On the Katana and it's wielder.

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
The_Blue_Rider said:
McNinja said:
The_Blue_Rider said:
Because its Japanese and if its Japanese then its automatically better duh

Thats pretty much the reason its gotten so popular, but some people seem to forget that its not perfect, and that it isnt a do everything sword, as many people have pointed out, put a samurai in fight with a knight in plate armour and the Knight will fuck his shit up.
I like Scimitars myself :p
I'm more intesrested in ancient Greek/Roman weapons. In terms of Samurai vs. Knight (and not to derail the thread, but...) the knight clearly has the advantage in terms of weapons and armor. There's not really a question about it. In terms of skill, however, the knights of the middle ages were clumsy compared to the skill of the Samurai.

There's a difference between simply using your blade to fight with, and sleeping with one under your pillow because you can't have the big one with you all of the time.
Im pretty sure Knights were very well trained with what they had, it would take years of practice to be effective in heavy plate armour, and their sword fighting wasnt actually that bad
Of course it wasn't bad, I just meant in comparison to the Samurai. Knights were by no means lumbering fools who swung their swords all williy-nilly, they were definitely trained fighters who knew how to wield a sword, but not to the same extent that the Samurai could wield their swords. They wielded theirs differently, is what I'm saying. Samurai needed skill and discipline to survive, the knights pretty much just needed to not die.
 

jasoncyrus

New member
Sep 11, 2008
1,564
0
0
If we ignore armor totally (because the right kind of armor will stop anything (hell 2 meters of water will stop most bullets).

With no armor, a quality samurai sword (made with high quality materials of today with the complex quality construction techniques of that time) will quite easily cleave an adult in half with one swipe.slashing through even vertebrae etc. So in today's standards..its pretty bad ass. After all, real men fight with swords.
As many have said the Katana has fame because it was dropped from the field relatively speedily in comparison to other weapons. When face with metallic armor it will do very little against it. But leather armor of the time, it would cleave through, just as radiation is a truely monsterous weapon if you wear kevlar or plated steel armor, but if you wear a lead lined suit and the sort, it is totally useless.
 

neolithic

New member
Feb 22, 2009
65
0
0
I'll be the one who stands up for the Mace's and Morning Star's of the world. I'm also partial to axes being of Nordic decent.
 

blind_dead_mcjones

New member
Oct 16, 2010
473
0
0
the reason the katana is as fanboyed as it is, is simply due to a good PR campaign and nerds being obsessive compulsive, when you boil down to brass tacs a longsword and katana are equal, both were status symbols and sidearms of their cultures elite class, and both were equal in effectiveness against skin and bone, the only difference being one was made for slashing and the other was made for stabbing

personally speaking if there is one preferred type of sword for me it would be the flamberge


The_root_of_all_evil said:
Eastern sword: Sharp, pretty.
Western sword: A club with a slight edge.

Katanas are easily deflected by armour, but can slice flesh into ribbons.
Broadswords cripple whatever it hits. Zweihanders especially.
incorrect on several points:

western swords were just as sharp as their eastern equivalents, and they weren't clubs they were designed with precision stabbing mind as opposed to slashing

also, any sword can cut limbs and heads off while slicing flesh into ribbons, that is not a feature exclusive to katanas

and not every western sword was a broad sword, the number of different types of western swords were so diverse it wasn't funny
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
blind_dead_mcjones said:
incorrect on several points:
If you'd read my post, you would have seen they were examples, not statements of veracity.

Equally, your assumption that the katana was only used for the elite is ill-informed, but not necessarily false.
 

Spoonius

New member
Jul 18, 2009
1,659
0
0
Dafttechno said:
I_am_a_Spoon said:
Dafttechno said:
In an episode of Deadliest Warrior (I'm referring only to a practical demonstration, not getting into other aspects of the show), they tested a Spartan spear against antique, authentic samurai armor that was over 200 years old. The armor stopped the spear cold, bending the spear tip and only chipping a patch smaller than an inch square off the armor.
And do you remember how old the spear was?
I went back to check the episode (had it on my DVR). They didn't say specifically, but the spear looked to be a modern replica (wood shaft, iron spear head).
My original point was that the Spartan spear is a weapon that's well over 2000 years old... and made of bronze.

Whereas the Japs had steel (however shitty it was).
 

LondonBeer

New member
Aug 1, 2010
132
0
0
Ulixes Dimon said:
The reason the katana is held in such high regard is (I think) because Samurai were a sort of officer class. Knights in europe (correct me if I'm wrong) were very common. Armies consisted almost entirely of armored soldiers. The Samurai were elite warriors with years of training, who carried weapons specifically crafted for that Samurai.
Your very very wrong. The Knights were elite warriors with years of training (From birth) who carried weapons specifically crafted for that knight. Not only that but they adapted and changed as design, battlefield, and opponent altered. In addition to the years of training in combat and kingcraft they also by neccesity were required to be fluent in multiple languages, religion and the realities of medieval life.

An average knight would have played with full weight weapons from the age of 5 in full contact play. Germanic knights were known to have ended lines due to rough childhood play concussing and killing an heir. By 10 or 12 they would be able to speak latin, french and spanish and their own national language. They would be versed in the duties of court and the responsibilities of priviledge whilst also obeying the Lords vows and rituals.

The only respite from constant training and learning would be an occaisional hunt. That would be the extent of their freedom. All the sons would ran through the ringer due to the likelyhood & proximity of death.

The would be required to be profiecent in all forms of combat with all weapons not just 'priviledged weapons' but axs, spears, poles, bows & blades. They would also be placed into an enviroment where priviledge like Samuraihood would not give them an easy pass in life. Land was the measure of power & the requirement of proving themselves in battle was a neccesity less internecine power struggles caused internal warfare.

Simply being a Lord meant nothing, constant vigilance and practiced demonstration of might & power were required even in the few fortunate enough to be landed. Becoming landed required dedication not to a regional warlord such as a shogun but to a King of the land. The lord his assets and his family pledged to that Kings whims.

Samurais pledged duty to themselves and their ashared singular code. Knights pledged duty to their King, country, citizens and family & god. The comparision in todays world would be the misconception that a General Surgeon mustnt be as good as a Specialist Surgeon, when in fact a General Surgeon must have the same skillsets and levels of expertise as the Specialist but in all the required fields of study.

Their is no comparision between Samurai and Knight. One was an effette poetry writing warrior-monk (and all that entails) the other was a King in all but land.
 

LondonBeer

New member
Aug 1, 2010
132
0
0
Dafttechno said:
In an episode of Deadliest Warrior (I'm referring only to a practical demonstration, not getting into other aspects of the show), they tested a Spartan spear against antique, authentic samurai armor that was over 200 years old. The armor stopped the spear cold, bending the spear tip and only chipping a patch smaller than an inch square off the armor.
Except the strength required to bend the spear tip & chip the armour would have knocked out the guy wearing it.
 

Dafttechno

New member
May 19, 2010
102
0
0
I_am_a_Spoon said:
Dafttechno said:
I_am_a_Spoon said:
Dafttechno said:
In an episode of Deadliest Warrior (I'm referring only to a practical demonstration, not getting into other aspects of the show), they tested a Spartan spear against antique, authentic samurai armor that was over 200 years old. The armor stopped the spear cold, bending the spear tip and only chipping a patch smaller than an inch square off the armor.
And do you remember how old the spear was?
I went back to check the episode (had it on my DVR). They didn't say specifically, but the spear looked to be a modern replica (wood shaft, iron spear head).
My original point was that the Spartan spear is a weapon that's well over 2000 years old... and made of bronze.

Whereas the Japs had steel (however shitty it was).
The spear tip was iron, as was the samurai armor.
 
Jan 15, 2011
26
0
0
Thaliur said:
DownloaderOfTheMonth said:
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)
Samurai armour was indeed lighter and more maneuvrable, but definitely not more durable and stronger. It was made of Leather and wood, which was also the reason for the Katana's effectiveness, because their blades were designed for cutting, with very little momentum required, while Middle European swords were generally heavier and sturdier, as were their armour.

A Middle European sword might not be able to destroy Japanese armour as it could European armour, but it would quite likely seriously hurt the wearer with the impact alone.
A Katana on the other hand would certainly not have enough momentum to be effective through European armour. It would be davastating if there are any openings not protected by chain mail or plates, though.

I often heard about the demonstrations done with Katanas, like putting a European sword on an Anvil and shattering its blade with a Katana. Guess what would happen if you do it the other way around? Or with two Katanas?
It's a great force, applied to a very small area (the sword's edge). That's a lot of stress in the metal, quite likely enough to break it.
It wasn't made of wood! It was small metal scales linked together. Mabye some REALLY primitive Samurai prototype armour was wooden, but then we'd compare it with the bronze helmets of the Greek city-states, not the full-plate armour of the early Renassiance.

That demonstration with Katanas and the anvil sounds pretty one-sided. I can't think of a situation when (assuming somehow a Samurai and Knight met and fought) the katana would be able to somehow get the sword in that position. I agree with you that that's completely stupid.

Again - I need to restate that I'm not on either side of the really random, stupid "Katana vs XYZ" arguments - they would never meet in real life and were built for different atypes of battle and different martial arts. I was just saying why they were a popular weapon.

To be honest, I'd much rather charge, say, the ever-looming Zombie Apocalypse with a friggin' Claymore than some silly Japanese sword. I feel more at home with a heft of sharp metal.
 
Jan 15, 2011
26
0
0
LondonBeer said:
DownloaderOfTheMonth said:
lewiswhitling said:
DownloaderOfTheMonth said:
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.
Quaxar said:
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.
AVATAR_RAGE said:
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.
moretimethansense said:
RAKtheUndead said:
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?
 
Jan 15, 2011
26
0
0
lewiswhitling said:
DownloaderOfTheMonth said:
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 :p

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.
A very well-made argument. I should state that I'm not "pro-Katana" or anything like that - I was just answering a question about why Katanas are so popular...I guess I got too wrapped up in a comparison I knew little about.

I 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?
 

Grand_Arcana

New member
Aug 5, 2009
489
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
blind_dead_mcjones said:
incorrect on several points:
If you'd read my post, you would have seen they were examples, not statements of veracity.

Equally, your assumption that the katana was only used for the elite is ill-informed, but not necessarily false.
Read what in your post? What he quoted has all you said. And he's right, western swords weren't clubs used to inflict concussive damage through armor. The had clubs for that! Armored combat with a longsword is vastly different from normal swordplay; it's more akin to using a short spear. They'd half-sword and use the cross-guard to trip and bind the arms, then stab into the steel maile joints or into the helm once his opponent is on the ground. Longswords weren't even that heavy; the largest I've seen was less than 5 pounds, while the largest claymores might be 8 pounds.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
moretimethansense said:
RAKtheUndead said:
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.
Taking into account only the weapon itself of course. Correct, katanas can't cleave plate. But it can pierce mail, which was used by most back then. Very few knights ever wore full plate unless they were planning from the outset to fight the whole battlee from horseback. On the ground, they're hot, stifled, and easily fatigued, therefore slow. A katana (nevermind the earlier comments on the strength of the weapon) is rated by how many bodies it can cut through, or how many heads it can sever(don't remember which) at once. A good katana could do 5 in at once or more without needing a huge lumberjack to swing it. A competent katana wielder could do good damage to the joints in armor easy enough, and due to the weapon's maneuverability, do more than just chop. It's hard to stab with a greatsword with any accuracy, but a katana of similar length can do just that. And all else failing, katanas can be used to parry the labored swing of a fully-armored knight and get close enough to stab at the gaps in the armor with a wakizashi(mini-katana) or dagger. 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. But that's getting away from the weapons. Japanese steel is a mixture of hard steel to hold an edge and soft steel so the sword would bend instead of shatter under stress. 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.
 

Del-Toro

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,154
0
0
The appeal behind the Katana is that it's use is purely technique based, wheras a knight's fighting style would be dirtier and more based on winning. Also, just better in a war. If you read about what happened when the Mongolians invaded (there actually was some land fighting) of course, I find swords are over rated anyway. A good halberdier would probably dominate.
 

Spacelord

New member
May 7, 2008
1,811
0
0
Arachon said:
I agree, Shashkas [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka] are way cooler.
I see your Shashka and I will raise you one (1) Macuahuitl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl]!
 

zz_

New member
Jul 15, 2010
47
0
0
Jazzyjazz2323 said:
To me they've always seemed weak,both warrior and weapon,from an empire that never accomplished much in comparison to it's neighbors.
Well, I'm not sure about that. The japanese empire accomplished quite a lot.
Overall I think you're both right and wrong. I agree that the katana is overused, as it is indeed seen incredibly often. However I believe that the reason it's considered the pinnacle of swordmanship isn't because of the fact that it was the best weapon ever made, but rather because of the fact that the fighting style and the weapon itself are both amazingly beautiful. At least to me, there are few things that look more graceful than a well-made katana.


tl;dr They look bloody gorgeous http://ninjaswordsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fuku-riu-katana.jpg