On the Katana and it's wielder.

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That's funny lol,though my perception of a man wielding a saber is a 18th century calvaryman charging into battle dashing and elegant but brutal.

Well sabres and rapiers aren't the same sword. Traditional sabres are usually curved and have broader blades, making them more efficient for slashing attacks like a cavalryman would be most likely to do. Rapiers instead have more elaborate handguards, as well as straight and long slender blades, and even though a lot of rapiers were edged on both sides, they were more adapted for thrusting attacks than slashes.

I.e sabres are the kind of weapon you'd associate with cavalrymen and navymen (although the shorter and broader cutlass would be more approriate for navymen and pirates alike), while the rapier is the type of weapon you see a lot in the movies about the three musketeers (and if you remember the movies, they tended to wear rather flamboyant and ridiculous looking outfits according to our modern standards, and will most likely be the most common perception of rapier-users, hence my theory )

 

[lewiswhitling]

The Japanese willingly isolated themselves from the rest of the world for politico-economic-cultural-religious reasons, so arguing that they weren't as aggressively imperialistic or expansive as other empires is a bit unfair

The Samurai and the Katana have proven to be incredibly superior to the technology of Western armies at the time - Samurai armour being of greater strength, durability, manouverability and overall design whilst the Katana was far better at cutting, slicing and stabbing than western Longswords, which were more like particularly sharp clubs in comparison (both deadly, obviously - but the Katana is superior if only because it is a lighter, faster, sharper, stronger weapon)

As for peoples' obsession with it - I dunno, it's Japanese so that's gotta count for something in their eyes.

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.

I prefer the stle and practicle-ness of a sickle sword (khopesh) or a a kilij.

The samurai were known for their combat prowes mainly from one on one combat, with some being able to catch arrows mid flight. So the power of the sword came from the warrior not the weapon.

The katana is an overrated weapon in fiction. It may have been very well-constructed and great for its specific uses, but it wasn't a wonder-sword, and it was made using notably weak Japanese steel - this is why it had to be well-constructed.

Beaten to it, they are damn fine blades but are built for a specific type of combat, they are good at it but not much else.

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.

Erm, medieval men at arms could be just as proficient with a long sword as a samuri would be with a katana. Both swords weighed about the same, and they both were balanced to a point where they were just a "fast" as each other.

There really are some massive misconceptions in this thread about martial arts in general. The fact is that the basic principles are universal, from the unarmed side of it (throwing, unarmed fighting) to armed combat (with different swords being best used in different situations). Western martial arts has suffered from a massive sidelining due to the introduction of firearms, as as such has been relagated to a highly unrealistic and recreational "fencing" activity over the past several centuries.

But in the days when people (ANYWHERE in the world) relied on their swords to survive in day to day life, and in battles, believe me, they were all trained to be the creme of the fighting crop.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well from personal first had exp with using melee weapons, the katana is extremely overrated. Its power comes from its speed without question, with the premise of death by a thousand tiny cuts. The katana is a phenominal weapon to make cuts and gashes into soft material.

The problem with the Katana is how much percision is required to use it effectively. You basically have to make your first shot a kill shot for the most part, and it has to be in soft flesh, which honestly is not hard to accomplish if you slice through the throat or the lower abdomen below the ribcage. However as soon as you encounter something hard like bone you quickly see the failings of the katana.

Honestly it does not take much to bend, break or dull a katana. So you might be able to repel a few weapon on weapon strikes and perhaps lacerate an arm your not going to get much more than that out of it. You might get one kill out of it, but if your fighting multiple opponents your pretty well boned.

Heavier and thicker blades have a much better durability. A weapon such as a gladius/cestus operates on the same hiltless speed based design, but will likely be able to endure many more strikes, be it against a shield, a thick bone, or a miss that hits rock/concrete/wood and still be able to continue on, all the while still retaining the same sort of deadly speed the katana is known for.

Its a nice weapon for its purpose, and they certainly do look beautiful, but practical, no, not really. Deserving of its hype, absolutely not.

The idea that the power of a katana comes from its speed is ridiculous. That's as much a hollywood/anime trope as the "KATANAZ CAN CUT THRU TANKZ!" hype.

And lulz to the guy who mentioned expereince with the SCA. That's like saying you're a historian because you've been to ren fairs.

 

[Zacharine]

A katana is a decent sword, made for a very specific style of fighting.

It is also utterly useless against a decent piece of ringmail - a slashing sword against metal armor made to stop slashing weapons equals zero effect. Despite the common misconceptions, the katana is not some kind of ultimate lightsaberesque sword that cuts trough anything without problems.

It is overrated in general - many people have zero idea how a medieval arming sword or Zweihander can be used to cut an equal swath of fluiding destruction.

Katana is not inherently a superior weapon. It is simply often associated with samurai who had studied and practized with it for their entire lives and were thus masters of using it, along with the somewhat alien mindset they had about life and death and battle. European expert swordsmen were equally good with their weapons, but are more often forgotten because they are more mundane to our westerner sensibilities.

Summa summarum: Katana was a decent sword: good for it's geographical location and the fighting philosophy employed by the people using it. But that is it - it is just a sword of a particular fighting style, which has been equalled and in some cases surpassed elsewhere in the world.

 

[Jazzyjazz2323]

That's funny lol,though my perception of a man wielding a saber is a 18th century calvaryman charging into battle dashing and elegant but brutal.

Well sabres and rapiers aren't the same sword. Traditional sabres are usually curved and have broader blades, making them more efficient for slashing attacks like a cavalryman would be most likely to do. Rapiers instead have more elaborate handguards, as well as straight and long slender blades, and even though a lot of rapiers were edged on both sides, they were more adapted for thrusting attacks than slashes.

I.e sabres are the kind of weapon you'd associate with cavalrymen and navymen (although the shorter and broader cutlass would be more approriate for navymen and pirates alike), while the rapier is the type of weapon you see a lot in the movies about the three musketeers (and if you remember the movies, they tended to wear rather flamboyant and ridiculous looking outfits according to our modern standards, and will most likely be the most common perception of rapier-users, hence my theory )

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.

 

[lewiswhitling]

oh, and sorry for the double post - the fact of the matter is that a nobleman's longsword was the height of medieval metal working technology, and one of the most versatile swords that ever existed, being effective in hundereds of different situations. To be technical, it was a tool of win (assuming the user was also excellent).

 

[DownloaderOfTheMonth]

The Japanese willingly isolated themselves from the rest of the world for politico-economic-cultural-religious reasons, so arguing that they weren't as aggressively imperialistic or expansive as other empires is a bit unfair

The Samurai and the Katana have proven to be incredibly superior to the technology of Western armies at the time - Samurai armour being of greater strength, durability, manouverability and overall design whilst the Katana was far better at cutting, slicing and stabbing than western Longswords, which were more like particularly sharp clubs in comparison (both deadly, obviously - but the Katana is superior if only because it is a lighter, faster, sharper, stronger weapon)

As for peoples' obsession with it - I dunno, it's Japanese so that's gotta count for something in their eyes.

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.

I prefer the stle and practicle-ness of a sickle sword (khopesh) or a a kilij.

The samurai were known for their combat prowes mainly from one on one combat, with some being able to catch arrows mid flight. So the power of the sword came from the warrior not the weapon.

The katana is an overrated weapon in fiction. It may have been very well-constructed and great for its specific uses, but it wasn't a wonder-sword, and it was made using notably weak Japanese steel - this is why it had to be well-constructed.

Beaten to it, they are damn fine blades but are built for a specific type of combat, they are good at it but not much else.

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.

Erm, medieval men at arms could be just as proficient with a long sword as a samuri would be with a katana. Both swords weighed about the same, and they both were balanced to a point where they were just a "fast" as each other.

There really are some massive misconceptions in this thread about martial arts in general. The fact is that the basic principles are universal, from the unarmed side of it (throwing, unarmed fighting) to armed combat (with different swords being best used in different situations). Western martial arts has suffered from a massive sidelining due to the introduction of firearms, as as such has been relagated to a highly unrealistic and recreational "fencing" activity over the past several centuries.

But in the days when people relied on their weapons to survive in day to day life, and in battles, believe me, they were the creme of the fighting crop.

I never said the Western martial art was less proficient in its use of its weapon of choice. Mabye one of the other people you quoted said that, but don't lump me in like that.

Also, seeing as the longsword is much, MUCH bigger, even though it's well-weighted and such, it's still not as manouverable as the Katana.

The superiority of the Katana is shown in this video. This does not make the Longsword any worse, it still does the job very well - it's just the Katana is ... well, watch the video.

 

[Zacharine]

To those thinking that medieval european sword combat was just brutal hacking, I present some real swordtechniques in the form of a youtube video. These are based on actual medieval and renessaince era sword manuals.

Many people tend to forget one crucial advantage of european fighters when it came down to fluidity and versatility with a sword: they tended to use gloves made from thick leather or metal - so they could grasp their own sword fairly safely from any point along the blade. Allowing for vastly different techniques that would be all but impossible with the katana. Along with of course a straight, double-edged sword being able to cut to both directions equally well and be an efficient piercer as well.

 

[Quaxar]

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.

Claymore's actually tend to be pretty dam light for their size

And OT nerd > anime > japan > katana - that's pretty much the only links you have to make

I know, I know, but nevertheless they are a bit bigger and harder to carry than the rather small katana.

 

[[.redacted]]

Show me a nerd who can wield a claymore!

Did someone say... Claymore?!

I agree with this, both types are awesome.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

On the odd occasion I've sparred with a sword I actually preferred a naval sabre. I have no real experience though.

Samurai culture is idolised in the west for being elegant and mysterious, their swords are idolised for the same reason. The katana is a very elegant weapon, the blade curves gently, the differential tempering on the edge is very subtle and the guard is very understated. They're gorgeous swords but they simply aren't practical for western sword fighting.

One of the reasons people respect the samurai is that they seem to fight with more grace and finesse than western equivalents; dodging and parrying witht he blade rather than taking a hit on the armour. Of course the reason for this is that they couldn't, their armour wouldn't stand up to a proper whack so they had to learn to fight without that.

The Katana represented the best Japanese swords smiths could create with the poor metal deposits both in Japan itself and whatever it managed to pilfer from Korea. Weapons of art, ceremony and for cutting down the occasional unruly peasant they were indeed. As many have pointed out, the vast majority of the armies in Japan and Europe used spears and bows and arrows, and believe me, the Japanese were all over muskets and canons when they started trading again.

We in the west have grown up with knights and the longsword, so its the default. So we find this other sword that doesn't quite look like anything we've had comes in from a foreign culture and we become overly fascinated.

My understanding is that the reverse occurs to a lesser extent in Japan in regards to the Knight Errant and his Longsword. I trained with a bokken for a year in college (a wooden training Katana) and found it rather wonderful to use. Had good fun learning how to fence with a foil too, different situations and forms of combat.

Swords in general are cool. Full stop.

EDIT - my captcha: Nippon Throdan

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

One of the reasons people respect the samurai is that they seem to fight with more grace and finesse than western equivalents; dodging and parrying witht he blade rather than taking a hit on the armour. Of course the reason for this is that they couldn't, their armour wouldn't stand up to a proper whack so they had to learn to fight without that.

Er, yes it would. Japanese infantry armour often consisted of lacquered iron plate, and you're not going to CUT through iron plate with a katana or any other sword for that matter.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

oh, and sorry for the double post - the fact of the matter is that a nobleman's longsword was the height of medieval metal working technology, and one of the most versatile swords that ever existed, being effective in hundereds of different situations. To be technical, it was a tool of win (assuming the user was also excellent).

The thing with longswords though is that they were never designed to be a 'primary' weapon, the fighting styles involving them were (from what I've seen) all based around 1 on 1 dueling style combat, involving a combination of strikes and grapple type manouvers using the whole of the weapon rather then just the blade.
The weapon of choice for infantry were always variations of polearms, from poleaxes to billhooks. Also on horseback they'd be very unwieldy, hence the use of shorter arming swords as a backup.

But more ontopic, I personally prefer the longsword, in my opinions it's a more elegant and versatile weapon.

To those thinking that medieval european sword combat was just brutal hacking, I present some real swordtechniques in the form of a youtube video. These are based on actual medieval and renessaince era sword manuals.

Many people tend to forget one crucial advantage of european fighters when it came down to fluidity and versatility with a sword: they tended to use gloves made from thick leather or metal - so they could grasp their own sword fairly safely from any point along the blade. Allowing for vastly different techniques that would be all but impossible with the katana.

Ninjad! I've always wanted to learn medieval longsword martial arts, so few places teach it though..

 

[moretimethansense]

Erm, medieval men at arms could be just as proficient with a long sword as a samuri would be with a katana. Both swords weighed about the same, and they both were balanced to a point where they were just a "fast" as each other.

There really are some massive misconceptions in this thread about martial arts in general. The fact is that the basic principles are universal, from the unarmed side of it (throwing, unarmed fighting) to armed combat (with different swords being best used in different situations). Western martial arts has suffered from a massive sidelining due to the introduction of firearms, as as such has been relagated to a highly unrealistic and recreational "fencing" activity over the past several centuries.

But in the days when people relied on their weapons to survive in day to day life, and in battles, believe me, they were the creme of the fighting crop.

The western longsword is unmistakably heavier than a katana, it can be swung with the same speed but the recovery time is slightly longer, that is where the difference would be made, that and there is a difference in fighting philosophies between the knight and samurai, basicly the knight will try to overwhelm then go in for the kill, the samurai will try to force his opponent to over extend then strike for the kill.

And unarmoured and unshielded knight would be a disadvantage in a sword fight simply due to these differences, if both were armoured the knights sword would barley even be slowd down by the samurai's armour, the katana would be stopped dead, especially if it was the later high tech full plate.

Sill being equal this is most likley the odds

unarmoured 2/3 in the samurai's favour.
Armoured 9/10 in the knights favour.

unarmoured the difference isn't too great, the armour/shield would be the deciding factor, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Zacharine]

The weapon of choice for infantry were always variations of polearms, from poleaxes to billhooks. Also on horseback they'd be very unwieldy, hence the use of shorter arming swords as a backup.

This had more to do with the general peasant composition of most armies, the availability and cheap cost of polearms and the ease which it could be taught to raw recruits about to fight in a formation.

Whereas it takes years to effectively learn to fight with an expensive sword.

 

[Double A]

The katana also can't pierce chainmail. I can just tell where this is going. It's probably less nerdy nerds who like the katana a whole bunch, not realizing it's the samurai code and not the weapon that's awesome (I guess? I don't really like either one all that much, to be honest). We're probably going to see a lot less katanas and more western swords in the coming years due to people who like katanas finding out they're overrated.

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.

So learning how to use a specialized slashing weapon is easier than learning how to use a big Scottish broadsword.

For some reason, I highly doubt you.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Katana is not a sword to be used for prolonged swordfighting, it's a weapon used for quick strikes and jabs. And in that regard, it's a pretty spiffy piece of cutlery.

And a Katana was more ceremonial and spriritual for a samurai. In actual wars, samurai were more likely to have used speers and bows.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Had good fun learning how to fence with a foil too, different situations and forms of combat.

I'd just like to say that I've never trained in foil fencing, but I have some years of experience with kendo primarily.

The thing is, from what I have seen of foil fencing it doesn't seem to be too much of a contact sport, would that be correct?

I mean, when I was training kendo and were taught the methods of competition my view of it is basically a more elegant form of an ice-hockey brawl where you wear somewhat heavy armour and basically whack eachother with "hockey-sticks" (shinai) and also engage in a lot of other forceful attacks (like tackling, since tackling is a good way to insure that your opponent won't be able to perform a cut approved by the judges and gain points). In other words, kendo came across as a lot more "full contact" and brutal than foil fencing where there's basically just two guys swinging and poking eachother with thin foils.

Then again, I might be a bit too biased in this so it would be interesting to hear the opinion from someone who've trained with bokken as well as foil fencing.