Katana vs Broadsword...test cutting- National Geographic

kisak · 24th September 2009, 01:51 AM

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 · 24th September 2009, 02:30 AM

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 · 24th September 2009, 05:00 AM

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 · 24th September 2009, 05:11 AM

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.

24th September 2009, 01:51 AM	#1
kisak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Stockholm Posts: 182	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.

24th September 2009, 02:30 AM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

24th September 2009, 05:00 AM	#3
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	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.

24th September 2009, 05:11 AM	#4
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	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.