Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison
- Thread starter demoman_chaos
- Start date
If a Rapier can defend against a poleaxe, it can defend against a Katana. I can't think of a single strike that either weapon can preform that can't be either blocked or parried.zumbledum said:
As with every weapon debate, this will always come down to the skill of the user, as well as a little luck.
I believe your point has already been addressed and I don't need to address it further. Nice to see that you haven't read through the thread though.Whatislove said:
It certainly very interesting to see such differences. If you don't mind me asking, what school(s) are you associated with, and what country are you based in?Tuxedoman said:
But yes, I believe we can definitely say you cannot cut through a rapier with a katana, or armour for that matter.
They were able to snap a rapier in half in 1 swing using a katana on mythbusters, the swing pushed the rapier beyond it's limits (about 90 degrees) and it snapped when it bounced back.GrimTuesday said:
Obviously you are not going to get these perfect conditions on the battlefield but, just like I was told that I was overestimating the durability of a Katana, I think a lot of people in this thread are overestimating the durability of rapier.
Yes it can bend but it is ~pure steel~ which is prone to shattering.
You've missed the point, as it were.GabeZhul said:
None of that has to do with the rapier clashing blades willingly.
That's the samurai's disarm attack and the huge problem it provides to a one-handed weapon opponent.
What perhaps isn't immediately obvious to those who haven't been trained with one is that a katana can actually perform almost exactly as a rapier. That's one of the reasons the katana is so highly regarded.
Indeed, Miyamoto Musashi's Niten Ichi-ryū school/style of combat wields the samurai daisho as a fencer would wield his weapons - with the katana functioning as a rapier and the wakizashi functioning as a main-gauche.
The big difference here being that the daisho are both stabbing AND slashing weapons.
Accordingly, a samurai is trained to deal with very flexible and incredibly fast opponents - dealing with slashes and stabs in rapid succession as opportunities present themselves. There are no katana arts focused on "comparatively slow" attacks. Samurai spear attacks are simply a whole separate problem that no one in their right mind would want to face with any sword. (It's not coincidental that one of history's most famous samurai (Honda Tadakatsu) and his spear are together renowned for being undefeatable.)
In fact, katana training genuinely includes training in the use of the katana as a shield against projectiles. In the samurai scheme of things, a rapier lunge is comparatively slow.
Granted, you can assume this guy to be exceptional since he's slicing tiny BB's instead of blocking arrows, but then his life also doesn't depend on his abilities...
The fencer has no edge here.
Where samurai, katanas, and ninja are concerned all those stupid and ridiculous anime tropes actually have an unbelievably solid basis for once.
The image of the samurai as a lightning fast warrior of unbelievable skill, carrying a blade able to cut several people in half with a single cut...is accurate.
There are exceptional people, such as the chap in the video, who can do these things. I think it would be foolish to assume that the average samurai was of the same competence.Ieyke said:
The same is true of the European fencers. There were exceptional cases of people who could do incredible things, and there was the average fencer.
The katana however cannot be wielded in the same manner as the rapier for a number of reasons however - primarily, katanas are generally not only heavy overall, but tip heavy, because they're designed primarily as slicing weapons (which is not to say they can't thrust). This is true of the museum pieces.
Another reason the katana cannot be wielded in the same manner as a rapier is because with a rapier, you have a quillion to wrap your finger over, granting you far greater control over the weapon, because you have another lever to use (the quillion). The katana does not have this.
This is not to say that the rapier is a better weapon, they simply function in different ways.
EDIT: Also I do not for a second believe that a katana could slice several people in half in a single cut, especially if they were wearing armour (if it didn't work, why wear it?). That is a feat difficult to achieve with any sword, including swords far more infamous for their cutting power than the katana, such as the Indian tulwar.
I remember watching a sparring match between a fencer and a kendo practitioner. It looked roughly even, as kendo doesn't lack for footwork and their weapon is more easily able to parry a rapier than a rapier can parry a katana.
Actually, both swords weigh almost exactly the same.Wyes said:
You're right that the rapier does contain more of the weight towards the hilt while the katana has it spread along the blade.
A quillon grip only adds the control to the rapier that is already inherent to the katana's grip shape (they're not circular).
I'll grant you that a rapier is the weapon better suited to what a rapier does, but the difference between it and a katana in that role aren't huge.
My point is that the katana can play the rapier's game, but not vice versa.
As with all things, over-specialization becomes a weakness against those flexible enough to exploit the limitations that come with it.
A rapier is at least not heavier than a longsword, and a longsword typically weighs slightly less to the same weight as a katana, while being significantly longer (on average, of course).Ieyke said:
And your argument doesn't make sense about the quillion - the quillion adds the ability to apply torque perpendicularly to the grip, which is not present in the katana. The rapier's grip is also not circular. In fact, I've never encountered any type of sword with a circular grip, because the human hand isn't circular.
The katana may be able to play the rapier's game, but then so can the longsword, which the rapier fencer had to know how to deal with anyway. There are differences in technique between the katana and the longsword, but the longsword is widely considered to be more versatile (two edges, more robust, capable of binding with quillions, etc.).
It is also worth noting that, despite people's perceptions, the rapier can cut, albeit not as well as the longsword, broadsword or katana (or sabre and so on). One simply has to look at rapier according to Swetnam to see that he quite likes the cut with a rapier, and he was using them.
However, I do agree that the more versatile weapon has more opportunities to win. But, as always, it comes down to the skill of the person wielding the weapon, and there is no reason to believe that the samurai should be inherently superior in skill to the rapier fencer.
Then you would find yourself quite surprised, as that's exactly the system by which katana were rated - the number of people the sword could cleave in a single swing.Wyes said:
Not armored, no. Of course not. Katana's can barely cut through a single layer of steel plate. they'd never be able to cleave wholly through a decently armored opponent (unless it's leather maybe, since that appears to be no problem).
Freshly forged katana were tested on criminals and corpses to establish how many bodies the blade would cleave, with exceptional blades reaching as high as 4 or more.
There are only a couple types of sword more infamous for their cutting power, and the tulwar and Romanian kilij are pretty much the only ones I can think of. Again, these blades are incredible cleaving weapons, but they're not nearly as versatile as a katana is.
(FTR, the kilij is NUTS)
I did a little googling and sure enough, there are at least a handful of occasions where the blades were tested by cutting through corpses. As expected however, they were unarmoured and one expects braced for the impact. Under those conditions, it is at least feasible to slice through several bodies. However, more googling suggests that the cutting power of the katana is vastly exaggerated compared to other swords, including European ones.Ieyke said:
Also I do not expect a katana to be able to slice through steel armour (that chap in the video cuts through sheet metal that's only 0.4mm thick, as opposed to the ~1.6mm plate armour, as somebody has stated above, and he had access to the edge of the sheet no less), that's what armour is for.
It is important to remember that the katana is just a sword, like any other. There are other similar swords as versatile that are better in some ways, and worse in others. From a European perspective, the katana is more or less just a poorly forged (from the perspective of spring steels that they were using) two handed sabre.
Also I agree that the kilij is pretty crazy.
EDIT: Also, leather armour is harder than you might expect to cut through. Again, if it didn't work, why wear it? My school's done some test cutting with a leather vambrace over a tatami mat (the usual stuff), and the blade cut through but only barely. It only got maybe an inch and a half into the mat.
Oh... wait... you are one of "those" guys, aren't you..?Ieyke said:
*sigh*
I'm out. I can see that arguing with you will only lead to a shitstorm in the long run, so let's tackle a different point that came up: Katanas cutting several people.
First off, we all have to understand something: all those legendary swords cutting through up to 4 people? Any western sword can do the same courtesy of three simple factors:
-The cuts were done in a controlled environment. The bodies were neatly stacked up upon each other so that they would be easy to cut and the samurai could take a large lumberjack swing, something that on the battlefield would have been impractical at best and plain suicide at worst.
-The bodies wore no armor, not even rudimentary protection even peasant spearmen could afford. Also, said bodies were starved criminals (alive or dead) with little to no body fat and/or muscles to impede the blade's path, thus making the cut even easier.
-Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all that hard to cut through a body horizontally at the waist. The abdominal muscles and the guts pose little resistance, while the spine can be severed with relative ease if the blade happens to hit right between the vertebrae.
The crux of the matter is that that whole "katanas can cut multiple people in half" thing was, and still is, just a catchy marketing stunt, and as such every such occasion when a blade was "tested" this way was rigged for maximum effect so that the sword would sell better and so that the smith's fame would increase so that that they could sell more swords.
The only reason why we don't have similar publicity stunts on the other parts of the world is because Japan, unlike them, had a closed economy and a very strong sense of tradition that pretty much froze the development of the katana for several centuries, so while a European smith might have gained fame by perfecting a new method of smithing or making a new style of blade, the best the Japanese smith could hope for was to make a sword just like everyone else but slightly lighter/sharper/better balanced. The only way to ensure people would get their swords from them instead of the competition, who was making practically identical swords, was marketing, and thus the legend of the "awesome cutting power of the awesome katanas of awesome" was born.
Stabbing blade vs slicing blade (usually also compared with something like a broadsword or hacking blade).
I've always enjoyed these discussions. I forged more than a few of these during my college days when I was working as a professional blacksmith to make ends meet (primarily a bladesmith).
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that both wielders are equally well suited to their weapon of choice (so none of this agility discussion which takes into account the ability of the wielder).
Now, small correction to the OP. Katanas aren't excellent cutters, they are excellent slicers. This is important to note as their strength lies in dragging the edge of the blade against the target rather than hacking or stabbing, though both are technically possible. The need to start somewhere lower on the blade to drag the razor means that the length of the katana is further limited. They are absolutely deadly close up or undefended, but it's the getting there requires skill.
Another but less small correction, Rapier is an ambiguous term. Some had blades for cutting, some double blades, some none, various widths and whatnot. You could just as easily say a long sword in Germany and get what they call a rapier. Anything but a particularly broad blade or double hilt for two hands would fall in the category. So when you say "a rapier just won't break", there's no reference for the type of blade you're talking about, width or otherwise. Some would absolutely warp or break if brought in contact with a thicker blade, just like any blade would. Even katanas which are traditionally harder can shatter against other blades. That also depends on the hardness of the blade's steel which again, depends entirely on the type of rapier. It also depends on where the blade is struck, there are different regions of a rapier according to the sword school you ask and some regions stand up to force better than others. Really, it's like you asked if "swords" have an advantage over katanas. Some do, some don't. Saying that they had to stand up against broadswords doesn't really tell us that they didn't break or warp. It also isn't entirely accurate. The type of rapier you're discussing was designed for civilian warfare and wouldn't have gone up against a broadsword with any frequency. Though that type also usually isn't hardened steel except perhaps at the tip. The harder the steel, the higher the likelihood of breaking when impacted. I've seen some rapiers where only the tip is particularly hardened while the rest is oven-heat treated in a way to maximize strength without easily shatering hardness. Striking the tip would shatter it though in that kind of smithing practice.
Let me tell you something about real rapiers. They are well documented to have broken regularly in battle, not just against other blades but even in bodies. It's silly that people are still saying they wouldn't break regardless. They absolutely would. It's just that a master rapier wielder would block and parry blows from the part of the blade closer to the hilt and would avoid performing heavy edge strikes from the tip. Those elaborate hand guards aren't just to fend off the tips of blades, it's because the swordsman is SUPPOSED to parry blades near the hand so the likelihood of a blade hitting the hand was much higher. But a blade strike near the tip? Could absolutely break it. This, again, is regarding the type of rapier you're discussing with a narrow blade narrowing considerably by the tip to make the ideal stabbing point. Because a katana is a much higher hardness though, it would be far more likely for a katana to shatter another katana than a rapier properly parrying near the hilt. Some other types of "rapiers" may not have that weakness at all but wouldn't be what you'd likely call a rapier.
Because a rapier (as you seem to be defining it) is really only good for stabbing, I consider it to be a sort of hand spear. All polearms have an inherent advantage and while this isn't technically a polearm, it does have some of the advantages of one while losing out on the advantages of mass behind actual polearms that causes the damage you aren't considering in the discussion. Reach generally wins out where skill is out there.
If we include damage potential, which is a realistic parameter to consider, the katana would fare a lot better. But as far as just hitting the target, the rapier wins handily. So by your conditions, the rapier would hit first. By the conditions of battle though, it is one of those blades that people often survive getting struck by while most other blades aren't as easy to walk away from a blow.
I've always enjoyed these discussions. I forged more than a few of these during my college days when I was working as a professional blacksmith to make ends meet (primarily a bladesmith).
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that both wielders are equally well suited to their weapon of choice (so none of this agility discussion which takes into account the ability of the wielder).
Now, small correction to the OP. Katanas aren't excellent cutters, they are excellent slicers. This is important to note as their strength lies in dragging the edge of the blade against the target rather than hacking or stabbing, though both are technically possible. The need to start somewhere lower on the blade to drag the razor means that the length of the katana is further limited. They are absolutely deadly close up or undefended, but it's the getting there requires skill.
Another but less small correction, Rapier is an ambiguous term. Some had blades for cutting, some double blades, some none, various widths and whatnot. You could just as easily say a long sword in Germany and get what they call a rapier. Anything but a particularly broad blade or double hilt for two hands would fall in the category. So when you say "a rapier just won't break", there's no reference for the type of blade you're talking about, width or otherwise. Some would absolutely warp or break if brought in contact with a thicker blade, just like any blade would. Even katanas which are traditionally harder can shatter against other blades. That also depends on the hardness of the blade's steel which again, depends entirely on the type of rapier. It also depends on where the blade is struck, there are different regions of a rapier according to the sword school you ask and some regions stand up to force better than others. Really, it's like you asked if "swords" have an advantage over katanas. Some do, some don't. Saying that they had to stand up against broadswords doesn't really tell us that they didn't break or warp. It also isn't entirely accurate. The type of rapier you're discussing was designed for civilian warfare and wouldn't have gone up against a broadsword with any frequency. Though that type also usually isn't hardened steel except perhaps at the tip. The harder the steel, the higher the likelihood of breaking when impacted. I've seen some rapiers where only the tip is particularly hardened while the rest is oven-heat treated in a way to maximize strength without easily shatering hardness. Striking the tip would shatter it though in that kind of smithing practice.
Let me tell you something about real rapiers. They are well documented to have broken regularly in battle, not just against other blades but even in bodies. It's silly that people are still saying they wouldn't break regardless. They absolutely would. It's just that a master rapier wielder would block and parry blows from the part of the blade closer to the hilt and would avoid performing heavy edge strikes from the tip. Those elaborate hand guards aren't just to fend off the tips of blades, it's because the swordsman is SUPPOSED to parry blades near the hand so the likelihood of a blade hitting the hand was much higher. But a blade strike near the tip? Could absolutely break it. This, again, is regarding the type of rapier you're discussing with a narrow blade narrowing considerably by the tip to make the ideal stabbing point. Because a katana is a much higher hardness though, it would be far more likely for a katana to shatter another katana than a rapier properly parrying near the hilt. Some other types of "rapiers" may not have that weakness at all but wouldn't be what you'd likely call a rapier.
Because a rapier (as you seem to be defining it) is really only good for stabbing, I consider it to be a sort of hand spear. All polearms have an inherent advantage and while this isn't technically a polearm, it does have some of the advantages of one while losing out on the advantages of mass behind actual polearms that causes the damage you aren't considering in the discussion. Reach generally wins out where skill is out there.
If we include damage potential, which is a realistic parameter to consider, the katana would fare a lot better. But as far as just hitting the target, the rapier wins handily. So by your conditions, the rapier would hit first. By the conditions of battle though, it is one of those blades that people often survive getting struck by while most other blades aren't as easy to walk away from a blow.
Wyes said:
One would wear the armor one could afford. It might do jack against a katana, but presumably it'd offer a measure of protection against other weapons.
The notion that a katana is poorly forged is complete nonsense. It's quite the opposite.
I can't figure out where this one comes from with people saying katanas are poorly forged and then exalting damascus steel....they're the SAME THING, except that proper katanas are engineered down to the consistency of the steel in different parts of the blade being focused to achieve specific effects in specific parts of the blade (soft spine, hard edge to make it flexible and shock absorbent like a softer material in order ensure it never break, while maintaining the razor edge only possible with a very hard material that would otherwise make for a brittle weapon).
Normal damascus steel is an even marbling of the folded materials across the whole weapon simply forged into the form of the weapon as per normal.
As with any of these comparisons, it depends of a lot of factors outside of the weapons choice. For example:
- Ability of the wielders. That is the single, most important detail. An expert rapier user can thrust into any body part, even in the chaos of a fight. An expert Katana user can hit on any angle he chooses. An beginner can barely hold the weapon after the first strike.
- Terrain. Is it an open field or an enclosed space. In an enclosed space, the rapier has the advantage, since it doesn't require much space. A katana can't swing in a small space. In an open field, its more evenly matched.
- Armor. Are they using any protection? The rapier as a weapon was not designed to pierce through a chain mail, while a Katana can pass through it with relative ease. Neither of them are fully capable of handling full armor, but a Katana can be aimed at the joints. Any light armor against them would be like wearing nothing.
- Ability of the wielders. That is the single, most important detail. An expert rapier user can thrust into any body part, even in the chaos of a fight. An expert Katana user can hit on any angle he chooses. An beginner can barely hold the weapon after the first strike.
- Terrain. Is it an open field or an enclosed space. In an enclosed space, the rapier has the advantage, since it doesn't require much space. A katana can't swing in a small space. In an open field, its more evenly matched.
- Armor. Are they using any protection? The rapier as a weapon was not designed to pierce through a chain mail, while a Katana can pass through it with relative ease. Neither of them are fully capable of handling full armor, but a Katana can be aimed at the joints. Any light armor against them would be like wearing nothing.