On the Katana and it's wielder.

[lewiswhitling]

think the only way we could ever settle this would be to have someone train in the respective martial arts and then try to actually kill each other. Not those stupid youtube videos where a guy with a bokkan fights a bloke with a stick - I mean an actual Duel To The Death for our amusement. Wanna sign up?

I for one would love to see the actual fight dynamic between two incredibly trained and strong martial artists, who've lived it their entire lives, and who are not pulling their blows or following a fight script. I dont wanna sound too morbidly fascinated with the whole thing, but the way fights play out in games and movies with swords compared to what actually happened, is literally like comparing WWE to the UFC.

And i agree with you, the only way to truly understand what the dynamic would be like is to recreate a life or death scenario between two people... maybe that's why this whole area of history is so alluring. Every other aspect of life in that period can be recreated faithfully, whereas this is almost completely blockaded by our respect for human life oh woe. Some of the demonstrated techniques which ARMA put up are pretty fun to watch though. I guess it'll have to do

EDIT: I know i've posted god knows how many videos now.. but i found this series a while back - it's a somewhat basic, but rather nice intro to swords in general (specifically the longsword). It is an enjoyable watch - i'll put the first part here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXNbxgt5eVk

Ok the first part really is an intro - nothing more. The rest of it gets slightly more technical

 

[Per Kaas]

The Katana is a well-constructed sword. And it is well constructed for the type of warfare the Japanese had. And so is every sword from different cultures. They were made for a specific type of warfare. Take the saber that the confederate and union army used during the American Civil War. Perfectly made for cutting down opponents from the horseback. As for the training. European knights had just as much training as a Samurai. And they were just as good as the samurai in combat. But again, it's two different types of combat for different ways warfare. I think that the reason the katana and its fighting-style has endured longer that the western way of sword fighting is because the Japanese people are a very traditional people who keep old traditions in ways of training and fighting alive. While we Europeans are more interested in the newest and the best. And the rising interest in eastern philosophy has given the Asian way of fighting even more focus than our own western ways.

Personally, I would like a sword from my country. The Viking sword. That to is a well-constructed sword. Since Norway is a country that doesn't allow for much mining. And so they had to take the iron they could find and make is strong and durable. And contrary to what people might think, it was not a heavy lump of iron that they swung around. It was just as thin and light as any European longsword, as well as durable.

 

[Nieroshai]

Any self-respecting samurai was also competent at hand-to-hand as well, whereas most knights only ever learned basic pugillism in adition to weapons training.

I'm pretty sure that knights would have learned how to wrestle pretty bloody well, and would probably have the physical advantage over the more slight samurai by virtue of having quite a bit more muscle on them.

If a katana were to be made with modern steelmaking techniques in addition to the old practices, it would be much more useful than a gladius and more dextrous than a zweihander.

Yeah, but modern steelmaking techniques can give you a fantastic chrome-plated rifle, capable of shooting reliably and accurately up to a thousand metres or more, along with a KA-BAR or Fairbairn-Sykes Fighting Knife which is more appropriate for modern fighting. There's a reason why William Fairbairn didn't use a sword when he engaged in close combat. Hell, when Jack Churchill engaged in close combat in the Second World War, he used a claybeg, a weapon which was of an obsolete style - the sabre had been made obsolete more than twenty years before that by World War I, and that lasted a lot later as a weapon style than the katana.

When were we talking about guns? You might be right with the knightly wrestling thing I suppose. And unless you are REALLY fast and dextrous, how's a combat knife going to be more useful than a sword on account of reach? Also, some Japanese were issued katanas in WWII, they just rarely got to use them in trench warfare. You made some good points, but lost track of context of my post.

 

[Gezab]

As a weapon/tool, the katana is basically over hyped. Yes, it's made by a very hard damascus-style folding, and it is very well constructed. However, most of that is unnecessary. Besides the ability to deflect blows from the sides, the Katana doesn't really have much else going for it. It has a very acute point, which can cause it to chip at it's point if used for a stab and comes in contact with a hard surface. It's easily beaten by chainmail and plate mail because it's mainly a slashing weapon.

The European sword, on the other hand, is more crude in construction, but achieves the same sharpness (I'll talk more on this later). It is more versatile, because it is less acute at the point, resulting in a tip less likely to break or chip upon impact with armor. It can still cause damage to people wearing plate or mail because it is heavy enough to cause bruising through the armor.

As for the argument of "The Katana is sharper" etc, this is wrong. Any metal can become razor sharp. I can take a crowbar to a belt grinder, and in about an hour, give you a razor sharp sword. Also, all that fine sharpening of the katana wears off after a few uses.

 

[Athol]

Show me a nerd who can wield a claymore!

YO! A claymore acctually isnt that heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore


That being said, not having any training with a claymore, I wouldnt be very effective.

 

[Mariner]

In Japan they had inferior metal, forcing them to reinforce their swords with folding techniques (which aren't unique btw, the vikings did it a before the Japanese). They are easy to break and are more effective at slashing than stabbing (of course this doesn't matter against soft flesh).

Also you can't catch arrows without hurting yourself. Parry yes, catch no.

I would prefer the claymore and with enough training and protein you would be just as precise with it. Only novices swing it around in a fashion that it often depicted in popular media.

Also the katana cutting the bullet thing: get any reasonable blade and try it.
I may be wrong on this but the bullet is made of 'soft' (note the quotes) lead and it was also hot from being fired so it is easy to cut.

 

[SodaDew]

I only like to use short Katanas, just my personal choice; but it is a VERY overrated weapon.

 

[Bocaj2000]

The reason that katanas are popular in "nerd-culture" is ONLY because it's Japanese. Nerds jizz over Japanese things. Personally I like the samurai. However, I also love the maccabees as well as Greek warriors (not just Spartans) as well as the Muslim army from the dark ages as well as the Zulu.

You must respect the samurai though. Japan has never been successfully invaded, and the only reason that there are no samurai any more is because of rapid fire guns (which were fired upon them by their own people).

EDIT: About katanas...I believe that they have earned their place in history as one of the most well made swords with the purpose of slicing and stabbing. They way they get past armor is through getting in-between the cracks. I've always viewed European claymores, bastard swords, and other two handed swords as objects ment more for crushing armor. Its effectiveness depends on the wielder.

 

[LondonBeer]

The Japanese willingly isolated themselves from the rest of the world for politico-economic-cultural-religious reasons, so arguing that they weren't as aggressively imperialistic or expansive as other empires is a bit unfair

The Samurai and the Katana have proven to be incredibly superior to the technology of Western armies at the time - Samurai armour being of greater strength, durability, manouverability and overall design whilst the Katana was far better at cutting, slicing and stabbing than western Longswords, which were more like particularly sharp clubs in comparison (both deadly, obviously - but the Katana is superior if only because it is a lighter, faster, sharper, stronger weapon)

As for peoples' obsession with it - I dunno, it's Japanese so that's gotta count for something in their eyes.

Show me a nerd who can wield a claymore!

I'd say it's probably because the katana is far easier to handle than a huge european sword due to lesser weight and smaller form. I agree that in direct combat against a european broadsword the katana would most likely be fucked.

I prefer the stle and practicle-ness of a sickle sword (khopesh) or a a kilij.

The samurai were known for their combat prowes mainly from one on one combat, with some being able to catch arrows mid flight. So the power of the sword came from the warrior not the weapon.

The katana is an overrated weapon in fiction. It may have been very well-constructed and great for its specific uses, but it wasn't a wonder-sword, and it was made using notably weak Japanese steel - this is why it had to be well-constructed.

Beaten to it, they are damn fine blades but are built for a specific type of combat, they are good at it but not much else.

If a knight were to fight a samurai, both unarmoured the samurai would likly win, if the knight was wearing armour and/or had a shield the samurai would more than likley be fucked.

Erm, medieval men at arms could be just as proficient with a long sword as a samuri would be with a katana. Both swords weighed about the same, and they both were balanced to a point where they were just a "fast" as each other.

There really are some massive misconceptions in this thread about martial arts in general. The fact is that the basic principles are universal, from the unarmed side of it (throwing, unarmed fighting) to armed combat (with different swords being best used in different situations). Western martial arts has suffered from a massive sidelining due to the introduction of firearms, as as such has been relagated to a highly unrealistic and recreational "fencing" activity over the past several centuries.

But in the days when people relied on their weapons to survive in day to day life, and in battles, believe me, they were the creme of the fighting crop.

I never said the Western martial art was less proficient in its use of its weapon of choice. Mabye one of the other people you quoted said that, but don't lump me in like that.

Also, seeing as the longsword is much, MUCH bigger, even though it's well-weighted and such, it's still not as manouverable as the Katana.

The superiority of the Katana is shown in this video. This does not make the Longsword any worse, it still does the job very well - it's just the Katana is ... well, watch the video.

The sword hes using is blunt and malformed. The guard looks homemade. Im also dubious about ice cutting as a valid measure. Interestingly though the tests on the cuirass show the Katanas steel straight during the flex, meaning itd be more likely to break having less give. Still the sword hes using looks like an SCA reject.

I can't claim to have any knowledge on swordsmanship, so I'll have to assume you're correct and that you know what you're talking about. You say the katana is straight in the 'flex' (whazzat?) but didn't it wobble loads when it cut the ice - suggesting it deals with forces well?

It didnt wobble because it didnt strike anything offering force. unless the ice was frozen in an aggitator the molecular structure of the ice would be erratic. Ice as a form of resistance is retarded. Try it at home freeze 6 ice cubes & drop em from a great height, they will all break in a different pattern. Meaning that their internal resistivity to shock is inconsistent. Thats why gun tests are performed on blocks of carefully mixed ballistic gel. A compound with a consistent resistance to impact.

Straight in the flex. Buy some pencils. Break one fast, break one slow, hold one in a vice & break the tip. Youll see what I mean.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I've never given much thought to the fighting style, I just like the design of the thing.
Not exclusively though, I also like a western-style longsword.

 

[Plurralbles]

I'm sorry but all weapons are badass... or at the very least, for hte most part.
I mean... scimitars are amazing. So are poleaxes. All are pretty sweet.

I definitely prefer Fluted or gothic medieval armor over samurai leather.

 

[IronMaidenLeigh]

I think it's hard to compare different styles of swords because each is made for a specific purpose. Katana were intended to slice into enemies, even hack their limbs off. I think part of the katana's popularity is because it's engrained in Japanese culture, and so the Japanese use it a lot when they make games. As such, American gamers see them often. I've noticed that games made by non-Japanese developers tend to use European-style swords.

I don't mind katanas being so popular, because I do think they're pretty cool, but I do think they get overused. It especially bothers me when ninja use them, because historically ninja didn't use them. Katanas aren't exactly stealthy swords. Most assassins prefer smaller blades that can be used to stab people, not hack their heads off.

Personally, I prefer straight swords, like a rapier or a jian. Something fast and agile.

 

[Delritho]

Slight correction, The English Empire was the largest empire ever know on Earth in both mass and population, though Mongolia was the largest continuous stretch of empire.

Eh. The Brits never held all that at once. Good ol Genghis Did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_empires#Medieval_empires

he also did it roughly 700 years earlier too.

 

[Naeo]

The katana has a few things to its name. All the good ones were extremely carefully crafted and had edges whose sharpness was measured in "bodies" for a while--how many corpses it could chop through in one good swing. There's also a bit of science about how the slight curve to the blade causes a chopping and slicing motion simultaneously which makes for better cuts, but that's about where their awesomeness ends in comparison to other swords. Western swords (I'm particularly thinking of claymores) could be extremely heavy and cause massive damage just from torque and momentum accumulating through a swing. The western longsword is just a good, versatile, all-around weapon which can be crafted to extreme sharpness. The scimitar was light and a great slashing weapon. The macana could cut off a horse's head in a single blow, reputedly, and was probably the sharpest man-made thing ever used in warfare (but being made of obsidian, it was admittedly brittle). The kris (sometimes spelled "keris") is one of the most devastating stabbing weapons around. And so on and so forth. The katana is nothing particularly special or amazing above all other weapons, people just like it because it's "exotic," I think, and because its physical shape is attractive.

 

[370999]

I thought the answer was quite simple. No country better embodied the cult of the sword in popular knowledge, then Japan. And their weapon of choice was the katanan. Thus it has attached to it a whole mystique that western swords have to a much lesser extent. The reasons for this are myraid but chiefly IMHO the fact that Europe was never culturally homogenous and was always fighting against Muslims means that it couldn't have a gentlemanly argreement to ban guns. It wouldn't work. While in Japan it was possible to do so.

 

[Karousawai]

As far as i understand it, the katana was perfectly fine in its environment. It didn't have that much heavy armour to break on and only really parried other weapons of its style and weight (and bullets apparently...). It's more than likely the connection to Japan, nerd capital of the world, that gives it its popularity. Plus its seen as a curiosoty considering we westerners really just liked hitting each other with big sticks wheras samurai has a very ritualistic system of beliefs and combat. Both warrior and weapon have a certain aesthetic appeal.

Now, my weapon of choice is this http://www.wowhead.com/item=24044#screenshots

I don't care if its not real, I want one

 

[WolfThomas]

What annoys me is that regardless of the quality of the iconic katana is everyone compares it to middle ages swords, the Katana truly only came into use around the 15th and 16th. At this time there where many similar swords but of superior materials being produce in both europe and the middle east. The sabre and many of it's predecessor/cousins such as the Szabla, Scimitar and Tulwar.