Chinese Broadsword vs. European Rapier

[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 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
Video Clip 2
Video Clip 3
Video Clip 4

The main site.

 

[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 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.