Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[demoman_chaos]

So I recently made a set of rapiers out of wood, 3/4 inch poplar dowels cut to size and fitted with a guard and a padded tip. They don't look spectacular, but they do the job. Blade length on the pair is just shy of 34 inches.
My katana is historical length, 27 inches for the blade. The one I am using for this comparison isn't a sharp one for cutting, but will do the job for this comparison. This comparison is less about damage potential, as many factors lead to a powerful sword dealing minimal damage or a weaker sword doing significant damage.

First thing to note is the immense reach difference. Some rapiers could be 40 inches long, that is longer than the entire length of an average katana. Mine are a bit shorter, which suits me a bit better. With my 5'8" (roughly) height, I can hit someone 67" away with the rapier (measuring from blade tip to my fore foot). The katana can only hit someone 40" away. A 17" difference with only 7" blade difference (it would be a 2 ft difference with a proper length rapier).
This is significant for many reasons. Firstly, it means that the rapier can kill a man with a katana at a distance that the katana cannot match. It means that the katana user will have to traverse a death zone to get within killing range (multiple steps worth in this case). It gives the initiative to the rapier, which will always have the first strike.

Second to note is the type of attack. The katana is excellent at cutting, the rapier is superb at thrusting. Which is the more effective attack in a fight? Which one will be most likely to strike the enemy?
In my opinion, thrusts are more effective against someone without a shield. A quick jab can strike someone at an angle that is hard for them to deflect, while cuts cover an arc that can be intercepted at any point. Often, you can thrust into the enemy at an angle that will cut off the line of attack of their cut (stepping off-line helps).

Third thing to consider is the one handed vs two handed grip. The two handed grip gives more leverage in a bind and more control. The one handed grip allows the body to be farther away from the tip and thus you can gain more reach. You have to be fairly squared on to strike with a two handed sword, but a one handed swordsman can have his side pointed almost straight forward. A 2 handed sword will recover faster than a one handed one, meaning if the 2 hander can beat (smack the other blade aside) successfully he can get his edge on the enemy before they can recover to defend (this technique can backfire, as it is easy to evade the beat and hit them as they are exposed).

These factors considered, which one has the advantage in a duel? Tell me what you guys think given the information I have provided. Personally, the reach advantage is going to play a major role and that and the rapier can tag the enemy around his defense makes me lean towards the rapier. Before anyone makes the claim, the rapier won't simply break. The rapier had to take on the 2 handed bastard swords in duels and held up to their strikes well.

 

[Jarsh82]

A fencer matches his opponents movements to stay out of range of attack until it is advantages for them to strike. The thrust covers even more distance than what the weapons length comparison would suggest. A fencer can use the cross step technique to move from a defensive position to one of rapid advance and lunge into his opponent catching him off guard. I take a stage fighting class with the guy that used to choreograph the sword fighting scenes in the Highlander TV series. I'm not a fencer, just repeating what I remember from the class years ago. He said that you only need to close the distance about the width of two fingers to strike a deadly blow.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm thinking about even, actually.

You see, the rapier is indeed best at thrusting. And it's terrible for swings. Katanas are build for swings, and they have some stabbing ability too, but it's shorter than the rapier. I can think of ways in which the katana can win as much as the rapier, because there isn't a vast difference. Now, you might leave this to Deadliest Warrior, but they're not here right now, so here's some of my thoughts instead.

The rapier is, as I said, bad for swings. This is why Raphael from Soul Calibur is retarded, because he does not focus on thrusts. Now, the march of the katana-wielder into the danger zone does not mean instant death, but possible death. If we're talking of two experienced foes who know their weapons, then the rapier may be parried when thrust. On that occasion, the katana-wielder has closed the distance and may force the rapier-fighter back at the hilt-guard where - especially if he's using a two-handed style - he forces down the rapier and slices open the user.

As much can go for as against such a plan. The katana-user could miss, after all, or the rapier user could pull back fast enough to prevent the closing of the distance. Or, in fact, once a blow is struck to one, the other - certainly in range - could spitefully kill the other and assure each other's demise. With experienced fighters, it can go either way.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

While I don't know how they would actually preform in a duel, the shortest duel (and thus easiest to transcribe)that pans out in my head is as follows.

Katana guy charges with sword held high, ready to slash...
Rapier runs him through mid charge...
Katana guy lops off Rapier's head while impaled...
Katana guy dies a few minutes later from blood loss + whatever organ damage.

While not a particularly "epic battle" in any way, shape or form, it was at least easy to type and fun to imagine.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I think rapier has a clear advantage. It's just easier to use. One hand grip makes all the difference too. You can do more with your body while holding a rapier. You can practically dance around the opponent. Of course none of this applies is the katana dude is just so much better than you.

 

[Cecilo]

I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms. Used mostly as a weapon for duels, not for actual combat. Where as the Katana dominated most of Medieval Japan, and while not all of the warriors of Japan used heavy armor, the Japanese equivalent of a Knight would still be decked out in enough armor to make a Rapier worthless.

So while the rapier would be better in a duel setting, in an actual fight between two people the person with the Katana would have a clear advantage, presuming that they each just have a Rapier or A katana, in an actual battle the person with the rapier would still probably win, because he has a gun.

 

[Abomination]

I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms.

Rapier wielder waits for Katana wielder to be within acceptable range of his pistol... draws and fires.

Finishes off wounded opponent with relative ease if the shot did not kill outright.

If rapier wielder does not hit opponent he does the smart thing and runs away from the guy in armour until he is in a safe enough location to reload and try again. Repeat as needed.

 

[JayRPG]

When you said your Katana is historical length is the exact point at which it wasn't a fair comparison.

The average length of a Katana blade, historically speaking, was actually 23" but this is because a Katana should be tailored to your personal height... people were short in feudal Japan.

I am 6"3 and my Katana's have a blade length of 33"

Also, as someone already mentioned in this thread, if we are talking 2 historically accurate swordsman, the samurai armour would almost entirely negate the rapier.

We would also have to look at build quality of the 2 blades, it is more than likely that any well made katana could cleave a rapier's blade in half with relative ease.

It is really almost impossible to say who would come out on top because there are so many variables, an infinite number of scenarios and arguments could be made for each winning this duel.

 

[NeutralDrow]

<url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm>Reading worth considering, on this subject.

I think the summary is "there's really no way to tell, but unless the rapier fighter gets in a lucky stopping strike, they'd probably kill each other."

 

[dangoball]

Concerning the armor-clad samurai some posters mentioned. While that much is true, katana changed quite a bit across the years, since armor got discarded much sooner then the sword. It got thiner as it no longer had to cut through armor, just cloth, and as such also lighter. That is to say we can (for the sake of it) assume a fencer and a samurai dueling without any form of additional protection or firearms (let's say they agreed to fight honorably).

Now that we get to the beginning of the duel, here's the first question:
Are their weapons drawn or not?
If not, samurai has the advantage thanks to several drawing techniques he can rely on, whereas the rapiers length also hinders the fencer in drawing it. Now the fencer has to dance well enough to actually get to draw and put some distance between himself and the samurai so he can make use of his superior reach. Should he survive this long, we have a fight.
If so, fencer obviously gets the first strike. Is the samurai skilled enough to deflect or dodge? If not, not much of a fight. If so, is the fencer skilled enough to dodge the incoming slash? If so, we have a fight.

Second question:
What terrain are they fighting on?
If it's something dry and flat, the fencer has the advantage due to his maneuverability. If it's mud, slippery from intense rain, snow or some-such, samurai gets the advantage because the fencer can't utilize the full range of his movements.

As you can see, it's not that much of a question about "with what" but of "who and where" the fight is. Or at least that is my opinion.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms. Used mostly as a weapon for duels, not for actual combat. Where as the Katana dominated most of Medieval Japan, and while not all of the warriors of Japan used heavy armor, the Japanese equivalent of a Knight would still be decked out in enough armor to make a Rapier worthless.

Exactly. Rapiers emerged because firearms had rendered heavy armour obsolete. A very skilled swordsman trained in using rapiers and well aware of the weak points of typical Japanese armor could potentially run a samurai through as the samurai attacked... but one teensy mistake and their head gets snicked off.

It's also worth noting that actual rapier duelists frequently carried daggers for parrying and close combat, and both European and Asian sword martial arts involved a lot more grappling than the modern era gives them credit.

In other words, a pair of hypothetical fighters could wind up far inside a rapier's range, katana bound to the side, and the scenario suddenly turning into Greco-Roman Wrestling vs. Jujutsu.

I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms. Used mostly as a weapon for duels, not for actual combat.

Truth be told, that pretty much describes katanas, too. Up to the Tokugawa Shogunate, samurai warriors were primarily knights, armored cavalry, and their primary weapons were bows, era-specific polearms, and knives, with swords relegated to dueling and status symbols. Functional, but still heavily ritualized.

Then again, they also had guns, but they were muskets, and were mostly used by lower-class soldiers in formation.

 

[Zipa]

It very much depends who you are fighting with a Katana, despite how they are portrayed in movies as being the super awesome cut anything type sword they are far from it.

They are awesome in the east as they used a lot of light armor mostly made out of bamboo and such which a katana would slice through easily, however attack someone wearing western style heavy plate armor and the katana won't do a thing to them.


This guy explains it best.

Rapiers are mostly known for duelling or self defence and saw wide use with such but originally was made to counter cut and thrust swords like say a normal short sword. So in a duel I would give it to the rapier.

 

[Lieju]

Really depends on what they're wearing, I'd guess.

And how they fight and what they're used to. I used to fence, but my knowledge on katana comes from movies and such.
But everyone had always trouble with one girl on our gym who was left-handed because they weren't as used to facing someone like that, so she had an edge over everyone.

 

[McKitten]

The Katana never dominated Japanese warfare in any period. During the heyday of the samurai, they were deployed as mounted archers, harassing the spear-wielding infantry, swords being only a backup weapon, later on, muskets started being used replacing spears, but not changing the status of swords.

As for comparison the a "rapier" that's impossible without first defining what sort of "rapier". That's not a precise name for a certain type of sword, but for a huge range of them. (While Katana is also not a a precise description, it works somewhat since Japanese sword design didn't change all that much over time) The term rapier has been used historically for anything, from a slender fencing sword with only about the front third even sharpened, to something only a little lighter than a Scottish (on-handed) claymore. (Not to mention that in Spanish the word refers to pretty much any sword, and Toledo weapons were the best in all of Europe for quite a while)
Anyway: example one of a rapier: http://www.ahb-griffe.de/Kunst-und-Antiquitaeten/Rapier-1600.htm
example two: http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/solingen-rapier.html
And those two are just results from a little googling, not the utmost extreme examples, yet the first is noticeably shorter and nearly twice as wide.
It is important however not to confuse rapiers and Smallswords. The latter were purely sport and duel weapons while rapiers where inteded for combat. They were only backup weapons, having evolved during the rise of organised militaries and gunpowder, but they were still designed to be carried into battle. (The smallsword evolved out of the various rapiers when swords became completely obsolete in battle and were only used for sport and as accessories.)

Still on to the comparison:
No matter what design of rapier we choose, it will have much better quality of steel than any Katana, although that doesn't really matter much since even a heavy Rapier doesn't pack the punch to actually damage the Katana (as a longsword would). Though it does mean that the Rapier could withstand hard parrys without snapping, though that is again irrelevant since blocking a two-handed sword with a one-handed one doesn't generally work out well.
Also irrespective of Rapier design, much will depend on how used either swordsman is to fighting against the other design. The european swordsman would likely have the edge here since swords of a Katana-like design were not uncommon in Europe whereas rapiers in Japan were. Any swordsman whow actually trained in a fencing school (as opposed to some random mercenary for example) would have even trained specific techniques to fight an opponent with such a weapon.
Lastly, armour should be completely discounted for such a comparison because both Japanese and European armour would render the opponent's weapon ineffective, turning the thing into a wrestling match.
Any further comparison will depends massively on the specific design of Rapier. While even an earlier, heavy slashing rapier will have better reach than a Katana for example, simply due to the one-handed stance of the wielder, there is a huge difference between the reach advantage of such a rapier, and one of the later thrusting rapiers.

 

[NeutralDrow]

The rapier is a better weapon. Why? Because the katana was only "the best sword" in japan.

That describes any sword of any area and time period ever. Weapons are always adapted to specific circumstances.

Remember: there was a reason the japanese were using leather and wooden armor while the europeans were using iron and steel armor.

They're not mesoamericans. Japanese armor was frequently of metal since <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KofunCuirass.jpg>around the fifth century CE. Lacquered wood was used as extra arrow protection, weather-proofing, and decoration, while the primary armor was essentially scale (leather or metal) or chain mail. And since armor also adapts specific circumstances, their armors developed quite a bit over time, especially once they made contact with Europe and were introduced to firearms and plate armor, which they rapidly adopted.

snip

All right, you talked about the metal composition of the weapons, but the thread question is about tactics. Katanas were comparatively fragile and higher-maintenance than a lot of European swords ("comparatively" being the word; yes, they chipped easily, but they weren't made of glass), but that's pretty irrelevant. Partly because they chip in circumstances that would still dull other swords (if you're edge-striking or striking flat on armor with anything smaller and sharper than a zweihander, you're doing it wrong), and partly because we're comparing them to rapiers, which never had a use as a battlefield weapon, and aren't designed to go against armor at all. I don't think it's possible to decide whether a rapier or katana is a "better" weapon, but I would note that katanas are more technically versatile (designed for cutting, surprisingly good at thrusting, and can go against armor the same way longswords can) while rapiers are designed for one thing (and are really, really good at it).

Not that I necessarily disagree with the other stuff you said, but it sounds like you came in here expecting a lot of "katanas r bettr they cut thru tanks lol!!1!" Sounded pretty reductionist.

 

[NeutralDrow]

While Katana is also not a a precise description, it works somewhat since Japanese sword design didn't change all that much over time.

I dunno about that. Maybe in the sense that they didn't evolve into complete separate types of swords (like, say...going from the gladius to the estoc and claymore, or the khopesh to the shamshir), but they still started with this

Spoiler

and wound up with this

Spoiler

with a few <url=http://i.imgur.com/xMbCpOV.jpg>odd <url=http://i.imgur.com/MchBZWN.jpg>stops on the way.