Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[cerebus23]

-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...

It was an awesome read thanks much for it.

You should check out miyamotos book of 5 rings, especially when he talks about if you have crossed blades you should be cutting the enemy already, and his insistence that you should be able to use a katana one handed as easily as you can 2 handed.

Some of the techniques you describe i can see in some of miyamotos teachings.

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

Also the ability to block with the katana, blocking edge to edge was never ideal and would break, chip weaken, your katana, but that soft flexible spine was great for it and allowed your blade to flex while parrying with the back or side of the blade.

Bend not break was how katanas were designed to be used. And when you cut you cut with conviction to end the fight.

Most real sword battles were brutally short affairs anyway, the clashing of swords 10 50 times stuff is pure hollywood, mucking about like that in a real battle would get you killed. Most fights were one or two passes between samurai and done. And at the highest levels between masters it was by millimeters those fights were generally decided, and over nearly instantly.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snips

Yeah, they're some of the Napier guys im pretty sure. I'd love to go to some of the big events up north, but again, I need the money for travel and whatnot.

There's clearly a bunch of people here who do martial arts with both eastern and western weapons. We should just have a big ol bout-off and get it over with

 

[demoman_chaos]

I am loving most of this discussion, a lot of really informed opinions coming though.

Spoiler: Ieyke

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.

For the love of Freyja do NOT post that piece of utter shit video of R. Lee Emery and take it as any sort of truth. The weapons used are utter rubbish, and you can clearly see in the leather test that the longsword doesn't even have a sharp edge. It is entirely blunt.

The katana in reality is a 3-4 lb sword, the rapier weighed in 2-3 so the rapier is lighter. There is no advantage in speed, as the human arm only moves so fast and 2 handing doesn't make your arm move faster. The smaller movement is the faster movement, and the rapier has smaller movements.

Spoiler: Ecoho

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 thrusted 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.

A sport fencer uses a much shorter blade with very limited attacks and even more limited range of motion. They are limited to staying on the line, thus the side-steps would be alien to him and he wouldn't be prepared to counter.
I just did some rapier play today with a friend. From what our tests showed, the rapier has a significant advantage. The reach was the biggest issue, getting inside the point was troublesome. Even just two handing my "rapier" (it is a 3/4 inch dowell cut to size and given a hilt and padded tip) gave me a much longer gap to cover than he. It was also rather difficult to parry, for by the time I recovered from knocking his tip away it was back towards me. I could really ever only get decent cuts on his arm and that was by using a longsword guard.

Spoiler: Wyes

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.

Wrong on that one mate, as the human arm can only move at a certain speed. Adding another hand won't really improve how fast your arm moves. You have more control so you can recover after the first swing, but the speed of the swing isn't related to how many hands you have on the blade. A short sword like the katana (27" is the length of a naval cutlass, many one handed European blades were near or over 44") isn't going to benefit like a poleaxe might (Where you point would apply).

Spoiler: ardias014

Um guys, you are aware the katana is also a thrusting weapon, right? n a duel it is debatable that a rapier would win, but on a battle field a rapier would be worth next to shit compared to a katana or any other blade for that matter. I would like to see someone take a rapier against a pike or yari formation and see how they fared.

Also demoman_chaos, the bow was initially the main weapon for samurai, but it didn't remain so. Also a katana is not useless against a spear wall. When confronting a spear wall you have to knock pike and spears out of the way, which a rapier cannot do, this is why weapons like the zweihander were used in pike formations in Europe.

The problem with taking a short 2 handed sabre like the katana against a spearwall isn't that there is one spear, it is that there is about 12 spears that can hit you. You parry the guy in front of you, then get stabbed by the guy 2 to his right. You get past the first spear, then the 2nd man runs you through. Spears have far more leverage in a bind, meaning you are going to have trouble pinning even just one. With the long grip, they can very quickly recover from your attempt. You really can't get past a spearwall with such a short weapon. The best defense against a spearwall is a shield or a spear of your own.

Spoiler: Callate

Well, firstly, one should note that people using katanas were more likely to also be wearing armor. Rapiers were really designed to be used by unarmored bearers against unarmored foes.

Secondly, a longer blade also makes for a longer draw time; many katana practitioners specifically trained in iaijutsu, meaning that in some situations they would be attacking while the rapier practitioner was still clearing sheath.

Thirdly, a long thrusting weapon is great when you hit your opponent from the outside; not so great if your opponent moves inside of your ready attack area with a cleaving weapon. See Rob Roy.

Some of these issues become less meaningful if the rapier user was using a main-gauche.

It should also be noted that many katana users knew one-handed as well as two-handed techniques.

I tend to favor the katana user. I do like rapiers; they're fast and elegant weapons. But if I was in a fight for my life, give me the katana.

First point is meaningless, as the issue is an unarmored duel. I won't go into the armor differences, but I will say Japanese armor isn't up to par with that of Europe.

2nd point is also meaningless. The rapier isn't slow to draw, so the difference in draw time is going to be minimal. If the "musketeer" was expecting a fight, he would have his weapon drawn long before the "Samurai" was in range for that.

3rd point is wrong, as it is easy to step backwards. Assuming the musketeer was right handed, moving so his right foot was towards the back would allow him to thrust someone within arm's reach while moving him another step out of the samurai's reach. The samurai would already have to cover 2 or 3 step's worth of distance to get close enough to strike.

Spoiler: Ieyke's later posts

-snipedy doo dah, sniety ah-

Quite laughable really I must say. You really seem keen on this idea, but it is not a correct one.
Speed- The arm moves only at a certain speed, adding another hand doesn't increase that speed. Using an weapon of the same weight one and two handed, you will see very little difference (Save for polearms for the most part). Smaller movements are faster than larger ones, and in this case the rapier has that advantage locked down. Both for parries and attacks, it requires much less movement than the katana.
Control- The longer grip does give faster recovery from cut, but the balance of the rapier allows effective movements with just the wrist. Another thing to note is that after you beat a blade (knock it aside), it becomes a race to recover. It isn't difficult to use the momentum the beat has giving to the blade to recover, simply by curving the momentum (same principle as the nunchuks or other flails).
Power- This boils down to speed, which isn't really different between 1 and 2 handed attacks. With proper technique, a one handed slash can do as much damage as a properly executed 2 handed slash. The power of any attack comes mostly from the hips, not the arms.

As for the 2nd post on this page, dear Freyja you are absolutely silly. You realize how easy it is to avoid a beat when you are expecting it right? A simple turn of the wrist and you miss completely and expose your entire body to whatever your opponent wants to do to you. As for the video, you are comparing some soft steel on a table to a tempered spring steel blade held by a person. Very very different things that simply don't correlate.

A katana as a shield against arrows? One arrow, extremely difficult to believe but theoretically plausible. A volley of arrows from a unit of archers, abso-facking-lutely not.

Another note, samurai are just humans. Some were good, some were terrible. There were just like every other warrior of all the other times, just smaller on average than most (Romans were small guys too). Those cartoons have nothing to do with reality there mate.

Spoiler: cerebus23

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kHs0tXeq9Y] video of mine shows my katana trying to stab through my butted chainmail and THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTEVAKWWvOk] is my other mail test where I try my other katana and other things against my butted mail. Note how neither katana really got a clean thrust through BUTTED mail. Historically, mail used a combo of solid and riveted rings and thus was much harder to penetrate than my butted mail (which did very well against the katana, also THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIA3anizbo0] is me testing the katana against thick leather). Plate armor can withstand the force of an English longbow at 20 feet, a bow which has the draw of about 120 lbs launching an arrow of about 3-5 lbs at well over 60 mph giving it FAR FAR FAR more punch than the katana could DREAM of mustering.

 

[Wyes]

Argh, I had written out a lengthy response and then the forum broke...

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

Most real sword battles were brutally short affairs anyway, the clashing of swords 10 50 times stuff is pure hollywood, mucking about like that in a real battle would get you killed. Most fights were one or two passes between samurai and done. And at the highest levels between masters it was by millimeters those fights were generally decided, and over nearly instantly.

The katana can and was used to thrust. But, if you thrust into plate armour with a katana, it's going to bend out of shape, and stay bent (if it doesn't just skim off). That is the disadvantage of the soft iron spine. Almost exactly the same thing is going to happen with a rapier, except unless you go nuts and bend it too far so it snaps, it'll spring back into shape (hence spring steel). Neither will penetrate the armour.

As for the length of sword fights - it's pretty variable. On battlefields yes, you're not doing to see extended sword fights. In duels? Different story, you can see anything from a few seconds up to minutes (maybe half a dozen).

There's clearly a bunch of people here who do martial arts with both eastern and western weapons. We should just have a big ol bout-off and get it over with

There it is! That's the solution!

There are a few videos out there of cross-discipline bouting, but they're usually not very good.
This is one from one of my instructors, but as you can see they're not using steel and it wasn't intended to be terribly serious.

Wrong on that one mate, as the human arm can only move at a certain speed. Adding another hand won't really improve how fast your arm moves. You have more control so you can recover after the first swing, but the speed of the swing isn't related to how many hands you have on the blade. A short sword like the katana (27" is the length of a naval cutlass, many one handed European blades were near or over 44") isn't going to benefit like a poleaxe might (Where you point would apply).

I disagree. If you want I can show you the equations, but angular velocity is directly proportional to the torque applied. Simply put, two hands => more torque (strength of two arms instead of one) => more angular velocity. This is just simple physics. This has also been my experience, having done several one handed and two handed systems. Having two hands allows you to cut, recover, and transition faster. The only thing you can't do faster is a thrust or change the direction of a thrust.
This comes down to the fact that the sword doesn't cut through the motion of the arms directly, it by using the motion of a lever, with your arms applying the torque to the lever. Two arms => (not quite) twice as much torque.

Also, 44" is way too long for your average one handed European blade - the more typical rapier length is about 40" max, with many preferring shorter blades. Typical broadsword/backsword/sidesword blade lengths are about 34-36", and longswords (not true two handers like the so-called 'zweihander') not very much longer than that (say 36"-38").

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I think in the hands of two masters, the lighter and more flexible rapier would win in a no-armor sword off 7 out of 10 times. If armor is keeping those thrusts out of the equation, give me the katana.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I disagree. If you want I can show you the equations, but angular velocity is directly proportional to the torque applied. Simply put, two hands => more torque (strength of two arms instead of one) => more angular velocity. This is just simple physics. This has also been my experience, having done several one handed and two handed systems. Having two hands allows you to cut, recover, and transition faster. The only thing you can't do faster is a thrust or change the direction of a thrust.
This comes down to the fact that the sword doesn't cut through the motion of the arms directly, it by using the motion of a lever, with your arms applying the torque to the lever. Two arms => (not quite) twice as much torque.

I've got two videos for you mate, the first being a test showing cutting power and speed with 1 and 2 handed grip as part of testing curved vs straight swords.

The 2nd is a great demonstration of katana vs longsword.

There was one that was much better I think, but it was set to private for some reason. Makes me a very sad person.

 

[Tuxedoman]

The 2nd is a great demonstration of katana vs longsword.

I was never a fan of Nylon wasters, they have absolutely no weight to them.

I have to say, the dude with the Shinai doesn't seem to know what to do when the Longsworder gets within his striking range. Could he have only done Kendo?
He just seems very static and unresponsive. Not meaning to bash Kendo, but from what I've seen of the sport you don't do a whole lot of actual fighting in it.

 

[wulfy42]

To make any comparison fair, we must first say that both weapons are made of the same material, and are created to be the appropriate length for the size of the person wielding it. Basically both weapons are custom made for the wielder, of the same material.

In such a case the Rapier would have a length advantage....and weight less....allowing for faster attacks.

The Katana could be used with one or two hands, be slower, but have a higher weight....and much a much superior slash. It's length disadvantage would be made up somewhat by it's effectiveness at very close range (a rapier needs some distance between the targets so if you get in close, the katana becomes far more effective).

Two fencers fighting with rapiers both needs to keep a respective distance to attack and thrust. A rapier user fighting a katana user HAS to keep distance to have any chance at all. If the katana user can parry and get within range of the rapier user....he is dead.

So then the question becomes.....can the Katana user either get within his optimal range, or parry an attack from the rapier user (would the rapier attack just be too fast for the katana user to parry at all?)

This is saying neither combatant is wearing any armor etc...and both are equally skilled.

Well....a rapier is faster, but the katana is still quite light...and has a broader blade to block with....and a significantly stronger force on the block. Made out of the same material the katana certainly would not damage the rapier, but...the impact might be enough to throw off the rapier users defense/retreat etc, long enough for the katana user to take advantage.

I think, over all, the battle would be over FAST. With the rapier user only having a few (possibly only one) chances to strike before the katana user could get inside the effective range of the rapier.

Rapiers are very fast and deadly, but if you are chest to chest (or a foot away) from your opponent...they are not that effective.

Katana's slashing abilities, light weight, ability to be used either with one hand or two, and the ability to both thrust or slash as needed....would give the advantage to the katana in most cases of both parties being as skilled and having experience with fighting the other kind of weapon.

The katana user needs practice against the rapier user. The reverse while still true, does not give the rapier user that much to improve on. In an initial fight between two combatants who had never fought the other type of weapon before, I think it would be a close fight and could go either way.

If both had experience versus the other type of weapon, I suspect that the Katana user would win more often then not...especially in modern days (where a rapier hit through the torso might cause serious damage that you can live through, but a katana chop through your neck won't.)

Both lose to a good knife thrower though

 

[Alex Lai]

I've got two videos for you mate, the first being a test showing cutting power and speed with 1 and 2 handed grip as part of testing curved vs straight swords.

The 2nd is a great demonstration of katana vs longsword.

Wow I registered just for this ><

I think that the guy test cutting in the first video has poor technique for using a curved blade, especially with both hands. He is essentially 'hacking' at the target as if he is using an axe, which is not the 'slicing' motion you are meant to use to cut with a nihonto. I think a fairer comparison of one-hand vs two-hand cutting power would be to search 'tameshigiri' videos on youtube. Some videos show the same person taking down several targets with either one-hand or two-hand cuts. It should be very obvious which one provides more cutting power, even from the same individual using the same weapon.

The second video is not a great demonstration of 'katana vs longsword' at all... I can't speak for the longsword, but as a long time kendo player, the kenshi in the video had pretty poor form and footwork overall. As Tuxedoman noted, he is rather passive and does not utilise opportunities presented to him, particularly when the longsword user is within strike distance for a large amount of time...

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snip

I don't have any experience fighting with a Katana, but from my bouts of longsword vs rapier I have found that Rapierist can recover from strikes to attempt to knock their blade offline very VERY quickly. In skilled hands, the rapier should be moving around the opposing blade rather than stopping it outright, utilizing leverage to make up for the low mass of its blade.
The Katana could cut in with more force than a rapier, for sure. But not enough to blow through any guard. If it were some form of polearm vs a rapier, that would be an entirely different story...


But yeah. As with any weapon of similar length it can go either way, and it really comes down to the user. As seen in the video linked, if one person is super aggressive then that could put their opponent off for the entire fight, or they may just get stabbed and die.

Snip

From a longsworder perspective, the longsworder has a good stance and lots of aggression, which is good. However if he was using steel, I doubt he would be hitting quite as fast as he was, nor would he be throwing his sword around like that while waiting.
A good example of Longsword technique for sure, but certainly not a fair representation of the Katana

 

[Alex Lai]

Zip

What do you think of the longsword in this video?


Obviously it was a friendly spar but I felt both were decent and in control of their weapon. I think the technique utilised by the bokken user at 1:24 and 2:05 would be pretty indicative of what would happen if a nihonto were able to parry the initial thrust of a rapier. Certainly it's a technique we drill a lot in kendo. Note the immediate carry-through with the killing blow after the deflection/parry. The idea is that this is one "beat" as opposed to two (parry THEN counter). Obviously this is do-able without the initial attack by the rapier user, when the kenshi steps forward and takes initiative.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Zip

Snip Snip

I remember seeing this one actually. The idea of Parry and Riposte being the same movement is something that is true in Longsword fencing too, its just not always done as you tend to forget things while bouting. A big principle in German styles is the idea that when you strike, you are both attacking the enemy and defending yourself from their blow with a single movement.

As for the two strikes you mentioned, it would be a little different if it had been against a thrust, as you wouldn't have that same 'snapback' effect you get when you strike into an oncoming blow, but yeah. I think thats a good example of how to get around a rapier guard.

Theory and practice are very different though. I can think of a number of ways to get around an opponents guard, doesn't mean I will be able to pull it off. I remember one fine moment I had where I tried to knock my master's blade out of the way, he simply moved his sword down a bit and stabbed up under my blade. Unexpected stuff happens allllll the time

All up, this is one of the better examples of cross discipline combat I've seen though. Longsword vs Katana is good, as its similar enough that their respective techniques usually work, but different enough to keep both fighters on their toes.

 

[Wyes]

snip

As for the first video;

This is hardly a conclusive video for a number of reasons;

Firstly, the technique of the swordsman is sloppy (even discounting his two intentionally not great cuts). The cuts are not consistent at all, and he's doing much more of a hack than a slice with most of the cuts.

Secondly, the one cut where he manages his best speed (we'll have to take his word for this, from the video it's not clear) he's attacking from right shoulder, and he uses his shoulder as the fulcrum in the lever. This is more or less what the second hand does. I'm not saying one handed weapons are necessarily always slower, but in general the two handed weapon is quicker in most respects.

Thirdly, while I never said the two handed weapon cuts more effectively (I merely said faster, which is not necessarily equivalent), the truth is that it does - I have done test cutting with tatami mats, with both a single handed and two handed sword. I can tell you I managed clean, consistent cuts with both. I can also tell you that it was still easier to cut with the two handed weapon (that is, I felt less resistance). Regardless, even if the cut were not more effective, a two handed weapon is far more responsive because of the sheer amount of extra leverage you have.

Fourthly, I also never made the claim that curved swords cut better. However, now I will make that claim... for properly curved swords (see the shamshir, tulwar, kilij, etc.), rather than for something with the kind of curve the katana has, or say an infantry sabre. In fact, you can find historical sources that support the claim that a slight curve does not increase the cutting ability significantly, but that the tulwar for example was renowned for its cutting prowess.


Look, I'm not saying that two handed weapons are better than one handed weapons. Each have their respective advantages and disadvantages. One thing that's important to note is that speed is not the be all and end all of sword fighting. Good technique defeats speed any day of the week.


As for the second video... I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make?
Regardless, they're not using steel (shinai and nylon wasters do not handle like steel), the kendo guy doesn't seem to be very good, and longsword guy is pretty decent but likes to wander into distance and spends too much time cycling through guards.
You'll discover that the trend with most of these HEMA/WMA vs EMA videos is usually that one side is far more skilled than the other, and it happens both ways - I've seen HEMA guys destroyed by kenjutsu guys, and vice versa.
The other video posted above to similar effect is one of the slightly better ones, but both combatants are severely limited by the lack of safety gear.

EDIT: The video I posted from my instructor is no different, I should mention.

 

[Suncatcher]

What are the skill levels involved? What tactics are used? What armor are they wearing? What's the terrain like, and what are the starting positions? What's the goal of the confrontation?
There is never an "objectively better" weapon. Everything depends on how, when, where, and why it is used. A pocket knife can beat a nuclear bomb under kind of a lot of circumstances. A railgun is better than a musket, usually, but not in a month-long battle in a place where black powder is plentiful and electricity is scarce.
That's the fundamental problem with all these "deadliest warrior" style arguments. A ninja would almost certainly win against a sleeping opponent in the night regardless of target even if they didn't skip the fight and kill by poison or "accident", but on an open field at noon against a wary target they're fucked (particularly against anyone with firearms).

 

[Lightknight]

I have the episode labeled as season 4 episode 19, but otherwise it's Special 9: Mega Movie Myths. I couldn't find stills of the actual rapier in question, but the sword they used was quite similar in style to these 17th century types [http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/torino-rapier.html], I suppose the more common image that would be conjured up when the word rapier is used. The experiment was set up to strike at around 1/3 of the way down from the tip, as I think they calculated that as being the spot mostly to achieve a cut through a blade.

A double bladed rapier? I mean, that is indeed a type of rapier. It's just not solely for stabbing. They appear to have tested a heavy rapier or sword rapier then. Tsk tsk tsk.

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail.

Didn't Rob also just grab the fencer's weapon by the blade to nullify it, then deliver his coup de grâce? Don't get me wrong, total badass moment, but somewhat unlikely and unorthodox.

Gripping the blade is quite common in historical fencing systems.

Yes, particularly as many rapiers had no cutting blade at all and were solely intended for thrusting.

Seeing as how so many people seem to be confused as to the cutting power of katanas compared to other weapons, guess what?! I have another fine video;

Katanas cut much better in their era than other blades because of the high carbon steel it was made out of and the heat treat/tempering of the steel that the Japanese figured out relatively early on. So that's perhaps why the lore of their blades persists so strongly to this day. Their sharpening techniques were also superb, far more refined than Europe ever became. People today see all these machined blade edges and think all blades had the perfect edge angle and all cut evenly. But back before machining was an option, sharpening styles made a huge difference from the angle of the edge to getting the edge to a point where it will cut but not warp. I remember the first time I sharpened a chisel and got it to a razor edge that would cut you if you touched it. But it sucked as a chisel because the angle was too narrow which left too little mass in the blade for durability.

I'd just like to point out that the foil and the rapier are very, very different weapons. Rapiers actually have quite substantial blades, and it is unlikely the katana would break the rapier (short of bracing the rapier against something).

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree a little here. A foil isn't really any specific weapon, it is just a type of practice weapon and a foil rapier/longsword/saber/whatever can be made. It has a blunted tip, no blade and low carbon steel to let it bend on impact. There have been many different types of foils throughout history. The type of foil we see nowadays is supposed to be a descendent of the training swords for a small-sword (common in the 18th century) which is a stab-only blade rather than a rapier foil which has a wider blade and is stiffer. The flexibility of the small-sword foil is probably what makes its form synonymous with the word foil nowadays as practicing with it has much less impact/exertion. Basically the perfect practicing tool.

The point of yours I'm going to disagree with the strongest is the statement that rapiers had substantial blades. Rapier is a slightly ambiguous term that comes in many forms. The general requirement is that it have a slender blade (not necessarily any edge)with a sharp tip that is specifically designed for thrusting. So some rapiers have no edges whatsoever and the blade is narrow (not substantial) even on the ones with sharpened edges. They have complex hilts almost universally as a primary deflection requires blocking nearest the hilt which is the stronges part of the blade but many swords had complex hilts and have often been incorrectly grouped with rapiers which only exacerbates the layman's confusion over what a traditional rapier is.

Ridolfo Capoferro, a fencing master who actually published a rapier fencing manual in 1610 explains that a rapier may be sharpened along the entire edge of the blade or just at the tip.

But the term is so ambiguous that asking for a rapier in Germany gets you a long sword.

But this is why the small sword actually evolved from the traditional rapier (and bayonettes evolved out of small swords). It is actually a lighter version of the already light rapier.

So to say that rapiers had substantial blades is universally wrong. To say they had cutting blades along the entire edge is only wrong some of the time or all of the time according to country of origin. They weren't hacking blades. The sword blade was always too narrow to do that effectively and any attempts ot combing a hackings/cutting blade with a rapier resulted in what's known as a heavy rapier or sword rapier. The problem with those is they have neither the cutting capacity of a sword nor the agility/lightness of a rapier and so didn't catch on. So that's why the standard rapier is generally nearly edgeless with the sharpened edge moreso intended to assist in the thrust puncture rather than for hacking. Rapiers started as cut and thrust (heavy rapiers) and became thrust weapons once they matured as a weapon.

This is perhaps one of the most detailed explanations of the Rapier I've found: Great Rapier Resource [http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm]

 

[demoman_chaos]

Spoiler: Tuxedoman

The 2nd is a great demonstration of katana vs longsword.

I was never a fan of Nylon wasters, they have absolutely no weight to them.

I have to say, the dude with the Shinai doesn't seem to know what to do when the Longsworder gets within his striking range. Could he have only done Kendo?
He just seems very static and unresponsive. Not meaning to bash Kendo, but from what I've seen of the sport you don't do a whole lot of actual fighting in it.

Neither do shinai really.
Most people who take up the challenge against the longsword aren't the type who use what the longsword is capable of and aren't prepared for it. They are most often sportsmen, not really martial artists. This isn't the best one out there I admit, but it is one of the few that show the longsword being used as something other than a differently shaped katana.

Spoiler: Wulfy42

So then the question becomes.....can the Katana user either get within his optimal range, or parry an attack from the rapier user (would the rapier attack just be too fast for the katana user to parry at all?)

Well....a rapier is faster, but the katana is still quite light...and has a broader blade to block with....and a significantly stronger force on the block. Made out of the same material the katana certainly would not damage the rapier, but...the impact might be enough to throw off the rapier users defense/retreat etc, long enough for the katana user to take advantage.

Katana's slashing abilities, light weight, ability to be used either with one hand or two, and the ability to both thrust or slash as needed....would give the advantage to the katana in most cases of both parties being as skilled and having experience with fighting the other kind of weapon.

The katana user needs practice against the rapier user. The reverse while still true, does not give the rapier user that much to improve on. In an initial fight between two combatants who had never fought the other type of weapon before, I think it would be a close fight and could go either way.

If both had experience versus the other type of weapon, I suspect that the Katana user would win more often then not...especially in modern days (where a rapier hit through the torso might cause serious damage that you can live through, but a katana chop through your neck won't.)

The katana is a very heavy blade for its size, being the same weight of much longer hand-and-a-half swords (3-4 lbs) while similar length European blades would be around 2 lbs (some a bit less). It is far from light.

It is also very very short, 27 inches vs the average rapier length of 40. This is compounded by the 1 vs 2 handed stance. With my 34" bladed wooden rapier mock-up I can get roughly 60 inches of reach from my front foot. My 27" katana can muster around 40. With a longer rapier, that is about 2 ft of distance to cover. Not to mention that the "musketeer" can step back as the "samurai" steps forward, making it that much more difficult to close the distance.

Spoiler: Alex Lai

Wow I registered just for this ><

I think that the guy test cutting in the first video has poor technique for using a curved blade, especially with both hands. He is essentially 'hacking' at the target as if he is using an axe, which is not the 'slicing' motion you are meant to use to cut with a nihonto. I think a fairer comparison of one-hand vs two-hand cutting power would be to search 'tameshigiri' videos on youtube. Some videos show the same person taking down several targets with either one-hand or two-hand cuts. It should be very obvious which one provides more cutting power, even from the same individual using the same weapon.

The second video is not a great demonstration of 'katana vs longsword' at all... I can't speak for the longsword, but as a long time kendo player, the kenshi in the video had pretty poor form and footwork overall. As Tuxedoman noted, he is rather passive and does not utilise opportunities presented to him, particularly when the longsword user is within strike distance for a large amount of time...

Welcome to the Escapist mate.

Watch his technique before the actual cut, you can see the slicing. The main reason I linked that was the speed debate, as many claim that 2 handed cuts are faster than 1 handed. That video is one of the better ones I know of showing that that is not the case.

The issue is very likely that he was an experienced kendo player, and is only used to people using his sport regulations. The first grapple likely spooked him, and that fall wasn't exactly a great confidence boost. I WISH the one I want to link wasn't set to private, it really upsets me that it is but it is a much better showing of the two styles.

As for that video, it shows the main reason most of those comparisons are rather poo. The "longsword" is used like a katana. The guy doesn't use the 2nd edge, the guard, or any of the features of the longsword. In my video (linked below), I didn't show off the 2nd edge much but I at least displayed how helpful that large guard really is (it was made before I learned how to fully utilize the 2nd edge though).

Spoiler: Wyes

snip

As for the first video;

This is hardly a conclusive video for a number of reasons;

Firstly, the technique of the swordsman is sloppy (even discounting his two intentionally not great cuts). The cuts are not consistent at all, and he's doing much more of a hack than a slice with most of the cuts.

Secondly, the one cut where he manages his best speed (we'll have to take his word for this, from the video it's not clear) he's attacking from right shoulder, and he uses his shoulder as the fulcrum in the lever. This is more or less what the second hand does. I'm not saying one handed weapons are necessarily always slower, but in general the two handed weapon is quicker in most respects.

Thirdly, while I never said the two handed weapon cuts more effectively (I merely said faster, which is not necessarily equivalent), the truth is that it does - I have done test cutting with tatami mats, with both a single handed and two handed sword. I can tell you I managed clean, consistent cuts with both. I can also tell you that it was still easier to cut with the two handed weapon (that is, I felt less resistance). Regardless, even if the cut were not more effective, a two handed weapon is far more responsive because of the sheer amount of extra leverage you have.

Fourthly, I also never made the claim that curved swords cut better. However, now I will make that claim... for properly curved swords (see the shamshir, tulwar, kilij, etc.), rather than for something with the kind of curve the katana has, or say an infantry sabre. In fact, you can find historical sources that support the claim that a slight curve does not increase the cutting ability significantly, but that the tulwar for example was renowned for its cutting prowess.


Look, I'm not saying that two handed weapons are better than one handed weapons. Each have their respective advantages and disadvantages. One thing that's important to note is that speed is not the be all and end all of sword fighting. Good technique defeats speed any day of the week.


As for the second video... I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make?
Regardless, they're not using steel (shinai and nylon wasters do not handle like steel), the kendo guy doesn't seem to be very good, and longsword guy is pretty decent but likes to wander into distance and spends too much time cycling through guards.
You'll discover that the trend with most of these HEMA/WMA vs EMA videos is usually that one side is far more skilled than the other, and it happens both ways - I've seen HEMA guys destroyed by kenjutsu guys, and vice versa.
The other video posted above to similar effect is one of the slightly better ones, but both combatants are severely limited by the lack of safety gear.

EDIT: The video I posted from my instructor is no different, I should mention.

1st point- I suspect the target had a lot to do with the technique, though I can't say either way.

2nd- That is fairly relevant to the debate. If you try to cut one handed using a cut similar to a 2 handed one, it isn't going to work out so well. Adjusting the pivot point accordingly will give a similar swing speed. I will say heavier weapons will be faster in 2 hands, but lighter ones don't really benefit from the 2nd hand.

3rd- The difference would be due to the grip, using the 2nd hand to limit the twist of the wrist on impact (for lack of a better term). That might give an advantage to 2-handing, and the lack of grip to resist that when using a reverse grip (like you often see ninjas and the like use in Hollywood) makes those cuts highly ineffective.

4th- No disagreement there. Highly curved swords gain an advantage but they also become less effective against armor as the blade will want to glide along the armor rather than bite in to deliver blunt force into it. Personal experiments have shown that forward curves bite best, rear curves glide most, straight edges are a happy medium.

I have seen only 3 types of East vs West swordsmanship videos. Either the western guy uses the weapon in a manner no different than the Eastern one, the two are sportsmen and not martial artists and don't use their weapons in a historical manner, or one of the two are sportmen and have no idea how to counter the behavior of the martial artist. #3 is most seen in longsword vs katana videos depicted someone trained in HEMA most often against someone who does kendo.

Spoiler: Somewhat Related Video

This is the fight I did with a friend for longsword vs katana. This was before I really learned how to use the 2nd edge effectively. At the very least, you can see how the large guard of the longsword does wonders. Hopefully sometime soonish I can do a bout using the mock up rapier I made against him and the bokken.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Katanas cut much better in their era than other blades because of the high carbon steel it was made out of and the heat treat/tempering of the steel that the Japanese figured out relatively early on.

Is that why the very same techniques they used were outdated by the Roman era? The Pre-Roman Celts folded their steel exactly as the Japanese did about two THOUSAND years after them. By the time the Japanese were folding their steel, Europeans had moved on to pattern welding. Pattern welding allows swords to be very flexible and recover their shape after they bend. This is something the katana doesn't do very well due to the high iron conent.

Their sharpening techniques were also superb, far more refined than Europe ever became. People today see all these machined blade edges and think all blades had the perfect edge angle and all cut evenly. But back before machining was an option, sharpening styles made a huge difference from the angle of the edge to getting the edge to a point where it will cut but not warp. I remember the first time I sharpened a chisel and got it to a razor edge that would cut you if you touched it. But it sucked as a chisel because the angle was too narrow which left too little mass in the blade for durability.

No matter how sharp something is, just touching it won't lead you being cut. Edges do not work that way. As for Japan having better sharpening techniques, that is just plain ridiculous. The katanas you see cutting things today have edges very different than historical ones. You can't have a "razor" sharp edge and expect to keep it. Katanas did have harder edges, so in theory they could take a sharper edge. In practice, that edge is very brittle and would chip very easily.

 

[Hagi]

Just out of curiosity for any history buffs out there,

when it comes to actual historical combat and killing how much did actually involve the kind of fights described here in this thread, you know with fairness and all that stuff, and how many were rather about you know... stabbing them in the back?

Seems to me that with either of these weapons that if you're in an actual combat scenario you don't want to be facing your enemy head-on, because no matter what you're putting yourself in serious risk. Rather you'd probably want to ambush them or some such. Run away if you're in any scenario with serious risks. Stuff like that.

Am I wrong in thinking that in actual reality you'd want the longer and lighter blade, the rapier, and just you know... don't do the whole fairness thing?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Am I wrong in thinking that in actual reality you'd want the longer and lighter blade, the rapier, and just you know... don't do the whole fairness thing?

Well if you're just gonna do that, might as well just use a knife. No sense lugging a sword around.

But when you have, say, a big ass army of guys marching with you I don't know how you're going to get the drop on them.

 

[Hagi]

Am I wrong in thinking that in actual reality you'd want the longer and lighter blade, the rapier, and just you know... don't do the whole fairness thing?

Well if you're just gonna do that, might as well just use a knife. No sense lugging a sword around.

But when you have, say, a big ass army of guys marching with you I don't know how you're going to get the drop on them.

Some extra reach over a knife is nice I'd say.

Plus if you have a big ass army of guys marching with you then it's kinda irrelevant what weapon you're using since there's the whole big ass army of guys. Both would make pretty crappy army weapons anyway, but even there I'd say you'd be better off with the rapier as stabbing is much easier when surrounded by a big ass army of guys compared to swinging and the extra distance is also a plus since I'm assuming you'd be facing another big ass army of guys. You just have to hope that other big ass army of guys isn't using an actual army weapon like the poleaxe, spear, lance or bow.