On the Katana and it's wielder.

[quantumsoul]

I think it's partly because we know so much about samurai and how they used their weapons. European and Middle-eastern sword fighting died out much much soon so a lot was lost.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

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.

Although a polearm is indeed cheaper to produce and train with (most of it is afterall a stick) I'd say it's more due to the nature of a pitched battle over single combat, it would be almost impossible to effectively use a longsword in a frantic melee with little space to swing it in.

 

[warprincenataku]

The katana is a well-balanced blade perfect for hand and a half wielding. It's blade has been folded hundred of time creating layer upon layer in its design. This makes it both strong, flexible and incredibly sharp. It swings fast and cuts through bone, skine, muscle and the like with great ease. You don't have to be a muscular power house to wield one and more focus is on finess than brute force.

That's why the katana is at the top of the stack of best combat weapons.

There are very few weapons I would pick to use against someone with a katana.

Having 12 years of training myself the only weapon I would pick against a katana is either a katana, ninjato, ditch axe or shuko. Possibly a gun, but I have little to no training with one. lol

High quality combat katanas are folded between 150 and 200 times.

 

[Exocet]

Err, I have to put your knowledge of Japanese warfare history into serious question if you claim that japanese warfare tactics "didn't evolve". Also infantry didn't run around with katana swords slashing eachother. As I've said in a previous post, the primary weapons came to be bows and spears, while the katana was more as a symbol of the samurai class and a kind of side-arm on the battlefield.

The only thing that didn't evolve too much was the armour worn by japanese soldiers, and this because Japan didn't have as much in the way of iron ore to mass produce metal armour like the europeans did. Also the japanese were extremely quick to adopt the use of arqebuses and cannons.

So really, what are you talking about when you say that the japanese way of warfare "basically didn't evolve at all"?

Indeed,the katana wasn't used by the common man on the battlefield,but that doesn't change the fact Japanese warfare didn't evolve for centuries,it almost did with some great generals trying to integrate arquebuses,but it never lasted.Besides,you cannot in any way say that Japanese tactics evolved as much as European tactics.

 

[fenderstrat]

a rapier (and its fighting style) is far better than a katana, for unarmored combat. and for armored, the longsword is better too. katana looks cool though

 

[Scarim Coral]

While it true that the katana itself is not special since the sharpness is the same as a Gladius. I watch a documentary on Katana that when using it to cut a watermelon in half, the gladius can get the same result but it's more then that.
You got to have some respect to how a katana is made since it is a long and complex procedure to make one. The katana is somewhat different since its folded metal and require a lot of different polishes stone on it. I suppose you could say a katana is a work of art.
It also that the Japanese had show great interest in their heritage since when had anyone seen a European blacksmiths still making a gladius then to a katana?

EDIT- I found the documentary although I'm not expecting anyone to watch it.

Spoiler: Katana

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Allowing for vastly different techniques that would be all but impossible with the katana.

Which doesn't make it superior in any way, since such techniques are redundant if you are trained to use a katana.

Just because a sword allows for other techniques than another sword it doesn't mean that they give you a practical edge in combat.

It's kind of like saying that a Barret .50 rifle would be superior if it had a medium range grenade launcher attached to it, just because you can fire grenades with the rifle as well as .50 rounds. In practical terms however this would be redundant since the rifle is intended to be used at ranges where a medium range grenade launcher fill no useful purpose what so ever.

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.

Yeah, but where it can cut in both directions, it's cutting potential is inferior to the katana. A straight blade doesn't cut as well as a curved blade, and the way that japanese swordsmen trained was to use the curvature of the blade to it's maximum cutting potential as opposed to the brutal "hacking" that straight swords are primarily intended for.

If you are to cut with a straight blade then you have to jerk the blade forwards or backwards, (which would be an awkward motion in a real swordfight) which means that all you can do with it is to hack and not really cut.

 

[Zacharine]

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.

Although a polearm is indeed cheaper to produce and train with (most of it is afterall a stick) I'd say it's more due to the nature of a pitched battle over single combat, it would be almost impossible to effectively use a longsword in a frantic melee with little space to swing it in.

A lot of the swordfighting techniques curiously enough focus on swinging the sword above your head, going for enemy neck and head, or tackling them down. Curiously enough, a lot of the techniques also deal with countering such high-held stances, using the pommel as a club or the tip as a dagger or the entire sword as a short spear.

While you may have a point, I believe it is an extremely marginal one. Not all battles, specifically with sword-armed knights, took place in such tight quarters - those wielding the sword would have had been supremely good at judging space available and if it were advantageous to fight there or seek slightly better ground somewhere else close by. And if none were available... well then, there were those techniques alternative to wide swinging to fall upon.

 

[Slycne]

during a time when europe still used iron. it may be weak steel, but it WAS steel.

Both societies were working steel around the 9-10th century. Well before the introduction of the katana, which dates back to the 1300s. So you have that quite incorrect.

 

[Zacharine]

Snip.

And you will note that medieval armor, that the various european swords consistently fought against, are all but inpenetrable to a pure cutting sword like katana.

As I said, katana was a good weapon considering the fighting styles and armor generally used in Japan.

But as a sword, katana is in no way inherently superior to medieval european swords. It is simply different, ment to be used with an entirely different style against entirely different opponents.

As an additional information, perhaps you'd like to read this? :

http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html

 

[Wereduck]

All this talk also raises another question that perplexes me and this is the seemingly lack of the Arabic swordsman in all recent geek culture.I find this somewhat confusing and odd,mainly because I believe the arabic swordsmen of the mid millennium had amazing skills with their given weapons and those weaposn were crafted with also great skill.So I wonder why they don't have the mythos like the other swordsmen to stand up in geek culture.

I'd guess it's probably because in the west we have a longstanding tradition of antagonism and dismissiveness toward Arabs. It's been economically expedient to regard them as backward savages and support the brutal dictators who exploit them because we can buy oil cheaper that way. Plus, they can't be mythic heroes because our mythic heroes (i.e. knights) invaded their lands in the crusades and it's more difficult to accept our actions (present or past) if their culture is considered as deserving of admiration.

Back OT; nothing to add except to check out "the rule of cool" on tvtropes.org as regards katanas (mechas too).

EDIT: fixed tvtropes' address, it's .org not .com

 

[LondonBeer]

actually that is a lie. the long sword can be a very graceful yet powerful weapon. two edges plus teh abiltiy to thrust, held be a guy wearing a custom built armour, and knights could do quite a bit in full plate. the long sword granted wasnt made purely for slashing it was very utilitarian and in the proper hands could work just as well as any katana

plus you can block with a long sword and not have to worry about anything. but why would you want to... you also have shield which in itself can be used as a weapon...

You do thrusts with a katana as well. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that katanas aren't used for thrusting.

You can block with a katana as well, and YES you can block with it WITHOUT breaking the sword. It's just that you don't parry with the edge but rather the sides of the blade.

Also a longsword would have it's edge ruined if you used it to block with.

As for your other points, yes shields are useful defensive weapons. But if you hold a shield then you have to use the sword with one hand. This will reduce control of the weapon, as opposed to the katana wielder who is trained to use both hands, giving superior control.

Do note that if you will try to rebuke by lecturing me, do take note that I have a few years of actual training with these weapons. (I never was much into martial arts focussed on hand to hand combat so swords, polearms and chain weapons seemed a lot more interesting)

You need a few more years, Ive trained with the Royal Armouries. The purpose of a lunge is reach (rarely) or to add force to penetrating ability of the tip. The shape of a Katana is not conducive to a armour piercing breach on flat plate.

All swords parry with the flat, edge parries are fiction or desperation. All swords would chip if used to edge parry especially a Katana less likely a early western edge due to the edge formation.

Shields are offensive & defensive & if youve never been struck with 6 lbs of hardwood with a 1lb of shaped steel driven by a mans arm I recommend the experience as a learning one.

The myth that both hands are required implies a weakness in the bearer. A trait western warriors who trained with wasters and upto double weighted dull iron blades would not suffer from. Driving a blow home with both hands guiding the blade implies you lack the precision or skill to use the less than a pound of pressure of the razor edge on the blade to open your target.

The only reason to use both hands is to penetrate armour a thankless task with a glorified letteropener such as a Katana. Lacking the tip required to breach cleanly & the shape it would only affect weak and open areas of western field plate.

As to techniques employed gentlemen & ladies I give unto you the answer. A fencer with a sabre no less 'humping' a Kendo master.

 

[Caliostro]

First of all, you're arguing the logic of pop culture. Let that sink in for a minute. Why do all science fiction movies/shows/series about the future portray energy weapons, when it stands to reason that once you figured out a counter measure (like a shield) they'd become completely completely ineffective, as opposed to mass drivers that can never really be stopped?

Because it's pop culture. "Rule of cool" if you will.

That said, the katana is a fairly magnificent weapon. It was designed to be. See, the east had a very, very different approach to war (and to everything, really) than the west. They went with technique and precision, we went with sheer brute force. I'm not saying they were the master swordsmen and we were the trolls/grunts, I'm saying that was the general approach to things. Medieval western armors were made to favor protection while remaining fairly mobile. Eastern armors were made to favor mobility, while remaining fairly protected. This resulted in completely different "philosophies of weapon making", if you will.

The Katana was designed to cut through relatively poor armor, but be quick and precise enough to pierce and cut through the weak points of the plated armors. Western swords, like the Zweinhänder, literally "2 hander", were made to cut (or bash) through anything.

Nowadays, neither are particularly useful since we have guns. That said, if I was going to use either today, I'd most likely use a katana, since it's lighter, generally more versatile, and I wouldn't really be fighting a lot of fucking armors. If I expected "heavier" or more "resistant" enemies, then I'd get myself something more western, like a Claymore or the Zweinhänder.

Ultimately, the best known blades belonged to neither. They belonged to the indian scimitar, which, due to an incredibly complex building procedure that made the Japanese katana's look like child's play, was probably the only known blade in history capable of actually doing the mythical "drop a silk handkerchief on the blade, and it'll cut it in two" act. Or so I've read at least.

 

[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.

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.

I didn't say anything about learning, just unskilled handling.

 

[linkvegeta]

So throughout modern day "nerd" fiction and what no,almost always someone has a katana of some sort and they're always held up to be the epitome of badass.I have always been confused by this and I've always wondered why the Japanese blade has been seen as a more popular weapon than those of the western and middle-eastern variety.I've never understood peoples fascination with the katana or it's wielder.To me they've always seemed weak,both warrior and weapon,from an empire that never accomplished much in comparison to it's neighbors.
The fighting style also seems highly overrated and people seem to overlook the martial prowess of the middle-eastern and western swordsmen in regards to skill when compared to their Japanese counterparts.Every time a movie,comic book or game mentions master swordsmanship it always goes directly to the Samurai or wielders of the katana.I've always held that the swordsmanship of the western world especially that of knights to be the better form but I'm still perplexed by it's second place status when it comes to weapons in the "nerd"fiction universe.
So basically I would like to get the Escapist views on this weapon and what they think about it's place in the modern day realms of fiction in opposition to it's western and middle-eastern counterparts.


Sorry if this is incoherent in anyway I have not had much sleep.

This has been explained on many documentary, It its very strong and is one of the most sharp and effective swords ever made, as for the samurai, as seen on the deadliest warrior was only topped by the spartan in pretty much because they could not get past that awesome huge shield.You see alot of anime and shows with samurai doing their own thing witch is kind of an insult because the name means to serve, they were to protect royalty and very important people, and to become a samurai was to be born into it. In a way its an insult to the real samurai.

I have read some comments saying Japanese steel is very weak and that is very incorrect, it is one of the strongest steels in the world. thing is, when they were making sword they noticed something.... hard steel is to brittle and would shatter easy but was very sharp, while the soft steel didnt break but was very dull so they combined them. So you know when you see that wavy pattern on a katana's blade edge thats the hard metal connecting with the soft, also the combination is also what gives it its curve, when cooled down the blade curves.

my personal favorite swords is tied between a broad sword and a katata.

 

[macfluffers]

I like katana, and I'll admit that I feel they deserve a special place among historical weapons, but it is overplayed in media. Of course, if the story takes place in Japan, or the story has Japanese characters, then it's totally justified.

That said, I would like to see more assassins with Indian weapons like katara or pata, or Chinese ones like jian or dao. In period media, spears are downplayed in their significance in warfare, which is sad, since spears could be a lot cooler if they weren't treated as "swords with reeaaaaaalllly long handles and reeeaaaallly short blades".

Also, it goes without saying that European, Middle Eastern, and Indo-chinese weapons don't get enough love. Claymores, falchions, rapiers, sabers, kopeshes, scimitars, krises, kukris, etc. Even Africa has produced some cool, overlooked weapons, like the shotel.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

But yes most rapier wielding men I would perceive as men of let's say flimsy constitutions.

It does spring to mind. But as I stated earlier, the rapier shouldn't be scoffed at since it is an equally elegant weapon to any katana, both in looks and fighting style. I mean:

If we are to argue the artistic merits of swords, could anyone really claim that the beauty of a katana is somehow "superior" to a finely crafted rapier?

I'd say that they are equally impressing but in their own different ways.

 

[BlackWidower]

It's the look of the blade. It's slim, sleek, and when scheved, not very conspicuous...depending on the style of hilt.

Not only that, Kendo is not about just throwing a blade, it's about dodging, blocking and swiping, in the most efficient way possible.

But mostly, it's portrayal in the media. Look at movies featuring knights, their swords are always very bulky, and they stumble around a bit. Samurais are always more elegant.

 

[Double A]

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.

I didn't say anything about learning, just unskilled handling.

Oh... Yeah. Light is easy.

 

[Treblaine]

Katana is over-rated compared to a gun, but as a sword and particularly the way it is supposed to be used it was very good.

It's cutting power against those bare or lightly armoured is extraordinary, it seems to be a very effective strategy to focus on a relatively light blade but that is both extremely sharp and can be swung at such high speed.

And tell me honestly, which weapon looks better:

the style I love, rounded cubism, it has the air of refined lethality, minimalist destruction. Compare and contrast with a sabre from a similar time period.

Sorry, far too fancy, it's looks to bendy and "banana like" compared to the smooth geometric curve and sharp angles of the Katana. I don't know which is better at cutting but I know if someone was wielding either one against me I'd be more intimidated by the Katana.