Japanes Sword Additions and Corrections

[Xeriar]

I dont know why people think the steel in Japan was not of high quality back then.

Put simply, their iron ore sucked. It was both low in carbon and high in impurities, IIRC.

Sure there where some poor quality steel back then in japan, but that can be said for some steel in europe too.

Europe had a much richer variety in iron deposits, and had much richer resources to draw from, period.

It all depends on the person who made the steel, and how experienced the said person is.

Of course there is experience in making steel. Just that, for the iron ore that would become a Katana, we wouldn't call it steel until it was folded a few times!

I am no metallurgy specialist or anything, but I do know there are a great number of variable that could impact the quality of the steel.

Most certainly, for example, if your iron ore can't bite rocks...

You need a way to compensate for it. Sometimes just smelting it isn't enough and it needs to be purified further, somehow.

I agree with most of you on the fact that the cutting edge of a Katana was not deigned for the abuse of real combat.

Few blades are. Most blades aren't going to stand up to D&D style combat, period. Even a master won't turn out blades like that regularly.

This is why I dont under stand why people insist on using them in real combat outside of dueling of course.

Just because the edge isn't going to last forever doesn't make it an inneffective weapon.

To say nothing of how many battles the average Japanese swordmen would fight in anyway (ie, not many).

Iaijutsu duels were very, very, very rare. It was generally used to slay peasants.

I can see some Samurai using there Katanas in combat, but most never used them in combat, they used battle sword which the Japanese name leaves me at the moment.

That could refer to any number of things. IIRC there were a number of incredibly cheap versions of the katana made, with straighter edges and poorer quality steel.

I dont agree with most when it comes to the No-Doshi being a great sword version of a Katana, the No-Doshi does not have the aggressive curve, but does have a slaight curve to it though.

IMO, D&D doesn't need to suffer from weapon creep.

It is also about 10 inchs longer then a standard great sword, but maybe the length varied from owner to owner much like the Katana.

As mentioned, Japanese were not tall people, I wonder where you imagine this one out of.

 

[Enkhidu]

I'm not a metellurgist.

But: I'm pretty sure that the constant, constant, constant, constant, constant refolding of the blade upon itself slowly but surely pounded all the impurities out of the metal.

At least, that's how I remember it from the last time I looked up on the subject.

Try 1000 to 2000 folds, which turns into millions of instances of metal folding in on itself. It didn't so much pound out impurutues as it broke down the undesirable ones while adding carbon (because the steel was constantly reheated by placing it directly on the wood fire furnace). This made for a very good steel mix when it was all said and done.

However, I should point out that it was not as good as Damascus steel for standing the test of time (and Damascus steel had a better carbon content, as well as a crystal structure of impurities).

That being said, I'm constantly amazed by why people think the Katana is so much better than European blades made with the same care. Ever hear of pattern welding? Of taking metal wire, twisting it into a multilayer cable, and then poundng it into a blade? Plus, since European blades were - especially in later periods - designed to break bones trough armor rather than cut unarmored flesh, you'd think they would actually be more desireable in D&D combat.

 

[Anubis]

I dont know why people think the steel in Japan was not of high quality back then. Sure there where some poor quality steel back then in japan, but that can be said for some steel in europe too. It all depends on the person who made the steel, and how experienced the said person is. I am no metallurgy specialist or anything, but I do know there are a great number of variable that could impact the quality of the steel.

You got this part right.

I agree with most of you on the fact that the cutting edge of a Katana was not deigned for the abuse of real combat. This is why I dont under stand why people insist on using them in real combat outside of dueling of course.

You got this part wrong. First off, you're in the minority in thinking that katanas were not used in combat. Nearly every poster here as refuted that. Heck, we've all given you plenty of historically accurate facts to completely refute the ridiculous statement of katanas not being combat-oriented!

The katana was designed for combat, plain and simple, and it is considered by most to be one of the finest swords made. In the hands of a master blacksmith with high-quality steel, it becomes even better. It's not a super-sword by any means, but it is historically considered one of the "better" and "more favored" weapons, be it for combat AND/OR dueling. (Rapier, sabre, flamberge, claymore, and scimitar are others.)

I can see some Samurai using there Katanas in combat, but most never used them in combat, they used battle sword which the Japanese name leaves me at the moment.

It's called a *no-datchi* man, and it was much rarer on the battlefield than the katana historically speaking. It was a big man's sword measuring about five and a half to six feet in length IIRC, and there aren't many big men in the Orient.

I dont agree with most when it comes to the No-Doshi being a great sword version of a Katana, the No-Doshi does not have the aggressive curve, but does have a slaight curve to it though. It is also about 10 inchs longer then a standard great sword, but maybe the length varied from owner to owner much like the Katana.

It's no-datchi, and it's the battle sword you speak of. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, no-datchi roughly translates to "battle sword". Nonetheless, it is to the greatsword what the katana is to a standard hand-and-a-half.

Anyways thanks for the links Aaron2, and Aurance, they where very helpfull in my project

Now just study the history a bit better. We're trying to help you, but if you insist on being an authority on the subject that you are not, you're wasting our time.

 

[Azure Trance]

That being said, I'm constantly amazed by why people think the Katana is so much better than European blades made with the same care.

Because their martial art master-throwing star wielding-ninjas, of course

 

[Anubis]

The reason most people in the real world would favor the katana as the sword of choice has nothing to do with it's physical properties. It would be marginally better than a European sword at best, IF THAT. The reasoning behind the katana is the same reasoning behind the rapier and the sabre: finesse. The katana is effectively a huge sword that can be wielded like something half it's size, it has excellent angles when made correctly, it parries, thrusts, slashes, AND deflects effortlessly (unlike most European blades), and it weighs less and is much faster than comparable European weapons.

The reason the katana didn't become mainstream the world over after Japan entered the world market, however, is simply because a great many European blacksmiths simply weren't able to master the proper techniques in creating the katana correctly.

Although that no longer applies today, it's a moot point because swords aren't used in combat anymore. If you do look at swords still in use today in sport and dueling, however, you will find three weapons at the top of the list: foil, rapier, and katana.

 

[mmu1]

The reason most people in the real world would favor the katana as the sword of choice has nothing to do with it's physical properties. It would be marginally better than a European sword at best, IF THAT. The reasoning behind the katana is the same reasoning behind the rapier and the sabre: finesse. The katana is effectively a huge sword that can be wielded like something half it's size, it has excellent angles when made correctly, it parries, thrusts, slashes, AND deflects effortlessly (unlike most European blades), and it weighs less and is much faster than comparable European weapons.

...and requires two hands to use, which is somehow a difference people always miss when comparing it to European blades and talking about how fast it was. Which means that the Westerner with a "slow" blade can use a shield.

 

[Anubis]

...and requires two hands to use, which is somehow a difference people always miss when comparing it to European blades and talking about how fast it was. Which means that the Westerner with a "slow" blade can use a shield.

A katana does not require two hands. In fact, it is designed for use with either one OR two hands. You need to do more studying on weapons before you say such things.

 

[Kail]

"AND deflects effortlessly (unlike most European blades), and it weighs less and is much faster than comparable European weapons."

Need to be more careful of those generalizations yourself. The weight or most European weapons is exagerated. A good bastard sword comes in at under 4 pounds most of the time. And during the period where the katana became important, or even reached its recognizable form, your a pound lighter.

"The reason the katana didn't become mainstream the world over after Japan entered the world market, however, is simply because a great many European blacksmiths simply weren't able to master the proper techniques in creating the katana correctly."

Multiple grade steel and patern type weilds in European weapons had been around long before the Japanese started cranking out katanas. The Celts and Vikings had mastered this art long before the 12 or 13th century Japanese smiths did. The reason the katan didn't become mainstream the world over after Japan entered the world market had nothing to do with what a European smith could do. It had to do with the fact that Japan didn't contact Europe until firearms were already a major force on the European battlefield. Swords had alrady changed function and were rapidly losing favor as primary tools of war. European smiths were then capable, as they are now, of matching the Japanese sword smith in quality of work. It was not a religious event, but a job to be done, one that your reputation and life could be resting on.

To the post at hand. That a katana, a smaller, curved blade, puts out damage like a larger weapon works to satisfy the "best blade ever produced" myth just fine. No real need to do anything other than make it an equivalent. Like the No-dachi working up as a great sword, large hacking blades weildable only in two hands, checks out with the logic test.

 

[Xeriar]

A katana does not require two hands. In fact, it is designed for use with either one OR two hands. You need to do more studying on weapons before you say such things.

A katana is slow in one hand and no faster than a bastard sword in two hands.

 

[Anubis]

A katana is slow in one hand and no faster than a bastard sword in two hands.

You obviously have never wielded a katana. That or you have little arm strength. I own one, and I can wield it fast in one and EXTREMELY fast in two. I also have a longsword, and it is MUCH slower and heavier than the katana point-wise. (If you don't know what that term means, you should just leave the discussin, because it's what weight issues are primarily about.)