European swords vs Asian (esp Japanese katanas)

[Drooling Iguana]

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.

Did you weigh the sword? Swords use their sharp edges to cut through armour. It's not a matter of brute force. A 10kg sword would be pretty much useless on the battlefield.

[Axis Kast]

Bamboo is thick, abundant, and remarkably easy to acquire. It takes time, skill, and significant infrastructure – quarries, mines, and mills – to forge metal equipment.

While I’ve never seen them used in combat, I do understand that Japanese swords are “folded”; a slight bit of metal shaves off whenever something else is cut.

A European sword is probably more useful from the point of view of blunt-force or an unskilled warrior, but a katana is equally as effective in the right hands.

[DarthBlight]

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?

The Chinese and Japanese didn't have access to abundant sources of iron needed for something as extravagant as iron armor. Iron armor also has this nasty habit of rusting in humid weather.

All weapons have their advantages and disadvantages.

Welsh longbow
Advantages -- range, power behind the arrow (the longbow was made to combat mounted knights), simplicity of mechanism
Disadvantages -- archer needs to be a strong guy to use a longbow effectively, they put a severe strain on the skeleton, they are bulky

Crossbow
Advantages -- ease of use, any one could pick up a loaded crossbow and fire it, power behind the arrow, a mechanism rather than brute strength
Disadvantages -- complex machine means something not easy to repair, banned in Europe since the 10th century, expensive to make, bitch-kittens to reload

Composite bow
Advantages -- power and range, better than anything achieved by any other bow
Disadvantages -- An archer needed to be really beefy in order to string the thing, let alone fire it, the expense of making the things was high for ancient times. There were varying layers and they were all glued together. The glue took a long time to dry and if you got it wet, you ruined the bow.

Knights v. samurai:
Depends on terrain. If we're in Japan, the knight is screwed because he will most likely die of heat exhaustion inside that oven that is full plate. If we're in Europe, the knight in 2. One slice and the samurai dies with ::snicker:: honor.

As far as swords go, I would rather have a Western sword. More flexible. You can parry with a Western sword. Try directly stopping a sword with a katana and it is ruined. That's why samurai parry by pushing rather than stopping the blade. Depending on the swords being used, there is an advantage in speed. Samurai have to slash while a master swordsman with a rapier will have the samurai bleeding before the samurai can make the first blow.

[Queeb Salaron]

Excuse me, all, but considering there are few people on the board with first-hand experience in the matter, let me interject a little bit.

First and foremost, Claymore swords are show swords, for the most part. Their Battle-Ready line just plain sucks. Rule of thumb: Don't trust anything made by a machine when it comes to swords. You can see as much judging by their weight; If it doesn't weigh over 10 lbs. (and those are TRAINING swords,) then it's not worth fighting with.

Second, I voted for European swords, and I'll tell you why. It has to do with the average person who weilded each sword. Your average Teutonic knight was of a good family. Good families raised their sons to fight, because as we all know, Teutonic Europe was a veritable powder keg back in the days of olde. Boys learned fencing at the age of 8. By the age of 12, they began training in the arts of knighthood as pages. By 14, they could ride into battle with knights as squires. By 18 they were knighted, providing they could prove their worth. That's 10 years of swordsmanship before they even STARTED "knighting." The average champion was between the ages of 25 and 30. Lancelot, the youngest of the Round Table (or so says T.H. White) was 26. Let's use him, considering he's probably one of the better knights of legend. That's 18 years of swordsmanship. Keep in mind several factors: One, the swords weighed anywhere from 40-60 lbs. Two, the training that these men went through was the basis for most of the "strong-man" competitions you see on ESPN at 2am. So these guys were hugely ripped. Put a post-revival sword in this guys hands, one that weighs, say, 18 lbs (as is standard), we've got head-speed to rival Tiger Woods.

By stark comparison, Japanese soldiers often had martial arts experience from a much earlier age, but these were the arts of flexibility and quickness, not strength. Besides this, their small-arms training didn't begin until the age of 16, at the earliest. Even then, most weapons training was done for show rather than for combat, so the power in their attacks was somewhat lacking. The weapons were designed for one type of attack: Slash. Stabbing was considered "dishonorable," though not so much so as, say, attacking from behind. The attacks that can be made with Katanas are limited. Martial artists rarely resorted to the blade when they could use their finely-honed corporal attacks.

This brings up another point that I forgot to mention earlier: There are four attacks that can be made with a European sword: Stab, slash, slap, and pommell. This means that in swordfighting, there are defenses to four different types of attacks. When the opponenet only uses one type of attack, the defense becomes much easier. And when there is only one type of attack that needs to be analyzed, the fight becomes infinitely more simplistic. Japanese martial arts have no defense to stab attacks other than dodge, and dodging is easily countered.

It could be argued that Japanese fighting is faster, but when you take into account the lighter swords for the Europeans, the quickness of the attack is countered by the new-found quickness of the defense and counter-attacks.

European swordfighters take it by the severing of various limbs before the death-blow.

[Beowulf]

You can see as much judging by their weight; If it doesn't weigh over 10 lbs. (and those are TRAINING swords,) then it's not worth fighting with.

*snip*

One, the swords weighed anywhere from 40-60 lbs.

WTF? What are you smoking? Historically, swords did not weigh over 4 lbs. a 60 lbs sword would be unswingable. You'd fall over, or leave a hole the size of Rhode Island in your defense.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

A short discourse on swords.

First, some swords are situation-specific. Greatswords, such as the Claymore and Swiss Flamberge, are most ideally suited to open areas. Swords such as basket-hilted claymores (which seem to be claymores in name only) are better suited to areas with a moderate amount of room (courtyards, for example). For enclosed or tight spaces, you'll need something small and nimble, like a Gladius or a Katzbalger.

The operational differences between European and Japanese swords:

In construction, European swords typically have a greater blade-to-handle length ratio than their Japanese counterparts, while also sporting a double-edge far more often. This denotes a difference in the fighting styles. European blades tend to do their damage based on weight of the blade increasing the force of the blow for the purpose of penetration rather than the sharpness of the blade.

Japanese swords, on the other hand, typically sport a longer handle in relation to the blade. This is particularly true of the katana, where the length of the handle is determined by its prospective user holding an imaginary katana with the "handle" parallel to his forearm, then measuring from his index finger to the cap of his elbow.

Japanese swords incorporate only a single, slightly curved edge, due to the construction of the blade. The famed folding process results in a blade that is mostly flexible, with the harder steel running only along the blade edge. The concurrent difference in fighting styles is clear -- where the european swordsman relies on forceful blows and thrusts, the Bushi is able to strike more lightly, effecting equal cutting damage with less blunt trauma. The lighter weight of the katana, however, would enable the Bushi greater speed and endurance in a fight.

Swords should, additionally, be chosen according to the circumstances of the fight -- a no-dachi or a Claymore would be a poor choice for either fighter inside a building, for example, while a wakizashi or Gladius might be less than satisfactory on open ground.

My personal choices in both categories:

Enclosed spaces: Gladius or ninjato.
Average spaces: Viking sword or Musashi-style katana.
Open field: Viking spear or jumonji-yari.

[Beowulf]

*snip*
Enclosed spaces: Gladius or ninjato.
*snip*

Interesting discourse. Only nitpick is that there isn't such a thing as a ninjato. There are some really old Japanese swords that are straight bladed, but those are positively ancient. Every other sword is basically either a katana, or wakizashi, excluding extremely uncommonly used swords such as the nodachi. Side note: would a ninja, who primarily would not want to be caught, have a different type of sword than a bushi? A straight bladed sword basically says: "Kill me!"

[Cyborg Stan]

60 lbs? A quick calculation here.

Suppose the blade is pure iron (8g/cm^3), has a diamond cross-section, doesn't taper (ie, doesn't really have a tip - ends in a flat section).

For it to weigh 60 lbs, I calculate that it would have dimensions of 1 inch in thickness, 6" in width, and 5'9" in length. (Or, 2.54 cm in thickness, 15.24 in width, and 175 cm in length.)

Need I point out a few problems with this design?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Additionally, I'd like to point out a few different types of Japanese swords and their main features

No-Dachi: This is much like the standard Tachi, but with a much longer handle. It is typically employed against mounted Bushi.

Tachi: Some claim this to be the predecessor to the Katana. Musashi referred to it is the "long sword" while referring to the Katana simply as the "sword". It possessed greater length than the standard katana, both in blade and handle, as well as greater curvature. Most tachi currently available are primarily showpieces; very ornate, but not very practical as weapons in terms of their construction.

Katana: This is the sword with which most people are familiar. Typically sporting a 26"-28" blade with mild curvature, this sword boasts excellent balance and weight. This weapon can be devastating in the hands of an experienced user.

Shinobigatana or Ninjato: Meaning alternately, Katana of the Shinobi or (later) Blade of the Ninja, this sword has several key differences in comparison to the katana. It features a shorter blade (24-26") with little or no curvature and a yoroidoshi (armor-piercing) point, this weapon was made with thrusting attacks as a much greater consideration than for the katana. This weapon was also more cheaply produced as a result of the different outlook on fighting held by the shinobi. For them, war was a necessary evil, not a noble way of life. The weapon also boasted multifunctional design -- the tsuba (handguard) was large and square -- in combination with the typically pointed saya (scabbard) the guard could be used as an improvised climbing tool.

Wakizashi: This was the smaller counterpart to the Katana: most useful for indoor fighting when necessary, it was typically carried along with the katana by Bushi; the pair were known as a Daishou. Some Bushi fought using both swords simultaneously in what is known as the Nito-Ryu style.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

*snip*
Enclosed spaces: Gladius or ninjato.
*snip*

Interesting discourse. Only nitpick is that there isn't such a thing as a ninjato. There are some really old Japanese swords that are straight bladed, but those are positively ancient. Every other sword is basically either a katana, or wakizashi, excluding extremely uncommonly used swords such as the nodachi. Side note: would a ninja, who primarily would not want to be caught, have a different type of sword than a bushi? A straight bladed sword basically says: "Kill me!"

In undercover operations, the weapon the shinobi carried would be specific to his cover. If posing as a ronin (wandering samurai) he would carry a katana. If posing as a priest or a beggar, he would carry a zatoichi (a straight-blade concealed within a bamboo or lacquered wood staff.)

The shinobi who carried ninjato were primarily mercenaries. Ieyasu Tokugawa employed such mercenaries as his secret police force during the early period of his unification of Japan. Such mercenaries were also involved in the Shimabara rebellion.

The ninjato do exist -- a man named Harunaka Hoshino in San Francisco has a good collection of them. See members.aol.com/sfshinken

[Queeb Salaron]

You can see as much judging by their weight; If it doesn't weigh over 10 lbs. (and those are TRAINING swords,) then it's not worth fighting with.

*snip*

One, the swords weighed anywhere from 40-60 lbs.

WTF? What are you smoking? Historically, swords did not weigh over 4 lbs. a 60 lbs sword would be unswingable. You'd fall over, or leave a hole the size of Rhode Island in your defense.

Hmm... It seems we're talking about two different kinds of swords, here. You are talking about the traditional "broadsword," which we today would associate more along the lines of a fencing foil or a rapier. I was referring to medieval European double-handed knightswords.

As for the iron calculations, you forgot to take into account that the hilts and pommels were solid iron, too. That tacks on between 5-8 lbs.

[DPDarkPrimus]

You are talking about the traditional "broadsword," which we today would associate more along the lines of a fencing foil or a rapier.

*choke* You just compared WHAT?

[Keevan_Colton]

You are talking about the traditional "broadsword," which we today would associate more along the lines of a fencing foil or a rapier.

*choke* You just compared WHAT?

Technically the early swords of the rapier "family" would be classified as a cut-and-thrust broadsword....its not really all that broad.....it's closer in style to a rapier than what most people would think of when told to picture a broad sword.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You are talking about the traditional "broadsword," which we today would associate more along the lines of a fencing foil or a rapier.

*choke* You just compared WHAT?

Technically the early swords of the rapier "family" would be classified as a cut-and-thrust broadsword....its not really all that broad.....it's closer in style to a rapier than what most people would think of when told to picture a broad sword.

I would also put the Basket-Hilt Claymore in this family.

[Cyborg Stan]

I was referring to medieval European double-handed knightswords.

As for the iron calculations, you forgot to take into account that the hilts and pommels were solid iron, too. That tacks on between 5-8 lbs.

Congraulations, you just took off 5-8 lbs out of 60. So instead it gets to be five feet long, instead of five foot nine.

Of course, I already specified that it was a 1"x6"x69" SOLID IRON BAR (density cut in two because I specified a diamond cross section) with NO TAPERING WHATSOEVER - it doesn't come to a point at all. In short, it's an extremely generous measurement.

[Howedar]

I'm not a big fan of Japanese swords. Too fragile, too specialized.

[Drooling Iguana]

Queeb Salaron: Your figures completely contradict everything I've read about swords. Please cite sources.

[Beowulf]

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/sh ... ights.html

The heaviest sword weighs about 2 lb/ft, the swords you propose are realistic would weigh about 10-12 lb/ft, or 5 to 6 times heavier. In short, you have to stop sniffing glue.

[Drooling Iguana]

Or stop playing so much Final Fantasy VII.

[NapoleonGH]

that too.

I would say my prefered sword for single person on person is the Gladius (if it was made with some of the later advances in steel production), a short sword has several advantages over a longsword, if you are using it right in the right kind of formation. In the typical Roman modified phalanx, any given legionary would have only a small area of their body not protected by a sheild, and as was standard tactics, when the person with the longsword tried to swing it around to strike, the legionary could close and stab them under the armpit or in any of a few other areas.

This tactic could be used in general, as the advantage of the short sword is just this, you can move it alot faster and can thus move in and strike while your oponenet is trying to strike at you. Plus the gladius could stab very well and could still slash.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

There are several excellent modern sword dealers. My recommendation for European swords is www.museumreplicas.com or their sister company www.atlantacutlery.com

For Japanese swords, I recommend either www.bugei.com for those with the budget to support it, or a swordsmith named Paul Chen.

[Exonerate]

It's my understanding that the Japanese style relied on making the first move, and when the opponent moved to block it, they would then change and deal a fatal blow... Or that was the theory behind it.

[Queeb Salaron]

Congraulations, you just took off 5-8 lbs out of 60. So instead it gets to be five feet long, instead of five foot nine.

And considering a king's sword could be up to 5'6", that sounds about right. Of course, these swords were only used for show, really, and not battle. Imagine swinging that thing.

Of course, I already specified that it was a 1"x6"x69" SOLID IRON BAR (density cut in two because I specified a diamond cross section) with NO TAPERING WHATSOEVER - it doesn't come to a point at all. In short, it's an extremely generous measurement.

::Shrugs:: Fine. It's generous. It was just a measurement I heard. I'll need to find sources.

Anyway, the point is this: Medieval knightswords were way heavier and the guys who used them were terribly jacked. I still take the knight over the ninja.

[Queeb Salaron]

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/sh ... ights.html

The heaviest sword weighs about 2 lb/ft, the swords you propose are realistic would weigh about 10-12 lb/ft, or 5 to 6 times heavier. In short, you have to stop sniffing glue.

Again, you're talking basket-hilt swords, I'm talking double-handed knightswords. Two TOTALLY different endeavors, friend.

[Boba Fett]

The big sword I was talking about weighted approx 15 kg and the size was approx. 150 cm from the knob to the end of the blade.

The guy who used it is a famous historical person and the champion of the king in the 15th century and was about 2 meter tall.

Someone said that only the sharp edge is needed to cut through a plate armor....

Maybe but in that case you just scratch your opponent. These greatswords were designed to finish off your armored opponent or seriously cripple him by cutting off a limb. You won't do it with a longsword.

On the other hand I agree with Keevan, polarms are better but in case of fighting with an armored opponent I'd use a chained morningstar or a maul.