Is the katana overrated as a sword?

[Entropy Judge]

well obviously rapax, the katana is over rated because i could have defeated a samurai with a blunt metal pipe.

Well, you could also use a rock. Granted, it helps if you have a propulsion device to enhance the speed of the rock ....

And, if the samurai tries to use his katana to split the rock before it hits him, he'll only be hurting himself, because then he'll be hit by two rocks instead of one!

[antaeus]

Because Samurai didn't know the technology of a blunt metal pipe and hence would have been scared by it.

indeed.

i would have been all conquering... as the mongol hordes, the roman empire and the arab caliphate would have all crumbled before my piped assault.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well, you could also use a rock. Granted, it helps if you have a propulsion device to enhance the speed of the rock ....

And, if the samurai tries to use his katana to split the rock before it hits him, he'll only be hurting himself, because then he'll be hit by two rocks instead of one!

Not if he breaks it with the business end of his face.

[Entropy Judge]

But then what use is the sword? By your remark, a samurai is just as deadly with a toothpick, a katana, or unarmed - therefore, the katana is nothing special, only the samurai.

[antaeus]

But then what use is the sword? By your remark, a samurai is just as deadly with a toothpick, a katana, or unarmed - therefore, the katana is nothing special, only the samurai.

i think the point is, the katana is a tool..

a tool is only ever as good as its user, but having good tools can in turn help the user be better..

[Wolfcp11]

i think the point is, the katana is a tool..

a tool is only ever as good as its user, but having good tools can in turn help the user be better..

I think even I could take out the best samurai charging me with a katana if I had a gun...

tool>skill

[antaeus]

perhaps...

or perhaps the tool is only as good as the person holding it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph8YNjtnw68

hahaha

[Wolfcp11]

perhaps...

or perhaps the tool is only as good as the person holding it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph8YNjtnw68

hahaha

okay, basic knowledge+tool>skill

[Juggernaut]

So this is what i'm getting.

1. The Mongol Invasion was more so a Korean/Chinese invasion and the tactical ability which made the Mongols effective was never even in use against the Japanese. So the whole bragging rights of "we stood up to the Mongols and won" for example is non existant.

It seems you have the image of a Mongolian army composed entirely of Mongol-Turkic horse archers. That is not true, especially at this era when the Mongols became the ruler of a world empire. The Mongols made a heavy use of auxiliaries all over their realm. For example, the Mongol army at the battle of Ain Jalut consisted Georgians and Armenians as well as Mongols. Does that take away the credit from Baibars? And local auxiliary doesn't mean a peasant cannon fodder, just like how Roman auxiliaries were highly trained.

And I said this before, your point was that since the Japanese had no experience of varied tactics, they would lose against a mainland army. And AFAIK China and Korea is mainland.

2. What made the Greeks effective against the Persians was their organization and the army that Philip II built. "Scythians, Indians, Assyrians, Anatolians, Egyptians, Phoenicians etc" had no were near that level of organization. Simple as that. Also it doesn't hurt that they had probably the greatest battle field mind in history to help them out either.

I'm talking about the Persian wars in 490 and 480-479BC, not Alexander's campaign. AFAIK Greeks at that point had little to no experience with foreign warfare, and their tactics and organization was no where near as complex as the combined force military of Alexander. Yet they've managed to repel Persia.

3. Okay we won't compare a Kataphract with a Samurai because as you say it is unrealistic. So let's compare a Samurai with an unamed type of horseman that happens to be covered in lammelar armor from hoof to crown, weilds a lance, a composite bow, a spathion and a mace. Who do you see as more effective.

I presume you are talking about a Byzantine cataphract? To answer your question: I don't know, and I really don't care. Equipment alone doesn't decide a duel. There are various factors such as skills of the combatants and even pure lack. On one fight the cataphract might win, but on another the samurai might. I honestly don't see any point in this kind of question.

3. Yumi bow may have been built asymmetrically but the fact is that it was still much harder to weild on horseback than a scythian/hun/turk/mongol bow. As for its effectiveness being superior to that of a welsh longbow...well I don't know if that's true without a source. Of course the tactics were also different using the bodkin arrow as they were shot into the air letting gravity to provide much stronger force.

Ever heard of Tooshiya? It was a archery competion held during Edo jidai, where the participants had to hit a target 120m away from a sitting position. They competed how many targets they could hit in 1 day, not whether if they could hit. There are many records of men firing several thousand, sometimes more than ten thousand, arrows a day. Most of them hit the target. The highest record was made by Wasa Norito in 1686, where he fired 13053 arrows and hit 8133 of them.

4. Katana is a curved blade. Yes you can stab with a curved blade but a straight blade will always be better at that.

True.

5. Yes most armies are created to fight best where they lived. I'm just saying that the Japanese were very limited on that. The Romans fought in the cold forests of Germania, the hot climate in Africa, the mountains in Dacia, the deserts of the middle east and so on and so forth. I didn't say that the Japanese army didn't evolve but you can see variations and adaptations in all these different conflicts that the Romans were in within the same span of time. The Japanese didn't have the variation of enemies and scenarios that provided them with the reason to do that.

Rapax pretty much said what I intended to. And Romans army wasn't some kind of all-terrain fighting machine. Like I said, they were never able to satisfactory defeat the Parthians/Sassanids with the old legion system. And when the more agressive Sassanids came into power, they had to change their entire military system to adapt.

Let's say somehow the Europeans invaded Japan during 16th century, no matter how unlikely that was. The Japanese "might" lose at the beginning. But there is no reason to suggest why they won't be able to adapt to European style of war. For example, in 1540 there weren't a single gun in Japan. By 1600 there were several hundred thousand, and they drastically changed their military system and tactics as well to utilize this new weapon effectively. Or what about Japan during Meiji period. When the balck ship arrived, Japan was a country that practically stopped it's technological advance 250 years ago. 40 years later they managed to have a successful war against Russia, one of the world power at that time. They were, or are, very adaptable people.

[Carpathian Wolf]

It seems you have the image of a Mongolian army composed entirely of Mongol-Turkic horse archers. That is not true, especially at this era when the Mongols became the ruler of a world empire. The Mongols made a heavy use of auxiliaries all over their realm. For example, the Mongol army at the battle of Ain Jalut consisted Georgians and Armenians as well as Mongols. Does that take away the credit from Baibars? And local auxiliary doesn't mean a peasant cannon fodder, just like how Roman auxiliaries were highly trained.

And I said this before, your point was that since the Japanese had no experience of varied tactics, they would lose against a mainland army. And AFAIK China and Korea is mainland.

There is a difference between "some auxilaries" and "2 mongols for every 500 korean/chinese." Or whatever the ratio was. When the Mongols invaded through Russia and the Middle east, yes they had auxilaries. In Russia for example the Golden Horde had absorbed many Cumans and Pechengs. But the tactic that they employed was still there.

Interestingly enough go read what Baibars said about his "victory" against the Mongols.

The battle of Bunei was a "Mongol" victory on the land. They then pulled back and the storms thrashed their ships.

Davis, Paul K. (1999). "100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present." Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Primary sources are good but unless they discount the secondary sources they help paint a better picture.

The 2nd battle all odds were against the Korean/Chinese/Mongol army. Even naked Celts can defeat a well organized fighting machine if the odds are in their favor.

I'm talking about the Persian wars in 490 and 480-479BC, not Alexander's campaign. AFAIK Greeks at that point had little to no experience with foreign warfare, and their tactics and organization was no where near as complex as the combined force military of Alexander. Yet they've managed to repel Persia.

Greeks are badass what can I say?

I presume you are talking about a Byzantine cataphract? To answer your question: I don't know, and I really don't care. Equipment alone doesn't decide a duel. There are various factors such as skills of the combatants and even pure lack. On one fight the cataphract might win, but on another the samurai might. I honestly don't see any point in this kind of question.

Well of course we would consider that they were both equally trained, same age, same health etc. Of course in the end it is skill that wins it out but we aren't comparing skill are we? We're comparing each respective's equipment in respect to the topic concerning the katana.

We'll assume that the battle field is a flat open terrain. They both have bows, one using a smaller turkic bow, the other a yumi bow. The Turkic bow will have a higher rate of fire. Shorter draw, equal or even greater power. Ontop of that the kataphract is pretty much unaffected by enemy arrows. In fact a common tactic would be for the Byz kataphracts to march slowly forward while loosing arrows in quick succession and then charging while more or less ignorin the incoming arrows. Really in this scenario I would see the Samurai being left without a horse completely and the lanced.

Say they do manage to get close. What is a katana going to do for example to a steel helmet or splinted metal armor? Or the byzantine lammelar armor? Little to nothing that's what. What is a mace going to do to a samurai's helmet? Or heck being hit anywhere with such a weapon. Probably break something. Let's even say the mace isn't used but the spathion. Even that is a pretty heavy piece of metal that could really do some blunt damage.

Really the only way the samurai could win would be do to personal skill, and not equipment. All things being equal, the equipment will win out.

Ever heard of Tooshiya? It was a archery competion held during Edo jidai, where the participants had to hit a target 120m away from a sitting position. They competed how many targets they could hit in 1 day, not whether if they could hit. There are many records of men firing several thousand, sometimes more than ten thousand, arrows a day. Most of them hit the target. The highest record was made by Wasa Norito in 1686, where he fired 13053 arrows and hit 8133 of them.

Well great for Wasa Norito but how does this prove that the Yumi bow is better than the Welsh Longbow? Or better yet the Turkic or Scythian bows?

Rapax pretty much said what I intended to. And Romans army wasn't some kind of all-terrain fighting machine. Like I said, they were never able to satisfactory defeat the Parthians/Sassanids with the old legion system. And when the more agressive Sassanids came into power, they had to change their entire military system to adapt.

But they beat both of them didn't they? They showed the ability not only to adopt an enemy's tactic, but to improve on it to the point of superiority. I didn't say the Roman army was all terrain, but their ability to adapt is probably the best in the world. My point was that the Romans had a much more varied enemy than the Japanese. You can agree with that right?

Let's say somehow the Europeans invaded Japan during 16th century, no matter how unlikely that was. The Japanese "might" lose at the beginning. But there is no reason to suggest why they won't be able to adapt to European style of war. For example, in 1540 there weren't a single gun in Japan. By 1600 there were several hundred thousand, and they drastically changed their military system and tactics as well to utilize this new weapon effectively. Or what about Japan during Meiji period. When the balck ship arrived, Japan was a country that practically stopped it's technological advance 250 years ago. 40 years later they managed to have a successful war against Russia, one of the world power at that time. They were, or are, very adaptable people.

Sure I never said that they wouldn't adapt. I said that the samurai and japanese military pre gun powder era was remarkably inferior to main land armies due to stagnation in varied tactics. I'm not talking over the course of time, but during any one era. Because of the inferior iron in Japan, armor is often poor in comparisant as are the weaponry. The mystique of the katana doesn't carry over to ability on the battle field. Is it a decent sword? Sure. Would it stand up on a european battle field? Doubtful.

[Mithie]

If the katana is so much better than medieval european swords, then why does the knight have better stats than the samurai in age of empires 2?

[Carpathian Wolf]

If the katana is so much better than medieval european swords, then why does the knight have better stats than the samurai in age of empires 2?

Damn, see I thought of just bringing up that point and win the arguement but then I thought it would be better to have a long drawn out discussion that isn't wank festing eye bleeding retarded.

[Entropy Judge]

Absolutely nothing pertaining to historicality or reality.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Samurai is an infantry unit designed specifically to take out Unique Units, and the game attempts to balance them in that respect - increasing their HP, Attack, or Defense significantly, while retaining the Japanese bonus to attack speed and their bonus against UU, and they start to run roughshod over anything "Unique."

The Knight, on the other hand, is a mounted Warrior - it's expensive, fast, and heavy. Almost everyone gets two units in the Knight line, and many get three (the ones that don't are the Aztecs and Mayans, who do not get any mounted units, and the Saracens, who are restricted to Knights only). Knights are superb warriors in any situation - except when confronted by Pike units, who are comparatively effective against them. Samurai, on the other hand, share infantry units' weakness against Archer units, but is truly "weak" only to the Cataphract - another Unique Unit with a bonus against Infantry.

The final 'knight' - the Teutonic Knight - is a slow, incredibly powerful melee warrior. A physical powerhouse, able to compete with (and beat, IIRC) Samurai, and excellent at destroying buildings, they are too slow to have any chance at fighting ranged units, while the Samurai can catch some units, and has faster cavalry and HA units to support it.

[Juggernaut]

There is a difference between "some auxilaries" and "2 mongols for every 500 korean/chinese." Or whatever the ratio was. When the Mongols invaded through Russia and the Middle east, yes they had auxilaries. In Russia for example the Golden Horde had absorbed many Cumans and Pechengs. But the tactic that they employed was still there.

As I said, the Mongols by the time of Kublai were no longer the "generic steppe horde". They used auxiliaries, many of the infantry, widely over their Empire. That doesn't mean they were pussies.

The battle of Bunei was a "Mongol" victory on the land. They then pulled back and the storms thrashed their ships.

Davis, Paul K. (1999). "100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present." Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Primary sources are good but unless they discount the secondary sources they help paint a better picture.

I want you to be honest with me: did you actually used any other source other than that wiki article? Have you actually even read that book?
So far, I've cited 4 primary sources from both sides. You've only listed 1 wikipedia article, which uses a book that isn't even dedicated to the subject.

The 2nd battle all odds were against the Korean/Chinese/Mongol army. Even naked Celts can defeat a well organized fighting machine if the odds are in their favor.

Actually, the "naked Celts" during the first invasion of Britain by Caesar, who outnumbered Caesar, held the high ground, and were on a beach were beaten.

Greeks are badass what can I say?

So I provide a example of a army with very little experience with varied tactics beating a one with many experience, and you just brush it away "because they were badass"? Then maybe I'll just say "Samurais are badass" like some generic Samurai fanboy.

Well of course we would consider that they were both equally trained, same age, same health etc. Of course in the end it is skill that wins it out but we aren't comparing skill are we? We're comparing each respective's equipment in respect to the topic concerning the katana.

Um, you initially said "who would win" not "whos equipment is better".

We'll assume that the battle field is a flat open terrain. They both have bows, one using a smaller turkic bow, the other a yumi bow. The Turkic bow will have a higher rate of fire. Shorter draw, equal or even greater power. Ontop of that the kataphract is pretty much unaffected by enemy arrows. In fact a common tactic would be for the Byz kataphracts to march slowly forward while loosing arrows in quick succession and then charging while more or less ignorin the incoming arrows. Really in this scenario I would see the Samurai being left without a horse completely and the lanced.

Say they do manage to get close. What is a katana going to do for example to a steel helmet or splinted metal armor? Or the byzantine lammelar armor? Little to nothing that's what. What is a mace going to do to a samurai's helmet? Or heck being hit anywhere with such a weapon. Probably break something. Let's even say the mace isn't used but the spathion. Even that is a pretty heavy piece of metal that could really do some blunt damage.

Really the only way the samurai could win would be do to personal skill, and not equipment. All things being equal, the equipment will win out.

There are numerous flaws with this argument or scenario. You completely ignore the weakside of cataphracts:their lack of mobility. Or the lack of any field fortifications which the Japanese used commonly. And you are assuming as if Japanese armor were made out of paper: sorry, they were very resilient, especially against arrows(armor used in a country where the primary weapon was a bow being strong against arrow is hardly a surprise). Another interesting fact: katana was only a secondary weapon. The primary weapon was always either a missile weapon or a polearm. So the whole point of katana being useless against armor is nill point. Most katanas were useless against Japanese armor, unless aiming for the joints. Katanas were not lightsabers. But that has little do with the battlefield ability of a army. It's discussing the ability of a pistol to determine the effectiveness of a army.

To me it seems you already have the conclusion in the beginning (Romans will kick the ass of Japanese) and you are just trying to make a argument(an ideal scenario) to fit that conclusion, rather than the way around.

Well great for Wasa Norito but how does this prove that the Yumi bow is better than the Welsh Longbow? Or better yet the Turkic or Scythian bows?

Um, you are the one who asked for a source about the accuracy of yumi. So I provided it.

But they beat both of them didn't they? They showed the ability not only to adopt an enemy's tactic, but to improve on it to the point of superiority. I didn't say the Roman army was all terrain, but their ability to adapt is probably the best in the world. My point was that the Romans had a much more varied enemy than the Japanese. You can agree with that right?

Yes. But their army was not suited to fight against all type of enemy. The earlier legions were designed to fight against other infantry heavy army, and whenever they faced with cavalry heavy army, they did not do well. Even the later army, focused in cavalry, suffered serious defeats against the Huns.

Sure I never said that they wouldn't adapt. I said that the samurai and japanese military pre gun powder era was remarkably inferior to main land armies due to stagnation in varied tactics.

I already said, and I think proved, that there was no "stagnation". Their way of warfare were always changing.

I'm not talking over the course of time, but during any one era. Because of the inferior iron in Japan, armor is often poor in comparisant as are the weaponry.The mystique of the katana doesn't carry over to ability on the battle field. Is it a decent sword? Sure. Would it stand up on a european battle field? Doubtful.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about the ability of the katana. They were just a secondary weapon in a open battle, and the main weapon was always either a bow/gun or a polearm. As far as I see, tactics, organization and military structure is far more important in this kind of discussion, and I don't mean any offense but I don't think you are well aquainted with those aspects of medieval Japanese military.

[Mangalore]

yes and no, proof plate did excist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_of_armour

but where imensly expensive, there are a few reports of 'proof plate' being worn in the english civil war.

also as can be seen in this example,
http://www.ima-usa.com/product_info....oducts_id/2119

breast plates had to have a 'proof mark' this being the dent made by a pistol shot failing to penetrate during testing.

I was not talking restricted to the 14th - 16th century. With the 18th century armor had become nearly obsolete safe for currassiers (and even curassiers started to abandon it). Main reason: No armor sufficiently light for combat could stop the bullets and artillery flying around battlefields at that time at point blank range. In case of curiassiers the armor was more important as melee protection in cavalry vs cavalry combat.


so until the 17th century amor technology managed to keep up and quite alot of soldiers with the means had some protection, but from then onward armor was abandoned more and more (even by priveliged cavalry regiments who should have been capable to afford armor) until it was completely abandoned by nearly all troops safe for some exceptions (most parade uniforms) after the Napoleonic wars.

It's not like the gun suddenly became superior, but it evolved over several centuries to a point where steel armor became obsolete. Now composite armor seems pretty intrigueing in even stopping assault rifle shots and suddenly soldiers once again run around in a kind of heavy armor when their fathers as late as vietnam at best had a flak jacket.

[teh.frickin.pope]

Let's even say the mace isn't used but the spathion. Even that is a pretty heavy piece of metal that could really do some blunt damage.

No it wasn't and no it wouldn't.

[Manco]

The spathion is an axe i gather from google. If so then it wasn't mean for blunt damage, but use the concentrated weight to pierce armour.

[Nikos]

The spathion is an axe i gather from google. If so then it wasn't mean for blunt damage, but use the concentrated weight to pierce armour.

No, the Spathion was a sword



Spathion=Spatha

[Manco]

Damn, I just read the first link when I googled. All the rest indeed say it was a spatha. Never saw the word spathion before actually (probably because it sounds strange in Dutch).

That means it was around 1- 1.5kg and would be pretty much useless against a heavy armoured warrior I think, atleast compared to a good axe or mace. (comparable to a late Frankish/viking sword or an arming sword)

[Nikos]

Damn, I just read the first link when I googled. All the rest indeed say it was a spatha. Never saw the word spathion before actually (probably because it sounds strange in Dutch).

That means it was around 1- 1.5kg and would be pretty much useless against a heavy armoured warrior I think, atleast compared to a good axe or mace. (comparable to a late Frankish/viking sword or an arming sword)

Σπαθιόν is a hellenization of Spatha. It's pretty heavy, good for stabbing. Against plate mail though, not much use.