Best Swordsman, Best Sword: Samurai vs. Medieval Knight

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

BUY