Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[guitarsniper]

As a simple blade design, I'd go with the katana because, while slashing is its strength, it can thrust. That being said, rapier steel would generally have been much better than katana steel.

 

[loc978]

Historically, katana's are garbage weapons made from pig iron. They are no sharper than a blade made with better steel, and are prone to breaking easily. A katana would break pretty easily against a rapier, especially one made from Damascus Steel. If we are going to assume that the katana isn't really made like a katana(ie steel folding) and is just shaped like a katana(and thus not brittle) then the rapier still has the advantage from it's length.

Historically, the purpose of pattern-welding steel (be it in the Damascus style or the Japanese style) is to make use of the thin sheets of quality steel that old-fashioned smelting could produce from low-purity iron ore. Before we could smelt properly, pattern-welded stuff was better than not pattern-welded... because anything made of monosteel was pig-iron in comparison.

Nowadays, the industrial monosteel we put into rebar could outperform any sword made for regular use in warfare. Hell, I have a katana made from the same "high-speed steel" machinists used to cut other steel (before the mass-production of carbide bits, that is).

In short, Damascus steel is basically the same thing as a folded katana... utter crap compared to modern steel. Pretty, though.

I like katanas (I own two, a standard katana and an odachi), but in a match of two equal fighters, the rapier user has the advantage because of reach and increased mobility. It would be a death of a thousand stings for the katana user, taking a small hit every time he tries to close the distance.

Rapier fencing isn't nearly as fast or mobile as most people in this thread seem to believe. These things aren't sport foils, they tend to be heavier than a traditional katana. A good example of the speed that can be expected of a rapier is showcased rather well here:
As you can see, it's no faster or more mobile than a kendo match. They have a lot in common, in fact.

 

[ColonelHopper]

Wow, it's been ages since I really, really wanted to reply to a thread, heck, this is tangentially work-related! Here goes!
Disclaimer: I am much more qualified to speak for the rapier than I am for the katana.
Here's why:

Spoiler

I'm a professional sport fencing instructor (epee, The Escapist isn't big on accent marks...) and dabbler in classical fencing techniques. (I own five weapons that are employed with the techniques that would be considered "rapier" techniques.
My knowledge of katanas mostly comes from one Iaido practitioner in my acquaintance, and thought experiments. (I do, however, occasionally have the pleasure of sparring with a German fight manual trained two-handed swordsman, so that will weigh into this one.)

Additional disclaimer. This is approaching novel length. I hope you like reading about swords and swording.

My terminology and scenario parameters can be found here:

Spoiler

I'll use the Musketeer/Samurai terminology. (Because they're badass, that's why.) However, I'm not going to time-lock this discussion, because both combat techniques have continued to evolve over the centuries since the heyday of these weapons. The terms are not meant to address the skill or training of each combatant, or what else they may carry, or wear, into the fight. The Musketeer carries one rapier, and no other weapons. The Samurai carries one katana, and no other weapon.
For attire, I'm going to assume contemporary clothing common to the practice of these weapons in the 21st century.
Remember, the OP isn't talking about which warrior would win, a Musketeer or Samurai, or which armor is superior. Simply, the weapon.

First, let us address the question of length. While a 38 inch long katana (blade + grip) may rival the length of most rapiers, (I own a 44 inch bladed rapier, but 4 inches of that is covered by the swept hilt.) The real advantage in length comes from the stances. The Samurai will have a much more square stance compared to the Musketeer, and generally keeps both of his hands on his weapon. This severely limits his reach compared to the Musketeer. The Musketeer will hold his weapon with one hand, arm kept at distance from the body, which will be solidly behind his weapon. Furthermore, the Musketeer employs which will enable him to deliver an accurate thrust at significant range. In comparison, the Samurai will have to close more distance to attack effectively. (We'll take a look at what could happen then later, actually.)

Now, let's look at the attack:

The vast majority of attacks from the Musketeer will be in the form of thrusts. (I've heard rapier fighters referred to as 'Swishy-Pokers'. This is apt.) The thrust is an interesting form of attack, because it presents a number of possibilities. It is very easy to feint with a thrust. The Musketeer will be able to start an attack targeting his opponent's leg, and shift it to the throat with only a small wrist motion, and without pausing or interrupting his attack. This is a keystone component of fighting with rapier-type weapons.

The majority of the Samurai's attacks will be in the form of slashes or cuts. However, he will probably make more thrusting attacks than the Musketeer will make cutting attacks. Cutting attacks may also change targets without returning to guard, however the Samurai will usually have to redirect much more energy than the Musketeer, go ahead and try this one at home. (Just not with a human partner and real swords. That would be bad.)

Defense against the thrust:

The most basic form of defense against all attacks is to simply not be at the spot where the attack delivers its energy. Usually this is accomplished by movement of some sort. However, sometimes this is not possible. This is where we come to the parry.

For a brief discussion of what makes a parry work:

Spoiler

All parries benefit from a few key concepts. The most fundamental of which is making contact with the attacker's blade in the correct manner. Angle of blades is key. A higher (or lower) angle (relative to the attacker's blade) will make the parry much more likely to 'pick-up' the attacker's blade with a lateral or circular motion. Then it becomes a question of leverage.
The base of a blade, close to where it meets the guard, is called the forte. It is the strongest part of the blade. The end of a blade, close to its tip, is called the foible. It is the weakest part of the blade. In two equal swords, the leverage advantage will go to whoever has the contact point of the two blades closest to their forte, which will allow the easy control of the other weapon. Once control is established, it's a simple process to move the controlled blade away from where it presents a threat.

Parrying a thrust involves taking control of the attacking blade, and moving (and keeping) it off-line. (A thrust is off-line when continuing on its 'line' will not yield contact with any part of the target.)

In rapier combat, a parry is usually followed with a riposte, which generally uses the parried blade as a guide to slide along to deliver a thrust accurately to the erstwhile attacker. The combatant that executes the riposte much also be careful to keep the blade he has parried off-line. (One generally avoids impaling themselves on a blade. It's considered a negative experience, and may alter your odds of winning the fight.)

Defense against the cut:
(This is where I'm a little foggy. I don't usually have to do this in my job.)
Parrying against a cut is a matter of arresting the weapon's motion towards your body. In most early European schools of combat, this is accomplished primarily through the use of a shield. However, both of the weapons discussed here have techniques used to defend against a cut. The principles are mostly the same, leverage and blade strength are important. (I'm going to discount the notion that an attacking katana will slice through, or snap, a defending rapier for this analysis. If someone really wants to take that discussion up with me, shoot me a message.) Positioning the defending blade in the path of the attacking blade, at angles, and ensuring that the contact occurs at a stronger portion of the defending blade the attacking blade results in a successful parry against a cut.

While both blades can counter the other's typical form of attack, the balance and construction of the blades makes them awkward in doing so. (The rapier has a balance point very close to the grip to allow for accurate thrusts, and control in parries against thrusts. The katana has a balance point further down the blade, to allow for more powerful slashes, and has a larger, more robust, blade suited to defending against cuts. Also, a one-handed weapon is much easier to move quickly across the body, to parry thrusts, while a two-handed weapon can be twisted to catch cutting attacks easier. Interestingly enough, the swordmakers did not design these weapons to be optimal against each other. Silly swordmakers.)

Side note about one of my favorite variations on the traditional rapier design:

Spoiler

The Colichemarde was a later-period offshoot of the smallsword, basically, the 'real' rapier was its uncle. Also, it's the granddaddy of my own epees!
Anyway, the cool thing about Colichemardes is their fortes. They were extra wide, and much stronger than the typical thrusting weapon. By the time it was introduced, around 1680, swords had divulged into two main schools in Europe. The offspring of the rapier, used for thrusting, and sabres, used for cutting. The Colichemarde was designed to easily stop cuts from a sabre, and deliver lethal ripostes.
Oh yeah, America's original badass, George Washington, carried and used one on the battlefield.

Response to parries:
Most people, while picturing a sword fight, imagine the actions go something like this:

Attack->Parry/Block/Dodge->Reset-Repeat, or Attack->Parry/Block/Dodge->Repeats from a counter-attack.

In reality, trained fighters will continue their attack, even after it has been stopped.
With a rapier, our Musketeer has several options to deal with a parry. The most effective will be the disengage before the parry arrives on his blade. The disengage is a very, very useful tool. When faced with a parry to his thrust, the Musketeer will make a small circular action with his wrist. This action will take his blade around the defending blade. Generally this action can be best described as drawing a 'c' or a 'v' with the tip of the weapon, and often results in complete avoidance of the parry.

In depth discussion of disengages:

Spoiler

The motion of the disengage either, in the case of the 'c' keeps ahead of a circular parry (where the other blade 'rolls' to push the thrust away) or for the 'v' bobs under a lateral parry (Where the blade is moving in a straight line to directly push the thrust off-line.) The thrust continues moving forward during the disengage, and optimally strikes the now defenseless target. When successful, this leaves the surprised and confused target with a brand-new, shiny, metal, limb in a painful place. However, if the parrying combatant is quick enough in the brainpan, or accustomed to dealing with disengages, he may be able to execute a parry in the opposite direction with enough time to still deflect the thrust. This is far from a guarantee of success. Even if the defender is quick enough, the attacker may disengage again. This process can be repeated several times, while the defender continually backs away from the oncoming attacker. The danger of the disengage in a real combat scenario is if the defender doesn't realize that he lacks control of the attacker's blade. In this scenario, he may launch a riposte or counter attack anyway. He will most likely be struck by the thrust before his attack arrives, but will likely land his own attack unless quick action is taken by the original attacker, which will usually upset both attacks, resulting in either no damage, or light wounding. On occasion, however, a disengage may lead to swords sticking out of both combatants.
Note about mutual wounding:

Spoiler

Contrary to popular belief, most European duels in the late-period were not to the death. They were fought to first blood, which lead to an abundance of techniques among European duelists that were intended to inflict wounds on their opponent while leaving the attacker relatively safe. (Examples include a focus on the forearm and hand, along with the foot, as prime targets, due to their proximity to the attacker, compared to the more lethal, but also more risky deeper targets such as the under-arm, the face, or the throat.) This change to tradition came about due to the staggering number of young duelists immediately launching deep-body attacks against each other, and landing both.

The disengage is the key difference that makes rapier-type weapons so lethal. It allows the attacker to avoid the defender's parry without losing any of the strength of their attack, and deliver a fight-ending thrust quickly, and with relative ease.

For a cutting weapon, there are two optimal ways of dealing with a parry. The simplest to explain is simply to launch a new attack on the opposite side of the body. Generally, those fighting with cutting weapons are unused to a riposte that uses the attacking weapon to its own advantage, a staple of thrusting weapons. If one is launched, it may result in mutual wounding or worse. However, a self-preserving defender will wait for a more advantageous opportunity, and focus on defending against the new attack.

The remise:

Spoiler

This form of advancement of the attack, is an example of what, in fencing-speak, is called the 'remise' (Continuing with an additional attack or action after the preceding has been stopped.) This form of remise is similar to the disengage, however it generally occurs after the contact of the parry. That way, the attacker has less energy in the attack to overcome, as it has already been spent. As a consequence of it's timing, as well as the shape and size of the action, it generally allows the defending more time to react than the disengage. The attacker has to bring their blade across the entire body, while the defender has to travel a similar distance. With the disengage, the attacker makes a much smaller motion, while the defender has to travel the same distance as in the cutting remise, pushing the thrusting blade off to the other side of their body.

The second type of action the cutting attacker can use from the press (Where both blades are pressing against each other in the aftermath of the parry) is to use it to collapse into 'infighting'. In general, I define infighting distance to be any distance where a simple straight-arm extension attack (Think a standard sort of thrust) will continue past the target if it misses. There are entire schools of combat that take places entirely in this distance. (I'm looking at you, Romans.) Both the rapier, and the katana have techniques that can be used in this distance, and can be very effective.

Generally, infighting distance is achieved after an attack is made, as an action in remise. This is accomplished usually by entangling the opponent's weapon, moving it off-line, and taking at least one step towards the opponent. Initially, one might think that our Samurai holds all of the cards once this situation has occurred. After all, his weapon has a very large cutting surface, while the Musketeer has limited cutting potential, and is too close to thrust. The Samurai simply has to power his way close enough to the Musketeer that parries are no longer and option, and then the chopping to bits portion of the fight ensues.
However, even if the Musketeer cannot escape this distance, he does have a few options available to him. The simplest way to increase the available space for a thrust in infighting is simply to switch which foot is leading. This will pull the arm with the weapon further away from the target, and possibly allow enough room to thrust effectively.
Additional rapier techniques for infighting:

Spoiler

During this action, the Musketeer can go for a drawing attack. By placing the edge of his weapon on his opponent, and sliding it, he will be able to inflict a shallow cut. A true rapier will also have the edges sharpened to some degree, in addition to its point. While generally not suited to a slash, this does allow drawing attacks to be effective. Even then, it's hardly a fatal blow, but may be enough to hinder his foe. In addition to opening for a standard thrust, or a draw, the Musketeer has a few interesting contortion-based possibilities on the table, such as reaching behind his target and attacking from behind, or an attack out of Prime(pronounced "preem", imagine the Musketeer checking a wrist-watch in front of his face, blade pointed towards the ground.)

The advantage here does lie with the Samurai. The katana is a much easier weapon to use in such a small space, and parrying a cut would be next to impossible at infighting distance. The realistic best case scenario for the Musketeer is mutual wounding if he cannot escape the distance before the Samurai capitalizes.

This leads to the final point of discussion. The wounding:

A wound from a rapier is not a pleasant thing [Citation Needed]. However, a high portion of the wounds the Musketeer inflicts will be flesh wounds. Small pricks and cuts to the arms and wrists, possibly the thighs or lower legs are easy to land with low risk of immediate reprisals. Here, the only true risk is a lucky strike on an artery or tendon. For a lethal wound, the Musketeer's ideal target would likely by the underarm. If his rapier can slide in under the arm, it will not be impeded by ribs, and have a clear shot through the lungs and heart of his target, resulting in almost immediate death. Alternatively, the neck and head are also excellent targets for almost any weapon when attempting to kill or incapacitate.
However, the target presented by our Samurai is different than that of our Musketeer. With the one-handed stance, the underarm is a severe weakness for our Musketeer, and so he will attempt to attack his target there. However, a thrust through the body cavity entering there will be difficult indeed. Our Samurai has a much more square stance, which does open up some non-standard targets for our Musketeer. He can now more securely attack the chest, without fear of his attack glancing off and sliding along the low-angle surface presented by a standard rapier stance. This allows a direct avenue to vital organs, including the heart, lungs, the throat, and the slow death of a gut wound.

A wound from a katana will likely have a higher chance to incapacitate than a rapier wound. Our Samurai has the real possibility of severing limbs or cutting them deep enough to achieve the same real effects. Most of the wounds he inflicts will be of a more severe nature than our Musketeer, but his natural targets are slightly harder to hit. Ideally, he would attack vertically against the neck or shoulder, and cut deep into the torso. This becomes significantly harder when the Musketeer is less than square to our Samurai. Also, the Musketeer's sword arm is actually a surprisingly difficult target to hit with the sort of vertical chops the katana excels at. Most of our Samurai's attacks will have to be done once changing the starting dynamic.
If the Samurai can step off to the side, then he can provide for lethal strikes. The Musketeer's body opens up, and can be easily hit.

And he we come to the crux of the matter. Neither style of combat is ideally suited to countering the other. Both have severe flaws. The Samurai will be much less able to parry thrusts. The Musketeer will be very vulnerable once the Samurai closes the distance to infighting.
In conclusion, this fight will likely be very short. Unable to provide reliable effective defenses against each other?s attacks, it simply comes down to who slips up first. The fact that the Musketeer can attack at a greater range will weigh heavily in his favor, all but guaranteeing the first blow to him. His ability to easily continue the attack with disengages also gives him another advantage, allowing him to further capitalize on his ability to attack first. The Samurai must break the Musketeer's initiative and take control if he is going to win the fight.
TL;DR
Advantage: Musketeer
-
Quick little edit, since the conversation carried on in the three hours it took to write this. Yay me.
While I do put the advantage with our Musketeer, it's there by a small margin. Somewhere in the 60/40% range. Just clearing that up.
Also, can I say how great I find it that I can have a professional opinion about stuff like this?
-

 

[ecoho]

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

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

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

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

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

got to go with katana my friend as ive seen this fight and that's who won the best of five match.

let me clarify, I watched a kendo teacher and a fencing teacher go at it in a best of five match and the kendo teacher avoided most of the fencing teachers thrusts by using the standard side step and deflect maneuver after seen his opponent thrust about three times the kendo teacher counter attacked every time he was trusteed at allowing him to score "kills" while only taking grazing blows. It was a fun match to watch and if I can ever track down the video one of my classmates made ill try to upload it here but that pretty much settled that debate for me.

 

[chainer1216]

so, as someone who's studied Aikiken and Fiore i feel the need to wade in. for the purpose of this, i'm assumeing two people, no armor, no other weapons, strickly rapier user Vs Katana user.

rapier: long, pointy, one handed.

katana: long, just not AS long, slashy, either one or two handed.

so one of the biggest things i see people talk about here, and in many other places, they say Rapiers are ONLY for thrusting, and katana are ONLY slashing, which is just dumb, both have sharp edges and both have sharp points, each was just better at one than the other.

now the rapier has a significant amount of extra reach, but its main form of attack has a very small "hit" area, meaning its relatively easy to move out of the way or move it out of the way, especially since its one handed, there are stories, and i can back this up with personal experience, of people parrying a rapier thrust with a bare hand. Katana on the other had has a much larger hit area and is two handed, a person with a rapier won't be parrying or blocking a slash from one of them. but that comes with downsides, 2 hands means you need to get the rest of you're body closer to the enemy in order to hit.

anyway, in my personal experience both have strengths and flaws, but in the end its all about distance control, if the katana wielder can avoid the first strike and then move within the rapier users reach, katana wins, but if the rapier user keeps the katana user at a distance, he wins. in terms of effectiveness they are equal. personally i prefer the katana simply because it offers more options (one or two handed, slash and thrust) compared to the rapier(one handed only, thrust and drawing cut).

also about Lindy Beige, as much as i love his video's he's clearly a member of the group that hates Asian things simply because there's a group who love Asian things, i run into them all the time with the Fiore stuff.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

-snip
-

That was an awesome read, thanks for such a detailed post!

It's great when people with experience give properly detailed posts like that, otherwise it's just us internet warriors taking blind stabs at the subject with whatever Wikipedia has to say on the matter.

Someone else mentioned the Katana would have better control and more speed, due to the Rapier being one handed and the Katana being 2 handed, in your opinion how big a difference is there, and would this have a noticable effect on the fight?

 

[Vausch]

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.

I'm gonna guess you haven't used a katana before, have you?

The katana is actually a very dangerous thrusting weapon as well due to its curve. Going inward it slices at an angle and cuts much more than you'd expect from one strike. It's also common practice to deflect a weapon away. Rapier are very thin blades and while they would likely give the user more reach, the stance one uses with one would also make it easy to deflect or move to go in for a kill. The light weight of the rapier though does give more control and could lead to a retaliating strike but by then the katana wielder would likely have advanced into the range where the rapier is virtually useless.

And with that, I suggest we find some people that are practised in fencing to go up against someone versed in Kenjutsu or Kempo. Find this out for real.

 

[ColonelHopper]

-snip
-

That was an awesome read, thanks for such a detailed post!

***

Someone else mentioned the Katana would have better control and more speed, due to the Rapier being one handed and the Katana being 2 handed, in your opinion how big a difference is there, and would this have a noticable effect on the fight?

First, thank you, I poured tons of time and effort into that one, so it's nice to see that someone actually read it.

Now, about the actual point here. Using two hands does provide superior control during a cut or slash compared to one. But, adding a hand doesn't really significantly change the amount of speed you have, though it does deliver more force on impact. The problem comes primarily in defense. It is very, very difficult to parry a thrust with two hands on a sword, the available range of motion that you have becomes much smaller, compared to just using one hand. You can only place blade in areas that both your hands can reach. Go ahead and try it out. All you really need is something like the size of a ruler that you can put both your hands on. Hold it like you would a sword with two hands, and move it around in front of you, figure out how far you can reach. Then try it with just one hand. That aside, the motions you have to make to parry most thrusts are of the circular variety, where you move you blade in a circular fashion part way around the thrusting blade. This action is much easier with a one handed grip.
Also, like I mentioned in my mammoth post, there's the disadvantage of reach with a two-handed weapon. If you're not familiar with a fencing lunge, it might not be so easy to picture.
Here's what that looks like:

Spoiler

Let's you go quite a ways. Even if he is a foilist...

 

[Lyri]

Honour bound duels were already widespread in the time of the broadsword (and considerably earlier too), rapiers came into existence as plate armour became practically impenetrable to hacking weapons so it is a logical evolution of warfare to use stabbing weapons which can penetrate plate. Rapiers weren't strictly a fencing/dueling weapon, they were a backup weapon for people using primitive handguns which could take a minute to reload

You're talking about Estocs, which were used to puncture plate.

They are not rapiers.

 

[Wyes]

snip

Just like to point out that 34" is absurdly short for a rapier - typical length is closer to 40", and for comparison the length of my backsword blade is 34". Shorter is usually better than longer, but that's quite extreme.

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.

Europeans had access to much better quality steel than the Japanese, so it is very unlikely that the katana would cleave a rapier in two. Katanas were never used that way.

and in the hands of an expert that trained with it it is way more deadly than any sword could ever be.

I would very much disagree with that claim. All weapons are contextual. A skilled longswordsman or backswordsman could defeat an equally skilled rapier practitioner, and vice versa.

Links to arma.org and Lindy Beige?
I'M SO PROUD OF YOU GUYS!

Unfortunately as far as HEMA goes, ARMA does not have the greatest reputation. Which is not to say that everything they do is bad, they do plenty of good stuff, but the main reason they're so popular is simply because they have so much stuff out there.

The katana could snap a rapier rather easily, hence why rapiers were made as dueling weapons instead of combat weapons. A rapier will be wrecked by almost any type of sword. Yes it has the reach at first, but once it bends or breaks it becomes significantly less useful. Another huge factor is the skill of the wielders.

Rapiers are not nearly as fragile as you think. By comparison the katana is more fragile than most people think.

Now I know that you're never supposed to block an attack edge to edge with a sword...

Just like to point out that this is most definitely false. The vast majority of historical manuals describe parrying with the edge (for specific examples see George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence or the Highland Broadsword manuals by Taylor or Page). There are definitely flat parries, but they are very much situational and require a different grip than the standard cutting grip, typically.

As someone actually trained in the proper use and techniques of the katana, and familiar with the techniques and design of rapiers, I can tell you the katana wins this EASILY.

The katana is essentially a peerless melee weapon just in general, but the rapier also suffers from numerous glaring weaknesses.

Assuming two opponents of equal skill, the katana's wielder has a massive advantage of speed, control, power, versatility, and even quality, essentially leaving only reach as an advantage to the rapier. ...an advantage which exacerbates the rapier's disadvantage in control.

If you think that the katana is a peerless melee weapon, then you probably don't understand fighting all that well.
For example, match up the katana against the English quarterstaff. Match up the katana against a Halberd. Match up the katana with an equally skilled person wielding a longsword. And so on.
As for the 'quality' of the weapons - European weapons were typically made with higher quality steel. The forging techniques used to make the katana were basically damage control for the poor quality iron ore they had. The katana is more fragile, for example, because its edge can chip off and if it bends it stays bent (it is not made of spring steel, like the rapier).
This is not to say that the katana was not a fantastic weapon in the context it was used in - of course it was, but it's silly to say it's a peerless melee weapon.
Also the second video you post is a really terrible video done by somebody who does not understand how to use either weapon, or the context they were used in.

Rapier fencing isn't nearly as fast or mobile as most people in this thread seem to believe. These things aren't sport foils, they tend to be heavier than a traditional katana. A good example of the speed that can be expected of a rapier is showcased rather well here:
As you can see, it's no faster or more mobile than a kendo match. They have a lot in common, in fact.

Nice to see somebody post a WMAW video! They showcase some of the best HEMA practitioners around.

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.

Just like to point out that two handed weapons are faster than one handed weapons. More leverage => more speed.
However, speed is not the be all and end all of fencing, very far from it. In fact, a common mistake novices make is trying to swing as fast as possible, rather than at the correct speed. This gets them killed a lot.

Response to parries:
Most people, while picturing a sword fight, imagine the actions go something like this:

Attack->Parry/Block/Dodge->Reset-Repeat, or Attack->Parry/Block/Dodge->Repeats from a counter-attack.

In reality, trained fighters will continue their attack, even after it has been stopped.

Just like to point out that this isn't strictly true. While certain styles do like to close in with an attack and continue closing in (e.g. Germans), this isn't true of say the English or Italian fencers, who very much like to come in with an attack and then move out of distance again (be it by passing backwards, sideways, or continuing past their opponent). This is because staying in distance of your opponent is extremely dangerous unless you successfully come to grips (which is much harder than people think).

Someone else mentioned the Katana would have better control and more speed, due to the Rapier being one handed and the Katana being 2 handed, in your opinion how big a difference is there, and would this have a noticable effect on the fight?

Having two hands on a weapon makes a significant difference in leverage and speed. Two handed weapons are very quick and very powerful. However, one handed weapons have other advantages - in particular reach, and their actions are less constrained (sword is linked to one ball joint - the shoulder, rather than two).



As for general comments I'd like to make;

As always, this depends entirely on skill. Neither weapon has a clear advantage.
If the swordsman with the katana knows what they're doing, they'll make narrow space on their opponents blade and close in with downright blows (yes, this does work, and is explicitly described by George Silver), until they can either cut with impunity or come to grips.
However, if the swordsman with the rapier is any good they also know that the katana-wielder has to close in past the point, and will go to lengths to avoid this, be it with footwork or launching ripostes etc.

So, it depends entirely upon the skill of the swordsman.

 

[Wyes]

Using two hands does provide superior control during a cut or slash compared to one. But, adding a hand doesn't really significantly change the amount of speed you have, though it does deliver more force on impact. The problem comes primarily in defense. It is very, very difficult to parry a thrust with two hands on a sword, the available range of motion that you have becomes much smaller, compared to just using one hand. You can only place blade in areas that both your hands can reach. Go ahead and try it out.

Just like to point out that having two hands on the weapon does lead to having more speed available to you. Longswords are indeed very quick weapons, compared to their one handed counterparts.

I also have to disagree with you about parrying a thrust with a two handed weapon - it is not any more difficult than doing so with a one handed weapon, or at least not noticeably so in my experience. There is a lot of thrusting in longsword systems, so they have to be able to deal with thrusts.

 

[ColonelHopper]

snip

Just like to point out that having two hands on the weapon does lead to having more speed available to you. Longswords are indeed very quick weapons, compared to their one handed counterparts.

I also have to disagree with you about parrying a thrust with a two handed weapon - it is not any more difficult than doing so with a one handed weapon, or at least not noticeably so in my experience. There is a lot of thrusting in longsword systems, so they have to be able to deal with thrusts.

Okay, I'll give you in the cut that a two-handed weapon can have a speed advantage. However, compared to a rapier-type weapon, it's still slower in transitioning between attacks.
As for the parrying of a thrust, the motion for a proper parry with rapier systems is generally very, very small. With a properly aligned stance, thrusts to the full body can be covered with almost entirely with just a combination of a high line circular parry, and a low line circular parry. Lateral parries with a rapier are much more rare.

In addition, the point I made earlier about how 'trained fighters' (I should have used less general phrasing) will continue in the remise was to bring up the point of the disengage. While there are schools of European fencing that do not favor such techniques, acting in the remise is still a very important part of rapier combat, especially in the contemporary expressions of the tradition.

 

[spartan231490]

I mean, I would love to see you block a katana strike with a rapier, pretty sure the rapier would break. Also, the Rapier has reach yes, and a thrust can be hard to counter, but I think the additional speed from a two-handed grip and the shorter sword would more than make up for both. To be fair, I think the two are close in a dual. If you lined up 100 pairs, I think about half of the katana wielders would recieve a fatal stab wound. However, since a rapier would have a lot of trouble countering a katana, I suspect all of the rapier wielders would recieve fatal wounds even the ones that got the first strike. It's not like the movies, where someone gets stabbed and just drops.

However, the bigger question with a sword isn't which would win in a dual, but which could handle more circumstances, and I don't think the rapier is too limited in it's defensive use to hold up. Also, there's a reason the rapier wasn't used until the 16th and 17th centuries. It's a great weapon for duels of honor between two unarmored men using rapiers. It has a lot of weaknesses on a battlefield.

 

[Abomination]

I mean, I would love to see you block a katana strike with a rapier

But that's the thing, a person proficient with a rapier wouldn't try to block a strike... they'd parry it.

And yes there's a difference.

They would also try and stay outside of their opponents range so they would be more likely to dodge than even consider needing to parry, let alone block.

 

[Wyes]

snip

I have learned a handful of systems, including rapier, longsword and broadsword. It has always been my experience that the longsword has been overall the quickest weapon, in the cut and in the transitioning between guards (and thus potential attacks), although possibly not in the thrust (mostly because the rapier thrust is driven by an explosive lunge which gives it incredible speed and range). Assuming by transition between attacks you mean something akin to switching targets mid-attack the rapier is possibly slightly faster, because this is driven by a small movement in the wrist. That does make rapiers slightly more suited to disengages and feints, although such actions still work quite well with a longsword (including in the thrust). I will admit however that I am better at longsword than at rapier.

As for parrying thrusts - it is true that parrying a thrust with a rapier requires a smaller movement than parrying a thrust with the longsword, although personally I found that to require more skill than doing so with the longsword. Again, I am better at longsword than at rapier. As an aside, Giganti doesn't seem to use circular parries much (if you are referring to what I think you are), preferring instead to parry by creating a ramp with the extension of the tip to bring the thrust onto the forte.

As for the remise - I don't think I'm 100% clear on what you're describing because it's not terminology I've used in rapier, so forgive me if I make some error. To me it sounds like acting in the remise is an action similar to a follow up/continuing attack after the parry has made contact? That was something I saw in Giganti, but I think the point is that it takes place in a slightly extended single fencing time, rather than two or more fencing times. My main point was that one should try to avoid spending two or more fencing times in distance (although I wanted to avoid that terminology), because that's how you get riposted. This is a common mistake (which is why I brought it up, not so much because I thought it was a mistake you were making but because it is a mistake many other people do), including with rapiers where they'll stand in distance of each other and rely entirely on speed and reflexes, rather than on skill and technique.

 

[ColonelHopper]

snip

Snip

By transition between attacks I do mean disengages, and changes in target. As for being fastest in thrust, well, that is kinda what the rapier is all about. It doesn't really matter how fast you are in the cut with a thrusting weapon.
For the parrying, yes, rapier parries are difficult to master. You have a very small window of time, and you're parrying a small target moving very quickly. However, paired with proper footwork, parries are very effective.
A circular parry is any parry where the motion of the tip of the weapon describes a circular shape. For instance, if parrying a thrust to the arm, a rapier fighter may dip their blade under, bring it up over, and push the attacking blade outside. Making a shape like a 'c' with the blade.
The remise is any action continuing on from once the initial action has been halted, for instance if you have been parried.
However, when I first raise the remise, it's actually for the katana, where a second attack can be launched from a parried attack. However, the remise is more than actions after a parry. If your opponent backs slightly out of distance, an additional forward motion to continue the thrust is an action in the remise. Another example often occurs in the fleche, where the initial attack is parried, or misses, any additional actions are now in the remise. It's a pretty big category.
What I was actually talking about when the attacker stays in distance after the initial phase of the attack is the disengage. However, in reality, it's not so much staying in distance after the attack as continuing the attack around the first attempt to stop it. If you're curious about what exactly that entails, I described it in-depth in my first post. The phrasing around my handy little diagram, and the diagram itself, was targeted towards the layperson, not combat practitioners.
Now, as much as I respect your input on European longsword techniques, they are quite a bit different than katana techniques. European longswords had to deal with the competing schools of rapier combat, whereas the katana techniques for dealing with thrusts are fairly restrictive, based on the climate of swordfighting when they were developed, and the weapons they were dealing with.

 

[Storm Dragon]

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

Would someone wielding a rapier be wearing heavy plate armor, though? It seems unlikely, since rapiers are more about speed and agility.

 

[Ravinoff]

Neither. Katanas are hilariously overrated for a sword made of iron that was inferior to the steels used in India over a thousand years earlier (see: Wootz/Damascus steel). A rapier is an oversized knitting needle used mostly for formal duels between aristocrats. If you want a one-handed sword, the Vikings made some excellent blades, while a zweihander or claymore will do very well as a two-handed sword (zweihander literally means two-hander). Longswords and bastard swords also made a great name for themselves in the Medieval and Crusades eras.

You know what beats any of the above, though? A polearm like a halberd or a glaive. Swords take a lot of training, and in warfare were most often used by noblemen. The infantry were given pikes and pole-axes, and they tended to be brutally effective with them, particularly against cavalry.

 

[spartan231490]

I mean, I would love to see you block a katana strike with a rapier

But that's the thing, a person proficient with a rapier wouldn't try to block a strike... they'd parry it.

And yes there's a difference.

They would also try and stay outside of their opponents range so they would be more likely to dodge than even consider needing to parry, let alone block.

I'd like to see you parry one too, there is a lot of force in a two-handed strike, not to mention both hands to keep the blade on target. The range thing has some merit, but you're not going to be able to retreat faster than a guy who know's he's dying can run, you can't backstep as fast as a person with no reason to defend can charge. You could maybe sidestep, but assuming you were already at dueling range, you probably couldn't get wide enough to avoid the counter attack.

 

[Wyes]

snip

I believe we've reached a point where we're more or less in agreement.
I can't say I (yet) know much about the use of the katana, other than what I've seen from videos of kenjutsu practitioners, so I'm willing to take your word for it.

I'd like to see you parry one too, there is a lot of force in a two-handed strike, not to mention both hands to keep the blade on target. The range thing has some merit, but you're not going to be able to retreat faster than a guy who know's he's dying can run, you can't backstep as fast as a person with no reason to defend can charge. You could maybe sidestep, but assuming you were already at dueling range, you probably couldn't get wide enough to avoid the counter attack.

Parries can be done in such a manner that the weapon does not take the brunt of the force and it forces the weapon off line. This includes really extreme examples like smallsword vs pole axe. They're not as hard as they sound.

As for side stepping - you'd possibly be surprised at how easy it is to step out of distance of attacks. The distance of an effective attack also happens to coincide roughly with the edge of the reach of the sword.