Catholicism And Martial Arts

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1582709' date='Jun 25 2008, 07:47 AM']For example, a highly trained samurai, no matter HOW good he is with a katana,[/quote]
We still have samurais?? When did this happen? I wanna meet one!

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1583463' date='Jun 26 2008, 01:22 AM']I prefer to say 87%. Seems even more precise. [/quote]

But sounds only 72% accurate.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1583519' date='Jun 26 2008, 12:04 AM']But sounds only 72% accurate. [/quote]
You have a point.
But odd numbers, especially 3 and 7, in my opinion, sound very precise and accurate.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1583344' date='Jun 25 2008, 07:40 PM']That's quite a boast. Where is this stat or experiment taken from?[/quote]
Experiment. Taken from two swordsmanship students, (neither had body armour, except for a helmat methinks), faced off against eachother, One was armed with a Claymore, the other was armed with a Katana. The Claymore guy just stood there, using the claymore in high gaurd. (He held it above his head, Claymores are two-handed weapons), the Katana guy literally, could not get near the Claymore guy, no matter which way he went, the claymore guy would simply come down on him. (The claymore is a very long blade, hence the reach) there was like 15 rounds, some the claymore guy came down and touched the Katana guy, and others where there was a breif flurry of parries, (where the Katana guy gave up on trying to reach the body and attempted to engage in swordplay in order to try to bash the claymore aside and get to the body), most of the time this didn't work as the claymore either knocked the Katana out of his hands, using its superior weight, or simply feigned, causing the Katana guy to stumble and allow him to be touched by the Claymore, (a touch equals a kill). Another stance was the claymore's Low Gaurd, which was used sometimes, where the Claymore guy rearranged his footing, held the claymore at waist height and angled it at the Katana guy like a spear. Same thing, the Katana guy could not get near without being hit. Other times when it came to the Claymore guy attacking the Katana guy, he always aimed to strike his katana first, (again using its weight, its very hard to feign a Claymore, if a swinging claymore touches your sword, consider it gone), and then touched the body. The one time the Katana Guy managed to strike the Claymore guy was after a short duel.

Don't get me wrong, Katanas are fine weapons, but comparing a Katana to a claymore is like comparing a 9mm Handgun to an M16 Automatic Rifle. Very percise, but lacks the range and stopping power. Samurai grew in the Empire of Japan and for centuries, only ever fought other Samurai. Hence Katanas were only ever really used in battle against other Katanas and against soldiers with medium armour. The Claymore was developed by Medieval celts, and was used against heavily armoured soldiers of The Kingdom England by the relatively light troops of the Scottish Highlands and Irish Galloglasses, (where do you think I got my username?), and was related to the very hefty Zweihandlers of the Holy Roman Empire and its robust Heavyily armoured soldiers. Hence the Claymore is designed to kill a wide ranged of enemies from different cultures and fighting style. The Katana is primarily aimed at fighting broadly similar opponents and martial artists.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1583653' date='Jun 26 2008, 09:50 AM']Experiment. Taken from two swordsmanship students, (neither had body armour, except for a helmat methinks), faced off against eachother, One was armed with a Claymore, the other was armed with a Katana. The Claymore guy just stood there, using the claymore in high gaurd. (He held it above his head, Claymores are two-handed weapons), the Katana guy literally, could not get near the Claymore guy, no matter which way he went, the claymore guy would simply come down on him. (The claymore is a very long blade, hence the reach) there was like 15 rounds, some the claymore guy came down and touched the Katana guy, and others where there was a breif flurry of parries, (where the Katana guy gave up on trying to reach the body and attempted to engage in swordplay in order to try to bash the claymore aside and get to the body), most of the time this didn't work as the claymore either knocked the Katana out of his hands, using its superior weight, or simply feigned, causing the Katana guy to stumble and allow him to be touched by the Claymore, (a touch equals a kill). Another stance was the claymore's Low Gaurd, which was used sometimes, where the Claymore guy rearranged his footing, held the claymore at waist height and angled it at the Katana guy like a spear. Same thing, the Katana guy could not get near without being hit. Other times when it came to the Claymore guy attacking the Katana guy, he always aimed to strike his katana first, (again using its weight, its very hard to feign a Claymore, if a swinging claymore touches your sword, consider it gone), and then touched the body. The one time the Katana Guy managed to strike the Claymore guy was after a short duel.

Don't get me wrong, Katanas are fine weapons, but comparing a Katana to a claymore is like comparing a 9mm Handgun to an M16 Automatic Rifle. Very percise, but lacks the range and stopping power. Samurai grew in the Empire of Japan and for centuries, only ever fought other Samurai. Hence Katanas were only ever really used in battle against other Katanas and against soldiers with medium armour. The Claymore was developed by Medieval celts, and was used against heavily armoured soldiers of The Kingdom England by the relatively light troops of the Scottish Highlands and Irish Galloglasses, (where do you think I got my username?), and was related to the very hefty Zweihandlers of the Holy Roman Empire and its robust Heavyily armoured soldiers. Hence the Claymore is designed to kill a wide ranged of enemies from different cultures and fighting style. The Katana is primarily aimed at fighting broadly similar opponents and martial artists.[/quote]
[quote]Taken from two swordsmanship students[/quote]

Students? What about an experienced Samurai against a real Scottish peasant?

The actual "combat situation" sounds very flawed: You stand there and a guy comes at you, then he stands there and you come at him: what a beautiful tactic!

[quote]Don't get me wrong, Katanas are fine weapons, but comparing a Katana to a claymore is like comparing a 9mm Handgun to an M16 Automatic Rifle.[/quote]

Absolutely arguable. During medieval times, the metallurgy of the East was far more superior than that of the west. The Katana was made by a long process of "folding" metal, whereas the swords of the west were made by pouring them into a mold and hammering them into shape. The process of folding metal made the Katana far stronger than any broadsword from the west and the technically and "scientifically" slight curve of the Katana made for the most precision cut available and the sharpest to boot.

[quote]Claymores are two-handed weapons[/quote]

So are Katanas...and the fact that you don't know this makes me wonder what you know about Katanas period.

[quote]Very percise, but lacks the range and stopping power[/quote]

The Katana is made to kill at first cut (I don't say "blow" because Katana's actually cut, unlike big, blunt swords that "blow"). I consider a mortal cut great "stopping power."

[quote]Samurai grew in the Empire of Japan and for centuries, only ever fought other Samurai.[/quote]

Did you forget about the Mongols? The Kahns? They weren't samurai and had big, broadswords. Let's not forget that Samurai were also experienced in fighting other weapons with their Katanas like broadswords, bos & jos (sticks), spears and the multitude of arrows.
[quote]against soldiers with medium armour[/quote]

Again, arguable. Just because it was medium armor, doesn't mean it's inferior to heavy armor. Speaking of heavy armour, what western "heavy armour" are you speaking about?

[quote]The Katana is primarily aimed at fighting broadly similar opponents and martial artists.[/quote]

The Katana is primarily aimed at cutting down anyone who comes at you and threatening your life. There was no specific motivation. The Katana was made to become the "most perfect" blade, which it did and still is. How many Claymore dojos do you see around town?

A study of two students coming at each other is WAY different than an inexperienced peasant clumsily wielding a heavy blunt sword and waving it at an experienced, lethally trained Samurai who can cut you down without hesitation.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1583743' date='Jun 26 2008, 10:31 AM']Students? What about an experienced Samurai against a real Scottish peasant?[/quote]
Even less of a chance. As the Scottish peasent would naturally be stronger then the students and more practiced with the claymore, (given clan politics, war in Scotland would be quite regular), against a samurai, (one on one), the situation would play out something like the above experiment. Only the two combatents would more likely to be battle hardened and much more experienced with their weapons. (And more likely to have killed a few other warriors as well)


[quote]The actual "combat situation" sounds very flawed: You stand there and a guy comes at you, then he stands there and you come at him: what a beautiful tactic![/quote]
In order to test the defensibility of a sword? Yes. In an actual duel? Come now, the students weren't trying to kill eachother... Altough that would've made things really interesting.

[quote]Absolutely arguable. During medieval times, the metallurgy of the East was far more superior than that of the west. The Katana was made by a long process of "folding" metal, whereas the swords of the west were made by pouring them into a mold and hammering them into shape. The process of folding metal made the Katana far stronger than any broadsword from the west and the technically and "scientifically" slight curve of the Katana made for the most precision cut available and the sharpest to boot.[/quote]
No. Common misconception. This is what I hate about today's western culture, we look back and see the people of the middle ages in the west as primitives, barbarians, or just unintelligent jackals with weapons in their hands. You think me uneducated in this regard? My interest in Medieval history STARTED with Japan, I am well aware of the often numerous times Metal was folded to make blades, and the legendary sharpness they are renowned for. (Also, there was an experiment where a super jet of water which could cut anything was tested against the sharpness of a katana by running the jet right over the cutting edges of the Katana. The Katana Won) I'm just know better then to think 'the sharper the sword, the better', The Western process in the beginning was simply hammering the blades into shapes... In the Dark Ages. As Medieval Nations formed, an arms race ensued. The enemy gets better armour, you develope better weapons et vice versa. The processes with regards to the creation of swords kept the hammer and anvil basis, but soon became an artform as well. A good example is fluted armour, beautiful, yet incredibly sturdy. The Claymore grew along with this. Again this is because people had to defend against warriors of other nations with plethora styles of armour and weaponry. The Western Mettalurgy focused on weapons that were strong all around. They sacrificed the sharpness and durability of the Katana, for the ability to cleave a man in two and keep the momentum up to kill the man beside him. I know full well of the Katana's sharpness, I also know full well a heavy blow on the side would break the katana in half, whereas it would take quite a while for a katana to do the same to the claymore.

[quote]So are Katanas...and the fact that you don't know this makes me wonder what you know about Katanas period.[/quote]
I was stating what claymores were in case YOU didn't know that a claymore was a two handed weapon. Judging by your avatar, I assumed you were familiar with a katana.

[quote]The Katana is made to kill at first cut (I don't say "blow" because Katana's actually cut, unlike big, blunt swords that "blow"). I consider a mortal cut great "stopping power."[/quote]
It would be if the Samurai could get close to the opponent.

[quote]Did you forget about the Mongols? The Kahns? They weren't samurai and had big, broadswords. Let's not forget that Samurai were also experienced in fighting other weapons with their Katanas like broadswords, bos & jos (sticks), spears and the multitude of arrows.[/quote]
Did you forget the Kamikazi? Which wiped out most of the Mongol Invasion fleet and their cavalry along with them? Do you remember that the Mongols are primarily a cavalry force? And no, you are wrong, the Mongols did NOT carry broadswords. The Mongol Horseman was designed to sweep across the battlefield and slash at enemy infantry, supported by their Cavalry archers. (This is how they wiped the floor with everyone from China to Italy, who's forces were not mobile enough to counter the Mongols) These weapons were designed to use momentum to came down upon the enemy and slice them a mortal wound, (like the katana, their swords were not designed to strike a 'blow'), and were relatively light compared to both the Claymore and the Katana, (They operated in a strikingly similar fashion to the Arabic Simitar) the broke under the force of a katana's strike and the Samurai defeated the mongols easily when the got to shore. If the mongols landed with their horses, be sure that Japan would've suffered the same fate as beaver dam near everyone else when the Mongol Empire Spread.

[quote]Again, arguable. Just because it was medium armor, doesn't mean it's inferior to heavy armor. Speaking of heavy armour, what western "heavy armour" are you speaking about?[/quote]
English Armoured swordsmen. England was notorious for its heavily armoured armies, nevermind it's knights. Those were heavy infantrymen the Claymore had to deal with most of the time, and the medium armour of the Vikings, the light armour of the Irish, and the virtually 'no armour' of other Scots. It was an all round weapon. And I was not stating that heavy armour was better. (sometimes it actually works to their detriment), I was stating the Samurai's armour, which was medium.

[quote]The Katana is primarily aimed at cutting down anyone who comes at you and threatening your life. There was no specific motivation. The Katana was made to become the "most perfect" blade, which it did and still is. How many Claymore dojos do you see around town?[/quote]
None. Which angers me. Like I've said before martial arts [b]is[/b] overrated. Western Cultures have completely forgotten their past and what they've achieved. (I've stated this before) Just because there are alot of dojos around doesn't mean that it is better, just that in the popular mind it is cool. Which is not a pre-requisit for it being good. And the katana is NOT the most perfect blade, and before you retort angrily, (the anger you replied to my post surprised me, I was looking for a discussion and you brought an arguement), the Claymore is NOT the most perfect blade either.

[quote]A study of two students coming at each other is WAY different than an inexperienced peasant clumsily wielding a heavy blunt sword and waving it at an experienced, lethally trained Samurai who can cut you down without hesitation.[/quote]
Ah, prejudice, how I love it so. You think a peasent, by virtue of his peasentry, is clumsy? Do you honestly think that because something is big, their is no artform to it? I have stated before, if a peasent adopts the low or high gaurd, regardless of his training, can protect himself agains the best trained samurai as he cannot get near him.

Well, lets put this 'big' = 'clumsy' theory to the Test. The Viking Huscarl, He wields a large bearded Axe. He is surrounded by three armed warriors. What does he do? Wave it around? Guess what, he does! He waves it in a series of arcs around his body, created a spinning 360 degree sphere of death. He can't kill anyone as he can't move. But the warriors surrounding him, regardless of WHAT they are, cannot get near him without getting something chopped off. There is another example of fighting style.


And for the record, why did you get so angry? I was stating my opinion on martial arts, and using the Claymore v Katana test to legitimise my claim. Sorry if I upset you, but be reasonable, you can't say the Western arts are crud or inferior simply because they do not get enough screen time as Eastern Arts do. From your reply I get the indication that you think western warriors had no martial art-forms or styles at all.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Nihil Obstat]

Why on earth are we talking about claymores and katanas?
I don't have anything to do with bladework.
This is getting silly. I just don't care.
Martial arts (and I'm going to talk about karate) are quite applicable in today's world. I can walk around having some confidence in myself that if I need to, I stand a better than average chance of being able to defend myself.
No method or system of combat is perfect. Soldiers die, and they have those M16s that you talked so fondly about. You're never going to be trained to a point where no one can hurt you. It just isn't possible, so there's no point in arguing about that.
I know for a fact, however, that I am good at what I've learned to do. You can say all you want that martial arts are useless. Fact is you're wrong. I don't know if you've practiced it yourself or not, but the fact is that if you're mature enough to see what you do very objectively, you can assess it for yourself.
I like to think that I can do this. I've looked at it. Sure, I'm not perfect. Who is? But I think that what I do has very real application.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1584243' date='Jun 26 2008, 07:42 PM']Sorry if I upset you, but be reasonable, you can't say the Western arts are crud or inferior simply because they do not get enough screen time as Eastern Arts do. From your reply I get the indication that you think western warriors had no martial art-forms or styles at all.[/quote]
Don't judge so quickly about the 'Western obsession with the East.' I honestly couldn't care less where it comes from. I'm not into that. Don't assume I am.

[Galloglasses]

I didn't, I was generalising western Culture which IS obsessed with the eastern Culture. Otaku conventions for example. We get as many of them in Europe as America does.

And Nihil Obstat, my reply was not aimed at you...like, at all, it was a reply to Kirisutodo333. What gave you the idea I was argueing with you?

Edited June 27, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Upstater' post='1582721' date='Jun 25 2008, 07:00 AM']Oh...and this is my first post on this board. [/quote]
+J.M.J.+
welcome!

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1584243' date='Jun 26 2008, 09:42 PM']Even less of a chance. As the Scottish peasent would naturally be stronger then the students and more practiced with the claymore, (given clan politics, war in Scotland would be quite regular), against a samurai, (one on one), the situation would play out something like the above experiment. Only the two combatents would more likely to be battle hardened and much more experienced with their weapons. (And more likely to have killed a few other warriors as well)
In order to test the defensibility of a sword? Yes. In an actual duel? Come now, the students weren't trying to kill eachother... Altough that would've made things really interesting.
No. Common misconception. This is what I hate about today's western culture, we look back and see the people of the middle ages in the west as primitives, barbarians, or just unintelligent jackals with weapons in their hands. You think me uneducated in this regard? My interest in Medieval history STARTED with Japan, I am well aware of the often numerous times Metal was folded to make blades, and the legendary sharpness they are renowned for. (Also, there was an experiment where a super jet of water which could cut anything was tested against the sharpness of a katana by running the jet right over the cutting edges of the Katana. The Katana Won) I'm just know better then to think 'the sharper the sword, the better', The Western process in the beginning was simply hammering the blades into shapes... In the Dark Ages. As Medieval Nations formed, an arms race ensued. The enemy gets better armour, you develope better weapons et vice versa. The processes with regards to the creation of swords kept the hammer and anvil basis, but soon became an artform as well. A good example is fluted armour, beautiful, yet incredibly sturdy. The Claymore grew along with this. Again this is because people had to defend against warriors of other nations with plethora styles of armour and weaponry. The Western Mettalurgy focused on weapons that were strong all around. They sacrificed the sharpness and durability of the Katana, for the ability to cleave a man in two and keep the momentum up to kill the man beside him. I know full well of the Katana's sharpness, I also know full well a heavy blow on the side would break the katana in half, whereas it would take quite a while for a katana to do the same to the claymore.
I was stating what claymores were in case YOU didn't know that a claymore was a two handed weapon. Judging by your avatar, I assumed you were familiar with a katana.
It would be if the Samurai could get close to the opponent.
Did you forget the Kamikazi? Which wiped out most of the Mongol Invasion fleet and their cavalry along with them? Do you remember that the Mongols are primarily a cavalry force? And no, you are wrong, the Mongols did NOT carry broadswords. The Mongol Horseman was designed to sweep across the battlefield and slash at enemy infantry, supported by their Cavalry archers. (This is how they wiped the floor with everyone from China to Italy, who's forces were not mobile enough to counter the Mongols) These weapons were designed to use momentum to came down upon the enemy and slice them a mortal wound, (like the katana, their swords were not designed to strike a 'blow'), and were relatively light compared to both the Claymore and the Katana, (They operated in a strikingly similar fashion to the Arabic Simitar) the broke under the force of a katana's strike and the Samurai defeated the mongols easily when the got to shore. If the mongols landed with their horses, be sure that Japan would've suffered the same fate as beaver dam near everyone else when the Mongol Empire Spread.


English Armoured swordsmen. England was notorious for its heavily armoured armies, nevermind it's knights. Those were heavy infantrymen the Claymore had to deal with most of the time, and the medium armour of the Vikings, the light armour of the Irish, and the virtually 'no armour' of other Scots. It was an all round weapon. And I was not stating that heavy armour was better. (sometimes it actually works to their detriment), I was stating the Samurai's armour, which was medium.
None. Which angers me. Like I've said before martial arts [b]is[/b] overrated. Western Cultures have completely forgotten their past and what they've achieved. (I've stated this before) Just because there are alot of dojos around doesn't mean that it is better, just that in the popular mind it is cool. Which is not a pre-requisit for it being good. And the katana is NOT the most perfect blade, and before you retort angrily, (the anger you replied to my post surprised me, I was looking for a discussion and you brought an arguement), the Claymore is NOT the most perfect blade either.
Ah, prejudice, how I love it so. You think a peasent, by virtue of his peasentry, is clumsy? Do you honestly think that because something is big, their is no artform to it? I have stated before, if a peasent adopts the low or high gaurd, regardless of his training, can protect himself agains the best trained samurai as he cannot get near him.

Well, lets put this 'big' = 'clumsy' theory to the Test. The Viking Huscarl, He wields a large bearded Axe. He is surrounded by three armed warriors. What does he do? Wave it around? Guess what, he does! He waves it in a series of arcs around his body, created a spinning 360 degree sphere of death. He can't kill anyone as he can't move. But the warriors surrounding him, regardless of WHAT they are, cannot get near him without getting something chopped off. There is another example of fighting style.
And for the record, why did you get so angry? I was stating my opinion on martial arts, and using the Claymore v Katana test to legitimise my claim. Sorry if I upset you, but be reasonable, you can't say the Western arts are crud or inferior simply because they do not get enough screen time as Eastern Arts do. From your reply I get the indication that you think western warriors had no martial art-forms or styles at all.[/quote]

Oops! I didn't mean to make it seem that I was terribly angry. Sorry if I made it seem that way. I was just crackalackin' on your apparent irritation against the obsession over the Japanese Katana. It is obvious that both our views are biased, so there is no point in arguing any more.

I think "obsession" is too strong a word for our fixation with the Japanese martial arts. It's more of an "attraction." There is something timeless and spiritual about the philosophies that were integrated with the eastern combat arts. Why are we drawn to them? It seems that the art of Kendo and Kenjutsu, as well as other martial arts, contain a quality of transcendence which reminds us of the supernaturalness of the world. It allows us to reach beyond ourselves into a world that is much bigger. The spirit of "the art of the sword" humbles us, that is man, especially the Western man, and it caresses and develops our spirit. So when we need our spirit to transcend, because of our Kenjutsu training, we are more fully aware of it and are more in touch with the transcendenceness of things; and in the case of the Christian man: the God-man Jesus Christ. For man, who is a spiritual being, the eternal qualities of the eastern arts (and not focusing on the religious or specific spiritual aspects) draw us to a world we want to become more familiar with because Western man has been encapsulated in modern self-reliance; it is in our spiritual nature to seek beyond ourselves. I see none of this in the Western combat of old and especially in their arms. The Claymore does not carry that sense of transcending spirit that the Katana effortlessly does. So I am more inclined to be "attracted" to the Eastern sword. That is all really. The only western sword I have ever been attracted to is the mythological Caliburn or Excalibur, and that is because of its tie to the "once and future king", which of course reminds us of the true once and future king to come, Jesus our Lord.

Check out these links. They are quite entertaining.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV5fontZbc&NR=1"]Samurai vs. Knight[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCh1fWh13Y&feature=related"]Samurai vs. Knight II[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw&feature=related"]Longsword vs. Bokken[/url]

Paz

Kiris

[Galloglasses]

I do not deny that. I simply mourn the fact that western man is so ignorent of their own past that they HAD to look to the east for some form of spirtiual transcendence in a lifestyle. It still does not make the Eastern arts in any way superior to the west. Afterall, it was the West that developed the code of Chivalry in counter to Bushido. Now most of Western man has completely forgotten Chivalry and 'The Way of the Knight' Because of their indulgence. I seek a revival of such old arts from here in the west, to destroy the misconceptions of the Middle Ages, glorify them if I have to. This is why I despise the misconception about Martial Arts in the west, (please note I say misconception, NOT Martial Arts themselves), the idea that they are 'the best thing ever' if I have learned one thing from studying the middle ages, it is that they most certainly aren't. So I must challenge the idea that it is, in order to make people at least CONSIDER their own past.

Also, as an Animator I actually do despise Anime. Specifically because it is KILLING western animation styles, that and it is not that good. I actually belong to a clique of friends that hope to God that it gets revitalised.

The knight in the first two videos seemed an utter noob to me XD

The longsword v Bokken seemed much more appropriate. BTW, don't be confused, a Claymore is actually longer then a longsword. [url="http://www.scottishsword.com/SwordPics/Claymore1-1.jpg"]Claymore[/url]
[url="http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/500928.jpg"]Longsword[/url] I doubt the guy in the knight armour would be able to handle it in one hand XD

Ironically, I did one time find a Youtube video which actually showed two people fighting with a Claymore and a Katana, YET BLOODY YOUTUBE DELETED THE VIDEO! DX

Also, for the heck of it. Knights and Samurais vrs the Roman Empire, who would win?

Edited June 27, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1584802' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:17 PM']I do not deny that. I simply mourn the fact that western man is so ignorent of their own past that they HAD to look to the east for some form of spirtiual transcendence in a lifestyle. It still does not make the Eastern arts in any way superior to the west. Afterall, it was the West that developed the code of Chivalry in counter to Bushido. Now most of Western man has completely forgotten Chivalry and 'The Way of the Knight' Because of their indulgence. I seek a revival of such old arts from here in the west, to destroy the misconceptions of the Middle Ages, glorify them if I have to. This is why I despise the misconception about Martial Arts in the west, (please note I say misconception, NOT Martial Arts themselves), the idea that they are 'the best thing ever' if I have learned one thing from studying the middle ages, it is that they most certainly aren't. So I must challenge the idea that it is, in order to make people at least CONSIDER their own past.

Also, as an Animator I actually do despise Anime. Specifically because it is KILLING western animation styles, that and it is not that good. I actually belong to a clique of friends that hope to God that it gets revitalised.

The knight in the first two videos seemed an utter noob to me XD

The longsword v Bokken seemed much more appropriate. BTW, don't be confused, a Claymore is actually longer then a longsword. [url="http://www.scottishsword.com/SwordPics/Claymore1-1.jpg"]Claymore[/url]
[url="http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/500928.jpg"]Longsword[/url] I doubt the guy in the knight armour would be able to handle it in one hand XD

Ironically, I did one time find a Youtube video which actually showed two people fighting with a Claymore and a Katana, YET BLOODY YOUTUBE DELETED THE VIDEO! DX

Also, for the heck of it. Knights and Samurais vrs the Roman Empire, who would win?[/quote]

Heck, I would have to go with the Roman Empire 'cause that is more my heritage, but the Roman Empire influenced a lot of Western Europe. My ancestry actually comes from the Basque region of Spain and France, so I forgot to mention that I am honestly very, very enthralled with the Knights of Old (the Norman Miles and then the cnigt and so on). I am an admirer of both Western and Eastern cultures. The Eastern attraction is partly due to the philosophies (as far as spiritual awareness) and the Western attraction comes from the wonderful mythology and the enchantment of the middle ages-and of course the main reason-Christianity. Both the Knight and Samurai captivate me because...well they are both generally the same. They are both "retainers" who were trained in the combat arts, who were deeply religious, and lived by a code. For its overall enchantment, beauty and Christianity (at least for those who were not pagan), I would have to go with the Knight over the Samurai (and of course it is in my heritage to root for the French and Spanish Knights!!!) What's even cooler (well for me I guess because I'm just an American) is that my fiance is a Bond, and she can trace her heritage all the way back to the Battle of Hastings. Now that's cool! But I still have a soft spot for the simpleness of the Samurai and the deep spirituality that comes from a man who wears a bathrobe and a thin, curved sword.

[quote]Also, as an Animator I actually do despise Anime. Specifically because it is KILLING western animation styles, that and it is not that good. I actually belong to a clique of friends that hope to God that it gets revitalised.[/quote]

Ouch! Did you have to go here? I am not afraid to say that I have seen some Anime that have better storytelling and deeper character development that today's Hollywood movies. I am not an animator, but I am a storyteller, and the genius that is Anime storytelling is rarely unmatched except for a few good Hollywood movies, and a good number of Korean movies. That is my opinion. And don't get me started on the Christian elements of Anime.

[Madtown Sem.]

I see some conflict. Being trained in martial arts is most definitely not evil inherently, however it could only be used in defense or in defense of others and I'm sure there would be plenty of situations that seemed a bit gray at the time and poor judgment could cause problems.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1584846' date='Jun 27 2008, 12:16 PM']Heck, I would have to go with the Roman Empire 'cause that is more my heritage, but the Roman Empire influenced a lot of Western Europe. My ancestry actually comes from the Basque region of Spain and France, so I forgot to mention that I am honestly very, very enthralled with the Knights of Old (the Norman Miles and then the cnigt and so on). I am an admirer of both Western and Eastern cultures. The Eastern attraction is partly due to the philosophies (as far as spiritual awareness) and the Western attraction comes from the wonderful mythology and the enchantment of the middle ages-and of course the main reason-Christianity. Both the Knight and Samurai captivate me because...well they are both generally the same. They are both "retainers" who were trained in the combat arts, who were deeply religious, and lived by a code. For its overall enchantment, beauty and Christianity (at least for those who were not pagan), I would have to go with the Knight over the Samurai (and of course it is in my heritage to root for the French and Spanish Knights!!!) What's even cooler (well for me I guess because I'm just an American) is that my fiance is a Bond, and she can trace her heritage all the way back to the Battle of Hastings. Now that's cool! But I still have a soft spot for the simpleness of the Samurai and [b]the deep spirituality that comes from a man who wears a bathrobe and a thin, curved sword. [/b][/quote]
Ok, that last part made me chuckle XD

[quote]Ouch! Did you have to go here? I am not afraid to say that I have seen some Anime that have better storytelling and deeper character development that today's Hollywood movies. I am not an animator, but I am a storyteller, and the genius that is Anime storytelling is rarely unmatched except for a few good Hollywood movies, and a good number of Korean movies. That is my opinion. And don't get me started on the Christian elements of Anime.[/quote]
I won't, but I have seen only a few animes that were any 'good' Hellsing, (as horribly insulting as it is to a Christian, specifically its portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church as an Imperial Menace, the priest guy was awesome, if a little pysco), was so far the only anime asides from Claymore that impressed me in terms of animation. The story in Hellsing is absolutely enthralling, even to a man like me who despises anime. (so thats saying something), but the vast majority of anime tends to be mindlessly repetitive, and causes lasting and sometimes unstoppable obsession in younger minds. (Naruto, Pokemon), its these animes which are destroying the western animations. That, and Companies such as disney as investing far too much in 3D to compensate the competition, how I miss the old cinematic animated masterpieces suchs as the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Lion King.

Also, for the record, its not that hard to beat Hollywood in terms of storytelling. The Host, (A Korean Movie, live action, that wasn't all that good), was better then alot of Hollywood flicks I've seen.