Long sword VS Katana

Overall i believe the Katana would Win.

Oh no, this debate again. Katana is far better slashing, the Albion, broad sword or any of those swords from that region were a  much better cutter/stabber, infact most European LS's are. Different weapons with different strengths. I need to dig up one of the best studies (video and pics) I ever saw that shows the inherent differences with real cutting  and penetration power, etc. It will change your perspective and open your mind

FYI, those were 2 handed rattan, just to nitpick, heh. Try this one () I've a much better one, but its dug deep in my files. That one shows vs various armor types of the day.

Sometimes, its not just the weapons.

Its the skill, moral, strength, tactics, and the weather even.

The spirit of the warrior by many traditions varies but in linked by the strength of will. Warriors vary in martial teachings and skill. So luck plays in sometimes too. LOL.

There are never any absolutes in combats, save for one will die and one will live......maybe.

Another offering about Katana VS  ??

Any one watch the  cable TV "Deadliest Warrior ?" Many comparisons about fighters ,weapons, techniques

www.casttv.com/shows/deadliest-warrior/w...s-shaka-zulu/nvepod1

This might work with a little help

That show was very controversial, I more or less agree with Jeff's philosophy, Its not the tools, its the handyman.

The true winner...

Nuff said.

Close second:



1:00 in : "...Brings a Knife to a Gunfight"

My main reply for this was I have heard the entire European vs Asian weapon debate over and over and over... hence why I made the satirical response with the Indy clip. 

People can debate all they want, but I just say look at the history books and see which group held more power or dominated better on the battlefields.  There's your proof, as shown by history.

As for me and weapons... I'll stick with my latex boffer of fantasy design and enjoy just tapping or lightly bruising the flesh of my fellow gamers.

Okay...enter honest to god non-bias party.

This is an arguement forever had and will be till the day the mortal tongue lies down to rest. As with any FIGHT it boils down to the skill and proficiensy of the wielder; BUT this is NOT an arguement on WHO is wielding the blade -- rather WHICH BLADE is better.

The Katana is lighter and JUST as strong as the long sword. The long sword is way heavier, more blunt, yet does exactly the same amount of damage. Therefore the name of the game is which blade has the POTENTIAL (by any wielder) to be swung at a more deadly rate. The name of the game in sword fighting (from one who wields ACTUAL steel) is who-hits-who FIRST. Therefore the Katana allows for a faster and more effecient kill. They're both PROFICIENT and get the job done...but the deed will be executed three times faster by a katana.

And lets not even get into the WIELDER story...or else we're looking at Samurai vs. Knight. Then the knight...sorry to break it to you european buffs...but would more then likely not have stood a chance. Knights depended on brute strength with some technique (Their are many historically accurate portrayals of german sword combat online that you can find.) Samurai depended on technique, and proficiensy. Yes...the knight was fully plated up and was able to take way more damage to their gear...BUT they also moved as thus. Therefore allowing the samuai ample enough mobility to execute both sword and hand-to-hand techniques. Yes...the Euro-swordsman DID have a period martial art which you can find more of on youtube. But lets not speak of the oriental arts...so as said prior...hands down KATANA as a weapon.

OK, it's time for people to educate themselves before speaking.

If you have not seen Reclaiming the Blade (props to Jeff for recommending it) then you really need to see it.

After watching it a tome or two, think about it and consider your answer to this question carefully, then come back and voice your opinion.

Personally, the longsword was used in many more ways than the katana, and was often more durable than the katana, but they are both only tools.  It is the man behind the tool that makes one superior to the other.

The very idea that European knights were less skilled than their Asian counterparts is both ludicrous and ignorant, as both cultures were bred to a warrior background.  With iron being more prevalent in Europe, it was only natural that armoring techniques would be developed that would allow warriors to encase more and more of their bodies in metal, either mail or plate... or both.  Cutting weapons (katana) would grow increasingly less effective in this environment, as, outside of Hollywood, no slashing weapon is cutting through well made armor.  That is why alternative weapons came to the fore, so they could use their WEIGHT and MASS to break bones even through armor and shield.  

As regards the argument that a warrior in plate mail would be slow and clumsy compared to his Asian counterpart, that also is a fallacy.  It has been proven time and again that fully armored warriors could vault into the saddle, catch fleeing archers and even perform simple gymnastics.

People need to stop believing what they read, and seek out those who actually study these things, ARMA being a good place to start.

T

Okay...enter honest to god non-bias party.

This is an arguement forever had and will be till the day the mortal tongue lies down to rest. As with any FIGHT it boils down to the skill and proficiensy of the wielder; BUT this is NOT an arguement on WHO is wielding the blade -- rather WHICH BLADE is better.

The Katana is lighter and JUST as strong as the long sword. The long sword is way heavier, more blunt, yet does exactly the same amount of damage. Therefore the name of the game is which blade has the POTENTIAL (by any wielder) to be swung at a more deadly rate. The name of the game in sword fighting (from one who wields ACTUAL steel) is who-hits-who FIRST. Therefore the Katana allows for a faster and more effecient kill. They're both PROFICIENT and get the job done...but the deed will be executed three times faster by a katana.

And lets not even get into the WIELDER story...or else we're looking at Samurai vs. Knight. Then the knight...sorry to break it to you european buffs...but would more then likely not have stood a chance. Knights depended on brute strength with some technique (Their are many historically accurate portrayals of german sword combat online that you can find.) Samurai depended on technique, and proficiensy. Yes...the knight was fully plated up and was able to take way more damage to their gear...BUT they also moved as thus. Therefore allowing the samuai ample enough mobility to execute both sword and hand-to-hand techniques. Yes...the Euro-swordsman DID have a period martial art which you can find more of on youtube. But lets not speak of the oriental arts...so as said prior...hands down KATANA as a weapon.

What? I read it and all I can do is shake my head. Sad my friend, not saying eastern or western just your argument is has little fact.

I love Katanas, and I love the mystique surrounding the Samurai, but please, lets base arguments on fact. I've spent 25+ years in the study of arms and armor, and I've heard this argument countless times. I'm a student of European and Asian cultures in this regard, so my feelings aren't biased based on limited exposure. However, I find it funny how many who grew up watching anime, or movies like Highlander, and romantisize certain themes and styles think they know so much. A true historian would be able to educate, but they need a willing and open minded audience first.

Well said.

Okay...no disrespect in how i reply; but all i read was a head shake and a butt pat -- yet no basis backing up your own claims. I base mine off of facts of the weapons and armor. If you don't believe me, simply seek to educate yourself first-hand and spend some time IN the european armor with a broad sword. Then in the samurai armor with a katana. Swings the weapons at tatami matts yourself. Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one and they all stink. Either way *shrugs* I speak from experience physical experience. Believe me or not, it was just my two cents. I'm not trying to educate or persuade, i'm simply stating fact.

lmao!!! here's your european gymnastics in full plate...also note no helmet and the lack of true movement. And he's trying.

ok guys.. here's the point.. no one will ever really know which one is superior because armies of soldiers who wielded these weapons never faced off against eachother and for the forseeable future, NEVER will. additionally the japanese Katana was intended for an entirely diffrent type of fighting than the european broadsword.
the Katana was for "hack and slash" combat most often in a duel like single combat senario. and designed around the martial arts & sciences of the Samurai.

where as the european broadsword came in many diffrent types but all were more intended for "cut & thrust" combat in an almost bar brawl scenario. which went along with the martial arts and sciences of the europan knight/soldier.

both were MAGNIFICENT killing tools
and gods willing will never have to be tested against eachother in actual combat.

and at any rate we all know they are all very usefull against the undead when we run out of bullets and arrows

That Youtube vid is a rather poor example for so many reasons I hesitate to waste time mentioning them. And yes, I've weilded both, and worn both. I know several armorers who make one or the other, or both styles. Professional smiths. I don't speak from my butt. They both had benefits and drawbacks but were products of their own specific environments. Please though don't use silly amatuer youtube vids as a basis for the argument and then demand concrete facts to substantiate our claims. Pot-kettle-black

The notion that european armor and weapons were unweildly or overly heavy or didn't allow for dextrous movement is a horrible misnomer. There are tales of knights who could leap from standing on horseback and flipping off in a somersault. Yes, really. These men lived and died with this equipment, and if wasn't functional, they wouldn't wear it. I can equally tout the benefits of the materials and design of asian armors (and if you are limiting that to just Japaneze Armor (Kikou, Kabuto most notibly seen worn by Oda Nobunaga and Takeda Shingen, or the well known Okegawa armor), why not go into the designs of Korean armor and weapons and the prowess of the Hwa-rang? How about the various battle armor and sword weilding warriors of the various dynastic armies of China (quite a departure from what you see in hong-kong and even hollywood kung-fu flicks I assure you!). All could be debated for hours, weeks on end infact, but it seems that you don't need education there  I don't have the time to give an extended disertation though on what you consider inferior european materials and design, or the skills that these ancient warrios used to weild them effectively, so if you aren't willing to accept the notions of someone with years of study, and then please do your own research, I'm not sure what else to say.

However, here's some starter info for you. This is non-biased material, with analysis on the weapons, the weilders, and the styles. The first few are written by ARMA, which is not SCA, its a society that practices the actual art of combat from the age, much as the long standing Kenpo and Bujinkan schools do in Japan to preserve those arts.

www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html

I'm still hunting for the extensive article I had from awhile back that depicted the actual effects in the hands of skilled practioners against various armor types for a bunch of weapons (even a poleaxe which was more devistating than expected!!). That is a major eye-opener and if I can just find it..sigh..

I gave both sets of armor their respects; but as I stated prior the arguement isn't about the armor or the fighter but the weapon. The silly video was simply that, a jest at the thought of saumersaulting knights. On youtube youc an find ARMA "free-playing" and watch their martial skills vs. one another. Especially wrestling one another to the ground. Even these men act different within their armor then out. You can not deny that the armor of the Samurai allows more dexterity then that of the European Knight -- can you :oP? As well, I previously noted that it added more protection then the samurai's armor, but it's MORE cumbersome then Samurai's armor.

   

Never denied their skills, or the fact that they had a martial art and were devistating in it. But on the arguement of comparing two different warriors /my opinion/ was that the Knight is too heavily armored to keep up with the Samurai's dexterity. As everyone knows (and Secarius stated) We will never truly know. This is all opinion. I am fully aware of ARMA and their knowledge. As well, I myself am a practitioner of Bujikan under instructor Don Houle -- who was honored to take and pass the godan shinsha (5th degree black belt test). And studied in Japan under Masaaki Hatsumi for some 25 years. As well, he is certified but Hatsumi sensei to teach Bujikan in the states. So I have a "fair" understanding of the bujikan as well. Therefore i have no need for the hollywood glitz and glamour -- especially since I feel it shines a negative light on most martial arts. Take ninja assassin for example. The main character uses my favorite weapon, the Kyoketsu shoge , and technically uses it "backwards". I guess throwing an iron ring at your opponents face doesn't sell as well as throwing a sickle at a man. Anyway; the basis of my opionins aren't backed by the SCA -- they swing rattan, which is completely pointless for this conversation *(sorry victor)*.

I did SCA for years, and believe me they are not perfect by any means.

Science has proven that curved blades are exceptionally best for cutting.  Ergo, a katana is equal with a sabre or scimitar.  Everyone agree with this?    Let's not answer this.

What makes a great sword is the technology behind it.  The materials, how it's made, and the design for how it's used (ie fighting style).  Ultimately, the tech behind the weapon is what makes it a good weapon or not.  As I said before, look at history and who had the better tech, innovations, designs, planning, strategies, and the actual battles that took place.

We've all heard the arguments, debates, examples, and as was stated... we will never know.

None of this is to decry the katana as a weapon, as a slashing weapon, using the mastersmithing techniques developed in Japan (and Damascus, to be fair), they are VERY possibly the best around.

Right up until I put on some armor, then things start to change.  The heavier the armor, the less effective the slashing weapon is.  Including katanas.  A katana against a knight in full gothic plate?  Good luck, better get yourself a no-dachi, or better yet a naginata, cuz your katana is bouncing off the plate.

Again, I think what Mitch (whom I love, but have never met... odd that), Jeff and I are getting at here is that we HAVE done the research, personally I know I have spent hours and hours scouring the web for videos, manuscripts, articles, what-have-you by people who are doing the research first hand  ARMA is a good start, also watch the documentary, it will give you a real understanding of the common misconceptions regarding both European and Asian fighting arts.

T

Could it be said that The Katana Would be effective Though against any exposed Area the Plate would not be covering?

Could it be said that The Katana Would be effective Though against any exposed Area the Plate would not be covering?

This entire thread is all your fault Matt.  I blame you for all this drama. 

*Throwing Gasoline of the Fire*

Wha ....What are you Talking About

Could it be said that The Katana Would be effective Though against any exposed Area the Plate would not be covering?

It would have serious issues vs chainmail, as that is a primary defense against slashing weapons and has been proven. Thrusts like with spears )and certain arrows) penetrated well, but test also showed that a heavy gambison very much helped here as well. The Katana was NOT an extremely effective thruster, though it was unmatched as a slashing weapon with all comparisons.

Also as far as craftsmanship, the fact is though, the folding process of the katana was done due to the high carbon content of japanese iron. The end result of this dedication is a sword of reasonable strength on the blunt side, but the cutting edge can be rather brittle, and the flat faces are prone to breaking if force meets it flush. The science behind the sword technique was often followint this fact, just as the technique developed to take advantage of amazing quick release from the scabard (most fights weren't long protracted battles, but a single or very few strokes).

I can go on and on with comparisons in great detail, but not sure its worth the extended discussion, unless its with open-minded audience

Yeah, whenever Hollywood feeds us another katana on katana battle where the two combatants are cutting and parrying constantly, edge on edge, one thought crosses my mind.: "damn, they are destroying those weapons", because katanas were so sharp that edge on edge contact would notch the blade horribly.

T

who remembers the awesomeness that was Bushido Blade, the only weapon combat video game that got it right

Guys, What this topic has become, even though very good debates and conversation, is what as known of in Indiana as "MelMing a Thread"/  I have been blamed for many thread de-rails  in our RP of KanaraK My character is named Mohammad- EL-Medique aka MELM


I am a master of debating issues first from one side then the other all meant to bring out more information and discussion. Thus I get blamed for "MelMing " a thread

Look up the word "Obfuscation"

In this thread I have seen many levels of knowledge , experience  personal feelings, emotions debates  and nobody has gotten offended.  For that I really like this debate.

So many times a person will think they are being ganged upon.  Don't see that here
Thanks


One of my son's is a Sixth Degree Black Belt and just demonstrated a Wakasashi that  he spent several hours polishing not sharpening. It is incredibly sharp. BUT as stated Slashing is it's primary purpose


Anyway just my 2 C' here

This debate has me thinking(yep, you can smell the wood burning.) If I may...

Every science class I have taken has taught me the lesson of testing all variables. So far, the only variable I have seen is when armor is introduced. However, let us consider some other conditions to debate the merit of these 2 fine weapons.
1) Combat verus multiple opponents
2) Prolong engagement, where the condition of the weapons slowly deteriorates
3) The weapon is in the hand of a novice with little to no combat experience

I would like to add I have no formal training in martial arts, so I do not have that much knowledge or experience to go on. I just hope that, with !SCIENCE!, we can come to a conclusion.

Furthermore, I was always curious about the merits of the Rapier vs the Katana, but thats another thread.

I guess the only way for this to be answered is on Mythbusters.