Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jetman123]

Mmhmm! Curved swords were generally used because they had a higher chance of getting through stuff. Sword physics are fun!

The katana, I think, was heavily influenced in design by the Chinese sabres, so it's easy to see similarities there. The katana is not the mother of all swords, and is certainly not the "best", nor can it cleave through steel easily. But it is a very interesting, well-crafted design.

[DJ]

1. There's no way a katana could get through Gothic Plate. To get through such armour you need to thrust with the tip of your sword and the opponent needs to be prone so you don't just push him away. Katana's curved blade makes it quite unsuitable for thrusting, so you'd have a hard time using it against a well-armoured opponent. And curved blades are designed for use against unarmoured opponents because the cleave flesh better than straight blades. It's the straight blades that have the edge when it comes to hacking through armour (though neither are very good at it). This is why straight swords were popular in Europe where armour was also popular, and curved swords were popular in the Middle east where the climate prevented people from wearing much armour.

2. Nodachi is two handed. Katana could be wielded two handed, but it as more common to wield it one-handed and use the other hand to wield a wakizashi.

3. I assure you it's go nothing on the zweihaender when it comes to this last point. Fighting with a zweihaender was a very risky business as you couldn't carry a parrying blade and the wide swings could leave you wide open if you didn't know what you're doing.

In conclusion, I think that all katana has going for it is good PR; Damascus and Toledo blades were made of superior metal and their design was at least equally as good as katana's design, if not better.

[Kagus]

Mind you, I'm certainly not a sword aficionado, but I have picked up a few tidbits along the way.

The katana (and most other Japanese "uber swords") had an incredible amount of time and effort put into making it.  Hundreds upon hundreds of folds in the process of creating a single sword gave it exceptional efficiency and strength.  Why put so much effort into making one sword?  Because they had crap steel.

The Spaniards, on the other hand, had excellent base materials.  They didn't need to spend as much energy making each individual sword, since they already had a very usable weapon after only basic forging because of the metal quality. 


Was the design better on Spanish blades, as opposed to those of the Japanese?  Maybe, maybe not.  But in my opinion, those ornate basket hilts were very cool.

I suppose I'm slightly biased against katanas, if only because of the rampant and mindless nagaphilia present in popular culture...  Ninja this, katana that, Ninjutsu something else, it all gets very tiring after a while. 

Especially when someone starts spouting idiocy relating to their "ninja honor".  Ninja honor?  Disgraced assassin-for-hire honor?  I'm missing something.

[Makrond]

1. There's no way a katana could get through Gothic Plate. To get through such armour you need to thrust with the tip of your sword and the opponent needs to be prone so you don't just push him away. Katana's curved blade makes it quite unsuitable for thrusting, so you'd have a hard time using it against a well-armoured opponent. And curved blades are designed for use against unarmoured opponents because the cleave flesh better than straight blades. It's the straight blades that have the edge when it comes to hacking through armour (though neither are very good at it). This is why straight swords were popular in Europe where armour was also popular, and curved swords were popular in the Middle east where the climate prevented people from wearing much armour.

While I admit that saying a katana can slice through anything is a bit overexaggerated, I've seen them do some impressive things before. And yes, I know a bit about swords.

Also, katanas are very, very pointy. I'd hate to see what would happen if someone in steel plate (traditional steel, at least) came up against a properly-made katana. Maybe nothing, because I haven't seen it, but I think there's a good chance of some serious spleen-piercing.

2. Nodachi is two handed. Katana could be wielded two handed, but it as more common to wield it one-handed and use the other hand to wield a wakizashi.

Study kendo; it is based on traditional katana techniques, and there's a lot of two-handed attacks in that. The wakizashi is an almost exclusively thrusting sword, more akin to a dagger than anything else. The 'parrying blade' you refer to later is actually the kodachi. (Lit. 'small tachi'; 'small sword')

3. I assure you it's go nothing on the zweihaender when it comes to this last point. Fighting with a zweihaender was a very risky business as you couldn't carry a parrying blade and the wide swings could leave you wide open if you didn't know what you're doing.

The zweihaender is an exclusively two-handed sword (as implied by the name). Are you trying to compare a massive beast of a weapon to the three-foot katana? I hope not.

In conclusion, I think that all katana has going for it is good PR; Damascus and Toledo blades were made of superior metal and their design was at least equally as good as katana's design, if not better.

Superior metal, yes. Equally good design, yes. However, superior metal cannot compare to differential hardening, tamahagane aggregate, and the time-honoured technique of multiple folding.

Seriously, at least learn as much as you can about real katanas before you badmouth them.

I've got that out of my system, so I'm willing to be a bit more reasonable now. 

[Fishersalwaysdie]

Well, seeing as the Gothic plate was much more protective that Japanese armors, it only makes sense that Gothic swords were designed to cut through armor much better then Japanese katanas that had no use in armor-piercing capabilities.

[Klendt]

Would not all of that also apply to scimitars and daos as well?  I imagine a similar principle was at work.

...

Damn children of the late '80s, convinced everything Japanese is magically surperior... grumble, rant, grumble...

1: While people don't generally think it, katana are heavier than western swords. MUCH heavier. Running from two to four pounds, that would make it, at the extreme, around *ten times* heavier than a scimitar. That much more mass being multiplied by the almost axe-like edge of the blade, the impact to the weapon being taken from its hard steel to the softer steel behind said edge and dissipated there makes for absolutely absurd killing power even with a blunt edge. The katana is, first and foremost, a shock weapon; extremely brutish compared to european fare, dispite what japanese swordsmen and kendoka would have you think. The dao, however, has a comparable weight, though my knowledge on that weapon is admittedly limited.
2. LET'S KICK SOME SHELL, DUDES!

[LumenPlacidum]

2. Nodachi is two handed. Katana could be wielded two handed, but it as more common to wield it one-handed and use the other hand to wield a wakizashi.

It was never more common to wield a katana one handed with a wakizashi in the other hand.  The daisho, which referred to the katana and wakizashi together, was carried by the samurai as a symbol of their social status, but the katana was typically wielded alone.  In fact, one of the reasons Miyamoto Musashi is recognized as such an exemplary swordsmen is because he was capable of using what he called Niten-ryu, his technique for both swords at once.  It was extremely rare for someone to use the two blades in tandem.

I will not touch the argument about which of the blades are actually better or which of the styles is best.  I have little experience in comparing the two.  I simply find the Japanese blades to be rather pretty.  I don't use 'em at all... I practice the use of the  naginata.

[Jetman123]

Whoops, you're right, yeah. _Straight_ blades are the ones that are designed to go through armor. Curved ones are intended for lightly armed targets, and yes, the katana is essentially an axe in sword form.

The katana is indeed heavy and hard to wield with one hand. It's POSSIBLE, yes, but you won't get that same brutal axe-like soft-target penetration with one hand as you will with two. Samurai would wear both at first because the katana was too big to wield in a close combat situation, hence you needed a shortsword as a backup weapon in case you were fighting inside or were locked in extreme short range fighting. After that it became a symbol of the samurai, and nobody else was allowed to wear both a katana and wakizashi. The short one was for finesse, but the katana was there for raw killing power, as armor technology wasn't as advanced in Japan around that time.

[Tuv]

a katana can split a bullet, that is more than good enough for me

[DJ]

It's not chopping that does most damage to an unarmoured target. It's the slicing action of the blade that's withdrawing through soft tissue, and curved blades are optimal for this.

As for corrections of my post, I appreciate them. I have only a layman's understanding of the topic, so it's only natural I got some facts wrong.

[Makrond]

Would not all of that also apply to scimitars and daos as well?  I imagine a similar principle was at work.

...

Damn children of the late '80s, convinced everything Japanese is magically surperior... grumble, rant, grumble...

1: While people don't generally think it, katana are heavier than western swords. MUCH heavier. Running from two to four pounds, that would make it, at the extreme, around *ten times* heavier than a scimitar.

Zu-wha?!

An approximate average weight for a katana is somewhere between 1.2-1.5 kgs, or ~2.4-3 pounds. (I'm not good at metric to imperial, so if that's wrong I apologise)

Show me a scimitar that weighs 150 grams and I'll show you a sword made of plastic.

Katana are also more manoeuverable, due to the fact that the point of balance is a mere 5" from the tsuba or crossguard. (Some Western swords can be anywhere up to 8-10"!)

However, because of that they are much less like an axe than some of you are trying to make out. If you want a sword like an axe, look up falchions.

Also, yes, the most important thing you learn when you begin any kind of sword fighting is that a slicing action does more than a chopping action against an unarmoured foe. In fact, chopping is merely to try and punch through the enemy's armour.

Also, I don't know how many of you have actually held a real katana, but it's not that heavy, really, especially not compared to Western swords.

[Kusgnos]

This slight deviation from the topic's actually sort of interesting.

I only have a few Chinese straight swords, so I don't know much about the katana or the various Western blades. But one thing that I kind of thought about Western swords during Middle Ages was that the bigger blades were used much more like percussive weapons, instead of punching through armor. Like claymores and those kind: they weren't that sharp from the repeated use, and knights would just bash each other til one of them was too weak or stunned and prone (sounds like DF!), and then they'd grab a misericord or estoc or some sort of thin, pointed sword/dagger, and then plunge it in the faceplate holes, or in armor joints. Sort of like what DJ hinted at, with the prone part.

So instead of some guy wielding a super sharp longsword that slices and pokes holes all over thicker torso plating, it's a guy bashing his opponent more efficiently, then stabbing him satisfyingly in the face. Did I picture it wrong?

[Kagus]

Just goes to show you that the hammer is the best possible weapon.  For all purposes.  At all times.

[Dr. Melon]

Claymores (ususally ranging from 3 feet to even 15 feet) were often used on horseback; for the longest ones, this was the only way. A knight could swing his claymore and spur his horse, and the combined power was enough to severely dent armour if the flat was used, and completely tear through if the blade was sharp and the edge used.

Most swords were blunt-ish; this was because many of the knights were not important enough to warrant a place at the local grindstone. Sharp blades were for barons and Kings, not for ordinary knights.

The flat of the blade was often used for beating an opponent down; if you could manage this, it made the fight easier and you could take prisoners. However, the side of the blade on the blunt swords was only really good enough for breaking ribs and bones; they would first have to get the opponent into a prone position or up against something where they could easily thrust the tip of the sword through. A decent side-blow to the head could kill an opponent easily, however it is a hard target to hit with a heavy sword.

Kings and the like had it easy; though they often wore no more armour than a simple breastblate.

[Klendt]

Would not all of that also apply to scimitars and daos as well?  I imagine a similar principle was at work.

...

Damn children of the late '80s, convinced everything Japanese is magically surperior... grumble, rant, grumble...

1: While people don't generally think it, katana are heavier than western swords. MUCH heavier. Running from two to four pounds, that would make it, at the extreme, around *ten times* heavier than a scimitar.

Zu-wha?!

An approximate average weight for a katana is somewhere between 1.2-1.5 kgs, or ~2.4-3 pounds. (I'm not good at metric to imperial, so if that's wrong I apologise)

Show me a scimitar that weighs 150 grams and I'll show you a sword made of plastic.

Katana are also more manoeuverable, due to the fact that the point of balance is a mere 5" from the tsuba or crossguard. (Some Western swords can be anywhere up to 8-10"!)

However, because of that they are much less like an axe than some of you are trying to make out. If you want a sword like an axe, look up falchions.

Also, yes, the most important thing you learn when you begin any kind of sword fighting is that a slicing action does more than a chopping action against an unarmoured foe. In fact, chopping is merely to try and punch through the enemy's armour.

Also, I don't know how many of you have actually held a real katana, but it's not that heavy, really, especially not compared to Western swords.

Haha, now don't I feel silly. I totally just snagged the weight of what was *definately* the wrong scimitar. That's what happens when you start pretending you're diurnal.
And by "axe", I wasn't referring to the actual motion on behalf of the wielder, but rather the physics of the damage itself. It is not entirely dependant upon its RAZOR SHARP EDGE FORGED IN THE FIRES OF SATAN'S ASS AFTER BURRITO NIGHT AND COOLED IN THE GULLET OF THE GREAT OLD ONE WHO LIES DEAD AND DREAMING as many people seem to think. One of the most standard cuts in traditional kendo could, with relative ease, cleave a helmet and sink deep into delicious grey matter; but that's really to be expected. Japanese swordsmanship was about achieving the enemy's death in one blow, completely without regard to one's life. The worst they'd aim for was a mutual kill. Compared to European swordsmanship, the difference in blades could not be more pronounced, as the typical westerner thought his life actually meant something, so they actually incorporated some manouvering into the equation.
 ANYWAYS! A claymore weighs in at around five and a half pounds (two to three kilos). Compare that to the two to four pounds of a katana and you can see exactly where I'm coming from; western swords, in fact, typically have VERY thinly forged blades when compared to eastern models, which becomes compounded when you consider that a genuine japanese blade, the type forged by those 'living national treasures', has been worked to the point of acquiring a crystalline structure. I probably don't even need to elaborate on what that means as far as density is concerned.

And sorry if I appear a bit too vehement about this, I just emerged from the fires of an argument with someone whose sum knowledge came entirely from Dead Rising.