34 ms·

> So in a sense, the superiority of Katana swords is a myth? It depends on what you mean by superiority. Perfect for local needs? Yes. Very good against an una

> So in a sense, the superiority of Katana swords is a myth? It depends on what you mean by superiority. Perfect for local needs? Yes. Very good against an unarmoured target? Yes. It is also an important status symbol because of its price and artistic beauty. It also requires some amount of skill to use, because of its single edge and the angle at which you need to strike in order to cut. That increased its status as an elite tool. They managed to do something that would not have been possible in this part of the world without the elite craftsmen. In that sense, it was superior to its competitors. But was it superior to other swords? It's comparing apples and oranges. It could not deal with the heavy armor seen in the West. But many Western swords could not either. Some could because they were heavier or pointier... but that would have made them poor against unarmoured or low armored targets. You couldn't use it on horseback either, but the Japanese had longer versions for that. It was a very good and beautiful tool, that's what it was.

viridian 6y ago
I don't think this is true if you turn your eye towards later sword technology. By the 14th century, Swiss sabers were simply more generally performant than just about anything that came before. They could stab almost as well as a long sword, and slash almost as well as a scimitar, with good balance, and the added advantage of having both a cross guard, and a light basket hand guard. (Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears in large scale melee combat, but they still evolved like every other piece of military technology, and earlier designs like the katana have a lot of obvious design flaws when compared to what you see on the battlefield in the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries)
- fouc 6y ago
  Swiss Saber looks to be primarily one handed, whereas Katana is two handed. They both have somewhat similar long/curved blades though. And they both have the cross guard.
- Raphmedia 6y ago
  By competitors I meant locally or in areas with similar issues of poor raw materials. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The Swiss saber was made to deal with similar targets as the Katana, so it performs in similar ways with the added benefit of having all the features you would expect on a western sword. Another sword that is quite similar to the Katana is the Kriegsmessers, which is also two handed. Both benefited from the advance in European warfare technologies while the Katana kind of stalled in it's perceived "perfected" form. Swords are over-romanticized now but I believe that it was also the case in the past. Any hardened soldier could have told you that spears or pikes where what won wars. Yet it's the sword we see and hear the most in art. The myths surrounding the Katana are probably as old as the sword itself.
- giardini 6y ago
  viridian says "Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears..." Yes, and even inferior to the staff. Here is a (1599!) plea to Englishmen to cease wastefully killing each other in duels (esp. with Italian mores/swords/styles) b/c those swords/styles are unsuited to generalized warfare (and thus provide no useful training for the common defense) and also are inferior to other more common weapons/styles, esp. the short staff, in single combat: "Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question ... the short staff has the vantage against the battle axe, black bill, or halberd: the short staff has the advantage, by reason of the nimbleness and length: he will strike and thrust freely, and in better and swifter time than can the battle axe, black bill, or halberd, and by reason of his judgement, distance and time, fight safe. And this resolve upon, the short staff is the best weapon against all manner of weapons, the forest bill excepted...Also the short staff has advantage against two swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets(19)... From George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html wherein Silver analyzes the interaction of various weapons in great detail, underscores the advantages of the short staff in most situations and in doing so presages Theodore Roosevelt: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far!'" https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a...
  - user5994461 6y ago
    He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield. I expect stick would have the problem of not killing. A sword can easily stab someone dead or maim and any hit is (significant) bleeding. A hammer could bludgeon someone dead in a hit. But a staff? I don't know about that. Yes you can hit somebody in a duel from afar and keep your distance, yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you.
    - Raphmedia 6y ago
      I believe that you are downplaying the effect of being hit across the head with a staff. It is no different than a hammer in the sense that you can break someone's limbs and kill them with a blow to the head. Combat staffs were not non-lethal. Take for example the Bo that can easily break bones and can bend even a Katana with a proper strike. Even pool cues will kill when used in bar fights.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vkou 6y ago
> It could not deal with the heavy armor seen in the West. But many Western swords could not either. Some could because they were heavier or pointier... but that would have made them poor against unarmoured or low armored targets. You couldn't use it on horseback either, but the Japanese had longer versions for that. That's what different sword grips were for, though. It is common to grasp a sword by the blade, in order to parry, or to use it as a kind of spear, or even to reverse the grip on the weapon, and striking with the edges of the cross-guard - as you would with a hammer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGr0aE7UQpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGr0aE7UQpQ
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > That's what different sword grips were for, though. It is common to grasp a sword by the blade, in order to parry, or to use it as a kind of spear, or even to reverse the grip on the weapon, and striking with the edges of the cross-guard - as you would with a hammer. In a serious battle however, you'd simply call the squire to fetch you a war-hammer, a spear, or whatever other weapon you needed. European weapons are fascinating: they had a different weapon for every kind of battle situation. One polearm to pull people off of horses. Another polearm to break through shields and armor. Etc. etc.
dragontamer 6y ago
The king of weapons has always been the polearm. The Halberd for Europeans, the Qiang in China, the Naginata of Japan. Across the world, it has been demonstrated that to make a "better sword", you put the sword on the end of a long stick. Such a weapon requires less training, and the greater amount of wood makes it lighter and cheaper to manufacture. The additional swing weight allowed Halberd users to regularly break shields and punch through armor. Length and swing-weight are key. ------- Swords almost universally were status symbols. It was expensive to make a sword no matter what culture you're in, so carrying a fancy sword indicated nobility. Smaller weapons (and smaller shields) like swords were for status and every day situations. Bucklers / Rapiers don't make any sense as a battlefield weapon. But when you consider the day-to-day life, walking around a city... the smaller blade and smaller shield suddenly make sense.

viridian 6y ago

I don't think this is true if you turn your eye towards later sword technology. By the 14th century, Swiss sabers were simply more generally performant than just about anything that came before. They could stab almost as well as a long sword, and slash almost as well as a scimitar, with good balance, and the added advantage of having both a cross guard, and a light basket hand guard. (Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears in large scale melee combat, but they still evolved like every other piece of military technology, and earlier designs like the katana have a lot of obvious design flaws when compared to what you see on the battlefield in the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries)

fouc 6y ago
Swiss Saber looks to be primarily one handed, whereas Katana is two handed. They both have somewhat similar long/curved blades though. And they both have the cross guard.
Raphmedia 6y ago
By competitors I meant locally or in areas with similar issues of poor raw materials. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The Swiss saber was made to deal with similar targets as the Katana, so it performs in similar ways with the added benefit of having all the features you would expect on a western sword. Another sword that is quite similar to the Katana is the Kriegsmessers, which is also two handed. Both benefited from the advance in European warfare technologies while the Katana kind of stalled in it's perceived "perfected" form. Swords are over-romanticized now but I believe that it was also the case in the past. Any hardened soldier could have told you that spears or pikes where what won wars. Yet it's the sword we see and hear the most in art. The myths surrounding the Katana are probably as old as the sword itself.
giardini 6y ago
viridian says "Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears..." Yes, and even inferior to the staff. Here is a (1599!) plea to Englishmen to cease wastefully killing each other in duels (esp. with Italian mores/swords/styles) b/c those swords/styles are unsuited to generalized warfare (and thus provide no useful training for the common defense) and also are inferior to other more common weapons/styles, esp. the short staff, in single combat: "Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question ... the short staff has the vantage against the battle axe, black bill, or halberd: the short staff has the advantage, by reason of the nimbleness and length: he will strike and thrust freely, and in better and swifter time than can the battle axe, black bill, or halberd, and by reason of his judgement, distance and time, fight safe. And this resolve upon, the short staff is the best weapon against all manner of weapons, the forest bill excepted...Also the short staff has advantage against two swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets(19)... From George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html wherein Silver analyzes the interaction of various weapons in great detail, underscores the advantages of the short staff in most situations and in doing so presages Theodore Roosevelt: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far!'" https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a...
- user5994461 6y ago
  He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield. I expect stick would have the problem of not killing. A sword can easily stab someone dead or maim and any hit is (significant) bleeding. A hammer could bludgeon someone dead in a hit. But a staff? I don't know about that. Yes you can hit somebody in a duel from afar and keep your distance, yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you.
  - Raphmedia 6y ago
    I believe that you are downplaying the effect of being hit across the head with a staff. It is no different than a hammer in the sense that you can break someone's limbs and kill them with a blow to the head. Combat staffs were not non-lethal. Take for example the Bo that can easily break bones and can bend even a Katana with a proper strike. Even pool cues will kill when used in bar fights.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

vkou 6y ago

> It could not deal with the heavy armor seen in the West. But many Western swords could not either. Some could because they were heavier or pointier... but that would have made them poor against unarmoured or low armored targets. You couldn't use it on horseback either, but the Japanese had longer versions for that. That's what different sword grips were for, though. It is common to grasp a sword by the blade, in order to parry, or to use it as a kind of spear, or even to reverse the grip on the weapon, and striking with the edges of the cross-guard - as you would with a hammer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGr0aE7UQpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGr0aE7UQpQ

dragontamer 6y ago
> That's what different sword grips were for, though. It is common to grasp a sword by the blade, in order to parry, or to use it as a kind of spear, or even to reverse the grip on the weapon, and striking with the edges of the cross-guard - as you would with a hammer. In a serious battle however, you'd simply call the squire to fetch you a war-hammer, a spear, or whatever other weapon you needed. European weapons are fascinating: they had a different weapon for every kind of battle situation. One polearm to pull people off of horses. Another polearm to break through shields and armor. Etc. etc.

dragontamer 6y ago

The king of weapons has always been the polearm. The Halberd for Europeans, the Qiang in China, the Naginata of Japan. Across the world, it has been demonstrated that to make a "better sword", you put the sword on the end of a long stick. Such a weapon requires less training, and the greater amount of wood makes it lighter and cheaper to manufacture. The additional swing weight allowed Halberd users to regularly break shields and punch through armor. Length and swing-weight are key. ------- Swords almost universally were status symbols. It was expensive to make a sword no matter what culture you're in, so carrying a fancy sword indicated nobility. Smaller weapons (and smaller shields) like swords were for status and every day situations. Bucklers / Rapiers don't make any sense as a battlefield weapon. But when you consider the day-to-day life, walking around a city... the smaller blade and smaller shield suddenly make sense.