Main > The Courtyard

Katana vs. Longsword

<< < (2/7) > >>

Sir James A:
Oh gosh, that's a classic. :)

I love R Lee Ermey, but either he or the producers really blew chunks on this one.

A katana does not have a 36" blade. It's usually 26-30", and a 36" blade would be an "O-Katana", which basically means "big katana".

A long sword does not have a 40-50" blade. Most longswords were under 50" for the entire sword! Even the "big boys" like the Albion Duke or Baron come in under 40" of blade length.

Chopping ICE with a sword is basically sword abuse and something that would NEVER be done with a proper sword. And you can see in the slow motion that the katana does not even cut the ice; the ice just happens to crack from the point of impact to the bottom. When the sword has made it less than 1/4 through the ice, the entire block splits and the sword just follows through.

You don't use shields with a long sword.

His cutting technique is garbage when he's cutting the cabbage, but it's cabbage, so it'll cut anyway, even with a junk stainless wall hanger blade if you really wanted to.

With the "leather foot soldier armor" (groan!), he baseball bats with the long sword. He does an actual drawing cut with the katana just by virtue of the angle he swings at, so of course it works better.

And the steel armor. Holy 18 gauge mild steel Indian made abominations, batman! He goes baseball bat with the long sword, again. He thrusts without half swording, which really makes no difference, because nobody with an ounce of sword training would thrust directly at plate; it would happen with a missed thrust that was aimed for an opening.

The katana doesn't bend as much in the thrust because it's a single edged weapon designed primarily for slashing. Only at the very end of the samurai line did they even face solid steel cuirasses, which were imports from Europe and aptly named as "pigeon breasts" (and resemble the peascod breastplates). The long sword will bend more in the thrust because it has completely different blade geometry, and it looks like they used a long sword designed primarily around slashing vs the diamond cross section of the later thrusting oriented blades.

I'm not sure what brand of swords were used for the test, but it doesn't seem like an Albion long sword, and I'm betting the katana isn't a $1,000 Paul Chen T10 Shinto either.

The video basically amounts to "let's see what kind of things we can do with a couple swords that don't reflect what they were ever used for in the first place, and decide which one is better".

I think the katana fans come primarily from either anime or the ninja/samurai movies. The katana is a highly revered object as the pinnacle of the samurai's achievements, so it has sort of a mystical "other worldly" impression on some people.

In reality, katanas were made by folding the steel repeatedly because Japan had garbage steel and it had to be folded repeatedly to remove most of the impurities. European steel was still, for the most part, a better grade of steel, and that was without folding. Japan was an isolated island for many, many centuries, and were limited to their natural resources. They did the best they could with the resources they had, and in the end, made a fantastic weapon that is *comparable* to the European long sword in it's versatility and prevalence. But just like Sir Douglas said, it's apples and oranges.

And don't get me wrong, I love katanas and have a few. I accept them for what they are, and I don't buy into the mystical nonsense that some people place around them.

Lord Dane:
I have to offer my thoughts on this one ... I studied and practiced Aikido well over 25 years and my primary weapons of use were bo-staff and eventually 'katana'. Any practicioner knows full well that a katana blade is both swift and durable as a fighting instrument best used for cutting and slashing (in conjunction with their learned fighting methods). Since the beginning of their age in ancient times, VERY few armorers can even come close to the perfection and practice it takes to make a 'truely-spectacular' blade. I place a 'katana' in this category as the best cutting weapon to this day. Their skill existed long before anyone else had a good understanding of metallurgy. Their secrets were not only passed down between generations in practice but they were written down as well so practices were never forgotten and could be duplicated and refined with years of skillful learning. It is a very refined blade, lightweight, and can be advantageous in the hand of a master-user. However, I would be hard-pressed to have it be used for parrying and thrusting. Even their armor was designed to be light-weight and durable to acclamate to their martial art mastery. The katana was designed to accommodate the warrior's armor and martial skills not the other way around. As sensei says, "Better skill for quick kill". Their fighting methods existed long-before the weapon. Also, the blade itself has slightly less flexibility than a longsword making drawing quicker and easier. Blade length can vary in both weapons comparative to the wielder's reach.

In contrast, the western style longsword was refined to accommodate the heavier armor of the western warrior that relied 'much more' on it for protection as they lacked in measure the martial skill and discipline in general of the Far East. It was more important that their blades be mastered for thrusting and penetrating the heavier grade maille and plate armor typically worn. Westerners built blades for strength and heavy hands because they did not have the martial skills of a truly disciplined warrior like those of the Far East (Japan, China, etc.). The methods of using a longsword skillfully were based upon techniques developed after the weapon was designed. After time, they learned to master their weapon works and custom their weaponry to the user's skill. The advantage of a European style longsword is that it was developed and changed over years so it could be multi-purpose and every part of it used in actual combat to effectiveness in both offense and defense. In this, a warrior could develop new martial skills in combat with the addition of new features.

The Asian warrior culture mastered martial skill and discipline in every aspect of training and everyday life (giving them a distinct advantage) when coupled with weapon use. One came before the other then were taught together.  However, as I am partial to European style being it is my heritage, it is not as practical or advantageous in actual combat in my opinion. Martial skill is more important in focus to mastering a blade or weapon than the weapon itself when it comes to up-close melee style fighting.   

I do share in Sir James thoughts about the 'grade of steel' being better in Europe than Japan. The ore was much more abundant and the methods in weapon-making focused on the strength of the steel as more important than the weight the wielder could handle. In addition, I love 'The Sarge' as well but he should really keep his focus on firearms, shooting, and munitions. Swords in his hands are sloppy and he lacks the experience from his poor cutting demonstrations.

Ian:
I hate this discussion because it's comparing apples and oranges and in most of its facebook and youtube comment section manifestations it virtually always lacks any real information not based in fanboyism and emotion.  The old katana vs longsword argument is more of a 'my dad can beat up your dad' argument than it is anything else.  That being said, the longsword is infinitely more varied in geometry and use than the katana.  There are so many different styles of blade geometry and handling in the longsword world, that calling one style a 'longsword' is an effort in futility.  The 'longsword' is a family of varying style swords and blades that have different cutting properties, thrusting properties, best uses, purposes and drastically different amounts of flex and stiffness.  So when people refer to a longsword, they're really referring to a myriad of different swords that all happen to be of the hand-and-a-half length-ish and even that is an over-simplification.  That further confounds the already silly argument of which sword is better.

And to imply that western warriors lacked martial skill and discipline and a 'true warrior culture' is to perpetuate one of the longest standing myths of the nebulous Asian vs European martial ethos argument.

Lord Dane:

--- Quote from: Ian on 2015-01-04, 15:19:35 ---And to imply that western warriors lacked martial skill and discipline and a 'true warrior culture' is to perpetuate one of the longest standing myths of the nebulous Asian vs European martial ethos argument.

--- End quote ---

Lacked the comparative measure in martial skill and discipline, Ian (but it is my opinion). If these cultures ever warred with each other in their time, it would certainly be interesting on the battlefield. I practiced and studied in the Asian martial culture for many years and I just think historically they have a 'step up' that the Western world strived to emmulate into their own. Asian cultures are more focused on traditional methods and Europeans focused more on modern innovations to advance efforts. We each have our own style and what works. It has bettered the European-Western style I think when they can in contact with each other. Not to say I necessarily prefer one to the other (as they both compliment the other). I love integration - best of both worlds (Take what works - simplify it to meet your own needs). 

Of course, the European methods in making modern warfare far surpassed the Asian culture going into the later eras because of their willingness to innovate and take in other factors from other cultures they dominated over. Romans did it best when conquering their empire. Integration to compliment and advance their own understandings of warfare and weaponry greatly improved their ability to wage wars in different regions.

Sir Wolf:
there can be only one........

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page