barsoomcore said:
On the whole "katana vs rapier, who would win" question -- my investigation has revealed that the likeliest outcome is
Two dead swordsmen.
Both styles are remarkably suited to bypassing the other. Japanese styles rarely have any means of dealing with (or even anticipating) a lunge, while a draw thrust from a katana to the throat (which looks like the most obvious move to me) is pretty much unstoppable with a rapier (if done correctly, so that the curve of the katana pushes the rapier out of line). Each swordsman takes one step and delivers a fatal blow, is what I see happening. If the katana-guy is stupid enough to wind up for a big cut he'll probably go down in a hurry, while if the rapier guy tries a parry of any kind he's unlikely to survive the experience.
But I would say the most likely outcome is two dead swordsmen.
I got a new sword for my birthday. I have good friends.
I agree with you on most points, but with a couple additional comments I'd like to make.
In my experience and research, while thrusts with a lunge were not commonplace with the katana, there are several ryu that did practice them and defense against them, including the one that I've practiced. The advantage of using two hands on a sword whose design characteristics are somewhat similar to many one-handed weapons is weapon speed; with an average katana, which is of a similar weight and speed as a cavalry saber or maybe even smaller, IMO often allows you to make better use of the leverage and strength afforded by a two-handed grip to quite rapidly transition from block to counterattack, or block to different block. That, and the common "starting stance" of gedan kamae can be used to parry thrusts in a very similar theory that smallswords are, i.e. small movements of the hands enough to catch the opposing sword against yours and take it out of line, while maintaining your point on the opponent to facilitate a thrust or thrusting draw-cut riposte/counterattack. Except that, IMO, you have a good bit more leverage with the katana because of the ratio of length to weight, and the two-handed grip. Not all japanese styles teach that I understand, but we were taught to defend against sword thrusts and also against yari/bo thrusts, and some of the drills included defending against very rapid distance-closing footwork (I've not seen much in kenjustsu like a smallsword lunge, or even a shallower rapier lunge, maybe because the samurai favored a more balanced stance, I'm not sure exactly). We used to do one particularly scary kumite drill with advanced students only, which consisted of your attacker starting with a fast-stepping kesa cut, only to pull in his sword right before it met your overhead block and deliver a series of lightning quick thrusts accompanied by hopping, fast footwork, which forced you to use a variety of blocks against. It was one that took a lot of slow practice to master before you were allowed to do it at 'full speed', which was pretty scary and quite invigorating when done properly.
Personally, the tactic I would take as a katana wielder, if I was at all familiar with a rapier style, would be to wait for the first committed thrust by the rapier man and then apply a low-handed gedan block (hoping to avoid a disengage or similar manuver), stepping in with pressure against his blade to apply a thrusting cut to somewhere soft and painful (predominately the throat).
Historically, though, I have to agree with what Dannyalcatraz said; I have read about incidents very similar to what he described. A rapier or cut-and-thrust man stopping a rapid charging attack of a samurai with a stop-thrust, only to lose a major body part on the warriors follow-through downswing. I that maybe some of that can be attributed to prevailing attitudes in the fighting styles/warrior philosophies at the time, where many of the schools of thought on Japanese swordsmanship were very aggressive and favoring lightning-quick attacks to end a duel quickly, whereas the general impression is that a rapier wielder may be a bit more cautious or reactionary in nature that the average samurai. Dannyalcatraz, the rule of stand-ins that you mentioned, wasnt there an incident with a westerner around the time of Perry's visit that was a forerunner of that policy? I seem to remember an anecdote about that which was actually used in a fictional movie about the Perry visit, but can't recall it right now.
Vig, I don't know that I'd necessarily give the advantage of reach to the katana wielder; the difference in stance and the longer weapon reach of the rapier would make me lean his way. Though that longer weapon wielded one-handed would lead me to believe that the katana user would be able to more easily manage the rapier during a parry; that is, if he was quick/good enough to catch it before becoming perforated a few times
. Of course, some of the O-dachi I've seen are absurdly long and would probably be a bit different, though I've never personally handled one. Katana vs. German two-hander would be very interesting, seeing as how there are a lot of parallels in usage if you look at the old manuals by Talhoffer, etc. Katana vs. smallsword or transitional thrusting rapier would be pretty interesting also, as those are so much lighter and faster than an earlier rapier, but would be incredibly hard to deliver a credible block to a cut from a katana.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. Given equal swordsmen in period, I do absolutely agree with you Barsoomcore... I think often you would see a samurai with a few inches of steel lodged in his chest, while a rapier man would be staring at his arm or head laying on the ground next to him, both with quite surprised looks on their faces
The point for bringing it up though is that the movie I thought made it so one guy was not vastly superior to the other. Which I would say is probably the truth.
