Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison
- Thread starter demoman_chaos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He is leaving out that sword because it isn't interesting to him, why would you bring it up? There is no option C here.Jasper van Heycop said:
Also Knights would mostly use bludgeoning weapons, fights on battle fields between knights were short and had the intent to wound each other.
Knights are valuable people, killing one was a loss as you could ransom them back to their family for coin.
Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.
- Dead.
- An idiot.
Rapiers replaced other swords because duels became about honour, they are simpler and easier for nobles and well to dos to carry around.
They did not replace broadswords because they were murderous tools fit for a rampage.
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.
The benefit of superior steel is usually weight and flexibility, neither of which you would really lose with a reduction in weapon size. Something I would be particularly interested in seeing is the rapier weilder stopping the katana blade-to-blade, because of this fact.Zachary Amaranth said:
As I recall rapiers were typically uniform steel of superior quality (increasing quality with the wealth of the owner of course), but katanas are made of at least two distinct types of metal one at the core and one to be sharpened for the edge. The trademark curve of a well made katana came from the interior core metal shrinking more than the exterior metal during the cooling process. The two metals would be well bonded, so as the core metal shrank it would pull the entire blade 'back' giving it a crescent shape.
Although this sounds spiffy, it means that the blade has effectively been post-tensioned by the cooling process, which means there is a very high tension stress along the cutting edge of the weapon. Therefore the katana would be very stiff along its cutting direction, and have limited flexibility laterally. Lateral-torsional buckling would likely be a concern.
Now I know that you're never supposed to block an attack edge to edge with a sword, but while the katana would sustain substantial damage, the rapier (after the initial impact shock) should simply bend and twist away avoiding the full extent of the damage. Being of a more ductile material the rapier would likely 'dent', but the katana may actually chip or nick extensively. Once that discontinuity has been introduced into the katana (the chip) there is less material resisting the post tensioned stress introduced into the blade by design, meaning that it is highly likely that the chip develops into a crack quickly. With the discontinuity in place it should be a simple matter of attacking the blade itself rather than the wielder, as it should be primed to crack and splinter.
If the rapier is unsharpened, the our hypothetical katana user could grab it - something rapier man definitely isn't going to be do with the katana - and stab the other guy. Bam.
Also re: sword breakages, I think that really depends on the individual sword.
Also re: sword breakages, I think that really depends on the individual sword.
In a Duel? Definitely the rapier. the reach and the speed is unequaled and the katana would (literally) not come close. In a battlefield situation with multiple opponents and armour the katana has the advantage due to the slashing ability and pure strength of the hit. short version one on one the rapier has the advantage since it requires focus and precision. In a chatic situation the katana is superior since it doesn't require the same precision... of course that is only if both users has the same (if you can even compare) skill "level". A good katana user would probably beat an experienced rapier user and the other way around.
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.
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.
It really depends. The fencing rapier is meant to be a lighter, more maneuverable weapon that emphasizes swift movement and sudden stabbing lunges. It grew in popularity during the advent of firearms. As a fencer, I can say it has the obvious reach advantage. It was often popular on ships and with light soldiers. However, it doesn't have a lot of weight behind it, and it can't really slash. It's meant to quickly pierce weaknesses in your opponents defense. If you're fighting a massively armored opponent it's effectively useless, since armor was becoming less useful, since gun technology was obviously making heavy armor more of a liability than an asset. As a fencer your priority isn't really pushing your way through their defense, it's getting around it entirely in order to deliver a killing blow. That's why a lot of fighting is done mentally before anyone even moves. You rely on your own movement to avoid their attacks as your main defense.
A Katana was more of a legitimate war weapon used in heavy hand to hand fighting. It's primarily a slashing weapon. I haven't used one, so in this case my knowledge is purely academic. My friend described it as death by a thousand cuts. However, a shorter blade is not necessarily a disadvantage. Most people don't realize this. If a katana user can get close enough to a fencer, past the point of their blade, then the fencer has no defense other than to try and desperately retreat. In that case the Katana, which is shorter, putting the fencer in range, and which is also a slashing weapon, would probably have the obvious advantage. The Katana will have more power behind it as well, relying on large broad strikes to deliver killing stroaks.
Neither weapon was better than the other, they were both perfect for what they were meant to do. You don't want heavy armor and a katana if you're going to fight musket wielding opponents at sea, and you don't want to charge armored Samurai with nothing but a rapier. I would give a slight advantage to the rapier, assuming no one is wearing armor, but it mostly relies on skill. Of course, there is this:
A Katana was more of a legitimate war weapon used in heavy hand to hand fighting. It's primarily a slashing weapon. I haven't used one, so in this case my knowledge is purely academic. My friend described it as death by a thousand cuts. However, a shorter blade is not necessarily a disadvantage. Most people don't realize this. If a katana user can get close enough to a fencer, past the point of their blade, then the fencer has no defense other than to try and desperately retreat. In that case the Katana, which is shorter, putting the fencer in range, and which is also a slashing weapon, would probably have the obvious advantage. The Katana will have more power behind it as well, relying on large broad strikes to deliver killing stroaks.
Neither weapon was better than the other, they were both perfect for what they were meant to do. You don't want heavy armor and a katana if you're going to fight musket wielding opponents at sea, and you don't want to charge armored Samurai with nothing but a rapier. I would give a slight advantage to the rapier, assuming no one is wearing armor, but it mostly relies on skill. Of course, there is this:
Exactly. Weapons should not be assumed to be so directly comparable. This is like comparing a rubber mallet, a sledge hammer and a claw hammer. They're all hammers, but they're specialized to be super effective at drastically different things.Fox12 said:
That said, in a fight between hammers, a claw hammer would win.
But you see how nonsensical it is to actually make the comparison in the first place, right?
You've hit the problem for the rapier on the head. A katana has the power, speed, and control to break the defence of a rapier wielder with ease, and then it's just a flash 'til the katana wielder is inside the rapier's bubble and too close for the rapier to effectively attack.
It -would- purely be a fight of the rapier user desperately attempting to stay out of the katana's reach.
Unfortunately, that actually fairly irrelevant to the question at hand.
As you must know, a rapier has a SIGNIFICANT weight to it that makes it far harder to control/recover than a foil.
A shinai vs a katana presents a similar problem.
The difference, however, is that a katana and shinai are two-handed weapons, meaning the weight difference really doesn't have much impact on control and speed between the two.
The same is not remotely true for a rapier compared to a foil. One-handed a foil is absolutely simple to control and lightning fast to swing. The huge weight difference of a rapier without the benefit of a second hand means the increased angular momentum of a rapier will cause the rapier to be DRASTICALLY slower and harder to recover with than a foil.
If you were to imagine katana user as the video's Kendo practitioner, and then pit him against an opponent who fights similarly to the fencer....except much slower and with less control....it's pretty simple to see who'd win.
Historically the Rapier has an advantage, largely because of the steel used in Japan.demoman_chaos said:
The Steel available to Japan pre-industrial age has always been very poor, it had a high carbon/oxide content that results in a soft blade (hence the triangular blade, there was never the Steel available to make a double edged sword), folding the steel during manufacture helped to a degree, but still results in a brittle sword.
Rapiers (good ones at least) were made of Wootz or Damascus steel, so the blade is much harder, it would survive a blade to blade parry much better than the unfortunate Katana wielder, who might find himself sans cutting edge, or with two mini katanas.
If it's modern steel still the rapier, more reach and it leaves a hand free for either a second weapon or straight up punching the other guy.
Of course a cavalry sword would smash both of them to little pieces, but apparently that would be OP
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.
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.
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.Mycroft Holmes said:
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.
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:NameIsRobertPaulson said:
As you can see, it's no faster or more mobile than a kendo match. They have a lot in common, in fact.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?
-
Disclaimer: I am much more qualified to speak for the rapier than I am for the katana.
Here's why:
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.)
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.)
My terminology and scenario parameters can be found here:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
Note about mutual wounding:
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:
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:
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.)
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?
-
demoman_chaos said:
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.
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.
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.
That was an awesome read, thanks for such a detailed post!ColonelHopper said:
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?
I'm gonna guess you haven't used a katana before, have you?EightGaugeHippo said:
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.
First, thank you, I poured tons of time and effort into that one, so it's nice to see that someone actually read it.Hero in a half shell said:
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:
