Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Автор обсуждения пометил сообщение как ответ на свой вопрос.
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
For the most part the average knight vs knight fight ends with them falling on eachother and crushing eachother with the weight of their armor. There were also at best 10 heavy knights for every several hundred lighter equipped soldiers, predominantly wearing leather armor and a helmet.
When Japan did engage in conscription practices every single peasant conscript had lamellar scale armor.
Furthermore, europeans tended to target and destroy smiths as strategic resources. So the average sword was unnecessarily broad and wide due to the unskilled smiths producing them, who often did little more than pour steel into a mold. If they were especially talented or knowledgeable they might heat temper the blade, but more often they weren’t and any form of quenching would shatter the blade.
I don't care about your dismissive emotional disposition. Roll away.
I actually expect it, because you spend 99% of your time on this forum arguing with someone.
Sabre, longsword and rapier against katana, two rounds each. 6-0 to Europe.
Chain mail is basically terrible and doesn’t provide protection from swords. Just cutting edges and knives. It did okay on Assyrian cataphracts, but they were wearing like four or five layers of the stuff and couldn’t actually move without their horse.
Even then it wasn’t that effective against spears or even just clubs.
Normans could give most people a run for their money, and did. Often people with superior equipment and numbers, as they focused primarily on the reliability of their standardized equipment over the kinds of cost matching practices which led to leather men at arms with maces and shields fighting armored knights too financially valuable to actually kill.
Also since spearmen tend to be the be all end all of conflicts samurai’s superior spear design would likely provide an edge, as the yari often had lengths which rivaled pikes but were light and versatile enough to be used in melee.
Chain was effective against swords, it wasn't good against crushing or piercing, but used additional materiel like a padded gambeson when wearing the mail. Could you thrust a sword through the mail, yes, although swords used by the Japaneses were not the most efficient design for it. Bodkin arrow were specifically designed to penetrate chain, if you look at the arrow you will see it is long an narrow, to penetrate the links in the mail.
I hate this example, but it does get the point across. The reality is the sword should be slightly more effective if hit had a body underneath to increase the impact, and a few rinds would be damaged by being hit.
https://youtu.be/RFu11mSutd0
Without something to spread and homogenize the force, like a cuirass, the edge of the sword impacting the armor would act as a wedge to direct force down and into the body.
Also most samurai armor was built around a plate cuirass, particularly for lords and heavy shock troops. The swords were able to stand up to repeated impacts on such surfaces, although the articulated joints of the early renaissance never became particularly common due to iron scarcity and a focus on mounted combat. Which articulated plate still couldn’t defend against. So targeting joints in the armor was just as common as during the hundreds of years of history where full back and front protection didn’t exist. As compared to the little one to two hundred year pocket where it did during the late gothic era.
Again, a thin sturdy sword provides a viable blunt edge against armor for all the same reasons a flanged mace or a pick did.
No it wasn't. Japanese metal was trash. They were built thick to resist bending when impacted. This is also why a 28" blade is as heavy as a European longsword with a 40" blade, while being less likely to be usable after hitting it against something. You sure as heck won't be "cleaving helmets" with it either.
The extra length of european blades meant that less than half of the edge was usable for cutting, known as the forte.
The extra length was only really useful for poking at lightly armored targets over the shoulders of shieldmen, as any impact or contact with another blade past the forte was guaranteed to snap or bend the entire blade.
Helmet cutting is a time honored practice, and a demonstration of skill. Not everyone could do it, but it was common enough and there are many historical accounts of it occurring on the battlefield. It requires a 45 degree angle of contact, and essentially isn’t possible with a straight blade due to its more fragile construction. Although there are some (dubious) accounts of famous knights with wootz steel swords accomplishing it. Most of which were curved.
It’s the hardest if you don’t know how steel works, didn’t bloom your own, and probably didn’t have properly made steel. There were several times that influential warlords decided that destroying the steel industry to gain dominance was worth the cost, so simple things like understanding steel temperatures was beyond the average smith.
The same is fundamentally true of europeans as well, and as such the arming sword was almost twenty times as common as the longsword.
The short length helped make up for their awful steel industry.
I hate to break it to you, but you're not cutting a plate steel helmet, with any sword. And longswords didn't easily break or bend, at least not permanently. They were tempered like a spring, designed to be flexible to absorb impacts that would otherwise permanently bend an inferior Japanese weapon, which used steel closer resembling what Romans used in Europe 1,000 years before any knights appeared.
I’m afraid europe repeatedly destroyed its steel industry as well as the steel industry of their neighbors, and that at many time periods used steel so bad it was less effective than regular wrought iron would have been. It was more likely for the blade to bend and for the tip to snap off and spring away.
Again, the average samurai helmet was equal to the best examples of european plate helmets, and achieved that status hundreds of years before them. The historical accounts are quite clear, and many still practice helmet cutting today.
Yeah, if you want an example of the kind of horse a knight would have had, look up the Percheron. They are the embodiment of raw power.