Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[JayRPG]

snip

I don't think you know anything about Katanas...

A rapier is FAR more fragile than a Katana, while a rapier is pure steel, a Katana is forged by layering (or folding) low carbon and high carbon steel - this gives a Katana a shock absorbing core while maintaining a strong and sharp exterior, it had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the steel as you suggested, modern day forgers use this same process even though we have access to "better quality steel".

A rapier will simply shatter well before it reaches the kinds of thresholds a Katana can withstand.

Also, while a katana is not made to cleave a rapier in two like I frivolously suggested in my first comment... it COULD cut a rapier in half, I have no doubts.

Here is a video of a Samurai cutting challenge.. he cuts through steel pipe and a steel plate, with no damage to the katana what so ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyO46RQhYkQ

 

[Tuxedoman]

Y'know, I really wish there were some sort of WMA vs EMA world competition. Not Battle of Nations, or SCA or anything like that, something that focus's purely on the weapons and the skill of their user. As many people have said, they're two totally different styles, even though they share plenty of similarities. I would have no clue what to do if I came up against a dude with a Kusarigama (that pick with a chain and weight) and you know what, it would be a blast to try out something new like that. Likewise, someone who has never fought against a two-handed longsword will all of a sudden find themselves fighting foreign techniques like Half-swording and Quillion strikes.

Plus people can finally see a Rapier fighting a Katana, and see that it doesn't matter that much about the weapon; its the dude holding it who makes all the difference.

Edit:

snip

Snipper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyO46RQhYkQ

And as for Katana's using layered steel, Rapier were made the exact same way. They're not really that rigid, and flex quite a bit just like any tempered sword does. Could a sword cut through one? Not if its being held by a user. The the user tries to block the incoming strike on the weak of his sword, it won't do anything. If he blocks on the strong, that nice big hiltguard and its mass will take the brunt of the strike. Plus, there isn't a hard surface under it like the pipe.

Finally, the plate.
It is 0.4mm thick.
Your average piece of plate armour is 1.6mm thick.
Your average rapier is thicker than that, plus its tempered and hardened with the exact same techniques you said before.

Cutting through a sheet of metal is meaningless when comparing it to cutting through a sword. If you can find a video of ANY sword cutting clean through another blade, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong and retract my statement

 

[Mick Beard]

the only reason swords made these days are folded is just to give it the look. the steel we have access today is vasty superior to any metal the Japanese had... the reason why they folded their sword so much is because they only had access to iron sand and iron needs carbon in it to be of any use. anything the japs did to make a katana the Germanic, roman, viking, saxon etc were doing over 1000 years before them

the making of STEEL made it so that swords no longer had to be folded. the Europeans and ever other non Japanese culture developed better metallurgy skills. the Japanese as always kept to the same to keep with tradition

 

[Mick Beard]

as for that guy cutting the pipe and the sheet metal

the metal was thin and the pipe was also thin. this feat could be don't with any sharpened bit of metal... just as long as whatever you are hitting is softer them what you are hitting it with the breaking risk is reduced

 

[GrimTuesday]

snip

I don't think you know anything about Katanas...

A rapier is FAR more fragile than a Katana, while a rapier is pure steel, a Katana is forged by layering (or folding) low carbon and high carbon steel - this gives a Katana a shock absorbing core while maintaining a strong and sharp exterior, it had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the steel as you suggested, modern day forgers use this same process even though we have access to "better quality steel".

A rapier will simply shatter well before it reaches the kinds of thresholds a Katana can withstand.

Also, while a katana is not made to cleave a rapier in two like I frivolously suggested in my first comment... it COULD cut a rapier in half, I have no doubts.

Here is a video of a Samurai cutting challenge.. he cuts through steel pipe and a steel plate, with no damage to the katana what so ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyO46RQhYkQ

You need to go read the rest of the thread, because your point has already been addressed. The only way that a Rapier is going to break is if you sat there and pounded on it for a couple days, at which point it would break just because it had been pounded on for a couple of days rather than because of the quality of the Katana. The steel used to make European weapons was of much better quality. Also, don't act like this was something special to the Katana, because The Celts and other peoples were using the same process long before the Japanese were.

This whole conversation is moronic. Most of us don't have the training to make any real judgements on the effectiveness of either weapon, so its just an exercise in stupidity. Besides, everyone knows that using swords in general is a crappy way to fight. Swords were, for the most parts fashion accessories that you could use as a weapon in a pinch. If you guys want to start talking about weapons, lets talk about ones that were actually made to kill people, not just made to match your sabatons.

 

[Tuxedoman]

This whole conversation is moronic. Most of us don't have the training to make any real judgements on the effectiveness of either weapon, so its just an exercise in stupidity. Besides, everyone knows that using swords in general is a crappy way to fight. Swords were, for the most parts fashion accessories that you could use as a weapon in a pinch. If you guys want to start talking about weapons, lets talk about ones that were actually made to kill people, not just made to match your sabatons.

Well... Swords WERE battlefield weapons once upon a time... By the time Rapiers were common place you wouldn't be using a sword very often on the battlefield, as cannons/muskets were all the rage.

A Messer was a knife that doubled as a sword, which was basically an accessory that could be used as a weapon in a pinch.
Longswords were very much battlefield weapons up until gunpowder began being used all over europe, and arming swords were used even past then.

 

[Ieyke]

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?

It would have a MASSIVE effect.

The only real downside to two-handed fighting is that you lose some of the additional length that arm's-length adds to a weapon's reach.
Everything else is huge upsides.

However, even the extended reach benefit of a one-handed weapon can be a drawback. ESPECIALLY in a fight like this.
Where a katana wielder is guarding most of his area with 2.5 feet of steel, the rapier wielder's arm is much more fully extended and exposed as a far more vulnerable target.

As for control, you can EASILY test this for yourself.
You may not have a sword around, but you probably have a broom handle or a pole/pipe of some sort.
- Hold it in your dominant hand and swing it as hard and rapidly as you can and see how much force it takes for your lone wrist to stop it and rapidly change it's direction.
Then hold it out and have someone just slap it sideways and see how hard it is for you to counteract that. You may very well find yourself disarmed, depending on just how hard the broom got slapped.
- Then, with your left hand holding the end of the broom and your right hand about a fist's distance above your left hand (switch hands if you're left-handed), repeat that.
You should find that your right (or dominant) hand acts as a fulcrum, and your left hand controls just how hard and fast that stick can pivot around that fulcrum.
Your swings become vastly more powerful by pushing forward with your dominant hand while simultaneously pulling with your other hand, likewise you can input counteracting forces to any motion through both hands - including stopping your own swings or retaining control of a weapon that has been hit (or slapped, in this case).
Similarly, you get vastly more powerful thrusting ability by guiding a stab with your dominant hand and projecting the force through your body, into your left hand, and through the pommel of the sword - it's essentially like turning the sword into a giant nail and turning your body into the hammer that is hitting the head of the nail.


Again, the fact that a rapier IS truly a stabbing weapon and of little use at ranges closer than the tip cannot be be emphasized enough. This is a COLOSSAL weakness, as the power a katana wielder (hereafter referred to as "samurai" for expediency) can drive through his weapon can -easily- catch and knock aside the one-handed rapier and leave the rapier wielder (hereafter "fencer") wide open for a rushdown as the samurai rapidly closes the distance into the range too close for the rapier. A deflected rapier likely also means the fencer's sword arm will be briefly COMPLETELY exposed and an easy target for a swift amputation by the samurai's blade.
If the fencer looses footing even briefly, or just reacts slightly too slow to the samurai moving in, any clash between the two swords could easily find him dead.


Honestly, you can take this entire problem down to a simple "try at your own risk" home experiment to instantly understand these key factors and how they interact with each other.
If you and a friend aren't afraid of getting some bruised knuckles, get:
- "Katana" stick ~40" (bottom 11" are the grip, the other 29" are the "deadly" part)
- "Rapier" stick ~46" (bottom 6" are the grip and pommel, upper 6" are the "deadly" part)

Try hitting each others' "swords" and you'll see EXACTLY what I mean instantly.
Then watch and see if you don't figure out exactly how to follow up the deflection of the "rapier" and make a lunging downward or upward slash across the exposed arm.

Another test you can do -
- designate a target (something you don't mind hitting and possibly breaking)
- swing each of the "swords" at the target and try and get as close as possible to it WITHOUT hitting it. In all likelihood you will find that the two hands make this far far easier.

-

Heck, you can boil this all the way down to simple physics and bio-mechanics.
- as you swing an object you generate rotational inertia.
- the heavier the object is, the more rotational inertia is generated.
- the further from the axis of rotation that the weight is distributed, the more inertia it gains.
- the more inertia it has, the more force it requires to act upon it (speeding it up, slowing it down, changing directions, etc).

- human wrists are rotationally weak. just holding a broom by the end and rotating your wrist back and forth requires a LOT of effort and will rapidly tire out your wrist.
- a human arm's pulling and pushing is MUCH stronger.

- imagine trying to lift a big rock of the ground by simply sticking the end of a stick under it and trying to pick it up. HUGE effort is required.
- imagine trying to lift the same rock by sticking the end of the stick under the rock and providing the rock with a fulcrum point (creating a lever). Now it's a simple matter of pushing down on your end of the lever.

Now, combine all that.
- the human wrist is attempting to move the weight with just a stick (rapier)
- one human arm is working to move the lever, while a second arm is serving as the lever's fulcrum itself. (katana)
- both set-ups are swinging essentially the exact same weight.
- the lever-less wrist is trying to swing the weight distributed out to ~39"
- the two "levered" arms are trying to swing the weight at just ~29"

The samurai and his katana have a HUGE mechanical advantage over the fencer and his rapier.

.

.

.

If you want to get super technical, the rapier's single hand is performing the duties of a lever too. The index finger is essentially fulcrum point, and the rest of the hand is serving as the force acting upon the lever's effort arm.
The longer a lever's effort arm, the more force the lever can produce.
In the rapier's case, the length of the effort arm is just a hand's width (~4").

The dominant hand on the katana is acting as the fulcrum for the lever (i.e. the katana).
The other ~10" below the midpoint of the dominant hand is all part of the lever's effort arm, and the offhand is the force acting upon it.

The katana has about 250% of the effort arm length of the rapier, its output arm (the blade) typically weighs slightly less, and its input force (2 arms) is vastly more powerful than the rapier's (a wrist).
The katana is a much more massive force. When these two clash, it's the rapier that's going to get batted around.


-

Mind you, there's a lot more to deal with in the relevant fighting styles of both weapons than just knocking swords around, but it this case it would likely be a crucial factor in how any such duel would turn out.

 

[GrimTuesday]

This whole conversation is moronic. Most of us don't have the training to make any real judgements on the effectiveness of either weapon, so its just an exercise in stupidity. Besides, everyone knows that using swords in general is a crappy way to fight. Swords were, for the most parts fashion accessories that you could use as a weapon in a pinch. If you guys want to start talking about weapons, lets talk about ones that were actually made to kill people, not just made to match your sabatons.

Well... Swords WERE battlefield weapons once upon a time... By the time Rapiers were common place you wouldn't be using a sword very often on the battlefield, as cannons/muskets were all the rage.

A Messer was a knife that doubled as a sword, which was basically an accessory that could be used as a weapon in a pinch.
Longswords were very much battlefield weapons up until gunpowder began being used all over europe, and arming swords were used even past then.

My point is that despite how iconic the sword is, it was a secondary weapon/status symbol/fashion accessory for the most part. Sometimes Men at arms/levies usually had short swords, but that wasn't really the norm. Swords were expensive, so for the most part, only the upper class had them, though often times, they, being Knights, and therefore cavalry, used lances and short axes or maces from the saddle. I'm sure there were knight who did use swords when they were actually on foot, but for the most part, that would be against other knights, as the goal wasn't to kill, but rather to beat beat on each other until one submits so that they could ransom them back. Most of the people they were fight however, were just your basic men at arms, so it was the ax, the mace, or the hammer for them, because you can't ransom back the poor, so you might as well kill them.

Edit: It just occurred to me that a falchion is still technically a sword, despite the fact it was used as a glorified cleaver.

I'm talking about Western Europe here, Eastern Europe had their own weapons that do different things, but I'm not nearly as familiar with their stuff, so I'm not even going to act like I know what I'm talking about when it comes to that.

 

[GabeZhul]

And thus the discussion once again devolved into talking about the stupid steel-quality and forging stuff that has practically zero impact on the actual topic.

Also, to anyone who keeps harping on the whole "rapiers break" issue, please note that we are generally not talking about the thin and easily bendable fencing rapiers modern fencers use in competitions, but actual, tempered steel blades that can be as thick as your finger or more. Please try breaking one of those. Hell, it would be hard to do that even with a hammer, let alone with another sword!

The whole "weapon breaks" topic would only have any merit if we were talking about some heavy blade in opposition, like a zweihander or a claymore or heavy blunt weapons, but we are not, so could we please finally forget about this argument already?

 

[GabeZhul]

snip

I respectfully disagree. You are only taking force into the equation, and in that regard the katana (and any other two-handed sword, if we are at that) wins hands down, but you completely disregard the flexibility and reach the rapier offers. Fencing using a rapier is not about clashing the two blades and seeing which one can com up on top but about keeping your opponent at an optimum distance, feints, parries and showing as few openings as possible.
Also, yo do not "swing" a rapier, you lunge forward with it, adding several feets to its effective length, something you completely ignored.

In my opinion a fight between the two styles would ultimately come down to which one could deliver the first blow, since whichever one did that would probably come out on top. If the samurai did, he would be able to cause serious injuries since his opponent is unarmored. However if the musketer did then he would have probably been able to deal a fatal stab since the samurai's stance is centered on defending against slashes and comparatively slow spear thrusts, thus a skilled fencer would probably be able to strike a vital organ with ease.

As I have already pointed out beforehand, I see the latter situation more plausible since fencers would have analogues, and thus tactics against opponents with two handed swords, while samurai have no such analogue and counter for fast stabbing swords in their style, thus giving the fencer a definitive edge.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snips

Well, Mercenary companies like the Landsknechts would use swords as they could easily afford them, and these mercenary companies did a lot of the combat in late medieval/early Renaissance Europe. Plus if you go back to the 600-900AD era when the saxons were a thing, then swords were *very* common. After all, they just stripped the gear off of the dead, so they had all sorts of weapons on them when they went into combat.

When I say sword, I don't mean one handed weapons. Im meaning these.

larger two handed swords which were designed with half-swording in mind for fighting other armoured opponents, and the broad edge blades that were basically really flat maces. Plus, plough swords were not very expensive. They're commonly found super low quality swords that were given out to your average joe if he was about to go to battle, and spears weren't gonna be overly useful.

All that said, when someone thinks of the european sword, most people think smaller single handed weapons. In that reguard, yeah. They were almost exclusively secondary weapons for guys whom usually used two handed weapons, or if the wielder was a crazy ass shock trooper who was clad in full plate and wanted to use his offhand for easy grabbing.
Even then, I imagine he would still have some sort of great weapon..

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'd probably back the Rapier, myself. Though as for training for pleasure and self-discipline, there's an undeniable appeal in Katana styles if only for the Zen-like feelings. Training with a decent longsword would be a fucking hoot, though.

 

[zumbledum]

a rapier can not defend against a katana , a katana could defend against a rapier,

in skilled hands my money would be on the katana every time. in noob hands... prolly close to even.

 

[Tuxedoman]

a rapier can not defend against a katana , a katana could defend against a rapier,

in skilled hands my money would be on the katana every time. in noob hands... prolly close to even.

If a Rapier can defend against a poleaxe, it can defend against a Katana. I can't think of a single strike that either weapon can preform that can't be either blocked or parried.

As with every weapon debate, this will always come down to the skill of the user, as well as a little luck.

 

[Wyes]

snip

I believe your point has already been addressed and I don't need to address it further. Nice to see that you haven't read through the thread though.

Im the opposite, I don't know a whole lot about the assorted Italian teachings and have learned nearly exclusively from German teachings. Flat vs Edge im thinking has its advantages and disadvantages based on the situation you'd use it in.

I believe what we have learned here today is that, indeed, you can not cut through a rapier with a Katana.

It certainly very interesting to see such differences. If you don't mind me asking, what school(s) are you associated with, and what country are you based in?

But yes, I believe we can definitely say you cannot cut through a rapier with a katana, or armour for that matter.

 

[JayRPG]

snip

I don't think you know anything about Katanas...

A rapier is FAR more fragile than a Katana, while a rapier is pure steel, a Katana is forged by layering (or folding) low carbon and high carbon steel - this gives a Katana a shock absorbing core while maintaining a strong and sharp exterior, it had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the steel as you suggested, modern day forgers use this same process even though we have access to "better quality steel".

A rapier will simply shatter well before it reaches the kinds of thresholds a Katana can withstand.

Also, while a katana is not made to cleave a rapier in two like I frivolously suggested in my first comment... it COULD cut a rapier in half, I have no doubts.

Here is a video of a Samurai cutting challenge.. he cuts through steel pipe and a steel plate, with no damage to the katana what so ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyO46RQhYkQ

You need to go read the rest of the thread, because your point has already been addressed. The only way that a Rapier is going to break is if you sat there and pounded on it for a couple days, at which point it would break just because it had been pounded on for a couple of days rather than because of the quality of the Katana. The steel used to make European weapons was of much better quality. Also, don't act like this was something special to the Katana, because The Celts and other peoples were using the same process long before the Japanese were.

This whole conversation is moronic. Most of us don't have the training to make any real judgements on the effectiveness of either weapon, so its just an exercise in stupidity. Besides, everyone knows that using swords in general is a crappy way to fight. Swords were, for the most parts fashion accessories that you could use as a weapon in a pinch. If you guys want to start talking about weapons, lets talk about ones that were actually made to kill people, not just made to match your sabatons.

They were able to snap a rapier in half in 1 swing using a katana on mythbusters, the swing pushed the rapier beyond it's limits (about 90 degrees) and it snapped when it bounced back.

Obviously you are not going to get these perfect conditions on the battlefield but, just like I was told that I was overestimating the durability of a Katana, I think a lot of people in this thread are overestimating the durability of rapier.

Yes it can bend but it is ~pure steel~ which is prone to shattering.

 

[Ieyke]

snip

I respectfully disagree. You are only taking force into the equation, and in that regard the katana (and any other two-handed sword, if we are at that) wins hands down, but you completely disregard the flexibility and reach the rapier offers. Fencing using a rapier is not about clashing the two blades and seeing which one can com up on top but about keeping your opponent at an optimum distance, feints, parries and showing as few openings as possible.
Also, yo do not "swing" a rapier, you lunge forward with it, adding several feets to its effective length, something you completely ignored.

In my opinion a fight between the two styles would ultimately come down to which one could deliver the first blow, since whichever one did that would probably come out on top. If the samurai did, he would be able to cause serious injuries since his opponent is unarmored. However if the musketer did then he would have probably been able to deal a fatal stab since the samurai's stance is centered on defending against slashes and comparatively slow spear thrusts, thus a skilled fencer would probably be able to strike a vital organ with ease.

As I have already pointed out beforehand, I see the latter situation more plausible since fencers would have analogues, and thus tactics against opponents with two handed swords, while samurai have no such analogue and counter for fast stabbing swords in their style, thus giving the fencer a definitive edge.

You've missed the point, as it were.

None of that has to do with the rapier clashing blades willingly.
That's the samurai's disarm attack and the huge problem it provides to a one-handed weapon opponent.

What perhaps isn't immediately obvious to those who haven't been trained with one is that a katana can actually perform almost exactly as a rapier. That's one of the reasons the katana is so highly regarded.
Indeed, Miyamoto Musashi's Niten Ichi-ryū school/style of combat wields the samurai daisho as a fencer would wield his weapons - with the katana functioning as a rapier and the wakizashi functioning as a main-gauche.
The big difference here being that the daisho are both stabbing AND slashing weapons.

Accordingly, a samurai is trained to deal with very flexible and incredibly fast opponents - dealing with slashes and stabs in rapid succession as opportunities present themselves. There are no katana arts focused on "comparatively slow" attacks. Samurai spear attacks are simply a whole separate problem that no one in their right mind would want to face with any sword. (It's not coincidental that one of history's most famous samurai (Honda Tadakatsu) and his spear are together renowned for being undefeatable.)
In fact, katana training genuinely includes training in the use of the katana as a shield against projectiles. In the samurai scheme of things, a rapier lunge is comparatively slow.

Granted, you can assume this guy to be exceptional since he's slicing tiny BB's instead of blocking arrows, but then his life also doesn't depend on his abilities...

The fencer has no edge here.

Where samurai, katanas, and ninja are concerned all those stupid and ridiculous anime tropes actually have an unbelievably solid basis for once.
The image of the samurai as a lightning fast warrior of unbelievable skill, carrying a blade able to cut several people in half with a single cut...is accurate.

 

[Wyes]

The image of the samurai as a lightning fast warrior of unbelievable skill, carrying a blade able to cut several people in half with a single cut...is accurate.

There are exceptional people, such as the chap in the video, who can do these things. I think it would be foolish to assume that the average samurai was of the same competence.
The same is true of the European fencers. There were exceptional cases of people who could do incredible things, and there was the average fencer.

The katana however cannot be wielded in the same manner as the rapier for a number of reasons however - primarily, katanas are generally not only heavy overall, but tip heavy, because they're designed primarily as slicing weapons (which is not to say they can't thrust). This is true of the museum pieces.
Another reason the katana cannot be wielded in the same manner as a rapier is because with a rapier, you have a quillion to wrap your finger over, granting you far greater control over the weapon, because you have another lever to use (the quillion). The katana does not have this.
This is not to say that the rapier is a better weapon, they simply function in different ways.

EDIT: Also I do not for a second believe that a katana could slice several people in half in a single cut, especially if they were wearing armour (if it didn't work, why wear it?). That is a feat difficult to achieve with any sword, including swords far more infamous for their cutting power than the katana, such as the Indian tulwar.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I remember watching a sparring match between a fencer and a kendo practitioner. It looked roughly even, as kendo doesn't lack for footwork and their weapon is more easily able to parry a rapier than a rapier can parry a katana.

 

[Ieyke]

The image of the samurai as a lightning fast warrior of unbelievable skill, carrying a blade able to cut several people in half with a single cut...is accurate.

There are exceptional people, such as the chap in the video, who can do these things. I think it would be foolish to assume that the average samurai was of the same competence.
The same is true of the European fencers. There were exceptional cases of people who could do incredible things, and there was the average fencer.

The katana however cannot be wielded in the same manner as the rapier for a number of reasons however - primarily, katanas are generally not only heavy overall, but tip heavy, because they're designed primarily as slicing weapons (which is not to say they can't thrust). This is true of the museum pieces.
Another reason the katana cannot be wielded in the same manner as a rapier is because with a rapier, you have a quillion to wrap your finger over, granting you far greater control over the weapon, because you have another lever to use (the quillion). The katana does not have this.
This is not to say that the rapier is a better weapon, they simply function in different ways.

Actually, both swords weigh almost exactly the same.
You're right that the rapier does contain more of the weight towards the hilt while the katana has it spread along the blade.
A quillon grip only adds the control to the rapier that is already inherent to the katana's grip shape (they're not circular).

I'll grant you that a rapier is the weapon better suited to what a rapier does, but the difference between it and a katana in that role aren't huge.
My point is that the katana can play the rapier's game, but not vice versa.
As with all things, over-specialization becomes a weakness against those flexible enough to exploit the limitations that come with it.