Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Plus javelins are only like a d6. You can get all kinds of axes that do far better than that.

Pfft chainsaws do it better, and louder.

 Soladrin wrote:

david choe wrote:

 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 personally prefer to put my opponent at a disadvantage before getting close then shoving m blade into their mushy bodies.

I would rather enjoy living and deal with their death then feel good for a few seconds than have someone like me stab you.

I mean, you can get that ax feeling from chopping wood. Much safer too.

I'll be honest. Its been awhile since I've been attacked by a guy with a sword or an ax in a busy street.

Thats what the full auto wiener dogs are for.

david choe wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

david choe wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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.

It would have ended a lot faster had they stabbed each other instead... Also that sword may have not broken...

I found this since the topic is pretty interesting

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knight-vs-samurai-experiences.html#.VNU6xOaUeSo

They tried to make a show pitting experts of both styles against each other. Did not work, well so far anyway. Havent finished it yet.

Well, they are trying not to kill eachother..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, I have something by the same guy open.

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.

Is it this article?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm#.VNU8D-aUeSo

or this one?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm#.VNU8EeaUeSo

Man its interesting stuff.

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

That depends on the exact type of sabre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

That depends on the exact type of sabre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre

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.

I agree on the rest though.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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.

Case in point :

 Swastakowey wrote:

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.



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)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


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.

Hmmmm ill check it out when im not at work...

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.

I will check it out and see.

 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.

Yea I guess that makes more sense.

 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.

Is it this article?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm#.VNU8D-aUeSo

or this one?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm#.VNU8EeaUeSo

Man its interesting stuff.

So the samuri get guns?

I think most of it is a problem of comparing two different niches. The samuri (iirc) put more of an emphasis on things such as bows and guns.

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.

So, before the 13th century?

Thats even worse for the Japanese.

david choe wrote:

 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.

Yeah, but that doesn't look very impressive.

 Soladrin wrote:
Who cares, spears/pole arms beat swords anyway.

Until the moment the enemy is standing next to you, that is.