Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Lightknight said:
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.
My argument, actually, is that if the events in question did arise, the problem of a broken blade is the least of your concerns. Parrying a cut perpendicularly with one's foible is far more likely to simply result in an attck through the parry and death or injury regardless of the weapon. I'm not presuming perfection on the part of the rapier master but rather asserting that the mistakes they need to make to truly endanger their blade would easily be fatal by themseles.

Lightknight said:
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.
I'd generally agree that one can present the weapon in a threatening fashion relatiely easily; however, given the blade is actually deliered by the feet I'm not quite convinced the full action of attack is substantially faster than with the cut. My experience is with european fencing after all.

Lightknight said:
The nature of a thrusting weapon makes it difficult change course once being thrust.
It is a trivial matter to change lines of attack with a thrust, actually. The heft of the rapier (and when I refer to it's mass, it's more a problem of length than absolute weight) would make it more difficult to do this quickly or accurately than the comparatiely featherweight small sword but it would still be a trivial skill for any one trained in the art. Indeed, the feint/disengage/attack is one of the first complex attacks learned in fencing preceed only by the feint/parry/reposte!

Lightknight said:
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.
Really, if we assume the weilder of the rapier is using a classic rapier and not the small sword, he would have some other implement at his disposal to defend himself with because this implement was a fundamental and necessary part of the style.


Lightknight said:
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.
Sure - as I said, if the rapier master can maintain his distance (thus commanding the engagement) he'd likely be able to win. But, command of the fight could easily change hands in this match-up.

Ultimately, I think the rapier user could deliver a wound - I just don't think they'd manage to land something fatal before the katana wielder could do the same. At least not on average.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Lyri said:
You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.
"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".
 

Joos

Golden pantaloon.
Dec 19, 2007
662
0
0
GundamSentinel said:
The only real downside of a rapier that I can see here is that it's not heavy enough to punch through armor. That's why the rapier was generally a civilian weapon, not a weapon of war.
Actually, what paved the way for the rapier as the martial weapon of choice was the introduction and wide spread use of firearms; armour simply became irrelevant. And the rapier, like any other weapon was never a "civilian" weapon of the time. It was always a martial weapon. A civilian weapon of the era would have been a pitchfork or some similar tool.
 

GundamSentinel

The leading man, who else?
Aug 23, 2009
4,448
0
0
Joos said:
GundamSentinel said:
The only real downside of a rapier that I can see here is that it's not heavy enough to punch through armor. That's why the rapier was generally a civilian weapon, not a weapon of war.
Actually, what paved the way for the rapier as the martial weapon of choice was the introduction and wide spread use of firearms; armour simply became irrelevant. And the rapier, like any other weapon was never a "civilian" weapon of the time. It was always a martial weapon. A civilian weapon of the era would have been a pitchfork or some similar tool.
On the battlefield it had some use as a sidearm (the same can be said of the katana, but w/e), and didn't see that much actual war. It was a civilian weapon used for self-defense, duelling and sports fencing. The military used other cutting and thrusting swords, rich people used rapiers to stab people.
 

Lyri

New member
Dec 8, 2008
2,660
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
Lyri said:
You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.
"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".
Alright you got me there.
I was under the impression that this "Samurai Vs. Knight Scenario" was just straight up whack-a-mole between the two, which in my opinion heavily favours the knight.

However, people are just adding everything in a samurai's arsenal, yet seemingly leaving the knight vanilla.
So yeah, if we're going the latter route then Samurai would win if he could

1/ Puncture armour with an arrow.
2/ Crush him under a dead horse.

Otherwise, at mid to short range a knight should be able to overcome.

and yes, there is no objectivity as it's just bias towards the "cool" one.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
So...

Basically what we've got here is... Failure to communicate.

Someone actually bothered to make a thread about this. I'm kinda shocked.

Why not just re-title it: A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used VS A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm placing my vote on the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.
 

Naqel

New member
Nov 21, 2009
345
0
0
Rapier has the advantage, but lacks the raw power.

Being stabbed isn't nowhere near as hard on the body as being slashed(with very few exceptions) and any serious damage done with the rapier would potentially leave its user in a position for the katana to return the favor.
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
While each sword is designed for different purposes, I'd say the rapier would be better to have in most situations.
 

Exerzet

New member
Sep 6, 2010
61
0
0
Cecilo said:
I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms. Used mostly as a weapon for duels, not for actual combat. Where as the Katana dominated most of Medieval Japan, and while not all of the warriors of Japan used heavy armor, the Japanese equivalent of a Knight would still be decked out in enough armor to make a Rapier worthless.

So while the rapier would be better in a duel setting, in an actual fight between two people the person with the Katana would have a clear advantage, presuming that they each just have a Rapier or A katana, in an actual battle the person with the rapier would still probably win, because he has a gun.
Actually, the Medieval Japanese armour was primarily ok against cutting, since most of their opponents used cutting weapons. The density of the plates would not be enough to stop a full-force thrust from a rapier, if it at all slowed it down. Of course, there is the chance that the rapier would get stuck in the plates, after penetration, but by that point, it wouldn't matter much for the samurai.

However; I feel confident in stating that no good fencer would aim directly for the plates, and would rather stab in the between-spaces, to minimize resistance and make the subsequent dodge easier for said fencer.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
Raesvelg said:
So...

Basically what we've got here is... Failure to communicate.

Someone actually bothered to make a thread about this. I'm kinda shocked.

Why not just re-title it: A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used VS A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm placing my vote on the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.
Nonsense.

Clearly the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used doesn't stand a chance against the other largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used because in this situation the strengths of the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used counter the weaknesses of the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used by a speculative amount that I believe gives it the edge.
And if you believe that the strengths of the other largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used are more conditionally appropriate than the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used that I favour, then I will just exaggerate the strengths of my largely ceremonial weapon and downplay the strengths of your largely ceremonial weapon because we lack the quantitative information to compare the two directly. It's simple!

Some men you just can't reach.
 

Oroboros

New member
Feb 21, 2011
316
0
0
Well, I fenced for a couple of years, so here's my 2 cents on the subject:

In a duel, between two unarmored opponents, I'd definitely give it to the Rapier. You can strike quite quickly with a lunge and can reach far longer than a katana, which being a draw-cut weapon, is going to require you to get in quite closer to be effective than a rapier-fencer would. Also shouldn't discount the possibility that a rapier duelist would likely bring a buckler or main gauche to complement his rapier, since it is a one handed weapon, while a katana (with some notable exceptions) seems to focus more on two-handed technique. (which is another thing that is going to shorten reach) Lastly, we should consider that piercing wounds can be extremely, particularly without modern medical knowledge or technology, while even horrific to look at cuts can be survived. I seem to remember an anecdote which I was (luckily)able to find the full version of on Wikipedia.

"In the Peninsula War the English nearly always used the sword for cutting. The French dragoons, on the contrary, used only the point which, with their long straight swords caused almost always a fatal wound. This made the English protest that the French did not fight fair. Marshal Saxe wished to arm the French cavalry with a blade of a triangular cross section so as to make the use of the point obligatory. At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!"

-General Patton

Patton Was an Olympic quality fencer, so I tend to think he knew his stuff in this situation. He also revised the US Cav Saber to be more thrust-oriented.

So even if our brave Samurai manages to close the gap and cut through our fencer, there's a good chance he might die after the fact from wounds received in the duel.

Both are beautiful weapons in their own deadly way, and shouldn't be regarded as 'inferior' but in an unarmored duel on foot, I'd definitely put my money on the rapier-user.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Lightknight said:
Sorry, perhaps 'bend' was not the term to use. Yes, what I mean is that from what I've read European swords had more give than the katana (obviously depending on the sword). However, what I'm coming to realise is that this is possibly more a function of blade geometry than of material. I am not a metallurgist, and I don't have access to my fancy software at the moment that shows me stress under load.

Eclectic Dreck said:
The typical rapier fighting distance (obviously depending on the length of your lunge etc.) seems to be roughly with the blades engaged at the foible, from there it's not an inconceivable distance to get to the wrist, which is one of the few viable targets with the rapier - and you don't have to inflict a significant wound to disable the sword hand (those tendons are awfully close to the surface). But you're quite right that said cut can probably be largely negated by several layers of sturdy cloth. Whether or not that would have been worn during duels I can't say. One thing I have recalled is that a lot of the cutting actions only took place after taking the opponents blade off line first or otherwise binding it in some fashion.

As for the grip - my instructor seemed to be perfectly happy with a grip that engaged two fingers or three, so long as it was a neutral position, but whether or not that's traditional or not I don't know.


As an interesting aside; I've heard very little about French styles/manuals/treatises in HEMA. I'm sure it exists, it just doesn't seem to be as popular.

Nice post though.

Eclectic Dreck said:
Really, if we assume the weilder of the rapier is using a classic rapier and not the small sword, he would have some other implement at his disposal to defend himself with because this implement was a fundamental and necessary part of the style.
Only part I disagree with here is the off-hand weapon (which a few people here have mistakenly referred to as a main gauche, which really only refers to the left hand) being necessary. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rapier treatise that doesn't also contain rapier and some offhand weapon, but they also contain the single rapier with no accompanying weapon.

Alex Lai said:
Wyes said:
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
So, a lot of the guys I do HEMA with are history buffs, and I had a lot of half-remembered conversations with them wherein I recall it being mentioned at some point that one test for the quality of a sword was the amount it could flex, etc. etc.

Obviously this is about as dodgy a source as they come, so I decided to do a little reading of my own. The main sources I came across are this one [http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html] on the hardness of blades, (this one [http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html] also gives a brief description and history of the rapier, which is nice). There is also this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw] from one of the instructors from Schola Gladiatoria (worth reading his responses in the comments too, and you'll find his other videos on katanas here [http://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria/search?query=katana]. Given his career is in HEMA I'd tend to defer to his judgement.

Now, the main problem has been that I've been giving people the impression that the Europeans were making steel similar to modern spring steel, which is wrong. The blades were stiffer, and the steel was not as uniform. However, I do think that European blades (obviously very much depending on the particular sword) tended to have more 'give' than katanas (see earlier bit in post talking to Lightknight), which may have been more a function of geometry than material, I don't know (which is mentioned in the ARMA link you posted).

As for the ARMA and John Clements... I've said it previously in this thread and I'll say it again. From what I've seen and heard of John Clements from other people involved in HEMA, the guy comes across as a twat. Which is not to say that he's stupid, but the consensus seems to be that he's very sure of his own opinions and doesn't like to hear criticisms about them. Possibly as a result it seems that the ARMA has become quite isolationist compared to other HEMA schools (e.g. it seems they've never participated in WMAW, and I've heard anecdotes of Clements angrily denouncing those who've tried to show him that his ideas were wrong by besting him in combat and then banning them from returning to his school - I can't comment on the truth of these anecdotes). This is not to say that ARMA doesn't do some good things - I'm sure they do, and some of their articles I've read seemed pretty good. However, largely it seems a case of quantity over quality.

The reason I'm explaining all that is because it makes me distrustful of the article you posted - that may be bias on my part. The part you reference seems to be mostly okay other than a few general things - he seems to imply that a blade with more flex (e.g. one made of spring steel) would not cut as well as a softer blade that would deform. I would not agree with that, at least not without qualification. For example, some might imagine some kind of material that would maintain an edge and be flexible like a whip - I would expect such a material to be capable of cutting without too much difficulty. However, a sword that has deformed and bent is much harder to cut with because the angle of the cut isn't uniform (depending on the severity and uniformity of the bend). The other thing is that even modern spring steel rapiers that are designed to flex could easily pierce with the thrust if they had a sharpened point - the rapier was not a weapon designed for use against armour, it was primarily a civilian weapon (not that swords cut through most armours anyway...). However, I will certainly concede that this would not be ideal for thrusting and a stiffer blade would be desirable.


EDIT:

Smilomaniac said:
Seeing my 2m tall friend who practices iaido and competes all over the world, it's pretty frightening just how fast he can strike with his katana(which is appropriate to his height) and that includes thrusts(hence the blood grooves on some katana, which some say are to reduce weight, while iaidoko say its to pull out the sword so it doesn't get stuck in people).

My best technical guess is that the heavier katana could swat away the rapier and give an opening for a thrust.
The 'blood groove' is called a fuller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_%28weapon%29], and has nothing to do with the sword not getting stuck in somebody. As far as I'm aware, that's not even a problem that needs addressing. I'm sorry to say that the iaidoko don't really have a leg to stand on in this case.

As for beating aside the rapier - beats (the action of trying to knock aside the sword) are generally inadvisable against a weapon like the rapier that is designed to disengage. In fact, even against cutting weapons such an action is only useful in very particular circumstances. This is why almost all offensive actions in historical fencing systems (including in kenjutsu) involve attacking the person, not the weapon.
 

Oroboros

New member
Feb 21, 2011
316
0
0
Smilomaniac said:
...this is one odd question. The response to it is amazing.

I'd imagine that the lack of a proper sharp edge on a rapier puts you at a disadvantage if the katana-wielder gets in close.
It'd likely go either way, but I'd bet on the person wielding the katana.
Rapiers often (but not always) have sharpened edges to dissuade others from attempting to grab or deflect the blade away with their hands (if a duelist did not have a main gauche or buckler, they would be expected to use a cloak or gloved/bare hand in their other hand) But the fencer would be at a disadvantage, since most rapiers were not designed for cutting in an offensive manner. (although there are numerous exceptions to this-'rapier' is a rather broad term) It would be in the fencer's best interest to retreat as fast as possible to get into a more favorable position and out of range. While there are techniques for delivering a nasty stab at closer range, they can be a bit unwieldy, and turn the length of the weapon-normally a advantage, into somewhat of a disadvantage against a katana.

Smilomaniac said:
Seeing my 2m tall friend who practices iaido and competes all over the world, it's pretty frightening just how fast he can strike with his katana(which is appropriate to his height) and that includes thrusts(hence the blood grooves on some katana, which some say are to reduce weight, while iaidoko say its to pull out the sword so it doesn't get stuck in people).
Tall people have an advantage in melee no matter if they are using a rapier or a katana. There was a epee/foil fencer I used to know who was of similar height (B rank I believe in both weapons) who could cover the distance of the entire fencing strip in the blink of an eye. let me tell you, a fellow of that height with a lunge almost to the floor with a rapier can cover a *lot* of ground very quickly. As early as the Napoleonic wars Grenadiers were recruited from the tallest soldiers available for use as melee specialists with their bayonets-height gives a distinct advantage in most situations in a melee.

As for 'blood grooves', the fuller is for reducing weight, other things you might hear about them are just myths. While a logical evolution of the katana (since they have rather fat and heavy blades) I don't think they were historically used on Katanas, so I don't think the katana used by the samurai in the hypothetical duel would have one.

Smilomaniac said:
My best technical guess is that the heavier katana could swat away the rapier and give an opening for a thrust. I guess now we need two hundred wielders and have them duel, to get some data.
While it would likely be in the best interests of the Samurai to be as aggressive as possible and clear the distance between the two asap, there are factors to consider that would make 'swat (ing) the blade away' more complicated than you assume.

The length of the rapier means that a slight wiggle at the wrist makes a more exaggerated movement at the tip, this is used to great effect in fencing in the form of feints and disengages. By inducing an opponent to parry or beat a perceived threat and then dipping the weapon under the opponents blade while the opponents blade sails past, a feint disengage is a very effective way of getting past an opponents defenses. Our hypothetical samurai would be best to be wary of how quick and effective a rapier can be at avoiding blade contact when its wielder wishes so, else beating the opponents blade might do more harm than good.

Getting one hundred Katana and one hundred rapier duelists sounds delightfully like that cancelled show 'Deadliest Warrior' And while the Deadliest Warrior is probably about as objectively reliable as asking a random person off the street for their opinion on the matter, I always thought that show was hilariously fun to watch (even if only for the nitpicking and debates that would crop up after the fact) I think this is a great Idea!
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
The typical rapier fighting distance (obviously depending on the length of your lunge etc.) seems to be roughly with the blades engaged at the foible, from there it's not an inconceivable distance to get to the wrist, which is one of the few viable targets with the rapier - and you don't have to inflict a significant wound to disable the sword hand (those tendons are awfully close to the surface).
Fencing distance, strictly speaking, places the two fencers at such a distance that one could deliver an attack in the space of a single fencing action. This actually places the two fencers such that the tips of their respective blades are a foot or more apart. If you are close enough that the tips cross, simply presenting the blade (or, in other words, simply extending the arm) is sufficient to deliver an attack and thus could be called point blank range. The closest viable range for fencing with a thrusting weapon is roughly the same as the length of the blade and thus for a small sword would be approximately three feet while a rapier could be well over four feet. This is simply because any close and it becomes impossible to bring the point to bear on a target leaving only the edge and you're standing too close to do much more than mildly wound. This is, of course, ignoring a handful of maneuvers that have little place outside of sport fencing given that it would be all but impossible to deliver a fatal cut. These include, attacking from behind the back (a move that doesn't decrease this range by much and also leaves the entire front open) and from under the arm (a move that does dramatically decrease the minimum range but, at best, would only lightly wound and simultaneously risks laying one's own shoulder open).


Wyes said:
But you're quite right that said cut can probably be largely negated by several layers of sturdy cloth. Whether or not that would have been worn during duels I can't say. One thing I have recalled is that a lot of the cutting actions only took place after taking the opponents blade off line first or otherwise binding it in some fashion.
It depends entirely upon the nature of the duel and the terms negotiated. Thought it should be said that most attacks on the blade (the bind, envelopment, glide and a handful of others) could only really be followed by a thrust due to simple mechanics. That leaves only some variation of the beating or expulsion attempts but even with this you'd probably still be best served attempting a thrust.


Wyes said:
As for the grip - my instructor seemed to be perfectly happy with a grip that engaged two fingers or three, so long as it was a neutral position, but whether or not that's traditional or not I don't know.

As an interesting aside; I've heard very little about French styles/manuals/treatises in HEMA. I'm sure it exists, it just doesn't seem to be as popular.
It's actually interesting because you can see the competing styles in the french and Italian grips. The Italian grip was specifically designed for a strong grip that included hooking the index and middle fingers across a small cross bar on the grip itself whereas the french grip was simply designed to lay naturally in the hand such that when gripped with index finger and thumb the blade would be in line with the arm naturally when the wrist was upward.

As far as which style was better, it's hard to say. The modern sport grip is an orthopedic pistol grip that effectively combines the strength of the Italian grip with fine control of the french grip so the best answer I can give is they both had advantages. The french grip still has a place with many fencers though largely in epee where fine point control and range are more important than power.

Wyes said:
Only part I disagree with here is the off-hand weapon (which a few people here have mistakenly referred to as a main gauche, which really only refers to the left hand) being necessary. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rapier treatise that doesn't also contain rapier and some offhand weapon, but they also contain the single rapier with no accompanying weapon.
Strictly speaking, it was necessary in that the mechanics of the rapier made it incredibly difficult to transition from attack to defense or vice versa. Without a secondary implement, you would be forced to rely on single time actions which dramatically reduce your offensive and defensive options. This basically means that you're largely forced either to fully commit to an attack or wait for an attack so that a parry-reposte in single time could be attempted.

By contrast, the much faster court sword could easily perform actions in double tempo leaving you free perform additional actions like feints and such.

While it is not inconceivable that one could win a duel with a rapier alone the use of a secondary implement would dramatically improve your odds. By contrast, a court sword works well enough alone that a secondary implement is not only unnecessary, it could easily undermine your chances.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Fencing distance, strictly speaking, places the two fencers at such a distance that one could deliver an attack in the space of a single fencing action. Strictly speaking, this actually places the two fencers such that the tips of their respective blades are a foot or more apart. If you are close enough that the tips cross, simply presenting the blade (or, in other words, simply extending the arm) is sufficient to deliver an attack and thus could be called point blank range. The closest viable range for fencing with a rapier is actually roughly when two fencers at the ready have their guards meeting as that is the closest possible range at which an attack could reasonably be delivered barring, of course, a handful of maneuvers largely developed for the sake of the sport.
From guard with the foibles meeting we certainly couldn't land a blow by an extension of the arm, largely because the guard (that I am familiar with, rather than something like Capo Ferro, but I know the Spanish had a similar guard to the Italians) already has the arm mostly extended. Any further extension of the arm only nets you a few extra inches, and the blade length is typically 36-40". The extension of the arm was necessary to start the attack, but it certainly doesn't reach the opponent - the lunge was necessary (or that step where the back foot moves out sidewards, the name of which I cannot remember - I just remembered it being kinda cool footwork).

Eclectic Dreck said:
It's actually interesting because you can see the competing styles in the french and Italian grips. The Italian grip was specifically designed for a strong grip that included hooking the index and middle fingers across a small cross bar on the grip itself whereas the french grip was simply designed to lay naturally in the hand such that when gripped with index finger and thumb the blade would be in line with the arm naturally when the wrist was upward.

As far as which style was better, it's hard to say. The modern sport grip is an orthopedic pistol grip that effectively combines the strength of the Italian grip with fine control of the french grip so the best answer I can give is they both had advantages. The french grip still has a place with many fencers though largely in epee where fine point control and range are more important than power.
The grip (by which I mean the hand, rather than the design of the hilt/hand) most of us used had the index finger over the quillion, which gives control rather than power (compared to say the broadsword grip, which is more or less a hammer grip). There was also the option to wrap the middle finger over the quillion and let the index finger sit somewhat further up the ricasso. I never used that so I can't speak for its advantages.

Eclectic Dreck said:
Strictly speaking, it was necessary in that the mechanics of the rapier made it incredibly difficult to transition from attack to defense or vice versa. Without a secondary implement, you would be forced to rely on single time actions which dramatically reduce your offensive and defensive options. This basically means that you're largely forced either to fully commit to an attack or wait for an attack so that a parry-reposte in single time could be attempted.

While it is not inconceivable that one could win a duel with a rapier alone the use of a secondary implement would dramatically improve your odds.
Being preferable doesn't make it necessary, which is more or less the argument you're making here. If both duelists have only a single weapon, then there's no advantage. If one duelist does have an off hand weapon, then yes, you are at a distinct disadvantage. It is not difficult to transition to a defence with the rapier upon withdrawing from an attack, but you do lose offensive options once the thrust is spent.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Wyes said:
From guard with the foibles meeting we certainly couldn't land a blow by an extension of the arm, largely because the guard (that I am familiar with, rather than something like Capo Ferro, but I know the Spanish had a similar guard to the Italians) already has the arm mostly extended.
The vulnerable points when close enough that the foibles cross are the wrist and forearm. The guard would have to be bypassed of course but this remains an action that is little more than presentation of the blade.

Wyes said:
Any further extension of the arm only nets you a few extra inches, and the blade length is typically 36-40". The extension of the arm was necessary to start the attack, but it certainly doesn't reach the opponent - the lunge was necessary (or that step where the back foot moves out sidewards, the name of which I cannot remember - I just remembered it being kinda cool footwork).
The lunge is responsible for the extended range as the maximum range of an single action attack without adding any stress is effectively a full lunge step, plus the length of the arm, plus the length of the weapon. This allows a fencer to close a surprising amount of distance with a single action without even considering any of a number of techniques that involve any forward motion before beginning a lunge. The action you described, sounds like some form of displacement. Moving the rear foot inward and to the back necessarily rotates the torso effectively closing the outside line by maneuver. This does have the effect of gaining some distance though, for the average fencer, this is a matter of an inch or two. It does, however, ensure that any follow on lunge is much longer ranged (often a foot or more) but this would comprise two separate fencing actions most of the time.

Wyes said:
Being preferable doesn't make it necessary, which is more or less the argument you're making here. If both duelists have only a single weapon, then there's no advantage.
The nature of the weapon in question and the dramatic reduction of viable fencing actions, by my estimation, makes it a requirement. That the lack of such an implement requires either baiting an attack or fully committing to your own attack is a fairly silly set of requirements when one's life is on the line.

Wyes said:
If one duelist does have an off hand weapon, then yes, you are at a distinct disadvantage. It is not difficult to transition to a defence with the rapier upon withdrawing from an attack, but you do lose offensive options once the thrust is spent.
A transition to defense not only involves halting the offensive action but it also, by necessity, requires responding in kind. The flaw of the rapier is the difficulty inherent in transitioning lines - a flaw so absolute that even the footwork reflected the problem resulting in a circular style all but eliminated once the weapon was shortened. That difficulty of transition might not seem like much but given how little time one can have to defend against a thrust, the loss of a fraction of a second is easily fatal.

To put it simply, when the addition of a secondary implement vastly increases viable offensive and defensive options, I'd call it "necessary". This isn't to say that secondary implement needed to be a blade or shield - even wrapping your off hand with a heavy cloak would allow for a parry!
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Lyri said:
Shadowstar38 said:
Lyri said:
You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.
"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".
Alright you got me there.
I was under the impression that this "Samurai Vs. Knight Scenario" was just straight up whack-a-mole between the two, which in my opinion heavily favours the knight.

However, people are just adding everything in a samurai's arsenal, yet seemingly leaving the knight vanilla.
So yeah, if we're going the latter route then Samurai would win if he could

1/ Puncture armour with an arrow.
2/ Crush him under a dead horse.

Otherwise, at mid to short range a knight should be able to overcome.

and yes, there is no objectivity as it's just bias towards the "cool" one.
Samurai could also out move a fully kited out knight, full samurai armor being about 60 lbs, and much more freedom of movement in general, I for one would certainly look to get around and try to get that knight off balance or on the ground. At which point you would have an advantage.

Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Do4600 said:
My point was that it's weird to assume that a knight would have all his equipment and a samurai be denied his.

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.
What you were doing was denying the knight access to his other weapons and giving the samurai access to theirs. In all ranges, the Europeans have the advantage. The artillery in Japan was very limited while fairly common in the west, giving an immediate advantage. The crossbows and English longbows can outpunch a Japanese yumi. Polearm advantage is clearly for the west as well, both in the reach and in the striking power. In a close melee, the west has a significant advantage due to the shield (a highly overlooked piece of kit that completely tips the scale) and the shorter hand weapons like axes and maces. In the armor department, it really is no contest as the lamellar of the samurai is miles behind the West in every respect.

Swords are simply iron/steel/bronze bars with sharp edges. There are only so many ways you can move them. A cutting sword can only be manipulated in a certain fashion. The minor details might be different, but a vertical cut is a vertical cut. The front edge can only be used in certain ways. The back edge throws a dynamic into the fight that the Japanese wouldn't be used to dealing with, while all sword arts teach how to deal with the front edge.

Lightknight said:
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.
The core is made up of the twisted iron and steel bars, not the edge. The edge is solid steel.

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.
The iron the Japanese used was acquired in almost literally the same manner and forged with the same level of technology. Both the Norse and Japanese got their iron via smelting down iron-rich natural materials (peat bogs and sand respectively) to burn away the excess and leave only the iron.
The higher steel content in the Pattern-welded blades gives the sword more spring. With the higher iron content of the katana, it doesn't reform when bent. The pattern welded sword will snap once it hits its peak while the katana won't makes the katana easier to salvage (A big advantage in the iron-poor island of Japan), but not stronger. The katana has a harder edge and is stiffer, the viking broadsword is more flexible and recovers from hard impact better.

cerebus23 said:
Samurai could also out move a fully kited out knight, full samurai armor being about 60 lbs, and much more freedom of movement in general, I for one would certainly look to get around and try to get that knight off balance or on the ground. At which point you would have an advantage.

Knight armor is what around 100 lbs? 40 more lbs than samurai armor. Knight had much more armored joints so their movement would be slower in general, they would have far more momentum charging or swinging weapons around but they would also tire hella fast.
Fun fact: Full gothic plate armor weighs about 60 lbs, and is fitted and articulated to the individual. I wouldn't try to take down a knight, as they are well trained in grappling and dagger fighting.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
And samurai were well trained in akido or the early forms of that fighting?

Being an knight is not a slam dunk win any more being a samurai would be one, knights and samurai varied in skill levels drastically.

Getting to be too much fanism, samurai dont train in this and that, knights were godly, euro steel is the same as japan steel, at its core true, but forging techniques were very different, and how you forge stuff organizes the molecules of steel differently.

I think it wholly factually accurate to say that japans sword forging techniques were more advanced than anything done outside japan. and molecular cross section studies of various sword steels backs that up.

The softer core allows a katana to flex when it cuts into something, even stuff it is designed to cut into a sword will flex and torq, if you rail it into something it is not meant to there is a chance it will hold its shape or a chance it will torq the blade out of shape or break even, but that is the same for ANY sword, the flexy nature of the katana ups the odds a katana will survive vs shatter, and it allows you make them longer because you can keep it bendy and flexible but maintain a hard cutting edge.

It is always a trade off between the ability to actually cut into something/hold a cutting edge, its length, vs its durability. Too long or too hard a steel a sword will tend to shatter, too soft it will tend to simply bend and it will never hold an cutting edge for long.

Layering the steel the way katanas were was an ingenious solution to an old smithing problem pure and simple a mix of the best of both worlds.

This idea that samurai would be left dumbfounded by dual edged blades, is just silly since their neighbors were very fond of them. In fact most of the notions that samurai were seemingly simpletons that had no concept of strategy or reading an opponent or possibly studying other weapons is just short sided as saying that europens knights would be dumbfounded by single sided curved swords or could not devise a strategy to deal with them.

Both these types were near or mostly full time professional soldiers, they study weapons and techniques to use them, and they train across a variety of fields. Both would have been capable of on the field battle strategy, thinking on their feet.