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.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 12:21:53
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 12:03:59
This is really feeling like the "western women are pigs" and "stop cosplaying ugly westerners" troll threads we used to get.
Except with slightly* more substance.
*Only slightly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 12:03:15
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 12:41:27
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 12:51:04
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 13:18:34
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 13:27:51
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.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 13:39:05
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 13:43:10
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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'.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 14:03:57
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 14:28:16
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 14:49:05
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 14:52:31
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 14:59:41
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 15:16:13
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.
~4100
~1660
In dedicato imperatum ultra articulo mortis 
