Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[EvilRoy]

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.

That makes sense. It's also why I understand how ridiculous what I'm asking is, because I'm basically outlining a situation where the rapier has made a conscious decision to attack the weapon rather than the person and I'm assuming that the katana would not be doing everything in his power to avoid excessive weapon damage.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

Obligatory:

Spoiler

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen.

OT: I would say rapier, rule of cool (I don't like the sound of Katana, and though they look fancy, Rapiers just have that...special something) and stuff that people much more qualified than me (or most other people) have already spoken.

And you get a Pimpin' hat.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

From an objective standpoint, you have a fundamental problem - namely that the two weapons were created at wildy different times for wildly different purposes. Both weapons are terribly flawed when it comes to certain roles. Thus it is hard to be objective when there is no practical method to compare them.

For example, a true rapier has an advantage of reach but the weapon is unweildy. As a result, most movie "Rapiers" are some later iteration of the weapon - a small sword or court sword or foil. Ultimately, this means the weapon has a fatal flaw - it is difficult to change lines of attack or defense. This flaw resulted in two things - first, the weapon was often paired with a defensive implement (a long dagger, a shield, or, in a pinch, a heavy cloak) and the development of a circular fighting style designed to close lines of attack by motion of the body rather than purely by motion of the blade.

The Katana on the other hand has many of the same flaws including difficulty of transitioning lines of attack and defense and developed a similar circular style; however, the weapon is used alone thus generating a style of combat more offensive than the highly defensive rapier styles. This is in keeping with the martial origin of the weapon - the Rapier is a weapon of honor while the Katana is an weapon of war.

This ultimately leads to some conclusion of superiority and here it gets tremendously difficult. The katana is broadly capable of two basic sorts of attacks - the thrust and the cut. The rapier only one - the thrust. As a result, the defensive maneuvers of the katana are natively capable of defending against a rapier. By contrast, there huge swaths of the body that no classical rapier parry would defend against. Compounding defensive problems is that even if one were to adapt a sabre parry and use it with a rapier, it would be relatively difficult to actually effectively parry a hard strike without risk of simply having one's blade knocked out of the way.

As a result, the combination of a focus of offensive, the built in defense against the sole method of effective attack, and an attack that would be difficult to parry would lead me to favor a Katana user in such a contest. Were you to place the weapon against it's western equivalent, the Sabre, my position would be wildly different. The sabre is simply the superior weapon unless you intend to engage a man wearing armor.

Also, the people in this thread seem to have a tremendous misconception regarding what a Rapier is. While there are a host of weapons that claim to be such a thing in modern media, a Rapier was nearly five feet of steel and could weigh in at five pounds - a lumbering weapon to be sure.

As a broad overview, (and this is greatly simplified), the lack of maneuverability is what lead to a circular fighting style that you generally see in movies. The purpose of this was to close lines of attack which, when combined with the relative heft of the weapon when it came to changing lines of attack or defense combined with the regular use of the weapon in orderly single combat, resulted in an incredibly defensive style of fighting.

Over time, however, the blade changed especially as it became increasingly irrelevant on the battlefield. The court sword was an early development that resulted from simply breaking rapiers off at three feet and re-sharpening them. This was at the request of Elizabeth I of England, allegedly because she was tired of tripping over rapiers while in court. This development continued with minor variations along the way eventually resulting in the Small Sword - what most people think of when they think of the Rapier. In contrast to the heavy ancestor, a small sword could weigh in at under three pounds and at a mere three feet or so in length, could easily transition lines of attack and defense

This resulted in a fundamental set of changes in the style of european fencing. No longer necessary to open lines with circular footwork, the style of fighting became entirely linear - nothing is gained by stepping to the side that cannot be gained in a single pace. This was formalized in training with the piste which delinates a fighting surface approximately 1 meter wide and of varying length depending upon place and time. Also gone was the secondary defensive implement as the small sword was well suited to attack and defense and could transition quickly between the roles. Even fencing actions changed. With the rapier a parry might immedeatly transition from an attack into a defense along the same line (the options available to do this vary but suffice it to say that every parry position is also a valid line of attack minimal shifting of blade if performed correctly) where the small sword was quick enough to split this into two separate actions leading to more complex bladework possibilities.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Rapier is a transition weapon neither at home on the battlefield or in a duel. As such it is full of compromises that were resolved over several centuries of trial and error until it became a nearly peerless dueling weapon. But that later weapon is not a Rapier in the same way that a Sabre is not a Scimitar in spite of shared heritage.

 

[Proto Taco]

The rapier may have a longer reach, but it's effective killspot within that reach is tiny. The blade itself lacks inertia, so the odds of if actually cutting through anything is slim to nill, especially if any armor of leather or better density is present. Rapiers are also wielded one handed, further hamstringing any uses it has beyond stabbing.

The katana, on the the other hand, is quite a capable sword. It's best at slashing, true, but it's equally as good at thrusting. Additionally the katana is wielded with two hands and possesses far greater mass than the rapier, which lends it much more inertia allowing it to cut through just about anything, even some steels. Plus, the effective killspot on the katana is much larger; about the first 4-5 inches or so of blade as opposed to the 1-2inches you have on the rapier.

As for footwork, technique, etc. Well the two are fundamentally different there. The rapier is basically useless as a blocking weapon against a sword of greater mass, such as a katana, and it serves a primarily offensive role, hence the reason most rapier techniques employ a sturdier blocking or parrying weapon like a dagger or buckler. Katana technique on the other hand centers more around redirecting enemy energy to draw the opponent in and cut them down.

Put all that together and the rapier is only better if the one wielding it is skilled enough to keep the one wielding the katana at tip range, because as soon as the katana-wielder is inside the rapier's tip the rapier wielder is pretty much defenseless against a weapon of the katana's sharpness, power and range; a buckler or dagger isn't going to stop even a basic katana slash.

Personally, I'd just pull an Indiana Jones and quit the whole mess, but if I had to choose a weapon it'd be the katana, largely because of its much improved utility over the rapier's more specialized approach.

 

[TheAbidingDude]

In all honesty, I think it comes down to a consideration of the style of combat used. If the "samurai" prefers a style similar to what we think of as "iato" (only drawing the sword to make decisive strikes and relying on the speed of the draw as the main factor in how fatal the strike is) then it would be a very long, boring battle of attrition centered on waiting for someone to slip up. In that case, quality of the steel is a null point as the samurai is only planning to hit the fencer three times at most (Granted, I am speaking generally. I, of course, am not a master of any martial art and my knowledge relies on observation of fictional portrayals of combat, or my own personal reading on the subject). Still, the reach of the respective weapons is worth consideration, as well as the relative skill of both combatants. Overall, I'm partial to katanas on purely subjective grounds, but I would never discount the rapier entirely. Frankly though, if I had full choice, I'd find the biggest zweihander I could swing and just cleave the guy in half. I'm a little too genetically inclined to prefer brute force to bother with rapiers or katanas if I have the free choice, but that's beside the point. In short, I'd say its an even fight, with a preference for the rapier winning out on reach.

 

[Hagi]

Rapier I'd say.

Because you don't need to slice your opponent in half to win. You just need to stab them once just about anywhere on the torso or head and you're done. Sure, they won't die right away, if at all. But if they don't get medical attention soon they're going to weaken rapidly, possibly lose a lot of blood and have to deal with infections on top of that.

Real life isn't a video-game where you can keep on going perfectly fine until you reach 0 hp. You might last for a few seconds whilst adrenaline is coursing through your body from the initial pain but right after that you're going to start slowly feeling awfully bad and your combat effectiveness will drop dramatically.

So I'd favor a rapier with the extra reach to get that first hit in and then run the hell away while your opponent bleeds out, bonus points if he tries chasing you.

 

[Abomination]

So I'd favor a rapier with the extra reach to get that first hit in and then run the hell away while your opponent bleeds out, bonus points if he tries chasing you.

I'm picturing an episode of Benny Hill in Japan.

Need a few of those Japanese paper door hallways to get lost in.

 

[Tuxedoman]

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.

I'd say our school is based off of Hema, but not Hema affiliated? It started out as a bunch dudes who were sick of the politics in Naama, Hema and other large bodies so they went to form their own school where we just study what we're interested in. Its not an 'official' school though. We basically do Longsword, Rapier, Messer and Spearwork/formation stuff.

If you're meaning historical teachers, I've mostly seen the German stuff. Meyer, Ringeck and Wallerstein are the big three, but i've glanced over assorted Italian stuff such as Fiore, and had a look at Tybalt rapier. "He who waits for his opponent to strike will have a poor and joyless art" sums up the methodology we're going by (basically a direct quote from... Wallerstien? I feel I may have the wrong master there...). Strike first, and strike so that you're defending yourself while you're attacking.
Don't quite have that part down.

As for where Im based, i'm one of the New Zealand combatants. Really wish I was in Europe, dem crazy Poles have so many things I'd love to go to

 

[Atmos Duality]

*snip*Not even the Japanese liked the Katana. This ridiculous wankery over it is just bizarre.

I'm pretty sure the wankery came about because it looks cool, and its surge in popularity stems from an unfortunate period of time when a significant number of gamers worshiped Japanese (around the mid 90s to ~2005) resulting in grossly exaggerated, and misinformed assumptions about the weapon's actual capabilities or even usage in practice.

Or as a more callous "internet historian" once put it "Freakin weeaboos and their anime."

 

[Wyes]

snip

Samurai were somewhat equivalent to the knightly class of Europe - they could afford armour.

As for that video - I've seen it many, many times, and I'm far from the only person who's realised how full of crap it is. The two swords get swung in different ways (because the guy using them doesn't know how to use either), the longsword looks like a cheap replica that hasn't been sharpened properly, for that matter the armour looks like cheap LARPing armour rather than proper plate. It is not a good test at all and we shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

If you want good videos, here;


In fact, watch his whole series on katanas. This is a man that knows what he's talking about, and gives a nice balanced review.


By 'poorly forged' I didn't mean that the Japanese didn't know what they were doing - but their forging techniques were designed as damage control for the shitty iron ore they had. This has been addressed time and time again in this thread.

I don't exalt Damascus steel or Wootz steel and so on, because as you say, they are the exact same thing - but the thing is that the Celts and so on were doing it very early in their history (~700 AD) and it was then abandoned when they could create good quality mono-steels (in particular spring steel), because they were better in almost every way. I have no doubt in my mind that, if they had access to mono-steels, the Japanese would've been making their swords out of them. The thing with the softer core in the katana is that it means once the sword bends, it stays bent. This is not true of the spring steel used in later period European weapons (of which the rapier was definitely one of).

The other thing is there's this myth that katanas are somehow sharper than other weapons - they did have harder edges, so it's possible they held an edge for slightly longer (when they didn't break off because they are also brittle due to said hardness). This makes them unsuited to use against metal armours. It's also important to note most modern katanas people are using are optimised for test cutting, and so have a thinner sharper edge than the historical katana.
The point is that they are definitely not suited for metal armour (but then, no sword was ever designed for cutting through metal armour), and leather armour still poses a problem (hence the samurai's own lamellar armour) for katanas, as it does with most other swords.

snip

Very interesting discussion.
I've heard mixed things about whether or not the katana parries with the edge or the flat, because I was aware of the brittle edge it has. It's worth noting though at least for the guy with the rapier that, really that encourages parrying with the edge, because you want to ruin the katana's edge.

snip

Ah, I see. Any chance you do re-enactment also? Because I have seen the argument for flat parries crop up in re-enactment circles. Still, I'm a little surprised at this popping up in NZ. My school (Stoccata) is based in Aus (y'know, the mainland ), and the only real proponents I've seen of flat parrying have been from the US.
Very interesting indeed!

And yeah, the Poles are kind of nuts...

 

[Nieroshai]

To rather compare historical examples of, say, a samurai and a musketeer, would be smarter. Weapons are designed for the type of warfare they were used for. Samurai fought in an armor very similar to steel lamellar and wore face masks along with their helmets. Rapiers were wielded by combatants wearing no armor or a simple breastplate. If a samurai were to charge a (gunless) musketeer instead of squaring off with him for a fencing match, the musketeer might get in a couple good thrusts. There is also a good chance that those thrusts would glance off or bend the sword, as Samurai armor was originally designed for warfare in which arrows were common, and the samurai would deliver several far deadlier strokes. From that point on, the musketeer is trying his best not to get his limbs chopped off by a mobile Cuisinart. If he were to wield a saber or cutlass, other swords from his era and geography, he would stand more of a chance and still have reach and a single hand free. Now if it was a simple duel between a fencer and an armorless samurai in the street, it still comes down to the first hit and the lethality of the first hit. The first rapier strike must hit a vital organ, and the wieldder must be fast and precise. Samurai trained in iaijutsu, the art of the quick-draw kill. Sometimes this would be done one-handed, sometimes not. Either way, a katana can easily sunder or ruin a foil or rapier, and when a cut is made it is likely to disable. A stab to the arm with a rapier causes bleeding and pain. A katana cut to the same place can do anything from a nasty gash to removal of the limb without sacrificing a drastic amount of speed.

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail. A samurai wouldn't mind bleeding a little, or even bleeding to death later after the fight, if he had the satisfaction of disemboweling and decapitating his foe.

 

[Wyes]

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

snip

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

 

[Abomination]

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

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

 

[Wyes]

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

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

Gripping the blade is quite common in historical fencing systems.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snip

Naw, I haven't done any re-enactment yet as I don't have a soft kit, or a historical hard kit. I think it could be a lot of fun, but I don't know what the rules are like in Re-enactment and Living history circles. I don't like having to cripple myself by disallowing grappling and Half-Swording.

It could be that the older guys have been pulling knowledge from the US groups and teaching it to us, I dunno. If it stops the other guy from stabbing you, then all is well. Modern blades certainly wont get destroyed with edge on edge stuff, so I guess nowadays it really is a non-issue.

But yeah, there's a number of school up in the North Island from memory with a sizable(ish) member base. I think we're one of three groups in the South Island, and by far the youngest.

Mainland?

I feel this proves that WE are the mainland here.

And im getting off topic >_>

Edit: On topic, grabbing a blade is common. Swords don't magically cut what they touch. Plus you can grab the blade without actually touching the edge of it.
That, and if you're fighting with swords you would almost always be wearing some form of gloves, both in a modern sense and in a historical sense.

 

[Abomination]

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

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

Gripping the blade is quite common in historical fencing systems.

On a foil, right? Not with a bare hand on a bladed weapon though... that's a way to lose, er, ALL your fingers.

 

[Abomination]

Edit: On topic, grabbing a blade is common. Swords don't magically cut what they touch. Plus you can grab the blade without actually touching the edge of it.
That, and if you're fighting with swords you would almost always be wearing some form of gloves, both in a modern sense and in a historical sense.

But the scene has him literally grabbing the blade with his bare hand. I mean, any fool could just realize that if they pulled the blade away from the grabber they'd just cause him to cut himself fairly deeply.

I can understand doing so with a leather or mesh glove but a bare hand? That's some Guts biting the sword bullshit right there.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snip

Nope. Any sword you can grab and not get cut. You don't wrap your fingers around it mind you, rather you pinch the blade with your fingers and twist your wrist to lock it in place. You wouldn't go into a fight being like "Yeah! Im gonna pull his sword down so fast!", rather its a situational thing you could do if you had the chance.

If you want a 5 minute video of two guys with big beards


Although this isn't the greatest example..

Edit: I personally wouldn't even fight with bare hands, as hand wounds are super easy to receive. Again, you can do sword grabs bare handed, but unless you're very fast and attack/grab at the same time, it could go badly.

 

[Heronblade]

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.

That's just the problem.

Both weapons are designed for a specific situation, and any advantages or disadvantages will change based on the extraneous details.

I'm hardly an expert on this subject, but a rapier is primarily designed as a dueling weapon, its advantages will be maximized in the situation you described. However, those advantages mostly disappear when the setting changes to a chaotic battlefield where most combatants are wearing armor, the katana's main playground. Testing a katana in a formalized duel and declaring it to be inferior to the rapier based solely on that outcome is not exactly giving the weapon an equal shake. The reverse is true as well.

A more extreme example of this might be in comparing a simple knife to a rifle. Both are very effective weapons, but which one has a distinct advantage over the other heavily depends on a number of other factors.

 

[Wyes]

On a foil, right? Not with a bare hand on a bladed weapon though... that's a way to lose, er, ALL your fingers.

Nope, any non-curved sword. So, rapiers, broadswods, longswords etc.

snippy snippy

Ostensibly I started out doing re-enactment, but when I realised I could do as a martial art I dropped the re-enactment immediately. The problems with re-enactment are you really can't do historical techniques with the safety gear most re-enactors use (excluding the full harness guys) - face isn't a target, a lot of groups don't like hand or forearm blows, the knees or below etc.

And see if they've been pulling stuff from the ARMA, because they're the main group I'm aware of that advocate flat parrying, and I know they like their German stuff.
But yes, modern blades and even historical blades won't get destroyed with the edge on edge stuff (although obviously edge damage is a thing that does occur... which in fact you find on museum pieces). But cool, glad to hear there's some HEMA-y things happening in Un-Zud!

And I suppose I can't compete with your mainland cheese...


EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, my rapier/italian instructor's wife is a kiwi, and I'm pretty sure she's mentioned the HEMA stuff in NZ. I think you guys have some jousters too?