swordsmen vs bare handed fighters

Factual Questions
61

Too late to edit, but wanted to say that it’s only in the movies where you see people hammering each others swords…in real life the edge would chip or shatter if you did that for very long or for many blows. Iaijutsu actually emphasizes a draw, cut and sheath without every touching the blade of an opponent, and in Kenjutsu the idea is to deflect the blow or cause an opponent to miss, rather than meeting an attack blade to blade directly.

Like in other things, European sword techniques and tactics were very different. For instance, as mentioned, many parts of a European sword were employed…the point, the edge, the hilt and the pommel. I’ve seen demonstrations of European sword techniques that actually involved grabbing the blade with two hands and swinging the sword like a club, or using the hilt and handle to trip up an opponent then using the reverse like a spear thrust. If you tried to do that with a katana you’d probably lose some fingers, unless you were wearing mail on the insides of your hands, instead of just heavy leather gloves.

-XT

62

Quality depends on what we’re talking about. The legendary Japanese folding techniques were not unknown in the West (or at least, historians don’t think so). Damascus steel was reportedly made along the same line, although the Persian smiths had much better iron to work with - so on that count one could expect a Damascene sword to be of equal or better general quality than a katana.

But of course, not all longswords were made that way, just as not every katana was the product of months or years of labor. The average grunt’s sword was a more or less mass produced piece of crap in either case - but iron quality makes a big difference there.

I don’t think this particular point matters overly much however. It’s more of a pissing contest than anything.

Precisely. Katanas could do some things that longswords couldn’t and vice versa. For example, katana wielders were at a disadvantage in close quarters, hence the need for the wakizashi. Longsword users OTOH had the option to switch to a half-sword grip, or go for a Mortschlag. Katana were not really well suited for estoc - longswords were because estoc can be extremely useful when dealing with people with shields, which the Japanese never really used. Longswords also had much better and sturdier crossguards (whether this is simply due to tradition or again imputable to disparity in steel quality I have no idea), which is reflected in the fencing techniques: where fencing puts emphasis on controlling the opponent’s blade, kenjutsu is more about swatting it away and/or doding before a rapid counterstrike. Katana were better cavalry sabers, but knights mostly didn’t use their swords on horseback as lances were just all around superior weapons on a battlefield.
And so on and so forth.

So I concur with you: they’re not comparable, because they’re different tools meant for different purposes in different contexts. I wasn’t trying to poo-poo katanas earlier, just the pervasive notion that they’re the ULTIMATE RAZOR BLADE EVER KNOWN TO MAN.

Well, now we’re in full Deadliest Warrior mode I guess :p.
It’s mostly a pissing contest by now, with partisans on both sides of the fence claiming and running their own biased tests to prove their favoured implement of murder is the most bestest. Most silly if you ask me.

I wouldn’t call longswords innately inferior though. They were damn versatile weapons, much faster than folklore has it (unless we’re talking Celt- or Viking-influenced swords - now *those *were more about brute force and sheer momentum), and as I touched upon before the top tier ones were crafted with just as much care as any katana.

But I guess we’ll never know for sure until the flower of French chivalry invades Japan :D.

63

western swords evolved far faster, as did smelting, forging and tempering methods. a katana is just too archaic in a western settling. in the age of blunt weapons and chain mail, it would have succumbed to cheaper. more flexible weapons. in the age of plate armor, it was practically useless. as firearms became dominant and swords became civilian duelling tools, it will have a hard time against a competent rapier wielder.

64

(Correction: estoc is one of those false friends. Replace with “thrusting”.)

65

I’ve done Japanese martial arts, including old-style iaijutsu and kenjutsu, for a long time, and it’s my primary area, but have a general interest and moderate knowledge in all archaic and medieval weapons and armor. Very briefly since I don’t have much time to respond right now, but want to make a few points:

Japanese swords have quite a few variations, though they superficially look pretty similar across the board. The curve is part of the differential hardening process, though it’s also a desired feature. It is possible to make a straight ken style sword with the same differential hardening process, but much more difficult to correct for warping. Norse swords were made in similar processes to Japanese ones; pattern welding, differential hardening.

One thing that Japanese smiths didn’t often do—and this was probably a process secret passed down through apprenticeship—was stress relief or tempering after the hardening process. Japanese blades tend to be “sharper” due to having a harder edge temper, but the same hardness makes the steel more brittle. The more difficult and valuable blade constructions used several different hardnesses of steel to offset this problem, so the core and spine of the blade would be preferentially made of milder steel, the side cladding medium, and the edge the hardest piece. Japanese swords are not inherently superior to European ones. It greatly depends on the smith, the steel, etc. And contrary to what an earlier poster said, for the length they’re heavier than most Western blades.

Most parries are done with the side or back of the blade, not the edge, in order to protect that relatively brittle edge, and to present a more direct threat to the enemy. When you parry that way, you’re still presenting the working part of the blade to your opponent.

Only some of the older forms of sword, various tachi, were meant for primarily horseback use. The role of light- to medium cavalry changed depending on what era you’re talking about. Japanese military tech tended to be more stable than European due to less outside influence, but there was a heck of a lot of variation over time. Not monolithic at all. The sword was never a primary military weapon. Archery, mounted lancers, spear and polearm infantry, and later musketeers were all much more important.

Swords were only a sidearm until the Tokugawa Era when virtually everyone, including the samurai were effectively disarmed. A loose analogy in present day would be allowing pistols and single-shot hunting rifles for pre-approved permit holders, but disallowing all military weapons for non-active military on pain of death. Swords are next to useless for effective military action. Same was true in Europe, however much they’re romanticized in most cultures. The sword became primary due to legislation.

66

Absolutely. We all seem to agree that any comparison is deeply flawed and will lead to different results if circumstances are changed just a little bit. But quite often, the Japanese swords are depicted as something widely superior to anything sword-shaped made anywhere else – and this attitude is simply ridiculous.

In case you meant my post, that is not what I said. They are generally lighter than their European counterparts but also shorter; given the respective length, I wouldn’t be surprised if many Japanese swords were indeed heavier per cm or inch. But I don’t know what effect different methods of Japanese forging techniques have on the weight. (European long-swords can differ in weight, quite often even when they have the same length)

The sword has always been one part of a … coordinated weapons program wherever it was used, but for some troops during some periods it was the primary weapon in Europe.

The hastati and principes, for example, the main force of the Roman heavy infantry used primarily at first a thrusting speer, the hasta, which gave the hastati their name, but they switched to the pilum, a heavy throwing spear, and for close combat to the gladius, the well-known short sword, after 387 BC (the Republican era).

The short sword had simply too many advantages for the tactics of that era within the Roman army. But even during that time, other weapons were used, even in the heavy infantry (the highly experienced triarii still used hastae and fought in a Phalanx) and that infantry was only a part of the war machine that was called a legion.

And of course, as important as the sword was during other periods, I agree that it could never be anything more than a viable (but not the only) choice in close combat when man fought man.

67

i maintain that the most effective sword ever designed is the long rapier.

68

Effective in what context? What era? In what way? If you’re talking about anything past about 1800 or so, the smallsword would probably be the most effective overall.

69

Nah, the most effective sword is clearly the lightsabre.

70

The involved method of forging a good Japanese Daito was a requirement of the poor raw materials and outdated metallurgical methods used in Japan.

Europeans had used a similar process called pattern welding, but they abandoned it once better technology allowed blades to be forged from a single piece of material.

The difference in sharpness is mostly modern misinterpretation. Historical Japanese blades would NOT have the razer sharp edges you find in modern replicas.

It doesn’t matter that they aren’t meant to be used against armored opponents, in regular use the blade WILL make contact with other rigid materials, and a very hard, very sharp edge would only prove to be a liability.

The hardness and sharpness of the edge would have been similar between the European longsword and it’s Japanese counterpart. If the Katana was sharper, it would have been to a degree that would have afforded it no advantage in a real world scenario, vene if it could have been measured in a laboratory.

The European Longsword’s ability to take stress, btw, is NOT matched by the Japanese Daito. The different metals joined to form the spine and the edge and the resulting blade geometry made these weapons VERY rigid. If you did manage to inflict enough stress to significantly bend the blade, it was likely to warp and require repair.

Again, some modern smiths are using more modern techniques to create replicas, such as creating Katana blades that are much more like European swords, and flex and bend a lot like them, and not at all like a historical Japanese weapon.

The weight of both weapons was about the same, BTW. The longsword, however, was longer. This is a byproduct of the difference in blade geometries. The European longsword would have exhibited a LOT more distal tapering compared than the Katana, hence it was lighter per inch of length.

I would agree that the European longsword was the more versatile weapon. It was meant to be.

Finally, it’s wrong to say that the Japanese longsword was the primary weapon of the Samurai as this was NOT true until AFTER the samurai left it’s traditional role of the battlefield warrior. During the time of peace is where you see the cult of the sword take hold in the samurai class.

It’s also when the old samurai start making fun of the young samurai, who no longer fight on battlefields, but in dojos.

71

I’m annoyed about some patent nonsense still being tossed around.

For starters:

*The katana is a cavalry sabre. It’s a perfectly normal cavalry sabre. That’s it.
*It’s of mediocre steel, cunningly used to build a useful weapon.
*It’s terrible against armor of any type.
*It was a backup weapon for the most part. xtisme got it exactly wrong: in Europe the sword was often a primary weapon. In Japan it was first the bow and then the spear.
*The Katana wasn’t even viewed as being particularly important until quite late in Japanese history.

The basic fact here is that the sword* wasn’t considered to be all that great by the Japanese themselves. It was the mark of a warrior, and useful in the right role, but its role on the battlefield never developed past “chop up peasant”. European swords did, and in fact developed into a variety of roles, specilized to varying degrees. Hell, almost anyone else’s swords were better than katanas.

As far as swords go, that’s a pretty sad commentary. The technology simply didn’t keep pace with other weapons. Now, their spear and gun technology was magificent - the equal of a European power. Katanas were important later on as a status issue, and for duelling. And for neither purpose is its overall combat effectiveness important.

*There are other swords than the katan in Japan, which is actually something more modern than msot realize.

72

Yeah, so am I. Unfortunately, most of your post is wrong too.

No, a katana is not simply a cavalry saber, it’s a late evolution of a sword form that—over 1000 years previous—was a cavalry saber and foot weapon. Even most old-style tachi were made for both one or two-hand use. Dedicated weapons for use on horseback are almost always made for one-handed use, for obvious reasons.

It wasn’t until the late medieval, early Renaissance period that most of Europe had access to good steel production techniques. Wootz and Damascus steel was highly prized because it was higher quality and more consistent than the bloom steel Europe had at the time. Up until around the 1500s, Japanese and European steel production was very similar in most places. The main difference was that there was a lot more trade in Europe due to the confluence of trade routes, whereas Japan was isolated. So you had a couple of centers producing great material and exporting it to Europe, while Japan got stuck with the material and techniques they had available domestically. Middle Eastern steel was good, European steel was pretty mediocre until late in the age of the primacy of edged weapons.

Armor is good protection against any sword. That’s the reason you wear it. Katana are no better or worse against armor than European longswords were against their contemporary armor. The design of sword blades was altered in various periods to provide better functionality versus the armor styles used at the time. The most robust armor and sword blades were probably in the Muromachi period.

No, not even in Europe was the sword a primary weapon except in certain circumstances. Heavy cavalry used lances for first contact and switched to swords in melee against more lightly armored infantry. Distance weapons took precedence to everything else, and spear formations were used in every period in history. Swords were almost always secondary weapons, for use in close mixed combat after closing with enemy forces, both in Europe and Japan.

The last point you made is the only one that’s mostly correct: The Japanese sword was always important culturally (one of the three sacred treasures of the Imperial house is an ancient straight-bladed sword) but it wasn’t until the Tokugawa Era, when the use of the various battlefield weapons was severely curtailed, that a concentration on sword arts became overwhelmingly popular.

73

i don’t really buy the claim that japanese had inferior metallurgy then. non-proof to this is the fact that modern methods hardly improve the quality of modern katanas over old ones.

74

Currently, its impossible to say anything definite about the European production of steel and blades through the ages. Some examined swords forged between the 3rd or 4th and 12th century show a structure similar to Japanese blades, some are pattern-welded, some are wurmbunt (a German term that is often translated as damascened but it’s not necessarily or not quite the same technique), some seem to be made of steel from afar, some are of highest quality and others are junk.

We do know that trade in steel existed from an early age on; Plinius (23 AD – 79 AD), called “Pliny the Elder” in the Angloamerican language use, wrote this, for example (Liber XXXIV, 145):

So, a Roman, born 2000 years ago, already spoke highly of the quality of Chinese/Far Eastern steel; he considered it to be better even than the Middle Eastern one. That suggests that the Romans already used steel from far away countries in at least some of their products; if some of them were blades, it wouldn’t be surprising. Of course, it’s unlikely that they imported enough of that material for mass production – but we know so little, even about the comparatively well documented Roman period, that any conclusion is questionable.

We do know for certain that the European smiths used a variety of methods in each period to produce blades with different properties; but techniques similar to the Japanese or Middle Eastern ones seem to be used less and less often beginning with the 11th century. And technological improvements of the bloomery furnaces improved the quality of the steel enough to simplify the forging of blades even further to produce serviceable blades of good and even high quality that were still much cheaper than anything forged before.

Serviceable, mass produced and relatively cheap – the relative quality and deadliness of the mass produced weapon has always been more important in the grand scheme of things than the time-consuming production of a unicum.

Which doesn’t mean that such swords didn’t exist in Europe too; the unique product has always had value for the status-conscious. And the many fakes produced throughout the ages, I’ll name just the +VLFBERH+T swords as one example, show that our ancestors knew as well as we do, how to make money of people who believe in the oh so “special”.

75

If this was directed at me, that’s not what I said. The Katana is a slashing weapon that was originally used from horseback, as opposed to a thrusting weapon.

Again, if this was directed at me, it’s not what I said.

Again, I didn’t say that. I will say that slashing weapons are not as effective against steel armor as thrust weapons, though. But obviously a Katana was effective against other armor clad samurai, or they would have abandoned it.

Except that I specifically said that the early samurai DID use the bow as their primary weapon. They were basically medium mounted horse archers in the early days, and they continued that tradition in later generations. The katana was used during the melee portion of the battle, or the pursuit portion.

Samurai also used lances and spears btw…as well as naganatas, which were equivalent to European halberds.

Do you have a cite to back up this incredible statement??

-XT

76

This is something that I’ve always wondered about. When I was little I would watch Kung-fu movies and professional wrestling whenever I could. In wrestling if you ever saw 2 on 1 it was 2 bad guys “cheating” to beat up 1 good guy.
However, I remember seeing good guys teaming up to beat one bad guy in kung-fu movies. I specifically remember one movie where the bad guy killed a bunch of brothers, and at the end the sole surviving brother and his father teamed up to kill the bad guy.
I hypothesized that in their culture, teamwork was more respected than “fair fighting”.

77

My impression is that the gladius was at least equal to, and possibly above the pilum in importance, but I’ll agree with the general point.

78

Well, yes, but then again close mixed combat was more or less the meat and potatoes of any given battle back then (barring spectacular exceptions such as Agincourt). Even more so in siege contexts which AFAIK weren’t as common in Japan - they had castles of course, and would besiege them, but assault and defense tactics were completely different. I’ll freely admit I’m no scholar on Japanese siege warfare however so feel free to call me an ignorant peasant on that front.

The Celtic and Gallic tribes the Roman legions fought certainly prized swords over spears as they were as much a mark of wealth and individual badassery as anything.
Moving forward to the early-high Middle Ages, and with the decline of professionally drilled infantry, foot companies and men-at-arms were mostly equipped with shield+whatever the hell the soldier felt like, arming swords presumably being the most common option*, weird polearms the second (billhooks, gödendags, poleaxes, voulges, sword staves, glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaives, whatever).

Of course, considering the ridiculous variety in implements of murder that can be found throughout the period, that may not be saying much. It’s kind of sad, really. These days, the choice is between this automatic rifle and this slightly different automatic rifle. People knew how to spice things up back then :slight_smile:

  • this statement very much depends on which part of Eurasia we’re talking about. I’m talking about the England/France/West Germany/Northern Spain block.

This is a very common theme in Japanese media, where you’ll often find the main bad guy being an arrogant loner while the heroes defeat him through the power of friendship, team spirit and trust to one another.
Whereas Western myths and stories mostly either centre around the one exceptional bloke, or the one exceptional bloke and his band of bumbling sidekicks ; Eastern heroic teams are more on an equal partnership basis, one guy balancing the weaknesses of the others, or “you may have beaten each of us in turn, but you can’t beat us together”, that sort of thing.

Point in case: all classical Westerns focus on that one spectacular badass who’s faster, ornerier and sandier than everyone else around. Sometimes he will have the one, lone trusted friend/ally but that’s it.
All except the Magnificent Seven - but that one’s a straight rip-off of a Japanese flick.

The distinction is perhaps less marked these days, on account of both cultural trends influencing one another, but it’s still noticeable. Mind you, in both cases the bad guy is fucked no matter what, even if he has a lot of underlings of his own. See: Conservation of Ninjutsu. :smiley:

79

Would you consider Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to be a “classical Western”? You’d be hard-pressed to say that one of them was the “hero” and the other the “sidekick”.

80

I still haven’t watched that one. Cue hail of kerbstones. I KNOW, OK ?!

Still, assuming it’s about one Butch Cassidy guy and another bloke called the Sundance Kid it fits within the bounds of “one badass guy and his one trusted friend/ally”. Whether nobody can agree on which one is the badass guy and which is the trusted friend/ally doesn’t undermine the premise.