The Mystery of The katana

[gamerprinter]

It depends on the era.

In the Genpei era, samurai wore boxy armor and primarily used bows. (~1100s.)

I could tell you only a little about the battle against the Mongols, but that indirectly led to the rebellion of Go-Daigo. Much of that war was fought in forests, and so melee weaponry became popular. Lots of katana, lots of yari, and apparently the no-dachi was invented during this period (I suspect the source meant the weapon only first appeared in historical records from that time period). Also a wonderful period which both subverted and followed "samurai honor" tropes hardcore.

The Muromachi period gave us people like Oda Nobunaga and is probably the most famous period. Different clans fought with different styles. The gun was introduced during this period. Some of the most famous battles (eg the Fourth Battle of Kawanakajima and the battle of Oda Nobunaga vs Takeda Shingen's son) were fought with melee weapons. (In the first case, it was basically melee cavalry vs melee cavalry, and in the second Oda's infantry, armed with guns and very long spears, defeated the Takeda cavalry.) One-fief samurai probably couldn't even afford anything more expensive than a spear, and would have fought on foot.

There were rewards for getting the first kill with a sword, and another with a spear. I didn't know about one for archery, but in famous battles good archers still got recommended.

And a group of warrior monks were defeated by horse archer samurai, in part because the monks were weighed down by their heavy armor! So it's not like archery went the way of the dodo.

Then came the Japan at Peace Bathrobe Samurai era, where swords were quite popular (probably part of the fetishization came here after the "sword hunt" banned the use of swords and other weapons by commoners), but since wars were rare, most battles involved either duels or ambushes and so were fought on foot, generally with swords. The famous duelist Jubei Yagyu lived in this period.

At least one battle between Japan and Korea was decided due to the "superior quality" of the Japanese swords. I suspect horse archers were less common due to the difficulty in transporting both horses and arrows from Japan to Korea (especially the former). Of course, you could always steal local horses and make factories for the latter...

And in the "Battle of the Last Samurai" both sides used guns and swords, the latter a big deal when you ran out of ammunition. The samurai still had better swordmanship, but it didn't save them from their dismal tactics.

So it's probably more popular to say "it depends".

True. I am aware of all this history, though.

I probably shouldn't be spouting off my expertise in the matter, especially since I don't play D&D in the Renaissance, and for the same matter don't play Japan games from the Sengoku period forward. Once guns show up, I'm no longer interested in playing that kind of setting. Though Nobunaga Oda is one of my favorite historic figures from Japan.

My setting to be published (soon) is based on Japan at the very end of the Genpei War, in fact the founding of my mythical setting is based on a curse uttered by the grandmother (wife of Taira no Kiyomori) of Antoku the five year old emperor, just before they leaped into the sea to their deaths.

Although 700+ years go by, technology doesn't change, its a complete fantasy world at this time. There are no guns, there was never a Mongol invasion, nor a Sengoku, no Toyotomi and no Tokugawa - that all happens in real Japan, not Kaidan.

Kaidan for all intents and purposes is stuck in a mythical land that follows samurai culture at 1185.

In my fake history, the Taira win the Genpei War and there is no Kamakura Bakufu. Instead it becomes Fukuhara Bakufu, with an undead Taira no Kiyomori as Shogun, undead Antoku (who is stuck in his five year old form and stuck in the mind of a child) who is still the currently reigning emperor.

So my vision of a samurai is what they were in the initial years following the Genpei war, being mostly archers with katana as a secondary weapon.


GP

 

[The Shaman]

Hey, I learned something new today. I'd never read about the battle of Patay before but it seems that these battles were less one sided than I had previously realized. . . . I am not sure when I got the idea of French military weakness but I have read a lot about Agincourt and Crecy but this makes the ultimate outcome fo the war make a great deal more sense.

Most of the histories written in English tend to emphasize the English victories, not the French, no doubt aided by all that Shakespeare propaganda.

You might also enjoy this: Combat of the Thirty.

 

[cattoy]

You're all fools.

The real source of the katana's mystique is the way it complements a good trenchcoat.

 

[The Shaman]

Even in the 1500's, Machiavelli takes about the European focus on cavalry and the heavy use of mercenaries as being serious deficits in how many states ran their militaries. So I assumed that this reflected a less advanced military culture in general.

I missed this the first time around.

Machiavelli's criticisms of the use of mercenaries were directed in part at King Louis XI of France, known by the amazing sobriquet of The Spider King; King Louis made extensive use of Swiss mercenaries, often favoring them over his own French soldiers, for which Machiavelli takes him to task in The Prince. However, Machiavelli's criticism should be considered in light of his own service as the commander of the Florentine militia - citizen-soldiers - for a time; his attitude can be seen as somewhat self-serving.

The French wisdom regarding mercenaries goes like this: every mercenary is worth three men - he's a man serving France in the field, a man not serving an enemy's army, and he keeps a French farmer or craftsman in his field or factory.

 

[Dausuul]

the vikings did it and it was called Damascus.

Nitpick in an otherwise very solid post: The Vikings did not make Damascus steel. Damascus steel originated in India and came to Europe via the Middle East (often by way of Damascus, hence the name). There is some debate about how exactly the stuff was made, but it's generally agreed that it was not created by pattern welding, which is what the Vikings and Japanese used. Pattern welding just happens to produce a similar appearance.

 

[Argyle King]

just throwing something out there: In the right hands, a shield is a weapon as well as a piece of armor.

 

[Cor_Malek]

Nitpick in an otherwise very solid post: The Vikings did not make Damascus steel. Damascus steel originated in India and came to Europe via the Middle East (often by way of Damascus, hence the name). There is some debate about how exactly the stuff was made, but it's generally agreed that it was not created by pattern welding, which is what the Vikings and Japanese used. Pattern welding just happens to produce a similar appearance.

QFT.

I'm kind of positively surprised to see so many people interested in, and possessing solid knowledge about medieval weapons.
To elaborate a bit for anyone interested: it's problematic to talk about this wide type of steels (see also wootz*, pulad steel), as you often have several researchers having a decade-long quarrel only to realize they're talking about different things. Basically, it's steel with micro carbides as layers instead of just having a lot of carbon in the steel. The difference is like between reinforced concrete and adding rust to cement ;-)
Although many attach "damascus" label to any steel with decorated surface - even by etching. Which might seem odd, especially to someone who focuses on technology, but is not without a merit for someone who is studying it's history in Asia.

There's been a lot of false presumptions about damascus steel, mainly that there was some kind of "secret" and it was being lost. That's because facture of European made blades resembled wood, whereas the layers in oriental made ones - seemed much more tightly packed. European blades were made by forge wielding different layers, so when someone sees oriental-made sword he goes "Holy Bovine! How the heck did they merge so many?!1**" They didn't. That's what you'd do to make it more durable, and that was not their goal. The micro pattern was thought to represent waters of paradise, which is far more important since Muhammad supposedly said that the paradise is found "under shadow of swords". Sigh. Way to go and overthink different version of "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum". But I digress.

Thing is - the European variation was good enough. It was the durability of those blades - not religious symbolism - that attracted our warriors, and that is what they focused on. OK, they might feel silly about it today if they heard that their version missed out on carbon nanotubes in some Asian steels, but it's not like it was intended (and they'd get a gun permit instead anyways).

The name, "Damascus" is also often thought to come from crusaders who were supposedly introduced to it in said city. Which is plainly incorrect, there's no evidence for it and it was known in Europe for much longer time. As Dausuul pointed out it was however an important trading hub between Asia and Europe. They didn't produce the steel though - they were making blades from imported iron. The blade production name was being attached to the product itself, and after a while it probably just stuck - no matter what the origin of sword, not unlike post-it notes, or adidas, or xerox copies.
There's also the old arabic word damas for water - see previous paragraph.

One of the reasons for the long scientific quarrel, is, and pardon my bias - too many commies in the field ;-) *coughs* there, I said it. But they leave their tenures in bulk each year, so it gets easier.
Modern studies and research strongly suggest multiple origins of such steel. For example excavations and further study of steel workshops in ancient city of Merv (nowadays Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan area) demonstrated that by 800-900 AD, it was widely produced in Central Asia - and with methods and materials different than those used in India and Sri Lanka. Some researchers have a lot of trouble just letting go of the idea that there needs to be one, and only one area of origin for everything. And that all tech change is progressive, and technological level=cultural level. Elegant as it would be, it's not that simple.


*sigh. No, the name did not come from exclamation made on it's unique appearance.
** Because shift happens to scholars as well ;-)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You know, I feel the need to point out that Beowulf probably couldn't have ripped off Grendel's arm, and yet that makes for a far better story and game then him just tugging and nothing happening ;p

 

[Wicht]

My setting to be published (soon) is based on Japan at the very end of the Genpei War, in fact the founding of my mythical setting is based on a curse uttered by the grandmother (wife of Taira no Kiyomori) of Antoku the five year old emperor, just before they leaped into the sea to their deaths.

Although 700+ years go by, technology doesn't change, its a complete fantasy world at this time. There are no guns, there was never a Mongol invasion, nor a Sengoku, no Toyotomi and no Tokugawa - that all happens in real Japan, not Kaidan.

Kaidan for all intents and purposes is stuck in a mythical land that follows samurai culture at 1185.

In my fake history, the Taira win the Genpei War and there is no Kamakura Bakufu. Instead it becomes Fukuhara Bakufu, with an undead Taira no Kiyomori as Shogun, undead Antoku (who is stuck in his five year old form and stuck in the mind of a child) who is still the currently reigning emperor.

So my vision of a samurai is what they were in the initial years following the Genpei war, being mostly archers with katana as a secondary weapon.


GP

Me: Hmm, Michael, is there a way an interested soul could join in on the project of buidling Kaidan and crafting the first adventure set there.

Michael: What we need is a patronage project where people could sign on as patrons!

Me: What a wonderful idea! And then I could put the link in my sig and people, when it was done, could create katana wielding samurai in a ghost-ruled land where danger lurked around every corner.

Me (a moment later): Are Katana's sharp enough to cut a ghost? What if the ghost is wearing armor? And is a Katana in the hands of a ghost-ninja cooler than a katana in the hands of Zatoichi?

 

[Dausuul]

just throwing something out there: In the right hands, a shield is a weapon as well as a piece of armor.

Not a very good one though. Sure, if you've got the shield anyway, you might bash a guy with it from time to time, but if you don't need the shield for defense, you certainly wouldn't keep it around for the offense.