Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Eclectic Dreck]

From guard with the foibles meeting we certainly couldn't land a blow by an extension of the arm, largely because the guard (that I am familiar with, rather than something like Capo Ferro, but I know the Spanish had a similar guard to the Italians) already has the arm mostly extended.

The vulnerable points when close enough that the foibles cross are the wrist and forearm. The guard would have to be bypassed of course but this remains an action that is little more than presentation of the blade.

Any further extension of the arm only nets you a few extra inches, and the blade length is typically 36-40". The extension of the arm was necessary to start the attack, but it certainly doesn't reach the opponent - the lunge was necessary (or that step where the back foot moves out sidewards, the name of which I cannot remember - I just remembered it being kinda cool footwork).

The lunge is responsible for the extended range as the maximum range of an single action attack without adding any stress is effectively a full lunge step, plus the length of the arm, plus the length of the weapon. This allows a fencer to close a surprising amount of distance with a single action without even considering any of a number of techniques that involve any forward motion before beginning a lunge. The action you described, sounds like some form of displacement. Moving the rear foot inward and to the back necessarily rotates the torso effectively closing the outside line by maneuver. This does have the effect of gaining some distance though, for the average fencer, this is a matter of an inch or two. It does, however, ensure that any follow on lunge is much longer ranged (often a foot or more) but this would comprise two separate fencing actions most of the time.

Being preferable doesn't make it necessary, which is more or less the argument you're making here. If both duelists have only a single weapon, then there's no advantage.

The nature of the weapon in question and the dramatic reduction of viable fencing actions, by my estimation, makes it a requirement. That the lack of such an implement requires either baiting an attack or fully committing to your own attack is a fairly silly set of requirements when one's life is on the line.

If one duelist does have an off hand weapon, then yes, you are at a distinct disadvantage. It is not difficult to transition to a defence with the rapier upon withdrawing from an attack, but you do lose offensive options once the thrust is spent.

A transition to defense not only involves halting the offensive action but it also, by necessity, requires responding in kind. The flaw of the rapier is the difficulty inherent in transitioning lines - a flaw so absolute that even the footwork reflected the problem resulting in a circular style all but eliminated once the weapon was shortened. That difficulty of transition might not seem like much but given how little time one can have to defend against a thrust, the loss of a fraction of a second is easily fatal.

To put it simply, when the addition of a secondary implement vastly increases viable offensive and defensive options, I'd call it "necessary". This isn't to say that secondary implement needed to be a blade or shield - even wrapping your off hand with a heavy cloak would allow for a parry!

 

[cerebus23]

You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.

"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".

Alright you got me there.
I was under the impression that this "Samurai Vs. Knight Scenario" was just straight up whack-a-mole between the two, which in my opinion heavily favours the knight.

However, people are just adding everything in a samurai's arsenal, yet seemingly leaving the knight vanilla.
So yeah, if we're going the latter route then Samurai would win if he could

1/ Puncture armour with an arrow.
2/ Crush him under a dead horse.

Otherwise, at mid to short range a knight should be able to overcome.

and yes, there is no objectivity as it's just bias towards the "cool" one.

Samurai could also out move a fully kited out knight, full samurai armor being about 60 lbs, and much more freedom of movement in general, I for one would certainly look to get around and try to get that knight off balance or on the ground. At which point you would have an advantage.

Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.

 

[demoman_chaos]

My point was that it's weird to assume that a knight would have all his equipment and a samurai be denied his.

And for some reason you don't think that the Japanese came up with equally dangerous techniques that Europeans didn't think of and wouldn't be prepared for? Also many people here seem to forget that a Japanese long sword is anything longer than 23 inches.

What you were doing was denying the knight access to his other weapons and giving the samurai access to theirs. In all ranges, the Europeans have the advantage. The artillery in Japan was very limited while fairly common in the west, giving an immediate advantage. The crossbows and English longbows can outpunch a Japanese yumi. Polearm advantage is clearly for the west as well, both in the reach and in the striking power. In a close melee, the west has a significant advantage due to the shield (a highly overlooked piece of kit that completely tips the scale) and the shorter hand weapons like axes and maces. In the armor department, it really is no contest as the lamellar of the samurai is miles behind the West in every respect.

Swords are simply iron/steel/bronze bars with sharp edges. There are only so many ways you can move them. A cutting sword can only be manipulated in a certain fashion. The minor details might be different, but a vertical cut is a vertical cut. The front edge can only be used in certain ways. The back edge throws a dynamic into the fight that the Japanese wouldn't be used to dealing with, while all sword arts teach how to deal with the front edge.

It gives a little bit of the flexibility of iron (strength) and the shape retention of steel. It is the master of neither. The core model makes the blade strong where it needs to be strongest the most while leaving the edge hard where it needs to be hardest. Pattern welding literally makes it so that the edge of the blade has different qualities alternating along the blade. Any flaw in any of the welds of the various layers can lead to easy breakage and it's possible to strike the blade and land a solid hit in the lower carbon steel which will damage the blade more than hiting it a centimeter over where the high-carbon steel is. For example, have you ever seen a pattern welded blade rust? One type of the metal will likely rust out well before the other type. The two metals aren't magically combined into one uniform force, they're just forge welded together. If they were one piece then there'd be no pattern. There's a reason why these kinds of steels are dangerous for combustion weapons like guns or canons. Cool to look at, but expansion will find any flaws in the welds.

And no. Pattern welding is not hard. You just cut the layers to length, clean them up, line them up, clean them again and add some flux before heating them to temperature. Done right, a couple taps of the hammer and it'll be one billet ready for twisting or immediate forging out as desired. I've done straight pattern knives before though. That requires a perfect weld as you just hammer the side of the billet flat. Very cool result but any mistake and it looks weird. Adding iron as a core or any other style is much more difficult.

The core is made up of the twisted iron and steel bars, not the edge. The edge is solid steel.

They weren't using pattern welding because of skill or special knowledge. They were using pattern welding because of inconsistent smelting practices. If you can't consistently produce the same quality of steel then how can you make a blade that isn't made with more than one kind?

But again, pattern welding does not equal iron core strength for the reasons I stated. Though, I do owe the largest portion of my college tuition to pattern welded blades ("damascus steel"). Even my plain cable pattern blades sold like hotcakes. It's a shame that sitting on my ass in the software industry more than quadruples the money I was making crafting blades. I loved that job and the creation of things that'll be around long after I'm gone.

Just remember, I'm not saying that the katana was some kind of indestructible force. Just that it's a damn well designed weapon. A katana can break through another katana of same make/model.

The iron the Japanese used was acquired in almost literally the same manner and forged with the same level of technology. Both the Norse and Japanese got their iron via smelting down iron-rich natural materials (peat bogs and sand respectively) to burn away the excess and leave only the iron.
The higher steel content in the Pattern-welded blades gives the sword more spring. With the higher iron content of the katana, it doesn't reform when bent. The pattern welded sword will snap once it hits its peak while the katana won't makes the katana easier to salvage (A big advantage in the iron-poor island of Japan), but not stronger. The katana has a harder edge and is stiffer, the viking broadsword is more flexible and recovers from hard impact better.

Samurai could also out move a fully kited out knight, full samurai armor being about 60 lbs, and much more freedom of movement in general, I for one would certainly look to get around and try to get that knight off balance or on the ground. At which point you would have an advantage.

Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.

Fun fact: Full gothic plate armor weighs about 60 lbs, and is fitted and articulated to the individual. I wouldn't try to take down a knight, as they are well trained in grappling and dagger fighting.

 

[cerebus23]

And samurai were well trained in akido or the early forms of that fighting?

Being an knight is not a slam dunk win any more being a samurai would be one, knights and samurai varied in skill levels drastically.

Getting to be too much fanism, samurai dont train in this and that, knights were godly, euro steel is the same as japan steel, at its core true, but forging techniques were very different, and how you forge stuff organizes the molecules of steel differently.

I think it wholly factually accurate to say that japans sword forging techniques were more advanced than anything done outside japan. and molecular cross section studies of various sword steels backs that up.

The softer core allows a katana to flex when it cuts into something, even stuff it is designed to cut into a sword will flex and torq, if you rail it into something it is not meant to there is a chance it will hold its shape or a chance it will torq the blade out of shape or break even, but that is the same for ANY sword, the flexy nature of the katana ups the odds a katana will survive vs shatter, and it allows you make them longer because you can keep it bendy and flexible but maintain a hard cutting edge.

It is always a trade off between the ability to actually cut into something/hold a cutting edge, its length, vs its durability. Too long or too hard a steel a sword will tend to shatter, too soft it will tend to simply bend and it will never hold an cutting edge for long.

Layering the steel the way katanas were was an ingenious solution to an old smithing problem pure and simple a mix of the best of both worlds.

This idea that samurai would be left dumbfounded by dual edged blades, is just silly since their neighbors were very fond of them. In fact most of the notions that samurai were seemingly simpletons that had no concept of strategy or reading an opponent or possibly studying other weapons is just short sided as saying that europens knights would be dumbfounded by single sided curved swords or could not devise a strategy to deal with them.

Both these types were near or mostly full time professional soldiers, they study weapons and techniques to use them, and they train across a variety of fields. Both would have been capable of on the field battle strategy, thinking on their feet.

 

[Do4600]

My point was that it's weird to assume that a knight would have all his equipment and a samurai be denied his.

What you were doing was denying the knight access to his other weapons and giving the samurai access to theirs.

No, I wasn't, I was denying that a samurai would use his long sword against a knight, he would at least use his naginata or yari even dismounted before he drew his sword, and I don't know why you're so interested in this post I wasn't even responding to YOUR post.

Swords are simply iron/steel/bronze bars with sharp edges. There are only so many ways you can move them. A cutting sword can only be manipulated in a certain fashion. The minor details might be different, but a vertical cut is a vertical cut. The front edge can only be used in certain ways. The back edge throws a dynamic into the fight that the Japanese wouldn't be used to dealing with, while all sword arts teach how to deal with the front edge.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.

 

[Wyes]

le snip

I'm unsure what you mean by 'little more than a presentation of the blade'? Do you mean in terms of length (extension of the arm lets you strike the wrist) or that there's not much to the cut? You can get a reasonable amount of impetus behind even such a small cut, but it's hardly going to severe the wrist, for example. I would disagree entirely about the length side of things.

The name of the footwork I was referring to is an inquirtata. I mostly used it to counter thrust, but supposedly it's also useful as an offensive action. It wasn't followed by a lunge (hence takes place in a single fencing time).

I have done single rapier enough to know that it is a viable weapon in and of itself. I should point out that I made a typo in my last post, I meant to say that if both fencers have only a single rapier there is no disadvantage. There is an advantage to having an off-hand weapon. But that's kind of like saying that you can't do highland broadsword with a targe - which is simply not true, the style works extremely well without a targe, but it arguably works better with one.

Also from what I can tell you seem to be implying that the defense with the rapier requires a riposte? I wouldn't say that's true. It's advisable but not a strict requirement of staying alive (in that single pass).

snip

Supposedly in well made plate armour you were meant to be able to do cartwheels, so the being able to 'out move' part is probably not true.

Samurai were well trained in jujutsu, aikido has been around for less than a century, and even jujutsu isn't really that old (started around 1530, and this is coming from a jujutsu practitioner). And similarly knights were trained in wrestling etc. (in fact, Fiore has certain actions that are identical to actions in jujutsu, which I found very interesting). The point being, as you say, both are professional soldiers and trying to point out any inherent difference of skill is pointless (so we are in agreement here). Although one should note that the rapier is not a knightly weapon, so that point is kinda moot.

I would disagree that the Japanese had the most advanced forging techniques in the world, for a great variety of reasons mentioned in this thread alone (the fact that the Europeans were doing a lot of similar things earlier in their history and so on). This is not to say they weren't good at forging swords, they just weren't better than everybody else. In fact, I would argue that within reason 'better than' makes no sense here, because their weapons were all designed for different uses. The European swords were good at what they were designed to do, and the Japanese swords were good at what they were designed to do. In terms of rapier vs katana, the material differences don't really play a role. Perhaps they would for say, longsword vs katana, but that's not this discussion and probably equally pointless.

Otherwise, the katana is far from the only sword with a soft core design - differential tempering was not unique to Japan. The other thing is that the katana is actually quite short and heavy compared to European swords (e.g. the longsword is typically longer and lighter than the katana). The point is that the Europeans were doing a lot of similar things for similar reasons.

Also while I agree in principle that both parties can think on their feet to deal with the opponent's weapon, the point a lot of people are making is true - the rapier fencer was likely to have experience with combat against weapons like a katana (longswords, sabres, etc.), while the Japanese were (mostly) fighting themselves. I don't think that gives a huge advantage to the rapier fencer though.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm unsure what you mean by 'little more than a presentation of the blade'? Do you mean in terms of length (extension of the arm lets you strike the wrist) or that there's not much to the cut? You can get a reasonable amount of impetus behind even such a small cut, but it's hardly going to severe the wrist, for example. I would disagree entirely about the length side of things.

Presentation is simply that - the arm is extended and a threat issued in a given line. If you are close enough that the tip of your blade extends past the tip of your opponent, there exists a viable target that can be reached with this simple action. Yes, the guard is a defense against such things and relatively small motions at the elbow would suffice as a defense but that does not detract from the fact that simple extension can reach the opponent and inflict a wound.

In modern sport Epee, a great many touches are achieved through this very action in spite of the enormous guard!

The name of the footwork I was referring to is an inquirtata. I mostly used it to counter thrust, but supposedly it's also useful as an offensive action. It wasn't followed by a lunge (hence takes place in a single fencing time).

The inquirtata is a displacement action and I agree it is generally used as a counter attack. But the resulting position of the feet (i.e. they are often closer together) means that if a follow on lunge was attempted, you would gain distance on the resulting lunge.

I have done single rapier enough to know that it is a viable weapon in and of itself. I should point out that I made a typo in my last post, I meant to say that if both fencers have only a single rapier there is no disadvantage. There is an advantage to having an off-hand weapon. But that's kind of like saying that you can't do highland broadsword with a targe - which is simply not true, the style works extremely well without a targe, but it arguably works better with one.

I think on this point we simply have to disagree. I can agree that it is possible to fence with a rapier by itself, I just think that one would be foolish to do so. Much the same as one could fence with a tiny guard on their blade.

Also from what I can tell you seem to be implying that the defense with the rapier requires a riposte? I wouldn't say that's true. It's advisable but not a strict requirement of staying alive (in that single pass).

The rapier favored actions in single time which is to say that a reposte would follow in the same line as the parry in conjunction with a glide or similar action with the goal of maintaining control of the opponents weapon. Lighter and faster blades made this less necessary and the parry-reposte evolved into something that was more often two discreet actions rather than a single extended action. Again, this isn't to say that the rapier was incapable of such actions (they are described in various manuals after all), just that they were not widely favored.

But, in a broader sense, there is little practical reason to seize the offensive with a parry only to immediately relinquish it especially when both parties are using a weapon that would make a parry following an attack challenging. Given that a properly executed parry already places the attacking blade in a position where it has little control over the point, and further given that they are, by necessity, within range of attack (assuming their attack was not an ill conceived feint or merely a mistake) every possible condition for an offensive would have been set. That isn't to say you just just dive into the offensive of course - just that you are in a position where, on average, attacking would be prudent. Fully half of the fundamental actions have been completed following a successful parry - a line has been opened with blade work and the distance has been set leaving just the consideration of delivering the attack with the feet at the proper moment.

 

[demoman_chaos]

You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.

You never see THIS [http://www.celticbritain.net/tweehandig20.jpg] in Japan. Nor do you see stuff like this:

As you can see, I am quite knowledgeable on the subject of European martial arts. I am not an expert by no means, nor do I know as much about Eastern arts as I'd like. I don't claim either of those. I do know about the weapons themselves, both how they were forged and what they are capable of. I try to be as unbiased as I can, looking past the hype and myth and seeing what the real things can do. Needless to say, I've seen much more negative Western myths getting smashed and more pro Eastern hype getting debunked than vice versa.

 

[cerebus23]

Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.

The 100lb figure comes from late period armour designed specifically for the joust, examples like this [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HJRK_S_XIII_-_Jousting_armour_of_Maximilian_I.jpg] and this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KHM_Wien_S_XVI_-_Jousting_armour_of_John_the_Constant,_c._1497-1505,_front.jpg]. Note the lack of articulation on the arms, the very thick faceplate on the helm and the first example has mountings to add extra armour to the breastplate. Pieces like these are at their core sports safety armour, they would never have seen a battlefield precisely because they were too heavy and lacked articulation. As already mentioned field plate was somewhere in the region of 50-70lbs, depending on place of manufacturer and style.

Interestingly enough, much like the term rapier, the armoured knight covers a period of some 600 years with huge evolutions in equipment and weapons. It's something I've not looked very deeply into, but on equipment terms alone the Samurai between the 10th through to the mid 13th century should be able to fight on equal terms with their European counterparts. However, once a goodly amount of plate starts appearing in western armour, then I think the advantage goes to the Europeans, with better materials, more coverage and the articulation and ergonomics to offset the increased weight.

Another interesting point is that the use of shields (as has been brought up several times) also depends greatly on which periods are being pitted together. By the 14th century shields were less common on the battlefield, and in the single combat we are discussing (with a knight in full plate), a shield wouldn't have been used at all, with our knight more than likely using both hands in the half-sword [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword] position.

Edit: More coverage is not quite the right term. More effective coverage would better describe what I'm getting at. Japanese armour has a lot of hanging pieces that could simply be pushed out of the way, whereas western armours conforms more to body contours, and thus more close fitting.

Edit edit: Another thing must be said, in relation to the whole samurai v. knight thing: If the Samurai is wearing an O-Yoroi and is bereft of his horse, he is a severe disadvantage no matter which period he's from. That armour was not designed for foot combat.

But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?

I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.

 

[Wyes]

snippy snippy

So he talks about a few of the things we were talking about before, it's a nice little video and I'll certainly have to revisit some of the things I thought before. In particular it seems you were right that two handed weapons don't cut any better than one handed swords.

Presentation is simply that - the arm is extended and a threat issued in a given line. If you are close enough that the tip of your blade extends past the tip of your opponent, there exists a viable target that can be reached with this simple action. Yes, the guard is a defense against such things and relatively small motions at the elbow would suffice as a defense but that does not detract from the fact that simple extension can reach the opponent and inflict a wound.

If the swords are engaged at the tips, there is no way to reach the hand with the blade by a simple extension of the arm. Some kind of lean, step, pass or lunge is necessary. At least, this has been my experience of Italian rapier. It's possible maybe that the hand could be reached, but that is defended by the hilt.

I don't have anything to say about modern fencing, because most of what I've seen of it is almost completely divorced from historical fencing (indeed we get modern fencers turn up at our school from time to time, and the only advantage they have over anybody else who has no historical fencing training is that they're not afraid to get thrusted and they know what the parts of the sword are called, almost everything else has to be trained or retrained from scratch, even the lunge).

The inquirtata is a displacement action and I agree it is generally used as a counter attack. But the resulting position of the feet (i.e. they are often closer together) means that if a follow on lunge was attempted, you would gain distance on the resulting lunge.

While I agree you could get more range out of the inquirtata with a follow up lunge, it seems you'd be too close to want to lunge anyway, unless your opponent had backed off.

I think on this point we simply have to disagree. I can agree that it is possible to fence with a rapier by itself, I just think that one would be foolish to do so. Much the same as one could fence with a tiny guard on their blade.

I'm just not sure where your opinion on this has come from. Mine has come from personal experience with Italian rapier. Also the most impressive (in a technique sense) fight I've ever seen was probably my instructor (using primarily Giganti) fencing Guy Windsor (fencing Capo Ferro I believe, not sure if you'll know the name, he's a renowned fencer/instructor in HEMA circles) in single rapier. They certainly had no problems fencing without an off-hand weapon, and they probably fought for 2-3 minutes before my instructor finally landed a blow. Unfortunately I don't have a video to show, because it was an informal night of free play before Guy flew back to Helsinki (from Sydney, so quite a long flight...). I did find this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Llfypc083g] video of Guy fencing Puck Curtis (Guy's the English chap). Unfortunately not as impressive as the fight I saw (at least not how I remember it), but you do see the cut being utilised, for one thing.

The rapier favored actions in single time which is to say that a reposte would follow in the same line as the parry in conjunction with a glide or similar action with the goal of maintaining control of the opponents weapon. Lighter and faster blades made this less necessary and the parry-reposte evolved into something that was more often two discreet actions rather than a single extended action. Again, this isn't to say that the rapier was incapable of such actions (they are described in various manuals after all), just that they were not widely favored.

But, in a broader sense, there is little practical reason to seize the offensive with a parry only to immediately relinquish it especially when both parties are using a weapon that would make a parry following an attack challenging. Given that a properly executed parry already places the attacking blade in a position where it has little control over the point, and further given that they are, by necessity, within range of attack (assuming their attack was not an ill conceived feint or merely a mistake) every possible condition for an offensive would have been set. That isn't to say you just just dive into the offensive of course - just that you are in a position where, on average, attacking would be prudent. Fully half of the fundamental actions have been completed following a successful parry - a line has been opened with blade work and the distance has been set leaving just the consideration of delivering the attack with the feet at the proper moment.

Yup, I agree with you there.

But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?

That's likely the difference between jousting armour and combat armour.
As I stated in my post, reputedly you could perform cartwheels in the combat armour.

I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...

As stated above, the knight's armour still allows for a full range of movement and perhaps has more coverage (or more effective coverage). The only foreseeable problem would be that you might expect the the plate armour to be heavier than the lamellar, but from the weight estimates people have given it looks like it'd probably be pretty even. The fact of the matter is that both knights and samurai fought in their armour in all kinds of conditions, including in the heat. Regardless, somebody using a rapier is not going to be wearing plate armour.

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

The katana does cut at least somewhat better than its closest European analogue in the longsword, but the tradeoff is that the katana tends to be heavier and perhaps not quite as durable and versatile (see video above), depending on the quality of the swords in question.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

I've addressed the mobility thing above. As for the samurai horse archers - I'm sure there's no denying that they were good, although the way I hear it they were trounced by the Mongols (although obviously the Mongols ultimately lost, primarily because both attempts at invasion were foiled by severe storms crippling their fleets).

 

[cerebus23]

Didn't the moguls basically invent the compound bow? Antlers and leather or something i forget, but their bows were nearly modern in their performance.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If the swords are engaged at the tips, there is no way to reach the hand with the blade by a simple extension of the arm. Some kind of lean, step, pass or lunge is necessary. At least, this has been my experience of Italian rapier. It's possible maybe that the hand could be reached, but that is defended by the hilt.

Strictly speaking, it depends upon the guard in question. A massive one like the one you see on the Epee, certainly, while rapier guards varied tremendously in size and protection.

While I agree you could get more range out of the inquirtata with a follow up lunge, it seems you'd be too close to want to lunge anyway, unless your opponent had backed off.

I'd agree that, in general, I perform the move as a counter attack most commonly in defense against a flech largely because the displacement only closes the one line. I have, from time to time, had cause to then lunge afterward but this is incredibly uncommon. Usually when I want to gain on a lunge, it is in an entirely different context.

I'm just not sure where your opinion on this has come from. Mine has come from personal experience with Italian rapier.

Adherence to the Florentine school of thought. There were certainly others and I can recognize that it is indeed possible to fence with the weapon in isolation. I just don't believe the weapon is well suited to the task. It's as I said, having a secondary implement increases your options at any moment. With a court sword, a secondary implement offers you nothing you don't already have ready and effective access to.

 

[cerebus23]

But i have also read it said that knights were utterly useless off their horses? or is that the difference of jousting armors vs combat armors?

I still think all things being equal, a samurai would have more ease of movement, there is nothing i have seen in a armor suit or someone wearing one, where it would lead me to believe in any way shape or form they could move change directions efficiently. Yes you would get used to it using it frequently but it is still not natural, toss in the heat inside one of them while being active...

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.

That would most definitely be true with armour for the joust, but field plate was designed with foot combat in mind. The nature of medieval warfare meant that being unhorsed was a distinct possibility. Then you get into earlier periods where maille was king, and the flexibility of maille doesn't inhibit movement much at all.

As for Japanese armours, ones like the Do-maru provide a similar range of movement to that of western harness. The O-yoroi however was a different beast altogether. It developed from a time where battles were decided by duels between warriors on horseback, shooting at each other with their yumi. The way it's worn makes it sit on the thighs when mounted, but on foot, the entire 60 odd pounds of armour hangs from the shoulders, making it exhausting to wear on foot for extended periods of time. The design of it is also much like a metal box, which inhibits the sort of movements needed to fence with a katana, hence the yari being their preferred weapon after the bow. The O-yoroi was eventually replaced by armours like the Do-maru because tactics shifted toward infantry blocks and the O-yoroi became a liability to its wearer.

As an aside, the Tatami style armours are very similar in construction to Turkish armours.

As for cutting....basically, when fighting in armour cutting is ineffective. Steels don't readily cut each other (and hardened and Lacquered leather, which was used extensively in Japanese armour, is surprisingly durable) which was the part of the reason European longswords and fencing evolved the way they did, becoming stiffer with more wickedly pointed tips, for thrusting into gaps and bursting maille rings. It is also the reason weapons like the warhammer and the poleaxe were popular weapons, you could injure or kill the man inside without ruining your expensive sword (and for the religious, a handy way to get around bible verses against killing people. See, you're not actually spilling blood when bludgeoning someone......) and overall more efficient when fighting in armour.

On bows....again, it really depends on the period, but it would be safe to say that decent European armour made after 1350 would be reasonably proof against bows. English accounts of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 make note that French armour stopped English arrows to the point where it was called 'invulnerable', and the Battle of Agincourt was much more of a royal French fuck up than the triumph of the longbow (considering the English had exhausted their arrows on the first of 3 waves). I haven't been able to find any definite numbers on the draw weight of the yumi, but if up to 90lbs is true, that's roughly equivalent to the longbow, so if the Samurai is up against plate and mail or full plate, he's going to have to be an extraordinary shot to land an arrow in one of the few places that are vulnerable to them.

Looking at armours of earlier periods, the Samurai definitely has a range advantage, but it's not an auto win and I don't think he'd be as quick as you'd think. If he's on wearing an O-yoroi (which would be likely if he's on horseback), his armour is close to being twice as heavy as a maille clad knight, so he probably wouldn't be able to just dart away. I haven't found firm numbers on the weight of the Do-maru but from what I've read it looks like they weren't significantly lighter than contemporary European armours, and due to the social status of those wearing them at that time would mean they're not likely to be on horseback to start of with. Due to the cost involved in getting one, the O-yoroi was also a status symbol, and it took some time for the Do-maru to make its way up to the higher social strata.

As for penetrating armour, there are many variables to take into account, such as range, angle of the shot and what the arrowhead is made of (if it isn't iron or steel, I'm pretty sure that the effort of punching through maille, if it does at all, would deform the head to such a state that it wont get through the padded garment underneath). Crusading knights in the Holy Lands during 11th and 12th centuries were often described as looking like pincushions, with all the arrows sticking out of them and still fighting strong. Plus, maille clad knights would invariably be using a shield as well, so a Samurai will have to place his shot very carefully. All in all knight in maille has a good chance of survival, so that leaves us with single combat. Against a Samurai in a Do-maru or something similar, the battle comes down to training and skill. In an O-yoroi, there's still a decent amount of training and skill involved but if the knight can get inside the Samurai's yari, then I think its advantage knight, he's simply far more mobile.

Interesting I have no idea what yumi arrows would have been made of, but samuri were very accurate while moving on horse.

Since you seem to be the armor guy did not the mongul's silk padded armors work as well if not better than the mails and plates and lacquerered armors of the day?

Seems silk can stop anything and do it better than kevlar and whatnot.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Interesting I have no idea what yumi arrows would have been made of, but samuri were very accurate while moving on horse.

Since you seem to be the armor guy did not the mongul's silk padded armors work as well if not better than the mails and plates and lacquerered armors of the day?

Seems silk can stop anything and do it better than kevlar and whatnot.

I'm not too familiar with Mongolian stuff, but a cursory reading of some material seems to suggest that the rank and file and light cavalry went into battle in their everyday wear, so it would be comprised of wools, sheepskin and furs.

The Mongolians did make use of a lot of heavy cavalry, with lamellar armour constructed in a manner similar to Japanese armours worn over their everyday wear, and even constructing elaborate lamellar barding for their horses long before the Europeans were. There were differences, the main one being that the entire harness is more contoured to fit more closely to the body. They wore a silk shirt (if they could get one, again, as I understand), but I don't know much about the properties of silk. From what I understand, should an arrow piece the armour, the head would get tangled up in the silk, since it doesn't tear. This could rob the arrow of energy so it doesn't pierce the skin, or if it should the silk can be used to extract the arrow without doing anymore damage to the poor sap who got shot with an arrow, leaving a clean wound that will heal nicely.

That's about as much as I know right now. A topic for further reading.

More to the point, the mongols were not a dominant force on the battlefield due to equipment but rather because of an unconventional method of fighting, extreme strategic mobility, and absolute discipline and obedience among the rank and file. Indeed, the Steppe peoples were a huge threat across much of history provided they would band together. While rare, the super confederations were events notable enough that they are well remembered.

 

[demoman_chaos]

So he talks about a few of the things we were talking about before, it's a nice little video and I'll certainly have to revisit some of the things I thought before. In particular it seems you were right that two handed weapons don't cut any better than one handed swords.

Already seen that and thought about posting it here actually. He does some really great work I must say. It is a different kind of cut, using other body parts for the leverage.

Spoiler: cerebus23

Didn't the moguls basically invent the compound bow? Antlers and leather or something i forget, but their bows were nearly modern in their performance.

The composite bow was around even in the time of ancient Egypt. They adopted it after it being used on them (I don't recall who they adopted it from). It is made from wood, horn, and sinew and would take almost a year and a half for the Egyptians to make. The composite bow is great, but nothing really special. Bows are simply springs. The harder the spring is to bend, the more force it has when unbending to loose an arrow. The composite bow gave them an advantage in that they had a strong bow that was smaller.

Katanas were better cutters than european swords (in general) the curve blade having a better cutting property, and harder sharper edge in general, and you could still stop them cutting you by stepping into the cut, the final 1/3 of the blade where a sword is moving the fastest has the most cut and progressively less as you move inside that, i have to imagine that knights had similar techniques to stop sword strikes, but if samurai armor is effective at dealing with katana strikes, glancing yari stabs, i doubt it can or will struggle against much of what a knight can bring.

At any rate i think a far more interesting match is a 2 unarmored warriors with their weapons of choice, let technique and style decide the day.

And between those 2 i think unarmored it is a pretty even match up. maybe even ad to the european would be larger in general have more reach in general.

But armored i think the samurai has it on mobility. If it is horse combat few archers were better than samurai archers, yumi were powerful long range bows i am reasonably sure would puncture any armor it can hit. On foot i do not think it is even close though. Like a huge lumbering giant off to fight the agile little fighter.

Which incidently is why some give an edge to the rapier due to its speed.

I guess it is all about speed vs raw tank or power and where your faith lies.

The last 1/3rd of the blade is called the weak for multiple reasons. The point you want to strike with a sword is not the tip, it is the point of percussion which sits at around 1/3rd of the blade length from the tip. That point gives the least vibration on impact. It gives the optimum balance of speed and mass. Too high on the tip and you don't have the weight behind the blow. Too low and you don't get the speed.

Refer to the videos below to see my response to your idea of the Japanese armor being a match for the longsword and the mobility of plate armor.

Unarmored, the longsword has the advantages. Reach, a much wider selection of attacks, and the long quillions are a very useful tool. A strong cut from either will split a man in two, so damage isn't a factor. They both weigh the same, but the longsword is generally better balanced. The katana doesn't really have an advantage in that fight.

Spoiler: Major Tom

On bows....again, it really depends on the period, but it would be safe to say that decent European armour made after 1350 would be reasonably proof against bows. English accounts of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 make note that French armour stopped English arrows to the point where it was called 'invulnerable', and the Battle of Agincourt was much more of a royal French fuck up than the triumph of the longbow (considering the English had exhausted their arrows on the first of 3 waves). I haven't been able to find any definite numbers on the draw weight of the yumi, but if up to 90lbs is true, that's roughly equivalent to the longbow, so if the Samurai is up against plate and mail or full plate, he's going to have to be an extraordinary shot to land an arrow in one of the few places that are vulnerable to them.

Looking at armours of earlier periods, the Samurai definitely has a range advantage, but it's not an auto win and I don't think he'd be as quick as you'd think. If he's on wearing an O-yoroi (which would be likely if he's on horseback), his armour is close to being twice as heavy as a maille clad knight, so he probably wouldn't be able to just dart away. I haven't found firm numbers on the weight of the Do-maru but from what I've read it looks like they weren't significantly lighter than contemporary European armours, and due to the social status of those wearing them at that time would mean they're not likely to be on horseback to start of with. Due to the cost involved in getting one, the O-yoroi was also a status symbol, and it took some time for the Do-maru to make its way up to the higher social strata.

As for penetrating armour, there are many variables to take into account, such as range, angle of the shot and what the arrowhead is made of (if it isn't iron or steel, I'm pretty sure that the effort of punching through maille, if it does at all, would deform the head to such a state that it wont get through the padded garment underneath). Crusading knights in the Holy Lands during 11th and 12th centuries were often described as looking like pincushions, with all the arrows sticking out of them and still fighting strong. Plus, maille clad knights would invariably be using a shield as well, so a Samurai will have to place his shot very carefully. All in all knight in maille has a good chance of survival, so that leaves us with single combat. Against a Samurai in a Do-maru or something similar, the battle comes down to training and skill. In an O-yoroi, there's still a decent amount of training and skill involved but if the knight can get inside the Samurai's yari, then I think its advantage knight, he's simply far more mobile.

I agree with most of what you say. The bit I start disagreeing (hence didn't snip out) is on the bows. The English longbows found on the Mary Rose were tested to have a draw in the 130 lb range, meaning they have much more oomph than a yumi can muster. The yumi used primarily cutting heads, which are ineffective against metal armor. The arrows of the yumi couldn't get past plate armor, and it would be a stretch to even dent well tempered plate.

The yumi could possibly outrange a longbow, due to the arrows. A yumi could use lighter arrows (you need thicker and heavier arrows to take the stress of launch) which will travel further. The issue with that is that they won't have the kinetic energy to give as hard of a punch (much like the 7.62mm of the AK-47 vs the 5.56mm of the M16).

Your idea of the knight being the mobile one is the reverse of what everyone else seems to say. The issue I have with your comparison there is that you are giving the samurai a polearm and leaving the knight with just his sword. If he has a sword and shield, he has the advantage there as he is covered and can use the shield to bind the spear as he closes the distance. If you give the knight a polearm, the fight depends on which. A long halberd will give him the reach advantage, but a poleaxe would mean he has to step in to get within range. The biggest issue I see is not who can hit who, but the armor. There isn't much in Japan that could do much against plate while the armor in Japan isn't a match for the weapons of Europe. Even if the yari tags the knight, odds are high it will either glance off or just leave a small dent.

Related videos:
The armor tests are the main interest in video 2.

 

[Do4600]

You don't know what you're talking about, it's plain to me, in one of your last posts you said Samurai didn't even use half-sword techniques. Well...they did, you think having that blunt side was just for what? Hubris? Decoration? No, leverage.

As you can see, I am quite knowledgeable on the subject of European martial arts. I am not an expert by no means, nor do I know as much about Eastern arts as I'd like. I don't claim either of those. I do know about the weapons themselves, both how they were forged and what they are capable of. I try to be as unbiased as I can, looking past the hype and myth and seeing what the real things can do. Needless to say, I've seen much more negative Western myths getting smashed and more pro Eastern hype getting debunked than vice versa.

That's just fine, but how can you compare two types of anything without educating yourself on both types? There are over 20 different forms of Japanese long swordsmenship and that doesn't include close combat wrestling, and this is in an area 26 times smaller than Europe.

There are posts about the dagger or main gauge giving the European fencer an advantage, but the most practiced form of Japanese swordmenship uses a long and a short sword for the same reason. People just have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm sick of it.

 

[demoman_chaos]

That's just fine, but how can you compare two types of anything without educating yourself on both types? There are over 20 different forms of Japanese long swordsmenship and that doesn't include close combat wrestling, and this is in an area 26 times smaller than Europe.

There are posts about the dagger or main gauge giving the European fencer an advantage, but the most practiced form of Japanese swordmenship uses a long and a short sword for the same reason. People just have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm sick of it.

Note my wording, I said I don't know as much as I would like. I would love to learn more, but I know enough about each style to know how the weapon behaves and to have a good picture of how it was used. I knew grappling and half-swording were present in some arts, but they aren't used to near the extent that they are in Europe. There are also a lot of things done in Europe that simply were not done in Japan (much of which is due to the design of the weapon in question, can't do back edge cuts with single edged sword for example).

The use of the wakizashi and katana would put the katana user at a further disadvantage. The katana is very blade heavy, and has no chance of keeping up with lighter and better balanced blades meant for 2 handed use. You can parry with the wakizashi, but to get within cutting range of the katana you need to have that side forward and a long step. In that attempt, it would be rather easy to withdraw the rapier as you step back enough to pull away from the wakizashi and allow the point to come back on line. You need the control two handing the sword gives to keep the rapier's point at bay.

I don't agree the notion that a dagger would be all that helpful in parrying, but the threat of the dagger would keep the samurai from going in as gung-ho as he would if it were not there. The presence of the dagger is the main issue, as it is very unlikely the samurai would venture into dagger range.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't agree the notion that a dagger would be all that helpful in parrying, but the threat of the dagger would keep the samurai from going in as gung-ho as he would if it were not there. The presence of the dagger is the main issue, as it is very unlikely the samurai would venture into dagger range.

Using a dagger to parry does not, in reality, reduce the distance in which a parry can be achieved by much. Only the lower third if a rapier (the forte) is useful for the parry both because this is the strongest part of the blade but, importantly, because of simple mechanics. The lower on the blade you parry, the more control you have over the weapon in question. This is important because a parry does not serve to simply defend but to set the conditions for an offensive of your own.

As you have said, Rapier is better at thrusting, however that requires the user to be at a considerable distance from the katana user. If the Katana user can close the gap between them, that user will win very easily.

In a long range dual, I would say a Rapier would have a better chance to win, however it is still inferior to the power of a katana in a close range duel, which is why you would pull out a sword to begin with.

The minimum effective range of the rapier (or any thrusting weapon for that matter) is roughly a foot or so shorter than the length of the blade. Those with longer arms or higher than normal flexibility can stretch this to a degree. There exist various techniques that can shorten this further but they're high risk and relatively exotic.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Using a dagger to parry does not, in reality, reduce the distance in which a parry can be achieved by much. Only the lower third if a rapier (the forte) is useful for the parry both because this is the strongest part of the blade but, importantly, because of simple mechanics. The lower on the blade you parry, the more control you have over the weapon in question. This is important because a parry does not serve to simply defend but to set the conditions for an offensive of your own.

I wasn't speaking of the range, but effectiveness as well as utility. It isn't in the persons best interest to really try to parry a sword like the katana with the dagger. With the standard fencing stance, the dagger is very far back. Trying to parry with it means you are letting the katana get far closer than you want. Simply voiding the parries and recovering your point would be far more useful. The dagger in this scenario should only be used to counter an attempt to close. Bind the katana with the rapier and step into their attack to deliver the dagger's point.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Using a dagger to parry does not, in reality, reduce the distance in which a parry can be achieved by much. Only the lower third if a rapier (the forte) is useful for the parry both because this is the strongest part of the blade but, importantly, because of simple mechanics. The lower on the blade you parry, the more control you have over the weapon in question. This is important because a parry does not serve to simply defend but to set the conditions for an offensive of your own.

I wasn't speaking of the range, but effectiveness as well as utility. It isn't in the persons best interest to really try to parry a sword like the katana with the dagger. With the standard fencing stance, the dagger is very far back. Trying to parry with it means you are letting the katana get far closer than you want. Simply voiding the parries and recovering your point would be far more useful. The dagger in this scenario should only be used to counter an attempt to close. Bind the katana with the rapier and step into their attack to deliver the dagger's point.

The difference in range is measured in mere inches, actually. A properly executed parry for a thrust - that is, the longest ranged attack a katana could attempt, involves intercepting the thrust as close to the point as possible using the forte of your own blade. Similarly, a properly executed parry of a cut still involves intercepting the blade with your forte close to the tip. The reason is simple enough - this configuration gives the defender the best possible control over the opposing weapon.

As a result, the difference in distances for either parry are literally a matter of inches. Indeed, attempting to extend your parry range with a longer weapon rapidly becomes a game of diminishing returns as attempting to apply force with a parry becomes less efficient the further from the wrist and elbow you move. This is the same principle, you'll note, that allows a parry to work in the first place - simple mechanics mean that when properly executed, a parry gives the defender tremendous capacity to manipulate the opponents weapon such that even substantial differences in strength are all but eliminated!