The Katana vs. The Rapier
A Fantasy Worth Considering
by John Clements, Director of the HACA
Every once in awhile it's not uncommon to hear people speculate on what result might occur in a duel between a Japanese samurai armed with his katana and a European Renaissance swordsman with a rapier. It's a worthwhile question to consider.
As someone who has some small experience in both traditional Japanese swordsmanship and fencing (Kenjutsu & Kendo) and who has been a long-time renaissance swordsman and Western fencer, I can offer an opinion on this question. From my own experience sparring with cutting against thrusting swords, I have a few insights. While there are certainly no historically recorded accounts (other than unsubstantiated myth and rumor) as to encounters between European swordsmen and Japanese samurai, I think we can make a few very general suppositions about such a fight.
First, while typical samurai warriors were highly trained soldiers, the average samurai was not an expert swordsman, perhaps only 5% or so were its been suggested. Of this 5%, maybe 5% of those were "master" level swordsmen. Whereas the average European rapier swordsman, would more or less be an ordinary urban citizen with or without military experience. He would likely have received some (if any) professional instruction from a master in a private school of fence and then would of course have some degree of street fighting experience. The weapon he is using would be one of personal self-defence and duel as opposed to a battlefield sword.
For sake of argument though, let's assume mastery level by each hypothetical fighter. Let us also assume armor is a non-factor in the encounter, as are any missile weapons or terrain factors. Further, lets assume that each swordsman is equally ignorant of the other's style of fight.
An immediate question that occurs then, is would the samurai's notorious resolute contempt for death and self-disregard lead to an audacious and immediate offensive attack? Would the rapier fighter's presumably cautious, cool-headed counter-thrusting style of fight provoke a simple stop-thrust? The samurai might well hold disdain for his "barbarian" foreigner's seemingly "flimsy" blade. This could prove fatal against a weapon with the speed and reach of a rapier. The rapier fighter himself may also erroneously hold his "pagan" adversary's cutting style equally in contempt. Underestimating both the speed and the force of a katana's deflecting counter-cuts can be disastrous. Even a small snipping cut could often dismember an arm. Simply stepping to evade an initial cut can even place you in the path of a powerful second and third one. For the most part though, since all the psychological factors, although important, are notoriously hard to quantify, we'll have to avoid them for now.
Personally, from my own experience, I think the outcome of such a fight would fall in one of either two directions. The samurai would move directly to make a devastating cut, becoming punctured through the head or lung as a result, but still having his cut cleave through the rapier fighter's headand torso (or at least his arm). Else, the rapier fighter would over time, make multiple shallow punctures to the samurai's hands, arms, and face until able to deliver an incapacitating thrust. But at this same time, the samurai would be carefully closing the distance and waiting until the split second he could dash the rapier aside and step in with a slice clean across his opponent's abdomen or face. Typically, the sword user won't risk stepping into a stop-thrust and the rapier fighter won't risk taking a swiping cut. The heavier blade can usually beat the rapier aside but can't respond in time. While the rapier, often could attack but afterwards couldn't recover or parry once it connects. I have seen both forms of outcomes in my mock-fighting practices, but more often the Japanese stylist underestimates the rapier rather than vice-versa.
As is becoming increasing well known, the rapier is not the flimsy tool of the modern sport version, nor is it used in the same flicking manner. It is longer, stronger, heavier, and involves a greater range of techniques and moves. The rapier's penetrating stabs have great reach and are very quick, particularly on the disengage. But it can still be grabbed and lacks cutting offense. The katana has a well-rounded offence to defence, and is much more symmetrical in its handling. It can make great close-in draw cuts and is an agile weapon with quick footwork of its own. It can be wielded well enough one-handed if need be, too. Obviously, a katana can't match the rapier thrust for thrust. What a rapier does best is fight point-on with linear stabs, and no heavier, wider blade will possibly out maneuver it. Playing to the rapier's strength by using a katana horizontally is a losing game.
The katana itself is not a slow sword. It has a good deal of agility as well as being able to thrust some. Kenjutsu cuts are delivered in quick succession using a flowing manner. Its two-hand grip can generate great power by using a sort of "torqueing" method with additional force added from the hips. The katana's cutting power and edge sharpness is also legendary (although often the subject of exaggeration). It is a sword of war after all, and faced a variety of arms and armors. While not every puncture with a rapier would be lethal, to be sure, virtually every cut by a katana was intended to kill instantly.
Although occasionally argued by some, I do not believe for an instant that the rapier would be "cut" or broken by a katana. Although katanas were (more or less) capable of cutting through metal, slicing an adversary's very sword, especially one as agile as a rapier, is improbable at best. The rapier really just doesn't offer the opportunity or the necessary resistance to even attempt it.
In thinking about all this, I have to admit to a certain bias. Being somewhat familiar with both Eastern and Western systems, I have a good feel I think for the strengths and weaknesses of each. So I may have a slightly skewed opinion. When I have sparred with each weapon against each style of fighter, I know generally what they can and can't do and adjust myself accordingly. Then again, maybe that makes me more objective than biased. My own experiences contrasting the two forms has been in using a variety of implements, including: non-contact steel blunts, semi-contact bokken (wooden sword) vs. replica rapier, and full-contact padded sword vs. schlager (rapier simulator). Attempting a simulation of sport epee vs. bokken though, is a futile exercise as the super light epee, more often than it can flash in with a poke, can be easily knocked around and even end up being bent. As well, shinai vs. a foil or epee is just as futile. The virtually weightless bamboo shinai distorts a katana's handling far more so than even a foil or epee misrepresents the performance of a rapier or small-sword.
Very often it has seemed to me, that sport fencers are quite often much too quick to assume that their own speedy feints, disengages, and long reach will easily overwhelm a cutting sword. Frequently, what passes for the kenjutsu that Western fencers have previously encountered was far from competent. Thus, they are habitually unprepared for a katana's agile strength and defensive counter-cuts. The worst thing the rapier fighter can do is to allow his weapon to be bound up with the point off to the side. He must avoid fighting close-in where the katana's force and slicing ability will instantly dominate. On the other hand, Asian stylists unfamiliar with what a rapier really is and what it can do, severely underestimate it. They too readily believe what they see in sport epee and foil is the "real thing". The rapier's deceptive speed combined with its excellent reach and fast, efficient footwork make it a formidable weapon to face in single (unarmored) combat. Essentially, underestimating either weapon is a fatal misperception.*
It is worth mentioning that the rapier was used more often with a companion dagger. But employing a dagger against a fast katana is extremely challenging as well as possibly self-defeating. Trying to trap or block a sword held in two-hands with a light dagger held in one is not advisable. The samurai might always release one hand from his weapon and grab his opponent's blade. However, some dagger techniques against a sword actually resemble those effectively used with the Okinawan sai. Also, the respected two-sword Nito-ryu style of Musashi seems to be much less relevant against the rapier. In this case, using one hand on two separate swords reduces the katana's own speed and strength advantages while playing to the rapier's. The two swords end up being too slow to employ their combination parry/cut against the rapier's greater speed and stabbing reach.
So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think "who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot question and unanswerable. Thus, what it eventually gets down to is not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal skill.
*Footnote: Interestingly, the Renaissance cut & thrust method (as practiced by the Elizabethan master George Silver or described in various early Italian manuals) naturally has qualities of each weapon. It's not unlike that of Kenjutsu with many fundamental principles being the same. It differs significantly of course, in its footwork and in the application of certain techniques and moves (particularly thrusts) which were later adapted to its similar "cousin", the rapier. Cut & thrust swords were also commonly used along with a buckler or dagger and the flexibility of this two-weapon combination can have some advantages against a single sword in held two hands.
About the Author
John Clements is the author of "Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques" (Paladin Press, November 1998, ISBN # 1-58160-004-6). He is the Director of the HACA - The Historical Armed Combat Association at http://www.thehaca.com/ - a martial arts organization dedicated to the study and replication of historical European swordsmanship and fighting skills.
Quote:Um, no, the Samurai would slice and dice the European. Those guys were the biggest badasses of melee fighting the world has ever seen.
And I would say you've been watching too much movies. actually it is more likely the rapier master will win, since Rapier is a thrusting (stabbing weapon) whereas the katana is slashing weapon, the Rapier master will have more range in melee.
During the mongol invasion of japan there was a major battle near Fukuoka, and the samurai heads kept rolling on the ground. The korean skirmishes were known to be superior to the Samurai in melee battle and they used spears.
but it the end it all depends who the katana master or the Rapier master individually is. usually there is special type of Samurai known as the kensai (Sword saints) these are abnormally strong samurai.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
"Um, no, the Samurai would slice and dice the European. Those guys were the biggest badasses of melee fighting the world has ever seen"
Read the text, this man seems to be as close to an authority on both forms of fighting as can be got and he dosn't agree with you.
Were not talking about melee fighting as such, were talking about a one on one encounter between 2 master level swordsman.
Also of interest is the part of the text that states only about 5% of Samurai can be described as expert swordsman, and only 5% of that 5% were master level swordsman. We all get the impression from what we have seen on TV that to be a Samurai you had to be a master, or at least highly capable with a Katana, apparently that wasn't the case.
I think after 50 years of seeing Errol Flynn or whoever flitting around fencing in the films we all have the wrong impression of rapier fighting in the 16th and 17th century (and later in other forms all the way up to the mid 19th century), which seems to have been an extremely quick, skillfull and violent form of sword fighting, and equal to any other form of sword fighting in the world when practised at master level.
If 2 master level practitioners in the use of the rapier and the katana fought then contrary to popular opinion the winner would be very hard to predict and i think, as a observer of both forms only, that the inreased range of the rapier would make all the difference.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Jan 30, 2006 9:16 AM
I don't know which style is better but I'm absolutely certain that the degree of skills of a true samurai master will always be higher to the skills of a western (rapier) master. The reason is simple, katana's have been used for centuries (and hence many different jutsu's have been invented and the imperfections been worked out) but more importantly Asians are crazy freaks. They train, train, train, train until they reach perfection. I doubt many western swordsmen have reached such level. Have you ever seen Japanese bowmen ? Using a bow (and everything really) is considered art and must be perfect. Such degree of perfectionism is unknown in the west imo.
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Quote:I don't know which style is better but I'm absolutely certain that the degree of skills of a true samurai master will always be higher to the skills of a western (rapier) master. The reason is simple, katana's have been used for centuries (and hence many different jutsu's have been invented and the imperfections been worked out) but more importantly Asians are crazy freaks. They train, train, train, train until they reach perfection. I doubt many western swordsmen have reached such level. Have you ever seen Japanese bowmen ? Using a bow (and everything really) is considered art and must be perfect. Such degree of perfectionism is unknown in the west imo
And I think you too have been watching movies. Most Samurai were simply arrogant pricks whose hobby was slashing peasants. In many peasants revolts Samurai had been defeated by peasants wielding weapons like scythe. Their was an elite few Samurai that totally mastered the art, but they are no better than a Rapier master in the same order. As I said it all depend on the individual but Rapier is a superior weapon to the katana since it is a thrusting weapon although obviously the katana is technologically a superior sword.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
As I said it all depend on the individual but Rapier is a superior weapon to the katana since it is a thrusting weapon although obviously the katana is technologically a superior sword.
Well said. That about wraps it up: A slashing strike involves greater distance covered by the blade, thus it will require greater speed so as to be performed at the same time as a thrusting strike. Reach is another great mishap.
"People seem to mistake Samurai as an elite force, they were nobles thats all."
it's obvious that by talking about samurais, we actually mean professional swordsmen.
"And I think you too have been watching movies. Most Samurai were simply arrogant pricks whose hobby was slashing peasants. In many peasants revolts Samurai had been defeated by peasants wielding weapons like scythe. Their was an elite few Samurai that totally mastered the art, but they are no better than a Rapier master in the same order. As I said it all depend on the individual but Rapier is a superior weapon to the katana since it is a thrusting weapon although obviously the katana is technologically a superior sword. "
I love the japanese culture so I think I know a little about it, the passion that these (most) persons have to shoot a bow, to make tea, .. is incredible. Respect and honor is everything in Japan, have you ever seen a dirty street in japan ?
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
This message has been edited by Nighthawk00 on Feb 1, 2006 12:01 AM
"I don't know which style is better but I'm absolutely certain that the degree of skills of a true samurai master will always be higher to the skills of a western (rapier) master."
Don't understand your logic here, surely the fact that an individual has applied himself enough to become a master in the use of any weapon shows that they have a high level of strength of character and discipline, whether they come from Japan or Europe dosn't neccesarily mean that they have more or less of either.
"it's obvious that by talking about samurais, we actually mean professional swordsmen."
The gentleman who wrote this article seems to be pretty knowledgeable on the Samurai and the rapier master during the Renaissance and he states that perhaps 5% of Samurai could be classed as expert and 5% of that 5% can be called masters.
The samurai may have been all classed as professional swordsman but if this statement is true (and i see no reason to doubt it) then most were far from expert.
"I love the japanese culture so I think I know a little about it, the passion that these (most) persons have to shoot a bow, to make tea, .. is incredible. Respect and honor is everything in Japan, have you ever seen a dirty street in japan ?"
They may not have been as proficient in the ceremonial nicities that the Japanese Samurai were but i imagine the European rapier master was just as passionate about his skill with his weapon as any Samurai was, i'm sure they put just as much time in to training and just as much effort.
Quote:Weren't the Mongol invasion in Japan complete failures?
It was a failure because a thunderstorm and they had to abort a grand scale invasion. But still there were a few battle fought, and the mongols proved vastly superior.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Quote:I love the japanese culture so I think I know a little about it, the passion that these (most) persons have to shoot a bow, to make tea, .. is incredible. Respect and honor is everything in Japan, have you ever seen a dirty street in japan ?
I doubt you know more about feudal Japan than me especially about the shogunate.
As I said you are under the wrong impression,feudal Japan was no less brutal than feudal europe. The peasants were treated like scum and life was cheap.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Quote:One the Rapier was not a european weapon rather it was a FRENCH weapon.
The rapier was a spanish sword used widely around europe.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
What opponents/strikes is a rapier master an expert at defending against? Probably other rapier bearers' thrusts.
What opponents/strikes is a katana master an expert at defending against? Other Katana slashes but also a number of other weapons both of slashing and of piercieng nature (spear?).
If the above is correct then the Katana master theoretically should have an easier time adjusting to his opponents attacks and defending against them. Contrary, the rapier master, most proficient at calculating and defending against all sorts of rapier attacks, will find it more difficult to predict and defend against his opponets' style, totally different than anything he encountered before.
Do you find this important, or will reach simply decide the duel in favor of the rapier?
What opponents/strikes is a rapier master an expert at defending against? Probably other rapier bearers' thrusts.
What opponents/strikes is a katana master an expert at defending against? Other Katana slashes but also a number of other weapons both of slashing and of piercieng nature (spear?).
If the above is correct then the Katana master theoretically should have an easier time adjusting to his opponents attacks and defending against them. Contrary, the rapier master, most proficient at calculating and defending against all sorts of rapier attacks, will find it more difficult to predict and defend against his opponets' style, totally different than anything he encountered before.
Do you find this important, or will reach simply decide the duel in favor of the rapier?
It is a good observation. But usually the Samurai train against each other so they mostly acquainted with slashing weapons. They do encounter piercing weapon or perhaps even blunt weapon in battle so they probably has a more extensive training. A Katana can also stab, one must not forget that fact, just like a rapier can slash.
The Rapier master does train against other Rapier wielding opponent but they certainly need to be able to defend themselves against a sabre wielding opponent for instance. Rapier was widely used on the battlefield at a given period, so I'll expect there training to be more extensive rather than specific.
But in the end the Rapier is more lethal, they look for opening all the time, each thrust is lethal (unless the opponent has mastery of the art it would be hard to block). Whilst the samurai looks for opening too, with slashes expect the battle to be more protracted, since slashes are easier to block. Sometime they have to wear down the opponent physically inorder to have an opening.
There have been record of many duels in France and europe, they usually last like 30 secs despite both opponents being very skill.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
The Rapier master does train against other Rapier wielding opponent but they certainly need to be able to defend themselves against a sabre wielding opponent for instance.
Good point. Which renders my previous thinking fruitless I suppose.
But in the end the Rapier is more lethal, they look for opening all the time, each thrust is lethal (unless the opponent has mastery of the art it would be hard to block). Whilst the samurai looks for opening too, with slashes expect the battle to be more protracted, since slashes are easier to block. Sometime they have to wear down the opponent physically inorder to have an opening.
There have been record of many duels in France and europe, they usually last like 30 secs despite both opponents being very skill.
I was thinking the same thing more or less, without ever having heard of such encounters. I believe it will probably go like this:
The Katana master, ignorant of his opponent's style and capacity, will however observe that he is holding a piercing weapon. Thus he will expect a piercing attack. He will also observe his opponent's greater reach, so he will choose to come close. To do this, he will have to wait for his opponent to make the first move, hopefully deflect it and move in for a counter attack.
It seems logical that he will choose this defensive stance holding the Katana almost vertical in front of him. If the rapier attacks and the Katana is quick enough to deflect the incoming blade left or right, then the Katana master will be at an advantage to return a quick slash and end it right there.
But will he be able to deflect the rapier masters initial attack?
This assumes ofcourse that the rapier master will attack first. Theoretically the Asian can out-wait the European - patience should be a cultural advantage for him.
My favourite sword master is Musashi he was best just google to learn what he did.
If war is the art of deception, how do you know you are not deceiving yourself?
Never argue with a fool, he will drag you to his level and beat you up with his experience
Which time are we talking over ? 1200 AD ? I dont know much about the Japanese Army of the time but the European Knights were trained to use the sword from the Age of 8. But why would a knight even come off his horse to slice a Samurai ?
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
What? Wooden armour? Try using a katana OR rapier against metal armour, youll pull back half a sword before you penetrate the armour, swords arent axes or warhammers.
A medieval knight would be far more skilled with a straight sword than either of these. They were trained in nothing but melee weapons from early teens, and the straight blade could penetrate armour via thrusting where a curved blade typically does nothing. They were also better balanced. Neither could cut or slash armour at any point other than in movies.
The reason curved blades came back into style in sabers in europe is because plate armour was no longer popular or practical with the growth of high velocity distance weapons and depending on what years youre takling about, guns, it still protected against swords but no longer large pole weapons or cross bows and rifles.
Hence you didnt need a weapon capable of penetrating metal but only leather. This was the point mobility replaced armour. Japan mostly never had heavy armour so katanas served the purpose for a long period.
If you want a pure cutting power sword and didnt thrust, the middle eastern scimitar or german heavy war knives were as good as swords got.
"although obviously the katana is technologically a superior sword."
How? katanas were very low quality and didnt last very long compared to say chinese or euro swords.
"is incredible. Respect and honor is everything in Japan, have you ever seen a dirty street in japan ?"
Actually i was just browsing one of those nation stats websites and came across cleanest nations in the world
1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Canada
4 Sweden
5 Switzerland
6 New Zealand
7 Australia
8 Austria
9 Iceland
10 Denmark
11 United States
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Uruguay
15 Germany
16 United Kingdom
17 Ireland
18 Slovak Republic
19 Argentina
20 Chad
Nothing is great about katanas, its mean Dao in Japanese. Dao is a Chinese sword, I think only Europe and china have different verity of sword and weapons for different situation.
China and Korea beat japanese Samurai in 2 war before so there nothing great about the Samurai either.
The only reason Katans so famous because of japanese games and movies... LOL LOL
>>>First, while typical samurai warriors were highly trained soldiers, the average samurai was not an expert swordsman, perhaps only 5% or so were its been suggested. Of this 5%, maybe 5% of those were "master" level swordsmen<<<<
I dont know about the rest of the article but that above statment is BS. Having lived in tokyo for 8 years (and being a Student of martial arts) i have interacted with a number of Samurai and some masters. (Including Hatsumi Sensei the Master/Leader of the last Surviving Ninjitsu Clan in Japan..located near the Chiba Prefecture outside tokyo)
A Samurai is not a chosen proffesion but one is born into it . (Sort of like a Caste system). And the Education into the Martial Arts starts as soon as a child is able to walk (this includes women in some clans). Thats all the Samurai did (and some still do). Eat sleep and Crap with their sword. I doubt any western Martial group on this planet could match their proficiency with the sword (. Something like the Monks of the Shaolin... they get their martial arts training from an extremely young age and they do it day in and day out for the rest of their lives).
The Avg Samurai was INDEED an Expert Swordsman (if that was his weapon of choice), You also had Spears , Bows and Arrows and Samurai Tended to Specialize while learning all weapons). And the 5% Masters were as Good as Gods while wielding the Sword. Miyamoto would be a testiment to that.
Similar Discussions between Authorities in western and Japanese have taken place in front of me and the verdict (though not unanimous) is that the Samurai would have an upper hand. For the following reasons
1) the Katana was probably a Superior Weapon
2) the Technique and the Philosophy behind the the Use of the Katana was probably Superior to that of the Rapier . I.e anybody here who has studied Hand to Hand Knife fighting knows the advantage of Slashing over Stabing/Thrusting.
3) The Samurai over all were probably a more highly trained , Disciplined and Commited Fighting unit. (compared to the Avg European FootSoldier..not including the knights with broadswords)
Lastlythrusting and the One Wielding the Katana (Slashing) easily parred the one thrusting. Both were respected practisioners..(This was in Kobe at a Martial Arts Demonstration)
Lastly the Samurai did not lose to the westerners due to skill.. They lost due to lack of Unit amongst clans , Lack of Technology that the west brought to japan and lack of numbers while facing the white man.
The Same reasons why the Native Indian's lost to the white man.
R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan
I dont know about the rest of the article but that above statment is BS. Having lived in tokyo for 8 years (and being a Student of martial arts) i have interacted with a number of Samurai and some masters. (Including Hatsumi Sensei the Master/Leader of the last Surviving Ninjitsu Clan in Japan..located near the Chiba Prefecture outside tokyo)
A Samurai is not a chosen proffesion but one is born into it . (Sort of like a Caste system). And the Education into the Martial Arts starts as soon as a child is able to walk (this includes women in some clans). Thats all the Samurai did (and some still do). Eat sleep and Crap with their sword. I doubt any western Martial group on this planet could match their proficiency with the sword
You're a witness of the situation in XXI century.
What about 400 years ago ?
"The only reason Katans so famous because of japanese games and movies... LOL LOL"
exactly, these people that think katanas can cut through armour are the ones that go to ninjitsu schools thinking theyll learn how to kill a man in 1 strike and teleport.
"Most are in favour of the rapier. No suprise here, since most posters here are europeans. LMAO"
I dont like either type of sword, katanas were simplistic all around swords and quite brittle, and rapiers were just compact replacements for real war swords when plate armour went out of favour and firepower projectiles became handheld.
The highest quality curved swords by far were middle eastern.
Europeans Chinese and Arabs all had straight swords better against armour than the katana or rapier or scimitar, curved swords simply arent meant for armoured war.
People also seem to have this idea in their head that battles in the middle ages from europe to japan etc were fought with swords 100%
Most of the weapons would be spears, lance cavalry, maces, flails, hammers, axes etc etc.
A sword was basically their version of a defense pistol, and a pole weapon was a military rifle.
This message has been edited by viiiviii on Feb 9, 2006 8:23 AM
>>You're a witness of the situation in XXI century.
What about 400 years ago ?
<<<
The Tradition of Bushido and that of the Samurai is still preserved in Japan even after all these Years. You would have to go to Japan and live there to understand the gravity of that statment. Just like their Tea Ceremony. But then again you being a westerner you might not grasp the concept. Japan is like that. With all the skyscrappers all around the people still find the time to preserve their culture like that of old.
Point being that statment of only 5% of Samurai having above Avg Profiency with the Sword is Crap. Any nihonjin will tell you that.
Secondly the Samurai were bread for war from the day they were born. In Europe (except the knights) the Footsoldiers were usually Peasants or local people who joined the Army for whatever reason and were given martial training.
Compare a Boy from the age of 13-14 who is taught how to use the sword to a Boy from the Age of 6 who is taught how to use it. You might get the general Idea.
R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan
Quote:Asians are crazy freaks. They train, train, train, train until they reach perfection.
This should go for karate as well, but there are no Japanese champs in karate these days despite their craziness, the rapier would probably win.
But the steel in the katana is way superior to anything made in Europe before modern time.
Quote:TCompare a Boy from the age of 13-14 who is taught how to use the sword to a Boy from the Age of 6 who is taught how to use it. You might get the general Idea.
The one with more talent will be the best swordsman, if he start training when he is 6 or 13 doesnt matter, do you get the general idea?
This message has been edited by myrslok on Feb 11, 2006 1:35 PM This message has been edited by myrslok on Feb 11, 2006 1:34 PM This message has been edited by myrslok on Feb 11, 2006 1:34 PM
>>>>This should go for karate as well, but there are no Japanese champs in karate these days despite their craziness, the rapier would probably win.
But the steel in the katana is way superior to anything made in Europe before modern time.<<<<
Karate was a Martial Art Developed by Peasents in the Okinawa region to fight Samurai and other Armies of warlords. In today's day and age as in those time the art of Karate is Pedestrian to that of Bushido (The Art of the Samurai)
Comparing the two and saying hence the rapier will win is foolish ness. A Rapier practisioner MAY win against someone who has studied the Katana . However fighting SAMURAI (even in this day and age and even in hand to hand combat) is a whole different ball game.
PS. Samurai Just like the last Surviving Ninja's. Dont Advertize . Take take part in Competitions or worry about winning Gold medals at the Olympics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The one with more talent will be the best swordsman, if he start training when he is 6 or 13 doesnt matter, do you get the general idea?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No.. Obviously you dont
and i can gather you havnt trained much in martial arts...
Natural Born Talent has little to do with martial art Proficiency. Training (Quality , Lenght) , Conditioning (Mental and Physical) , Motivation has far more to do with it.
Martial arts is not like Math or Painting or Playing a Musical Instrument where Talent is a decisive factor.
Let me give you a more Up-to-date Example.
US Navy SEALs or British SAS are not natural Born Killers. They are conditioned to be what they are through stringent selection , Training and real world Experience.
Talent doesnt Decide their Profiency with a Gun. Their Training does.
You take a SEAL operator who has Spent FIVE Years in Iraq and Afghanistan and throw him in Jungle with a SEAL Straight out of BUD/S .. Who is going to come out alive?
R.K. Laxman, India's renowned cartoonist, honours the hardy & humble Indian Jawan
If someone says the samurai would win because asians are crazy freaks then the comparison with karate is relevant, you dont seem to understand it, thats the problem.
And when it comes to skill a person can train since he/she was born but with no skill or talent he will not be a master, but if you are born with talent you can start traing when you are 13 and whupp ass with ones started traing at 6 with less talent no mather if its karate, football, streetfighting or a rapier against a samurai.
I trained Okinawa goju-ryu for two years a long time ago but it was boring and i could beat the crap out of people with brownbelts who had trained for 10 years.
The sensei was from Okinawa and he told the whole story of karate and it was interresting.
And your comparison with the seals in djungle proof that you are lost in your way of debating.
The Tradition of Bushido and that of the Samurai is still preserved in Japan even after all these Years.
In fact, I was speaking of western swordmen
But then again you being a westerner you might not grasp the concept.
LOL
Point being that statment of only 5% of Samurai having above Avg Profiency with the Sword is Crap. Any nihonjin will tell you that.
For what I know of samurai, they use to trained on many weapons.
Secondly the Samurai were bread for war from the day they were born. In Europe (except the knights) the Footsoldiers were usually Peasants or local people who joined the Army for whatever reason and were given martial training.
Because you think that peasans were never use for war in mediaval Japan ?
Compare a Boy from the age of 13-14 who is taught how to use the sword to a Boy from the Age of 6 who is taught how to use it. You might get the general Idea
I get the idea that the mongol invasion failed because of bad weather and not from samurai.
But the steel in the katana is way superior to anything made in Europe before modern time.
The katanas has been used for centuries and at the beginning, it was everthing but a formidable weapon.
This message has been edited by jesse04 on Feb 22, 2006 2:45 PM
Quote:I dont know about the rest of the article but that above statment is BS. Having lived in tokyo for 8 years (and being a Student of martial arts) i have interacted with a number of Samurai and some masters. (Including Hatsumi Sensei the Master/Leader of the last Surviving Ninjitsu Clan in Japan..located near the Chiba Prefecture outside tokyo)
A Samurai is not a chosen proffesion but one is born into it . (Sort of like a Caste system). And the Education into the Martial Arts starts as soon as a child is able to walk (this includes women in some clans). Thats all the Samurai did (and some still do). Eat sleep and Crap with their sword. I doubt any western Martial group on this planet could match their proficiency with the sword (. Something like the Monks of the Shaolin... they get their martial arts training from an extremely young age and they do it day in and day out for the rest of their live
Actually it is a fact, most Samurai weren't good enough and useless at war. A samurai as someone pointed out was very similar to European noble (more strictly the knights), and many were deviants and full of vices. Samurai although in theory a warrior class gradually turned into adminstrators and bureaucrats neglecting military training. So that article is perfectly correct most Samurai, especially during the Tokugawa shogunate, weren't expert swordman.
THe samurai were banned by the post-feudal Japanese government and the system abolished. So what are you talking about? Modern samurai? there are none, only wannabees, they were abolished in 1876 during the Meiji era.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Feb 22, 2006 10:42 PM
'During the mongol invasion of japan there was a major battle near Fukuoka, and the samurai heads kept rolling on the ground. The korean skirmishes were known to be superior to the Samurai in melee battle and they used spears. '
eryz i know you like the mongols an all but thats just silly.The mongols and their allies were absolutely butchered by the samurai even though the mongols had a massive numerical advantage.The samurais killed many mongols for little loss and most of those losses were due to mongol arrows.The korean spear men ,like all psear men of the period fought in phalanxs with spears and shields,that is not 1 v 1 combat.Its also well documented that even the best of mongol warriors would refuse to enter into 1-1 combat with the samurai who routinely 'called them out' over the course of the failed invasion.
If anything,the mongol invasion is a PERFECT example of just how good the samurai were.This was well before the peak of the samurai aswell.
Actually real Samurais died off after the Edo period ended. Around the time of 1868 when Japan started to open its borders and stop its isolation and the complete change of power back to the Emporer, samurais basically died off. The way of samurais were unfit in the new Japan and the new law banning the carriage of swords by people without permission forced Samurais into a bottle neck and many of them committed suicide and others fought stupidly to re-establish the Edo period government but were obviously killed by the now gun wielding Meiji period soldiers.
In wars, the length of the weapons are essential. Chinese preferred to fight with spears because of their length and their advantage when fighting organized battles. However if a person is to fight another without any intervention then speed is essential, which are quite hard to decide between Rapier masters and Katana masters. Rapiers strike by thrust which are harder to block than a slash coming from a Katana. However Rapiers are usually one handed weapons which would mean that Katanas would have a force advantage over Rapiers.
Katanas were not good weapons in wars, however in honourary duels, it was more than enough especially when used to compare Katana skills rather than get the other person to die.
I wish I lived in 2090......
God is black? Since when?
This message has been edited by COWlan on Feb 24, 2006 3:32 AM
Quote:eryz i know you like the mongols an all but thats just silly.The mongols and their allies were absolutely butchered by the samurai even though the mongols had a massive numerical advantage.The samurais killed many mongols for little loss and most of those losses were due to mongol arrows.The korean spear men ,like all psear men of the period fought in phalanxs with spears and shields,that is not 1 v 1 combat.Its also well documented that even the best of mongol warriors would refuse to enter into 1-1 combat with the samurai who routinely 'called them out' over the course of the failed invasion.
If anything,the mongol invasion is a PERFECT example of just how good the samurai were.This was well before the peak of the samurai aswell
You've probably heard this from discovery channel but you probably heard wrong. It is a fact that the mongol defeated the Japanese in nearly all battles fought. THe mongols would laugh at Japanese when they issued their personal challenge to them. Mongol don't fight one on one but as a group. THe only reason for the Mongol retreat was a storm and increasing disorganisation. Otherwise the Mongols were vastly superior in battle.
Here is a site, the Japanese victories were rather rare.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Sad that 100000 Mongol/Chinese soldiers died not from battles but from a freak storm.
Mongols did not follow the ways of Samurai (honour, morality, tradition), they fight to win, not for honour. They'd run if they are outnumbered, they'd kill you immediatly when you are captured. Infact, Mongols are famous for their "proposals", the proposals are the same, surrender or we'll kill all of you and everyone in your city, happened dozens of times. Mongols had SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo much trouble conquering Beijing and when the Chinese general committed suicide, Mongols slaughtered everyone in the city, took them three months to kill everyone that didn't leave Beijing.
I wish I lived in 2090......
God is black? Since when?
This message has been edited by COWlan on Feb 27, 2006 2:42 AM
'You've probably heard this from discovery channel but you probably heard wrong. It is a fact that the mongol defeated the Japanese in nearly all battles fought. THe mongols would laugh at Japanese when they issued their personal challenge to them. Mongol don't fight one on one but as a group. THe only reason for the Mongol retreat was a storm and increasing disorganisation. Otherwise the Mongols were vastly superior in battle.'
Eeryz,the mongols failed TWICE.If they had been half as succesful as you claimed they were,they would have broken out of their tiny little beachead and invaded japan,.But they didnt,and they couldnt and were for lack of a better word bucthered.The conquest of the coastal islands is petty and could hardly be seen as great victories.Also i never claimed the mongols were crap,their tactics were far superior to the japanese and their main weapon was the bow...these facts make their defeat by the japanese all the more incredible! The samurai(which reprresented maybe 1/8th the strength of the japanese army against the mongols/allies completely outclassed every type of warrior the mongols had to offer.The mongols refused 1v1 combat because they were afraid.
Quote:Eeryz,the mongols failed TWICE.If they had been half as succesful as you claimed they were,they would have broken out of their tiny little beachead and invaded japan,.But they didnt,and they couldnt and were for lack of a better word bucthered.The conquest of the coastal islands is petty and could hardly be seen as great victories.Also i never claimed the mongols were crap,their tactics were far superior to the japanese and their main weapon was the bow...these facts make their defeat by the japanese all the more incredible! The samurai(which reprresented maybe 1/8th the strength of the japanese army against the mongols/allies completely outclassed every type of warrior the mongols had to offer.The mongols refused 1v1 combat because they were afraid
I suggest you read a little more on the topic. The mongol's failure was due more logistical and bad luck rather than failure in battle. During the first invasion they were out of supplies and the second one a storm destroyed their ships. In fact, the Japanese were so horrified by the efficiency of the mongol that they had only their gods to turn to answer their prayers. They said so themselves on their manuscripts.
I don't blame them, the mongols were truly the horsemen of apocalypse, no army had either came close to them in term battle efficiency considering technology available for the time; and they moved with the precision of a modern army, superior to even Napoleon's army in maneuvers (except they didn't have the firepower of a Napoleonic army)
The mongols weren't truly warriors but hunters (so don't expect them to find individual battle like a knight or a samurai), like a massive group of hunters gathered together but instead of hunting animals they were hunting men.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Why are you guys trying to judge the katana, or the samurai by those two failed mongol invasion? It was not the japanese that defeated them anyway, it was a tyfun. Besides, the mongol horde will slauther you at a distance, not in melee.
Even if the samurai lost to the mongols, they have nothing to be ashamed about, because the mongols already did it to the entier known world, from the chinese, to the persians, and to the european knights...
----------------------------------------------- YOU
Eryz,we seem to be agreeing and we dont even realise it.
The mongols were far superior to the japaense in the ways of war bar individual fighting.This topic is katana/rapier.My point being that japanese samurai were superior to every other living soldier in 1v1 combat.Still i dont know who would win out of a rapier master and a samurai,probably the warrrior wielding the rapier due it being a thrusting weapon.
Quote:The mongols were far superior to the japaense in the ways of war bar individual fighting.This topic is katana/rapier.My point being that japanese samurai were superior to every other living soldier in 1v1 combat.Still i dont know who would win out of a rapier master and a samurai,probably the warrrior wielding the rapier due it being a thrusting weapon
Definitely one on one a Samurai would have easily defeated a mongol. I'm not sure where we came to disagree. Need to go up and see the point of divergence.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
1st off it depedns completly on how well the person is trained.
I my selfe have reached the 2nd Dan in Kendo & 1st in Iaido & from that can tell you that a Katana is a VERY complicated weapon to hadle.
But in its equevalent, it is as deadly as complicated, by that it gets more & more deangerous the higher the level of the user is.
Know if 2 ordinary users (Rapier & Katana, same level) should fight each otehr, the Rapier would have the advantage IMO. This becouse it is 1st a much more easy to learn how to use it, 2nd becouse it is also a much faster weapon.
If 2 masters should face each other IMO the advantage is on the site of the Samurai.
The Katana has several advantagas over the Rapier.
1st: In Katana is much harder to break compared to a Rapier. By that, a well plased hit on the rapier could easily brake it.
2nd: The Katana is much more efective on very close distance becouse of its blade
3rd: It is much more dificult to unarm a peron with a Katana then one with a Rapier, this beocouse the Katana is normaly used with 2 hands (also only 1 can be used), in compare with the one in the Rapier.
4th: The Katana couses much more damadge much more easy.
In a combat, all what the Samurai would need to do is to block the Rapiers attack, move into its range (by that the Rapier gets useless) & just slice.
as I remember it, plate armour didn't go out of fashion due to the initial introduction of musketry.
A good suit of plate armour in the 1400's was reinforced steel designed specifically to stop a ball.
Here's a better explanation:
//
Conventional wisdom says that plate armour faded away on the battlefild soon after firearms were introduced. This is very much not the case. Crude cannon were being used before plate armour became the norm. Soon, in the 1400s a small, mobile "hand cannon" was being used by horsemen. Improved cross bows, and the first pistols and pre-musket long arms, began to take a heavy toll on the mail clad, and partially plated knights and foot soldiers. Rather than dooming the use of body armour, the threat of small firearms intensified the use and further refinement of plate armour. There was a 150 year period, that more and better metallurgically advanced steel armour was being used, precisely because of the danger posed by the gun. In the early years of pistol and muskets, fire arms were relatively low velocity,the full suits of armor, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance.
===
The front breast plates were, in fact, commonly shot as a test. The impact point would be encircled with ingraving to point it out. This was called the "proof" .
===
It was not uncommon for a man in armour, mounted on a horse, to ride up closer to the enemy, in a tactical maneuver called "The wheel", and discharge his hand-cannon or later, pistols, right into the faces of the adversary at close range. Cross-bow arrows, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet but one fired from close range. In effect, (and this has long been misunderstood), plate armour actually came to replace chain mail because it was relatively, "musket ball proof". Plate would stop all of these at a distance. Hence, guns and cavalry in plate armour were "threat and remedy" together on the battlefield for almost 400 years. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending musketeers without being easily killed. Full suits of armour were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 1700s. It was the only way they could be mounted & survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.
//
Plate armour was still being used at the beginning of WWI remember.
//
Gradually starting in the mid 1500s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight for foot soldiers, but breast and back plates continued to be used though the entire period of the 1700s through Napoleonic times in many (heavy) european cavalry units, all the way to the early 20th Century. Rifled muskets from about 1750 and later, could pierce plate, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire. At the start of World War 1 the French Cuirassiers, in the thousands, rode out to engage the German Cavalry who likewise used helmets and armour. By that period, the shiny armour plate was covered in dark paint and a canvas wrap covered their elaborate Napoleonic style helmets. Their armour was meant to protect only against sabres and light lances. The cavalry had to beware of high velocity rifles and machine guns like the foot soldiers, who at least had a trench to protect them. Machine gunners in that war also occasionally wore a crude type of heavy armour.
//
This is all from Wiki btw.
Let's not all forget that "slashing" swords where used in the west for thousands of years before "cut and thrust".
I'm of the opinion that the samurai (or anybody else) using a slashing sword would be easily defeated by a credible
"cut and thrust" swordsman in a duel. It is impossible for a katana wielding swordsman to parry an attack from a rapier
opponant who also has the advantage of range. This is (i'm sure) why slashing weapons went out of favour in the west.
Samurais weapon of choice in battle fields were spears and not swords. The spaniards of the 1500-1600 era have detailed documented Japan... and according to them the japanese steel was inferior to the european hence why the japanase started to import steel from Europe. The katana is a sword that unfortunately hollywood has skewed... And the original authour is very diplomatic when he compares the two swords.... A rapier was superior... There are no buts... it is the best sword created.... and I would take a scimitar/shamshir over a katana aswell.
YOU
Need to go up and see the point of divergence.