Chinese Broadsword vs. European Rapier

[Cobra]

It is obvious that most people who do martial arts prefer the katana over any sword so no point making that battle. But what about between a Chinese Broadsword and a European Rapier? Which weapon do you think is better and why? Also, which would use more if you were in a sword fight and why?

[Michael Billings]

Apples and Oranges to me. I love the saber (darn dao), but also did a couple of semesters in college with epee. Rapier is not a weapon I have played with.

I have to vote for the saber for me personally, although the rapier would be the lighter more maneuverable blade, my lack of familiarity with it would count off.

-Michael

[Touch Of Death]

The Rapier is battle proven. The broad sword is a chopping weapon that is less effective. Rapier wins!!
Sean

[Blindside]

The Rapier is battle proven. The broad sword is a chopping weapon that is less effective. Rapier wins!!

Stupid debate, but I'll jump in.

The rapier isn't "battle proven" at all, name one European army that adopted the rapier as a standard sidearm. The rapier was a device used for dueling, not the battlefield. The dao on the otherhand was a standard military weapon for centuries. The better comparison between the two cultures would be a jian versus a rapier.

If I had to fight someone tomorrow, give me the dao. If I had to fight someone in three years, give me the rapier.

Lamont

[Nikolas P.]

Asking this is like comparing samurai to European knights— fun to pass the time, but ultimately a pointless debate. The weapons are just too different, and each was developed as the optimal tool for the period and location it was used in.

[OUMoose]

Me staring down 5000 fully armored charging troops? Broadsword...

Me staring down 1 opponent, and we're both in clothing/leather armor? Rapier...

[lhommedieu]

Cf. http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php

Best,

Steve Lamade

[Hyaku]

To quote Musashi: "The newest and most modern weapon wins. Look at what is coming and realize the futility of it all".

He had said that seeing the first guns appear in Japan. This is the study of Budo and the sword. We can find similar thoughts in Western arts too.

[Kane]

Stupid debate, but I'll jump in.

The rapier isn't "battle proven" at all, name one European army that adopted the rapier as a standard sidearm. The rapier was a device used for dueling, not the battlefield. The dao on the otherhand was a standard military weapon for centuries. The better comparison between the two cultures would be a jian versus a rapier.

If I had to fight someone tomorrow, give me the dao. If I had to fight someone in three years, give me the rapier.

LamontThe sword-rapier was used in the battlefield later through the years. It was like a normal rapier, only now it can cut as well as thrust.

[yentao]

Are we talking about the real hard steel sword or the foils? Just kidding. For bashing broadswords will win damn fro sure just throw it like a boomerang. It could damage a lot. Rapier is a puncture unless you got peirce in the neck of the eye it was not sure kill you still have to strike another. As for broadswords it will only take a blow even if the rapier blocks it, it will go through. During the boxer's rebellion the british have to rely in their firearms than in their rapier because they know the odds is agianst them if they do so. Peace out.

[WLMantisKid]

You cant say one weapon is better than the other.

The more skilled fighter wins.

[yentao]

You cant say one weapon is better than the other.

The more skilled fighter wins.

speaking about being skilled, use Arnis and Kali techniques on broadswords (for short ones) that should change the odds quickly.

This thread is like comparing a samurai sword to a rapier. you know eventually which is superior quality.

[WLMantisKid]

If you want to compare quality you have to compare each and every seperate blade in one type to each and every seperate blade in another.

Quality of a blade varies greatly and doesnt make any one weapon "better" than the other. One may last longer, one may cut better, one may thrust better, whatever. But the man makes the weapon... the weapon doesnt make the man.

[The Pinata]

It is foolishness that most people would prefer a Samurai over a Knight. The Katana was shorter than a European blade, it does not allow the use of a shield, and neither its design, nor its technique are in any sense effective against plate armor.

However, on the idea of a Chinese Broadsword against a European Rapier, I think this article of a simulated battle between a Katana and a Rapier would be fairly fitting to your question. I would like to remind you that the claim of rapiers being broken by other swords is in reality, mostly a myth.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

[Nikolas P.]

It is foolishness that most people would prefer a Samurai over a Knight. The Katana was shorter than a European blade, it does not allow the use of a shield, and neither its design, nor its technique are in any sense effective against plate armor.

1.) Shorter means easier to handle and more maneuverable.

2.) Both the "European blade" and the katana changed in size significantly throughout history, based on the needs and preferences of the period.

3.) Since plate armor wasn't used in Japan like it was in Europe, why would the Japanese need a sword that could pierce it? Weapons are adapted to the environment in which they evolve. None can be inherently greater than another because weapons are tools, each meant to fill a specific need.

[The Pinata]

1.) Shorter means easier to handle and more maneuverable.

2.) Both the "European blade" and the katana changed in size significantly throughout history, based on the needs and preferences of the period.

3.) Since plate armor wasn't used in Japan like it was in Europe, why would the Japanese need a sword that could pierce it? Weapons are adapted to the environment in which they evolve. None can be inherently greater than another because weapons are tools, each meant to fill a specific need.
1.) Go try fighting with a weapon with more reach. Tall people have an even greater advantage with this. The Europeans and Japanese used different techniques in handling their blades, and neither was a slow technique. One would be surprised if they realized just how swift most knights were.

2.)The Katana after a certain point almost stopped changing completely. Not because it was a perfect design, but because their tradition told them to.

3.)You're final claim is that the plate armor wasn't native to Japan. Neither was the Katana native to Europe. It remains that in a fight between a Samurai and a Knight, the Knight would have a lot more advantages.

[WLMantisKid]

However, on the idea of a Chinese Broadsword against a European Rapier, I think this article of a simulated battle between a Katana and a Rapier

Uhhhh...

Do you know what a Chinese Broadsword is?

[GarethB]

1.) Go try fighting with a weapon with more reach. Tall people have an even greater advantage with this. The Europeans and Japanese used different techniques in handling their blades, and neither was a slow technique. One would be surprised if they realized just how swift most knights were.

2.)The Katana after a certain point almost stopped changing completely. Not because it was a perfect design, but because their tradition told them to.I'd disagree with that. I would argue that change did not occour not because "tradition told them not to change" (or else how do you explain all the other changes which did occour in Japan if there was a tradition of not changing things?), but because there was little real stimulation for that change. Japan deliberately isolated itself from the outside world for several hundred years, and what contact and trade it did have with other countries and cultures was very carefully controlled. If Japan had been more open to outside influences, there would have been more change.


3.)You're final claim is that the plate armor wasn't native to Japan. Neither was the Katana native to Europe. It remains that in a fight between a Samurai and a Knight, the Knight would have a lot more advantages.All things considered, there is no definative way to answer a Knight vs Samurai question. Not all knights were equally skilled, and the same is true for samurai. Not all knights were equally well equipped either, and that's also true for samurai. The European knight in full armour that we tend to think of was in the process if disappearing from the European battlefield by the time contact and trade with Japan was occouring regularly. The last period of major civil war in Japan where armour was in widespread use ended when Ieyasu Tokugawa became Shogun in 1603. Although the samurai continued to exist until the Meiji Restoration in the late 1800's (when Emperor Meiji officially abolished the samurai), there was very little real use of armour in Japan for several centuries.

[yentao]

1.) Go try fighting with a weapon with more reach. Tall people have an even greater advantage with this. The Europeans and Japanese used different techniques in handling their blades, and neither was a slow technique. One would be surprised if they realized just how swift most knights were.

2.)The Katana after a certain point almost stopped changing completely. Not because it was a perfect design, but because their tradition told them to.

3.)You're final claim is that the plate armor wasn't native to Japan. Neither was the Katana native to Europe. It remains that in a fight between a Samurai and a Knight, the Knight would have a lot more advantages.


Katana was faster and effecient to use the complimentary skills of jujitsu with it and its history of greatness will prove it why period. Shorter the blade %-} the faster it wields and draw would you disagree? japanese made balance of being flexible and durable sword of Musamune will prove its quality up to now. Knightswords? I've seen one in museums rusting. The spanish was defeated by coconut knives or Lehe by unarmored natives who knows arnis.

[GarethB]

Katana was faster and effecient to use the complimentary skills of jujitsu with it and its history of greatness will prove it why period. Shorter the blade %-} the faster it wields and draw would you disagree?
I have no specific bias for or against swords from any part of the world. They all had their advantages and disadvantages, but you should be careful drawing too many generalisations. The Europeans had their own systems of fighting which were equivilent to Asian systems. Have a look at the manuscripts and fechtbuchs (fighting books) from England, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Spain and France, ranging in time from the late 1200's to the late 1600's. http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm The reason why we know so much more about Asian fighting styles than European fighting styles is because there was much greater change occouring in Europe compared to asia, especially in terms of how much more widespread the use of guns and cannon became in Europe compared to Asia. The changes in military technology forced changes in fighting techniques.


japanese made balance of being flexible and durable sword of Musamune will prove its quality up to now. Knightswords? I've seen one in museums rusting. The spanish was defeated by coconut knives or Lehe by unarmored natives who knows arnis.
The Europeans also prized well balanced flexable sword blades. To make a judgement on all European swords from one rusty sword hanging in a museum is like trying to judge how good Ferrari cars from Italy are by looking at an old rusty Volvo car from Sweden. Maybe Europeans should say Japanese swords were no good by looking at one rusty Japanese sword in a museum in Paris?

[Nikolas P.]

I would like to apologize in advance for steering this thread off-topic, but I have to defend my style, don't I? :P


1.) Go try fighting with a weapon with more reach. Tall people have an even greater advantage with this. The Europeans and Japanese used different techniques in handling their blades, and neither was a slow technique. One would be surprised if they realized just how swift most knights were.

I would not be, since I know a few swordsmen who practice European styles. It's true that a longer weapon provides more reach — however, it is also inherently slower than a shorter weapon.


2.)The Katana after a certain point almost stopped changing completely. Not because it was a perfect design, but because their tradition told them to.

No offense intended, but that's an ignorant claim. The design of the katana was constantly evolving— there was no absolute constant in metallurgical composition, length, shape, proportions, or any other trait. All you have to do to confirm this is examine one sword each from the Sengoku, Tokugawa, and Meiji periods.


3.)You're final claim is that the plate armor wasn't native to Japan. Neither was the Katana native to Europe. It remains that in a fight between a Samurai and a Knight, the Knight would have a lot more advantages.

My point was that it's pointless to compare the two, since neither was designed to combat the other.


Katana was faster and effecient to use the complimentary skills of jujitsu with it and its history of greatness will prove it why period. Shorter the blade the faster it wields and draw would you disagree? japanese made balance of being flexible and durable sword of Musamune will prove its quality up to now. Knightswords? I've seen one in museums rusting. The spanish was defeated by coconut knives or Lehe by unarmored natives who knows arnis.

Complementary skills of jiujutsu?? What are you on about? As the saying goes, "please get off my side, you're making it look bad."

(EDITED to correct my horrible grammar.)

[yentao]

I would like to apologize in advance for steering this thread off-topic, but I have to defend my style, don't I? :P



I would not be, since I know a few swordsmen who practice European styles. It's true that a longer weapon provides more reach — however, it is also inherently slower than a shorter weapon.



No offense intended, but that's an ignorant claim. The design of the katana was constantly evolving— there was no absolute constant in metallurgical composition, length, shape, proportions, or any other trait. All you have to do to confirm this is examine one sword each from the Sengoku, Tokugawa, and Meiji periods.



My point was that it's pointless to compare the two, since neither was designed to combat the other.



Complementary skills of jiujutsu?? What are you on about? As the saying goes, "please get off my side, you're making it look bad."

(EDITED to correct my horrible grammar.)

Jujitsu took part in the samurai techniques as use for locking or disarming. It originated from the samurai. As the saying goes, put up or shut up, you are making it bad. :jedi1:
What I am on about? You should ask that yourself.

Just replying. Comparing was not my sig but why on earth more europeans prefer asian martial arts and ancients medieval weaponry than theirs than those europeans that choose and train theirs? Why huh?

[yentao]

I have no specific bias for or against swords from any part of the world. They all had their advantages and disadvantages, but you should be careful drawing too many generalisations. The Europeans had their own systems of fighting which were equivilent to Asian systems. Have a look at the manuscripts and fechtbuchs (fighting books) from England, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Spain and France, ranging in time from the late 1200's to the late 1600's. http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm The reason why we know so much more about Asian fighting styles than European fighting styles is because there was much greater change occouring in Europe compared to asia, especially in terms of how much more widespread the use of guns and cannon became in Europe compared to Asia. The changes in military technology forced changes in fighting techniques.


The Europeans also prized well balanced flexable sword blades. To make a judgement on all European swords from one rusty sword hanging in a museum is like trying to judge how good Ferrari cars from Italy are by looking at an old rusty Volvo car from Sweden. Maybe Europeans should say Japanese swords were no good by looking at one rusty Japanese sword in a museum in Paris?

I haven't seen it in Europe yet. Europeans had a fast cultural changes as technologies developed. But don't you think it is also important to preserve one's culture in fighting arts. Greco-roman wrestling, savate, and sambo are good systems by the way.

[Nikolas P.]

Jujitsu took part in the samurai techniques as use for locking or disarming. It originated from the samurai. As the saying goes, put up or shut up, you are making it bad.

I know the origin of jiujutsu. However, it has very little to do with swordplay, and is not a complementary skill to the katana except in the most indirect of ways.

[yentao]

I know the origin of jiujutsu. However, it has very little to do with swordplay, and is not a complementary skill to the katana except in the most indirect of ways.

Guess you find it little to use jujitsu in sword fighting. Like I said, it was use for disarming and grappling by samurai warriors so I consider it part of it and it is complimentary. You know the Traditional Aikido? Traditional Aikido came from samurai jujitsu. That is why the train of BO KEN, samrai swords, and JO is used during training. So what do you think???? Is it really has little to do???? Learning disarming and grappling techniques is an advantage to effective sword arts around. Arnis and kali, has disarming and grappling techniques, making it one of the best weapon based martial art.

[Nikolas P.]

What is "traditional" aikido? Aikido (which is to say, Ueshiba's lineage) is younger than a century.

Your argument that jiujutsu has to do with sword-fighting is that a style descended from it teaches some (rather watered-down) weapons forms?

I agree that grappling and disarming can be important to sword-work. I just find the way you brought up jiujutsu to be a little odd.

[yentao]

What is "traditional" aikido? Aikido (which is to say, Ueshiba's lineage) is younger than a century.

Your argument that jiujutsu has to do with sword-fighting is that a style descended from it teaches some (rather watered-down) weapons forms?

I agree that grappling and disarming can be important to sword-work. I just find the way you brought up jiujutsu to be a little odd.

You started the argument. Dude, I'm cool. Hello, did you understand what I mean that Aikido is taken from jujitsu? If you know so much about jujitsu how did originate then (site your source thruough searching the net, you will eventually found out htere what I am trying to say)? I believe that jujitsu has something to do with samurai fighting because, if you look at aikido, it trains with the use of samurai in executing techniques. THIS techniques came from samurai jujitsu. O'sensei Ueshiba adopted this forms and use it as hand to hand techniques but it came first as techniques with the a "ken"--swords and a "jo"--Staff or with a spear. THAT is why you found some techniques in the traditional form while executing the forms esepcially the first ones ( "uke" will first have to either hold the executer's hand or the executer hold the "uke" first before executing the techniques.) Do you find it still odd? Then make it not odd. You are being harsh on yourself. Now you will find Combat Aikido, Dynamic Aikido, etc. What I am considering are the traditional. Because combat aikido won't train so much in weaponry as part of executing techniques in training some DON't train with weapons at all. (This might be the one you referring so you finding it odd.)
:)

[yentao]

Also you might find gracie jujitsu and samurai jujitsu the same. No it's the same, I'm talking about techniques that was executed in more on standing and throwing like the one you find in judo and Aikido. This two styles came from jujitsu.

[The Pinata]

"I would not be, since I know a few swordsmen who practice European styles. It's true that a longer weapon provides more reach — however, it is also inherently slower than a shorter weapon."

Show me where a rapier was a "slower" weapon. A Rapier was a weapon with impressive reach, a fighting style that emphasized this reach, and it was hellishly fast compared to a heavier sword.

At the same time, we refer back to the heavier swords used in practice by European knights in their prime. Although perhaps not as quick as the Katana, it remains that European broadswords and longswords were wielded quickly and heavily, and the false depiction of a plate-clad knight as cumbersome is far from truth.

On that same note with my experience, reach to a point is more valuable than speed, provided both are of a comparable difference. If you have the advantage in both as would be present in the use of a rapier, you will have an advantage in hitting your opponent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No offense intended, but that's an ignorant claim. The design of the katana was constantly evolving— there was no absolute constant in metallurgical composition, length, shape, proportions, or any other trait. All you have to do to confirm this is examine one sword each from the Sengoku, Tokugawa, and Meiji periods."

While it is true that there was no "constant", and the sword exhibited minor variations, the evolution of the Katana was stagnant like a small, scummy pond in the forest. It didn't have even a touch of the rapid development and evolution of swordplay that was exhibited in Europe, and although it was a good sword, it was not perfect, and the lack of further development did not make it better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My point was that it's pointless to compare the two, since neither was designed to combat the other."

It is pointless to compare the two since neither was designed to combat the other. It remains that this is a thread that at its start was a comparison of the rapier and chinese broadsword. It automatically assumed that the Katana was the be all of swords. That assumption makes an ass of you and me, and is far from the truth. The Katana is a good sword, but like any other has limitations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Katana was faster and effecient to use the complimentary skills of jujitsu with it and its history of greatness will prove it why period. Shorter the blade the faster it wields and draw would you disagree? japanese made balance of being flexible and durable sword of Musamune will prove its quality up to now. Knightswords? I've seen one in museums rusting. The spanish was defeated by coconut knives or Lehe by unarmored natives who knows arnis."

You are perhaps the most ignorant person on these forums. The fact that you witnessed a poorly maintained broadsword tossed to the side in a museum doesn't mean it's a lesser sword. Perhaps this iron sword was lost on a battlefield, later to be found by an archaeologist and placed on display as an artifact of the battle. A properly maintained broadsword will be in as good of shape as a properly maintained katana.

As for your claim that the Katana was faster, you do mention an aspect of truthfullness. In replacement for this slight advantage in speed, the Europeans exhibited better reach and a shield... advantages that when combined were far more useful than speed.

Katanas were noteably lacking in flexibility, and are not considered a "flexible" sword when compared to many others. A rapier is known as one of the most flexible of practical swords. Even so, it remains that European broadswords were designed for very harsh impacts, and were capable of withstanding a blow that would most likely shatter a katana.

Finally, you state that the Spanish lost to "coconut knives". The Spanish were remarkeably outnumbered, they had no intention for a fight, were not properly equipped, and they were unfamiliar with the guerilla warfare methods exhibited by the natives. It seems that the Samurai couldn't even subdue Korea effectively despite their "uber-coolness".

[yentao]

"I would not be, since I know a few swordsmen who practice European styles. It's true that a longer weapon provides more reach — however, it is also inherently slower than a shorter weapon."

Show me where a rapier was a "slower" weapon. A Rapier was a weapon with impressive reach, a fighting style that emphasized this reach, and it was hellishly fast compared to a heavier sword.

At the same time, we refer back to the heavier swords used in practice by European knights in their prime. Although perhaps not as quick as the Katana, it remains that European broadswords and longswords were wielded quickly and heavily, and the false depiction of a plate-clad knight as cumbersome is far from truth.

On that same note with my experience, reach to a point is more valuable than speed, provided both are of a comparable difference. If you have the advantage in both as would be present in the use of a rapier, you will have an advantage in hitting your opponent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No offense intended, but that's an ignorant claim. The design of the katana was constantly evolving— there was no absolute constant in metallurgical composition, length, shape, proportions, or any other trait. All you have to do to confirm this is examine one sword each from the Sengoku, Tokugawa, and Meiji periods."

While it is true that there was no "constant", and the sword exhibited minor variations, the evolution of the Katana was stagnant like a small, scummy pond in the forest. It didn't have even a touch of the rapid development and evolution of swordplay that was exhibited in Europe, and although it was a good sword, it was not perfect, and the lack of further development did not make it better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My point was that it's pointless to compare the two, since neither was designed to combat the other."

It is pointless to compare the two since neither was designed to combat the other. It remains that this is a thread that at its start was a comparison of the rapier and chinese broadsword. It automatically assumed that the Katana was the be all of swords. That assumption makes an ass of you and me, and is far from the truth. The Katana is a good sword, but like any other has limitations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Katana was faster and effecient to use the complimentary skills of jujitsu with it and its history of greatness will prove it why period. Shorter the blade the faster it wields and draw would you disagree? japanese made balance of being flexible and durable sword of Musamune will prove its quality up to now. Knightswords? I've seen one in museums rusting. The spanish was defeated by coconut knives or Lehe by unarmored natives who knows arnis."

You are perhaps the most ignorant person on these forums. The fact that you witnessed a poorly maintained broadsword tossed to the side in a museum doesn't mean it's a lesser sword. Perhaps this iron sword was lost on a battlefield, later to be found by an archaeologist and placed on display as an artifact of the battle. A properly maintained broadsword will be in as good of shape as a properly maintained katana.

As for your claim that the Katana was faster, you do mention an aspect of truthfullness. In replacement for this slight advantage in speed, the Europeans exhibited better reach and a shield... advantages that when combined were far more useful than speed.

Katanas were noteably lacking in flexibility, and are not considered a "flexible" sword when compared to many others. A rapier is known as one of the most flexible of practical swords. Even so, it remains that European broadswords were designed for very harsh impacts, and were capable of withstanding a blow that would most likely shatter a katana.

Finally, you state that the Spanish lost to "coconut knives". The Spanish were remarkeably outnumbered, they had no intention for a fight, were not properly equipped, and they were unfamiliar with the guerilla warfare methods exhibited by the natives. It seems that the Samurai couldn't even subdue Korea effectively despite their "uber-coolness".

When Spanish came to Mactan they bring with them guns, armors, halberds, and Euro "sabers". They came in three ships. It ships contains 300 man each. That makes 900 armed men with weapons in high technology they even fired cannons in the coasts before landing to show how hooligans they are and how spanish (do things non violently? That is ******** you'll never do that if you come in peace). The natives only had few noble warriors that took part that they. They were defeated by a village chief? Hello a chief. How many does a village chief handle? If they are outnumbered they were not really so much outnumbered because it won't even reach twice as many as them. Plus, they got gunpowder remember Pizzaro in invading in south america? When the spanish busy showing their stuffs around the natives noticed they armors weaknesses the expose parts like the joints and neck became targets when the conflicts occured. Magellan was hit by an arrow in the Achilles heal with poison. Then some native took his head off with coconut knife. %-} When Magellan came to Mactan their objective is to annahilate the chief which is Lapu Lapu who didn't want to be a Christian.


Katana's curved edge blade made it flexible in slashing means a cut is a cut unlike the broadswords. European broadswords breaks katana? That can BE ibut the samurai sword has clay in the back of the edge to make it durable enough to stand clashing besides they use 45 degree parrying that unbalanced the enemy after being parried then flexibility took part not within the sword but to the wielder making him thrust easily upward after parrying plus the disarming techniques. You know who will win.

[The Pinata]

When Spanish came to Mactan they bring with them guns, armors, halberds, and Euro "sabers". They came in three ships. It ships contains 300 man each. That makes 900 armed men with weapons in high technology they even fired cannons in the coasts before landing to show how hooligans they are and how spanish (do things non violently? That is ******** you'll never do that if you come in peace). The natives only had few noble warriors that took part that they. They were defeated by a village chief? Hello a chief. How many does a village chief handle? If they are outnumbered they were not really so much outnumbered because it won't even reach twice as many as them. Plus, they got gunpowder remember Pizzaro in invading in south america? When the spanish busy showing their stuffs around the natives noticed they armors weaknesses the expose parts like the joints and neck became targets when the conflicts occured. Magellan was hit by an arrow in the Achilles heal with poison. Then some native took his head off with coconut knife. %-} When Magellan came to Mactan their objective is to annahilate the chief which is Lapu Lapu who didn't want to be a Christian.


Katana's curved edge blade made it flexible in slashing means a cut is a cut unlike the broadswords. European broadswords breaks katana? That can BE ibut the samurai sword has clay in the back of the edge to make it durable enough to stand clashing besides they use 45 degree parrying that unbalanced the enemy after being parried then flexibility took part not within the sword but to the wielder making him thrust easily upward after parrying plus the disarming techniques. You know who will win.
Which is odd, because there is also historical record of Spanish facing off against Samurai, and in most cases defeating Samurai (except for a single Spaniard who was too drunk to fight).

The Katana's curved edge blade made it cut well against flesh. The design and the draw cuts won't go through plate in any sense. Broadswords hacking at plate had a hellish time at going through it, and a katana wouldn't even have a sporting chance. Broadswords when hit with the cutting edge were efficient at cutting, but because of the heavy armor used in Europe, they often had to rely on thrusting because that was the only reasonable way to go through the armor. Once again, a katana is poorly designed for thrusting.

It was claimed earlier that the Katana was "flexible". Katana's are remarkeably unflexible, and that claim was foolish.

Parrying wise, the Europeans had huge advantages. The Katana was a one-sided sword. A broadsword is a double-edged sword. Because of that, he has a significant increase in the number of angles with which to attack. Not to mention the fact that Europeans had very well developed disarming techniques. And, even then, the European sword is longer. A broadsword is substantially longer than a Katana, and a rapier might be up to a foot longer. And the rapier is far faster than the Katana in the speed with which it is wielded.

Finally, we will say that your theory is correct, and the Samurai has not only parried the European's blade off to the side without hope of recovery for the European, but he's still got that damn shield in the way, whether it be a buckler, or a larger shield, and once again, the shield played an integral role in western swordfighting. Not only was it used to block, but one could pin their opponent's sword with it.

I am sorry, but the European with a rapier or a broadsword has all the advantages. The rapier has a huge increase in reach despite the lack of armor employed with them, and the broadsword not only allows increased reach and angles of attack, but also adds on the incredibly well designed plate armor as well as a wooden shield.

The Japanese may have focused on the warrior, and the Europeans focused on augmenting the warrior in addition to their own training. When all is said and done, the poor Samurai will be lying dead on the floor because his fighting style is ineffective against the augmentation developed by the Europeans.

Unless this is "The Last Samurai" or one of the many other movies in which Samurai pulled off the unthinkable. Samurai aren't that great, they aren't bad, but they are hyped up way too much.

[yentao]

Which is odd, because there is also historical record of Spanish facing off against Samurai, and in most cases defeating Samurai (except for a single Spaniard who was too drunk to fight).

The Katana's curved edge blade made it cut well against flesh. The design and the draw cuts won't go through plate in any sense. Broadswords hacking at plate had a hellish time at going through it, and a katana wouldn't even have a sporting chance. Broadswords when hit with the cutting edge were efficient at cutting, but because of the heavy armor used in Europe, they often had to rely on thrusting because that was the only reasonable way to go through the armor. Once again, a katana is poorly designed for thrusting.

It was claimed earlier that the Katana was "flexible". Katana's are remarkeably unflexible, and that claim was foolish.

Parrying wise, the Europeans had huge advantages. The Katana was a one-sided sword. A broadsword is a double-edged sword. Because of that, he has a significant increase in the number of angles with which to attack. Not to mention the fact that Europeans had very well developed disarming techniques. And, even then, the European sword is longer. A broadsword is substantially longer than a Katana, and a rapier might be up to a foot longer. And the rapier is far faster than the Katana in the speed with which it is wielded.

Finally, we will say that your theory is correct, and the Samurai has not only parried the European's blade off to the side without hope of recovery for the European, but he's still got that damn shield in the way, whether it be a buckler, or a larger shield, and once again, the shield played an integral role in western swordfighting. Not only was it used to block, but one could pin their opponent's sword with it.

I am sorry, but the European with a rapier or a broadsword has all the advantages. The rapier has a huge increase in reach despite the lack of armor employed with them, and the broadsword not only allows increased reach and angles of attack, but also adds on the incredibly well designed plate armor as well as a wooden shield.

The Japanese may have focused on the warrior, and the Europeans focused on augmenting the warrior in addition to their own training. When all is said and done, the poor Samurai will be lying dead on the floor because his fighting style is ineffective against the augmentation developed by the Europeans.

Unless this is "The Last Samurai" or one of the many other movies in which Samurai pulled off the unthinkable. Samurai aren't that great, they aren't bad, but they are hyped up way too much.

Thisn't story telling?? Augment? You mean the stolen gunpowder technology. Without gunpowder it was clear who will win. Is there any poor samurai lying dead with a gun it may but with a rapier is a joke? Well the spanish warriors ended up lying in the ground without their heads, imagine they were defeated by warriors wearing no shoes. A story is different from a history. FYI, A man with a so called HEaVY BIG broadsword will be having problem holding a shield or a buckler. What is this superman? What are you saying is crazy **** this is not hollywood. Remember what happened in the philippines, the spanish were armed by shields and guns yet they cannot avoid a strike in the neck same what will happened after they got takedown by a samurai they be easy target since they will have a hard time standing. Simply because they were too heavy to move quickly holding a shield and a sword. Now that is foolish. Japanese armor are light unlike the heavy euro counterparts. If one is parried so strong he'll be to late to follow up the shield especially when they end up facing behind which occationally happens everytime. The one with rapier can start running because he will know that his needle will brake thisn't zorro. If you hold a katana you can still use your other hand with another sword unlike the heavy broadswords you are trying to claim. Rapier compare to a katana same fast to use but the katana is stronger. Use to chop heads in world war 2.... A rapier peircing through armor? OK. :uhyeah:

Next post pls. :rolleyes:

[The Pinata]

Thisn't story telling?? Augment? You mean the stolen gunpowder technology. Without gunpowder it was clear who will win. Is there any poor samurai lying dead with a gun it may but with a rapier is a joke? Well the spanish warriors ended up lying in the ground without their heads, imagine they were defeated by warriors wearing no shoes. A story is different from a history. FYI, A man with a so called HEaVY BIG broadsword will be having problem holding a shield or a buckler. What is this superman? What are you saying is crazy **** this is not hollywood. Remember what happened in the philippines, the spanish were armed by shields and guns yet they cannot avoid a strike in the neck same what will happened after they got takedown by a samurai they be easy target since they will have a hard time standing. Simply because they were too heavy to move quickly holding a shield and a sword. Now that is foolish. Japanese armor are light unlike the heavy euro counterparts. If one is parried so strong he'll be to late to follow up the shield especially when they end up facing behind which occationally happens everytime. The one with rapier can start running because he will know that his needle will brake thisn't zorro. If you hold a katana you can still use your other hand with another sword unlike the heavy broadswords you are trying to claim. Rapier compare to a katana same fast to use but the katana is stronger. Use to chop heads in world war 2.... A rapier peircing through armor? OK. :uhyeah:

Next post pls. :rolleyes:
I was never referring to gunpowder. By augmentation, I stated that the Europeans spent far more effort than the Japanese in perfecting and developing their weaponry. Furthermore, you baselessly claim that gunpowder was "stolen". Europe recieved it in the standard flow of knowledge that trade brings, and they were the ones who really took off with the whole invention of gunpowder. One must note that the Chinese didn't develop muskets and rifles first.

Going on, the Filipinos who took down the Spanish were fighting a knife styled fight, against an opponent who had largely ignored his armor and equipment. By the point that the Spanish arrived in that area, the Middle Ages were over, and you were not seeing the same weaponry and armor that you had for centuries that was specifically designed for fighting. Armor had been almost completely tossed due to gunpowder, and weaponry had evolved to account for that.

So, let's actually compare a "HEaVY BIG broadsword" to the Katana.

Longsword Weight - The catalogue of the Wallace Collection in London carries well over 50 swords that could be classified as cutting/thrusting swords and these have a weight range of 1.5 to 3.7 pounds. That places the average (mean) weight at well less than 3 pounds.

Katana Weight - The Crane Katana created by Bugei, one of the most reputable dealers of Katanas worldwide, has an average weight of around 2.7 pounds. And the Crane Katana is one of the lighter Katanas, as stated on the Bugei website.

Longsword Blade Length - A rather average blade length for a Fechtbuch sword was around 38". Longsword lengths would often reach up to well over 40" blades.

Katana Blade Length - At best, a long Katana was running a blade of about 29". More realistically, one would see a blade of about 28".

Plate Armor - In fact, plate armor was remarkeably light and easy on the warriors who wore it. Although it often weighed as much as fifty pounds, one must remember that our modern soldiers in war are often asked to carry double that on their backs alone. And in comparison between the two, the plate armor was well balanced throughout the body, where as a modern shoulder has it resting on their back, and in newer cases on their hips. But, we saw more advantage with the plate armor that explains why the European swords evolved so heavily as thrusting swords. Plate armor as well as maille was brilliantly effective in deflecting and blocking sword blows. On the other hand, about the only reasonable way to go through plate armor was not to hack at it, but in fact to thrust a straight longsword through it. Do not criticize plate armor until you have worn it. Hollywood and literature cast a bad and false image on it.

Conclusion: For rather equivalently weighted swords, the Europeans often added about a foot of length onto their swords in order to increase their reach. The old and ignorant claim that a katana was a quicker sword is also false. In fact, they both had similiar weights, and a trained warrior with a longsword was just as quick and agile as one with a katana. The loss for the poor samurai though is that he has a foot less blade to use, as such he doesn't get as much leverage on his hits, his blade can't parry as well or cover as much room, and his armor is sorely lacking, especially when his draw cuts won't go through plate or maille armor.

Let's go on to your other wishful points. You claim that a Samurai would simply take down the plate-clad westerner, and then while he struggles to get up, kill him. Unfortunately, you are once again under the folly of Hollywood and it's assumption that plate armor was cumbersome. It's not, and in fact King Henry and King Edward the Third would entertain their guests by performing cartwheels and other acrobatic stunts in their armor. Not to mention that westerners were just as adept at non-sword maneuvers, and were extremely competent with their weapons as well as the hands. European knights were extremely quick, and once again anime and Hollywood fabricated a myth that they are cumbersome oafs.

Next, you claim that the samurai can simply parry the westerner with a strong blow, turn him around, and then kill him. Unfortunately, the katana in most likelihood would simply glance off of the plate armor. Furthermore, we have already stated that western swords were similiarly weighted and just as quick as a Katana. A rapier was hellishly quicker than a Katana. Furthermore, it would be just as difficult for the samurai to "turn around" the knight as it would be for a knight to turn the samurai. Both were adept at their game, and weren't going to be turned around. That didn't happen.

Next you claim that a rapier will simply break from any strong blow from the katana. There is no historical record for rapiers breaking in swordfights. There were a few breaks in the tips because they got stuck inside people. A rapier allows give, and will simply give in a little ways to the initial shock from the katana. It won't break, or bend out of the way, but it will just bend a bit to the back, and at the point which it holds, the katana's shock isn't heavy enough to break it. Furthermore, a rapier is not a fencing foil. It is a heavier blade, and is long and although has more give than already flexible longswords, it is not going to bend out of the way or break.

Then you claim that the Katana is a one-handed sword. Wrong again. A Katana is a two-handed sword, and you do not have a free hand.

Moving on to your next baseless claim that a rapier and katana are the same speed, but the katana is stronger. Wrong. The Broadsword and the Katana are the same speed. The Rapier is hellishly faster than the katana, and its fighting technique emphasized its impressive reach, which was often longer that that of a longsword. Furthermore, you claim that you can simply chop my head off. Correct, a katana will go through a human, although it will not go through a rapier, longsword, or plate armor. Furthermore, if you really open yourself up enough to close and cut off my head like that, I will simply impale you. A rapier hit created intense pain that would distract and slow any fighter. Not counting the fact that many victims of rapier wounds later died of infection, a rapier blow could be fatal in a number of locations include the neck, the head, the stomach, the lungs, or the heart. Any of these locations can be a deadly thrust with the rapier, and if you really try to close distance with me like that and slice through my head, I will simply impale you as you close. Thrust my rapier right into your chest, and impale your lungs. You're a dead samurai now, and will suffocate in a short while. Or I can thrust into your stomach, and let your stomach acid burn you alive. Or the head, or the heart, or the neck. Perhaps you were able to cleave me while I impaled you, or perhaps you didn't.

You are the one who was brought up on baseless Hollywood and Anime. I would like to give you some locations for information that can bring you up to date on what European Martial Arts were really like.

SPATHA: Society for the Promotion of Authenticity in the Teaching of Historical Arms (http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=104)

SwordForum: Historical European Swordsmanship (http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15)

ARMA: Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (http://www.thearma.org/)

Read through all of these three sites. They should bring you up to date on the true nature of western and european martial arts.

[yentao]

Katana can be wielded with one hand. There are different styles in using it. Easier to use than the broadswords. Anyway I never mention about anime. Did it come to your mind huh? You can read all my statements if you want and see if there are.

Besides don't give me those stats *****. You know what we are referring to swords not plates and armor. Anyway those light plates you mention invulnerable? If it is light then it is useless. Why? Because iron refining was not yet perfected until the US did around the 1800s. HEHEY! You have forgotten the knights were also wearing full armor. Don't skip things will you LET US STICK INTO ONE PERIOD WHEN BOTH THE SAMURAI AND THE FAMOUS KNIGHTS STILL IN THEIR GOLD AGE. If you are bluffing about a warrior wearing only a plate armor on the torso then damn he could be easier to hit.

Spanish did came with armor. It is Rennaissance 1520 AD. It is not the industrial period yet. They were defeated by the natives. Then what happened to your claimed good augmentations they were defeated through skills? Hmmmm. You are asuming more than me.

Ok lastly, you want me to read a whole forum to convince me. Can you make it more specific in linking a site, get me a clear one that is on to the discussion we are talking about.

AND I said that rapier and katana are BOTH fast to use, NOT as fast. YOU SHOULD stop accusing, you could read my posts again even reflect on it. As the saying goes, think first before you move.

[The Pinata]

Katana can be wielded with one hand. There are different styles in using it. Easier to use than the broadswords. Anyway I never mention about anime. Did it come to your mind huh? You can read all my statements if you want and see if there are.

Besides don't give me those stats *****. You know what we are referring to swords not plates and armor. Anyway those light plates you mention invulnerable? If it is light then it is useless. Why? Because iron refining was not yet perfected until the US did around the 1800s. HEHEY! You have forgotten the knights were also wearing full armor. Don't skip things will you LET US STICK INTO ONE PERIOD WHEN BOTH THE SAMURAI AND THE FAMOUS KNIGHTS STILL IN THEIR GOLD AGE. If you are bluffing about a warrior wearing only a plate armor on the torso then damn he could be easier to hit.

Spanish did came with armor. It is Rennaissance 1520 AD. It is not the industrial period yet. They were defeated by the natives. Then what happened to your claimed good augmentations they were defeated through skills? Hmmmm. You are asuming more than me.

Ok lastly, you want me to read a whole forum to convince me. Can you make it more specific in linking a site, get me a clear one that is on to the discussion we are talking about.

AND I said that rapier and katana are BOTH fast to use, NOT as fast. YOU SHOULD stop accusing, you could read my posts again even reflect on it. As the saying goes, think first before you move.
Katana can be wielded with one hand. There are different styles in using it. Easier to use than the broadswords. Anyway I never mention about anime. Did it come to your mind huh? You can read all my statements if you want and see if there are.

You are correct in stating that the Katana can be wielded in one hand. There is disagreement as to when this style was developed, and although the exact date of its development is in question, it is generally agreed that the warrior who truly developed it was Musashi, who witnessed European traders in harbor, and saw their one-handed style. For note, this was long after the golden age of European heavy swordfighting. This was actually in the period where rapier fighting had evolved due to the phasing out of armor due to its ineffectiveness after the advent of gunpowder.

As for the second claim in this section regarding anime, I was stating that many people are engrossed with katanas because of how anime wrong glorifies them.

Besides don't give me those stats *****. You know what we are referring to swords not plates and armor. Anyway those light plates you mention invulnerable? If it is light then it is useless. Why? Because iron refining was not yet perfected until the US did around the 1800s. HEHEY! You have forgotten the knights were also wearing full armor.

HEHEY... how mature.

Actually plate armor and maille were the standard full armors used by knights. Maille or chainmail as it is often termed was an earlier design, and it was later followed by plate armor, which is the often depicted knight riding in what is a solid armor.

First you claim that we are referring to swords, and not plates and armor, but later you state that I forgot that knights are wearing full armor. In fact, I stated that knights are wearing plate armor (standard full armor in their prime), and this must be included in any comparison between a samurai and a knight.

Furthermore, I gave you statistical information on the weight and lengths of various hand and a half swords, with both the longsword described and the katana described being hand and a half swords. Hand and a half simply means that it is designed to be wielded with either one or two hands. This way, we are comparing swords that were wielded in a similiar fashion. The statistical information I gave you proved that what you described as a "HEaVY BIG broadsword" was in fact just as light as a katana, although they usually reached in area of a foot longer than a similiarly weighted katana. However, you claim that solid and unquestionable facts are *****. Your desperation is oddly similiar to that of Bill O'Rielly in that recent interview.

Finally, you make a claim that the fact the armor was light. I never once stated that it was light, but I stated that 50 pounds evenly weighted is not cumbersome in any sense, and is much lighter than the weight we throw unevenly weighted on a kid's back when they go fight a war. It also isn't far off of the weight thrown on a firefighter when they go fight a fire, but firefighters are not encumbered either. Furthermore, although the armor is lighter than you would have imagined, to the point that some nobles would entertain others by performing acrobatics, the design of plate armor was not necessarily to soften a hard blow. In fact, just like swinging one sword against another, even the hardest blows will usually glance (in the case of two swords, you would see one blade slide on the other blade), or bounce off of the armor. In fact, the reason European swords were designed as such effective thrusting weapons (yes, the broadsword was a remarkeably well designed thruster), was because it was one of the only reasonable methods of penetrating a thick piece of plate armor. In fact, for that note, the method of draw cuts which the Samurai applied (Europeans too when targetting flesh), is ineffective against armor. Especially so in the Samurai swords which have a large surface area in contact with the armor, which does not aid in any sense in penetration. Plate armor was incredibly effective, as was maille (although maille was slightly easier to thrust against).

Don't skip things will you LET US STICK INTO ONE PERIOD WHEN BOTH THE SAMURAI AND THE FAMOUS KNIGHTS STILL IN THEIR GOLD AGE.

Actually, by the original nature of the debate, I have been mentioning two different styles of fighting. The first being that employed by Knights during the Middle Ages, wearing full armor and employing longswords and broadswords. The second being that employed by rapier fighters in the Renaissance, when armor had been rendered obselete by the advent of gunpowder, and rapiers were not designed with plate armor in mind.

However, for your sake, we will stick to the Middle Ages for the current time and drop the Renaissance which featured a vastly different fighting style that seems to be confusing you.

If you are bluffing about a warrior wearing only a plate armor on the torso then damn he could be easier to hit.

I never once stated that the plate armor was only on the torso. In fact, I stated that modern infantry carry more weight on their torso, where as plate armor was lighter and more evenly distributed.

Spanish did came with armor. It is Rennaissance 1520 AD. It is not the industrial period yet. They were defeated by the natives. Then what happened to your claimed good augmentations they were defeated through skills? Hmmmm. You are asuming more than me.

Actually, the Spanish did not come with substantial armor, and the reason for this is that during the Renaissance, the advent of gunpowder had made armor worthless in combat. Therefore, it was unreasonable to wear armor, and at this point even really produce it anymore. So they didn't really carry much armor anymore, and the days of plate and maille were definitively over. Augmentation was over too. Their swordfighting skills had subsided at this point in large part, and explorers and traders are in no sense swordmasters or experts in renaissance swordfighting.

Ok lastly, you want me to read a whole forum to convince me. Can you make it more specific in linking a site, get me a clear one that is on to the discussion we are talking about.

I want you to read the entire SPATHA site, well not the entire site, but all of the articles. It is extremely educational on popular misconceptions due to the influence of Hollywood and Anime, as well as Victorian-era fencing.

The other two sites I linked to are very informative sites that should help right many misconceptions that you have, and although I will not mention any specific articles, read at your whim.

AND I said that rapier and katana are BOTH fast to use, NOT as fast. YOU SHOULD stop accusing, you could read my posts again even reflect on it. As the saying goes, think first before you move.

I am not accusing. I am stating that you're wrong. A longsword and a katana are similiarly fast, and if you put a rapier in the picture, both the longsword and the katana look like flounders. You know, the cheetahs of the sea (well, tired cheetahs). There is hardly even a comparison between a katana and a rapier in the category of speed, and the fighting style of the rapier was designed to emphasize this speed as well as the impressive reach of a rapier.

[The Pinata]

If any non-members or members are interested in discussing this topic with me in realtime, I can meet you on either AIM or MSN for a discussion.

My AIM contact is: PinieroThePinata

As well, my MSN Messenger contact is: pinierothepinata@msn.com
I am on both at the current moment, and am on both whenever I'm on my computer, and I am willing to speak to any who are interested.

Just wondering? Are you going to continue to post and respond once a day at midnight where I live?

[yentao]

Katana can be wielded with one hand. There are different styles in using it. Easier to use than the broadswords. Anyway I never mention about anime. Did it come to your mind huh? You can read all my statements if you want and see if there are.

You are correct in stating that the Katana can be wielded in one hand. There is disagreement as to when this style was developed, and although the exact date of its development is in question, it is generally agreed that the warrior who truly developed it was Musashi, who witnessed European traders in harbor, and saw their one-handed style. For note, this was long after the golden age of European heavy swordfighting. This was actually in the period where rapier fighting had evolved due to the phasing out of armor due to its ineffectiveness after the advent of gunpowder.

As for the second claim in this section regarding anime, I was stating that many people are engrossed with katanas because of how anime wrong glorifies them.

Besides don't give me those stats *****. You know what we are referring to swords not plates and armor. Anyway those light plates you mention invulnerable? If it is light then it is useless. Why? Because iron refining was not yet perfected until the US did around the 1800s. HEHEY! You have forgotten the knights were also wearing full armor.

HEHEY... how mature.

Actually plate armor and maille were the standard full armors used by knights. Maille or chainmail as it is often termed was an earlier design, and it was later followed by plate armor, which is the often depicted knight riding in what is a solid armor.

First you claim that we are referring to swords, and not plates and armor, but later you state that I forgot that knights are wearing full armor. In fact, I stated that knights are wearing plate armor (standard full armor in their prime), and this must be included in any comparison between a samurai and a knight.

Furthermore, I gave you statistical information on the weight and lengths of various hand and a half swords, with both the longsword described and the katana described being hand and a half swords. Hand and a half simply means that it is designed to be wielded with either one or two hands. This way, we are comparing swords that were wielded in a similiar fashion. The statistical information I gave you proved that what you described as a "HEaVY BIG broadsword" was in fact just as light as a katana, although they usually reached in area of a foot longer than a similiarly weighted katana. However, you claim that solid and unquestionable facts are *****. Your desperation is oddly similiar to that of Bill O'Rielly in that recent interview.

Finally, you make a claim that the fact the armor was light. I never once stated that it was light, but I stated that 50 pounds evenly weighted is not cumbersome in any sense, and is much lighter than the weight we throw unevenly weighted on a kid's back when they go fight a war. It also isn't far off of the weight thrown on a firefighter when they go fight a fire, but firefighters are not encumbered either. Furthermore, although the armor is lighter than you would have imagined, to the point that some nobles would entertain others by performing acrobatics, the design of plate armor was not necessarily to soften a hard blow. In fact, just like swinging one sword against another, even the hardest blows will usually glance (in the case of two swords, you would see one blade slide on the other blade), or bounce off of the armor. In fact, the reason European swords were designed as such effective thrusting weapons (yes, the broadsword was a remarkeably well designed thruster), was because it was one of the only reasonable methods of penetrating a thick piece of plate armor. In fact, for that note, the method of draw cuts which the Samurai applied (Europeans too when targetting flesh), is ineffective against armor. Especially so in the Samurai swords which have a large surface area in contact with the armor, which does not aid in any sense in penetration. Plate armor was incredibly effective, as was maille (although maille was slightly easier to thrust against).

Don't skip things will you LET US STICK INTO ONE PERIOD WHEN BOTH THE SAMURAI AND THE FAMOUS KNIGHTS STILL IN THEIR GOLD AGE.

Actually, by the original nature of the debate, I have been mentioning two different styles of fighting. The first being that employed by Knights during the Middle Ages, wearing full armor and employing longswords and broadswords. The second being that employed by rapier fighters in the Renaissance, when armor had been rendered obselete by the advent of gunpowder, and rapiers were not designed with plate armor in mind.

However, for your sake, we will stick to the Middle Ages for the current time and drop the Renaissance which featured a vastly different fighting style that seems to be confusing you.

If you are bluffing about a warrior wearing only a plate armor on the torso then damn he could be easier to hit.

I never once stated that the plate armor was only on the torso. In fact, I stated that modern infantry carry more weight on their torso, where as plate armor was lighter and more evenly distributed.

Spanish did came with armor. It is Rennaissance 1520 AD. It is not the industrial period yet. They were defeated by the natives. Then what happened to your claimed good augmentations they were defeated through skills? Hmmmm. You are asuming more than me.

Actually, the Spanish did not come with substantial armor, and the reason for this is that during the Renaissance, the advent of gunpowder had made armor worthless in combat. Therefore, it was unreasonable to wear armor, and at this point even really produce it anymore. So they didn't really carry much armor anymore, and the days of plate and maille were definitively over. Augmentation was over too. Their swordfighting skills had subsided at this point in large part, and explorers and traders are in no sense swordmasters or experts in renaissance swordfighting.

Ok lastly, you want me to read a whole forum to convince me. Can you make it more specific in linking a site, get me a clear one that is on to the discussion we are talking about.

I want you to read the entire SPATHA site, well not the entire site, but all of the articles. It is extremely educational on popular misconceptions due to the influence of Hollywood and Anime, as well as Victorian-era fencing.

The other two sites I linked to are very informative sites that should help right many misconceptions that you have, and although I will not mention any specific articles, read at your whim.

AND I said that rapier and katana are BOTH fast to use, NOT as fast. YOU SHOULD stop accusing, you could read my posts again even reflect on it. As the saying goes, think first before you move.

I am not accusing. I am stating that you're wrong. A longsword and a katana are similiarly fast, and if you put a rapier in the picture, both the longsword and the katana look like flounders. You know, the cheetahs of the sea (well, tired cheetahs). There is hardly even a comparison between a katana and a rapier in the category of speed, and the fighting style of the rapier was designed to emphasize this speed as well as the impressive reach of a rapier.

Ok but the first kind of swords the japanese use are like of the chinese straight sword. But the chinese sword can not withstand as a weapon for cavalry charges. The reason they made one edge curve blades. What I'm trying to say is that the chinese straight swords are moslty wielded with one hand. I still prefer katana.

Is it in the rennaisance era they still use armor? Because the reason some still want to use melee weapons. The Spanish on the time of the battle in Mactan by the way use gothic style armors.

[The Pinata]

Ok but the first kind of swords the japanese use are like of the chinese straight sword. But the chinese sword can with stand as a weapon for cavalry charges. What I'm trying to say is that the chinese straight swords are moslty wielded with one hand.

We never once were debating the merits of a Chineste straight sword, and it is odd that you bring that up. The battle that we were evaluating was between a Samurai in standard equipment and armed with a katana, facing off against a Knight in standard equipment and armed with a longsword.

I do realize that a Chinese broadsword can be wielded with one hand. But you were arguing that a Japanese katana can be wielded with one hand, and this was not the case in anywhere from 13th-15th century Japan, which is the time period that you asked to debate.

As well, if we are going to argue the merits of a Chinese broadsword, then I will choose a similiar sword so that we are once again in a fair battle. However, as we are going to continue with the katana vs longsword debate, I am not going to entertain a lighter European sword against a Chinese broadsword at the current moment. That will await until a later time.

Is it in the rennaisance era they still use armor? Because the reason some still want to use melee weapons. The Spanish on the time of the battle in Mactan by the way use gothic style armors.

No, in fact the Rennaissance era saw the demise of armor. This is because gunpowder and the rise of muskets made armor ineffective in combat. Therefore warriors forfeited their armor because it was expensive, and the new fighting styles such as that used with a rapier did not favor armor. A good number carried melee weapons, and the rapier was a common civilian weapon, but on the civilian level, most could not afford real armor, and military forces had largely dropped their reliance on armor because it was ineffective against the muskets that were rising on the battlefield of that time.

Let me do some research into the Battle of Mactan, and I will discuss that with you and explain to you what actually happened there. I highly doubt that during the mid-Renaissance, that traders and explorers were carrying real armor and equipment on voyages to the far side of the world.

[yentao]

Ok but the first kind of swords the japanese use are like of the chinese straight sword. But the chinese sword can with stand as a weapon for cavalry charges. What I'm trying to say is that the chinese straight swords are moslty wielded with one hand.

We never once were debating the merits of a Chineste straight sword, and it is odd that you bring that up. The battle that we were evaluating was between a Samurai in standard equipment and armed with a katana, facing off against a Knight in standard equipment and armed with a longsword.

I do realize that a Chinese broadsword can be wielded with one hand. But you were arguing that a Japanese katana can be wielded with one hand, and this was not the case in anywhere from 13th-15th century Japan, which is the time period that you asked to debate.

As well, if we are going to argue the merits of a Chinese broadsword, then I will choose a similiar sword so that we are once again in a fair battle. However, as we are going to continue with the katana vs longsword debate, I am not going to entertain a lighter European sword against a Chinese broadsword at the current moment. That will await until a later time.

Is it in the rennaisance era they still use armor? Because the reason some still want to use melee weapons. The Spanish on the time of the battle in Mactan by the way use gothic style armors.

No, in fact the Rennaissance era saw the demise of armor. This is because gunpowder and the rise of muskets made armor ineffective in combat. Therefore warriors forfeited their armor because it was expensive, and the new fighting styles such as that used with a rapier did not favor armor. A good number carried melee weapons, and the rapier was a common civilian weapon, but on the civilian level, most could not afford real armor, and military forces had largely dropped their reliance on armor because it was ineffective against the muskets that were rising on the battlefield of that time.

Let me do some research into the Battle of Mactan, and I will discuss that with you and explain to you what actually happened there. I highly doubt that during the mid-Renaissance, that traders and explorers were carrying real armor and equipment on voyages to the far side of the world.

I am not meritting the Chinese sword, you know taht I got a lot to say to you. I am not trying to debate the Chinese sword. I used it to bring up that the use of swords that time has the possible similarity to the use of chinese straight swords which is one hand. It was because that Chinese double-edged swords are use by the japanese warriors before the creation of samurai swords. Some early Japanese feudal lord are descendant of Chinese people (i recommend you do research on these to assure that I'm not bluffing at you or just claiming). That is regarding to your statement that the japanese katana was questionAble as a one hand weapon. By the way, as I siad I'm not referring to the broadsword but the straightsword, not the flexible ones but the hard one same as the Europeans. (read this NICK I hope that helps you understand) The Japanese constructed the katana to suit cavalry attacks then eventually became suited for infantry battles.

Yes I would like to discuss more with you. Do you know that the use of Chinese broughtswords took part only in Chinese military weaponry in the Ching Dynasty Era 1500s to 1900s? The Manchurian brought the weapon which they use in their cavalry to invade the Ming. You might try to say that I am referring to the broadsword.

About researching the battle of Mactan you can try searching but I suggest you go to manila and check the museums and see what I am talking about. I don't think it is the mid rennaisance yet it is 1520 when the battle took upon.

Also, back to katana, Katana came to different designs. There are short and long, there are over curved and other with lesser. So that is why I called your statistics ***** because there is no accuracy in one measure of a sword that can represent all. Well.... That is why when I said that both the rapier and katana are fast weapon you can't tell that i'm wrong because I only stated they were both fast and not as fast. I hope you understand now :whip: [PS READ carefully]

[The Pinata]

I am not meritting the Chinese sword, you know taht I got a lot to say to you. I am not trying to debate the Chinese sword. I used it to bring up that the use of swords that time has the possible similarity to the use of chinese straight swords which is one hand. It was because that Chinese double-edged swords are use by the japanese warriors before the creation of samurai swords. Some early Japanese feudal lord are descendant of Chinese people (i recommend you do research on these to assure that I'm not bluffing at you or just claiming). That is regarding to your statement that the japanese katana was questionAble as a one hand weapon. By the way, as I siad I'm not referring to the broadsword but the straightsword, not the flexible ones but the hard one same as the Europeans. (read this NICK I hope that helps you understand) The Japanese constructed the katana to suit cavalry attacks then eventually became suited for infantry battles.

Yes I would like to discuss more with you. Do you know that the use of Chinese broughtswords took part only in Chinese military weaponry in the Ching Dynasty Era 1500s to 1900s? The Manchurian brought the weapon which they use in their cavalry to invade the Ming. You might try to say that I am referring to the broadsword.

About researching the battle of Mactan you can try searching but I suggest you go to manila and check the museums and see what I am talking about. I don't think it is the mid rennaisance yet it is 1520 when the battle took upon.

Also, back to katana, Katana came to different designs. There are short and long, there are over curved and other with lesser. So that is why I called your statistics ***** because there is no accuracy in one measure of a sword that can represent all. Well.... That is why when I said that both the rapier and katana are fast weapon you can't tell that i'm wrong because I only stated they were both fast and not as fast. I hope you understand now :whip: [PS READ carefully]
I am not meritting the Chinese sword, you know taht I got a lot to say to you. I am not trying to debate the Chinese sword. I used it to bring up that the use of swords that time has the possible similarity to the use of chinese straight swords which is one hand.

It is correct that there was an existence of a wonderful variety of swords in Asia, although the variety in Europe remains far more varied and colorful than Asia. It is very true that both sides of the world experimented with curved, straight, two-handed, and one-handed. However, for the merits of THIS debate, we are solely debating a confontration between a standardly equipped European knight with a longsword, and a standardly equipped Japanese samurai with a katana, both of whom are equally skilled in their respective techniques.

It was because that Chinese double-edged swords are use by the japanese warriors before the creation of samurai swords. Some early Japanese feudal lord are descendant of Chinese people (i recommend you do research on these to assure that I'm not bluffing at you or just claiming). That is regarding to your statement that the japanese katana was questionAble as a one hand weapon. By the way, as I siad I'm not referring to the broadsword but the straightsword, not the flexible ones but the hard one same as the Europeans. (read this NICK I hope that helps you understand) The Japanese constructed the katana to suit cavalry attacks then eventually became suited for infantry battles.

Many of the early Japanese feudal lords were clearly of Chinese descent. That does not change the fact that our debate is not regarding a Chinese straightsword.

Secondly, you claim that the European broadsword isn't flexible? You are sadly wrong, as the Europeans were experts in making flexible swords. The rapier is possibly the most flexible real sword in the world, and one of the judgements of a good broadsword is that it bends well. This flexibility kept them in good shape, reduced breaks, and kept them from bending (a fault that was common in used katanas).

Finally, you claim that the Japanese constructed the katana to suit cavalry attacks. For the Europeans, they developed sabers as well as the broadsword, both of which were commonly used swords from horseback, and still don't mention the other variety of weapons such as axes and maces that were used. But we're not talking about sabers, broadswords, or straightswords. We're talking about a fight between a standard knight with a longsword, and a standard samurai with a katana.

Yes I would like to discuss more with you. Do you know that the use of Chinese broughtswords took part only in Chinese military weaponry in the Ching Dynasty Era 1500s to 1900s? The Manchurian brought the weapon which they use in their cavalry to invade the Ming. You might try to say that I am referring to the broadsword.

In fact, my mention of broadsword in this case is synonomous with straightsword, as both were relatively similiar. However, if you are going to claim that broadswords which were present in Chinese arms from the 1500s-1900s, don't count because they are past the date set by us... then the date mentioned in your next paragraph isn't in that set either.

About researching the battle of Mactan you can try searching but I suggest you go to manila and check the museums and see what I am talking about. I don't think it is the mid rennaisance yet it is 1520 when the battle took upon.

And yes, they were very much into the renaissance. Furthermore, museums are not an accurate representation of history in many cases. They do not take into account what is known as "context".

Also, back to katana, Katana came to different designs. There are short and long, there are over curved and other with lesser. So that is why I called your statistics ***** because there is no accuracy in one measure of a sword that can represent all. Well.... That is why when I said that both the rapier and katana are fast weapon you can't tell that i'm wrong because I only stated they were both fast and not as fast. I hope you understand now

While it is true there was variation in the katana, it isn't significant. There were straight katanas, but beyond that variation, most of the others were negligible. The Japanese prided themselves on tradition, and breaking with that tradition to make a katana that was 40" long would be unlogical... not to mention that the increase in weight above an already well-weighted sword would be hugely unreasonable.

Between a longsword and a katana, an user equally skilled in each will see that he can manipulate them both with similiar speed. Going on, a rapier was designed to emphasize speed and reach, and it's fighting style emphasized speed and reach more than any previous technique. A rapier will unquestionably dominate both the katana and longsword in reach and speed.

[The Pinata]

Before we go on anymore. Agree with me on this point.

The Samurai is equipped standardly for his time, and armed with a standard katana.

The Knight is equipped standardly for his time, and armed with a standard longsword.

No other weapons, techniques, or cultures are to be discussed until this part of the debate is completed.

[yentao]

Experience. Some use different kinds of katanas in thier advantage or comfort telling it unlogical is unlogical. Tradition in Katana? There is no traditon to be brake make it long, as long it is look like a katana. Japanese made different kinds of samurai swords to suit them. Each kind usually has a different kind of technique.

Actually we should consider more on damage.

[The Pinata]

Experience. Some use different kinds of katanas in thier advantage or comfort telling it unlogical is unlogical. Tradition in Katana? There is no traditon to be brake make it long, as long it is look like a katana. Japanese made different kinds of samurai swords to suit them. Each kind usually has a different kind of technique.

Actually we should consider more on damage.
In fact, the Japanese were outstanding traditionalists, and the development of the katana suffered for that fact. While it is true that there was variation in the katana, the fact of the matter is that it was not nearly as varied as its European counterparts. The very design of the blade itself restricted on the length of the blade, unless one is to gain length at the cost of an large increase in weight, which would in turn make the sword noteably slow and unwieldy.

And, I don't get what you mean by consider more on damage? It doesn't matter much, because the draw cuts that the Samurai used couldn't go throw maille, let alone plate.

[yentao]

In fact, the Japanese were outstanding traditionalists, and the development of the katana suffered for that fact. While it is true that there was variation in the katana, the fact of the matter is that it was not nearly as varied as its European counterparts. The very design of the blade itself restricted on the length of the blade, unless one is to gain length at the cost of an large increase in weight, which would in turn make the sword noteably slow and unwieldy.

And, I don't get what you mean by consider more on damage? It doesn't matter much, because the draw cuts that the Samurai used couldn't go throw maille, let alone plate.

But expose parts can. Damage of the strike a weild can cause.

[The Pinata]

In all effect, the increased length of a European longsword should balance out the effect of the katana's curved blade. Both cultures also had methods developed for draw cuts that were standardly know, although the European longsword's was slightly more difficult to master - due to the curved blade, although it was equally effective against flesh.
In plate or maille armor, there is very little to no exposed flesh to hit. There were an intricate armor, and there wasn't really a significant amount of exposed flesh. One must also consider the fact that Europeans realized this, and designed their swords well as thrusting swords, because a thrust was in most cases the easiest method of puncturing the maille or plate often worn by warriors of the time.

A similiarly skilled European warrior with a longsword is just as efficient at cutting off unarmored human heads, straw mats, watermelons, and milk jugs. Neither one has a historical record of cutting machine guns - and the claims that it occurred during World War 2 is almost certainly myth due to a huge amount of circumstantial and logical reason that would suggest it impossible, not to mention that it hasn't been recreated since.

[yentao]

In all effect, the increased length of a European longsword should balance out the effect of the katana's curved blade. Both cultures also had methods developed for draw cuts that were standardly know, although the European longsword's was slightly more difficult to master - due to the curved blade, although it was equally effective against flesh.
In plate or maille armor, there is very little to no exposed flesh to hit. There were an intricate armor, and there wasn't really a significant amount of exposed flesh. One must also consider the fact that Europeans realized this, and designed their swords well as thrusting swords, because a thrust was in most cases the easiest method of puncturing the maille or plate often worn by warriors of the time.

A similiarly skilled European warrior with a longsword is just as efficient at cutting off unarmored human heads, straw mats, watermelons, and milk jugs. Neither one has a historical record of cutting machine guns - and the claims that it occurred during World War 2 is almost certainly myth due to a huge amount of circumstantial and logical reason that would suggest it impossible, not to mention that it hasn't been recreated since.

i doubt you said about the katana not being able to got through maille it can be use for thrust strikes same with rapier. When you train with katana you will improve your wrist strength and eventually you'll be able to strike with power.

[The Pinata]

i doubt you said about the katana not being able to got through maille it can be use for thrust strikes same with rapier. When you train with katana you will improve your wrist strength and eventually you'll be able to strike with power.
A katana was very poorly designed for thrust strikes, although it is possible. However, the curve in the blade weakens the thrust, as well as the fact that it was primarily wielded in a two-handed fashion, and your two-handed thrust lacks range and speed as well as power. Between a rapier and a katana on the thrust, the rapier has an on-compass thrust that is quicker, farther, and gives you almost no exposure to a return hit.

With a longsword you will develop the very same strength, and I think you will find that they would strike with as much power.

[The Pinata]

Here is a post (http://www.thearma.org//forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=openresearch&Number=8156&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) on the results of people repeatedly trying to cut through maille.

[The Pinata]

I also recently found video of some European longsword sparring that you might be interested in. I have selected the more active of the video clips, as well as the ones that demonstrate various aspects of European longsword fighting, including close-combat methods.

I ask you to look through all of these before you post again. They're not perfect, but they are accurate enough that they should change your viewpoint on European longsword.

They are not fighting in armor, and are using aluminum wasters.

Video Clip 1 (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/videos/MVI_0442.AVI)
Video Clip 2 (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/videos/MVI_0444.AVI)
Video Clip 3 (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/videos/MVI_0445.AVI)
Video Clip 4 (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/videos/MVI_0433.AVI)

The main site (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/videos/).

[The Pinata]

Are we talking about the real hard steel sword or the foils? Just kidding. For bashing broadswords will win damn fro sure just throw it like a boomerang. It could damage a lot. Rapier is a puncture unless you got peirce in the neck of the eye it was not sure kill you still have to strike another. As for broadswords it will only take a blow even if the rapier blocks it, it will go through. During the boxer's rebellion the british have to rely in their firearms than in their rapier because they know the odds is agianst them if they do so. Peace out.
On first note, the claim that a broadsword would sever a rapier is whimsical. The rapier remains a sturdy sword, with a lot of give and flexibility. While it wouldn't allow you to go right throw, it would allow enough give to keep the shock of your impact from damaging the blade. In all truth, one would find it easier to bend or put nicks in a katana than to do the same to a rapier.

Secondly, they used guns, because as a weapon of warfare, the gun was vastly superior. When polearms are used with guns, you are even more effective. Polearms and guns are both incredibly effect when used in force, and there is a very clear reason why field armies developed these tactics. It was not because the rapier was lacking as a sword, but because firearms were superior to any sword or armor ever created.

[The Pinata]

The Rapier is battle proven. The broad sword is a chopping weapon that is less effective. Rapier wins!!
Sean
The rapier was not extensively battle proven. Although there were experiments with versions more suited for a battlefield, they were not used because formations of polearms and firearms were far more effective than any sword.

[The Pinata]

Cf. http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php

Best,

Steve Lamade
While I respect the writer's intentions, he is not very knowledgeable of European rapiers. I recommend this article (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight.htm) in it's place.

[The Pinata]

speaking about being skilled, use Arnis and Kali techniques on broadswords (for short ones) that should change the odds quickly.

This thread is like comparing a samurai sword to a rapier. you know eventually which is superior quality.
You can't use arnis on a broadsword. It was a technique designed for daggers, and using it on a broadsword would likely get you injured, because it wasn't designed for such a large weapon.

[Cryozombie]

Pinata...

Not to be too involved in the conversation, as I think it is a moot point, but I want to interject 2 points...

I have sheared mail with my Katana. I was upset, too, because my mail shirt was expensive. Even I didnt expect it to happen. I also scratched the finish on my Katana, but that is neither here nor there. But I know from experience it is possible.

also

European style plate was introduced and used in Japan. While it was not as widespread as traditional japanese armor, it did exsit in their history of armor.

[The Pinata]

Pinata...

Not to be too involved in the conversation, as I think it is a moot point, but I want to interject 2 points...

I have sheared mail with my Katana. I was upset, too, because my mail shirt was expensive. Even I didnt expect it to happen. I also scratched the finish on my Katana, but that is neither here nor there. But I know from experience it is possible.

also

European style plate was introduced and used in Japan. While it was not as widespread as traditional japanese armor, it did exsit in their history of armor.
Honestly, not to belittle shearing mail, but modern mail is not built to the same standards as historical maille. Rather than building it for effect, modern maille is usually built for looks, and lacks the strength and resilience that was found in traditional maille. It is not chain mail, and armor advertised as chain mail isn't even usually the same thing. In all truth, what you sheared with a katana is not the maille that a knight would actually use, and the only maille today built to good standards is a handful of artifacts and handmade armor.

Secondly, we were not arguing regarding the eccentricities that both cultures recieved. Yentao and I were specifically arguing between what was standard for both.

[yentao]

You can't use arnis on a broadsword. It was a technique designed for daggers, and using it on a broadsword would likely get you injured, because it wasn't designed for such a large weapon.

You can. Use bolo forms for it. There is the difference when training with blade and sticks you see. So as long you use the blade forms yo uwon't get injured. So that make it settled that it can be use.

Pinata same with katana what you found
before is a lot more tougher the handmade ones. I can 't be convince without actual test of katana not be able to get through maille.

Actually katana is good for thrusting it is joke to say it is not. Actually thrusting made katana peirce through enemy armor. It was proven in the battlefield. During the late Edo period period some samurai warriors were using gunpowder even Euro armor.

Actually we are talking about katana and rapier you brought up armor. Bring me a good rapier and I 'll break it in front of you. You can't bend or break a katana easily. You might be referring to the manufactured for decoration katana.

I got a huge guess that you are referring to a katana that can be bought in the net for decoration. I hope you are not referring to it. If you do you're an idiot. Let us talk about the real katana ok.

[The Pinata]

You can. Use bolo forms for it. There is the difference when training with blade and sticks you see. So as long you use the blade forms yo uwon't get injured. So that make it settled that it can be use.

In fact, I have seen people try to use the wrong techniques for the wrong sword, and quite often they end up injuring themselves. Somebody goes and tries a Japanese katana maneuver with a greatsword, and due to the increase in size they nearly end up hacking through their own shoulder. A katana is incredibly different from the knives that were used for arnis - and you are risking life and limb trying to use arnis with a katana.

Pinata same with katana what you found before is a lot more tougher the handmade ones. I can 't be convince without actual test of katana not be able to get through maille.

In fact, this statement is not true. Both Paul Chen and Bugei katanas are made to very demanding standards - because people want working swords. On the other hand, there is little demand for realistic maille, because nobody is actually trying to protect themselves from taking mortal hits. In reality, maille was extremely durable, and all but impossible to hack through with any sword. The most proven technique was to thrust against it, the logic being that you were able to insert the point into one of the chains and in essence cause the chain to explode as the tip jabs into the skin.

Another reason for the lack of accurate maille is that it is extremely tedious to make.

Actually katana is good for thrusting it is joke to say it is not. Actually thrusting made katana peirce through enemy armor. It was proven in the battlefield. During the late Edo period period some samurai warriors were using gunpowder even Euro armor.

Japanese armour although not bad armor in any sense, was not as capable as European armor for a variety of reasons. However, my big point is that the katana was not well designed for a thrust. Where the European swords were straight, and could use what is called an "on-compass thrust", which is the quickest, most powerful, and has the greatest reach. Furthermore, it minimizes the profile of the thruster, and is a very defendable position. The Japanese katana on the other hand, because of it's curved blade, is not able to perform this "on-compass thrust". Therefore, it's very ability to thrust is put into question, not to mention that curved swords are not as capable of thrusters.

The late Edo Period is hardly the 13th-15th centuries, and you have stated that the Japanese were using firearms as well as European armor, suggesting that even the Japanese admitted that firearms were superior in practice to katanas, and that European armor was superior to their own.

Actually we are talking about katana and rapier you brought up armor. Bring me a good rapier and I 'll break it in front of you. You can't bend or break a katana easily. You might be referring to the manufactured for decoration katana.

Actually, we agreed slightly earlier to refrain from discussion of non-period weapons, and our discussion was agreed to focus on the equipment of a standard knight and samurai from the 13th-15th centuries.

However, you will find that you cannot break a rapier, and there is no historical record to suggest otherwise. A rapier is a sturdy blade, but it offers significant give. When your katana smashes into my rapier, the rapier blade will simply give in a bit, and bend slightly back, absorbing the shock without any damage to the blade. Once you remove the force, my rapier will bend back into its original shape because it is flexible.

On the other hand, the Katana's rigidness was a detriment to its durability. In practice, even a particularly bad stroke has been known to bend katanas, and once bent they rarely return to their original shape because they are highly rigid. Furthermore, there is little to no historical record for rapiers, katanas, or longswords actually breaking in combat. Damage to the sword is another story, and of the three, the katana was most prone to battle damage.

I got a huge guess that you are referring to a katana that can be bought in the net for decoration. I hope you are not referring to it. If you do you're an idiot. Let us talk about the real katana ok.

How mature of you. When you can't actually defend a point you simply call me an idiot. In fact as I stated before, due to its rigidness, the katana is more prone to nicks as well as bends. Where as European swords will simply give and return to their original shapes - in fact, a real European sword is often judged by its flexibility, as it was highly prided and made swords that were effectively more durable.

[yentao]

A katana was very poorly designed for thrust strikes, although it is possible. However, the curve in the blade weakens the thrust, as well as the fact that it was primarily wielded in a two-handed fashion, and your two-handed thrust lacks range and speed as well as power. Between a rapier and a katana on the thrust, the rapier has an on-compass thrust that is quicker, farther, and gives you almost no exposure to a return hit.

With a longsword you will develop the very same strength, and I think you will find that they would strike with as much power.

The curve of the katana was not an issue in executing a thrust. Some prefer thrusting horizontally. If you are going to thrust it vertically it would be easier to stop your opponent easily because the blade was curved upward, if it was on the stomach the tip of the blade will hit through the spine or hit other organs as well and when it will make the person leap up a little and make him hard to move because the blade will go deeper. So what you are saying about katana is bull *****. I noted before that katana can be wielded with one hand the use of (chinese straight swords as their weaponry validates this) and the use of two handed thrust may lack range but it has complete control of the blade making wielding faster and making the handler hard to get parried out of balance. Katana was made curve because the use of long straight swords was not enough to use against their enemies. It will not be change if it was perfect. Take the saber, why the europeans created this weapons as a replacement for the longsword. The turkis use curved blade or the sabers to conquer parts of eastern europe which uses longswords at the time. The Islamic warriors used curved blades like falchion to conquer some parts of Spain with use of these blades. Gunpowder are the only thing that saved them in the war. It is clear how easy to use curved blades. Take the Damascus blades. The reason I brought up these is to state that curve blades is a great weapon for fighting especially and thrusting was never difficult. Actually the curved side of the blade can be used for hooking blocks and sweeping.

If you got thrust by rapier you can still move if a katana you are limping.

Rapier and katana are good weapons but if both are to fight, I'll put my money to the katana because firstly, it was an older blade and was tested in battlefield for centuries. Second, It has the value od experience and the more older the weapon is the more its techniques were develope. Lastly, it was still being use by mafia or the yakuza around the world. Here in the Philippines when you go south you'll find katana being use by some christian vigilants.

[yentao]

If we are going to based the techniques in the clips against kendo techniques. The winner will be kendo. The use of 45 degree sidesteps which was essential to gain a good reach for a good strike lack in the techniques in the clip. To use the 45 degree sidesteps will make the lack of katana reach a complete edge over the longsword. If one of the two guys in clip2 do that someone of the two of them got already a good hit. Katana was design to avoid sliding of the blade which eventually happened in longswords. See the clips you posted and you will find how long swords slide one another to make the follow up swings. Katana can prevent such by using the curved part to unbalance the long sword weilder and then follow up by a good diagonal upward slash to finish it. When you slash and when hit the skin of the armor you will have to slide it inward or slide pull it. Making more devastating damages. So what can you say.

[The Pinata]

The curve of the katana was not an issue in executing a thrust. Some prefer thrusting horizontally. If you are going to thrust it vertically it would be easier to stop your opponent easily because the blade was curved upward, if it was on the stomach the tip of the blade will hit through the spine or hit other organs as well and when it will make the person leap up a little and make him hard to move because the blade will go deeper. So what you are saying about katana is bull *****.

In fact, I already explained to you that the katana cannot perform an "on-compass" thrust. You just agreed with me here. Methods for thrusting with a katana are slower, less powerful, have significantly less reach, and expose the wielder significantly more than an "on-compass" thrust for various reasons.

I noted before that katana can be wielded with one hand the use of (chinese straight swords as their weaponry validates this) and the use of two handed thrust may lack range but it has complete control of the blade making wielding faster and making the handler hard to get parried out of balance.

In fact, one-hand wielding of a Katana became noticed around the time of Musashi, who was not a fighter within the traditional bounds of Japanese culture. He had witnessed the fighting style of the Europeans and had adopted from them. Even in that case, he still preferred the two-handed grip, although he was influential in the development of the one-handed katana style. This is far after the 13th-15th century time period that you requested.

Katana was made curve because the use of long straight swords was not enough to use against their enemies. It will not be change if it was perfect.

In fact, the katana was developed with a curve for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the curve more easily induces a draw-cut, although a skilled user will perform as adept a draw-cut with a straight sword as they will with a curved sword. The katana did not change largely due to the fact that the Japanese valued tradition incredibly. Breaking with tradition was very much against their values, and although the katana could have seen refinement, they did not do such.

Take the saber, why the europeans created this weapons as a replacement for the longsword

You show your ignorance again. The saber was a European weapon that was primarily developed for mounted combat, the reason being that the curved blade was extremely effective in a mounted situation where it would be used to draw cut rapidly across an opponent, and did not need to be thrust. In no sense was a saber a superior sword - it just filled a niche.

The turkis use curved blade or the sabers to conquer parts of eastern europe which uses longswords at the time. The Islamic warriors used curved blades like falchion to conquer some parts of Spain with use of these blades. Gunpowder are the only thing that saved them in the war. It is clear how easy to use curved blades. Take the Damascus blades. The reason I brought up these is to state that curve blades is a great weapon for fighting especially and thrusting was never difficult. Actually the curved side of the blade can be used for hooking blocks and sweeping.

Once again, you demonstrate ignorance by assuming all of this. In fact, although Muslim occupation did occur in the areas of Palestine, as well as large parts of Spain - these occupations were ended during the Crusades and for quite some time thereafter. Eventually, the Europeans abandoned the Middle East because it no longer enticed them. However, the retained the whole of Spain for the entire time thereafter. And gunpowder was not an influential part in this, in fact noting that the Turkish were more adept in the use of firearms than the Europeans were for quite some time.

If you got thrust by rapier you can still move if a katana you are limping.

If you got thrust by a rapier, you are in significant pain. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of historical record to suggest that a rapier blow was eventually fatal. The reason for this was infection, as the rapier created a particularly nasty wound, and most successful rapier duelists would eventually die to an infection caused by a wound. In many cases, both fighters would end up killing each other through infection, although the fight itself had ended in a draw for one reason or another.

Once again, a thrust with a katana is far more difficult, and in no sense more powerful. The actual thrusting action itself, due to technique, caused a weaker blow. For your note, both the rapier and katana were good at making their opponent's limp, as thrust blows are very painful.

Rapier and katana are good weapons but if both are to fight, I'll put my money to the katana because firstly, it was an older blade and was tested in battlefield for centuries. Second, It has the value od experience and the more older the weapon is the more its techniques were develope. Lastly, it was still being use by mafia or the yakuza around the world. Here in the Philippines when you go south you'll find katana being use by some christian vigilants.

The katana is a shorter blade and is slower than a rapier. They are both very good weapons for their individual purposes, but in all honesty, it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. I would place my money with the rapier, because it has the advantages of reach, speed, and a great thrusting action. On the other hand, a solid blow with a katana against an unarmored fighter is almost certainly the loss of a limb or death.

In all truth, I'd take the rapier. The amount of wounds you take to your hands as well as non-vitals, will probably result in your death to infection - and there is huge historic record to back this up. Furthermore, I could hit you anywhere from your stomach to your face, and deal a killing blow in that area in hitting any of a number of vitals, such as the stomach, the lungs, the heart, the throat, the eyes, or even an artery leading away from the heart.

On the katana's part, I could perhaps make a swift killing blow, but it isn't necessarily that likely. Although the katana can do more physical damage, it doesn't have the advantages of reach or speed that were inherent to the rapier.

[The Pinata]

If we are going to based the techniques in the clips against kendo techniques. The winner will be kendo. The use of 45 degree sidesteps which was essential to gain a good reach for a good strike lack in the techniques in the clip. To use the 45 degree sidesteps will make the lack of katana reach a complete edge over the longsword. If one of the two guys in clip2 do that someone of the two of them got already a good hit. Katana was design to avoid sliding of the blade which eventually happened in longswords. See the clips you posted and you will find how long swords slide one another to make the follow up swings. Katana can prevent such by using the curved part to unbalance the long sword weilder and then follow up by a good diagonal slash to finish it.

The practitioners in the video are good swordfighters, although neither I, nor they would consider them experts in any sense.

You state that a 45 degree sidestep is essential, but in all fact, European martial arts of that period were also highly refined - and had developed their own unique techniques that could be used invaluably in Kendo to fantastic success.

You are comparing two very different fighting techniques with kendo and WMA - and are assuming that the longsword fighter is simply going to let himself be pulled around like that by the japanese samurai. In all reality, they were using techniques best suited for fighting between longswords. If they had to face a katana, they would have likely used techniques better suited to fighting sabers, as they are one of the closer weapons in European armories to a katana.

However, understand that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and you saying that one is the solution to all is a foolish proposition. To your unbalancing me with your curved blade, I wouldn't allow you to do that. I've practiced fighting a saber, and I know what I'm doing against curved blades.

If you really care to know, the fact that my weapon is double-edged, and that your katana is only single-edged is a big advantage for me. I have a significant increase in the number of reasonable angles from which to attack.

[yentao]

You stated that the katana has a shorter length. Ok let us put it that way. But ever consider the adavantage of short distance that will make the use of the offhand more easier and making the thrust stronger by pulling the opponent. Then the shorter blade is easier to weild. All you said about rapier capabilities of hiting many parts fast can be done by the katana to. And even if you put that rapier on the way the curve part of blade can be use to maneuver that the thrust over the rapier. So making a good thrust was not an issue you forget about it.

And I said pull slash not pulling. You try using other angles of attack then it will more easier to parry you. You underestimate that value of the blunt are beside the single edge sword. It was built to parry and it can withstand strong blows. Remember that the samurai warriors know how to deal with double edge swords because they such swords before and they change their sword style to attain combat excellence.

Assuming that the longswordsman don't know how to use saber becuase he is into longswords. The saber dude knows more because he knows what a saber can do becuase the saber dude use the long sword before and did not work in his advantage.

Anyway I'm not referring on you, you are from this modern age we are talking about the past where samurai and knights never met before.

We are not talking about ourselves so who cares if you have a two hand sword and i don't really care to know. I don't like to tell stories before it actually really happened.

Remember mactan, 600 augmented spaniards against knife weilding natives all the 600 that went into battle only a dozen of people manage to leave the battle uninjured.

[yentao]

Assuming there is an indefinite possiblities in the fight. Then the chance of unbalancing you before you know is greater than the chance of failing. I might get infection from the rapier strikes and I might die because of it atleast I was able to die because of the infection not the by strike but you a single stroke can kill you in seconds. You said it your self that physically the katana is more damaging. Thanks for agreeing finally.

[yentao]

The curve of the katana was not an issue in executing a thrust. Some prefer thrusting horizontally. If you are going to thrust it vertically it would be easier to stop your opponent easily because the blade was curved upward, if it was on the stomach the tip of the blade will hit through the spine or hit other organs as well and when it will make the person leap up a little and make him hard to move because the blade will go deeper. So what you are saying about katana is bull *****.

In fact, I already explained to you that the katana cannot perform an "on-compass" thrust. You just agreed with me here. Methods for thrusting with a katana are slower, less powerful, have significantly less reach, and expose the wielder significantly more than an "on-compass" thrust for various reasons.

I noted before that katana can be wielded with one hand the use of (chinese straight swords as their weaponry validates this) and the use of two handed thrust may lack range but it has complete control of the blade making wielding faster and making the handler hard to get parried out of balance.

In fact, one-hand wielding of a Katana became noticed around the time of Musashi, who was not a fighter within the traditional bounds of Japanese culture. He had witnessed the fighting style of the Europeans and had adopted from them. Even in that case, he still preferred the two-handed grip, although he was influential in the development of the one-handed katana style. This is far after the 13th-15th century time period that you requested.

Katana was made curve because the use of long straight swords was not enough to use against their enemies. It will not be change if it was perfect.

In fact, the katana was developed with a curve for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the curve more easily induces a draw-cut, although a skilled user will perform as adept a draw-cut with a straight sword as they will with a curved sword. The katana did not change largely due to the fact that the Japanese valued tradition incredibly. Breaking with tradition was very much against their values, and although the katana could have seen refinement, they did not do such.

Take the saber, why the europeans created this weapons as a replacement for the longsword

You show your ignorance again. The saber was a European weapon that was primarily developed for mounted combat, the reason being that the curved blade was extremely effective in a mounted situation where it would be used to draw cut rapidly across an opponent, and did not need to be thrust. In no sense was a saber a superior sword - it just filled a niche.

The turkis use curved blade or the sabers to conquer parts of eastern europe which uses longswords at the time. The Islamic warriors used curved blades like falchion to conquer some parts of Spain with use of these blades. Gunpowder are the only thing that saved them in the war. It is clear how easy to use curved blades. Take the Damascus blades. The reason I brought up these is to state that curve blades is a great weapon for fighting especially and thrusting was never difficult. Actually the curved side of the blade can be used for hooking blocks and sweeping.

Once again, you demonstrate ignorance by assuming all of this. In fact, although Muslim occupation did occur in the areas of Palestine, as well as large parts of Spain - these occupations were ended during the Crusades and for quite some time thereafter. Eventually, the Europeans abandoned the Middle East because it no longer enticed them. However, the retained the whole of Spain for the entire time thereafter. And gunpowder was not an influential part in this, in fact noting that the Turkish were more adept in the use of firearms than the Europeans were for quite some time.

If you got thrust by rapier you can still move if a katana you are limping.

If you got thrust by a rapier, you are in significant pain. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of historical record to suggest that a rapier blow was eventually fatal. The reason for this was infection, as the rapier created a particularly nasty wound, and most successful rapier duelists would eventually die to an infection caused by a wound. In many cases, both fighters would end up killing each other through infection, although the fight itself had ended in a draw for one reason or another.

Once again, a thrust with a katana is far more difficult, and in no sense more powerful. The actual thrusting action itself, due to technique, caused a weaker blow. For your note, both the rapier and katana were good at making their opponent's limp, as thrust blows are very painful.

Rapier and katana are good weapons but if both are to fight, I'll put my money to the katana because firstly, it was an older blade and was tested in battlefield for centuries. Second, It has the value od experience and the more older the weapon is the more its techniques were develope. Lastly, it was still being use by mafia or the yakuza around the world. Here in the Philippines when you go south you'll find katana being use by some christian vigilants.

The katana is a shorter blade and is slower than a rapier. They are both very good weapons for their individual purposes, but in all honesty, it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. I would place my money with the rapier, because it has the advantages of reach, speed, and a great thrusting action. On the other hand, a solid blow with a katana against an unarmored fighter is almost certainly the loss of a limb or death.

In all truth, I'd take the rapier. The amount of wounds you take to your hands as well as non-vitals, will probably result in your death to infection - and there is huge historic record to back this up. Furthermore, I could hit you anywhere from your stomach to your face, and deal a killing blow in that area in hitting any of a number of vitals, such as the stomach, the lungs, the heart, the throat, the eyes, or even an artery leading away from the heart.

On the katana's part, I could perhaps make a swift killing blow, but it isn't necessarily that likely. Although the katana can do more physical damage, it doesn't have the advantages of reach or speed that were inherent to the rapier.

Like i said Katana was not questionable as a one hand weapon. Musashi didn't originated it the use of it. Obviously you don't know how to use katana. Two katana fighting was already valid before only musashi popularized it. You better forget about making him as your reference about one hand katana. There are short types of katana use for one hand, the wakizashi and Tanto. Perfect thrusting weapons. Use mostly by pirates. Stating that katana is not design for thrusting is another idiotic statement.

About you early statement about katana tradition is another crap to because
some samurai warrior use longer types of katana called Nodachi.

[yentao]

About maille when you said a good made is hard to make. The that was no longer made standard because it wasn't accesible enough. Therefore most of the maille use before are easier to break.

Arnis has a wide range of uses, it was unlike the great sword and those single weapon application you stated. You try living here and you will agree. Like I said christian vigilants and other rebels was able to use katana or tanto for weaponry and they are applying arnis techniques with it. You don't know much about arnis so don't argue about it, upon your statements about katana and arnis, i can already see the ignorance and carelessness of someone trying to know everything but actually ignorant about it.

Lastly, about turkish, I doubt they use more firearms because they where famous for their archers. The spanish indeed use short handgunners with pavise and cannons to thwart raging muslims. Your statement was insignificant and hard to believe. The crusade ended because they were getting outnumbered and one by one getting killed. It was also beginning to be so expensive considering the raids on their supplies. Like all other wars, the conqueror only good at first but loses at the end.

[The Pinata]

You stated that the katana has a shorter length.

Yes. A katana's blade is shorter than a comparably weighter longsword's by anywhere from 8"-12".

Ok let us put it that way. But ever consider the adavantage of short distance that will make the use of the offhand more easier and making the thrust stronger by pulling the opponent. Then the shorter blade is easier to weild. All you said about rapier capabilities of hiting many parts fast can be done by the katana to. And even if you put that rapier on the way the curve part of blade can be use to maneuver that the thrust over the rapier. So making a good thrust was not an issue you forget about it.

In fact, there is nothing about the katana that would make one-handed use easier. It is a heavy blade, and was not well designed for a one-handed wield. Most Samurai including Musashi would still make more use of the two-handed wield because in most situations it was more effective. Secondly, there is no advantage to a curved or a short blade in thrusting. The entire mechanism of that sort of thrust, even when best presented, has significantly more exposure, is not as quick, and doesn't have the same reach. Secondly, if you really expect to use a short distance in combat, don't ever believe that your opponent would let you. If my rapier has a blade length of 40"-45", I'm going to keep you at that length, and coming any closer is putting yourself in peril of being thrusted.

Once again, I am stating that it would be much more difficult to counter the rapier's thrust because it is an extremely deft manuever. There is very little time to respond with a counter because it arrives so quick due to the technique of a one-handed straight blade.

And I said pull slash not pulling. You try using other angles of attack then it will more easier to parry you. You underestimate that value of the blunt are beside the single edge sword. It was built to parry and it can withstand strong blows. Remember that the samurai warriors know how to deal with double edge swords because they such swords before and they change their sword style to attain combat excellence.

In fact, the advantage of a double-edged blade are several. Sword edges were very well made to stand up to strong parries. And the fact that I can attack you from more angles than you can attack me gives me an advantage in the fact that you have to parry well at more angles. All reasonable swords were built to parry, and there are no real swords that can't withstand a strong blow. And for your concern, the Europeans also knew very well how to bout with curved blades, as there was a good arsenal of sabers and such in European armories.

Assuming that the longswordsman don't know how to use saber becuase he is into longswords. The saber dude knows more because he knows what a saber can do becuase the saber dude use the long sword before and did not work in his advantage.

This was a rather false statement. I stated that as much as the Samurai has seen a straight blade, the Knight has seen a curved blade. Neither is alien to all sorts of blades, and there was in fact much more variety in Europe as many swords were developed for specific purposes.

Anyway I'm not referring on you, you are from this modern age we are talking about the past where samurai and knights never met before.

I'm not talking about the modern age either. You called me idiotic - and I resent that. Going on, my entire arguement - per your request - is 13th-15th century - except where you attack the rapier which is out of that period.

We are not talking about ourselves so who cares if you have a two hand sword and i don't really care to know. I don't like to tell stories before it actually really happened.

It's happened. Trying the wrong technique with the wrong sword is dangerous, and I suggest that you stop before you hurt yourself. The weapons are very different, and they have developed their own techniques that best suit their advantages.

Like i said Katana was not questionable as a one hand weapon. Musashi didn't originated it the use of it. Obviously you don't know how to use katana. Two katana fighting was already valid before only musashi popularized it. You better forget about making him as your reference about one hand katana. There are short types of katana use for one hand, the wakizashi and Tanto. Perfect thrusting weapons. Use mostly by pirates. Stating that katana is not design for thrusting is another idiotic statement.

Katana was very questionable as a one-handed weapon. Until Musashi developed technique for it based on what he had seen Europeans doing, there is not any historical record to suggest that the Samurai were fighting with one-handed katanas. Even Musashi did not suggest one-handed wielding in most situations - it was a specialized use. Two katana fighting was a rare occurence, and the first warrior to make real use of it was Musashi - who developed it based on European technique.
You also state that there are Wakizashi and Tanto. These are significantly different weapons from the Katana - they were used for different purposes, wielded differently, and different technique was typically employed. Because they are different types of blades.

About you early statement about katana tradition is another crap to because
some samurai warrior use longer types of katana called Nodachi.

Once again, the use of Nodachi was not exceptionally common, and the blade was heavy to the point that the weight was a detriment. Even so, significantly different blades cannot be considered the same because the technique has to be adjusted for a very different blade.

About maille when you said a good made is hard to make. The that was no longer made standard because it wasn't accesible enough. Therefore most of the maille use before are easier to break.
Maille was very tedious to make in it's time, but because it was a matter of life and death there was a significant of amount of maille and it was a rather standard armor. Modern mail is built using a different technique that is recently developed, and the middle ages didn't know these techniques, nor would they have bothered with them because they don't work very well... they just make a cosmetic mail.

Arnis has a wide range of uses, it was unlike the great sword and those single weapon application you stated. You try living here and you will agree. Like I said christian vigilants and other rebels was able to use katana or tanto for weaponry and they are applying arnis techniques with it. You don't know much about arnis so don't argue about it, upon your statements about katana and arnis, i can already see the ignorance and carelessness of someone trying to know everything but actually ignorant about it.
Looking at Christian vigiliants attacking the people with katanas and tantos, that is rather stupid. They're outdated weapons, and as I see you with your katana, all I have to do is draw my pistol and kill you. It's not even a fair fight. It's over so quickly because all you have to do is shoot them. And I honestly doubt that they are applying arnis with a katana. It is a very different technique that is designed to be applied to a very different blade - and applying it to a blade so heavy as a katana would be dangerous to the wielder.

Lastly, about turkish, I doubt they use more firearms because they where famous for their archers. The spanish indeed use short handgunners with pavise and cannons to thwart raging muslims. Your statement was insignificant and hard to believe. The crusade ended because they were getting outnumbered and one by one getting killed. It was also beginning to be so expensive considering the raids on their supplies. Like all other wars, the conqueror only good at first but loses at the end.

The Turkish were renowned for their cannon. Janissaries were an all to common Turkish force, and their artillery was second to none. Far superior to their contemporaries for quite some time. The Spanish did utilize firearms because they were damned effective, but they did not use them in the scope that the Turks did. The Turks used firearms incredibly effectively, and it took the Europeans a significant amount of time and effort to catch up.

The Crusades ended because the Europeans no longer needed them. One of the original reasons was the pressure on Byzantine, and that pressure had been relieved. The Europeans were also starting to wear with the warfare, and supply lines were stretched. The Crusades were costly affairs. Eventually, they just stopped them, and in fact the Third Crusade was the last real Crusade into the Middle East. The rest were on the level of armed jokes, excluding the Crusades into Spain and Eastern Europe, which were still wholeheartedly employed.

[WLMantisKid]

Please, Pinata, Katana blades were up to 3' in length, LONGER than a longswords.

And this is a discussion about the chinese broadsword vs a rapier... not a katana vs a rapier.

chinese broadswords and katanas are very dissimilar weapons.

PS the Wakazashi is just a short katana. curved blade and everything. and Katanas were not heavy.

[yentao]

Please, Pinata, Katana blades were up to 3' in length, LONGER than a longswords.

And this is a discussion about the chinese broadsword vs a rapier... not a katana vs a rapier.

chinese broadswords and katanas are very dissimilar weapons.

PS the Wakazashi is just a short katana. curved blade and everything. and Katanas were not heavy.

See Pinata.
Katana is not heavy blade I know you don't know much about katana and even handle one if you did you don't know how to use two hand weapons. cause if you did, handling a katana will be easy and you will find how swift it can be. I know rapier and how fast and long it is. But consider it like this, it was like a kick, good at long distance but hard to use in short close fight. Katana is easier to control in short distance because of the curve of the blade you will be able to push the blade in the blunt side to block or push the blade through in a short distance. In short you can handled the blade in the blunt area and able to manuever it. That is the good thing about single edge blade. Observe the Chinese Long Broadsword's techniques some pushes the blunt side for strong blocking. This you can't do to double edges.

I guess you are only to super light weapons the reason you found katana so heavy. If I had the chance to give you a demo I'll show you how to wield a katana using three fingers. The thing you said about applying arnis to broadsword is just another idiotic thing to say. I already did it and find no reason why it is dangerous. As long it is a short sword or a dagger you can use it. Beside arnis is not only applicable for short daggers. Jose Rizal and Antonio Luna, two Filipino heroes, knows fencing and uses his arnis footworks to a rapier. It was said that Rizal won a tournament in Munich, Germany. Antonio won a tournament in Barcelona. Same Arnis footworks use by Flash Elorde and Muhammad Ali who said to have both learned arnis. So Mr. Pinata what can you say. I have, you are an idiot.

About the turks. They were really known for their cavalry and long range attacks. Even so when they are charging, they use sabers. They conquered Romania and fought Hungary and the fear of them as good swordsmen are reputable.

The curved blade has a more slashing power. Rapier is easier to break than a katana. Lets refer to a stick, if it is long its hard to break and if it is shorter it is harder to break. Katana able to fix this problem by curving the blade and dividing the weight in the middle part of the edge where the most curved part lies and the hilt. Rapier are althrough has plenty of fullers making it flexible but its length could be bias.

Pinata, If you want I can teach you how to use a katana. I doubt you know even how to handle it.

[Blindside]

:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

[The Pinata]

Please, Pinata, Katana blades were up to 3' in length, LONGER than a longswords.

And this is a discussion about the chinese broadsword vs a rapier... not a katana vs a rapier.

chinese broadswords and katanas are very dissimilar weapons.

PS the Wakazashi is just a short katana. curved blade and everything. and Katanas were not heavy.

WLMantis - That is not accurate. The longer katanas measured in at less than 30", and those were around the weight of 3lbs. You don't want to go much past that weight because the sword is getting to heavy.

In comparison, the average longsword had a blade of anywhere from 36"-42". That is nearly half a foot to an entire foot of blade length increased over the katana. You are not knowledgeable of European longswords, or katanas - and I wish you would research those facts a little more.

Actually, earlier in the discussion, Yentao and I agreed that we would discuss a longsword against a katana.

Katanas were not too heavy - but they were on the heavy end for swords. You don't want a blade much over 3lbs, because it becomes difficult to use. In fact, the average longsword was similiarly weighted to a much shorter katana.

See Pinata.
Katana is not heavy blade I know you don't know much about katana and even handle one if you did you don't know how to use two hand weapons. cause if you did, handling a katana will be easy and you will find how swift it can be. I know rapier and how fast and long it is. But consider it like this, it was like a kick, good at long distance but hard to use in short close fight. Katana is easier to control in short distance because of the curve of the blade you will be able to push the blade in the blunt side to block or push the blade through in a short distance. In short you can handled the blade in the blunt area and able to manuever it. That is the good thing about single edge blade. Observe the Chinese Long Broadsword's techniques some pushes the blunt side for strong blocking. This you can't do to double edges.

I guess you are only to super light weapons the reason you found katana so heavy. If I had the chance to give you a demo I'll show you how to wield a katana using three fingers. The thing you said about applying arnis to broadsword is just another idiotic thing to say. I already did it and find no reason why it is dangerous. As long it is a short sword or a dagger you can use it. Beside arnis is not only applicable for short daggers. Jose Rizal and Antonio Luna, two Filipino heroes, knows fencing and uses his arnis footworks to a rapier. It was said that Rizal won a tournament in Munich, Germany. Antonio won a tournament in Barcelona. Same Arnis footworks use by Flash Elorde and Muhammad Ali who said to have both learned arnis. So Mr. Pinata what can you say. I have, you are an idiot.

About the turks. They were really known for their cavalry and long range attacks. Even so when they are charging, they use sabers. They conquered Romania and fought Hungary and the fear of them as good swordsmen are reputable.

One idiot gives me a bunch of crap about how a three foot blade - incredibly long for a katana, was longer than a longsword's blade - when in fact that was on the short end for longswords. I know a substantial amount about katanas, and although good swords, they do not live up to their hype.

You claim that you could hold a katana by the blunt edge. While this is true, and I could not repeat this feat with a rapier, I very much can do this with a longsword. Apparently you have never heard of "half-swording". It was a technique popular in continental Europe with longswords. The Europeans very much had developed techniques for handling the blade, and I ask you to look into half-swording. It was a common technique with longswords.

Going on, I did not say that a katana was too heavy, but I stated that it was on the heavy end for swords. You can wield a katana at 3lbs, and I can wield a longsword that is a foot longer at 3lbs. I am not very knowledgeable of arnis, but you did not state that he actually used entire arnis techniques - just the footwork, which is reasonable.

The Turks conquered Romania for a time, but were sent packing when larger powers from Europe rode through the area. And the Turks had very little luck against the militarily capable Hungary. However, if you were to actually research into the Turks, they were well known for their cannon and firearms - and it was one of the main reasons they were so successful. They may have been good swordsmen - but I don't see them having conquered a reputable force such as Hungary, and Romania bordered on a joke.

The curved blade has a more slashing power. Rapier is easier to break than a katana. Lets refer to a stick, if it is long its hard to break and if it is shorter it is harder to break. Katana able to fix this problem by curving the blade and dividing the weight in the middle part of the edge where the most curved part lies and the hilt. Rapier are althrough has plenty of fullers making it flexible but its length could be bias.

A curved blade does not have more slashing power. It more easily induces a draw cut when one slashes, however an adept user can just as easily cause a draw cut with a straight sword. And for that note, there isn't significant effect through a draw cut against plate armor, especially in the case of a katana, because it's cutting point widens out way to steeply.

And a rapier isn't easier to break than a katana for a reason. This reason is that it is flexible. Katanas were remarkeably unflexible, but I will explain why flexibility protects a sword. The initial shock from your hit is the time when my sword is in most danger. The rapier rather than standing to this shock, simply absorbs it by flexing backwards. As soon as the pressure is relieved it bends back. The rapier was not a very rigid sword, and it was very well known for its flexibility, as this kept it in good shape. European swords in general were well known for flexibility due to their design for that matter.

And yes, I am generally knowledgeable of how one fights with a katana. It is a very different weapon than a European longsword, and one cannot apply Kendo techniques very effectively to longsword as they are two different weapons.

[WLMantisKid]

Stop the flaming, bub.

The book of five rings details wielding a katana only gripping with 3 and a half fingers.

Also, every famous swordmaker was different. Many makers had Katanas that started at 3'.


PS if you're going to discuss longsword vs katana, a rapier isn't a longsword. Keep your crap straight.
I dont even know what hype I'm mentioning, other than there were some very long Katanas.

[The Pinata]

Stop the flaming, bub.

The book of five rings details wielding a katana only gripping with 3 and a half fingers.

Also, every famous swordmaker was different. Many makers had Katanas that started at 3'.


PS if you're going to discuss longsword vs katana, a rapier isn't a longsword. Keep your crap straight.
I dont even know what hype I'm mentioning, other than there were some very long Katanas.
I would like you to cite me some historic katanas that had a blade of 36". That would be an extremely heavy katana, considering that all the accurate katanas I've found have weighed in at about 3lbs for a 30" katana. Now, that does not account for the tsuka, which would add a significant amount to the length of the sword, but I'm not accounting for the handle on a longsword either which is fairly long. I was solely comparing the fact that an average katana had a length of 30", whilst an average longsword was near 40".

Perhaps you were giving me lengths with the Tsuka included. Apologies, but we have been comparing just the blade lengths - handles not included.

For the matter, I have been keeping my crap straight, but Yentao has this habit of continuing attacking the rapier, even though he asked me to keep the debate to the longsword and I agreed to that. And I would appreciate it if he stopped attacking the rapier right now, because he is not following up what he agreed to do. And yes, I know very well the characteristics of rapiers and longswords, and I am a decent swordfighter with both.

[yentao]

I would like you to cite me some historic katanas that had a blade of 36". That would be an extremely heavy katana, considering that all the accurate katanas I've found have weighed in at about 3lbs for a 30" katana. Now, that does not account for the tsuka, which would add a significant amount to the length of the sword, but I'm not accounting for the handle on a longsword either which is fairly long. I was solely comparing the fact that an average katana had a length of 30", whilst an average longsword was near 40".

Perhaps you were giving me lengths with the Tsuka included. Apologies, but we have been comparing just the blade lengths - handles not included.

For the matter, I have been keeping my crap straight, but Yentao has this habit of continuing attacking the rapier, even though he asked me to keep the debate to the longsword and I agreed to that. And I would appreciate it if he stopped attacking the rapier right now, because he is not following up what he agreed to do. And yes, I know very well the characteristics of rapiers and longswords, and I am a decent swordfighter with both.

I did not attack the capabilities of the rapier. Flexibility has nothing to do with damage. You are just paranoid. Don't blame me for your own crap, you are the one that started to attack katana and I was just replying on your idiotic statements. The use of katana was easy even you cited it as heavy, it can be used easily, it was because the way it was handled. In using it as a two handed weapon. The thumb, index finger, and the middle finger should be the only ones gripping the handle firmly. The right hand controls the thrust movements and the angles while the left hand controls the choping movements. In these way the katana can be use to slash and chop fast.

Actually we are only talking about the rapier and katana. You are the one that brought up the longsword, european knight, augmentations and armor. We are only talking about the rapier and katana. You're an ******* no doubt about it. You are stupid, crazy, and idiotic piece of **** who acts like he knows how to use a katana. I'll stick that rapier in your ass. Now can we talk only about the rapier and the katana. I still will bet that I can break a rapier on two faster than a katana. The longer and lighter the easier it can break even you put several of fuller on it, it has nothing to do with its damage. This is true no crap about like what pinata does. Katana varies in design and being standard, katana is a more complete weapon than the longsword and the rapier. Singles weapon is even safer to use. Halfswording or halfcrap, it would still be safer to hold a katana blade and even hold it properly that you won't mind the back edge piercing your hand no matter how the strike against the block is. Try that to long sword or rapier huh? To a rapier the blade will bend towards you or even hit your face when to use it to block a katana. For get about the armors let us talk about the sword only. This is not attacking don't get so paranoid. Don't cry to me too. You are making it bad for you.

[yentao]

A curved blade does not have more slashing power. It more easily induces a draw cut when one slashes, however an adept user can just as easily cause a draw cut with a straight sword. And for that note, there isn't significant effect through a draw cut against plate armor, especially in the case of a katana, because it's cutting point widens out way to steeply.


And yes, I am generally knowledgeable of how one fights with a katana. It is a very different weapon than a European longsword, and one cannot apply Kendo techniques very effectively to longsword as they are two different weapons.

No you don't know anything about how katana was used. You are just trying to be Mister "I know everything" again.

Whether it was a draw cut or not, when a katana is use to slash the sliding motion is applied to damage more stronger. It was not just simple slash. Damn, you don't know how to use a katana. Don't argue anymore when you don't know what you are saying.

[The Pinata]

I did not attack the capabilities of the rapier. Flexibility has nothing to do with damage. You are just paranoid. Don't blame me for your own crap, you are the one that started to attack katana and I was just replying on your idiotic statements. The use of katana was easy even you cited it as heavy, it can be used easily, it was because the way it was handled. In using it as a two handed weapon. The thumb, index finger, and the middle finger should be the only ones gripping the handle firmly. The right hand controls the thrust movements and the angles while the left hand controls the choping movements. In these way the katana can be use to slash and chop fast.

Flexibility very much will protect a sword from damage. How can you not understand this? It won't damage another sword, but the fact that it bends rather than breaks makes it a stronger sword. For example, a good bridge is flexible - if it's not, it can't hold as much weight. Have you ever been in an airplane and looked out the window to see the wings bending? That's because they're flexible too - if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to hold up to flight. Flexibility is extremely important to resisting damage, and the rapier was a remarkeably flexible sword. Not to state that it wouldn't be possible to break a rapier if I was an idiot in my defense. If I stood there performing passive, rigid, blocks with the forward part of my blade, yes - I'd probably break the blade. However, as I would know how to use my blade, I would be using the mid to back for parries, where it was sturdier, and I would be using a block that would more deflect your blade than stop it.

As for the weight of the katana, at 3lbs, yes it was an above average weighted sword. With two hands, this is easily workable, and I never claimed that its weight was a detriment, but if you go much over that weight, you will start noticing your weight, and that is not a good thing.

Actually we are only talking about the rapier and katana. You are the one that brought up the longsword, european knight, augmentations and armor. We are only talking about the rapier and katana. You're an ******* no doubt about it. You are stupid, crazy, and idiotic piece of **** who acts like he knows how to use a katana. I'll stick that rapier in your ass. Now can we talk only about the rapier and the katana. I still will bet that I can break a rapier on two faster than a katana. The longer and lighter the easier it can break even you put several of fuller on it, it has nothing to do with its damage. This is true no crap about like what pinata does. Katana varies in design and being standard, katana is a more complete weapon than the longsword and the rapier. Singles weapon is even safer to use. Halfswording or halfcrap, it would still be safer to hold a katana blade and even hold it properly that you won't mind the back edge piercing your hand no matter how the strike against the block is. Try that to long sword or rapier huh? To a rapier the blade will bend towards you or even hit your face when to use it to block a katana. For get about the armors let us talk about the sword only. This is not attacking don't get so paranoid. Don't cry to me too. You are making it bad for you.

Is that the best you can do? Calling a piece of ****, and swear at me? You're not really winning this. Rather than being smart about it and intelligently debating me on the merits, you just say ****ING PIECE OF DAMN **** and call me names. Who's doing the flaming? Certainly isn't me.

You want to just talk about the rapier vs katana? Alright. We'll focus on that then for the remainder of this arguement. And, no - you will not break a rapier with a katana, because of the flexibility which I have already explained. The thin design on it doesn't encourage its sturdiness - I'll agree with that, but because it is so damned flexible, it is almost impossible to break them. The only track record for breaks was the loss of a tip within the victim during the removal.

"Katana is a more complete weapon than a longsword or rapier"? What do you base this claim on? There is no proof to it. And I'm guessing you'll claim, "Because they didn't have to change it." I'll refute that already by stating the reason they never had to change it was because they didn't evolve. The reason the rapier was developed was because firearms had rendered armor obsolete, and it was also largely as a civilian weapon.

"Halfswording or halfcrap, it would still be safer to hold a katana blade and even hold it properly that you won't mind the back edge piercing your hand no matter how the strike against the block is." You don't even have a clue what halfswording is. It was an extremely common technique, and was used very effectively. Just like your earlier statements. I am not an expert in katana, but I do understand the basics. Perhaps you understand the simplest idea of longsword, but you have no clue how to use them effectively. Do not dismiss a technique simply because it isn't a Japanese technique, or you don't know what it is. Because you don't have a clue.

The halfsword technique involves a swordsman grabbing the blade to use it effectively in very close combat. If the blade is sharp, it's best to have a protective glove, or gauntlet, especially in the heat of battle. Commonsense dictates it. Is it possible to do so without a glove, I would guess so, but a gauntlet makes it effective. If the blade isn't sharpe, then it's a different story. I can grab the blade of my unsharpened Del Tin 2143 and use the halfsword technique, but if I tried the same with my sharpened 2121, I'd cut my hand. It's safe to say that a sharpe sword needs a protected hand to hold it when doing the halfsword technique.

Whether it was a draw cut or not, when a katana is use to slash the sliding motion is applied to damage more stronger. It was not just simple slash. Damn, you don't know how to use a katana. Don't argue anymore when you don't know what you are saying.

This is true, and the sliding motion was applied to create more damage against soft targets. Against armor, this sliding motion is ineffectual, although I guess we are removing armor from the picture because you want to debate a rapier vs katana. However, the wielder of a longsword would also apply that exact same slide to create the same damage when hitting soft targets. Both used that sliding cut, and neither was "just simple slash". I am a basic user with the katana - not great. But you have at least as little knowledge about the longsword as I have about the katana. Read these articles, and it might increase your knowledge somewhat.
[/url]
[url="http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm"]Katana vs Rapier -- Fantasy Worth Considering (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm)
The Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay (http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm)
What Makes an Effective Sword Cut? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm)
There Is No Best Sword (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm)
Questions and Answers About the Rapier (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight.htm)
A Brief Introduction to Armored Longsword Combat (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html)

[yentao]

I did not attack the capabilities of the rapier. Flexibility has nothing to do with damage. You are just paranoid. Don't blame me for your own crap, you are the one that started to attack katana and I was just replying on your idiotic statements. The use of katana was easy even you cited it as heavy, it can be used easily, it was because the way it was handled. In using it as a two handed weapon. The thumb, index finger, and the middle finger should be the only ones gripping the handle firmly. The right hand controls the thrust movements and the angles while the left hand controls the choping movements. In these way the katana can be use to slash and chop fast.

Flexibility very much will protect a sword from damage. How can you not understand this? It won't damage another sword, but the fact that it bends rather than breaks makes it a stronger sword. For example, a good bridge is flexible - if it's not, it can't hold as much weight. Have you ever been in an airplane and looked out the window to see the wings bending? That's because they're flexible too - if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to hold up to flight. Flexibility is extremely important to resisting damage, and the rapier was a remarkeably flexible sword. Not to state that it wouldn't be possible to break a rapier if I was an idiot in my defense. If I stood there performing passive, rigid, blocks with the forward part of my blade, yes - I'd probably break the blade. However, as I would know how to use my blade, I would be using the mid to back for parries, where it was sturdier, and I would be using a block that would more deflect your blade than stop it.

As for the weight of the katana, at 3lbs, yes it was an above average weighted sword. With two hands, this is easily workable, and I never claimed that its weight was a detriment, but if you go much over that weight, you will start noticing your weight, and that is not a good thing.

Actually we are only talking about the rapier and katana. You are the one that brought up the longsword, european knight, augmentations and armor. We are only talking about the rapier and katana. You're an ******* no doubt about it. You are stupid, crazy, and idiotic piece of **** who acts like he knows how to use a katana. I'll stick that rapier in your ass. Now can we talk only about the rapier and the katana. I still will bet that I can break a rapier on two faster than a katana. The longer and lighter the easier it can break even you put several of fuller on it, it has nothing to do with its damage. This is true no crap about like what pinata does. Katana varies in design and being standard, katana is a more complete weapon than the longsword and the rapier. Singles weapon is even safer to use. Halfswording or halfcrap, it would still be safer to hold a katana blade and even hold it properly that you won't mind the back edge piercing your hand no matter how the strike against the block is. Try that to long sword or rapier huh? To a rapier the blade will bend towards you or even hit your face when to use it to block a katana. For get about the armors let us talk about the sword only. This is not attacking don't get so paranoid. Don't cry to me too. You are making it bad for you.

Is that the best you can do? Calling a piece of ****, and swear at me? You're not really winning this. Rather than being smart about it and intelligently debating me on the merits, you just say ****ING PIECE OF DAMN **** and call me names. Who's doing the flaming? Certainly isn't me.

You want to just talk about the rapier vs katana? Alright. We'll focus on that then for the remainder of this arguement. And, no - you will not break a rapier with a katana, because of the flexibility which I have already explained. The thin design on it doesn't encourage its sturdiness - I'll agree with that, but because it is so damned flexible, it is almost impossible to break them. The only track record for breaks was the loss of a tip within the victim during the removal.

"Katana is a more complete weapon than a longsword or rapier"? What do you base this claim on? There is no proof to it. And I'm guessing you'll claim, "Because they didn't have to change it." I'll refute that already by stating the reason they never had to change it was because they didn't evolve. The reason the rapier was developed was because firearms had rendered armor obsolete, and it was also largely as a civilian weapon.

"Halfswording or halfcrap, it would still be safer to hold a katana blade and even hold it properly that you won't mind the back edge piercing your hand no matter how the strike against the block is." You don't even have a clue what halfswording is. It was an extremely common technique, and was used very effectively. Just like your earlier statements. I am not an expert in katana, but I do understand the basics. Perhaps you understand the simplest idea of longsword, but you have no clue how to use them effectively. Do not dismiss a technique simply because it isn't a Japanese technique, or you don't know what it is. Because you don't have a clue.

The halfsword technique involves a swordsman grabbing the blade to use it effectively in very close combat. If the blade is sharp, it's best to have a protective glove, or gauntlet, especially in the heat of battle. Commonsense dictates it. Is it possible to do so without a glove, I would guess so, but a gauntlet makes it effective. If the blade isn't sharpe, then it's a different story. I can grab the blade of my unsharpened Del Tin 2143 and use the halfsword technique, but if I tried the same with my sharpened 2121, I'd cut my hand. It's safe to say that a sharpe sword needs a protected hand to hold it when doing the halfsword technique.

Whether it was a draw cut or not, when a katana is use to slash the sliding motion is applied to damage more stronger. It was not just simple slash. Damn, you don't know how to use a katana. Don't argue anymore when you don't know what you are saying.

This is true, and the sliding motion was applied to create more damage against soft targets. Against armor, this sliding motion is ineffectual, although I guess we are removing armor from the picture because you want to debate a rapier vs katana. However, the wielder of a longsword would also apply that exact same slide to create the same damage when hitting soft targets. Both used that sliding cut, and neither was "just simple slash". I am a basic user with the katana - not great. But you have at least as little knowledge about the longsword as I have about the katana. Read these articles, and it might increase your knowledge somewhat.
[/url]
[url="http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm"]Katana vs Rapier -- Fantasy Worth Considering (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm)
The Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay (http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm)
What Makes an Effective Sword Cut? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm)
There Is No Best Sword (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm)
Questions and Answers About the Rapier (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight.htm)
A Brief Introduction to Armored Longsword Combat (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html)

I'd rather read than talk to you. Give me time to read this up. Is this where you get your sources? For me, I'll side up with katana is because katana can be used more than the rapier in this era. Ok you said they are equal, but I'd rather learn how to use a katana than a rapier like most people will do.
Thanks for the links by the way. Ok no more flaming although you did too, that is why all this started. You know remember when you said this: (there is a saying goes, blahblah you are making it bad) :2xBird2:

[The Pinata]

I'd rather read than talk to you. Give me time to read this up. Is this where you get your sources? For me, I'll side up with katana is because katana can be used more than the rapier in this era. Ok you said they are equal, but I'd rather learn how to use a katana than a rapier like most people will do.
Thanks for the links by the way. Ok no more flaming although you did too, that is why all this started. You know remember when you said this: (there is a saying goes, blahblah you are making it bad) :2xBird2:
Then go read and learn something. And you started flaming me almost off the bat. You are incredibly ignorant of European Martial Arts, and no sword has real practical use in this era. You can come at me with your katana, and I'll just pull out my pistol, and shoot eight bullets through your head. Unless you believe Hollywood, and think you can dodge my bullets, or your sword can stop them. In this era, swords no longer hold a real military application.

The only reason most people like to learn katana is because Hollywood glorified them. The reason for this was because there is a mystique to all things from Asia. This is changing and the Western Martial Arts are being rediscovered rapidly - a lot of the stuff I speak of is relatively recent findings of very old technique.

[yentao]

People still use katana to kill people. Try living here even if there is the gunpowder some people tries the more resourceful and cheaper way. Of course no one can dodge bullets I never say i can, that is another senseless thing to say and accuse. And everything else you said came from you paranoid head, You might know about European swordmanship but I doubt you even use them.

Ok you said that european techniques are being rediscovered. Old techniques from recent findings hmmm..... You are saying like that it became really old because people before find it useless and forget about it. You said yourself. You are not careful.

You know what you really are an idiotic piece of crap. No doubt about it. Another thing, you just felt insulted because you know that you can't use a rapier against a katana so you choose a gun. Even so what are you going to use pellets and water? And is it has to take you three bullets to take someone down? Idiot. This isn't the west we got no time for fake **** and ineffective piece of crap, we leave it that to commercialization. Lastly, if you can put up shut up. :2xBird2:

[The Pinata]

People still use katana to kill people. Try living here even if there is the gunpowder some people tries the more resourceful and cheaper way. Of course no one can dodge bullets I never say i can, that is another senseless thing to say and accuse. And everything else you said came from you paranoid head, You might know about European swordmanship but I doubt you even use them.

What people can do with practically with a sword, I can do so much more effectively with a gun. Swords aren't practical weapons anymore, and I don't personally understand why they would be used as such.

Ok you said that european techniques are being rediscovered. Old techniques from recent findings hmmm..... You are saying like that it became really old because people before find it useless and forget about it. You said yourself. You are not careful.

There were a wide variety of reasons that European martial arts disappeared for quite some time. There never was the same culutural status associated with swords that the Japanese eventually gave the katana. During the Victorian era, there was a motion from all facets of life to declare that you were now elegant, as compared to your crude past. And yes, I stated it become useless and people began to forget about it - because it did. The Europeans never placed that same cultural status that the Japanese did on their katanas, and there was little reason to keep using swords when their guns and cannons could kill eachother so much more effectively. The Japanese found their's useless too you know. Gunpowder eventually made swords useless, although it did take some time before it was common enough in various areas for this to actually be the case.

What was the difference between Japanese and European martial arts though? During the Victorian era, there was a motion to call the past old and crude, and to glorify the future. This too was the case with swordfighting, and the fencers of the day were among the first to rather ignorantly bash the middle age swordfighters. It had nothing to do with fact, but was based upon the idea that they were trying to live up to that Victorian ideal.

You know what you really are an idiotic piece of crap. No doubt about it. Another thing, you just felt insulted because you know that you can't use a rapier against a katana so you choose a gun. Even so what are you going to use pellets and water? And is it has to take you three bullets to take someone down? Idiot. This isn't the west we got no time for fake **** and ineffective piece of crap, we leave it that to commercialization. Lastly, if you can put up shut up.

No, it actually is a strong sign of immaturity and defensiveness out of you that you can do nothing but insult me, and that in turn is a good sign that you are losing this arguement. In all truth, I could fight one just as effectively with a rapier as with a katana, but I personally would be smart, and just use a gun. It works so much better than any sword I've ever known, and you hardly have to pull the trigger.

I would very much take a rapier up against a katana. I'd have a very fair chance, and although I doubt this fight would be slanted towards me due to my equipment, the rapier is still just as capable of a sword as a katana. It was made for a different purpose.

So, act a little less childish, a little more mature, and we can continue talking. You are the one who feels insulted, you have also stated that yourself, and your childish insults are doing nothing to win your ignorant arguement. Arrogance doesn't work either.

[KenpoTess]

MOD NOTE
Warning~!
Refrain from Personal Attacks- If you have issues with someone Take them Offline via Email or PM~!

~Tess
MT S. MOD

[yentao]

People still use katana to kill people. Try living here even if there is the gunpowder some people tries the more resourceful and cheaper way. Of course no one can dodge bullets I never say i can, that is another senseless thing to say and accuse. And everything else you said came from you paranoid head, You might know about European swordmanship but I doubt you even use them.

What people can do with practically with a sword, I can do so much more effectively with a gun. Swords aren't practical weapons anymore, and I don't personally understand why they would be used as such.

Ok you said that european techniques are being rediscovered. Old techniques from recent findings hmmm..... You are saying like that it became really old because people before find it useless and forget about it. You said yourself. You are not careful.

There were a wide variety of reasons that European martial arts disappeared for quite some time. There never was the same culutural status associated with swords that the Japanese eventually gave the katana. During the Victorian era, there was a motion from all facets of life to declare that you were now elegant, as compared to your crude past. And yes, I stated it become useless and people began to forget about it - because it did. The Europeans never placed that same cultural status that the Japanese did on their katanas, and there was little reason to keep using swords when their guns and cannons could kill eachother so much more effectively. The Japanese found their's useless too you know. Gunpowder eventually made swords useless, although it did take some time before it was common enough in various areas for this to actually be the case.

What was the difference between Japanese and European martial arts though? During the Victorian era, there was a motion to call the past old and crude, and to glorify the future. This too was the case with swordfighting, and the fencers of the day were among the first to rather ignorantly bash the middle age swordfighters. It had nothing to do with fact, but was based upon the idea that they were trying to live up to that Victorian ideal.

You know what you really are an idiotic piece of crap. No doubt about it. Another thing, you just felt insulted because you know that you can't use a rapier against a katana so you choose a gun. Even so what are you going to use pellets and water? And is it has to take you three bullets to take someone down? Idiot. This isn't the west we got no time for fake **** and ineffective piece of crap, we leave it that to commercialization. Lastly, if you can put up shut up.

No, it actually is a strong sign of immaturity and defensiveness out of you that you can do nothing but insult me, and that in turn is a good sign that you are losing this arguement. In all truth, I could fight one just as effectively with a rapier as with a katana, but I personally would be smart, and just use a gun. It works so much better than any sword I've ever known, and you hardly have to pull the trigger.

I would very much take a rapier up against a katana. I'd have a very fair chance, and although I doubt this fight would be slanted towards me due to my equipment, the rapier is still just as capable of a sword as a katana. It was made for a different purpose.

So, act a little less childish, a little more mature, and we can continue talking. You are the one who feels insulted, you have also stated that yourself, and your childish insults are doing nothing to win your ignorant arguement. Arrogance doesn't work either.

Ok as you said that japanese has a strong cultural associated with swords. Some still does, the yakuzas still use the sword and other goons around asia (some really like the katana) even the korean mafia does. You'll find a missing head or chopped body by the river every now and then.

I'm glad that my insults comes to you. You deserve it. Everytime you reply from it you really becoming more idiotic. You can't put up.

You know you can't fight with a sword that is why you are going to use a gun. You are a coward and not really know how to use a sword because you are not even confident to use your style and you know you'll die because you lack real life application katana today are still being use and the experience of its practitioner can verify this. Beside what is guns got to do with this I thought we are talking about swords you are a gay if we are to talk about guns let us talk about it from the other topic, I bet you never had a gun and never fire one or even shoot something. Beside who said i won't bring a gun if I'm going to defend myself from a gun.

You see not all people have guns. And some people attack people with guns surprisingly (ambush). You are living in a fine country, and I bet you never seen a living thing get slash do you? That can explain when so much people from the west are looking for the beheading video of the american in iraq. Bless his soul.

The question you should be asking yourself is what if I got a gun and we are only 10 inches away and you sword is too long to defend you from a near gun point? What if I use half swording against you through holding your blade that was easy to bend to your face and to avoid from slipping off and then shooting your nuts. Katana is too thick to apply for your half swording especially from the front the reason it was only one edge so the back can be hold but that is hard for you to reach the back without your hand exposing from being grappled and will only get your hands cuts. You can't bend the blade towards me for your advantage either, katana cannot be bend. You see atleast I got jujitsu and experience to defend me which I learn from training that no longer needed to be rediscovered from artefacts and needing to test it because of not being applied for a long time and concern of hurting myself from trying and you, how about you? you are a sitting duck. Who wins now? Bansai! :-partyon:

[yentao]

MOD NOTE
Warning~!
Refrain from Personal Attacks- If you have issues with someone Take them Offline via Email or PM~!

~Tess
MT S. MOD


Lock this topic. If there is another flame.

[Michael Billings]

Thread locked for administrative review.

-Michael Billings
MT S-Mod