# Katana vs. rapier **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 24, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892 "2011-03-24T21:33:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/21 "2011-03-28T08:05:21Z")
They probably used spears and polearms more than they used swords. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/22 "2011-03-28T08:14:04Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > They probably used spears and polearms more than they used swords. But they dueled with swords instead of spears. Why is that, if the spear is the superior one-on-one weapon? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/23 "2011-03-28T09:25:39Z")
A rapier is not a serious weapon. It is a fashion item. It didn’t become popular because it was effective, it became effective because it was pretty. At the time when rapiers were at the height of their popularity every army in Europe was issuing broadswords and cutlasses. It was considered crude for a fashionable gentle man to carry a broadsword or cutlass, and the rapier and various other dress swords evolved as a compromise, enabling a gentleman to defend himself against thieves while remaining fashionable. A rapier is a dress word, and that is all that it is. It is not an effective weapon. There are any number of fencing treatises of the day noting that rapiers were all but useless. Most rapier duels ended in injury, death was rare and when it did occur it was long and protracted. Indeed, it was noted in several treatises that mortally wounding an opponent in a duel was a bad idea, since he would have no reason not to continue the fight, and there was almost no chance that the fatal injury would incapacitate him. The same treatises note that if a man were serious about defending himself, or duelling with intent to kill, then he should get himself a cutlass or broadsword. It’s also well worth noting that individuals who actually used their weapons regularly against unarmoured opponents, such as guards or bailiffs, all used broadswords. None of them carried rapiers. And that pretty much tells you all you need to know to answer the questions. The rapier is a fashion accessory, a dress sword. It was never used by any military in the world, and for good reason. It was noted even at the time of its greatest popularity as being nearly useless. In contrast a katana was a military sword. It has been refined over several centuries to be highly effective at incapacitating lightly armoured enemies in on-on-one fights. The ideas being put forward that katanas are easy to parry and can’t be used to thrust simply have no basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/24 "2011-03-28T10:00:35Z")
> [@sjc](#): > > I liked those videos. They gave me some idea of how the weapons stackup against each other. I would imagine the katana wouldn’t be exactly like the longsword, but seeing how fast and agile the longsword could be made me think the two would be somewhat similar. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/-fn44ZovSw4/hqdefault.jpg "Rapier vs Samurai") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fn44ZovSw4) Katana vs rapier ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/25 "2011-03-28T10:23:16Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Katana is much faster than the longsword. In one of the videos, the longsword hits the rapier and then strikes the opponent. I think that would be the standard katana move - strike the rapier or the wrist and then the slicing blow across the neck/down the body. I don’t see why it would be “much faster”. They both weighed about the same, the Katana would be a bit shorter though. > [@Alessan](#): > > If long and piercing always wins, why didn’t samurai fight with spears instead of swords? (I mean, I’m sure they used spears fairly often, but it they weren’t their definitive weapons). Spears WERE their main weapons. the yari and the bow were what Samurai fought with during war time. Their sword was their side arm, much the same case as it was for the European knight/soldier. > [@Alessan](#): > > But they dueled with swords instead of spears. Why is that, if the spear is the superior one-on-one weapon? Well duels are a special case they tended to be highly ritualized. Also, the whole “cult of the sword” in Japan didn’t really come about until after the period of war. I guess they didn’t have anything better to do. > [@Blake](#): > > A rapier is not a serious weapon. It is a fashion item. It didn’t become popular because it was effective, it became effective because it was pretty. At the time when rapiers were at the height of their popularity every army in Europe was issuing broadswords and cutlasses. It was considered crude for a fashionable gentle man to carry a broadsword or cutlass, and the rapier and various other dress swords evolved as a compromise, enabling a gentleman to defend himself against thieves while remaining fashionable. A rapier is a dress word, and that is all that it is. It is not an effective weapon. This is a ridiculous statement. Can you provide ANY scholarly information that supports your position? People weren’t stupid back then, you know, if the weapon wasn’t effective it would not have been used. It wasn’t a weapon of war, I agree. It lacks the versatility of the field weapons of the time, but a civilian side arm, a weapon of personal self-defense, it was used MANY times to kill efficiently. > [@](#): > > There are any number of fencing treatises of the day noting that rapiers were all but useless. Most rapier duels ended in injury, death was rare and when it did occur it was long and protracted. Indeed, it was noted in several treatises that mortally wounding an opponent in a duel was a bad idea, since he would have no reason not to continue the fight, and there was almost no chance that the fatal injury would incapacitate him. The same treatises note that if a man were serious about defending himself, or duelling with intent to kill, then he should get himself a cutlass or broadsword. It’s also well worth noting that individuals who actually used their weapons regularly against unarmoured opponents, such as guards or bailiffs, all used broadswords. None of them carried rapiers. Please point out these treatises for me. I’ve seen many of them, and none say antyhing resembling what your saying here. Are you sure you are not confusing the rapier with the later smallsword of the 18th century? > [@](#): > > In contrast a katana was a military sword. It has been refined over several centuries to be highly effective at incapacitating lightly armoured enemies in on-on-one fights. > > The ideas being put forward that katanas are easy to parry and can’t be used to thrust simply have no basis in reality. Did anyone say anything like that about the Katana here? ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/26 "2011-03-28T13:35:41Z")
I would suggest that, if you thrusted with the rapier and your opponent parried, your best bet would be to either try to rush past, or maybe just angle into him and give him a shoulder. Get inside _his_ range and try to knock him down. Of course, if you lose your balance in all this, the sword fight might just come down to whoever grapples better once it turns into a pile on the ground. Probably why folks carry knives. Upon further thought, if you lose your balance in all this, it might just come down to whether you actually managed to knock the other guy over or not. You might have just proven yourself to be a clumsy jackass and will get filleted for your efforts. That said, I only have very limited experience in fighting with a rapier (SCA in college), practically no experience in Japanese style sword fighting (I had some friends in college who practiced Kendo), and have done effectively no serious study into the topic. So, would it warrant a new thread to discuss a katana vs. a saber instead? A saber _was_ a battlefield weapon. If I’m not mistaken, it was even contemporary to the katana for a time (then again, I could be talking out of my ass; my in-depth knowledge on the subject is rather shallow). ---
**Author:** ![Shark\_Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Shark\_Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shark_Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/27 "2011-03-28T14:42:55Z")
IANAP and IANAS Doesn’t (at least some of) the outcome of the duel rely on the target profile that the combatants are presenting to each other? The one-handed rapiers lends itself to leading with a particular arm or shoulder in the thrust, which decreases the wielder’s area of vulnerability. The two-handed wield of the katana presents the wielder’s entire core to their combatant. That being said, I have seen movies where Samurai will face their enemy in a combat-ready stance leading with say, their left shoulder, both hands on the katana at their right hip, with the blade pointing straight up or even with the tip of the blade barely touching the ground. I’m not familiar enough with swordplay to understand if these are defensive or offensive postures however, or if they’re not valid stances at all and only presented in movies. Great discussion though… ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/28 "2011-03-28T14:54:04Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > A rapier is not a serious weapon. It is a fashion item. It didn’t become popular because it was effective, it became effective because it was pretty. At the time when rapiers were at the height of their popularity every army in Europe was issuing broadswords and cutlasses. It was considered crude for a fashionable gentle man to carry a broadsword or cutlass, and the rapier and various other dress swords evolved as a compromise, enabling a gentleman to defend himself against thieves while remaining fashionable. A rapier is a dress word, and that is all that it is. It is not an effective weapon. This is hogwash. At the height of the rapier’s popularity, every army in Europe was issuing **guns**. The sidearm was quite a bit less important. Backswords could be mass produced rather more cheaply than rapiers and are far easier to use. I also suspect that your understanding of the word “rapier” itself is biased towards the English sources, as they are the only ones who actually use the word. In the far more numerous and important Italian treatises, for example, the word is _spada_ or occasionally _spada longa_, and as such the distinctions you try to draw are somewhat less clear. There are still no particularly satisfactory definitions for just what a rapier was and how it is distinguished from other weapons. > [@](#): > > There are any number of fencing treatises of the day noting that rapiers were all but useless. Most rapier duels ended in injury, death was rare and when it did occur it was long and protracted. No, actually, there is one. It is a highly eclectic and political one, _The Paradoxes of Defence_ by George Silver, written in 1599. Silver bemoans that the dress sword is not a fit defense for an Englishman and suggests the return to less Italianate and more English weapons. But Silver’s problem with the rapier is that it is simply _too_ deadly. From the Paradoxes: > [@](#): > > Again if two shall fight, the one of opinion, that the warder has the advantage, then most commonly, the thruster being valiant, with all speed thrusts home, and by reason of the time and swift motion of his hand, they are most commonly with the points of their rapiers, or daggers, or both, one or both of them hurt or slain because their spaces of defence in this kind of fight, are too wide in due time to defend, and the place being won, the eye of the patient by the swift motion of the agents hand is deceived. Another resolution they stand sure upon for their lives, to kill their enemies. in the which they are most commonly slain themselves: that is this: When they find the point of their enemy’s rapier out of the right line, they say, they may boldly make home a thrust with a Passata, the which they observe, and do accordingly. But the other having a shorter time with his hand, as nature many times teaches him, suddenly turns his wrist, whereby he meets the other in his passage just with the point of his rapier in the face or body. And this false resolution has cost many a life. Silver thought that the rapier was a too effective and unforgiving weapon. > [@](#): > > Indeed, it was noted in several treatises that mortally wounding an opponent in a duel was a bad idea, since he would have no reason not to continue the fight, and there was almost no chance that the fatal injury would incapacitate him. The same treatises note that if a man were serious about defending himself, or duelling with intent to kill, then he should get himself a cutlass or broadsword. It’s also well worth noting that individuals who actually used their weapons regularly against unarmoured opponents, such as guards or bailiffs, all used broadswords. None of them carried rapiers. Yes, the same uncited and unsubstantiated “treatises.” Rapiers took the German student dueling scene (_Mensur_ by storm. The Germans were far fonder of actually killing each other in duels than, say, the French. What bailiffs and guards carried is a non-sequitur. > [@](#): > > The ideas being put forward that katanas are easy to parry and can’t be used to thrust simply have no basis in reality. Well, you clearly are the expert. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/29 "2011-03-28T15:54:13Z")
Without really knowing much about either fighting style, if I had to choose one, I’d say that the key is the terms of the fight : one-on-one unarmored duel in a clear, flat space, etc. The rapier (and associated fighting style) was designed for exactly that kind of fight, whereas the katana and its style was more designed for a battlefield (against often at least partially armored opponents). There’s clearly a difference between the battlefield and the unarmored duel: when Europeans headed out to a battlefield, they didn’t usually bring rapiers; they brought different swords that could deal with shields and armored torsos and whatnot. The rapier was developed specifically to be better than these battlefield weapons when the scene was an unarmored duel. Which makes me guess – again without expertise – that in an unarmored duel, the rapier would be superior to a katana as well. It seems that it’s kind of like asking whether baseball pitchers or football quarterbacks are more accurate, when by accurate I mean able to hit an unmoving target two to four feet above the ground and 60 feet away throwing from a mound with no time pressure. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/30 "2011-03-28T18:45:10Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > Also, the whole “cult of the sword” in Japan didn’t really come about until after the period of war. I guess they didn’t have anything better to do. There is a lot of truth to this, but it might be better to say it was elaborated on and became more intense during the enforced peace of the later Tokugawa bakufu. Without a doubt the veneration of the sword became greatly intensified during the that period as the wearing of swords became an open identifier of caste, which previously hadn’t been the case. But the obsession with swords had certainly been trending that way well before that. Asakura Toshikage died in 1481, well over a century before Sekigahara, but famously wrote: _‘Swords or daggers of famous warriors ought not to be coveted. A sword worth ten thousand pieces can be overcome by one hundred spears worth only one hundred pieces.’_ I haven’t seen the untranslated passage, but I’m assuming “dagger” = wazikashi. At any rate the fact that Toshikage felt he had to leave that bit of sage advice to his descendants indicates that it had probably been a growing issue for quite some time. Not too surprising as the sword as a symbol of martial attributes in Japan dates back to the founding myths of Amaterasu. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/31 "2011-03-28T19:10:38Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > There is a lot of truth to this, but it might be better to say it was elaborated on and became more intense during the enforced peace of the later Tokugawa bakufu. Without a doubt the veneration of the sword became greatly intensified during the that period as the wearing of swords became an open identifier of caste, which previously hadn’t been the case. But the obsession with swords had certainly been trending that way well before that. Asakura Toshikage died in 1481, well over a century before Sekigahara, but famously wrote: This is certainly true. It is worth pointing out that the aristocratic mark of a Japanese sword, certainly by the time of the rise of the Goto school and its contemporaries in the 15th century, was not the blade but the _tsuba_, or guard. Any blacksmith could hammer out a blade, but it took an artist to create a beautiful guard and fit together a weapon that befits the status of its owner. A Goto tsuba is a work of art that you really wouldn’t want to damage. In this respect, a Japanese sword was every bit as much a dress weapon as its European counterpart. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/32 "2011-03-29T14:10:30Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > It is worth pointing out that the aristocratic mark of a Japanese sword, certainly by the time of the rise of the Goto school and its contemporaries in the 15th century, was not the blade but the _tsuba_, or guard. Any blacksmith could hammer out a blade, but it took an artist to create a beautiful guard and fit together a weapon that befits the status of its owner. A Goto tsuba is a work of art that you really wouldn’t want to damage. I suspect this has more than a little to do with the fact that, when worn as a fashion accessory, the blade of a sword is never seen, while the hilt and guard are visible. I’d bet the snobbery about guards being more important than blades started when swords began to be used more for fashion than war. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/33 "2011-03-30T21:18:56Z")
Actually, hammering out a _katana_ was a highly specialized set of skills. It is rather far from true that 'any blacksmith could hammer out a blade". Although the Shinto/mystical aspects of sword smithing developed later, as the idea spread that ‘the sword is the living soul of the samurai’. As to the hilt and guard, another aspect of this is the fact that the mouth of the scabbard was supposed to be unmarked. No cuts, was the mark of the master swordsman. This was part of the development of _iai-jutsu_, the art of drawing and instantly striking with the sword. If you were really good, you could draw your weapon without damage to the mouth of the scabbard. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/34 "2011-03-30T22:46:49Z")
Damn, I thought rapier month was over. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/35 "2011-03-31T02:14:04Z")
Still another day left. Rapier Month is the rapiest! ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892/36 "2011-03-31T02:53:18Z")
> [@Shark\_Sandwich](#): > > IANAP and IANAS > > Doesn’t (at least some of) the outcome of the duel rely on the target profile that the combatants are presenting to each other? The one-handed rapiers lends itself to leading with a particular arm or shoulder in the thrust, which decreases the wielder’s area of vulnerability. > > The two-handed wield of the katana presents the wielder’s entire core to their combatant. That being said, I have seen movies where Samurai will face their enemy in a combat-ready stance leading with say, their left shoulder, both hands on the katana at their right hip, with the blade pointing straight up or even with the tip of the blade barely touching the ground. I’m not familiar enough with swordplay to understand if these are defensive or offensive postures however, or if they’re not valid stances at all and only presented in movies. > > Great discussion though… Actually, the feet are in the same position in both the fencer’s _en garde_ stance and the kendo ready stance: the right foot points directly at the target, while the left foot points outward, perpendicular to the line drawn by the right foot, with the right foot in front. Granted, the samurai’s upper body is turned somewhat toward his opponent while the fencer’s body is not, but the samurai’s entire core is not presented. He is definitely leading with one shoulder. I wonder in the test matches described what the target area was? I think the katana would be at a severe disadvantage in a traditional foil match (only the torso as target) but might have an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) if the fencer’s arm was a viable target. A rapier hit to an arm might or might not be disabling, while a katana would almost certainly disable an arm if contact was made. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/katana-vs-rapier/575892.md?page=1)