Sword vs Katana?

[Bob Hubbard]

In a discussion at an artsite, one of the artists brought up the question below. I'm curious on what our takes here would be on it.

In your opinion, what is better in a technical way. Western or Japanese warfare? Knight or Samurai, if both had the same degree of ability?... hand and a half swords, halberds, two handed swords... daisho, nodachi, naginata... Many support Japanese steel was stronger due to the way it was forged, but Toledo and Damascus steel blades were considered by many as the finest blades in the world...


I am mostly referring to weapon types, steel quality and equipment. Give me your thoughts, but tell me -why- you think either would be better in a battlefield or a one-on-one duel.

Original discussions:
http://jessicaelwood.deviantart.com/journal/14166777/
http://jessicaelwood.deviantart.com/journal/14205106/
***Warning*** Some artwork may not be work safe.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My reply:
Interesting question.

There are major differences between Japanese and European armor, with the European being a deflection type, and the Japanese being a 'catch and inhibit' type (mind you, over simplifying here). Looking at the weaponry, the Japanese Katana is considered by many to be one of the best made swords ever. It's forging and balance was often far superior to those of the European knight, whose blades were often left unsharpened and used more to bludgeon than cut. Samurai were more prone to movement as the European knight 's armor made him a slow moving lumbering fighter.

I would go with whomever got in the first good strike. A solid blow from the European would possibly stun or fell the Samurai allowing the knight to close for the finish, however the Samurai should have speed of movement on his side, which should allow him a more elegant strike at the knights weak points with a better chance to inflict mortal damage.

 

[Mr. E]

I don't think you can compare the two unless you compare everything going on around them.

The katana was used both in war and as an individual weapon. George Silver was famous for complaining that people in his age were running around with weapons that could not be used on the battlefield. There is a lot of debate, but it does appear that someone with a battlefield weapon would be at a great disadvantage in a London street fight.

The katana was longer during times of war, and even longer when most samurai were mounted. So you really can't even pick one type of weapon when you talk about a katana vs sword debate.

As for armour, have you considered that samurai were modifying European armour and there seems to be a few cases of Europeans using imported Japanese armour? By the time there was trade and interaction, firearms were making themselves known and armor was on its way out in the west. So it is hard to say which would have been better. Certainly the Japanese seemed to have learned a lot from European Armour, but the trend of simpler armour had been going on for a long time.

I guess I am trying to say that both did very well in the areas and situations that they were designed for. Taking one and putting it into another would be difficult since the battlefields has so many other things going on around them.

 

[Blindside]

I'm afraid I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Looking at the weaponry, the Japanese Katana is considered by many to be one of the best made swords ever. It's forging and balance was often far superior to those of the European knight, whose blades were often left unsharpened and used more to bludgeon than cut.

Forging quality is at least equal between the east and west. You have a different method of forging certainly, since Japan was stuck with extremely problematic iron sources, but better? I don't think so, a katana cannot due things that a spring tempered blade can, like bending in half and returning true. Balance is strictly a personal/style issue, but the simple fact is a western blade is generally lighter per unit of length than the katana. The katana is also thicker in cross-section than a western blade. A katana built for cutting tamishigiri is thinner to provide less drag, the western blade is already there without sacrificing strength. And the "blades left unsharpened" bit is a pretty hoary old myth. SOME blades left a portion of the length unsharpened, but if you were going to bludgeon someone, why wouldn't you just use a purpose built weapon for that?

Samurai were more prone to movement as the European knight 's armor made him a slow moving lumbering fighter.

I'd argue with you on the "slow lumbering fighter" bit, since its been shown that men in plate armor could do cartwheels (Henry VIII). But this stereotype has been perpetuated by plenty of movies. If you go and look at the European fechtbooks you find all kinds of equivelents between footwork and sword usage of two-handed weapons. I don't see the katas from the koryu sword arts jumping around or working angles like you see in FMA.

I would go with whomever got in the first good strike. A solid blow from the European would possibly stun or fell the Samurai allowing the knight to close for the finish, however the Samurai should have speed of movement on his side, which should allow him a more elegant strike at the knights weak points with a better chance to inflict mortal damage

What armor are you talking about? Plate armor pretty much won the arms race against the sword, to the point that those fully armored knights abandoned the use of the shield and were using poleaxes and the like to get enough energy through punch through opponent's armor. In the theoretical sword vs. sword encounter, the knight could trade blows with impunity. I'd go with the knight in that case.

The western technology was simply "better." Japan never reached the level of protection that the best western armor afforded, and I have little doubt that the west could match the capabilities of a katana is sword construction.

This question always comes down to skill, which is a completely unquantifiable factor, in both cases we are talking about warrior castes who were brought up to fight.

Lamont

 

[Grenadier]

The Japanese at the time, never really had access to large amounts of high quality iron ore, which may have played a significant factor in the way they made armor. It certainly did play a role when it came to making steel for weapons.

There are also many incorrect notions about European blades. Despite what some folks may claim, swords were not 20 pound bashers. If a fighter wanted to bash someone with a weapon, he would have employed blunt weapons, such as a mace, a hammer, flail, etc., and not a sword.

If anything, I would guess that one handed swords that weighed more than a few pounds would be unusual indeed, which would put them about at the same weight as their Japanese counterparts, maybe slightly heavier.

 

[grydth]

Unless the edge in weaponry is so pronounced as to make one side virtually invulnerable - and here it was not - battles tend to turn on other things:

Individual effort (or luck).... The arrow in the eye at Hastings. The grenade landing in the Serapis' magazine. The cannon shot severing the bridge cable over the Rhine.

Weather... The huge Prussian Knights could have ridden down most anything.... until a clever opponent made them sit in the hot sun all day before attacking.

Tactics and leadership... the Japanese Samurai were grateful for the Divine Wind as they weren't doing well against the Mongols... the Samurai Army of 1600 was immensely more formidable. What titan - or fool - commands each army?

Support forces... The Ashigaru probably outclassed the serf levies, but what havoc would the crossbowmen have wrought on the Japanese?

Other equipment and conditioning.... for years the Europeans could have murdered folks with musket and cannon fire...until the Japanese learned and improved.

Let's not forget that when we get down to broadsword vs katana, there's one other factor - the warrior wielding it. Not all Samurai were Musashi's anymore than all knights were Prince Valiant's. Training, morale, conditioning..... let's never forget that disease cut down more people than both swords put together.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some links on armour:
http://www.artofchainmail.com/patterns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour) (additional links there)

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm glad to see that some have already put strokes to the page in correcting the heavily entrenched myths that surround European armour and weaponry. Well done those people :tup:.

I sha'n't elaborate further, as most of the major points have already been made, other than to say that much of the reverence surrounding the katana is down to the fact that, given the materials they had to work with, Japanese smiths had the devil of a time making something serviceable. When something is hard to create then it tends to attract 'value' and gather a mythos.

I'm a bit surprised that Bob's view was as it was tho' ! If the owner of such a knowledge-filled site can believe such, what chance have we of educating the non-martial artist .

 

[thardey]

Something else that confuses people about the strength of Japanese metallurgy, compared to European, is the whole "folded blade" construction that was introduced to the public via the Highlander movies.

I remember as a kid when those came out, the "folded steel" blade was magical. In the movies it could cut through 1-inch steel handrails like it was a lightsaber!

Since most people don't even know the difference between Iron and steel, they assumed that the Europeans simply "made steel", and poured it into a sword-shaped mold. Since it didn't "fold" it wasn't magical.

Actually, if you look at some of the Oakeshott pieces, especially the ones that got fished out of rivers, or burial sites, it reveals that from way back (I can't remember how far, but at least the Type X swords, which were from the Viking era) that they used "braided steel" (AKA "pattern welded"), which was as strong, but had different properties than folded steel.

Let's see if I can do this justice in just a few paragraphs.

After you dug and refined the Iron, it came out as a lump. Then you would heat it in a Carbon-rich forge (usually Coal, or charcoal), then pound it into a bar. (Also know today as a "Sword-shaped Object"). Every time you heated and pounded the bar, carbon from the coal would leach into the outer millimeters of the iron bar, creating a steel "case" around the lead. Then, if you were Japanese, you would pound that bar into a sheet, (creating a large surface area of steel), then fold it over, and forge weld it together. Now you have a case of steel around an iron bar, with a layer of steel inside. Fold it 10 times or so, and you get a multiplier effect.
Starting with 3 layers (The "top", the "bottom" and one in the middle.)
3x2-1=5;
5x2-1=9;
9x2-17;
17x2-1=33;
33x2-1=65;
65x2-1=129;
129x2-1=257;
257x2-1= 513;
513x2-1=1025;
1,025x2-1=2,049!

(I subtracted 1 layer each time, because the 2 outer layers would fuse together each time, and become 1 layer in the center.) In 10 folds, you get over 2,000 layers.

The Europeans would take that bar of steel-encased iron, and stretch it out into a thick wire, clip it into 3 even lengths, and braid it together, do this 5 or 6 times, and the steel also gets into the iron. You don't end up with layers of steel within the iron, you end up with "rivers" of steel that run the length of the blade.

Like a corrugated metal sheet, the strength of the metal depends on which way the ribs go. The Japanese style had "ribs" of steel running across the blade primarily, which resulted in more strength along the cutting axis, but was weaker from the flat side of the blade.

The European blade was equally strong from all lateral strikes (metallurgically speaking, not blade geometry), but would have a little more flex, and "spring" back into position. But it was the strongest for thrusting, since that was the way the steel "ribs" would run. (Handy for penetrating chain armor, or finding gaps in plate armor.)

Also, because the swords were designed to attack specific types of armor, they could be tempered differently. Japanese swords tended to be tempered at a higher temperature, which gives them more of a glass-like quality. Extremely sharp, but brittle. European swords tended to be tempered at a lower temperature, which gave them a spring-like quality. Sharp enough, but you don't have to be as careful with them when striking against iron or steel.

The Japanese later replicated this by folding the steel around a soft iron bar. The soft iron could take the shock of the strike, but you could still temper the steel for maximum "sharpness" (martensite, I think is the technical term, IIRC.)

Remember that you could take a folded steel sword, and spring-temper it, then it would behave more like a European sword, or you could take a braided steel sword, and temper it higher, and it would behave more like a Japanese sword. (Again in regards to metallurgy only, not blade geometry.)

In modern technology, we finally have the ability to melt large vats of iron, which means we can simply stir in the desired amount of carbon, which gives us a uniform, predictable grade of steel throughout the bar. That means that any old chunk of spring steel (high carbon -- I use leaf springs, myself), is superior in metallurgy that either braided or folded steel. That gives me more room to play with the type of temper, and blade geometry.

Hope that helps.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I base much of my view of the heavily armored European knight off stuff from folks like Mike Lodes (loved the weapons that made britain series). It's been my findings that Japanese armor was lighter and allowed more mobility than full European plate. I've also read that the average long and 2+ hand swords were minimally sharpened, and used more to knock down and concuss an opponent, rather than the slice and cut word work I've seen more often associated with the Japanese. The design of the European sword is more stab and chop than cut and slice.

That's not saying there aren't excellent European sword arts or styles. But I don't think that someone wearing 400lb+ full plate is going to execute a dainty disarm, spin kick and thrust.

2 guys wearing chainmaile of their respected cultures on the other hand, will have more mobility to effectively maneuver and act.

http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordstypology.html

The first five types and five sub-types have been swords more suited for cutting/chopping than thrusting. With the advent of plate armour, the swords had to become stiffer and more suited for thrusting.

This is from an acknowledged expert who states that medieval european swords were cutting/chopping & thrusting weapons.

The katana was primarily a cutting weapon, or more specifically, a slicing one. However, the katana's moderate curve allows for effective thrusting as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana#Use


I'm very open to correction where I may be wrong, but need some backup documentation to look at.

 

[thardey]

I don't have the proper link, but If you check out myarmoury.com you may find it there. But most battlefield armor weighed about 50-60 lbs. There were the really heavy suits (over 100 lbs.), as well as the heavy swords (10+ lbs., called "bearing swords) that went with them, but they were for ceremonial purposes. (Like the Pope's armor, for instance - lots of protection, little expectation to fight).

Also, some of the heavier gauge armor was only used for jousting at tournament, or they could attack reinforcement plates to their regular battlefield armor, which made it heavier.

Even at 60 lbs, most plate armor was actually bulletproof for the weapons used at the time.

 

[thardey]

Heres some documentation regarding armor weight

http://www.clevelandart.org/educef/art2go/pdf/armor_binder.pdf (page 8)

 

[benj13bowlin]

As far as the sword vs katana debate is concerned I do not have much of an opinion. I wanted to say that the plate armor was not invulnerable to weapons of that day. The swords could not cut through it but many were still sharpened and used against lighter armored opponents. Against plate armor people would mostly use heavy weapons like a battle axe, club, or war hammer. Also anything lighter that a heavy crossbow would not have been able to pierce plate armor.

http://blog.empyree.org/post/2797
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/ufarm/hd_ufarm.htm
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

 

[Blindside]

It's been my findings that Japanese armor was lighter and allowed more mobility than full European plate.

If we are going to use Wikipedia as a source, take a look at the average weight of the O'yoroi armor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-yoroi

It cites 65 pounds. Seems rather comparable to the full plate weight ranges of 40-60/50-70 pounds.... So no dainty disarm, spin kick and thrust for the samurai either.

2 guys wearing chainmaile of their respected cultures on the other hand, will have more mobility to effectively maneuver and act.

A full suit of mail will weigh about the same as well made plate but have poorer weight distribution.

This is from an acknowledged expert who states that medieval european swords were cutting/chopping & thrusting weapons.

Cutting/chopping does not imply bludgeoning. "Slicing" is not better when it comes to penetrating armor. The earliest mail armors were quite suited to defend against the slice. Incidentally, the author of that cited link, Bjorn Hellquist, has also described handling a Type X sword that was sharp enough to cut paper, about 1000 years after construction.
A description by those same two authors on a Type XVIII, you'll note that they do not say "unsharpened" or dull anywhere in the write-up. They do talk about thicker cross-sectional geometries though.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_thames.html

Lamont

 

[Mr. E]

Tactics and leadership... the Japanese Samurai were grateful for the Divine Wind as they weren't doing well against the Mongols...

IIRC, the Mongols had such great losses in the storm because they unable to make a camp on the beach. The Japanese fought them so well that they had to remain on their ships.

 

[Sukerkin]

Okay, gentlemen. I was going to stay out of this one as it's as big a minefield of incomplete research, gross assumptions, myths paraded as fact and mis-cited sources as the history of Korean sword arts.

But I can see, to my surprise, that despite the impeccable martial arts background of the posters on this forum, the understanding of the European martial tradition and the history of it's arms and armour is actually little understood.

I won't fill the post with a gamut of links to websites and provide an academic reading list, as I think that would just stultify proceedings. Instead, I'll make a few, unsupported, assertions and hopefully the discourse will flower from either agreement or disputation with one or all of them:

1) Hollywood is an ***. It is responsible for the promulgation of more false history than any other medium on the planet (including the Korean government). Accept it's output as having more than a touching contact with true history at your peril.

2) I really hope we have some qualified European swordsman on the board who can give some first hand accounts of the weaponry and it's application (Langenschwert ... help!). If not, Google places like Netsword and Sword Forum International and dig through their archives.

3) The finesse and flexability possible in a suit of full harness (plate armour) has to be seen to be believed. Rolls, cartwheels, sprints and above all general combat mobility is incredible to watch. Needless to say, if untrained then you will be as cumbersome as any normal Joe in a Sumo Fat Suit but once trained ... blimey! I was as sceptical as a sceptic on Sceptic Day about the manoever capabilities of a man in plate until I actually saw a pair in harness spar :jaw drops:.

4) To say that a man in full harness was the equivalent of a MBT on the medieval battlefield is not much of an exageration. Unless mobbed to the ground or attacked by the weapons developed in response to it (mauls, pole axes et al) you were pretty immune to attack by less than your peers (some circles even speculate that that's where the well known phrase comes from as only your Peers could contest with you).

5) Whilst not held in the same religious reverence as the 'almighty' katana (bear in mind I'm a Nihon-phile and a student of JSA), the sword as utlilsed by the noble classes was a magnificent technical achievement.

It was, however, the equivalent of the officers pistol of later ages i.e. the weapon of last resort when dealing with armoured enemies. Similarly, the katana, whilst revered as the Soul of the Samurai at the end of the Tokugawan dynasty, was, during the time of endemic civil war, held in much the same light. The bow and the spear were much more highly useful on the field of warfare. The fact that the gun was the favoured weapon for several hundred years is oddly brushed over .

6) The katana is not some super-sword that vastly outclasses any other. My sensei has seen with his own eyes Iwata Sensei (I think it was) slap a shinken sideways in a tub of water and the sword disintegrated i.e. the laminated sections of steel edge and iron core simply came apart because the force came from where it 'shouldn't'. It is superbly adapted to the (insular) field in which it was intended to be used (being second, sorry, third only to the bow and the spear ({whispers} sorry, fourth, I was forgetting the gun{/whispers}).

I love learning to wield the katana but I am not blind to the fact that the metallurgy of the West was superior and if I was pressed would say that the Bastard Sword is the pinnacle of sword development in terms of flexability of use and combative durability.

7) The protective capability of the full harness employed by nobility is another of those 'got to be seen to be believed' occaisions. Tests have been done in the lab that show that even the massively hyped Longbow could not penetrate plate armour. These have been backed up by field tests after protests from people (such as me) weaned on the legend of Agincourt and Crecy claimed that the tests were flawed. Brave volunteers clad in full plate have walked up to people shooting them with bowfire :faints:.

So please, no more of this 'clumsy knight armed with a blunt steel club' nonsense.

 

[grydth]

IIRC, the Mongols had such great losses in the storm because they unable to make a camp on the beach. The Japanese fought them so well that they had to remain on their ships.

While I think this point has some merit, it needs to be taken in context.... and there are smarter tactical moves both of us could make than hijacking the Site Administrator's thread....I'm not thinking there'd be a Divine Wind that would save us from the (Mongol) Thought Admiral.... I'd debate it on War College if you'd like.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

While I think this point has some merit, it needs to be taken in context.... and there are smarter tactical moves both of us could make than hijacking the Site Administrator's thread....I'm not thinking there'd be a Divine Wind that would save us from the (Mongol) Thought Admiral.... I'd debate it on War College if you'd like.

Actually, that'd probably be a good topic there. No worries here though.

Personally, I'm enjoying the thread's progress.

I do have 1 question: What amount of the blade of a Bastard Sword was sharpened and kept sharp?

 

[Blindside]

I do have 1 question: What amount of the blade of a Bastard Sword was sharpened and kept sharp?

Well, you have specialized designs like the estoc which quite literally didn't have a blade, they had a triangular or diamond cross-section, it was entirely designed for thrusting.

Some have a ricasso, sort of like the classic Braveheart claymore (not the basket hilted claymore). In Records of the Medieval Sword, Oakeshott mentions that the Type XVa commonly had a long ricasso, there is also a description of a XVII that has an unusually long ricasso. Most blades appear to be sharpened almost to the hilt. I think alot of the confusion comes in when you see people gripping the blade, either when they are half-swording or doing a murder-stroke, and assume that the blade is dull. One manufacturer describes the differences in sharpening methods as "sword sharp," designed to be used on the battle field and hold up to wear, and "stupid sharp" meaning a danger to the wielder and not being a durable edge.

Lamont

 

[MingTheMerciless]

The same old myths about lumbering knight in armor and bone crushing cumbersome blunt 10 pound bastard sword and Mythical and Almighty Katana that wieght less than one pound can cut through a Tank is pure ******** .

Back in Europe , Knights fought enemy from all corner of the eastern frontier , repelling enemy such as Nomadic Army such as the Magyar and the Mongol and also Muslim Army such as Turk , Saracen and Moors and also including each other and as for Japan , most of the time , they only fought among themselves , until the Mongol arrive .

Each time European Armor improve , new weapon have to be made , invented and modified to counter it . There are many different kind of European sword such as the zweihander , claymore , broadsword , bastard sword , falchion and others . Japanese and European Blade can be of varying quality ( depends on the availabillity of metals and current time economy and also how mcuh money are the individual willing to pour in to get a good quality blade . ) . But then since armor keep improving , most knight would rather go with axe ( poleaxe etc ) and mace ( morning star etc ) . But then since most katana seem to have a better single edge curve compare to most european sword , it had a faster swinging rate . And most weapon tend to weight around 3 pounds and a 10 pound weapon is uselss for combat ( maybe unless you get a few lucky hit on a moving foe ) .

Any soldier would sharpen their weapon as much as they can before they go into battle as a sharpen weapon save a individual life .

And again , theory of knight needed to be lift onto a horse with a crane is another pure victorian ******** . If that was the case , such armor are completely useless and impractical for battle . And Knight were elite of that time , and I dun think any king or queen or lord would sacrifice their best warrior just like that .

Plate armor , unlike chainmail whereby the weight and pressure were heavily focus on the shoulder , weight and pressure were evenly distributed across the body , they can still easily do a cartwheel in it and beside plate armor can resist nearly all kind of attack such as bodkin arrow from a longbow , bolt froma a crossbow ( no one will use such good quality metal on a arrow or bolt ) , able to easily deflect sword and spear attack ( it is difficult to accurately thrust at a moving target and most of the spear attack simply just slide past amoving piece of smooth metal and knight ain't gonna be sitting duck there and wait for a accurate spear thrust ) and also able to withstand early gunpowder weapon from a longer distance ( a great moral inflicting and short to mid range weapon ) but mostly only rich knight can afford such a luxury as plate armor are comparatively harder to made and repair compare to a chainmail .

And back in Europe , Knight were very comfortable in their armor but when having a campaign in the middle east , most of to give up a little bit of this protection as most of them are being roasted under the armor . As for the samurai armor , I have no idea .

Again it also depend on the individual fighting skill of the knight and samurai . I am also a kendo student once befoe I go over to HEMMA . ( just a newbie or recruit , currently do not have the time to devote to HEMMA , so again Langenschwert ... help!) So a Bastard sword can equally match the Katana .