Best Swordsman, Best Sword: Samurai vs. Medieval Knight: The Classic Debate

THE DEBATE

As a military historian and an active participant in a variety of martial arts for all of my adult life, I understand our need to debate. We debate because we are martial artists who favor one particular fighting style over another, often the one we have studied the most. We debate because we admire the person who taught us the martial arts and feel a need to further his or her legacy. We debate because of our interest in the historical uses of weaponry in single combat or mass armies. We debate for many other reasons, social and political. Our desire to debate and express our preferences is natural. We are social animals who have a natural need to belong to our particular group or community. Our backgrounds and past experiences have resulted in strong biases and the belief that the in-group to which we belong is better than the out-group. It is about us versus them. I say this not as an insult, but as a scholar and observer of social and military history.

The debate about the best swordsman and best sword, samurai vs. medieval knight, katana vs. longsword, is not new by any means. In fact, we can do a quick Google search and find page upon page of discussions, suggestions, and advice; some provocative and far-reaching, other futile and abusive when placing these historical warriors in situations so unlikely we might question even the need to debate them. What precisely do we argue? We argue that:

1. Samurai were better trained than medieval knights and therefore more well-rounded combatants. Formal training with a variety of weapons other than the sword made samurai swifter and more confident than medieval knights, who were sluggish in their heavy armor and had not focused as intently on hand-to-hand combat or been trained with the same discipline.

2. Knights had a clear advantage because, as opposed to the lighter samurai armor, the well-crafted armor worn by knights was particularly apt at protecting against the slashing cut of a sword.

3. Samurai were much more impressive than knights particularly in the eyes of Westerners, and might just have won the fight based on their fearsome reputation alone. Their smaller build and lighter armor also made them quicker than knights.

4. A knight's longsword was more versatile than a samurai's katana. It was effective for cutting and thrusting. A single thrust with a longsword through a samurai's flimsy armor would easily end the fight.

5. The katana was the sharpest sword ever crafted and could cut with ease through any type of armor, and could also cut a longsword in half.

6. Intense training made the samurai highly skilled warriors, who could swing their swords with precision and strike any small weakness in their opponent's armor. Even the sturdy armor of medieval knights had weaknesses, such as gaps around the joints to facilitate mobility.

7. The katana, no matter how sharp, could not cut through plate armor or chain mail, so a medieval knight in armor would always beat a samurai.

8. Knights would have the strategic advantage through the longer reach of their weapons, which prevented samurai from getting close enough to enact powerful cuts.

9. Whereas a knight's longsword was too heavy to wield with one hand, samurai trained with the katana for one-handed use, allowing them to wield two swords simultaneously, one in each hand. Samurai were also good at deception and could move away quickly from an opponent's attack line.

10. Samurai have received too much credit for their fighting skills. Hollywood motion pictures have made us believe that Asian fighters were surrounded by mystique.

11. While knights went on Crusades to faraway lands, Asia has never beaten Europe in any battle worth mentioning. Knights would have won over samurai hands down.

12. Knights were much bigger than samurai, had greater reach with their longer swords, and could strike with greater force against a samurai's weaker armor.

13. While the European longsword would get its edge nicked or break easily in battle, the katana was the best sword ever made and could cut through a cannon barrel.

14. Samurai had trained in sword battle since childhood and were well prepared to meet any challenge and unafraid to die. Knights were just common farmers recruited for a single campaign. They had families they wanted to return to and were not prepared to die.

15. Samurai were braver than knights, because they lived by a code of honor and understood that death could come at any time. Their training gave them courage to fight with intent to win even if it meant simultaneous death.

16. Japan was such a backward country, closed to Westerners for the longest time. While samurai fought other samurai, knights had combat experience against a wide range of warriors from countries in the Middle East, fighting with different kinds of weaponry.

17. Samurai were very agile and well-trained in hand-to-hand combat skills and takedowns. A knight who lost his balance or was taken to the ground was unable to get back to his feet due to his heavy and clumsy armor.

18. Knights were experienced in half-swording and thrusting the sword like a bayonet deep into an opponent's body. Unlike samurai, they was also experienced in grappling.

19. The katana would bend and stay bent upon impact with a knight's armor. The longsword, by contrast, was very flexible and would spring back to its original shape after impact with a samurai's armor.

20. The question is unanswerable since there are too many variables, and it is therefore useless to debate it.

Now that we have some idea of what has been said by others in this ongoing debate (you might even recognize some of the foregoing as something you have or would have argued), we will proceed with a systematic discussion with the intent of shedding light on those statements that are true and debunking others. To reach success, we should avoid basing our arguments on emotion, on passion alone, simply because we have studied kendo or other Asian martial arts or, conversely, the Western use of the longsword. To determine which sword was best, we must place it in context and test it in accord with the particular environment and political/military situation it was expected to meet. We must look at the debate holistically and ask not only which sword was better, but which sword was better in the hands of which swordsman.

As we proceed, keep in mind that a sword is essentially a tool designed to accomplish a specific task under specific circumstances. The trick lies in understanding the battlefield and choosing the right tool for the task. Just as we would not choose a screwdriver over a hammer for driving a nail into a wall, we would not choose a katana for fighting an opponent wearing plate armor and chain mail. But if the screwdriver was the only tool we had at our disposal at the time we needed to drive that nail into the wall, we would probably use it and be at least semi-successful.

PRELIMINARIES

OUR FASCINATION WITH SWORDS AND SWORDSMEN

Swords and swordsmen fascinate us, but why? When we hear the word samurai, what first comes to mind is probably the katana, or slightly curved razor sharp Japanese sword. But when we hear the word knight, what first comes to mind is probably not the European medieval longsword. We might think instead of heavily armored men on horses, or images of the Crusades might flash before our eyes. The Japanese samurai and European medieval knight tend to evoke portrayals of an honorable code of ethics or chivalric behavior. But this book is not about honor and ethics, chivalry and character; nor is it about self-actualization, all of which are qualities commonly attributed to the swordsmen of Japan and Europe, but that have likely been exaggerated through folklore and modern media. This book is about the brutality of the battlefield where men clashed in single combat with cold steel for the sole purpose of executing a killing blow against their opponent. Our purpose is to pit a samurai against a medieval knight to determine who proved to be the better swordsman, who wielded the better sword, and who came from the superior culture.

Modern motion pictures have contributed to our belief that samurai lived by an honorable code of ethics and were surrounded by mystique. Image source: Japanexperterna, reproduced under Creative Commons license.

As a treasured combat arm and symbol of identity, status, and courage, the sword has held a special place in most countries of the world. The sword was ready for use within the briefest of moments, proved effective for dispatching an opponent quickly, and was relatively robust. Since it lacked moveable parts, it was not apt to fail. As opposed to other non-projectile weapons, such as polearms, clubs, and axes, the sword was exceptionally practical through its light weight and ease of carry. Carrying projectile weapons, such as bows and arrows, on a daily basis was likewise a great deal more cumbersome than carrying a sword. The same could be said for a gun in the early modern era. Loading and reloading a firearm proved time consuming and highly ineffective.

Although the skills of a good marksman should not be trivialized, fighting with the sword has historically been viewed as more honorable than fighting with a firearm, perhaps particularly because of the close range at which battle took place. Combat with the sword also required considerable strength and endurance, and good use of movement and timing. The effectiveness of the sword, and ultimately how useful it was, depended on how well the swordsman moved his body. In contrast to the knife, the sword, as an extension of the arm, gave him a significant reach advantage while he retained the psychological power inherent to edged weapon warfare. The training required to master the sword and wield it with precision in the heat of battle propagated the belief that he was dedicated to his craft and was a man of considerable military skill. Since swords were carried only by the nobility in some eras, they were set apart from weapons carried by the commoners, which is yet a factor that has contributed to our fascination with swords and swordsmen.

Much has been said and written about the Japanese katana and perhaps even more about the European medieval longsword, not the least in the surviving original historical treatises. Attempts to compare the katana and longsword, or the samurai and knight, are also not totally foreign to us who study the combat arts. As we ponder the question, we have probably come to the conclusion that individual skill, rather than sword type or culture, stands behind the claimants to the title, Best Swordsman. But the answer is a bit more complex. Since the sword was designed primarily for close combat range between individual swordsmen fighting under very specific circumstances, many factors come into play when trying to determine whether the samurai or medieval knight would prove more effective in sword battle. We will explore these with intent of unveiling the details behind each swordsman's superiority in single combat to the death.

As an educational exercise for the mind (and for the body for those of us who actively study the combat arts), researching the question of individual and cultural superiority with the sword will bring insight into sword design and dynamics, physical requirements, and learned behaviors that influenced the swordsmen and their craft. Since a sword's usefulness was necessarily governed by the time and circumstance during which it was used and by the skill of the individual wielder, and since weapons did not serve a useful purpose unless they were integrated successfully in existing battlefield conditions, making a definite determination of which sword type was superior will prove challenging. As stated by historian Karl Friday, [t]he best military technology is not one that is superior in some absolute sense, but one that neutralizes an opponent's strengths and exploits his weaknesses. The weapons of a people tend to conform to those of their traditional enemies, to the missions for which they fight, and to the terrain on which they meet.[1] With this in mind, why should we care whether the samurai or knight proved the greater expert in sword battle when, to the best of our knowledge, they never met on the field of battle and never will?

There are two types of scholars on this subject: those who wish to prove that either Japan or Europe was superior in some absolute sense, and those who are more interested in contrasting Asia with the West for the purpose of acquiring insight into the complex web of world military history. Both do not have the same objective and are therefore not likely to reach the same conclusion. Regardless of which stand we take, studying Japanese swordsmanship can give us a greater understanding of European swordsmanship, and vice versa, and prevent us from using inappropriate methods of analysis that interfere with our appreciation of the fact that success in one area does not necessarily translate into success in another.[2] Viewing historical swordsmanship through both Asian and Western eyes, and challenging the common notions of either Asian or Western superiority, help us reach a greater appreciation not only for individual sword designs, but for what it took, physically and mentally, to battle with the sword while knowing that at least one of two combatants would die.

Although the exercise of pitting a samurai against a medieval knight is purely fictional, imagining this scenario prompts us to ask questions and think about and define our answers. It forces us to explore multiple options, place ourselves in the swordsmen's shoes, and imagine what they might have gone through. To understand the challenges they faced, ideas must be placed in perspective and be compared and contrasted. As underscored by seventeenth century Japanese master swordsman Miyamoto Musashi (c. 1584-1645), who studied and wrote about the fighting techniques of various schools, [u]nless you really understand others, you can hardly attain your own self-understanding.[3]

The intent of this book is thus to raise more questions than answers, to discern relationships between seemingly separate histories, and to lead us toward a broader horizon regarding historical swordsmanship. To reach our objective, we will discuss practical sword designs and their purposes, sword dynamics and the principles of physics, and common tactics of offense and defense.

WHAT THIS BOOK IS NOT

Now that we know something about the purpose of our studies, we will talk briefly about what this book is not. This book is not an instructional manual for learning Japanese or European medieval swordsmanship. It is not meant to tell us how to do specific techniques and does not contain hundreds of images detailing step-by-step instructions. Rather, it encourages us to think about the many nuances of swordsmanship in different terrains and cultural settings, and how a Japanese samurai might have acted and reacted had he crossed swords with a European medieval knight, and vice versa. It is of interest to those who have some experience practicing with the sword, but primarily to those who like to ponder the use of the sword in a historical context; neither for sports or to settle points of honor, nor for health or personal fulfillment, but on the battlefield where the objective was to kill the opponent. This book is not about a spiritual path leading to self-actualization, but about enlightenment through critical thinking, which means that the reader must participate in the thinking process.

As we proceed, consider that in martial arts as practiced today, many combat techniques and forms are overly ritualized and complex. In sword combat to the death, by contrast, the straightest and fewest moves possible were used to reach the objective. The tactics that the samurai and medieval knight chose were not about looking and feeling good, but about getting it done. They picked up the sword in defense of their king, master, or country, and were prepared to fight to the death.

Modern martial arts forms or kata with or without the sword can seem overly ritualized and complex, consisting of hundreds of individual moves and intricate patterns. Image source: Rodrigja, reproduced under Creative Commons license.

THE TRICK TO APPROACHING HISTORICAL SOURCES

In order to get the most out of a mentally challenging historical exercise, such as the one presented here, it helps to be aware of the different ways we approach historical sources, their limitations, and the biases that affect us. Historical sources bolster archaeological evidence, and vice versa, and the historian can cast new light on old facts and bring perspective to primary and secondary source materials. But since medieval sword battles took place hundreds of years ago and none of us was present to witness sword battle to the death, and since samurai and medieval knights never met on the battlefield, historians can obviously not provide live evidence of how such fights went down. Whatever statements we make and conclusions we draw are therefore only best attempts at interpreting the variety of source materials that exists, including artifacts, written accounts, and even personal attempts at recreating historical battles. Because of discrepancies in the historical record and the natural emergence of various biases, historians often disagree on how events transpired.

Many masters in Japan and Europe taught the art of swordsmanship. Japanese sword masters frequently disagreed with each other's teachings, as did European sword masters. This book does not elevate one master's approach over another's, but points out differences of opinion as they occur. Modern scholars are apt to find controversy in the analysis presented here. But controversy is good for the mind, as long as the mind is not closed to further debate, and is part of our fascination with the subject. Since swordsmanship is both a science and an art, scientific analysis alone cannot give proper credit to the art of swordsmanship, and art alone cannot make clear the underlying principles of science that make a swordsman effective with his weapon. Simultaneously, historical studies differ from scientific studies, because students of history often reach different conclusions based on personal perspectives and experiences. This is not a weakness, but an attribute that fuels critical thinking and helps us grow as historians.

When discussing history, then, we cannot rely on facts, numbers, and names alone, as this would prove meaningless unless we also discuss the context in which these are set, the surrounding circumstances, how people felt about it, and how they reacted as a result of their feelings. We must rely on a variety of evidence to piece the puzzle together, including oral stories, which often prove unreliable, because they are based on a person's memory and even willingness to tell the truth. Written records are likewise not necessarily factual or truthful, because they depend on what the person writing the record saw or desired to tell. The reader, too, carries part of the responsibility for his or her education and must be ready to meet the historian halfway.

As we ponder the material in this book, remember that history is a living entity. Any historical account can potentially bring us something unique. But unlike science, it does not follow precise rules and there is often no single correct answer. How we approach history is determined by our respective backgrounds, cultures, goals, desires, and passions. While some of us focus on studying the facts: what, when, and why it happened, and who was involved; others strive to reach practical solutions to issues affecting strategic excellence on the battlefield. Still others focus on studying the concepts of war in order to teach a moral or learn how to avoid future wars. We might question, for instance, whether certain actions were just or unjust, what could have been done differently in order to create a more desirable outcome, or what can be learned from the event and applied to future generations. We can also approach military history for the purpose of military history itself; in other words, to gain critical thinking skills that help us relate the past to the present and the simple to the complex. Our centers of attention, however, do not necessarily flow chronologically from old to new, from ancient to modern, but frequently relate to our current needs and interests.

Although we will use historical sources in our analysis, we must be wary of the fact that different interpretations exist. While men and women of our time have tried to reconstruct specific styles of swordsmanship to the best of our ability, we do not all agree on the details, but neither did the historical sword masters. Furthermore, since it is far more satisfying to write from the perspective of the victors, battle history is frequently viewed from the victors' perspective. As Westerners, we tend to study military history from the viewpoint of the West. But we should also question how it is studied in other parts of the world, what points are emphasized, and how victory and defeat are viewed in other cultures.

When exploring written records, it is prudent to question whether the source conveys how things were in general, or merely relates a particular person's point of view. Does Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings, for instance, truthfully portray how the samurai in general thought about swordsmanship and wielded their swords, or does it portray how Miyamoto Musashi thought about swordsmanship as merely one of many samurai? Although the Book of Five Rings can prove difficult to interpret, particularly when read by students in the West, who are unfamiliar with Eastern thought, the same can be said about the Western medieval sword treatises. Even when well translated, and although some of these treatises include pictures that help with interpretation, they are generally difficult to understand unless we have studied the sword extensively.

Once we become aware of our own biases and apply sound analysis rather than rely on a stubborn adherence to an agenda, we can