it’d be hard to realistically compare them because both styles were designed due to different circumstances. Western sword styles were designed to combat heavily armored units, so they tend to favor power, while due to the lack and poor quality of japanese steel/armor, japanese sword styles favored quick strikes as targets were more often than not, lightly armored, so it’s a question that if you willingly chose to put the fighting styles against each other, whether or not the competition is lightly armored or heavy armored basically affect whose more likely to win the match.
Look, I just want to see the two styles fight. Balance issues and the context of why one style will be more effective are beyond any immediate concern. Let’s see some fucking moves.
Hell, there’s a video of me out there, though my face is covered, and I won’t link to it since it would essentially peg my location down to a specific town.
But, if you remove armor from the equation, and actually match swords with their equivalent (rather than just pointing at a longsword and a katana and saying “close enough”), there’s more equivalence than you’d expect.
It ends up coming down to how much cross training you’ve done. Which, that tends to go poorly for most kenjutsu guys. It’s not super common for them to train with other weapons, much less against them in resistant sparring. Back when I was training, HEMA hadn’t gotten as big as it has now, but even fencers tend to train against a wider range of opponents, and are willing (usually) to train between epee and saber fairly freely, so there’s a better grasp of adapting present.
But! Kenjutsu also tends to favor speed over power, and that has its benefits against someone that’s setting up a move with a heavier weapon. The fencers will still fuck you up, but not as bad as you’d think. The real problem against fencers is the fucking lunging. That shit is hard to counter with any of the Japanese sword styles (or that was the case for me). That’s double true if you’re dealing with structured rules rather than having full freedom.
Now, if you’ve trained with other weapons, you can adjust your technique on the fly easier, so you can negate some of the advantages of European style swords. But each type of sword comes with a basic set of training, a way of processing from noob to serious practitioner. Any weapon is like that. It the can take decades of training to get to the point where you’ve passed the need to follow a style with a given weapon because there’s mechanics of the body involved, and the brain takes time to really grasp it all.
Like, with a katana? I’d be fucked against any halfway serious fencer, or a serious HEMA fighter. I’m a dabbler with swords (despite the user name). I just don’t have mastery of the things, I’m at best a talented amateur (and I’d question the talent lol). Most of my focus with weapon training was actually knives. You put a knife in my hand, and I can make the damn thing sing and dance. Not so much with a sword.
But, yeah, hit YouTube, there’s footage of all kinds of mixed weapon sparring. It’s pretty damn fun to watch.
Find the episodes that cover the styles you want to see, and then figure out where to watch it. I think it’s on Prime Video right now. It’s a really fun show.
Western styles weren’t meant to combat heavily armored units. You aren’t getting through heavy armor with a sword. Unless you use it as a mace (mordhau) or use it as a dagger by half-swording(grabbing the middle of your blade to act more like a dagger) and getting through the squishy bits. At which point, why not use an actual dagger. Also, there are loads of manuals talking about fighting unarmored opponents while you are also not wearing armour.
Grabbing the sword at the middle point was a commonly used technique, as was striking with the pommel or crossbar. Real sword fights looked very different than what we see in movies. There’s a video out there that displays a lot of the actual techniques used by medieval knights, but unfortunately I can’t find it now. It was much more physical, brutal, and effective than the flashy techniques we’ve come to associate with swordfighting.
Well you said “you’re not getting through armor with a sword unless you do these things”, and I was saying “yes, those are things they commonly did”. So they are getting through armor with a sword because they did do those things.
They did those things only if they had to and there was no other way, as a “backup”. They used different weapons for that - maces, warhammers and such. Also, it was worth more to isolate the knight and capture them - so they could ransom them back or use their kit - the armor, weapons etc.
They absolutely aren’t a counter to heavily armoured opponents. Maces and hammers are.
fighting against armored opponents != fighting through armor, the fighting style is designed to target specific points that are exposed on armored opponents, making the style less practical against unarmored, hence like you mentioned, there’s a different manual on it. the fact that there’s a completely different manual on it shows the practicality of how different weapons are under different conditions, hence why there really isn’t any realistic scenario where it’s on any even playing field, because fixing the rules will give the edge to one style over the other.
I said different manual, but it is more of a “different chapter in the same book”. There is a shitload of practicioners of the unarmored parts - that’s what people train mostly as HEMA. “Armoured” fighting is more problematic since it often involves having to throw your opponent, or other dangerous shit. Also not many people can afford full plate / the plastic equivallent.
If you wanted to see a HEMA vs japanese martial arts, all it takes is getting two people who do each together.
it’d be hard to realistically compare them because both styles were designed due to different circumstances. Western sword styles were designed to combat heavily armored units, so they tend to favor power, while due to the lack and poor quality of japanese steel/armor, japanese sword styles favored quick strikes as targets were more often than not, lightly armored, so it’s a question that if you willingly chose to put the fighting styles against each other, whether or not the competition is lightly armored or heavy armored basically affect whose more likely to win the match.
Look, I just want to see the two styles fight. Balance issues and the context of why one style will be more effective are beyond any immediate concern. Let’s see some fucking moves.
People do it. There’s video out there.
Hell, there’s a video of me out there, though my face is covered, and I won’t link to it since it would essentially peg my location down to a specific town.
But, if you remove armor from the equation, and actually match swords with their equivalent (rather than just pointing at a longsword and a katana and saying “close enough”), there’s more equivalence than you’d expect.
It ends up coming down to how much cross training you’ve done. Which, that tends to go poorly for most kenjutsu guys. It’s not super common for them to train with other weapons, much less against them in resistant sparring. Back when I was training, HEMA hadn’t gotten as big as it has now, but even fencers tend to train against a wider range of opponents, and are willing (usually) to train between epee and saber fairly freely, so there’s a better grasp of adapting present.
But! Kenjutsu also tends to favor speed over power, and that has its benefits against someone that’s setting up a move with a heavier weapon. The fencers will still fuck you up, but not as bad as you’d think. The real problem against fencers is the fucking lunging. That shit is hard to counter with any of the Japanese sword styles (or that was the case for me). That’s double true if you’re dealing with structured rules rather than having full freedom.
Now, if you’ve trained with other weapons, you can adjust your technique on the fly easier, so you can negate some of the advantages of European style swords. But each type of sword comes with a basic set of training, a way of processing from noob to serious practitioner. Any weapon is like that. It the can take decades of training to get to the point where you’ve passed the need to follow a style with a given weapon because there’s mechanics of the body involved, and the brain takes time to really grasp it all.
Like, with a katana? I’d be fucked against any halfway serious fencer, or a serious HEMA fighter. I’m a dabbler with swords (despite the user name). I just don’t have mastery of the things, I’m at best a talented amateur (and I’d question the talent lol). Most of my focus with weapon training was actually knives. You put a knife in my hand, and I can make the damn thing sing and dance. Not so much with a sword.
But, yeah, hit YouTube, there’s footage of all kinds of mixed weapon sparring. It’s pretty damn fun to watch.
Here you go:
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1281313/
Find the episodes that cover the styles you want to see, and then figure out where to watch it. I think it’s on Prime Video right now. It’s a really fun show.
Edit: here’s the specific episode you’d probably be most interested in - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1362669/
Western styles weren’t meant to combat heavily armored units. You aren’t getting through heavy armor with a sword. Unless you use it as a mace (mordhau) or use it as a dagger by half-swording(grabbing the middle of your blade to act more like a dagger) and getting through the squishy bits. At which point, why not use an actual dagger. Also, there are loads of manuals talking about fighting unarmored opponents while you are also not wearing armour.
Grabbing the sword at the middle point was a commonly used technique, as was striking with the pommel or crossbar. Real sword fights looked very different than what we see in movies. There’s a video out there that displays a lot of the actual techniques used by medieval knights, but unfortunately I can’t find it now. It was much more physical, brutal, and effective than the flashy techniques we’ve come to associate with swordfighting.
You are literally saying the exact moves I mentioned in my comment. I practiced HEMA, I know.
Well you said “you’re not getting through armor with a sword unless you do these things”, and I was saying “yes, those are things they commonly did”. So they are getting through armor with a sword because they did do those things.
They did those things only if they had to and there was no other way, as a “backup”. They used different weapons for that - maces, warhammers and such. Also, it was worth more to isolate the knight and capture them - so they could ransom them back or use their kit - the armor, weapons etc.
They absolutely aren’t a counter to heavily armoured opponents. Maces and hammers are.
True. Some of those hammers were ingenuous too, with edges that looked like can opener blades.
fighting against armored opponents != fighting through armor, the fighting style is designed to target specific points that are exposed on armored opponents, making the style less practical against unarmored, hence like you mentioned, there’s a different manual on it. the fact that there’s a completely different manual on it shows the practicality of how different weapons are under different conditions, hence why there really isn’t any realistic scenario where it’s on any even playing field, because fixing the rules will give the edge to one style over the other.
I said different manual, but it is more of a “different chapter in the same book”. There is a shitload of practicioners of the unarmored parts - that’s what people train mostly as HEMA. “Armoured” fighting is more problematic since it often involves having to throw your opponent, or other dangerous shit. Also not many people can afford full plate / the plastic equivallent.
If you wanted to see a HEMA vs japanese martial arts, all it takes is getting two people who do each together.