On the Katana and it's wielder.

[LondonBeer]

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.

sorry for the delay in reply - i was finding videos to make a case with

Both the longsword and the katana had manouverabilty. The long sword was certainly not MUCH bigger, and from all the sources i've read - both swords weighed about 4-5 pounds. As for speed, see here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYi_uOwGtY

as for cutting - indeed, the shape of the swords here may well set them apart somewhat, but in more subtle ways than what the video suggests. I see no credentials of this guy's actual swording technique. But if you want to see someone i do respect here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY

Of course, i doubt the katana allows for half-swording, and using the pommel as a hammer (a german technique known as mortschlag), for use against people in armour; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9OQoqW_MA

so, the superior weapon? well, again, as tools for their specific purposes, they are both equally adept. However, when it comes to versatility, and range of uses, i'd say the longsword is still superior.

/salute Excellent sources (ARMA are the guys to go to), just to clear a little something up the mortschalg or 'hammer' is actually using the guard to penetrate the armour, the pommel can be used as a cudgel to pummel (Acually the origin of the word pummel).

This only lends further fuel to the arguement not only is the sword (hate long sword broadsword crap) more practical allowing fo a greater range of attacks, techniques and styles but it also serves as a toolkit giving a short spear, a long piercing hammer and a cudgel in addition to the long cutting edges.

Im fairly sure those dinky little Katana guards wouldnt withstand much battering. The swords can be used to breach armour.

 

[Hyper-space]

Indeed. To explain the process would be like asking someone to fold a peice of paper over and over till they couldn't fold it anymore. Then asking them to rip it.
The slight radius of the blade makes it ideal as a slashing weapon, but little else.

Not too mention that chainmail completely nullifies what use the Katana has as a slashing weapon.

 

[Jazzyjazz2323]

So throughout modern day "nerd" fiction and what no,almost always someone has a katana of some sort and they're always held up to be the epitome of badass.I have always been confused by this and I've always wondered why the Japanese blade has been seen as a more popular weapon than those of the western and middle-eastern variety.I've never understood peoples fascination with the katana or it's wielder.To me they've always seemed weak,both warrior and weapon,from an empire that never accomplished much in comparison to it's neighbors.
The fighting style also seems highly overrated and people seem to overlook the martial prowess of the middle-eastern and western swordsmen in regards to skill when compared to their Japanese counterparts.Every time a movie,comic book or game mentions master swordsmanship it always goes directly to the Samurai or wielders of the katana.I've always held that the swordsmanship of the western world especially that of knights to be the better form but I'm still perplexed by it's second place status when it comes to weapons in the "nerd"fiction universe.
So basically I would like to get the Escapist views on this weapon and what they think about it's place in the modern day realms of fiction in opposition to it's western and middle-eastern counterparts.


Sorry if this is incoherent in anyway I have not had much sleep.

part of it is the mystery of something "different" - Japanese culture is full of such mystery. Another part of it is that, while the steel used to create the swords may have been weak, the power of the wielder tended to be stronger. Medieval Europes swords were designed to stab through flesh - they couldn't cut off a head like you see in the movies. Katana's, however, could. In fact, a sword was rated by how many bodies it could cut through (note: WHOLE bodies, like form torso to torso) in one swoop. Rumors put the greatest between 7-9 - that's not a "weak" sword.

Finally, in reference to which civilizations are more powerful, how can you claim that any of the eastern empires were weaker than the western kingdoms? China had more people in it than all of Europe combined, with an empire larger than europe. Japan may have been frought with war, but it had repelled invasions from its more powerful neighbors, not to mention its civilization was more well established than anything in Europe. Finally, have you ever heard of the huns or the Golden Horde (Ghangis Khan and all them?)? They were from a Mongolian (read: Chinese) empire that to this day held more land than any empire before or sense. This didn't just happen once, but twice. Rome's empire (the greatest empire ever to emerge in Europe) was probably a tenth of its size. "Modern" China (meaning the china europeans first met in the 1500's) had no embitions to conquer the globe because it wasn't in their culture to do so. They were content with being Chinese. In fact, the wars between Europe and the eastern states were started not because the eastern empires were inferior to the western ones, but because the Eastern empires laughed at the futile attempts at trade, mocking the inferiority of western goods. The only thing that western kingdoms could do was invade - because that was the only way they could get anything from the eastern kingdoms. But even this was not due to western military technology being superior (remember, gun powder, cannons, etc. were all invented in China thousands of years before they eventually made their way to Europe). It was because western military life was much more brutal. Essentially, this means eastern armies were composed of policing forces while western armies were composed of veteran military men who had fought in wars across Europe. That is with the exception of China and Japan, who were the only two eastern nations to resist european colonization. And why was that? Perhaps because of the Katana.

And here we arrive at full circle. The katana is a powerful weapon, and eastern empires are in no way inferior to western kingdoms. One last note should be made: in the east, there were empires, but in the west there were kingdoms. That is a significant difference.

I never questioned the greatness of the Chinese empire in fact I used it in showing how I felt Japan to be lesser as I stated"In comparison with their neighbors."

 

[pendragon177]

A properly made katana is the 2nd sharpest object in the world. The first being obsidian glass than the 3rd being a surgical scalpel. Also, when you visit a museum with authentic swords on display. If you were to compare (for example) a broadsword to a katana both made during the same time period, the broadsword would appear to be rusted and generally seasoned and weathered. But if you look at the katana, due to the technique of repeatedly folding the steel during the forging process, the katana will still look as though it had been made yesterday.

 

[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.

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

Indeed. To explain the process would be like asking someone to fold a peice of paper over and over till they couldn't fold it anymore. Then asking them to rip it.
The slight radius of the blade makes it ideal as a slashing weapon, but little else.

Not too mention that chainmail completely nullifies what use the Katana has as a slashing weapon.

Correct, though traditional Samurai armour was made out of tile crafted from layers of paper...hmmm. I'm really going with this paper motif tonight.

 

[LondonBeer]

A properly made katana is the 2nd sharpest object in the world. The first being obsidian glass than the 3rd being a surgical scalpel. Also, when you visit a museum with authentic swords on display. If you were to compare (for example) a broadsword to a katana both made during the same time period, the broadsword would appear to be rusted and generally seasoned and weathered. But if you look at the katana, due to the technique of repeatedly folding the steel during the forging process, the katana will still look as though it had been made yesterday.

Because the broadsword was used instead of put in a musuem. Folding steel doesnt make it not oxidise. I take it youve never heard of Damascus steel either ¬.¬.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

Katanas are excellent... when fighting other people with katanas. Outside that, they are hilariously inefficient in terms of the style used to wield them. Honor does not win fights, except in legend and other fiction.

A simple, long, lightweight thrusting blade, used in the style of a European fencer? Far more efficient and effective. But that's just as far as swords go. Ranged combat will pretty much always win in head-on confrontation.

Katanas are popular because of our belief that the Japanese are "magical," because their traditional culture is so different from Western cultures. It's like we believe all of them were samurai.

And that's racist. Some of them are ninjas.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You need a few more years, Ive trained with the Royal Armouries. The purpose of a lunge is reach (rarely) or to add force to penetrating ability of the tip. The shape of a Katana is not conducive to a armour piercing breach on flat plate.

If you've trained in swordfighting then you'd know that the employing of a successful and piercing lunge has more to do with how you move your body and not the shape of the weapon.

It's the same thing as throwing a forceful punch with your fist. If you just use the muscles of your arm but don't move the rest of your body then you won't exactly tip someone over with the punch, but if you roll with the punch and twist your body and thus direct more force along your arm, you're going to knock your target off his feet or (if he's particularly heavy) stumble backwards.

The same principles are used with a sword in order to pierce armour. I have handled a katana as well as frequent use of a shinai, the shinaii is straight while the katana is curved but it makes no difference when you use them in a thrusting manner, and piercing a flat metal surface akin to what was used in full plate armour wouldn't really be an issue.

The thing is, armour plate was rarely "flat" which would cause blades (straight as well as curved) tip to slide off rather than penetrate quite often.

All swords parry with the flat, edge parries are fiction or desperation. All swords would chip if used to edge parry especially a Katana less likely a early western edge due to the edge formation.

Yeah, that was my point.

The thing is, when you're trapped inside a clanking metal suit, parries of desperation occur much more frequently than someone wearing more open and flexible armour or no armour at all.

Shields are offensive & defensive & if youve never been struck with 6 lbs of hardwood with a 1lb of shaped steel driven by a mans arm I recommend the experience as a learning one.

I never said they weren't used offensively.

The myth that both hands are required implies a weakness in the bearer. A trait western warriors who trained with wasters and upto double weighted dull iron blades would not suffer from. Driving a blow home with both hands guiding the blade implies you lack the precision or skill to use the less than a pound of pressure of the razor edge on the blade to open your target.

The thing is, japanese swordsmanship wasn't just about opening wounds or causing a bleeding gash. They cut off arms, heads and bisected their opponents with weapons that didn't possess the weight usually associated with such griveous injuries.

That requires skill, since you have to employ the curvature of the blade flawlessly.

The only reason to use both hands is to penetrate armour a thankless task with a glorified letteropener such as a Katana. Lacking the tip required to breach cleanly & the shape it would only affect weak and open areas of western field plate.

Like I said: the use of the katana as a piercing weapon has more to do with the motion of your body and adapting it to the shape of the blade.

You wouldn't penetrate western field plate by hacking at it with a western sword either so...

As to techniques employed gentlemen & ladies I give unto you the answer. A fencer with a sabre no less 'humping' a Kendo master.

Erm, kendo isn't the same as japanese battlefield or duelling swordsmanship. It's a standardized and simplified form intended for sport and cultural conservation, making your video clip somewhat uninteresting (for one thing the kendo practicioner wears a lot heavier armour than the foil fencer making the duel uneven).

It would be more interesting to a real swordfight, with real techniques where the opponents actually have the intention to KILL eachother.

Trying to compare and determine the superiority of swordsmanship and swords through such mock battles is completely pointless...

 

[LondonBeer]

Indeed. To explain the process would be like asking someone to fold a peice of paper over and over till they couldn't fold it anymore. Then asking them to rip it.
The slight radius of the blade makes it ideal as a slashing weapon, but little else.

Not too mention that chainmail completely nullifies what use the Katana has as a slashing weapon.

Correct, though traditional Samurai armour was made out of tile crafted from layers of paper...hmmm. I'm really going with this paper motif tonight.

Which begs the question :-

We know that chainmail is all but impervious to a cutting edge,(butchers & fish mongers still use chainmail mitts) requiring great force to break the linkages, how resilient would Samurai armour have been given it was designed to stop a cutting curved edge not a flat edge with a thrusting potential?

Would the lamellar absorb the forces or fracture?

 

[Treblaine]

You cite cutting power as a factor & then say the curves distract you. The curves dictate the blades ability to cut effectively.

It's not the existence nor absence of a curve itself, it's the aesthetics of the curve, the type of curves. I just find it looks too wavy and naturalistic. Katana just looks like it's from the future, even though the design is hundreds of years old. It looks like a refined killing machine for a person who has trained their mind body and their very soul to kill effortlessly.

I have no idea which intrinsically cuts better but have you ever the phrase "it's not the arrow, it's the Indian"? At the time the western world really became familiar with Japanese weapons the samurai were the most pre-eminent sword fighters in the world, that (artistically speaking) infuses the weapon with a reputation. It's as much the swordsman that comes with the Katana that makes it so sought after.

A western style cavalry sabre - to me - leaves the impression of a guy with a huge moustache yelling CHHHAAAAAARGGE while impotently waving the sabre over their head.

When someone twirls a Colt Single Action Army revolver you get the impression of speed, and effortless accuracy... might not be the case but those that have wielded it before in fiction and non-fiction have left that reputation.

Consider the Japanese samurai films like Yojimbo and the Seven Samurai that have imbued the sword with a great potency. And when we are talking about art, there is that wider cultural impression that counts with not only the audience but the characters within the work. In Pulp Fiction when Butch is selecting weapons to face down some armed rapists nothing seems to instil more confidence in him than a samurai sword, more so than even a chainsaw.

 

[LondonBeer]

You need a few more years, Ive trained with the Royal Armouries. The purpose of a lunge is reach (rarely) or to add force to penetrating ability of the tip. The shape of a Katana is not conducive to a armour piercing breach on flat plate.

If you've trained in swordfighting then you'd know that the employing of a successful and piercing lunge has more to do with how you move your body and not the shape of the weapon.

It's the same thing as throwing a forceful punch with your fist. If you just use the muscles of your arm but don't move the rest of your body then you won't exactly tip someone over with the punch, but if you roll with the punch and twist your body and thus direct more force along your arm, you're going to knock your target off his feet or (if he's particularly heavy) stumble backwards.

The same principles are used with a sword in order to pierce armour. I have handled a katana as well as frequent use of a shinai, the shinaii is straight while the katana is curved but it makes no difference when you use them in a thrusting manner, and piercing a flat metal surface akin to what was used in full plate armour wouldn't really be an issue.

The thing is, armour plate was rarely "flat" which would cause blades (straight as well as curved) tip to slide off rather than penetrate quite often.

All swords parry with the flat, edge parries are fiction or desperation. All swords would chip if used to edge parry especially a Katana less likely a early western edge due to the edge formation.

Yeah, that was my point.

The thing is, when you're trapped inside a clanking metal suit, parries of desperation occur much more frequently than someone wearing more open and flexible armour or no armour at all.

Shields are offensive & defensive & if youve never been struck with 6 lbs of hardwood with a 1lb of shaped steel driven by a mans arm I recommend the experience as a learning one.

I never said they weren't used offensively.

The myth that both hands are required implies a weakness in the bearer. A trait western warriors who trained with wasters and upto double weighted dull iron blades would not suffer from. Driving a blow home with both hands guiding the blade implies you lack the precision or skill to use the less than a pound of pressure of the razor edge on the blade to open your target.

The thing is, japanese swordsmanship wasn't just about opening wounds or causing a bleeding gash. They cut off arms, heads and bisected their opponents with weapons that didn't possess the weight usually associated with such griveous injuries.

That requires skill, since you have to employ the curvature of the blade flawlessly.

The only reason to use both hands is to penetrate armour a thankless task with a glorified letteropener such as a Katana. Lacking the tip required to breach cleanly & the shape it would only affect weak and open areas of western field plate.

Like I said: the use of the katana as a piercing weapon has more to do with the motion of your body and adapting it to the shape of the blade.

You wouldn't penetrate western field plate by hacking at it with a western sword either so...

As to techniques employed gentlemen & ladies I give unto you the answer. A fencer with a sabre no less 'humping' a Kendo master.

Erm, kendo isn't the same as japanese battlefield swordsmanship. It's a standardized and simplified form intended for sport and cultural conservation, making your video clip somewhat uninteresting (for one thing the kendo practicioner wears a lot heavier armour than the foil fencer making the duel uneven).

It would be more interesting to a real swordfight, with real techniques where the opponents actually have the intention to KILL eachother.

Trying to compare and determine the superiority of swordsmanship and swords through such mock battles is completely pointless...

The shape of the weapon is integral to piercing the armour how you hold you body has nothing to do with it. A succesful lunge is one that makes contact & penetrates their armour. Flat plate as opposed to ridged or gothic plate defines the most common type of armour worn.

Speaking of armour, armour does not clank. It weights significantly less than what a modern infantry man carries in his backpack. It is tightly bound plate around a mail shirt or sections under the plates vulnerabilities.

I suggest you research the term 'field plate' for more information. You seen to think jousting plate is for the battlefield.

The video gives ample demonstration of the artforms as the exist today from their past. Both have had 600-700 years of decline and 'inbreeding' to degenerate into a game of tag with sticks. You raise a good point though why do the Kendo fencers wear so much armour to protect from a simple bokken ? Surely if they are so skilled they can easily deflect or parry the blows. Are they American football players The reason the fencer wears the chest and mask is that true fencing killshots used to aim at face & heart a dangerous thing with steel rod blunt or not.

How exactly do you suggest we get two guys to attack each other realistically with the intention to kill with swords and katana and the appriopriate levels of skill? Also as well you claim to know the 'individual is all' so theyd have to be twins.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Indeed,the katana wasn't used by the common man on the battlefield,but that doesn't change the fact Japanese warfare didn't evolve for centuries,it almost did with some great generals trying to integrate arquebuses,but it never lasted.Besides,you cannot in any way say that Japanese tactics evolved as much as European tactics.

"Never lasted"?

The arquebuses were introduced to japan in 1543 by the Portuguese, and since then they were widely used by japanese armies.

Could you perhaps have read a bit too much of the romantic misconception that the samurai managed to ban the use of and further construction of muskets during the Sakoku?

Im sorry but your displayed views of the history of japanese warfare reeks of romanticized misconceptions and stereotyping. The country has an extensive history of bloody civil wars, overshadowing the history of warfare of a lot of other countries. You can't seriously mean to tell us that it wasn't in the interest of the japanese generals and daimyo's to develop and evolve their tactics and strategy considering their warlike ways?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

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.

This pretty much sums it up for me as well. It's a pretty weapon, and it has it's place in history. It is surrounded by the same air of interest as anything else uncommon or out of the norm, but all the fan-fiction-like worship of it and it's users as magickal super-weapons isn't far removed from Star Wars nerds and light sabres.

Ejemplo- I remember watching the Japanese game show "Hey! Spring of Trivia" once, there was a factoid about which was better "Eastern" swordplay as represented by Kendo (katana) or "Western" style, as seen in fencing (rapier). To settle this, there was a best 2 out of 3 match between world-class masters of both styles and weapons. Care to wager who won? Not the katana-wielder. He was defeated in the first two sets of the three handily by the fencer.

 

[LondonBeer]

You cite cutting power as a factor & then say the curves distract you. The curves dictate the blades ability to cut effectively.

It's not the existence nor absence of a curve itself, it's the aesthetics of the curve, the type of curves. I just find it looks too wavy and naturalistic. Katana just looks like it's from the future, even though the design is hundreds of years old. It looks like a refined killing machine for a person who has trained their mind body and their very soul to kill effortlessly.

I have no idea which intrinsically cuts better but have you ever the phrase "it's not the arrow, it's the Indian"? At the time the western world really became familiar with Japanese weapons the samurai were the most pre-eminent sword fighters in the world, that (artistically speaking) infuses the weapon with a reputation. It's as much the swordsman that comes with the Katana that makes it so sought after.

A western style cavalry sabre - to me - leaves the impression of a guy with a huge moustache yelling CHHHAAAAAARGGE while impotently waving the sabre over their head.

When someone twirls a Colt Single Action Army revolver you get the impression of speed, and effortless accuracy... might not be the case but those that have wielded it before in fiction and non-fiction have left that reputation.

Consider the Japanese samurai films like Yojimbo and the Seven Samurai that have imbued the sword with a great potency. And when we are talking about art, there is that wider cultural impression that counts with not only the audience but the characters within the work. In Pulp Fiction when Butch is selecting weapons to face down some armed rapists nothing seems to instil more confidence in him than a samurai sword, more so than even a chainsaw.

The man that said "it's not the arrow, it's the Indian" has clearly never faced the Persians or for that matter the English

Ahh fair enough aesthetically its more pleasing to you. I dont know I find the medieval swords symetry and 'bareness' more appealing, it can be given ornateness but it works just as well bare. The Katana's kind of a one shot, one look, bland wee beasty to my eyes.

Yes the Colt gives the impression of speed & accuracy but that is all, in reality fan firing was pretty inaccurate to all but the best shooters at close range. I like my toys to perform
exactly like they do on the tin

 

[ZeLunarian]

My two cents: katana's have been glorified more than the magnum revolver.
Neither are used as primary weapons IRL
As I understand it. Samurai used a whole range of different weapons. Katana was more of a FINISH HIM weapon~

All in all, I'd say: It's not the weapon you should be afraid of.. It's the wielder (Guns don't kill people~~)

 

[Treblaine]

Which begs the question :-

We know that chainmail is all but impervious to a cutting edge,(butchers & fish mongers still use chainmail mitts) requiring great force to break the linkages, how resilient would Samurai armour have been given it was designed to stop a cutting curved edge not a flat edge with a thrusting potential?

Would the lamellar absorb the forces or fracture?

The advantage of chain mail is its flexibility (which is why it is still used today) but the problem is how it's only really good against glancing blows or blades with little force behind them. Fine if you are a butcher and you aren't dealing with actual attacks, just the chance that a blade might slip and drag over your hand.

Arrows glide straight through chain-mail. Chain mail had to be of milder steel/iron just to stitch it together, while a sword could be steel. Plate armour is only slightly heavier and will completely protect against all but the most powerful arrows and most forceful melee weapons.

To absorb the force you need a hard ridged plate that will spread the force from a razor edge over a wide 10x6 inch square. Soft body armour will never protect you from high power rifle rounds as even if the fabric was utterly indestructible the bullet would just force the fabric in through the bullet hole. Even if the chain mail held up, a good swing with a samurai sword may very well cut underneath the mail from the force alone!

 

[Gavmando]

Um, people, there's two subjects in the title of this thread; the Katana, and it's wielder.

You've all pretty much covered the sword, but what about the dude who flailed it around?

My View:
The reason that the Katana was considered such a "badass" weapon was because of the guy who wielded it. The whole mental outlook of a Samurai was completely different than most people had, and still have in the west. Their complete lack of fear of death and their mental disciplines are what made them so effective on the battlefield.
Here's a guy who has no fear of death. And I dont mean, "It doesnt matter if I die. I'll go to heaven and be with God." And then overcomes his fear and goes to battle. I'm talking about a guy who spends great portions of his life removing his ability to feel fear.
It is a concept that most people in the west cant understand because of the main religion of our culture. Where there's always a slight doubt as to whether you're heading up or down.
The Samurai had no fear of this due to their outlooks on the art of Zen.

Now, the reason I think that the Katana is viewed as this awesome weapon, is because of what it represents. It represents the lack of fear that we'd all like to experience in our lives.

Next up, the Rapier.
It was generally only used by highly trained people, and even then it wasnt used in battle. Only duels. This was because it was too long to be a truly great weapon. It only really became popular as firearms were being phased in and swords were being phased out.
Beautiful weapon, just not too effective. It's the image of the aristocrat that people like. ie: The Scarlet Pimpernel, Zoro.

Middle Eastern weapons. My view:
The reason they havnt really gained much popularity in the west is due to the people who wielded them, namely, Muslims. Referring back to what I was saying about religion shaping the psyche, the main religions of the west usually viewed Islam as barbaric and evil. (Even though during the crusades the Muslims had a code of honour that they actually stuck to and it was the Crusaders who did the really barbaric things.) And of course, the weapons that these "barbarians" used were never really considered "acceptable/cool."
Dont believe me? Go and watch Disney's Aladin. Have a look at all the guards. Oh, and the modern media.

Urgh. I need sleep.

Too long to read version:
Katana's are mysterious.

*Disclaimer* I'm not saying anything bad about Muslims. Just pointing out how Islam can be viewed by the west.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Who cares? It's personal preference, like anything else. Some people like broadswords, some like sabres, some like claymores, some (like myself) like katanas. To each their own.

Completely off topic, but didn't a Samurai beat a Viking in Deadliest Warrior? I think the samurai had to use a kanabo to down the viking, but beat him nonetheless. Though I do remeber the katana did jack shit against the viking chainmail.

 

[Dr_Baron_von_Evilsatan]

Ah yes, every time I see one of these threads it reminds me of the BS episode of Deadliest Warrior with the Viking vs Samurai. That still pisses me off (only because some people actually believe that show to be 'science').

Anyways I see it simply as this. Both swords did well at what they were intended for. The problem with the katana is that it's just not made for standing up to Western armor or a shield. The main advantage of the longsword is that if it makes solid contact from a good swing, it's going to cause a good amount of damage, armor or not.


Too few people seems to care about broken bones or internal hemorrhaging. It's like if they don't see blood it doesn't count...which might account, somewhat, for the katana's popularity.