Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[demoman_chaos]

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!

Again, range is not the issue I have. You seem to be forgetting the only point involved with the issue of range, which is the body. With the rapier forward, it will be further in front and thus be closer to the attack. The dagger will be quite a ways behind it. If you stand dagger side forward, you are costing yourself a lot of needed range.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

lol why does this thread have nine pages of vague hypothetical scenairos

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Again, range is not the issue I have. You seem to be forgetting the only point involved with the issue of range, which is the body. With the rapier forward, it will be further in front and thus be closer to the attack. The dagger will be quite a ways behind it. If you stand dagger side forward, you are costing yourself a lot of needed range.

The key school of thought regarding the dual use of sword and dagger would assert that attacks on the inside (i.e. the side wielding the rapier) ought be parried with the rapier while attacks on the outside (which is naturally the further target anyhow) would be parried with the dagger. Sweeping from inside to outside with the rapier to parry ensures that the only weapon in position to readily riposte is the rapier itself which entirely negates why you'd have brought the secondary implement anyhow. The style was designed to overcome the problem with the rapier which was an inherent difficult in changing lines of attack or defense. The secondary implement serves to cover lines that the rapier could not easily manage.

The bottom line, I think, is that the dagger is designed to parry attacks on the furthest line. Were someone to target this line, they have rather strongly committed to their own offensive action as they will have naturally placed their entire body with in range of riposte or counter attack. Beyond that, the difference in effective range of the parry is still only measured in scant inches and any parry in that line easily removes the offending blade from the line of attack. What's more, the use of this secondary implement and it's somewhat shorter range ensures that the ensuing riposte has a longer range since there useful linear attack distance is not used crossing the body.

 

[OneCatch]

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.

Nah, you're thinking of Composite bows.

Spoiler

Compound bows are the fearsome-looking modern ones with pulleys and stuff.

Composite bows were used by a lot of nomadic peoples like the Huns, the Goths, the Scythians, and much later, the Mongols. They were actually used a lot earlier, but the lamination process that made them so renownedly lethal was only perfected before and during the Migration period, and then again in the Middle Ages.

They never matched the armour penetration of dedicated crossbows and longbows though - it was as much the tactics the Mongols used as the bows themselves.

 

[carnex]

Rapier was meant for fencing, katana was not since its edge is fragile. Both did end up in fencing but for the most part samurai battle was about threatening and dancing around opponent until you can block and attack in one swoop. Rapier is all about fast jabs not necessarily meant to kill but to hit any point exposed at the time, katana was meant to kill with every successful swing and every swing is considered to have to be successful. Rapier is also longer, faster stabbing weapon that protects gripping hand.

All in all katana wielder would have to pull off some crazy shit to get into position of actually slashing rapier wielder while the first would have much easier job of cutting opponents fingers thus disarming him.

Katana could cut rapier blade if it caught it in right circumstances but more than likely it?s flexibility would buy wielder enough time to save it from breaking.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Honestly, after reading everything here, I'm leaning more towards the katana user, if for no other reason, because it's so much more versatile.

There are some problems in this debate though that people seem to be overlooking a lot here. One is how many people have come in and said, "I don't really know anything about using a katana, but I certainly know about rapiers and I think the rapier user would win." There's a problem with this kind of statement and I think everyone should realize what that is.

Another is that there's a lot of people trying to discredit the katana just because of its fanboyish popularity in some areas.

And one more is that, given that all of us are typing in english, I can assume that most of the people here are people that have grown up in "western" countries. The rapier is a western sword. There are classes based around fencing (And yes, fencing uses just one kind of rapier, I know) in the western world more than there are ones based around the use of a katana.

I guess my point is this. I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that when you know something far more intimately than another, you're likely going to prefer it more.