Chinese Broadsword vs. European Rapier

[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?

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?



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 *** 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 *** 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.

 

[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.

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

SwordForum: Historical European Swordsmanship

ARMA: Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

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: [email protected]
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.