Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
___________________ said:
If you practiced iaido you'd know the length of the shinken depends on your height and arm length. And you wouldn't worry about the other two aspects you considered either. Besides, it depends on who is using each of the weapons. They are both equally fit for killing well, it's how you use the tools that matters. Oh and if you pull out the "a fencer would have a dagger too" thing, then I sugest you take up kenjutsu (not kendo) aswell. And the weight varies aswell. Women usually go for the lighter ones, for example.

This reminds me of the pointlessness of "martial art a" vs "martial art b" matches.
We're basing the discussion off of average weapon lengths. The rapier as what is essentially a long large needle is long by the virtue of its function. Rapiers may also vary by the height of the wielder.

With the parameters being set to which weapon is most capable of landing a blow, the answer is inevitably the longer weapon. Where both lenghts are the same then the answer is usually which weapon may be manuevered the most efficiently. Seeing as the rapier is typically longer and was specifically designed for rapid manueverability it generally "wins" the arbitrary conditions of the thread.

Now, damage potential, specific fighting styles, etc. You may arrive at a different result. But the conditions in the onset are very specific and so this really isn't a qualitative comparison of the blades as a whole. Both blades are very capable weapons. I could give several scenarios where one may be preferred over the other and other scenarios where the opposite one would be better. Any armor? The rapier is screwed. Fighting a weapon with a lot of reach? The Katana is at a disadvantage.

What's funny is I don't really consider the Katana to be very different than several of the double bladed, double hilted varieties in Europe. Not functionally. The type of steel has its advantages but the curve doesn't create as big a slicing advantage as some may think. It's moreso the type of edge its steel could hold that less non-tempered steel couldn't dream of.
 

Proto325

New member
Mar 19, 2012
28
0
0
Well, the wielder of the rapier would be the snooty noble, and snooty nobles are always the villain. If you're in a situation where the snooty nobleman is the villain, he will always get his comeuppance.
On the other hand the guy with the rapier gets to do cool stuff like swinging from chandeliers so I say it's a tie.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Lightknight said:
Yes, particularly as many rapiers had no cutting blade at all and were solely intended for thrusting.
Most rapier manuals I've seen definitely include cuts (e.g. Swetnam, Giganti, etc.). EDIT: Although I need to point out I don't mean the same kind of cuts as you'd do with say a backsword or sidesword, much snappier little cuts usually to tendons.

Katanas cut much better in their era than other blades because of the high carbon steel it was made out of and the heat treat/tempering of the steel that the Japanese figured out relatively early on. So that's perhaps why the lore of their blades persists so strongly to this day. Their sharpening techniques were also superb, far more refined than Europe ever became. People today see all these machined blade edges and think all blades had the perfect edge angle and all cut evenly. But back before machining was an option, sharpening styles made a huge difference from the angle of the edge to getting the edge to a point where it will cut but not warp. I remember the first time I sharpened a chisel and got it to a razor edge that would cut you if you touched it. But it sucked as a chisel because the angle was too narrow which left too little mass in the blade for durability.
I'm yet to see any evidence that they cut better than other blades of the same era. During the main period of use of what we'd now consider to be a katana, the Europeans had developed a great many different types of swords, for different purposes, made of spring steel. Yes, the edge was not quite as hard and so lost its cutting ability slightly faster, but y'know, then you just resharpen the blade... Which you'll have to do anyway because when you use it, the edge inevitably gets damaged, regardless of where you stand on the whole flat vs edge parry thing. I've never heard anything about the sharpening techniques one way or another, so until I see sources I'm not inclined to form an opinion.





Actually, I'm going to have to disagree a little here. A foil isn't really any specific weapon, it is just a type of practice weapon and a foil rapier/longsword/saber/whatever can be made. It has a blunted tip, no blade and low carbon steel to let it bend on impact. There have been many different types of foils throughout history. The type of foil we see nowadays is supposed to be a descendent of the training swords for a small-sword (common in the 18th century) which is a stab-only blade rather than a rapier foil which has a wider blade and is stiffer. The flexibility of the small-sword foil is probably what makes its form synonymous with the word foil nowadays as practicing with it has much less impact/exertion. Basically the perfect practicing tool.
I've never heard the term used in that manner. What most people are referring to when they say foil is either the modern fencing foil or a smallsword/spadroon, though.

snip
This is perhaps one of the most detailed explanations of the Rapier I've found: Great Rapier Resource [http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm]
We more or less agree on the rest, other than me getting slightly sad at the ARMA reference, although it looks like one of their better articles.


demoman_chaos said:
1st point- I suspect the target had a lot to do with the technique, though I can't say either way.

2nd- That is fairly relevant to the debate. If you try to cut one handed using a cut similar to a 2 handed one, it isn't going to work out so well. Adjusting the pivot point accordingly will give a similar swing speed. I will say heavier weapons will be faster in 2 hands, but lighter ones don't really benefit from the 2nd hand.

3rd- The difference would be due to the grip, using the 2nd hand to limit the twist of the wrist on impact (for lack of a better term). That might give an advantage to 2-handing, and the lack of grip to resist that when using a reverse grip (like you often see ninjas and the like use in Hollywood) makes those cuts highly ineffective.

4th- No disagreement there. Highly curved swords gain an advantage but they also become less effective against armor as the blade will want to glide along the armor rather than bite in to deliver blunt force into it. Personal experiments have shown that forward curves bite best, rear curves glide most, straight edges are a happy medium.

I have seen only 3 types of East vs West swordsmanship videos. Either the western guy uses the weapon in a manner no different than the Eastern one, the two are sportsmen and not martial artists and don't use their weapons in a historical manner, or one of the two are sportmen and have no idea how to counter the behavior of the martial artist. #3 is most seen in longsword vs katana videos depicted someone trained in HEMA most often against someone who does kendo.
[/spoiler]

This is the fight I did with a friend for longsword vs katana. This was before I really learned how to use the 2nd edge effectively. At the very least, you can see how the large guard of the longsword does wonders. Hopefully sometime soonish I can do a bout using the mock up rapier I made against him and the bokken.
1st - That's possible. Still renders it an inconclusive test though (in terms of cutting power).
2nd - My point was that to attain that speed he used the sword in a way that's analogous to using two hands.
3rd - Possible. That still makes it easier to cut with...

I'll refrain from commenting on the video.
 

Tuxedoman

New member
Apr 16, 2009
117
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
Snip Video Snip
Do you mind if I give you some constructive feedback? You did say that this was before you really used your false edge a lot, so I'm not really sure how long its been since this video was taken. Plus I dont really want to be rude or anything.

Try pulling your Ochs up higher. I have seen lower Ochs done before, but I've yet to see it be done well (this could be due to me not having fought a wide variety of people). Try pulling your crossguard above your head so that your sword is angled down at your opponent and your point is aiming between their eyes. Make you can still see the crossguard out of the corner of your own eyes, similar to the Hangenort you did at about 3:05.

Also, experiment with putting your thumb on your blade when in the Ochs/Pflug guards. Note this would be your right handed thumb, and it would be on the inside of your sword (the side facing you). I've found them to be far easier to control and a lot sturdier when doing this.

And as for the one handed thrust, be very careful with that :p A nice little flick of the wrist could throw that entirely off, and leave you open. Using your longsword with one hand is certainly a thing, but like half-swording its very situational.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and feedback. What works for me wont necessarily work for everyone else.

Goddamn, now I feel pressured to find a video of me fighting, but the only one I know I have is 3 years old when something went horribly wrong
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Tuxedoman said:
Of course I don't mind, I don't mind being told I am wrong as long as there is decent evidence to support the claim.

It was done about a year ago. I was aware of the false edge cuts but only recently have I started to really use them. In that bout, I was trying to use different guards and tactics rather than just outright fight. I didn't aim Ochs at his face as the face was not a legal target in what we were doing (no masks after all). I have taken a wooden sword to the face (a rapier, and yesterday at time of writing), it isn't fun.

The one handed thrust was used to give me the reach and isn't expected by most. When they think they are safe, they get struck. It is a situational tool, but not one to ignore.

The only other video I have is the most epic Shieldwall fight I've ever had. Most of the time in viking group things don't go so well for me. On THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HevwbsTFZj0]day I had the favor of the gods.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
cerebus23 said:
People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.
The heavier the blade the harder it is to manage fine point control in a thrust - of critical importance if an enemy is wearing any kind of armor. The reason is relatively simple - in any formalized fencing style, when holding the blade with one hand, only two fingers are responsible for directing the blade (the thumb and index finger). The others are simply there as assists to hold on to the blade.

Now, in comparison to a rapier, this doesn't really equate to a disadvantage since, as I've pointed out already, the rapier is an ungainly transition weapon and not the light and fast dueling weapon people imagine. But the Epee, small sword or Sabre are each capable of delivering the point in a single action to an area the size of a quarter. Indeed, in sport fencing (which, if you fence Epee, means you're effectively using a dueling weapon made safe), this is an incredibly common drill!

And, it should be noted, blade is particularly likely to penetrate plate armor in a thrust - it simply takes more force than such a weapon could apply before simply being deflected.

cerebus23 said:
Most real sword battles were brutally short affairs anyway, the clashing of swords 10 50 times stuff is pure hollywood, mucking about like that in a real battle would get you killed. Most fights were one or two passes between samurai and done. And at the highest levels between masters it was by millimeters those fights were generally decided, and over nearly instantly.
It honestly depends upon the context and the relative skill of the participants. Even in Epee, which at one point attempted to simulate the duel down to being a single touch affair, brief exchanges were relatively common. Extended exchanges are less common but it largely boils down to the fact that one cannot fully commit to an attack when their life is on the line. Couple that with the fact that fencing in the second, third or even fourth intention is increasingly difficult regardless of personal skill (any given action could produce one of several reactions thus I'm rarely inclined to believe someone is fencing in the third intention much less fourth or beyond) and it's easy to see why the lengthy exchange is a myth outside of sport. When you're life is on the line, chances are good you'll simply disengage if something as simple as attack-parry-counter parry-reposte fails to land. Hell, even in sport fencing you rarely see exchanges longer than a half dozen or so discrete pieces of blade work.

So, in short, I agree with you on principle but considering just how much of the classic fencing manual is dedicated to actions that could only be be offensively applied as a second intention (that is, literally any action save for a direct attack) it suffices to say that complex pieces of blade and foot work have been strung together in practical application.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
Most rapier manuals I've seen definitely include cuts (e.g. Swetnam, Giganti, etc.). EDIT: Although I need to point out I don't mean the same kind of cuts as you'd do with say a backsword or sidesword, much snappier little cuts usually to tendons.
I honestly think there is a fair argument to be made that the reason such manuals make such common reference to cuts wasn't because it was a particularly effective way to deliver the blade (a large and cumbersome weapon like the rapier would be fearsomely hard to redirect to any useful end were you cut to miss the mark) but rather because the style, like the weapon, was in transition. From any standpoint of practical application, the Rapier is a severely flawed weapon that required complex and convoluted footwork along with a secondary defensive implement in order to make it a truly viable weapon. The existence of descriptions of the cut simply point to a weapon and style that had yet to be truly defined. Simply put, a host of factors make the rapier poorly suited to the cut and while one could certainly cause damage with such an attack, it would require full commitment to an offensive action when this precise action was as foolhardy as could be imagined. Worse still, the cut is easier to parry or evade, and, even if it should land, is not terribly likely to deliver a fatal blow.

Though, it should be noted that in spite of the fact that sport fencing declares the foil must be delivered as a thrust, an incredibly popular maneuver is to instead deliver the attack as a cut. Done properly, this causes the blade to bend making it a challenge to parry. Such an attack is capable of delivering touches to normally out of reach areas like the top of the shoulder.

This in no way is a defense of the cut as a useful part of the history of European dueling weapons, nor to say that the cut is a foolish move given the proper weapon.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
I honestly think there is a fair argument to be made that the reason such manuals make such common reference to cuts wasn't because it was a particularly effective way to deliver the blade (a large and cumbersome weapon like the rapier would be fearsomely hard to redirect to any useful end were you cut to miss the mark) but rather because the style, like the weapon, was in transition. From any standpoint of practical application, the Rapier is a severely flawed weapon that required complex and convoluted footwork along with a secondary defensive implement in order to make it a truly viable weapon. The existence of descriptions of the cut simply point to a weapon and style that had yet to be truly defined. Simply put, a host of factors make the rapier poorly suited to the cut and while one could certainly cause damage with such an attack, it would require full commitment to an offensive action when this precise action was as foolhardy as could be imagined. Worse still, the cut is easier to parry or evade, and, even if it should land, is not terribly likely to deliver a fatal blow.

Though, it should be noted that in spite of the fact that sport fencing declares the foil must be delivered as a thrust, an incredibly popular maneuver is to instead deliver the attack as a cut. Done properly, this causes the blade to bend making it a challenge to parry. Such an attack is capable of delivering touches to normally out of reach areas like the top of the shoulder.

This in no way is a defense of the cut as a useful part of the history of European dueling weapons, nor to say that the cut is a foolish move given the proper weapon.
While I agree that the rapier is not the light weapon most people are expecting, I also think you're over-stating the ineffectiveness of the cut. It's certainly not a primary tool of the rapier, but it is there and it can work effectively for disabling blows (unlikely to be useful for fatal cuts). As for missing with the cut - it's really not that hard to roll up into some kind of hanging guard as you retreat, or if you continue in to come to grips.

That said, the rapier is far from my favourite weapon.

I don't have much to say about sport fencing, because of the kinds of rules you mention. At this point there's not much of the original art in it, other than some of the techniques and a subset of the principles. Which is not to say it's not a great sport, I'm sure it is, I just have no interest in it other than as a sport.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
Apples and oranges?
A Katana is a weapon you swing in wide arcs.
A Rapier is a weapon you swing in short rapid thrusts.


Maybe a Katana's easier to use... maybe.
If both fighters didn't know anything about sword fighting I'd give the ad to the guy with the Katana because you could swing it like a baseball bat.

Someone skilled with the Katana vs someone skilled with the Rapier, and otherwise completely physically matched (And mentally matched) It would come down to their respective builds.
If they were both tall and lanky I'd say Rapier
If they were short I'd say Katana
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Lyri said:
Jasper van Heycop said:
You seem to be leaving my favored blade out of the equation. The European Broadsword which is quite literally a double edged sword. A skilled user (there are still a few left in the world) can use the blade to cut, stab, chop and can even use the pommel and crossguard to bludgeon. There are also techniques like the zwerkhau (don't know the spelling) which are impossible to replicate or even block with a katana. And don't say the samurai has an edge in martial arts or training as the wielder would have been a knight trained from the age of 7, utilising techniques that were just as advanced as bushido-arts. And no a katana is not sharper or lighter, forging techniques were more advanced in medieval Europe than they were in feudal Japan. But to answer your OP the rapier wins hands down even if we use the far superior hacking weapon as IRL the rapier replaced the broadsword in every country, those duelist couldn't all have been crazy
He is leaving out that sword because it isn't interesting to him, why would you bring it up? There is no option C here.

Also Knights would mostly use bludgeoning weapons, fights on battle fields between knights were short and had the intent to wound each other.
Knights are valuable people, killing one was a loss as you could ransom them back to their family for coin.
Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot.

Rapiers replaced other swords because duels became about honour, they are simpler and easier for nobles and well to dos to carry around.
They did not replace broadswords because they were murderous tools fit for a rampage.
Well, a samurai facing a knight wouldn't use his katana, he would use his bow, and then his pole arm and THEN his katana if everything else had failed.

The duel I really want to see is Rapier vs. Kusarigama.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
I would say the rapier personally. If we include historically accurate armor. Samurai armor is....plaited cloth,leather and wood? Maybe with relatively thin frontal armor plates of iron.

I would say this leans slightly more towards the rapier user. A rapier would easily be able to penetrate the frontal armor that the samurai wears with a thrust that has a decent amount of strength/body weight behind it. However, it would have to be a fluid or sudden thrust in an area that would immediately incapacitate the Samurai such as the heart ( how dramatic ) or maybe the lungs. Otherwise the samurai would probably be able to bisect the rapier user at such a close range and both would bleed to death horribly. ( Judging from the obvious cutting power of a katana, I doubt the armor the rapier user wears would matter unless hes wearing solid oak plates on his shoulders. )

I'd honestly say this match is a coin flip. IF the rapier user strikes the abdominal cavity in an area that prevents the Samurai from bisecting him, he would probably emerge unscathed. IF the samurai manages to side-step,parry or otherwise foul the strike in question ( Such as catching the rapier tip in his shoulder or arm instead of his chest or gut ), the rapier user is almost certainly dead.

In my opinion it boils down to the rapier user. Is he skilled enough to land a single solid thrust and not be seriously injured with the counter attack? ( The katana wielder probably would not be able to out-move the fair fleeter and agile rapier user )

( I'm assuming this is the traditional pointed tipped rapier, not those "cutting" edge rapiers. The ones with a solid metal point that can penetrate nearly all armor of that tip period with suitable strength and body weight put into the thrust. )
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
And on a side note.


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, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

( Also that is a joke. Please don't quote that lol )
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Tuxedoman said:
demoman_chaos said:
The 2nd is a great demonstration of katana vs longsword.
I was never a fan of Nylon wasters, they have absolutely no weight to them.

I have to say, the dude with the Shinai doesn't seem to know what to do when the Longsworder gets within his striking range. Could he have only done Kendo?
He just seems very static and unresponsive. Not meaning to bash Kendo, but from what I've seen of the sport you don't do a whole lot of actual fighting in it.
It is ok you can bash kendo i do, since 90% are sport games and so far removed from actual combat they are pratically worthless as far as actual combat is concerned. But that is a whole other issue with "martial" arts forms in this day and age and what passes for them. There has been far too much disneyfiying of martial arts, and just too many bad teachers or fraudlent schools.

Real "kendo" is seldom taught, actual samurai fighting kendo is only taught in NY, san fran places like that, it is very difficult to get a real education in this country at lest.

The katana is not garbage, really getting tired of people making that claim, it is one of the best "engineered" swords on the planet, its sharp, its flexible, and its pure geometry is about perfect if you want to create a strong light cutting blade.

It was a second tier in a series of weapons, their real backup would be their short sword, but yes on a battlefield situation neither was top choice on the front lines when most of the armies were armed with rows of guys weilding spears and polearms.

Far as honor is concerned, was musashi honorable for psyching out his opponents and showing up late to duels? was he honorable using wooden swords vs his opponents? wood is far lighter, can be swung faster, and can be made longer, and can recover easier from a swing. Japan was big on honor there were many in his day that saw musashi wholly unhonorable in his actions.

Bottom line he fought about 60 duels, fought in several wars at lest 2 if i recall correctly he was on the loosing side and his side was hunted for days. Tied once in all his duels vs a sickle and chain guy, and eventually beat him on a rematch, throwing his short sword at the sickle guy and killing him as he wrapped up musashis sword with his chain, musashi's secret technique. And ended up dying of old age.

Most duels in japan were at the very lest announced challenges, some were formal as all hell with notices sent out, postings on the date and time of the duel so people could watch the whole 9 yards, some were i am sure random acts of violence, but most of the time in japan at lest is was not guys sneaking around looking to stab someone in the back.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
While I agree that the rapier is not the light weapon most people are expecting, I also think you're over-stating the ineffectiveness of the cut. It's certainly not a primary tool of the rapier, but it is there and it can work effectively for disabling blows (unlikely to be useful for fatal cuts). As for missing with the cut - it's really not that hard to roll up into some kind of hanging guard as you retreat, or if you continue in to come to grips.
The problem with a missed cut stems from the length of the blade. In order to quickly redirect the blade to any useful end, this would require a cut along fairly specific lines lest the weapon simply end up on the ground rather than allowing a rapid follow through to the next fencing action. These lines, by and large, would either be far too grand and easily parried (directed at the head for example), or would be maneuvers that simply appear to be cuts but are, in realty, primarily used as attacks on the blade itself (the moulinet for example).

The problem with each of these is that without some preliminary action clearing the blade from a line, this leaves the attacker vulnerable to a simple parry-reposte (parry one, four and five suffice for cuts provided a slight modification of one to allow protection of the head) which should suffice to demonstrate the problem with a cut; the thrusting weapon spawned eight classical parries and only four are necessary for complete defense against the cut while all eight are necessary against the thrust). More troubling, since any cut would by necessity be a moulinet (the quickest way the weapon can be returned to line), any parry leaves the defender in perfect position to reposte as every classical parry has an attack in the same line! As such, the cut simply cannot be the primary method of attack with such a weapon though I can conceed it's use for attacking the blade as part of a complex attack risky though it may be. It has at least a single advantage in that it would be relatively unexpected precisely because of the risk and if used to attack the opponents blade (to move it out of a line), the surprise combined with the relative difficulty both fencers have at returning to any given line may prove sufficient to deliver an attack.

But, spending such time on the cut without at least acknowleding why it is inferior by explaining the utility of the thrust is probably a mistake. As such, it is relatively easy to explain why the thrust is superior for such a weapon. First, the blade can simply be presented (the arm extended) and delivered (via a lunge or other piece of footwork) far quicker than a cut. Second, the thrust originates naturally from a position of parry allowing an easier transition from defense to attack. Additionally, because there are more lines of attack for the thrust with such a weapon, it is comparatively more difficult to defend against. Finally, a thrust can relatively easily have it's line of attack changed mid attack allowing for one of the easiest complex attacks but one that has historically been the most effective (That is, you feint in some line of attack drawing a parry only to disengage and resume the attack in a different line) ways to deliver a blade.

Weapons that were truly developed around the cut lack the weaknesses described above making it not only a viable means of attack but even the most generally useful one. The sabre, for example, allows for a far more aggressive style of attack, owing in part to the utility of the cut and the ease of delivering a fatal or debilitating strike. The cut is, indeed, a wholly useful maneuver when the weapon in question was designed around the act. The Rapier, by contrast, was derived from a cutting weapon but the changes inherent undermined it's capacity to cut while simultaneously saddling it with a host of problems that would take a several centuries of development driven by the pragmatic needs of survival and utility. Seeing where the weapon ended up, as a weapon useful almost entirely for a thrust, light and not reliant on any other implement shows us handily that the problems I've outlined were seen as a problem by many.


Wyes said:
I don't have much to say about sport fencing, because of the kinds of rules you mention. At this point there's not much of the original art in it, other than some of the techniques and a subset of the principles. Which is not to say it's not a great sport, I'm sure it is, I just have no interest in it other than as a sport.
Sport fencing has a handful of esoteric rules that make little sense from a pratical standpoint. In sabre, one cannot cross over one's feet - in other words, they may not break into an actual run. Most of the silly rules actually have their roots in praticality. Rules of right of way in foil point to the weapon's roots as a training implement; after all, if your life is on the line, it is generally prudent to defend yourself before attacking in return. Target area rules were likewise derived from practical purpose. In dueling, aiming for the face and head was looked down upon leaving the torso as the only vital spot for a thrust. Sabre, meanwhile, attempts to mimic the target area of a fellow mounted soldier (the waist up). Epee, on the other hand, discards most of those rules giving a freedom that generates an incredibly conservative fencing style. While it seems odd, rules of right of way and restrictions of motion produces, somewhat counterintuitively, a style of fencing with more freedom of action both on attack and defense.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Wyes said:
Lightknight said:
Yes, particularly as many rapiers had no cutting blade at all and were solely intended for thrusting.
Most rapier manuals I've seen definitely include cuts (e.g. Swetnam, Giganti, etc.). EDIT: Although I need to point out I don't mean the same kind of cuts as you'd do with say a backsword or sidesword, much snappier little cuts usually to tendons.
As I said, the term rapier is incredibly vague. Some rapiers did have blades and some didn't. Some were somewhere between a sword and rapier and these are now considered heavy/sword rapiers but still would be included in such manuals. Further still, it also depends on the country your manuals are from. The source I listed was from the 1600's.

I'm yet to see any evidence that they cut better than other blades of the same era. During the main period of use of what we'd now consider to be a katana, the Europeans had developed a great many different types of swords, for different purposes, made of spring steel. Yes, the edge was not quite as hard and so lost its cutting ability slightly faster, but y'know, then you just resharpen the blade... Which you'll have to do anyway because when you use it, the edge inevitably gets damaged, regardless of where you stand on the whole flat vs edge parry thing. I've never heard anything about the sharpening techniques one way or another, so until I see sources I'm not inclined to form an opinion.
It's pretty basic. The term "hardness" when applied to materials like metal works the same way for minerals like crystal or iron. Hardness is resistence to abrasion and ability to scratch. So a diamond is harder than say, limestone. Because of this, the diamond should be able to scratch the limestone while the limestone in turn should do almost no damage back.

The idea of tempering steel is that it makes the blade harder. It's actually quite basic sience. If one blade is harder than another, it can cut easier and resist abrasion easier even if they have the same edge. As long as it isn't so hard as to make it brittle.

As for sharpening, I simply mean that the Japanese sharpened blades with a much more rigorous and structured method. The angle of the blade does make a difference in both the cutting power and durability of the blade. Too thin and the edge will warp or break, too thick and you might as well be swinging a bat.

For some reason, even with the existence of Woots steel in trade and Frank blades that were properly hardened, it wasn't that common because the Franks stopped exporting them as vikings used them in raids and woot steel in blade was rare due to the distance between India and Europe. Even with Woots steel (high carbon) being available from 500 b.c.e. we still don't see damascus blades being commonly used until the 16th and 17th centuries for some baffling reason.

Now, let's be clear though, the Katana itself wasn't popular until late as well. 15th-16th. I'm being quite liberal by including the predecessors in discussion like the tachi blades which would hit the 900's. Either way, none of these have the reach to beat the rapier unless we include nodachi blades in which case I'd give them the advantage even over the agility of the rapier. I'd do the same for any polearm.

Of them all, I'd say the Franks probably had the most advanced understanding of the tempering practice at the earliest period of time while the East understood how to make high carbon steel the earliest as well. If this discussion included an Ulfberht then we'd be having a different outcome in discussion.

I've never heard the term used in that manner. What most people are referring to when they say foil is either the modern fencing foil or a smallsword/spadroon, though.
It is certainly the most common form of foil. So as I stated, it has become synonymous with the term foil. Like kleenex is synonymous wiht a piece of tissue even though there are other tissue brands.

We more or less agree on the rest, other than me getting slightly sad at the ARMA reference, although it looks like one of their better articles.
This one in particular is pretty good. I did not recommend the rest. Just that one article. haha. I've not seen anything else on their site so I assume it's bad elsewhere?
 

Malty Milk Whistle

New member
Oct 29, 2011
617
0
0
Wyes said:
Lictor Face said:

Malty Milk Whistle said:
Oh man, I completely missed that this was a joke... I even received my first warning for calling Malty Milk Whistle a weeaboo!

Herp a derp...
I've never even watched a series of the stuff :C

ot: Rapiers allow you to wear a cool hat with ruffles. Ergo they are superior

Cavalier master race!
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
spartan231490 said:
I mean, I would love to see you block a katana strike with a rapier, pretty sure the rapier would break. Also, the Rapier has reach yes, and a thrust can be hard to counter, but I think the additional speed from a two-handed grip and the shorter sword would more than make up for both. To be fair, I think the two are close in a dual. If you lined up 100 pairs, I think about half of the katana wielders would recieve a fatal stab wound. However, since a rapier would have a lot of trouble countering a katana, I suspect all of the rapier wielders would recieve fatal wounds even the ones that got the first strike. It's not like the movies, where someone gets stabbed and just drops.

However, the bigger question with a sword isn't which would win in a dual, but which could handle more circumstances, and I don't think the rapier is too limited in it's defensive use to hold up. Also, there's a reason the rapier wasn't used until the 16th and 17th centuries. It's a great weapon for duels of honor between two unarmored men using rapiers. It has a lot of weaknesses on a battlefield.
The Mythbusters tested various swords, to see if one could cut another. The best they did hit was some swords hard enough to make them snap from bending, but only after making a machine that swung far harder than any human could that was wielding a Scottish Claymore to hit some very thin blades. No, they couldn't snap a Rapier with a Katana.

No human with a sword could slice through another sword, unless said sword is made of rust, glass, or chocolate.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
The Mythbusters tested various swords, to see if one could cut another. The best they did hit was some swords hard enough to make them snap from bending, but only after making a machine that swung far harder than any human could that was wielding a Scottish Claymore to hit some very thin blades. No, they couldn't snap a Rapier with a Katana.

No human with a sword could slice through another sword, unless said sword is made of rust, glass, or chocolate.
Were the swords made of period correct steel and tempering or were they cheap replicas made with newer/cheaper steel and factory temporing?
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
Rapier. Katanas are sharp and quick, but a rapier's reach and the minimal thrusting power needed to pierce flesh would outmatch the shorter blade. Even with a closed distance, there's no reason why a duelist with a long-blade couldn't step back or attempt disarming his opponent with hand-to-hand. That being said, it all boils down to training, and the combatant with less sword-fighting experience will be hurt pretty bad.

Everyone knows General Patton as one of the great tank and artillery commanders of the Second World War, but he was a master swordsman as well. This segment comes from "The Form and Use of the Saber".

In the Peninsula War the English nearly always used the sword for cutting. The French dragoons, on the contrary, used only the point which, with their long straight swords caused almost always a fatal wound. This made the English protest that the French did not fight fair. Marshal Saxe wished to arm the French cavalry with a blade of a triangular cross section so as to make the use of the point obligatory. At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!"
I'd much prefer a saber over a katana or rapier. Great compromise between slashing and thrusting, and the guard offers greater defense and provides more hand-to-hand options. There's good reason why the saber stayed in use with all European militaries until the beginning of the 20th Century.

Failing that, a good broadsword would work nicely.