StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What are the benefits and disadvantages of each and which is better overall?

Benefits:

Euro:
Heavy and Hard. They'll fuck you up even if they don't cut you. You're still being hit by about 10kg of metal.

Japanese:
Light and fucking sharp. They'll cut through nearly anything, but if they don't penetrate then you're not going to be particularly bothered.


Disadvantages:
Heavy. You're not going to be swinging one around as fast as a katana. The blade is also very brittle and may be easily broken.

Brittle blade, but one must know how to strike it in order to break it. Also, it takes a lot more training to use a katana than it does to use a broadsword.


It all comes down to circumstance. If I wanted a weapon to carry with me today, I'd take a katana. If I want fighting a fully armoured German knight, I'd take the broadsword.

IIRC the name katana only applies to a sword of a given length. There are other names that are given according to other criteria.

generator_g1 wrote:IIRC the name katana only applies to a sword of a given length. There are other names that are given according to other criteria.

Mmmm... Give me a no-dachi and point me in the direction of the silly teutons.

10kg? That's just amusing. 2.5 kg would be considered heavy for a sword.

As for European swords, if there's one thing that I learned in history it's that Europeans have spent thousands of years coming up with new and exciting ways to kill each other. Given other people have more specialized and specific knowledge of certain kinds, I'll wait for them to post. Gladius != Viking sword != Claymore != Rapier != Calavry Sabre.

It's stabbing vs slashing. With a long enough sword, stabbing(european) offers advantages over the slashing(katana). Draw your weapon over your head or to your side to make the fatal slash, and you're exposed for a quick poke from a far less skilled and trained euro footslogger.

You can stab with a Japanese sword, I know. But it's not normally how they're used.

(edit) I voted both, BTW. Stab vs slash has been going on for about as long as there have been swords, with no clear winner.

Cyborg Stan wrote:10kg? That's just amusing. 2.5 kg would be considered heavy for a sword.

As for European swords, if there's one thing that I learned in history it's that Europeans have spent thousands of years coming up with new and exciting ways to kill each other. Given other people have more specialized and specific knowledge of certain kinds, I'll wait for them to post. Gladius != Viking sword != Claymore != Rapier != Calavry Sabre.

You ever flung around a swiss great sword? How about a claymore? Or one of the many other larger broadsword variants. 10kg is not far off in some of those cases, but the point remains the same, its a shitload heavier than its Japanese equivalent.

weemadando wrote:Benefits:

Euro:
Heavy and Hard. They'll fuck you up even if they don't cut you. You're still being hit by about 10kg of metal.

Japanese:
Light and fucking sharp. They'll cut through nearly anything, but if they don't penetrate then you're not going to be particularly bothered.


Disadvantages:
Heavy. You're not going to be swinging one around as fast as a katana. The blade is also very brittle and may be easily broken.

Brittle blade, but one must know how to strike it in order to break it. Also, it takes a lot more training to use a katana than it does to use a broadsword.


It all comes down to circumstance. If I wanted a weapon to carry with me today, I'd take a katana. If I want fighting a fully armoured German knight, I'd take the broadsword.

*hands Ando a 10kg sword.* Try to use that for 30 minutes.

30 minutes later:
See how fucking stupid it is to have a 10kg sword? You've been playing too much D&D. A sword shouldn't weigh more than 4 lbs for a bastard sword. The difference is all in how it's used.

There is no best sword overall. You need a more specific scenario to make such a call.

http://netsword.com/ has had discussions on the subject a number of times in the past. They're about the same, more or less.

Beowulf wrote:
*hands Ando a 10kg sword.* Try to use that for 30 minutes.

30 minutes later:
See how fucking stupid it is to have a 10kg sword? You've been playing too much D&D. A sword shouldn't weigh more than 4 lbs for a bastard sword. The difference is all in how it's used.

That's why swordsmen had to train for so long and one reason why many armies liked pikes so much. However 10 kilos is excessive, the largest sword weight I can recall was more like 4.5

Here's a page from Raven Armoury.

Claymores

Claymore 1. Traditional.

Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Claymore 2.
Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Secondly, if your experience is coming from swinging around claymores and the like, you're going to likely overestimate the mass - the spread of the mass would mean a greater moment of interia.

Here's also from the ARMA's website :

"Interpreting" Historical Examples: Thoughts on the Quality of Replica Swords

Ewart Oakeshott estimated that the average weight of historical swords was two pounds. Good modern replicas, depending on type and size, range anywhere from two to four pounds. Make a point of buying the lightest sword you can find. Your wrist will thank you for it.

Beowulf wrote:
*hands Ando a 10kg sword.* Try to use that for 30 minutes.

30 minutes later:
See how fucking stupid it is to have a 10kg sword? You've been playing too much D&D. A sword shouldn't weigh more than 4 lbs for a bastard sword. The difference is all in how it's used.

Actually no. I've used those kind of swords before. And put simply - I wouldn't want to fucking well use one in battle. Too heavy and unwieldy. But the fact is they were used. Deal with it. I looked at an upper limit example. So sue me.

Cyborg Stan wrote:Here's a page from Raven Armoury.

Claymores

Claymore 1. Traditional.

Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Claymore 2.
Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Shit eh? I have no real issues doing weights etc, but this sword was fucking insane. So heavy as to be ridiculous. It was most likely one of the greatswords - those were damn stupid.

In a historical context, swords over eight pounds simply did not exist until the development of guns obsoleted swords as a battlefield weapon. After that point, swords became very large, as they would be used for ceremonial purposes.

European swords of the 15th and 16th centuries were extremely tough, flexible and durable, pound for pound the equals of Japanese ones of the same era, and much more useful overall. A European 16th century sword could take punishment that would have shattered its Japanese counterpart.

Don't trust the weights of modern replicas. Few are the real thing; most are screwy designs that just look are and are made to shatter if you try to sharpen them.

I've read that Indian swords were of high quality, before the Europeans, believe it or not.
And does anyone know much about Chinese swords? I know that the Japanese ceremonial Ken is based on Chinese models, but that's about it.

What kind of chinese sword?

Lionhead?
Hook?
Machete?
Greatsword?
Seven Ring Sword?

One of many many more?

Here's an interesting essay on the subject.

I've got a three set of Katana, Wakizasi, and other small knife i can't remember the name of. they are so awesome.

weemadando wrote:

Cyborg Stan wrote:10kg? That's just amusing. 2.5 kg would be considered heavy for a sword.

As for European swords, if there's one thing that I learned in history it's that Europeans have spent thousands of years coming up with new and exciting ways to kill each other. Given other people have more specialized and specific knowledge of certain kinds, I'll wait for them to post. Gladius != Viking sword != Claymore != Rapier != Calavry Sabre.

You ever flung around a swiss great sword? How about a claymore? Or one of the many other larger broadsword variants. 10kg is not far off in some of those cases, but the point remains the same, its a shitload heavier than its Japanese equivalent.

Have to agree with Ando!

I swung around an antic greatsword and I tell you it was more than 10 kg.

No surprise since it was designed to cut through even a plate armor.

"You should not have any fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you. To entertain likes and dislikes is bad for both commanders and soldiers. Pragmatic thinking is essential." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings

How about Welsh longbow vs. crossbow vs. composite bow? Or samurai vs. knight? Or the Spanish armada vs. Korean "turtle" ships? Or Crusaders vs. Mongols? Or any ideas why the Chinese used bamboo armor?

Mark S wrote:"You should not have any fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you. To entertain likes and dislikes is bad for both commanders and soldiers. Pragmatic thinking is essential." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings

Musashi-san, of course, is correct. Unfortunate that the other samurai did not heed his advice when they outlawed firearms.

Hethrir wrote:I've got a three set of Katana, Wakizasi, and other small knife i can't remember the name of. they are so awesome.

Probably a tanto.

Every weapon has its strengths and weaknesses, personally I prefer polearms over most swords...or a heavier variation on a cavalry sabre. I prefer a weapon that can stand up to punishment to one that cannot, which tends to be more the european weapons, the japanese blades are far more brittle.