Is the katana overrated as a sword?

[Haakon]

And Zweihander has longer reach.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Well then compare it with a No - Dachi lol ...

[Holger Danske]

Well, at any rate a European longsword would be much more destructive against heavy armor than a Katana due to the massive amounts of force a longsword can deliver, but comparing the swords becomes pretty pointless as they are made with different fighting styles in mind...

[Haakon]

Well, at any rate a European longsword would be much more destructive against heavy armor than a Katana due to the massive amounts of force a longsword can deliver, but comparing the swords becomes pretty pointless as they are made with different fighting styles in mind...

Indeed, a good point many people ignore. Lets not also forget that we are talking about a vast time span in the different swords.
when all comes to all, I would take my chances on a rapier

[Old_Scratch]

...people forget the katana is a superb defensive weapon in the right hands. Also any opponent would need metal armour on every inch of skin - as your veins WILL be sliced by the razor edged blade.

Throat, legs, belly and the veins on inside of the arms would be common targets as well as wrist/ankle tendons. Anatomical knowledge was part of the expertise. One would have to be protected against everything.

So you're encased in metal trying to kill a guy fighting in very light armour (or even no armour) who is parrying everything you throw at him... you will be exhausted long before your opponent. Doesn't seem like such a silly weapon now does it.

This is true about any sword using any fighting style though. The only person who wouldn't go for vital or unarmored spots would be someone untrained. All swords are sharp and lethal to an unarmored person.

Well, at any rate a European longsword would be much more destructive against heavy armor than a Katana due to the massive amounts of force a longsword can deliver, but comparing the swords becomes pretty pointless as they are made with different fighting styles in mind...

Swords weren't really meant to be used against a heavily armored opponent. If fighting someone in partial plate with a sword, one would have to use the same technique as any sword, including the katana. Attack openings in the armor, like the armpits.

[Ahlerich]

well the medieval swords purpose of was to bruise as well. in fact most people were dying on the battlefield slowly of their brogen bones rather then loss of blood or cutting/stabbing injuries. also a thing that some forget and many dont know

[Manco]

...people forget the katana is a superb defensive weapon in the right hands. Also any opponent would need metal armour on every inch of skin - as your veins WILL be sliced by the razor edged blade.

I'd take a shield above a katana any day.

Throat, legs, belly and the veins on inside of the arms would be common targets as well as wrist/ankle tendons. Anatomical knowledge was part of the expertise. One would have to be protected against everything.

Which would all be protected by said steel or mail in a contemporary knight

So you're encased in metal trying to kill a guy fighting in very light armour (or even no armour) who is parrying everything you throw at him... you will be exhausted long before your opponent. Doesn't seem like such a silly weapon now does it.

Armour wasn't nearly as exhaustive as you'd think, the knight would also have been trained and parry almost everything the katana-wielder (who by the way wasn't light armoured) can throw at him.

If we put a completely armoured late medieval Western knight against a contemporary samurai, chances are they'd pretty much even. Both have good armour (with the knight a slight advantage), very good year long training, experience in warfare, quality weapons,... The result would pretty much depend on who had the better stamina, strenght and speed.
But a knight probably wouldn't use a sword against a samurai; maces, axes and picks would give the knight an advantage in my opinion.

However in the end we don't know as they never met. Time and geography made sure of that.

[Old_Scratch]

I think a better question would be why are katana's represented in popular media as being better than any sword possibly could be, while other swords, like the long sword or cavalry saber, are portrayed much worse than they ever were. Whenever someone has a katana in movies, he will waste a dozen guys with finesse. If he has a medieval arming sword, he will engage in a one on one fight that is laboriously slow and devoid of skill.

[Old_Scratch]

well the medieval swords purpose of was to bruise as well. in fact most people were dying on the battlefield slowly of their brogen bones rather then loss of blood or cutting/stabbing injuries. also a thing that some forget and many dont know

Yes, if fighting someone in mail. The post I was responding to stated "heavy armor" so I assumed plate. A katana can also cause bruising or broken bones against someone wearing mail. It's better than not having mail though.

[Holger Danske]

Swords weren't really meant to be used against a heavily armored opponent. If fighting someone in partial plate with a sword, one would have to use the same technique as any sword, including the katana. Attack openings in the armor, like the armpits.

You are missing the point here...
A Katana can only hurt a fully plated opponent by attacking weak points, as you pointed out, but a European longsword can deliver enough force to effective brake bones and cause tremendous internal damage. Again different weapons for different styles of fighting so why continue this debate when it's flawed to begin with?

[Manco]

You are missing the point here...
A Katana can only hurt a fully plated opponent by attacking weak points, as you pointed out, but a European longsword can deliver enough force to effective brake bones and cause tremendous internal damage. Again different weapons for different styles of fighting so why continue this debate when it's flawed to begin with?

But that's ignoring that samurai at times wore quite heavy lamellar armour, which is surprisingly effective. Against those the katana would also be used, and that is a similar situation to a knight. (of course both katanas and western swords were ultimately backup weapons)

I'm wondering, did samurai have access to other weapons designed to deal with armour? Or was the cultural significance of the katana too great? Because a knight could easily swap out his sword for any kind of anti-armour weapon.

[Old_Scratch]

You are missing the point here...
A Katana can only hurt a fully plated opponent by attacking weak points, as you pointed out, but a European longsword can deliver enough force to effective brake bones and cause tremendous internal damage. Again different weapons for different styles of fighting so why continue this debate when it's flawed to begin with?

Not against someone in full plate, otherwise why then did we see the widespread use of blunt weapons like hammers and maces coincide with the growing use of plate armor? I don't think you would really be in any better position with a longsword than with a katana if facing someone in full plate.

[Haakon]

Swords were NOT used against plate armour. War hammers and maces were.

[Manco]

Not against someone in full plate, otherwise why then did we see the widespread use of blunt weapons like hammers and maces coincide with the growing use of plate armor? I don't think you would really be in any better position with a longsword than with a katana if facing someone in full plate.

If I'm not mistaken, the reason why swords were kept in use so long even when armour had become sufficiently strong to withstand most swords, was because the nobility didn't really want to kill other nobles, both because of a perceived superiority to other soldiers and because of the vast ransom amounts.

When such notions had declined and when plate became commonplace, then we see all kinds of mace, axes, picks, halberds taking over en masse.


Of course I'm a layman, Thiudareiks and Ringeck know much better and will probably point out my mistakes.

[Mangalore]

You are missing the point here...
A Katana can only hurt a fully plated opponent by attacking weak points, as you pointed out, but a European longsword can deliver enough force to effective brake bones and cause tremendous internal damage. Again different weapons for different styles of fighting so why continue this debate when it's flawed to begin with?

The medieval/Rennaissance(the fighting books were from the 14th century or latter) longsword techniques against armored foes involved grappeling and half hand techniques (grabbing the longsword by the blade with an armored glove) because the only way to kill an armored foe was to pierce through mentioned armbits and weakpoints while nearly anything else was pointless to hit because a sword isn't as crushing to plate armor as armor piercing or blunt weapons.

These halfhand tactics also seem to indicate that hitting said weak points was far easier by fixating the opponent and kill him with a hard, twohanded short thrust into the gaps, not to keep a distance and try to stab him from greater reach...

The notion that a katana is extraordinary for samurai's aiming at the weak points... well, by the 1500 the knights were running out of weak points which is why they started to prefer anything but the swords.


The Katana was great at all things attributed to it, the strange thing is the assumptions all other sword types were somehow inferior...

[hellheaven1987]

Ok, I think there are a few facts:

1. Knights in 13th/14th/15th Century used polearm and blunt weapons as their primary weapon; sword was secondary weapon and became more suitable for stab instead slash.

2. Longsword is a name for a broad area of European sword types; generally a longsword can be either an arming sword (single-hand only), bastard sword (single/double-hand), or even great sword (double-hands).

3. Now, katana was not the only sword Japanese ever had; like European, there were different types of sword for different purposes.

[Haakon]

The Katana was great at all things attributed to it, the strange thing is the assumptions all other sword types were somehow inferior...

It's not strange considering how European fencing techniques almost died out completely, while the Katana has Quentin Tarantino and Akira Kurosawa.



In these videos, you will see German fencing techniques that survived thanks to Johannes Liechtenauer. The video is slow compared with videos of Japanese fencing simply for the fact that the fencing is done by amateurs compared to the professional Japanese ones. But you will notice how the techniques are often the same and quite deadly.

European fencing don't get the credit it deserves.

[SonOfAlexander]

I saw on the National Geo. how the smiths make one. I think it's a great sword. Like everything else it has its pros and cons - eg, amazing strength and sharpness but diffciult to train with/use and almsot impossible to stab with. It was superior to the European broadsword of the time in every way, which was also too cumbersome for stabbing - although if you could get in a stab, WOW they were a gonner. It didnt matter though, as the katana was so powerful when used to slash.

It is true that a man palced a grain of rice on a man's head and cut it precisely froma slash. The supposed tests - place it in the water and it should be sharp enough to cut a lily floating by.

It should be so strong that it could cut through bones - prisoners were often used as tests... The sharpness is legendary, and the processes are amazing. Whereas it's true that Holywood is often exaggerative as usual, not anywhere near as much as usual, say as with cannonballs exploding, etc.

[Leonidas]

I saw on the National Geo. how the smiths make one. I think it's a great sword. Like everything else it has its pros and cons - eg, amazing strength and sharpness but diffciult to train with/use and almsot impossible to stab with. It was superior to the European broadsword of the time in every way, which was also too cumbersome for stabbing - although if you could get in a stab, WOW they were a gonner. It didnt matter though, as the katana was so powerful when used to slash.

It is true that a man palced a grain of rice on a man's head and cut it precisely froma slash. The supposed tests - place it in the water and it should be sharp enough to cut a lily floating by.

It should be so strong that it could cut through bones - prisoners were often used as tests... The sharpness is legendary, and the processes are amazing. Whereas it's true that Holywood is often exaggerative as usual, not anywhere near as much as usual, say as with cannonballs exploding, etc.

[Entropy Judge]

...people forget the katana is a superb defensive weapon in the right hands. Also any opponent would need metal armour on every inch of skin - as your veins WILL be sliced by the razor edged blade.

Throat, legs, belly and the veins on inside of the arms would be common targets as well as wrist/ankle tendons. Anatomical knowledge was part of the expertise. One would have to be protected against everything.

But now you're not comparing the sword, you're comparing the guy who uses it. That's like comparing a pistol to a rifle by saying the guy with a pistol can ricochet bullets.