Japanese Sword Styles Vs Greek Sword Styles

jk13 · 28th April 2005, 12:12 PM

Which type of swordsmanship would win? That of the Japanese, or that of the Greeks(that whole region that used a short sword and shield. Spear being the primary weapon).

Sadly enough, I thought this up after watching Troy in class today. It got me pretty curious, and I would like to know your opinions.

**Light Samurai** · 28th April 2005, 12:16 PM

Of course, the samurai's primary weapon was the naginata, not the sword. Or so I've heard. Comparing both sword style sis like apples and oranges. anyway, kenjutsu and greek fighting styles are somewhat the same. All have the same guards, etc. This has already been mentioned in the knight vs. smaurai thread.

**MetalCrusade** · 28th April 2005, 01:38 PM

I hope you're not asking if Achilleus's made up sword fighting style done by Brad Pitt in Troy could best a samurai, cause then that's hollywood vs. reality.

**TylerY** · 28th April 2005, 01:43 PM

Weren't the Greeks known for organized phalanxes and not hand-to-hand sword fighting? I'm aware that they carried short stabbing swords in case something got past their phalanx, but there's no way a foot long stabbing dagger could best a katana.

**joekc6nlx** · 28th April 2005, 02:11 PM

I believe the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow. The naginata would have been used by samurai on foot, until it was relegated to the womenfolk of the samurai class.

The Greek sword could be quite murderous, but it's doubtful that an hoplite would have been able to get close to a samurai. The Greeks relied on strength in numbers, such as with the phalanx, whereas the samurai was more of a one-on-one fighter with a longer sword.

The pikes the Greeks used were very long, very unwieldy, and really were not designed for much more than thrusting at a limited range. A cut to the shaft of the pike would take care of the pike, and a slash to the throat would have taken care of the hoplite.

**KhawMengLee** · 28th April 2005, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by joekc6nlx

I believe the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow. The naginata would have been used by samurai on foot, until it was relegated to the womenfolk of the samurai class.

The Greek sword could be quite murderous, but it's doubtful that an hoplite would have been able to get close to a samurai. The Greeks relied on strength in numbers, such as with the phalanx, whereas the samurai was more of a one-on-one fighter with a longer sword.

The pikes the Greeks used were very long, very unwieldy, and really were not designed for much more than thrusting at a limited range. A cut to the shaft of the pike would take care of the pike, and a slash to the throat would have taken care of the hoplite.

Very hard to compare. The Samurai had very good steel blades and armour. Whereas the Greeks were using leather and bronze armour, so go figure what happens when you cut into it.

Then again, the battle comes down to the General and his tactics.

**Anjin-san** · 28th April 2005, 05:49 PM

They should make a game 'we really messed history up: Total War' so that we can see these comparisons. IRL we don't know who'd win a fight between a samurai and ghandi...

**Slade** · 28th April 2005, 09:01 PM

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression:

Naginata - women, or soldiers on horseback.
Spear - again on horse back, or foot soldier to repel enemies on horses
Bow - way in the back field to hit from a distance before the troops met face to face
Katana - certainly up close and personal now

So, wouldn't the ranks start with the horses closest to the enemy, then spear-wielding foot soldiers, then the samurai with their katanas and then the bowmen?

**h2o** · 28th April 2005, 09:15 PM

The "Martial-Art #1 vs Martil-Art #2" thread type is really not getting anything anywhere since the only thing you do is to compare apples and small furry creatures.

If weaponry and fighting style is to be compared, then please compare similar things. If I posted a "Who would win, a swedish Armoured battalion vs. an american squad of chefs (with no Steven Seagal, mind you)" you would consider me to be insane. A thread about "Who would win, a swedish armoured battalion vs. an american armoured battalion" is on the other hand a subject when to similar things are compared. (Swedes would win btw, it's been proved

)

So I vote for a real hard lock on this thread...

**El Gringo** · 28th April 2005, 09:57 PM

Sorry for continuing this thread but I had to butt in.

Please dont take any of the fight scences in Troy seriously, as far as accuracy goes it's way off the mark. At the moment very little is known about the actual fighting styles and tactics that were used during that period since the only real evidence we have is Homer and a few paintings on the side of pots (the paintings being 2d give very little insight into formation and tactics).

On the other hand we do know a fair bit about phalanx warfare, which was used in classical Greece to just after Alexander the Great, there is a very long period of history separating classical Greece and the dark ages (which homer wrote about). From my knowledge I dont think that hoplite warfare, at least when it comes to using swords, could be called a martial art. Their methods of fighting involved large numbers of people and the training involved not so much how to kill, but how to stay in formation and overpower the enemy. Two phalanxes fighting would have been more of a pushing match than actual killing, which as far as my knowledge goes is very differrent to the kind of violence that happend when two samurai met. Hence there is no point comparing two fighting systems that are so different, one was created for one-on-one, or small scale fighting, the other was for large units only. The phalanx system relies on the fact that the phalanx sticks together, if it got separated the men often routed or got killed.

Sorry for the long post, but I did an Ancient history degree and just could hold back the rant.

**Frame** · 28th April 2005, 10:02 PM

samurai just did small scale fighting? I heard threre was something about a "warring states period"......maybe possibly?

**Anjin-san** · 28th April 2005, 10:39 PM

Also, samurai did black samurai ninja magic as well, how are you going to factor that into your calculations? Haven't you seen big trouble in little china?

**CryingFreeman** · 28th April 2005, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by h2o

The "Martial-Art #1 vs Martil-Art #2" thread type is really not getting anything anywhere since the only thing you do is to compare apples and small furry creatures.

If weaponry and fighting style is to be compared, then please compare similar things. If I posted a "Who would win, a swedish Armoured battalion vs. an american squad of chefs (with no Steven Seagal, mind you)" you would consider me to be insane. A thread about "Who would win, a swedish armoured battalion vs. an american armoured battalion" is on the other hand a subject when to similar things are compared. (Swedes would win btw, it's been proved

)

So I vote for a real hard lock on this thread...

The swedish armoured battalion may best the american armoured battalion but the american squad of chefs will cut them to shreds and use them to make beef burgers for the fast food industry

**damon4130** · 28th April 2005, 11:05 PM

I have a MA in the Bronze Age archaeology of Mycenaean Greece and Anatolia (modern Turkey, where Troy is). It's questionable if there has actually been a war, described as in Homer's Iliad (I would love to think so). In Hittite written history there is something written about a dispute between the Ahhiyawa (Aichaiwoi = Myceneans = Greek) and Wilusa (Wilios = Ilios = Troy), but I doubt if this war lasted for ten years. The weaponry used around that time doesn't even remotely resemble the weaponry we can see in the movie Troy. Achilles stabs his components with a sword that can only be used for cutting. And if he was a historical person, he would have been Mycenaean and carried Mycenaean arms: a very long sword (much more like a streched dagger, about 5ft) which would only be useful to stab your oponent. Stuki, if you like... And there is some knowledge about tactics in that era. Around 1274 BC there was a major battle between the Hittites and the Egyptian Faraoh Ramses II in Kadesj (modern Syria) which is fairly well described by both parties: most important seemed to be the charriot (a bit like an old tank) and only bow and javelin were used by the ones who were driving it. The invanterist (who seem to haven't had any tactics, considering the fact that the Hittites started looting the Egyptian camp before the battle was even half way) must have carried the javelin as well as the sword...which was made of bronze, so I'd go for the folded steel Katana, no doubt. What I find peculiar is that the producers of Troy claim that they used historians and archaeologists for research and advice; I'd love to have a little chat with them, cause something went very wrong. The story has absolutely nothing to do with Homer's Iliad!