Samurai vs. Kali Warrior

[Warp Spider]

Medieval blades were more of a blunt weapon then actually sharp. They'd try to bash opponents bones and tear muscles, not actually cut.

 

When using plate armor, a sword was quite useless. The most you could do was "half sword", where you grabbed the sword at the blade and tried to pierce through the plate.

 

Katanas, on the otherhand where mostly used to cut oppontants, often creating mortal wounds Katanas tended to be better made, because the japanese lacked good iron, they had to make up for it.

 

Uhh, that's not really true.

 

"Long Sword" is a specific type of sword similar to a "Broad Sword" which was a common weapon among well equipped infantry in Europe during the Middle Ages. The "Long Sword" was a "gentlemans" version, thinner and quicker, but considerably heftier than a rapier or sabre. It was generally carried by knights or other noble persons. A "short sword" was a shorter version of the "long sword," for people who didn't care to swing a blade that was nearly as tall as they were.

 

A broad or long sword would generally carve through most plate armor if swung with a good bit of force. Plate armor provided good protection against bludgeoning weapons such as clubs or flails, but was quite poor againt edged weapons. (though chain armor was often worn underneath to provide protection from stabbing attacks)

 

Europe possessed far superior metallurgy than the east during the middle ages, when "long swords" and "short swords" were made, thus the statement about how it is a superior weapon. They held an keener edge longer and would remove the edge from an eastern weapon if they clashed.

 

Katanas have a much more advanced forging method, but their metallurgy at the time was far inferior so the end result was a weaker blade that would not hold an edge as well. You are correct that they were "folded." They would take two different "blade shaped" metals and pound them together. This made it flatter but wider, of course. They then folded it in half to counter that so it was less flat but thinner. They then pounded it flat again. This process was repeated numerous times.

[Stold]

I was under the impression that katana's held their edge exceptionally well, but the edge could not be used for blocking or parrying because it would chip.

 

Oh, and I also thought that medieval slashing weapons were horrible against plate, hence the use of the pike?

[Black Dragon]

Come on guys this is all hypothetical! its OK to have an opinion right? If all were gonna do is say "Style doesn't matter, the better trained warrior will always win" then there is no point in having this post. Just give your opinion and give valid points to back it up.

[JerryLove]

As for a Long or short sword being Better then a Karate... Wasp, What are you smoking?

I'm gonna guess that by "karate" you mean "a Katana"?

For sword play, maybe a long or short sword are more fun, but for the effectiveness, Katana’s are the better weapon by far! Better made, and they greatly improve upon curve design from the Scimitars of the Middle-East.

Well, your first problem is that you've just declared a Katana better than all other long-bladed swords... A claim I certainly challenge you to support. I'd gladly put a good Wootz or bar-rod sword up against a katana in whatever test for 'construction quality" you like... Similarly, the sabre showed itself a more reliable weapon because of its ability to bend.

Medieval blades were more of a blunt weapon then actually sharp. They'd try to bash opponents bones and tear muscles, not actually cut.

 

They were usually pointy... but yes, the fighting blades of the armored infantry were not cuting weapons. Cutting is negated by chain or plate armor.

When using plate armor, a sword was quite useless. The most you could do was "half sword", where you grabbed the sword at the blade and tried to pierce through the plate.

 

This is not a true statement. You had two basic strategies for penitrating armor (and I presume you are referring to the havy armors like clatter-plate). Half-sword fighting (and indeed, the rise of some of the small lithe swords) was intended to "slip through cracks" (such as the holes in the visor) and puncture the underlying armor (if any). The other option was simpy o bludgeon with the sword; attempting to inflict damage through the plate with hammer-like blows.

 

The reality remains that the armored knight was a tank on the battlefield; nerely impossable to kill, shy of piling on top of him, because armor worked... at least until crossbows and composite bows; the Mongols had very effective counter-strategies to knights.

Katanas, on the otherhand where mostly used to cut oppontants, often creating mortal wounds Katanas tended to be better made, because the japanese lacked good iron, they had to make up for it.

 

I have to question what "better" is.

Katanas were eventually adapted with thicker blades in order to battle opponents with armor, though I'm not sure when the change took place. You can even check out some fairly historically accurate anime, such as the Rurouni kenshin OVA's. Katana's definately don't look like whimpy thin swords.

Please refrain from referencing entertainment for establishing historical claims. Regardles of size, a katana (or its larger cousins like the no-dachi) were draw-cut weapons and, as such, not functional for penitrating armor.

Apparently katana's are "folded" when forged, though I don't know a whole lot about the actual forging method.

The short version... you take a piece of iron and beat it till the carbon comes out. This gives you a flexable but soft piece of metal. You pount it into a plate and put a blate of high carbon iron on top of it (sturdy but brittle). You heat-weld them together then fold your sheet in half like a piece of paper. Pound it flat and fold it again... and again... until you are done.

I do know that a paste was applied during the last phase of tempering in order to harden the edge and outer sides of the blade while the spine remained flexible and would give, therefore not be brittle.

 

Japanese swords were brittle compared to their western counterparts.

"Long Sword" is a specific type of sword similar to a "Broad Sword" which was a common weapon among well equipped infantry in Europe during the Middle Ages.

 

Actually, the infantries of the various feudall lords relied more on pole-arms.

The "Long Sword" was a "gentlemans" version, thinner and quicker, but considerably heftier than a rapier or sabre.

I'm sure you can point me at a museam displaying some of these "bigger but faster" swords?

A "short sword" was a shorter version of the "long sword," for people who didn't care to swing a blade that was nearly as tall as they were.

Swords "as tall as they were" fall into the "great weapons" category. No one carried a great weapon except when marching off to battle (a good example is the scottish claymore). Great-sword were primiarily intended to de-horse knigths; though the swiss mercenary army had a particualrly good tactic they commonly emplyed infolving armored soldiers with great-swords supported by infantry with polearms.

A broad or long sword would generally carve through most plate armor if swung with a good bit of force. Plate armor provided good protection against bludgeoning weapons such as clubs or flails, but was quite poor againt edged weapons. (though chain armor was often worn underneath to provide protection from stabbing attacks)

 

This is simply an untrue statement. One cannot "cut" though plate at all (pnumatic knfie-press aside). You have obviously never even worked forging the materials involved

Europe possessed far superior metallurgy than the east during the middle ages

 

Some parts did. More importantly, they had invented the blast furnace.

I was under the impression that katana's held their edge exceptionally well, but the edge could not be used for blocking or parrying because it would chip.

All swords will chip if used that way. That's why you actually use what's referred to as a "slap-block" with a sword (a European heavy sword anyway)...

[Drunken Monkey]

just out of interest and because i'm feeling too lazy to do my own research, does anyone know how the old chinese guys used to make swords and the like?

[Treebranch]

The Katana or Nodachi or whatever Japanese Sword you want was not made for bashing or blocking another sword. The technique is to slip the other persons blade and guide it away. This is much faster than blocking the sword and you use the other person now changed angle to your advantage. There are many ways to fight with a Katana, if you've studied this, you'd know what I'm talking about. The Japanese Sword during the Warring States Period were of excellent quality. Basically the Katana is a very strong 3 foot razor blade and if you know it's limitations it is one of the world best swords. I have no doubt that Europeans had great swords, especially if they were made of Spanish steel which are my ancestors by the way. But the European Martial Arts were lost to the advent of the gun and any credible historian will say the like. If any of you know of any true European Martial Artists practicing today, please by all means send me the information. The other thing about learning how to fight with a weapon is that once you understand the proper body movements adapting to other weapons is fairly quick. Any good system of fighting taught the same body movements over and over in order for them to become second nature so that a warrior in the field could pick up any weapon and use it. I am of course talking about piercing weapons and blades.

 

About penetrating armor. Japanese Swordsmanship isn't about slashing alone. It's also about levers and grappling with the weapon and disarming your enemy. Then you find the gaps in the armor and kill him. I wasn't comparing a Knight to a Samurai, we were merely discussing the different blade and fighting systems.

 

That's great that a lot of you are so knowledgable about European weapons and such, that's great. I like that stuff as well. In my opinion the Japanese Sword is the best for cutting through flesh. It's design and folded metal are the recipe for a very sharp and strong blade.

[JerryLove]

This is much faster than blocking the sword and you use the other person now changed angle to your advantage.

 

That comment is both situational and variant based on tactic. There are times, styles, and situations where defelcting (blocking) is neccessairy or warranted.

There are many ways to fight with a Katana, if you've studied this, you'd know what I'm talking about. The Japanese Sword during the Warring States Period were of excellent quality. Basically the Katana is a very strong 3 foot razor blade and if you know it's limitations it is one of the world best swords.

 

That certainly was teh intent. In while I doubt you will find many with the 2-3 angstrom edge found on a modern razor; it's an accurate generalization fo the weapon.

I have no doubt that Europeans had great swords, especially if they were made of Spanish steel which are my ancestors by the way.

 

The Spanish bade some excellent metal, particularly the Sarisens (Spanish Arabs). The Vikings also stand out for their skill and knowledge at sword making.

But the European Martial Arts were lost to the advent of the gun and any credible historian will say the like. If any of you know of any true European Martial Artists practicing today, please by all means send me the information.

 

Several such groups were mentioned by another poster. I'd fist repeat his suggetion you look at the Historical Armed Combat Association (https://www.thehaca.com).

The other thing about learning how to fight with a weapon is that once you understand the proper body movements adapting to other weapons is fairly quick. Any good system of fighting taught the same body movements over and over in order for them to become second nature so that a warrior in the field could pick up any weapon and use it. I am of course talking about piercing weapons and blades.

 

I can't completely agree. While there are similar ideas to deal with; I think these similarities are weapon-to-weaponless as well. I'd assert that teh transition from (say) claymore to epee is at least as signifigant as the transition from unarmed to (say) katana.

That's great that a lot of you are so knowledgable about European weapons and such, that's great. I like that stuff as well. In my opinion the Japanese Sword is the best for cutting through flesh.

 

I tend toward the scalpel and the cleaver personally; at last among unpowered blades.

[Treebranch]

In response to this: Quote:

 

This is much faster than blocking the sword and you use the other person now changed angle to your advantage.

 

That comment is both situational and variant based on tactic. There are times, styles, and situations where defelcting (blocking) is neccessairy or warranted.

 

Well in Japanese Swordsmanship you don't block the way you might think. You move as you deflect, if you are close to their tsuba it's now a grappling match or test of speed. The Katana is not made for blocking per say, because you are constantly moving off line of the attacking, your sword in there to guide their blade away from you. It's a very slippery system of sword fighting, very fluid and effective.

[JerryLove]

Well in Japanese Swordsmanship you don't block the way you might think. You move as you deflect, if you are close to their tsuba it's now a grappling match or test of speed. The Katana is not made for blocking per say, because you are constantly moving off line of the attacking, your sword in there to guide their blade away from you. It's a very slippery system of sword fighting, very fluid and effective.

 

I do understand; and have put some time into kedo. I had presumed you ment the "not blocking" to be always better for all swords, to which I disagree. Off teh top of my head, I cannot easily thing of a situation where one would seek to slap-block with a Katana from Kendo training; so there I do not disagree.

[Treebranch]

Even Kendo is not a true sword fighting art, it is mostly a sport. Kenjutsu, Iaijutsu are more of what I was speaking of.