A katana is literally useless against european heavy armor, and too heavy for how short it is.
1) Personally, if I were to go up against a knight in plate armor, I would
most definitely rather have a katana than not have one. Remember you
can stab with a katana, and armor does tend to have weaker points.
2) I don't think european swords that served in the same niche as the katana did, did especially well against plate armor either. Pretty much, plate was developed for the purpose of stopping swords. Why are you singling out the katana?
One more thing, the modern trend of making lighter weapons has nothing to do with the traditional Katana, one from the warring states period would be moderately light (5 lbs.+), but an older blade could easily mass 7-9 lbs., and I have heard from several of the sensei in the Shin-Kendo school that the higher-grade blades massed as much as 11 lbs.
...umm, pretty much: no. What you're claiming would be like about swinging a barbell around. Even five pounds is
heavy for a weapon, and the Japanese are not exactly known for being especially large or strong people. Maybe if you're talking about cavalry, or ceremonial weapons. Are you? I assume not.
the blade is hardly short, they ranged from three feet to three and a half, that's pretty decent length wouldn't you say?
1) I don't think I've ever handled a katana with a blade longer than three feet, and generally they're under two and a half. I no longer have one to compare to, but I do have a bokken, and holding that up to my other swords, it's definitely shorter than most everything else. Only my hookswords are shorter. Granted, most of my weapons are storebought replicas rather than "historic" weapons, but I did once handle a WW2 Japanese officer's sword and that was similar in both weight and length to modern replicas I've handled. In my experience, as swords go, katana are on the relatively shorter end of the spectrum.
2) Wikipedia seems to agree with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana"katana blades tended to be between 70 to 73 cm (27 1⁄2 to 28 1⁄2 in) in length. During the early 16th century, the average length was closer to 60 cm (23 1⁄2 in). By the late 16th century, the average length returned to approximately 73 cm (28 1⁄2 in)."have you ever lifted a renaissance era knight's longsword? The real thing, not a recreation?
You mean an authentic,
hundreds of years old sword? No. I haven't. Have you? Has
anyone in this thread? I do have a decades-old hand-crafted "intended for real use" talwar in my bedroom, though. Does that count? It's under three pounds with a blade length of 31 inches.
According to a quick google search, the heaviest swords in the history of the world that saw actual combat rather than ceremonial use were not generally more than about 6 pounds. Your claim of 7-9 pounds as typical and higher end blades up to 11...do you have any reason you can give us to believe that other than "my sensei say so?"
How big are you? Go to your local gym and try swinging a ten pound bench press barbell around by one end for a couple minutes. Come back and tell us how easy it to do. Then imagine being an average
5' 1" Edo-period Japanese male doing it.
I just don't think so.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Give me a reason to believe it.
There are a whole range of historical weapons that are pronged knives (like a very short trident) designed to catch an opponent's sword and then gain control of it by twisting and trapping it between the blade and the prongs.
The problem is that no one actually used them outside duels or civilian use, because they're basically a shield that's much harder to use, and also because they only work if you're facing a single opponent using a small range of weapons.
Ok, but what exactly is your point? Saying that "nobody except duelists and civilians" used these weapons isn't a valid reason to dismiss them. In the context of this thread, civilian dueling is
exactly and precisely what we're talking about. As for historic value, longer training time is a perfectly good reason to not train your military in these weapons or styles, but that doesn't mean they're not effective. When training an army, you probably want something cheap and easy to learn. Yes, dual wielding likely takes much longer to learn than sword and shield. But if you're a private individual who has the time and inclination rather than than a military commander seeking to spend as little time and money as possible to get as much effectiveness as you can from your army...non military standard weapons and styles might be be suitable. People keep bringing up the issue of bows, for example. What about them? Your typical 1800s english gentleman probably isn't going to run into a brigade of longbowmen. He's far more likely to engage in a one on one duel. He doesn't need to worry about bows or carrying rations, or many of the other issues people have brought up. Dual blades is a viable option. And, again, I already linked european
parrying daggers in that context. Shields might be great if you're in an army, but they're terribly inconvenient walking down the street. And if OP wants to dual wield with his LARP group, he probably doesn't care at all about the practicalities of dual wielding against mixed unit field armies with cavalry and archers and things.
It's is a valid and viable option here.
Even dual wielding katana specifically, which has no historical precedent, is still a valid option here. And I once again give the example of
chinese double broadsword, which not only has a historical predecent, not only is valid and viable in a civilian dueling context...it has a lot of "sheer awesomeness" value. When you go out when your LARPing buddies and start twirling blades like a blender...even if it takes five times as long to learn as standard shield and sword, OP isn't doing this to fight for his life. He's doing it to have fun. Being the awesome guy who does amazing things has to be worth something.
Probably a
whole lot more than arguments about historical accuracy.
Author
Topic: Melee Combat (Read 31615 times)