katana vs. other swords

[Cesare]

If you want to kill / be killed by your oponent with one lethal strike, go for the katana.

I think I'd go for Desert Eagle, thanks.

(As far as cold weapons are concerned, I'd go for a Chinese sabre or for yatagan.)

[tinkywinky]

I think I'd go for Desert Eagle, thanks.

(As far as cold weapons are concerned, I'd go for a Chinese sabre or for yatagan.)

haha, good choice , I was only choosing between the katana and claymore :-p

[Rormungous]

Originally Posted by tinkywinky
this is ridiculous, the Russian cavalry retreated because their general thought that it was a trap and that there were troops hidden behind the line. There was no enemy "blown away" but decided to keep it safe.

@tinkywinky: In other words, the Russian General was scared of the Highlanders. Once again a Wikispert. Anyway this is but one example in one campaign of the superiority of the Highland soldier. Get off the computer and buy a book.

My original point (get it?) about the bayonet seems to have been lost. In the hands of a common soldier the point beats the edge. Katana are biased to the edge are expensive and time consuming to make and require elite training to wield to effect. Therefore the bayonet is the superior weapon. I really should open a Wikipedia account.

[Rormungous]

I think I'd go for Desert Eagle, thanks.

I'd cut your bullet in half with my Sgian Dhubh

[Cesare]

Very well...
Sgian Dhubh this:

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://mtglair.de/img/python/16_Ton_Weight.jpg')

[Rormungous]

@ epicyclo: you compare the ability of a claymore to stop horses with that of a katana... pretty unfair isn't it? The Japanese had their own swords for that, the o-dashi and zanbato swords. Besides, in a cavalry charge, you would prefer having a spear instead of a sword.

I thinks it's fair to compare all characteristics of a weapon when they are being compared. The Scots had other edged weapons as well including spears and axes. I would hazard a guess that a a katana facing a claymore has an advantage in manoeuvrability with a disadvantage in reach. It is moot to compare based on fighting style as the katana style is (nowadays) more developed with a large community of expert practitioners all over the world. The question remains; which is the superior weapon? I'd still prefer a rifle and bayonet.

It's interesting that the Japanese came to the same conclusion when they decided to modernise their army.

[Rormungous]

Very well...
Sgian Dhubh this:

$this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://mtglair.de/img/python/16_Ton_Weight.jpg')

ROFL good one

[Rormungous]

I think I have made my point. To those who received with good humour (nods to Cesare) cheerio. To those who take this stuff far too seriously and emotionally ... cheerio too.

[Patudo]

Several groups of foot soldiers over the centuries have withstood heavy cavalry. The Swiss pikemen being the most well known. Their tactics and weapons go back to Alexander's day and beyond. At Hastings the Saxon foot soldiers fought off charges from Norman armoured cavalry forcing the latter to fire arrows up into the air to fall down amidst the Saxons - the tactic that eventually won the battle. The key elements in fending off shock cavalry are (a) discipline and (b) weapon reach.

I agree the bayonet is lethal. Basically a spear derivative, it gives the user reach, the ability to fend off enemy from a distance, and can be used in formation. Plus it's lightweight compared to carrying a sword, and can be used independently as a knife. And it doesn't require a great deal of training compared to that required to use a sword effectively. The British army proved many times in the Indian wars and elsewhere (including against the Scots) that well disciplined troops armed with bayonets could consistently overcome swordsmen.

[CC]

another newbie that pops up, I couldn't read all this nonsense without reacting...

@ CC: you will never be able to swing a blade at 334 m/s at a bullet. Despite being made out of lead and cupper, a bullet moving that fast is capable of penetrating steel (to a certain amount). They also fired .50 BMG at the katana, it snapped after slicing some shots, which is quite remarkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY7li8Lb1eg

My point is that if you replaced that katana with a European sword or a good meat cleaver, the bullet would still be sliced.

[TheNerd]

Well, another newbie here...

The original argument here vexed me because a lot of the OP's comments were, well, off the mark. For starters, I think a nodachi (a longer version of a katana) compares better with a claymore, if only because they're longer. With a katana, it's more beneficial to use a simple longsword.

Why? Well, they're around the same weight (Wikipedia gives it's weight as 3.1 lbs, which is lighter than what HuntingX gives to the katana). Now, the longsword is about 30 cm's longer than a katana, which gives it more reach, which is a huge advantage in a fight. Also, the basic movements used are incredibly similar - after all, the human body can only do so many things.

As for which is better... That's a moot point, because a katana is perfection when it comes to what it does, but the longsword is far more versatile. You can use it as a club, hitting people with the hilt or crossguard, trapping people with the crossguard, or for more traditional sword-like stuff (for a good reference on Medieval martial arts, see Kingdom of Heaven by Ridley Scott. The fights are epic, and educational). A contest between the two would simply come down to the more skillful fighter, the terrain, and the armor and quality of the weapons.

Btw, anyone who seriously believes that longswords did not have sharp edges should go look at one. Although you could, the blade was generally not used for bashing people. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go take a katana and start trying to cut a guy encased in full plate.

@tinkywinky: if you watch Shades of Gray's video, you'll notice that the guy with the broadsword doesn't follow through with his stroke, opting to go against his momentum instead of using it. This would have made his second cut much faster, easier, and more efficient. That invalidates the test, in my opinion.

Now, what really irked me was the argument with the bows, and the utterly biased assertions that longbows sucked. While mobility often wins in war, and cavalry-based armies, I find, can be far more dangerous than infantry-based ones (putting aside Rome and Alexander for the moment), Europe's terrain is not at all conducive to that type of warfare, especially when you get into Germany and France and Switzerland. Therefore, bows that can be used on horseback become a curiosity. So, foot archers are the way to go, and the longbow is the pinnacle of one branch of that technology. And yes, it is one of the best bows ever invented, especially considering its simplicity. Look at what it did at Agincourt. Could you have substituted recurve bows for the longbows? Of course. But for where and how they were used, longbows ended up being just as pivotal as a recurve bow. Inferior weapons, I'll be the first to admit, but just as pivotal. And certainly not one of the worst bows in history. That statement is like taking a musket, comparing it an automatic rifle, and calling the former a horrible piece of work. Are they inferior? Of course. But they aren't terrible guns (just slow and inaccurate by today's standards).

As for the assertion that the Mongols would have taken over all of Western Europe... There are so many more factors involved than just pure fighting ability. One is pasture, which becomes a problem when faced with a quarter a million horses (each warrior had two backups and his main horse, if I remember), assuming they went in with more than 80,000 guys. Another is, again, terrain. The Mongols' effectiveness would have lessened tremendously if they were fighting in the depths of the Black Forest, or in the Alps. You just can't say.

[MarkAlvarado]

wow! you really love watching movies that concerns with samurais, ninjas and other stuffs like that. I am also fund of katanas and especially samurai swords. .take a look at this link samurai swords. ..this are Japan made samurai swords.

[JamesG]

Here's a video showing how a Katana [Samurai Sword] is made:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1150578495/

[Speedy12]

Okay, first off, I know I'm new to the forum and someone with some kind of seniority is going to say something about how I am a "newbie" so they can have that little rush of power because of that established seniority, we all know how it is, next I'm not going to go into any sort of history of this weapon because I feel it's already been covered. I understand all of the attributes that give it it's superiority over every other cold weapon of it's time or days of old, I'm just here to set the record straight.

The attributes to this weapon are quite true and factual, it's considered the sharpest blade, the most durable out of contenders, capable of killing in one to two movements, extremely light and because if it's weight, speed and momentum are categorized as superior, as is it's balance and it even has a minor point for thrust. However, there are a few arguments on this forum that I agree with, I really don't need to use sources like Wikipedia for this, because most of the items I will address are either common sensical, or for the nonbeliever's easily looked up. The Katana, or rather I will just refer to it as the "Samurai Sword or this specific Japanese sword", because Katana can be loosely translated to any single edged sword, is extremely popular because of mostly media, ie movies, anime, comics and video games. However, the problem with these sources is that they generally are not real, or the actual physics of the weapons are not incorporated with the media presentation.

1.) This Japanese sword, to break it down Barney-style, is essentially a long piece of metal that has been folded hundreds of times over, with one to two holes punched into the hilt area (note that any damage caused to the weapon even after it's folding process could result in the blade being prone to weakening or even fracture dependant on the location), so the hilt can either be built around the blade or is slid in place and attached using one or two pins. The sword generally has a handguard at the end of the hilt going into the blade. I know there is way more to the process of creating this weapon, but why explain something that anyone can read a book on, watch a master at the profession, or learn to do kinesthetically.

2.) The durability of this sword is reknown, but a previous poster brought up a solid point. Even the most minute of chips in the blade could cause the blade to snap. I don't care how thick the spine is. It's common sense. The steel used back in the 16th Century, etc. was not as pure as the steel we use now thanks to such processes of refinement as the Bessemer Process. Which meant that due to the impurities of this particular metal even the slightest bend in the blade could make breaking it that much easier to accomplish. Does this mean the blade is not durable, no, it may very well have been more durable than any other blade because of the process in which it was created.

3.) Okay, it may sound funny but I agree with the "slicing the bullet" concept. Sure it would depend on the wielder's strength and a lot of luck, but I would assume it's possible (and I'm referring to a 9mm bullet not a 50 Cal). A previous poster stated that most bullets are just a chunk of shaped lead covered with a metal shell. Now lead is soft, one of the softest metals, but it's extremely dense, perfect as a projectile, but you don't even need a butcher knife to cut lead, you could cause indentations or marks in lead with fishing wire or a butter knife, I used to shave lead with a box cutter, it's really easy. However, let's just say tentatively, if someone fired a bullet at you and you just so happened to have a Samurai sword on you and you cut it in half....miraculously, what would there be to stop the one to two halves of the bullet from continuing on the projected course into 'you' at such a close range, it may take a little more than luck.

4.) Granted the blade is short compared to say a Claymore, and I'm using this as the adversary because of it's popularity, but it still, is a reasonably long blade. What is it you should learn when you are learning martial arts using melee weapons? "The weapon is just an extension of your body." All physics aside, I don't generally care how heavy the weapon is that I am wielding, I don't care how long it is, or what aerodynamics or blah blah blah it has. In a fight, I want to know if I can use it effectively. The physics tend to build up after that naturally, so no amount of calculating is going to win a fight, it's all based on strategy and how you swing the weapon (though some strategy is based on calculation, there generally isn't that much time to sit down and think during battle). You might agree you might not, but I would wager an acorn to an apple most people who argue about this haven't actually been in a duel with an actual weapon before where you may or may not walk away with scars or scratches. In my opinion and most warriors out there who actually use or used these swords, the weapon's effectiveness is based solely on the wielder, whether they have experience, skill, strength, stamina, speed, or not is what will depend on who will walk away the victor.

5.) The raw blocking power of the Samurai Sword, is not necessarily "blocking", to block something would be to stop something dead in it's tracks, and since the blade of said weapon is so small and it's based on two hands being on the hilt a majority of the time blocking is not the most effective approach. However, because the hilt of this sword was built so long, leverage becomes a superb capability for parrying and repelling blows. While the hand closest to the guard pushes down the back hand pulls up allowing for not only a more precise strike but a faster recovery, thrusting is also savvy to this statement. This is what makes this weapon so effective. You don't believe me try it. It's quite a work out.

I will say that if the debate between "Katana and Claymore" is based solely on slamming one blade into the other, not a mere fight between two individuals, I believe that the Claymore would have more of a chance than most to overcome. the claymore was built almost literally to take people down from a distance, and believe it or not it really doesn't take much force to swing one. If you've actually trained with one before, or have the experience, you would know that the force of the blow is based more on fluidity and momentum, anybody who rushes into battle swinging a claymore willy-nilly deserves to get killed, it's not what the weapon was meant for. Claymores were built with a little bit more flexibility...it comes with the length, giving more of a durable nomenclature than most European swords. Now think about this for a second, if you could use a Claymore skillfully, do you think you would be in pretty good shape. I think you would, and if the people, using them went to battle and won wars, it wasn't the sword, it had to have been the wielder. Now the Claymore, was not really built the same way as the Samurai Sword, but they both had the edge, they were both sharp, and I believe, though Martial Arts was prevelent in both societies yet the Japanese' was possibly more effective, who do you think would win in a duel? It really wouldn't be about what weapon hits what, it would be about the wielder of the weapon.

Which brings me back to my main point. It comes down to more than just "CLANG CLING BANG SPLAT". It's about wits, honor, strategy, fortitude, skill, agility etc.etc. All of those things that have nothing to do with the actual weapon. I dare anyone to go out there and swing a sword from the left to the right for two hours non-stop, it ain't as easy as it looks.

I spent a lot of time with my friend studying the weapons, learning the nomenclature, cleaning, properly maintaining and even sparring with these weapons, I have a few scars to prove it. Though I prefer using Bokkens, and for those who aren't savvy a Bokken is a wooden sword generally a replica of whatever you want it to be. You can even get them in the appropriate weight if you go through right distributor. read up on Miyamoto Musashi (creator of the duel wielding technique) and his endeavors with a Bokken, it can be used as a minor weapon that could even inflict broken bones or cause fatalaties. Okies I threw my two cents in, not that it's worth that much in this economy, just wanted to share the knowledge.

[The Khan]

but but the muay thai fighter did not use the Tiger Uppercut and shoot Tiger waves from his fists!!

Anyway until the advent of the Musket taking over the battlefields of Europe virtually all professional soldiers wore at least Chainmail armor and it has been proven that the Katana cannot cut through Chainmail so meh to the Katana. The battlefields that weapons are used in should be taken into account when fanboys start to fight over which is their favourite weapon. The Katana would be relatively useless on a European battlefield.