Katana vs Broadsword...test cutting- National Geographic

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by kisak

Well, how long does it take to make a katana, if you're just aiming for a good weapon (and not an "art sword")? How long does a 15th century arming sword take to make? Looking at the cost of making modern day replicas I guess a katana might take slightly longer, but without any numbers for comparison it seems meaningless to try and guess if the difference is meaningful or not.

The armour bit seems odd as well. The Japanese did have iron armour after all, so it seems decidedly odd that they'd stick to a sword which risked catastrophic failure if you accidentally hit your opponents armour. And even without armour I find such a sword an oddity, given that you might always happen to hit your opponents sword, coin purse teeth, some buckle or jewellery, etc. (This isn't to say that I believe the Japanese would simply try to cut through iron lamellar. As far as I've understood it, both in Japan and in Europe, the primary answer to iron armour was to attack where the armour wasn't.)

As for my own experiences, modern ZNKR iaido and kendo kata both avoid edge-on-edge contact (from what I've understood, European longsword fencing does the same), but there's a number of blade-on-blade techniques, some done with a decent amount of force behind them. And for what it's worth, some test cutting I've done with a cheap, modern, Chinese replica has resulted in a few more-than-glancing blows hitting the unyielding chopping block, without the blade cracking. Not traditionally made of course, but even with the improvements in metallurgy over the year it seems to me that a budget offering from China wouldn't be all that good compared to the real thing.

So while there are indeed some who will exaggerate the performance of the katana, I don't feel that the answer to that is to exaggerate in the other direction (such as some of these points may be, or like the last paragraph you wrote about the European blade). Sadly, such often seems to happen when any comparisons are made between sword A and sword B, and it's one reason why I'm sceptical about the possible usefulness of such.

Think about the process of making a Katana, do you really think any 'good' complete Katana didn't take three times the amount of hours to create that a good broadsword would?


The damage that hitting a 'coin purse tooth' or small buckle would do is probobly not going to 'write off' the blade, even piercing v thin metal sheet like a can opener. but IMveryHO thats not the question here.
The hard sharp edge of a katana is brittle. The hard sharp edge of a european sword is decidedly less so.
Yes, the first choice if you block with a Katana is for the impact to be on the wide blunt top side, and I'm sure we've all seen Katanas that show scars from this behavior.
But battle is battle, and sometimes you just have to block any way you can.
A hard edge to edge strike can leave cracks, or sections of the cutting edge snapped out.

Also, a Katana has so little flex in the blade, a glancing blow can crack the cutting edge and buckle the blade. A similar blow might if you're very unlucky leave a kink in the european blade, but as I pointed out, you could literally use a lump hammer to straighten it.

I've never broken a bent antique European blade, and I've often been a lot less than gentle in straightening them.

My point is that there is no 'helpful' comparison unless you include the entire 'story'.
Katana, very sharp, inflexible, fragile, time consuming to make.
Broadsword (european longsword), strong, flexible, easy to maintain, quick to make, durable, versatile.

No contest!

Don't get me wrong, I DO like Japanese weapons.
I just think they are massively overrated.

[M ELEY]

When comparing any weapon, likewise the environment and culture has to be taken in context. All this "ninja vs pirate" theories are so annoying. The katana was a product of its culture and fighting styles of it's people. Likewise is the European broadsword.

Case in point, maritime weapons. In the early days of "Fighting Sail", almost any sword was dragged to sea. What became apparent over time was in the tight confines of a rolling ship's deck wall to wall in fighting sailors, a short typically-straight edged cutlass with an almost blunt blade except for the tip (perfect for striking the head and knocking an opponent senseless as well as lacerating the scalp) became the preferred weapon. Could a katana or a broadsword have been used in this environment? Of course, but not to as great of an affect. My 2 cents, anyway. Still, I appreciate the uses and history of both weapons...

[fearn]

Anyone know what the Japanese wokou pirates used? I thought it was a katana...

[M ELEY]

I believe you may be right, but again, this scores with the argument about different cultures. Chinese and Japanese pirates typically didn't launch boarding parties nor swarm onto the decks of European ships. The junks they attacked were smaller vessels with a more "open floor plan".
I was aware of Japanese pirates, but not what they were called. Thanks for the info, Fearn.

[kisak]

Atlantia, I really can't see how the katana could take all that much longer to make, no. We have a slightly higher degree of complexity in the hilt assembly, so a bit longer seems reasonable, but anything of that order?

As for the risk of battle damage, yes, as the Japanese seem to have hardened their edges to a higher hardness, a reduced toughness will be the expected result. However, isn't it pretty far to go from that to say that using the sword against someone in iron armour means "potential catastrophic damage to blade, as does any even glancing blow to solid object". Given the presence of iron armour on Japanese battlefields, it seems to me that this would imply that the katana would be basically worthless for its original function (as a soldier's sidearm). The intent may have been to simply point out that the katana is slightly more brittle, but depending on what one considers a glancing blow, what is said may imply considerably more.

[fearn]

Gotta remember folks, neither the long sword nor the katana (nor especially the broadsword) were designed to hack straight through iron armor. Traditional samurai katana skills (katori shinto ryu) emphasized aiming for gaps in the armor, especially wrist, face, waist and such. Longswords were actually used more like prybars (at least in the german longsword tradition) and aimed again at the gaps in the armor. In both cases, other weapons were specifically designed for the anti-armor role, and going sword against armor required a fair amount of skill and luck.

What's the sword for? Lightly armored opponents. On most battlefields, most of the fighters can't afford much more than a helmet and chest protector. In that environment, a sword is a good weapon, particularly if you happen to be wearing full armor.

Best,

F

[Nathaniel]

The Katana I agree is overrated to the point of world idolization...it is easily the most expensive of antique weapons due to it's popularity. Whenever I heard of something Japanese made I always think three things: small, well made and expensive. Traditionally the Katana was such a time intensive project was because of their poor quality of ore. A good blade is a good blade ...we find them in many cultures.

[Nathaniel]

One thing you have to respect though with the Japanese record keeping...it is amazing the level of detail you can get into with studying Japanese swords.