The Mystery of The katana

[Moon-Lancer]

by the power of knowledge i cast dispel myth.

Plate mail cannot be pierced by a longsword or a Katana. It cannot be cut ether. A knight in armor is killed by slipping the sword between a gap in the armor. This can be done by going to half sword. using the left hand to grip the blade and using it like a short spear.

Chainmail could be penetrated with a thrust but not a cut.

Movies show plate armor being pierced by swords or people in chain being cut down. Why would they wear armor if it was so easy cut and stab through?

The types of sword combat people visualize when they imagine sword fighting is unarmored combat. When armor is introduced everything changes.

A katana and longsword have equal thrusting capability, but the longsword had more reach to take advantage of the thrust. The katana has superior cutting ability, but a strike to the head, which is one of the easiest targets to hit in a fight ends the fight regardless of cutting ability.

Unarmored combat with the longsword or katana was swift and deadly. It is unlikely for most fights to last any longer then 5 seconds. 5 seconds is an eternity. Most fights would end at the first strike.

The katana is made of many layers of metal but the layers are not forged 1 at a time. for example

7 layers of metal are placed on top of each other. the metal is cut and folded. Now its 14 layers, then its 28 layers, then its 56 layers, then its 112, 224, 448, 896 etc...

so you can easily get up to 1000 layers without folding the metal 1000 times. starting with 7 layers one gets 896 layers folding it only 7 times.

The thing is, many cultures came up with this idea of folding metal. the celtic people did it and called it pattern welding. the vikings did it and it was called Damascus. Italy did it by melting the metal and mixing it. They were able to mass produce swords as strong as katanas.

The longsword and the katana have evolved and changed shapes to deal with the armor or lack of armor of its time. The katana is a great weapon but its not magical or better. In a fight for my life i would pick a longsword for its cross guards, for its ability to counterstrike with the second edge, and its length.

 

[gamerprinter]

Of course the real secret is that the samurai kills you with his bow while on horseback. If he's somehow knocked from his horse and now you're at close range, then its time to whip out the sword. However, in most cases you two never get that close. You're dead because you've been highly accurately hit by a daikyu arrow. The samurai never even drew his katana...

GP

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Of course the real secret is that the samurai kills you with his bow while on horseback. If he's somehow knocked from his horse and now you're at close range, then its time to whip out the sword. However, in most cases you two never get that close. You're dead because you've been highly accurately hit by a daikyu arrow. The samurai never even drew his katana...

GP

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".

 

[El Mahdi]

Comparing a Katana or Longsword to other weapons (like the aforementioned Maul), is like comparing a Saw to a Hammer. Or comparing a Hacksaw to a Crosscut saw.

Which is better?

None and All!

In combat, just as with anything else - one should always use the right tool for the job (unless the tool isn't available - then the rule is adapt and overcome).

Katana's, Longswords, and Mauls (along with every other weapon) were all different tools for different jobs. Each one the absolute best at what they were designed for.


And as some have said here: Longswords and Katanas could not penetrate plate armor. And Katanas are not inherently constructed better than Longswords. (There were just as many poorly constructed Katanas as poorly constructed Longswords, and just as many "Masterwork" Katanas as "Masterwork" Longswords. European pattern welded blades were just as complexly constructed, and equally as strong and effective as any folded, differentially heat hardened Katana!) Also, Asian (and specifically Japanese) Martial Arts, were not inherently superior to European Martial Arts. It's only that much of the European Martial Arts have been lost to time (and are only now being reconstructed), whereas Asian Martial Arts have survived in to more modern times because of specific facets of Asian culture.


Taking any weapon, armor, or Martial Art out of context is simply foolish. They were all designed with specific uses and situations of their time in mind. Quite literally, there was just as much of an "arms race" then, as what we have today. Weapons, armor, and Martial Arts evolved throughout the years and centuries in response to changes in eachother. Comparing such things in an out of context or anachronistic manner, is as silly as comparing an American Civil War musket to an M4 carbine.


Katana's are "Cool" in today's popular culture because they are more recently in our collective consciousness (WWII), they are more foreign to us (and therefore more "exotic") due to our generally predominant Euro-centric knowledge-base and history, and they are more commonly depicted in media (quite likely because of the first two, and also because of Asian movies).

Really no mystery at all.



Of course though, where would the fun be in an internet void of baseless conjecture, uninformed declarations, and popular culture fueled hype?

So, carry on...

 

[Votan]

I compare this battle:

Battle of Legnica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to these battles:

Mongol invasions of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and I speculate that people are confusing the much higher level of training with the quality of the weapons being used. It seems to be an odd feature of Western culture that we did not seem to really believe in martial training to the same extent in the post-Roman era.

I'm not sure (not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) but I look at battles like Agincourt:

Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you see some pretty unsophisticated tactics (on the French side) leading to a fairly brutal defeat. So I wonder if martial prowess is one of the big differences between East and West here (leading us to give the weapon that was backed with training a big edge)???

 

[Katana_Geldar]

Had no idea I was so popular or mysterious.

One thing I remember about swords in Western Europe was how much of an investment it was to have one and maintain one, showed you were someone of substance and income.

Because katanas are curved I wonder if that makes them more expensive and the bearer worthy of notice.

 

[El Mahdi]

@Votan

I compare this battle:

Battle of Legnica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to these battles:

Mongol invasions of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and I speculate that people are confusing the much higher level of training with the quality of the weapons being used. It seems to be an odd feature of Western culture that we did not seem to really believe in martial training to the same extent in the post-Roman era.

I'm not sure (not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) but I look at battles like Agincourt:

Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you see some pretty unsophisticated tactics (on the French side) leading to a fairly brutal defeat. So I wonder if martial prowess is one of the big differences between East and West here (leading us to give the weapon that was backed with training a big edge)???

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here as you seem to be making some contradictory claims. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.

Are you trying to say that The_Battle_of_Legnica highlights a lack of higher level military training and unsophisticated tactics in Europe, as compared to the level of training and tactics of the Samurai countering the Mongol_Invasions_of_Japan? If so, I have a problem with that. At the time of the Mongol Invasions of Japan, the Samurai really didn't have much in the way of "tactics". They had become an individualized, sword culture. Their strategy was to stand on the beach and fight off the Mongols as individual warriors. A horrible strategy! There really wasn't much in the way of any strategic thinking involved in their defense. The only reason these invasions were unsuccessful was due to weather. If the Mongols hadn't lost most of their supplies and the majority of their force to storms, Japanes culture as we know it would have probably ended in the 13th century.

I also take significant issue with this:

It seems to be an odd feature of Western culture that we did not seem to really believe in martial training to the same extent in the post-Roman era.

Martial Training did not cease in Western culture with the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, Martial Arts in Europe reached a new high during the Medieval Age. The problem is that many of those Arts and concepts were lost as the increasing use of firearms led Europe in a different direction. We are only now reconstructing many of those Arts from old documents. And although there are no documents older than the late 13th century that have survived, there are other sources that indirectly mention schools and teachers as far back as the 11th century, that are very similar to the schools and teachers of later centuries. The training of squires and knights was very much a Martial Art. One every bit as lethal, elegent, and complex as any Asian Martial Art. And did include strategic and tactical training equally comparable to any other culture or time. It was just passed along in more of an individual manner, rather than written down at the time.

I'd suggest checking out HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), and reading up on this thread and the sources in it for more info on this.

We are finding every day, that there's a lot more to Medieval European Martial Arts than we were commonly taught in our modern times.

 

[Votan]

@Votan



I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here as you seem to be making some contradictory claims. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.

Are you trying to say that The_Battle_of_Legnica highlights a lack of higher level military training and unsophisticated tactics in Europe, as compared to the level of training and tactics of the Samurai countering the Mongol_Invasions_of_Japan? If so, I have a problem with that. At the time of the Mongol Invasions of Japan, the Samurai really didn't have much in the way of "tactics". They had become an individualized, sword culture. Their strategy was to stand on the beach and fight off the Mongols as individual warriors. A horrible strategy! There really wasn't much in the way of any strategic thinking involved in their defense. The only reason these invasions were unsuccessful was due to weather. If the Mongols hadn't lost most of their supplies and the majority of their force to storms, Japanes culture as we know it would have probably ended in the 13th century.

I am happy to admit to absolutely no expertise on the subject. I just have an impression that Western military expertise, especially in the post-Roman territories, was somewhat underwhelming. It's not based on a careful checking of data but rather an unfocused impression.

But you see a lot of interesting things happening in the medieval period. For example, I was always amazed at how successful the Vikings were at raiding and conquest and how ineffective broad chunks of Western Europe seemed to be at stopping them. Given how successful they were in (for example) Ireland despite having no supply lines (or very limited ones), it leads one to wonder why the Irish were not able to more decisively defeat them.

So I wonder about martial training in the post-Roman "dark" ages a lot.

That was why I brought up Agincourt. By the time of Napolean the French had managed to become an effective military power. But the whole history of the 100 years war seems (to a layman dilettante) to be a series of "grossly outnumbered English defeat the French who lose all cohesion as soon as battle is joined".

I also take significant issue with this:


Martial Training did not cease in Western culture with the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, Martial Arts in Europe reached a new high during the Medieval Age. The problem is that many of those Arts and concepts were lost as the increasing use of firearms led Europe in a different direction. We are only now reconstructing many of those Arts from old documents. And although there are no documents older than the late 13th century that have survived, there are other sources that indirectly mention schools and teachers as far back as the 11th century, that are very similar to the schools and teachers of later centuries. The training of squires and knights was very much a Martial Art. One every bit as lethal, elegent, and complex as any Asian Martial Art. And did include strategic and tactical training equally comparable to any other culture or time. It was just passed along in more of an individual manner, rather than written down at the time.

I'd suggest checking out HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), and reading up on this thread and the sources in it for more info on this.

We are finding every day, that there's a lot more to Medieval European Martial Arts than we were commonly taught in our modern times.

I have heard of HEMA (from the thread you suggested) and even think there was an example of firearms era Europeans fighting Samarai (which suggests that, in the Colonial period, Europeans could beat a force contianing Ronin Samarai on reasonably equal terms).

However, my (admittedly just looking at things on the internet) suggests that there were good fencing manuals around by 1500 but I was always unclear how systematic the training was during the actual medieval period (say 600 to 1100 AD). 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.

But I am happy to be proven wrong in this regard.

In that case, I would argue the perception of higher levels of training might be the cause.

 

[The Shaman]

But you see a lot of interesting things happening in the medieval period. For example, I was always amazed at how successful the Vikings were at raiding and conquest and how ineffective broad chunks of Western Europe seemed to be at stopping them.

The Vikings followed on the heels of four centuries of invasions which swept across Europe and decimated what remained of the institutions established by Rome, and they were ultimately repulsed or assimilated everywhere they went within a couple of centuries.

They were not a factor through most of the Middle Ages.

So I wonder about martial training in the post-Roman "dark" ages a lot.

First, the "dark" ages aren't the same thing as the medieval era - you're conflating two different periods.

Second, Europeans did not suffer from a lack of "martial training" - they suffered from being on the receiving end of wave after wave of migrations which sapped their manpower and resources. They were also faced with internal powere struggles arising from the breakup and breakdown of the Roman system of governance - society was fragmenting on many levels.

That was why I brought up Agincourt. By the time of Napolean the French had managed to become an effective military power. But the whole history of the 100 years war seems (to a layman dilettante) to be a series of "grossly outnumbered English defeat the French who lose all cohesion as soon as battle is joined".

Dude, you know the French won the Hundred Years War, right?

(Edit: Somehow I managed to lose my last paragraphs. )

Read about Pontvallain, or Bauge, or Patay, where the French cavalry rode down the supposedly invincible English longbowmen.

And the French were a dominant military power in Europe long before Napoleon, arguably the most powerful from Rocroi in 1643 to Blenheim in 1704.

 

[Votan]

Dude, you know the French won the Hundred Years War, right?

Read about Pontvallain, or Bauge, or Patay, where the French cavalry rode down the supposedly invincible English longbowmen.

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.

Battle of Patay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the pointer!!!

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.