Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Lightknight]

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]

snip

snip

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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?

Fair question.

I rewatched the segment (here it is, if you want to watch it: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/slicing-a-sword.htm). They say all of them are really high end replicas, but it was noted that each of the swords were cast from high carbon steel. They don't say who or how each sword was made, and being made from the same strain of steel means local variation in metal strength won't be a factor (to be fair, Japan's iron supplies were both limited and not of very high quality).

I have looked a bit into history, and the west did have contact with Japan during the Sengoku and Edo periods, originally by the Portuguese (a ship of theirs was blown off course while heading to China). I do know there was some fighting between pirates from both sides and Japan/the European traders, and I haven't found any records of Katanas slicing through the rapiers the Portuguese wielded.

 

[Wyes]

snip

I did try to clarify that the cut is not a primary tool of the rapier, but it is available. Unfortunately I can't remember the specific actions where we used cuts in the rapier I learnt, since it really wasn't one of my stronger weapons, but they were there and they seemed effective (although much was made of the fact that you need to cut in a particular fashion to make the cut effective). I still stand by the statement that it's easy to roll into a hanging guard after the cut, although it doesn't leave you in a position to riposte.

Fencing stuff

I'm aware that a lot of the rules developed of their use as training weapons - that doesn't mean that at this point in time, modern fencing isn't more or less a sport and nothing else. Not sure about the face and head being looked down upon in duels though, given a fair chunk of the surviving manuals are dueling manuals and explicitly describe actions against the head and face.

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.

The manuals I'm familiar with seem to describe this [http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=np&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=x_8dRftLUbtxSM:&imgrefurl=http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/renaissance-style-swept-hilt-rapiers.html&docid=EaJLDW2YeOhO3M&imgurl=http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/SH1099-1000.jpg&w=1000&h=1000&ei=HEtoUvTKEIzMkgXbz4CIDw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:36,s:0,i:205&iact=rc&page=2&tbnh=186&tbnw=186&start=31&ndsp=45&tx=132&ty=42] kind of rapier.

It's pretty basic. The term "hardness"... ...swinging a bat.

I understand how hardness works, that's not the issue. The issue is that the steel being used in both European and Japanese blades was already harder than anything they'd be expected to cut through (40-50 Rockwell, I believe?), and any extra hardness then doesn't seem like it would effect the cutting ability, only the ability to retain an edge. Still unsure one way or another about how the Japanese sharpened their swords compared to the Europeans. I do understand what kinds of edge are useful for what.

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.

Fair enough, right with you here then.

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?

The issues with ARMA is mostly that John Clements has given them something of a bad reputation (the whole edge v flat debate and his attitude towards said debate and other practitioners), as well as they have some isolationist tendencies. Like any other school they do some good stuff and some bad stuff, but people use their resources a lot because they just have so much out there.

 

[irani_che]

In the 1500s, Portuguese Sailors clashed with Japanese Samurai, Sailors with Rapiers defeater Samurai with Katanas

 

[Kyrdra]

Everytime I hear about a katana slicing through steel I have to think of this video
And yes the Katana which bend unto the impact was a real Katana with a hardened edge and a soft core. It just isnt as good as a lot of people are saying. Granted the only thing that is as good as people are saying is a lightsaber. Also feel free to ignore the fact that the longsword broke the other sword because I feel that was more random material damage than anything reproducable.

And for the whole Katana against rapier thing: It will probably somewhat even with a slight nudge to the rapier simply because of the higher reach

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Apparently you didn't watch the episode. All the swords snapped, they just weren't cut. The broke from being bent to far instead of being cut through. And that was with human force.

 

[Alex Lai]

And yes the Katana which bend unto the impact was a real Katana with a hardened edge and a soft core.

Can you verify that? I know that japanese swords aren't supposed to be used this way etc etc but I'd expect it to not fail so spectacularly. I've seen this video before and there are a few things I feel that indicates otherwise.

First, the hamon (wavey bit of the blade) is way too apparent, which indicates to me that it's likely not a real hamon but a etched pattern. Real hamon are usually more subtle. Second, most modern production swords have altered blade cross-section for lightness and better cutting of targets like tatami and the tomato in the beginning, instead of a "meatier" blade cross-section (search "katana niku" in google images), which might explain why it bent so much, also the presence of the blood groove doesn't help the blade structure either. Finally the tip geometry is wrong (1:32 of the video), it tapers from the width of the body of the blade smoothly down to a point. Usually there would be a flair before the taper to better support the point for a thrust, but this is obviously extra work for a mass production sword so is often neglected.

 

[Lyri]

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.

There is theory crafting and then there is tailoring the situation to favour your preference, this is the latter.
Whilst Samurai used bows, to say that in a fight were going to give them the upper hand by giving them range is a little unfair.
You also gave them three weapons, come on now.

 

[demoman_chaos]

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.

The katana was forged in the same manner that Pre-Roman Celts used for their blades. The folding steel technique is used to work out impurities, something not necessary with medieval and later European blades (as well as the Ulfberht Viking Age swords, which were vastly ahead of their time). For its location and technology level, it is quite good though.
It is not flexible, quite the opposite really. The thick spine makes it difficult to bend, and the high iron content makes it not want to unbend. European blades were made so they would flex and return to their original shape.
It is not light either, weighing 3-4 lbs just like a European hand-and-a-half sword (Which generally were more than a foot longer). It is quite heavy for blades of similar length (like naval cutlasses, which weigh a bit under 2 lbs).

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.

The Europeans would have access to crossbows as well as the English longbow (which outpowers the Yumi by over 30 lbs) for long range, as well as firearms (the Japanese got theirs from Portuguese merchants, if they weren't blown off course Japan wouldn't have had them). At long range, the Japanese can't match the Europeans.
The yari won't be much use against full plate (which weighed about 60-70 lbs {The same as Japanese armor} and was fitted and articulated to the man so it wouldn't hinder movement one jot). The naginata might, but the kama-yari would be the only one that may be able to do some damage. The Europeans had billhooks, poleaxes, halberds, lucerne hammers, and many more weapons easily capable of beating any armor the Japanese could throw their way. When it comes to polearms, it isn't much of a contest.
For swords, the short katana wouldn't do anything against plate no matter how hard you tried. On the other hand, the point and pommel of the longsword could cause injury and death on the Japanese armor (which was lamellar, something that Europeans had been facing since the Roman Era). The longsword also has the double edged blade, which is far more useful than you would first guess.
I've done the research and even made a youtube video series discussing the topic of Knight vs Samurai. The samurai just can't match the diverse and evolving war machines in Europe. That is why I chose two dueling swords both of the 16th century for this match up for an unarmored organized duel.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

There is theory crafting and then there is tailoring the situation to favour your preference, this is the latter.
Whilst Samurai used bows, to say that in a fight were going to give them the upper hand by giving them range is a little unfair.
You also gave them three weapons, come on now.

Think his point was the katana would be a backup in any scenario. Even when you get there, there's not much a knight can do that's impossible to counter.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Think his point was the katana would be a backup in any scenario. Even when you get there, there's not much a knight can do that's impossible to counter.

Hello fellow I haven't spoken to in a long while. You are correct in that statement ot an extent, and incorrect too.
The samurai wouldn't be aware of the back edge strikes, which means he wouldn't be able to counter them in practice. He wouldn't know how to deal with halfswording and pommel strikes either really.
That and the GUY ON THR RIGHT [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z_3g3oeTJco/TINNn4xN0iI/AAAAAAAAACA/8n30kFtZCkk/s1600/murder+stroke+defense.jpg] would REALLY throw him off as he would have never seen anyone do anything like that before. He could counter it, but he wouldn't know how or be prepared to.

Same thing for the rapier. There isn't anything comparable to it in Japan, but the rapier was often pitted against 2 handed swords similar to the katana. The European would be ready for the Japanese, but not vice-versa. That is one big factor when considering not just the weapon styles in question, but the weapon users.

 

[Alex Lai]

The katana was forged in the same manner that Pre-Roman Celts used for their blades. The folding steel technique is used to work out impurities, something not necessary with medieval and later European blades (as well as the Ulfberht Viking Age swords, which were vastly ahead of their time).

[redacted]

European blades were made so they would flex and return to their original shape.

I want to seriously dispute your claim about the katana being forged in the same manner. The folding of the steel was used to homogenize the steel with differing carbon content and remove impurities, and lots of cultures knew to do this from very early. What differentiates a katana is the use of steels with differing carbon content (never iron, as some claimed) in a layered fashion, the most basic of which had 3 layers, so harder steel is used on the edge, AND their extensive use of differential hardening, which shows a high level of knowledge about working with steel.

Also the claim that European swords can flex and bend (a few people before said they were made from spring steel) I couldn't find anything about. As far as a quick google / wiki search revealed, production of high quality steel wasn't possible until much later than the 16th century. Some also said that swords were constructed from imported Wootz or Damascus steel, which were very similar to the japanese tamahagane in terms of carbon content and pattern-wielding production process.

The only real difference as far as I can tell is the use of a whole-blade heat treating process in european swords as opposed to differential heat treating in japanese swords. This might account for the difference but I'm not sure.

If someone has good sources for 15th century sword construction processes and material use,please let me know. I'm a bit tired of unsubstantiated claims of "european swords are made of high-quality spring steel!!"

 

[Alex Lai]

The samurai wouldn't be aware of the back edge strikes, which means he wouldn't be able to counter them in practice. He wouldn't know how to deal with halfswording and pommel strikes either really.

The Japanese have fought people such as the Chinese which have double edged weapons. Also the use of the pommel both offensively and defensively is present in iaido and various other Japanese sword arts. Hell I even use the handle portion to strike an opponent's handle sometimes in kendo, which is legal as long as the intention was to follow through with an attack after the disruption. There were times (pre-war kendo) when strikes with the pommel to other parts of the body (such as the head) was legal, as well as leg sweeps and take-downs.

 

[Unsilenced]

Both lose to a good knife thrower though

Throwing knives, at least as commonly envisioned, are terrible as weapons of war. If you're thinking about the type of knife you can hold a stack of like a hand of cards and whip at people, those aren't going to get you very far. At best you can land small wounds on your opponents, which is what throwing stars are for. They make for a surprise "fuck you" attack when you and your enemy are out of stabbing distance, kind of like throwing dirt in their face, but stabbier.

To actually kill someone with a throwing knife, you're looking at some giant, heavy blades. Throwing knives have to be thick as fuck to not break or bend, and are thrown with a full-body motion. By the time you draw it, wind up, and throw it, you might as well have just walked over and stabbed the person.

 

[chinangel]

I'm just gonna put this here.

Rapier are not very versatile weapons, and they were developed for a stylized period. Without a paired dagger, the weapon would struggle against a faster opponent, whereas Katana were designed during combat and warfare.

The katana and it's combat styles were tested, tried and true whereas the rapier had a comparatively much shorter lifespan.

A katana is generally more sturdy than a rapier as well, which is indeed very long but also quite flexible...making direct defense with it difficult without it's dagger: which is the assumption we're working on.

Generally a longer sword will give you much more reach but the thrusting style of a rapier is suited for matching another rapier, not a sword designed for heft and slashing, meaning that an agile opponent could easily keep the comparatively clumsy rapier off-balanace and struggling to strike.

Lastly, and probably the most important is the human body.

A thrusting weapon like a rapier does exceptional damage to a small target area. However.

This does not ensure fatal damage, meaning that a rapier thrust is always aimed at the vitals: upper chest, to cause killing strikes.

otherwise you have simply mildly wounded a fighter, and with adrenaline pumping through you, it's easy to ignore such blows.

However the Katana (a much more versatile weapon) is designed for hacking attacks to severe limbs and cause damage over a much larger area.

There is an old proverb: first blood is not as important as last.

And a Rapier may be well capable of drawing that first blood, but there is no guarantee that it will be the decisive blow, with a heavier weapon like a katana: it's much more likely that your strike will cause heavy damage or at least a crippling strike.

Point goes to katana

 

[blackrave]

As someone trained only with small blades and makeshift weapons (thus having close to no expertise of swords)
I can say that different designs of weapons isn't a thing because of some sort of cultural differences
(I hate myself for saying this PC bullshit, but this is true in this case)
Weapons aren't better or worse, they are different
Different designs are there because of different properties and goals of these weapons
Properties like wielders phisique, fighting technique and also what armor wielder is wearing
While goals consists of targets weapon, targets armor, targets fighting technique and in what state you would like your target to be when you're done
Fighting environment also plays a huge role in choice of weapon

For example, while I really like my dagger, there are circumstances when I would rather choose glass bottle
And I generally consider my dagger to be a better weapon than bottle

I was surprised to find this general idea in "Armorer's challange" (book in TES)
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:The_Armorer's_Challenge
Too bad TES rarely explores this in combat mechanics