Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Adon Cabre]

snip

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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).

 

[Lightknight]

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).

Differential hardness is just different heat treamtment of different areas of the blade. It is not necessarily using two different types of metal. For example, I readily heat treat the bit of a tomahawk but not the rest of it as that would serve no purpose.

Also, the pattern welded steel did not have the same impact as having a core that was one type of metal and a bit that was another. The Japanese use both differential hardness and different types of steel/iron in production of their blades. That's a significant difference. I've made over a hundred pattern welded steel blades. Anything from steel cable to actually alternating two different types of steel to have a light and dark pattern in the finished blade after etching. We generally call it Damascus style blades although I've been inclined to think the term is misappropriated, it still evokes the image that the blade it produces makes. I'm quite skilled at making it and understand how to make a variety of patterns through the handling of the billet. A pattern welded blade has it's own advantages. But not only was pattern welding not as common as you may think (though available), but it also isn't the same as a full core of iron.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

snip

I'm not entirely sure you read any of the thread, as a fair few people have pretty much said (with overwhelming amounts of evidence) that the Rapier is just...well...Good.
Also, the Katana was not made for battle, it was a symbol first and a tool second. The rapier was made to stop some crazy barstard from killing you. Read ColonelHopper's posts earlier in the thread, they address most of your points rather well.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Differential hardness is just different heat treamtment of different areas of the blade. It is not necessarily using two different types of metal. For example, I readily heat treat the bit of a tomahawk but not the rest of it as that would serve no purpose.

Also, the pattern welded steel did not have the same impact as having a core that was one type of metal and a bit that was another. The Japanese use both differential hardness and different types of steel/iron in production of their blades. That's a significant difference. I've made over a hundred pattern welded steel blades. Anything from steel cable to actually alternating two different types of steel to have a light and dark pattern in the finished blade after etching. We generally call it Damascus style blades although I've been inclined to think the term is misappropriated, it still evokes the image that the blade it produces makes. I'm quite skilled at making it and understand how to make a variety of patterns through the handling of the billet. A pattern welded blade has it's own advantages. But not only was pattern welding not as common as you may think (though available), but it also isn't the same as a full core of iron.

In a tomahawk it wouldn't have much of an effect, though most axes of the Dark Ages (I do Dark Age living history demonstrations, hence why I tend to drift towards it) had steel edges on an iron core. On swords it gives a softer core and a harder edge, just like putting iron in there. Only difference is it doesn't have the disadvantage of iron (lack of shape retention). Pattern welding is better than a straight iron core, as it gives the flexibility of iron with the shape retention of steel. The easiest way to see that it was better is that it takes a lot more effort and yet they did it instead of simply putting straight iron for their core like they used to before then.

Pattern welding is how almost all swords of the Dark Ages were made, and even some in later periods. In Europe, pure iron cores weren't used for swords. In most of Asia the case is the same. Japan was very very behind the times when it comes to their forges, they are too traditionalist.

 

[chinangel]

snip

I'm not entirely sure you read any of the thread, as a fair few people have pretty much said (with overwhelming amounts of evidence) that the Rapier is just...well...Good.
Also, the Katana was not made for battle, it was a symbol first and a tool second. The rapier was made to stop some crazy barstard from killing you. Read ColonelHopper's posts earlier in the thread, they address most of your points rather well.

I stick to my opinion. Given the option, I'd take a katana, and yes Katana were designed for battle. A samurai fought in three rings: the bow, then as teh enemy closed distance they switched to a naginata or similar polearm, then when the enemy was up close and personal: katana.

Though it was also a status symbol, the katana was still widely used.

 

[Do4600]

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.

My point was that it's weird to assume that a knight would have all his equipment and a samurai be denied his.

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.

And for some reason you don't think that the Japanese came up with equally dangerous techniques that Europeans didn't think of and wouldn't be prepared for? Also many people here seem to forget that a Japanese long sword is anything longer than 23 inches.

 

[Artemis923]

It very much depends who you are fighting with a Katana, despite how they are portrayed in movies as being the super awesome cut anything type sword they are far from it.

They are awesome in the east as they used a lot of light armor mostly made out of bamboo and such which a katana would slice through easily, however attack someone wearing western style heavy plate armor and the katana won't do a thing to them.


This guy explains it best.

Rapiers are mostly known for duelling or self defence and saw wide use with such but originally was made to counter cut and thrust swords like say a normal short sword. So in a duel I would give it to the rapier.

Glad somebody posted this. There are so many katana-plonkers running amok here.

 

[Lightknight]

In a tomahawk it wouldn't have much of an effect, though most axes of the Dark Ages (I do Dark Age living history demonstrations, hence why I tend to drift towards it) had steel edges on an iron core.

You can't really say it's an iron core with a tomahawk. Despite having made them, I don't quite remember the name of the portion of the tomahawk that forms the eye the handle goes through and surrounds the bit. I assume it's the head like with an ax but I'm not certain. The bit/edge is indeed going to be higher carbon steel, or should be, but differential tempering does make a difference in a tomahawk. My comment was just that a harder heard does not improve the function of the tomahawk. In fact, our best performing tomahawks were made with wrought iron (very little to no carbon and high in silica content. Holds a weld beautifully thanks to the silica and even has a wood-grain pattern when etched) and 52/100 steel.

On swords it gives a softer core and a harder edge, just like putting iron in there.

It's important to mention that the softer core means it is a more durable blade. Stronger and more resistent to breaking.

Only difference is it doesn't have the disadvantage of iron (lack of shape retention). Pattern welding is better than a straight iron core, as it gives the flexibility of iron with the shape retention of steel. The easiest way to see that it was better is that it takes a lot more effort and yet they did it instead of simply putting straight iron for their core like they used to before then.

It gives a little bit of the flexibility of iron (strength) and the shape retention of steel. It is the master of neither. The core model makes the blade strong where it needs to be strongest the most while leaving the edge hard where it needs to be hardest. Pattern welding literally makes it so that the edge of the blade has different qualities alternating along the blade. Any flaw in any of the welds of the various layers can lead to easy breakage and it's possible to strike the blade and land a solid hit in the lower carbon steel which will damage the blade more than hiting it a centimeter over where the high-carbon steel is. For example, have you ever seen a pattern welded blade rust? One type of the metal will likely rust out well before the other type. The two metals aren't magically combined into one uniform force, they're just forge welded together. If they were one piece then there'd be no pattern. There's a reason why these kinds of steels are dangerous for combustion weapons like guns or canons. Cool to look at, but expansion will find any flaws in the welds.

And no. Pattern welding is not hard. You just cut the layers to length, clean them up, line them up, clean them again and add some flux before heating them to temperature. Done right, a couple taps of the hammer and it'll be one billet ready for twisting or immediate forging out as desired. I've done straight pattern knives before though. That requires a perfect weld as you just hammer the side of the billet flat. Very cool result but any mistake and it looks weird. Adding iron as a core or any other style is much more difficult:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Katana_brique.png/420px-Katana_brique.png

Exactly how the billet is inserted or forge welded is up to the smith. But believe me, in any of the options where it is inserted INSIDE the spine, it's a lot more work than just forge welding layers together.

Now, I have made kobuse style blades and a style I don't see here with high carbon steel as the bit going into a low carbon jacket (at someone's request). I've never used medium steel. Don't know why it'd be needed as a transition metal or if it'd add anything to the design. Perhaps it does something with a more gradual transition?

Pattern welding is how almost all swords of the Dark Ages were made, and even some in later periods. In Europe, pure iron cores weren't used for swords. In most of Asia the case is the same. Japan was very very behind the times when it comes to their forges, they are too traditionalist.

They weren't using pattern welding because of skill or special knowledge. They were using pattern welding because of inconsistent smelting practices. If you can't consistently produce the same quality of steel then how can you make a blade that isn't made with more than one kind?

But again, pattern welding does not equal iron core strength for the reasons I stated. Though, I do owe the largest portion of my college tuition to pattern welded blades ("damascus steel"). Even my plain cable pattern blades sold like hotcakes. It's a shame that sitting on my ass in the software industry more than quadruples the money I was making crafting blades. I loved that job and the creation of things that'll be around long after I'm gone.

Just remember, I'm not saying that the katana was some kind of indestructible force. Just that it's a damn well designed weapon. A katana can break through another katana of same make/model.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

I think there is a fundamental misconception inherent here. First, the Katana was made by folding steel - this is where most of the proponents of the Katana myth point. The reality, however, was that this process was explicitly designed to overcome the incredibly poor quality of the available iron.

Any martial weapon by explicit design had to be able to withstand the shock and rigor of offensive use. To that end, as materials advanced, so too did the quality of weapons. Enormous and heavy blades, for example, are of tremendous use if the steel is too hard or poorly treated but lighter blades can easily achieve the same end when better materials are used.

To that end, a relatively easy way to determine base quality of any blade is to attempt to flex it out of plane. A good blade should resist but give nevertheless and with a quality small sword, a weapon who's blade is a mere 30 to 36 inches long, one could expect the blade to flex five to ten inches out of plane before snapping.

To put it another way, I wouldn't worry that parrying with such a weapon would sunder it much less cut through the steel. Sure well worn examples would give more readily (thanks to the propogation of microfractures that any such implement would accrue over time) but the same is true of any blade. Nothing about the Katana's manufacturing process made it immune to this in much the same way that there was literally nothing special about the edge of the blade or it's capacity to apply a cut. The Sabre can apply just as fatal a cut as any of the short Katana's people point to because it is the cut itself along with the shape of the blade that gave these weapons their capacity to bite so deep.

The Katana, in spite of the myths, was just a piece of sharp metal made curved during the heating process. The Japanese were hardly the only people who developed such a weapon and their craftsmen were not remarkably more skilled than those you'd find in other nations in the same period. There were well made examples and garbage examples, just as there were masterpiece weapons affordable only by the fantastically wealthy and those suitable for the average foot soldier in Europe. The romantic myths attached to it are largely just that - myths. At best, you can say that the Katana proved an adequate weapon for conflicts both martial or personal. It is impossible to assert it was even the best solution for any particular place or time - simply that it was sufficient for the task.

 

[Lightknight]

I think there is a fundamental misconception inherent here. First, the Katana was made by folding steel - this is where most of the proponents of the Katana myth point. The reality, however, was that this process was explicitly designed to overcome the incredibly poor quality of the available iron.

As I said to "demoman_chaos" earlier, folding the steel only makes the iron more uniform. It needs to be more uniform because of the poor bloom quality.

Demoman_chaos disagreed with my comment by claiming that other countries were folding steel. My response was asking what that has to do with anything. In fact, i'll just quote me:

"What has folding steel got to do with anything? Any movie that ever says the blade was folded "a thousand times" is full of shit. You MAY see a sword whose original billet was folded 16 or so times. What people probably confused with folding is the number of layers. Each fold created a geometrically higher amount of layers (15 folds = 1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1,024->2,048->4,096->8,192->16,384 layers). All folding does is make the metal more uniform in its microstructure. If you've ever smelted iron and then tried to work with it (as I have), you'll note that the first billet form you get is really rough with large grain structure that practically screams crap. But as you fold it, that structure gets more and more refined and quickly becomes useable. Every time you fold the billet, you are essentially forge welding it to itself. Each time it's folded, the billet loses material as well. So for someone to be able to fold it a 1,000 times you'd have to start with some kind of mile long (exaggerated guess that may be underestimated) billet to end up with enough material to forge a sword." Link to my post in this thread. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.831596-Poll-Katana-and-Rapier-An-Objective-Comparison?page=6#20313989]

The Katana, in spite of the myths, was just a piece of sharp metal made curved during the heating process. The Japanese were hardly the only people who developed such a weapon and their craftsmen were not remarkably more skilled than those you'd find in other nations in the same period. There were well made examples and garbage examples, just as there were masterpiece weapons affordable only by the fantastically wealthy and those suitable for the average foot soldier in Europe. The romantic myths attached to it are largely just that - myths. At best, you can say that the Katana proved an adequate weapon for conflicts both martial or personal. It is impossible to assert it was even the best solution for any particular place or time - simply that it was sufficient for the task.

You've completely missed the majority of my posts if this is what you'll saying ot me. Completely missed. At no point in this thread was I in the magical "cut through machine gun" camp. I worked through college as a professional blacksmith and I had to make this crap. I know exactly how it is forged and the blades are superior to most other styles only because they involve an iron core. The genius of their design was simply that they understood that mild and medium steels had different properties than high carbon steels after a heat treat. By adding an iron core into the sword, you add strength to the blade while the striking edge is still the hardened steel that can hold a decent edge.

A legitimate katana can break through another katan. The mythbusters link has already been posted in which they paid attention to the quality of the blades. Comparing bimetal blades with the $30 stainless steel counterpart and then pitting them against eachother. They do break in normal human conditions.

Now, in most aspects it is just a sword. It's a well crafted sword but the stuff the franks were making earlier would have given it a run for it's money. What we're talking about is a blade that can break other blades against the thinner rapier. A blade with a tip so weak as to be known to snap off in the body of an opponent or to be able to be grasped by the opponent and bent or broken.

Sorry, but rapiers aren't magic either. They're just thin blades.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A legitimate katana can break through another katan. The mythbusters link has already been posted in which they paid attention to the quality of the blades. Comparing bimetal blades with the $30 stainless steel counterpart and then pitting them against eachother. They do break in normal human conditions.

The difference is one was a weapon designed to be a weapon and the other is a decoration designed to look like a weapon. A blade easily sundered is worth nothing.

Now, in most aspects it is just a sword. It's a well crafted sword but the stuff the franks were making earlier would have given it a run for it's money. What we're talking about is a blade that can break other blades against the thinner rapier. A blade with a tip so weak as to be known to snap off in the body of an opponent or to be able to be grasped by the opponent and bent or broken.

Sorry, but rapiers aren't magic either. They're just thin blades.

I have been anything but a defender of the rapier. They were a transition weapon full of fundamental flaws that took centuries to work out. But to assert a properly made rapier would break because of a parry is silly. For such a thing to even be possible, you'd need the alignment of several things:

1) A parry made with the foible which is ultimately unlikely to halt the incomming blade regardless of the survival of the weapon - that is, a fundamental mistake in basic technique
2) A wrist and hand of tremendous strength capable of ensuring the force of the blow was delivered over as brief a period as possible
3) A parry against a cut that resulted in a flat meeting of blades as anything other than this is likely going to result in the katana sliding down the blade until it meets the guard (at which piont the katana is firmly in the control of the Rapier wielder)

From a practical standpoint, this scenario isn't likely and regardless of the qualty of the weapon, requires a weakness of fundamenal bladework coupled with inhuman strength.

As for the weapon being flimsy, such a thing is relative. A lunge can easily deliver more force than a cut (since the mass of the weapon is effectively the same as your own mass plus that of the weapon) and allowed the weapon to punch through bone with ease. But materials, as always, have their limits. A well worn blade would be far more likely to break as the micro fractures don't need to propogate far before they're catastrophic.

But, my own position on the duel actually favors the Katana over the rapier for reasons utterly unrelated to material quality. Were it a question between say a Small Sword versus a Katana or even a Sabre, I'd be more inclined to select the western weapon.

 

[Alex Lai]

I feel there is a need for the ways the swords are made to be cleared up so everyone can be on the same page. If someone like lightknight with actual experience can correct me if i'm wrong about something. So here goes:

Steel
Japanese: Being resource poor did not mean that they had poor quality steel, just less steel that was harder to make. Tamahagane produced through traditional means is as far as I can tell good quality steel which varied in carbon content, anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5%, which would make it a high carbon steel.

This steel of varying carbon content was broken up into little pieces and sorted by hardness. Pieces of similar hardness were forged together and folded many times to remove impurities and homogenize the carbon content of the steel. This is responsible for the very fine wood-grain like pattern("hada") of a traditionally made nihonto. The process was used for both the high carbon steel as well has low carbon steel, producing folded steel ingots of different hardness.

European: with iron ore being more abundant, steel seems to have been produced by mainly by heating iron together with charcoal to form blister steel through a few different ways. However this development wasn't uniform and a majority of swords seemed to be made of work-hardened iron (with variable carbon content) until the early middle-ages. The import of Wootz steel would have been rare, and it could be argued that early smiths probably didn't know how to use a high carbon, pattern wielded steel effectively (in terms of quenching etc). Crucible steel would not be available in Europe until the 18th century. Sources: http://io9.com/5831683/a-brief-history-of-the-ancient-science-of-sword-making

The material available would have been very similar throughout the time period we are concerned with. In fact the method of production for tamahagane and blister steel seemed very similar.

Blade construction:
It seemed like everyone knew to use harder material on the edge of the weapon, and softer, less brittle material in the core. Only note I make here is that the Japanese seemed to have developed more elaborate methods of doing this as shown by the image lightknight posted. However I do not know if more elaborate lamination resulted in a better blade.

So all in all the way steels with different carbon content was used in blade construction was comparable.

Hardening and tempering process:
This is where things really differed. As far as I can tell, European blades were thorough-hardened. That is, the whole blade is heated to a certain temperature and then quenched, producing a more uniform crystalline structure withing the blade (this is separate from blade construction involving lamination of different steels). I think this process raised the resilience and hardness of the blade as a whole.

The Japanese method involved differential hardening, using clay to slow the cooling process in the back of the blade, and to produce the curvature of the sword. This process exaggerated the differences of the steels used in construction, making the higher carbon content edge harder (but more brittle) than European blades, and the back of the blade softer and resilient to impact.

As far as I am aware, both understood and used the tempering process after quenching.

Both are similar in material and construction, but differed in hardening process to accentuate different aspects of the blade to better fulfill the role they were made for. Both are known to fail during use. And both would be wrecked by a properly thorough-hardened monosteel blade made of modern steel alloy.

 

[Wyes]

snip

The practical viability of the cut for the rapier should be evident from the fact that it's in the period manuals. Why write it down if it didn't work? Swetnam was one of the English Masters of Defence, one would hope that he knew what he was doing (not that England was renowned for its rapier styles). Similarly Giganti details how to use the cut.
We are in complete agreement that it is definitely not a primary action of the rapier, but it is a useful situational tool. It does not make large, sweeping cuts akin to cutting swords, it makes short snappy cuts to wrists etc. (things with exposed tendons, mostly). These actions do not leave you vulnerable after the cut, if the cut misses. To be honest the main vulnerability lies in the attack into the preparation. There are ways to mitigate that threat but it is difficult.

Also as far as I am aware there are still cuts in the smallsword and spadroon, which seem to be what the rapier evolved into (could be wrong on this point).

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.

Sorry, I should have clarified that all I meant is that the manuals I was referring to describe weapons that are similar to the rapier in the link (though obviously they were Italian rapiers, rather than Spanish, given that I'm only familiar with English and Italian rapier manuals), and those manuals detail cutting with rapiers. As I've said to Eclectic Dreck, I don't mean large cutting actions that you see with primarily cutting weapons, I mean small snappy cuts to vulnerable tendons and the like. I am familiar with the use of rapiers (although not adept), I am well aware they are not hacking and slashing weapons. But yes, I do not think we are really in disagreement.

European swords (at least later period ones, which the rapier certainly is) have a reasonably uniform hardness, which is typically not as hard as the edge of a katana, no. However, that does not mean that the katana is likely to break a rapier, and the circumstances under which that could happen are very specific (as Eclectic Dreck details in the post above). The sword will flex considerably before it will snap. This is not to say that rapiers can't break - of course they can, they're a sword like any other. I just don't think it's as likely to happen as you think it is. Another thing to mention about historical accounts of rapiers breaking (or any sword breaking, really) is that the breaking of a sword tends to be more memorable than not, and so you'll tend to see a skewed result to the accounts of breakages.

One of the main points people are trying to get across is that, while the katana is certainly not a super fragile sword by any means, if it bends it will stay bent - the core is not spring steel.

...It is impossible to assert it was even the best solution for any particular place or time - simply that it was sufficient for the task... (and the rest of the post)

Well said.

 

[Lyri]

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.

You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.

I understand the three rings scenario but if that was the case, then I'm giving the knight a horse, a shield and a other such to just over come and continue the ludacris scenario until we're up to the point where the Samurai has ripped his armor off and is now preparing a spirit bomb and the knight has recited a holy prayer and is infused by power of the gods.
Who will win? Find out next week!
Do you see the point now?

Samurai never fought with knights, in no period was this the case. You are not countering what you have never seen.
A Samurai's best bet would be from engaging far away with a bow and puncturing, if this fails then the knight would simply get up close and bludgeon them to death.

Honestly though, I don't want to really continue this further because this whole thread reeks of subjective bias and theory crafting.

 

[Alex Lai]

while the katana is certainly not a super fragile sword by any means, if it bends it will stay bent - the core is not spring steel.

Please provide some sources before repeating that claim again and again! Modern reproduction swords might make use of spring steel, but I don't think it was available in the 16th century...

Also read this article by John Clements. Under the subheading 'Ancient Art and Modern Science" he outlines reasons why middle ages swords were certainly NOT made from spring steel.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

 

[Lightknight]

The difference is one was a weapon designed to be a weapon and the other is a decoration designed to look like a weapon. A blade easily sundered is worth nothing.

They ran two tests. One with a real sword hitting a $30 knock-off (cut the blade), one with a real sword hitting a real sword (break, not cut).

It's not tha the blade is easily sundered. It's that a sufficient force delivered with an object hard enough to survive the impact with the target will destroy anything.

A rapier is a thin blade and is not nearly so flexible as a small sword for example. If a katana can break another katana then I don't see why any rational person would defend a thinner, harder blade (as in, one piece of hardened steel).

Rapiers have a well-documented history of breaking during fights from various things. From armor to just breaking inside the body. If you can reach out and snap the blade then it can sure as hell be damaged by a steel blade. Not just a katana either, any thick blade of hardened steel.

Please don't forget, I'm in the Rapier would win in this thread category. I think, given parameters of landing a successful blow on the target, the rapier's reach and manueverability is all the advantage it needs to gain that standing when damage potential isn't considered.

All you need is a rapier blade to meet a katana blade in opposite swinging directions. If it's a bladed rapier then there are cut moves that are sometimes performed. If it's just a pig sticker then all you've got to do with a katana is get a decent hit on the tip during a thrust or otherwise. If no blade, the weapon may also be seized. Rapiers were known for breaking.

I don't think it would necessarily happen. I think the rapier is agile enough to generally avoid sword strikes. But I'm just combating the silly notion that a katana can't break a rapier. Simple as that. I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I think you're arguing with me about the likelihood of it doing that. But the topic on the thread was that it can't do so. Not everyone wielding a rapier is necessarily an expert. People make mistakes and with a rapier that can easily mean a broken blade.