So what? The archetypes are stupid, and, frankly, unrealistic on a really basic level in totally the opposite way as magic: it's less interesting and even, I'd say, less D&D. Fact of the matter is that there was a master/apprentice system of learning swordsmanship in Europe just as there was in Japan, and different schools of thought about combat came about in Europe, just like in Japan. Even if you look at the most basic of weapons to the "gritty western warrior" archetype, the greatsword, you'll note that there's not just a pointy end and a place to put your hands. There's a grip on the blade, forward of the hilt, which is designed to make the weapon faster and more controlled in a scenario where that's necessary, or you can use the full length of the blade when you need the reach or are riding on horseback to deliver more powerful blows. There's also a point to the blade, allowing it to be used as a stabbing weapon, and not just a giant, metal club with an edge.
Also, with the advent of full plate armor and the relative ineffectiveness of greatswords against such protection, different styles of wrestling and close-quarters combat emerged, since there was a demand to learn how to slip a short dagger between two interlocking plates and either dislodge the opponent's protection or kill him outright. What's more, Knights weren't just trained killers, they were nobility! They had to make social appearances without their armor on common, if not frequent occasions, and, as nobility, they had to be able to deal with assassination plots without the protection of their full plate, just as any other person of influence and power did.
Very true, I think the issue is more that Western martial arts both gained and lost from having regular warfare, whereas Eastern martial arts had centuries of relative peace to develop on the Art aspect over the martial, incidentally making it culture to be preserved rather than practical skills. When a particular technique becomes less effective through changes in the 'metagame' of warfare, it and its masters are very often quickly obsoleted and discarded(because you die if you lose), with the result that early era western close combat has very few surviving sources backing it up. So media, and thus the public's opinion of close combat is formed from stage combat/street combat. Stage combat is of course the obvious, appearances and dramatics matter. Street combat is where you indeed do fight like the Fighter does, generally with a trick or two up your sleeve, relative low quality weapons and no armor to speak of resulting in swinging at each other until they go down for the most part.
Going further back to myths and legends, plenty of mythic heroes do things like even the Su maneuvers, up until well after the dominance of christianity(where such feats became limited to witchcraft or saints). Cutting off mountaintops, getting angry enough to boil water, etc. Of the nine disciplines, only Shadow Hand, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a direct western mythic equivalent.
----
But, that isn't the matter when you're converting a Fighter to T3. You are more than looking at preserving the class's image, you need to preserve the play style and 'feel' as well, which means playing without resource management must be viable, and capabilities should be passive-oriented. You also need to add in capabilities outside of combat, a secondary or tertiary role which does not conflict overly with primary role requirements.
So:
Combat - Give them stances, ToB-style, but not necessarily taking from the same pool. These represent adaptability in combat, allowing them to adjust fighting styles in significant ways beyond changing the numbers on Power Attack and (theoretically)Combat Expertise.
Give them tactics, or special attack modes that extend basic techniques to the superhuman. They need not have usage limits, you could for example, simply give them some requirements that must be met in combat to use them. They should also be relatively few and general, as the
appearance of complexity can disrupt the intended goal.
Between these, that should bring the raw combat capability to the necessary levels while keeping the sense of the class.
Social - One issue is the fighter tends to sit out diplomacy, the most dumped ability being charisma, and needing three or more stats to be decent makes that almost certain, especially when feat chains require further stats to qualify for. Throw on the limited class skills and it becomes a lost cause.
Traditionally, the warrior archetype gets famous, along with developing authority and contacts. So you can snag some nobility-archetype matters. Let them have the "I know a guy" type abilities built in to invoke a relevant NPC in the area, or augment the diplomacy of others. Install titles of fame or infamy. Take Leadership, sans the cohort, and make them your contacts instead. The role here is not to take over the Face role(though it would be nice to be able to), but to be able to engage, however slightly.
Utility - Fighters are archetypical tacticians and watchmen, which they are of course, also kinda terrible at. Keen senses is very much a thing of warrior types, no matter the culture, and can be included, even if you need a 'battle sense' hack to have their augmented perception restricted to potential hazards. Tactics wise, they exercise experience in taking the shitty end of the stick, and need to be able to coordinate efforts, or otherwise apply groups to greater effect(perhaps implement group level 'stances' as Formations)
So would that all work while preserving the basic simplicity of actually using the class? Beats me, maybe I should give it a shot when I have time.
