I am very sure the Cavalry Sabre is made for stabbing. They had to be aimed at the target and you dug into them with the point using the speed of the horse to force it in deep. I dont know how useful a Sabre is while not being on a horse.
Most swords are better for stabbing most of the time anyway. Whacking with a sword is a fast way to ruin it or break the blade. At the same time it gets them stuck in people and they dont usually get very deep. Unless you are decapitating someone in a controlled environment.
So I cant actually think of any sword that would be good for attacking on the draw. Id imagine it would simply be better to simply draw your sword and fight normally than try attack straight from the hilt.
Grey Templar wrote: Any cavalry sabre can do that silly Katana quick draw thing, although its really just a useless showmenship technique. No practical use.
streamdragon wrote: Cavalry sabres most definitely have an edge. They definitely could thrust (and chiefly did), but the definitely had an edge.
As for being on foot, it's as useful as any edged 1 handed sword: very, before guns became a thing.
I dont know, I thought hussars carried 2 swords normally, a broad sword and a sabre. I assumed the broadsword was for the dehorsed as its more of a foot weapon than a sabre.
Even then, as with all swords I have ever seen, fighting with them is all about thrusting not whacking. Whacking is for uncivilized weapons like hammers and axes.
Of course im not expert at all.
I suppose you have those really fat Chinese swords or Scimitars that could be used for hacking.
streamdragon wrote: Cavalry sabres most definitely have an edge. They definitely could thrust (and chiefly did), but the definitely had an edge.
As for being on foot, it's as useful as any edged 1 handed sword: very, before guns became a thing.
I dont know, I thought hussars carried 2 swords normally, a broad sword and a sabre. I assumed the broadsword was for the dehorsed as its more of a foot weapon than a sabre.
Even then, as with all swords I have ever seen, fighting with them is all about thrusting not whacking. Whacking is for uncivilized weapons like hammers and axes.
Of course im not expert at all.
I suppose you have those really fat Chinese swords or Scimitars that could be used for hacking.
Hold on, Katana quick draw is a real technique and effective. I've seen it done (in Movies and documentary). They are use for the quick surprise kills, not in war or a duel. More like for assassin (walking by somebody and quickdraw them) or an argument type and .....like the same effect of a sucker punch (but you kill them).
The reason why a Katana can be done is because of the short curve blade (and the sharpness)...
Many other swords can't be done because they are straight blade, too long, or not sharp enough(quick draw is not a strength bashing motion, but slicing of the blade)
Good point about Saber, but I think they are too long and has never been done as a technique. Yes, anything can be done.. .. but I am talking about a train technique. Heck... you can quick draw a battle axe if you want, but will it kill???
I wonder if you can do a cutlas... anybody have that knowledge?
Well as cool as that is, I think its a bit different.
Not only is it simply a case of striking before being stricken (many times, if they had real weapons, doing what they did would leave both badly injured).
I dont know, im still not convinced its any good as a whacking weapon like these guys did.
From the wikipedia page (I know its wikipedia)
The sabre or saber (see spelling differences) is a sword that usually has a curved, single-edged blade and a rather large hand guard, covering the knuckles of the hand as well as the thumb and forefinger. Although sabres are typically thought of as curved-bladed slashing weapons, those used by the world's heavy cavalry often had straight and even double-edged blades more suitable for thrusting. The length of sabres varied, and most were carried in a scabbard hanging from a shoulder belt known as a baldric or from a waist-mounted sword belt, usually with slings of differing lengths to permit the scabbard to hang below the rider's waist level. Exceptions not intended for personal carry include the Patton saber adopted by the United States Army in 1913 and always mounted to the cavalryman's saddle.
Mr Nobody wrote: The best I can think of is bashing the pommel into your opponents face as you draw out the sword. Leaves them open for the follow up strike.
LOL. You might as well kick him in the balls and they draw your sword for the kill.
Frazzled wrote: Its not the katana, its the technique. Frankly a good European cavalry sabre is lighter and stronger.
BTW, I don't want this to be a comparison of Katana vs. X sword.
Sabre is lighter (not sure about stronger), longer, and one handed.
Katana is heaver , shorter, and two handed (for best use). But can be use as one handed attack like quick draw.
Base on science, a shorter and heaver sword can cause more slice damage than a longer and lighter blade.
All weapons are tools. Just like hammer or screw driver, they are all effective.
I think Katana is the best tool for....
If you want a tool that can give you best speed, slicing damage, and control... a short, heavy, single edge curve blade in two handed style is most the most effective. And that weapon is a Katana.
For fighting ....depends on the fighter right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing... damn.... where are my reply
david choe wrote: Hold on, Katana quick draw is a real technique and effective. I've seen it done (in Movies and documentary). They are use for the quick surprise kills, not in war or a duel. More like for assassin (walking by somebody and quickdraw them) or an argument type and .....like the same effect of a sucker punch (but you kill them).
The reason why a Katana can be done is because of the short curve blade (and the sharpness)...
Many other swords can't be done because they are straight blade, too long, or not sharp enough(quick draw is not a strength bashing motion, but slicing of the blade)
Good point about Saber, but I think they are too long and has never been done as a technique. Yes, anything can be done.. .. but I am talking about a train technique. Heck... you can quick draw a battle axe if you want, but will it kill???
I wonder if you can do a cutlas... anybody have that knowledge?
I've had both. The katana was just slightly longer and significantly heavier than the saber. A Tulwar was a good deal heavier than both. Cutlasses I've held have been quite heavy. Rather have a Colt Peacemaker myself.
Meh, I still prefer axes. Sure, they aren't nearly as effective as swords in most situations, but being able to bring your full physical force in a single hit feels extremely satisfying. After your first splintered shield, you don't want to get back to pussy swords
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Rather get a dagger then. Able to hide, more effective in (very) close combat.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Well, if you are wondering what swords can do it? Any sword with a cutting edge in a scabbard. Curved swords are going to be better at it for obvious reasons. The point of the video is, they never used swords for that because there really was no reason to. (in general, obviously there may be individual cases but it's not been documented)
Anyway, I'm not just curious why you want to know.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Rather get a dagger then. Able to hide, more effective in (very) close combat.
The dagger is not a Katana is it?
From movies and documentary... it usually from argument, just like a fist fight. Two guys standing too close with sword in the scabber and somebody quick draw the other guy before he can react. Just like the wild west quick draw his pistol.
It usually not a plan attack or kill, just in the moment notice.
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I still prefer axes. Sure, they aren't nearly as effective as swords in most situations, but being able to bring your full physical force in a single hit feels extremely satisfying. After your first splintered shield, you don't want to get back to pussy swords
I think javelins do it better. The Roman ones had weights on them and their heads bent and twisted on impact. So if you get hit by the javelin your shield becomes useless. Which is a scary thought, the enemy taking away the only thing you have to defend yourself before the battle begins. Then you can stab the shield less guys during the brief clash and demoralize them more.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Rather get a dagger then. Able to hide, more effective in (very) close combat.
The dagger is not a Katana is it?
From movies and documentary... it usually from argument, just like a fist fight. Two guys standing too close with sword in the scabber and somebody quick draw the other guy before he can react. Just like the wild west quick draw his pistol.
It usually not a plan attack or kill, just in the moment notice.
Dagger would be faster though. And regardless, it wasn't an offensive technique, it was a defensive technique when you were surprised and needed to be able to quickly retaliate, not the other way around.
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I still prefer axes. Sure, they aren't nearly as effective as swords in most situations, but being able to bring your full physical force in a single hit feels extremely satisfying. After your first splintered shield, you don't want to get back to pussy swords
I think javelins do it better. The Roman ones had weights on them and their heads bent and twisted on impact. So if you get hit by the javelin your shield becomes useless. Which is a scary thought, the enemy taking away the only thing you have to defend yourself before the battle begins. Then you can stab the shield less guys during the brief clash and demoralize them more.
Come on, Javelins? Super lame. Feeling your physical power crash down and partly rippling back into your arm, resulting in splintering a wooden shield and a baffled opponent feels so incredibly satisfying. Throwing stuff has zero feedback and just bores anyone out of his mind. Bleh!
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I still prefer axes. Sure, they aren't nearly as effective as swords in most situations, but being able to bring your full physical force in a single hit feels extremely satisfying. After your first splintered shield, you don't want to get back to pussy swords
I think javelins do it better. The Roman ones had weights on them and their heads bent and twisted on impact. So if you get hit by the javelin your shield becomes useless. Which is a scary thought, the enemy taking away the only thing you have to defend yourself before the battle begins. Then you can stab the shield less guys during the brief clash and demoralize them more.
Come on, Javelins? Super lame. Feeling your physical power crash down and partly rippling back into your arm, resulting in splintering a wooden shield and a baffled opponent feels so incredibly satisfying. Throwing stuff has zero feedback and just bores anyone out of his mind. Bleh!
This doesn't happen often but I do agree with you, axes are amazing for that alone. The other thing to love about axes is you can use it to hook. Tabar ftw.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Well, if you are wondering what swords can do it? Any sword with a cutting edge in a scabbard. Curved swords are going to be better at it for obvious reasons. The point of the video is, they never used swords for that because there really was no reason to. (in general, obviously there may be individual cases but it's not been documented)
Anyway, I'm not just curious why you want to know.
Very rare will anybody ever use this technique, but if you need it... you would want a Katana as your blade if you need too right?
Again, as was mentioned earlier... you are a Samurai walking in the city... and you spot an assassin a few feet charging you with an axe, you slice him just half a second before he can wack you.
I want to know because this techniques is cool and I have never seen done by any other swords before. I know anything can be quickdraw, but a Katana actually has this training style.
I think it actually only works will for Katana because it has just the right "happy medium" range and sharpness and speed to be able to do this. Many weapons might have the curve blade, but are too slow to draw or not sharp enough for this motion attack.
I was thinking of cutlass or saber but I think I know why it wouldn't work...the damn handle is too damn hard to get a hold off in a quick draw. A katana has no guard and easy to grab the hilt and pull the blade. The cutlass guard might cause your hand to fumble.
Another sword is Thai sword (forgot the name) It is almost like a Machete and just too short for this style to be effective.
Soladrin wrote: Watch the video I posted, it explains pretty much everything you want to know.
The video didn't tell me anything new....I wanted to know what other swords can do what the Katana quick draw attack can.
The example of the "French" using the scabber to block then draw is not really the same thing. That is just you being quick. It is like saying I move to the left and then draw my weapon out for the fight.
LOL, yeah everybody knows that it is better to have the sword out in the duel and not do a quick draw attack. The whole point of quickdraw is a sucker punch attack. You do it to surprise kill somebody.
Well, if you are wondering what swords can do it? Any sword with a cutting edge in a scabbard. Curved swords are going to be better at it for obvious reasons. The point of the video is, they never used swords for that because there really was no reason to. (in general, obviously there may be individual cases but it's not been documented)
Anyway, I'm not just curious why you want to know.
Very rare will anybody ever use this technique, but if you need it... you would want a Katana as your blade if you need too right?
Again, as was mentioned earlier... you are a Samurai walking in the city... and you spot an assassin a few feet charging you with an axe, you slice him just half a second before he can wack you.
I want to know because this techniques is cool and I have never seen done by any other swords before. I know anything can be quickdraw, but a Katana actually has this training style.
I think it actually only works will for Katana because it has just the right "happy medium" range and sharpness and speed to be able to do this. Many weapons might have the curve blade, but are too slow to draw or not sharp enough for this motion attack.
I was thinking of cutlass or saber but I think I know why it wouldn't work...the damn handle is too damn hard to get a hold off in a quick draw. A katana has no guard and easy to grab the hilt and pull the blade. The cutlass guard might cause your hand to fumble.
Another sword is Thai sword (forgot the name) It is almost like a Machete and just too short for this style to be effective.
I severely doubt that a katana can slice a moving target in half. I know they can cut still targets pretty well, but even then not always. But then again, lots of things can cut still targets. Not something to rely upon.
Also if the guy is running at you with an ax, and you cut him with your sword (with a mere few feat the sword probably wont have left the sheath in time) he and his ax would come crushing down on you and you would need a good doctor to take the ax out of your shoulder and a good negotiate to plead for you life while the assassin is on top of you. Probably better to try tackle the guy than draw a sword.
Soladrin wrote: Oh, Katana cutting power has been completely blown up by popular media. Heavier western and middle eastern swords can cut far better then the katana.
Yea I have seen them in a controlled environment, cut through 3 hollowed out pigs. Not impressive. Throw one sheet of light chain mail on those pigs and it cant get through.
Like most swords, im fairly sure they too just stab each other.
Although the one thing I am impressed about, is seeing a samurai deflect an arrow... In a controlled environment. Other than that, yea im not really impressed either.
Soladrin wrote: Oh, Katana cutting power has been completely blown up by popular media. Heavier western and middle eastern swords can cut far better then the katana.
Yea I have seen them in a controlled environment, cut through 3 hollowed out pigs. Not impressive. Throw one sheet of light chain mail on those pigs and it cant get through.
Like most swords, im fairly sure they too just stab each other.
Although the one thing I am impressed about, is seeing a samurai deflect an arrow... In a controlled environment. Other than that, yea im not really impressed either.
Well, it was a good sword, I'm not disputing that, some of the techniques used for forging the things were amazing. But yeah, a long sword (14th century style broad blade) would most likely cut better then a Katana based one weight and size alone.
It does seem that armour would be one of the main things it would struggle against. AFAIK, most japense armour was fairly weak compared to western. Much different fighting style.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I found this.
I know, but I cant help but feel that limits both sides potential.
We need to find expert knights and expert samurai ready to kill each other to prove once and for all which style of fighting is superior. Then I wont need to hear about how amazing katanas are from the kids at the wargames club.
I reckon 100 on each side. Fight to the death. Horses not allowed (id imagine a lot of people would be upset if we used horses) and only historical weapons and armour allowed.
Everyone will have go pros, there will be drones and helicopters monitoring the battle with cameras. Medics will be on standby for when the battle is over. Lots of money can be made through bets, pay to watch and front row seats etc.
At the cost of about 30 lives I think we can answer this age old question.
Swastakowey wrote: I am very sure the Cavalry Sabre is made for stabbing. They had to be aimed at the target and you dug into them with the point using the speed of the horse to force it in deep. I dont know how useful a Sabre is while not being on a horse.
Most swords are better for stabbing most of the time anyway. Whacking with a sword is a fast way to ruin it or break the blade. At the same time it gets them stuck in people and they dont usually get very deep. Unless you are decapitating someone in a controlled environment.
So I cant actually think of any sword that would be good for attacking on the draw. Id imagine it would simply be better to simply draw your sword and fight normally than try attack straight from the hilt.
Umm... no. Cavalry sabres are curved, like a katana... you stab someone on horseback, and now you got no sword.
And frankly, something with a "straight" edge, like a long sword, or bastard sword is still not a "Stabbing" weapon.... When properly used, the particular slashing motion used with a longsword is similar to cutting meat for food, and can do some serious fething damage. (basically, think the person swinging the sword wants to make contact with their blade nearish the pommel, and as they are drawing back, they are rotating the wrists/arms so that the point of the sword flicks off of their victim in the follow through.
One of the few "chopping" swords out there, is actually the scottish claymore and similarly sized Swiss/German Zweihander weapons. But in this case, they are using the weight of the weapon in much the same way as an ax-wielder is; It's the weight of the weapon doing much of the damage... Though, in the case of the Zweihander, in the hands of a Doppelsoldner (sorry, I don't know the key command for an umlaut) were used more for breaking pike formations than against individual or groups of people for the simple fact that a large swing leaves you very vulnerable to a quicker opponent.
Now, when it comes to a curved blade, like Katana, saber, or even Shamshir, many of the Japanese manuals do have the stance/move that is designed for a "kill on the draw" but, especially in Japanese swordsmanship, nearly everyone was taught this AND how to defend against it, so while the technique was there, it was rarely a combat effective thing to do.
Swastakowey wrote: I am very sure the Cavalry Sabre is made for stabbing. They had to be aimed at the target and you dug into them with the point using the speed of the horse to force it in deep. I dont know how useful a Sabre is while not being on a horse.
Most swords are better for stabbing most of the time anyway. Whacking with a sword is a fast way to ruin it or break the blade. At the same time it gets them stuck in people and they dont usually get very deep. Unless you are decapitating someone in a controlled environment.
So I cant actually think of any sword that would be good for attacking on the draw. Id imagine it would simply be better to simply draw your sword and fight normally than try attack straight from the hilt.
Umm... no. Cavalry sabres are curved, like a katana... you stab someone on horseback, and now you got no sword.
And frankly, something with a "straight" edge, like a long sword, or bastard sword is still not a "Stabbing" weapon.... When properly used, the particular slashing motion used with a longsword is similar to cutting meat for food, and can do some serious fething damage. (basically, think the person swinging the sword wants to make contact with their blade nearish the pommel, and as they are drawing back, they are rotating the wrists/arms so that the point of the sword flicks off of their victim in the follow through.
One of the few "chopping" swords out there, is actually the scottish claymore and similarly sized Swiss/German Zweihander weapons. But in this case, they are using the weight of the weapon in much the same way as an ax-wielder is; It's the weight of the weapon doing much of the damage... Though, in the case of the Zweihander, in the hands of a Doppelsoldner (sorry, I don't know the key command for an umlaut) were used more for breaking pike formations than against individual or groups of people for the simple fact that a large swing leaves you very vulnerable to a quicker opponent.
Now, when it comes to a curved blade, like Katana, saber, or even Shamshir, many of the Japanese manuals do have the stance/move that is designed for a "kill on the draw" but, especially in Japanese swordsmanship, nearly everyone was taught this AND how to defend against it, so while the technique was there, it was rarely a combat effective thing to do.
No I think 99% of swords are made and more efficient for stabbing. I know in games and movies and fake duels they whack all the time, but that's purely for looks and for being non lethal.
Of course im not 100% sure since im no expert, but whacking with a sword is a fast way to break it, fast way to die and fast way to not penetrate armour.
Sabres are most definitely stabbing weapons. Slicing is not good for swords. Sabre being a cutting weapon is a myth.
Swastakowey wrote: I am very sure the Cavalry Sabre is made for stabbing. They had to be aimed at the target and you dug into them with the point using the speed of the horse to force it in deep. I dont know how useful a Sabre is while not being on a horse.
Most swords are better for stabbing most of the time anyway. Whacking with a sword is a fast way to ruin it or break the blade. At the same time it gets them stuck in people and they dont usually get very deep. Unless you are decapitating someone in a controlled environment.
So I cant actually think of any sword that would be good for attacking on the draw. Id imagine it would simply be better to simply draw your sword and fight normally than try attack straight from the hilt.
Some sabres were primarily designated for thrusting, but the quintessential curved sabre was a slashing weapon primarily.
Attacking on the draw is basically an act of desperation, it means you've practically been caught with your pants down. And realistically will be dead before you've even half drawn your weapon.
A quick draw would have very little cutting power and would bounce off of any armor your opponent is wearing(a problem with swords in general and made even worse by a clumsy attack). You're far more likely to fail to draw your weapon completely or get hung up on something, and now you're dead!
Swords are status symbols really. They require a lot of skill to make, and a lot of good quality metal. But they're not very good at penetrating metal armor. They're weapons for cutting down unarmored peasants. They'll work against chain mail but it will come down to if your sword is better quality than the chain mail. Against plate armor a sword is all but useless, you need a massive two handed sword to do anything to plate armor and then its the mass of the sword and not its cutting power. You might as well have an iron bar.
They best weapons for penetrating plate armor are things like hammers, maces, and picks. As well as all Polearm type weapons. You either have enough penetrating power to actually penetrate the plate OR you have enough kinetic energy to simply shatter bones and pulp organs without bothering to penetrate.
Swastakowey wrote: I am very sure the Cavalry Sabre is made for stabbing. They had to be aimed at the target and you dug into them with the point using the speed of the horse to force it in deep. I dont know how useful a Sabre is while not being on a horse.
Most swords are better for stabbing most of the time anyway. Whacking with a sword is a fast way to ruin it or break the blade. At the same time it gets them stuck in people and they dont usually get very deep. Unless you are decapitating someone in a controlled environment.
So I cant actually think of any sword that would be good for attacking on the draw. Id imagine it would simply be better to simply draw your sword and fight normally than try attack straight from the hilt.
Some sabres were primarily designated for thrusting, but the quintessential curved sabre was a slashing weapon primarily.
Attacking on the draw is basically an act of desperation, it means you've practically been caught with your pants down. And realistically will be dead before you've even half drawn your weapon.
A quick draw would have very little cutting power and would bounce off of any armor your opponent is wearing(a problem with swords in general and made even worse by a clumsy attack). You're far more likely to fail to draw your weapon completely or get hung up on something, and now you're dead!
Swords are status symbols really. They require a lot of skill to make, and a lot of good quality metal. But they're not very good at penetrating metal armor. They're weapons for cutting down unarmored peasants. They'll work against chain mail but it will come down to if your sword is better quality than the chain mail. Against plate armor a sword is all but useless, you need a massive two handed sword to do anything to plate armor and then its the mass of the sword and not its cutting power. You might as well have an iron bar.
They best weapons for penetrating plate armor are things like hammers, maces, and picks. As well as all Polearm type weapons. You either have enough penetrating power to actually penetrate the plate OR you have enough kinetic energy to simply shatter bones and pulp organs without bothering to penetrate.
I still stand by the fact that, cavalry sabres especially, are thrusting weapons.
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I still prefer axes. Sure, they aren't nearly as effective as swords in most situations, but being able to bring your full physical force in a single hit feels extremely satisfying. After your first splintered shield, you don't want to get back to pussy swords
I think javelins do it better. The Roman ones had weights on them and their heads bent and twisted on impact. So if you get hit by the javelin your shield becomes useless. Which is a scary thought, the enemy taking away the only thing you have to defend yourself before the battle begins. Then you can stab the shield less guys during the brief clash and demoralize them more.
Come on, Javelins? Super lame. Feeling your physical power crash down and partly rippling back into your arm, resulting in splintering a wooden shield and a baffled opponent feels so incredibly satisfying. Throwing stuff has zero feedback and just bores anyone out of his mind. Bleh!
Pfft, you and your weapons. Real men use their fists.
No I think 99% of swords are made and more efficient for stabbing. I know in games and movies and fake duels they whack all the time, but that's purely for looks and for being non lethal.
Of course im not 100% sure since im no expert, but whacking with a sword is a fast way to break it, fast way to die and fast way to not penetrate armour.
Sabres are most definitely stabbing weapons. Slicing is not good for swords. Sabre being a cutting weapon is a myth.
No, they are simply NOT stabbing weapons. I will agree with you on games and movies having people "whacking" with a sword... Yeah, that's gonna do damage to yourself if you do that.
Spoiler:
Check out that video, starting at around 1:40 or so... they have an expert talking about the "proper" usage of a sword in combat, particularly the longsword. The thing with fighting in full plate is, there are still weak spots, which are aimed for... Not to mention there are records of a longsword being used to kill men, where the blade punctured through a plate steel helmet, through the padding, through the skull of the guy, and was only stopped by the poor sods teeth.
Thing to also keep in mind, the type of steel used was actually quite flexible, designed, particularly if it was a European blade, to take a hit from another blade and not break.
As to sabers, again, yes it's a slashing weapon... The technique, especially if we're talking about 1700s and later Western militaries (England, France, Prussia), the thing with a saber, aside from being used to issue commands, was that if a mounted soldier or mounted officer was riding in to battle, their goal wasn't to go against other cavalry, it was to go against the infantry. The particular tactics called for the rider to hit the infantry line inbetween two soldiers, and, with his blade trailing towards the rump of the horse, slash the infantryman as he was riding by. Again, if you stab someone with a curved blade, you're going to lose it. Plain and simple.
I've done reports on this stuff, plus I collect books on these very subjects. Hell, just the other day I hung out with a swordsmith in my town for about an hour and just talked metal and how different swords and different purposed require different metals (which is going to affect the prices he charges you)
They best weapons for penetrating plate armor are things like hammers, maces, and picks. As well as all Polearm type weapons. You either have enough penetrating power to actually penetrate the plate OR you have enough kinetic energy to simply shatter bones and pulp organs without bothering to penetrate.
It's actually quite interesting (to me anyway) that some of the earliest hammers used in battle against plate weren't "warhammers" and so didn't have the large spike on one end.... But they were still extremely useful against a fully plated combatant, because that blunt instrument was good for bending or altering the shape of armor. As such, the hammer wielder would be aiming for joints (elbows, shoulders, etc) to immobilize his enemy. The other plus being what you mentioned: the sheer force of a blow breaking bones well beneath the armor.
Besides the ones you mentioned, one of, if not THE best weapon for puncturing plate was the bodkin tipped arrow
The sort of "mix" between all these was the vikings preferred weapon: the axe. The "hook" on the bottom of the axe blade was useful for removing a shield, while the blade had some good cutting power, with the weight of the rest of the head having power enough to punch through many different types of armor.... Not to mention, once the battle is over, and you're feasting, it's a bit hard to chop wood for the feast fire with a sword
If you want a sword that was a pure stabbing weapon, thats what the Gladius was. It was short and had a very sharp tip.
Broadswords were multi-functional weapons, but the primary method was slashing. If you wanted to penetrate armor you used the tip, but getting a good solid stab wasn't easy. "Death by a thousand cuts" was more common.
Fatal deaths in duels were usually due to stabbing, but that is a formal stylized type of fighting.
But every time I read about Cavalry and their Sabres they are described as "aiming it" at their target and stabbing into them.
I cant see how a horse men can expect to run into a group of infantry and survive otherwise. Let alone the fact your blade being in the slicing position means your horse would have to brush your target so it can actually slice. I mean, maybe if they happened to be lucky and be attacking some spread out fleeing unarmed infantry they could slice a few but not only does that sound very hard to accomplish it also relies on you having a very specific scenario to achieve.
BUT as I said I am no expert, im just going off books and internet stuff I have read.
Grey Templar wrote: If you want a sword that was a pure stabbing weapon, thats what the Gladius was. It was short and had a very sharp tip.
IIRC, the Irish adapted the Gladius into more of a "leaf blade" sword, though it had much the same effect (not the Irish, the sword)
And, not a sword, but one of the most purely "stabby" weapons was the Misericorde... the dagger used to put armored foes out of their misery. Basically, it was an ice pick long enough to go from under the arm pit through the heart
What they're actually doing IIRC is that that is only against other cavalry. And its not actually preparing a stab, its preparing a block against your opponents first blow. You will then reposte with a slash, using the momentum of the horse to give extra cutting power to the sabre, which is weighted on its tip.
If you stab someone while riding at top speed you're going to lose your sword, it will either break or get stuck in the corpse.
Swastakowey wrote: I know, but I cant help but feel that limits both sides potential.
We need to find expert knights and expert samurai ready to kill each other to prove once and for all which style of fighting is superior. Then I wont need to hear about how amazing katanas are from the kids at the wargames club.
I reckon 100 on each side. Fight to the death. Horses not allowed (id imagine a lot of people would be upset if we used horses) and only historical weapons and armour allowed.
Everyone will have go pros, there will be drones and helicopters monitoring the battle with cameras. Medics will be on standby for when the battle is over. Lots of money can be made through bets, pay to watch and front row seats etc.
At the cost of about 30 lives I think we can answer this age old question.
If we keep things pre-gunpowder, the European armed individuals will win. Superior weapons and superior armor made from superior material.
The Japanese had utter crap iron and all the steel of decent quality was basically reserved for the edge of Katanas. One of the big imports after contact was established with Europe was European cuirasses.
Mr Nobody wrote: The best I can think of is bashing the pommel into your opponents face as you draw out the sword. Leaves them open for the follow up strike.
LOL. You might as well kick him in the balls and they draw your sword for the kill.
As a rule quick draw are for curved or short weapons only.
The Romans had a quick draw technique, legionnaries wore their sword in the right and drew them vertically rather than across the bosty as is usual for sword drawing. This was due to the tower sshield they wore, but also due to pila. A legionnary would carrty two or three pila of different weights the last throw just before lines were closed and it appears the quick draw technique was part of the arm movement for the throw of the heavy pilum which due to its weight would need the whole body to move to be effective from a standing position.
Japanese quick draw technique is actually an attack, there are two forms, one for a standard draw and attack, the seciond is for when the samuria is seated and it intended as an initiation or a response to a treacherous attack. This latter attack is very difficult to parry and often resulted in the death of both parties. The formal quick draw is a battlefield technique, in formal duelling samurai would have sword drawn. This is because contrary to opinion the katana was not a battlefield weapon of any choice, Samurai would fight with either Yari or bow, though some other weapons were also used. The seated positional combat became important in the tokugawa era, because Samurai bereft or war sought honour in single combat or small unit actions. To partly limit this the Tokugawa shugunate modified the dress code for samurai making maneuver in clothing difficult. Samurai would have to adjust their dress before they were combat effective, which would be instantly noticable. So a measn of a fast draw attack, especially from a seated position was valuable knowledge.
Western quick draw techniques are limited to the sabre or scimitar mostly, as a cavalry weapon its a secondary arm to be used after the primary is discharged. Though the sabre because a weapon of choice of itself in the 18-19th centuries. A curved blade has some advantages on the swing narrowing point of contact for a deeper cut and making it easier to extract the blade while mounted. With exception of a few trick artists there are no sabre quick draw attacks per se, and none whatsoever while mounted due to positioning. though in all cases a good swordsman could draw and quickly make an attack, its actually two moves not one.
One of the big controversies of 18th/19th century sword design was the point vs edge debate.
Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.
Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.
Marv has the way of it. Despite the at times ludicrously legendary status applied to Japanese sword makers, all that folding and craftsmenship was really about turning utterly terrible quality iron into something useable. Iron on the Japanese Isles is really low quality, and getting the impurities out practically impossible. Japanese weapons were actually quite brittle. It's partly why the blades were so thick on the back end. Any thinner and they'd risk being snapped on impact.
Orlanth I think is right about the quick draw bit. It's not that the technique is impractical. It's just overstated by modern culture. It's was a very practical skill in Japan at the time it was invented. But it ain't that time anymore.
Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.
This is similar in nature to "Viking swords".... If you came across a sword that was made of Nordic iron, it came from the peat bogs. The process used to "mine" it from the peat was kind of cool... You'd make your fire with a "bowl" or hollow spot well beneath it, put a bunch of peat on it, and keep feeding the peat for a day or two (or however long you wanted/needed). Once you were done feeding the fires, and it had died down, the craftsman would sift through the ashes for the rocky lump of iron that had literally melted out of the peat and take it to his forge or to the smith if he wasn't the local smithy.... The smith would then begin the process of heating it, hammering it into a square shape, cooling it, then heating and hammering some more, etc.... This process was literally cooking the impurities out of the iron, and he knew he was done with the process when he no longer had flakes coming out of, or off of the surface of his "rock" (having seen this done, in the beginning stages it's like cracking the thin ice layer off a puddle or small pond, that's how big the chunks are relative to the piece). Once the Iron was cleaned up, he'd continue in the forging process by beating it into a rectangular or square shape before letting it sit for a couple days.
This process led to actually having higher quality metal than what was found on the European Continent (German/Italian, etc craftsmen), BUT, most of the viking sword makers had to make due with less metal, so what they'd do is take 2 pieces of their long iron bars to make the sword. The first piece they'd fold in half, then twist it like a braid. This formed the "blood groove", while the second piece would be wrapped around that twist to form the blade.
The problem with that process is that the twist left some "air pockets" in it, making the blades more susceptible to breaking than mainland blades were. This, combined with how difficult it was to get suitable amounts of iron, is one of the prime reasons why only the best warriors, or the Chief's favored warriors had swords, and most Vikings had axes.
Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.
If you mean a floppy epee then yes, but an epee is both flexible and small. Flexibility on the draw is actually a dramatisation of swashbuckler movies. To bend a sword while drawing it risks damaging the edge or the scabbard.
Reasonably fast drawing of a field rapier is due to the lanyard, not the rapier itself and not a quick draw to match that of a knife, or a curved sword.
As for any blade being drawn quickly, actually no, not all. If you want to go into battle with a zwerch, or longsword you need to be holding it or have it passed to you. a Standard viking or knightly broadsword needs a bit of room for the draw and is not quick to draw either. All these add up to the reasons why carrying a fighting knife or small sword was a good idea and most contemporary cultures had them. The only exception to the rule concerns the Japanese again, the sword pair was important for reasons other than having a quick to draw backup weapon and had more to do with cultural roots.
Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.
If you mean a floppy epee then yes, but an epee is both flexible and small. Flexibility on the draw is actually a dramatisation of swashbuckler movies. To bend a sword while drawing it risks damaging the edge or the scabbard.
Reasonably fast drawing of a field rapier is due to the lanyard, not the rapier itself and not a quick draw to match that of a knife, or a curved sword.
As for any blade being drawn quickly, actually no, not all. If you want to go into battle with a zwerch, or longsword you need to be holding it or have it passed to you. a Standard viking or knightly broadsword needs a bit of room for the draw and is not quick to draw either. All these add up to the reasons why carrying a fighting knife or small sword was a good idea and most contemporary cultures had them. The only exception to the rule concerns the Japanese again, the sword pair was important for reasons other than having a quick to draw backup weapon and had more to do with cultural roots.
Very large swords were often not kept in a scabbard at all and simply wrapped in oilcloth, or the scabbard was never attached to your body. You carried the sword in its scabbard and would just drop it when you needed to fight. You could never draw most two handed swords if their scabbard was attached to your body.
marv335 wrote: One of the big controversies of 18th/19th century sword design was the point vs edge debate.
Japanese steel used for the Katana was, to put not too fine a point on it, crap.
That's what all the folding was about, it was getting the impurities out.
They are not a magic wand, and they are absolutely not armour piercing.
Any blade can be drawn quickly, curved blades are just more mechanically suited for it, an Italian rapier can be drawn very fast due to its flexibility, and quite frankly, would have the reach of a samurai anyway.
Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.
Quick draw is not a timing to see who can draw quickest. It is a method of attacking. Rapier can be unshed really quick, but it takes another motion to strike. AS far as I know, Katana is the only sword that has the quick draw and slash attack all in one that is effective and killy. You can train just about any weapon for a quick draw... but why waste time and energy when Katana is the best at quick drawing? It is like trying to learn how to shoot M16 from the hip. If you want to shoot from the hip, use pistol quick draw.. that has practical use.
Again, if people do not know the practical use of a quick draw Katana... it has the same usage/practical usage as wild west quick draw 6 shooters. Cowboys only use quick draw for dueling and quick attack. If they are combat ready, of course they pistol is drawn and aim with arm straight... quick draw is firing from the hip to save the second of who kill first. Again, same with Katana quick draw... same usage in 1 to 5 yard range.
Oh famous quick draw katana attack that fail was in Kill bill, when Bill tried to quick draw on Uma when they were sitting down.
Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.
No, the Japanese made an ok sword from crap material. The Katana was not a great sword by any standard except ability to cut unarmored flesh. And thats not a good indicator of a good weapon, a good weapon can deal with armor as well as flesh. Cutting all the way through a target is wasted energy when a simple 6" deep wound will suffice.
The best sword making areas based on both technique and material is probably a tie between Damascus and Toledo.
Thus why Katana was a great weapon and excellent craftsmanship. Japanese figure out how to make great sword from their gakky raw material.
No, the Japanese made an ok sword from crap material. The Katana was not a great sword by any standard except ability to cut unarmored flesh. And thats not a good indicator of a good weapon, a good weapon can deal with armor as well as flesh. Cutting all the way through a target is wasted energy when a simple 6" deep wound will suffice.
The best sword making areas based on both technique and material is probably a tie between Damascus and Toledo.
I disagree because I'm a purest. I like my tools to be specialize. When I want armor opener, I choose a warhammer. When I want a medium sharpest cutting sword, I choose Katana. When I want to have an all around combat sword, I choose long sword. But when I want a all around cutting sword, I choose Katana over long sword.
I really get tire of Katana fan boys and also Katana haters just the same.
Katana is the best medium cutting sword. It is the sharpest because of single curve blade and folded steel.
Yes, Katana has it draw back by being so sharp and strong/hard. Yes Katana blade is very strong / harder than most long sword. Katana has better chance of armor penetration vs. Long sword and most european sword because it is harder and bend less during a thrust. However, because it is harder metal... it can break easier vs. bending of european blade.
So you can't just say crap like Katana is crap if you do not know how to compare or what you are looking for in a blade.
I understand it and appreciate it for what it is. One of the (if not the best) best medium, sharpest and hardest blade for cutting and armor penetration sword.
Lastly, because I (and most, if not all of us) are not going to go out and fight with swords, I enjoy the purest ideas of what "the sharpest sword is"... which usually have to be single edge and curve blade, again... Katana.
it has the same usage/practical usage as wild west quick draw 6 shooters. Cowboys only use quick draw for dueling and quick attack.
You do know that the whole quick draw duel thing is pure hollywood, don't you?
it's not. hollywood over do it as if it was that common for people to know how to do quick draw and shoot from the hip. In reality, it is a very rare skill and those who master it... did a lot of killing and not dying.
How can a Katana be the "best" weapon in any category when it's essentially useless against most opponents compared to a regular sword? It cannot even cut through a CHAINMAIL, pretty much the basic piece of armor. This already disqualifies it at being effective on any sort of battlefield.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the Katana can cut through a body easily. But it fails against armor, which really makes it nothing more than a flashy showboat piece.
You need to cut through armor to be a decent melee weapon, and the Katana fails that check.
Like I said before, I am a purest.
Give you an example. Base ball sport. There are may bats type (wood, metal, long or short) but all have the same kind of shape. The bat is a perfected design for hitting the base ball and it is that shape. You can't make a bat the size of a ping pong racket or too big like a 4 foot long bat. This is because of science, the right length of the bat and shape of the bat is a perfect design for hitting that ball.
Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.
Katana has the best cutting edge, control, and speed over most other sword.
Like I stated many times, I am a purest. This is why I consider Katana as the sharpest, fastest, and control to make the hardest and deepest cuts out of any other swords.
As far as combat weapons, it all depends on the situation.
You keep saying that it fail against armor, well what armor was Katana facing? Do you see Samurai fighting heavy armor european knight? IF Japan were facing european knights, they will bring war club and maces to war. IT is just silly to keep comparing this. BTW - what european sword can cut armor knight better than a Katana?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: How can a Katana be the "best" weapon in any category when it's essentially useless against most opponents compared to a regular sword? It cannot even cut through a CHAINMAIL, pretty much the basic piece of armor. This already disqualifies it at being effective on any sort of battlefield.
Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.
Eh...you...kinda lost me on this comparison...
...and pretty much every European sword is better at cutting through armor. As in being able to do so /at all/.
Now for a cutting sword that can swing the fastest and has the sharpest cut. The science of this is... single blade, curve blade, and about 2.5 foot length and two handed. This is about the size of a baseball bat. You can swing it fast and has powerful hitting power. The only weapon that has this science is Katana, at least that I know. You can make another sword that has this science property and it will end up looking like a Katana.
Eh...you...kinda lost me on this comparison...
...and pretty much every European sword is better at cutting through armor. As in being able to do so /at all/.
European sword were design for fighting first and sharpest of cutting is 2nd. This is why it has longer blade and double edge. Longer and double edge blade won't cut as good as shorter and single edge. Do you understand this part?
Just focus on this, to make it easier to understand.
If you were to design 'THE BEST" sword with cutting in mind, control, and speed, NOT fighting or anything... what would it look like? (note: not fighting, because with training... any weapon can be deadly)
It would have a single edge and curve right?
It would be about 3 feet long right?
It would be two handed right?
What sword is that, that is a Katana.
This is what I mean by me being a purest, I know what I want and that sword is a perfect design for that (control, speed, and cut).
A weapon that is useless against armor is...useless. Full stop. You could literally keep striking at me and I'd stand there laughing. Due to its curved shape, you would not even be able to put enough striking force behind your blows to cause any non-cutting damage. At the same time, with a regular sword, even if I would not cut through your armor, I would still cause damage to you just by applying my physical force on your body.
A sword...ANY sword is a weapon. It's only designed for battle. What else would a weapon be worth then if not fighting? As I said, you're correct, the katana is the best at playing Fruit Ninja. As a weapon, however, it horribly fails.
In general, don't judge "speed" on a weapon. Speed is far too reliant on the wielder to be able to objectively measure. I could easily out-speed you and a katana with my regular longsword / axe and shield just because of my training.
Everytime I mention anything about Katana, people start hating. I never said that it was the best weapon in the world. I was asking about quick draw.
I do have a high respect for Katana as a tool and I consider it the best of the following: the fastest, sharpest with control-precise cut from all the swords.
Again, I am a purest so I would love to knock the mantle of Katana over if somebody can make a claim that there are a better sword that can out perform the 3 things:
Speed
cutting power
precision
I really don't care about fighting style of long sword or claymore ... blah blah blah because that takes too much skills to compare. We are just comparing the tool usage.
The Katana has zero cutting power. Can't get through armor? Useless. Precision? Has zero meaning. What's the use of "precision" (not even sure what that actually means...) when a thrust is about as deadly as a regular strike? Speed? See above.
Sure, the Katana can be a good tool. For cutting fruit. And stuff. It's a terrible weapon, though. That's the point people in here make. There's no "hating" involved, just people stating that the katana is one of the most overhyped weapons ever.
So two of your things for fanboying the katana, speed and precision, are measures solely of the user and not the weapon. As for cutting, it's firmly average only really shining against an unarmored target which is a fantasy in any medical fight. What you're saying is that the katana is only best if a lot of conditions allow it to be best. You might as well be saying "the katana is great against tied up naked people, therefore it's the best!"
Sigvatr wrote: A weapon that is useless against armor is...useless. Full stop. You could literally keep striking at me and I'd stand there laughing. Due to its curved shape, you would not even be able to put enough striking force behind your blows to cause any non-cutting damage. At the same time, with a regular sword, even if I would not cut through your armor, I would still cause damage to you just by applying my physical force on your body.
A sword...ANY sword is a weapon. It's only designed for battle. What else would a weapon be worth then if not fighting? As I said, you're correct, the katana is the best at playing Fruit Ninja. As a weapon, however, it horribly fails.
In general, don't judge "speed" on a weapon. Speed is far too reliant on the wielder to be able to objectively measure. I could easily out-speed you and a katana with my regular longsword / axe and shield just because of my training.
Then you do agree "the fruit ninja" as it is the best.
OK, fighting....
Katana were invented to fight armor less or very little armor opponent in Asia. Checked.. good weapon.
What are you talking about that Katana won't hurt you and a long sword will hurt you. They are both swords! You think that long sword will break your rib in the armor, but a katana won't? Both weapons weight almost the same and, infact... Katana will have more of an impact hit because it is two-handed. Also, a Katana has a deeper armor penetration thrust vs. a long sword. Any damage a long sword can do, Katana can do better because of a sharper blade and two handed.
Basically all swords are not very good vs. heavy armor and a better weapons would be blunt weapon like maces and hammer.
But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.
Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with mace. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.
KingCracker wrote: But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.
Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with made. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.
And a Longbow trumps a mace. Why waste all that time training extensively to use a shield and mace when you can give peasants a couple of hours of practice a week then rank them up on a hill and rain enough arrows down to bring down a whole charge of elite cavalry.
Agreed with that completely, you lot proved that concept for centuries! But we are talking close combat, unless you're that danish Archer that boggles my mind, the bow is out of this discussion I think lol
curran12 wrote: So two of your things for fanboying the katana, speed and precision, are measures solely of the user and not the weapon. As for cutting, it's firmly average only really shining against an unarmored target which is a fantasy in any medical fight. What you're saying is that the katana is only best if a lot of conditions allow it to be best. You might as well be saying "the katana is great against tied up naked people, therefore it's the best!"
Fist, i hate comparing fighting style because it is subjective. We can only compare the tools that we have. If all fighters of the weapons were the same skills, then ok... lets move on to the next point.
What els can we measure a weapon other than it
speed
power (cutting and thrusting)
control
if all those three things got good marks... you bet this weapons is excellent for a skilled user.
The naked part... you know that a Katana is the best sword for beheading right? I would choose a Katana over other swords for execution. In fact, it is the only sword in the world that in the hand of an expert executioner (control) can behead a person and leave enough neck skin to hold the head from dropping to the ground. This is not a fantasy... but true event.
So yeah man.. it is good than human can invent a blade that has power and control to make cuts like this and it is nice to know and understand what that blade is and what it is call... a Katana.
KingCracker wrote: But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.
Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with mace. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.
NO they haven't giving me a sword that fit that criteria. Long Sword and such were good combat weapon, but do not have the superior speed or cutter power of a Katana, not to mention the control.
KingCracker wrote: But....... people have already given a few swords to fit that criteria. You're asking for opinions, you need to accept that others opinions will differ.
Also, a mace with trump a sword any day IMO. Armor? Who cares. Precision? Don't need it. Speed? Block with shield, bash with mace. Speed and skill go out the window when my mace crushes your shoulder to dust. Armor or not I win.
NO they haven't giving me a sword that fit that criteria. Long Sword and such were good combat weapon, but do not have the superior speed or cutter power of a Katana, not to mention the control.
Sabers? Anyone?! Pretty sure I remember that discussion a bit back
curran12 wrote: So two of your things for fanboying the katana, speed and precision, are measures solely of the user and not the weapon. As for cutting, it's firmly average only really shining against an unarmored target which is a fantasy in any medical fight. What you're saying is that the katana is only best if a lot of conditions allow it to be best. You might as well be saying "the katana is great against tied up naked people, therefore it's the best!"
Fist, i hate comparing fighting style because it is subjective. We can only compare the tools that we have. If all fighters of the weapons were the same skills, then ok... lets move on to the next point.
What els can we measure a weapon other than it
speed
power (cutting and thrusting)
control
if all those three things got good marks... you bet this weapons is excellent for a skilled user.
The naked part... you know that a Katana is the best sword for beheading right? I would choose a Katana over other swords for execution. In fact, it is the only sword in the world that in the hand of an expert executioner (control) can behead a person and leave enough neck skin to hold the head from dropping to the ground. This is not a fantasy... but true event.
So yeah man.. it is good than human can invent a blade that has power and control to make cuts like this and it is nice to know and understand what that blade is and what it is call... a Katana.
It doesn't have the power against any type of metal armor. Thus the speed and control are useless. You need all 3 in combination to have a good weapon.
And as far as speed and control is concerned, a rapier has the katana beat on that as well. Its also better at penetration to boot.
OK, fighting.... Katana were invented to fight armor less or very little armor opponent in Asia. Checked.. good weapon.
Any weapon is good against unarmored opponents. I mean..come on. Even with a mace, I only need a single hit to kill or at the very least incapacitate you. I could incapacitate you with the single strike of a broomstick.
What are you talking about that Katana won't hurt you and a long sword will hurt you. They are both swords! You think that long sword will break your rib in the armor, but a katana won't? Both weapons weight almost the same and, infact... Katana will have more of an impact hit because it is two-handed. Also, a Katana has a deeper armor penetration thrust vs. a long sword. Any damage a long sword can do, Katana can do better because of a sharper blade and two handed.
Eh...what? First of all, how is wielding it two-handed be an argument for the katana? That's a wielder's choice...and has nothing to do with the weapon itself...and even if we do want to compare, go for a Zweihander. Suddenly, you're looking at a major increase in power with the Zweihander vastly outpowering the katana by so much that it's not even funny. 1 hit, you're done for. Armor? Doesn't matter. Hit, down.
Secondly, a katana is not significantally sharper than a longsword. Full stop. Not to mention that there is no "grade of sharpness" for weapons. In theory, there is, but a sharpened weapon is a sharpened weapon. And again: can't cut through armor? What use does the sharpness then have? Better at cutting fish for sushi, I guess.
Thirdly: Katanas have zero armor penetration. Zero.
Fourthly: two-handedness can be a major disadvantage. A Zweihander counters lack of protection by having insane hitting power. A Katana doesn't. I usually use an axe and a shield and you would not have the slightet chance with a katana. You helpless against the shield, you cannot parry the hits and you could not get past my armor. That's not even situational as a chainmail is an extremely basic piece of equipment.
Seriously guys, take the speed ouf of the equation. It means nothing. Training beats theory.
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
Again, Katana has control.
Why would precision like that matter in an execution? You don't. Besides I'm pretty sure the guillotine beats out beheadings on all weapons handedly
The Katana is a work of art, exception for cheap gimic wall hangers. however those who think it bthe best sword are missing one vital piece of information: THERE IS NO BEST SWORD.
Sword design is a tradeoff, straight versus curved blade, longer versus shorter, hilt shapes have tradeoffs, pommel size and weight, crossguard shape, all are tradeoffs. One can have a favourite blade, one can even have a blade that is best of a users personal fighting style, but there is no best sword.
yes there are good swords and mediocre swords and bad swords, but manufacturing technique and materials count for that. A Katana can be a fine weapon, but for utility there are advantages in a modern era field rapier. with regards to technique Japanese swordcrafting expertise is important, but then so was Saxon which was equivalent quality Japanese folded their paired sword blanks, Saxons twisted theirs. With regards to location Damascus steel or Toledo steel are a distinct advantage, but said materials can be imported and in the modern day reinforced artificially with such materials ars titanium or tungsten each of which brings something distinct and different to the blade.
'Katana haters' arent really a problem, as for a start those who realise the Katana is not the be all and end all of swordcraft are on the way to an educated opinion. Most will learn the Katana is a fine example of swordcraft but.... rather than assume it is flatly inferior.
I see where this is going... you guys got me to debate katana...
Some of you guys are all over the place arguing about katana.
Rule number one, I call it dagger vs. sword. meaning that both weapons are good at what it is design for. Sword will be better vs. dagger in most situation. The key is Most. Dagger will beat a sword if the fight is underwater or in very very close quarter like wresting situation.
So don't dagger v. sword me about katana vs. mace or situational like vs. armor.
All weapons are situational.
That being said. I do not claim Katana is the best at everything. I mean.. you guys think Katana is worst at everything... come on.. that is silly.
I will claim Katana is best at somethings and I'll point them out again. Now if you want to argue, then argue about what I am clamming and don't break rule one again.
Here is my claim. If other sword can do just as good, then don't argue about it. I never said Katana is the only sword that can do this...
Katana is the best sword at:
Sharpest / power cutting ability
Speed
Control
Just those 3.
Rapier has better speed, but lack cutting.
Claymore lack the control and speed, but got the same power of force over sharpest
Saber has almost the same attribute of a Katana and I might consider it as equal, but because it is one handed... it lack the cutter power and control compare to Katana. However, I consider it as a one handed Katana or a Katana a two-handed saber.
Don't debate about which is a better weapon because they are all weapons and all swords has been tested in battles and they are all good. We now only can only judge them as tools of war and which tool is better at doing what.
If you can come up with a sword that has those 3 categories better than a Katana, then that sword is a better sword.
One vs two hands is not an example of control. And the Katana is not a true two handed sword, the No-dachi is a true japanese two handed sword. The Katana could be wielded in either one or two hands. But you don't need two hands for control, its just another way to use it.
With a rapier you can always put your attack where you want it. It has suburb control.
And again, the katana has no cutting power except against bare flesh.
Speed, sure, but its no better at this than dozens of other swords.
In all categories that are the Katana's strength, the Katana is decidedly average vs other weapons.
If you really are looking for the best cutting sword, see what the best swordsmiths made out of the finest designs Africa could distill from the lessons of Eastern and Western schools.
I give you the unrefined, ungrateful punk offspring of the scimitar, raised in the backroads of Europe since the first Crusades up until the 16th century. The falchion. This was the sword the Europeans made to hack limbs, slice through armor, and generally ruin the day of anyone that they ran into. The tremendous advantage of the one hand models is, of course that they would still allow the use of a shield.
Fun additional fact- at the Battle of the Nations, this has become a very popular sword primarily because of the handguard- when an opponent closes, you have the equivalent of brass knuckles on from the handguard, and just punch them in the face.
These Polish horse gods are more of a throwback to the sabre discussion, but note that they carried 3 forms of sabre, a lance and an axe or pick into battle, all with different purposes. And, of course, that their charge into gunlines would cause entire regiments to shatter and flee.
KingCracker wrote: Agreed with that completely, you lot proved that concept for centuries! But we are talking close combat, unless you're that danish Archer that boggles my mind, the bow is out of this discussion I think lol
Didn't samurai usually wield bows? I remember reading something to that effect.
Katana's aren't two handed weapons, they are One and half handers like a longsword. Daikatana's are two handed.
Also, Sharpest/power cutting. Zweihander would beat that easily. Falchions too because of the weight and shape.
Speed, rapiers, short swords, sabres, all faster and better for thrusting.
Control, this "attribute" needs some clarification, if you are talking about how well you can aim your weapon, a lot of this is based on user ability, not the weapon. If you base it purely on weapon, rapiers and shortswords once again take this.
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
Again, Katana has control.
Why would precision like that matter in an execution? You don't. Besides I'm pretty sure the guillotine beats out beheadings on all weapons handedly
Art dude....the art of death and respect for the dead.. I don't feel like educating the Japanese culture of execution.
It is like asking why have different size paintbrush for painting your miniature.
Katana is a work of art, we finally have a sword that can cut with such a control and a tool that powerful should be respected and not mocked.
KingCracker wrote: Agreed with that completely, you lot proved that concept for centuries! But we are talking close combat, unless you're that danish Archer that boggles my mind, the bow is out of this discussion I think lol
Didn't samurai usually wield bows? I remember reading something to that effect.
They did. It was usually bows and polearms on the battlefield. Bows were to cut down the worthless peasants and soften the enemy up. Polearms for actually fighting armored opponents. The katana was ceremonial and a dueling weapon.
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
Again, Katana has control.
Why would precision like that matter in an execution? You don't. Besides I'm pretty sure the guillotine beats out beheadings on all weapons handedly
Art dude....the art of death and respect for the dead.. I don't feel like educating the Japanese culture of execution.
It is like asking why have different size paintbrush for painting your miniature.
Katana is a work of art, we finally have a sword that can cut with such a control and a tool that powerful should be respected and not mocked.
Again, this control thing you keep bringing up is not very important. Its more of a product of training and not the sword itself. If we're talking just the aspects the sword gives, then rapiers beat the katana on this one so hard its not even funny.
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
Again, Katana has control.
Why would precision like that matter in an execution? You don't. Besides I'm pretty sure the guillotine beats out beheadings on all weapons handedly
Art dude....the art of death and respect for the dead.. I don't feel like educating the Japanese culture of execution.
It is like asking why have different size paintbrush for painting your miniature.
Katana is a work of art, we finally have a sword that can cut with such a control and a tool that powerful should be respected and not mocked.
Again, this control thing you keep bringing up is not very important. Its more of a product of training and not the sword itself. If we're talking just the aspects the sword gives, then rapiers beat the katana on this one so hard its not even funny.
Not to mention art is very subjective. So it's now in same category he threw out earlier.... wielders skill. Also you can't use " it kills with artistic awesomeness!! " as a counter point.
Katana is the best sword at:
Sharpest / power cutting ability
Speed - ridiculour
Control
Sharpest / power cutting ability - a scimitar has very similar cutting ability and a Damascus steel scimitar is a quality piece,
Speed - Pfiffle, poppycock, speed ia a factor of the user. The only advantage the Katana holds is the formal martial arts moves whicvh have been preserved for the current day. You can use a Katana fast draw and strike technique with a scimitar, though not from personal experience. As far as strike speed is concerned, I would consider the gladius to be faster
Control - Again a smaller blade has more control, gladius again being a fine example here.
Just those 3.
Rapier has better speed, but lack cutting.
Claymore lack the control and speed, but got the same power of force over sharpest
Saber has almost the same attribute of a Katana and I might consider it as equal, but because it is one handed... it lack the cutter power and control compare to Katana. However, I consider it as a one handed Katana or a Katana a two-handed saber.
The field rapier works on the doctrine that the point is more effective than the edge. With regards to wound dynamics this is true. Puncture woulds are more lethal than slashing cut iof a similar size and force. A slashing weapon needs size to make up for the effectiveness of a thrusting weapon. The field rapier was designed as the best all rounder, and in this it is superior to a Katana, however again there is not best sword.
It's length plus mode of use gives it extra reach, and while its cutting edge is generally inferior to a curved blade it can get the job done.
Claymore are worthless junk weapons, way too heavy. The only two handed western weapons I would recommend as good designs are the longsword and the zwerch.. At Culloden claymore armed Scots clansmen died to bayonet armed soldiers in line combat even though the latter had less formal training.
The sabre is designed for mounted use, and is a better weapon for slashing while mounted, its a specialist blade. Its a good fencing weapon and parries well, but other foot weapons are better suited.
If you can come up with a sword that has those 3 categories better than a Katana, then that sword is a better sword.
No you cant, as the tradeoff applies.
However modern minds have thought of this and the only sword to last long in to the gunpowder era was the field rapier. I can find you at least three categories where it is "better" than the katana.
1. Reach - its technique allows a rapier to he held at arms length plus its own, this gives reach similar to a spear in optimum circumstances.
2. Penetration - as a thrusting weapon it can find holes in good armour, or strike eyes or armpits.
3. Protection - the basket hilt of a field rapier offers superior protection in a sliding parry
4. Ruggedness - the quillon reduced weight but the much wider rear edge is good for blocking on the parry. The cross section of a katana has no quillon and the rear of the blade is quite narrow and relatively fragile.
5. Parrying in general - Katanas were designed for the quick kill, and not parrying combat, as the rapier has superior reach and superior parry then assuming the combatants are equal has the advantage over the katana armed opponent.
If I wanted to make the best sword I could possibly use I would go with the modern left handed field rapier as the optimised tradeoff, add a swordbreaker at the rear of the blade at the crossguard, make the main shaft out of erodeproofed titanium steel for extra strength. I would prefer a coarse screwed headpiece fitted to the tang and use modern materials for the grip.
I would still likely lose, as the wielder is the most important component
Grey Templar wrote: One vs two hands is not an example of control. And the Katana is not a true two handed sword, the No-dachi is a true japanese two handed sword. The Katana could be wielded in either one or two hands. But you don't need two hands for control, its just another way to use it.
With a rapier you can always put your attack where you want it. It has suburb control.
And again, the katana has no cutting power except against bare flesh.
Speed, sure, but its no better at this than dozens of other swords.
In all categories that are the Katana's strength, the Katana is decidedly average vs other weapons.
I know, but with two hand ... you gain much more control. when I say control, I mean the weapon is like a brush stroke.
Like zero marking z with his rapier. Katana can make slice like that. I don't think you can do that with a Claymore.
You can't two hand a rapier right.
You keep saying Katana has no cutting power against bare flesh... what other 3 lb sword can do better than a Katana? This is breaking rule one again.
So you haven't give me a sword that can do the 3 things better than a Katana. You have some better at this , but worst at other stuff. This is why I said it many times that every weapons is a tool and is situational. If you know Katana at what it does, it is the best in that categories. Give me a better sword that outshine all 3 of that categories. If a rapier got better control and speed, but lack cutting sharpness.. then it is not better than Katana.. just different. Do you not understand this?
I loath Deadliest Warrior but this does illustrate the power of the Kilij. Its actually got cutting power against armor because its heavier, and you MUST have weight not just sharpness to do actual killing.
You are basically trying to say the katana is best when everything is perfect, no armor, no actual fighting, etc...
KingCracker wrote: ERM..... I'm pretty sure a claymore would best your beheading comment
Both claymore and Katana can do the job... but what about control and precision? My example of executioner who leave the neck skin on... a Claymore is a heavy weapon that you can't control the cut... you wack it and done with it.
Again, Katana has control.
Why would precision like that matter in an execution? You don't. Besides I'm pretty sure the guillotine beats out beheadings on all weapons handedly
Art dude....the art of death and respect for the dead.. I don't feel like educating the Japanese culture of execution.
It is like asking why have different size paintbrush for painting your miniature.
Katana is a work of art, we finally have a sword that can cut with such a control and a tool that powerful should be respected and not mocked.
Again, this control thing you keep bringing up is not very important. Its more of a product of training and not the sword itself. If we're talking just the aspects the sword gives, then rapiers beat the katana on this one so hard its not even funny.
Not to mention art is very subjective. So it's now in same category he threw out earlier.... wielders skill. Also you can't use " it kills with artistic awesomeness!! " as a counter point.
Look man... yeah skill is important. However, to use that skill... you need a tool to go with it. To cut like that, you need a cutting weapon (no rapier) and must be two handed for perfect control cut/slice and razor sharp edge.
Back to square one... the sharpest and control cut blade is a Katana. There is a reason why doctor use scalpel and not butcher knife for operation. Katana is like a scalpel weapon, a long sword can't be use like that. It is too impossible.
And a scalpel is basically useless on the battlefield where you are facing metal armor.
It being the best scalpel sword is a pretty useless thing to be "best" at. to be a good weapon it needs to be able to deal with armor and be able to be used effectively. The Katana can't deal with armor. Thus its a poor weapon.
Katana is the best sword at:
Sharpest / power cutting ability
Speed - ridiculour
Control
Sharpest / power cutting ability - a scimitar has very similar cutting ability and a Damascus steel scimitar is a quality piece,
Speed - Pfiffle, poppycock, speed ia a factor of the user. The only advantage the Katana holds is the formal martial arts moves whicvh have been preserved for the current day. You can use a Katana fast draw and strike technique with a scimitar, though not from personal experience. As far as strike speed is concerned, I would consider the gladius to be faster
Control - Again a smaller blade has more control, gladius again being a fine example here.
Just those 3.
Rapier has better speed, but lack cutting.
Claymore lack the control and speed, but got the same power of force over sharpest
Saber has almost the same attribute of a Katana and I might consider it as equal, but because it is one handed... it lack the cutter power and control compare to Katana. However, I consider it as a one handed Katana or a Katana a two-handed saber.
The field rapier works on the doctrine that the point is more effective than the edge. With regards to wound dynamics this is true. Puncture woulds are more lethal than slashing cut iof a similar size and force. A slashing weapon needs size to make up for the effectiveness of a thrusting weapon. The field rapier was designed as the best all rounder, and in this it is superior to a Katana, however again there is not best sword.
It's length plus mode of use gives it extra reach, and while its cutting edge is generally inferior to a curved blade it can get the job done.
Claymore are worthless junk weapons, way too heavy. The only two handed western weapons I would recommend as good designs are the longsword and the zwerch.. At Culloden claymore armed Scots clansmen died to bayonet armed soldiers in line combat even though the latter had less formal training.
The sabre is designed for mounted use, and is a better weapon for slashing while mounted, its a specialist blade. Its a good fencing weapon and parries well, but other foot weapons are better suited.
If you can come up with a sword that has those 3 categories better than a Katana, then that sword is a better sword.
No you cant, as the tradeoff applies.
However modern minds have thought of this and the only sword to last long in to the gunpowder era was the field rapier. I can find you at least three categories where it is "better" than the katana.
1. Reach - its technique allows a rapier to he held at arms length plus its own, this gives reach similar to a spear in optimum circumstances.
2. Penetration - as a thrusting weapon it can find holes in good armour, or strike eyes or armpits.
3. Protection - the basket hilt of a field rapier offers superior protection in a sliding parry
4. Ruggedness - the quillon reduced weight but the much wider rear edge is good for blocking on the parry. The cross section of a katana has no quillon and the rear of the blade is quite narrow and relatively fragile.
5. Parrying in general - Katanas were designed for the quick kill, and not parrying combat, as the rapier has superior reach and superior parry then assuming the combatants are equal has the advantage over the katana armed opponent.
If I wanted to make the best sword I could possibly use I would go with the modern left handed field rapier as the optimised tradeoff, add a swordbreaker at the rear of the blade at the crossguard, make the main shaft out of erodeproofed titanium steel for extra strength. I would prefer a coarse screwed headpiece fitted to the tang and use modern materials for the grip.
I would still likely lose, as the wielder is the most important component
Thus why I said Katana has its' niche and superior at its' niche.
Why are you arguing with me by breaking my rule 1 or saying that other weapons are just as good as Katana. Didn't I already explain that?
Being good at a niche is meaningless. We're looking at if in general it was a good sword, and it wasn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
they were pretty sharp actually, razor sharp. But thats not a good quality for a sword to have. Because the sharper a point gets the more brittle it becomes, and the fast it will wear down or chip.
Grey Templar wrote: And a scalpel is basically useless on the battlefield where you are facing metal armor.
It being the best scalpel sword is a pretty useless thing to be "best" at. to be a good weapon it needs to be able to deal with armor and be able to be used effectively. The Katana can't deal with armor. Thus its a poor weapon.
wow... that is a dumb statement.
Anything that is best is best at that. Best.
A Katana is better than most sword and is still at worst a sword. A Katana is never lesser than a long sword, so if you say Long Sword is a poor weapon.. then I can respect your opinion. Another than that, you are very bias.
So a Katana is a battle ready sword that can do scalpel cut is a poor weapon? It is just as good as a long sword, but can do scalpel cut...and you consider a poor weapon. Yeah, you make a lot of sense.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, its a pretty good weapon for slicing flesh. But thats it, and its never going to get through to that flesh if it can't deal with armor.
A longsword has the mass to actually deal with armor. So yes, it is better than a katana as a weapon.
You're focusing so hard on its ability to cut when it is fatally flawed in so many other aspects.
and try to make your sentences coherent, it was tough to decipher that last post.
Sorry about my typing...
Actually the Katana is not a light weapon. It is as heavy as a long sword. So I never consider Katana superior or less superior to a long sword in combat. They are both swords and about as equal. Minor differences in pros and cons... but over all a average sword.
In a What IF situation, we give all English Katana instead of long Sword in 100 years war.. the result would still be the same.
So I said this again, it is as good as a long sword, but it has a scalpel ability.
People assume that Katana can't cut armor, the fact is it can cut just as effective as a long sword can vs. armor. Even better than a long sword vs. armor. This is why this part fail... Katana has better armor penetration...vs. long sword.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.
Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.
Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.
Well, it was never tested in battle like that in real life because Japan didn't have heavy armor.
However, you need to understand that a Katana is a razor sharp and very very strong blade. It won't get dull during a battle that it would be useless. At worst, it will be as dull as a long sword... and long sword can kill in battle.
Katana blade don't chip or bend like most european blade... it stays the same.. however.. it can break in half. But the factor of dull or breakage is very very rare at best... and I wouldn't consider as part of the negative of the weapon.
Look, I'm not trying to say a Katana is a bad weapon. It wasn't. Especially in the area it was used it was the sword of choice for a reason. I just get annoyed by how over hyped people have gotten about them. They were great weapons, yes. They are not the end of all of sword technology.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.
I don't think you understand how edge sharpness works. Many European blades were designed to be razor sharp too, you're acting like only the Katana was able to achieve such an edge. But Soladrin is correct, again, with a couple of slashes over armor that sword will be dull, and then pretty useless in a fight, where as most European swords were designed to STILL get the job done after getting dull and dinged up
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Way wrong. You can try to express your opinion about speed or control... but sharpest is easy to test. Yes, Katana is razor sharp. Sharper than all double edge european blade.
I don't think you understand how edge sharpness works. Many European blades were designed to be razor sharp too, you're acting like only the Katana was able to achieve such an edge. But Soladrin is correct, again, with a couple of slashes over armor that sword will be dull, and then pretty useless in a fight, where as most European swords were designed to STILL get the job done after getting dull and dinged up
Well, it's also just the factor that Katana's aren't great stabbing weapons. Most european blades had a good thrust to them. The tip of a sword will stay effective far longer then the edge.
Razor sharp and hard steel are drawbacks, not features. If you rely on a sharp edge, you lose effectiveness immediately after any contact with reasonably hard surfaces because your blade begins to chip(yes, all swords do this. The katana is not immune to it like you claim) and then you've lost your only advantage.
Hard steel is inflexible and makes a blade prone to snapping. A bent sword can be repaired easily, a snapped blade basically needs to be melted down and reforged completely.
Soladrin wrote: No, it isn't. Katanas didn't have the best steel so it wouldn't be sharpest regardless.
Well they won't stay sharp for long but can and do get incredibly sharp. I have a $10 pocket knife that I get shaving sharp in no time, I'd put it's edge against a $150 pocket knife any day. The difference being my poopy steel won't stay that way for long.
Okay, I may shortened that sentence a bit too much. What I meant with that is it's sharpness in any kind of battle. A couple of scrapes on armour would dull the blade quickly.
Well, it was never tested in battle like that in real life because Japan didn't have heavy armor.
Yes, yes they did. The armor was even bulletproof to firearms of the period.
Orlanth wrote:
However modern minds have thought of this and the only sword to last long in to the gunpowder era was the field rapier. I can find you at least three categories where it is "better" than the katana.
1. Reach - its technique allows a rapier to he held at arms length plus its own, this gives reach similar to a spear in optimum circumstances.
2. Penetration - as a thrusting weapon it can find holes in good armour, or strike eyes or armpits.
3. Protection - the basket hilt of a field rapier offers superior protection in a sliding parry
4. Ruggedness - the quillon reduced weight but the much wider rear edge is good for blocking on the parry. The cross section of a katana has no quillon and the rear of the blade is quite narrow and relatively fragile.
5. Parrying in general - Katanas were designed for the quick kill, and not parrying combat, as the rapier has superior reach and superior parry then assuming the combatants are equal has the advantage over the katana armed opponent.
If I wanted to make the best sword I could possibly use I would go with the modern left handed field rapier as the optimised tradeoff, add a swordbreaker at the rear of the blade at the crossguard, make the main shaft out of erodeproofed titanium steel for extra strength. I would prefer a coarse screwed headpiece fitted to the tang and use modern materials for the grip.
I would still likely lose, as the wielder is the most important component
Thus why I said Katana has its' niche and superior at its' niche.
Why are you arguing with me by breaking my rule 1 or saying that other weapons are just as good as Katana. Didn't I already explain that?
The Katana doesn't have its niche, the sabre has a niche, its a cavalry sword.
The field rapier has advantages in battle against the katana, allowing equal skill a rapier is a better choice of weapon both in and out of armour. The katana is only superior in the cut, but the rapier user doesnt care abnout that, as a thrust is better than a cut in terms of damage dealt and the field rapier can parry better and has longer reach yet is similarly weighted.
Katanas are not niche weapons, they are generalist weapons, but the field rapier is a better generalist weapon, hence its continued use in the later 19th century as opposed to other blades which were closely equivalent to the Katana in form and function.
A Katana is better than most sword and is still at worst a sword.
Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.
The katana was a good weapon back then in the region it was used in. That's its niche - the region. If we're talking from a nowadays point of view and are going to actually compare weapons based on what they're meant to be used for (read: fighting), then the katana is absolutely useless and loses out vs. most if not all comparable weapons by a vast margin. You cannot even parry with it.
Quick explanation about Sharpness and hardness of Katana (K) vs. European sword(ES). I have it right, and you guys have it wrong.
The term razor get thrown a lot, but Katana is really true razor edge. ES edge need more force to slice, this is why you can grab ES blade and won't cut your hands if you don't slice it. A K blade is true razor and a small movement will slice your skin. So no, ES is not razor edge... but is just an average sharp sword, not razor edge like K.
Before I get to the hardness, I want to talk about how the K and ES are made. To make it easier to understand, Iron is soft and Steel is harder. It takes more iron to make steel. OK. European has more access to iron, so they can make steel and Japan has less iron, so they don't have a lot of steel.
ES are made from solid steel because of more access to iron.
K are made from Iron with steel edge and point tip because of less access to iron.
OK.
Steel is harder and can break if too brittle.
Iron is softer and can not break, but bend.
Because ES is made of steel, it is harder and almost impossible to bend a ES sword. It can bend and then bounced back to it's shape.... kind of like a spring.
K will bend if enough forced is used... but you need to be an ogre to do that.
Because ES is steel and can break, the edge can't be too sharp or it will cause the blade to brittle and break in combat. So the edge is sharp, but never razor sharp.
K blade is iron, with steel tip and edge... the edge can be razor sharp and it won't break because the blade is softer.
What that science means is that K blade can be design to be razor sharp and not worry about breakage.
ES blade must not be razor sharp or it will break.
Then why make ES steel and not iron with steel edge like Japanese or the Viking? Because when ES hit plate armor, it will not bend. K is sharper, but it might bend at multiple hit against hard object like plate armor.
Over a battle, a Katana will not bend... but in times vs. plate ... you bet.
So European sword were made to last longer against fighting other steel at the cost of less sharpness.
If a Rich knight or elite guard who prefer better blade, but expensive overtime because of needing to keep changing sword.. they would use the Japanese technique and have a sharper blade, but less durable.
So yes, Katana is a sharper sword. True Razor edge because it can.
A Katana is better than most sword and is still at worst a sword.
Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.
The katana was a good weapon back then in the region it was used in. That's its niche - the region. If we're talking from a nowadays point of view and are going to actually compare weapons based on what they're meant to be used for (read: fighting), then the katana is absolutely useless and loses out vs. most if not all comparable weapons by a vast margin. You cannot even parry with it.
What are you talking about. I keep saying that Katana is the sharpest sword... but you are the one who keep disagreeing with me. I don't know what els you want me to say.
Katana is a sword and as good as any other sword, but it has a sharper edge. To me, that is a better weapon.
Also, I should mention that a good and successful design weapon must have a niche right? You keep saying that I am compare Katana as an end all weapon. I keep tell you that I am a purest and I search for a niche weapon that is the best at what it does. Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche. Then you keep bring Rapier or claymore which are beast of their own. I say for that niche of weapon in the Katana category... I can't seem to think there are other superior weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: I don't think you understand how steel works.
Soladrin wrote: Japan had less iron, so their steel had more carbon, more carbon = harder more brittle steel.
You got it backward dude. Carbon steel is what european did because they have lots of iron to make steel. It makes their sword more durable, but can't have too thin edges (sharpness) or the sword will break and chip.
When you have a soft core iron body of the Katana and steel edges... the sword will not break, but bend. Again, the technique of making sword like this is similar to what the viking did. The Japanese and Viking blades were some of the sharpest blade but not very durable vs. long usage... especially vs. steel armor.
Dude... remember history.
Iron age... Iron weapon in Europe...but the Viking did the steel edge first in history so their weapons were sharper than normal iron weapon.
Then Steel - and with chain mail and plate... iron weapon and iron weapon with steel edge were bending overtime and became expensive to maintain. A solid steel weapon were better, but less sharp. Still sharper than iron, but less sharp than iron w/ steel edge.
In Japan, it was almost the same as Iron age in Europe and Viking. There were not a lot of iron.. so iron with steel edge was the weapon of choice... no need to worry about expensive bending.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats funny, because viking swords got bent all the time because they were made of very soft iron.
Are you being sarcastic?
Dude, the viking weapons were very effective but it was a bitch for their blacksmith to maintain. Most army just decide to make it cheaper to go pure steel because over all it was easier to make and cheaper to maintain.
There are three type of material / technique in weapons in this discussion.
Iron age (pure iron). They won't break, but can bend. The worst material and the lowest technology. WORST CATEGORY.
Pure Steel - They are very strong and won't bend, if bend will bounce back or too much bend will break and snap. This is the most durable material / technique... but CAN NOT have razor edge because it will cause the blade to chip and snap quickly.
Iron w/ steel edges. - This is the best technique and hardest(skill) to make. Viking did this first before Japanese. The blade will bend and no break. Because of the softer core iron body, the steel edges can be razor sharp and it will not break the blade. THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment because it will be expensive to keep the weapon maintain for an army. However, a superior officer or King might have this kind of blade... but must be maintain more often. Again, no ideal for an army. UNLESS you are in Japan because you are not hack the Katana against chain mail and Plate armor. So it is a good blade for an army to have.
Viking swords had different composition to the Katana. Its not enough to just have steel edges and an iron core, you need to have the right kind of steel.
The high quality viking swords you are referring to were still made a different kind of steel than the japanese had, called crucible steel. Which was both flexible and strong and less brittle than normal steel.
The japanese steel edge is martensite, which is very hard but brittle steel. Its inflexible, negating the benefit of the soft iron core.
The viking methods were way different from the japanese, not comparable like you are trying to do.
Incorrect, as proven above. It's vastly inferior to most other swords.
Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche.
Uhm...its "niche" is armorless enemies? That's...a pretty broad niche. It basically puts a katana on the same level as a regular kitchen knife. One hit with a kitchen knife vs. an unarmored enemy is as deadly as the hit of a katana vs. an unarmored enemy. And no, that's not made up, I'm serious.
david choe wrote: THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment
...which makes it not THE BEST BLADE by a long shot.
Grey Templar wrote: Viking swords had different composition to the Katana. Its not enough to just have steel edges and an iron core, you need to have the right kind of steel.
The high quality viking swords you are referring to were still made a different kind of steel than the japanese had, called crucible steel. Which was both flexible and strong and less brittle than normal steel.
The japanese steel edge is martensite, which is very hard but brittle steel. Its inflexible, negating the benefit of the soft iron core.
The viking methods were way different from the japanese, not comparable like you are trying to do.
So mail emerges sometime in the 13th century in Japan, about
100 years before the Katana comes into existence in its modern form.
That's what I said about how Katana is made. Soft body and hard edges. This allows the blade to have razor edge with out breakage.
The razor edge itself will still chip if it hits anything hard.
You are nit picking now. I said Japanese were LIKE Viking. The main idea of why Viking and Japanese blade were superior to most european blade were the combination of soft core and hard edges. Give me a break... I didn't went and research like you did. You took what I stated and went to research about it. It was top of my head. I also said iron body.. and steel edges... it all means the same... soft body and hard edges to make a superior sharp edge.
Again, back to my point... this Japanese technique and Viking techniques makes them some of the best weapons in history.
The result is sharper edges.
Are you going to argue about the sharpness of Katana now? I told you the science of possibility why it can have a razor edge and a functional razor weapon vs. European more dull blade. To me that craftsmanship created a superior weapon.
A good comparable weapon would be Viking blade using it's technique to make a sharp viking broad sword.
Incorrect, as proven above. It's vastly inferior to most other swords.
Katana is a weapon design for cutting armor less enemy with great speed, slicing damage, and control. To me it is one of the best tool for this niche.
Uhm...its "niche" is armorless enemies? That's...a pretty broad niche. It basically puts a katana on the same level as a regular kitchen knife. One hit with a kitchen knife vs. an unarmored enemy is as deadly as the hit of a katana vs. an unarmored enemy. And no, that's not made up, I'm serious.
david choe wrote: THIS IS THE BEST BLADE, but expensive to maintain and make. Not very practical vs. Steel chain mail and plate environment
...which makes it not THE BEST BLADE by a long shot.
seriously, your comment is pathetic and laughable. After I explain to you the science of the Katana and sharpness of the blade and how it was very difficult to make.. you still act like this.
You have a bias and a Katana hater. I told you that only Katana can have this sharpness and still functional as a weapon.
If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.
Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.
You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.
Even Vikings who are "barbarian" understand the concept and respect the power of iron steel sword and Axes.
Actually, a katana isnt really the best cutter. Its certainly got a sharp edge, but its back is quite broad, so it really depends on draw cuts. Compare a katana with, say, a sabre: The sabre generelly has a much thinner blade, which means theres much less resistance when trying to cut something.
(think of the katana as a sharp wedge: it needs to push lots of material away to penetrate, wasting energy that would otherwise go into actually going deeper)
In all fairness, I researched. I knew Japan had chain armor, I just wasn't sure when it existed in relation to the katana.
From what we've said, the katana is great against unarmored opponents.
The Samurai were not unarmored opponents.
The katana was a beautiful, intricately wrought status symbol, which even in its culture and time period was not anyone's first choice of weapon on the battlefield. As certain European swords were in fact well suited to their period, and able to defeat period armor, they would be better swords for the battlefield.
Katanas and foot sabres are directly comparable- both were civilian, slashing weapons. The katana just also happened to be a status symbol.
If it cannot cut through armour that makes it a bad sword.Hitting the armour more times then a longsword can IS NOT GOING TO HELP.having a sharper blade is no help if it becomes blunt after hitting the armour. Besides the b*sterd sword is simply the best sword.who can Argue with a name like that?
Da krimson barun wrote: If it cannot cut through armour that makes it a bad sword.Hitting the armour more times then a longsword can IS NOT GOING TO HELP.having a sharper blade is no help if it becomes blunt after hitting the armour. Besides the b*sterd sword is simply the best sword.who can Argue with a name like that?
The feminist are more fond of the broadsword.
I'm just kidding, I adore the fancy basket hilted broadswords. They are gorgeous.
david choe wrote: Man.. I've stated many facts about the design and technique of Katana making which result in the unusual sharpness of a blade.
Only two cultures (beside some specialist blacksmith out there) that I know off make weapons like this.The Viking and the Japanese.
Because of this, I think Japanese wins on single edge cutting blade and Viking wins for double edge cutting blade.
If anybody mentioned long sword.. then right there... look at Viking broad sword.. it is better.
So Viking and Japanese wins IMO.
If you do not understand how special these swords are made and why it make them sharper, then you miss the whole concept.
You don't seem to get it. A viking broad sword would lose to both a 15th century longsword and a rapier. It has no thrusting power nor range.
then a crossbow wins right?
IF any blacksmith who can make those sharpness edge and apply to the say weapon.. you would consider that weapon "magical" or powerful, +1, no armor save. ..LOL
Whatever weapons you think is the best, have the japanese or viking apply their "special" technique... and that weapon is the superior of that class right?
You keep missing the concept of this special sword making ability which makes it a superior blade. Once the blade is granted superior... the rest is skill. The superior blade will only add to the skill of the fencer.
#1 Special making technique is what make Katana superior than most sword. Alll swords has it + and - depends on situation. I won't get into that anymore. It is so childish.
The Katana technique is one of a kind and only Viking is another group who make superior weapons like this.
If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.
First of all, Viking swords were utterly terrible for the most part. What you refer to are Ulfberth swords that were extremely rare and valuable. Secondly, your "closest to a magic sword ever" is inferior to most if not all comparable weapons. I am not exactly sure how that is "magic". At all.
Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.
Yeah. Katanas are terrible weapons but make for good decorative pieces. So people can brag about "Yo dude, that sword got folded 42 times!" while never actually doing any fighting with it.
You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.
No, I'm a well-experienced sword fighter for a little more than 17 years now, having far more knowledge about the weapons in question than you do. You're not seeing swords as weapons, but...pieces of work. Decoration. Maybe even art if we want to go that far. I'm, as everyone else in here, just point out that as a weapon, katanas downright suck. They are inferior weapons that cannot even hurt an opponent with a very basic piece of armor. If you cannot penetrate basic armor, then your weapon is useless. The weapon's sharpness is useless as it immediately loses it in an actual fight. You cannot hurt your opponent, you cannot parry and you cannot use a shield or something akin to defend yourself. That means your weapon is trash. And being good vs. unarmored opponents is worthless. As I told you above: even with a mere kitchen knife, a single strike kills you. Sharpness doesn't play into it at all.
tl;dr: You love katanas and the way of creating them, but as a weapon, they horribly suck.
Well yeah dude. It helps to have sharper weapon that is design to cut right? It doesn't hurt.
Let me ask you this, wouldn't you want the Katana or Viking weapon making ability to add to your weapon of choice so your blade would be sharper and won't break? Freaking yes! And they do have them.. those are weapons that powerful Kings or Knights used them or at least base on story.
However, the Katana is one of a kind... because of the technique of forging... it made their sword curved... so this technique might not work for a long sword. But using similar Viking technique... you can have the almost same effect and a superior edge than a typical european sword.
So again, argue with me all day about how stupid Katana is not the best... when science stated that only two cultures make special sharper blade than any other culture and why that makes them some of the best quality blade out there.
Well yeah dude. It helps to have sharper weapon that is design to cut right? It doesn't hurt.
Let me ask you this, wouldn't you want the Katana or Viking weapon making ability to add to your weapon of choice so your blade would be sharper and won't break? Freaking yes! And they do have them.. those are weapons that powerful Kings or Knights used them or at least base on story.
However, the Katana is one of a kind... because of the technique of forging... it made their sword curved... so this technique might not work for a long sword. But using similar Viking technique... you can have the almost same effect and a superior edge than a typical european sword.
So again, argue with me all day about how stupid Katana is not the best... when science stated that only two cultures make special sharper blade than any other culture and why that makes them some of the best quality blade out there.
I would actually prefer a practical weapon that can actually kill an armored opponent, and also happens to kill unarmored ones dead too.
Something like a bastard sword, or a zweihandar, or a kilij, or a basket hilted broadsword, etc...
I agree with david enthusiastically. I remember there was a guy in Lupin the Third being able to cut through planes and gak with his sword. I mean, if that's not a glowing endorsement of how good katanas are in anime, then I don't know what is.
Being able to kill an armored enemy is the most basic function any weapon has to be able to fulfill. Not only is it highly necessary, but...well, logic dictates that if it can take out an armored enemy, it might, maybe, be able to do the same to an unarmored one.
And really, less Hollywood please. One body hit will take you out right on the spot. No "Ugh I got hit 8 times but will still keep on fighting!".
Katanas are cool and all, but if I had to fight a foe in medium to heavy armor, they would be the last kind of sword I would want to have.
Something like a Falcata works well in a wider range of situations, simply because of the mechanics of force. Unless you are fighting forces with substandard armor compared to say, platemail, simple force nets you much more than sheer sharpness.
If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.
First of all, Viking swords were utterly terrible for the most part. What you refer to are Ulfberth swords that were extremely rare and valuable. Secondly, your "closest to a magic sword ever" is inferior to most if not all comparable weapons. I am not exactly sure how that is "magic". At all.
Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.
Yeah. Katanas are terrible weapons but make for good decorative pieces. So people can brag about "Yo dude, that sword got folded 42 times!" while never actually doing any fighting with it.
You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.
No, I'm a well-experienced sword fighter for a little more than 17 years now, having far more knowledge about the weapons in question than you do. You're not seeing swords as weapons, but...pieces of work. Decoration. Maybe even art if we want to go that far. I'm, as everyone else in here, just point out that as a weapon, katanas downright suck. They are inferior weapons that cannot even hurt an opponent with a very basic piece of armor. If you cannot penetrate basic armor, then your weapon is useless. The weapon's sharpness is useless as it immediately loses it in an actual fight. You cannot hurt your opponent, you cannot parry and you cannot use a shield or something akin to defend yourself. That means your weapon is trash. And being good vs. unarmored opponents is worthless. As I told you above: even with a mere kitchen knife, a single strike kills you. Sharpness doesn't play into it at all.
tl;dr: You love katanas and the way of creating them, but as a weapon, they horribly suck.
yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana
dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.
Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!
AegisGrimm wrote: Katanas are cool and all, but if I had to fight a foe in medium to heavy armor, they would be the last kind of sword I would want to have.
Something like a Falcata works well in a wider range of situations, simply because of the mechanics of force. Unless you are fighting forces with substandard armor compared to say, platemail, simple force nets you much more than sheer sharpness.
I love seeing Katana haters. It shows in the dumbest ways just as a Katana fan boys are.
I just respect Katana and consider the best for what it was design to do.
LOL, so many uneducated or "arm chair" weapons expert here.
The dumbest statement that keeps coming up is I would rather use a mace or other weapon of choice to crack armor and not a katana. That is such as straw man argument.
I already told you every weapons has a niche and who ever is the best niche of that is the best weapon of that niche. However, it is still a weapon.
One can argue that War hammer is the best weapon vs. Plate because the niche for Warhammer is armor cracking. I wouldn't pick war hammer in a personal duel with no armor vs a Katana.
Katana niche is Sharpest cutting edge with control precision. That is the claim... I didn't say it cuts armor knights in half or shoot fireball.
Proof of why it has the sharpest cutting edge is how it is forged and the design of the weapon is how it has control precision. Example is the execution beheading leaving the head hanging.
Holy cow... the intellectually laziness of this discussion is amazing.
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana
dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.
Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!
enough of your disrespect.
Actually as mentioned before it was the Anglo Saxons, not the vikings who mastered the paired iron and steel blank swordcraft, and were the only ones to do so outside Japan. Viking swordcraft was somehat different and did mix the metalurgy but in a different manner.
There are some surviving Anglo Saxon swords today, and they are remarkably robust allowing for how old they are. They dont hold an especially good edge, but they parry well do not easily rust and can take a beating, and are there for status as kuch as combat. An anglo saxon warrior would tend to prefer the axe, spear or mace though. The true nature of Anglo Saxon swordmaking was rediscovered by recreative archeology compared with surviving blades only recently. Due to the cultural apocalypse under Normal occupation this and most other forms of saxon culture did not survive.
Meanwhile you have still not addressed properly the huge list of advantages an equally skilled field rapier user would have against a katana user, both in and out of armour.
Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.
Your arguement can basically be paraphrased as and is intellectually indistinguishable from: lol the Katana is uber, cause its +4 razor sword zomg
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.
Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?
yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana
dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.
Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!
enough of your disrespect.
Actually as mentioned before it was the Anglo Saxons, not the vikings who mastered the paired iron and steel blank swordcraft, and were the only ones to do so outside Japan. Viking swordcraft was somehat different and did mix the metalurgy but in a different manner.
There are some surviving Anglo Saxon swords today, and they are remarkably robust allowing for how old they are. They dont hold an especially good edge, but they parry well do not easily rust and can take a beating, and are there for status as kuch as combat. An anglo saxon warrior would tend to prefer the axe, spear or mace though. The true nature of Anglo Saxon swordmaking was rediscovered by recreative archeology compared with surviving blades only recently. Due to the cultural apocalypse under Normal occupation this and most other forms of saxon culture did not survive.
Meanwhile you have still not addressed properly the huge list of advantages an equally skilled field rapier user would have against a katana user, both in and out of armour.
Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.
Your arguement can basically be paraphrased as and is intellectually indistinguishable from: lol the Katana is uber, cause its +4 razor sword zomg
give it up with your straw man argument. Read what I've stated what Katana niche is.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.
Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?
A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.
sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.
Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.
the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.
A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.
Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.
So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.
You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.
And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.
Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?
A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.
Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.
For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!
For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.
For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?
IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).
Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.
Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?
A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.
Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.
For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!
For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.
For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?
IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).
Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.
And we've all showed you have tons of other weapons would do that that same job and many others besides. Ergo, its inferior because its too specialized and other things can do the same job just as well.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.
Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.
the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.
A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.
Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.
So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.
You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.
And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol
OMG, I thought I was going crazy... there is still hope in Dakkadakka community. Why can't they understand the niche of Katana???
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.
Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.
the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.
A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.
Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.
So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.
You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.
And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol
OMG, I thought I was going crazy... there is still hope in Dakkadakka community. Why can't they understand the niche of Katana???
Because the niche of the katana has no points. It's niche is the same as any hard object, it can kill people.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.
yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.
Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?
A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.
Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.
For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!
For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.
For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?
IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).
Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.
And we've all showed you have tons of other weapons would do that that same job and many others besides. Ergo, its inferior because its too specialized and other things can do the same job just as well.
The different between you and me is that, I never claim that long sword or claymore were useless or sucks like they way you have stated as a Katana hater. I always mentioned that Katana has it niche and out perform it's niche vs. other weapon tools. I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.
I'm not saying it was bad at its niche, just that it was no better at that niche than any other weapon.
Someone killed with a katana is just as dead as if they'd been killed with a longsword, and the longsword is useful in other areas. Thus, the katana is the inferior weapon.
its a niche weapon that never had to evolve.. and by evolve I posit the vast array of european and middle eastern bladed weapons..(also why I prefer collecting those..katana dont vary much in design from one to another..just minor artistic and length variances.each)
So..I lump the katana in the same category of any middle to high quality 2.5 to 3.5 ft length bladed weapon, sure they can be sharp..but so can a good falchion or longsword or hand and half sword..and speed is all in the user.
In short I don't find anything all that special about the 3 foot razor blade..other than the hype around it..and I can wear a nice hand and a half sword on my hip all day long..I think you are making quite a fuss over a pound or so difference.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm not saying it was bad at its niche, just that it was no better at that niche than any other weapon.
Someone killed with a katana is just as dead as if they'd been killed with a longsword, and the longsword is useful in other areas. Thus, the katana is the inferior weapon.
That statement is not true.
The niche of Katana is control cutting over long sword. This niche Katana is superior.
However, yes a long sword has a better advantage over chain mail because the smaller point tip that can poke between the chain grove vs. Katana broad tip that might not get threw.
The claim that I made is that scalpel razor edge and control. This is the niche. You keep saying that Katana sucks.
I don't disrespect weapons that has been proven useful in history.
The point is you are a Katana hater and I just respect and understand what the history, science , and the niche of usefulness of are. And yes, Katana really shines at it niches.
Again with the silly control thing. The Katana isn't particular special in terms of that.
And actually no, the katana never proved its usefulness. It would have had to have clashed with other weaponry to do that. And when that happened it was made completely obsolete. Instead it shows what it was, the product of a stagnant technological backwater that was quickly eliminated once fresh technology and ideas came in.
If the katana had faced off against other weaponry from several centuries before it, the japanese would have adopted the better outside designs. Likely coming up with their own take on the sabre designs.
um, most long swords don't have a small enough point to poke through chainmail rings. The point is no smaller than a Katanas, What it does have is the strength to break through the rings and hit the flesh underneath without snapping the blade.
I'm not sure you really understand how metallurgy works.
Or the physics of a cut.
The steel aside, the Katana's cutting power comes from the drawing cut as opposed to the straight chop.
Take a sharp knife.
Lay it on your forearm.
Push.
It'll not cut.
push and draw it across, and you'll fillet yourself to the bone.
The curve of the blade means it presents at an angle and draws across the target slicing rather than cutting.
Next up comes blade geometry, which will give the resistance to the cut in depth due to the shape.
Any curved blade will perform a drawing cut.
The blade geometry of the katana makes it quite thick, as Japanese smiths tended not to use a fuller (Often erroneously called a blood groove)
Fullering a sword adds strength while removing weight, which increases quickness in the hand, and also reducing the drag through flesh.
I can list plenty of curved swords with slicing power to match a katana.
A wootz steel scimitar has it beaten hands down.
An Indian Tulwar will do it too.
As for sharpness, any steel can be sharpened.
Grey Templar wrote: Again with the silly control thing. The Katana isn't particular special in terms of that.
And actually no, the katana never proved its usefulness. It would have had to have clashed with other weaponry to do that. And when that happened it was made completely obsolete. Instead it shows what it was, the product of a stagnant technological backwater that was quickly eliminated once fresh technology and ideas came in.
If the katana had faced off against other weaponry from several centuries before it, the japanese would have adopted the better outside designs. Likely coming up with their own take on the sabre designs.
Special control thing is handling of the sword and sharpness of the slicing of the blade. You can not get any 3 foot blade that can behead people with such a control that the skin is left hanging. The reason Katana can do this because it is a razor blade. You get a long sword and it would have to base on luck to slice something in one motion and stop it just enough. Long Sword and most European blade are not sharp like razor and use force to cut not sharpness to slice. This is the most powerful niche of the Katana. Sharpness and control.
Again, with your imagery evolution of the weapon. Why would Japanese change from Katana to long Sword for the same purpose niche usefulness in Japan island. They are both swords and can do just about the same function for the Japanese environment. Because of sharpness of Katana, I would think that the Katana would be better at cutting and killing armor less foes. Simple math would tell you that a sharper blade will kill more based on statistic.
You know, in highlander style... movie.. it will always come down to skill which sword is better. Again, you keep trying to tell me that Katana is an inferior weapon. I've handle moving around with katana drawn out or long sword drawn out.... running combat... I have to say that Katana feels better and fighting vs. armorless and none skill fighters like pleasants and rebels. Long Sword is slower to react and to move around because the blade is longer. You want a shorter blade like a Katana to slaughter.
You must judge a weapon for it's period and usage in the environment that it was use for. Hence the Niche of the weapon.
Like Marco Polo in Japan was a good example where two type of weapons can meet and how it faired out. Too bad, no battle was recorded if Cutlas, saber or Katana were better. End of the day... a sword is a sword, don't matter which swords.
marv335 wrote: I'm not sure you really understand how metallurgy works.
Or the physics of a cut.
The steel aside, the Katana's cutting power comes from the drawing cut as opposed to the straight chop.
Take a sharp knife.
Lay it on your forearm.
Push.
It'll not cut.
push and draw it across, and you'll fillet yourself to the bone.
The curve of the blade means it presents at an angle and draws across the target slicing rather than cutting.
Next up comes blade geometry, which will give the resistance to the cut in depth due to the shape.
Any curved blade will perform a drawing cut.
The blade geometry of the katana makes it quite thick, as Japanese smiths tended not to use a fuller (Often erroneously called a blood groove)
Fullering a sword adds strength while removing weight, which increases quickness in the hand, and also reducing the drag through flesh.
I can list plenty of curved swords with slicing power to match a katana.
A wootz steel scimitar has it beaten hands down.
An Indian Tulwar will do it too.
As for sharpness, any steel can be sharpened.
Isn't that what I've been saying? A scimitar, cutlas, saber are very similar to a Katana. The big different is ... the NICHE is
Katana is razor sharpness because of it's technique of forging. This part is important. Any steel can be sharpen as sharp as Katana... but for combat effective... those sharp sword will break or chip, Katana will not and will last longer.
Here is a dude that knows his stuff. Again, I agree with him that Katana sword is just a sword. However, I think the Niche of sharpness and control of a Katana makes it the best weapon for the niche of it's class.
Look at Katana study that this guy did. He proved my point of the sharpness and strength of the weapon with out being fan boy. In fact he debunk many myths of Katana. Again, I NEVER CLAIM any of the Katana myth. He in fact would prefer Rapier in a duel over a Katana.
As always, I never claim Katana is the best weapon in the world. Just the best at it's niche or tie as what a sword is suppose to do.
Samurai, well actually Ronin, wielding katanas did go up against European soldiers during the renaissance period. Sometime in the late 16th century Chinese pirates and Japanese samurai mercenaries attacked Spanish shipping in the Philippines. The Philippines being a Spanish colony at the time Spanish soldiers were sent to stop them. Initially the Spanish used muskets but when they ran out of ammo they fought the enemy hand to hand, used the combination of rapier and dagger. The Spanish kicked the crap out of the samurai and their Chinese allies and took their katanas back to Spain as prizes.
Its rather sad how bad that test was. They claim the katana wins because it got slightly more penetration. However the katana didn't hit the same spot as the longsword and got a slightly better spot. And neither weapon would have so much as scratched the guy inside. But the broadsword could cause internal damage due to its greater weight. Plus the katana is in danger of snapping every time it tries to actually stab someone in armor like that.
Now I wonder what happened to Mail Call guy. I tend to image that Ancient Aliens guy came into the office and Mail Call guy just couldn't stand being second fiddle to that radical hair. So Mail Call guy just said 'feth this gak I'm going home.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Its rather sad how bad that test was. They claim the katana wins because it got slightly more penetration. However the katana didn't hit the same spot as the longsword and got a slightly better spot. And neither weapon would have so much as scratched the guy inside. But the broadsword could cause internal damage due to its greater weight. Plus the katana is in danger of snapping every time it tries to actually stab someone in armor like that.
Reminds me of the ISU-152 (I did like tanks more than swords ). That 152mm Howitzer didn't pierce the armor of a Tiger. It didn't have to. the sheer force of the shell's explosion would turn the crew into Swiss cheese (and could even blow the turret clean off the tank body).
The same fundamental applies. Blunt force trauma is often worse (especially prior to modern medicine) than cut wounds. Blunt force trauma breaks bones. Causes internal bleeding. In a battle there is little meaningful difference between the two. A guy with broken ribs is just as incapacitated as a guy with a gash from shoulder to thigh. Broken ribs are easier to achieve vs armor.
EmilCrane wrote: Samurai, well actually Ronin, wielding katanas did go up against European soldiers during the renaissance period. Sometime in the late 16th century Chinese pirates and Japanese samurai mercenaries attacked Spanish shipping in the Philippines. The Philippines being a Spanish colony at the time Spanish soldiers were sent to stop them. Initially the Spanish used muskets but when they ran out of ammo they fought the enemy hand to hand, used the combination of rapier and dagger. The Spanish kicked the crap out of the samurai and their Chinese allies and took their katanas back to Spain as prizes.
LOL...I read the wiki and Spanish won because of better guns and training of the firearm vs. japanese pirates. The hand to hand combat victory was because of Spanish pikes vs. katanas. Never mention the rapier and dagger BS. This proof that organized soliders beat pirates and pikes are better than swords... We all know this.
Because the troops the spanish had were Rodeleros. A very specific type of soldier who used a rapier and a buckler. They were used in conjunction with pikemen as well, their purpose being protecting against troops who closed to within the pikes effective range.
Its rather sad how bad that test was. They claim the katana wins because it got slightly more penetration. However the katana didn't hit the same spot as the longsword and got a slightly better spot. And neither weapon would have so much as scratched the guy inside. But the broadsword could cause internal damage due to its greater weight. Plus the katana is in danger of snapping every time it tries to actually stab someone in armor like that.
What happen to your theory that katana won't scratch plate... The freaking katana crack and cause penetration better than the eu sword in every level. I told you back in first page that katana sharpness and hardness has better armor penetration and haters try to dismiss this. Katan can fight vs plate just as good as any eu sword can...if not better at penetration.
Grey Templar wrote: Because the troops the spanish had were Rodeleros. A very specific type of soldier who used a rapier and a buckler. They were used in conjunction with pikemen as well, their purpose being protecting against troops who closed to within the pikes effective range.
I'd be skeptical of that. Rodeleros were phased out of the Spanish military by the mid 16th century. The primary Spanish infantry formation in 1582 (and the one that the linked Wiki article seems to describe) is the Tercio. While there were swordsmen in the Tercio, there weren't many. The primary power of the formation came from a organized and disciplined pike wall protecting a block of musketeers.
Grey Templar wrote: Because the troops the spanish had were Rodeleros. A very specific type of soldier who used a rapier and a buckler. They were used in conjunction with pikemen as well, their purpose being protecting against troops who closed to within the pikes effective range.
Say what you want, but the article illustrated that the star weapon were the pikes and better guns. I wouldn't say the Cowboys beated the Indians because of pistol... It was the rifle.
Its rather sad how bad that test was. They claim the katana wins because it got slightly more penetration. However the katana didn't hit the same spot as the longsword and got a slightly better spot. And neither weapon would have so much as scratched the guy inside. But the broadsword could cause internal damage due to its greater weight. Plus the katana is in danger of snapping every time it tries to actually stab someone in armor like that.
What happen to your theory that katana won't scratch plate... The freaking katana crack and cause penetration better than the eu sword in every level. I told you back in first page that katana sharpness and hardness has better armor penetration and haters try to dismiss this. Katan can fight vs plate just as good as any eu sword can...if not better at penetration.
Katana 1 eu sword 0 lol, jk
Getting 1/2" through plate isn't penetration, denting it isn't penetration. You wouldn't have even broken skin with that due to the copious padding that is also worn. Swords in general aren't great at getting through plate. European swords are better. That video, and show, is so incredibly flawed that it isn't evidence either way.
Its rather sad how bad that test was. They claim the katana wins because it got slightly more penetration. However the katana didn't hit the same spot as the longsword and got a slightly better spot. And neither weapon would have so much as scratched the guy inside. But the broadsword could cause internal damage due to its greater weight. Plus the katana is in danger of snapping every time it tries to actually stab someone in armor like that.
What happen to your theory that katana won't scratch plate... The freaking katana crack and cause penetration better than the eu sword in every level. I told you back in first page that katana sharpness and hardness has better armor penetration and haters try to dismiss this. Katan can fight vs plate just as good as any eu sword can...if not better at penetration.
Katana 1 eu sword 0 lol, jk
Getting 1/2" through plate isn't penetration, denting it isn't penetration. You wouldn't have even broken skin with that due to the copious padding that is also worn. Swords in general aren't great at getting through plate. European swords are better. That video, and show, is so incredibly flawed that it isn't evidence either way.
Either way, I know about all sword attacks vs. Plate is not ideal.... but this myth that Katana is worst than long sword because it is so light or thin is so BS. It has the same damage effect as a long sword if not more so. The hardness and sharpness of the Katana is what cause more armor penetration vs. Sword. That was my point... it has better cutting edge and penetration. half inch with force is nothing to laugh at, what if that half in was at the helmet head or the heart. The point is Katana can pen as good if not better than european sword. This katana breakage or won't do any damage is debunk.
The armor penetration and denting shows the more power of the blade, not much more but as equal or better for the Katana. However, a better pointed long sword would have gone in about 1 inch I think. So the vs. heavy armor part is about the same.
As I mentioned many times, the niche of the Katana is the freaking cutting power of single edge curve bladed and razor sharpness that allows Katana to do this over most European blade.
So what, what did that Long Sword do to the plate? NO noticeable dent and about 1/4" penetration. And yet, you keep making claim that LS is better? The video stated my Katana niche nicely and I'll even give you LS and Ktana is a draw vs. Plate (even if Katana show much more penetration).
You do not see the bias you have? Even a superior test show favor in Katana, you denied it. lol.
But what did I do? I was just defending facts vs. haters. I never claim that Katana is the best weapon. Just the best at it's niche. This claim is very different.
So what, what did that Long Sword do to the plate? NO noticeable dent and about 1/4" penetration. And yet, you keep making claim that LS is better? The video stated my Katana niche nicely and I'll even give you LS and Ktana is a draw vs. Plate (even if Katana show much more penetration).
You do not see the bias you have? Even a superior test show favor in Katana, you denied it. lol.
Yes, the LS is better against armor because it is heavier and imparts more kinetic energy. That video was not comparing apples to apples. It was comparing apples to split pea soup. It was a bad video by a horrible person who made a horrible test that proved absolutely nothing.
Sharpness isn't a great advantage like you seem to think. It does nothing to help against armor and it makes your weapon susceptible to getting chipped and broken.
I don't hate the katana. I just see it for what it actually was, a fancy overengineered weapon that wasn't super practical. It was cool and has the insane mythos surrounding it, but reality puts it squarely in the average category.
david choe wrote: Just the best at it's niche. This claim is very different.
It's a really silly thing to be best at though. By their nature niche means being high specialized. Being highly specialized isn't a very good thing for a weapon in real combat. Despite how games and min-max tends to work out, real life tends to prefer versatility to specialization. The Katana works great for the Samurai in Tokugawa Era Japan. I don't think anyone has really disputed that in thread.
The problem is that that's not really much to be best at. The Long Sword was a much more versatile weapon (though, it probably wouldn't work great for a Samurai in Tokugawa Era Japan , It would simply be too long for their needs as well as illegal). If you were on a battlefield, a Long Sword would without much doubt function better. It was a field weapon, designed for battle. The Katana was not a field weapon, but a personal defense weapon with very specific characteristics derived for a unique situation. The more traditional field swords of the Samurai were much longer and straighter edged blades like the Nodachi (A weapon that was banned by the Tokugawa Shogunate after the Warring States Period).
Gentlemen, can we put this name calling and bickering aside for the glory of the Motherland? I present the Shasqua
A fine Russian saber first used by the Cossacks. Has a curved blade, razor sharp, and the handle low and short, meant to be wielded one handed, but you can grasp the back of the grip to stab in a spear-like motion. Weighs about 2 pounds w/modern blacksmithing (1055 Carbon)
This is my favorite blade, and other then that I'll take a hand and a half sword over a katana, though I do own one (also 1055 carbon) and use it for practice cutting
EDIT: Spelling and missing letters, I've been drinking, mybad
david choe wrote: Just the best at it's niche. This claim is very different.
It's a really silly thing to be best at though. By their nature niche means being high specialized. Being highly specialized isn't a very good thing for a weapon in real combat. Despite how games and min-max tends to work out, real life tends to prefer versatility to specialization. The Katana works great for the Samurai in Tokugawa Era Japan. I don't think anyone has really disputed that in thread.
The problem is that that's not really much to be best at. The Long Sword was a much more versatile weapon (though, it probably wouldn't work great for a Samurai in Tokugawa Era Japan , It would simply be too long for their needs as well as illegal). If you were on a battlefield, a Long Sword would without much doubt function better. It was a field weapon, designed for battle. The Katana was not a field weapon, but a personal defense weapon with very specific characteristics derived for a unique situation. The more traditional field swords of the Samurai were much longer and straighter edged blades like the Nodachi (A weapon that was banned by the Tokugawa Shogunate after the Warring States Period).
Yes, that is what a niche is and I agree with you. Can you say that war hammer is better than a long sword or a katana? The war hammer has a niche for anti armor, but no cutting at all right? So why do I get so much haters when I say katana is one of the best cutting blade? That is the niche of katana right? So what the heck is the problem?
It is like I am being pick on by haters because they are sick of katana claim to fame and just have strong anti katana bias.
You are right almost 100 %, but I only make claim that the cutting power of katana is one of the best. This kind of stuff is easy to study... It is not like which sword is better in battle...katana or long sword. You guys are making the claim that long sword is better, I am not because I think it won't matter much. Like saying who will win with m16 vs ak 47.
In battle is a whole different can of worms. Formation and weapons is more important than the individule...so pikes and spears susually wins.
For like 4 pages...I keep seeing every other post of straw man argument...with armor in the picture even when that kind of armor was never used vs. katana in real life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Gentlemen, can we put this name calling and bickering aside for the glory of the Motherland? I present the Shasqua
A fine Russian saber first used by the Cossacks. Has a curved blade, razor sharp, and the handle low and short, meant to be wielded one handed, but you can grasp the back of the grip to stab in a spear-like motion. Weighs about 2 pounds w/modern blacksmithing (1055 Carbon)
This is my favorite blade, and other then that I'll take a hand and a half sword over a katana, though I do own one (also 1055 carbon) and use it for practice cutting
EDIT: Spelling and missing letters, I've been drinking, mybad
Hey...I like this sweet looking weapon. It is almost the same as a katana. What is the cutting power of this blade? It is only 2 lb, so I'm guessing it is a slicing and poking and not cutting right? Can it cut arms and heads off with ease like a katana? I will go read about this.
The katana is generally over rated, I prefer the wakizashi more anyway, but whatever. There's much better swords out there, but I wouldn't say it's the worst either.
LordofHats wrote: It's really silly but I always thought the Khopesh was really cool looking XD
Spoiler:
Thing just looks wicked. Granted it's more similar to an Ax than a sword in function.
I like it too. The design cause to have more cutting and slashing damage enforce. But it is a Bronze Age or copper weapon. This stuff will bend and dink vs. steel
Next insult catches a warning, and maybe even a holiday. Throwing out stuff like 'haters' and what not is primary school arguing and rude to boot, and I won't have it here. The OT isn't exactly glorious as it is
LordofHats wrote: It's really silly but I always thought the Khopesh was really cool looking XD
Spoiler:
Thing just looks wicked. Granted it's more similar to an Ax than a sword in function.
I like it too. The design cause to have more cutting and slashing damage enforce. But it is a Bronze Age or copper weapon. This stuff will bend and dink vs. steel
Yeah, even by modern metallurgy standards, I would have it as an art piece on the wall. It doesn't seem like a highly usable weapon compared to others out there.
Disclaimer: I'm a blacksmith as a hobby, and have made several swords and a lot of knives. I take the approach of "well, with modern steel and metallurgy, what is the best way to fashion a weapon?"
Warhammers were not common in history, so it's not really a relevant question. A Warhammer is much like a Battle Ax. An improvised weapon. A lot of people confuse other weapons with a hammer, like the Hook and Bill, which was designed by the English for a specific battlefield purpose. It wasn't so much a weapon of war as a tool of war. A tool for yanking a knight off his horse.
So why do I get so much haters when I say katana is one of the best cutting blade?
You confuse people trying to dispel a myth with hate. A cutting blade isn't just about cutting. Katanas could hold very sharp edges. Brittle steel is a lot like glass. If can be sharp as feth but it shatters easily. Katanas were very brittle weapons and broke easily. They worked however in an environment where no one was wearing armor and fights tended to end in a few moves. There was no need for the blade to be durable or hold it's edge. In a field battle or a prolonged fight, a Katana would quickly lose its razor edge and become dulled due to the nature of its construction. Durability, flexibility, they matter as much as the edge itself. The very properties that allowed the Katana to hold such a sharp edge, also left it as a brittle (i.e. inflexible) weapon with very little durability. Those weakness meant little to a Tokugawa Samurai though.
Fundamentally this leads to the next big question. Considering the sacrifices the Katana made to hold that edge, is it really the best? No. Not in a practical sense. There were many other weapons like the Kilij, Scimitar, or Jian, that had excellent cutting power but were far more durable and flexible weapons. In a practical sense these weapons can be considered superior to a Katana because they carrying it's same core advantage (sharpness) but make fewer sacrifices to hold it. The Kilij is itself the ancestor to later European sabers and probably one of the most well designed bladed weapons in history. It is just as sharp as a Katana, but has a much sturdier and durable design.
The think that makes the Katana impressive isn't it's cut, but that the engineering behind it. There were a lot of engineering challenges that needed to be mastered for the Katana to be made. As a weapon, the Katana suffered serious draw backs and while it could cut, its ability to cut is often wildly overstated. In many ways effective cutting isn't even about sharpness of the edge but the design of the blade curve and the balance of the weight behind the edge.
Warhammers were not common in history, so it's not really a relevant question. A Warhammer is much like a Battle Ax. An improvised weapon. A lot of people confuse other weapons with a hammer, like the Hook and Bill, which was designed by the English for a specific battlefield purpose. It wasn't so much a weapon of war as a tool of war. A tool for yanking a knight off his horse.
So why do I get so much haters when I say katana is one of the best cutting blade?
You confuse people trying to dispel a myth with hate. A cutting blade isn't just about cutting. Katanas could hold very sharp edges. Brittle steel is a lot like glass. If can be sharp as feth but it shatters easily. Katanas were very brittle weapons and broke easily. They worked however in an environment where no one was wearing armor and fights tended to end in a few moves. There was no need for the blade to be durable or hold it's edge. In a field battle or a prolonged fight, a Katana would quickly lose its razor edge and become dulled due to the nature of its construction. Durability, flexibility, they matter as much as the edge itself. The very properties that allowed the Katana to hold such a sharp edge, also left it as a brittle (i.e. inflexible) weapon with very little durability. Those weakness meant little to a Tokugawa Samurai though.
Fundamentally this leads to the next big question. Considering the sacrifices the Katana made to hold that edge, is it really the best? No. Not in a practical sense. There were many other weapons like the Kilij, Scimitar, or Jian, that had excellent cutting power but were far more durable and flexible weapons. In a practical sense these weapons can be considered superior to a Katana because they carrying it's same core advantage (sharpness) but make fewer sacrifices to hold it. The Kilij is itself the ancestor to later European sabers and probably one of the most well designed bladed weapons in history. It is just as sharp as a Katana, but has a much sturdier and durable design.
The think that makes the Katana impressive isn't it's cut, but that the engineering behind it. There were a lot of engineering challenges that needed to be mastered for the Katana to be made. As a weapon, the Katana suffered serious draw backs and while it could cut, its ability to cut is often wildly overstated. In many ways effective cutting isn't even about sharpness of the edge but the design of the blade curve and the balance of the weight behind the edge.
So what the heck is the problem?
People don't like fanbois.
See, that is where I disagree with you. The special forging technique of soft body and hard edge is the reason why the blade won't break like other too sharp swords. That is the whole reason what make Katana special. You are stating one of the key reason why Katana is special. A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break. And yes there were bending, but not a common thing. The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more. The special forge technique is one of the key reason Black Smith respect such a weapon that can be made super sharp and retain the durability.
The breakage you are talking about include all steel that are too sharp. I know about this and I have mentioned on many post the reason why true katana has this special ability. Please do not confuse "fake" Katana, meaning it is just a extreme sharp steel.. it will break and not a usable battle weapon.
With that said, we can agree to disagree (however, I challenge you to study the special property of the katana blade).
Like I said, if I am right about the special forging technique... then this weapon is very powerful for the purpose of cutting.
You can choose war hammer or any other special "niche" weapon... maces, flail, shrunken, Chakram (India throwing disc), and a Katana were all design to be a special weapon that excel as a niche for certain type of opponent and not a jack of all trade weapon. However, like all weapon... it is still a weapon and can kill all opponent (just harder vs. some).
End of the day... a sword is a sword and is consider one of the most common jack of all trade weapon because of the common workable usage.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use. I consider a Plate mail a niche form of protection that design to protect the user from standard cutting weapon.
LOL, yeah I'm a fanbois of Katana... not even close.
Isn't the Ulthbert also sharp, durable, and flexible, a characteristic that the katana does not have?
Aren't those characteristics typical of crucible forged steel swords?
Don't get me wrong, I love the katana. I think it's a work of art and a fine example of engineering.
However, I do think it's overrated, especially when you consider European swords such as the Ulthbert and Toledo steel weapons.
david choe wrote: I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.
At this point, it might just be a language thing, to be honest. If you really wanted to respect all weapons for the the job they required, then you would not have such high praise for the katana. It's a weapon and it fails at dealing any sort of damage against anything above leather armor, which makes it nigh useless in an actual battle. It fails as a weapon. No niche etc.
If you want to consider it being a tool, then that's another issue because a "tool" doesn't have the job to kill another combattant, but can be used in different areas. As stated above, like that game thing, Haidong Gumdu. You wouldn't be able to do such a thing with a longsword.
So it might just be a language barrier causing the irritation. The Katana is a bad weapon but a good tool in its..."niche".
Eh, I don't know if it's that useless. If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor. Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the Ulthbert also sharp, durable, and flexible, a characteristic that the katana does not have?
Aren't those characteristics typical of crucible forged steel swords?
Don't get me wrong, I love the katana. I think it's a work of art and a fine example of engineering.
However, I do think it's overrated, especially when you consider European swords such as the Ulthbert and Toledo steel weapons.
I am not sure what you are talking about. But off the top of my head, the two cultures that learn to combine soft body and hard edge were the Viking and the Japanese. The pros were, they can make excellent sharp edge and not break. The cons were expensive to maintain it's sharpness. This special technique allows the metal to NOT BREAK to the normal standard of breakage of normal steel.
So the overrated hype is in a way true why the Katana were special. This understanding part of Katana forging is overlook by most weapons collector and misunderstood and think that Katana is a fanbois.
HOwever, the Vikings were "underrated" in their weapons forging. Many do not even know that the Viking invented this method 100s of years before the Japanese and their steel weapons were superior to most european weapons.
Most important key is the Design of the Katana vs. Ulthbert is that single vs double edge. Yes, the Uthbert were very sharp, but the sword is not a curve single edge blade, so it will never have the same cutting power as a single edge curve blade.
I am not sure of the Scimitar, but if it is not special forge technique... then the sharpness and power comes from the single edge curve blade. Like all single curve blade.... the power of cutting is superior than double edge straight blade.
So over all, the key thing about katana is the forging technique. Any weapon that has this forging technique became a special powerful blade in its own right. However,Katana were all swords that "should" have this standard and therefor special. European or any swords that get this treatment by a specialist black smith is consider extra special. So some Long Sword that got this treatment are very very good, but most long sword are not done this way. All Katana were done this way. I hope this parts explain about the reason why this "myth" is not an exaggeration but you need to understand about forging and sharpness.
david choe wrote: That is the whole reason what make Katana special.
It's special in the same way any other sword is special, which isn't really saying anything.
A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break.
All swords bend to a degree, but the way the metal is forged (and the material used as well) effects how much. The Katana is a very inflexible sword. Super bending is in the realm of some of the fancier Jians and Rapiers XD Those things can go beyond a 90 degree angle and still not break XD
The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Well barring the Imperial Army, the Katana was never used as the weapon of a standing army. And really, issuing swords to soldiers as a weapon probably entered the realm of sheer stupidity around 1880.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more.
I encourage you to study something other than YouTube, the History Channel, and Movies.
retain the durability.
Except it couldn't, which has been stated multiple times. A sharper edge is inherently a more brittle edge. Brittle is not durable.
I know about this
Every post you've made has kind of said that you don't. It's like everything you think you know was taken from The Last Samurai (how awesome was Ken Watanabe in that movie and wtf was Tom Cruis in top billing?) and a bunch of other movies that rant on and on about how cool the Samurai were. The entire idea that the Katana is some how 'special' among swords comes straight out of Hollywood (or whatever the Japanese equivalent is anyway).
If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest moving away from YouTube and the History Channel (where the truth is history!). Hell, a Cracked article, is more informative.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use
That's a joke right? Ignore for a moment that this isn't even just a matter of plate armor (Mail armor was better against swords*), but plate armor was a very common form of protection throughout Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Period.
*Plate primarily developed because of changes in projectile weapons, namely the Longbow and the Crossbow, which went right through mail and various forms of layered armor, and eventually the very heaviest plate was developed to try and ward off the first firearms.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless. If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor. Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
david choe wrote: I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.
At this point, it might just be a language thing, to be honest. If you really wanted to respect all weapons for the the job they required, then you would not have such high praise for the katana. It's a weapon and it fails at dealing any sort of damage against anything above leather armor, which makes it nigh useless in an actual battle. It fails as a weapon. No niche etc.
If you want to consider it being a tool, then that's another issue because a "tool" doesn't have the job to kill another combattant, but can be used in different areas. As stated above, like that game thing, Haidong Gumdu. You wouldn't be able to do such a thing with a longsword.
So it might just be a language barrier causing the irritation. The Katana is a bad weapon but a good tool in its..."niche".
Now get your fedora straight.
The language misunderstand part is on your end. When I say tool, all things are tool design to do a certain job. A F16 jet fighter is a tool design to bring death from above. A Katana is a sword design to have the "most" effective cut that a sword can have. Based on what I just stated, "a sword designed to have the most effective cut" must be single edge, curve, and very sharp w/ razor like (Katana is a few weapon that can have razor edge because of it's special forging technique). No double edge strait blade will ever have any hope of having and effective cut as a single edge curve blade.
A weapon TOOL is just that. A smart warrior will pick the right tool for the right job. You live in 15 century Japan and you want to walk around all day carrying your bastard sword for protection might have the advantage in a fight vs. Katana... but that is like a cowboy walking around in the wild west caring a gatling gun and not his 6 shooter pistol.
You are the one who keep misunderstanding what I have been saying all along that Katana is an excellent tool for what it was design to do.
"Weapon" and "tool" aren't on the same level language-wise.
A "weapon" is a more specialized "tool". There's nothing like a "weapon tool".
A katana was a good weapon if you limit it to history. It was a good tool because it was the only way to make a good sword out of poor materials. We're comparing it to other weapons, though, and it then horribly fails.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless.
If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor.
Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
But your vacuum weapon test is silly man... I would bring a gun to a sword fight then. Come on....
I consider musket a good weapon and was an epic for it times. A Katana is like that too.
You bring a heavy armor with shield and a long sword vs. me in robe and a Katana is not a far fight is it? How about I say that because you are a greek from the 1000 BC, who wear loin cloth with a bronze short vs. me in robe and a Steel edge Katana ... who do you think will win.
Kidding? Vaccum test? You're a textbook armchair expert here. I've been doing HEMA for a little more than 17 years. Your experience is based on YouTube. I mean...give me a break here.
A chain mail isn't heavy armor, it's basic armor. I don't even need a shield given that a katana cannot get through said piece. As stated before, you want to limit a weapon's effectiveness to its time period and the region it was used in. Which is fine. But don't run yelling around town square saying it's the "best" weapon then, as if matched with other counterparts, it immediately falls short.
And no offense, but even if you had a Katana, I could beat you with a broomstick in a flash. Training trumps anything. That's what I like about melee weapons - any idiot can kill someone else with a gun. A trained melee expert will always beat an inferior opponent.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless.
If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor.
Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
Except the foot soldiers (Ashigaru) tended not to wear mail, and chainmail only started to be used in Japan around the 15th century.
Also, wasn't the katana a secondary weapon on the battlefield? If I recall correctly, the Samurai's primary weapon was a bow or a pole arm.
It seems to me that the katana was better suited as a dueling weapon, one used outside the battlefield, where no one would wear armor.
One could also say that that it's a weapon of authority, as it was usually the samurai class who had them, whilst the peasantry had nothing, not even armor.
david choe wrote: That is the whole reason what make Katana special.
It's special in the same way any other sword is special, which isn't really saying anything.
A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break.
All swords bend to a degree, but the way the metal is forged (and the material used as well) effects how much. The Katana is a very inflexible sword. Super bending is in the realm of some of the fancier Jians and Rapiers XD Those things can go beyond a 90 degree angle and still not break XD
The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Well barring the Imperial Army, the Katana was never used as the weapon of a standing army. And really, issuing swords to soldiers as a weapon probably entered the realm of sheer stupidity around 1880.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more.
I encourage you to study something other than YouTube, the History Channel, and Movies.
retain the durability.
Except it couldn't, which has been stated multiple times. A sharper edge is inherently a more brittle edge. Brittle is not durable.
I know about this
Every post you've made has kind of said that you don't. It's like everything you think you know was taken from The Last Samurai (how awesome was Ken Watanabe in that movie and wtf was Tom Cruis in top billing?) and a bunch of other movies that rant on and on about how cool the Samurai were. The entire idea that the Katana is some how 'special' among swords comes straight out of Hollywood (or whatever the Japanese equivalent is anyway).
If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest moving away from YouTube and the History Channel (where the truth is history!). Hell, a Cracked article, is more informative.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use
That's a joke right? Ignore for a moment that this isn't even just a matter of plate armor (Mail armor was better against swords*), but plate armor was a very common form of protection throughout Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Period.
*Plate primarily developed because of changes in projectile weapons, namely the Longbow and the Crossbow, which went right through mail and various forms of layered armor, and eventually the very heaviest plate was developed to try and ward off the first firearms.
This again. if you won't respect the forging technique and what I stated above as fact.. then just agree to disagree and stop the personal insult. I won't stoop to your level.
Correct. As stated before - the katana was a very good weapon in its time and region back then. It was a damn good piece of forging as it required a skilled blacksmith who had to work with terrible materials. Limited to time and region, the katana was an outstanding weapon.
What OP did, however, is to match it to other, comparable weapons and thus take it out of its context. It then falls short and shows severe weaknesses that cannot let it stand against rivals.
Except that's not what it's designed for. Its more accurate to say "a sword designed to not break the laws of the Shogunate concerning blade weight and length but that we can still use to protect ourselves from our political opponents."
No double edge strait blade will ever have any hope of having and effective cut as a single edge curve blade.
That's just plain nonsense... Double edged or straight edged has no relevance to the sharpness of the edge. The only reason the Katana itself has a single edge is because it was a design needed to have a thicker back blade to maintain what little durability the blade had.
This again. if you won't respect the forging technique and what I stated above as fact.. then just agree to disagree and stop the personal insult. I won't stoop to your level.
The only person in the thread who is being rude or insulting is you.
I do respect the forging technique. Turning iron so bad that no one else in the world ever used it to make a weapon into a useable material is damned impressive. And not only did they make something useable, but it looked pretty sweet too.
What I won't do is pretend the technique was some kind of magic. I might put it in a fiction novel, but facts don't belong in fiction
and what I stated above as fact..
I can't respect fiction as fact. I know I'm from America where we kind of do that as a national past time, but I have principles damn it!
stop the personal insult.
Telling you that your information is incorrect is not a personal insult. Suggesting that you expand your base knowledge if anything is helpful advice
Now I used to insult people for refusing to abandon very factually flawed positions, but mods have told me I'm not allowed to do it anymore
Sigvatr wrote: Kidding? Vaccum test? You're a textbook armchair expert here. I've been doing HEMA for a little more than 17 years. Your experience is based on YouTube. I mean...give me a break here.
A chain mail isn't heavy armor, it's basic armor. I don't even need a shield given that a katana cannot get through said piece. As stated before, you want to limit a weapon's effectiveness to its time period and the region it was used in. Which is fine. But don't run yelling around town square saying it's the "best" weapon then, as if matched with other counterparts, it immediately falls short.
And no offense, but even if you had a Katana, I could beat you with a broomstick in a flash. Training trumps anything. That's what I like about melee weapons - any idiot can kill someone else with a gun. A trained melee expert will always beat an inferior opponent.
But is that not a vacuum test? Do you know what is Katana design to do? Once you have stated that, then you know it was not meant to be a battle weapon but a day to day weapon with one of the most superior cutting blade.. even by modern standard.. it has one of the sharpest cutting edge.
You keep bring this straw man argument and this vacuum test again and again. Do you even understand what "vacuum" test is?
The " I'm running around town square best weapon" is the cutting power and control. No other sword has the same cutting power and control. That right there is where I ended the challenge of the Katana as a superior cutting sword. I never ever stated that it is better than pikes or spit fireball like you are so suggesting that I am clamming.
LOL, you think you are the only guy who train with weapons and MMA here? Don't try to act macho over the internet buddy. I for one have been very gentlemen with my argument and you keep trying to put words in my mouth. You are the intellectually laziness person who keeps bring this childish vacuum test of what the most powerful weapons and armor should be for hand to hand combat.. but fail to see the flaw in that fight...a gun will win. So to me, a sword is a sword. I would prefer to walk around with a side arm sword for protection as a Katana because it is light and comfortable and very killy. Who the hell were plate mail armor around the city all day in Japan? When Samurai goes to war, he brings his full armor, Katana and his main killy battle weapon which is usually a pole arm weapon. Judge a Katana for what it is.
I do respect the forging technique. Turning iron so bad that no one else in the world ever used it to make a weapon into a useable material is damned impressive. And not only did they make something useable, but it looked pretty sweet too.
What I won't do is pretend the technique was some kind of magic. I might put it in a fiction novel, but facts don't belong in fiction
and what I stated above as fact..
I can't respect fiction as fact. I know I'm from America where we kind of do that as a national past time, but I have principles damn it!
stop the personal insult.
Telling you that your information is incorrect is not a personal insult. Suggesting that you expand your base knowledge if anything is helpful advice
Now I used to insult people for refusing to abandon very factually flawed positions, but mods have told me I'm not allowed to do it anymore
Again agree to disagree. You keep saying that the technique is not important and I am telling you that this treatment of the blade is what is key here. You can use the same or close technique to apply to european weapon and that weapon will be superior to it's standard. But you choose to ignore this fact. So we can disagree on this part.
Dude, again with the debate of single and double edge. Strait vs curve, the PROS for single and curve blade is the ability of the blade to have shaper edge and cutting power. That is the whole purpose of the weapon design. IF you do not get this part right, you are very novice at best in understand swords.
Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
daedalus wrote: Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
Clubs did work pretty well for those blasted giants;
daedalus wrote: Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
good old fashion fist to your face is a better weapon and the original first weapon.
The " I'm running around town square best weapon" is the cutting power and control.
Cannot get through armor, yet still has the best cutting power? Logical fallacy. What is "control"? You keep throwing that term around yet have not even cared about actually filling it with meaning. A blade itself has zero control. It's a piece of metal. The one controlling it has control.
LOL, you think you are the only guy who train with weapons and MMA here?
When did I ever say that I do MMA? I don't, by the term's very definition. I am an active self-defense trainer who also happens to have a lot of experience with medieval weapons. If that makes me a tough guy...well, I can live with that. The problem lies in you, as you repeatedly state opinions as facts without actually having any experience using said weapons. That's armchair talking and it gets us nowehere. YouTube isn't a good tool to educate yourself on a lot of matters.
I would prefer to walk around with a side arm sword for protection as a Katana because it is light and comfortable and very killy and goes well with my fedora.
It's about as heavy as a regular long sword, it is never comfortable to wield a sword of any kind at your side and it's only "killy" vs. unarmored targets. It has the same "killyness" as a kitchen knife, as I said before. Training beats theory.
Who the hell were plate mail armor around the city all day in Japan? When Samurai goes to war, he brings his full armor, Katana and his main killy battle weapon which is usually a pole arm weapon. Judge a Katana for what it is.
You have to decide on your own opinion at some point. You either look at the katana strictly limited to its original historic context or you compare it to comparable weapons i.e. other swords, out of the historical context.
This is the internet. No one agrees to disagree. At most, they just stop talking because they're tired of trying
You keep saying that the technique is not important
This is a straw man argument. I've never once said this.
Dude, again with the debate of single and double edge. Strait vs curve, the PROS for single and curve blade is the ability of the blade to have shaper edge and cutting power.
Whether or not the blade is straight or curved has nothing to do with whether it is single edged or double edged. I know that in short hand for people who really like swords, these two things are interchangeable, but there are many single edged straight swords in history (Japan itself made them prior to the development of the Tachi). A double edged curved sword is virtually nonexistent but some do exist like the Thracian Falx (Maybe the Xiphos as well, no idea if that counts as straight or curved) which did come in a double edged variant. A curved sword with two edges is not a physical impossibility, it's just utterly pointless (get it? Pointless).
Further, the Katana is not the only curved blade ever made, so the advantage of curved blade geometry is not its alone.
daedalus wrote: Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
good old fashion fist to your face is a better weapon and the original first weapon.
A fist is significantally weaker than a club. Have you ever done any martial fighting? You don't want to repeatedly use your own fist to defeat an opponent if you have a weapon you could use. Hitting bones with bones is okay as long as the former aren't yours.
The " I'm running around town square best weapon" is the cutting power and control.
Cannot get through armor, yet still has the best cutting power? Logical fallacy. What is "control"? You keep throwing that term around yet have not even cared about actually filling it with meaning. A blade itself has zero control. It's a piece of metal. The one controlling it has control.
LOL, you think you are the only guy who train with weapons and MMA here?
When did I ever say that I do MMA? I don't, by the term's very definition. I am an active self-defense trainer who also happens to have a lot of experience with medieval weapons. If that makes me a tough guy...well, I can live with that. The problem lies in you, as you repeatedly state opinions as facts without actually having any experience using said weapons. That's armchair talking and it gets us nowehere. YouTube isn't a good tool to educate yourself on a lot of matters.
I would prefer to walk around with a side arm sword for protection as a Katana because it is light and comfortable and very killy and goes well with my fedora.
It's about as heavy as a regular long sword, it is never comfortable to wield a sword of any kind at your side and it's only "killy" vs. unarmored targets. It has the same "killyness" as a kitchen knife, as I said before. Training beats theory.
Who the hell were plate mail armor around the city all day in Japan? When Samurai goes to war, he brings his full armor, Katana and his main killy battle weapon which is usually a pole arm weapon. Judge a Katana for what it is.
You have to decide on your own opinion at some point. You either look at the katana strictly limited to its original historic context or you compare it to comparable weapons i.e. other swords, out of the historical context.
OK lets get go point by point. I think many thoughts were lost in the so many pages of this topic.
What is a Katana and why Katana is a good sword weapon. I will go fast,so don't nit pick.
I am clamming that Katana has the ability as THE BEST CUTTING BLADE for a sword.
Clams:
1 - BEST CUTTING BLADE - sharpness
2 - DESIGN FOR CONTROL - surgical cuts and amazing decapitation. For a weapon, I can't think of any sword that can be control with decapitation where you leave a small neck skin so the head does not roll. No claymore or long sword can claim to have this amazing control.
3 - This claim is for vs. other swords, not battle axes. This claim is not a test which sword is better in combat. This claim is not a claim that this sword is better than long sword in a fight. However, knowing the strength of a Katana, as far as 3 foot blade goes, it has one of the best anti armor that a sword can hope to have. IT is not a anti armor sword, no sword is. Maces, hammers, and heavy axes are for that.
FACT: Single edge curve blade has the physical property superior cutting power over double edge straight. The whole reason why scimitar, cutlas, saber were design this way. We all can agree that to have the BEST CUTTING BLADE, it must be single edge and curve. Their are cons for single edge and curve.. but the issue am I putting here is the get THE BEST CUTTING BLADE, must have single, curve blade.
FORGING - Katana has special forging of soft body and hard edge. This technique allows the sword not to break because it is not brittle and allows it to have razor edge. Some of you disagree with this and think it is a myth... it is not. The Viking and Japanese develop the art and science of this which allows their blade to be sharper than standard steel forging. The cons is high maintenance. This PROS contribute for THE BEST CUTTING BLADE.
CONTROL - two hands over a sword striking for surgical cut is superior to one hand. IF you know about weapon, you know that swinging a blade with two hands will give you better of surgical cut. How this control is achieve is because of two handed, short heavy blade, razor edge of slicing and not chopping, and curved blade. Again, to design a sword that can do surgical cut like a Katana, it must be single edge, razor sharp, two handed, short blade, and curved. The Katana is this.
SHORT BLADE AND HEAVY (for it size). - Because the blade is "heavy" and short, it is design to have maximum cutting power. A short light blade will have some advantage over heavy... but this design gives THE BEST CUTTING BLADE.
so if you wish to discuss or debate about Katana and my claims... do it in this context.
SLOW DOWN.... I never claim it is the best sword in combat. A battle Sword. OR a Swords that is the God of all swords.
It is a side arm. A sword with everyday to day purpose. A sword for great personal protection. A sword that is highly very effective vs. armor less opponent and for slaughtering because of the lightness of the weapon allows user to chase after the victims. This sword is an excellent side arm for "policing". This side arm is a sword and might be the same level as long sword, but if the day to day people are not wearing armor... the long sword might not be as effective at "slaughter". The Japanese Samurai wanted a sword that will hack a armor less opponent like civilians and other Samurai who are not waring armor because it is a day to day weapon. A long sword is design for less sharpness for more killy vs. light armor like chain. The reason why cutlas and rapier were replaced over long sword because european stop wearing less and less armor.
You say that the katana had the best cutting blade. Other people logically have turned around and said, 'But it's not. Because it can't penetrate armour'. Your follow-on response is basically, 'Yes, but that's a specific situation, assuming that it's trying to cut armour. I'm talking generally here'.
The problem is that there are only two types of people you can be cutting. Those in armour, and those not in armour. Either one of those could be regarded as a 'specific situation'. If you automatically exclude the armour, your statement becomes:
'Katanas are best at cutting in 50% of situations!'
Everyone else has turned around and said, 'But hang on. Everything else is good at cutting unarmoured people too.' You then following up with, 'Yes, but the katana was best at it!' is simply an irrelevance. Why?
Because even if (and that's a big if) it was conceded that the katana was slightly sharper than any other blade, that has very little real world relevance. Saying that the katana would cut approximately a quarter of a millimetre deeper than any other weapon given an identical weapon weight and strike angle is pointless. The person would still end up cut and bleeding on the ground. There really is no 'best' in that scenario.
You've also referenced speed and precision as factors for the katana being the 'best' at an undesignated imprecise category.
As someone who actually spent some small time training in kenjutsu (I know basic stances, cuts, etc), I can honestly tell you that such factors are completely dependent upon the wielder of the blade and the way they use it. Most of the precision that comes from katana use is down to the style of training and stances. I could pick up a longsword of equivalent size/weight, and obtain the same precision/speed by holding it and swinging it in the same way. The curved blade does not bestow any advantages over the longsword in that regard except in Battōjutsu. Which I suspect is the point that you were trying to make, if badly.
Also, just to add, the literal sharpness of the edge doesn't necessarily give the weapon superior cutting capability. There is a reason why most European swords weren't particularly sharp comparative to a katana--they didn't need to be. Shape, weight, size and the materials used saw that they could cleave through unarmoured opponents with no less ease than the katana. How they were used mattered far more than anything else.
What the katana is, is a romanticised weapon. Yes it was effective in its era, in its geographical location. So was any other weapon which remained in use throughout history.
However, any assertion that it was somehow the best sword--indeed, any assertion that anything was the best sword--is so asinine it's ridiculous.
You say that the katana had the best cutting blade. Other people logically have turned around and said, 'But it's not. Because it can't penetrate armour'. Your follow-on response is basically, 'Yes, but that's a specific situation, assuming that it's trying to cut armour. I'm talking generally here'.
The problem is that there are only two types of people you can be cutting. Those in armour, and those not in armour. Either one of those could be regarded as a 'specific situation'. If you automatically exclude the armour, your statement becomes:
'Katanas are best at cutting in 50% of situations!'
Everyone else has turned around and said, 'But hang on. Everything else is good at cutting unarmoured people too.' You then following up with, 'Yes, but the katana was best at it!' is simply an irrelevance. Why?
Because even if (and that's a big if) it was conceded that the katana was slightly sharper than any other blade, that has very little real world relevance. Saying that the katana would cut approximately a quarter of a millimetre deeper than any other weapon given an identical weapon weight and strike angle is pointless. The person would still end up cut and bleeding on the ground. There really is no 'best' in that scenario.
You've also referenced speed and precision as factors for the katana being the 'best' at an undesignated imprecise category.
As someone who actually spent some small time training in kenjutsu (I know basic stances, cuts, etc), I can honestly tell you that such factors are completely dependent upon the wielder of the blade and the way they use it. Most of the precision that comes from katana use is down to the style of training and stances. I could pick up a longsword of equivalent size/weight, and obtain the same precision/speed by holding it and swinging it in the same way. The curved blade does not bestow any advantages over the longsword in that regard except in Battōjutsu. Which I suspect is the point that you were trying to make, if badly.
YOU bring up excellent point. I want to say again that I am a purest at heart. I am not a Katana fanboy. I wanted to know what sword has the most sharpness and can have one of the most impact cuts with control. It turned out to be a Katana. That is all I wanted to make a point.
I will address your great reply. I also should have address the issue before, but got defensive about other stupid comment and ignore the issue.
1 - Because it can't penetrate armor. So are all the other swords, it can't penetrate armor. However, if we run a test of which sword can chop or penetrate armor... Katana is up there as one of the best. I think this test has been done to death. People how show how a Katana can dent or chop off arms with chain mail on much more effective than most long swords. So I don't understand why people keep bring this up. At best Katana sharpness is better at the cuts against armor and at worst, it is just as equal as other swords.
2 - Two type of situation of armor and not in armor. Again, how can Katana fail compare to other swords vs. armor in this category? So this is not really a point I was trying to debate. You bring a giant cleaver or a claymore to cut armor and of course it can do better. But I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Claymore vs. Katana. Again, in all fairness... Katana anti armor ability is about the same as other standard side arm sword. So this is not a negative on Katana part because I never make this claim and there are not side arm sword that can out perform Katana in anti armor right? A Katana or a Cutlas or a Scimitar will be almost useless vs. Armor. A long Sword has better advantage not because of cutting over Katana against Armor. The design of the small sharp point is the key for stabbing key areas of Plate mail and might even can penetrate better than Katana. So for THE BEST AT CUTTING in to armor, I don't see a Long Sword blade better than a Katana vs. Armor. For the Long Sword point yes... better than Katana.. but we are talking THE BEST AT CUTTING.
3 - Every sword is good at cutting and a kill cut is a kill cut. True. But as a purest... I want to know what is the BEST. You can measure the cut with Pigs body and this has been done to death and shows that Katana is one of the best at this. So in a way what other are suggesting is a straw man argument. Again, what has better cuts? Long sword or Katana? Katana right. Why do we measure the power bite of Alligator vs. Tiger? Because we can and we want to know what has more impact hit. (BTW the alligator wins). Same with Cuts.. a Cutting Sword is should be measure by its' ability to have the biggest and deepest cuts to consider as the best. Just like my example of which bite can have more impact, a Tiger or Alligator will kill you in a bit... but Alligator has more impact. So a study of which swords has the most amazing cut.. the Katana will usually win.
Also, you are not giving a Katana the respect when you said a Katana can cut a few more millimeter deeper... A Katana can cut 2 or 3 pigs body in half vs. most sword might only cut half of one or one at the most. We are talking about Katana has more cutting power by 2 to 3 times. 2 to 3 times cutting power as a weapon is not something to not consider in THE BEST AT CUTTING.
Again, Best cutting Sword must be measurable and there has been many test done to death about how Katana can out cut most other blades. So why is this concept so mythical. It is not mythical, just basic science of design of the blade and forging to be able to get this razor edge. Hence why I consider this Katana is a amazing tool for what it was design for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akragth wrote: Also, just to add, the literal sharpness of the edge doesn't necessarily give the weapon superior cutting capability. There is a reason why most European swords weren't particularly sharp comparative to a katana--they didn't need to be. Shape, weight, size and the materials used saw that they could cleave through unarmoured opponents with no less ease than the katana. How they were used mattered far more than anything else.
What the katana is, is a romanticised weapon. Yes it was effective in its era, in its geographical location. So was any other weapon which remained in use throughout history.
However, any assertion that it was somehow the best sword--indeed, any assertion that anything was the best sword--is so asinine it's ridiculous.
I hope your comment were not directed at me because I have already explained all of your points in the above.
I have some skill at arms from my trainer man-at-arms and friends in the field using certain medieval weapons. I think it depends on the individual skill of the user and the weapon used.
Give or take a few more years and I will be able to use a hand-and-half sword at a professional level, and would happily take on any katana-wielding Samurai Jack.
Up until recently, the metallurgy used to create this steel was lost to history. Here's a pretty exhaustive scientific article on wootz steel, a product of Damascus and certain parts of India.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9809/verhoeven-9809.html
And a nice little read on the Japanese sword making process. It appears from the article that "Samurai also wore paired swords in combat, usually favouring the tanto (dagger) and the tachi, the original Japanese long sword worn blade down, traditionally for use on horseback."
http://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms.html
I'm learning quite a bit while looking for evidence of information I know to be inaccurate! This is a fascinating discussion. The debate part is going nowhere, but the exploration of the topic is great.
Maybe in swordsmanship, but I'll bet you can't jump good.
a product of Damascus and certain parts of India
Minor clarification; Wootz steel has 0 to do with Damascus. Europeans just called it Damascus Steel because Crusaders first encountered it while attacking the city.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.php
This is a nice find. I've never managed to find cohesive content of Japanese armor throughout the ages. You'd think it would be simple.
david choe wrote: I hope your comment were not directed at me because I have already explained all of your points in the above.
I'll apologise for not reading every post, the sheer amount of conjecture in this thread made my head spin. The whole ''best cutting sword'' is a fairly ridiculous thing to strive for to begin with, quite honestly. There is no best, history plainly shows that plain as day.
That said, I have enjoyed reading some of the sources put up here.
EmilCrane wrote: Samurai, well actually Ronin, wielding katanas did go up against European soldiers during the renaissance period. Sometime in the late 16th century Chinese pirates and Japanese samurai mercenaries attacked Spanish shipping in the Philippines. The Philippines being a Spanish colony at the time Spanish soldiers were sent to stop them. Initially the Spanish used muskets but when they ran out of ammo they fought the enemy hand to hand, used the combination of rapier and dagger. The Spanish kicked the crap out of the samurai and their Chinese allies and took their katanas back to Spain as prizes.
LOL...I read the wiki and Spanish won because of better guns and training of the firearm vs. japanese pirates. The hand to hand combat victory was because of Spanish pikes vs. katanas. Never mention the rapier and dagger BS. This proof that organized soliders beat pirates and pikes are better than swords... We all know this.
Where did you get rapiers? It was pikes.
Resorting to arguing with history david choe?
I suspected the field rapier was a positive match for the katana from profile, but historical accounts are always the true test. Thanks to EmilCrane for the input.
1 - Because it can't penetrate armor. So are all the other swords, it can't penetrate armor. However, if we run a test of which sword can chop or penetrate armor... Katana is up there as one of the best. I think this test has been done to death. People how show how a Katana can dent or chop off arms with chain mail on much more effective than most long swords. So I don't understand why people keep bring this up. At best Katana sharpness is better at the cuts against armor and at worst, it is just as equal as other swords.
Again, even IF I were to concede that the katana was the sharpest blade around, that does not mean it would be any good vs armour. It just means that like all swords, it sucks against armour. So you are correct, it is an irrelevance in any given situation involving armour, or 50% of all hypotheticals. But that also renders judging it as being the best at cutting 'generally' equally irrelevant. Leaving us simply with the assertion that it is the best at cutting unarmoured flesh. So let's stick with that, and move on.
3 - Every sword is good at cutting and a kill cut is a kill cut. True. But as a purest... I want to know what is the BEST. You can measure the cut with Pigs body and this has been done to death and shows that Katana is one of the best at this. So in a way what other are suggesting is a straw man argument. Again, what has better cuts? Long sword or Katana? Katana right. Why do we measure the power bite of Alligator vs. Tiger? Because we can and we want to know what has more impact hit. (BTW the alligator wins). Same with Cuts.. a Cutting Sword is should be measure by its' ability to have the biggest and deepest cuts to consider as the best. Just like my example of which bite can have more impact, a Tiger or Alligator will kill you in a bit... but Alligator has more impact. So a study of which swords has the most amazing cut.. the Katana will usually win.
Hang on. Back up a bit. Let's break it down a bit.
We've established that for this given scenario, 'best at cutting' has to feature an unarmoured opponent. But we need to establish another few ground rules here, or this hypothesis makes no sense.
Firstly, are we comparing the sharpness of the blade or the damage done by weapons? Because the two are not the same thing. Sharpness does not necessarily equate to more damage done. If we are comparing the sharpness of the blade, we are asking a simple question of physics and metallurgy. If we are comparing damage done, you need to establish firstly what weapons you are comparing, whether or not they must be of comparable size and weight or if we are allowing other factors to enter into the equation (ability to parry, heaviness and so forth).
I suspect that you are trying to say that the katana is both the sharpest, and possesses the best balance of general traits with regards to the amount of damage done. So I'll proceed on that assumption.
I do not know if katanas were the sharpest weapons. I know that Japanese steel was traditionally terrible quality, meaning that forging required excellent skill to make a blade of mediocre strength and sharpness that tended to snap. Whether or not specific forgemasters could make better weapons than those in Europe, well.....I would suspect not. I think the average quality European blade designed for slashing would most likely take and hold an edge better simply because it would be better quality material. But my knowledge of metals is restricted to post-Bessemer process steel, and so I could not say for sure.
With regards to possessing the best balance of general traits in regards to damage done, that's a hard one to work out. If we're assuming we're fighting unarmoured oppponents (as we've already settled on), then larger weapons that deliver more physical trauma would be excessive. Yes, they would do exceptionally more damage, but it would be unnecessary overkill against an unarmoured opponent with too many drawbacks. So that rules out claymores, ōdachi, zweihanders, etc. The smallest of weapons would be too small to deal real damage or parry, ruling out daggers or knives of any variety.
This leaves us comparing against swords generally, axes, smaller blunt weapons (like maces), spears, and combinations of the above. And that's where things get more tricky. A single handed weapon permits the wielding of a buckler or shield. An axe allows you a way around shields (hooking over the brim), whilst a mace can shatter the bones of a hand through it, or snap swords in two through impact. Maces and axes have less parrying capability though. A katana has longer reach than a short sword, but a wakizashi or any shorter blade of equivalent length is far easier to parry with. The increase in parrying capability means they deliver less damage though, unless we're assessing by the point (which could be considered to be far more deadly).
Ultimately, it comes down to batman vs superman, and I don't believe you can confidently say, 'The katana is better than any combination of the above with regards to damage done and general traits'.
EmilCrane wrote: Samurai, well actually Ronin, wielding katanas did go up against European soldiers during the renaissance period. Sometime in the late 16th century Chinese pirates and Japanese samurai mercenaries attacked Spanish shipping in the Philippines. The Philippines being a Spanish colony at the time Spanish soldiers were sent to stop them. Initially the Spanish used muskets but when they ran out of ammo they fought the enemy hand to hand, used the combination of rapier and dagger. The Spanish kicked the crap out of the samurai and their Chinese allies and took their katanas back to Spain as prizes.
LOL...I read the wiki and Spanish won because of better guns and training of the firearm vs. japanese pirates. The hand to hand combat victory was because of Spanish pikes vs. katanas. Never mention the rapier and dagger BS. This proof that organized soliders beat pirates and pikes are better than swords... We all know this.
Where did you get rapiers? It was pikes.
Resorting to arguing with history david choe?
I suspected the field rapier was a positive match for the katana from profile, but historical accounts are always the true test. Thanks to EmilCrane for the input.
Did you read that wiki article at all? I guess not. The pikes formation and hand gunners behind them won the fight vs. Japanese katanas. NO Rapiers were ever mentioned. Read the article and stop this childish "i told you so". The article proofs Pikes and guns better than Katana. That is all. A rapier might be better than a Katana, I don't know and what is the point of this?
You are making assumption that I am comparing Katana is the best combat weapon in the world.
Actually he is describing YOU. No one here is saying the Katana is a crap blade, we are just refuting correctly and with the backing of logic history and common sense that the Katana is not the best blade, not even if you consider a 'niche'.
While on your endless ditribe on niche superiority the only possible niche the Katana had was regional, it was clearly a generalist weapon. however the average rations of Samuria armament in the time of the Sengoku Jidau was roughly 60/40.
And that is 60% spear (or naginata) armed, 40% bow. The katana was just a sidearm used in last resort or by exceptionally skilled show offs who chose it for reasons of personal honour and would have probably been lethal enough with tent pegs.
It is nice that you have posted some Skallagrim stuff, he has my respect.
2:23- 2:40
"There is no such thing as the prefect sword."
Orlanth wrote: The Katana is a work of art, exception for cheap gimic wall hangers. however those who think it the best sword are missing one vital piece of information: THERE IS NO BEST SWORD.
Most of all
1:23 - 1:32
"I am kind a pissed at the fanbois, or Katana cultists as that's what it is."
listen david choe. i know it must be hard for you to show some maturity and stop digging. But history shows you are wrong, credible experts (not the TV demonstration kind, but real ones) don't support your theory, most sensible martial artists and sword collectors disagree with you, long established common sense, metallurgy and ergonomics don't back you up. To top it all the swordmakers of the 18th and 19th century attempting to improve sword production, educated with the enlightenment of the Age of Reason, modern metallurgy and full knowledge of the katana chose modern weapons in separation to that design: and developed the modern field sabre and field rapier as the optimum sword patterns.
Time to give it up, the sooner you give up your hopeless position the sooner you will stop being the noob who knows nothing about swords. You know what you stop you will go to the status off being merely ignorant, as you currently have negative knowledge, a head full of so much twaddle what little truth you know about swords is washed away by it. It's embarrassing frankly. If you must persist may I suggest you stick to certain anime where your preconditions of katana awesomeness are a universal law.
The reason I post this however is because katanas are fine weapons, and works of art and skill of prodcution. They are also relics of an ancient and colourful culture worthy of deep respect. There is good reason why the swordmaker is honoured in Japan, and while being of the artisan class was afforded equal respect to a Samurai. If you truly are in awe of Japanese samurai culture do it the favour of shutting up, your noob histrionics would be embarrassing to them, the memories of Miyamoto Musashi and Akashi Zento and other masters of the Japanese fighting arts don't need the discredit of having an endless stream of noobish katana fanbois standing to bat for their side.
1 - Because it can't penetrate armor. So are all the other swords, it can't penetrate armor. However, if we run a test of which sword can chop or penetrate armor... Katana is up there as one of the best. I think this test has been done to death. People how show how a Katana can dent or chop off arms with chain mail on much more effective than most long swords. So I don't understand why people keep bring this up. At best Katana sharpness is better at the cuts against armor and at worst, it is just as equal as other swords.
Again, even IF I were to concede that the katana was the sharpest blade around, that does not mean it would be any good vs armour. It just means that like all swords, it sucks against armour. So you are correct, it is an irrelevance in any given situation involving armour, or 50% of all hypotheticals. But that also renders judging it as being the best at cutting 'generally' equally irrelevant. Leaving us simply with the assertion that it is the best at cutting unarmoured flesh. So let's stick with that, and move on.
3 - Every sword is good at cutting and a kill cut is a kill cut. True. But as a purest... I want to know what is the BEST. You can measure the cut with Pigs body and this has been done to death and shows that Katana is one of the best at this. So in a way what other are suggesting is a straw man argument. Again, what has better cuts? Long sword or Katana? Katana right. Why do we measure the power bite of Alligator vs. Tiger? Because we can and we want to know what has more impact hit. (BTW the alligator wins). Same with Cuts.. a Cutting Sword is should be measure by its' ability to have the biggest and deepest cuts to consider as the best. Just like my example of which bite can have more impact, a Tiger or Alligator will kill you in a bit... but Alligator has more impact. So a study of which swords has the most amazing cut.. the Katana will usually win.
Hang on. Back up a bit. Let's break it down a bit.
We've established that for this given scenario, 'best at cutting' has to feature an unarmoured opponent. But we need to establish another few ground rules here, or this hypothesis makes no sense.
Firstly, are we comparing the sharpness of the blade or the damage done by weapons? Because the two are not the same thing. Sharpness does not necessarily equate to more damage done. If we are comparing the sharpness of the blade, we are asking a simple question of physics and metallurgy. If we are comparing damage done, you need to establish firstly what weapons you are comparing, whether or not they must be of comparable size and weight or if we are allowing other factors to enter into the equation (ability to parry, heaviness and so forth).
I suspect that you are trying to say that the katana is both the sharpest, and possesses the best balance of general traits with regards to the amount of damage done. So I'll proceed on that assumption.
I do not know if katanas were the sharpest weapons. I know that Japanese steel was traditionally terrible quality, meaning that forging required excellent skill to make a blade of mediocre strength and sharpness that tended to snap. Whether or not specific forgemasters could make better weapons than those in Europe, well.....I would suspect not. I think the average quality European blade designed for slashing would most likely take and hold an edge better simply because it would be better quality material. But my knowledge of metals is restricted to post-Bessemer process steel, and so I could not say for sure.
With regards to possessing the best balance of general traits in regards to damage done, that's a hard one to work out. If we're assuming we're fighting unarmoured oppponents (as we've already settled on), then larger weapons that deliver more physical trauma would be excessive. Yes, they would do exceptionally more damage, but it would be unnecessary overkill against an unarmoured opponent with too many drawbacks. So that rules out claymores, ōdachi, zweihanders, etc. The smallest of weapons would be too small to deal real damage or parry, ruling out daggers or knives of any variety.
This leaves us comparing against swords generally, axes, smaller blunt weapons (like maces), spears, and combinations of the above. And that's where things get more tricky. A single handed weapon permits the wielding of a buckler or shield. An axe allows you a way around shields (hooking over the brim), whilst a mace can shatter the bones of a hand through it, or snap swords in two through impact. Maces and axes have less parrying capability though. A katana has longer reach than a short sword, but a wakizashi or any shorter blade of equivalent length is far easier to parry with. The increase in parrying capability means they deliver less damage though, unless we're assessing by the point (which could be considered to be far more deadly).
Ultimately, it comes down to batman vs superman, and I don't believe you can confidently say, 'The katana is better than any combination of the above with regards to damage done and general traits'.
I'm new at this site and I don't know how to do copy paste quotes... so bear with me....
So lets move on vs. armor because a sword is not design to cut armor. We agree on that.
You are saying that damaging done to a weapon is the question. I say that Katana is the best cutting sword. Now if a sword can off heads and limbs and might even torso, it is already a qualify grade A weapon. Remember we are only talking about swords, you are bring in axes and mace here . Please refer back to my guideline. Again, I am making a claim that Katana out class other swords for cutting ability. You make a simple test to see which cut better, deeper, more control. The Katana is better in it's average side arm class of swords. If you enter a claymore or great sword.. then that is a different class... The Odachi or Great 2 handed Katana is the same classify as Claymore. I think they have done this test too. The Odachi beats Claymore because of the superior sharpness of the blade.
A simple question to make this easier for you to understand. What sword (side arm) Not great big battle sword like claymore or Odachi can make the best cuts. We can jude the quality of the blade by see which sword can cut how many pigs stacks up and put pigs in armor. All this test proof that Katana out class other swords for the cuts. The test shows that single curve blade is usually better than strait double edge. So Katana, Scimitar, Cutlas and so on.. is better than long sword, Gladius, etc...
Because of the side arm category, all swords are weight about the same from 1 to 3 lb. Claymore double the weight of a Katana.
What make Katana unique compare to other single edge curve blade is the razor sharp quality from the forging technique.
this is not a batman vs. superman debate. This is a debate what can cut better debate just like my example of what animal can have a more killer bite. It is a fair debate and test after test keeps showing a clear winner. You are almost trying to say which anima win, a tiger or alligator. I am not comparing that. I am comparing which has the best bite or best cut. Judge the combat is a total different can of worms like who wins... tiger or alligator.
listen david choe. i know it must be hard for you to show some maturity and stop digging........Time to give it up, the sooner you give up your hopeless position the sooner you will stop being the noob who knows nothing about swords. You know what you stop you will go to the status off being merely ignorant, as you currently have negative knowledge, a head full of so much twaddle what little truth you know about swords is washed away by it. It's embarrassing frankly......... If you truly are in awe of Japanese samurai culture do it the favour of shutting up, your noob histrionics would be embarrassing to them, the memories of Miyamoto Musashi and Akashi Zento and other masters of the Japanese fighting arts don't need the discredit of having an endless stream of noobish katana fanbois standing to bat for their side.
I suggest you remember Rule 1#, take a deep breath, and step away from your keyboard. Your rage at anonymous internet users is overwhelming your manners.
I'm new at this site and I don't know how to do copy paste quotes... so bear with me....
So lets move on vs. armor because a sword is not design to cut armor. We agree on that.
Agreed.
You are saying that damaging done to a weapon is the question. I say that Katana is the best cutting sword
.
Okay. I misunderstood because you kept referring to things like precision. Let's stick purely with cutting.
Now if a sword can off heads and limbs and might even torso, it is already a qualify grade A weapon. Remember we are only talking about swords, you are bring in axes and mace here .
Gotcha. We're narrowing down the field to, 'swords only'.
You make a simple test to see which cut better, deeper, more control.
Wait, what? Sharpness is one thing. Control is something else completely. So I'm going to disregard that word in our current hypothesis.
The Katana is better in it's average side arm class of swords. If you enter a claymore or great sword.. then that is a different class... The Odachi or Great 2 handed Katana is the same classify as Claymore. I think they have done this test too. The Odachi beats Claymore because of the superior sharpness of the blade.
I already excluded larger and smaller weapons.
A simple question to make this easier for you to understand. What sword (side arm) Not great big battle sword like claymore or Odachi can make the best cuts. We can jude the quality of the blade by see which sword can cut how many pigs stacks up and put pigs in armor. All this test proof that Katana out class other swords for the cuts.
Link please? It would have to be a mechanically controlled test propelling weapons of identical weight and size at identical angles at an identical velocity. Otherwise you're opening the trial to bias and error on weight, the strength of the guy, the angle of the cut, and so on.
What make Katana unique compare to other single edge curve blade is the razor sharp quality from the forging technique.
Evidence please. That would be contrary to what I know Japanese steel quality, and before I concede it to you, I would like evidence of some variety.
So to clarify what your statement is, 'I believe that katanas are the best swords at cutting unarmoured targets due to the sharpness of their blades'. That sound about right?
listen david choe. i know it must be hard for you to show some maturity and stop digging........Time to give it up, the sooner you give up your hopeless position the sooner you will stop being the noob who knows nothing about swords. You know what you stop you will go to the status off being merely ignorant, as you currently have negative knowledge, a head full of so much twaddle what little truth you know about swords is washed away by it. It's embarrassing frankly......... If you truly are in awe of Japanese samurai culture do it the favour of shutting up, your noob histrionics would be embarrassing to them, the memories of Miyamoto Musashi and Akashi Zento and other masters of the Japanese fighting arts don't need the discredit of having an endless stream of noobish katana fanbois standing to bat for their side.
I suggest you remember Rule 1#, take a deep breath, and step away from your keyboard. Your rage at anonymous internet users is overwhelming your manners.
I am not emotionally charged here Ketara, so do me the credit of not assuming 'rage' on my part. If you rage when you post, speak for yourself and assume not of other, I for the record am remaining calm.. My comments are an cerebral reaction to having patient logic constantly thrown back in ones face. David choe doesn't respond to threads, he quotes them and then says something not relevant to them reiterating the same point over and over again, no matter how often it is refuted.
He has done this with everyone so far and pretty much every attempt to add some logic to the thread, and most of those who have refuted him have quoted something externally or otherwise given evidence that the know what they are talking about.
At some point this needed to be addressed more bluntly.
Why you might ask. Many of us have pretty much given up on educating david choe, but there are always fresh people who come to these threads and try to learn something. We owe it to everyone to refute complete bullcrud when we see it.
Why you might ask. Many of us have pretty much given up on educating david choe, but there are always fresh people who come to these threads and try to learn something. We owe it to everyone to refute complete bullcrud when we see it.
No, you owe it to the website to step away from the keyboard if you have temporarily been incapacitated by emotion to the point whereby you can no longer follow the rules. You agreed to that rule when you signed up. It's not voluntary. I was doing you the favour of assuming that rage had temporarily overwhelmed your sense of faculty and impelled you to break Rule 1. Would it be to correct to infer from your words then, that you are actively, rationally and deliberately being rude and discourteous to other users?
david choe wrote: The Odachi or Great 2 handed Katana is the same classify as Claymore. I think they have done this test too. The Odachi beats Claymore because of the superior sharpness of the blade.
Evidence? Because claymores don't work through their sharpness. Much like a butcher's cleaver, they work through the force their put in to their strikes.
Sharpness alone simply is not the only thing that dictates how effective a cut is. And the way the katana argument is going is in to a very narrow niche, that ignores too much for it to be worth anything. Of course katanas cut through unarmoured opponents pretty well. It's all they're good for. That doesn't make them any more of an effective weapon than anything else, though
You are saying that damaging done to a weapon is the question. I say that Katana is the best cutting sword.....
.....What make Katana unique compare to other single edge curve blade is the razor sharp quality from the forging technique.
.....This is a debate what can cut better debate just like my example of what animal can have a more killer bite. It is a fair debate and test after test keeps showing a clear winner.
You keep on 'say', and keep on ignoring the evidence presented to you.
listen david choe. i know it must be hard for you to show some maturity and stop digging........Time to give it up, the sooner you give up your hopeless position the sooner you will stop being the noob who knows nothing about swords. You know what you stop you will go to the status off being merely ignorant, as you currently have negative knowledge, a head full of so much twaddle what little truth you know about swords is washed away by it. It's embarrassing frankly......... If you truly are in awe of Japanese samurai culture do it the favour of shutting up, your noob histrionics would be embarrassing to them, the memories of Miyamoto Musashi and Akashi Zento and other masters of the Japanese fighting arts don't need the discredit of having an endless stream of noobish katana fanbois standing to bat for their side.
I suggest you remember Rule 1#, take a deep breath, and step away from your keyboard. Your rage at anonymous internet users is overwhelming your manners.
I'm new at this site and I don't know how to do copy paste quotes... so bear with me....
So lets move on vs. armor because a sword is not design to cut armor. We agree on that.
Agreed.
You are saying that damaging done to a weapon is the question. I say that Katana is the best cutting sword
.
Okay. I misunderstood because you kept referring to things like precision. Let's stick purely with cutting.
Now if a sword can off heads and limbs and might even torso, it is already a qualify grade A weapon. Remember we are only talking about swords, you are bring in axes and mace here .
Gotcha. We're narrowing down the field to, 'swords only'.
You make a simple test to see which cut better, deeper, more control.
Wait, what? Sharpness is one thing. Control is something else completely. So I'm going to disregard that word in our current hypothesis.
The Katana is better in it's average side arm class of swords. If you enter a claymore or great sword.. then that is a different class... The Odachi or Great 2 handed Katana is the same classify as Claymore. I think they have done this test too. The Odachi beats Claymore because of the superior sharpness of the blade.
I already excluded larger and smaller weapons.
A simple question to make this easier for you to understand. What sword (side arm) Not great big battle sword like claymore or Odachi can make the best cuts. We can jude the quality of the blade by see which sword can cut how many pigs stacks up and put pigs in armor. All this test proof that Katana out class other swords for the cuts.
Link please? It would have to be a mechanically controlled test propelling weapons of identical weight and size at identical angles at an identical velocity. Otherwise you're opening the trial to bias and error on weight, the strength of the guy, the angle of the cut, and so on.
What make Katana unique compare to other single edge curve blade is the razor sharp quality from the forging technique.
Evidence please. That would be contrary to what I know Japanese steel quality, and before I concede it to you, I would like evidence of some variety.
So to clarify what your statement is, 'I believe that katanas are the best swords at cutting unarmoured targets due to the sharpness of their blades'. That sound about right?
Ahhhh good question. I just assume you have see all the cutting test done.
A good tv show I recommend is Deadliest Warrior. It show some of the best science of demonstrate warriors such as Spartan vs. Samurai or a Knight vs. a Pirate or Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal. It is a cool show and fun to watch. High production quality. I know it is only a show, but the weapon testing in the show is dead on.
Ahhhh good question. I just assume you have see all the cutting test done.
A good tv show I recommend is Deadliest Warrior. It show some of the best science of demonstrate warriors such as Spartan vs. Samurai or a Knight vs. a Pirate or Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal. It is a cool show and fun to watch. High production quality. I know it is only a show, but the weapon testing in the show is dead on.
You will enjoy this show. Check out the Katana blade test. at about 8 min mark. A Katana slice 2 and a quarter pig.
BTW , this show has done many many test to all weapons and Katana is one of the best at slicing. However, vs. armor... katana is almost useless.
I forgot who won in this fight, but the weapon study is the key to this show. Enjoy.
I'm afraid I can't accept that show as evidence. There's simply too much room for error with regards to the gentlemen who manually swing the blades, the angles the blades impact at, and more. If they trialled it fifty times, that would help erase some small amount of the doubt due to numerical statistics, but one test which is completely subject to several biases and errors simply cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of anything. And even if they did do it fifty times, the sharpness of the blade is not in evidence here, simply the amount of force that the weapon is capable of.
You are saying that damaging done to a weapon is the question. I say that Katana is the best cutting sword.....
.....What make Katana unique compare to other single edge curve blade is the razor sharp quality from the forging technique.
.....This is a debate what can cut better debate just like my example of what animal can have a more killer bite. It is a fair debate and test after test keeps showing a clear winner.
You keep on 'say', and keep on ignoring the evidence presented to you.
Man ... you are being clueless here or what? A Katana is a side arm. Not a main weapon. This ignorance is wasting my time. In war, Samurai bring pole arm or Odachi to have greater armor penetration and to kill full armor opponent. YOU DON'T USE A KATANA TO CRACK ARMOR. You kill armored opponent with Odachi (great Katana), Naginata (pole arm) or Great big ass Japanese War club Kanabo.
Ahhhh good question. I just assume you have see all the cutting test done.
A good tv show I recommend is Deadliest Warrior. It show some of the best science of demonstrate warriors such as Spartan vs. Samurai or a Knight vs. a Pirate or Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal. It is a cool show and fun to watch. High production quality. I know it is only a show, but the weapon testing in the show is dead on.
the clip that I am posting of Deadliest warrior is Samurai vs. Viking.
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/e5ee2f3b311fe4f145ae/deadliest-warrior-viking-vs.-samurai You will enjoy this show. Check out the Katana blade test. at about 8 min mark. A Katana slice 2 and a quarter pig.
BTW , this show has done many many test to all weapons and Katana is one of the best at slicing. However, vs. armor... katana is almost useless.
I forgot who won in this fight, but the weapon study is the key to this show. Enjoy.
A good tip: you aren't going to learn anything useful from Seadliest Warrior. The outcomes of the 'battles' are hearsay, the tests are worthless and the history usually hyped.
Its ok as light entertainment, but its useless as supporting evidence.
The only matchups that would make sense are those which are historically comperable and would explain why from a historical footing.
For example early Roman legionary vs Macedonian era pike would work as a show, and historical evidence could be used from Cynoscephalae, explaining how the swordman could get within the reach of the pike formations.
However fantasy lineups should remain fantasy, because the weapons and fighting styles are not really at test, the culture shock is largely the deciding factor. We know this is true because well armed individual warriors often fared poorly against less well armed warriors who were better adapted. So early clashes of the first crusade and in reversal the initial Mongol raids into Europe were not determined by equipment or training but adaptability. Deadliest Warrior never takes this into account.
Ahhhh good question. I just assume you have see all the cutting test done.
A good tv show I recommend is Deadliest Warrior. It show some of the best science of demonstrate warriors such as Spartan vs. Samurai or a Knight vs. a Pirate or Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal. It is a cool show and fun to watch. High production quality. I know it is only a show, but the weapon testing in the show is dead on.
You will enjoy this show. Check out the Katana blade test. at about 8 min mark. A Katana slice 2 and a quarter pig.
BTW , this show has done many many test to all weapons and Katana is one of the best at slicing. However, vs. armor... katana is almost useless.
I forgot who won in this fight, but the weapon study is the key to this show. Enjoy.
I'm afraid I can't accept that show as evidence. There's simply too much room for error with regards to the gentlemen who manually swing the blades, the angles the blades impact at, and more. If they trialled it fifty times, that would help erase some small amount of the doubt due to numerical statistics, but one test which is completely subject to several biases and errors simply cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of anything. And even if they did do it fifty times, the sharpness of the blade is not in evidence here, simply the amount of force that the weapon is capable of.
Really? The pig test is the standard test for cutting weapon. This is just one show. You can research this over youtube to death about the pig test. Katana almost always can cut pigs dead clean. Most double edge sword do not get the same consistency. I encourage you to check out other PIG cutting test of the Katana.
Back to my point, you do not agree that Katana is not sharp? Yes many swords can cut too, but Katana is in the top marks and IMHO, one of the best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da krimson barun wrote: Deadliest warrior.All credibility you had is gone.the little you had left anyway....
It is so funny how you take away my deadiest warrior example of the weapons PSI test and discount that. I am not talking about which warrior wins. The study of the PIS weapons test is the key to understand and judge the impact damage and armor protection.
This sort of thing is just as bad as Orlanth was just now. Keep it factual, polite, and friendly gentlemen, or just step away and don't engage. We're all fans of toy soldiers, and discussing hypothetical 'WHO'S DA BESTEST!' scenarios about old weaponry. Nerds in arms, or some such. There's no need for the slightly more vitriolic back and forth this thread keeps veering towards.
Really? The pig test is the standard test for cutting weapon. This is just one show. You can research this over youtube to death about the pig test. Katana almost always can cut pigs dead clean. Most double edge sword do not get the same consistency. I encourage you to check out other PIG cutting test of the Katana.
Back to my point, you do not agree that Katana is not sharp? Yes many swords can cut too, but Katana is in the top marks and IMHO, one of the best.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm educated well enough to state when I don't know enough. All I am saying is that the evidence is unconvincing.
For one thing, there's a man swinging the sword. That means that the results of the test are subject to whatever force/strength he puts into it, as well as the angle at which he is hitting with. Secondly, we have no idea how much the blade was sharpened. It is possible it could be sharpened more than it is there, and the same for other weapons. We have no idea of the chemical composition of the weapon used, and whether that same one was used in the period. And finally, there are no real comparisons to other blades.
In short, it's fun to watch, but no use whatsoever in proving that 'Katanas are the best swords at cutting unarmoured targets due to their sharpness'.
Man ... you are being clueless here or what? A Katana is a side arm. Not a main weapon. This ignorance is wasting my time. In war, Samurai bring pole arm or Odachi to have greater armor penetration and to kill full armor opponent. YOU DON'T USE A KATANA TO CRACK ARMOR. You kill armored opponent with Odachi (great Katana), Naginata (pole arm) or Great big ass Japanese War club Kanabo.
Just because you have a mod batting for you now and don't have to be polite while I do, doesn't mean I have to put up with intellectual garbage.
My comments, if you bothered to once quote them correctly are about your hyped assumption that the Katana is uber because its the sharpest.
I dug up some scientific evidence, involving metallurgy and molecular physics that proves you don't know what you are talking about.
Everything you have been going on in the last two pages was your niche assertion the Katana had its superiority factor over other swords on grounds of control and quality of edge. This however just isn't true. Damascus sterel was mentioned since page two I believe.
Now you are assuming I am talking about armour. We are through with that half of the conversation already, you even admitted that the Katana is sub-par against armour, and that is established in the thread, but plenty of swords are not:
The longsword wasn't, there is historical evidence for that, the zwerch certainly wasn't, in fact it was used specifically as a linebreaker to cut upon formations of heavy infantry. The field rapier is good for 'criticals' being as thrusting weapon, as was the gladius.
If you like we can gather the historical evidence, again, for presentation, but it would save us all time if you just admitted that the katana is not a special snowflake.
This sort of thing is just as bad as Orlanth was just now. Keep it factual, polite, and friendly gentlemen, or just step away and don't engage. We're all fans of toy soldiers, and discussing hypothetical 'WHO'S DA BESTEST!' scenarios about old weaponry. Nerds in arms, or some such. There's no need for the slightly more vitriolic back and forth this thread keeps veering towards.
Really? The pig test is the standard test for cutting weapon. This is just one show. You can research this over youtube to death about the pig test. Katana almost always can cut pigs dead clean. Most double edge sword do not get the same consistency. I encourage you to check out other PIG cutting test of the Katana.
Back to my point, you do not agree that Katana is not sharp? Yes many swords can cut too, but Katana is in the top marks and IMHO, one of the best.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm educated well enough to state when I don't know enough. All I am saying is that the evidence is unconvincing.
For one thing, there's a man swinging the sword. That means that the results of the test are subject to whatever force/strength he puts into it, as well as the angle at which he is hitting with. Secondly, we have no idea how much the blade was sharpened. It is possible it could be sharpened more than it is there, and the same for other weapons. We have no idea of the chemical composition of the weapon used, and whether that same one was used in the period. And finally, there are no real comparisons to other blades.
In short, it's fun to watch, but no use whatsoever in proving that 'Katanas are the best swords at cutting unarmoured targets due to their sharpness'.
I see what you are saying. Well the common acceptance in weapons study and pig test and PSI test shows that Katana has the constancy cuts. The fact that European and most swords are not razor sharp is fact and Katana is razor is also fact. I think we can agree to this. From what we can agree, we can come to a conclusion that I would think a Katana can have better cuts. Please understand that a Long Sword cut will kill and you do not need to kill two men(pig test) in one swing...
I'm not sure about this. I am guessing here. Today most weapons are just cheap stainless steel and sharpen to razor edge because it will not see combat, can this razor edge be maintained?
What I find interesting is, I would like to know in our modern technology, what kind of sword edge and strength can they make now? Can they make long sword razor sharp and still functional as a battle sword?
In other words, with today technology... can we make the best blade and if by using time travel send it back to it's period and be consider a much more superior quality?
A good tv show I recommend is Deadliest Warrior. It show some of the best science of demonstrate warriors such as Spartan vs. Samurai or a Knight vs. a Pirate or Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal. It is a cool show and fun to watch. High production quality. I know it is only a show, but the weapon testing in the show is dead on.
I just deleted another long post I was about to write. Read this and I guess it's safe to say that you do't know anything about weapons and in general have no idea what you're talking of. You are a katana fanboy who maybe saw it in a movie and then kept fantasizing about its capabilities, losing each and every link to reality.
I see what you are saying. Well the common acceptance in weapons study and pig test and PSI test shows that Katana has the constancy cuts.
Can I ask where else you are sourcing this from? I'm assuming you have a different source to 'Deadliest Warrior' to support your view.
The fact that European and most swords are not razor sharp is fact and Katana is razor is also fact.
The reason most European blades weren't sharpened especially is because they fight with men in armour, making it pointless to even bother. But just because they didn't do it does not mean that they could not. Any edge on any piece of metal can be sharpened. What that comes down to however, is the metal composition of the blade, and it would stand to reason that a sharpened blade made of superior steel (aka, european) would be superior to that made of inferior steel (aka, japanese).
I'm not sure about this. I am guessing here. Today most weapons are just cheap stainless steel and sharpen to razor edge because it will not see combat, can this razor edge be maintained?
I'll be honest with you, if you have a sword fight with one of those cheap mass produced chinese katanas, it'll snap off the hilt at the first impact. Most of them don't even have a partial tang, let alone a full tang. The metal itself would shatter if hit with something made of quality material.
What I find interesting is, I would like to know in our modern technology, what kind of sword edge and strength can they make now? Can they make long sword razor sharp and still functional as a battle sword?
In other words, with today technology... can we make the best blade and if by using time travel send it back to it's period and be consider a much more superior quality?
Now this is something interesting to talk about. How durable a blade could we make today? Comments, gentlemen.
Man ... you are being clueless here or what? A Katana is a side arm. Not a main weapon. This ignorance is wasting my time. In war, Samurai bring pole arm or Odachi to have greater armor penetration and to kill full armor opponent. YOU DON'T USE A KATANA TO CRACK ARMOR. You kill armored opponent with Odachi (great Katana), Naginata (pole arm) or Great big ass Japanese War club Kanabo.
Just because you have a mod batting for you now and don't have to be polite while I do, doesn't mean I have to put up with intellectual garbage.
My comments, if you bothered to once quote them correctly are about your hyped assumption that the Katana is uber because its the sharpest.
I dug up some scientific evidence, involving metallurgy and molecular physics that proves you don't know what you are talking about.
Everything you have been going on in the last two pages was your niche assertion the Katana had its superiority factor over other swords on grounds of control and quality of edge. This however just isn't true. Damascus sterel was mentioned since page two I believe.
Now you are assuming I am talking about armour. We are through with that half of the conversation already, you even admitted that the Katana is sub-par against armour, and that is established in the thread, but plenty of swords are not:
The longsword wasn't, there is historical evidence for that, the zwerch certainly wasn't, in fact it was used specifically as a linebreaker to cut upon formations of heavy infantry. The field rapier is good for 'criticals' being as thrusting weapon, as was the gladius.
If you like we can gather the historical evidence, again, for presentation, but it would save us all time if you just admitted that the katana is not a special snowflake.
OK, what do you want to talk about? I've already shown you and tell you what I know. You don't believe me .
Fact: Katana is razor sharp.
Fact: Razor sharp will cut better than a none razor sharp weapon. THE CONS IS the sharpness will not last. European swords were design to fight none armor and also can (at disadvantage) fight armor opponent. So they do not wish to have sharper edge because it will have more cons and risk of breakage of weapon. Katana choose the risk breakage or dull the blade in prolong fights because it was not design to fight vs. metal armor. The forging helps Katana to retain durable lasting razor edge compare to other method of forging. WHAT MORE are we going to talk about.
You keep going on and on about this straw man argument that long sword can fight better vs. armor and blah blah blah....THE WORD YOU KEEP USING IS FIGHT. You have I made this post to take about XYZ and you keep bringing in XYZ + WTF and I am not even wish or talking about WTF.
THE BEST CUTTING BLADE is where I stand by the claim of Katana is best. I also mentioned that the great control of the blade can allows masters to make crazy cuts like beheading with the neck skin on which shows great control of the weapon. This control of the Katana is superior over other swords... and you never attempt to debate this part.
Just out of curiosity, are you arguing that Japanese forging methods would make an inferior metal better suited for cutting than a superior metal? Because the 'katana' is ultimately just the shape that the sword was forged in. It could have been forged straighter or bendier using the exact same methods. The level of sharpness of a blade is down to two things, how much you sharpen it, and the chemical composition of the blade. And since a European blade can easily be sharpened just like a katana (as could any piece of metal with an edge), it would seem to me that you are asserting that Japanese forging methods turned inferior metals into superior ones.
Back to my point, you do not agree that Katana is not sharp? Yes many swords can cut too, but Katana is in the top marks and IMHO, one of the best.
Evidence of carbon nanotubes in Damascuas steel > pig test.
Your standard is unfair, no one is going to use a pig test on a 2000 year old cultural relic. However the modern scientific evidence supports the eye witness evidence that Damascus steel could split rocks without blunting. With carbon nanotubes actually detected this is actually credible.
Da krimson barun wrote: Deadliest warrior.All credibility you had is gone.the little you had left anyway....
It is so funny how you take away my deadiest warrior example of the weapons PSI test and discount that. I am not talking about which warrior wins. The study of the PIS weapons test is the key to understand and judge the impact damage and armor protection.
Da krimsun baron is right to do so. These tests are made for TV remember, actual scientific protocol takes longer than the TV show or viable budget would allow, and is less fun to film.
Its fun to see swords chop at breastplates or pig carcasses, proper analysis takes time.
Let me give a separate example, admittedly the show on the longbow by Jon Snow (who knows nothing) was even worse than Deadliest Warrior.
I remember a very bad show on the longbow, but TV presenter Jon Snow for Chanel 4 in the UK. Its is about as much scientific value as an episode of the Simpsons.
Now while this is a digression the show matched firepower of longbows by propelling arrows from a gas gun under the exact pressure to match a modern heavy bows draw weight. Sounds ok, and the gas gun was borrowed from a weapons testing lab and competently operated. The test showed a lethal range for the longbow at 10 yards against full plate armour, it did penetrate though. However a modern war bow was about 130lbs draw weight, and that poundage was used for the test, however the war bows dredged up with the Mary Rose, the only actual medieval bows still in existence, are estimated at up to 300lbs draw weight, and most were well over 200lbs.
Many historians baulked at that, and there are no longer any archers in England or Wales who can draw a proper replica. To make it worse when the 'recreation' tried to emulate bowfire they dredged up who they could from archery clubs, and the line of archers was I kid you not - 80% mums and kids from local archery clubs. From this data the producers gave an idea of rate of fire and range of trained mercanary longbowmen..
This gave a range of about 100 yards, a piss poor rater fo fir to which was added the pepetrative range of 10 yards to add potency to the toy bows used by the mums and kiddies. Yet eye witness accounts gave a rate of fire of six to twelve arrows a minute and a killing range of over 300 yards, and evidence at digs at Crecy back up the eyewitnesses.
Real medieval longbowmen earned 12p a day, a common footman was worth 2p a day and a knight was worth 10p and those prices were standardised in western Europe. . That ought ot say something when peasant soldiers earn more than a knight's fee The longbowmen dug up from Towton at a grave site were shown to have mishaped limbs due to what looked similar to excess bodybuilding. The average bowman was likely ripped like Armie.
The longbow doesn't have the same PR as the katana but potentially could be the ultimate weapon before the use of firearms, and arguebly well into that time period. The longbow however has a number of disadvantages comtempory and in modern culture. It doesn't look as cool is very hard and tiresome to train and required the entire peasant culture to be enveloped around it to produce anything like the number of archers required to fill an army. Wellesley wanted to raise longbowmen but found that in real terms he could not, England had long run out of freaks of that nature.
Anyway the point remains, some medieval and ancient weapons simply cant be replicated by modern hobbyist users, or even most 'experts', they don't simply have the ten or twenty years of dedication. I would apply that also to any of the knightly or samurai weapons, including the katana.
It doesn't help that the foremost known practitioner of Japanese swordcraft became so adept he fought all his later duels with bokken to make a point (sic).
The real moral of the story of above is that eye witness testimony passed down through history is often of geater relevance than modern testimony that assumes the old texts are actually just hype and try to set modern standards and lightweight 'experts' to mimic what is in effect the lifeskill of someone whose entire reason for being and making a living was dependent on skill at the weapojn concerned.
If the old texts say longbowmen killed knights from fields away, but modern rercreation disagrees, I will go with the eyewitness accounts most of the time. The bones of longbowmen and dredged up bows support the fact that they were feakishly strong, then the fact that modern men cant simulate that strength doesn't mean it cant happen.
I believe that master Japanese swordsmen performed arrow cutting, but also believe they struggled with penetrating armour if using their swords, because a consistent run of historical written evidence tells us they did.
Dopplersoldner however were known for cutting up plate armoured troops with their zwerch swords, and English longswordsmen were known to be lethal against armoured French infantry. I believe those also. If your TV show cant show a longsword 'killing' a pig carcass in plate armour then the TV show is doing it wrong somewhere. The French knew otherwise, and learned the hard way.
A katana is not a cutting weapon. No sword is. Machetes and axes are cutting weapons. Swords are for slashing and stabbing. A katana does not have superior control, swords with control do not exist. It is a user who has control, not the sword (unless it were possessed lol). In general, arguments over which kind of sword is better than others is kinda silly, as all swords are just sharp pieces of iron with rather insignificant differences. Much more depends on the user than on the sword. Also I don't get why some people see a katana as something special. It is just a regular curved sword like so many others in the world.
Back to my point, you do not agree that Katana is not sharp? Yes many swords can cut too, but Katana is in the top marks and IMHO, one of the best.
Evidence of carbon nanotubes in Damascuas steel > pig test.
Your standard is unfair, no one is going to use a pig test on a 2000 year old cultural relic. However the modern scientific evidence supports the eye witness evidence that Damascus steel could split rocks without blunting. With carbon nanotubes actually detected this is actually credible.
Swords cutting rocks? Show me! I have to see that to believe it .
I see what you are saying. Well the common acceptance in weapons study and pig test and PSI test shows that Katana has the constancy cuts.
Can I ask where else you are sourcing this from? I'm assuming you have a different source to 'Deadliest Warrior' to support your view.
The fact that European and most swords are not razor sharp is fact and Katana is razor is also fact.
The reason most European blades weren't sharpened especially is because they fight with men in armour, making it pointless to even bother. But just because they didn't do it does not mean that they could not. Any edge on any piece of metal can be sharpened. What that comes down to however, is the metal composition of the blade, and it would stand to reason that a sharpened blade made of superior steel (aka, european) would be superior to that made of inferior steel (aka, japanese).
I'm not sure about this. I am guessing here. Today most weapons are just cheap stainless steel and sharpen to razor edge because it will not see combat, can this razor edge be maintained?
I'll be honest with you, if you have a sword fight with one of those cheap mass produced chinese katanas, it'll snap off the hilt at the first impact. Most of them don't even have a partial tang, let alone a full tang. The metal itself would shatter if hit with something made of quality material.
What I find interesting is, I would like to know in our modern technology, what kind of sword edge and strength can they make now? Can they make long sword razor sharp and still functional as a battle sword?
In other words, with today technology... can we make the best blade and if by using time travel send it back to it's period and be consider a much more superior quality?
Now this is something interesting to talk about. How durable a blade could we make today? Comments, gentlemen.
I would have to look up about this PSI and other pig test outside of Deadliest warrior. But seriously what would you consider a TV test fair? I think people have mentioned Deadliest Warrior, History channel, Myth buster, Cold Steel work shop, etc...
I mean.. there will never be a "test by the us army". It will always be based on TV shows. So yeah, I think all the test that I have witness top of my head are TV documentary and some personal test on the internet. But one consistency of all the documentary testing of Katana sharpness is the 2 pigs test is true.
Please look at it from science point of view. You design me a cutting tool that can cut the most pigs body stack up and still is a function sword.
NO double edge blade can be sharper than single edge because of the design of the blade allows a longer and stronger sharper edge. A double edge will break if both side of the blade were this razor sharp.
The curve design for maximum cutting power, a strait blade will land and not slice as much as a curve up on impact.
Based on single edge and curve blade... it already a better design for a cutting blade vs. double edge strait blade.
So I already know that the winning cutting blade must have single edge and curve blade. This part is key in design and function.
Just as in what weapon can bash armor effectively? Well the weapon must not be balance in weight like a sword, it must be top heavy for maximum force on impact. This is why all impact weapon will have top heavy like, mace, hammer, and axes.
Yeah I know about the cheap katana. I'm talking about the expensive weapons in general from Cold Steel or any "battle weapons" you buy... are they really battle weapon ready? Are they superior than the original balck smith made in the old days? I have lots of fencing weapons but they are for practice and I don't have any real battle weapon. Yes my war hammer can kill you, but I'm not sure if I can take it back 500 years ago and it can stand the full impact when I smash it at full plate knights.
I guess, unlike guns where you know it is battle and killy ready. Weapons that claim battle ready.. is you taking their words for it. Not an expert in this... I'm sure somebody would know here.
david choe wrote: I would have to look up about this PSI and other pig test outside of Deadliest warrior.
There is no pig test. That's just something Deadliest Warrior did, and now anyone with access to a pig carcass and a camera puts their own up on YouTube, cause everyone knows pigs are the best substitute for people (which even that I am skeptical of simply because it seems to be one of those things that people repeat after hearing someone else repeat it).
Researchers at Cornell have better things to do than play with swords. Like curing cancer. Though they'd probably be funner to be around if they did play with swords.
But seriously what would you consider a TV test fair?
Factors that matter that are never made clear by Deadliest Warrior;
Weight of the carcass (they didn't even use a full carcass on their episode with the Katana, just a pig leg, many later episodes like the Kilij used a full carcass).
Type of pig (because for all I know it matters )
Level of prepardness for the blade prior to cutting, materials in its construction, the authenticity of manufacture
Factors that the show just entirely ignores
The person swinging the sword (size, muscle strength, skill)
It's not a reliable test. It's not even scientific. It's "how cool would it be if we got a bunch of old weapons and wacked stuff with them?"
Please look at it from science point of view.
Please do. Most of your posts are anecdotal or based on YouTube videos.
NO double edge blade can be sharper than single edge because of the design of the blade allows a longer and stronger sharper edge. A double edge will break if both side of the blade were this razor sharp.
Again, this doesn't make any sense. Whether or not a blade had two edges is irrelevant to the sharpness of the edges.
Just out of curiosity, are you arguing that Japanese forging methods would make an inferior metal better suited for cutting than a superior metal? Because the 'katana' is ultimately just the shape that the sword was forged in. It could have been forged straighter or bendier using the exact same methods. The level of sharpness of a blade is down to two things, how much you sharpen it, and the chemical composition of the blade. And since a European blade can easily be sharpened just like a katana (as could any piece of metal with an edge), it would seem to me that you are asserting that Japanese forging methods turned inferior metals into superior ones.
I am talking about the functionality of why Katana can be razor and serve as a sword and have less chance of breakage.
From what I understand, the inferior metal is not a problem in making razor edge. The key to why it works is the craftsmanship by combining the soft "inferior" metal body and use the "superior" small amount to the edges and tip. This make the sword durable to retain the razor sharpness.
To explain better. You get a Long Sword and make it razor sharp. Yes, it can be done. Then after a few fights.. the razor will chip and when this chipping happens, the sword will break.
The Katana has soft body core and only hard edges. When the edge start to chip, the sword will not break because the body is soft. The worst is the chipping part will cause the sword to bend more and more and can be fix. The Long Sword is not practical for this. Also because the Katana is a single edge blade, the back side is soft metal and allows the blade to not break as easily. Another point is the Katana single edge and thicker body makes the body "harder" and long sword will "bounce bend" because the body is thiner. Example, you get a long sword and thrust at a wood shield.. the long sword blade will start to bend... you lean on a long sword with your body.. the blade will bend and when you let go... it bounce back. A Katana not bend and bounce back at all it will retain the shape. This cause the thrust penetration damage to be much more. However, the risk of Katana thrust is that if it does bend, it will NOT bounce back like a long sword... the Katana is bend and very very bad.
Again, this is what I understand. Also the Viking were doing something like this to their weapons long before the Japanese. This made their weapons very sharp.
By your standards then, an Indian Tulwar is better than a Katana.
It has the curved blade, it has the razor sharp edge, it has better edge geometry, as it's thinner at the spine, and it's made of better (wootz) steel.
Have I missed anything?
Another thing, Katanas are very brittle due to the internal stresses in the blade.
If you've ever seen one being quenched, you'll understand why...
I would have to look up about this PSI and other pig test outside of Deadliest warrior. But seriously what would you consider a TV test fair?
If you could show me a television program that has a mechanically propelled version of the weapons hitting at a identical angle at a uniform speed, that would be accepetable. It wouldn't be hard or complicated to set up, you don't need scientists to do it. The katana doesn't have to be slicing as hard as possible after all, it just has to slicing at exactly the same force and angle as another weapon. If it cuts deeper, than that would prove the assertion.
I think you are mixing up two concepts here, and we need to evolve the hypothesis. It's no longer, 'A katana is the best cutting sword due to their sharpness'. Because we need to examine what makes the katana 'sharp'. It's not the virtue of being a katana. Any sword can have it's edge sharpened. Only now you've also said:
The curve design for maximum cutting power, a strait blade will land and not slice as much as a curve up on impact
So tell me, is the Katana the best sword for cutting because of it's sharpness, or because the of the edge? Because it is one thing to say:
1. Katana are the best cutting sword because the way the blade is angled makes penetration of an unarmoured target easier.
It is another to say:
2: Katana are the best cutting sword because the way the blade has been forged turns the metal from being inferior steel to being the most superior steel.
Yeah I know about the cheap katana. I'm talking about the expensive weapons in general from Cold Steel or any "battle weapons" you buy... are they really battle weapon ready? Are they superior than the original balck smith made in the old days? I have lots of fencing weapons but they are for practice and I don't have any real battle weapon. Yes my war hammer can kill you, but I'm not sure if I can take it back 500 years ago and it can stand the full impact when I smash it at full plate knights.
david choe wrote: The key to why it works is the craftsmanship by combining the soft "inferior" metal body and use the "superior" small amount to the edges and tip.
This is not accurate.
Wiki has had a good Infographic for some time;
There were several different methods used (as shown above) to make the blade but the most common by far was Maru, a single piece. The other methods took much more time and effort (i.e. more money) and were much rarer, though more of the higher quality blades have survived to today for obvious reasons. But this is not unique to Japan. The natural processes that manufacture steel produce multiple types of it which sword smiths from around the world utilized in various ways. A soft body with hardened edges was very common in European and Middle Eastern crafting. For more common than can be observed from traditionally Japanese forged blades. This is because of the need to fold Japanese Iron a lot to remove impurities. It left them with a lot less steel of the softer varieties.
the sword will break.
Long swords were extremely flexible. Breaking them was extremely uncommon. Europeans had been using the method you describe for centuries. Long before the rise of the long sword.
david choe wrote: I would have to look up about this PSI and other pig test outside of Deadliest warrior.
There is no pig test. That's just something Deadliest Warrior did, and now anyone with access to a pig carcass and a camera puts their own up on YouTube, cause everyone knows pigs are the best substitute for people (which even that I am skeptical of simply because it seems to be one of those things that people repeat after hearing someone else repeat it).
Researchers at Cornell have better things to do than play with swords. Like curing cancer. Though they'd probably be funner to be around if they did play with swords.
But seriously what would you consider a TV test fair?
Factors that matter that are never made clear by Deadliest Warrior;
Weight of the carcass (they didn't even use a full carcass on their episode with the Katana, just a pig leg, many later episodes like the Kilij used a full carcass).
Type of pig (because for all I know it matters )
Level of prepardness for the blade prior to cutting, materials in its construction, the authenticity of manufacture
Factors that the show just entirely ignores
The person swinging the sword (size, muscle strength, skill)
It's not a reliable test. It's not even scientific. It's "how cool would it be if we got a bunch of old weapons and wacked stuff with them?"
Please look at it from science point of view.
Please do. Most of your posts are anecdotal or based on YouTube videos.
NO double edge blade can be sharper than single edge because of the design of the blade allows a longer and stronger sharper edge. A double edge will break if both side of the blade were this razor sharp.
Again, this doesn't make any sense. Whether or not a blade had two edges is irrelevant to the sharpness of the edges.
The test thing on TV. and why pigs are like human, if i were a betting man... I would think it was close enough. You have better solution than to use a Pig? I mean.. I take it as that. yeah... Pig is very close to human...I can see how a weapons being tested that did to the pig will do to a man.
The Katana test on DW actually shows that it sucks vs. Chain mail and the Viking Axe has better impact hit.
I am not saying DW show is the end all, but it has it usage and the test can at least give you a perspective. All I'm saying is that you ask for proof, I show proof of how Katana did in cutting test. I have yet to see a documentary or video that show a Katana is a not a myths at cutting. Every time I show something, you dispute as it is not good enough. But you never show me a test where the Katana failed what I am clamming. Show me a none bias video of a man using a Katana that won't cut a pig. You know what am saying. You keep saying that the man is too strong or the blade is not properly sharpen or the pig skin on that pig was too thin or too thick. I mean... this test is just for basic value. A katana will cut 1 to 3 pigs on average.
Next...The double edge vs single edge in sharpness. This is very important and scientific. All sharp blade start out from fat to thin right? Axe head. Pick. Sword edges. When you have fat part in the back and thin in the front... it cause the weight to press in more so the single edge would have a fat back side as weight to chuck the cut in deeper. This is the pros for single edge weapon. If you get two swords with equal sharpness, say a Katana and this long sword is equal in sharpness. You swing at something... the Katana will cut more because of the single edge.
Curve vs. Straight is also in the same boat.
You can disagree just about everything with me, but don't disagree about the pros and cons of single vs double and strait vs curve when it comes to cutting. Single and curve will always win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marv335 wrote: By your standards then, an Indian Tulwar is better than a Katana.
It has the curved blade, it has the razor sharp edge, it has better edge geometry, as it's thinner at the spine, and it's made of better (wootz) steel.
Have I missed anything?
Another thing, Katanas are very brittle due to the internal stresses in the blade.
If you've ever seen one being quenched, you'll understand why...
It could be. I don't know I have to see the pig test or something. But yes India blade were very famous as a cutter.
Swords cutting rocks? Show me! I have to see that to believe it .
Sorry I cannot, no one knows how to make Damascus steel anymore. They can make Toledo steel but Toledo steel didnt have the reputation of being able to cut rocks.
Surviving Damascus steel blades are relics and cant really be used for these tests. We can only make guesses due to the metallurgy.
However do know about the dynamics of carbon nanotubes, and if the edge is reinforced with those then its going to be a very special blade indeed. Did it cut rock? I cannot say, but there was witness to the effect, and not in heroic myth but in what can best be described as salesman's tests. The metallurgy certainly gives the claim enough backing that it shouldn't be laughed at.
I would have to look up about this PSI and other pig test outside of Deadliest warrior. But seriously what would you consider a TV test fair?
If you could show me a television program that has a mechanically propelled version of the weapons hitting at a identical angle at a uniform speed, that would be accepetable. It wouldn't be hard or complicated to set up, you don't need scientists to do it. The katana doesn't have to be slicing as hard as possible after all, it just has to slicing at exactly the same force and angle as another weapon. If it cuts deeper, than that would prove the assertion.
I think you are mixing up two concepts here, and we need to evolve the hypothesis. It's no longer, 'A katana is the best cutting sword due to their sharpness'. Because we need to examine what makes the katana 'sharp'. It's not the virtue of being a katana. Any sword can have it's edge sharpened. Only now you've also said:
The curve design for maximum cutting power, a strait blade will land and not slice as much as a curve up on impact
So tell me, is the Katana the best sword for cutting because of it's sharpness, or because the of the edge? Because it is one thing to say:
1. Katana are the best cutting sword because the way the blade is angled makes penetration of an unarmoured target easier.
It is another to say:
2: Katana are the best cutting sword because the way the blade has been forged turns the metal from being inferior steel to being the most superior steel.
Yeah I know about the cheap katana. I'm talking about the expensive weapons in general from Cold Steel or any "battle weapons" you buy... are they really battle weapon ready? Are they superior than the original balck smith made in the old days? I have lots of fencing weapons but they are for practice and I don't have any real battle weapon. Yes my war hammer can kill you, but I'm not sure if I can take it back 500 years ago and it can stand the full impact when I smash it at full plate knights.
Hard to say.
Maybe you missed the points I made may time about the Katana shape, design and forging is what make this sword one of the best cutting weapon. Again, I really thought you knew that the single edge and curve blade is the standard design for the best cutting power. The double edge and strait is a better design for stabbing and thrusting than the curve single blade. Again, you know that two sharp edge going into a body will go deeper than something that is only sharp on one side.
Another key good design for the Katana is that the curve blade is only a small curve and not as much as say.. a Scimitar. So a Katana can thrust with almost full power of a long sword can.
But yeah Key to Katana is forge (for razor sharpness) and blade design of single and curve.
david choe wrote: The key to why it works is the craftsmanship by combining the soft "inferior" metal body and use the "superior" small amount to the edges and tip.
This is not accurate.
Wiki has had a good Infographic for some time;
There were several different methods used (as shown above) to make the blade but the most common by far was Maru, a single piece. The other methods took much more time and effort (i.e. more money) and were much rarer, though more of the higher quality blades have survived to today for obvious reasons. But this is not unique to Japan. The natural processes that manufacture steel produce multiple types of it which sword smiths from around the world utilized in various ways. A soft body with hardened edges was very common in European and Middle Eastern crafting. For more common than can be observed from traditionally Japanese forged blades. This is because of the need to fold Japanese Iron a lot to remove impurities. It left them with a lot less steel of the softer varieties.
the sword will break.
Long swords were extremely flexible. Breaking them was extremely uncommon. Europeans had been using the method you describe for centuries. Long before the rise of the long sword.
What are you talking about? That picture shows what I've been telling you. Soft body and strong edges? You always try to nit pick with me. If you go back and reread my post... I stated just that. Soft body and hard edges to make this sword. No, the european sword standard quality were just pour into a mold and then shape it. The folding steel and mixing of hardness is very difficult.. I do not think a standard castle black smith can do this.
Didn't I point this out about soft body and hard edges?
Which granted, Deadliest Warrior used them time to time.
I honestly don't think the 'closeness to human flesh' matters. I think it's more important to ensure uniformity in the target and for that a dummy is superior to a carcass.
All I'm saying is that you ask for proof, I show proof of how Katana did in cutting test.
Yeah but there are lots of videos like that.
So obviously, Kilijs are the best cutters ever cause some youtube videos and a TV show says so.
It just doesn't mean much. It's showmanship and opinion. There is no science involved.
A katana will cut 1 to 3 pigs on average.
If you can cut through one soft target, cutting through 2 more ain't gonna be much difference.
All sharp blade start out from fat to thin right?
There are numerous ways to sharpen an edge and its more complicated than that.
When you have fat part in the back and thin in the front...
And? A sword having two edges doesn't prevent it from having a fat center for the stress to be focused down. What you're describing literally makes no physical sense.
it cause the weight to press in more so the single edge would have a fat back side as weight to chuck the cut in deeper.
Whether the back is fat doesn't change weight. You can made a single edge and double edge blade weigh the same amount.
You can disagree just about everything with me, but don't disagree about the pros and cons of single vs double and strait vs curve when it comes to cutting. Single and curve will always win.
I disagree with your conflation of these two factors into one. Single & double and curved & straight are two different factors that have limited barring on each other.
What are you talking about? That picture shows what I've been telling you. Soft body and strong edges?
I don't know what picture you're reading. There are nine different methods of making a Katana on that picture. It's not as simple as 'soft body strong edges.'
You always try to nit pick with me.
The devil is in the details.
Soft body and hard edges to make this sword.
It made lots of swords. The use of multiple 'hardness' steels was common in sword crafting.
No, the european sword standard quality were just pour into a mold and then shape it.
So you learned about swords from Conan the Barbarian?
No one made swords this way after the Bonze age. Literally. NO ONE. During the Bronze age, molds were used pretty much around the world and to a limited extent the early iron age. However once we start getting into the age of steel, no one used molds anymore because it just doesn't work. No one. Middle Eastern. European. Chinese. No one ever forged a combat weapon made of steel from a mold.
The folding steel and mixing of hardness is very difficult.
No it's not. Folding isn't even necessary if the steel is of a suitable quality. The purpose of folding is to purge carbon from a blade, something Japanese smiths absolutely had to do because iron on Japan has far too high a carbon content to make a sword from without folding it. Mixing hardness is also very easy. EDIT: in the sense that any of this is easy. Mixing hardness was such a simple practice that the idea only two cultures on earth would ever use it is laughable.
The thing that was really complicated about Japanese blades was the heat treating as different parts of the blade would be treated differently which is very uncommon. In most parts of the world, the blade was heat treated as one piece, but most parts of the world weren't using iron from Japan so it wasn't really necessary.
Didn't I point this out about soft body and hard edges?
Problem is that doesn't really mean much of anything. It's like saying a gun is all about a trigger and a barrel.
Which granted, Deadliest Warrior used them time to time.
I honestly don't think the 'closeness to human flesh' matters. I think it's more important to ensure uniformity in the target and for that a dummy is superior to a carcass.
All I'm saying is that you ask for proof, I show proof of how Katana did in cutting test.
Yeah but there are lots of videos like that.
So obviously, Kilijs are the best cutters ever cause some youtube videos and a TV show says so.
It just doesn't mean much. It's showmanship and opinion. There is no science involved.
I have yet to see a documentary or video that show a Katana is a not a myths at cutting. Every time I show something, you dispute as it is not good enough. But you never show me a test where the Katana failed what I am clamming. Show me a none bias video of a man using a Katana that won't cut a pig. You know what am saying. You keep saying that the man is too strong or the blade is not properly sharpen or the pig skin on that pig was too thin or too thick. I mean... this test is just for basic value. A katana will cut 1 to 3 pigs on average.
All sharp blade start out from fat to thin right?
There are numerous ways to sharpen an edge and its more complicated than that.
When you have fat part in the back and thin in the front...
And? A sword having two edges doesn't prevent it from having a fat center for the stress to be focused down. What you're describing literally makes no physical sense.
it cause the weight to press in more so the single edge would have a fat back side as weight to chuck the cut in deeper.
Whether the back is fat doesn't change weight. You can made a single edge and double edge blade weigh the same amount.
You can disagree just about everything with me, but don't disagree about the pros and cons of single vs double and strait vs curve when it comes to cutting. Single and curve will always win.
I disagree with your conflation of these two factors into one. Single & double and curved & straight are two different factors that have limited barring on each other.
LOL, ok balistic dummy. And this is why sometime it is bit annoying with you. I thought you understand that DW did show BD, but I never stated.. they you go on and mentioned that it does use them on the show. So what other proof do you want, pig and ballistic dummy has been show.
The Kilijs is a contender. Might even cut deeper because of the weighted head tip. However, the draw back is control. This Kilijs weapon is design to use force and slice to make the cut and it is a one handed weapon. It will be difficult to behead somebody and live the skin on. A two handed Kilijs (if there is such a thing, not sure) might have more impact cut and hit than a Katana, but it will lack the control cuts. You can train any weapon to have that control cut, but the design of Katana is the most optimal.
You can disagree about the single vs. double... man.. I don't know what to tell you on that. The Kilijs has the classic best Cutting blade... that is a single curve blade. Just stop with the double vs. single. It is just not possible. Also, what long Sword is as thick as a Katana. If a double edge ever have a thickness center of a single edge.. the freaking sword will be double the weight. You are talking about a 6 lb long sword or a 12 lb claymore to have thick center like a Katana. Not even possible to be consider a function sword anymore. Maybe an execution weapon.
That is the pros and cons of single vs double.
The fat back is the key to the success of a single edge Katana. Look at your Kilijs... you see that fat ass head in the back.. it is the weight to give it more force on impact. The Katana is one of the most thick back sword in the world.
Dude, why do you think single edge sword exist? Because for fun? It sacrifice the disadvantage of double for maximum impact cut. If that was not the case... all swords would be double edge right?
You can search all day for the most powerful cutting weapon...All powerful cutting weapon will be curved and single edge.
Nit pick all you want about the soft body and hard edges... anybody who have read my post will know that David Choe has been screaming about this special forging all day. All the graphics shows that most Katana has the soft body and hard edge. Some where better than other and that is because there are over 300 years of history to this blade. You think on day one... the Katana was perfected as the 300 years later?
david choe wrote: And this is why sometime it is bit annoying with you.
I'm American. My life is empty if I'm not annoying someone from another continent.
That you keep making nonsense statements couldn't possibly be connected. Nope. Not at all
anybody who have read my post will know that David Choe has been screaming about this special forging all day.
Anyone who has ever read about sword smithing knows that it's not special. It's typical. Just like they know no one in the world casted a steel sword from a mold and that different hardness' were utilized by smiths around the world.
Some where better than other and that is because there are over 300 years of history to this blade
david choe wrote: And this is why sometime it is bit annoying with you.
I'm American. My life is empty if I'm not annoying someone from another continent.
That you keep making nonsense statements couldn't possibly be connected. Nope. Not at all
anybody who have read my post will know that David Choe has been screaming about this special forging all day.
Anyone who has ever read about sword smithing knows that it's not special. It's typical. Just like they know no one in the world casted a steel sword from a mold and that different hardness' were utilized by smiths around the world.
Some where better than other and that is because there are over 300 years of history to this blade
And?
.... I'm an american dude.
and some how I am embarrassed that I have this long discussion with you....
Don't act like this man...I didn't serve this country so you can act like this... wait.. I actually did so you can act like this. Enjoy it bro!
Your flag says Thailand. Now I have to go elsewhere to pursue my quota :( Brobama ain't gonna be happy about this.
and some how I am embarrassed that I have this long discussion with you....
Half the reason I even post in OT is to have conversation with people like you
Don't act like this man...
Like someone whose actually read a book about the subject matter at some point in time? Yeah I can see how that might inconvenience you
I didn't serve this country so you can act like this
That was your mistake! With all this freedom, I learned how to read, studied history, learned how swords were made, and can now tell people on the internet when they need to watch less TV!
I thank you sir for giving me such an opportunity!
Grey Templar wrote: Why is it important to behead someone and leave the skin on? What does that even mean?
And again with the control thing, thats almost completely in the wielder. It has little to do with the weapon itself.
If you would have ask me to explain this... it would have been easy for you to understand.
The Katana control is this... Most weapon are design as maximum on impact. You want to be able to cut as far as it can cut right?
I think we all can agree that a Katana is razor sharp and has great cutting ability (even if you don't think it is a great weapon).
A katana is two handed so you can swing and stop at the right speed and slice enough with that it can cut only so much and not all the way. This weapon is optimal for you to be able to do this. A long Sword is almost impossible to do this control cutting.
So the test of how you can make this control cut is to behead people and leave the front skin of the head left so the heads don't roll. A master Katana or Shogun executioner or other specialist executioner can do this and only with a Katana. You can I guess, in theory with long sword, but it will just be almost impossible and why do that, when you can just train with a Katana and get the more optimal cut.
As for why would you want to make this kind of execution? I think you heard of seppuku killing right? When a person gut his own guts as punishment. Well some high ranking samurai or lords who must commit seppuku in front of other high ranking lords or shogun would do this... and they usually have a executioner standing ready with a Katana ready to behead them after they have commit the act of seppuku. This is to show a bit of mercy because gutting is very painful. Now for a normal seppuku the beheading is cut and the head rolls is not a big deal. When a specialist like Shogun executioner is requested for the important death like a high ranking lords that must commit seppuku in front of many important guest like shogun, the rolling of the head is not very nice and polite at their present and also to let the dead have his head still part of his body. So this control is a must in the weapon... to cut the head and leave the skin on. Note, this is not a myth.
Tabar 
Show me! I have to see that to believe it .
)
