07-27-2006, 04:11 PM
Some of the Viking swords are considered big and bulky compared to the samurai sleek sword but if you’re fighting for hours on end against Roman metal helmets, not laminated wood or wicker like the Japanese, then the Viking sword has its advantages. The larger bulky sword can take a lot of punishment, meaning that after you’ve hacked away for hours and the blade isn’t that sharp anymore you can still kill or maim with a good swing, the momentum of the heavy sword packs more of a punch.
The samurai sword after hours of smashing against the metal rim of Roman shields or metal helmets will become blunt, then what? Its not a stabbing sword, it doesn’t have that much kinetic energy because of it weight and being thin and slender it can snap from a side blow easier (yes they can) metal is metal, even current metal can snap from a hard side impact. The samurai doesn’t have any protective armor that worth talking about, so unless he can get past a mass of screaming, armored Romans quickly, he's lost.
Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. The swords evolved for a particular use and style of fighting. The Samurai is great for attacking people dressed in wood and wicker, their style is aggressive, chop, chop, chop. They don’t really have any formal defense. Their style is fast, aggressive, kill and move on, which has its advantages. Even fighting someone in armor, they might slaughter them. A good samurai could get the sword in to the killing spots of someone armored and make short work of them. But again we’re talking one on one fighting
Rome’s legions didn’t fight one on one; they fought as a single unit. Imagine a wall of samurai against a wall of veteran cohorts. What the samurai are used to seeing is a wall of targets where any blow could cut through the armor (wood and wicker) and deliver a killing blow, but against the Romans, their first blows hit shields as the roman soldier is plowing into them with their shields. The samurai could hack away some more but against what, metal armor and metal helmets, sure their blows are going to hurt and possible break bones but are they killing shots? All the while the Romans are just trying to get close because their short little stabbing swords are going to pierce the armor of the samurai and oops, one less samurai. The samurai is a great killing machine designed for its environment but against armored Romans legions, they’re out of their element.
Now of course one Roman against one samurai might be a different story. One of my hobbies is epee fencing; I’ve also fought kendo (Japanese sword fighting). If I had to choose who I’d be in the scenario, I’d it pick the samurai, even though I’m a roman soldier at heart. I’ve always believed that the mobility and coordination of a good fighter could overcome brute force, even with armor. I’d run circles around him until I found the right time to strike at a distance with the long sword.
“to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statementâ€
The samurai sword after hours of smashing against the metal rim of Roman shields or metal helmets will become blunt, then what? Its not a stabbing sword, it doesn’t have that much kinetic energy because of it weight and being thin and slender it can snap from a side blow easier (yes they can) metal is metal, even current metal can snap from a hard side impact. The samurai doesn’t have any protective armor that worth talking about, so unless he can get past a mass of screaming, armored Romans quickly, he's lost.
Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. The swords evolved for a particular use and style of fighting. The Samurai is great for attacking people dressed in wood and wicker, their style is aggressive, chop, chop, chop. They don’t really have any formal defense. Their style is fast, aggressive, kill and move on, which has its advantages. Even fighting someone in armor, they might slaughter them. A good samurai could get the sword in to the killing spots of someone armored and make short work of them. But again we’re talking one on one fighting
Rome’s legions didn’t fight one on one; they fought as a single unit. Imagine a wall of samurai against a wall of veteran cohorts. What the samurai are used to seeing is a wall of targets where any blow could cut through the armor (wood and wicker) and deliver a killing blow, but against the Romans, their first blows hit shields as the roman soldier is plowing into them with their shields. The samurai could hack away some more but against what, metal armor and metal helmets, sure their blows are going to hurt and possible break bones but are they killing shots? All the while the Romans are just trying to get close because their short little stabbing swords are going to pierce the armor of the samurai and oops, one less samurai. The samurai is a great killing machine designed for its environment but against armored Romans legions, they’re out of their element.
Now of course one Roman against one samurai might be a different story. One of my hobbies is epee fencing; I’ve also fought kendo (Japanese sword fighting). If I had to choose who I’d be in the scenario, I’d it pick the samurai, even though I’m a roman soldier at heart. I’ve always believed that the mobility and coordination of a good fighter could overcome brute force, even with armor. I’d run circles around him until I found the right time to strike at a distance with the long sword.
“to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statementâ€
Steve
