katana vs. other swords

[HuntingX]

A few points:

There's a slew of studies proving (definitively) that the Katana is by FAR the best bladed weapon PERIOD.

The difference in effectiveness between a Katana and ANY European weapon as well as the Jian was so enormous that the study creators were shocked the latter nations knew how to create swords at all.

The technical specs are not at all complicated; essentially, the Katana takes a lot more work to make and is correspondingly sharper and stronger for less weight.

As an example, 1 katana swung at 1 claymore causes the claymore to snap in half. Similar results for katana vs ANY sword (including broadswords, rapiers etc.). It's not cutting the opposing sword in half per se, but rather the extreme impact causes the sword to bend at a very severe angle, resulting in a snap. Jian didn't snap, but they were inferior in all cutting and range tests. Rapiers were bottom of the barrel as far as weapon effectiveness went.

Longer weapons (claymore etc.) are meant to be used on horseback, so the results were neither here nor there in direct comparison to the katana, although it is still hilarious that the katana snaps the claymore and not the reverse.

Finally, please note that armor + axe/mace > sword user. No bladed weapon can punch through steel armor with chain underneath. No arrows can punch through steel plate. Nothing piercing punches through; that's why macemen dominated the later infantry formations.

Go and download fight science lab for some interesting and well done demonstrations comparing swords, and fighting styles (ignore the ninjistu crap, that was unscientific and clearly done for the anime freaks).

Basically, in real life, most of Chinese martial arts suck, and Muay Thai kicks butt. This has been verified again and again in MMA, with most good strikers picking Muay Thai. Maybe Cung Le will show off Sanshou (which is very very different from Wushu), but mostly Chinese MMA is pretty and ridiculously low powered.

Martial arts in Wuxia, on the other hand, can take out armies of katana wielding samurai. Yay!

[Ken Cheng]

Basically, in real life, most of Chinese martial arts suck, and Muay Thai kicks butt. This has been verified again and again in MMA, with most good strikers picking Muay Thai. Maybe Cung Le will show off Sanshou (which is very very different from Wushu), but mostly Chinese MMA is pretty and ridiculously low powered.

"Sigh." And here we go again...

[wuyuejin]

To HuntingX:

You've mistaken Taolu Wushu (Wushu for performance) for the whole system of Wushu. Sanshou is one of the two components that make up Wushu, it's the practical side of Wushu. Taolu Wushu sucks but Sanshou's kickass! However I may agree with your remark on Chinese martial artists. Among various martial artists of traditional Chinese MA schools I've met, only few are experienced in real combat. The others are just big talkers who always elude real sparrings and only attend to practicing several boring forms year after year. Btw, can you please tell me the name of the study that proved a katana can render ANY other sword or dao bent in half?

[HuntingX]

Fight Science Lab on National Geographic had a 1 hour show on which martial art was the best.

Mythbusters has a famous episode on swords cutting swords. They analyze all the swords and conclude without doubt that the Katana wtfpwns everything else.

[K2Grey]

I am highly, highly, highly skeptical that a katana when swung at a claymore causes the claymore to snap in half.

[HuntingX]

Just as a note, the creators really expected the claymore to do better. It did not.

[CC]

Well, got a link to the program? Was the Claymore used in the program a real claymore or some display/replica version?

A katana is not even meant to be swung at tree trunks for fear of damaging the blade.

[ChronoReverse]

katana blade hitting a rapier (flat side): the rapier appeared to be cut by the katana, but on high-speed it was clear that then blade actually snapped instead of being cut. busted

Scottish claymore hitting a katana (flat): the claymore is 4x as heavy and twice as long, so it moved much slower than the katana. It managed to bend the katana, but neither cut nor broke it. busted

from http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/s...vie_myths.html

The katana snapped a rapier.


Furthermore, even the claymore example was a garbage one since they used what modern day people THINK a claymore is like. They actually said a claymore is 4x as heavy which is completely wrong.

A katana should weigh about 3.5 pounds. A Scottish claymore weighs about 5.5 pounds. It's not like real medieval war weapons (that is, not the ceremonial and display types) were unwieldy weapons. These people actually fought and fought seriously.

The steel in a real claymore would be more high quality than a modern "replica" built to what a poor blacksmith thinks it should be like (there are blacksmiths who do build authentic replicas as well as superior versions using modern techniques and materials).

Not that it matters since the katana couldn't even cut a rapier but rather just snapped it when it bent too far.


In any case, with even a rudimentary knowledge of swords, it's clear that Japanese are constructed the way they are because of the inferiority of Japanese iron. This meant that they had to do all the folding just to get the blade to be similar in quality to European or Middle Eastern designs.

This also made the katana extreme hard and thus brittle. This leads to sharp edge which is great for cutting the bamboo armor as well as skin and bones but against steel, it just damages the blade. It's another myth that a katana could cut through plate armor. Note that the katana used in the episode was a modern high carbon steel blade which is actually superior in many ways to the old Japanese steel. In particular, it was less brittle, that is, more tough.


Now if you want to talk about a high quality steel making process (which the Japanese had) AND high quality steel to go with it (which the Japanese didn't have), it should be blades made using wootz steel (like Damascus steel blades). That's the stuff legends are made of.

[K2Grey]

How high the heaven, how deep the earth.

[HuntingX]

A few notes on the tests as well:

They were using the katana as a blunt object rather than as a cutting edge. They only tested the effective metallurgic strength, and not the sharpness.



I watched this show like 1 year ago, but I remember 2 tests with the claymore. Swinging the katana at the claymore caused it to snap in half. Again, it didn't CUT it. It SNAPPED it, as I said before.

Finally, we have no evidence that claymores were made using "higher quality" steel. Modern katanas are replicas as well.

European blades are are blunt objects, eventually completely replaced by maces. Sharpness doesn't matter in medieval warfare.

MIDDLE-EASTERN scimitars were famously sharp, of course, you don't know this. Just like your HORRIBLE argument with the Mongolian army, where you were repeatedly proven wrong (8 times by my last count, well, every count you made), you are completely misinterpreting historical evidence.

Just like the Longbow was a piece of crap weapon COMPLETELY inferior to Asian bows, Western European swords are inferior blunt instruments made for hammering through armor (SO WHY BOTHER WITH AN EDGE).

Some links yes?

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

MIDDLE EASTERN, THE WESTERN EUROPEANS DO NOT HAVE THIS, TECHNIQUE IS LOST

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

# It eliminated any bubbles in the metal.
# It homogenized the metal, spreading the elements (such as carbon) evenly throughout - increasing the effective strength by decreasing the number of potential weak points.
# It burned off many impurities, helping to overcome the poor quality of the raw Japanese steel.

Thus, the "poor" quality was completely countered by the superior construction technique.

This is clearly a more advanced technique than Western Europe.

It's quite possible that the Damascus scimitars (WHICH MIGHT BE LEGENDARY) were the best swords ever made. But this is neither here nor there.

Scimitars CUT. Broadswords/Claymores HAMMER. Links?

"There are two types of broadswords, the European broadsword and the Chinese Dao, which is commonly translated as a broadsword as well. However the two are very different. The European broadsword had a blunt edge and a sharp tip. The blades usually have a diamond cross-section, and are very heavy. They are usually used against armored knights, first by using the dull edge to knock your opponent out, then using the weight of the sword and the sharp tip to pierce straight through the armour."

Read this as follows: Asian swords CUT. European swords BASH. Why??

Asians use Chain/Silk.

Europeans use PLATE. You can't cut PLATE. You BASH PLATE. Heavy, unwieldy weapons made to beat down heavily armored knights AS I STATED BEFORE.

And BTW, Dao sharper than Broadsword, and Katana sharper than Dao, so Katana MUCH MUCH sharper than Broadsword. Get it?

As another sidenote, mythbusters apparently named their claymore incorrectly. Heavier 2 handed swords were actually more common than the lighter claymores, which were created by the poorer regions in Northern Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder

That's probably a closer representation of the Claymore. A big, heavy weapon made to bash through pike formations.

[CC]

The important point is - What was the specification of that broken claymore?

IF it is a replica like those you find in shops. Swinging any metal rod/piece/katana at it is likely to damage it severely.

I could make a program and swing a claymore at a katana I bought off a shop and the katana would snap too.

[Ken Cheng]

[mod]May I remind everyone to lay off on the personal insults? You can debate this subject just fine without ripping into each other.[/mod]

[ChronoReverse]

@huntingx

I didn't say European swords were Damascus. It's pretty obvious where Damascus swords orginated from. The wootz steel and technique has been rediscovered anyway so we know it's real.


In any case, snapping doesn't tell you anything about the quality of a sword. A bar of steel could yield the same result. Besides, Mythbusters didn't even show what you said. They snapped a rapier.


As for inferior steel, it's quite well known that Japanese iron sources were of poor quality. I'm surprised you're passing off things like removing bubbles and homogenizing the steel as something particular to the Japanese steel forging process. Those are some of the more basic ideas with working metal. Now I did mention that the Japanese steel making process was superior which allowed them to create very good blades considering their ore.


And I'm going to stop arguing with you since you simply retort with "I'm right" anyway. If you can't even read arguments properly what's the point?

Just like your HORRIBLE argument with the Mongolian army, where you were repeatedly proven wrong (8 times by my last count, well, every count you made), you are completely misinterpreting historical evidence.

Sure, I count you wrong 9 times by MY last count. Making up things from the book, telling us to read from the book, accusing us of being amateurs, etc. Not to mention always using oblique "evidences" that direct attention away from the original point (for example, the longbow argument was the about best archers in history. That is, archers that actually DID something noteworthy. Which the English Longbowmen did. As did the Mongolian Horseback Archers. The English Longbow may not have been the best bow ever, but it certainly was a very good bow PLUS it was easily mass produced; thus making it a superior war weapon)

[HuntingX]

Let's pull up some old statements for record checking:

Chrono says:
Mongolian composite bows were a huge leap in technology for bows.

Historical data says:
Mongolian composite bows are the exact same as all other Asian bows, and are actually inferior to some other Asian bows.

Chrono says:
Longbows were among the best bows produced (numbers, quality, whatever)

Historical data says:
Longbows are strictly inferior to composite bows (range, power, weight, size, etc.), were produced in lower quantities, couldn't be used on horseback (and thus were useless), and required extensive training to be of any use. So on and so forth. To say that Longbowmen accomplishments are on the same "ballpark" or "on par with" the Mongolian hordes is a joke. I think Mongolia had something like 25 times the land mass of the English, and had Khan not died, would have taken over the entirety of Western Europe.

Chrono says:
European Swords (not Middle Eastern) are higher quality than Japanese swords

Historical data says:
European Swords are glorified hunks of iron made for bashing rather than cutting.

Need I go on?

[ChronoReverse]

As usual you use a kernel of what was said to oblique and then add what you may to it.


(1) I said that Mongolian Composite Bows were among the best in history. You showed how some of the other composite bows were as good as Mongolian Bows. This does not invalidate the first statement. You now add that you showed that some other Asian bows were better which you did not show. Your own links only say that the pull of the other composite bows were as good as Mongolian ones in some cases.


(2) I said that longbows were among the best. Composite bows were better. This does not invalidate the first statement. Nor did I say the latter was false.

Furthermore, the longbow was much simple to construct as compared to composite bows. You simply cannot claim that a multi-layered recurved bow is more simple than a single yew rod. Competent longbowmen did require lifetime training to be effective, but the English were also the only ones besides the Mongols (who also did lifetime training) to use the bow to the extreme thus requiring such training.

In addition, I didn't say the English achievement was on the level of the Mongolians, but I said that they achieved something of note with their longbowmen. You decided to make it appear that I said that they both achieve the same thing.


(2) I said that Japanese swordmakers needed greater skill to match European swords because of the inferior iron. This does not mean European swords were necessarily better. You then twist this around to make it like I said European swords were better period.

This also does not take into account that European weaponry were of all sorts. More importantly the sword wasn't a primary weapon on the battlefield. The claim that European swords were hunks of metal is contradicted by the fact that the swords made for battle were not really that heavy. A Scottish claymore weighs around 5.5 pounds and its length meant that if it was not well constructed, it wouldn't even be usable as a bashing weapon. The Zweihander was not much more heavy (except for ceremonial ones which did in fact weigh too much for practical battle usage) and while tradition states they were used to hew pikemen, that's doubtful under any serious scrutiny.

It's also interesting how you go on about "historical data" for this one when there were sword manuals and fighting techniques left behind that show effective use of various swords. The Europeans weren't the greatest warriors or anything but they weren't exactly pushovers all the time either.



So please do go on. You might as well twist some more things to your own ends. How about addressing some of your own claims like the Mythbusters episode.

[HuntingX]

1.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow[url]
The principal difference between the modern Mongol bow and the Hungarian bow is the presence of a "string run" (or "string bridge") - an attachment of horn or wood used to hold the string a little further apart from the bow's limbs. This attachment aids the archer by increasing the draw weight in the early stages of the draw, thus slightly increasing the total energy stored by the draw and available to the arrow. String bridges are not attested at the time of the Mongol empire, appearing in Chinese art during the later Manchu Qing dynasty.[3] The armies of Genghis Khan would have used the composite bows typical of their various nationalities at the time.

Thus, the Hungarian bow was the best bow at the time, not the Mongolian bow.

2. So, Longbows were "among" the best by being worse than ALL Asian bows, the Hungarian Composite Bow, and the Turkish Bow.
Composite bows, especially the Turkish bow using specially light arrows, had the longest range for hand-held weapons until the invention of the modern breech-loading firearms in the early 20th Century.[4] Estimates for the Mongol bow give it a draw force comparable to the English longbow (41-81 kg / 90-180 lb) of about 45-70 kg (100-160 lb).

So, basically, Longbows are not "among" the best. They are "among" the worst. The ONLY bows they are superior to are Western European bows. Considering how Western Europe was not a bow emphasized army (what a huge strategic blunder), that's nothing to be proud of. The Middle East, Asia, and the Steppe nomads (which is more than 50% of the world's landmass right there, and maybe 70-80% of the population) all use far superior bows. Among the best? If F- is among the best, yes.

For more emphasis on the point:
Mongolian (and all composite bows) could fire with more power than the 6 foot long monstrosity WHILE ON HORSEBACK. How can you even put the two bows in the same league? Again, your viewpoint is biased on a Western version of history which is badly misguided. In truth, up to 1600, East Asia was massively dominant in virtually all military aspects (China had something like 30% of the world's GDP).

3.

Claymore is 5.5 pounds.

Katana is about 1-1.5 kilo, or half that weight.

Both are 2 handed swords.

The upper range of the german 2 hander is 4 1/2 lbs to 7 lbs, which is up to 3 times heavier than the Katana.

Further, it is a well known battle tactic that Europeans used their weapons with blunt edges to bash through formations.

I would love to see some credible source that states Europeans used the swords primarily as cutting tools rather than bashing tools.

*
As far as the mythbusters test goes, I remember 2 tests (Claymore swung at Katana, then the reverse), and the summary only mentioned one. I watched it a year ago, maybe I'm misremembering. Either way, you would be better served to actually watch the episode and see it yourself rather than using the 2 paragraph executive summary which might leave out some valuable information.

[wuyuejin]

It seems that the (modern) katana excels many other kinds of bladed weapon in hardness, sharpness, stabbing, and cutting. I've just watched a clip in which they shot a pistol bullet right at the cutting edge of the katana. The katana remained almost intact while the bullet got divided into 2.

[ChanceEncounter]

It seems that the (modern) katana excels many other kinds of bladed weapon in hardness, sharpness, stabbing, and cutting. I've just watched a clip in which they shot a pistol bullet right at the cutting edge of the katana. The katana remained almost intact while the bullet got divided into 2.

Visually impressive, but really doesn't mean much.

The bullet, because of the way a gun works, does not necessarily have to be very hard or durable. It's common to see bullets deform greatly when hitting their target.

[wuyuejin]

I think the other way around. The katana is famous for its sharpness (perhaps the sharpest bladed weapon) so its cutting edge must be highly thin, yet the edge can withstand a direct piston bullet without damage, that shows how hard it is.

[Shades of Gray]

Dear Friends,

I absolutely love how everyone cites their resources. When we grow up and begin their higher education, we have to cite our research and claims using primary references. Primary references, for those that do not know, are videos, photographs, and perhaps even experimental results. With that note, these are not citations:

Some links yes?

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

MIDDLE EASTERN, THE WESTERN EUROPEANS DO NOT HAVE THIS, TECHNIQUE IS LOST

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

To quote Wikipedia is absolutely shameful, because Wikipedia is neither a primary resource nor is it credible. I could easily edit the article on katana construction to claim "The Japanese designed the katana to perfectly relieve constipation." I chose the more graphic description so that you guys will remember that clearly.

And now with my argument:
YouTube - Japanese Katana Vs European Broadsword <= The katana is not superior to the Broadsword. They both have similar cutting power. On that note, I have no clue how you can claim that Mythbusters proved that the katana could cut the claymore. The result for the claim "Can a sword cut through another sword" was "busted". And when I mean cut I do not mean "stress fracture" as in the case of the rapier.

YouTube - Liu Hailong vs Robert Kaenorrasing Part 1 <= That seemed like a beatdown to me. We can see that Muay Thai does not account for grappling procedures as well as Sanshou, and thus suffers dearly because of it. As we can see in MMA, grappling is probably important. Not to mention that the Sanshou chap here placed quite a few impressive kicks. To those that claim that Chinese martial arts have no credence...watch the video above clearly.

Adieu,
Shades of Gray