Error!

Administrator notice:

Background database maintenance is complete. New content notifications should be going out normally.
A sizable amount of work has queued up internally and it will take up to a week for the database to catch up, possibly resulting in reduced site performance for the duration.
12/01/2014 Site Status and Community Updates
Sword vs Katana?    

By JessicaElwood, 7 years ago
‘allo everyone. As some of you know, I am kind of a medieval weaponry fan. A few days ago I had an interesting talk with a friend and I thought I would ask you people your thoughts on it...
In your opinion, what is better in a technical way.

Western or Japanese warfare? Knight or Samurai, if both had the same degree of ability?... hand and a half swords, halberds, two handed swords... daisho, nodachi, naginata... Many support that Japanese steel was stronger due to the way it was forged, but Toledo and Damascus steel blades were considered by many as the finest blades in the world...

I am mostly referring to weapon types, steel quality and equipment. Give me your thoughts, but tell me -why- you think either would be better in a battlefield or a one-on-one duel.
147 comments

User replies

  bluesquirreldude
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, first it depends on the type of sword or katana eahc is wielding; the oriental, double-edged swords were actually made to counter the katana's range by way of speed and maneuverability, but they were one-handed too. When it coems down to two warriors, from different alnds, usign different weaponry but equal skill? Luck would make it 50/50 in my opinion

  shujintribble
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Japanese for the 5-square win

'cause of the whole "Ninjas-vs-pirates' thing.

(Oh, wait... I like pirates better... crap...)


What was the question again?

  itoril
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  It depends on what equipment is specifically used, but if the Westerner could have their pick of Western weaponry, and vice versa, the Westerner would win. Due to reach/armour piercing ability (Swiss pike or crossbow).

  dreamwolf989
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  very hard choice...those weilding the kitana have a faster and better flow, while those of the western sword, probably a broadsword or something like that, have more of a primal sharpened club, with which the weight can easily bring down the kitana. All in all, 50/50

  thegru
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Samurai always win... ALWAYS!

  silverfenrir
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  *giggle*

  theskunkcat
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The Japanese swords are almost invariably better forged. Which has to do with the fact that metal was rare and thus valuable in Japan.

However the European abundance of metal also led to the need for types of swords people did not need in Japan. Such as big heavy swords meant to pierce or crush heavy armour. (Japanese armour due to the fact that metal was so rare was a lot lighter.)

Also, I believe that there is no real way to say which is better if both are equally skilled. Fact is, that skill in battle is merely a way to minimize the impact of chance and bad luck. But that no matter how good you are you can never fully eridicate the random factor. So assuming equal skill, the battle could go either way. And if you'd repeat it over and over again the outcomes will not always be the same. And either will win, occassionally. And if one considers skill the primary factor, the quality of the sword is less important anyway. Its all about wether or not you can kill, with all that skill you have, your opponent with it.

As they say, its not the equipment, its how you use it.

  bloodfang85
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'm a sucker for medieval weaponry. But Japanese stuff can be really cool too.

My vote's medieval.

  mishakun
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I don't know...

But I'm betting my money on the japanese swords. I've heard stories of how the katana was crafted. Blacksmiths went out to the battlefield to check out which swords that broke and not during combat. With the swords that didn't break and checking out who created them (by looking the seal of the maker) the technique to manufacture them was continued on and improved. Because of this Katanas were known to have become more sharp and durable for each iteration.

  kesarra
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Neither was specifically made to counter the other. Piercing/slashing sword vs slashing katana? Plate/chain vs shingles? Equal skill would lend weight to luck.

  lathander
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Japanese swords.

Simple physics. All style of japanese sword are lighter, and significantly better balanced. Even your average swordsman could cleave a man's torso before a western swordsman could even get his sword out of the scabbard.

Even from a pre-drawn state face to face, the Japanese swordsman would strike first, passing strait through the slow and cumbersome swing of a western blade with a clean arc.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  "Slow and cumbersome" is a rather unfortunate stereotype. A medieval longsword typically weighed about the same as a katana, although the grip was slightly shorter because it was wielded one-handed so that the user could also use a shield. That there is going to be another factor.

True, the katana was better designed for sweeping cuts, however: like the scimitar, its design is better for cutting through soft material with a long, cutting stroke. The medieval longsword/broadsword was generally more of an impact/piercing weapon.

  train
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  It depends upon the craftsmanship and how well the the weapon was made.

If you want speed then the rapier is the way to go.

If you want a balance of power and speed. Then the katana.


If you want pure power. Than a broadsword.

I maybe wrong and correct me if I am.

But as popular as the Katana is. I'm going with the broadsword.

  typhus1989
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Depends on how the weapon is used. The user affects the effectiveness of the weapon, not the other way around.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  You win an internets. XD

  lordwegner
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  This sounds like a debate that needs to be handled on Soul Calibur II, Knightmare vs Mistarugi...
I would think that Japanese sword style would have an easier time piercing threw the weak points of armor, but the heavy swords of medieval weaponary would make for stronger knights.

  dark-pup
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  We had a discussion in a forum in which we made a theorical situation in which we made a medieval knight fight against a samurai, and in the end, based on the fighting styles, armours and weapons, in the long range the samurai would win because of their mastery with the bow and arrow while the medieval noble men scoffed at it as a war weapon.

In the meelee the medieval european would win, for the katanas are suited for cutting blows and they where very light, around 2 kilos. The less prepared noble would have at least a chainmail, perfectly capable of enduring that, and if not, he would have thick clothes beneath it.

A one and a half handed sword goes from 3 to 4 kilos (I own one myself), for imaginery issues I'll be the european: I'll have a heavy armour and a heavy weapon, my lil nipon friend would be able to hit me twice or even three times before I can smash my sword on him, but unless he hits my head (and that's not likely to happend for it's a small and moving target) my armour would make me endure that, and one single blow of my heavier weapon would crush the bones under the bamboo armour.


  silverfenrir
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Really depends on the skill level. If a katana can get through the armor on a knight, then so be it; there were strategies to find the joints in armor and strike there. And if a knight can move as fast as a bushin with that heavy armor on, then so be it; there was training to move in said armor for hours on end, as well as maneuverability exercises.

So, long story short; skill level's the key to the win

  darknessrisen
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, I'm not a guru, but I am a fan. Since most militant swords were made en masse the katana probably doesn't have the same durability as the western swords. If I've ever paid any attention, I'd say that the Western sword, like the bastard sword, would shatter a dai-katana (the eastern response I think to a two handed weapon) if swung at the same velocity. There's just more momentum because the steel is heavier.

In terms of strength... Western swords were weilded by bulky warriors, while katanas were often in the hands of slim, agile samurai/ninjas. In terms of speed and number of strikes per minute, I'd go katana easy.

In terms of long, drawn out battle where it's you vs. multiple foes and you need your sword not to chip or break, I'd go western.

In an equal skill situation. Eventually the western sword may simply wear down the katana. But again, my opinion. ^_^;

  freehaven
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I can't choose. They both have their merits, and they both look cool when presented in the correct way. ^_^;;

  cirrel
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Katana - Single edge. Sword - double edge.

I am not real big on edged weapon tactics but I would think that the differences in weaponry would dictate different fighting tactics. All tactics have weak and strong spots. So, if two different tactical styles clashed the winner, I think, would be the individual who could first figure out where a strong point of their own tactics meets a weak point of their opponent's.

Then there is the mind set of the duelist. Do they respect their unknown opponent and take the time to parry with them to discover tactical style? Or are they confident enough to play to their own strong points hoping that those are automatically more powerful than their opponents defenses?

An interesting fight in any case.

  lordcoyote
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'd say the question on whether european and japanese swords are bette over the other depends on sword skills. Each has there own strengths and weaknesses as well as porpous.
The broadsword is mainly for hacking and stabbing while the katana if mostly for slicing. And you should never confuse the two. You shouln't use a broadsword like a katana no more than you should use a katana like a broadsword.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Japanese katana can cut any european made sword like it'd be a bamboo stick. But then when we think of knight in full plate armor, and japanese samurai, knight would die in matter of seconds, because european plate armor was not designed to take on piercing japanese blades, it selrved as protection against duller heavyer swords and blunt melee weapons, slowing down the warrior. All to pffet protection from arrows and other imferior weapons, full plate armor was worn by horseback knights primarily to compensate lack of mobility.

Now put a roman or greek warrior one on one to japanese samurai, maybe weapons are inferior but those warriors were strong and very effective with spears and barehanded. Also had shields that samurais had not. That would've given them chance to overcome samurai who hasn't yet developed a battlestradegy.

But in general, japanese samurai is a killingmachine far superior to anything western world had, mainly due greater mobility, strict lifestyle training and technique.

Now, full japanese army had other soldiers too than samurais though. Archers, shielded and armoerd spearmen and cavalry.
Samurais were the elite. smaller force that lived for the battle.

  jessicaelwood
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Actually, the only record of a Japanese sword cutting a western blade is of a static smallsword ;3 It would be physically impossible for a Katana to cut through any kind of sword.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well viking sword maybe would be hard... as it was made of steel thick as a log.. but basic claymore is pretty useless against katana :P
And what comes to cutting metal with metal, it's never easy unless metal is tin. XD
And yes... Not very likely. But illustrates a point between qualities. Use machines to ram the two together and katana is only one to make trough nearly intact.

And I don't say this as katana biased person, but as a sword enthusiast to heart. I love them all and my all time favorite is the hand and a half broadsword with extra wide blade.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  That's a common misconception with two major downsides.

1. European swords could cut through steel as well. There are Spanish sword texts that describe how to do sword tricks like cutting through an inch-thick iron bar (place it upright on a table, swing across the body parallel to the ground, snap the wrist) and how to cut through an apple with a fine silk handkerchief.

That said, Japanese Katanas were also surprisingly fragile. Damascened steel (pattern welded like katanas) makes a superior cutting edge with good springiness, but it's not adamantium. It can be broken, and in some cases, even more easily than a more robustly made European blade.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Those some cases being production flaws by blacksmith, not by nature of blade itself, With your reasoning I could say every european sword sucks as much as most flawed piece of shit ever was made by a wannabe blacksmith from Z grade steel.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Have you ever heard of something called delamination? It's a common problem in folded steel that's placed under severe stress. The layers basically come apart, and it unfolds rather like a dropped book. It's inherent in the structure of the blade, the very folded nature of it causes those weaknesses. Even the best katana is not magic.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I have heard of delamination but katana unlikely is used as a hammer against anvil. :D

And Folded steel still is superior to casted lump that's just forged and sharpened, in rare cases tempered and even more rare edgetemperted only.

There simply is no superior blade to katana, making it bigger or thinner, softer or harder serves no improvement. That is what I call ideal. Katana is most versatile blade, it can be used to pierce, cut, block / parry. It is not magic, of course not, just the best available.

That is my opinion I've established by experiences of my own. Katana is light enough to be fast as rapier in experienced hands, and heavy enough to cut trough most armor of its time when needed.

Besides, Of all blades, Katana is most beautyful :)

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  <i>And Folded steel still is superior to casted lump that's just forged and sharpened, in rare cases tempered and even more rare edgetemperted only.</i>

Stop right there.

A well-made medieval long sword was not, by any means, a lump of steel pounded into a sword-like shape. True, there were cheap swords of poor quality, but one could say the same for katanas: ninja-to, anyone?

If you want a better example of what it took to make a medieval longsword, try this page: it describes the forging process used to create a viking longsword about 500 AD: two types of steel hammered into a flat sandwich, twisted around another steel rod, then hammered flat. http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/am.....ed/t5_1_1.html Pattern welding and folding, different from a Japanese katana, but the principle is the same.

Here's another: http://historymedren.about.com/cs/f.....forgesword.htm from about the tenth century AD. Several rods of steel are case-hardened and then twisted around each other to form a strong billet. The case-hardening raises the carbon content of the surface of the steel rod, while the center remains low-carbon: hence, hard and soft steels combined into a single weapon.

I have a scan of a cross-section of a medieval sword at home that shows a third method: the same principle, hard and soft steels sandwiched and layered into a billet, wrapped in a jacket of hard steel, then hammered into the shape of the sword. The hard steel jacket provides the cutting edge. The softer core provides flexibility and durability.

The question is, why then did the medieval smith come to abandon the technique in favor of swords of a single type of steel with tempered edges, towards the end of the medieval era? Simple. Their steelmaking technique had gotten so good that they could precisely regulate the amount of carbon in the steel to the exact level needed to provide spring and life while still holding an edge. Secondly, the amount of iron ore they had was such that they had enough raw materials for everyone, rich and poor, to carry a sword into battle: that's when you see the mass-production of cheap swords for archers and men-at-arms, far cries from the works of art formerly reserved for knights.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I already said that viking swords were different from this rule of suckage. But those lumps of metal is just what is your european sword. Degrade in quality and level of finish just because quality of material was slightly better. Blacksmiths got lazy.



  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  No. Not "slightly better" steel. Far superior steel. You take a billet of European steel from the 1600s and compare it with a billet of Japanese steel from the same era, and you find that the end result is that the European steel wins every time. The reason the Europeans stopped using pattern-welding isn't because they got lazy, it's because a single block of HIGH QUALITY homogenous steel is BETTER for swords than a folded piece of steel of ANY quality. It holds up better to punishment, it is more easily sharpened, and it does not break as easily because there are less axes of weakness along which it can snap. The reason that the Japanese continued using pattern-welding even after the Europeans introduced high quality steel to the area is more to do with tradition than with anything like practicality.

Get it in your head: those "clumsy" swords that you so deride were better weapons. The tempering didn't have layers that could delaminate. Case hardening made for a smoother transition between hard and soft steel, allowing for a smooth gradiant between hard steel along the edge and soft steel at the core. If broken, all that needed to be done was a piece welded on, the blade re-shaped, and the entire thing re-tempered. Pattern welding is something you do when you don't know how to make good steel.

  acorndeer
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I see, for arguments sake I will look further into this, But for now I have nothing more to donate then :)
You've made your point clear.

  xuncu
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Mythbusters proved it, too. Another sword, a badly-treated machine gun, or even a small barrel gun; Katana doesn't have the structual strength to cut through heavier chunks of metal (ie; euro-style blades)

  tikki
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I was about to say that, yeah. Myth was totally busted. Swords don't cut swords. Breaking is another thing entirely and can be stopped if you know how to parry properly. (ie: at an angle and not straight on)

  mifmaf
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  There's an entire website dedicate to analyzing the knight v samurai scenario. The conclusion is that the knight would destroy the samurai unless the knight was unarmored :P

However in terms of metallurgy they were surprisingly similar. Western long-swords weighed just as much as the japanese equivalent katanas. The fighting skills were also comparable, however in hand to hand the samurai would have an advantage.

Western platemail is also pretty much indestructible to anything the samurai could muster, be it bow or blade. This is why some warlords would go through great expense to acquire western plate mail armors. Ironically the armors of the knight and samurai were also comparable in weight, though the knights was of course heavier.

A direct blow from a longsword onto a fully armored samurai would go right through the armor and likely kill in a single swipe, whereas a samurai would have to find an opening in platemail in order to be able to do any damage to a knight.

Katana's can slice flesh with ease, but a long/broadsword will slice just about everything else as well.

  jessicaelwood
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Ever read the ARMA essay about "Knight vs Samurai"? ;3 I think you may like it.

  mifmaf
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Yup that looks like the one i read :D

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  This essay sounds like it forgets that the most common weapon type that the Japanese used was actually polearms and even the crushing tetsubo was a more comming weapon on foot than the katana.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  In that regard, consider the fact that the most common weapons on the European battlefield were also polearms: halberds, billhooks, awl pikes, and your everyday common spear.

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Indeed, but where a katana can not peirce platemail, a polearm can... mhich was my reason for bringing it up.

  tikki
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I do believe Japan's most legendary swordsman prefered swinging around wood. :3

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I think there is one recorded duel where he won it with a carved up oar, Miyamoto Musashu vs. Kojiro Sasaki on Ganryu Island. The classic account is that Sasaki cut off Musashi's headband and smiled because he thought he'd defeated his opponent. A moment later, Musashi's makeshift bokken "crushed Kojiro's skull into gravel."

  happyfunball
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Japanese weapons were never intended for heavily-armored opponents such as knights. Now while the Japanese were faster, the knights certainly could deliver more power-per-blow on average.

It is doubtful that a samurai could effectively take down a knight wearing plate mail simply because he could never effectively pierce the armor unless at close range, from behind, with a knife.

  neoneko
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Knight versus a Samurai in a one V one duel ?, no contest it's the Knight. Being hit with a broadsword would be like being kicked by a mule. No matter how much skill the Samurai has, his wrists and joints will tire from the constant punishment. Plus, your average Knight had a shield, and at the least, chainmail or platemail armour. A katana wasn't a crushing weapon, and as such wouldn't tire out Mr Knight as quickly, if at all.

Plus, western combat wasn't as refined as eastern standards. Mr Knight would fight in a largely disorganised fashion making his strikes hard to interprit for someone used to the almost ritualistic combat of the Samurai.

That's my 2 cents.

  neoneko
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  There's also the crossbow. A bolt would probably go through any eastern armour like tissue paper.

  neonie
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Shot gun

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well the oddest thing about this argument is that generally speaking the Japanese didn't use swords much in cowbat except from horse back. The katana wasn't made for combat on foot... so it seems a bit of a strange argument to me.

  gravija
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  medieval get my vote, i just like the look of those bulky swords than the smaller look of the jap swords . . . tho i would say that they may be better, who cares. thos bulky swords are COOL!!

  tygon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  What I do know is that this folding the steel a few hundret times during forging which was supposed to have made the japanese swords so much better is nonesense. After folding the steel 6 to 10 times the quality of the steel does not increase anymore. It just gets brighter and shinier.

From what I know about fighting styles, the japanese way was more... let's say elegant while the europeans set more emphasis on strenth. That also means a single hit by a european knight will send anyone realing. And there is literary nobody who would keep standing after a hit by a two-handed sword (even if that wasn't really a typical weapon for a knight.

BTW, full plate was never worn while on foot. That is an armor for horseback.

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  "6 to 10 times"

If you only folded it that many times you'd have a cheap peice of crap that would break easily and would'n hold an edge. That "brighter and shinier" look is from the fact that there's less pot iron left and more steel... the steel is stronger than the iron. The folding of the metal introduces carbon into it which binds with the iron to create steel. You should learn more about metalurgy before making a comment like that.

  tygon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I know this from a professional blacksmith who makes knifes that last a lifetime.

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I know this from several blacksmiths, as well as mettalurgy science, and the knowing the difference between different grades of steel. Besides that Japanese swords last more than a life time they last hundreds of generations.

6 to 8 times would barely be enough to make it steel at all except MAYBE for something at the size of a knife. A cheap sword from a sword shop would be harder to break.

  tygon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  If you say so.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The misconception is that the number of layers created from forging is equal to the number of times folded. 2^8=256 layers right there. So six to eight folds could be appropriate.

Secondly, the responder to this comment confuses the act of tempering out the steel to damascening it: pattern welding high carbon steel and low carbon steel together. In the prior case, you are indeed trying to introduce carbon, and folding and tempering many many times would be good. In the latter, I think a dozen folds at max for several thousand layers would be appropriate.

  ronaldmackinnon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Boat oar. :D

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  "You have already lost, Kojiro."

"What?"

"You threw away your scabbard. If you were going to win this battle, you would need it afterwards, and you would not have done that."

Best. Psych Out. Ever.


  albrann
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I could probably go on all day on this topic, but I'll try to keep it simple. They both have their strengths and flaws that I believe allows them to balance out.

European plate steel armor allowed a knight to roll across the plains on horseback like a sherman tank. However, the lacquered wood armor of the samurai allowed one to actually move with a degree of flexibility while not on horseback.

The two handed broadswords are extremely heavy. And the men who used them, trained with them for an hour every day. And that's only using them to attack a hardwood post or a weighted training dummy. That's all they did for one hour every day.

Toledo and Damascus did indeed allow swords to be very strong. In fact, I've been told that Japanese swordsmanship centered around parries since their swords had a capacity to break upon one another in a direct blow.

Spears aren't really different than form or function.

But if you really wanted to know, I'd go with the samurai. Simply because of their nature if nothing else. Their spiritual strength.

  sabia
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

^^

  thorndraco
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Wow the guy sets them up for failure by straght out saying the katana isn't a good choice against platemail and they having that be the primary weapon of thi imaginary battle anyway. Not exactly an accurate situation.

  sabia
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Allow me to *ahem* suggest you read the _whole_ article.

  kitetsu
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'd rather use a robust western weapon than look like a poser with a ker-tan-ugh.

  pyromancy
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  While Damascus and Toledo steel are considered the finest blades in the world, the judgement on it is largely aesthetic. The blades made by the Spaniards were functional and ornamental. Medieval Spanish swordsmiths were also jewelers and sculptors.

Japanese swordmasters were not only weaponsmiths, but also masters of the use of these weapons, which could not necessarily be said of the Spanish smiths. The blades were spare and elegant in their simplicity, but the key to the art of the craft was their techniques of folding the steel. This made it less brittle and more flexible. When steel is folded it gains a grain that is far less pronounced before folding. A simple Katana would be folded between 40 and 60 times during the course of a forging. Katana were also almost always custom created for their owner. Damascus and Toledo were fine blades and there were a fair share of masterpieces that came out of medieval Spain, but the average Spanish blade was as close to mass manufactured as possible, without actually having assembly lines.

The Spanish smith, on average, was a general smith while only the masters did only swords. In Japan, swordsmiths made only swords. All other iron and steelworks were the province of other types.

The truth behind this argument lies in this: The Spanish master swordsmiths were head and shoulders above the average Spanish swordsmiths and a bit above the average Japanese swordsmith, but their numbers were few. The average Japanese swordsmith was a good deal more proficient than the average Spaniard smith and there were far more of them.

As for basic armor, medieval Europeans and Japanese men at arms were about equally matched. I say about because, between English plate and Japanese splint, vulnerabilities and mobility restrictions balance out.

As for technique, well that's a different story. Medieval European military types trained to be civilians first and military afterward. Samurai were Bushi (warrior) first and there was nothing after. The lifestyle of a samurai focused on combat and death. Their every waking moment not completely occupied by something else was dedicated to learning how to fight or meditation on death. Whereas, European heavy weapon techniques relied largely on brute force, Japanese fighting styles are about finesse; using your opponent's force against himself and evasion over wrestling with weapons.

Ultimately, the samurai would defeat the knight of equal skill and talent just on superior technique, all other things being equal. Being that their swords were less likely to bend and shatter and were sharpened to a keen razor's edge... My money's on the samurai.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Common misconception. Most of the warrior aesthetic of the samurai was created after the warring states period ended, when samurai had nothing to do but sit around and count their money and get drunk and had to come up with a reason for their existence. During the time when they were actually fighting, they were a lot like European knights.

  pyromancy
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Though I dislike arguing the points of this, the heart of warrior culture was there long before it was collected. It echoes a basic zen philosophy that has always been at the root of the warrior class in Japan. Just because it wasn't collected in writing doesn't mean it wasn't taught. It may not have been the rule, but it was prevalent in the higher ranks of Daimyo and Shogun.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'm not sure how zen, the idea that meditation and contemplation can allow the philosopher to achieve an understanding of the nothingness that is nirvana, had anything to do with warrior culture. I believe you're thinking about bushido.

  pyromancy
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Zen is about all things being what they are, without question. Bushido is nothing more than a code of chivalry. Zen is a philosophy that encompasses all who embrace it. Warrior culture and priestly culture alike all need to remain true to their nature.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Mmmmm. . . I'm still not sure what your point is. If we're talking warrior culture, we're also seeing elements of that as far back as the early Norse periods, the idea that happiness in the afterlife depends on dying gloriously in battle. If you're saying that Zen Buddhism somehow provided the samurai with an additional kind of edge philosophically, I'd like to see that made more clear.

Finally, I'm not clear how this truly affects the majority of samurai culture given that the major Japanese religion was and is still shinto: Buddhism is generally seen as a religion for monks and retired old men who want to achieve enlightenment before they die.

  pyromancy
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The point I am making is that there was always a nihilistic certainty in samurai and they were, generally speaking, cool with that. Europeans, even in the pre-Christian eras (hardly the height of European military), always looked to death as something utterly undesirable. Being cautious for your life makes you hold back in a pressed attack, and that hesitation is what defeats you and/or gets you killed.

I am no longer interested in pursuing this line of thought. If I have not yet clarified this point to your satisfaction by your judgement, I am likely not able. To me, the points I made are plain and I see no reason to try to convince someone else of a purely hypothetical point.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'm going to say one more thing, because I now see your point, and then I'll drop the line of thought.

Have you READ the text of Pope Clement's papal order calling for the crusades? It makes Al Qaeda look like the Partridge family. The Japanese are not alone when it comes the philosophies that embrace self-destruction for a higher cause.

Secondly, you say this as if it were a good thing: look at WWII, and the trouble that Japan had in WWII. Their soldiers were TOO eager to die, and they lost their best and brightest in stupid pointless kamikaze attacks. Their war department was so convinced that their "Warrior Spirit" would win they didn't even develop an anti-tank mine: the closest they came was giving some poor sap an artillery shell and a hammer and digging a hole for him to hide in. As Patton said, "A soldier's job is not to die for his country, it's the other guy's job to die for his country. The soldier's job is to help the other guy do his job."

  charlesedwards
 

(My opinion) Posted: 7 years ago

  I'd have to agree with the 50/50 chance rules here. The katana was a sword which had to be wielded just right. It was designed to be able to kill the opponent with one lethal cutting blow. However, medieval style weaponry was more often than not meant for military useage, and prolonged fights a great possibility due to the style they used with their weapons. Rapiers were more as a matter of fact for civilian use, being that they were not suitable for wars due to their style. Unlike in the movies, a katana is not going to actually cut through another sword. All that will really happen is that the katana would just be blunted by trying, possibly even breaking the finely sharpened edge which was made to sever through a human body.

  verm
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Technically, they both have advantages & faults. The Medieval blades were more made for hack, slash & stabbing than Katana Blades, but it's the weight that would really be the downfall. The weight is what would actually be the strength of the weapon, but the speed is the failure. Dominantly, most weapons were made to be handled with 2-handed being the focus of the design, in which required more effort in handling. Against a Katana, it would take more effort to guard & parry against the attack while also needing to protect the more vulnerable areas since they would be more prone to injury since a Katana can be moved much faster to counter-attack. Their downfall in their weapon design is that it can practically go through any form of defense, including their own. Their armor can virtually hold-fast to anything, but their own weapons can take themselves out.

Katanas are quick and can be very durable against physical attacks, yet they have a more likely liability of breaking from being over stressed. They can be tempered to a very fine level that could cut through, but not all Katanas are given such extreme care. They were more designed for speed than strength, thus the reason they are commonly curved for aerodynamic handling in unison to velocity acceleration. Since the blades aren't built for battle against heavy armor, they would barely stand a chance against. The Orientals that use Katanas were more than likely dependant on swiftness to be their defense than armor. Their own armor was heavy, but not like a Knight. Their armor was kept light so they could manage with attacks that were swift than strong.


In true honesty, Knights would have the advantage over Samurai.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Have you ever actually picked up a katana as opposed to a Western longsword? The difference in weight is not that different. The main difference is in the balance: katanas are weighted more towards the hilt for slicing, and western blades more towards the point (shorter hilt).

  verm
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I have and brandished the weapon as if I were intending to battle. Have you done such as well? I am well aware that a Katana is not light after my first experience wielding one, which I still find rather fascinating after so many years later.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  yup ^_^ Nearly took my own foot off first time. Second time, did it with a little less clumsiness. Not that much different from a Western hand-and-have sword, although the curve makes it easier to swing, harder to stab.

  carlito
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well it's hard to judge one versus the other since they come from different worlds, and the weapons of both (knight vs. samurai) are reflections of those worlds. Weapons and armor have always gone hand in hand, each evolving to trump the other. The japanese katana was pitted against opponents who either had no armor or wore light armor of leather or laquered wood and silk. Meanwhile the knight's broadsword was designed to face opponents wrapped in heavy suits of plate. Which is better? Both are superior to the other in fighting their ideal foe, inferior to the other otherwise.

Aside from the evolution of warfare in both regions, the katana had great cultural significance that the broadsword did not. In feudal japan you could be killed on the spot for touching the scabbard of a samurai's blade without permission, but in the west, not so big of a deal. The sword in the west was more common, very few people in feudal Japan owned a katana.

As far as skill and a one on one duel, who can say? While there were certainly great japanese swordsmen, such as Miyamoto Musashi, being a samurai really had nothing to do with being skilled with a sword. Most of them had some skill with a blade but the idea that all samurai were swordsmasters and duels to the death happened on a daily basis are the stuff of manga and Akira Kurasawa films. There were western swordsmen who were just as skilled, trained, and disciplined. You can say the same about the Chinese, Russians, or really any culture that used a blade to settle disputes.

If you can find a 1980 film called The Bushido Blade it has a very good kenjutsu vs. fencing duel featured in it, definitely worth a look if you're interested in that sort of thing.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  If you think Western swords didn't have great cultural significance, look up Excalibur, Halteclere, Joyeuse, and Durandal. Swords were the weapons of nobility, and there was as much a mystique around them in western culture as the Japanese katana.

  dragonmayne
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The Westerners...Power Strength And honer. Im reading WAY too many posts of people putting down knights.

Look at the fierce Scottish warriors The Irish as well. They trained hard with heavier weaponry some with no armor. Hell the Scots couldn't even train with real weapons and threw Freak'n caber's around, as well as large rocks, using sticks as swords so the English wouldn't know because of the laws forced on them.

I pick western and not the English. a Scotsman has more heart(Least back in those days i believe), And in a fair fight with a Samurai, I'm sure he'd come out on top. Heart, Skill, And Power.

  sorcererlance
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  that's a tough one really, as I like both cultures' weapons and styles. I suppose samurai swords were more built for speed rather for their strength judging from their light weight and smaller size, whereas knight swords seem to be more on strength than speed. I really can't say which is better, that's like asking which pencil is better: the tools you hold are as good as your skills are.

  jaffah
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Hmmm i'm not going to say I am an expert on the ways of sword fighting having only read so little of it, but in all the times i've looked over books and read through passages that have caught my eye the sword play in a duel isnt the only thing to take into consideration.

I think it can be said that both a knight and a samurai were highly trained and exceptional melee fighters as due to the equipment and armour they wore i would be imperative to dispatch a foe as quickly as possible, after all they were still flesh and bone underneath.

Now I have lived under the assumption that the katana is primarily a slashing weapon (yes despite all the animes ive seen) while most weapons of a knight seemed more heavy and cumbersome, both appearing to have the ability to take out a foe in one stroke.

But if i had to choose one over the other in a straight sword fight I would have to go with the samurai as his armour looks to me as being less bulky so to allow quicker movement, the skills of both being allowed to read the other but it would only be a matter of time before the samurai had found a weakness in the knights armour.



  thewhitedragon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I remember they did an study of the swords capabilities in the discovery channel
the samurai sword won...
you can do 3 to 4 strong cuts in the same time the a long medieval sword did...
even more cuts if its against a claymore... or something similar...



  angelnatavi
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Wow. So many people posted to this already. You have a lot of watchers though. ;p For good reason. Now, as to your journal question. My personal reaction to the differences is professional. The japanese steel that they used to forge the curved weapons are great. Very flexable, but ridged enough to stay where you need them without bending. They were one solid lump of metal. The Damascus blades, I think, was tightly folded steel. This gave them an unusual durability as well as flexability, like a spring, whereas the Katana's blade was like Rebar.

Going into the whole lore aspect, the Japanese way of thought is intriguing to me. I do not know much about it, but they were heavily steeped on personal and family honor, much like those of the Knights. Perhaps more so, in fact. However, from what I know of the Japanese code, and the Knightly code, I would have to go with the knightly code personally. Let no harm come to innocents, so on and so forth.

The reasoning behind my posting about the honor bit, is not whether or not the steel quality was most important, but the people using it. Certainly, the japanese way of sword fighting, was an art. While the English was primarily hack and slash and brutality. Both served their purposes, perhaps equally well. But, in a hand to hand battle, against a damascus sword, and a Katana, it is a toss up.


Given the damascus' ability to bend and flex, compaired to the Katana, the Damascus blades win in that round. (I am going purely on assumption and logic here.)

However. The strength of the steel itself, the base componants when forged make a lot of difference. Depending on that, with the english steel being somewhat more liable to break, and wear down in a fight, compaired to the Japanese steel, which is harder, stronger and from my experience a lot more durable, I would have to say that the Japanese steel would win on strength.

The style itself, is another factor in the equation. Hack and slash, with heavy armor and somewhat stiff combat styles, compaired to the quick kill style of the Samurai with their considerably lighter yet more fragile armor, it is a question of skill. Having a big sword is meaningless if you can't hit your opponant with it. It also depends on the individual using them, of course. But, that is another item of discussion entirely.

  shadrok
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I think it’s 50/50.

The knight has better armor and more force, while the samurai has better mobility and speed of attack. Over all I think the battle would basically be the knight trying to land a hit and crushing the samurai’s bones vs. the Samurai trying to hit the knight in the throat and causing him to drown in his own blood.

  fisk
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  When you say "style of warfare", it encompasses more than sword craftsmanship. I would say that Western war making is superior to traditional Japanese samurai war making, and in fact, there was a battle between Mongolian invaders and the Japanese Samurai armies that demonstrated the superior efficacy of the disciplined soldier in formation working as a unit, versus the individual honor-bound Samurai. The Mongolians forced the Samurai to retreat from their beachhead, but they, in turn, retreated as well (a historical mystery, but some people think they overestimated the Japanese ability to counter-attack, or by some fluke, thought they had lost the battle when they prevailed). It is going to be a feature of any continental army exposed to over-land foreigners - that it will usually out-perform an isolated island-bound society that only has itself to war against.

When it comes down to disciplined formations where one soldier guards the flank of another, and any individual attacking is attacking a gigantic machine instead of another individual, the craftsmanship of one's sword becomes less important.

  dragonmayne
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  But what about one on one? Man vs man and not the army vs army?

I'm honestly interested in what you have to say about this.

  fisk
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I can't say for certain. There are just too many variables, and I can't state that the "hardness" of katana steel would give a Samurai any particular edge in a battle against an equally skilled knight on foot.

Though, if I were pressed to chose, I would probably select the superior European plate armor of that later-period knights. The elegance of a Japanese sword, which is not designed to fight overlapping metal armor, would probably have a lot of trouble with that, whereas a European sword could be as much a bludgeon as anything else. European swords didn't start getting thinner until the Renaissance, when the spread of gunpowder weapons rendered the armored knight almost superfluous.

  dragonmayne
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well said. Out of all the arguments made here i couldn't agree with your statements more.



  treyntowin
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  My only problem with this (and your reasoning is markedly good) is the question of maneuverability. Japanese armor is decidedly lighter, from what I understand.
Also, remember that there are only two attacks with any bladed weapon: pierce and slash. Everything is just angles and patterns of those two. While I don't doubt the ability of western-style armor to stop a slash, I'm not so confident about a stab. The way that I would see this being played out is that the heavy-handed weaponry of Europe would be intercepted/dodged, and then the samurai would maneuver and kill with a thrust. Remember, most swords carried by knights weren't necessarily meant to cut through the armor. Just bludgeon the wearer. And regarding the armor of the west... ... Well, I'll just say that almost 75% of the French casualties at Agincort were because they fell off their horses (knocked off by arrows) and drowned in the mud.
So to make a long story short: Western multi-man fighting force FTW, Japanese one-on-one.

  fisk
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, it would all depend on the armor. The later period stuff covered you real well and if you kept your arms low and went for the Samurai's legs to avoid leaving your underarms vulnerable, you'd stand a pretty good shot. Remember, I'm speaking of men of equal skill.

The drowning-in-mud thing is a myth. They re-created those armored suits and demonstrated the ease of maneuverability once off of their horses by having guys jog around and cartwheel in them. If the mud is deep enough for you to drown in in the first place, there's every chance they weren't riding horses through it anyway, since it would suck down a horse hoof. Horse cav. never operated in mud if it could help it. I do not think an English longbow had the force to knock a gentleman off his horse. It probably hit his horse causing the horse to fall, sending him with it.

  treyntowin
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Operating from these new facts, I think that I might have to agree with you completely.

  dragonmayne
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  See...thats why i asked him...from reading his blogs and comics i figured he knew a boat load.



  gemini
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I guess it all depends upon the wielder - its not the sword but the swordsman (or woman) that decides in the end which is better. Personally however I think the katana would be superior in terms of speed and simple elegence of design.

  pyromancy
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  And for the record... The Jedi would win.

  one-trick
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, I was going to say something, but clearly everything has already been said. I loved ARMA's article, said a lot of things I didn't know, like how maneuverable and nimble the longsword actually is. According to the article, even unarmored it's a fair match and after reading it, and being a slight weapon buff too, I'd have to agree :)

  legionred
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca

Most effective and useible of all medieval weaponry.

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Have an internets, you win in my book.

  stylewager
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Okay, for the record:

(1) A lot has been made about how the Japanese swordsmiths used a special process of folding metal to forge high quality swords. This is true, but independently of them the Ango-Saxons developed the same process to forge their longswords and saex swords right up to the time of the Norman invasion. Like the Samurai, a Saxon huscarl had a similar outlook and discipline that allowed them to hold up against waves of Norman cavalry and this AFTER the Saxon army marched across half of England in record time turning away a Norse invasion. Likewise sword making was a sacred art and such swords were buried with their owners or sent to the Otherworld upon the death of their owners to honor the dead (that is, hurled into a bog or a lake; remember Excaliber from King Arthur? ) William the Conqueror won because his army hadn't been as exausted as the Saxons and not as prone to making mistakes and because Herald took an arrow in the eye during the battle and made the whole thing moot issue.

After 1066 and especially with the First Crusade, sword making became a mass production industry in Europe and well you know where that led to...


(2) The katana is is a faster lighter weapon than the broadsword but cannot parry or cut a well crafted European sword but then Japanese sword-fighting style is not about deflecting as it is about striking, especially the first (and usually) and final cut. European fighting style, if you look at real knightly training, is more disciplined than the hack and slash style of the file and rank on a field but it doesn't become as eligent as later fencing styles that come out of Italy limiting courtiers in cities from carrying to a blades above a certain weight and any armor beyond a buckler (which afterwards they carried around flamboyantly, or "swashing" their bucklers, as they would say by Tudor times--which is where the name "swashbuckler" comes from)

(3) The armor on a knight doesn't become heavy enough to stop a katana blade until about the 15th century which is about the time armies abandon it because of the use of gunpowder on the field begins to render knights obsolete. That being said, the spots a katana would most likely cut through are "expendable" spots like arms and legs: chest shots would likely be minor cuts unless you got into a soft spot like under the arm and most knights knew better than to expose such a vital spot in battle. Medieval armor of this caliber is also capable of stopping most arrows, even from the Japanese long bow; Breast plate stops even most armor piercing heads and if they do puncture, they rarely have enough oomph left to pierce the chain mail and padding underneath. The armor on the legs and arms is weaker but because the target there is more rounded, shots to the extremities are more deflected. An arrow through an eye or under the visor on the other hand still sucks. The French knights cut down at the Battle of Agencourt weren't done in directly by the arrow storm let loose by the English forces because of their armor. Unfortunetly their horses (who had leather and padded barding, or were unarmored) were not so arrow proof and their hooves tore up the field turning it into a muddy mire that bogged down the French knights in their heavy metal armor (which the mud stuck to and made it many times more heavy). The English archers, wearing very little armor had no problem slogging in the mud and stabbed the French with their daggers in their exposed weak spots while the poor suckers were trying to pull themselves out of the bloody heap. And, of course, being peasant types, the archers likely enjoyed doing in a bunch of foreign noble types. The biggest slaughter of the French knights actually came after the end of the battle when Henry realized he couldn't spare the men to guard the French prisoners they took on the field and simply had them killed on the spot.


  claw-mackain
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Personally, Jess, I like katanas. Not for its light weight or use, but more of design. But that's just me.

  brokoro
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I would give my opinion on this topic. But Elwood, you have enough to read as is.
Enough said.

  lunarthesnowleopard
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  i will tell a truth about katanas right now, katanas were ment for katana on katana battles, medevil swords were designed heavier, now the problem with the katana is its endurance, a katana was forged with a strong blade front, but the back was left soft to absorb impact, but it had a limit, a small limit, and a katana is not able to with stand...nor the warrior..a blow from say a claymore...it will snap...thats pure fact...no argument and thats just steel, not even going into Damascus

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Very good point. As I recall, even modern swordplay schools don't allow sword on sword contact because of that very issue.

  shadowstar
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Japanese.

  tassodon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  All I have to say is..............


SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  ashendon
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I vote western sword because history shows the basic sword conquered the world, while katana's pretty much stayed on the island of Japan.

  capthairball
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Weapons that have conquered the world:

1. Macedonian Sarissa, the pike used by Alexander the great's phlanax.

2. The Roman short sword.

Both 1. and 2. succeeded because they lent themselves to masses of men fighting in tightly disciplined ranks. If I had to pick an army out of all of history, it would probably be the Roman legions - a flexible, combined arms force with excellent supply and support centered around first rate heavy infantry.

3. The compound short bow, weapon of choice of centuries worth of rampaging mounted warriors from the Asian steppes, most especially the Mongol empire. Shoot, fall back, shoot again. Very difficult to deal with unless you have excellent mounted archers of your own.

4. Guns, guns, guns. Especially in the age of European colonialism. With a foot note for the mechanized armies of the modern era.

The European longsword and the Japanese Katana are both weapons of inward-looking and fractious times. The aside from the (largely unsucessful) Crusades, Europe mostly kept to itself in the Middle Ages, and didn't go on a conquering rampage until melee weapons were mostly obsolete.

Or, at least, that's what I think. :)

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Excellent points all around. The end truth is: swords in general are for prissy noblemen. The weapons that win wars are the ones wielded by the ground pounders.

  capthairball
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Prissy nobelmen or raging barbarians. :) The thing about a longsword is they have reach, and they look fabulous, but you need room to swing 'em, making them a terrible weapon if you are fighting in close ranks. Which, in turn, is what you want to do if you're using human-powered weapons.

  lonewolf23k
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The real reason why the Japanese Weaponsmiths folded their blades so often was because they needed to strengthen the core substantially, due to the available iron ore being of poor quality.

Western swordsmiths, meanwhile, had a higher quality of iron ore available to them, so they had an easier time making steel and forging swords out of them.

Of course, the idea that Samurai were fancier swordsmen then the Knights is purely a result of Samurai films being so popular. Kendo has kept the samurai swordsmanship techniques, while knightly combat needs to be recreated from scratch, so it's hard to compare them.
But just because the way of the Western Knight lacked the mystical elements of Kendo, it doesn't mean it was less sophisticated or technical.

  one-trick
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Bah, the way of the knight had the mystical elements of honor and faith... just that those don't look so cool in movies nowadays :P

  shadesfox
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, when it comes to the quality of sword there are a few things you have to remember. The Japanese developed the folded steel technique because of the poor quality of the metal available in Japan. This has always been a major hindering point for them, even in WWII where the low amount and poor quality of the steel caused their guns to malfunction frequently. The katana in particular is a prime example of the compromises they have to make. The edge is forge to be very hard, so that it can keep it's shape better. However, that makes the edge brittle, so it would chip and was less durable in the long term compared to most European swords. This and the curvature made the katana a poor piercing weapon.

The piercing part is important, because when you get into heavy armor piercing tends to be the way to go to kill them. Many European knights were killed by pulling them off their horse with a large hook then stabbed between their armored plates with a 3 inch knife. It gives a whole new perspective on the knights when you consider that most of them expected to die from bleeding out from their arm pits.

Ultimately, this is all just junk. The side that wins is usually the one with the smarter command. That one gets harsh to decide really, both knights and samurai were warrior classes trained from youth to fight. I think it would come down to, "Are the samurai fighting in Europe, or are the knights fighting in Japan?"

  valorail
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I have to join the gang in saying that a Japanese-crafted sword would be better. They have a wide range of lengths alone, with Kodachi, Wakizashi, the standard issues...They take more time into making them like...For optimal performance. They weren't meant to have an infinite life span, but they weren't meant to break after one use, either. They put more effort and thought into how they made them, is basically what I'm getting at. They made it a unique style of blade. I'd not only take one with me as a 'guardian' per say, but a reflection of my personality.

  sylia
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  European user would take a shield and just shove the Japanese guy around with it. Maybe pin him to something and them stab him with the sword.

A friend of mine tells me that the European would hold his sword by the blade and whack the Japanese guy with the heavy pommel.

  tombman
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I do much prefer the Naginata myself, wish I could get my hands on a Naginatajutsu manuel. Or a Yumi bow and Kyudo.

But I am looking into the art of Kendo self-teach, the Japanese sword is indeed made for more fast action, manuverability and cutting and sometimes stabbing. It's about being able to manuver past a enemy and killing them, using a platform to propell the blade foreward to strike at the weak parts of a opponet. Armored mail steel, the target would most likely be stabbing at the face and necck area.

While European is all hack-and-slash, more of a art to it with the Katana.

For me, I;m not all that fast so to me a European blade would possibly suit me for I have weight and bulk to apply slashing-force-leverage.

But yea Katana for the win to me.

What would be a questionw ould be what could stand up to the Repeating crossbow, the Chu-ko-nu!!!

Interested in med, weapons? As in knowing about them, collecting, making etc?

  wakboth
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  A good European longsword triumphes over a crappy, low-end katana any day, and vice versa. Say no to katanaphilia! :)

  ketsuban
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Samurai pokes about feebly and fails to make any headway against the European's chainmail. European beats samurai over the head with a shield until he stops wiggling, or until he gets bored and just hacks his head off. No contest.

  xuncu
 

(Continued) Posted: 7 years ago

  Continued from my post at your DA account (http://comments.deviantart.com/5/14.....6777/517023000 )

Realistically speaking, though, it would depend on the skill of the swordsman, never really the blade.

I'm hoping that Nintendo might get the gall to make a in-depth Fencing sim for the Wii. They could use sword types from all throughout history, and match players over the 'net. The Wiimotes could be used creatively here; if they're held a certian way, it could simulate how the real sword would be held (large swords require both hands, light swords can be one had, with the other hand controlling a defensive dagger, as would be done in a REAL swordfight), and various "Grip" and "Overswing" stats could be used to make sure to keep swordplay balanced.

But, back to Euro/Western Style Blade versus Katana. I present a real medieval antique from my own Gallery:
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/583518/

Projectile "rock" beats scissors anyday. ^_~

  merlin
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  There sure are a lot of replies. No doubt this one will get lost with the rest.

This is a topic I've studied for years. Most medieval European styles rely on brute force. A little bit of grace goes a long way, as can be seen by how effective the Roman gladius was after introduction. There is no doubt in my mind that a decent Japanese swordsman could best a decent western medieval swordsmen.

However, the Japanese styles require considerably more training to use at all. Any able-bodied person can bring a mace down on someone. It takes years of intense practice to wield a kusarigama. It's worth noting that the aforementioned kusarigama is legendary in it's ability to take down the best swordsmen.

I could go on for pages. If you want more elaborate educated opinions on medieval Japanese and European weaponry and fighting styles send me a note.

  ryan-silverfox
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I have to agree with the side of the "depends on variables" side. Even if we take out all the possible variable discrepencies... material strength, swordsman's skill... we still have a series of possible outcomes.

Let's, for the record, say that the swordsmen are both equally skilled and their swords are both made from the same metal and same forging methods...

I first want to look at a real extreme situation - Katana vs Claymore/Broadsword. Now, the western-made swords will be slower and possibly clumsier than the Katana, but that doesn't mean it'll lose. Remember, the Claymore/Broadsword is much larger than the Katana and has MUCH more force behind it's swing. There's potential for these swords to severely damage the smaller, thinner Katana... possibly bending it or breaking it. Remember, we're looking at two equally skilled swordsmen - they will know how to use their swords.

I'd also like to look at a reverse situation - Katana vs Epee/Rapier/Foil (essentially, a fencer's sword). Now, the Katana has the power edge and could potentially break the fencer's sword. However, the fencing blades are commonly longer, faster and designed with counter-attacks in mind. If the Katana wielder doesn't break the sword, the fencer will very likely be able to get an opening and strike with a fatal blow.

Really, it's a matter of the type of western-made sword and even external conditions that could cause victory or defeat.

A situation where a Samurai might be in trouble is indoors, where someone using a form of short sword could have a serious edge. In fact, this is one reason ninjas used shorter japanese swords than katanas - to fight in enclosed spaces. Samurai were more prone to outdoor battles.

  bormac
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I read something interesting on this awhile back... http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm That, actually. I personally am a supporter of the western style of fighting for many of the reasons listed above. Though, I personally have been curious how a rapier wielding fencer would fare against Japanese styles, since both rely on agility more than strength, fencing was one of the more complicated sword styles from the west though, I believe. That is also covered on that site I linked to http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm there though. Just something interesting worth reading.

  sabia
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Yeah, I posted this up there *points*

No one seems interested, which is kinda a bummer, as it's in-depth and well researched, and does a lot to dispel myths surrounding both eastern and western martial arts.

*sigh*

  bormac
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Ah, well I tried to read through all the posts to see if anyone pointed that out before, but, man there are alot of posts! And they kept coming, this sort of question always sparks a huge debate, heheh.

  sackicker
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I have to say.....The person who is better at sticking sharp pointy things into meaty sacks that scream and bleed would be the winner. You had master quality swordsmiths both Eastern and Western styles. While my personal favorite weapon is neither broadsword<ish> or katana, I find pleasing stabbing and slicing attributes in both instruments of making people scream and cry for mommy. If you take away skill, strength, style and user attributes to the comparison it is really difficult to determine which owiestick is the better. Both are pleasing to the eye and both feel really nice in your hand. Unless being stabbed in said eye or hand, in which case, they equally bite. Goodnight.

  sackicker
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  P.S. Ryan..I like your point, however...a fencer would never try to fight a katana user in the same way they would fight another duelist. Well....I would hope not. Nevertheless...a interesting point...one that I had thought to make, but you beat me to it. Damn you, sir. <lol>

  mechrior
 

(hmmm) Posted: 7 years ago

  i dont know if this counts but I have the scars to prove my reasoning.

I once took a blade to a friend from japan who had train with his family.....
myself I took a claymore as I like the larger of the swords.
He took what i think was a very large wakashi (hope i spelt it right)
45 minutes later I was bleeding heavily from my left arm and he had numerous lacerations along his back and arm.
I do belive if we were not holding back he would have had the final upper hand as I tired quickly.
We agreed to a duel in 6 months time and the result was comparativily VERY different.
I went in for a double edged Bastard sword and he again took his blade.
this time I recieved no mor than 2 direct attacks.
on the other hand he was rather seriously wounded as was taken to hospital for a week.
Westeners have the upper hand on damage dealt over time. the easteners relied more on surprise, numbers, and speed!
This I have seen from nearly ALL clashed battle I have heard of. Their armour was lighter to afford better movement, but still strong.
Ours was built for defence at the cost of mobility.
We have agreed to another duel in the near future facing off with similar weapons and armours..... if you like i could let you know the outcome

  themocaw
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  . . . I think you should stop now, dude, before you, I dunno, KILL YOUR BEST FRIEND.

  mechrior
 

(hehehehe) Posted: 7 years ago

  nagh its all in the fun.
we have our limits and most of the injuries are from things like mistakes.....
never normally meant to happen but its a weapon remember.... made to kill so yeah..... were careful enough.
although he was challenged once properly..... and won that so i doubt i could truly beat him all that well!

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Well, you've got guts for actually using real weapons. No one ever says anything, though?

Me and my friend used to spar with bokkens. It's been forever since we did that, but we often used both them and wooden longswords. One thing I like about the longsword is that it has a hilt, which can guard your hands. Longswords also held an advantage for having a blade on both sides. I don't know why you'd want to do a real spar battle with real weapons and get yourselves killed though. While I can imagine the thrill in a way, I don't think it's worth the risk of killing your friend or him killing you. That's why me and him always held back, as well, even with the wooden weapons.

  mechrior
 

(practice) Posted: 7 years ago

 

  mechrior
 

(damnit) Posted: 7 years ago

  hit enter too quick.

what i meant to say was the main reason we upped the stakes to edged weapons was mainyl because we could only spar so much and practice so far with a wooden/platics replica.
they dont feel the same, there isnt the same feeling, the same weight. they dont move as well.....
and as for guts..... no, never guts. just determination and i will to learn more.... some may have called it stupid, and indeed sometimes it was. but it was OUR time, and we loved and will love again EVERY moment we get a chance. I have had worse injuries from walking out my own front door than i have EVEr recieved when using ANY type of weapon. be it martial, or ranged.

  drizzet
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I once read an article about a rapier vs. a katana what it came down two was the combatants individual skill level. But lets face it if a Katana and rapier hit the rapier would break under the weight. The longsword, Bastard swords (hand-and-a-half) where just about the same weight as a katana but probably weren't as fast a katana or wakasashi, thats why they had shields so again I believe that neither European or Japanese weapons are superior expect by steel quality. But deepening on who was wielding the aforementioned steel. Certainly a commoner with a longsword wasn't going to be able to defeat a trained samurai, and vice versa for knights.

  tiburonwink
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I know this is intended to be about the swords and not the wielders but I have to throw this in there the average Japanese was of a much slighter build then the average European as they are today while there were and are freakishly huge examples of both races the larger stronger Europeans with a longer arm reach would seem to have a basic advantage in a battle that is basically slamming two steel weights at each other in the attempt to bludgeon/slice your opponent to death it seems likely to me that the slighter statured Oriental would be at a marked disadvantage after attempting to parry even a single blow of the stronger European personally I have enjoyed a few chances to don armor and duel with blunted swords and while I am a rather large man the vibration and stress on my wrists was amazing and even with a blunted sword getting hit on the armor was not a pleasant experiance... any way that is my 2 cents with as little punctuation as possible!!!

  cobaltbull
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  My self after being trained in both forms of combat would go with a katana. They are generally better forged and if you are trained well more verstile than people realise. while the western style did go for a big heavier sword to pierce the heavy armor of the knight the samurai were quicker and more skilled and in the end would be able to overcome a knight even in armor for it would slow him down allowing the samurai to pierce the gaps in his armor more efficiently!

  blackwindzero
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Jessica Dear this may be an interesting debate but it all comes down to 1 specific matter the quality of the weapon maker and the users skills to wield it effectively, other than that neither side can be truly said is any better or worse as it mostly depends on the user to make great use of their "tool" at hand (yes I say Tool Because a weapon is nothing but a tool to be used it's not the weapon that is dangerous but the Warrior's skill that makes it dangerous) :)

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Very true. Someone skilled at hand-to-hand could take a half-assed swordsman, and very true for the other way around. You can't just rely on the weapon itself in a duel. If you understand yourself, you can understand your weapon and be dangerous with it.

"Only a fool trusts his life to a weapon." - Gray Fox

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  *glances over at his icon*

  blackwindzero
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  like my Icon? or someone elses?
anyways I'm Glad you like my Ideology about the principles of weapon use "superficially"

  durango
 

(BAN-KAI) Posted: 7 years ago

  I was referring to mine. Tensa Zangetsu is one badass sword.

  python001
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  western all the way, (im not one stupid anime fan)

  grayscalerain
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Honestly, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Eastern weaponry was meant to combat eastern weaponry and likewise for western weaponry.

Ultimately though, I would have to say that it would greatly depend on the situation. The cutting power of katanas is severly overrated and the idea that knights were slow and lumbering is just silly. These are men who trained to work with heavy armor and were VERY adept at it using it well AND quickly. On the other hand samurai were VERY fast, but their bamboo or plated wood armor just wasn't meant to stand up against the kind of weaponry the western world used. The average samurai could take arrow hits from Japanese archers all day, but a single shot from a Ballista or a Welsh longbowman would most likely finish him due to the sheer power of the shots (and a Welsh longbowman could fire just as fast as a regular archer).

It would really come down to who landed the first blow, ultimately. Katanas weren't meant for plate metal armor and I doubt one would be able to penitrate it easily, perhaps with a stab but a slash would most likely hang, bend or nick the blade but if they could peirce the joint or if their opponent was wearing chainlink instead of plate, then it's very possibly they would win. Likewise, they may not be as technical as eastern Samurai, but a single shot from a bastardsword or a claymore would probably destroy any eastern armor that stood in it's way and spell death for a Samurai.

Either way, they both have their merits. It's just that Japanese technology is so overdone in popular culture that people tend to forget that these people were not supermen. They were people, and if the other guy's better well it doesn't matter what you have, now does it?

  madean
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  katana ftw

sharper,stronger,easier to wield



  debyrus
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  The real fact of the matter here is that swords and other weaponry were designed to counter other types of weaponry. The whole history of warefare has dev eloped simply because one warring faction had to design new armorment to counter that with their enemies developed.

Therefore, comparing one type of sword against another is not really a fair arguement to make, because in a lot of cases the comparision is being made across centuries and regions. Itialian warfare was very different from that of the Turks, and from English, and so on.

Moreover we have to consider that most medival weapons were designed to be used on a large scale. One-on-one duels were not even popular until well in the renassance period in Europe, mostly due to a delcining need for most people to carry swords and the rise of "civilized" society that glamorized the image of a sword-carrying do-gooder, a la The Three Mustketters.

Another pressing matter is that of the armor that one would be wearing. This subject is far too varied and detailed to really go into, so I'm going to largely skip it and move on to other considerations.

Many different sword masters, both from Europe and the Far East have noted that "One cannot know the sword before one knows the spear," and "One cannot know the spear before one know hand-to-hand." A lot of so-called sword buffs like to skip over the grappling aspect of sword play but the real truth is that it is the basic principle of the art. The cutting power of your sword comes not from the sharpness or the hardness of the steel or the type of blade. It comes from your body movements. You can whip a blade around with your hands all you like but it will never have the deadly force that comes from the momentum of a full-body swing.

Getting back to grappling, at the time when you become very close to your opponent, your sword becomes very hard to use. At this time it is very good to know when to drop your sword and how to subdue your opponent. Thinking that the sword is the end-all weapon is both naive and suicidal.

ANd I would also like to take a moment to dispell any misconceptions about the strength of katanas. While I do admit they are the best example of strength and flexibility, they are not in any way unbreakable. In fact, a common practice was for samurai to cut bags of rice diagionally to show that they knew how to handle the katana. When that doesn't sound like much, if the samurai in question twisted his hands on the way through, it becomes very easy to snap the blade in two. Also, a lot of people will likely want to say that a katana can slice right through a european sword. That is a possibility, if your oppenent leaves his sword there long enough. Of course, if he moves it quickly and you're swinging extra hard, then you're dead.

I suppose that in a very long and drawn-out way my real conclusion is that the sword itself doesn't matter so much. I didn't even get into weapons intended for horseback, or training, or philosophical notions about life and death and the way of war. We haven't touched on Bushido, or Machiavelli. The truth is that a real weapons master can adapt to any situation. There are weapons that work best against some others, but no respecting knight or samurai would go into battle with sub-standard weaponry.

I leave you with a quote from Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings "When your life is on the line, you want to use all the tools at your disposal. No solider should be willing to die...without having made use of all his tools."

  nitrozz
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  I agree in most parts with DeByrus on this matter, there too many variables to even consider on the matter. There's no real way to tell.

Everyone who has little to no experience with either weapon will try and quote what they know, while others will let their own person tastes temper their decision.

I personally find it hard not to go in favor with the katana. Is it because I think it's better mechanically speaking? Nope, it's because I personally like how it looks. Though when it comes to European swords, I gotta say I love the Claymore.

Regardless, I couldn't tell you which was better, I don't think anyone can really.

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Honestly, though, I don't have a preference. Maybe I've just been exposed to anime a lot and that's why I see a lot more katana action, though I rarely see longswords (but in an example, Inuyasha has a big sword, though someone like Hiei could kick his ass), or even better, Trunks. Then again, he's an example of what I like; he'll kick your ass with or without his blade. Burning Attack and Heat Dome FTW.

Again, no advantage to either. Both are good depending on who's using them.

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Honestly, though, I don't have a preference. Maybe I've just been exposed to anime a lot and that's why I see a lot more katana action, though I rarely see longswords (but in an example, Inuyasha has a big sword, though someone like Hiei could kick his ass), or even better, Trunks. Then again, he's an example of what I like; he'll kick your ass with or without his blade. Burning Attack and Heat Dome FTW.

Again, no advantage to either. Both are good depending on who's using them.

  pseudosamurai
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  My alliegance lies with the eastern weaponry, mainly due to their sleek, lightweight and durable design.

Between a Long sword and a Katana, the Katana would have a significant advantage. Stronger and sharper, with the ability to utilize the full energy of the sword in each swings due to the moderate curve of the blade and handle. Though the Katana is much shorter compared to a standard long sword, so it would technically all come down to the ability of the wielder.

Although, the Katana can win if wielded in the hands of a master. Utilizing precise strikes rather than wild swinging, it's main purpose was meant for single strikes, meant to completely destroy whatever it's target is in one hit. Katanas rely souly on the strength of the wielder. Hip movements, leg movements, arm movements, head and torso positioning, swing length, power, torque, every part of the body is needed to wield a katana successfully and perfectly. Positioning is critical with stances for any eastern weapon moreso than Western weapons, though I'm not saying that the same rule doesn't apply for western weapons, just moreso for eastern blades.

Naginatas do have more of a power and reach with the blade than normal spears/halberds and have more of a blade, designed for better parrying ability and slashing potential, though Halberds and western weapons have more weight to them, so they can fair in a durability test.

I could go on, but I'll cut it short. Where Western weapons have more of a universal feel to them, eastern weapons were designed and meant for specific purposes in mind, each one with their own unique way of being wielded. Western weapons are the same, but Eastern weapons have more of a traditional feel to them. Though, in a way, each one of these weapons were designed with a single purpose in mind, to defend and combat aganst those with the same types of weaponry.

What it all basically comes down to, is the wielder and how smart he is in the ways of combat.


And now for your entertainment...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4EGnqfaSWgw

It is possible! :O

  durango
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  Which reminds me, would it be cool to do what Vergil does in Devil May Cry 3? You try and shoot him, he spins his blade around and around to block all the shots. Hell, in the manga, he actually cut a bullet into six pieces.

  pseudosamurai
 

(No Subject) Posted: 7 years ago

  It's "possible" but I hightly doubt anyone's willing to try >.>

...and not in the way he does it in the game. XD;;

But yes, that was definately, outright sexy <3