John Clements (the top ranked guy at ARMA) has this to say on the matter.

It's not a new article, but an interesting one for those of you who have been wondering.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Brian.

My response to this is thus: That article and the other one on rapier vs katana were pointless. The man could not come to a conclusion in either way,...
The man clearly is a speculation artist.(IMO)
'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...' --quote from his article on knights vs samurai.

'So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think "who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot question and unanswerable.'--quote from his article on katana vs rapier.

Now then, regardless of whether or not he's qualified to write in terms of combat and such... he should at least know a thing or two about writing before he attempts to do so. When comparing and contrasting two different styles to see which would be the 'victor', you should at least come to a conclusion of SOME sort in the piece itself. Do not just offer speculation, opinions, and facts... and then say that there is no conclusion or that the question is unanswerable. If you knew it was unanswerable before-hand.. as I'm sure a top ranking-ARMA guy would in this case.. then why freakin write the damned article at all? If it is to speculate then fine... but if it is to offer and support which style of combat would win over the other, at least have the article answer that.(Redunant thinking to get it through everyone's head btw.)
If one was to pit a 'knight' vs a samurai, then pit a samurai vs ANY style of knight... and see which would win in a fight. Don't sit there and say that there are too many variables in the equation and too many unknowns to attempt such a thing.
Did mathematicians/scientists think along these lines? If they did, Einstein would not have been himself... Newton would have been 'hit by the apple' and not even cared to figure out why. Also, had people like Oppenheimer et. al given up on the Manhattan Project.. World War 2 would have been longer, and Russia might be the world's super-power after the Cold War happened... and the nuclear arms race. The world itself would not be where it is right now if people at any point just sat back and said 'there are too many variables and unknowns in the equation' to warrant ANY effort whatsoever.

There. I am done ranting.
It's just, when I sit here and read something intently.. I'd like for it to have a POINT to its creation.

-Ingenious
I might have to dodge some hate mail and such for my criticism.. but hey.. I felt like I should at least voice my opinion of the article.

which brings me to the question: who are these ARMA guys anyway?
It doesn't mean anything that I never heard of them before, but I read some of their articles and remember noticing a large number of spelling errors and the fact that most of their articles are concerned with (a) why one must, must, must parry with the flat (more reasonable schools of similar bent beg to disagree politely or state that the sources are contradictory) or (b) how no one likes or understands their hobby like they do and what bad swords are sold out there.
At least, that was my impression, which I got despite being terribly interested when I came across to site (via TROS). So, what am I missing?

Cory,

There's a big difference between not being able to decide between two things, and making a study of them and from that coming to the conclusion that it's not possible to decide between them.

Big difference. Not the same thing at all.

Brian.

There's also a big difference between making a _study_ of something and coming to a (semi-)scientific/professional conclusion and throwing opinions and possible factors around and then refusing to form an opinion on the original question.

Big difference. Not the same thing at all.


Sorry, but the critique was, that the text is framed as an opinion but ultimately refuses to offer opinion. If OTOH the text is supposed to have scientific value it would be acceptable to say the data is not sufficient or the problem is too complex. I frankly fail to see scientific value, YMMV.
btw: the text fails by its own standards:"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."

This article and the preceding one on katana and rapier accomplish precisely what they set out to do. Honestly these ranting critiques of them sound more like somewhat wanting to find some reason to dismiss them.

Their purpose is this:

There are alot of raving fanboy ignoramouses out there who will argue endlessly about such topics. This almost almost boils down to a whose dick is bigger arguement between Nippon-philes and Nippon-phobes and has nothing what soever to do with anything.

These articles are designed to point out three things. 1) Niether the katana nor the Samurai are empirically superior as a weapon or a warrior. 2) that eastern and western styles and weapons designed and evolved to meet the specific cultureal and martial needs of their respective regions. They both equally represent a near perfect melding of form to function. and 3) that any discussion about who would win in a fight is utterly pointless because a knight or fencer did not evolve to fight in Japan and a Samurai did not evolve to fight in Germany.

For where they were and what they did they were the best. IF there had been some random teleporting matchup the winner would be unpredictable because so much of knowing how to fight is knowing how to oppose your opponent. An opponent which in this case was equally unknown to both parties. The best knight in the world vs the best samurai in the world would be determined by a toss of the coin. Who managed to do something deadly that their opponent didn't expect first.

Only if the two forms were to fight against each other for a period in excess of a generation would the respective martial traditions of east and west have been challenged, to see who could have identified their opponent's strengths and weaknesses and altered their own style and equipment to take advantage first.

Even on that matter speculation is pointless, because while one can point to the rapid development and evolution of western styles vs the tradition bound style of Japan, one can also point to how incredibly rapidly all of Japan was mobilized to change once confronted with the irrefutable need to.

Who would win? Its all fanboy nonsense crap. It is a question that is A) not answerable and B) not worth asking except by the ignorant.

That is what the articles tell us. That is their purpose. And that is what they accomplish.

montag wrote: There's also a big difference between making a _study_ of something and coming to a (semi-)scientific/professional conclusion and throwing opinions and possible factors around and then refusing to form an opinion on the original question.

Big difference. Not the same thing at all.


Sorry, but the critique was, that the text is framed as an opinion but ultimately refuses to offer opinion. If OTOH the text is supposed to have scientific value it would be acceptable to say the data is not sufficient or the problem is too complex. I frankly fail to see scientific value, YMMV.
btw: the text fails by its own standards:"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."

Personally, given the supposition that the knight and the samurai (both, theoretically, the best of their kinds) would also be using the finest quality gear put forth by their respective cultures.. I think the balance would tilt in the favor of the knight.

As much of samurai armor was lacquered wood, leather and such (due to their overall shortage of metals) and the knight's fitted steel, that would make a great difference. The samurai would have an advantage in speed and maneuverability, but (also assuming) that he'd not have time in this theoretical culture-on-culture grudgematch to assess the exact weak points of his opponent's armor, the knight, not nearly so slowed as modern stories make the armored fighter seem would have a notable advantage..

But if it was purely skill-based, rather than based on equipment also, I think Valamir's "coin toss" estimate is pretty accurate.

Wow. Is it really standard practice in ARMA to parry with the flat of the blade?

That's patently absurd. I can't think of a better way to break a sword than to parry with its flat.

Sounds like Jake (or maybe Salamander?) should clarify. They're our resident RMA gurus.

Valamir, Ashren Va'Hale,
as far as fanboys are concerned, I'd say you have a point in that the article might be aimed at them. We might discuss whether anyone with a grain of real interest in the matter really believes the myths the article deconstructs, or whether Clements is merely knocking down strawmen he constructed himself. I'd tend to say it's a bit of both, since there certainly are a few misconceptions on the one hand but no serious person will believe you can split cars with katanas. I'm sorry, but anyone who holds the katana-car opinion is either a moron or just not interested in facts in this particular matter. I submit that part of my problem with the article comes from being addressed – as a reader – as if I wasn't interested in the facts. See, the article does not say "this is an educational piece for fanboys willing to learn some facts", especially since the author clearly states his own interest in the matter. So, IMO, the myth-demolishing is a side benefit of the article not its main point. If it is the main point, I again submit the author did a horrible job at getting that point across.

Now, as to the question, whether saying "one just can't tell" is a valid conclusion. In a scientific context, it possibly is, though even here the refusal to take sides is unlikely to get you any respect. At least, that's the case in my discipline, psychology, where we certainly encounter enough cases where it's hard to reach a conclusion. Nonetheless, the job of a scientist is not done with naming the factors involved, it also involves judging their relevance to the best of his or her professional ability. Others are of course free to disagree violently with that judgement, and each side is expected to argue its case. Clements however refuses to make any decision at almost every step of the way. He almost manages to bring himself to say that the shield gives an advantage to the knight (he could still evaluate this advantage in light of other factors later, balance it with something else and reach his desired conclusion) but with much hand-wringing again avoids making even partial or tentative conclusions. He is also obviously unable to rate influential factors by their importance, in some cases coming back to "skill", the only factor he can legitimately assume to be equal for the purpose of this mental experiment.
So, I'd say, from a scientific point of view, Ingenious original critique is perfectly spot on. It's acceptable to have no empirical data in some cases, but when you throw your hands up in the air at _every_ point, mumbling "I just can't tell, I just can't tell" you are not doing anything scientific.

If the purpose was not scientific, but informed opinion, I'd again say Clements did a poor job by not forming an opinion except "I don't know". The premise stated in the introduction "Therefore, neither can be looked upon as being universally more effective under all conditions against all manner of opponents.  In one sense, it is like asking who are better soldiers, jungle fighters or ski troops?  It depends upon the situation and the environment." is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. Simply put: "I know that!!". When I read on, I expect to be told the writers opinion on the relevance of various factors to the outcome and how it all stacks up in his opinion. Since the author and I agree, that in a concrete instance "it depends on circumstances", repeating that point through the entire rest of the text is perfectly pointless. Clements explicitly offers his "humble thoughts on the matter.", so I expect bias. If that opinion consists in so much hand-weaving and "I can't tell"s, I'd rather not have wasted my time. "You can't tell, too many factors" is a conclusion I can reach with a pal at the pub in 10 seconds, we don't need an expert for that. In fact, if he can come up with nothing else, what makes him an expert? The fancy jargon? He's obviously unable to answer the question, and he admits as much. He can't even provide a conditional (if..then) or tentative conclusion. So, there really is no point in asking him and he doesn't really have any business to write a lengthy article, unless he desires to put his shortcomings on display.

Bob Richter wrote: Wow. Is it really standard practice in ARMA to parry with the flat of the blade?

That's patently absurd. I can't think of a better way to break a sword than to parry with its flat.

Bob Richter wrote: Wow. Is it really standard practice in ARMA to parry with the flat of the blade?
That's patently absurd. I can't think of a better way to break a sword than to parry with its flat.

The facts as I see them are these:

1) A good sword which is 4 inches across the forte is perhaps a quarter of an inch across the flat.

2) The point of a parry is to stop or deflect an attack. This means your blade will be absorbing a fair quantity of energy. Would you rather absorb
it across a 4 inch depth of steel, or a quarter-inch depth of the same?

3) All the parries I was taught meet the opponent's blade with the edge, at about the midblade to the forte.

I have seen fools try to parry a sword with the flat. Even with the blows we use in theatre fighting (which are not particularly forceful for all that they give the appearance of being,) I have seen blades snap because of such folly. If you parry with the flat, you will soon be out a sword, and won't be worrying about how your edge might have become a little notched if you had parried with it.

Montag,
Thanks for clearing up my point. Sometimes my points are not clear as glass.

-Ingenious

Given that you're hitting your sword against shields, armor and other swords all day, isn't a little nicking inevitable? I wouldn't be so concerned about keeping my sword from nicking if I were accustomed to it happening - i.e., if I used it as a tool of the trade and were OK with taking it in for resharpening every so often.

So, the argument "You can't parry with the edge - it'll nick!" doesn't hold a lot of water for me.

montag wrote: which brings me to the question: who are these ARMA guys anyway?
It doesn't mean anything that I never heard of them before, but I read some of their articles and remember noticing a large number of spelling errors and the fact that most of their articles are concerned with (a) why one must, must, must parry with the flat (more reasonable schools of similar bent beg to disagree politely or state that the sources are contradictory) or (b) how no one likes or understands their hobby like they do and what bad swords are sold out there.
At least, that was my impression, which I got despite being terribly interested when I came across to site (via TROS). So, what am I missing?

Bob Richter wrote: The facts as I see them are these:

1) A good sword which is 4 inches across the forte is perhaps a quarter of an inch across the flat.

2) The point of a parry is to stop or deflect an attack. This means your blade will be absorbing a fair quantity of energy. Would you rather absorb
it across a 4 inch depth of steel, or a quarter-inch depth of the same?

3) All the parries I was taught meet the opponent's blade with the edge, at about the midblade to the forte.

I have seen fools try to parry a sword with the flat. Even with the blows we use in theatre fighting (which are not particularly forceful for all that they give the appearance of being,) I have seen blades snap because of such folly. If you parry with the flat, you will soon be out a sword, and won't be worrying about how your edge might have become a little notched if you had parried with it.

>>>I am curious as to whose swords you are using. <<<

Actually, on this one point, I made my post in haste and without really thinking, grabbing a figure out of thin air. In doing so, I believe i constructed a fairly monstrous blade. My apologies.

>>>I wonder who makes these weapons for you. <<<

These weapons were not of the highest quality, it is true, but I have not seen one break from being struck on the edge of the forte. The idea that a strike to the flat is less likely to break a blade is an excersise in absurdity.

>>>When parrying with the Stark (strong) of the blade edge to edge we see the energy absorbed by the defending swordsman. If, however we use the flat, we can return some of that energy to the opponent's blade and this can assist us in our options. <<<

Since I have little experience in practical swordsmanship (as I say, my closest approach is being a theatre fighter,) I cannot truly answer this point. On the other hand, I am not convinced by it.

Now that I think of it, I have seen some counters that contact flat-to-flat, but these are useful against thrusts only. Perhaps I only need further instruction. For now, parrying with the flat still strikes me as ludicrous.

Salamander wrote: ARMA is the Associatin for Renaissance Martial Arts. Based in Texas they are among one of several groups studying the finer points of renaissance fighting arts. The methods of these groups vary, but they all hold one thing to be inviolable. That being the desire to find the truth behind the arts practiced in renaissance and medievel Europe. However, they do butt heads, as can be expected from any passionate pursuit.

>>>since he suggested the ARMA guys had no idea what they were doing.<<<

It is true. I am not known for my tact.

This was not my intent, I was simply reacting with incredulity to the apparent belief of ARMA members in something most theatre fighters consider patently false.

Well, damn.

A big, stupid thread while I'm away. Let's see if I can add my own supported opinions here.

[rant mode]

First, my credentials in the area, so that I'm not talking out of my ass. I am currently the senior ARMA student, with as many or more hours of personal time training with John Clements as anyone currently involved in the ARMA. People can hop on whatever hobby-horse political bandwagon they want on this issue, but Ewart Oakeshott and Sydney Anglo are considered to be the two absolute top scholars in the field, and both consult (or, in Oakeshott's case, consulted, since he passed away last year) with Clements and the ARMA on a regular basis. Not with any other group, and sure-as-hell not with any stage fighters. The ARMA is not the wellspring from which all WMA knowledge flows, but the senior ARMA guys are serious scholars and fighters, and we'll all put our money where our mouth is. Doubt it? New Orleans, Feb 28th and 29th, I'll see you there.

What does my study within the ARMA entail? Mostly I train physically, trying to gain competence and skill with attested historical techniques and occassionally with still iffy interpretations. Nothing is set in stone, and anything that I do in a fight or in training is subject to scrutiny under lenses of physical effectiveness with intent and speed against an opponent who isn't cooperating, and historical evidences that the technique is being correctly performed. I spend more time studying old German manuals than I'll ever spend working on TROS or on these boards.

I'm also smart enough to know that teachers don't know shit. I know more about historical fencing than anyone that I ever took instruction from except perhaps John Clements, and I know more than he does in many areas. That isn't to say that I don't learn from John every time I see him--I do, but one man can't study everything. Thus *ever* saying "that's what I was taught" as some kind of proof is simply evidence of foolishness in believing what you hear without any kind of visible proof, evidence, etc. It amazes me that a person can be an atheist because there's "no proof of a god," and then believe in nonsense about killing a human being from a fat guy in a foppish hat that took stage combat classes. Whatever.

So let's hit a few of these topics here, if I can.

1) The knight vs. samurai article didn't have a point.
Yes, it did, and Valamir hit on it. If you don't belong to the audience that this *editorial* was written for then don't get your panties in a bunch over it. What a bunch of self-righteous know-it-all assholes roam the internet. The discussion on FARK.com on this very topic is exactly the crap I'm talking about. The article was for fanboys. I know the guy who wrote it. I know him damn well.

And yes, lots of people *do* believe that a katana can slice through a car. I listened with disgust for an hour once as a senior kenjutsu student spouted such nonsense at one of my classes. He then proceeded to use such poor cutting technique that he broke is cheap katana on a gourd--a gourd that I then cut with a blunt sword and little effort. Is this guy everybody? No. Are there a lot like him? Yes, there are, and many of them *should* know better, but don't.

2) John has spelling errors.
Yeah, true. When the ARMA, then HACA, site first popped up, it was a little group without much other than a desire to "get it right." It has since grown very, very large, and in fact has more members than all other similar groups combined, and has produced as much or more scholarship than these other groups combined. John Clements, however, has only recently acquired proofreaders for his material on line, and much of it is being fixed. This takes time, especially since most of the ARMA's staff is volunteer help. Is it an excuse? Not really, but it really appears that some people attack it because they like to attack, instead of addressing the specific scholarship of specific points as they applied to the thrust of the article.

3) The ARMA is a hobby.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that you do for fun and not professionally is a hobby. That includes RPing, religion, and any-and-all physical excercise unless you're pro. For John it isn't a hobby, because it's his job. For me, it is, albeit a very time-consuming one. The ARMA is a very serious group, but many, if not most, of its members are simply having fun training while 10% spend time and money on the really serious stuff. I'm one of those in the 10%.

4) Edge-vs.-flat
The ARMA stance on edge-parrying is really in contest to the edge-bashing static-blocking of hollywood, reinactment, and the stage. It is poorly understood outside of the ARMA, mostly due to John's very aggressive form of communication. You will NOT find serious scholarship or practice anywhere in the historical fencing community that advises or even excuses stage-combat style edge-to-edge static blocks. The volumes of evidence against such blocks are untold in number. There is, in fact, no evidence that such blocks were ever employed prior to the smallsword in the 1700s. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

What you do see are proactive movements and "parries" where you strike at an opponent's weapon with your edge. At full speed these techniques with infrequent exception lead to edge-on-flat contact, or edge-on-bevel contact, but not edge-on-edge static contact. Do the edges ever meet? Certainly. Fighting is chaos. Do you ever receive an attack on your edge? If it's near the ricasso/forte/stark, then yes, and this is not the form of edge-parrying that you hear John ranting about (yes, I agree wholeheartedly that John rants). There are stifling actions and "absetzen" that occur there. ARMA has never taught otherwise, but there is much confusion on the matter, primarily due to constant beating-a-dead-horse discussion on the internet. A prime example is Greg Mele's article in the first and only issue of SPADA, published by Chivarly bookshelf. Although Greg and his peers thought that the article went against standard ARMA teachings, the opposite was true. The article finely supported everything that we teach, and it's all excellent scholarship.

The issue of edge nicks holds very little water for me as well, as some nicking is inevitable. The real reason is simply function and efficiency. Single-time defenses are impossible if your edge is busy parrying a blow, yet almost all parries prior to the 1600's are single-time, and those that are not are called "the parries used by bad fencers" in the manuals of the most important masters.

I also must address this quote, "I was simply reacting with incredulity to the apparent belief of ARMA members in something most theatre fighters consider patently false." Theatre fighters know shit. There, I'm displaying my tact. One of the best and most respected theatre fighters is ARMA collegue John Waller. Waller coreographed First Knight and several other films. Waller's book, "Sword Fighting, a Practical Guide for Stage Fighting" (or something to that effect) is one of the better manuals out there. It's shit. There is hardly a single attested historical technique in the whole book. Now, I'm not saying that stage fighting is worthless on the stage, or that there aren't good reasons for some of the things that are done in stage fighting, because there are, and not hurting your opponent is a big priority. How could one respect a "martial art" whose goal was *not* to hurt one's opponent? Think about it. This "Belief" in ARMA members (and, though they use different words, in the entire HES community) is backed by every manuscript on swordsmanship from the late 1200's (MS I.33) to the early 1600s in Jakob Sutor. If you're talking movies, then I defer to stage combat. If you're talking combat with a focus on killing, maiming, and fighting an uncoorperative opponent, leave the fops at home.

5)Parrying with the flat causes broken swords.
Actually, it doesn't. I've seen a few bend, made by MRL (which is legendary for crap). I have seen many, many swords broken from edge-parrying, leading to gouges that eventually become stress fractures. Swords, as mentioned here previously, had tremendous flex. One reinactment group in the VA area stopped breaking swords when they switched over to historical techniques which do not endager the flat like stage combat parries do. They went from breaking a few swords a season to breaking none.

[/rant mode]

I probably insulted a few of you, which was not my intent, but please understand that I deal with this sort of discussion on a constant basis as a teacher of swordsmanship and the "senior" ARMA student. I'm not trying to defend John here, except that I will say he is the finest fighter I have ever met and my friend. I am trying to put some things into perspective, I suppose. The TROS board is different from a lot of other RPG boards in that many people from the HES community come here, and that the game is endorsed by the ARMA. That means that a thread like this isn't really off topic. I think that questioning the ARMA's methods and credibility are not only fair but worthwhile. We at the ARMA do it, too, and John's opinions on swordsmanship are not the same that they were three years ago when he became my teacher. There is simply too much new information constantly available to feel too comfortable in any position. What we can do is take a stance and defend it until it wins out or is defeated, at which point we nod, accept that we were wrong, and we amend our training and our "doctrine." Zealosy? No, none, although John is a very firey speaker and generally a feisty guy. A "man of choleric temperament" that is more like George Silver than probably any man alive. I can't help that, though at times I wish I could.

Where we go wrong in HES is when we say "I think that it's like *this,* because..." and then go on to cite personal experiences alone or our guesstimations based on what we know (or think we know) about combat. Where we go right is when we say "We know that master so-and-so said *this,* and based on what we know about combat and biomechanics, we can use the writings of these other 6 masters to triangulate what it is that master so-and-so meant. We could be wrong, but this fits the instructions and it's martially sound. That's where the Edge/flat thing comes from, and that's where the ARMA is coming from.

Those of you interested in edge-on-flat and flat-on-flat quotes (and similar technique issues that you disagree with due to stage or reinactment experience) can request them, and I'll dig a few up from a few different centuries if you like. For now, honestly, I'm not sure that it would make much a difference to most of you, and I'll wait for a sincere request.

Thanks for playing.

Jake

Jake

I think Jake summed it up nicely, if not bluntly. Probably better than I could have done,as the man does have at least three years on me in the art of defence... I wanted to say something about the chaos of a fight, but Jake beat me to it. In regards to that, I have handled a few historic examples of weapons, really used four hundred - five hundred years ago. In all of the examples I saw and handled I think perhaps 1% may have shown any sign of edge damage on the stark of the blade, the part we are taught to parry with, flat or edge. Most nicks were along the schweck or weak of the blade, where one would expect damage to be from hitting a shield or other solid object whilst attacking, not defending.

In regards to Theatrical or stage swordsmanship, it is a style designed to entertain. They will invariably use a style drastically different from real fighters because they have to. If they were to use historic techniques, the fight would last but a few seconds... hardly entertaining for the crowd who has paid good money to see the production. Stage combat is good for what it does, entertains people on a stage, but to say it will do in a real fight is a dangerous mindset to entertain. Just as historic swordsmanship would be a poor hoice for theatrical production.

Jake's reply makes sense to me, both regarding the scholarship at ARMA and Clements' article. For reasons stated above I continue to believe the article is not written well. IMO the FARK thread http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=785597 is both funny and surprisingly reasonable by FARK standards.

Well damn, all I did was criticise the dude's writing. I hope I did not offend anyone in the process, and I am sorry if I did.. as it was not my intention. I did not attempt to discredit the author, I just noted that his proficiency in penmanship/writing is not quite at the same level as he might be with swords....
I had no problems in trusting his creditials and being a member of the ARMA, etc etc.. I just did not like the way he went about bringing about the question that was not answered.. The title itself seems to imply that an answer was to be had.. and I was left hanging.
It would be like either of the first two LOTR movies, or even books... that just end suddenly.. and if there were no more movies/books after that, you'd be left hanging.. and feeling like I did after I read his articles.

To some, having a beef with the way someone writes is foolish and pointless.. but to others it isn't.
*shrug*

-Ingenious

Ingenious-

I wasn't attacking you, buddy, nor anyone in specific. You have every right to expect good writing in professionally published work, even though the "real thing" is usually short of that. Part of the problem with internet discussion is that several items get clumped in together, so that valid issues with one problem end up appearing to substitute for reasonable debate. Make sense? That's what I was ranting about, I think.

I know that *I* have issues in the way I write, and that after THREE proofreaders, one of which was professional (and none of which were me), TROS is still riddled with errors. It drives me nuts.

So no offence taken, and I hope that I didn't offend much (though I'm sure I did...oh well).

Jake

ps. Salamander does hit some valid points on stage combat, which I wasn't attacking as an art in-and-of-itself, but rather as a substitue for actual martial ability/knowledge. Hope that's clearer.

Point conceded.
Now then, checketh your e-mail so that we might dicuss the ARMA event coming up.. as I am not that far from New Orleans.

Secondly, if you are in need of a proofreader still, I have volunteered my proof-reading services to Brian before. Shortly he replied to me, and I noticed that the gramatical errors to be had in the core-book were not of his making. However, whilst I am not the world's foremost expert on writing, I am a bit more knowledgable than most. So just send me some stuff in an email to proof-read, edit, etc. if you so choose.

Now then, back to the ARMA event. It would be a great opportunity to meet the author and see exactly how experienced he is with swords as compared to pens.

The pen IS mighter than the sword, though. :-D
-Ingenious

Ingenious wrote:
Now then, back to the ARMA event. It would be a great opportunity to meet the author and see exactly how experienced he is with swords as compared to pens.

The pen IS mighter than the sword, though. :-D
-Ingenious

After reading Jake's response it is clear to me that I have absolutely no idea what the ARMA types are talking about. As such, I have no business talking about it myself.

I'd like to say Bravo to Jake for clearing up misconceptions and half-truths which spring up so quickly out of this discussion. It bothers me deeply when people dedicated to genuine knowledge are mocked because their veiws don't coincide with pretty-boy-starring hollywood action movies.

For the record, I'd say with my bottom-level knowledge of essay-writing, that the article's point is NOT "Hey, who would win, samurai or knight?" but "What is known about the martial advanatge/disadvanatge that would be had between a samurai or a knight in combat?" Which it does answer decisevly.

sirogit wrote: I'd like to say Bravo to Jake for clearing up misconceptions and half-truths which spring up so quickly out of this discussion. It bothers me deeply when people dedicated to genuine knowledge are mocked because their veiws don't coincide with pretty-boy-starring hollywood action movies.

Dear All,

Coming late to the discussion, I would like to congratulate Jake on a generally agreeable summary of issues. One of the things anybody involved in the WMA (western martial arts) community realises soon after they get involved, is that people who push the envelope tend to have egos. Some, like John Clemens, manage to offend more people than is good for the art, but he still knows what he is talking about. Oh, and Jak and I have met on other forums to discuss the finer points of German longsword, and he has done a great job of repairing some of the damage my first contacts with ARMA did.

On the points discussed:

1) Knight vs. Samurai- yup, fairly pointless article, made worse by illogical structure. There is actually some progress towards a scientific (in a martial sense) answer to the question. It is possible to use kenjutsu or kendo techniques against western techniques, and one person I know does. Provided the Eastern practioner is prepared to discuss safety, armour, and acceptable techniques (is grappling allowed)- yes, that is a ig- there is no reason why such contests of skill should not take place. Here's hoping!

A few things to think about:
- Range: the western longsword has a much longer reach than the katana
- Sturdiness: not that I have ever seen a tempered carbon steel break, the katana is by dint of its construction a thicker, stronger blade
- Relative skill: the knight was normally a highly trained swordsman, even though the lance or warhammer would have been a primary weapon. The samurai was a highly trained horse archer, for whom the katana was secondary. Not that there were not supremely skilled swordsmen, but first job in life was ride and shoot.
- Armour: The relative flexibility of the two armours is moot- you can turn back flips in full plate. Weight, and the ensuing fatigue over long periods is far more important. Oh, and the western halfsword approach is a valid tool against any form of armour.

2) Edge versus flat: I think the historical stuff generally supports trying to avoid edge-on-edge clashes. One earlier post did get to me: preferring to take the impact on the edge because it is backed by 4 cm of steel. Actually, the reverse idea occurred to me- surely one would like to spread the impact over as large a surface as possible, rather than focus it on that tiny edge?

That's my two cents' worth

James Roberts
(who has run one TROS game using the quickstart rules, and is impatiently awaiting his copy, and so has been keeping quiet)

Its not an inferiority complex at all. In fact, its quite the reverse.

Its the "superiority complex" of the Victorian Age that had leading scholars of the period dismissing the achievements of the past and holding up their present as the pinnacle of evolution. This is the period from which stems the idea of the evolution of the sword from primitive knightly weapons to the superior perfection of the small sword. In order to make this evolution work, earlier swords had to become inferior to what they were.

The Victorians were great at creating hierarchies. Hierachies which invariably put: Modern, Western, British elements at the top. Pretty much every area of science was centered on identifying an evolution from inferior to superior. A great amount of modern scholarship (whether museum curators, reinactors, or stage performers) accepts alot of those conclusions as truth.

This has led to a general widely held belief that knights were slow and clumsy, their weapons heavy and awkward, and their fighting style primative.

On the other hand the exotic is often held to have an innate superiority to it. This is no harder to understand then basic "grass is greener" psychology. When the west encountered Samurai, they were by and large inscrutable and alien.

At the time when Japan was opened to the west, the western sword making art had largely gone by the way side. Cavalry sabres were mass produced in factories, the cheaper versions often simply being stamped out of a sheet of cold steel and shaped with a grinder, or even cast in a mold. The katana by contrast was a work of art and an amazing achievement of artisanry. It was rightly regarded as being a superior weapon to anything being used in the west in the 1800s.

The built in assumption that anything from the 1800s was automatically superior to anything from previous centuries fed into the idea that the katana was some sort of super sword better then anything the west ever produced.

This is a widespread belief, and only really in the last few decades has medieval scholarship begun to peel back some of the Victorian era assumptions. Most of these concentrate on social and economic issues.

Weapons and armor are artifacts, and artifacts of a sort typically left to museum curators. Bones and pottery sherds have entire branches of science dedicated to painstakingly understand them. With weapons and armor, they're generally satisfied with putting them in a category, sticking a label on them, and hanging them on the wall.

Its largely left to amateur scholars like Eric Schmid to try and piece together the reality of chain mail or ARMA to piece together the reality of swords and fighting techniques.

As such they have all of the advantages and disadvantageous inherent in amateur scholarship. But that status alone does not invalidate their work. And if they are a bit zealous about it...of course. Its to be expected. Amateurs do because they're passionate about the topic. And passion breeds zealotry.

But truthfully I saw nothing over the top in either article, other then a slight embedded tone of weariness and frustration to have to be stating things again that have been said already numerous times.

Valamir wrote:
This has led to a general widely held belief that knights were slow and clumsy, their weapons heavy and awkward, and their fighting style primative.

I would have to agree with Contracycle. Most of the damage to the prestige of the knight was done in the first half of the 20th century. People often looked at collections of weapons and armour from the Victorian period, and failed to distinguish between the many pieces of replica weaponry and armour. The idea of slow and unwieldy is generally a Hollywood notion- though modern fencing does spread some fiction around. In the 1880s, people like Burton, Hutton and others were actually publishing good accurate books on swords and sword fighting techniques. Similarly, the mystique of the Medieval period was being rekindled by Bulfinch and his mythologies, the romatic poets and others.

On the other hand, the Americans were the people who generally interacted with the Japanese. The Americans definitely had no history or knowledge of swords or their users, and much of the mystique of the samurai is brought to us by American writers.

James

Ingenious wrote: Did mathematicians/scientists think along these lines? If they did, Einstein would not have been himself...
-Ingenious

I might have to dodge some hate mail and such for my criticism.. but hey.. I felt like I should at least voice my opinion of the article.

The Victorians did a weird number on the Knight, actually. On one hand you had Egerton and Castle, who wrote "Schools and Masters of Defence," considered to be the definitive work before the Anglo's "Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe" on the subject. They were practicioners very much in the way that the ARMA or similar groups were, actually, but they came to pretty conflicted results. They insisted that there was a system of fighting early on, and were familiar with many of the old manuals (Talhoffer, Meyer, Fiore, etc.). Often they would even train and practice with antique weapons, which were quite available for reasonable prices at that time.

In the same book, however, you find the often-quoted sentiment that Knights knew no science, and that they relied entirely on strength and armor, not skill...huh? That's what they did. Richard Burton in his earlier "Book of the Sword," does the same thing, and the general consensus is that the foil and epee fencing of the 1800s is the pinnacle of the art (too bad since it is now out of use, these authors all lament). It is at this same time that victorians, in their fascination with the romanticized middle ages, begin producing replica swords and armor of varying quality, which were always much heavier than the real things. This led to further generations handling the replicas and thinking that the armor and weapons of the knight were very heavy--because the experience of those immediately following Egerton, Castle, and Burton was with Victorian replicas, not the antiques that were previously available.

It was also the Victorian age that introduced the arthurian cycle as we know it popularly now, inserting mention of armor and swords that were horribly heavy (perhaps to show how manly the bearers were?).

So although the Victorians did try to ressurect "WMA," a movement that blossomed up until WWI, when all the practioners were probably wasted away in that "Great War," in the long run Victorian culture re-wrote medieval history (just as they re-wrote male/female relationships and so much more).

Jake

Actually victorian manufacturers often crafted weapons and armours of excellent fraudulent quality. There are armours and weapons in museums today that no one has been able to reach conclusion on if they were victorian fakes or originals. I've personally inspected some victorian repro plate armours. From what I've seen, about half of them are decorative junk, but the other half were quite well crafted, usable armours, often a mix of the two.
Perhaps their views on swords were simply writers hype, as is so prevalent now? Perhaps if you've hanled duelling epees and smallswords all your life, when you picked up a medieval cutting sword, you'd say "this must weigh 10 pounds!" ?
I'm sure they did produce a lot of heavy junk replicas though, just as they do now, but luckily for them it was still the age before the gaudy ebay fantasy garbage there is now ;)

Wolfen wrote: Personally, given the supposition that the knight and the samurai (both, theoretically, the best of their kinds) would also be using the finest quality gear put forth by their respective cultures.. I think the balance would tilt in the favor of the knight.

As much of samurai armor was lacquered wood, leather and such (due to their overall shortage of metals) and the knight's fitted steel, that would make a great difference. .

Muggins wrote: I would have to agree with Contracycle. Most of the damage to the prestige of the knight was done in the first half of the 20th century. People often looked at collections of weapons and armour from the Victorian period, and failed to distinguish between the many pieces of replica weaponry and armour. The idea of slow and unwieldy is generally a Hollywood notion- though modern fencing does spread some fiction around.
On the other hand, the Americans were the people who generally interacted with the Japanese. The Americans definitely had no history or knowledge of swords or their users, and much of the mystique of the samurai is brought to us by American writers.

James

Drifter Bob wrote:
No hatemail, but to answer your question regarding scientists, have you ever heard of Heisenburgs Uncertainty principle? Fundamental to the idea of Quantum Mechanics is the apparent fact that certain datum are not ascertainable or observable...

JR

That would be tough as training data could not be compared to data of its actual effectiveness in real life, likely resulting in an inneffective and artificial style. That's basically what sport, play, and reenactment type groups do, and it comes out nothing like the old texts.

Bastoche wrote:

This goes slightly off topic so sorry. But As a physicist, I have a hard on letting such a statement go un commented ;-).

The uncertainty principle is a very uncommon feature of nature. Comparing one of the most fundamental principle of physics to a more or less medical science (the art of killing with a sword) misplaced at best.

My take on it is that the most skilled will win. Assuming equal skill, I'd go with the coin toss. I personnally think that the best way to recreate medieval or renaissance fighting is by creating an entire new style optimized for killing with the knight's tools. That is proper recreation armor and weapon. Then comparing this well controled style with old books, this could give new insight on how these guys fought. I assume that's exactly what ARMA training camp are about. Right?

Urrgh. (repeats to self, "I am not a scientist with an interest in philosophy on this forum").

On the completely off-track physics bit: it is not possible EVER to validate or prove a hypothesis- it is only possible to invalidate it. Preponderance of evidence is not proof that a theory is right- merely that it is not proved wrong. Empirically, gravity works. Theoretically, it is but a theory and can be proved wrong. One of the issues I often work is whether someone is presenting a logical argument or theory- if the the argument is circular or vague, if there are no criteria for disproving that theory, then it is considered poor science and dismissed.

But I actually like swinging swords and dodging spells, so I shall let the professional part of my brain relax (unless someone asks for elaboration...)

James

Drifter Bob wrote:
Well, first of all the post I was replying to specifically referred to Einstein, so I wasn't the one who drew the initial comparison between fencing and high physics.

Drifter Bob wrote:
Second, as a scientist, you surely recognize that coming to the conclusion that available data is insufficient to answer a given hypothesis is valid.

Third, as a phsysicist, you should realise that the physics of something as complex as a sword fight between armored opponents would actually be extremely complex, notwithstanding the other aspects such as the socio-psychological aspects.

Drifter Bob wrote:
No this is not the approach that ARMA takes, it's actually much closer to the way I sort of accidentally got into it originally.

Jake could answer better, but from what I understand, ARMA primarily focuses on interpretation of the Fencing manuals, as informed by test cutting with real swords, learning the guards, counters, and strikes in accordance with the material in the books (and informed by contextual analysis of period history) and finally testing the theoretical work by sparring with several types of equipment (both offensive and defensive) which are as realistic as possible. Basically I think you just have the emphasis backward.

DB

Bastoche wrote:
My point is that sword fighting at the time was a science.

That science is so old that it was probably not that far off perfection.

Besides, I think studying old books is a good way to go too. Assuming these books contained the best techniques known at the time...

If they could do it then, we should be able to do it now. No? Assuming their techniques were as efficient as could be, "new" techniques should converge toward their techniques.

contracycle wrote:
An assumption. And a surprising one, considering the spectacular absence of a scientific method, a theory of science, or organs practicing science.

Another assumption

A self-described assumption

Yes, pretty much. And I agree, the books are a good starting point. And maybe after 100 years, it will have built up enough of a tradition and a body of practice that it will actually be a really existing martial art. Whether or not the martial art, as a martial art, resembles the praxis of European nobility, however, remains doubtful in my eyes.

I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring here before the (war)hammer comes down.

The use of the sword was in fact a science, or at least an empiracle set of observations that led to one person living and another dying. So it was evolutionary and subject to science at the very least. To me using a sword is both an art and a science. During my mere year of learning to fight with these weapons I have come to a few conclusions.

1). There is definitely science involved in this game. The fields I can think of off the top of my head include Physics, Math (geometry), Mechanical Engineering (I know not a science, but application thereof), Metalurgy, Psychology, Kinesthetics (body mechanics) and Medicine. If you need me to explain them, by all means ask.

2). The art of using a sword comes from the human will to do it. If you cannot bear to pick up the sword it will lie there, unused and literally harmless.

3). We have not been able to perfect the skills of the sword because these skills were lost to us for hundreds of years. My instructor tells me that he believes the last man to teach the use of the longsword died 60 years before the United States of America became a country! Things that they took for granted as common knowledge are what we had to work hard at to regain. Now we know how to walk. We are learning to run. It has very much to do with the society and the evolution of weapons & warfare. Why should they bother to continue teaching men how to use a longsword or Cut & Thrust sword when the musket he has will do the job nicely? It would be like me saying to you, "Well, your great-great-great-great-great Grandfather knew how to trap and gut animals, so you should too, but you have no outside information besides a bunch of euphamisms and a few woodcuts to work from, so make me a leopard skin coat". We were literally running blind on this stuff. We have just recently begun to really appreciate the fact that our next meisters will be our grandchildren.

4). The Meisters were proprietary of their information. They would have books published that would help to remind his student body of his teachings. Unless you were on the inside you would have a tough time figuring out what was going on in those books.

5). Museums study the weapons, but not their use. The museums look at weapons as little more than markers of events. The next time you go to a museum check it out. They never say that this type of sword or this type of breastplate was used thusly by this class of people who were after these goals. They say "X" article was found at "Y" site by "Z" person in "ABCD" year. End of story.

Please remember that the use of the sword evolved over thousands of years. Many is the time when I have said, "hey check out this cool new thing" to my instructor only to have one of the senior scholars say after the demo, "Ringeck did that five hundred years ago". I think that they found just about everything there was to make a sword effective.

Good points Salamader. I might add that from my limited kenjutsu knowledge, fighting with a sword (or any fighting style for that matter) is mostly about stratgy. It's fully analogue to a chess game. Another science and art in itself.

Bastoche wrote: fighting with a sword (or any fighting style for that matter) is mostly about stratgy. It's fully analogue to a chess game. Another science and art in itself.

contracycle wrote:
An assumption. And a surprising one, considering the spectacular absence of a scientific method, a theory of science, or organs practicing science.

lol so when are they going to make Master (insert name here) fencing manual required reading for business men in the west?

Jake Norwood wrote: It was also the Victorian age that introduced the arthurian cycle as we know it popularly now, inserting mention of armor and swords that were horribly heavy (perhaps to show how manly the bearers were?).

All these elements are what keeps fencing on the border between art and science, and keeps it forever in that realm of "uncertainty", if my physicist colleagues will pardon my use of the term.

Bastoche wrote:

You're all excused ;). I mostly agree with what you said but I don't quite agree with you on one small point. You talk about randomness. I rather think it's that there's too many variables. It's not the same as total randomness. In the sense that the more you master your style, the less these factors are "random" and the more control you have over the fight. There's many stances, many strikes and many counter strikes, etc. And square that if not more for the number of combinations between two fighters. Plus many other factors. The more factors you know throughly, the less randomness there is. There wouldn't be much strategy at all if there wa more randomness than control.

Drifter Bob wrote:
From my perspective, and again, maybe thats just me, the profusion of variables makes it seem like there is a random element, you stumble, you slide, your hand slips, a drop of sweat falls in your eye, you misjudge an opponents intent or the direction of their attack by a fraction of a second or a few inches, and everything changes. Somebody like Jake who has had a much more systematic approach to martial arts may see it differently.

Re: Scientific Method

There's some interesting things to consider. The first is Vigianni's treatise, which is written as a question-and-answer session between a senior master and his student. I don't have a translation on-hand, but it's very much like the scientific texts of the period in tone and approach.

Second, is personal experience. There are some very scientific issues in fighting, no matter where it comes from. This seems pretty "duh," but in most RPGs it's not. Every time you swing at someone, you hit them. It's easy. You just have to follow the laws of range and time. This very simple and obvious truth was torn apart and examined to a great extent by masters as early as fighting itself, and by the 1500's is accompanied not only by tried-and-true methods, but diagrams full of some very solid (albeit comfusing) geometry. People were theorizing what would happen given certain variables, testing it, then training in it when a given theory prooved effective in practice.

The scientific method, as I remember it from school, is roughly:

1. Make an observation
2. Formulate a hypothesis, or educated guess
3. Test this hypothosis (controlling the variables as much as possible to single-out your target variable)
4. Record the results and compare them to your hypothesis. Modify if needed.

Comparing this to the fencing of the Germans in the 1400s...

1. Observation: The hypotenuse of a right triangle is longer than either of the other two lines forming it. Since a swordsman swinging at my legs is making a right triangle with the distance between our shoulders (one leg) and the distance from my shoulder to his target, my leg (another leg of the triangle), then this attack (the hypotenuse, a line from his shoulder to his target along the length of his sword and his weapon) is the longest line in this triangle.

2. Hypothesis: If I thrust at his head as he swings at my legs, I'll hit first and deeper, because my range is shorter and therefore my time is less.

3. Test: This is easily tested in practice, and through full-speed sparring. In the 1400's, it would be tested against an enemy as well. The results are as expected.

4. Record: Hence the birth of the fencing manuals and books' like Musashi's Five Rings (which, btw, is more "spiritual" than its western counterparts, which ranged for pedagogical and scientific to collections of tricks and advice, but rarely anything more than minor references to western "spirituality," ie Chivalry, Knighthood, Christianity, ever appear in the western texts).

4a. Modify: Further tests show that if the guy attacking your legs slings his weapon out with his off hand, releasing with his lead hand, he gains almost 10" of range, nullyfying your advantage. As this is observed, new tests are spawned.

Now, it's true that we use the scientific method in almost all of our decision making, but the sword masters were conscious of their approach and it's question-test-answer nature. This is clear from the earliest known manual, MS I.33.

Jake

Fighting is as scientific as life-and-death poker. I don't doubt that observations lead to hypothesis on techniques that were then tested in mock and real duels, but that's only part of the game. Once you toss human emotions into the mix, science tends to take the back seat. Make it a life-and-death situation, and fear obviously dominates all, unless you're crazy.

-Jeff

Well, I can't agree entirely. The historical records don't seem to support that view.

Serious poker, however, for those who play big-stakes, is largely a game of psychology--which is a science. So there you go.

Jake

I was careful to use the word "fighting" in this case, and the historical record does support my contention. In practically every first-person account of battle that I've ever read, fear is at the top of list. Furthermore, there was a famous study in WWII showing clearly the effects of fear on soldiers in many different ways (e.g. long-term and short-term reactions).

So while I agree that techniques developed in a scientific, or at least thoughtful manner, I think duels start to involve bluffing, reading your opponent, and other imperfect arts, and actual fights to the death involve fear, which further complicates things.

Let me toss my one personal example out there: I took a fencing class in college. I was paired up with someone who had actually fenced before, and was takeing the class for credits. He was better than I was (duh), and beat me in practice spars; in fact one day he got in a bit of a show-off mood, and disarmed me.

Late in the semester we had a serious of 'real' matches, where we had students act as judges and tried it out with real fencing rules. When I had my match with my partner, I baited him by keeping a weak grip and being rather defensive; he took the bait and tried to disarm me. Since I was ready for it, I casually moved out of the way which left him way out of position, so I got an easy touch. That action so psyched him out that I got more points - I may have even won that match (it's been a long time, not sure if I remember it all).

Anyway, as scientific as the techniques may be, the truth of the matter is that when egos are on the line it enters the realm of art. I further suggest that if it had been life & death that would have colored both of our actions even more.

-Jeff

P.S. A friend of mine's father was a psychiatrist; I'm certain he would have contested that your use of 'psychology' was in fact science. He told me (to paraphrase) that the scientific part of psychology generally rests in the observable reactions to drugs; the idea that we can predict the actions of individuals scientifically has yet to be shown except in the general sense (e.g. 1000 people, when confronted with situation X, 990 will respond in Y way).

I forgot one other thing - someone used the word 'hobby' up above. I'd like to point out that Einstein had a job in a patent office, and science was his hobby.

-Jeff

Fear is definately a factor, and I agree the psychological aspect is the most unpredictable part of melee combat. But it CAN be mastered, at least for a while, it is possible to get yourself in a state where you are basically fearless. Liquor helps a lot (and is a historically very underestimated factor), and so does psychological conditioning of various types, seemingly at the expense of sanity.

Historically, the European Knights, the Vikings, and the Celtic and Germanic tribes before them often displayed courage which went well past the point of sanity. I can think of just one example from thousands, of a Templar grand Master during the Crusades who first tried to talk a group of 300 knights into attacking a force of 7,000 arab cavalry, and then when they refused, charge them himself. Or another group of templars who when their galley was boarded by Mamelukes chopped holes in the floor of the craft so that all would sink and drown. When you read general accounts of the medieval period, such as for example Barbara Tuchmans "A Distant Mirror", you are more often struck by the insane reckless bravery of those knights than anything else (it was often a severe tactical liability).

The examples you cite about troops in WW II are accurate, but you have to remember, most troops in WW II on either side were conscripts, and basically none had the lifetime experience of warrior indoctrination that a knight or a member of a Classical Era Barbarian tribe would. Not that they didn't feel or know fear, but they seemed to be able to put it out of their mind. I am familiar with this state of mind, and I can say that it is a dangerous thing, your judgement gets replaced by rage, like a pitt bull which has been conditioned for fighting. You put fear behind you along with all restraint, and that is a good feeling, it is something which feels like a drug, but it is a very dangerous temptation. The Berserks among the Norse tribes are probably the extreme example of this.

And even those troops in WW II in some cases endured conditions which are so far beyond the endurable as we could rationally consider it.

One of the reasons I personally started getting back into WMA in a serious way was because it formed a positive outlet for otherwise destructive aggressive tendancies, "battle lust" if you will, which I had aquired from fighting in the bars and streets of the French Quarter. That was conditioned, I was a dreamer, quite peaceful, as a kid.

As an example of another colder approach to controlling fear, I'd also point out the Romans, who conquered Southern Europe and the Med by sytematically slaughtering the fighting component of the populations of every nation they encountered, not with artillery, but in what amounted to hand to hand combat with swords, shields and javelins, and it was the conquest of fear, it's replacement by discipline in holding the line, following orders, and sticking to training, that enabled them to slaughter enemies in huge numbers much larger than any medieval battles.


JR

P.S. A friend of mine's father was a psychiatrist; I'm certain he would have contested that your use of 'psychology' was in fact science. He told me (to paraphrase) that the scientific part of psychology generally rests in the observable reactions to drugs; the idea that we can predict the actions of individuals scientifically has yet to be shown except in the general sense (e.g. 1000 people, when confronted with situation X, 990 will respond in Y way).

The examples you cite about troops in WW II are accurate, but you have to remember, most troops in WW II on either side were conscripts

As an example of another colder approach to controlling fear, I'd also point out the Romans, who conquered Southern Europe and the Med by sytematically slaughtering the fighting component of the populations of every nation they encountered, not with artillery, but in what amounted to hand to hand combat with swords, shields and javelins, and it was the conquest of fear, it's replacement by discipline in holding the line, following orders, and sticking to training, that enabled them to slaughter enemies in huge numbers much larger than any medieval battles.

Half-Baked wrote:

Ironic it isn't it that the Roman troops were conscripts and volunteers until about 100 BC when Marius made his reforms. They managed to defeat the Gauls, Spanish, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Greeks, not to mention the whole of Italy, with conscript and volunteer soldiers. The evidence does not quite fit your argument in this case, but it is still probably true. Roman society may have better conditioned its citizens before they were conscripted with its general attitudes. Got to love anecdotel evidence.

I would also add this comment. From a strategic perspective, it may in some cases actually be better or more efficient, in a cold calculating accountants sense, to have an army of frightened cosncripts bullied into strictly following orders by a system of NCO's and ruthless punishment, than a less organized less disciplined if probably braver mob of barbarians, acting based on personal courage and ties of brotherhood.

Sometimes this is the case, as it was with the celts in Ceasars time and in many cases, the Germans, Dacians, Iberians, Samnites and etc. when facing the Romans. Sometimes not as with the first few Roman encounters with the Celts or much later against the Goths at Adrianople, or with the Greeks facing the Persians, or the Swiss militias against the Hapsburgs or Charles the Bold.

Certainly for an authoritarian, oligarchal society like ancient Rome, that becomes the only way they can afford to run the army. At some point it's hard for anyone to have a huge charge of warrior spirit over the idea of fighting to make the rich richer... Similar things happened toward the end of the medieval period; kings preferred to outfit their own Men At Arms rather than rely on the braver and arguably tougher, but much more independent and unpredictable knights.


JR

The quote about your father being a psychiatrist was amusing.
A psychiatrist is one who specializes with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders.
A psychologist is someone that is trained and educated to perform psychological research, testing, and therapy.
Therefore a psychologist is more apt to be quotable when referring to human emotions such as fear, bravery, ego, etc... rather than one who prescribes drugs for the insane people in the world.

And to press my issues with Jaif's post even further...
'I further suggest that if it had been life & death that would have colored both of our actions even more. "
If the previous battle where he DID disarm you had been a life and death situation... you'd be at his mercy.. therefore it would not have left an opening for a second bout.. and he would not have developed such an ego as to try to disarm you again(in the second bout that NOW would not have taken place) only you suckered him that time. You would be dead. End of story.
But a good thought as to the psychology of fighting... and bringing ego into the picture. In a few TROS combats of note in my experience.. ego HAD gotten the best of me and I over-estimated several opponents. Lucky for me my seneschal was not one to easily pick up on my total surprise when after a level 3 wound, my opponent keeps ticking...and putting more effort into his attacks WITH that wound than I was capable of with the majority of my total combat pool. If my character had reacted as I did.. he'd be dead.

-Ingenious

It is also notable, that the earlier Republican Roman army, which was made up of citizen - volunteers of some minimal standard of means, performed better than the much later army which was made up mainly of paid mercenaries. Both the early Romans and the early Greeks, despite being civilized, retained strong elements of barbarian warrior culture in their earlier societies, certainly through most of the Republican period in Rome.

We cannot just project the scientific method backwards in time just becuase the topic was "important". Childbirth is also important, also life threatening. As soon as Jaif says that emotions mean that "science tends to take the back seat" he concedes the difficulty in developing a serious science of martial arts at all.

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method. He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

The "dialogues" method, while formal, is not truly scientific. Lots of documents exist in this form, from Persia to China. They suffer from the fact that it is not really a conversation, but a convgersation staged to produce the outcome the author has in their head.

As I alluded above, if "importance" was sufficient to produce the scientific method, we then have to project science back to every single human activity of any significance, particularly, say, the creation of Achulean hand-axes. All of which renders the scientific method pretty much useless, and seems at odds with the massive improvement in control over the world we gained when we did develop the method.

This, similarly, is what bugs me about claims that there is a "lost" western martial art. I mean, why do we even think this? A handful of instruction books does not make a martial arts tradition. Its quite possible to say that knights have developed great personal skills without also claiming that they had an explicit and known martial art which taught them these skills. Its also quite possible to say that the best way to re-discover these skills is to develop a martial art of the same subject with the same tools. And we can do both of those without projecting backwards a martial arts tradition and a scientific method for which no evidence exists.

contracycle wrote: We cannot just project the scientific method backwards in time just becuase the topic was "important

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method. He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

This, similarly, is what bugs me about claims that there is a "lost" western martial art. I mean, why do we even think this? A handful of instruction books does not make a martial arts tradition. Its quite possible to say that knights have developed great personal skills without also claiming that they had an explicit and known martial art which taught them these skills. Its also quite possible to say that the best way to re-discover these skills is to develop a martial art of the same subject with the same tools. And we can do both of those without projecting backwards a martial arts tradition and a scientific method for which no evidence exists.

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method. He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

Just because someone was alive before a term was coined as to describe what something is does not mean that they themselves were not capable of being called this term. Is prehistoric man not human? Even though language and the term human was not used back then?

As to Mendel being 'often' called the father of the scientific method.. I am 'often' called God. It does not necessarily mean that this is true. When saying such things, offer source material that you read/heard/saw it from... so that one might not assume that you are full of ****....

Sorry for this post/rant.. it is 5am here after-all..
-Ingenious

Lot's of responses, and I'm tired, so I'll saw off the shotgun and go scattershot... :-)

1) It wasn't my father, it was my friend's father.
2) What is 'bravery'? Is it brave to lead a suicide charge for no good reason? Or is it foolhardy or reckless? If personx reacts to fear by running away, and persony reacts to fear by running towards, aren't they both reacting to fear?
3) An interesting thing I found from that WWII study was that everybody in combat was either scared or insane, and that the longer you exposed individuals to combat, the more likely they were to go insane (e.g. battle fatigue). Note I'm using insane loosely here.
4) I think we're getting hung-up on the definition of 'scientific method'. That's simply one way of making advances. Just because you don't use the scientific method doesn't mean you're not being thoughtful.
5) That said, I doubt that martial arts trainers used the scientific method; did they publish there experiments in peer-reviewed journels and await independant verification by others? How well controlled were there tests? Again, a rational, thoughtful approach is not necessarily "the scientific method".

In the end, I easily accept that fighting techniques were developed thoughtfully, with much observation and testing of ideas. I've always thought it foolish to believe otherwise, and the small amount I've studied about military history has always born this out. My only contention is that the thoughtful side of fighting is just that: a side of fighting, and without taking the human part into the equation you can't really describe the whole thing.

One last thing: knights and samurais may be neat, but I wonder what would have happened if a well-lead medeival English army with longbowmen had met the Mongols. That would be cool. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. It happens all the times in Age of Kings (computer game), but somehow I doubt that's a realistic simulation. :-)

Why, contracycle, do you seem so offended by the notion that the West could have had a martial tradition? By your logic, then the East doesn't have one either. What, in your eyes, constitutes a cultural tradition of the scientifically-approached study of combat? Are you arguing that, simply because the scientific method, as we modern folks understand it, did not exist in the middle ages, there can therefore have been no scientific pursuit of expertise in arms until recently?

In any case, the phrase "martial art" has a long history in the West, the "Arts of Mars" being referred to by one or more Roman writers. That the study of arms merited such a description in Antiquity demonstrates that it was indeed perceived as an art, on par with other pursuits commonly so described.

Why, contracycle, do you seem so offended by the notion that the West could have had a martial tradition?

By your logic, then the East doesn't have one either. What, in your eyes, constitutes a cultural tradition of the scientifically-approached study of combat? Are you arguing that, simply because the scientific method, as we modern folks understand it, did not exist in the middle ages, there can therefore have been no scientific pursuit of expertise in arms until recently?

Ah, but publication never takes place in a vacuum. Consider: all the late period (16th C and 17th C) books were actually commercial enterprises. A fechtbuch like Meyer's 1570 manuscript was so popular it was reprinted 4 times, up until the 1640s. This manuscript obviously had a market, and clearly refers to several other books tha he expected his read to have familiarity with. This does not sound much like "isolated genius".

As another example, consider the oral tradition by which the verses of Lichtenhauer were transmitted over time. In a manner similar to the teachings of Japanese masters, these verses survived for nearly 100 years before they were written down. On another tack, there are modern fencing masters able to trace the lineage of their classical fencing technique through to the 17th century.

The western martial tradition is as viable as the eastern. Actually, considering the fact that much of what we consider eastern martial art today was created/modified for the purpose of inclusion in schools in the 1890s, there are plenty of Japanese historians who would argue that, in the period prior to the encoding of kendo, judo and karate for the school syllabus (and the invention of katas as such like), only a tiny fraction of the country knew of or understood the martial arts culture. Most of the old arts were restricted to the nobility (and then to only some members), and lacked the exposure that the common fraternities of Europe such as the Marxbruders gave to their art.

James

On the issue of fear as a big factor in fighting:

Fear alters a lot of things during a life or death situation. Reading Amberger's Secret History of the Sword, you can see how it affects people. However, the basic idea behind drilling a technique or procedure endlessly is to produce the requisite muscle memory to perform the technique under stress. Same idea behind drilling soldiers under fire- do it until it becomes second nature.

When it comes to the scientific nature of any martial art, the thinking and reasoning happens away from life-and-death situations. It involves considering how the body moves, and the possible permutations in a situation. Pose the problem, find a possible solution, test the solution under different conditions. If it works, then you drill it against the time when it may be vital to saving your life. When considering the complex geometry postulated by the 16th and 17th C masters, it is about making sure your form and responses are perfect before a fight, not about visualising a fight in terms of line and angles while actually involved.

James

Wow guys, just wow.

There is more than a "presence of a few books" to support the existance of a martial tradition of Europe.

The books by the Italian masters, for example are not just single works without any references to any other martial works--the later masters refer to the earlier ones, and not just by name, but also by specific techniques and views. Furthermore, in the Bolognese school, we know that Manciolino and Marazzo had the same master. Small wonder then that the techniques they teach in their manuals are so similar (yet not identical). In fact, you can trace the development and evolution of Italian swordsmanship and unarmed techniques by reading the manuals in chronological order.

The presence of the English Masters of Defence clearly shows that the teaching of martial arts was organized and well-known in Elizabethan England. Pupils would take over for masters in the same way that happens with eastern martial arts schools today.

In the German system (as Jake can tell you much better than can I), the work of Liechtenauer spawned a whole system with later masters referring to him several generations later. The techniques are clearly similar, with the same names and general philosophy. While I guess it is possible that succeeding generations kept "reinventing the wheel" it just doesn't seem very likely.

Read the books for yourself--many of them were systematic and highly refined and show an understanding of swordsmanship beyond just being quick and strong, with martial theory equal to anything seen in the east.

Now as to how scientific it was. Well, is swordsmanship an art or a science? I don't really know how to argue that one way or the other (I'd say it's an art founded upon the principles of science). However, if you read some of the better Italian rapier manuals, you'll see that the reasoning behind the techniques is clearly explained, with a full understanding of the relevant principles of geometry, physics, and human physiology. As a result, I can give you real reasons for why you should and should not do something, beyond just "it works for me." And these reasons would not be "mine," but would instead be exactly as explained in the manuals.

Steve Reich

contracycle wrote:
But the difference is this: without a methodology and a system of continuing education, you can have isolated geniuses, and their mechanical bird or whatever gets displayed and no general lessons are learned. The presence of a few books does not imply a whole such system.

The real issue here, as far as I can see, is "what is science?"

I say that swordsmanship is a science, because it was called that three hundred years before the aformentioned crystalization of the scientific method. Some would say "there's no science in war," but thousands of Military Science proffessors would do more than beg to disagree.

It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

As with most arguments, this appears to be about semantics.

Jake,
who's degree is in linguistics, a science.

Wow

This discussion has gone all over the place and, at some points, a little out of control.

When you consider the very title of this thread - Samurai Vs Knight.

Might as well have proposed Spartan Vs Praetorian, Kung-fu Vs Karate, Berserker Vs Jedi-Ninja. Surely it's all just done for a laugh, taken seriously perhaps, but a laugh nonetheless.

You can criticise the author for not having addressed any of the issues raised, agree with him on opinions he presented, or indeed argue that he presented a flawed argument. Hell, I haven't even read the article, and I dont think I need to. But this seems to have gone completely off-topic. And now comes across more as a clash of egos than anything.

Admitedly, some superb arguments have been raised. And my mind has been opened on a variety of subjects. But enough surely.

I've just spent the last hour reading this and my head now hurts.


Take care


P.S - to clear some statements as best my keyboard-zen-master style can manage.

-Whether you argue that an age might have possessed a certain level of science does not necessarily mean it was applied to swordsmanship. Certainly to a degree, I'll grant (inasmuch as weapon and armour manufacture, study of physiognomy, and observation of cause/effect). But a modern day football player, or indeed special forces soldier, does not know the science of his art to the same degree as a nuclear phycicist. In my opinion. It is more a question of instilling conditioned reactions, and of applying an understanding of dynamics to particular situations. Creating instincs and learning how to use them.

-Psycholody is indeed not a strict science as say chemistry and, to the most part, physics. It is a kind of Pop-science. And I agree with the statement that it's empirical nature is derived from a study of drug effects, and of quantifiable observations of how x amount of people will respond to factor X as opposed to factor Z. Though a simplification, I'l' admit. I'm saying this as a Psychology graduate. Thus to say any martial art is scientific because phsychology is involved is kinda cartoon-association. It may involve science. But they're not quite the same thing.

-I parry the edge of an opponent's blade with my flat. But ideally, the flat of mine against his flat. Though with the rear-edge kinda angled in slightly. Probably not technically correct, and apologies for the heinous terminology, but my two-cents. Or pence.

These are all responses to tangents, however. So you may wish to ignore them altogether.

And I hope no one's been offended. Too much.... :)

Vanguard wrote: -Psycholody is indeed not a strict science as say chemistry and, to the most part, physics. It is a kind of Pop-science. And I agree with the statement that it's empirical nature is derived from a study of drug effects, and of quantifiable observations of how x amount of people will respond to factor X as opposed to factor Z. Though a simplification, I'l' admit. I'm saying this as a Psychology graduate. Thus to say any martial art is scientific because phsychology is involved is kinda cartoon-association. It may involve science. But they're not quite the same thing.

Jaif wrote: One last thing: knights and samurais may be neat, but I wonder what would have happened if a well-lead medeival English army with longbowmen had met the Mongols. That would be cool. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. It happens all the times in Age of Kings (computer game), but somehow I doubt that's a realistic simulation. :-)

My apologies, contracycle, for incorrectly guessing at your motive. Note that I did place the word "seem" before "offended". I realized what I was doing, and was not trying to be confrontational.

However, I cannot deny that, at least it seems so to me, you come across as more than a little hostile on this subject.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Eastern Martial arts. Would you consider them scientific?

Jake Norwood wrote:
It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

However, I cannot deny that, at least it seems so to me, you come across as more than a little hostile on this subject.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Eastern Martial arts. Would you consider them scientific?

contracycle wrote:
Science, as a particular methodology, as a formal and articulated methodology, is a product of the last 300 years, case closed.

When I consider Eastern Martial Arts nowadays, I always tend to get bogged down in the "highly sophisticated pedagogical" manner of teaching. Modern hoplologistic thinking (mouthful, that) holds that the major Japanese, Chinese and Korean arts have been specifically designed with the good of the student in mind, rather than fighting supremacy. Discipline, physical fitness, self-confidence, all these principles are designed into the syllabus because that is what was required for schools in the late 19th and early 20th century. The whole system of belts, katas, advanced and basic techniques would horrify the old masters, who rarely taught more than 3 or 4 students they handpicked. But for the purposes of the army in Japan and Korea (China is a little different), the early introduction of martial arts into schools was essential to breed fit, disciplined (read brain dead) soldiers. Kenjutsu was stripped of much of its prestige, karate lost the free form flow, Taekwando grew to be the kicking contest it is today.

In many ways, what we consider eastern martial arts today is a toned down version of the intensely secretive arts passed from master to student for ages in the Orient. As my background is Goju Ryu karate (I have a black belt somewhere), this is what I shall refer to. Some of the karate people I know who are now trying to reconstruct the original Okinawan styles say it is amazing how different the old days were. For example, daggers and knives were used often, and weapons training was often a starting point. Self-defence, i.e. kill and disable the opponent as soon as possible, was the goal, and that was what was taught. The secretive nature of the art is also emphasised- every master saved up his collection of tricks while attempting to learn his contemporaries. What also comes through is the distortions commonly assumed in the art- that it was a peasant art, it was an old art, etc. Some of the recent work points to it being a merchant art, which only started deviating from the Chinese forms relatively recently, in the middle of the 18th century.

I can think of various different examples of how the incorporation of physical fitness into schools has changed the entire face of eastern martial arts. In some ways, the small bands of eager learners for the western arts is sometimes closer to the original eastern spirit than people acknowledge. It is about learning and extending the art, about creativity and the willingless to learn. What has often turned me away from EMA is the lack of such- you try something new, you get told "stick to the form". This then is my take on the pedagogical approach of EMA (I can reference any of these thoughts if you wish).

Which is not to say that those of us swinging swords around are not without faults. My beef with ARMA has always been in the marketing. "Our way is the best", "Our panel of experts is better than yours", etc. In this game, with such a small group of devotees, such oneupmanship is self- defeating. Yes it would be nice to be mainstream, but not yet. Similarly, we have to learn from what is currently available, and my karate and aikido are value for interpreting other ways to fight.

And I won't even touch the science bit....

James

The scientific method is generalizing from sensory experience and testing those generalizations. This is literally older than any written work we know of: humans have been doing it forever. A lot of animals even do it, in a limited sort of way (they can't state their generalizations).

Quantum physics offers the greatest degree of precision in prediction of any scientific theory ever yet put forward by human beings, at least if you use the pedestrian measure of the numerical agreement between what the theory predicts and what is observed. The indeterminacy principle does not magically make QM into meteorology, though it does imply that there are certain pairs of qualities of physical entities (position and momentum, energy and time) which are not jointly fixed to a mathematically absolute degree of precision. But there are other qualities which can be so fixed, and there are whole, valuable fields of scientific inquiry which never reach a level of precision even in the ballpark of where the indeterminacy principle would matter to them.

I've learned a lot of really interesting things about historical fighting from this thread, which is why I keep checking it. Thanks to the relevant posters for their good work.

If "science" is to be used so broadly, then the "deductive divination" practiced by the Sumerians will have to be treated as a true science rather than a proto-science. The Sumerians made the first serious attempt to catalogue and define the world, to record and deduce divine cause and material effect, and to identify the exceptions and discrepancies that pointed to gaps in their knowledge. There is certainly some form of scientific endeavour going on. People are thinking, analysing, trying to make sense of their environment. But it is also such a far cry from the modern praxis of science that to refer to it as science is functionally misleading.

Muggins wrote:

I can think of various different examples of how the incorporation of physical fitness into schools has changed the entire face of eastern martial arts. In some ways, the small bands of eager learners for the western arts is sometimes closer to the original eastern spirit than people acknowledge. It is about learning and extending the art, about creativity and the willingless to learn. What has often turned me away from EMA is the lack of such- you try something new, you get told "stick to the form". This then is my take on the pedagogical approach of EMA (I can reference any of these thoughts if you wish).

As Calithena has pointed out, we have been using a scientific method since before we discovered fire. Just because you do not recognize it as "modern" does not make it any different. If it were not for scientific method, we would not have been able to develope a knowledge and technology base similar to that which we have now. To say that science did not exist until Herr. Mendel came along is the quintessence of arrogance, not the ARMA debate.

I am dissappointed in those of you who are so great as to look down upon the skills and methods of the Masters as written down in the fechtbuchs. Have you ever read one? Have you ever even heard of the existence of these precious texts prior to the inception of TRoS?

Have you ever picked up a real sword?

Have you ever tried to move with one in your hand?

Have you ever hefted one?

Felt it's incredible balance?

Its weight?

Admired its geometry and realized what the weapon was designed to do specifically and understand the implications to how you employ the weapon?

The feel of the shape and texture of the grip and pommel interacting with the lines of your hands or the leather of your gauntlet?

Ever swung one with intent?

Perhaps tried to perform a few cuts in the air?

Take out the occaissional rogue frozen pumpkin on a snowy, blustery day?

See how it feels when you use simple geometry and math to counter an opponent's cut and hit his arm? With a practice weapon of course...

The techniques involved in the use of a sword are quite scientific. Terribly so in fact. The art is to teach your body to do what the techniques dictate. Until you have done this, how can you be so sure? Honestly.

Jake Norwood wrote:
It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

As with most arguments, this appears to be about semantics.

Jake,
who's degree is in linguistics, a science.

Salamander wrote:
Have you ever picked up a real sword?

Ever swung one with intent?

Linguistics is a science?! (not serious)

(My background, for those who care involves an undergrad in pure mathematics and geology, a MSc. and PhD. in Isotope Geochemistry, a B.A in History, Ancient History and Comparative Religion (gotta know your enemy:)), and one of the courses I teach is History and Philosphy of Science (for my poor bewildered littel aspiring geologists). All of which means I know absolutely nothing about science (and I ain't kidding!).)

Contracycle is both wrong and right by refusing the label of 'science' to martial thoughts in the 16th and 17th century. Wrong, because they are probably more valid as sciences today with our overly broad and encompassing view on things, and right, because by strict consideration the ideas lack rational organisation and consistency.

One of the problems when defining anything as a science lies in the context in which something is considered. The Greeks promoted a philosophy through which the natural world could be understood through rational thinking. Arguments on the nature of things were decided by a close examination of the logical underpinnings of the theory (not by empirical testing). In some ways, the Greeks were more exacting than we are today as to the rational basis of our science. The core idea is of course that there is a single truth out there that can be deduced. The same idea is present in most mathematics: there is only one right answer to a question (even in quantum mechanics, there is only a limited solution set to solve the problem).

The real world does not work that way, and much of the rational Greek outlook on life was pushed out of the way by barbarians and alchemists. Alchemy did wonders for the development of chemistry (not). The big problem was this: alchemy is devoted to working towards something that is believed to exist. To this end, very little work was devoted to reactions that failed to work, or why they failed to work. Roger Bacon started to formalise empirical observation in the natural world ('science'). Later Humanists such as Erasmus, Kepler and so on did much more work and even tied empirical observations to mathematical expressions. But was this work 'Science' under modern definitions? No.

What was lacking was a framework to hang the empirical observations from. Descartes is often credited with starting modern scientific thought, by reducing arguments and constantly tackling assumptions. I prefer not to consider this the birth of science, but the birth of modern thinking. By realising that the problems with observations can be solved by tackling the assumptions underlying the observations (if the waves do not behave like gods control them, then maybe there are no gods controlling them...), the natural sciences were born.

Strangely, it is only in the late 19th and early 20th Century that rigorous sciences such as chemistry and physics emerged. Both are heavily dependent on the technology and expertise to make the necessary observations, as well as on a mechanistic mindset. Much of the exploration of electricity can be considered pseudoscience or engineering, and would not stand up today as enlightened use of the theory of science. However, things worked, even if Newton, whose laws ruled the Industrial Revolution but who left space for divine intervention in all things.

It is only since the 60s that 'modern science' has existed, following the books by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Under their enlightened rule, anything that involves rational thinking and logical thinking has been reclassified a science. Paradigm and context are all important, and just becuase the context of a thought is not considered correct today, it does not invalidate the process. Many of these newer sciences, such as psychology and statistical work in the humanities, often fail to realise that the underlying assumptions in their work are false (consider: psychology is dependent on the human brain- which ain't rational). At the same time, natural sciences have also been able to tackle their subjects more radically.

Anyhow, by the Greek standard, we do very little science nowadays. We assume too much and contextualise paradoxical observations. By the modern standard though, Bacon, Newton and the old masters were very much scientists, within their own paradigm and context. They observed, they theorised, they tested their theories in the manner of the day. As such, they were on the cutting edge of the art!

James

-hopefully that will kill this thread dead. I want get back to mowing down samurai with my zweihander!

toli wrote:
I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

Salamander wrote:

toli wrote:
I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience.

And if some of us have had said combat experience? What then?

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

An excellent point, which I believe supports the treatise I put forward in regards to the art and science of swordsmanship.

toli wrote:
In the first case, my point is that I would fairly quickly defer to some one who had actually tried to kill some one with a knife when discussing how much technique one remembers in a knife fight. My experience from wrestling (in high school) is that it becomse a bit of both the "science" that you learn in practice and improvisation as opportunities arise. The science is, however, important in providing the opportunities. However, one isn't really worried about dying in a wrestling match...

As to the second point, I think we essentially agree. However, I think the key point for something to be a science in the modern sense is the testing of ideas with the collection of new data. Many of the Greek scientists had rational but incorrect theories that persisted because they were'nt really tested. THis is probably more true in biology than in some of the physical science...where the temple falls down if you don't understand the physics of building...NT

Some discipline like sword fighting and crystal growth are both art and science. They're science on the part of the variables over which we have control and art on the part of the guesses enlightened through experience (or instinct or luck or...) you need to make over the uncontrolable variables.

Salamander wrote: You use the qualifier of science in the modern sense. We really must nail down which context we are discussing here. I feel it may be slightly unfair to refer to an ancient practice using modern standards. It's like comparing the aerodynamic knowledge of the Wright Brothers to the that of our friends at Boeing Defense and by those standards we could say that the Wright Brothers did not make the world's first aeroplane, but in fact a motorized flying bicycle.

toli wrote:
The qualifier is just a qualifier and helps to specify what I mean by science. Your airplane example is not really a good one in this case. It isn't a question of the quantity of knowledge but of the methodology in developing that knowledge. Modern science requires testing of ideas not just thought experiments without data to support them.

As to the question of fencing as a science, after further thought, I think I wouldn't necessarily call it a science but technique (but see below). I think when people refer to fencing or what have you as a 'science' what they really mean is that there is a detailed technique and not just natual instinct and ferocity (or what ever).

Instead, I would potentially call fencing a scientifically derived technique. To me, as a scientist, science requires hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses. Without the testing, you have philosophy not science. This doesn't mean that an individual has to do all steps in the process. For example, there are theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. (pure Math is, I think, not really science but something unto itself). After the testing but without a new question and test, you have technique or methodology or something similar. The development of a particular fighting style may have been based on observation, idea development and then the formal (experimental) or informal (experience based) testing of those ideas into a technique. But the use of those techniques is not necessarily a science (but wait...)

A biological analogy would be the use of PCR, a methodology for amplifying DNA. Doing a PCR reaction to amplify some piece of DNA is a scientific technique but isn't in an of itself science, even if the person doing it is scientifically trained. I use SCUBA as a technique in much of the research that I do. That doesn't make SCUBA a science, although the equipment was developed through basic scientific principals and testing (to some exent).

A way in which fencing would be a science, by my definition, would be in the process of probing your opponents weaknesses. In this case, you would be using the methodology of your fencing school to answer the current problem of how to defeat your current opponent... and than apply other techniques to do so. I'd be happy to call fencing a science under these conditions. However, a situation of "I stab with my bayonete this way because that's how I was taught to do it" is, by my definition technique...not science. If there is no thinking there is no science.

An important note regarding this particular discussion is that I am not making a value judgement regarding technique vs. science.

for the giant thread lock in the sky... :D

I think at some level we are arguing some of the same things.

I agree entirely that the development of fencing techniques probably (I only say probably because I don't know enough about it) followed and follows a scientific approach. That was my point RE the the informal experiment = experience = testing of an idea.

My other point is that the application of those techniques is not necessarily a science even if the principles are based on scientically derived ideas. Responding to a threat in a particular way because you have been drilled to do so is not science. The reasoning for choosing that drill might be. Likewise, the gas engine in my car was developed using science or at least a scientific approach, but driving it doesn't make me a petrochemical researcher.

It may be nit-picking but I do think there is a difference between science and technique. I could train a monkey (or undergraduate, but that might be harder) to do underwater visual transects to count reef fish...doesn't make him a scientist... :)

Re the plane thing, the wright brothers were testsing ideas in the field. A modern engineer using aerodynamic theory and software to test plane designs on a computer are similar. There is a different state of knowledge but the approach of applying previous observations and information to a test is the same approachy with different technical levels of methodology. Rationalizing that the heavens circle the earth because man is important is not science.

Within the realm of science, there are many peoply who would agrue that without a falsifyable hypothesis you are not doing science...

Hey all.

I am not, NOT going to lock this thread. Why? Something about the chaos here is cathartic. I don't want every thread to end up this way, but I think that a lot of venting has come out here, and some good points. Is it TROS related anymore? Not really, but what the hell.

So, if you think I should lock the thread, just stop reading it. Vote with your feet, so to speak.

If you are getting something out of this chaotic mess, then keep on attending and commenting.

I have a lot of opinions on a lot of the topics here, but I'm going to refrain from now. Partially because I want to avoid ego in a discussion that's had plenty (some from me), and partially because I haven't seen solid refutement for my points--meaning that they're either rock-solid and undefeatable (ha-hah!), or that they didn't spark the imaginations of other posters (awwww...).

So the discussion can continue in violence, offence, and force, or it can die.

But I aint gonna kill it. Instead, I'm conducting a scientific experiement!

Jake

But no one's really said who would win...the knight or the samurai. I was just watching "The Hidden Fortress". I say if the samurai were Toshiro Mifume, the knight wouldn't have a chance....

Bah, I think this thread is still on it's rails since we are more or less debating on the feasability of answering the question mentionned on the first page. Besides, evryone has good points to make I think and the thread is greatly enlightening I think.

Awww crap.

Now I'm involved.

I love Toshiro Mifune. LOVE.

My money, honestly, is on the Knight, assuming well trained members of each class, circa 1450.

Assumptions:
The knight is German or some other northern race, wearing full-plate of the time, and armed with a bastard sword or similar instrument of about 4' in length.
The Samurai is armed with a tachi (battlefield katana) and armor from the warring states period.
Both are on foot, neither has a missle weapon at their disposal.

Why?
The knight has reach advantages both in build and in weapon (his arm is longer, as is his sword). This is huge advantage in a fight, as boxers, wrestlers, etc. can attest. Smaller was once believed better for Judo, but when the Russian sambo wrestlers entered the mix the Japanese readily accepted the idea of wieght classes.

The knight is accustomed to fighting many different kinds of sword and facing many different kinds of armor, which armor was generally superior in build, materials, and protection. This is supported by the adoption of western armor making materials when the Portugese set up shop at Nagasaki.

Assuming that texts describing national characters are accurate, the samuari is "ready to die," but the knight has no intention of doing so. This could spark a lot of controversy, but the knight is not going to take the same risks, and is going to work harder to preserve his life. The winner of the fight is the guy who goes home at the end of it.

I believe, and this is me, that geometry and western science wins out over "ki."

We all know that God will not allow a righteous man to fail in combat, and that the Japanese were all heathens. (Okay, hah hah, that's a joke for you judicial combat lovers).

The Japanese tachi, while an excellent weapon, was built for fighting different armors than the Knight's steel harness. The knight's weapon, on the other hand, is perfect for both unarmored targets and for working into the weaknesses of superior forms of armor.

The Knight belongs to a genetic line that consumes more meat and protein than the samurai, who--if a proper buddhist--avoids meat. Even if he's not a proper buddhist, meat is not as plentiful on the islands. The edge that such a diet and genetic history give are evident in modern sports.

Lastly, history points to the fact that western modes of warfare, which include the knight, were adopted by easterners who saw that they were more effective. The west has adopted very little from the east where warfare is concerned.

I believe that the knight has more advantages in his favor, given the above assumptions are true. I welcome counters to my arguments and arguments similarly presented in favor of the opposition.

Jake

(I would bet on your take Jake ;) )

Jake,

I actually agree with your overall agruement. I still say Toshiro Mifune would win though...heh...I'm gonna have to re-watch all the Kurosawa movies...damn..

As a side thought, what about in a battle field context? I think the tactical situation be imprortant and would follow Saracean-Frank model. The Knights would win if they could correctly time and deliver the decisive charge, but the Samurai would have an advantage in missiles and possible better mobility...who knows...

My personal take on the outcome would be with Jake.

But now shove the pair in a desert, swamp, mountain, grassy plain.... Who wins now?

Could climate sway the fight?

Just trying to piss ya'll off now ;)

But to respong to Montag -

Maybe should have added 'study'.

The study of martial arts does not a science make simply because it involves sciences (i.e: physics and/or psychology) and I stand by that.

Additonaly. Aye, I would say that many of the disciplines you mentioned are strictly sciences as defined by empirical terms. Which is what I think is being argued here. Behavioural, cognitive, developmental phsychology all revolve around testing a hypotheses against variables we ourselves have set. And then drawing a conclusion depending on which way those results go.
A baby reacts 3 secs quicker to a human face at 3 months than at one. Thus, it can now recognise human features. An assumption. There is no ultimate method of measuring such changes. Who knows what the fuck is really going on?

Drugs is a scarily accurate of determining phsychological factors. How 100 mg of something will affect, say, reflexes, in comparison to 500 mg.



Take care

(And apologies for calling an end to this thread - it has become a beautiful thing)

If Japanese miltary stuff looked anything like the film "Heavan and Earth," then my money is on a western force of equal size, based on a very similar engagement in France in 732 (Poitiers, to be exact). Several simmilar engagements in the various crusades also point me in that direction. If you're talking about 1450, as I am above, then even more money goes on the west, who will have firearms, pikes, and crossbows.

Jake

How powerful were the Japenese bows? Given that they generally didn't face heavy metal armor were they designed/able to penetrate such?

During the crusades Islamic archers were far more deadly to the horses then the knights and inflicted great injury on the knights only when heat caused the Europeans to abandoned the heaviest of their armors. Japan being a more temperate climate wouldn't have that advantage, and by 1450 horse barding was much more wide spread.

Lastly, history points to the fact that western modes of warfare, which include the knight, were adopted by easterners who saw that they were more effective. The west has adopted very little from the east where warfare is concerned.

Jake Norwood wrote: Hey all.

I am not, NOT going to lock this thread.

Jake

Sadly Jake, I happen to agree with you, so I won't be the voice of dissent on this one.

In regards to a bow, regardless of whose it was, it has been proved that an arrow fired from anything that can be charged by man (loading and pulling back without external mechanical or chemical means) will most likely not breach a suit of harness. In fact I have just seen a picture of a suit of harness that has the dint from a musket ball on its breastplate.

Apparently a seige arbelest (1400lbs pull) or a windlass charged arbelest (1000 lbs pull) could breach a suit of harness, but they were hell on wheels to aim at a moving target.

Jake Norwood wrote: then my money is on a western force of equal size, based on a very similar engagement in France in 732 (Poitiers, to be exact). Several simmilar engagements in the various crusades also point me in that direction.
Jake

toli wrote: I think at some level we are arguing some of the same things.

I agree entirely that the development of fencing techniques probably (I only say probably because I don't know enough about it) followed and follows a scientific approach. That was my point RE the the informal experiment = experience = testing of an idea.

My other point is that the application of those techniques is not necessarily a science even if the principles are based on scientically derived ideas. Responding to a threat in a particular way because you have been drilled to do so is not science. The reasoning for choosing that drill might be. Likewise, the gas engine in my car was developed using science or at least a scientific approach, but driving it doesn't make me a petrochemical researcher.

It may be nit-picking but I do think there is a difference between science and technique. I could train a monkey (or undergraduate, but that might be harder) to do underwater visual transects to count reef fish...doesn't make him a scientist... :)

Re the plane thing, the wright brothers were testsing ideas in the field. A modern engineer using aerodynamic theory and software to test plane designs on a computer are similar. There is a different state of knowledge but the approach of applying previous observations and information to a test is the same approachy with different technical levels of methodology. Rationalizing that the heavens circle the earth because man is important is not science.

Within the realm of science, there are many peoply who would agrue that without a falsifyable hypothesis you are not doing science...

Salamander wrote:

toli wrote: I think at some level we are arguing some of the same things.

Yes, yes we are, when are you going to admit I'm right!?! :D

toli wrote:

Salamander wrote:
Have you ever picked up a real sword?

Ever swung one with intent?

I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience. Unless you're actually in a fight where real injury or death is possible and your intent is to injure or kill your opponent, all the philosophy is just philosophy.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

Vanguard wrote: My personal take on the outcome would be with Jake.

But now shove the pair in a desert, swamp, mountain, grassy plain.... Who wins now?

Could climate sway the fight?

Just trying to piss ya'll off now ;)

But to respong to Montag -

Maybe should have added 'study'.

The study of martial arts does not a science make simply because it involves sciences (i.e: physics and/or psychology) and I stand by that.

Additonaly. Aye, I would say that many of the disciplines you mentioned are not strictly sciences as defined by empirical terms. Which is what I think is being argued here. Behavioural, cognitive, developmental phsychology all revolve around testing a hypotheses against variables we ourselves have set. And then drawing a conclusion depending on which way those results go.
A baby reacts 3 secs quicker to a human face at 3 months than at one. Thus, it can now recognise human features. An assumption. There is no ultimate method of measuring such changes. Who knows what the fuck is really going on?

Drugs is a scarily accurate of determining phsychological factors. How 100 mg of something will affect, say, reflexes, in comparison to 500 mg.



Take care

(And apologies for calling an end to this thread - it has become a beautiful thing)

woops...

Was trying to edit. Trying to add a 'not'. Sorry.

I'll be quiet now.

Jake Norwood wrote: If Japanese miltary stuff looked anything like the film "Heavan and Earth," then my money is on a western force of equal size, based on a very similar engagement in France in 732 (Poitiers, to be exact). Several simmilar engagements in the various crusades also point me in that direction. If you're talking about 1450, as I am above, then even more money goes on the west, who will have firearms, pikes, and crossbows.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Hey all.

I am not, NOT going to lock this thread. Why? Something about the chaos here is cathartic. I don't want every thread to end up this way, but I think that a lot of venting has come out here, and some good points. Is it TROS related anymore? Not really, but what the hell.

So, if you think I should lock the thread, just stop reading it. Vote with your feet, so to speak.
Jake

Jake Norwood wrote:

The Samurai is armed with a tachi (battlefield katana) and armor from the warring states period.

This is huge advantage in a fight, as boxers, wrestlers, etc. can attest. Smaller was once believed better for Judo, but when the Russian sambo wrestlers entered the mix the Japanese readily accepted the idea of wieght classes.

Jake Norwood wrote: [1]My money, honestly, is on the Knight, assuming well trained members of each class, circa 1450.

[2]The knight has reach advantages both in build and in weapon (his arm is longer, as is his sword).

[3]Assuming that texts describing national characters are accurate, the samuari is "ready to die," but the knight has no intention of doing so.

[4]I believe, and this is me, that geometry and western science wins out over "ki."

[5]Lastly, history points to the fact that western modes of warfare, which include the knight, were adopted by easterners who saw that they were more effective.

For what it's worth, my money is on the Vietnamese Nationalist (who, in 1450, were busy slaughtering the Chinese by the battalion) and, after that, the Mongol Horseman. From there, the knight, the samurai, the Chinese Duelist, the Italian Duelist, the Aztec Eagle Knight, and so on in roughly that order. (Those Aztecs only had obsidian swords, but they trained themselves to stay conscious during severe bloodloss. How cool is that?)

On a slightly less flip note--

Two notes: one on the Samurai as they are percieved, one on the situation itself.

I think it is perhaps uninformed to say that the Samurai did not, at the proper time and in the proper place, employ techniques that were as scientifically* derived as any western counterparts. But they did not leave texts, and the historical record is not well kept on exact techniques. By the time that Samurai texts are written and the Bushido code is developed, the Samurai have existed for centuries as an oligarchical class of landholders and studying their techniques from those books is rather like, well, studying knighthood from Victorian Foil Fencing manuals...

Whatever method the Samurai were originally trained with is lost. It remains in bits and pieces -- Jujitsu, Iajitsu and Kenjitsu -- but the essence was lost in the four century peace of the Tokugawa period, and what remains has been refined into "arts" akin to modern fencing -- useful for combat, but ultimately not the thing itself.

There are elements of the Japanese martial tradition that have survived -- mostly among the rebellious peasant class -- but the sword arts are not among them.

Assuming, then, that the knight and the samurai are meeting on a battlefield somewhere in the Afghani desert (roughly in the middle of Eurasia), the winner will undoubtably be the one who adapts to the strange situation, terrain, and fighting style fastest. These are, effectively, two aliens meeting each other for the first time. They have never seen each other's fighting style. The samurai is not trained against hard metal targets and lance charges, and the knight is not trained against elite swordsmen or mounted archers (I understand that most knights fought with lance and mace, from horseback.)

Given that the knight is simply wearing more metal, and has better equipment (again, more metal), he has a slight advantage. That said, the Samurai were a highly educated caste, and trained in creative arts, which might give them the slight edge in adapting quickly.

But the real winner is the one who suggest teaming up and conquering China. ;-)

yrs--
--Ben

* By "science" I simply mean "informed process of hypothesis, trial, and error." As a "hard scientist" I feel reasonably confident in this definition.

it's funny how we all went from ridiculing the notion of comparing a knight to a samurai to wholeheartedly enjoying indluging in this 'sordid speculation' ;)

Sometimes it's cool just to admit it's fun to play in the mud and git dirty!

JR

quot;Drifter Bob]On the other hand, in a field army encounter, depending on the era I would go with the Japanese. The Western forces would have the advantage of heavy cavalry, but based on what I have read of a typical Knightly army of the Medeival period, the Japanese would probably have vastly superior discipline, much better infantry, and much more effective archers / marksmen (even though the European Heavy Crossbow and Longbow are probably superior weapons on an individual basis, and they may have also had better armor piercing arrowheads).

I think in general the knigthly armies of the European Medieval period displayed terrible tactical judgement more often than they did decent or even good judgement, which often more than made up for their truely awesome superiority in heavy cavalry over anyone else they faced.

If you put something better balanced together like say a well lead Swiss Infantry army with Halberds and well organized and suppported by at least some knights, then you may have a different story. The military orders, Teutonic Knights, Hospitalers or Templars might also be better disciplined.

Overall it would also depend a lot on the terrain, much as battles against the mongols, the turks, the saracens and the moors did. In a more open terrain, I bet the Japanese would win. If there was more rough ground where the Knights had an opportunity to pin them somewhere, they might have a better chance. The lack of discipline and in some cases, seemingly sanity, of the Knights, the lack of light cavalry or cavlary archers, the poor quality of the typical infantry and the frequent poor placement and organization of archers (with the exception of the English) would all be big disadvantages for the Western forces.

IMHO

JR

Drifter Bob wrote:
I'm glad youre not closing it too, but maybe we could split it up into the three or four different arguments which seem to be taking place here:

1)The role of courage and fear in combat, and could knights conquer it

2)Were the Fecthtbuchs 'Scientific'

3)Is there a genuine Western Martial Arts tradition?

4) Could a knight beat a Samurai

5) Assuming WMA exists, is ARMA a valid organization for teaching it?

But I'm all for the chaos of this thread, I find it very interesting and informative too...

Drifter Bob wrote:
1)The role of courage and fear in combat, and could knights conquer it

Drifter Bob wrote:
2)Were the Fecthtbuchs 'Scientific'

Drifter Bob wrote:
3)Is there a genuine Western Martial Arts tradition?

Drifter Bob wrote:
4) Could a knight beat a Samurai

Drifter Bob wrote:
5) Assuming WMA exists, is ARMA a valid organization for teaching it?

Muggins wrote:
I think many of the more recent military historians (Verbrugge comes to mind) have a much higher opinion of Frankish (Western) discipline and organisation than you think. The Crusaders were not a good example of the warfare of the time, being poorly lead and equipped (here you, hold this). James

toli wrote:
So what you are saying is that I was right all along....

Drifter Bob wrote:
I'm glad youre not closing it too, but maybe we could split it up into the three or four different arguments which seem to be taking place here:

1)The role of courage and fear in combat, and could knights conquer it

2)Were the Fecthtbuchs 'Scientific'

3)Is there a genuine Western Martial Arts tradition?

4) Could a knight beat a Samurai

5) Assuming WMA exists, is ARMA a valid organization for teaching it?

toli wrote:
RE Frankish reclessness on the crusades. I've been reading the autobiography of a Arab-Syrinian 'gentleman' named Usamah al-Mu..something or other. He calls the Frankish knights the most cautious of all people and give several examples of what he means. More recent treatemnts also have a higher opinion of crusader discipline than past ones. THere were obvious tactical blunders, but in other cases they were highly disciplined when given the competent leadership (Richard I)....NT

Drifter Bob wrote:

lets try to 'keep it real' though folks, we aren't on one side or another. I doubt too many people here are actually descended from knights anyway even if you do have European ancestry. More likely to be the distant relative of some highly oppressed peasants!

JR

Salamander wrote:

Drifter Bob wrote:

lets try to 'keep it real' though folks, we aren't on one side or another. I doubt too many people here are actually descended from knights anyway even if you do have European ancestry. More likely to be the distant relative of some highly oppressed peasants!

JR

*Waving hand*
Oooh! Ooh!
Descended from Duchy of Leeds and by Marriage around 1520-something a good bit of Freiburg.

I agree with Drifter Bob that it is mildly difficult to put too heavy a good spin on the Crusading armies. The armies were too cosmopolitan, with little central organisation, and each commander in the battle thought he knew best. Coupled with an unreliable supply train and a fanaticism of note, this meant that very little by way of good soldiering on a large scale occurred. A lot of the hesitation seen from the Crusader leaders can hinge upon the lack of control they felt they had over their forces.

However, there is a large body of evidence that says well organised, well led armies of the period were tactically and strategically sound. This can be seen in the actions of small, homogenous armies in the Crusades. Provided the leader was accepted as the leader by all, constant warplay and a innovative bent made Frankish armies formidable. It is only later, under the idiocy of chivalry and the absolute disregard for infantry, that we see major tactial mistakes made.

James

This discussion of "the crusades" is so vague as to be pretty useless. There is a BIG difference between the organization and discipline of a crusading soldier on campaign, and the strategic organization and internal politicking of competeing Crusader lords.

One has to understand that the Crusading army was not a homogenous force united to defeat heathens. It was a mish mash of small groups who were most often seperated from their traditional vows of loyalty (their liege being home or being in some other remote part of the region) and who thus found themselves in the service of others greater than themselves. In many ways the structure of the Crusading army was a throw back to an earlier period where warrior would gather in the hall of whatever lord was strong enough to command them and generous enough to reward them for their service. The primary goal of these men was wealth, plunder, and ideally setting up independent states for themselves.

Most of the crusades took place during a period where the line between the greater nobility (lords) and the lesser nobility (knights) were increasing. The rules for inheritence and grants from the kings were becoming more regimented and the potential for upward mobility of knights to higher titles was sharply declined. The days when a Norman adventurer could carve out a kingdom by attacking someone and claiming it were in the past and now war in Europe was a matter of kings and great nobles. Only in Spain and Palestine could a knight or lesser lord through determination and strength of arms earn title and holdings by conquering land from the saracens.

That's what they were after land and titles. Obtaining these was more important than defeating Moslems. What appears to be a disorganized, incompetant mess by people who think the Crusades were about religion in fact was a carefully orchestrated (and generally brutal and messy) game between the Crusaders themselves over the real reason they were there. Land.

In this they were very successful. Several of the Crusader States (and the smaller vassals to them) lasted for generations. Claiming a title and passing it to ones heirs was the purpose and that purpose was served. In fact, the reason the Crusaders fell on Byzantium was just more of the same. Lots of profitable land to claim from a weak opponent who wasn't Catholic without needing to trek through the desert.

Most people don't realize that the City of Athens was conquered as part of the Crusades and was held by western lords for 250 years until taken by the Ottomans in the middle of the 15th century.

This is not revisionist history at all Bob. But the assumption that these men were reckless or stupid or didn't know their own profession is patently absurd. Their methods may look chaotic, but make much more sense taken in the context of what their true goals were. And in the pursuit of those goals the Crusades were VERY VERY successful.

Valamir wrote: This is not revisionist history at all Bob. But the assumption that these men were reckless or stupid or didn't know their own profession is patently absurd. Their methods may look chaotic, but make much more sense taken in the context of what their true goals were. And in the pursuit of those goals the Crusades were VERY VERY successful.

It did lead to the Ottoman Turks fleecing our Pilgrims of small fortunes for the right to travel to the Holy Land. If our crusading forbears had not been so eager to carve out new kingdoms so far from home in such a brutal manner the support of the population might have been gained...

In regards to the arguement that the crusading nobles were a rag tag bunch if imbeciles and that they were sheer geniuses of the battle field... I say it is entirely possible that during all four(?) crusades we had a mixture of these elements as well as the fact that they were fighting in unfamilair territorries and moving amongst unfamiliar peoples. Also, let us NEVER forget the inevitable clash of egos bound to happen between swelled heads. I am quite sure were many with good common sense on the field, however, they were not in charge of the battle plans. Add in the ridiculous idea of the time that God would protect them and lead them to vistory as he was obviously on thier side and then the countless other factors and we see that the situation becomes quite drastically complex.

By the way, why exactly are we talking about 11-13th C. knights here when the arguement was Knight v. Samurai? The typical Samurai of our envisioning did not exist until the 15-16th C. at the earliest anyway.

Drifter Bob wrote:
OK, not only were knightly armies secretly much better than we thought, they even did well in the crusades? I have run across this kind of thing in a lot of forums for re-encators and WMA people, and I find it extremely disturbing.
JR

John I think you missed my point ENTIRELY.

Virtually every "tactical blunder" that you point to ties directly back in to the fact that these were not homogenous armies operating under a central authority. They were armies by committee.

OF COURSE stupid decisions were made. They were made for the same reason that political infighting and personal agendas lead to stupid decisions in every endeavor.

My point is that the stupid decisions ARE NOT indicitive of broad incompetance by the knightly armies, but were caused by the political turmoil of the knightly armies.

Further the political turmoil of the knightly armies were not because the knights were undisciplined rabble, but because of the situation that crusades engendered.

Crusaders were cultureally and geographically diverse volunteers, the vast majority of whom were there for reasons completely indifferent to the Pope's desires. The problems you site are because they were more interested in pursueing their own agendas then fighting the enemy. One can look at the most successful campaign leaders and discover that universally the core of their army were drawn from their own personal retinue and retainers, and thus were disciplined soldiers following the orders of their leader. Only the greater kings of Europe could muster a sizeable force relying primarily on their own men which is why the crusades generally faltered when such men were absent. But even they could not field the entire army themselves and as soon as they had to go hat in hand to other forces in the area, the whole death spiral of compromise and loss of command and control.

As far as their fortresses being destroyed...several lasted for hundred years or more before being pushed out. That's long enough for grandkids and great grandkids to have enjoyed the fruits of their labor. Success.

As for your tangental comments as to the side effects of their efforts...<shrug> in a day in age where the primary expectation of a patriarch was to provide for the future of his own family, why would they care what was done to people they didn't even have distant kinship ties to.
Its only relatively recently in human history where the importance of family blood ties has been all but erased in the West that we've expanded our empathy to encompass strangers. For most of history, strangers lives were less valuable than livestock. I firmly believe in judgeing the morality of people by the standards of their own time. Not ours.

As for the relevance to the discussion on Samurai, its absolutely relevant in the interest of refuting claims that suggest that knightly armies were a bunch of undisciplined bumbling morons. They were not.

John, your facts about the mistakes that were made are well taken. But the conclusion you draw from them are way off base.

...and medieval Islam was oh-so-organized and disciplined in comparison to medieval Europe. I'd always heard that the main reason the Crusaders initially steamrolled the Muslims was because of the constant political infighting between Islamic rulers. Muslim states seem to have been darn good at fragmenting into dozens of smaller, mutually antagonistic states, leaving them ripe for conquest. Only when faced by the threat of the Frankish invasion did they put aside their differences, and even then not for long enough to drive the Franks out until two hundred years passed.

Go for it Drifter Bob: Just how many times *did* Crusader armies fall for the feigned retreat? Or charge at inopportune moments? I think you should read the Memoirs of Usamah ibn Munkidh. It's obvious that the Muslims had a very high opinion of the Frankish approach to war indeed, and saw them as a serious threat.

As someone else poited out, this thread had initally focused on the 15th and 16th centuries, not on the era of the crusades. I think Europe and her armies had made massive strides forward in matters military since the fall of Acre. Forget not that the 15th century witnessed the fall of Muslim Spain and two triumphs of the Knights of Rhodes over vastly numerically superior Turkish beseiging armies. In the latter half of the century, a Burgundian author even drew up a plan for conquering the Turks and their horse-archers, one that might very well have worked, too. In the wake of the re-emergence of the infantryman as a winner of battles and the chastening of the knights as they were made to fight on foot, and perform other functions not originally characteristic of the chivalry, Europe had largely overcome her problems of discipline and organization that had plagued her earlier armies. I propose that Charles the Bold's Compagnies D'Ordonnance, circa 1473, after the re-organization of the Ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves, would have absolutely stomped any other force that any other culture in the world could have thrown at it, including the vaunted yet backward Japanese. Surely no other culture anywhere else in the world (except maybe the Swiss...) understood combined arms to such a degree at that point in history.

quot;Crusader I propose that Charles the Bold's Compagnies D'Ordonnance, circa 1473, after the re-organization of the Ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves, would have absolutely stomped any other force that any other culture in the world could have thrown at it, including the vaunted yet backward Japanese. Surely no other culture anywhere else in the world (except maybe the Swiss...) understood combined arms to such a degree at that point in history.

wrote: uote>toli wrote:

quot;Crusader I propose that Charles the Bold's Compagnies D'Ordonnance, circa 1473, after the re-organization of the Ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves, would have absolutely stomped any other force that any other culture in the world could have thrown at it, including the vaunted yet backward Japanese. Surely no other culture anywhere else in the world (except maybe the Swiss...) understood combined arms to such a degree at that point in history.

I'll grant that by the 16th century, European armies were quite formidable and effective. But by that time you aren't really talking about "knightly armies", you are talking about sophisticated combined arms organizations in which the knights were but one component, because they had at last been taught the value of effectively trained infantry (by the Swiss) and marksmen (by the English and the Swiss) and they also had artillery, arquebuses, sophisticated siege equipment, and etc.

The problem with comparing 16th century Samurai with 16th Century knigths is that the Samurai had not adopted the same technology, they were more like the 13th century knights.

And to be clear, yes I do think the knights of that era were simultaneously almsot totally incompotent at the tactical demands of warfare while being extremely proficient individual and small-group fighters. This is because they were still at that point basically fighting in an almost ritualised manner which their position within a feudal society allowed. In it's own way it was like the cattle raiding and border feuding of the ancient Celts and Germanic tribes who were their forefathers.

It wasn't until they had faced all kinds of different enemies from the horse archers of the saracens, to the mongols, the archers of Wales, and the effective commoner clan / militia armies of Switzerland, Flanders, and Scotland, that they were forced to learn enough lessons to begin learning the lessons about total war, to fight like the Romans. Since then when they have been able to strike that all important balance between barbaric vigor and 'civlilized' organizational methods and technology, they have proven mighty indeed.

JR

Valamir wrote: John I think you missed my point ENTIRELY.
.

My point is that the stupid decisions ARE NOT indicitive of broad incompetance by the knightly armies, but were caused by the political turmoil of the knightly armies.

.

The problems you site are because they were more interested in pursueing their own agendas then fighting the enemy.

.

If it is conceded that the Western knights were fragmented at the campaign level, then I suggest it is implicitlky conceded that they were fragmented at the battle level too. The very personal nature of allegiance and the co-ambitions of social equals means that the concession of command to a particular leader arises from political process or sufferance. I suggest its quite easy to see the western knights as ill-disciplined, becuase you simply cannot guarantee that one of the war-bands that comprises the body as a whole will not take it upon itself to achieve its own goals.

Stepping back a second, this conversation seems to be polarising again after a brief period of sanity.

To say that the Western knight had a much more personal interest and approach is NOT to say that they are an unorganised rabble. Thats egregious extension. To opine that the Crusaders were less disciplined than the Islamic armies is not to say that they had no discipline. To extend this argument as if it some slight directed at the Crusaders or Western armies in general is to play the man and not the ball.

I point out for example, that even at Arsuf, which I agree is one of the better examples of Crusader disipline, that discipline still failed and and the charge that initiated the battle was a violation of orders, IIRC, but Richard capitalised on this event. As late as the civil war, the Royalist cavaliers charge under Prince Rupert is often accused of being irresponsible glory-seeking that played a major role in losing the war. I would also agree that the Burgundian Ordnance was very organised, and very forward-thinking, but it was also outright unlucky and lost nearly every battle it fought. The lesson was largely missed, I think, and burgundy itself, only a collection of personal loyalties, disapeared.

I accept and agree that the Crusaders were fragmented; I disagree somewhat that this is unrepresentative. Feudalism was inherently fractured, the entire hundred years war is driven by the geographical seperation of various fiefdoms. And consequently, the men who made up the armies were also fragmented in their cultures and allegiances. The very mechanism by which these armies are mustered works against them operating as a unnified whole. And lets not forget, this can have up-sides: it means they were also prone to using their own initiative, which can be a real virtue on the field. An army that exercises initiative can be very unpredictable; you seldom guard against the illogical and the suicidal.

Hence I say again: this argument does NOT claim they were "incompetent bumbling morons"; it does not criticise their COMPETENCE on the field. But I think it is relevant to whether or not they had a real tradition of the martial arts or "just" a group of experienced, self-taught, highly-skilled, well equipped *individuals*. The motto of the english crown is "Dieu et mon droit" - "God and my right". There is no "we" here.

I suggest the particuler aspect of the patricarchal family and morality supports this readiung of the record. Again, allegiance is local, immediate - it does not fight for the greater good, it fights for ITS good. The Franks are, after all, of the same stock as the German barbarians who believed greatly in individual freedom and personal loyalty rather than over-wheening political structures.

Nobody is denying the western knights were effective. I don't even think anyone is denying that their opponents recognised that effectiveness - we would not be talking about them if they had NOT conquored all those territories. Nobody is saying they were a rag tag bunch of imbeciles.
--
If we push on to the fifteenth century or so, I agree that this society is much more centralised, much more organised and developed, and carries much greater legitimacy for a central authority. And I agree, that it is here that we see the development of a systematic treatment of the marital arts. But I also suspect that it is so rapidly eclipsed by gunpowder that the effort is largely still-born.

I don't think theres a systematic structure of martial knowledge evident in the west. In the castle the small knightly family was largely independant of greater structure. I'm not even that sure that going to a school or a teacher to learn combat skills would even appeal to knights; surely you learned your trade from your father as a blacksmith or a cooper did, and their very survival qualified them to teach. I donlt think there is much of a lost *tradition* to be rediscovered, although I do think there are lost skills that can be rediscovered (well, at least to an extent short of homicide).

Hey Drifter Bob, I PM'd you about the cards thing.

contracycle wrote:
I don't think theres a systematic structure of martial knowledge evident in the west. In the castle the small knightly family was largely independant of greater structure. I'm not even that sure that going to a school or a teacher to learn combat skills would even appeal to knights; surely you learned your trade from your father as a blacksmith or a cooper did, and their very survival qualified them to teach. I donlt think there is much of a lost *tradition* to be rediscovered, although I do think there are lost skills that can be rediscovered (well, at least to an extent short of homicide).

contracycle wrote: Hey Drifter Bob, I PM'd you about the cards thing.

Drifter Bob wrote: I'm glad youre not closing it too, but maybe we could split it up into the three or four different arguments which seem to be taking place here:

1)The role of courage and fear in combat, and could knights conquer it

Um, I'm waiting for someone to give some kind of historical account. We know that knights rode into battle. What more is there that we're missing?

2)Were the Fecthtbuchs 'Scientific'

Or, rather, since they called themselves scientific, so is their own definition of science acceptable?

3)Is there a genuine Western Martial Arts tradition?

The evidence of this is so overwhelming as to be beyond discussion.

4) Could a knight beat a Samurai

That is probably the most appropriate argument in this thread, and one I want to see grow, I suppose.

5) Assuming WMA exists, is ARMA a valid organization for teaching it?

Honestly, I don't think this question has much place here. The ARMA is a valid organization on any account that I can think of, though it's not always popular with much of the rest of the community. If it's not, why not? All I see here is "ho, hum, I don't like the ARMA" or "they're all about edge-vs-flat" or whatever...which is really "I don't agree with John Clements," since the ARMA is several hundred people more than JC, and we don't all agree with him. As Salamander wrote, the ARMA is an organization of students gathering together to share rescources and to learn.

, I don't think this question has much place here. The ARMA is a valid organization on any account that I can think of, though it's not always popular with much of the rest of the community.

I accept and agree that the Crusaders were fragmented; I disagree somewhat that this is unrepresentative. Feudalism was inherently fractured, the entire hundred years war is driven by the geographical seperation of various fiefdoms. And consequently, the men who made up the armies were also fragmented in their cultures and allegiances. The very mechanism by which these armies are mustered works against them operating as a unnified whole. And lets not forget, this can have up-sides: it means they were also prone to using their own initiative, which can be a real virtue on the field. An army that exercises initiative can be very unpredictable; you seldom guard against the illogical and the suicidal.

Hence I say again: this argument does NOT claim they were "incompetent bumbling morons"; it does not criticise their COMPETENCE on the field. But I think it is relevant to whether or not they had a real tradition of the martial arts or "just" a group of experienced, self-taught, highly-skilled, well equipped *individuals*. The motto of the english crown is "Dieu et mon droit" - "God and my right". There is no "we" here.

I don't think theres a systematic structure of martial knowledge evident in the west. In the castle the small knightly family was largely independant of greater structure. I'm not even that sure that going to a school or a teacher to learn combat skills would even appeal to knights; surely you learned your trade from your father as a blacksmith or a cooper did, and their very survival qualified them to teach.

Roman textbooks on warfare and fighting (eg. Vegetius), themselves based largely on Greek martial arts, were standard issue in the dark ages through renaissance. How much tradition do you want? Even the term, "martial tradition" is a western idea, "Martial" coming from the Roman god of war, Mars.

Jake

Drifter Bob wrote: The problem with comparing 16th century Samurai with 16th Century knigths is that the Samurai had not adopted the same technology, they were more like the 13th century knights.

Sneaky Git wrote:

Drifter Bob wrote: The problem with comparing 16th century Samurai with 16th Century knigths is that the Samurai had not adopted the same technology, they were more like the 13th century knights.

I'm thinking this is a dangerous oversimplification.

By the end of the 16th century, Japanese armies actually fielded more firearms than comparative European armies. Check out the Battle of Nagashino (1575) and Oda Nobunaga.

Chris

Valamir wrote:

.

The discussion was broadened to a Western vs Samurai armies instead of just individuals. And the idea was put forth that the Samurai would have an advantage because of the disorganization and lack of discipline in Western armies, with the Crusades being held out as an example of this.

My point on this issue was to 1) demonstrate that the examples of western disorganization were not a question of capability but of the socio political structure. When the army was centralized under a strong ruler with solid bounds of fealty to his vassals western armies exhibited great discipline and expected levels of tactical capacity.

Sweet freaking jesus.

Longest thread on the forge. Ever. By a fair margin too.

And somehow I suspect it's not done yet...

Brian.

Yes, but when you take into account that everything on God's green Earth is being talked about in here.. it is no wonder why.

-Ingenious

Ingenious wrote: Yes, but when you take into account that everything on God's green Earth is being talked about in here.. it is no wonder why.

Ben Lehman wrote:
BL> So, if the Knight and the Samurai were *on Mars...*

In your argument you are confusing warfare, in the larger sense, with a martial arts tradition of personal and small group combat. By assuming that there was no martial arts tradition in Europe you seem to be rather willfully ignoring an immense amount of evidence to the contrary.

Siege warfare (please note, viewers, this is once again a firm left turn in the thread...):

Medieval armies were traditionally bad at siege warfare for several reasons. Firstly, compared to the majesty of Ancient warfare, the armies are miniscule. With even the largest Crusader armies numbering less than 30000 men (Verbrugge's revised and realistic figures), there were never enough men to properly invest a castle or city. Couple with a poor supply train and the fact that most cities were ports, it was never likely that a Crusading army could win except by direct attack. A feat like Masada would simply be impossible- some estimates have the Roman army at over 100000 men, with supplies for 4 years.

The later medieval armies, who used cannon in conjunction with the more massive siege engines, did pull off some impressive feats of siegecraft. But not often- they built and supplied those castles good, and there was never enough time to do the job properly.

Compared to what the samurai faced, well, there's a contrast. Someone else may correct me, but I do not know of any major sieges against castles fortified in the Western style. And those castles that did fall, tended to fall to treachery on the inside...

James

Sneaky Git wrote:

Drifter Bob wrote: The problem with comparing 16th century Samurai with 16th Century knigths is that the Samurai had not adopted the same technology, they were more like the 13th century knights.

I'm thinking this is a dangerous oversimplification.

By the end of the 16th century, Japanese armies actually fielded more firearms than comparative European armies. Check out the Battle of Nagashino (1575) and Oda Nobunaga.

Chris

Jake Norwood wrote: Roman textbooks on warfare and fighting (eg. Vegetius), themselves based largely on Greek martial arts, were standard issue in the dark ages through renaissance. How much tradition do you want? Even the term, "martial tradition" is a western idea, "Martial" coming from the Roman god of war, Mars.

Jake

contracycle wrote:

Ben Lehman wrote:
BL> So, if the Knight and the Samurai were *on Mars...*

... they both suffocate and die.

I just want to remark on a few things.

Gunpowder. I feared that remark might get the above treatment and tampered indecisivley with the original wording. What I was aiming at was not that gunpowder immediately makes the physical arts redundant, but that it does make them rather less important for what becomes a mass of low-trained soldiers.

In which case, the concentration of really formal, organised training shifts away from a popular, wide-spread one to one that is mostly the porvince of the children of nobility, for whom these techniques are valuable both on the battlefield and in duels. But this has two consequences, I think: the first that it becomes much more exclusive and secretive, as the techniques are the trade secrets of particular masters, and the second that the type of combat it needs to address steadily becomes more personally oriented and less battlefield oriented. the apogee of which is exactly the FENCING tradition that ARMA criticises so vigorously.

I think the far eastern societies, with their long-established tradition of central authority, bureacracy, and widespread organisation, did achieve much better buy-in to centralised battle command. They were more centralised societies and were able to use that to battlefield effect. I agree with the opinion above that the Western knights only learned this by bumping their heads on the problem repeatedly.

I disagree that Western warfare was meaningfully scientific. If, as Valamir says it is naive to think that they would have missed a battle-winning strategy, why on Earth did they try to have the crossbow banned from use against fellow Christians? This does not look like a society that is learning, but one that is stuck in a dogmatic rut. Please note! This is not the same as saying they were universally stupid, far from it.

Regarding standardised weapons, I would suggest that this arises due to a different pressure: trade. that is, the individualk price of a speciliased object is harder to negotiate for than a standard proce for a standard object that both buyer and seller, however remote, can agree on from precedent.

Lastly, we have had several assertions that the West did not display any significant military techniques adopted from the East. I vigorously disagree: the following all had a pronounced East-West vector: the trebuchet, the crossbow, the armoured horseman, "greek" fire. Of the top of my head, apparently indiginous Western military inventions would be: the longboat, chain mail, the longbow, and gunpowder.

I am arguing only that a "lost martial tradition" does not exist. This does not imply that there is no knowledge, nor that there is no rigour in the investigation. But IMO, the only time a real tradition appears is in the fencing studios. I quote, regarding I33, from the ARMA's own website on the manuscript: "The Royal Armories Fight Interpreters at Leeds, who had been studying the manuscript have expressed views that it contains fairly obvious basic techniques of the weapons as opposed to any complete methodology of fighting." Evidence of intelligence, investigation, yes. Evidence of a system, no.