Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[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.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Agreed. Even masters who adamantly disagreed with the use of a rapier as a hack and slash weapon would at least include cutting moves in their style. But by far a secondary utility as slashing can easily lead to breaks of the blade and the cuts aren't nearly as significant as with other blades. But, all in all, done right, it gets the job done.

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.

"likely" is an operative term here. I'm disagreeing with the notion that a katana or any blade of significant mass/hardness could NOT break a rapier. Not regarding the likelihood of it happening with two skilled combatants.

I'd say that two unskilled fighters would give the advantage to the non-rapier blade though. But that's besides the point.

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.

I wouldn't think otherwise. But all blades should have some give. If not, they were tempered too hard and would shatter before bending. If any metal bends, it will stay bent. I'm not sure why you even made this point. Even bent spring steel doesn't return to former shape.

Unless you're saying there's no give. In which case you simply haven't worked with metal like I have. It all has some give. That's part of the strength of the blade as opposed to hardness. The strength of the blade is specifically to aid in the amount of give it has to protect the blade whereas hardness specifically reduces that strength.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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? Sweetness was one of the English Masters of Defense, 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.

If speaking of a cut to mildly wound, the disadvantages do diminish greatly. A cut that you describe does not require one to leave the line of attack or defense but has the notable disadvantage of also being unlikely to cause any significant wound. A small amount of sturdy clothing could easily negate such a mild attack. By contrast, making similarly small motions of the point along with a thrust has the notable advantage of being all but assured of causing a would should the blow land - less than a pound of pressure is necessary to achieve that end at the point.

But, again, from a practical perspective this does produce a problem. In order to achieve such a cut, one must be disconcertingly close to the opponent - a single fencing action from the wrist and hand. Delivering such an attack by a cut would require one be a fair degree closer than the attempting to hit the same target with a thrust and thus a greater commitment to the attack.

And, for the record, pointing to the English when it comes to the Rapier is folly given they were some of the last Europeans to give up the broadsword. The greater utility of the rapier for personal combat was eventually recognized, however. Of course, that the great masters of the art and all of the developments we remember (save for the court sword which was as much a political move as a practical one) came from other nations giving rise to broad competing schools of thought from the famous Spanish circles to the Italian and french disagreements regarding how best to hold the blade. The Italians, for example, are more likely to favor a cut given their development of a style of grip that sacrificed fine point control in favor of power where the french more clearly favored the thrust with a grip that sacrificed power in favor of fine control.

To put this in perspective, a properly held rapier utilizing a purely straight grip is actually held and maneuvered with two fingers - sufficient to direct the point but a problem if your attempt to laterally direct the weapon to some direct offensive end. The Italians, on the other hand, favored a grip that used at least three fingers in a grip that was quite solid. This had the effect of changing to the wrist for fine maneuvers (a less precise choice) but ensured any such action was backed by more strength than the french grip style could muster. The argument of superiority of style arising from this fundamental (and seemingly minor) difference raged for ages even into the modern sport until, eventually, the orthopedic grip was developed which was functionaly a compromise between the two competing styles.

Now, as to the continued existence of the cut in manuals, there are a few schools of thought. First, while the development of the rapier eventually lead to a weapon more or less wholly incapable of delivering an effective cut, that isn't to say it was entirely incapable. Blood could easily be shed even if a great many cuts would be required to cause a fatal wound. Given that duels eventually transitioned from affairs to the death into ones where first blood sufficed for most (even though such a thing stands in direct contrast to the most notable manual used to govern such affairs), the cut could remain a valuable tool. But, that said, there exists an incredibly strong argument against the cut that we find in the parry. Over time, the parry was reduced to nine fundamental manevers. Of those nine parries, you can see an inherent weakness to the cut

Prime protects one's high inside line and the position can best be described as looking at your watch
Seconde protect one's low outside line from rising attacks in this line
Tierce protects the high inside line and is notable because its only utility is to proct the wrist from the small cuts you advocate. It does not exist in modern foil for any practical purpose but it remains in epee as attacks on the wrist are valid
Quarte Protects the high inside line - also the standard position from which most fencers choose to start when commanded to be on their guard. Parries in this line can are as often circular as they are lateral
Quinte Protects the high line, notably the head, from falling attacks. This is one of the most common parries in sabre but it has virtually no use with a thrusting weapon.
Sixte - the same as quarte only for the outside line. A lateral parry between quarte and sixte (or vice versa) is the most common parry seen in sport fencing and often the only one many sport fencers actively use
Septime - also protects the low and outside line from rising attacks
Octave - protects from low inside attacks
Neuvieme - Similar to septime but protecting a higher line. Rarely used or taught given that it is broadly similar to a parry in quarte.

Notably absent are attempts to protect the head from cuts arriving laterally from the inside (prime protects outside) or any strong parry to the low outside line that would be necessary to protect against the cut. This means that defense against the cut in many lines would require an elaborate circular parry which stands directly against the economy of action that western swordsmanship began to advocate - that is, that the French advocated. This places our argument at an awkward impasse - we can see from this directly that the cut was seen as little threat based on the fact that while one constructs a full cage of steel against the thrust, there exist glaring openings against the cut. Indeed, many of the parries in this that protect against cuts appear to only do so by happenstance! Simultaneously, however, this weakness means that the cut is both unexpected and difficult to defend against.

But, as you said, we are in broad agreement I think. Yes, the weapon had an edge and yes it could be thus used to wound with a cut. Yes, manuals do indicate it's use even when the development of the weapon lead inexorably down a path that produced weapons that increasingly advocated the thrust over the cut that largely retained an edge to dissuade people from grabbing the blade. So, we simultaneously have a case for the cut and against the cut and little record of the practicality of the move. I suppose we will have to be satisfied with leaving this discussion at little more than the fact that I do not think the maneuver would often be a prudent choice in a duel. It is possible that my own position is biased based on the fact that the modern sport favors the French school of thought rather than the Italian. Were it the other way around, I would probably look more charitably upon the cut.

 

[cefm]

Indiana Jones answered this question best.

http://i.imgur.com/WMoSYNM.jpg

'nuf said.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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).

The reason I'd defend the blade is, as I pointed out previously, that such a break requires a specific intersection of events that are highly unlikely. Beyond the simple need for inhuman strength (the wrist tends to deflect against a strong strike after all), you also need to strike the perfectly perpendicularly or else the blade would simply slide down the object that stopped it. It should be noted that in sabre, that first requirement (strong wrist) and the second (perpendicular) are exploited in a proper execution of parry quinte which protects the head by placing the blade above and in front of the head with the blade angled up such that when the opposing blade is met, it naturally slides down to your own guard giving the one conducting a parry complete control over their opponents blade for a reposte. Finally, the odds of breaking the blade diminish considerably as you progress closer to the grip of the weapon. Given that the bottom third of the blade is used to properly parry (both because of this weakness of material and the utterly practical concerns of physics and lengths of lever that suffice to allow a parry to easily redirect force when using a higher potion of the blade would require inhuman strength), we thus arrive at a conclusion. In order for the blade to be in much danger of breaking from a cut, the defending fencer would have to misapply a parry while having inhuman strength. The point of the former is then sufficient to draw a conclusion - misapplying the parry as they did would more readily lead to death or injury than having a blade broken.

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.

Yes the blade can damaged but, again, you seem to presume that the blade is some flimsy chunk of steel. The thrust as executed in western fencing delivers staggering force to the blade - far exceeding that delivered by a katana. The reason is simple - where the katana is backed by the mass of the arms, the thrust is backed by the mass of the entire body. The Rapier was expected to withstand, repeated impacts of many hundreds if not a few thousand pounds of force and that it could withstand one such impact is a testament to it's strength. Sure, it isn't good at bearing a sustained load the way a heavier mass of steel would be, such as when you attempt to snap a blade with your hands. And sure it broke in combat - so did hundrends of other weapons. The point, quite simply, is that such breaking of the blade is an unlikely scenario and thus not worthy of consideration in this debate.

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.

And that is where we truly differ. I would not consider the rapier maneuverable. The length and mass of the blade were such that the weapon needed an accompanying device to defend with precisely because it was difficult to change lines! That is not the hallmark of a weapon that is maneuverable. That, of course, assumes we are discussing the long and slender weapon and not the small sword or court sword that most people erroniously think of when they hear the term rapier. Were it one of the latter weapons, I'd join your camp on the maneuverability front!

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.

The advantage the rapier wielder has is not the maneuverability of his weapon. It is in the reach of his weapon and the fact his weapon has a guard that protects the hands. Were I forced into such an engagement, I would opt to strik at my opponents hands first given the utter lack of an effective guard. Standing against him are a host of disadvantages that I've outlined at length elsewhere in this thread.

Of course, outside of this theory crafting universe, the outcome boils down to a discussion of if the wielder of the rapier can control the distance and tempo of the fight. If he can do so, a result of skill more than the weapon, then the rapier could easily win the contest. If he could not maintain this command position, he is very likely to lose. Which, of course, is true regardless of weapons used in combat. Ultimately, the discussion necessarily ignores the fundamental human element leaving us with only minor details to quibble about. Personally, while length is an advantage, I can concive of a great many ways to close the gap, some which exploit the weakness of the rapier and some that just require a fundamental application of bladework, and thus I favor the Katana in this fight.

 

[Lightknight]

The reason I'd defend the blade is, as I pointed out previously, that such a break requires a specific intersection of events that are highly unlikely.

The blades regularly broke in battle. They were notorious for it. So clearly you are incorrect here.

And again, I'm not debating liklihood. I'm debating ability. The comment was made that a katana could not break a rapier in battle. My claim is that nearly any sword could. Even a rapier landing a solid blow at another rapier's tip should have some success.

So you're debating past me here. Your comment is more along the lines of, "But a rapier master wouldn't let the tip get hit". That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Yes the blade can damaged but, again, you seem to presume that the blade is some flimsy chunk of steel.

Compared to other blades of greater mass but similar hardness, yes, it is. Flimsiness is a relative thing. I also think a Katana could break another katana, a properly hardended long sword could break a kanata, and many other alternatives. I do not think that a rapier could break a katana though. Not enough mass to it. The lack of mass is what made it a crappy hack/slash blade but a quick and efficient thrusting blade. So thankfully it didn't need to break other swords to be successful.

And that is where we truly differ. I would not consider the rapier maneuverable. The length and mass of the blade were such that the weapon needed an accompanying device to defend with precisely because it was difficult to change lines! That is not the hallmark of a weapon that is maneuverable. That, of course, assumes we are discussing the long and slender weapon and not the small sword or court sword that most people erroniously think of when they hear the term rapier. Were it one of the latter weapons, I'd join your camp on the maneuverability front!

Maneuverable was a poor word choice to convey a correct point. What I mean is that you can strike more rapidly with the rapier. The light blade makes is a weapon that can move faster than the heavier variety. The nature of a thrusting weapon makes it difficult change course once being thrust.

Though there were many other reasons for the side-arm rather than just manueverability. Rapier users basically don't have a weapon available if their blade is in the body of an opponent or in their grasp. If someone stabs you with a rapier you may not just wilt and fall to the ground in agony. You've got a blade too and the moment the rapier is in there you can strike as well. This opposed to a striking weapon that is only out of play while striking the opponent.

It is in the reach of his weapom... snip

I have said this so very many times. I'd give the advantage to nearly any weapon that has sufficient reach. A spear wielder should always win on first strike against any opponent with a shorter weapon where skill is roughly equivalent.

And yes, the ability to strike at the hands is nice.

Of course, outside of this theory crafting universe, the outcome boils down to a discussion of if the wielder of the rapier can control the distance and tempo of the fight. If he can do so, a result of skill more than the weapon, then the rapier could easily win the contest. If he could not maintain this command position, he is very likely to lose. Which, of course, is true regardless of weapons used in combat. Ultimately, the discussion necessarily ignores the fundamental human element leaving us with only minor details to quibble about. Personally, while length is an advantage, I can concive of a great many ways to close the gap, some which exploit the weakness of the rapier and some that just require a fundamental application of bladework, and thus I favor the Katana in this fight.

They are supposed to be equal, which means we're just talking blade against blade. Removal of human elements makes the discussion viable whereas the inclussion of them would make the parameters too numerous to be discussed.

Frankly, I see many outcomes where they both die.