Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Wyes]

snip

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).
And your argument doesn't make sense about the quillion - the quillion adds the ability to apply torque perpendicularly to the grip, which is not present in the katana. The rapier's grip is also not circular. In fact, I've never encountered any type of sword with a circular grip, because the human hand isn't circular.

The katana may be able to play the rapier's game, but then so can the longsword, which the rapier fencer had to know how to deal with anyway. There are differences in technique between the katana and the longsword, but the longsword is widely considered to be more versatile (two edges, more robust, capable of binding with quillions, etc.).
It is also worth noting that, despite people's perceptions, the rapier can cut, albeit not as well as the longsword, broadsword or katana (or sabre and so on). One simply has to look at rapier according to Swetnam to see that he quite likes the cut with a rapier, and he was using them.

However, I do agree that the more versatile weapon has more opportunities to win. But, as always, it comes down to the skill of the person wielding the weapon, and there is no reason to believe that the samurai should be inherently superior in skill to the rapier fencer.

 

[Ieyke]

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.

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.
Not armored, no. Of course not. Katana's can barely cut through a single layer of steel plate. they'd never be able to cleave wholly through a decently armored opponent (unless it's leather maybe, since that appears to be no problem).

Freshly forged katana were tested on criminals and corpses to establish how many bodies the blade would cleave, with exceptional blades reaching as high as 4 or more.

There are only a couple types of sword more infamous for their cutting power, and the tulwar and Romanian kilij are pretty much the only ones I can think of. Again, these blades are incredible cleaving weapons, but they're not nearly as versatile as a katana is.

(FTR, the kilij is NUTS)

 

[glyngaris]

Sorry to all the cult of the Katana members, but in real sword fights thrusting attacks are the be all end all.

 

[Wyes]

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.

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.
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)

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.
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.

 

[GabeZhul]

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.

Oh... wait... you are one of "those" guys, aren't you..?
*sigh*
I'm out. I can see that arguing with you will only lead to a shitstorm in the long run, so let's tackle a different point that came up: Katanas cutting several people.

First off, we all have to understand something: all those legendary swords cutting through up to 4 people? Any western sword can do the same courtesy of three simple factors:

-The cuts were done in a controlled environment. The bodies were neatly stacked up upon each other so that they would be easy to cut and the samurai could take a large lumberjack swing, something that on the battlefield would have been impractical at best and plain suicide at worst.

-The bodies wore no armor, not even rudimentary protection even peasant spearmen could afford. Also, said bodies were starved criminals (alive or dead) with little to no body fat and/or muscles to impede the blade's path, thus making the cut even easier.

-Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all that hard to cut through a body horizontally at the waist. The abdominal muscles and the guts pose little resistance, while the spine can be severed with relative ease if the blade happens to hit right between the vertebrae.


The crux of the matter is that that whole "katanas can cut multiple people in half" thing was, and still is, just a catchy marketing stunt, and as such every such occasion when a blade was "tested" this way was rigged for maximum effect so that the sword would sell better and so that the smith's fame would increase so that that they could sell more swords.
The only reason why we don't have similar publicity stunts on the other parts of the world is because Japan, unlike them, had a closed economy and a very strong sense of tradition that pretty much froze the development of the katana for several centuries, so while a European smith might have gained fame by perfecting a new method of smithing or making a new style of blade, the best the Japanese smith could hope for was to make a sword just like everyone else but slightly lighter/sharper/better balanced. The only way to ensure people would get their swords from them instead of the competition, who was making practically identical swords, was marketing, and thus the legend of the "awesome cutting power of the awesome katanas of awesome" was born.

 

[Lightknight]

Stabbing blade vs slicing blade (usually also compared with something like a broadsword or hacking blade).

I've always enjoyed these discussions. I forged more than a few of these during my college days when I was working as a professional blacksmith to make ends meet (primarily a bladesmith).

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that both wielders are equally well suited to their weapon of choice (so none of this agility discussion which takes into account the ability of the wielder).

Now, small correction to the OP. Katanas aren't excellent cutters, they are excellent slicers. This is important to note as their strength lies in dragging the edge of the blade against the target rather than hacking or stabbing, though both are technically possible. The need to start somewhere lower on the blade to drag the razor means that the length of the katana is further limited. They are absolutely deadly close up or undefended, but it's the getting there requires skill.

Another but less small correction, Rapier is an ambiguous term. Some had blades for cutting, some double blades, some none, various widths and whatnot. You could just as easily say a long sword in Germany and get what they call a rapier. Anything but a particularly broad blade or double hilt for two hands would fall in the category. So when you say "a rapier just won't break", there's no reference for the type of blade you're talking about, width or otherwise. Some would absolutely warp or break if brought in contact with a thicker blade, just like any blade would. Even katanas which are traditionally harder can shatter against other blades. That also depends on the hardness of the blade's steel which again, depends entirely on the type of rapier. It also depends on where the blade is struck, there are different regions of a rapier according to the sword school you ask and some regions stand up to force better than others. Really, it's like you asked if "swords" have an advantage over katanas. Some do, some don't. Saying that they had to stand up against broadswords doesn't really tell us that they didn't break or warp. It also isn't entirely accurate. The type of rapier you're discussing was designed for civilian warfare and wouldn't have gone up against a broadsword with any frequency. Though that type also usually isn't hardened steel except perhaps at the tip. The harder the steel, the higher the likelihood of breaking when impacted. I've seen some rapiers where only the tip is particularly hardened while the rest is oven-heat treated in a way to maximize strength without easily shatering hardness. Striking the tip would shatter it though in that kind of smithing practice.

Let me tell you something about real rapiers. They are well documented to have broken regularly in battle, not just against other blades but even in bodies. It's silly that people are still saying they wouldn't break regardless. They absolutely would. It's just that a master rapier wielder would block and parry blows from the part of the blade closer to the hilt and would avoid performing heavy edge strikes from the tip. Those elaborate hand guards aren't just to fend off the tips of blades, it's because the swordsman is SUPPOSED to parry blades near the hand so the likelihood of a blade hitting the hand was much higher. But a blade strike near the tip? Could absolutely break it. This, again, is regarding the type of rapier you're discussing with a narrow blade narrowing considerably by the tip to make the ideal stabbing point. Because a katana is a much higher hardness though, it would be far more likely for a katana to shatter another katana than a rapier properly parrying near the hilt. Some other types of "rapiers" may not have that weakness at all but wouldn't be what you'd likely call a rapier.

Because a rapier (as you seem to be defining it) is really only good for stabbing, I consider it to be a sort of hand spear. All polearms have an inherent advantage and while this isn't technically a polearm, it does have some of the advantages of one while losing out on the advantages of mass behind actual polearms that causes the damage you aren't considering in the discussion. Reach generally wins out where skill is out there.

If we include damage potential, which is a realistic parameter to consider, the katana would fare a lot better. But as far as just hitting the target, the rapier wins handily. So by your conditions, the rapier would hit first. By the conditions of battle though, it is one of those blades that people often survive getting struck by while most other blades aren't as easy to walk away from a blow.

 

[The Great JT]

I don't get a vote, I'm in favor of polearms.

 

[Ieyke]

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.

One would wear the armor one could afford. It might do jack against a katana, but presumably it'd offer a measure of protection against other weapons.

The notion that a katana is poorly forged is complete nonsense. It's quite the opposite.
I can't figure out where this one comes from with people saying katanas are poorly forged and then exalting damascus steel....they're the SAME THING, except that proper katanas are engineered down to the consistency of the steel in different parts of the blade being focused to achieve specific effects in specific parts of the blade (soft spine, hard edge to make it flexible and shock absorbent like a softer material in order ensure it never break, while maintaining the razor edge only possible with a very hard material that would otherwise make for a brittle weapon).
Normal damascus steel is an even marbling of the folded materials across the whole weapon simply forged into the form of the weapon as per normal.

 

[hermes]

As with any of these comparisons, it depends of a lot of factors outside of the weapons choice. For example:
- Ability of the wielders. That is the single, most important detail. An expert rapier user can thrust into any body part, even in the chaos of a fight. An expert Katana user can hit on any angle he chooses. An beginner can barely hold the weapon after the first strike.
- Terrain. Is it an open field or an enclosed space. In an enclosed space, the rapier has the advantage, since it doesn't require much space. A katana can't swing in a small space. In an open field, its more evenly matched.
- Armor. Are they using any protection? The rapier as a weapon was not designed to pierce through a chain mail, while a Katana can pass through it with relative ease. Neither of them are fully capable of handling full armor, but a Katana can be aimed at the joints. Any light armor against them would be like wearing nothing.

 

[Ieyke]

Presumably we're approaching this as equally as possible.
Evenly skilled, open room, no armor.
This is a question of swords and their fighting styles, not the situations they might be put in.

You'll never establish anything once you start fiddling with more parameters and assuming everyone is fighting on the moon.

 

[Lightknight]

Edit: Not to say that a rapier would never break in combat, as they can and did and already mentioned. I seem to remember reading something about grabbing the opponents blade and bending it to breaking point, though I'm not sure of the veracity of that. Just pointing out that within the confines of this particular experiment, the situation probably wont occur.

It depends on the type or rapier and the desperateness of the situation. You can absolutely hand-bend some rapier blades nearer the tip. In all schools of rapier fighting, the tip is the weakpoint of the blade. Bends and breaks with ease. As I stated, they were known to bend and break in bodies in addition to breaking against other surfaces like weapons and the rarer armor (since these were primarily used in civilian battles and not armed military fights).

I didn't see the mythbusters or whatnot in question, but I'd be interested in seeing that they considered to be a rapier since the term is so vague as well as where the blade was struck. Just because a good rapier swordsman would avoid full-force strikes with the type doesn't mean another good bladesmith couldn't strike it. A lot of skill against longer blades is to defeat the point. A spear is always supposed to bead a sword unless the sword wielder can get past the point. Part of a sword fight against a rapier would be to try and tag the tip. A little warping can throw the opponents accuracy off and a breakage could render the weapon almost harmless. While the rapier has reach to the other person's body, fighting the tip of the blade rather than the person initially can take away the advantage. It's still much more difficult as the rapier is a lighter blade and so typically lends itself to turning solid blows into meaningless glances.

 

[Lightknight]

SNIP

Enjoyed reading that, thanks for posting.

Baring in mind that most swordfights are determined by the first blow, which would be your choice?

With the parameters that the first blow is what we're considering, reach wins out. So the rapier should win with that condition. There are styles to mitigate the difference considerably but with equal skill levels the longer blade can strike without putting the striker in immediate danger.

So that's my choice. Given other parameters it could shift elsewhere. Especially assuming that the rapier being discussed seems to be more on the narrow side than the German long sword they call rapier. It's also not the cutting variety we're discussing with a slightly wider blade that significantly mitigates the weakness in a purely pointed rapier.

Because rapiers require a lot more defensive fighting than just going for the kill, a heavier sword like a katana may land a blow sufficient to at least warp the blade. The thing about rapiers is that their mortality rate is considerably low. Who would "win" the fight has far too many parameters to even make a guess at since any rapier strike could be through the eye or heart or whatever whereas ten strikes may not stop the oppenent from getting one heavy blow in and surviving. It's a fascinating thing. I'd love to see a mixed style/blade swordsmanship fights competition of some sort. Something with legitimate competition from different schools.

 

[Psychobabble]

My thoughts on this is that the weapon does not make the champion. Case in point, Shaka's Zulu warriors ripping the ass out of the British Military.

Both the rapier and the katana were developed over time for specialized combat conditions in two completely different cultures. They are completely dissimilar fighting styles and judging the outcome based solely on the swords themselves is ridiculous. Add to the mix that prose and film have over romanticized the shit out of both types of combat to the point of near fictionalization muddies the waters of what is factual even further. The reality is until we can actually get several fencing and kenijutsu masters to fight each other to the death so we can correlate some data, this is all just theory crafting and as such is just pissing in the wind.

 

[|Sith|Eldarion]

Speaking as a fencer who has seen both weapons(or their modern day sport equivalents) in action, I'd have to give the edge to the rapier. The skill, blade quality, and circumstances of the duel have been heavily discussed, so I'll just assume that both combatants are having an unarmored gentleman's duel, both have equal skill with their respective weapons, and neither weapon will break.

The first difference is reach, in which the rapier comes out the victor, which means that the samurai first has to remove the threat of the blade before getting in close to strike. However, this is something the samurai will have trouble with, as the fencer has been trained to keep his blade from being beat out of the way. The samurai also has a significant disadvantage if he tries to hold the blade, as his guard is not designed to do so, which makes it much easier for the fencer to free his blade and counterattack as he moves out of reach. Finally, the samurai's stance and small blade guard leaves his hands far more vulnerable than the fencer's, as one hand is kept behind him and the other is protected by a guard designed to take hits from heavier blades, and the fencer is trained to use a circular parry to redirect much of the force of a stroke as well as holding it, giving him a significant opening to exploit as he moves out of the samurai's range. If the samurai is skilled enough to protect his body, the fencer could simply attack his hands with little worry about a counterattack fast enough to reach him, and eventually the samurai's hands would be injured to the point that he can't fight effectively.

The second difference is speed. While the katana is very fast in the hands of a skilled user, and can thrust with surprising effectiveness, it's wielded with two hands, which makes its thrusts slower, and its cuts are slower than the thrusts of a rapier, which require no wind up. If the samurai could close distance, however, he would have a far better chance of coming out victorious, as his blade is shorter and made for cutting. The rapier is quite sharp, but it lacks the weight and curve to land a lethal cut anywhere save perhaps the neck, particularly up close where his blade has little leverage.

The third difference is in footwork. Here, too, the fencer has the advantage. The side facing stance allows both for a smaller target and for more extension in the lunge, further adding to the fencers reach advantage. With my observations of both styles of movement, I would have to say that fencing is the faster of the two, at least with regards to opening and closing distance, making it very difficult for the samurai to close the distance and attack.

Keep in mind that this is based on my personal observations and experiences with both styles of fighting, and do not consider it a definitive comparison.

 

[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.

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.

well i would heavily dispute the possibility of defending against a poleaxe with a rapier. and i dont think it would stand up any better against a katana the rapier is just going to break. thats why they tended to be used with a parrying dagger/buckler . western swords were made of very poor steel at the time and were either made for offense or defence, the folded steel art of the Japanese sword smiths allowed for a sword strong enough to defend and attack.

 

[EvilRoy]

Now I know that you're never supposed to block an attack edge to edge with a sword...

Just like to point out that this is most definitely false. The vast majority of historical manuals describe parrying with the edge (for specific examples see George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence or the Highland Broadsword manuals by Taylor or Page). There are definitely flat parries, but they are very much situational and require a different grip than the standard cutting grip, typically.

I won't really comment on the edge-vs-flat parrying style as it looks like a fair chunk of discussion was had on that throughout the thread now, and I have minimal-to-zero knowledge of fencing.

However, from a metallurgical/structural perspective I feel reasonably comfortable stating that a katana-user would neither expect an edge to edge block, nor initiate one himself willingly. This is in large part due to the highly brittle nature of the cutting edge on the katana. The brittle metal would have allowed for a sharper edge to be produced and maintained, but would also readily chip and nick if subjected to impacts, particularly from the thin edge of a rapier. [It has been brought up in the thread that a rapier may have been designed either to cut or not cut depending on the style of the weapon, but I don't believe the presence of a sharpened edge would significantly increase the point-stress applied to the katana, remembering that the critical loading here is an impact stress over a small area. However, a sharpened edge might actually 'dig in' to a katana during a slicing action which could result in wedging or cracking]

Something I'm unsure of, however, is the typical slicing action of the katana. If a drawing slice was attempted by the katana and the rapier responded with an edge to edge action, I can't readily say what kind of damage either blade would experience. On the initial impact I expect the katana to take damage, but from there the question is if the rapier goes into lateral-torsional bending, or remains somewhat stiff against the edge of the katana as it is drawn back. LTB would likely result in minimal further damage to either blade, but remaining stiff is a difficult question as we must then consider the elastic/plastic response of the rapier edge as the katana is pulled over it.

Does the rapier elastically deform and experience a pulling/severing behavior as it bounces back, or does it plasticity deform and-though dented-remain useful. In the elastic case the katana would experience much lesser damage, as the sharpened edge would be able to pass by mostly unmolested and act as typically designed vs targets. In the plastic case the katana would likely experience-rather than a single uniform pressure-a series of small impacts that have the potential to ruin the length of its sharpened edge.

All that said I know nobody would do this on purpose, you would be ruining two perfectly good (and exorbitantly expensive) pieces of art, and I have a feeling what I'm asking goes directly against what an expert would advise in any combat situation. Structural and material mechanics are always more interesting though when you consider them 'duking it out' rather than being independently tested on large slow machines, so its fun to think about.

 

[Someone Depressing]

It would be hilarious.

While katanas cut things pretty damn clean, being stabbed in the gut with a rapier isn't fun (I'd know.)

Katana guy charges, guts off rapier guys hand.
Rapier guy stabs in lower gut/chest repeatedly.
Both die in a horrible heap of whatever.

 

[Ieyke]

I won't really comment on the edge-vs-flat parrying style as it looks like a fair chunk of discussion was had on that throughout the thread now, and I have minimal-to-zero knowledge of fencing.

However, from a metallurgical/structural perspective I feel reasonably comfortable stating that a katana-user would neither expect an edge to edge block, nor initiate one himself willingly.

We're taught to always use the side, never the edge.
Technically, there's not a lot of blocking per se with a katana. Rare would be the attack that you purposefully receive the full impact of with a katana.

 

[Lightknight]

Well you've made the argument which has convinced me the most so far, and I agree it would be fascinating to see in practice.

I think whether a rapier kills or injures that first hit is going to weigh the advantages in your favour immensely, so choosing the rapier would seem to be the "advantage" choice.

The first hit winning is true with most weapons, but the rapier was notorious for failing to win at first strike. People certainly died from a single strike but victims of a rapier strike were often able to fight on and even win the fight after being struck multiple times even in organs. They would of course often die afterwards if organs had been struck, but what good is that for the swordsman that lost the fight (and presumeably his life). Of course, the goal of any such fight is not to get stuck at all. But once you get past the point of any such weapon that relies on the point, your opponent is screwed.

I believe a rapier would be at a general disadvantage against a broader blade of similar length. That's why they were primarily for the unarmored civilian population as basic self-defense and duels. They were the precursor to the dueling pistols of aristocracy and not meant for warfare or prolonged fighting against multiple opponents. A blade breaking in your opponent's body in a duel means far less than on a battlefield where you may need that tip again immediately. Armor in battles as opposed to the lack of armor in urban settings doubly saw to its non-use on the battlefield.

But for a first strike, the Rapier wins and can absolutely kill first off. Just not as common of a thing as with other weapons.

 

[Lightknight]

My thoughts on this is that the weapon does not make the champion. Case in point, Shaka's Zulu warriors ripping the ass out of the British Military.

20,000 Zulu Warriors attacked 1,800 British troops/allies. I assume this is the Battle of Isandlwana you're referencing since they really didn't win much after that. Keep in mind that the Zulu Warriors also had guns here too (muskets/rifles). The British just had more advanced guns but the immensity of the force they faced certainly carried more weight in the outcome than just the terrible formation of the british which certainly hurt them too. The british responded with a larger attack force once they realized the size of their opposition. An army of 20,000 British would have decimated the army of 20,000 Zulu Warriors since the British were fully trained with guns and actually had newer breech loading rifles. So with a huge disparity in weaponry it can certainly make the difference with comparable forces.

The first difference is reach, in which the rapier comes out the victor, which means that the samurai first has to remove the threat of the blade before getting in close to strike.

Exactly, equal skill will likely give the rapier first strike capability.

The third difference is in footwork. Here, too, the fencer has the advantage. The side facing stance allows both for a smaller target and for more extension in the lunge, further adding to the fencers reach advantage. With my observations of both styles of movement, I would have to say that fencing is the faster of the two, at least with regards to opening and closing distance, making it very difficult for the samurai to close the distance and attack.

Smaller target for a stabbing weapon, yes, not much smaller for a slicing weapon though.

I agree with you overall.