Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Lightknight said:
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?
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

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
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.



Lightknight said:
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-US:eek:fficial&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

New member
Jan 28, 2010
630
0
0
In the 1500s, Portuguese Sailors clashed with Japanese Samurai, Sailors with Rapiers defeater Samurai with Katanas
 

Kyrdra

New member
May 19, 2013
150
0
0
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

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
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.
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

New member
Jan 8, 2013
7
0
0
Kyrdra said:
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

New member
Dec 8, 2008
2,660
0
0
Do4600 said:
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

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
cerebus23 said:
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).

Do4600 said:
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

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Lyri said:
Do4600 said:
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

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
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

New member
Jan 8, 2013
7
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
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

New member
Jan 8, 2013
7
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
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

New member
Oct 19, 2009
438
0
0
wulfy42 said:
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

New member
Sep 25, 2009
1,680
0
0
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 :p
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
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 :D

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 :(
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
chinangel said:
[h4]Philosophy of Combat[/h4]
There is a difference in philosophy. I wrote something similar in a college research paper years back. I thought about this for a while, and came to a conclusion that goes deeper than the actual blade.

It's like this:

MMA killed Kung-Fu and the mystique of many oriental martial arts. Look at today's accomplished martial artists -- the majority of champions and top contenders come from two schools of combat -- boxing and wrestling. Western arts. These two art forms were used and prized in competitions because of their simplicity and extreme effectiveness. "If I can't strike with you, I'll take you to the ground." No frills. No extra movement. Just brute force.

Oriental martial arts took on a deep way of life and expression for its practitioner. It was spiritual. Warriors made a connection with their weapon and their art form.

On the contrary, Romans, knights, Templars and Swiss Guards only made time for whatever worked. This is why Archaeologists have found hundreds of variations of swords and spears across battle sites in Europe. Nothing about European battle was traditional. For the West, it's making combat more effective for the soldier.

[h4]Rapier = Balance = Simplicity[/h4]
The rapier is a culmination of two thousand years of sword-making technique and metallergy. And it shows by being predicated on its easy of use. Like medieval swords, which showed balance in their cross guard and weighted pommel, this was further evolved with better steel and a greater understanding for speed and warfare.

[h4]Japanese Philosophy = Tradition[/h4]
And as traditional as tradition comes. Nothing changes, and nothing much evolves. The Katana's problem is that it's a symbol first, a weapon second. It's why the design never really changed from among it's first variations in the 14th century.

[HEADING=3]To sum it up[/HEADING]
Katana

[li]Requires expert training for true effectiveness.[/li]
[li]It is a symbol first -- a samurai's soul -- and a weapon second, which is why it never evolved.[/li]
[li]It is shorter in length, with a hand guard that does little to protect the actual user's hand -- i.e no evolutionary traits.[/li]
[li]Requires two hands.[/li]

Rapier

[li]Balanced weight, efficient reach and natural swinging velocity make it simple for anyone to pick up and master.[/li]
[li]Crafted for combat's diversity, which turned out to be stylish...[/li]
[li]...In that it comes with a swept-hilt or a basket guard to protect the hand and/or snag the opponent's blade. (Everything about it is as strategic as it is beautiful.)[/li]

[li]Only one hand is in use, while the other handles either a buckler or a secondary blade.[/li]
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
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.
The ease of parrying any of the available cuts to the rapier combined with the amount of time it takes to actually reset one's position into something actionable means the cut is easily exploited as two of the three cuts available have direct attacks in the same line as the parry! The last of them has a direct parry available derived from true cutting weapons but a reposte with the rapier (assuming it was used to parry) would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

As I said, it isn't as though the move is impossible to achieve it is that it is obscenely high risk. The eventual complete removal of the cut from the weapon's descendants alone ought to be sufficient to show how little regard such maneuvers engendered among the duelists and weapon masters of the era. To me, to advocate the cut with such a weapon is similar to saying you could just punch someone with the guard. Strictly speaking, this is true and there are almost certainly situations where it would be prudent; it is just that such alignment of factors required to make such a move a good idea would be relatively rare. In the case of the cut, the full commitment to attack required combined with the ease of defense and counter-attack are sufficient case against it as something generally worth trying were your life on the line.

To use an example from sport, since while old sources exist, it's hard to make any definitive claim beyond basic theory crafting as it's been a few hundred years since anyone has attempted a mortal duel with a true rapier, consider the epee. In the sport, the entire body is the target yet pragmatic concerns reveal that when everything is an option for attack, only a few things are particularly useful. Attacks to the sword arm and leading leg are the most common simply because they are the closest target requiring the least commitment to offensive action. The removal of rules of right of way, simply a prudent consideration in reality, was sufficient to enforce a conservative set of actions on people playing at duels. Putting a blood price on miscalculation would easily further this trend. And, as I've said before, the development of the rapier eventually led to a weapon nearly wholly incapable of effective application of the cut and the total removal of the cut as a trained action. That alone ought be sufficient evidence of the lack of practical viability of the cut.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
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.
They're just cast? As in they made a mold of real blades and then just poured molten metal into a cast, making them the same kind of steel with the same degree of hardness/tempering?

That's a problem. You'd have to design replicas that use the same kind of steel. Katanas, for example, had a milder steel core which helps with blade durability. It's their understanding of the properties of steel's various stages of hardness and how that applies to blades that made japanese blades superior. To this day, combining stronger steel with a harder steel bit makes the blade stronger and able to hold an edge better. Nearly all other blades were made mostly from a single billet of steel. However, they appear to say that these are bisteel blades which I can only assume meaning they at least used a second type of steel. Hopefully correctly milder steel for maximizing blade strength in contrast to the harder bit.

While that doesn't mean that a katana should magically be able to cut through another blade, it DOES mean it is more durable and shouldn't be the first to break if either does.

A legitimate test would figure out the period correct tempering of the relative blades and metal compositions. Personally, I don't think a katana would necessarily cut through a rapier. I don't know though. The rapier blades were known for being very slender and had no advantage of milder steel cores for durability/shock resistence. It was fun to watch the katana in that video cut through the cheap stainless steel counterpart though. At least that shows that metal does make a different. But then we see it breaking another legit katana as well. So this does show that katanas can break other swords. Not sure why that wouldn't apply to rapiers as well since this was standard strength of a person trained to use a katana. The only video where they appear to have considered steel type shows the striking katana breaking the recieving katana. I'm not thrilled about the metal being cast metal (different crystaline structure than forged) but it already shows that blades do break other blades.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Wyes said:
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-US:eek:fficial&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.
You're not wrong, you're just missing my point. Rapier is an extremely ambiguous term when trying to come up with an absolute norm. It's just that the common rapier did not have a significant cutting edge nor was intended to be used as a hack and slash device.

The image you showed is a spanish rapier. Look up a 15th century Espada Ropera (their rapier) and you'll likely find the same blade image or things very similar to it. This is where their rapier evolved from. The rapier came into prominence in europe from 16th-17th century. There were a lot of different design attempts just like any new technology but by and large the cutting edge of a rapier is not a significant one and is often just there to dissuade opponents from simply grabing the blade and bending/breaking it. Even with cutting styles with rapier blades you wouldn't cut with your full force for fear of damaging the blade which is narrow. Swing a 3ft butter knife at someone and you'll do some damage. The stength of the rapier has never been in cutting. It's primarily a thrusting weapon in its final form.

There is a difference between it having an edge and it being a primary function of the weapon. The rapier style I've read the most about was Italian. Edge along the tip for the reason I described but not imposible to have a cutting edge along the full length. Still not meant to be swung like a blade with a significant mass. You're generally talking about a long butter knife when you're talking about a rapier. Something that can cut but not well.

So when I say they didn't necessarily have an edge, I'm talking in generalities. What europe typically saw at the time. Earlier on you'll see more edge work and then later on you'll see the rapier getting closer and closer to its predecessor, the small sword, which is more known to lack a cutting edge and is, as you and I agree, the parent of the modern foil used in most fencing matches now.

In spain I don't think they ever really dropped the blade edge on their rapiers though. Reading the comment to the other poster where you agree that the edge isn't typically a primary function, I'm not sure we disagree as much as I thought.

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.
Combining a mild steel core with the harder steel bit mades katanas more durable while leaving the hard edge necessary for cutting. As shown in the video above, a properly swung katana can break a blade of simlar material and cut through a blade of inferior material. A rapier is even thinner and weaker than that. Both due to its mass and due to its lack of a mild steel core. That combined with the knowledge that rapiers DID break in battle including even just in the bodies of enemies, I don't think this "rapiers can't break" nonsense holds any water. I'd say any blade can break if struck with significant force but something hard/strong enough to do it.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Alex Lai said:
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.
The jian isn't really used in the same manner, and never was the pommel used in a manner like in THIS [http://www.celticbritain.net/tweehandig20.jpg] plate or where they ever used like the two in THIS [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z_3g3oeTJco/TINNn4xN0iI/AAAAAAAAACA/8n30kFtZCkk/s1600/murder+stroke+defense.jpg] one are.

Lightknight said:
Katanas, for example, had a milder steel core which helps with blade durability. It's their understanding of the properties of steel's various stages of hardness and how that applies to blades that made japanese blades superior. To this day, combining stronger steel with a harder steel bit makes the blade stronger and able to hold an edge better. Nearly all other blades were made mostly from a single billet of steel. However, they appear to say that these are bisteel blades which I can only assume meaning they at least used a second type of steel. Hopefully correctly milder steel for maximizing blade strength in contrast to the harder bit.
What you are describing is differential hardness, something ALL swords had. ALL western swords had softer steel cores with harder steel edges. Pattern welded viking swords had iron and steel bars forge welded together, then twisted, then several of these would make up the core of the sword which had a steel edge. Monosteel swords like later period bastard swords would also have softer cores and harder edges due to how they were made and tempered. They were designed to flex and recover, something the katana doesn't do so well. The katana doesn't like to bend much, and if it gets bent it will not recover (it has a very high iron content, this means it has a lower "pain threshold" but it also means it won't snap like western swords pushed over their limit).