# Sword vs Katana?



## Bob Hubbard

In a discussion at an artsite, one of the artists brought up the question below. I'm curious on what our takes here would be on it.



> In your opinion, what is better in a technical way. Western or Japanese warfare? Knight or Samurai, if both had the same degree of ability?... hand and a half swords, halberds, two handed swords... daisho, nodachi, naginata... Many support Japanese steel was stronger due to the way it was forged, but Toledo and Damascus steel blades were considered by many as the finest blades in the world...
> 
> 
> I am mostly referring to weapon types, steel quality and equipment. Give me your thoughts, but tell me -why- you think either would be better in a battlefield or a one-on-one duel.



Original discussions:
http://jessicaelwood.deviantart.com/journal/14166777/
http://jessicaelwood.deviantart.com/journal/14205106/
***Warning*** Some artwork may not be work safe.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

My reply:
Interesting question.

There are major differences between Japanese and European armor, with the European being a deflection type, and the Japanese being a 'catch and inhibit' type (mind you, over simplifying here). Looking at the weaponry, the Japanese Katana is considered by many to be one of the best made swords ever. It's forging and balance was often far superior to those of the European knight, whose blades were often left unsharpened and used more to bludgeon than cut. Samurai were more prone to movement as the European knight 's armor made him a slow moving lumbering fighter.

I would go with whomever got in the first good strike. A solid blow from the European would possibly stun or fell the Samurai allowing the knight to close for the finish, however the Samurai should have speed of movement on his side, which should allow him a more elegant strike at the knights weak points with a better chance to inflict mortal damage.


----------



## Mr. E

I don't think you can compare the two unless you compare _everything_ going on around them.

The katana was used both in war and as an individual weapon. George Silver was famous for complaining that people in his age were running around with weapons that could not be used on the battlefield. There is a lot of debate, but it does appear that someone with a battlefield weapon would be at a great disadvantage in a London street fight.

The katana was longer during times of war, and even longer when most samurai were mounted. So you really can't even pick one type of weapon when you talk about a katana vs sword debate.

As for armour, have you considered that samurai were modifying European armour and there seems to be a few cases of Europeans using imported Japanese armour? By the time there was trade and interaction, firearms were making themselves known and armor was on its way out in the west. So it is hard to say which would have been better. Certainly the Japanese seemed to have learned a lot from European Armour, but the trend of simpler armour had been going on for a long time.

I guess I am trying to say that both did very well in the areas and situations that they were designed for. Taking one and putting it into another would be difficult since the battlefields has so many other things going on around them.


----------



## Blindside

I'm afraid I disagree with pretty much everything you said.



> Looking at the weaponry, the Japanese Katana is considered by many to be one of the best made swords ever. It's forging and balance was often far superior to those of the European knight, whose blades were often left unsharpened and used more to bludgeon than cut.


 
Forging quality is at least equal between the east and west.  You have a different method of forging certainly, since Japan was stuck with extremely problematic iron sources, but better?  I don't think so, a katana cannot due things that a spring tempered blade can, like bending in half and returning true.  Balance is strictly a personal/style issue, but the simple fact is a western blade is generally lighter per unit of length than the katana.  The katana is also thicker in cross-section than a western blade.  A katana built for cutting tamishigiri is thinner to provide less drag, the western blade is already there without sacrificing strength.  And the "blades left unsharpened" bit is a pretty hoary old myth.  SOME blades left a portion of the length unsharpened, but if you were going to bludgeon someone, why wouldn't you just use a purpose built weapon for that?  



> Samurai were more prone to movement as the European knight 's armor made him a slow moving lumbering fighter.


 
I'd argue with you on the "slow lumbering fighter" bit, since its been shown that men in plate armor could do cartwheels (Henry VIII).  But this stereotype has been perpetuated by plenty of movies.  If you go and look at the European fechtbooks you find all kinds of equivelents between footwork and sword usage of two-handed weapons.  I don't see the katas from the koryu sword arts jumping around or working angles like you see in FMA.       



> I would go with whomever got in the first good strike. A solid blow from the European would possibly stun or fell the Samurai allowing the knight to close for the finish, however the Samurai should have speed of movement on his side, which should allow him a more elegant strike at the knights weak points with a better chance to inflict mortal damage


 
What armor are you talking about?  Plate armor pretty much won the arms race against the sword, to the point that those fully armored knights abandoned the use of the shield and were using poleaxes and the like to get enough energy through punch through opponent's armor.  In the theoretical sword vs. sword encounter, the knight could trade blows with impunity.  I'd go with the knight in that case.

The western technology was simply "better."  Japan never reached the level of protection that the best western armor afforded, and I have little doubt that the west could match the capabilities of a katana is sword construction.  

This question always comes down to skill, which is a completely unquantifiable factor, in both cases we are talking about warrior castes who were brought up to fight.

Lamont


----------



## Grenadier

The Japanese at the time, never really had access to large amounts of high quality iron ore, which may have played a significant factor in the way they made armor.  It certainly did play a role when it came to making steel for weapons.  

There are also many incorrect notions about European blades.  Despite what some folks may claim, swords were not 20 pound bashers.  If a fighter wanted to bash someone with a weapon, he would have employed  blunt weapons, such as a mace, a hammer, flail, etc., and not a sword.  

If anything, I would guess that one handed swords that weighed more than a few pounds would be unusual indeed, which would put them about at the same weight as their Japanese counterparts, maybe slightly heavier.


----------



## grydth

Unless the edge in weaponry is so pronounced as to make one side virtually invulnerable - and here it was not - battles tend to turn on other things:

Individual effort (or luck).... The arrow in the eye at Hastings. The grenade landing in the Serapis' magazine. The cannon shot severing the bridge cable over the Rhine.

Weather... The huge Prussian Knights could have ridden down most anything.... until a clever opponent made them sit in the hot sun all day before attacking.

Tactics and leadership... the Japanese Samurai were grateful for the Divine Wind as they weren't doing well against the Mongols... the Samurai Army of 1600 was immensely more formidable. What titan - or fool - commands each army?

Support forces... The Ashigaru probably outclassed the serf levies, but what havoc would the crossbowmen have wrought on the Japanese?

Other equipment and conditioning.... for years the Europeans could have murdered folks with musket and cannon fire...until the Japanese learned and improved.

Let's not forget that when we get down to broadsword vs katana, there's one other factor - the warrior wielding it. Not all Samurai were Musashi's anymore than all knights were Prince Valiant's. Training, morale, conditioning..... let's never forget that disease cut down more people than both swords put together.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Some links on armour:
http://www.artofchainmail.com/patterns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour) (additional links there)


----------



## Sukerkin

I'm glad to see that some have already put strokes to the page in correcting the heavily entrenched myths that surround European armour and weaponry.  Well done those people :tup:.  

I sha'n't elaborate further, as most of the major points have already been made, other than to say that much of the reverence surrounding the katana is down to the fact that, given the materials they had to work with, Japanese smiths had the devil of a time making something serviceable.  When something is hard to create then it tends to attract 'value' and gather a mythos.

I'm a bit surprised that  *Bob*'s view was as it was tho' !  If the owner of such a knowledge-filled site can believe such, what chance have we of educating the non-martial artist .


----------



## thardey

Something else that confuses people about the strength of Japanese metallurgy, compared to European, is the whole "folded blade" construction that was introduced to the public via the Highlander movies.

I remember as a kid when those came out, the "folded steel" blade was magical. In the movies it could cut through 1-inch steel handrails like it was a lightsaber!

Since most people don't even know the difference between Iron and steel, they assumed that the Europeans simply "made steel", and poured it into a sword-shaped mold. Since it didn't "fold" it wasn't magical.

Actually, if you look at some of the Oakeshott pieces, especially the ones that got fished out of rivers, or burial sites, it reveals that from way back (I can't remember how far, but at least the Type X swords, which were from the Viking era) that they used "braided steel" (AKA "pattern welded"), which was as strong, but had different properties than folded steel. 

Let's see if I can do this justice in just a few paragraphs.

After you dug and refined the Iron, it came out as a lump. Then you would heat it in a Carbon-rich forge (usually Coal, or charcoal), then pound it into a bar. (Also know today as a "Sword-shaped Object"). Every time you heated and pounded the bar, carbon from the coal would leach into the outer millimeters of the iron bar, creating a steel "case" around the lead. Then, if you were Japanese, you would pound that bar into a sheet, (creating a large surface area of steel), then fold it over, and forge weld it together. Now you have a case of steel around an iron bar, with a layer of steel inside. Fold it 10 times or so, and you get a multiplier effect.
Starting with 3 layers (The "top", the "bottom" and one in the middle.)
3x2-1=5; 
5x2-1=9; 
9x2-17; 
17x2-1=33; 
33x2-1=65; 
65x2-1=129; 
129x2-1=257; 
257x2-1= 513; 
513x2-1=1025; 
1,025x2-1=2,049!

(I subtracted 1 layer each time, because the 2 outer layers would fuse together each time, and become 1 layer in the center.) In 10 folds, you get over 2,000 layers. 

The Europeans would take that bar of steel-encased iron, and stretch it out into a thick wire, clip it into 3 even lengths, and braid it together, do this 5 or 6 times, and the steel also gets into the iron. You don't end up with layers of steel within the iron, you end up with "rivers" of steel that run the length of the blade.

Like a corrugated metal sheet, the strength of the metal depends on which way the ribs go. The Japanese style had "ribs" of steel running across the blade primarily, which resulted in more strength along the cutting axis, but was weaker from the flat side of the blade. 

The European blade was equally strong from all lateral strikes (metallurgically speaking, not blade geometry), but would have a little more flex, and "spring" back into position. But it was the strongest for thrusting, since that was the way the steel "ribs" would run. (Handy for penetrating chain armor, or finding gaps in plate armor.)

Also, because the swords were designed to attack specific types of armor, they could be tempered differently. Japanese swords tended to be tempered at a higher temperature, which gives them more of a glass-like quality. Extremely sharp, but brittle. European swords tended to be tempered at a lower temperature, which gave them a spring-like quality. Sharp enough, but you don't have to be as careful with them when striking against iron or steel.

The Japanese later replicated this by folding the steel around a soft iron bar. The soft iron could take the shock of the strike, but you could still temper the steel for maximum "sharpness" (martensite, I think is the technical term, IIRC.)

Remember that you could take a folded steel sword, and spring-temper it, then it would behave more like a European sword, or you could take a braided steel sword, and temper it higher, and it would behave more like a Japanese sword. (Again in regards to metallurgy only, not blade geometry.)

In modern technology, we finally have the ability to melt large vats of iron, which means we can simply stir in the desired amount of carbon, which gives us a uniform, predictable grade of steel throughout the bar. That means that any old chunk of spring steel (high carbon -- I use leaf springs, myself), is superior in metallurgy that either braided or folded steel. That gives me more room to play with the type of temper, and blade geometry.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I base much of my view of the heavily armored European knight off stuff from folks like Mike Lodes (loved the weapons that made britain series).  It's been my findings that Japanese armor was lighter and allowed more mobility than full European plate.  I've also read that the average long and 2+ hand swords were minimally sharpened, and used more to knock down and concuss an opponent, rather than the slice and cut word work I've seen more often associated with the Japanese.    The design of the European sword is more stab and chop than cut and slice.

That's not saying there aren't excellent European sword arts or styles.  But I don't think that someone wearing 400lb+ full plate is going to execute a dainty disarm, spin kick and thrust.

2 guys wearing chainmaile of their respected cultures on the other hand, will have more mobility to effectively maneuver and act.

http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordstypology.html


> The first five types and five sub-types have been swords more suited for cutting/chopping than thrusting. With the advent of plate armour, the swords had to become stiffer and more suited for thrusting.


This is from an acknowledged expert who states that medieval european swords were cutting/chopping & thrusting weapons.



> The katana was primarily a cutting weapon, or more specifically, a slicing one. However, the katana's moderate curve allows for effective thrusting as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana#Use


I'm very open to correction where I may be wrong, but need some backup documentation to look at.


----------



## thardey

I don't have the proper link, but If you check out myarmoury.com you may find it there. But most battlefield armor weighed about 50-60 lbs. There were the really heavy suits (over 100 lbs.), as well as the heavy swords (10+ lbs., called "bearing swords) that went with them, but they were for ceremonial purposes. (Like the Pope's armor, for instance - lots of protection, little expectation to fight).

Also, some of the heavier gauge armor was only used for jousting at tournament, or they could attack reinforcement plates to their regular battlefield armor, which made it heavier.

Even at 60 lbs, most plate armor was actually bulletproof for the weapons used at the time.


----------



## thardey

Heres some documentation regarding armor weight

http://www.clevelandart.org/educef/art2go/pdf/armor_binder.pdf (page 8)


----------



## benj13bowlin

As far as the sword vs katana debate is concerned I do not have much of an opinion.  I wanted to say that the plate armor was not invulnerable to weapons of that day.  The swords could not cut through it but many were still sharpened and used against lighter armored opponents.  Against plate armor people would mostly use heavy weapons like a battle axe, club, or war hammer.  Also anything lighter that a heavy crossbow would not have been able to pierce plate armor.

http://blog.empyree.org/post/2797
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/ufarm/hd_ufarm.htm
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm


----------



## Blindside

> It's been my findings that Japanese armor was lighter and allowed more mobility than full European plate.


 
If we are going to use Wikipedia as a source, take a look at the average weight of the O'yoroi armor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-yoroi

It cites 65 pounds.  Seems rather comparable to the full plate weight ranges of 40-60/50-70 pounds....  So no dainty disarm, spin kick and thrust for the samurai either.



> 2 guys wearing chainmaile of their respected cultures on the other hand, will have more mobility to effectively maneuver and act.


 
A full suit of mail will weigh about the same as well made plate but have poorer weight distribution.  



> This is from an acknowledged expert who states that medieval european swords were cutting/chopping & thrusting weapons.


 
Cutting/chopping does not imply bludgeoning.  "Slicing" is not better when it comes to penetrating armor.  The earliest mail armors were quite suited to defend against the slice.  Incidentally, the author of that cited link, Bjorn Hellquist, has also described handling a Type X sword that was sharp enough to cut paper, about 1000 years after construction.
A description by those same two authors on a Type XVIII, you'll note that they do not say "unsharpened" or dull anywhere in the write-up.  They do talk about thicker cross-sectional geometries though.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_thames.html

Lamont


----------



## Mr. E

grydth said:


> Tactics and leadership... the Japanese Samurai were grateful for the Divine Wind as they weren't doing well against the Mongols...



IIRC, the Mongols had such great losses in the storm because they unable to make a camp on the beach. The Japanese fought them so well that they had to remain on their ships.


----------



## Sukerkin

Okay, gentlemen.  I was going to stay out of this one as it's as big a minefield of incomplete research, gross assumptions, myths paraded as fact and mis-cited sources as the history of Korean sword arts.

But I can see, to my surprise, that despite the impeccable martial arts background of the posters on this forum, the understanding of the European martial tradition and the history of it's arms and armour is actually little understood.

I won't fill the post with a gamut of links to websites and provide an academic reading list, as I think that would just stultify proceedings.  Instead, I'll make a few, unsupported, assertions and hopefully the discourse will flower from either agreement or disputation with one or all of them:

1)  Hollywood is an ***.  It is responsible for the promulgation of more false history than any other medium on the planet (including the Korean government).  Accept it's output as having more than a touching contact with true history at your peril.

2)  I really hope we have some qualified European swordsman on the board who can give some first hand accounts of the weaponry and it's application (*Langenschwert* ... help!).  If not, Google places like _Netsword_ and _Sword Forum International_ and dig through their archives.

3)  The finesse and flexability possible in a suit of full harness (plate armour) has to be seen to be believed.  Rolls, cartwheels, sprints and above all general combat mobility is incredible to watch.  Needless to say, if untrained then you will be as cumbersome as any normal Joe in a Sumo Fat Suit but once trained ...  blimey!  I was as sceptical as a sceptic on Sceptic Day about the manoever capabilities of a man in plate until I actually saw a pair in harness spar :jaw drops:.

4) To say that a man in full harness was the equivalent of a MBT on the medieval battlefield is not much of an exageration.  Unless mobbed to the ground or attacked by the weapons developed in response to it (mauls, pole axes et al) you were pretty immune to attack by less than your peers (some circles even speculate that that's where the well known phrase comes from as only your Peers could contest with you).

5) Whilst not held in the same religious reverence as the 'almighty' katana (bear in mind I'm a Nihon-phile and a student of JSA), the sword as utlilsed by the noble classes was a magnificent technical achievement.  

It was, however, the equivalent of the officers pistol of later ages i.e. the weapon of last resort when dealing with armoured enemies.  Similarly, the katana, whilst revered as the Soul of the Samurai at the end of the Tokugawan dynasty, was, during the time of endemic civil war, held in much the same light.  The bow and the spear were much more highly useful on the field of warfare.  The fact that the *gun* was the favoured weapon for several hundred years is oddly brushed over .

6) The katana is _not_ some super-sword that vastly outclasses any other.  My sensei has seen with his own eyes Iwata Sensei (I think it was) slap a shinken sideways in a tub of water and the sword disintegrated i.e. the laminated sections of steel edge and iron core simply came apart because the force came from where it 'shouldn't'.  It is superbly adapted to the (insular) field in which it was intended to be used (being second, sorry, third only to the bow and the spear ({whispers} sorry, fourth, I was forgetting the gun{/whispers}).

I love learning to wield the katana but I am not blind to the fact that the metallurgy of the West was superior and if I was pressed would say that the Bastard Sword is the pinnacle of sword development in terms of flexability of use and combative durability.

7) The protective capability of the full harness employed by nobility is another of those 'got to be seen to be believed' occaisions.  Tests have been done in the lab that show that even the massively hyped Longbow could not penetrate plate armour.  These have been backed up by field tests after protests from people (such as me) weaned on the legend of Agincourt and Crecy claimed that the tests were flawed.  Brave volunteers clad in full plate have *walked* up to people shooting them with bowfire :faints:.

So please, no more of this 'clumsy knight armed with a blunt steel club' nonsense.


----------



## grydth

Mr. E said:


> IIRC, the Mongols had such great losses in the storm because they unable to make a camp on the beach. The Japanese fought them so well that they had to remain on their ships.



While I think this point has some merit, it needs to be taken in context.... and there are smarter tactical moves both of us could make than hijacking the Site Administrator's thread....I'm not thinking there'd be a Divine Wind that would save us from the (Mongol) Thought Admiral.... I'd debate it on War College if you'd like.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

grydth said:


> While I think this point has some merit, it needs to be taken in context.... and there are smarter tactical moves both of us could make than hijacking the Site Administrator's thread....I'm not thinking there'd be a Divine Wind that would save us from the (Mongol) Thought Admiral.... I'd debate it on War College if you'd like.


Actually, that'd probably be a good topic there.   No worries here though.

Personally, I'm enjoying the thread's progress. 

I do have 1 question: What amount of the blade of a Bastard Sword was sharpened and kept sharp?


----------



## Blindside

Bob Hubbard said:


> I do have 1 question: What amount of the blade of a Bastard Sword was sharpened and kept sharp?


 
Well, you have specialized designs like the estoc which quite literally didn't have a blade, they had a triangular or diamond cross-section, it was entirely designed for thrusting.

Some have a ricasso, sort of like the classic Braveheart claymore (not the basket hilted claymore).  In Records of the Medieval Sword, Oakeshott mentions that the Type XVa commonly had a long ricasso, there is also a description of a XVII that has an unusually long ricasso.  Most blades appear to be sharpened almost to the hilt.  I think alot of the confusion comes in when you see people gripping the blade, either when they are half-swording or doing a murder-stroke, and assume that the blade is dull.  One manufacturer describes the differences in sharpening methods as "sword sharp," designed to be used on the battle field and hold up to wear, and "stupid sharp" meaning a danger to the wielder and not being a durable edge.

Lamont


----------



## MingTheMerciless

The same old myths about lumbering knight in armor and bone crushing cumbersome blunt 10 pound bastard sword and Mythical and Almighty Katana that wieght less than one pound can cut through a Tank is pure ******** . 

Back in Europe , Knights fought enemy from all corner of the eastern frontier , repelling enemy such as Nomadic Army such as the Magyar and the Mongol and also Muslim Army such as Turk , Saracen and Moors and also including each other and as for Japan , most of the time , they only fought among themselves , until the Mongol arrive . 

Each time European Armor improve , new weapon have to be made , invented and modified to counter it . There are many different kind of European sword such as the zweihander , claymore , broadsword , bastard sword , falchion and others . Japanese and European Blade can be of varying quality ( depends on the availabillity of metals and current time economy and also how mcuh money are the individual willing to pour in to get a good quality blade .  ) . But then since armor keep improving , most knight would rather go with axe ( poleaxe etc ) and mace ( morning star etc ) . But then since most katana seem to have a better single edge curve compare to most european sword , it had a faster swinging rate . And most weapon tend to weight around 3 pounds and a 10 pound weapon is uselss for combat ( maybe unless you get a few lucky hit on a moving foe ) . 

Any soldier would sharpen their weapon as much as they can before they go into battle as a sharpen weapon save a individual life .

And again , theory of knight needed to be lift onto a horse with a crane is another pure victorian ******** . If that was the case , such armor are completely useless and impractical for battle . And Knight were elite of that time , and I dun think any king or queen or lord would sacrifice their best warrior just like that .

Plate armor , unlike chainmail whereby the weight and pressure were heavily focus on the shoulder ,  weight and pressure were evenly distributed across the body , they can still easily do a cartwheel in it and beside plate armor can resist nearly all kind of attack such as bodkin arrow from a longbow , bolt froma a crossbow ( no one will use such good quality metal on a arrow or bolt ) , able to easily deflect sword and spear attack ( it is difficult to accurately thrust at a moving target and most of the spear attack simply just slide past amoving piece of smooth metal and knight ain't gonna be sitting duck there and wait for a accurate spear thrust ) and also able to withstand early gunpowder weapon from a longer distance ( a great moral inflicting and short to mid range weapon )  but mostly only rich knight can afford such a luxury as plate armor are comparatively harder to made and repair compare to a chainmail .

And back in Europe , Knight were very comfortable in their armor but when having a campaign in the middle east , most of to give up a little bit of this protection as most of them are being roasted under the armor . As for the samurai armor , I have no idea . 

Again it also depend on the individual fighting skill of the knight and samurai .   I am also a kendo student once befoe I go over to HEMMA .  ( just a newbie or recruit , currently do not have the time to devote to HEMMA  , so again Langenschwert ... help!) So a Bastard sword can equally match the Katana .


----------



## Blindside

Ming, dude, chill.

Breath.... in through the nose, out through the mouth....

Feel better?


----------



## MingTheMerciless

lol , I just get excited about this topic that all .


----------



## MingTheMerciless

And one thing to remind most of guys , the day of the knight were soon over due to the rise of gunpowder ( a single bullet can definitely kill the most elite and well armored warrior , gun were getting more accurate and make armor more obselute as the knight often deem using range weapon as lowly ,cheap , unchivalrous , unhonorable , unnoble and cowardly , meaning they often rely on head on attack to tear their foe apart and also peasent levy were getting more well equiped and professional due to the simplicity of weapon training , that goes the same for any japanese peasent ) and the samurai ( almost the same but that doesn't stop them to perform hit and run tactic using horseback archery and beside any archery technique of that time would take quite sometime to learn compare to modern day archery due to the lack of technology and to retain enough heavy poundage to kill a target and this often have to come in with practice and coordination , so that goes to any archers , and yumi , longbow and reflex bow take equal among of time to master and performing horseback archery need expierience , coordination and fair amount of prediction ) only have to worry about that later when european naval technology improve . And good quality and the best armor are often reserve to the bravest and most elite individual so that the best soldiers would not get killed that easily and can use their expierience and fighting skill to help fight another day . Peasent levy in medieval europe and japan were often given just spear , ****** sword and often given little to no protection at all due to the lack of finances and so back there , they are often being push over by the noble ( samurai and knight ) and so seeing the big boss coming down riding toward them would be demoralising and would cause most of them to flee or wet their pants before the real fight even begin .  And again sword were design to stab vital weakness ( unprotected joint , vital organ and other unarmored body part ) in the early human history ( the hacking job can be given to the axe and they still do it better ) and later to sever limbs as well due to better forging technique and technolgy in later human history but mace and other weapon that can knock out a noble man not kill and fatally wound would have been a favourite weapon among knigts as other knight and other men of noble birth will be way too valuable to be killed, capturing a noble man would be like searching for a sunken treasure so they will be very careful not to kill each other ( other than those poor peasent )

But then again ,I would rather put my money on the European Knights due to better weapon and armor . As for fighting , it just have to depend on one indiviudal fighting skill and knight dun fight like mindless brute , their skill take their whole entire life to hone and perfect it just like the samurai .


----------



## Langenschwert

Sukerkin said:


> (*Langenschwert* ... help!)



*POOF*

WHO DARES SUMMON ME? cue: thunder 

Actually Sukerkin, I don't really have that much to add to your post.

I think you nailed the major misconceptions with the accuracy of a well-placed half-sword thrust. 

With regards to sword sharpness, there's no one true answer.  One would sharpen his sword the way he wanted to.   I think it was Vadi who recommended that you should only sharpen the last foot of your sword or so, but that's just one guy.

The one thing is, you don't sharpen a sword to razor sharpness.  You'll just get the edge nicked all to hell, and swords are expensive.

A reasonably sharp sword can be gripped safely.  My instructor had me drag him around with him holding the blade of one of my longswords, which is actually a little too sharp.  As long as you don't let the edge contact your palms, you'll be fine.  That being said, I'd prefer my blade duller for mortschlag stuff.

Swords are not, and have never been the best weapon to defeat armour.  Plate armour is virtually impervious to edged attacks.  You must use the sword as a short spear in the half-sworded grip.  You thrust to the eyes, palms of the hands, behind or down the gauntlets, the insides of the elbows, etc.  Even the soles of the feet should you up-end your opponent. 

When your point makes good contact against a vulnerable yet armoured area, you wind your hilt to your breast like a lance and give a good thrust with your whole body.

Alternatively, you reverse your grip and use the sword like a mace or warhammer rather than half-sword.

Even with all that, armoured combat is likely to end with wrestling on the ground with daggers.  You then immobilize the opponent and drive the dagger home, generally to the face.

Any sword is a match for any other.  It's the fighter that matters most.  There's no effective difference in the skill level of a good knight or samurai in a duel on foot, armoured or not.  Skill being equal, it comes down to technology.  In an armoured duel, the plate armour knight has an advantage.  Though I don't imagine a hypothetical samurai facing a plate armoured knight for the first time is going to look at that armour and think "I bet I can cut that".  Common sense here, people.  He'd try to use the weapon to close to grapple and even the playing field, since both knights and samurai were excellent wrestlers.

Unarmoured longsword and katana techniques are pretty similar.  Similar weapons, after all.  In an unarmoured duel, whoever gets the first hit is likely to win, so how sharp the sword is doesn't really matter.  All that matters is the fighter at that point, since there is no room for error.  Even a glancing blow will hurt you enough for your opponent to take advantage and finish you off.

A yard of sharp steel is a yard of sharp steel.  Getting on the receiving end of one is not recommended for anyone, ever, at any time, no matter where it was made.   Even if it's a wallhanger.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Langenschwert

Sukerkin said:


> I was pressed would say that the Bastard Sword is the pinnacle of sword development in terms of flexability of use and combative durability.



I would agree with that.  That's the strength of the longsword over the mace or staff or any other hand weapon.  It's the most utilitarian sword ever developed.  It can be used against the stoutest armour that was ever used, the unarmoured duel, and for general self-defence.  It had utility on and off the battlefield, and could be carried on the hip, and required no companion weapon like a buckler.  It was also exceptionally durable, but it's not indestructable.  Swords that saw long use were literally "used up" like an old kitchen knife, sharpened until they were no longer serviceable.  But the longsword isn't a "supersword" any more than the katana is. 

-Mark


----------



## Flying Crane

Sukerkin said:


> 2) I really hope we have some qualified European swordsman on the board who can give some first hand accounts of the weaponry and it's application (*Langenschwert* ... help!). If not, Google places like _Netsword_ and _Sword Forum International_ and dig through their archives.


 
While I am not an expert on either Western or Japanese swordsmanship, I do have a few modern pieces made by Angus Trim, who makes a very nice, economical and serviceable weapon out of 5160 spring steel.  While one or two of my pieces are a bit lighter than I personally might wish to have on a battlefield, those that have what I would consider a comfortable and trustworthy "heft" don't tend to weigh in outside the range of about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 pounds.  This includes the single-hand and hand and a half type longswords.  Hitting about 4 pounds seems to me to be the outer limit, and really pushes the envelope if the weapon is used single-handed.

Compared to the vision Hollywood gives us of the lumbering knight swinging 14 pound slabs of steel, these pieces are surprisingly light, quick, and mobile, and with a good quality steel like 5160 (leaf springs) they are quite tough.


----------



## Sukerkin

Many thanks for the additional data, *FC* :tup:.  The only way that the myths are going to be ovethrown is by informed people re-iterating the reality of weapons and armour design and construction.

The only 'European' blade that I own is a hand-and-a-half from Hanwei (of all poeple ).  I was very surprised by just how responsive it is when I first used it - much more 'agile' than my high-end katana.  That comes from the differences in design paradigm I reckon, the katana being most optimised for the draw-cut and thus being more likely to have the balance weighted towards the tip.

I wonder, does anyone have any practical, hands-on experience with a two-hander?  The snippets of historical record (primarily German 'zweihander' tales)  I've read on these weapons fascinates me.  They almost read like the foot equivalent of heavy cavalry .  I've seen some video of WSA chaps sparring with them and, again, the impression garnered is that the weapons were nothing like as cumbersome as you'd expect, with multiple modes of use (such as *langen* spoke of above for the longsword).


----------



## Flying Crane

Sukerkin said:


> Many thanks for the additional data, *FC* :tup:. The only way that the myths are going to be ovethrown is by informed people re-iterating the reality of weapons and armour design and construction.
> 
> The only 'European' blade that I own is a hand-and-a-half from Hanwei (of all poeple ). I was very surprised by just how responsive it is when I first used it - much more 'agile' than my high-end katana. That comes from the differences in design paradigm I reckon, the katana being most optimised for the draw-cut and thus being more likely to have the balance weighted towards the tip.
> 
> I wonder, does anyone have any practical, hands-on experience with a two-hander? The snippets of historical record (primarily German 'zweihander' tales) I've read on these weapons fascinates me. They almost read like the foot equivalent of heavy cavalry . I've seen some video of WSA chaps sparring with them and, again, the impression garnered is that the weapons were nothing like as cumbersome as you'd expect, with multiple modes of use (such as *langen* spoke of above for the longsword).


 
My memory could be faulty, or the source could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that a true two-handed great sword with a 5 or 6 foot blade might weigh in between 5 and 7 pounds or so.  They would be weilded by big, strong guys, but this is still much lighter than Hollywood would have us believe.


----------



## Mr. E

I am looking at the original post.



> In your opinion, what is better in a technical way. Western or Japanese warfare? Knight or Samurai, if both had the same degree of ability?... hand and a half swords, halberds, two handed swords... daisho, nodachi, naginata... Many support Japanese steel was stronger due to the way it was forged, but Toledo and Damascus steel blades were considered by many as the finest blades in the world...
> 
> 
> I am mostly referring to weapon types, steel quality and equipment. Give me your thoughts, but tell me -why- you think either would be better in a battlefield or a one-on-one duel.



You know, maybe we need to narrow down the subject a bit. *What* era are we talking about for both? Are we talking Norman knights as they ride off the Battle of Hastings, or the Knights at the Battle of Crecy, or maybe even the mercenary armies of Rennaisance Italy? Are we talking about the Samurai that fought the Mongols, or the ones that fought at Sekigahara? Are the Norman knights allowed to use their lances? Are the samurai allowed to use their _yabusame_ skills? Are we even going to determine if the knights use a shield or a two handed sword?

You see the problem with discussing a subject this large? How about the original poster gives us a time frame for both?


----------



## MingTheMerciless

Well , let get a Knight with a Bastard Sword against a Knight with a 2h Katana .

And then Knight with shield and sword/axe/mace against Samurai with long katana and shorter version .

And then you get knight with polehammer or poleaxe or 2h battle axe vs Samurai with naginata or yari


----------



## Langenschwert

Flying Crane said:


> My memory could be faulty, or the source could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that a true two-handed great sword with a 5 or 6 foot blade might weigh in between 5 and 7 pounds or so. They would be weilded by big, strong guys, but this is still much lighter than Hollywood would have us believe.


 
Just to nitpick, the term greatsword _tends_ to refer to the "sword of war" that predated the longsword by a few years.  The zweihander is a different beast.  AFAIK, there are no manuals on the use of zweihander, but its use can be inferred by its design.  If you can use a greatsword, longsword and a spear, you have a pretty good ability to use a zweihander.  Also, the exaggerated quillons are often faceted like the shaft of a crowbar, and like any crossguard, are useful as a big set of brass knuckles.  Some zweihanders can be pretty light, some as light as 4 lbs, IIRC

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## thardey

Katana vs. Longsword debate aside for a moment - 

What about the social acceptance of "cheating" during a fight? Typically, when the weapons, training, and size are similar, my money is usually on the one who knows more "dirty tricks"

For instance, one of the deadliest weapons in history is the bow - knights shunned it, because it wasn't "honorable" - the samurai embraced it, (didn't they use it from horseback, like the mongols?)

Another one is the knife, or dagger. Maybe not on the battlefield, but it's probably killed the most people in general throughout history (according to The Soul of the Sword, anyway.) But "shanking" someone is usually considered "dishonorable".

European Knights were careful to fight "honorably", in order gain respect, but what did that really mean when the blood started spilling?

I'm not talking "chivalry" or "Bushido" - not the "honorable way of life" kind of things, but more of the "playground rules" for fighting. European knights tended to encourage "fighting fair", did the samurai?


----------



## MingTheMerciless

Medieval Knights felt that killing an enemy from a far is cowardly ( bow , crossbow , gun and javelin .... maybe because that doesn't stop the norman knight for doing it ) and Samurai felt that killing an enemy using a weapon that only required 3 days of mastery is cowardly ( crossbow and gun , bow are different , it required daily practice to shoot it accurately from a safe distance )  . 

Both are full time battle ready warrior and they are very good at waht they are doing and yes , knight and samurai often carry dagger in grappling range or submission or when they were accidentally thrown to the ground when fighting another oppenent and dagger often solve that kind of problem decisively .


----------



## Langenschwert

thardey said:


> What about the social acceptance of "cheating" during a fight? Typically, when the weapons, training, and size are similar, my money is usually on the one who knows more "dirty tricks"


 
In lethal combat, it was "all-in".  In judicial duels, it was "all-in".  There were no disallowed techniques.  If you lost, you were executed anyway.  In the Codex Wallerstein's wrestling section, after describing a certain technique, it adds "and you can use a sneaky trick if necessary".   The knights were practical fighting men.  Niceties are for being at court, not on the battlefield.  Tourneys were a different matter, and were designed to be less lethal.



> For instance, one of the deadliest weapons in history is the bow - knights shunned it, because it wasn't "honorable" - the samurai embraced it, (didn't they use it from horseback, like the mongols?)


 
The knights shunned using it in combat, but utilised archers... Henry V anyone?  It was also common at one time for English nobility to practice archery as a sport and for hunting, so some nobles were accomplished archers.



> Another one is the knife, or dagger. Maybe not on the battlefield, but it's probably killed the most people in general throughout history (according to The Soul of the Sword, anyway.) But "shanking" someone is usually considered "dishonorable".


 
In armoured combat, it usually came down to wrestling on the ground with dagger work.



> European Knights were careful to fight "honorably", in order gain respect, but what did that really mean when the blood started spilling?


 
It didn't mean a hill of beans.  True, subduing someone for ransom was done, but as the medieval period progressed, battles became bloodier and bloodier.  At first, Christian knights were less willing to kill each other, but as the years went on, all bets were off.



> I'm not talking "chivalry" or "Bushido" - not the "honorable way of life" kind of things, but more of the "playground rules" for fighting. European knights tended to encourage "fighting fair", did the samurai?


 
I think that's an oversimplification.  Knights fought fair when it suited them, or when they had the luxury of doing so.  Any study of period fighting treatises shows that the overriding concept (dare I say virtue?) in an actual fight was ruthlessness.  You must destroy your enemy by any means.  There is very little in the way of "subduing"... it's about _killing_.  If you can capture a fellow knight on the field, fine.  If you can't, shove a dagger in his face.  Many medieval battles were absolute massacres, which shows how brutal they could be.  Others were surprisingly bloodless.  I don't think we can reduce it to "knights did x or y".  It's far more complex than that.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## thardey

My apologies, I should clarify.

I was referring to a proposed _duel_ between one Samurai and one Knight, using either a Katana, or a longsword or sword and shield, in appropriate armor for each. Not a judicial duel, like you see described in Talhoffer, (a judicial duel would not allow differences in armor or weapons, unless it's a man vs. a woman.) but a duel for honor, with Europeans bringing seconds (I don't know if the Samurai would bring attendants, or seconds, or whatever -- I would assume they would at least bring witnesses.) I'm also not referring to battlefield conditions, either. That's a whole other ball of wax.

In the west, the seconds were there to ensure that the fight went "fair", at times, even killing their own friends if they "cheated". The seconds' other job was to provide testimony in court that the if someone was killed, that it was done honorably, and not considered murder. But what constituted "fair"? 

What was "fair" for the Samurai? I've heard it somewhere that it was dishonorable for a Samurai to lose his sword. But if a Knight was disarmed he could go straight for a tackle without any loss of honor.

See what I mean? Each side will have their own "dirty tricks" that are acceptable, and some which are unacceptable, and those probably aren't the same.

What about a duel from horseback? The Knight with a lance or spear, but the Samurai with a bow? All the Samurai has to do is stay out of range, and shoot until an arrow finds a soft spot. But would that be honorable in a duel? What about killing the horse?

So, does anybody know of some "relatively" generic dueling codes for, say a 15th century Knight with this mentality, or a late 16th-century Samurai, maybe Miyamoto Musashi himself?


----------



## Langenschwert

thardey said:


> In the west, the seconds were there to ensure that the fight went "fair", at times, even killing their own friends if they "cheated". The seconds' other job was to provide testimony in court that the if someone was killed, that it was done honorably, and not considered murder. But what constituted "fair"?


 
The use of seconds to determine being "fair" is a later addition to the duelling code.  There were rules for the Holmgang in Norse culture, but that's a bit earlier.



> What was "fair" for the Samurai? I've heard it somewhere that it was dishonorable for a Samurai to lose his sword. But if a Knight was disarmed he could go straight for a tackle without any loss of honor.


 
Yeah, he's bee all over that like white on rice.



> What about a duel from horseback? The Knight with a lance or spear, but the Samurai with a bow? All the Samurai has to do is stay out of range, and shoot until an arrow finds a soft spot. But would that be honorable in a duel? What about killing the horse?


 
Killing the horse was perfectly acceptable in battle, and I don't know of any formalized duelling from horseback.



> So, does anybody know of some "relatively" generic dueling codes for, say a 15th century Knight with this mentality, or a late 16th-century Samurai, maybe Miyamoto Musashi himself?


 
Nope. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## thardey

Langenschwert said:


> The use of seconds to determine being "fair" is a later addition to the duelling code.  There were rules for the Holmgang in Norse culture, but that's a bit earlier.



Okay, pages or squires then.



> Yeah, he's bee all over that like white on rice.


 :rofl:




> Killing the horse was perfectly acceptable in battle, and I don't know of any formalized duelling from horseback.


Umm, The Joust? (Not the "Tilting" of tournament, but the old "hang the shields of beaten knights on my tree" kind of challenge.)




> Best regards,


Thanks!


----------



## Langenschwert

thardey said:


> Umm, The Joust? (Not the "Tilting" of tournament, but the old "hang the shields of beaten knights on my tree" kind of challenge.)



Ah.  Well a joust really isn't a duel, as you know.  Well, it's a _sporting_ duel, like modern classical fencing.  Then you don'yt kill the horse, since you're going for points, which is usually breaking three lances on your opponent, or unhorsing him.

As for using a Joust as an affair of honour to settle serious grudges with lethal intent, I'm not familiar with that being done.  It doensn't mean it never happened, though.  Some of the manuals show mounted wrestling (Talhoffer, Kal), but I think that's more battlefield oriented.

As far as I know, duels were fought on foot, usually to the death in medieval times.  In such a case, there were no forbidden techniques in the styles I'm aware of.  The unarmoured longsword duelling I study is particulary brutal.  There's nothing nice or gentlemanly about it.  That should give somewhat of an idea.

One could also look to the duel of Jarnac.  Rather than prohibit grappling (which was done in the 18th and 19th C, I think), the one who chose the weapons chose for both parties to have _two_ daggers, and thereby discouraged his opponent, a famous knight and wrestler from closing past sword range.  So to a degree, the character of the duel could be influenced by the person choosing the weapons.  

Does that help?

Best regards,

-Mark

N.B.  I am not an authority on duelling codes, and I am a mere dilletante with regards to European military history.  I try to improve my knowledge daily, but don't take my opinions as authoritative.  I'm just a dude with a sword.


----------



## thardey

Langenschwert said:


> Ah.  Well a joust really isn't a duel, as you know.  Well, it's a _sporting_ duel, like modern classical fencing.  Then you don'yt kill the horse, since you're going for points, which is usually breaking three lances on your opponent, or unhorsing him.
> 
> As for using a Joust as an affair of honour to settle serious grudges with lethal intent, I'm not familiar with that being done.  It doensn't mean it never happened, though.  Some of the manuals show mounted wrestling (Talhoffer, Kal), but I think that's more battlefield oriented.



I've only found references to it in fiction, mostly Arthur legend, from books written a during the Middle Ages, but there seemed to be challenges issued for "honor" at some slight, sometimes in the form of "after this errand, I shall return in a year, and have my honor." These were to the death, or until the knight couldn't go on. But, like I said, this was fiction. I haven't found anything documented yet.

I read them years ago, from the library, and now I can't remember the names.

At least the Talhoffer stuff appears to be a Battlefield application, I agree. Sort of a "Thow the guy on the ground, then trample him" kind of idea.
I haven't studied Kal.



> As far as I know, duels were fought on foot, usually to the death in medieval times.  In such a case, there were no forbidden techniques in the styles I'm aware of.  The unarmoured longsword duelling I study is particulary brutal.  There's nothing nice or gentlemanly about it.  That should give somewhat of an idea.
> 
> One could also look to the duel of Jarnac.  Rather than prohibit grappling (which was done in the 18th and 19th C, I think), the one who chose the weapons chose for both parties to have _two_ daggers, and thereby discouraged his opponent, a famous knight and wrestler from closing past sword range.  *So to a degree, the character of the duel could be influenced by the person choosing the weapons.*



The bold part really seems to boil the question down to basics. Plus, it seems to depend of what rules were agreed to before each specific duel.




> N.B.  I am not an authority on duelling codes, and I am a mere dilletante with regards to European military history.  I try to improve my knowledge daily, but don't take my opinions as authoritative.  I'm just a dude with a sword.


Aren't we all? 


So, to sum up as far as I know about Western Duels, the understanding was:

Challenge issued (for "Love of a Lady", or bruised ego)
Challenge accepted, and the defender got to decide the rules and weapons (same weapons for both sides).
Attendants made sure rules were followed, and honor satisfied.
It appears that unless some tactic was specifically prohibited, it was legal. 
It also appears that if a specific weapon was not agreed to, it was illegal. (No hidden weapons, in other words.)

All I can find about Eastern Dueling is from Musashi's stories, or the Book of Five Rings, and it appears:

Challenge posted in town square (for whatever reason, apparently)
Challenge accepted
Weapon choice was up to each individual. (Long sword, two swords, bokken). I couldn't find any references to dueling with bows, but I don't see why spears couldn't have been used. I found reference to Mushasi using his bokken against bo staff, anyway.

Duels seemed to be to the death, or until they couldn't continue. Other than that, I can't find any specific rules. Was a disarm considered defeat? Were hidden weapons forbidden (Like shiruken)? 

So, who's familiar with how Samurai duels were carried out? We need more information?????

Bob, if this is going too far from your original question, let us know!


----------



## thardey

I wasn't going to do this, but I can't help it.

*****This is just my imagination running wild -- nothing serious! *********

(insert monty python sound effects where appropriate)

Some Knight gets offended by a samurai (Never mind the time difference, just bear with me!)

Knight: You have offended me! Apologize!

Samurai: Why?

K: That's it! I challenge you to a duel!

S. Okay

K. What weapons will we use?

S. Whatever you want.

K. You pass on your right to choose weapons?

S. Umm, whatever.

K. I choose longsword on foot!

S. Good for you.

K. En Guard! Wait! Why do you have two swords?

S. This is how I fight.

K. But I chose Longsword!

S. Good for you.

K. But you can't have two swords!

S. Why not?

K. Because I chose longsword!

S. We've established that. Are we gonna fight, or what?

K. Fine, but I protest.

*Starts to fight*

K. Ow! What was that? 

S. What was what?

K. You just threw something at me!

S. Oh, the shuriken.

K. Whatever. You can't do that!

S. You're loony.

K. You cheat!

S. Fine!

*mortally wounds knight* (don't ask me how).

K. I win!

S. But you're almost dead.

K. It doesn't matter. I win.

S. How?

K. You cheated! So that means I won!

S. Umm, right. 

K. A stalemate then?
*dies*

S. Right, Stalemate.

*********************************************

So there you have it, the answer to the age-old question. In a fight between a Knight and a Samurai, it would end in a stalemate!


----------



## MingTheMerciless

lol , that was really funny


----------



## MingTheMerciless

If he had two sword in his hand , how the hell can he throw a Shuriken ? 

Anyway , if a Samurai use a longbow ( yumi and ya ) while a Knight use a lance . I need to remind you that back than Samurai's Arrow are stone tipped , there is no way it can penetrate plate armor and trying to aim for weak spot on a moving horses is very difficult


----------



## thardey

MingTheMerciless said:


> If he had two sword in his hand , how the hell can he throw a Shuriken ?



I was wondering who would catch that 



> Anyway , if a Samurai use a longbow ( yumi and ya ) while a Knight use a lance . I need to remind you that back than Samurai's Arrow are stone tipped , there is no way it can penetrate plate armor and trying to aim for weak spot on a moving horses is very difficult



Stone tips? Like obsidian? No Kidding?


----------



## Blindside

> Stone tips? Like obsidian? No Kidding?


 
Just wrong.

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/yanone.htm

http://www.ncjsc.org/gloss_yanone.htm


----------



## thardey

Blindside said:


> Just wrong.
> 
> http://www.arco-iris.com/George/yanone.htm
> 
> http://www.ncjsc.org/gloss_yanone.htm



Folded steel arrowheads? That's even more surprising!

Kewl!


----------



## Doc_Jude

MingTheMerciless said:


> If he had two sword in his hand , how the hell can he throw a Shuriken ?



Maybe it was the dreaded "throat needle". I don't know, it happened so fast, I think that samurai may have been a NINJA!!!


----------



## thardey

Nah, if he had been a ninja, you would have never known he was there:


Knight: You have offended me! I challenge you to a duel!

****silence*****

Knight: Hello?


****silence****

*Knight dies


----------



## MingTheMerciless

But then Heavy Plate Armor ( well , not exactly heavy for the Men , as the weight was evenly distributed but it gonna be strenous on the horses but the strength of horses should not be underestimated as they can carry a men who was 1/3 of their body weight . Most European Noble should weight around 170 lbs to 190 lbs plus a 80 lbs armor that would require a Destrier to be at least 810 lbs to 1080 lbs to carry a fully armored knights . )  would not be as useful when used on the open steppes ( Russia , even if a mounted knights are capable of kicking any nomadic horseman butt anyday in a stand-still melee , they are too slow to chase down them down on a hit-and-run tactic who tend to rely on speed is armor ) and hot arid climate ( Arabia , knights will cook in their own armor ) as compare to the more heavily wooded and snowy terrian of Europe ( Knights were very comfortable wearing those Heavy Armor and it is easier to play guerilla warfare in Europe ) .


----------



## Langenschwert

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned sword sharpness and gripping the blade.  To illustrate just for fun, here's a clip of me pulling my instructor while he's gripping the blade of my slightly too-sharp Albion Earl.  Note that he holds on for a while, far beyond what would be needed in unarmoured combat.  He must weight close to 190 libs, and I weight 195-ish.  Now this isn't how it would be done in combat (obviously), but the principle is sound.  Gripping the opponent's blade for a moment is certainly possible, and gripping one's own without injury is not difficult.  Sharp swords aren't lightsabers. 





 
Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Charles Mahan

Langenschwert said:


> Earlier in the thread, I mentioned sword sharpness and gripping the blade. To illustrate just for fun, here's a clip of me pulling my instructor while he's gripping the blade of my slightly too-sharp Albion Earl. Note that he holds on for a while, far beyond what would be needed in unarmoured combat. He must weight close to 190 libs, and I weight 195-ish. Now this isn't how it would be done in combat (obviously), but the principle is sound. Gripping the opponent's blade for a moment is certainly possible, and gripping one's own without injury is not difficult. Sharp swords aren't lightsabers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


 
I'm guessing that wouldn't work with my shinken for two reasons.  The first is that my blade is absurdly sharp.    Slices paper easily sharp.  I've had a knowledgable Japanese sword restorer refer to it as "stupid sharp". You can grab the edge sure and put as much pressure on it as you want, but you better not slide.  Not even a little bit.  And you will slide if you try what I saw in that video.  That's the second reason it wouldn't work.  My blade is covered in a thin layer of choji oil, which means it is just a bit slippery.  It will start to slide, and when it does it will cut to the bone in an instant.

In the heat of the battle, where momentarily getting cut


----------



## Langenschwert

Charles Mahan said:


> I'm guessing that wouldn't work with my shinken for two reasons. The first is that my blade is absurdly sharp. Slices paper easily sharp. I've had a knowledgable Japanese sword restorer refer to it as "stupid sharp". You can grab the edge sure and put as much pressure on it as you want, but you better not slide. Not even a little bit. And you will slide if you try what I saw in that video. That's the second reason it wouldn't work. My blade is covered in a thin layer of choji oil, which means it is just a bit slippery. It will start to slide, and when it does it will cut to the bone in an instant.
> 
> In the heat of the battle, where momentarily getting cut


 
There are some koryu where the blade is grabbed, usually by the spine, as you know.  It also depends how sharp you keep your sword.  The sharper the edge, the more fragile it is.  I've heard that some Samurai purposefully dulled their blades a bit before heading to fight on the battlefield.  If so, it would greatly increase the sword's durability.  A super-sharp blade is not required to kill a human being (I know, preaching to the choir).  Even one slightly sharper than a butter knife will kill as easily as one that is sharp.  I've personally cleanly cut frozen pumkin (as in fronzen solid) with a blade that was probably had 2 mm worth of blunt edge... as blunt as the edge of my clipboard.   I didn't even feel the impact.  Cut the thing like a laser.  So my question is... how sharp do practicioners of iado, shinkendo and kenjutsu keep their nihon-to today as opposed to feudal japan?  Some modern shinken have different blade profiles compared to antiques for tameshigiri, so perhaps there is a dichotomy in blade sharpness as well.  Does anyone have the skinny on this?

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## thardey

Langenschwert said:


> There are some koryu where the blade is grabbed, usually by the spine, as you know.  It also depends how sharp you keep your sword.  The sharper the edge, the more fragile it is.  I've heard that some Samurai purposefully dulled their blades a bit before heading to fight on the battlefield.  If so, it would greatly increase the sword's durability.  A super-sharp blade is not required to kill a human being (I know, preaching to the choir).  Even one slightly sharper than a butter knife will kill as easily as one that is sharp.  I've personally cleanly cut frozen pumkin (as in fronzen solid) with a blade that was probably had 2 mm worth of blunt edge... as blunt as the edge of my clipboard.   I didn't even feel the impact.  Cut the thing like a laser.  So my question is... how sharp do practicioners of iado, shinkendo and kenjutsu keep their nihon-to today as opposed to feudal japan?  Some modern shinken have different blade profiles compared to antiques for tameshigiri, so perhaps there is a dichotomy in blade sharpness as well.  Does anyone have the skinny on this?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark



I don't know about Japan, but a while ago, I read that the American cavalry had problems with too-sharp blades getting wedged into bone, and being difficult to withdraw during battle, so they recommended dulling their blades a little. I'll see if I can find any references to it, it's been a while.


----------



## Charles Mahan

Langenschwert said:


> There are some koryu where the blade is grabbed, usually by the spine, as you know. It also depends how sharp you keep your sword. The sharper the edge, the more fragile it is. I've heard that some Samurai purposefully dulled their blades a bit before heading to fight on the battlefield. If so, it would greatly increase the sword's durability. A super-sharp blade is not required to kill a human being (I know, preaching to the choir). Even one slightly sharper than a butter knife will kill as easily as one that is sharp. I've personally cleanly cut frozen pumkin (as in fronzen solid) with a blade that was probably had 2 mm worth of blunt edge... as blunt as the edge of my clipboard.  I didn't even feel the impact. Cut the thing like a laser. So my question is... how sharp do practicioners of iado, shinkendo and kenjutsu keep their nihon-to today as opposed to feudal japan? Some modern shinken have different blade profiles compared to antiques for tameshigiri, so perhaps there is a dichotomy in blade sharpness as well. Does anyone have the skinny on this?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


 
We do grab the mune in MJER, but while it is possible to grab the blade by the mune, it isn't really possible to secure the grip as in the video in this fashion.  The grip is just not strong enough without being able to wrap your fingers around the edge.  As I said in the heat of the moment it might be tactically wise to grab your enemies sword in order to take advantage of an opening, but it's likely to get you cut, and cut badly.  Might be worth it though.

I agree that we keep them somewhat sharper now than is truly necessary.  If I was going out to battle where I could expect to impact harder targets, ie armor, then I would definitely take it and wack it into some sand a few times to blunt the edge a bit.  The real problem is not so much an issue of fragility of the edge.  Good Japanese swords are good that way.  The real problem is with the extreme of the edge "rolling over" a bit, thus presenting a far duller edge than would be prudent.  So it's better to remove that super thin edge so it won't bend on contact with a hard object. 

So I would leave it sharp if I was just walking around town, but if I was preparing for a pitched battle, I'd want to take the edge off a bit.  Of course for a pitched battle, I probably wouldn't be using my sword much anyway.


----------



## thardey

thardey said:


> I don't know about Japan, but a while ago, I read that the American cavalry had problems with too-sharp blades getting wedged into bone, and being difficult to withdraw during battle, so they recommended dulling their blades a little. I'll see if I can find any references to it, it's been a while.



Here it is:



> Interesting enough, against unarmored opponents, a sword could be too sharp.  During the Indian Wars the U. S. Cavalry troops were ordered not to sharpen their sabers since the sharp ones tended to cleave into and get stuck in the bone.)


----------



## Sukerkin

Thanks for that historical morsel, *Thardey* :tup:.  I'd never heard that before outside of a Japanese framework.

On that subject, it is more than likely that the tales, of Samurai deliberately blunting their swords by slashing them in sand (usually referenced in the same breath as the Mongol 'invasion'), are apocryphal.

Altho' as given to flights of fancy, poetry and entrancement with needless artiface as anyone else, the Samurai would be unlikely to order a sword 'too sharp' in the first place.  Given the expense a decent katana entailed, you wouldn't want to buy one not 'fit for purpose', as the modern phrase goes.


----------



## Charles Mahan

I can only pass on what I've been taught.  It is up to you what to believe.


----------



## Langenschwert

Charles Mahan said:


> We do grab the mune in MJER, but while it is possible to grab the blade by the mune, it isn't really possible to secure the grip as in the video in this fashion.


 
It's not grabbed like that either in KDF or Armizare, but it's a demonstration of a prinicple.  If I can haul my instructor around while he's gripping the blade, then one can certainly grab a static blade momentarily to gain an advantage and thereby kill the opponent.  A possibility of a small laceration to the hand is worth it.  Considering the amount of callous I'm getting through my training, I imagine a "real" swordsman would have a nice thick layer of it if he was training from childhood.  I myself do cuts and guard transitions with a blunt sword "reversed" (i.e. in the mortschlag position) every day both for strength and for the callousing effect it has on my hands.  I prefer to do most of my sword work without gloves.  However, a good pair of sweat-soaked leather riding gloves stick to a blade like glue.  There's virtually no possibility of a blade sliding through that. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Sukerkin

Charles Mahan said:


> I can only pass on what I've been taught. It is up to you what to believe.


 
That's all any of us can do, my friend, especially when at one-step removed from our 'audience' as we are on the Net.


----------



## Sukerkin

On the subject of sword grabbing, this thread at SFI seems pertinent:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=83189


----------



## MatthiasRhineGuard

Yo, this is my first post so i can get us back on subject. The Longsword would probably snap the Katana in pieces with one strike, and would liquify the dudes insides if it made contact. The Katana is more agile however, and all it would take is one nick in the throat or femoral artery and the guys dead in a few minutes. 
Also just a fact. Mail could stand up to an ultra-sharp Katana with a huge blow, and plate would be even better.


----------



## Blindside

MatthiasRhineGuard said:


> Yo, this is my first post so i can get us back on subject. The Longsword would probably snap the Katana in pieces with one strike, and would liquify the dudes insides if it made contact. The Katana is more agile however, and all it would take is one nick in the throat or femoral artery and the guys dead in a few minutes.
> Also just a fact. Mail could stand up to an ultra-sharp Katana with a huge blow, and plate would be even better.


.....

uh....

.....

um....

....

Its nice to have an educated opinion on this otherwise unscholarly thread.


----------



## Sukerkin

Couldn't have put it better myself, *Blindside* :lol:.

*Matthias*, I suspect that you know that what you posted is largely errant nonsense, so I won't attempt to re-explain or de-bunk.  

However, if you are indeed serious about being a member here, rather than being a 'drive-by', then I suggest a quick trip over to the Meet & Greet Forum. A brief thumbnail of yourself will help us to understand your interests and what your experience is.


----------



## jarrod

MatthiasRhineGuard said:


> Yo, this is my first post so i can get us back on subject. The Longsword would probably snap the Katana in pieces with one strike, and would liquify the dudes insides if it made contact. The Katana is more agile however, and all it would take is one nick in the throat or femoral artery and the guys dead in a few minutes.
> Also just a fact. Mail could stand up to an ultra-sharp Katana with a huge blow, and plate would be even better.


 
this.

is.

awesome.


----------



## NW_Tengu

Hmmmm....on the subject of grabbing the sword blade in a duel, I can only picture the example from the Movie Rob Roy starring Liam Neeson in which Rob armed with a scottish claymore defeats the evil villain armed with what I think is a small sword or perhaps rapier (not that familiar with swishy poke).  Anyway, the point was a small cut on the hand was worth delviering the fatal blow.


----------

