Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Hero in a half shell]

No mention of the Katana cutting through tanks?

Links to arma.org and Lindy Beige?

Discussion on the merits/faults of both swords without personal attacks or insults?


I'M SO PROUD OF YOU GUYS!

 

[alexmillard]

Swords, real swords, aren't things with "stats" that "do damage" they are tools. Tools for killing people.

These two different tools were made for different jobs.

The rapier was made in an era when armor had disappeared in common use, and people were carrying them on the street in Europe. They were made for dueling, fighting and killing one unarmored (and sadly sometimes unarmed) opponent. One quick jab and someone has a hole in them.

The Katana is a weapon designed for battle, were reach and length can actually be a detriment in a thick scrum. It's slashing blade and heavy handle make it ideal for chopping and slicing into moderately armored opponents. Due to it's construction it will stay sharp and function through-out a whole day of killing people, where the rapier would not.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The rapier was used, IIRC, by conquistadors in the New World. Although their conquests were highly over-rated, they did fight several pitched battle against local forces, though those did not have metal armour.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The Katana is more versatile and durable that if mastered makes for a great critical strike weapon. A rapier is strictly a critical strike weapon not made for long periods of combat.Critical strike being singular killing blows.

 

[dantoddd]

are there no documented incidents of Europeans who visited Japan in 1700-1800 getting into a duel with a samurai?

 

[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.

actually the Rapier wielder would have a matched dagger for defense.

If used properly the dagger would stop him from losing his head after running the katana wielder through

While thats a good tactic and I can see how it would help, my scenario was based off just the two swords with equal matched, unarmored opponents. As apposed to a deadliest warrior style thing.

Off topic:
My late grandfather had a letter opener that looks similar to that dagger. Officially the most bad ass way to look at the mail.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Long post of replies coming, dear Freyja this is gonna be a big one. I will refer to the rapier user as a musketeer and katana user as a samurai for ease.

Spoiler: FalloutJack

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.

You are forgetting 2 very basic things. First, the katana is far shorter and the samurai would need to close almost 2 ft of range against someone. That isn't very easy when you consider #2, the musketeer can step back and recover his point. The rapier had to face the medieval longsword in duels, it never had problems blocking it. 2 handed grips don't give more power (aka swing speed), they give more control and leverage in a bind. That extra control allows for longer and more powerful weapons to be used.

Spoiler: 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.

You may or may not be aware that the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow right? You do know that almost all infantry used spears or naginata right? You do know that trying to take on a group of spearmen or cavalry with just a katana is not going to end well right? The katana is useless against arrows. It is useless against a cavalry charge. It is useless against a spearwall. It was at best a reserve weapon for archers and cavalry on the battlefield.
Both swords in reality were dueling weapons not really meant for battlefield use.

Spoiler: Whatislove

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.

The ideal rapier length is from the ground to your belly button, which for you would be much longer than the average 40 inches (which is much longer than your katana). Any way you look at it the katana is easily outmatched in length by Viking broadswords, let alone a rapier.

Japanese armor has a lot of neat little gaps, like the armpits, the face, etc. European duelists would be used to going against armor much much better than the lamellar the Japanese had (full plate weighs 6-70 lbs, is fitted and articulated to the individual, it doesn't hinder the man's movement). They would likely be carrying a dagger as well, and in some periods that dagger was a very strong spike meant to punch through the heaviest of armors. This combined with grappling techniques and familiarity with opponents using weapons similar to a katana (which is just a 2 handed sabre with a short blade) would give advantages over the samurai.

The katana was made using folded steel over an iron core, something the Pre-Roman Celts were doing about 2 THOUSAND years before. The rapier is made of an advanced and well tempered monosteel that the Japanese couldn't match. The rapier faced off against the longsword and had very little trouble in dealing with the strikes from that. I wouldn't worry even the slightest about my rapier being broken by a Japanese sword.

Spoiler: dangoball

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.

The drawing is a non-issue. The samurai would have to be already within range of the rapier, which isn't exactly slow to draw.
If the terrain is poor, the samurai is going to have a much harder time getting the footing needed to close the distance. It hinders him more than the rapier.

Spoiler: NeutralDrow

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.

The rapier is quite good at cutting, not going to lop off any heads but certainly able to cut your leg at least to the bone. Cuts were used fairly often in the manuals, though the sport fencers and their rules have made everything about the point.
The katana is pretty much useless against armor. The thrusting point is very poorly tapered and very thick, meaning it has to push a lot of material out of the way to get through. The reason the longsword does well is due to a slender and much more tapered point, but the main anti-armor tool is not the blade. The weighted pommel is one helluva blunt force tool, particularly when used in halfsword and when using the sword backwards (shown in a plate of Talhoffer's manual, an unarmored fellow holding the blade backwards against an armored fellow).

and wound up with this

Spoiler

a Gladius isn't actually a real sword. (it's more of an evolution of a short stabbing spear, it is not used for fencing, it is the secondary weapon to use with a Scutum)

Spoiler

I have to correct you on this mate, the gladius IS a sword. It is nothing like a spear. It was the primary weapon of the Legion, the pila were javelins used before going in with the sword. The word gladius translates directly into "Sword."
The rest of your statement is fine though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But to answer your OP the rapier wins hands down even if we use the far superior hacking weapon as IRL the rapier replaced the broadsword in every country, those duelist couldn't all have been crazy

This is a very important point. However, by the same logic, I'd suggest later swords. The last sword introduced by the British army was in 1908, seems a reasonably place to start, though that was a cavalry sword.

 

[Something Amyss]

Whereas the spaniards, and southern europeans in general, had excellent metal (the Danes used to pilgrim down to Venice to buy venician steel to make armor and weapons for their knights, I recall learning), and could make better weaponry.

But we're not really talking about weaponry in general, but two specific swords. The rapier is still going to be relatively light, negating many of the benefits specific to superior steel, and the katana wielder will take steps to mimimise blade contact.

The katana isn't a good weapon, it's just better than the rest of japanese weapons at the time.

I'm going to assume from the context of the rest of your post you mean other swords.

Due to it's construction it will stay sharp and function through-out a whole day of killing people

lolwot? The katana's edge was notoriously brittle as a tradeoff to its sharpness (more reslient blades were less sharp) and the sword often wasn't used as a primary weapon within battlefield conditions.

 

[McKitten]

The rapier was used, IIRC, by conquistadors in the New World. Although their conquests were highly over-rated, they did fight several pitched battle against local forces, though those did not have metal armour.

Yes, the people here mentioning the Rapier as duel sword only are mixing it up with the later smallsword. (not a hard mistake to make, because that is after all what the rapier evolved into). The older rapier was used during a time where heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms had just fallen out of fashion (although that is often attributed to firearms, that's incorrect, well-trained pike squares and halberdiers are to blame for that) but people were still wearing leather jerkins and cuirasses. The reaons for the rapier not being as large and heavy as earlier swords are that for one, it was merely a backup weapon, to be used when the enemy was at meelee range and the arquebus empty (note that bayonets are a surprisingly late invention ~17th century) and a strictly secondary weapon cannot be too heavy. To see some heavier swords of the same period one can take a look at cavalry swords. Of course, the rapier, as all previous swords, was used for duels as well, mostly because swords have always been symbols of social status and since duels are nothing but displays of that as well, what better weapon to use. But that doesn't mean it was primarily or only a duel weapon.

Long post of replies coming, dear Freyja this is gonna be a big one. I will refer to the rapier user as a musketeer and katana user as a samurai for ease.

and wound up with this

Spoiler

a Gladius isn't actually a real sword. (it's more of an evolution of a short stabbing spear, it is not used for fencing, it is the secondary weapon to use with a Scutum)

Spoiler

I have to correct you on this mate, the gladius IS a sword. It is nothing like a spear. It was the primary weapon of the Legion, the pila were javelins used before going in with the sword. The word gladius translates directly into "Sword."
The rest of your statement is fine though.

Spoiler

The translation doesn't really matter, after all, there was never a time when both words "sword" and "Gladius" were in use at the same time, so we can hardly say they'd be used for the same thing. I'm calling that Gladius not a real sword, because it was used nothing like one. The roman Spatha for example (or the Spanish Falcata) are swords of the period, but the Gladius was used like a short spear (or punching dagger). The Roman soldiers would press against the enemy with their shields and stab with the Gladius through the gaps at them. The Gladius is a pure thrusting weapon, not suited for either slashing or hacking, and it was not used to parry, counter or even feint. It was used pretty much like the spears in a (greek not macedonian) phalanx, the Romans only changed and improved the general idea thus leading to different shields & stabbing weapons. The Gladius certainly looks sword-like, what with being entirely metal and having edges, but it isn't used like one, thus i'd call it not a real sword.
On a sidenote: the primary weapon of the legions was the Scutum, not the Gladius. Take away the gladius and they still function, and it can be easily replaced with any other stabbing tool. Take away the Scutum and the legions don't work anymore. The shield is used to block the enemies' attack, to restrict his movement, to put him in a position where he can neither attack nor defend himself effectively. The Gladius is just used to finish the job once all the work is done. It's similar to the (~1000 year later) Viking shield, which, while very different in design and technique, was also the main weapon for its wielder. (The design is so different because a Viking shield is a weapon for individual combat, whereas the Scutum is designed for formation combat)

 

[barbzilla]

In a fair match up considering two people trained in the specific arts of their ancient counterparts, I would say the rapier would likely have the greater chance to win just based on reach and mobility, however if the two ancient counterparts met with each other, I would be more likely to give the battle to the fully steel armored Samurai instead of the man who is likely only wearing a breastplate. On the other hand, if the rapier user had a firearm, I don't know what would happen exactly, mainly because I don't know if ancient firearms could pierce the armor of the Samurai.

Either way, I say even odds with slight advantage Rapier if we consider no other factors.

 

[godofallu]

I don't understand with a 27 inch blade + an 11 inch hilt your katana should be at a similar length to the rapier. Plus rapiers are kind of shit swords. They can't puncture armor or get around a shield and a strong blow from a real 2 handed sword can break them in half.

Then again katanas were known for being brittle and prone to break too.

I guess if it's a naked duel between 2 equally skilled opponents I would go with the rapier if it really is noticeably longer as you said.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

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.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/329121/indiana-jones-vs-sword-o.gif

OT: From the way you describe it the rapier sounds superior. Either they rapier wielder wins or they both die, there doesn't seem to be much hope for the katana wielder unless the rapier fucks up.

 

[NeutralDrow]

snip

It's the other way around, actually. Katanas were far better at thrusting than rapiers ever were at cutting, even with the earliest swords that we consider "rapiers" (when they still had edges).

The rapier is quite good at cutting, not going to lop off any heads but certainly able to cut your leg at least to the bone. Cuts were used fairly often in the manuals, though the sport fencers and their rules have made everything about the point.
The katana is pretty much useless against armor. The thrusting point is very poorly tapered and very thick, meaning it has to push a lot of material out of the way to get through. The reason the longsword does well is due to a slender and much more tapered point, but the main anti-armor tool is not the blade. The weighted pommel is one helluva blunt force tool, particularly when used in halfsword and when using the sword backwards (shown in a plate of Talhoffer's manual, an unarmored fellow holding the blade backwards against an armored fellow).

Assuming the rapier in question even has an edge to do so. Especially on later sword, the only reason they retained them was to keep an opponent from grabbing your weapon. There's some pretty in-depth reading <url=http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm>here.

How well could rapiers cut?

There are many period writers who complained the rapier did not cut well (relative to dedicated cutting blades) and were unsuited to the needs of the battlefield for this reason. They were not designed for nor capable of lethal cutting blows and no period fencing text actually instructs to use them that way. Nor are there historical accounts of any deadly cutting blows with true rapiers being made in fights.

This lack of cutting capacity did not discount making light, quick slashes with the edge or even the point against the face or wrist. This was useful to harass, provoke, and distract the enemy. Doing such could certainly lacerate skin, and depending upon the type of blade, even more, but they simply could not shear or cleave into flesh and bone, as could wider and flatter swords designed for cutting. While some rapier texts refer to non-lethal cuts made as a facial slash or performed with a pulling slice, the weapons were simply not designed either to hack and chop or slice and their blade geometry prevented it.

The issue is clouded, however, by the existence of wider, tapering blades with flatter cross-sections and sharper edges, which were capable of slashing open a throat or cutting off a hand. These weapons, though used similarly, were not identical in performance to the far more slender variety of what can be called the ?true? rapier.

As for armor, yes, Longswords are far more technically versatile than katanas, including against armor. However, both still had to deal with armor, and both developed at least the trick of attacking armor joints. Again, better reading <url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm>here, but an excerpt:

As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (?but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. The primary technique for fighting nearly any kind of armor with most any kind of sword is not to cut but to thrust at the gaps and joints. (emphasis theirs)

Though really, a knight in either area would presumably carrying a small mace or a large knife.

I don't understand with a 27 inch blade + an 11 inch hilt your katana should be at a similar length to the rapier. Plus rapiers are kind of shit swords. They can't puncture armor or get around a shield and a strong blow from a real 2 handed sword can break them in half.

Then again katanas were known for being brittle and prone to break too.

Really, though, neither were as prone to break as seems to come up frequently in this thread. Katanas tended to chip and rapiers often lost their points (see first link), but you'd think they were made of chocolate the more they come up. >_>

<url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html>Obligatory link.

 

[Kukakkau]

I'd say it'd be a toss up dependent on each wielder's speed, skill etc.

Thinking of a kendo-like stance with the katana it could be pretty difficult to land a solid thrust without it being parried. Then it's a case of if the katana user can get into close enough range to force the rapier to use cuts without giving them the opportunity to re-establish that reach.

But then again if the fight drags out the katana would probably break after a while.

 

[Shock and Awe]

As someone with no real sword fighting experience, I'd call it for rapier. Its more flexible in its usage and allows the user more avenues of effective attack. The katana can slash very well, but cannot be used well to thrust which limits it.

 

[loc978]

As someone trained in the use of both (and who owns two of each)... it's a tossup, armored or not. A rapier isn't generally faster to employ than a kanana... an epee or a foil can be (sport fencing blades are practically a wire compared to a real rapier), but my rapiers are actually heavier (if better balanced) than my traditional length katana (my o-katana is a monster, though. more reach than the rapiers as well).

In short, a katana is better at slicing and at deflecting another blade (especially a thin, one-handed blade like a rapier), while a rapier is better at thrusting and has more reach. The duelist with better footwork and luck wins.

**edit**
Also, between your wooden practice blades, I'd bet on the katana. A rapier that lacks a good distal taper (reducing thickness gradually toward the tip to put the center of mass back toward the hilt... without increasing weight) will be an unbalanced mess to wield. A practice katana needs no such consideration.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

A Scottish Claymore for me, thanks. I'm a taller person so I like a sword to match. They can be difficult to control, but that's part of the appeal. Like a wild horse to be broken, learning to wield a Claymore takes a bit of dedication.

But of the two, I'd probably still go with a Katana. I don't have a bunch of facts to back it up. No "DEADLIEST WARRIOR" style breakdown of the merits it has over the other. It's just a gut reaction to Katana's being the go-to "cool" sword.

As with any weapon though, it's less about the weapon itself, and more about the hand that wields it.

 

[Jordi]

Honestly I'm not sure the length of the rapier is the unmitigated advantage that it's made out to be. Yes, having reach is nice, but so is being useful in close proximity. If an opponent does manage to close the distance, the rapier may become unwieldy especially since the tip is basically the only dangerous part.

Frankly, I think I'd prefer a katana. It doesn't seem super hard to block a single rapier thrust and doing so will will put the rapier out of position and allow you to close the distance and finish the job with your katana.

I'm guessing rapier wielders often carried a dagger to counter this short range problem.

 

[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.

[snip]

OT: From the way you describe it the rapier sounds superior. Either they rapier wielder wins or they both die, there doesn't seem to be much hope for the katana wielder unless the rapier fucks up.

Even if the rapier wielder is suffering from food poisoning he wins