What are some instances of very different warriors from foreign lands clashing in history as bizarre occurrences?
There was a sword duel between a Montenegrin volunteer (Aleksandar Lekso Saičić) and a Japanese samurai during the Russo-Japanese war.
Ended with the Montenegrin cutting off the samurai's head and paying respect.
Other urls found in this thread:
quora.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
tameshigiri.ca
samuelhawley.com
twitter.com
Decapitation isn't a sign of respect, shitlord.
Paul?
>and paying respect
As in he followed it up by paying respect, ESL user. Decapitation was during the duel and was the winning blow.
Warriors from Arabia fighting warriors from China in the middle of Central Asia maybe. Or Abbasid mercenaries in China.
Tlaxcaltec troops fighting for Spain against Filipino natives.
Where can I read up on this?
Stefan lass gut sein
Portuguese duelled Samurai often initially. Rapiers were proven to be faster than katana, and thus Samurai were ending holed to death.
quora.com
This is the best I (different user) could find. Apparently there are at least language evidence, at the least.
40 Spanish Knights (and Filipino reinforcements) beat the shit out of more than 1000 Japanese Samurai and pirates.
He pressed F afterward
That doesn't sound like a fair duel.
Aren't montenegrin some of the tallest people in the world?
the abbasids send arab mercenaries and adventurers all the way to chinese capital during the an lushan rebellion
>Apparently there are at least language evidence, at the least.
This means that the people that went to the Phillipines had to stay in Mexico first. It has nothing to do with manlet aztecs with rock swords fighting chinks
I'll get back to you when I return home.
I was born of a filipina mother and am also interested
Is this true
Samurai were 10 times more skilled than European Knights?
>Stefan Molyneux armed with self-knowledge and the empricism of his own emotions
>he encounters his mother who attempts to defend herself using manipulation and shaming tactics
>the battle goes on, due to Stefan having physical safety until he attains closure
It ended with him cutting his mother out of his life and paying respect.
During the Thirty Years War a large proportion of the Swedish Army was Scottish. That always struck me as being very odd.
Fruity Swedes needed a race of psychopaths to acquire the territories on the map they wanted to add to their collection.
stop it.
I really like the story of Francis Pegahmagabow, even though there is no duel involved but hen sure is an uncommon warrior.
>Canadian native hunter/fisherman volunteers for ww1
>Fights in 2nd battle of Ypres
>Wounded on the battle of the Somme
>Fights in Belgium, run along the trenches to deliver messages
>Fights in Passchendaele, guides lost battalions to their allocated positions under enemy fire and artillery
>End of the German 1918 spring offensive, his company getting surrounded and low on ammo
>Runs into no man's land under machine gun and rifle fire to loot enough rounds for his boys
>Wounded on November 19184
>378 kills and 300 captured Germans, most credited sniper of the war
Canadians getting schooled by an injun
>pic not related
>I was born of a filipina mother
So a tourist buttfucked your mama? Live must be sad
Most natives spent their whole lives shooting. Its hardly surprising they'd be a better shot than your average kid from Toronto or Montreal.
>>Wounded on November 19184
woah
Believe it or not, the Swedes were at some point powerful conquerors and had an empire.
The swedish army during the thirty years war was hardly swedish, mostly german, finnish and other mercenaries.
Their officer corps were swedish tho.
I don't.
Live is depressing man.
It was a long bitter war man.
There are no public records I know of duels between samurai and Portuguese. There seem to have been fights but nothing so formal
there's actually a couple accounts but the most famous clash was that sea battle referenced earlier where 40 Portuguese sailors managed to hold off a thousand samurai and pirates via their massive cannon advantage and a hastily-formed pike wall to hold the deck.
The other main one is the duel mentioned here. In all cases that are recorded, the Portuguese won.
No my parents met in KSA while they were working and i was born in my father's comfy countryside, life is good
>An Arab pinoy baby raised by a French cuck living in France
Holy fuck live must be extrange
There is an oral history in the shinto yoshin ryu jujutsu of a street fight in Kyushu where samurai inflicted great casualties after obtaining lighter swords than they usually carried.
It was on horseback, hence the decapitation I assume
>oral history
mmk
There were a number of sword fights during the Russo Japanese war. Most of those Ive found reference to have the Japanese winning but I know there are a few Russian accounts of victories floating around
in his defense they still have one of the swords
and historians use oral histories all the time
the samurai fears the serb
>It's a short sword
>it's held with 2 (TWO) hands
>it DOESNT have a cross guard
>it's made out of brittle Japanese metal
>the fighting style of this short two handed sword primarily features slashing instead of stabbing
not enough recorded history to go on, but I'd have to say from a utility standpoint the guy with a rapier or similar will have a huge advantage off the bat because it's a much better sword for duels. That being said, it's all about individual skill, and the better warrior will probably win regardless, but as an educated guess I'd assume the Europeans won out more often than not keeping their distance and thrusting, the samurai has a huge range disadvantage and would have to parry of dodge a blow before every attempt at an attack, which is the same advantage a spear has over a sword. Without the shield or decent plate armor, the samurai is completely unequipped for facing off against that range advantage.
A katana isnt well suited for a rapier duel no doubt, but let me ad some things.
Many Japanese swords had lengths similar to long swords, It just that swords of the edo period and carried around town were of a much more manageable length for wearing around all day.
1 to 3 the katana was often used one handed on horseback or when using drawing cuts or fighting two sword style. Its not as well balanced for one handed as a sword made for it, but in terms of weight and balance it is quite manageable. The two hands offer the advantage of leverage which is quite useful against staffs and polearms
Japanese steel wasn't anymore brittle than other steels around the world. It did not have a spring temper like most modern European blades and many historical pieces but it was not bad by any means.
They stabbed and threatened with the tip quite a bit. more so than most saber work Ive seen in hema. at least as much as Ive seen in long sword tourneys.
In any case when we talk about the fights in kyushu we dont have a lot to go on. There are very few first hand accounts publicly available at least that I have seen and I have looked.
Japanese steel is very brittle but also harder, its doesn't make a significant difference in a duel though...
Not sure what your basing that on. Yes they used hard steel as an outer layer and and soft as an inner layer, but it was just steel, it wasn't inferior or superior to what was found elsewhere
look up Yasuke, it couldn't believe it myself
WE
The Vikings fighting the Inuit and Beothuk during the Middle Ages.
sidesword beats katana
I remember reading that a maori brought to Japan to visit and be shown around to the court/emperor fought a samurai, swear I read it in one of the comments on "The Forgotten History of MMA" series of articles that were on Bloody Elbow and are now on cagesideseats. I can find the articles but not the post anymore though
>Implying he wasn't Canadian
Wasn't there some Scottish bloke that turned into the very first white Samurai? William something?
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
Not questioning your statement, just pointing out how sourceless this article is
So? What did the Maori did?
oh shit we actually wuz samurai and shit
>sword duel between a literal who bydlo and a generic samurai
>in the 1900s, long after the samurai class was forcibly disbanded and obliterated by the Meiji government in the 1870s
Here's a story that isn't complete bullshit.
en.wikipedia.org
Yamada Nagamasa was a samurai that served as a mercenary commander in Thailand during the 1630s.
>cannons beat katana
no shit
Not him but I found one unsourced site saying he broke their sword with his taiaha (a quarter staff).
Forgot to mention, taiaha often had a spear tip as well.
Staffs really are great weapons, in some ways better than most swords but it takes some nerve to face a sword with a stick
It's true you retard. Just because the samurai lost their separate legal status, does mean they physically stopped existing
in unarmored combat the stick can beat the sword easy. There are numerous different cultures and fighting schools that train the staff to go up against pretty much anything, it's actually really versatile against unarmored opponents
The families didnt stop existing, but the social framework did, and only the oldest officers would have been old enough to remember life as samurai.
Most of the schools that trained samurai were gone or on their last legs. Many of the japanese officers used blades mounted in saber fittings.
it's not like the sailors and general rabble of society that actually agreed to these long treks across the ocean to Japan were the best of Europe either, or the peak of its swordsmanship. The sword was a dying art everywhere, if anything it died in europe way before it did in japan, so the japanese have even less of an excuse than the europeans.
where talking about a duel during the russo-japanese war. Japanese officers were hardly the best swordsmen Japan had to offer with perhaps the exception of those employed as instructors.
That said they won plenty of the sword fights there
let's be real, the Russians are not the best of Europe in anything at this point, their fuck ups in that war go way beyond shoddy swordsmanship and they were mocked for the results because it was clear that any other power worth their salt wouldn't have been embarrassed in such a way.
I believe Russia had a strong dueling culture that lasted into the 60's.
Overall European accounts of Japanese swordsmanship at the time are praising it
““They have a very dangerous cut, which is made by the mere motion of unsheathing the sword, and takes effect at a distance where an inexperienced person would think himself safe.”
The Natural History of Man,Rev. J. G. Wood.
cited in Swordsmen of the British Empire
1879
“In Japan, it was necessary for every man to carry a pistol; but the Japanese [with their swords] invariably got the better of every man carrying one, even when he had it in his hand… …I maintain the great fault in our swords is that they will not cut. Use them as much as you like, unless you have them specially sharpened the night before, they are useless. In the cut, our swords are useless in nine cases out of ten. The Japanese use two-handed swords; if we could use them, I should say cut by all means; for they never want a second cut.”
“On Military Equipment,” Journal of the Royal United Service Institution
cited in Swordsmen of the British Empire
In the main he is complaining on the poor quality of weapons issued to soldiers
1900
“The sword is always carried at the side, and adepts in the use of it wound the moment it is drawn. The fatal stroke, upwards, is given in the act of drawing; and if the assailant is not disabled in the act, it is too late for defence.” In the case of the fatally wounded marine alluded to by Capt. Applin, “every cut had severed the member it was aimed at.”
The Englishman in China, Alexander Michie.
cited in Swordsmen of the British Empire
1902
“A Japanese swordsman was truly a terrible antagonist”
William Blakeney, R.N., On the Coasts of Cathay and Cipango.
cited in Swordsmen of the British Empire
you just quoted a bunch of sources that said the Russians in question were using crappy equipment that wasn't even sharpened and clearly not rapiers or other thrusting weapons if cutting is even the goal. They're using some sort of sabre and I doubt the "dualing societies of russia" were present when a bunch of Russian grunts in the worst army in europe fight Japanese swordsmen with a bunch of dull blades.
Most of those quotes were British.... and it was very common for officers, at least in America and Britain not to sharpen their swords.
People were not really using rapier much in the 19th century.
Most duels were of course between officers because grunts usually didn't carry swords with the exception of NCO's
frankly I dont know what your hangup is. Saying there were a lot of great swordsmen in Japan in the 19th century isn't a mark against European swordsmanship which was kind of on the downswing by that point anyway.
Is that the Scout from Battlefield 1
the lesson you should learn from that is that swordsmanship in europe died way before it did in japan, and so the officers had what we're practically ceremonial pieces that weren't even sharpened. Hardly a fair comparison. Earlier Europeans would have faired better, thrusting swords would have faired better, but clearly the officers in question were at a huge disadvantage with crappy swords and this says little about the overall swordsmanship prowess between europe and Japan in a fair fight. To use as your sole argument what amounts to a bunch of poorly trained british officers with poor weapons to then say that Japanese swordsmanship was superior to their own at its peak is ridiculous. Even you admit a thrusting sword would give a huge advantage, which is what an actual European dualist of
would use. British officers with ceremonial blades are not prime European swordsmen and do not speak much about overall cultural prowess. Tactically I'd say any fight between swords that slash and cut is a toss up, but the one hand European sword at least has the advantage of having a hand free for a pistol. On the other hand, samurai would generally be defeated by Europeans on account of the range advantage that they had in both missile and melee combat. Pikes, muskets, long thrusting swords, and big guns are the perfect recipe for a samurai's worst nightmare, even before that any decent European armor is a match for the yari or katana, their lack of good blunt/armor piercing weapontry would put them at a distinct disadvantage in virtually any period. Your quotes come from what I would say are unfair and unique circumstances.
I never said that Japanese were better swordsmen that Europe at their peak. We were talking about a specific time period where specific types of swords were used.
While swordsmanship was on the decline at that point in Europe there were still real swordsmen, enough to feel comfortable with an impromptu duel.
If you want to talk about the 16th and 17th century thats an entirely different matter. In a duel the rapier definatly has an advantage over the katana, which is basically just a shorter verson of a war sword. If I had to go into battle I would pick a tachi over a rapier.
both Europeans and Japanese used pikes, guns and steel armor at the time, Europe had better cannons and ships so navel battles usually ended up favoring the Europeans, or anyone besides the Japanese because they sucked at navel warfare at the time. The Japanese did have blunt weapons by the way, they were just not given to the rank and file. Swing a naginata or a tetsubo at a steel helmet and the helmet will lose.
At the time the Japanese were respected by Europeans as warriors though they were hardly unbeatable. Pic related.
I think you just have a problem admitting the Japanese could have been better at anything at any time period.
What a long post of autistic ramblings.
Clearly you are mad based on your posting style.
>kys
yes; now shout for the Kaiser!
As mentioned, you had Arabs and Persians in China as soldiers and sailors. Some were even administrators under the Yuan.
Nader Shah invaded India with the future king of Georgia.
The Amazons of Dahomey butted heads with The French. They were rather fierce and I think the European attitude towards female combatants accounted for some their casualties. Anyway,the French quickly took the redpill, brought in their steam boats and Howitzers, and proceeded to sack Dahomey. The warrior women appear in one of stories collected in "Stepsons of France," and are the basis for the Dora Milaje if you're into comics.
>its an "I'm subtly racist and refuse to admit the japanese could ever have parity with europeans" episode
Conceal your butthurt cuckboi, it was entertaining watching you get buttravished by someone of a higher intellect.
To be fair, beating Imperial Russia in a war is like beating up a kid in a wheelchair.
Dirty Continental lies
They were impressive. But really, when the French decided to stop treating them as european women, they stomp them and the Fon with ease.
I guess Napoleon just didn't have enough reach. Or maybe the colostomy bag was too much to jandle.
A Roman legion got lost after a campaign in the East, fled from pursuing forces and ended up in China. Their presence has been confirmed by genetic evidence in residents of a certain village. I wonder if those legionaries ever fought with Eastern warriors in that time, or were hired as mercenaries or something.
>I guess Napoleon just didn't have enough reach.
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN
But seriously, aside from the Battle of Borodino (during which the Russian forces got worse than they gave despite being numerically and logistically superior and dug in to defensive positions) pretty much all of the French casualties were from disease, starvation, exposure and partisan action. The actual Russian military got its ass kicked all the way back to its capitol and its main contribution to the war effort was burning down their own country and destroying their own supplies; killing hundreds of thousands of peasants in the process. I wouldn't exactly point to that as a shining example of Russian military prowess.
>and its main contribution to the war effort was burning down their own country and destroying their own supplies; killing hundreds of thousands of peasants in the process
please, resume.
Except none of that is true.
The story, if true, is that they were captured by Persians, pressed in their army, then captured again by the Chinese. Afterwards the survivors settled down in China.
The only proof of this is a village in China called Liqian, which is sort of pronounced like legio, and where the habitants have fairly European traits.
>Year 1603 in the Philippines
>Chinese population uprising looking to control over the Philippines
>Spanish tercios+ Filipinos + Japaneses ronin all combined vs Chinese
>More than 20000 Chinese killed
Sangley Rebellion. it would be a helluva movie.
The sagley rebellion wiki article also mentions a spanish campaign to conquer Cambodia. History never ceases to amaze me.
>It did not have a spring temper like most modern European blades
That means it's more brittle. The harder a metal is the less "spring" it has and the harder it is the more brittle it is. In steel this is because it has a higher carbon content than another steel.
This carbon content can be modified by different methods, mainly by heating and cooling to specific temperatures and using a graph to control the appearance of martensite/pearlite/austenite/etc. in the finished product.
However if your methods are primitive and your source of iron is of low quality removing the excess carbon can be troublesome. I assume that's what the other user was referring to.
And in response to your other post, no, steel is not just steel, there are many different grades.
>It did not have a spring temper
ONE MORE THING
tempering adds no spring to steel, in metallurgy tempering increases hardness, not flexibility.
Very few swords throughout history had a spring temper, it was mostly (good) European blades of the early modern era
>tempering adds no spring to steel
Thats just what its usually refereed to as
My mistake. Seems to be a peculiarity of english. Tempering something to make it more elastic seems like an oxymoron to me.
That's nothing. Right after just arriving in the Phillipines, the Spaniards were already planning to invade China, just like they did in the Americas.
Well for one, Japanese iron had lots of impurities, and the process that the Japanese used to make swords left the blades more brittle than European blades. This means the blade chips over time, but holds its edge better. This is a generality ofcourse.
Its a lot of generalities, Europians used alot of different methods to make blades, from crappy monosteel to differential hardening to spring temper, the last being a latter innovation.
Their iron sorces not withstanding Japanese steel was of high quality,even the soft core of the katana was technically steel, only the outer edge was brittle, because it was harder than most steels used to make swords. But that was a design choice to maintain the edge.
They were not brittle as some sort of flaw in their manufacturing process or materials.
I know I come off as a katana apologist. I dont think they were superior swords to what Europe had, I just think Veeky Forums has taken things too far in the opposite direction from the katana is ultimate people.
It was a well made, versatile sword that was used and copied in a number of south east Asian countries
>Sangley Rebellion. it would be a helluva movie.
Would be quite boring imo,the rebels were mainly peasants unlike the Chinese/Japanese pirates that routinely overwhelmed the local garrisons.
>the Spaniards were already planning to invade China
Shows how delusional the Spanish were if they couldn't conquer tertiary polities(Cambodia,Brunei).
>It's a short sword
>it's held with 2 (TWO) hands
You may have a point in this case but don't jump to the typical video gaym assumption that a 2-handed weapon must be large and a 1-handed weapon small.
Sorry this took long, a 2 hour trip turned into an adventure to get home lol. Anyway check this, it's from the book Indian Conquistadors. There's also an interesting sections of Maya fighting Andeans and eating them.
It's almost like a country with a very low population needed to recruit mercenaries to make up for low numbers.