If a Rapier can defend against a poleaxe, it can defend against a Katana. I can't think of a single strike that either weapon can preform that can't be either blocked or parried.zumbledum said: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.
I believe your point has already been addressed and I don't need to address it further. Nice to see that you haven't read through the thread though.Whatislove said:snip
It certainly very interesting to see such differences. If you don't mind me asking, what school(s) are you associated with, and what country are you based in?Tuxedoman said: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.
They were able to snap a rapier in half in 1 swing using a katana on mythbusters, the swing pushed the rapier beyond it's limits (about 90 degrees) and it snapped when it bounced back.GrimTuesday said: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.Whatislove said:I don't think you know anything about Katanas...Wyes said:snip
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
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.
You've missed the point, as it were.GabeZhul said: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.Ieyke said:snip
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.
There are exceptional people, such as the chap in the video, who can do these things. I think it would be foolish to assume that the average samurai was of the same competence.Ieyke said:The 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.
Actually, both swords weigh almost exactly the same.Wyes said:There are exceptional people, such as the chap in the video, who can do these things. I think it would be foolish to assume that the average samurai was of the same competence.Ieyke said:The 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.
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.
A rapier is at least not heavier than a longsword, and a longsword typically weighs slightly less to the same weight as a katana, while being significantly longer (on average, of course).Ieyke said:snip
Then you would find yourself quite surprised, as that's exactly the system by which katana were rated - the number of people the sword could cleave in a single swing.Wyes said:EDIT: Also I do not for a second believe that a katana could slice several people in half in a single cut, especially if they were wearing armour (if it didn't work, why wear it?). That is a feat difficult to achieve with any sword, including swords far more infamous for their cutting power than the katana, such as the Indian tulwar.
I did a little googling and sure enough, there are at least a handful of occasions where the blades were tested by cutting through corpses. As expected however, they were unarmoured and one expects braced for the impact. Under those conditions, it is at least feasible to slice through several bodies. However, more googling suggests that the cutting power of the katana is vastly exaggerated compared to other swords, including European ones.Ieyke said:Then you would find yourself quite surprised, as that's exactly the system by which katana were rated - the number of people the sword could cleave in a single swing.Wyes said: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.
Not armorer, no. Of course not. Katana's can barely cut through a single layer of steel plate. they'd never be able to cleave wholly through a decently armored opponent (unless it's leather maybe, since that appears to be no problem).
Freshly forged katana were tested on criminals and corpses to establish how many bodies the blade would cleave, with exceptional blades reaching as high as 4 or more.
There are only a couple types of sword more infamous for their cutting power, and the tulwar and Romanian kilij are pretty much the only ones I can think of. Again, these blades are incredible cleaving weapons, but they're not nearly as versatile as a katana is.
(FTR, the kilij is NUTS)
Oh... wait... you are one of "those" guys, aren't you..?Ieyke said: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 said:Also I do not expect a katana to be able to slice through steel armour (that chap in the video cuts through sheet metal that's only 0.4mm thick, as opposed to the ~1.6mm plate armour, as somebody has stated above, and he had access to the edge of the sheet no less), that's what armour is for.
It is important to remember that the katana is just a sword, like any other. There are other similar swords as versatile that are better in some ways, and worse in others. From a European perspective, the katana is more or less just a poorly forged (from the perspective of spring steels that they were using) two handed sabre.
Also I agree that the kilij is pretty crazy.
EDIT: Also, leather armour is harder than you might expect to cut through. Again, if it didn't work, why wear it? My school's done some test cutting with a leather vambrace over a tatami mat (the usual stuff), and the blade cut through but only barely. It only got maybe an inch and a half into the mat.