Well, obviously, the guy who starts the duel unarmed (whether he’s up against an armed gladiator or a hungry lion) isn’t going to have any say in it. I’m asking about the guy who was armed, but knew his turn was coming next. When the guards come up to him and say “OK, good job, now we’re going to disarm you and put you up for the next slaughter”, do you really expect him to say “All right, sounds fair enough”? More likely, he’s going to turn on the guards who are trying to disarm him, and take as many of them with him as he can.
It doesn’t matter what you maintain. You’re utterly wrong.
You evidently don’t know much about Japanese history. Perhaps anything. Calling them nobility is, at best, incorrect, and at worst completely nonsensical. Samurai started arural landowners well-off enough to offer their services as warriors. But “landowners” could mean anything from “I have an estate worked by peasants” to “I get by pretty well farming my own land.” Samurai were not neccessarily nobles, just as European Knights weren’t neccessarily anything more than mercenaries. They were warriors, and any half-decent warrior could call himself a samurai.
It was not until Hideyoshi’s sword hunt that the classes became formally divided in any way. And it was not until years after when the Tokugawa were consolidating their power that the classes were completely hardened. And even that can’t account for your statement, becaue that involved permanently adding the Ashigaru as the lowest rank of Samurai class, even those who did nothing more than carry bullets on the battlefield.
xtisme got it part-right. Hideyoshi is a later shogun. His edict didn’t give you a choice: if you were a soldier of any kind, you were now permanently in the warrior caste. If you weren’t, you were a peasant. (and it was more or less accepted that you inherited your class) I expect that some part-time soldiers got shoved back into the peasant class by lords who didn’t need them and declared them not to be “real” soldiers, but mostly they needed and wanted infantry. The edict wasn’t very costly because heavy training of new mass-infantry was part of Japanese development just as in Europe at the time.
The great irony is that Hideyoshi, in addition to being one of the nastiest men to ever rule Japan, was himself a peasant by birth. He endeared himself to Oda Nobunaga and earned his way up the military ladder by skill and talent, and then made some wise moves to consolidate his own power-base after Nobunaga was murdered.
Take it from the top, ô font of knowledge. What is nobility, and where does it come from ? Discuss. You have 4 hours.
Just to add to the above, the first serious attempt at this notion was Oda Nobunaga’s sword hunt in 1572 and was heavily motivated by a desire to pull the claws of the Ikko-ikki, who were a serious impediment to his dominance. Hideoyoshi’s follow-up starting in 1588 is more famous as it was much more systematic.
The Japanese did not define samurai as automatically noble, nor were all nobles samurai. Your opinion is irrelevant. Classes are defined according to the culture which creates them. You said something stupid because you have only vague notions of Japanese history. There’s no shame in not knowing it.
Unlike you, I do know the origin of Japanese nobility, to the extent that we can pierce the dfim veil of history. The samurai were much different and came much later. Even including Daimyo in the nobility (which the Japanese didn’t), there were many, many Samurai who were no such thing.
Sometimes in foil fencing we do an exercise with newbies where we go up against them unarmed, and attack/parry/riposte/etc. with a gloved hand only. It usually works quite well and is very frustrating for the newbie, as they can’t believe someone with “bare” hands can defeat them when they’re holding 3 feet of steel. However, the difference is (1) no edge or actual point, and (2) a newbie is profoundly slow when compared to even a casual fencer who’s been around for a year.
Of course since newbies also tend to flail their foils like a sabre, you can get some nasty impacts on your hand which is why I’ve never been so unwise as to participate in the aforementioned exercise.
I could at least envision how a martial arts master could stand a chance against a newbie with a sword, given how clumsy and flailing and over-compensating they tend to be. If they’re doing giant roundhouse swings with their blade and you can dart in between attacks you could win that match. The qualifier being, again, having a rank amateur or newbie with the sword.
I’m reminded of a somewhat similar tale of Jean-Louis Michel, a famous swordsman of France in the 1800’s, who once was challenged to a “first blood” duel with someone he really wanted to show up. His opponent had a standard smallsword/dueling sword (no edge but with needle-sharp tip), and Jean-Louis chose a fencing foil with the protective tip removed. His friends thought he was insane and his opponent laughed at him, but there was a method to his madness - the foil could easily parry the smallsword provided you kept a strong wrist, and the foil was so light and fast in his hands that within seconds he cut his opponent across the face and the match was over. In other words, under the proper conditions some “unfair” matches can suddenly become “fair.”
Well, of course not, since “noble” isn’t a Japanese word. The question isn’t what the Japanese called them, but whether they would be what a European would call “noble”. And “people with special privileges by virtue of hereditary land ownership” is pretty much the definition of “noble”.
well, the colliseum was as much a sports and combat venue as it was a place of execution. those made to fight a duel-without-end are obviously those meant to die with no possibility of redemption.
the combatants were obviously not told of the fight format.
This is too easy because if that is your working definition of “noble” then you’ve eliminated samurai yourself.
Next.
More seriously, the fallacy you and Kobal2 are making is to try to take the definition which was created for one culture and force it to match a group in another culture, when there were not apple and orange relationships in the groups or cultures. Yes, both European and Japanese had feudal periods, both had groups of people who carried sharp sticks with pointy ends but this doesn’t mean that one group equates the other.
Unfortunately, the amount of misinformation about samurai in this tread is all to typical for discussions on the subject. From Kobal2
this is complete bullshit invented out of whole cloth. I have no idea if this is a something which he(?) thought up himself or is repeating but compare this with the actual right.
But the equivalence is perfectly cromulent in a thread concerning broad generalities and clichés of Japanese culture, written by a Western person for the benefit of another Western person who seems more familiar with Western culture than Japanese.
If this was an academic paper elucidating the finer class distinctions and social constructs in this or that era of Japanese history, you and **smiling **would have a point, and I wouldn’t have made that equivalence in the first place. Since it is decidedly not, you’re just quibbling over terminology and derailing the thread.
Yes. I exaggerated for comedic effect. It is a thing I do.
Nevertheless while your point is fine in theory, “compromising their honour” covered a lot of ground (your own cite mentions “bumping into them and not apologizing” fer chrissakes !) ; and since the word of a samurai held more weight than that of a peasant in court and they could bring their friends and even servants as “witnesses”, you could see how in practice such killings would rarely lead to anything of consequence.
Unless there was some other underlying motive for pressing the matter further of course - local lords were for example not altogether ecstatic when samurai from some other province stirred trouble on their turf, but that has less to do with justice and the rights of the peasants and more with asserting dominance.
So, while I did exaggerate, in practice and in general samurai cutting down peasants over trifles was not exactly unheard of. That is not to say samurai went around goring people left and right for funsies or that they were terminally irascible sociopaths spoiling for a fight at all times (though some were), but commoners were wary of and stepped on eggshells around them for a reason. That much is certainly reflected in Japanese fiction.
True, albeit it’s still a question of context.
The overwhelming majority of “samurai flicks” and manga take place in a sort of mythical, idealized Japan which nevertheless purports to be the Edo period - from the country-wide civil war that saw the rise of the likes of Nobunaga Oda and Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the establishment of the rigid caste system ; to that *other *civil war and abolition of said system two-three centuries later. That’s what “feudal Japan” represents for most people (Japanese included !), even though as you say the country went through many vastly different phases.
And just as Ivanhoe and similar novels glamorized chivalry in the West, so has this particular era a special place in Japan - a time when warriors were brash and bushido-y ; peasants were snivelling and foxy ; merchants were corrupt and greedy ; and ninjas were ahistorical. If you look at actual accounts of the period, this notion is a load of romantic bollocks of course. But then every country and culture has its romanticized Golden Age(s).
- which is the one 90% of samurai flicks and manga are nominally set in, the other 10% being about the Meiji restoration, twilight of the old ways, embracing the future, going out in a last blaze of glory yadda yadda
** at least in the way they’re usually portrayed. No black pyjamas, sorry.
Ha, we did that too. When I started as a little one with the foil, I’ve seen this often – it’s quite doable since the valid target area is pretty small. We even did it later against the épée with bolstered gloves but mostly for fun; it’s a lot more difficult to avoid being hit and a hit can hurt. A lot.
Of course, no one in his right mind would try a bare handed defense even with gauntlets against a real sword; the German longsword, I trained with when I got older, will hurt you – you never want to be hit by a hard stick that weights 1.2 to 2.4 kg (or 2½ to 5 lb for our American fencers), unless you’re in full armour – but then it’s done to get you an idea how it feels to hit or be hit under such conditions; and you can’t avoid being hit in armour, because you’re too slow to sidestep an attack – which doesn’t mean you’re helpless, of course.
Still, an experienced martial arts disciple has a pretty good chance to win against an armed but unskilful opponent; yet anyone who knows what he is doing with 1.2 m of sharpened steel has such an advantage that a defeat will be the result of: a) very bad luck, b) lack of nerve or c) an inability to shed blood.
Btw, I guess rogerbox knows this but just in case: the fencing you usually see in “Easterns” or movies set in something somewhat similar to the European Middle Ages has [del]little[/del] almost nothing in common with reality.
I have a friend who does some historical swordfighting type of stuff so I’m aware of this, but considering even the best martial artist of all time with no weapon has just about zero chance against a skilled guy with a Katana, the fact that they don’t complain ever when challenged to the duel is something I can’t quite compute, but one of the answers on the previous page sounded pretty good to me. 
As confusing as the awe that the mighty Katana inspires/inspired in public discourse. Really, how did that happen? I have even heard academic experts repeat the myth as fact that the Katana is superior to any other sword, especially anything produced in Europe.
I wonder if any of those guys had actually done any tests – or even knew how to wield a sword?
I’ve seen head to head tests of blade on blade (if we are talking simply about durability), and the Katana in general wins over other blades. That doesn’t mean that every Katana is better than every sword of a different design or make.
I have heard a lot of ancient weapons expert types (mostly on places like the History Channel, to be sure) say that the Katana is a perfect design for light/medium cavalry, since the weight, curve and flexibility of the blade (it’s ability to bend and flex without deforming or breaking/shattering). On Mythbusters they also had an episode of trying to cut a sword with a sword, and the Katana did a lot better than the other types as far as it’s ability to bend without shattering or deforming (and keeping it’s edge without chipping). I assume roughly equal quality, since they most likely paid the same for each replica sword…but no idea how those swords would match up to their real world counterparts.
Part of it, of course, is that there are more cool movies about Samurai Swords than any other type. 
(Full disclosure: I studied Kenjutsu and Iaijutsu for several years, as well as several other Okinawan and Japanese ‘unarmed’ martial arts which also had sword forms in them, so I’m a bit biased. I did take some European fencing classes too, and I enjoy the rapier or long sword…I just don’t think they are in the same class)
-XT
Dood, it’s a fact that a katana will just vaporize a longsword just by being in a 5 meters radius of it. Deal with it.
Joke aside, I think the idea has to do with two factors: 1) Japanese culture itself does have a somewhat ritualized, almost fetishistic thing going on for their swords. Again, in that romanticized Japan the katana was the “soul of the warrior”, master smiths spent years hammering on that one piece of metal until it was nigh perfect (and this had nothing to do whatsoever with Japanese iron being sort of shitty in quality on top of being somewhat rare, no sirree !), yadda yadda.
And 2) If it’s foreign it’s mystical thus just better.
Any Joe Schmoe is familiar with Western swords, or at least they think they are. I mean, they were like vaguely sharpened metal clubs, right ? And medieval people were just a bunch of backwards and technologically inept hicks, right ? Needed a crane to be lifted onto their horses when wearing armour, haha. So obviously a super civilized Japanese tachi’s got to be miles ahead of their retarded, primitive, mass-produced and barely even martial weapons, amirite ?
Plus, katanas just look wicked cool, so there.
So, um, yes. You combine gross ignorance with nippophilia (it’s not a disease), and you get Katanas Are Just Better. I blame Mark Twain and D&D sourcebook writers.
You are speaking to the trope, but you aren’t really showing any evidence that contradicts it…merely that some people feel the way they do out of ignorance, which doesn’t really mean they are wrong, simply right for the wrong reasons.
Yeah…the Japanese had inferior iron. But that just meant that they had to find ways to use what they had in a more effective way. The end product was extremely labor intensive, but superior in quality. Or do you deny this? If so, what do you base that on?
As for your second point, sure…people sometimes think that foreign means better. It’s hard to really compare a Katana to a European knights long sword, since they were different tools that served different purposes. In the hands of a mounted Samurai, a Katana was a primary weapon (if you discount the bow, depending on which historical period we are talking about). Sure, they used lances, but afaik a lance never had the same following in Japan as it did in Europe. A medieval knight, however, used his sword as a backup or even tertiary weapon. And the way they were employed was different as well, because the armor they were designed to try and defeat were different, and the tactics used were different.
Trying to say that anyone claiming that a Katana is a better weapon, on average than it’s European or Middle Eastern counterpart is doing so out of ignorance of European or Middle Eastern weapons or some fetish about Japan is pretty silly, IMHO, unless you have something to back that up with. I’m no expert on European or Middle Eastern weapons, but I know enough to understand that they were different tools for different jobs, and that this meant that there was a large difference in emphasis on the weapons, which meant a large difference in emphasis on quality. A suit of armor or a highly trained warhorse was more likely to get more resources devoted to it in, say, Europe, than in Japan, where more emphasis was put on blades, while in the Middle East it might have been on bow technology or the speed, agility and endurance of the horse. Different emphasis and different ideas of warfare means different focus for resources.
The Japanese devoted a large part of their emphasis and resources towards blade technology, and their style of combat and armor oriented them and their tools of war down a certain path that was different than the paths taken in Europe. I doubt a Katana would be all that effective against a full suit of plate armor, or against a European knight using a lance and mace…but that doesn’t discount the fact that the Katana was a better blade than what that knight had strapped to his belt in case the lance and mace were broken or lost.
-XT
When comparing swords, you’ve really got to be sure to compare apples to apples. A swordsmith anywhere could make a really good sword, if he was willing to spend a year or more on making it. And if you compare such a masterpiece of a weapon to something that’s mass-produced for the legions, it’s no surprise that it comes out better. Really, to make a fair comparison, you should compare a priceless treasure of a Japanese sword with a priceless treasure of a European sword. Except, of course, that nobody’s going to take two priceless treasures and see which one is better at cutting through the other.
First, nice to talk to someone who studied the Japanese way of fencing. I have had quite a lot of training fights with people who knew those martial arts well (I have done Jujutsu in my youth but have more experience in Krav Maga) and was always impressed and occasionally terrified by the control and speed evident in any meeting.
Alright, Longsword and Katana were used under different circumstances, against other enemies and both types of swords evolved considerably over time, so any comparison will always be limited and error-prone - I guess we won’t have any disagreement in this respect.
But there are a couple of logical deliberations and a comparison of the basics of the weapons that might help to get to an assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both weapons.
Let’s start with a basic comparison of a typical katana and a typical longsword:
[ul]
[li]the longsword is usually a bit longer than a katana (around 15 – 40 cm), which gives the wielder an advantage in range[/li][li]it’s either a bit or a lot heavier, depending on the length; the very short ones (with 85 cm blade length) weigh around 800g, the longer ones (120 cm) might weigh more than 2000g (depending on hilt and pommel); a lighter weapon can be wielded quicker in general, so the Katana might have an advantage in speed (the shape will also add to the speed factor)[/li][li]the longsword is double-edged and both sides are equally strong and can be used to attack as well as defend. The Katana is more limited here, a lot more in fact, since the blunt side is not forged to withstand impact. So, only one side can be used to attack and defend[/li][li]the pommel of the longsword is not just a protection for the hand, but also a weapon used to wedge in the opponent’s weapon or strike him at close range[/li][li]the longsword can be used to thrust, slice, stab or punch an opponent, the Katana is once again a bit more limited here due to its form.[/li][li]the shape adds speed to the katana and reduces the impact area. The speed is definitely an advantage, the small impact area not neccesarily.[/li][/ul]
All in all, the Katana might very well have an advantage in speed (it usually does) but it is the less versatile weapon.
What about durability and sharpness?
The Katana is definitely sharper than the longsword, no doubt, but the longsword is a) sharp enough to cut through anything that is not well armored and b) not forged to be incredibly sharp but durable enough to be used against heavily armored opposition.
If you have any doubt that you cannot slice through an un-armored man with a longsword, you haven’t ever tried it out on a prop with similar properties as a man would show.
And the steel used in those weapons?
Well, as long as we talk about traditionally manufactured weapons, the Katana stands no chance. One of the reasons for the extremely sophisticated production method has always been the comparatively poor quality of the Japanese steel while the Europeans had access from the earliest time to the best steel available – the advantage of intense international trade.
And the production? No doubt, the Japanese swordsmiths were incredibly clever and skilled; they built very fine swords indeed.
Swords that were used in limited ways against limited kinds of opponents. While the European swordsmiths had to forge swords that were able to deal with any kind of opponent that sprung up within the continent or attacked from beyond.
The very idea that the product of such pressure – a pressure far greater and longer lasting than the Japanese society ever experienced – might be less well built, is a bit weird.
So what if Katana and Longsword have direct contact blow after blow?
If you say that you have seen the Katana do better than its counterpart, I’d love to see the evidence. Here is a counter-example (part one, two) – unfortunately it’s a popular (aka superficial) show about things more or less related to science and, worse ;), in German (simply watch what’s going on, the pictures speak for themselves) – but the swordsmith you will see there has forged my two long swords too and they are very, very well made.
Of course, we might have a different result if we used one of the priceless Samurai swords held in highest respect by the family it belongs to. But … who’d ever do such a thing? Or could afford it if the sword were to bend out of shape?
Anyway, I am more interested in the regular forged weapons, the ones that would have most likely met in a real fight. And I think, the longsword has the advantage.
What the wielder does with that advantage is a different argument.
superior perhaps for cutting an unarmored person standing upright or cutting a bamboo pole once, twice, thrice. a katana is an outsized knife. it’s differentially treated/hardened. western swords after the 13th century had a blunter edge, a more uniform temper and greater yield. if you think chain mail and plate armor, you’ll see the logic. katanas aren’t meant for steel armor of for clashing with other swords or blunt weapons in the battlefield. ask any kendo practitioner. there’s hardly any clashing done. clash your brand-new custom katana edge-to-edge with another katana and you basically threw away $10,000.
Not really, when you consider how the weapons were employed. The Katana was meant to be a weapon used by a horseman, and is a primarily slashing weapon (there are some forms that use thrust, or even the hilt, but it’s a cutting weapon, not a thrusting weapon).
The long sword (depending on which period we are talking about) can certainly be used to cut, but it was less effective as a slash weapon, and employed mainly as a thrusting weapon that was used mainly to defeat heavy armor such as plate or mail. So right off we are comparing apples to oranges, since if we are talking about cutting weapons the Katana is superior, and if we are talking about thrust weapons then the long sword is superior…since, again, they were designed as tools for completely different uses and tactics.
Exactly…it was sharp enough for it’s intended use, and wasn’t meant to be incredibly sharp (and therefore the edge technology was completely different, with a completely different emphasis), instead it was meant to be used as chiefly a thrust weapon. Since most people who could afford a decent sword in Europe during most periods associated with swords probably didn’t use it as their primary weapon, the amount of effort going into a given sword wasn’t as high as for a people where the sword WAS a primary weapon. Europe and Japan emphasized completely different things, and their tactics were very different, so of course the weapons aren’t going to be comparable on a one for one basis. Instead, if you really wanted to do a comparison, you’d look at a weapons SYSTEM…say, a knight of a given period verse a samurai of the same period…horse vs horse, good verse foot, etc. Even then it’s really no comparison, though, since the Japanese used cavalry differently than Europeans did, and they used foot differently as well…and emphasized both in different ways.
I seriously doubt you could cut through an unarmored man with a long sword in the same way you could with a katana or any other sabre type blade since the shape of the blade is so different. Again, they were meant for different things. And I HAVE used a long sword, though more of the latter period rapier types which were almost totally thrust weapons. A long sword, however, wasn’t meant to cut completely through an unarmored man…it was meant to either pierce him, or as more a blunt force trauma type weapon, opening up a large cut and breaking bones and disabling the guy it hit.
I’m not sure I’m seeing your point here. The craftsman who created the katana were working with very poor materials, but the techniques they used rendered a high quality product that was both strong and flexible with an emphasis on edge technology. It was very labor intensive, but they produced high quality steel from poor quality materials…and they perfected edge technology and flexibility in the blade because that’s what they put an emphasis on. They did that because they considered the katana sword a primary weapon.
Actually, I see it as just the opposite. The katana was a very good general purpose cavalry weapon that was general enough and flexible enough to be useful in a variety of different tactical environments (that’s why the design remained relatively unchanged for so long), whereas the long sword in Europe become more and more specialized, and it’s uses more and more vertical. Eventually, variants of the long sword were really useful ONLY against other armored knights, though like a club you could probably kill someone with one in any situation if you hit them hard enough with it.
It’s not weird at all, if you consider that your average European didn’t think of his sword as his primary weapon. An armored knights primary weapon would have been a lance, since they emphasized heavy cavalry tactics. You wouldn’t see most armored knights using, say, a bow, right? Yet that’s what the katana evolved from…bow cavalry who then drew swords when they closed with the enemy, after the general melee started (they actually used cavalry tactics more akin to the Mongols or Middle Eastern bow cavalry in the early stages of the battle). A sword might be a European knights third weapon, after his lance was broken and he lost his axe or mace, or was unhorsed. So…it’s not weird at all. One has but to look at how the European swords changed so much over time to understand the difference in tactical thinking about a sword between the two cultures.
If you simply set up a robot to bash them against each other? The katana would be better at absorbing the blows edge to edge, but both would chip and eventually shatter. The long sword might also bend or deform, though maybe not…depends on which long sword we are talking about. A really heavy two handed long sword meant as a thrust or blunt force trauma weapon? It might very well be able to batter a katana to pieces if you just crashed them against each other.
The thing is, that’s not how the people behind those swords would use them…and it doesn’t take into account what sorts of armor they were wearing. A katana against a long sword wielding knight, each with no armor? It would be the old cut verse thrust contest in that case. Both on horse back and armored? What kind of armor? Full plate for the European? I’m not sure a katana could even hurt a fully armored knight…it’s certainly not going to cut through it.
Anyway, I’m seeing this is getting really far from the OPs question, so I’ll leave it there. I can go on and on about this stuff, but to me it boils down to trying to compare apples to oranges.
-XT