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.

Lamont

The 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?