On the Katana and it's wielder.

[Sovvolf]

Show me a nerd who can wield a claymore!

I'd say it's probably because the katana is far easier to handle than a huge european sword due to lesser weight and smaller form. I agree that in direct combat against a european broadsword the katana would most likely be fucked.

Take a look at my profile picture

Seriously though, the Katana is just folded steel... Its a sword an incredibly sharp sword which does its job on cutting people apart however its simply just that. I guess the big awe when it comes to Katanas among geeks may be the whole Anime/Manga thing... That and its always been portrayed as cool in the media.

Ho, and as an student of Iaido... I can tell you that those swords are bloody sharp.

 

[York_Beckett]

I like it as a weapon, but it seems so common these days, I'm starting to get tired of it.

 

[nin_ninja]

I am far from an expert on the subject but I will throw my 2 cents at this topic.

I guess it's just a well known elegant sword. I mean a claymore and knights of the round table swords are these huge, double bladed unwieldy things that don't look like they need much finesse with (swing the fucker in big arcs in front of you, left to right, right to left and you would probably kill a few guys).

Were as the thinner, single edged katana you have to choose your actions more carefully.

Like I said, I am only guessing.

Katanas are a lot more flowing, where as a claymore or double edged sword is just a sharp, metal pole. The bigger the blade (weight, size, and shape), the less it serves its purpose as a sword and the more it serves as another object to repeatedly hit someone with until they fall.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

Western straight swords were made to fight against armor as chopping, bashing weapons. If you saw two people fighting in armor with swords, it would look really clumsy, with a lot of grappling and hits deflected off of the armor. A knight needed the momentum of his horse to kill an armored enemy in one strike; a samurai would only use his armor and horse on a battlefield. In duels of honor or skill, the samurai would forego their armor and fight with their martial prowess. The katana is both fast and a powerful cutter- and though some posters claim it is made of weak steel, it is made of folded steel, with softer, more durable steel on the inside of the blade for durability, and harder, more brittle steel on the outside for cutting power- the hardness of a blade does influence the cutting power as well as the sharpness. Also, the samurai were trained in Iado, the art of drawing the blade and cutting the enemy down in one, fast stroke, and that looks really cool. Western swords like sabers were used on horseback and rapiers for duels among nobility. Middle-eastern swords are basically for slashing only against unarmored opponents, and the martial arts associated with many of them are less complex.

a few misconceptions there

western swords are designed to pierce, not chop or bash, and there were many western styles of proper sword technique

swords in both western and eastern parts of the world were akin to both side arms and status symbols, think of them as the equivalent of a handgun for a soldier, and even then only those of high statue had swords, the rank and file made do with hand axes, hammers, clubs, and maces as their respective 'sidearm'

fighting on horseback was done primarily with a lance against infantry, once they got up to speed (which didn't take long) a knight on horseback with a lance would flatten nearly anything (which would include any samurai who tried to take one on while on foot)

and the katana was made using poor quality iron, the folding process was an attempt to compensate, while they were able to achieve an impressive result, it does not change the fact that it was made form substandard materials

the katana may look cool for one-on-one duels but it sure as hell isn't practical for use on the battlefield

 

[LondonBeer]

Compare Braveheart to The Last Samurai. (Yes that's a claymore, it just doesn't look like it) They're chocked full of historical references and do a pretty good job of explaining what both a highland warrior and a Samurai are like.

No, just No. Actually in addition to the wrongity wrong wrongness of Bravehearts even faintly accurate, the sword Gibson uses is a purely ceremonial piece indicating his rank as Marshall not intended for use in combat.

You might be right about Last Samurai though Ive never seen it But still Braveheart ... No.

The reason the fencer wears the chest and mask is that true fencing killshots used to aim at face & heart a dangerous thing with steel rod blunt or not.

Yes. But when it comes to getting poked with a somewhat flacid steel rod in the body, it's not really the same thing as getting beat up with a hockey-stick like weapon. Hence the need for a more heavy and durable armour and helmet.

Imma skip all the rest, 'somewhat flaccid' are you high? Heres a nice test, find a knitting needle a nice safe plastic modern one. Now stick it onto a wall pointy end out & then run at it at high speed. When you get out of hospital Ill happily listened to you renege on your definition of somewhat flaccid. Physics dictates that the item lacking the time to redistribute the load will stiffen transferring the load to the softest object correct ? Thatd be you.

BTW Traditional fencers train with cudgels, for shit & giggles its like playing shinty, which is hockey without armour on. (May not have been yourself that triggered that point but worth raising).

Katana's are made with steel, where as the western world used iron.

Nuff said.

Erm .... What part of the Western world used iron ? Damascus steel is some of the finest steel ever made. Its still a mystery how they made it. With electron scanners & super high technology we dont know how it was made (We've geussed but thats not the same & the geusses assume some pretty big leaps of faith in the world of metallurgy).

Not nearly enough said.

 

[Treblaine]

When I say mail is too flexible, it's no good to say they have more flexible padding underneath.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that's why plate armour almost completely replaced chain mail as it was not much heavier for comprehensive protection.

Does this mean in 300 years were gonna get weeabo half-wits talking about how Pattons .45 could shoot through Tiger tanks .

Why in the hell would anyone say that?

People today aren't seriously saying anything remotely similar to that about things that happened hundreds of years ago. And you have completely missed the point of what I went to great lengths to explain.

Why do you have to be such a jerk about this?

 

[Exocet]

"Never lasted"?

The arquebuses were introduced to japan in 1543 by the Portuguese, and since then they were widely used by japanese armies.

Could you perhaps have read a bit too much of the romantic misconception that the samurai managed to ban the use of and further construction of muskets during the Sakoku?

Im sorry but your displayed views of the history of japanese warfare reeks of romanticized misconceptions and stereotyping. The country has an extensive history of bloody civil wars, overshadowing the history of warfare of a lot of other countries. You can't seriously mean to tell us that it wasn't in the interest of the japanese generals and daimyo's to develop and evolve their tactics and strategy considering their warlike ways?

By the end of the 17th century,European armies adopted the New Model Army tactic and you started seeing less and less infantry men fighting with swords or spears,until they completly vanished in the 18th century.Japan never fielded that many fire arms.Might I add that in 300 years of fire arms knowledge,Japanese gunpowder warfare never developped to the point of seeing Napoleonic era line infantry battles.
It's fair to say they treated gunpowder weapons like replacements for the bow,since there was never that breakthrough that made the generals give every common infantry man a musket.Through complete isolation,they did not see other armies fighting enough to take their ideas and try to integrate them to their own tactics,they did not evolve.

Besides,this is getting off topic,if you feel the need to reply and tell me I'm a disillusioned fool,do so by pm please.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It was in a museum so all I had to go on was the plaque but I have to admit I think you're probably right. The problem with that museum is that it's notoriously cluttered and badly labelled.

Yeah, museums can be like that sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_armour <--- if you're interested in the real thing. Pretty decent article and with pictures too.

 

[loc978]

The katana and the martial arts associated with it are... unique... in the world of swords. There aren't many that focus so heavily on the preservation of the sword itself as kenjutsu and iaido.
That said, yeah, the katana has been massively over-hyped. It's basically "an eastern bastard sword with a really good PR campaign."... but it's certainly not inferior to western weaponry and styles... it just takes a bit more dedication to reach the same level of prowess as, say, a German Longsword specialist.

 

[moose_man]

If a knight were to fight a samurai, both unarmoured the samurai would likly win, if the knight was wearing armour and/or had a shield the samurai would more than likley be fucked.

See, this is the Deadliest Warrior problem. The samurai was SMART, he would use any possible advantage he could get. Bushido is bullshit. This is what made the samurai formidable, NOT his weapon.

 

[LondonBeer]

When I say mail is too flexible, it's no good to say they have more flexible padding underneath.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that's why plate armour almost completely replaced chain mail as it was not much heavier for comprehensive protection.

Does this mean in 300 years were gonna get weeabo half-wits talking about how Pattons .45 could shoot through Tiger tanks .

Why in the hell would anyone say that?

People today aren't seriously saying anything remotely similar to that about things that happened hundreds of years ago. And you have completely missed the point of what I went to great lengths to explain.

Why do you have to be such a jerk about this?

When I say mail it is implicit that a jack would be worn underneath as it is default kit. The only people who wouldnt wear a jack would be an idiot. Mail amongst its other endearing traits are its sharp, jaggy, tears out hair, accumulates dirt & hairs, rusts & generally is uncomfortable. Never mind the fact the stuffs swings about & OMG you need a cup sometimes.

Because mail, thats what its called as there is no other type of mail chain or otherwise, wasnt completely replaced. It is an integral part of mail and continued to be used during the first World War by tank crews. It is still used today to deflect the type of injuries it & plate was designed to stop.

Im not being a jerk Im telling you what the reality of the medieval battlefield was like trying to undo years of dogma.

 

[KefkaCultist]

I'm a ninjato man myself.

Spoiler

Its shorter than the katana and the blade is straight

EDIT: woo! 1,000th post!

 

[katsumoto03]

I agree, Shashkas [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka] are way cooler.

It's the sword equivalent of Wheaties...


The breakfast of champions.

 

[tehroc]

Oh wow I feel like a moron...just noticed you said rapier not saber.Whoopsie daisy.
But yes most rapier wielding men I would perceive as men of let's say flimsy constitutions.

Inigo Montoya? Prepare to die.

 

[LondonBeer]

If a knight were to fight a samurai, both unarmoured the samurai would likly win, if the knight was wearing armour and/or had a shield the samurai would more than likley be fucked.

See, this is the Deadliest Warrior problem. The samurai was SMART, he would use any possible advantage he could get. Bushido is bullshit. This is what made the samurai formidable, NOT his weapon.

Yeah Deadliest Warrior is fun but some of the weapons tests and comparisions are total BS.

There was one with a pig cutting, (cant remember which) but the first team hit the inside of the leg and carried through to the bottom of the spine at its thinest point the weight of the haunch hanging on the tear & the second team hit high going through ribs & spine. They decided that first team won even though they cut through less hard bone & muscle.

Oh & the roman one where the guy dented the Gladius on the metal pole holding the body up (Cant remember if it was the APache or the Rajputt one?) He lost made no sense whatsoever.

 

[Tim_Buoy]

i quite like katanas they are easier to display my claymore keeps ripping the screws out of the walls

 

[Treblaine]

Does this mean in 300 years were gonna get weeabo half-wits talking about how Pattons .45 could shoot through Tiger tanks .

Im not being a jerk Im telling you what the reality of the medieval battlefield was like trying to undo years of dogma.

What does the medieval battlefield have to do with pistols shooting holes in tanks?

 

[Brawndo]

Not reading 6 pages to see if this was posted already, but: Katanas are a product of their unique battlefield. They were highly effective in one-on-one combat against unarmored or bamboo-armored opponents. However, against steel plate armor, slashing swords are relatively useless, the katana included. That's why late medieval European swords were basically clubs because they had to be heavy enough to impart force through the armor to the wearer.