A question on sword shape and strength

[Spoonist]

Sorry, didn't get the time yesterday. Here is what I started to write, some of it turned out to be redundant since other posters have gone through it. I will make a second post responding to some of those comments.

First please note that I am by no means an expert in these matters.
Second, also note that the katana is an excellent sword and is a real treat to use against straw men (literally).

If we first adress the discussion with your friend. I'm going to assume that by european sword he means cross-shaped swords, like gladius/spathe/longsword. If so point out that such swords repeatedly during history met counterparts similar to the katana. Yet, they did not go out of fashion.

Now to some specifics.

Here is a very interesting insight into (modern) traditional forging of a Katana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwQqtf86qOc
At the end you can see what Broomstick was talking about when cooling the sword.
Now that is what it takes to make a masterpiece katana. Still, such a masterpiece katana is increadible maintenance heavy. It must be kept oiled at all times.etc
So reallly hard to produce and hard to maintain. As Broomstick said this is not the "common" katana used by the ordinary samurais during the 15th century (when they became popular) instead they had cheaper versions. But for your discussion that is moot.

Now the contemporary 15th century high end sword in northern europoe would be the longsword, aka bastardsword, aka hand and a half sword.

First just to follow up to Broomsticks comment regarding edge-to-edge blocking.
First take a look at this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNZQBc4RpE
you can always parry with the flat of the blade. There is really no reason not to if you are skilled with the blade.
See here for the effect if you would hit edge-to-edge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8UeKcsE3Nw

So lets look at the katana combination technique used to mix martensitic steel of the edge with the pearlitic steel of the back. When you do it properly you get the Hamon, a very beatiful mix in between. Here are some examples;
http://www.tozandoshop.com/v/vspfiles/V ... 99/hm.html
So where the japanese the only to have such a technique? Nope. Its similar to the Pattern welding technique first used by the celts in the 8th century BCE and enhanced during the islamic golden age from 12th century to produce stuff like Damascus steel. All of these produce similar stuff as the Tamahagane process. Heck even the 'crude' viking blades used the technique of soft+hard.

Curvature for cutting then? Again scimitars where well known and used in south eastern europe. Also lots of cavalry favored a curved blade as it wouldn't get stuck in the enemy as easily.

So if europeans knew about all techniques for doing a katana type sword, why didn't they? Well, the muslims did in the thin/light scimitar. But its crap against chain or plate armor. Its also too light to break a shield or force a momentum through a shield wall. Instead what evolved was the falchion, a very crude heavy version of the scimitar. But easy to produce and excellent for its purpose.

Now to be honest the katana wasn't the weapon of choice for the samurai either, instead they got out their naginata (8th cen) or yari (15th cen) if they where going to war, since then they stood a chance vs cavalry. But still.

So in conclusion if you take a good 15th cen longsword and charged into an immovable object, like a armored knight on a horse or similar, your sword would flex and bend but remain whole. Do that with a katana and it might snap, not always mind you, but still often enough to hurt. Again a masterpiece katana would be more flexible but still the risk would be there.

Add to this that with a katana it is very hard to use halfswording techniques, since it is too difficult to hold on to given the edge and blade, halfswording is nice if you want to try to find those softspots and/or penetrate armor. Then add that the katanas most effective strike is within its blade, look at any demonstration, so its range is not as long as its length suggests.

Lets add another thing lets say you got a hack in your blade, when finding blades from the 15th cen, we can see longswords having been resharpened over and over. Not so with the katana, its almost impossible to resharpen. So instead you would mostly leave the hacks in and discard when you could afford to. Again picture yourself fighting a shielded and armored swordsman.

...that's as far as I got before distracted...

[Spoonist]

Forgot to adress why its unfair comparison for the katana. Its because the technique was developed specifically to circumvent the badgrade iron in japan. Plus you are comparing a smallish economy with a vast region of massive economies. European forging was under competetive evolution from within and from the east.
What would the smiths of japan have evolved if they had access to better ore and to continual trade interaction with their neighbours?

So lets look at the other stuff.

Just remembered a relevant mythbuster episode
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/p9kGnV3- ... d-Part-1-2
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/wvPvmfg- ... d-Part-2-2

Some tidbits that might be interesting:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/d ... 5_1_6.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJSE9VLv60&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osTQrJ_axfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyAkA4Fc6CY

Steel suits were not developed until late in the 15th century and didn't ever become widely used except by the richest.

Both of which is equally true to the katana. Rich and 15th cen.

The majority of armor at the time was chain, which is not quite so sword-resistant.

Properly used chain is very sword-resistant. Maybe you have seen tests against mail only, to do it correctly you would have leather and gambeson to complement it. Care to elaborate, like compared to what?

Either way, you didn't "beat" anyone to death with impacts with a sword. With a maul perhaps, but even a warhammer is designed to penetrate rather than beat.

Here I'd disagree on a nitpick, you could beat down someone with a sword even if you do not penetrate, something which is amply demonstrated at any SCA event. Also the warhammer exists in several designs. But most have both a hammer and a spike. A hammer to chock the opponent and the spike to kill him after he is chocked.

Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

Another nitpick. Normally you would not like to impale through the armor, mostly because to commit enough force for such an attack renders you wulnerable but also since you are very likely to get stuck.

It's the old "fill the requirement" principle; the sword was good because it was capable of disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family.

Nitpick, as a big plus it is also designed to kill peasants with abandon.

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier

While they are fun to watch I've got two problems with these sorts of demonstrations. 1 They are set up to be unfair. (First strike, not enough room, not allowed to break the others weapon) 2 They usually don't show the same setup of rapier vs longish western sword, which would show the same 'point' without the implied culturalism.

A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy.

Huh, which definition of mace are you using? Especially when what people usually refer to in this context, the european middle ages, is the flanged mace. Are you thinking of a metal club?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mace[2]

[Eleas]

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier (a real one, not the toys used for fencing) or, even better, an estoc.

I've done that myself. I was on the receiving end. Granted that I was holding a bokken and that this was a foil (in other words, practically a half-inch quadratical cross-section three-foot fucking needle), and I was utterly outclassed. It felt like trying to catch smoke. During ten seconds worth of time, I could barely make blade-on-blade contact once, and beating the opponent's blade away? Good luck with that. In short, I'd agree that a katana versus a rapier should be a horrible experience for the katana wielder.

But that hideous speed offered by these lighter blades will not always translate to being able to effectively fight, say, multiple opponents, or even enemies in a modicum of armour. The katana has its own qualities. Among other things, it should be very decent for mounted use.

I've seen it done and it's so ridiculous one can hardly help laughing. The poor guy with the katana just stands there unable to do anything because he can't get past the point of the rapier or estoc. No matter how good he thinks he is, if he commits to an attack he walks onto the point of that sword and gets skewered. My old fencing master used to repeat the lesson daily. "The point will always beat the edge"

^Recalling the point above, I feel that's generally true, but not always. The point would, I feel, always beet the edge in duels where the conditions are somewhat controlled. Faced by, say, a mob, I would run rather than try my luck with the foil, and even the heavy rapier would be inferior to the katana. But then, I've not had a chance to hold a cutting rapier, so I'm by no means an expert on the matter; these are just my gut feelings.

[Bakustra]

Steel suits were not developed until late in the 15th century and didn't ever become widely used except by the richest.

Both of which is equally true to the katana. Rich and 15th cen.

Eh? The uchigatana was originally a foot soldier's weapon at the time of the Muromachi war, not yet that of a samurai, and the katana is an uchigatana of a certain length. Not to mention that the katana was far more prevalent amongst samurai than steel plate was amongst knights at the time.

The majority of armor at the time was chain, which is not quite so sword-resistant.

Properly used chain is very sword-resistant. Maybe you have seen tests against mail only, to do it correctly you would have leather and gambeson to complement it. Care to elaborate, like compared to what?

Compared to a full steel suit of plate. Many things are less resistant compared to that.

Either way, you didn't "beat" anyone to death with impacts with a sword. With a maul perhaps, but even a warhammer is designed to penetrate rather than beat.

Here I'd disagree on a nitpick, you could beat down someone with a sword even if you do not penetrate, something which is amply demonstrated at any SCA event. Also the warhammer exists in several designs. But most have both a hammer and a spike. A hammer to chock the opponent and the spike to kill him after he is chocked.

Right. So it's designed to kill someone by penetrating through the armor, rather than clubbing them with blunt force, and while you could beat someone to death with a sword, how often did that happen?

Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

Another nitpick. Normally you would not like to impale through the armor, mostly because to commit enough force for such an attack renders you wulnerable but also since you are very likely to get stuck.

Still more common than slamming one's sword over and over again into a breastplate, though.

A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy.

Huh, which definition of mace are you using? Especially when what people usually refer to in this context, the european middle ages, is the flanged mace. Are you thinking of a metal club?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mace[2]

The average flanged mace is closer in size to a nightstick or billyclub than to a sledgehammer or maul. They're about two feet long. At the longer end, you could compare them to a baseball bat in size, but the point is that they're not the Hollywood conception. They also wouldn't have been hugely heavier than a sword, which was also forged out of metal and often longer yet thinner.

[open_sketchbook]

Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

Another nitpick. Normally you would not like to impale through the armor, mostly because to commit enough force for such an attack renders you wulnerable but also since you are very likely to get stuck.

Still more common than slamming one's sword over and over again into a breastplate, though.

You went for the upper thigh, the arm, the shoulders and the head, aiming to knock down, disorient, numb and trip up your opponent. Hitting him in the torso is not only quite difficult but also pretty pointless because he's well armoured and padded there. My instructors made it very clear that the inguina area, which is the upper thigh halfway to the knee and inner thigh, is pretty much the best place to strike as it'll quickly numb the leg and is usually less armoured to allow for mobility, not to mention it hurts like hell. A good hit there and you can pretty much push your opponent over with a shove.

[Spoonist]

Both of which is equally true to the katana. Rich and 15th cen.

Eh? The uchigatana was originally a foot soldier's weapon at the time of the Muromachi war, not yet that of a samurai, and the katana is an uchigatana of a certain length. Not to mention that the katana was far more prevalent amongst samurai than steel plate was amongst knights at the time.

Eh, we seem to have fallen into the trap of westernized lingo. While katana in japanese has a broader use, when used by westerners it usually refers to Daitos of the Muromachi period. Agree/disagree

Compared to a full steel suit of plate.

Aha. Gotcha. Thought it would be something like that. Dislike the use without the context, but hat's my problem.

Right. So it's designed to kill someone by penetrating through the armor, rather than clubbing them with blunt force, and while you could beat someone to death with a sword, how often did that happen?

I think we agree but its a half full/empty kind of thing. The blunt force chock was a key element in mass combat against armored opponents. So its designed to render your opponent vulnerable with blunt force, then kill him off. If you didn't have the blunt force part the weapon would be less useful.
So the ability of a western type sword to do blunt force chock is key to bringing down shields and opponents alike. Otherwise we could have stayed with the gladius.

Normally you would not like to impale through the armor, mostly because to commit enough force for such an attack renders you wulnerable but also since you are very likely to get stuck.

Still more common than slamming one's sword over and over again into a breastplate, though.

I don't think so, slam first, impale later.
Some tactics even had this rulified, first one-two lines of ruffians slamming, stepping over felled opponents, then behind them someone with a rondel & mallet.

The average flanged mace is closer in size to a nightstick or billyclub than to a sledgehammer or maul. They're about two feet long. At the longer end, you could compare them to a baseball bat in size, but the point is that they're not the Hollywood conception. They also wouldn't have been hugely heavier than a sword, which was also forged out of metal and often longer yet thinner.

Then it's me, in my mind a nightstick is shorter than that. Maybe I'm confusing it with a blackjack and not a baton.
Just a note, the inertia/wielding of a sword and a mace of the same weight would be entirely different. So agreed that a hollywood version closer to a sledgehammer would be almost useless in mass combat.

[Stuart]

We appear to have contridicting teachers, as my instructor told me a rapier fighter was worthless the moment he commited to an attack. There is an essay about this idea here that basically says it'd probably end in a draw with both fighters dead.

I'm familiar with the article in question but I think you're misunderstanding his point somewhat. At the end, his last paragraph says "So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think "who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot question and unanswerable. Thus, what it eventually gets down to is not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal skill."

That's a cop-out and effectively saying he doesn't want to accept what he's spent the entire article arguing - that the fighting style and mechanics of the rapier outclass those of the katana. The rapier only loses if its user makes a bad mistake. he also stresses throughout the same point I emphasized. A real rapier is a very different animal from the toys used in modern sport fencing. The killer is reach and the figure is given in the article you quote. The rapier has three feet of additional reach over the katana. That ends the battle right there. An estoc is even more dangerous than a rapier.

Your fencing master is probably referring to the fact that a rapier is pretty useless once the enemy is past its point but that misses the point completely. (sorry) In a fight between two skilled users, the katana doesn't get past the point and if he does, the rapier user drops back to restore distance. That's theoretical anyway since once the katana moves to make its attack, he's dead. he has to close on that point and it'll kill him.

It's worth noting that swords like the katana existed in Europe (cavalry sabres for example). When the rapier arrived, it made them all obsolete. I must admit prejudice here. I love rapiers and estocs, the cold, calculating style of fighting really appeals to my mentality.

Nitpick, as a big plus it is also designed to kill peasants with abandon.

That's true although one can kill with abandon with a rapier as long as one has plenty of space and the other side doesn't. But, when faced with herds of disposable peasants, there are a lot of suitable options. A two-handed sword like a claymore comes to mind.

While they are fun to watch I've got two problems with these sorts of demonstrations. 1 They are set up to be unfair. (First strike, not enough room, not allowed to break the others weapon) 2 They usually don't show the same setup of rapier vs longish western sword, which would show the same 'point' without the implied culturalism.

I don;t see how the word unfair actually applies here. "not enough room" affects both sides equally; both katana and rapier need room to play. If anything lack of room affects the rapier more. "Not allowed to break the opponents weapom" is irrelevent. Any hope of a katana breaking the rapier is a triumph of optimism over reality. The rapier blade is just that much faster and is a tiny target while the rapier itself is not designed to break other people's weapons. It's designed to break other people. "First strike" is reasonable. Both weapons are killers.

It's worth repeating that the rapier made all the other European swords more or less obsolete (granted this was at a time when firearms and bayonets were making swords in general obsolete but the way the rapier pretty much eliminated everything else is striking). Sorry, the "implied culturalism" thing leaves me completely cold and strikes me as an absurd thing to say. The comparison is between two specific weapons; any "culturalism" aspect is in your mind only. Are you going to accuse me of "culturalism" because I'll point out that an F-16 will make mincemeat of a MiG-21?

[Serafina]

What about armor? What types or armor were good against a Rapier? How would that affect the fight?

[Eleas]

It's worth noting that swords like the katana existed in Europe (cavalry sabres for example). When the rapier arrived, it made them all obsolete. I must admit prejudice here. I love rapiers and estocs, the cold, calculating style of fighting really appeals to my mentality

I understand the point you're making, but I think you draw it to absolutes. You note cavalry sabres as an example, but a rapier would fare poorly in exactly that role.

There's no denying that on the whole, as much as I like the katana, a rapier or estoc is a superior weapon. But that does not justify a blanket statement of that kind, IMHO; the cavalry sabre was in use even as far as the early 20th century, and quite prevalent during the 19th. The rapier grants a terrifying advantage in terms of reach and speed, yes, but you'd ideally want a flat surface underfoot so as to be able to lunge and move efficiently.

Again, of course, this is IMHO.


EDIT:

What about armor? What types or armor were good against a Rapier? How would that affect the fight?

A proper rapier, and even moreso an estoc, is surprisingly heavy, and delivers quite the punch at a very narrow point. Once again I will defer to actual historians, but I have no problem in thinking it capable of penetrating through most any sort of chain mail without undue trouble. Plate was often sloped to divert cuts, but I have no idea how that translates. A good rapier fighter would probably provoke an opening in order to stab against the historic weak spots of armour, such as the armpits or the neck.

[Stuart]

What about armor? What types or armor were good against a Rapier? How would that affect the fight?

The rapier and (even more so) the estoc evolved out of the development of armor in the 14th and 15th centuries. Basically, the development of plate armor put slashing swords out of business. The rapier and estoc evolved to target joints and other weak points in armor plate suits and crack them open (using a rapier or estoc puts one in mind of eating a lobster sometimes). Basically, well-designed plate armor makes any kind of generalized attack by a sword a pretty futile approach so the emphasis swung to the use of a highly penetrating precision weapon that could take out specific targets. Of course, once the development along those lines started, the virtues of the weapon became more apparent and it entered general use.

The cavalry sabre was in use even as far as the early 20th century, and quite prevalent during the 19th.

The significant thing here is that the cavalry sabre itself changed significantly during this period and evolved from a slashing weapon into a stabbing weapon. The difference here was exemplified by the British and French cavalry during the Napoleonic wars. British cavalry used an older-style slashing sabre while the French cavalry used a newer-design sabre that was designed for thrusting. In fact the expression "the point will alsways beat the edge" stems from this period when the British cavalrymen were pushing for a French-style sabre to replace their own slashing sabres. They'd noted that while their sabres caused ugly wounds, the French sabres killed people. So, in this respect, I would suggest that the influence of the rapier and the technology behind it did indeed extend to the cavalry sabre.

In fact, thinking about it, the ultimate cavalry weapon was the lance and that's just a very big rapier.

[Eleas]

Interesting. I did not consider that angle. Will have to study this a bit more, as it seems fascinating.

[Bakustra]

Both of which is equally true to the katana. Rich and 15th cen.

Eh? The uchigatana was originally a foot soldier's weapon at the time of the Muromachi war, not yet that of a samurai, and the katana is an uchigatana of a certain length. Not to mention that the katana was far more prevalent amongst samurai than steel plate was amongst knights at the time.

Eh, we seem to have fallen into the trap of westernized lingo. While katana in japanese has a broader use, when used by westerners it usually refers to Daitos of the Muromachi period. Agree/disagree

I'll accept that, with the provision that it refers to Muromachi onwards, not just Muromachi.

Compared to a full steel suit of plate.

Aha. Gotcha. Thought it would be something like that. Dislike the use without the context, but hat's my problem.

Right. So it's designed to kill someone by penetrating through the armor, rather than clubbing them with blunt force, and while you could beat someone to death with a sword, how often did that happen?

I think we agree but its a half full/empty kind of thing. The blunt force chock was a key element in mass combat against armored opponents. So its designed to render your opponent vulnerable with blunt force, then kill him off. If you didn't have the blunt force part the weapon would be less useful.
So the ability of a western type sword to do blunt force chock is key to bringing down shields and opponents alike. Otherwise we could have stayed with the gladius.

Sure, that works for me.

Normally you would not like to impale through the armor, mostly because to commit enough force for such an attack renders you wulnerable but also since you are very likely to get stuck.

Still more common than slamming one's sword over and over again into a breastplate, though.

I don't think so, slam first, impale later.
Some tactics even had this rulified, first one-two lines of ruffians slamming, stepping over felled opponents, then behind them someone with a rondel & mallet.

Conceded.

The average flanged mace is closer in size to a nightstick or billyclub than to a sledgehammer or maul. They're about two feet long. At the longer end, you could compare them to a baseball bat in size, but the point is that they're not the Hollywood conception. They also wouldn't have been hugely heavier than a sword, which was also forged out of metal and often longer yet thinner.

Then it's me, in my mind a nightstick is shorter than that. Maybe I'm confusing it with a blackjack and not a baton.
Just a note, the inertia/wielding of a sword and a mace of the same weight would be entirely different. So agreed that a hollywood version closer to a sledgehammer would be almost useless in mass combat.

Well, I'm just going for a rough comparison. The torque is really what's important in differentiating a mace/axe from a sword, but that ties in to the inertia thing and would have made problems with having too large a mace. After all, try swinging a sledgehammer and retaining control of the thing.

[Spoonist]

I'll accept that, with the provision that it refers to Muromachi onwards, not just Muromachi.

Oh, absolutely. Lots of wank comes from WWII after all.

Just a note, the inertia/wielding of a sword and a mace of the same weight would be entirely different.

Well, I'm just going for a rough comparison. The torque is really what's important in differentiating a mace/axe from a sword, but that ties in to the inertia thing and would have made problems with having too large a mace.

*looks up torque vs inertia* Ah, what I was looking for was 'moment of inertia' english not being my first language.

An estoc is even more dangerous than a rapier.

Hmm, I'd have thought the reverse would be true. I've handled both but never considered pitching them against oneanother. Please elaborate, its always nice to get changing data.

When the rapier arrived, it made them all obsolete.

While I agree with the sentiment, its too wide a blanket. Lots of sword-deratives had its uses even after the advent of rapiers.

But, when faced with herds of disposable peasants, there are a lot of suitable options. A two-handed sword like a claymore comes to mind.

Itsy bitsy nitpick but the context was "disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family" so I'd exclude the claymore as something which could do both.

I don;t see how the word unfair actually applies here.

Because we know the outcome. Its like a pro-wrestling match.
Before going further note first that as you could deduce from the "I've got" its a personal opinion which is the result of the events I've been to. You are taking a reference to a personal experience waaaay to serious.

"First strike" is reasonable. Both weapons are killers.

Even if its a hand or a foot? Nah, I like point systems better, where more vital areas score a better point.

Sorry, the "implied culturalism" thing leaves me completely cold and strikes me as an absurd thing to say.

So far I've seen a dozen such events. Two in the US, two british, one italian and the rest in scandinavia. What is obvious common theme to most of them is counter-playing on the audience's prejudice. First you show a build-up showing whatever the show is about, renaissance/viking/knights/etc. Then as an intermission you invite some poor sod of a bushido wanker with a katana and let him face a weapon he can not defeat. In europe it seemed friendly in the US it looked like they really had no warning beforehand. So you show the inferiority of the katana/bushido to whatever. Then you cut back to whatever the show was about. No chance to show what the katana was good at or which its purpose was or even its context.
The effect on the audience is to remove their too high esteem of samurais. But of the ones I've seen, only one in Malmö had a role-reversal where the samurai was set up to "win" in his correct context.
So to me its definately culturalism, especially so in the US/britain.
Now if the events where you have been to did not have that overtone or if you think that such a motive only exists in my head, then you are of course free to feel that way. My subjective observation remains.

The cavalry sabre was in use even as far as the early 20th century, and quite prevalent during the 19th.

...
So, in this respect, I would suggest that the influence of the rapier and the technology behind it did indeed extend to the cavalry sabre.

In fact, thinking about it, the ultimate cavalry weapon was the lance and that's just a very big rapier.

Hmm, wasn't the estoc specifically designed for riders/cavalry? Hence its sometimes unwieldlish length. Like for the hussars (hi PeZook) it was designed so that it could be used as a lance after you lost the real one and as a meele weapon.
Also didn't the estoc come before the rapier?

Then I'd just say that a gun beats a lance any day.

[PaperJack]

I'd just like to mention that the very apex of folded and pattern metal blades were the Viking swords. Those guys folded their metal THOUSANDS of times, not a few hundred like the japanese.
Besides, metal folding is actually a bad thing as it's the process used to remove impurities from the metal, meaning that if you have to do it a lot, you have got really crappy iron to start with.

On another point, Katanas were intended for use only against targets with little to no armor, meanwhile european swords had to be used against the most sophisticated steel armors ever created AND lightly armored to unarmored paesants.

Katanas are also a huge conservative party symbol in Japan, as their design pretty much never changed for thousands of years, mostly deviating in weight and balancing point distribution to suit the fighting style of the samurai who wielded it better.
Meanwhile, European swords were in a costant state of evolution as was the armor, each trying to outdo the other.

Katanas, however, received a much bigger novelization and theatre plays such as the Kabuki in which Katanas are magical world chopping swords - a fact which I believe contributed in their overly exaggerated popular opinion.

Overall, I'm pretty sure that a Katana would be nigh-useless against european armor.
On the other hand, an european sword, while not being able to chop 4 prisoners (wtf?) in one hit, will still be able to defeat Samurai armor with ease.

[Spoonist]

.

Please read the whole thread before posting thank you. Also I hope that you are prepared to back up your data.

[Terralthra]

Do you have any evidence for this? It sounds patently absurd on the surface. You assert that the sword, the most popular weapon in the history of pre-modern warfare, was preferred because it was less lethal than the less expensive, more durable mace? I am extremely skeptical.

I think you misspelled "spear."

[Broomstick]

After all, try swinging a sledgehammer and retaining control of the thing.

Hee hee hee - I've actually tried to do that

Well, really, the whole idea is to "swing" a sledge, but usually you're working with gravity to use it to drive something into the ground or whatever. In combat, with horizontal swings, it would be something else - and very difficult. Possibly very effective at killing or at least knocking people down, if you could do it, but very difficult.

[Broomstick]

Well, I'm just going for a rough comparison. The torque is really what's important in differentiating a mace/axe from a sword, but that ties in to the inertia thing and would have made problems with having too large a mace.

*looks up torque vs inertia* Ah, what I was looking for was 'moment of inertia' english not being my first language.

Not too many native speakers would get that right, either. I only understand the distinction because of my aviation hobby. I'd expect engineers to get it right. Not too many else.

But, when faced with herds of disposable peasants, there are a lot of suitable options. A two-handed sword like a claymore comes to mind.

Itsy bitsy nitpick but the context was "disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family" so I'd exclude the claymore as something which could do both.

Depends on the claymore - the two handed variety, no, but the one-handed claymore would probably fit that role.

Also didn't the estoc come before the rapier?

That's why quick on-line research suggests.

[Marcus Aurelius]

In fact, thinking about it, the ultimate cavalry weapon was the lance and that's just a very big rapier.

Hmm, wasn't the estoc specifically designed for riders/cavalry? Hence its sometimes unwieldlish length. Like for the hussars (hi PeZook) it was designed so that it could be used as a lance after you lost the real one and as a meele weapon.
Also didn't the estoc come before the rapier?

Then I'd just say that a gun beats a lance any day.

Stuart probably meant that the lance was the ultimate weapon for traditional mounted cavalry combat. Although cavalry certainly could use guns on horseback and sometimes with great effect, by the time loading a long gun while riding a horse became an easy task, the same developments that made it possible forced cavalry to fight more and more like mounted infantry. There were still some tactical situations where a cavalry charge was a plausible scenario even in WW2, but they were nevertheless becoming increasingly rare already during the second half of the 19th century.

[Gil Hamilton]

The significant thing here is that the cavalry sabre itself changed significantly during this period and evolved from a slashing weapon into a stabbing weapon. The difference here was exemplified by the British and French cavalry during the Napoleonic wars. British cavalry used an older-style slashing sabre while the French cavalry used a newer-design sabre that was designed for thrusting. In fact the expression "the point will alsways beat the edge" stems from this period when the British cavalrymen were pushing for a French-style sabre to replace their own slashing sabres. They'd noted that while their sabres caused ugly wounds, the French sabres killed people. So, in this respect, I would suggest that the influence of the rapier and the technology behind it did indeed extend to the cavalry sabre.

In fact, thinking about it, the ultimate cavalry weapon was the lance and that's just a very big rapier.

Wasn't it also true that the British cavalry sabres of the day weren't very good? I've seen an antique of the 1840 American Cavalry sabre (the "Old Wristbreaker") and guy talking about it claimed it came about because the British sabres the Army was using previously were pretty crappy and they wanted something that would, you know, be dangerous to the other guy when the time came. But I believe even that sword was designed for slashing and was replaced by a lighter sword during the Civil War.

[Ford Prefect]

I'd just like to mention that the very apex of folded and pattern metal blades were the Viking swords. Those guys folded their metal THOUSANDS of times, not a few hundred like the japanese.

At this point we can essentially dismiss everything you have to say, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It would be very rare to find a Japanese sword which had been folded more than sixteen times, which is about sixty thousand individual layers. It's my understanding that there is literally no benefit to folding steel beyond twenty time, due to diffusion of carbon.

Incidentally, the idea of a sword with a one and half trillion septillion septillion individual layers is pretty hilarious.

[Thanas]

Do you have any evidence for this? It sounds patently absurd on the surface. You assert that the sword, the most popular weapon in the history of pre-modern warfare, was preferred because it was less lethal than the less expensive, more durable mace? I am extremely skeptical.

It sounds right to me given the prevailing ethos of warfare at that time. It's the old "fill the requirement" principle; the sword was good because it was capable of disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family. A mace on the other hand was a killer, plain and simple. The only way you'd send the victim back to his family was in a box. Thus, the economics ran in favor of the sword rather than the mace. A lot of warfare stuff is counter-intuitive like that.

I am not buying that - the Byzantines for once used both swords and mace equally and they did not have any ethos that prescribed keeping the enemy alive - the opposite, really.

I'd rather submit that the mace was good in close, pitched battle against armour. However, given that a lot of people used ranged weapons like spears, swords were more useful against those due to length and slashing attacks.

You're still wrong. A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy. It is solid metal, but so is a sword for all intents and purposes, and a mace is generally shorter. Sure, it transfers force easier through rigid materials, but chain and padding aren't rigid. Even then, blunt trauma was traded for flanged heads that could dent armor later on. A heavy maul or sledgehammer is closer to what you're thinking of, but those were far rarer weapons on the field of battle due to weight.

Of course a mace is the heavy death-instrument. Medieval maces, especially the flanged mace were quite long (up to 1m in length iirc) and very deadly. Heck, some enemies feared the Byzantine mace (or the elite troops that wielded it) so much that they fled instead of facing them.

However, it is worth noting that the mace was only ever really used as a standard weapon in Eastern Europe/Bzantine Empire, which makes sense as the people there were generally better armoured than the west until the 10th century or so.

I'd just like to mention that the very apex of folded and pattern metal blades were the Viking swords. Those guys folded their metal THOUSANDS of times, not a few hundred like the japanese.

Do you know where the vikings got their techniques? They got it from the Rhine, where they used to buy their weapons. The smiths there got it from the East or Late Antiquity forging techniques. The Viking sword is just another variation of the Damaszener steal, which had been in use before the vikings.

[Bakustra]

I'd just like to mention that the very apex of folded and pattern metal blades were the Viking swords. Those guys folded their metal THOUSANDS of times, not a few hundred like the japanese.

At this point we can essentially dismiss everything you have to say, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It would be very rare to find a Japanese sword which had been folded more than sixteen times, which is about sixty thousand individual layers. It's my understanding that there is literally no benefit to folding steel beyond twenty time, due to diffusion of carbon.

Incidentally, the idea of a sword with a one and half trillion septillion septillion individual layers is pretty hilarious.

Just as an example, take a piece of paper and fold it in half as many times as you can. With ordinary copy paper, you should only be able to fold it six times. That piece will have 64 layers with only 6 folds. If you could make seven folds, that would be 128 pages. In other words, folding and no. of layers follow an exponential relationship. In the case of sixteen folds, in terms of paper that's like folding 45 copies of War and Peace in half. Pretty impressive, though the metal layers are far thinner than the paper layers.

[Bakustra]

You're still wrong. A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy. It is solid metal, but so is a sword for all intents and purposes, and a mace is generally shorter. Sure, it transfers force easier through rigid materials, but chain and padding aren't rigid. Even then, blunt trauma was traded for flanged heads that could dent armor later on. A heavy maul or sledgehammer is closer to what you're thinking of, but those were far rarer weapons on the field of battle due to weight.

Of course a mace is the heavy death-instrument. Medieval maces, especially the flanged mace were quite long (up to 1m in length iirc) and very deadly. Heck, some enemies feared the Byzantine mace (or the elite troops that wielded it) so much that they fled instead of facing them.

However, it is worth noting that the mace was only ever really used as a standard weapon in Eastern Europe/Bzantine Empire, which makes sense as the people there were generally better armoured than the west until the 10th century or so.

I'm talking about sledgehammeresque Hollywood portrayals, though. The actual flanged maces were certainly deadly weapons.

[Spoonist]

I think you misspelled "spear."

After all, try swinging a sledgehammer and retaining control of the thing.

Hee hee hee - I've actually tried to do that

Have you tried dane/bearded axes or similar? Its crazy, once it gets going it gets going with you not vice versa. I imagine that a sledgehammer is similar?

In fact, thinking about it, the ultimate cavalry weapon was the lance and that's just a very big rapier.

...Then I'd just say that a gun beats a lance any day.

Stuart probably meant that the lance was the ultimate weapon for traditional mounted cavalry combat.

Sorry if I was unclear, it was intended as a pun not as an actual argument, I thought the smilie would give it away.

Do you know where the vikings got their techniques? They got it from the Rhine, where they used to buy their weapons. The smiths there got it from the East or Late Antiquity forging techniques. The Viking sword is just another variation of the Damaszener steal, which had been in use before the vikings.

Please elaborate, its always nice to learn something new.
I thought that vikings where still using the bloomery furnace and their forging techniques which they most likely got after the Franks spread it to what is now Denmark. Because of the high grade charcoal and iron from the swe-nor peninsula they could still compete with the weapons from the new catalan forges in continental europe. Until the coming of the blast furnace in Lapphyttan in 1150 after the viking era. Which was probably a result of viking Russia trading with the Mongols directly and bypassing byzans.
Has there been changing archeological evidence for this not to be the case? Or are you refering to the start of the iron age in the m-e?