4 ms·

I think the GP meant civilian Americans chopping other Americans heads with katanas. Also isn't the katana mostly stabbing weapon? Slicing someone in two requi

I think the GP meant civilian Americans chopping other Americans heads with katanas. Also isn't the katana mostly stabbing weapon? Slicing someone in two requires too much effort IMO.

douche 10y ago
I was under the impression that katanas are primarily slashing weapons[1], as is generally the case with long single-edged blades [1] http://www.systemofstrategy.com/articles/the-truth-about-tantos.html http://www.systemofstrategy.com/articles/the-truth-about-tan...
greenshackle2 10y ago
From the little kendo I did, it's both, but mostly slashing. You wouldn't so much slice them in two as open them up from shoulder to hip, if you can. If you're going for the neck though, the basic technique is throat-stabbing, not slicing the head off. If the enemy has good armor, I guess you'd have to go stabby, I can't imagine a katana can slice through good steel plates (or mail, really). But 1) the spear is the stabby weapon of choice when not in close quarters. From horseback you'd only use the katana to slice. Certainly, you wouldn't try stabbing someone with a katana from horseback. And 2) the Japanese mostly didn't have excellent armor. They had shitty iron, so making good steel was very expensive for them. They couldn't have mass-produced steel plate armor. The amazing thing about katanas is not that they're better than european swords (they're not), it's that they were able to make good weapons at all out of shit-tier iron.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >The amazing thing about katanas is not that they're better than european swords (they're not), it's that they were able to make good weapons at all out of shit-tier iron. How are they not better? I'm pretty sure European swords never had that neat feature of higher hardness at the blade than at the back side, giving the sword better strength while still staying sharp on the cutting edge. Katanas are really different swords from medieval European swords, designed for an entirely different type of fighting. European swords are a product of the type of warfare they waged, which involved a lot of metal armor with knights. A katana wouldn't work too well here, so European swords are designed to crush armor and to be good at stabbing straight through the armor. Katanas were designed to use against unarmored or lightly-armored foes (I think Japanese samurai armor was basically leather), and are designed to be used in slashing motions more. I'd say that for their purpose and their style of fighting, katanas are definitely better. But against heavily armored opponents, they're just not the right weapon.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - foobarrio 10y ago
    Some European swords do show a degree of differential tempering and differential hardening. I don't know what technique they used though. IIRC correctly if you polish some of the swords the same way you do a JP blade, you get hamon-esque patterns: http://www.archaeologie-online.de/magazin/fundpunkt/forschung/2006/scotts-talisman-damastsalat-und-nanodraht/seite-3/ http://www.archaeologie-online.de/magazin/fundpunkt/forschun... Also remember that JP swords are a few hundred years more modern than what we typically think of when we think EU swords. However the Vikings had some knowledge of carbon/crucible steel making as early as 9th-10th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfberht_swords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfberht_swords Masamune was like 14th century with the famous Maramasa and Kotestu being 16th century onward.
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    > How are they not better? I'm pretty sure European swords never had that neat feature of higher hardness at the blade than at the back side, giving the sword better strength while still staying sharp on the cutting edge. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Any well made sword of that era would have a softer core and harder edges. Japanese swordsmiths used folding to do that, a type of pattern welding. At the time swordsmiths all across Europe and Asia were using different, equally good pattern welding techniques. The Japanese technique was one of the more complicated ones, because they had worse iron. Damascus blades are the best example of pattern welding. They were made of the highest quality steel (at the time). Japaneses swords were well made, and comparable to European swords of the time, but not better or worse.

I think the GP meant civilian Americans chopping other Americans heads with katanas. Also isn't the katana mostly stabbing weapon? Slicing someone in two requires too much effort IMO.

douche 10y ago

I was under the impression that katanas are primarily slashing weapons[1], as is generally the case with long single-edged blades [1] http://www.systemofstrategy.com/articles/the-truth-about-tantos.html http://www.systemofstrategy.com/articles/the-truth-about-tan...

greenshackle2 10y ago

From the little kendo I did, it's both, but mostly slashing. You wouldn't so much slice them in two as open them up from shoulder to hip, if you can. If you're going for the neck though, the basic technique is throat-stabbing, not slicing the head off. If the enemy has good armor, I guess you'd have to go stabby, I can't imagine a katana can slice through good steel plates (or mail, really). But 1) the spear is the stabby weapon of choice when not in close quarters. From horseback you'd only use the katana to slice. Certainly, you wouldn't try stabbing someone with a katana from horseback. And 2) the Japanese mostly didn't have excellent armor. They had shitty iron, so making good steel was very expensive for them. They couldn't have mass-produced steel plate armor. The amazing thing about katanas is not that they're better than european swords (they're not), it's that they were able to make good weapons at all out of shit-tier iron.

Grishnakh 10y ago
>The amazing thing about katanas is not that they're better than european swords (they're not), it's that they were able to make good weapons at all out of shit-tier iron. How are they not better? I'm pretty sure European swords never had that neat feature of higher hardness at the blade than at the back side, giving the sword better strength while still staying sharp on the cutting edge. Katanas are really different swords from medieval European swords, designed for an entirely different type of fighting. European swords are a product of the type of warfare they waged, which involved a lot of metal armor with knights. A katana wouldn't work too well here, so European swords are designed to crush armor and to be good at stabbing straight through the armor. Katanas were designed to use against unarmored or lightly-armored foes (I think Japanese samurai armor was basically leather), and are designed to be used in slashing motions more. I'd say that for their purpose and their style of fighting, katanas are definitely better. But against heavily armored opponents, they're just not the right weapon.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarrio 10y ago
  Some European swords do show a degree of differential tempering and differential hardening. I don't know what technique they used though. IIRC correctly if you polish some of the swords the same way you do a JP blade, you get hamon-esque patterns: http://www.archaeologie-online.de/magazin/fundpunkt/forschung/2006/scotts-talisman-damastsalat-und-nanodraht/seite-3/ http://www.archaeologie-online.de/magazin/fundpunkt/forschun... Also remember that JP swords are a few hundred years more modern than what we typically think of when we think EU swords. However the Vikings had some knowledge of carbon/crucible steel making as early as 9th-10th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfberht_swords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfberht_swords Masamune was like 14th century with the famous Maramasa and Kotestu being 16th century onward.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  > How are they not better? I'm pretty sure European swords never had that neat feature of higher hardness at the blade than at the back side, giving the sword better strength while still staying sharp on the cutting edge. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Any well made sword of that era would have a softer core and harder edges. Japanese swordsmiths used folding to do that, a type of pattern welding. At the time swordsmiths all across Europe and Asia were using different, equally good pattern welding techniques. The Japanese technique was one of the more complicated ones, because they had worse iron. Damascus blades are the best example of pattern welding. They were made of the highest quality steel (at the time). Japaneses swords were well made, and comparable to European swords of the time, but not better or worse.