that, you are not so worried about techniques. There are [ultimately] more important things that need to be trained and cultivated than just how to punch/kick/grapple or how to swing a sword. This is the art of being martial. They give you this basic suite of techniques that can be nearly infinitely improvised upon, along with some other basics of movement and posture and an understanding of the human body...but speed, reflexes, real power generation, martial mindset, ability to improvise, etc. need to be cultivated by the individual (particularly nowadays...in the past often martial training would include a lot of other physical training to help out, but there are still many things that the individual needs to accomplish).

And the disparity between East and West is not all that great. It's really all about which culture you like to associate yourself with. You don't need to justify it by saying anything in particular is better, just what you like more. It's hard to do because there are so many ongoing pissing contests that have lasted for decades or centuries.

There are wayyyy too many martial arts out there that, in application without specific uniforms, you may not be able to readily differentiate which guy studies Western martial art X and which guy studies Eastern martial art Y.

When it comes to sword arts, you are typically referring to historical concepts of swordsmanship that developed within a cultural context. In Japanese warfare for instance, when sword arts were becoming popular, there was no real exposure to the same kind of shields and armor we saw in other cultures. For that reason, the techniques conventionally trained would not incorporate concepts of fighting with a guy who has a shield. Simply not having experience fighting something specific forces you to think on your feet and try to improvise. It happens with just about everything. If you see and can understand the mechanics of movement in that martial art, you have a better ability to improvise and be effective against it.

I personally think that historically, with the culturally-reinforced attitudes of swordsmen/elite class in the past and with the lack of exposure the Japanese swordsman had to a European swordsman, a European swordsman would have certain advantages. This does not however ensure "winning," and it is still a very fluid thing, relying very heavily on the individual's abilities--directly and indirectly martial.

Of course, if you say East vs West, there's so much East and so much West, that there's wayyyyyy too much variation to come to any real conclusions about anything. Even when you get specific, the attention needs to focus on the individuals, not on what art/s they studied. The formal martial arts are almost always a basis, the ultimate capability as a fighter you will have does not come from how many pressure points you know or how many types of grapple counterattacks you learn, it really is all about you. Martial arts just try to get you to cultivate all this stuff that is already there.

Sorry for the long nonsensical ramble. It doesn't really give any distinct answers to the question either! :D
 
Yes and no. The Japanese did not have one big collective mind that all of them blindly followed. Individuals made their own choices about what they used and how they used it.

However, sparring with the weapons to determine the effectiveness of those weapons is completely pointless in my opinion, unless you are trying to find out what specifically works well with you. It is always a test of the individual, not a test of the weapon.

I think it's important to remember that even if you could duplicate yourself and test one weapon against another with your clone, it is dependent partially on luck and partially on your physical and psychological preference. Some people just inherently work better with certain weapons than they do with others. You simply aren't testing one method or weapon against another, just one person against another.
 
IN other words I could concievably beat my clone if he had a bastard sword and I was armed with a sharpened chopstick....


"Look pink elephant"


"where, glug glug" *chopstick in throat*



C
 
I'm of the opinion that in "unarmored" combat, the katana would be the weapon of choice, as it's two-handed grip and light weight would allow for quicker and more powerful movements than one would generate with one hand. Once you start throwing in armor (considering the shield to be the beginning of armor) all bets would be off. This of course involves a # of assumptions, such as somehow one could get two equally skilled contestants, etc.
 
Well the katana is a beefy sword. It can be a fast cutter, but it's not inherently faster than a longsword for instance, which is in the same weight and size category.

As far as the chopsticks thing...sure you could feasibly win, but the thing is that a chopstick is not designed with any martial principle, while swords on the other hand are. You have a length disadvantage in a few ways...because a) you have *significantly* less reach--i.e. you aren't holding any kind of extension (difference between chopstick and sword, sword and spear, spear and bow, bow and gun, gun and nuke, etc), and b) there is very very little room to use for the purpose of defense. You start leveling the playing field if you take that chopstick and elongate it to about 2 feet and make it hefty enough to generate power in swings and thrusts and sustain blows from (and to) a sword. I am not suggesting that a 2 foot stick is the ultimate weapon against swords (some may think it is though!) but you are now playing a game of minor tradeoffs. A little distance for a little speed, etc. Once you start getting into weapons that are designed as weapons in related purposes, you lose more of that superiority-inferiority thing for just differences in style. A formal fighting style is ONE foundation for the fighter, not the entirety of the fighter himself, nor even the most important.

All things being equal however, we can understand that 2 weapons are better than one, just as one is better than none. Rapier versus katana argument...throw in a main gauche and they have an "advantage" over a single katana. Same with implementation of a shield. Again the same if the guy with the katana whips out a tanto or wakizashi against an individual with a rapier. Of course, we can probably throw in the human body as a weapon and defense...particularly if armored (reducing the risk of injury upon striking something or deflecting a sword blow or whatever). It's complicated...but in general, things tend to equal out, and it keeps coming back to the individuals and their abilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top