Forums of the Megaverse®

Knight vs Samurai


and what's this, a sequal? Knight vs Samurai 2


Hillarious to watch.

Be much more convincing if the samurai wasn't rhino-hiding the few blows the knight bothered to take.

Personally, I just love how the "knight" starts crying at the end of each video.

I would pay a good sum of money to see that guy try that with any long time SCAer. Now that would have been funny. Here is a little fact that i have witnessed personally. I have a friend who has a very nice katana that he bought for him self to celebrate getting his 4th don. (Not one of those stainless steel pieces of crap) And i own a really nice suit of chain that i made. We put my chain shirt up on our pell. (a pell is a big stake or wooden dummy put in the ground for sword practice.) It took a lot of convincing, but we got My friend to test his blade on my chain mail. Well i have to say it did split a few links. (my chain mail is of the older style not riveted a 5 in one pattern). But that was it, I was willing to put the shirt on and let him take another swing. But he refused and spent the rest of the day rehoning in his sword and moping .That was just chain. Now some samurai might have been been good enough to get through a suit of plate. But i keep my doughts.

macksting wrote:I've heard rumor that the extent to which an individual sword was valued, and the extent to which Japanese traditional combat forgoes armor, was due to the same lack of natural resources which led to expansion into the Pacific in and prior to WWII.
Would this, perhaps, be true?

No, no truth.

I wouldn't exactly call them rumours.

There was, hisotrically, a lack of quality iron available in Japan. This is in part what makes the sword smiths of Japan seem so magical, they were able to, through their folding process, create blades that overcame the lack of good quality iron. In europe, with lots of good iron around, any blacksmith could make decent quality swords.

As for the lack of armour, I'm not sure wit was so much a lack of material, but a recognization that any armour sufficient to keep out a sword was going to be so heavy, expensive and cumbersome as to be effectively useless to fighers who relied on speed and skill to the extend the Japanese tended to. As a result armour was built to provide "enough" protection, with a focus on retaining mobility.

As sharp as a katana was, I don't think a slice attack would be the best choice. Most of what I have seen of the Katana seems to focus on chopping manouvres.

So . . when do we see a pirate vs ninja movie?

Jefffar wrote:I wouldn't exactly call them rumours.

There was, hisotrically, a lack of quality iron available in Japan. This is in part what makes the sword smiths of Japan seem so magical, they were able to, through their folding process, create blades that overcame the lack of good quality iron. In europe, with lots of good iron around, any blacksmith could make decent quality swords.

Not exactly true, as the European smiths had to use the welding process to overcome the impurities in their ore (typically bog iron), where as the problem with iron ore in Japan is the high phosphorous content, which makes brittle steel. There was no lack of iron ore in Japan, it was just more expensive to make good quality steel.

As for the lack of armour, I'm not sure wit was so much a lack of material, but a recognization that any armour sufficient to keep out a sword was going to be so heavy, expensive and cumbersome as to be effectively useless to fighers who relied on speed and skill to the extend the Japanese tended to. As a result armour was built to provide "enough" protection, with a focus on retaining mobility.

No. The reason for light armor was due to the switch from cavalry combat to foot warfare. And you can throw that nonsense about making armor sufficient to keep out a sword right out the window. The Japanese used everything up to and including plate armor, not too mention specializing in styls that were arrow-proofed, spear-proofed, or shot-proofed (ironically, you can't effectively do these in the same armor, so something proofed against one type of weapon is less effective against other types of weapons).

heretic888 wrote:Personally, I found the videos amusing in pretty much every way.

As with most of these comparisons, they compare a "samurai" from the peaceful Edo Jidai with no armor and a "gentleman's weapon" (the katana) against a "knight" in full-plate armor with a shield. Delightful.

Sorry, but the Katana developed during the Sengoku Jidai as a result of the switch from mounted combat to foot combat. Not exactly a "gentleman's weapon."

Why is it that none of these samurai in such comparisons are ever sporting full yoroi armor and wielding what was by far the most common weapon on feudal Japanese battlefields, the dai-kyu??

A) Because they switched to Do-Maru armor, and B) The Yari was more common than the Daikyu.

When things did get down to melee, spears and polearms were the Japanese weapon of choice, not swords.

Then why are you talking about bows? If that was the case, why not throw English Longbowman up against Samurai Archers? Why aren't we seeing mounted knights with lances vs mounted samurai with bow and spear? Because people want to compare the sword & armor conflict.

In fact, the whole adulation of the katana really didn't take place until the Edo Jidai, when the samurai stopped doing silly little things like fighting in wars.

Yeah, like the Shimabara no Ran, gotta love that war with the Christians.

At that point, it had become moreso a symbol of status than anything else.

Not quite true, but close enough.

Geez.

My thoughts exactly.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I wouldn't exactly call them rumours.

There was, hisotrically, a lack of quality iron available in Japan. This is in part what makes the sword smiths of Japan seem so magical, they were able to, through their folding process, create blades that overcame the lack of good quality iron. In europe, with lots of good iron around, any blacksmith could make decent quality swords.

Not exactly true, as the European smiths had to use the welding process to overcome the impurities in their ore (typically bog iron), where as the problem with iron ore in Japan is the high phosphorous content, which makes brittle steel. There was no lack of iron ore in Japan, it was just more expensive to make good quality steel.

And, to further cast Jeffar in disrepute, there's the fact that the Romans consistently failed to make a decent blade over 3' in length until they co-opted some German technology and learned pattern-welding.

Kusu, I said there was a lack of quality iron, not a lack of iron.

Late classical and early medieval european iron working was indeed limited by the qualiy of the iron, but by the late medieval and reniessance period those issues had been mostly resolved. Unless we are taking about swords made in the first millenium, my statement still holds.

Mr Nexx, the events you are talking about occured (to my understanding) centuries prior to the development of the Katana. Let's not compare a brown bess to an M-16 here.

Incidently, the Romans favoured short swords for use in their densly packed formations. The short sword could be thrust aroudn the edges of the sheld without interfering with the shied or the shield of the man beside you. This allowed Roman formations to be siginfigantly denser than their Celtic and German adversaries who had to swing their long swords around. The ability to put more men into the important section of the battle is very much a contributer to the roman dommination of Classical Europe.

It also allowed them to push their shield against the body of their adversary, neutralizing their weapon while their short sword would stab around the shield at vitals.

Jefffar wrote:Mr Nexx, the events you are talking about occured (to my understanding) centuries prior to the development of the Katana. Let's not compare a brown bess to an M-16 here.

Bah. What's a few centuries among friends?

Incidently, the Romans favoured short swords for use in their densly packed formations. The short sword could be thrust aroudn the edges of the sheld without interfering with the shied or the shield of the man beside you. This allowed Roman formations to be siginfigantly denser than their Celtic and German adversaries who had to swing their long swords around. The ability to put more men into the important section of the battle is very much a contributer to the roman dommination of Classical Europe.

Yes, but it also meant that their cavalry sucked... thus their preference for Celtic, German, and other non-Roman cavalry.

I was always of the impression that living in a mountanous country with few wide flat areas was a major reason the Roman cavalry didn't do so well.

Besides, in the classical period, the weapon of the calvary was the spear or bow. The celts and germans faught on foot. What german warriors were mounted would typically leap from their horses into the enemy formation. Some celts used chariots, but again the weapons of the charioteers were spear and bow.

Jefffar wrote:I was always of the impression that living in a mountanous country with few wide flat areas was a major reason the Roman cavalry didn't do so well.

The Appeninnes aren't that bad, especially on that west side.

Besides, in the classical period, the weapon of the calvary was the spear or bow. The celts and germans faught on foot. What german warriors were mounted would typically leap from their horses into the enemy formation. Some celts used chariots, but again the weapons of the charioteers were spear and bow.

Somewhat. They did prefer a longer sword for close combat, which the Romans simply weren't capable of making.

Strangely enough, once the Romans had the capability to make that sword, they still didn't spend much time and effort on developing an effective roman cavalry. Auxilliaries and Mercenaries were still the way to go.

Obviously there was something more that kept effective cavalry from the armies of classical Rome other than the length of their swords.

TheWarriorPoet wrote:As a student of Western Martial Arts; I feel I must advocate for a certain point.

The commonly held concept of the western styles of swordsmanship as clonky thwacking when set against the japanese disciplines is utter hogwash. To pit them against one another is truly odd . . . as the Japanese katana was a cutting weapon in a society where the majority of armor was leather and wood.

Counterpoint: The commonly held misconception of Japanese warfare has the majority of armor as leather and wood. The majority of of Japanese armor is leather and metal, in fact "wood" armor doesn't historically exist in Japan at all.

The purpose of both chain and plate are to deflect cutting attacks. It is for this reason why the longsword was replaced largely as a sidearm by maces andd hammers as the battlefield weapon towards the end of the middle ages.

In addition to this; Western styles were dynamic; graceful, and damned deadly when mastered. There were hundreds of different schools of thought on the matter; though they've seen far less preservation then the eastern schools.

Actually, one of the major problems I've seen in Western (and Middle Eastern, and African, and North American, and South American) styles, in addition to the lack of preservation, is the lack of formalized structure (particularly for styles outside of Europe). When it comes to reconstructing these styles today, we're left with this as a major problem in deciding just exactly what they did back in the day.

In the end; it is neither the sword; nor the style that wins the battle. But the swordsman. A lousy samurai would get his arse whipped by a good knight; and vise versa. skill has more to do with any of it then superiority of style.

True to a degree, but you're forgetting the corollary, a superior style will whip a lousy style, all other things being equal. Does this mean that Asian, particularly Japanese styles, are inherently superior to western styles? Certainly not, but race/location issues asside, a style that just can't cut it as well as another style isn't going to be around long.

And yes; I allow english knights to have minor rune weapons similer to the living samurai sword.

Personally, I dumped the entire concept of "living samurai sword" in my games entirely. There are many reasons for it, but in short, there's no reason for the "living samurai swords" in the first place.

Personally, I dumped the entire concept of "living samurai sword" in my games entirely. There are many reasons for it, but in short, there's no reason for the "living samurai swords" in the first place.

Word of advice WarriorPoet, don't ever get Kuseru started on this one. You will probably end up with a thesis longer than most doctorates.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Personally, I dumped the entire concept of "living samurai sword" in my games entirely. There are many reasons for it, but in short, there's no reason for the "living samurai swords" in the first place.

Besides, everyone knows there's no such thing as Japanese culture, anyway.

Jefffar wrote:As sharp as a katana was, I don't think a slice attack would be the best choice. Most of what I have seen of the Katana seems to focus on chopping manouvres.

You would be incorrect entirely about this. Most Katana moves are slicing and not hacking.

If the Katana was so oriented to slicing manouvers, why are all the Katana tests and demonstrations I've heard of or witnesed involve chopping through something (or someone)?

A slice, unless you hit an area with a lot of shallow vital things - ie the neck - isn't going to bring an opponent down or more than inconvienience them. A slice is also not going to have the oomph behind it to get through any sort of armour. I will credit a slice with being able to set up a follow up finishing stroke - which will typically be a chop or thrust - but the slice itself will rarely dispatch a foe.

Because fightign with a katana wasn't banging it out like you see in the movies. It is a lot more about one to two strokes leading to death. If you have ever heald an actual katana you would know that it really isn't an efficient tule for hacking. It is much closer to a razor blade than machete.

Any of the experts who posted in the last 2 weeks since I made the disputed statement who didn't call me on it before have anything to say?

greese, you seem to think that I mean a chopping attack is clumsy large attack that attempts to drive through a limb or decapitate the opponent. It need not be. A chop is a hit nearly perpendicular to the cutting surface in an attmept to drive deeper into th opponent than merely drawing the bade along the surface would be. A chop would often be followed up by a slicing action to extend the wond as the blade was slid lengthwise out. This is the form of attack I see th Katana making at its most deadly.

I wanst refering to movie fighting with the Katana (since all Katana movies I've seen have been western and use the sameset of moves I see in longsword fight scenes I allready discounted them). I was reffering to historical texts describing the test of a high quality katana involving cutting through entire human bodies (often condemned criminals). The most comon demonstrations of Katanas these days involve rolled bamboo matting being attacked in a chop-then slice manouvre.

I was also refring to the fact that, except in a totally unarmoured opponent, a slice attack isn't a combat ender. It may set up a finishing move but it generlly lacks the capability to put a foe down permenantly unles you can specifically target some very small vulnerable points. A chop, penerating deaper into the body, followed by the slicing action of sliding the blade through the wound, is a much more devastating strike.

Jefffar wrote:Any of the experts who posted in the last 2 weeks since I made the disputed statement who didn't call me on it before have anything to say?

It's your time to waste.

Jefffar wrote:Any of the experts who posted in the last 2 weeks since I made the disputed statement who didn't call me on it before have anything to say?

greese, you seem to think that I mean a chopping attack is clumsy large attack that attempts to drive through a limb or decapitate the opponent. It need not be. A chop is a hit nearly perpendicular to the cutting surface in an attmept to drive deeper into th opponent than merely drawing the bade along the surface would be. A chop would often be followed up by a slicing action to extend the wond as the blade was slid lengthwise out. This is the form of attack I see th Katana making at its most deadly.

I wanst refering to movie fighting with the Katana (since all Katana movies I've seen have been western and use the sameset of moves I see in longsword fight scenes I allready discounted them). I was reffering to historical texts describing the test of a high quality katana involving cutting through entire human bodies (often condemned criminals). The most comon demonstrations of Katanas these days involve rolled bamboo matting being attacked in a chop-then slice manouvre.

I was also refring to the fact that, except in a totally unarmoured opponent, a slice attack isn't a combat ender. It may set up a finishing move but it generlly lacks the capability to put a foe down permenantly unles you can specifically target some very small vulnerable points. A chop, penerating deaper into the body, followed by the slicing action of sliding the blade through the wound, is a much more devastating strike.

Well, yes, you are going to have to make contact with the target with some level of force to enter. It is impossible to not to chop a little before you slice...and if you are going to hit you might as well hit hard...however that is not where the damage comes from with a katana, it comes with the slice.

It would appear that you have ended nothing. I will of course state now that a katana is clearly a superior artistic fighting weapon. As I was fond of telling the fencers I knew in university. "You take A real verstion of you fencing weapon and I shall take a katana, we see who give up first." Now that being said that is not a Broad Sword, which is a comparable weapon. Personally I not convinced on artistic control on a broad sword.

I have to agree that a Katana is not a Chopping weapon but a slicing weapon, disagreements of this have more to do with how it cuts over where it cuts. A chopping weapon is pure trauma, it make nice big wound and honestly not concerned with cutting through bodies, it mass that does the real work not the edge the edge general just need to sort of cut throughout the target. A slicing weapon is focused on it ability to cut through bodies and limbs, it much more about edge than mass, it cuts through without slowing down because of its edge being very sharp. There is a real simple test for such things, use a pillow, if you cut through you have slicing weapon if you don't you have a chopping weapon. if I am ever rich enough I want to use both weapons on ballistic jelly and see the trauma difference, I think there be some very interesting data between the two.

Saitou Hajime wrote:It would appear that you have ended nothing. I will of course state now that a katana is clearly a superior artistic fighting weapon. As I was fond of telling the fencers I knew in university. "You take A real verstion of you fencing weapon and I shall take a katana, we see who give up first." Now that being said that is not a Broad Sword, which is a comparable weapon. Personally I not convinced on artistic control on a broad sword.

However, modern western fencing weapons rarely have little in comon with functional, traditional weapons. A katana, or similar full weight blade would simply bend those blades back upon themselves.

A true rapier on the other hand, is more than a match artistically for the Katana, being both lighter and more agile. It is aosl strong enough to withstand a Katana's blows (unles the Katana master really wound up, but while he was busy preparing tof such a strike the rapier wuld be poking him in various tender spots).

Other traditional western swords did have an art to them, but this art was tempered by the need to muscle such blades around to deliver the power nceissary to deliver crushing blows armour. In skilled hands, a european style longsword's pommel and crossguards were used to great offensive effect and it was not uncommon for the wielder to use the blade as a handle.

It was also not uncomon to use enveloping and grapling manouvres with such a blade to close and deliver hand, elbow, knee and foot strikes or takedowns.

darkmax wrote:

macksting wrote:Where were battles most often fought? Did the terrain vary greatly, or were strategic locations more often of conducive landscape? Or of very challenging landscape?

Generally Japanese civil battles were fought in forested areas.

Actually they were generally fought on plains, mountain basins, valleys, some sea and coastal battles, and along or across rivers.

darkmax wrote:Japanese blades if masterfully tempered, will be able to cut through a certain amount of steel! This is proven.

May we have a source for this, please. the only video I personally know of that features a Japanese Katana cutting through metal is old WWII propaganda films. the kicker is that when the "Neo-Samurai" warrior slashes through a machingun barrel like its bamboo, the machingun barrel was made out of bamboo. Please give such information as if it is a cutting type attack or a thrust and the type/thickness of the steel.

I am not saying that a Japanese style blade will not go through metal as I own a Cold Steel Kobun and it can be Icepicked through a car door without breaking the tip.

Rockwolf66 wrote:

darkmax wrote:Japanese blades if masterfully tempered, will be able to cut through a certain amount of steel! This is proven.

May we have a source for this, please. the only video I personally know of that features a Japanese Katana cutting through metal is old WWII propaganda films. the kicker is that when the "Neo-Samurai" warrior slashes through a machingun barrel like its bamboo, the machingun barrel was made out of bamboo. Please give such information as if it is a cutting type attack or a thrust and the type/thickness of the steel.

I am not saying that a Japanese style blade will not go through metal as I own a Cold Steel Kobun and it can be Icepicked through a car door without breaking the tip.

Do a search for "Kabuto Wari" books or videos, especially from masters like Toshiro Obata or Saruta Mitsuhiro. You might be able to find some videos on the internet showing them cutting into helmets, but you're more likely just to find pics.

darkmax wrote:Does anyone know what is the most expensive Katana ever sold?

I've never really thought about, because the answer is much more complex than it would seem at first glance. I can state that an average "historical" katana can range in price anywhere from $3000 to $20,000, and I've seen reports of several that sold in the millions range, but between fraud, auctions, and technical differences, you'd be hard pressed to find out, and additionally, the price a katana gets on the market may not reflect its actual value.

It is owning a part of history.

greese1 wrote:It is owning a part of history.

So is buying old cheese.

MrNexx wrote:

greese1 wrote:It is owning a part of history.

So is buying old cheese.

But katanas usually smell better

Jefffar wrote:

MrNexx wrote:

greese1 wrote:It is owning a part of history.

So is buying old cheese.

But katanas usually smell better

But aren't nearly as strong.

Jefffar wrote:So . . when do we see a pirate vs ninja movie?

here
and here

Picking up an earlier point, the Romans never developed "effective" cavalry because the stirrup didn't come to Europe until much later (~600 or 800, I believe, but if you press I can look it up).

Anyway, effective shock combat cavalry forces need to use stirrups. And really big saddles. The Roman cavalry was a scout/archery force because they had little tiny saddles and no stirrups. If they fought close they'd get knocked off and killed.

Other than that, weapons are usually optimized in short order. The Roman Gladius was the best weapon for what they had to do and how they did it. The Broadsword was the best sidearm weapon for the western Europeans and how they fought (mainly they used polearms and bows). Later they graduated to the lighter rapier as armor disappeared (firearms). The Katana was the best sidearm for what the Japanese were doing at the time.

Even after stirrups came to Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire (which continued to exist until 1451) generally employed mercenary cavalry and focuesed thier own cavalry forces on skirmishing, reconascience and archery forces.

The Romans/Byzantines realized, that even in the medieval era, quality infantry forces usually trumped cavalry forces in battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

They made it insanely easier to control horses

Spectre wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

They made it insanely easier to control horses

As well as the only practical way to hit something with a melee weapon when on horseback.

darkmax wrote:The Mongols and the Xiongnu (Huns) did very well with their archers and fightings on horsebacks without the stirrups for centuries before it was invented in China.....

3 points:

1) The steppe nomads (ie the group that includes the Mongols, Huns, Alans, Avars, Magyars and a dozen other differen tribal/ethnic groups were exceptional horsemen - to the point that their enemies suspected they did everything except a few slect bodily functions while on hoseback. Experience can sometimes trum equipment.

2) The steppe nomad's primary weapon was the bow which isn't as demanding as close combat. The big advantage the stirrup provides is it reduces the chances of falling off of the horse when swinging a weapon or connecting with a charge. It also allows the horse and rider's combined weight to be transfered into the strike for more devastating hits.

3) The steppe nomads did well before the stirrup was invented . . . they ran roughsod over Europe and Asia after they started using the stirrup.

That article is awesome!

I'm more familiar with their impact on Europe than their events with the Chinese, but I've always been a fan of the warriors from the teepes. I'm a firm beleiver in the theory that the Arthurian Legends were derived from the actual deeds and the folklore of a group of Sarmation warriors who the Romans moved to Britan to help defend it from the Celts.

I've been prowling through the essays linked to about medieval and reinassance swords and fighting. Very intersting stuff. The Kataa vs Rapier discussion was a particular favourite.

Jefffar wrote:I've been prowling through the essays linked to about medieval and reinassance swords and fighting. Very intersting stuff. The Kataa vs Rapier discussion was a particular favourite.

Somewhat interesting, I recall not being quite impressed with the lack of detail in some of the research of these supposed experts, and their insistance on equating katana to the "samurai sword" was overly simplistic. Though I found their overall conclusions fairly solid otherwise (in general, they agree that there are many factors which would affect the outcome of the samurai vs knight or samurai vs western swordfighter conflict).

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:Somewhat interesting, I recall not being quite impressed with the lack of detail in some of the research of these supposed experts, and their insistance on equating katana to the "samurai sword" was overly simplistic. Though I found their overall conclusions fairly solid otherwise (in general, they agree that there are many factors which would affect the outcome of the samurai vs knight or samurai vs western swordfighter conflict).

I forget which article they make a mention of the wide variety of Samrai swords (and the wide variety of western weapons that could be carried by a knight or considered a rapier) but they do explain their choice of Katana as being essentially the iconic wapon that most people envision when proposing this topic.

They also point out that Knights and Samurai primarily used other weapons instead of swords.

darkmax wrote:Samurai tends to use Naginata, Bo and other polearms as well before resorting to their Katana. Breaking a katana is no small matter, especially a family heirloom. It means the samurai will kill himself on the spot for breaking the sword.

Yeah, pretty much no to all of that.

I don't think that a samurai was obligaed t kill himself if he broke his sword.

But a specific family heirloom being broken would be a major stain on his honour which some Samurai might choose not to bear.

Alejandro wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

darkmax wrote:Samurai tends to use Naginata, Bo and other polearms as well before resorting to their Katana. Breaking a katana is no small matter, especially a family heirloom. It means the samurai will kill himself on the spot for breaking the sword.

Yeah, pretty much no to all of that.

Actually, all mounted warriors in history used polearms before resorting to their close up weapons. To do otherwise was suicide. Once the samurai was on his feet, he'd still use the weapon with the longest reach (terrain allowing) before resorting to the sword.

Not true, you're forgetting that many mounted warriors used the bow before resorting to close up weapons.

No clue on the suicide from a broken sword part, but samurai definitely did not use the sword as his primary weapon.

That is true, at least up until the Tokugawa era.

darkmax wrote:

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

darkmax wrote:Samurai tends to use Naginata, Bo and other polearms as well before resorting to their Katana. Breaking a katana is no small matter, especially a family heirloom. It means the samurai will kill himself on the spot for breaking the sword.

Yeah, pretty much no to all of that.

I'm sure I'm quite right.

Then you should do some real research.

Jefffar wrote:I don't think that a samurai was obligaed t kill himself if he broke his sword.

Nope.

But a specific family heirloom being broken would be a major stain on his honour which some Samurai might choose not to bear.

It would be a problem, in one sense, being ascribed to giri, but something that can be dealt with, not all that major, especially compared to something like damaging a gift from one's liege.

darkmax wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I don't think that a samurai was obligaed t kill himself if he broke his sword.

But a specific family heirloom being broken would be a major stain on his honour which some Samurai might choose not to bear.

He would have to, to make up for tarnishing his family honor, in this case breaking his family heirloom.

No, he wouldn't.

Here's a little something that you might have heard, in far eastern societies, namely China, Japan and Korea, family honors comes well before the needs of the individuals. This is especially stringent in Japan during the "medieval" times.

Actually, it was especially stringent in the Tokugawa era, post "medieval times."

The family's heirloom is only passed to the next family head, usually the best samurai. A weapon given by his Daimyo is also classified as such.

Not true either, the vast majority of samurai didn't have family heirlooms of quality. And giri to one's lord rates higher than giri to one's family.

Damaging the sword is bad, but death is not required. Breaking a sword is like dishonoring all his family's ancestors, which will require him to die (can't remember the name of the ritual).

If you're referring to seppuku, you're way off base. Seppuku was committed for a number of reasons, and breaking one's sword is not one of them. Getting captured or surrounded by the enemy, dealing with a conflicting duty, remonstrating one's lord, and as a death sentence to atone for a crime were the reasons for committing seppuku, not breaking a sword.

In truth, the Japanese society, the samurai can die for lesser reason than breaking of his sword. One example would be to protest his lord's decision on some event he felt unjustified about.

Other way around.

You know, if you really want to maintain that your arguments are valid, you might want to kick out some reliable sources for your "information." Afterall, it's not like I don't keep my common references available at http://www.geocities.com/kuseru/resource_books.htm

darkmax wrote:I'm quite sure I'm correct. I can't give you references because I have known these for years, way before the internet boom.

ROFLMAO. You just lost all credibility.