Nice. The vid is called "Why I don't like katanas". It is all about why he doesn't like katanas. He doesn't purport to say "longswords are better than katanas". The reason why there are so many people who state that "the katana is better than the longsword" is almost certainly, in my opinion, down to the fact that those people *like* the katana more. As simple as that. Which is why this is a great video.
Katana might has a real edge as a personal carry weapon. The tiny curve of the Katana and the slightly reduced length, believe it or not, allows quick draw slash and quick draw block or parries. In the event of bandit ambush or assassinations, a well-trained katana user can reduce the disadvantage of sheathed weapon to zero. As a battle field weapon, the long sword is better, but again, samurais were elite mounted archers and later musketeers, so the katana has always been a secondary weapon that were designed to spring into action quick when the primary attack methods fail. For instance, when the mounted archers and the musketeers have to face opponents in close quarter combat, the katana allows the user to drop the primary ranged weapon and quickly whip out the katana into action. Basically, it was never designed as a primary battlefield weapon and was always designed to be a slick side arm meant to be used in a "sword slinger" fashion.
With all due respect... I watched the video where you took the test on weapons when a shirasaya (Japanese sword in a plane wood set up usually for storing the blade) . watching you fail so miserably on that question and the explanation as to why you were going to guess it was a wakisashi or tachi , when it was so obvious that it was a katana. That leads me to believe that you don't qualify to make a opinion on shinkin. I am not being mean but I encourage everyone to watch that video and then ask "how can I even listen to this guys view on these blades. You know nothing about them. So for you to give a opinion on there function is laughable.
@@pypy1986820 swords are sidearms. The drawing speed of the weapon is not much different and won’t make a difference anyways. A longsword is a superior weapon. Katanas are as heavy as longswords (a tiny insignificant bit lighter) and their blade is very thick. The only advantage of the katana IMO is that it requires less skill so it is easier to cut with it. But that is all it can do. Cut. The longsword can cut just as well (if the wielder is skilled) but you can also stab with it and use way more techniques... it’s much lighter than people think (probably due to video game misconceptions).
How would you fuel it in medieval? Hell, you won't even be able to replicate it or draw any usefull knowledge! The only good part is the advanced alloys but even then melting those would either be impossible at that time or impractical.
European was more advanced in war compared to Japan, European/Middle-eastern steel was stronger and had more variations the Japan, thereby our armors and weapons way of greater quality and power. They even had to use clay to prevent decarburization of steel. Yes, of course the Katana has great cutting abilities maybe ever greater than European swords, but cutting isn't all. Cutting is quite effective against Farmers and for execution, but not necessarily armor. -- P.S The Katana is bent because of the water quenching, not increased cutting power.
Katana's where made to be effective for there area same as European. Katanas where actually good at striking and not all Katana's where curved much the Blacksmith Kotetsu had some nearly completely straight Katanas. Katanas where not used on armor but the weak spots like face and arm pits, Japanese use Kanabo's to deal with armor. Same with European swords though they went for weak spots in the armor not to pierce it. Honestly if you ask me btw the Samurai Armor is far greater then European armor just due to versatility alone. - But thats my opinion, its impossible to say something like that as fact.
Some of them were made to be curved , because they are curved the more curved parts of the balde travel a greater distance in the same time as the other less curved parts giving them more power when cutting , it is true that when made the quenching in water gives them a slight curve but if the sword makers did not want a curve they could have easily fixed it .
@ daniel (dont want to @ u cause its been 3 years) thats just not true, the speed of the specific area of the blade is determined by the distance from the hilt, not the curve
I would say that both swords serve purpose, the Longsword was designed for a reason as for the katana was. I agree that katanas are overhyped but I wouldn't call them inferior.
Woo hoo! A person who knows what a murderstroke is and that you can strike with the guard and the pommel. I also prefer the longsword, though I do know how to use both to a certain degree. The long sword is something I do know better though.
Kemal Sunal No, not particularly. At least among the crowds down here. Too much role playing and being too stuck in what the book says, not looking beyond it. Not even knowing some basic history.
Murderstroke isn't particularly effective, because it doesn't fully use the pommel. Now to fully use the pommel to must unscrew it and toss it at the enemy to end them rightly!
sdeep Multani How about striking with the cross guard instead? I've seen that leave dents in 2mm tempered steel. That's certainly more effective than throwing a pommel.
There Be Game No, but you see the pommel can pierce all the way through the steel, the pommel will also instantly end the fight, due the enemy having been finished rightly.
Actually no. Katanas are excellent for stabbing as well as slicing, so already you're wrong. Also, drawing & sheathing is a lot smoother. Katanas are also lighter & easier to use.
I prefer western swords myself, but one huge mistake that you did is that you used western/european fighting style techniques to judge a Japanese sword. Also, each weapon in history was created to counter the armor types of that era and vive versa.
The problem with Japanese swords is that they developed in a closed environment and hardly evolved over the best part of 800 years. Their role was more as a mark of status than as a pure murder implement. People who relied on them for their lives (like Miyamoto Musashi) critiqued them and made adaptations, favouring a longer blade and/or another sword in the offhand for duelling, but for most, they were 'sacred' and couldn't be touched. Weapons and armour in Europe and the Middle East evolved a lot faster because they were actually being used to kill people who didn't want to be killed, and survival was more important than tradition, whilst Shogunate Japan was at peace for around 300 years in the late medieval period.
+Battler Evil Actually that's not completely true, some samurais who had the connection and could afford it imported and used European armor from the Portuguese.
Ive had 10 yrs of intense study in japanese weapondry and though aesthetically they look cool af they arent a great design IN COMPARISON to areas with more readily available quality metal.
He touched on something important though: if I had a choice between a longsword or a katana, I would choose a spear. I would choose a pointy stick if I had to. Spears and other pointed sticks have been the weapon of choice throughout most of human history: they keep enemies away and they are very good at stabbing enemies. Yes, the longsword has reach, but a spear has better reach, and you can easily draw it back if you get into close quarters. You can throw it if you have to! I agree that most Japanese swords were garbage, but they had good spears and most Japanese warriors used the spear over the katana because they were cheaper and better. Swords have been and always will be a status symbol.
The weakness of a spear is that it's not effective against armor. If you thrusted a spear at an armored opponent and the curve of their armor deflects the force, they could simply grab it away from you. A more effective weapon in warfare would be a halberd or a glaive, where the center of gravity is heavy at the bladed point, allowing it to not only cut through flesh but cause massive damage against armor through sheer blunt force.
like the other reply said, spear is only better choice if the other guy is unarmored. if both you and the other guy has full plate armor, it is actually better to have a dagger than even a sword. As most fights like this will go to the ground with grappling and wrestling where winner is whoever jams dagger or knife inside gaps of the armor while pinning the enemy down. Hammer, axe, mace or even a club would be much better choice than a spear against fully armored enemy.
From what i have seen, read on and such. I'm not an expert by any standard, so feel free to adjust if needed I'm not going to address "katanas folded a thousand times and slice through steel and the souls of your enemies" crap. People who can't separate myth from reality have no bearing here In my humble opinion, the katana is limited in it's usage for 2 main reasons. First, it has no guard to speak of. \when it comes to two handed fighting, a great deal of European techniques rely heavily on the guard - both as a defense and as an offence. And these techniques are time--proven and effective Secondly, it can't be paired with a shield - at .least not without losing much of it's effectiveness. It's a two handed slashing weapon - to maximize it you need both hands I'm obviously not comparing katanas in this capacity to greatswords/claymore/zweihanders, but longswords/bastard/hand-and-a-half or however you would call them. Most European medieval swords were meant to be used with a shield So basically, a katana is very rigid in how it should be used effectively - it's a two handed slashing weapon, with not really that great a range. As for construction , i think it's remarkable. A spine of soft steel to keep the blade steady and strong, and a body of hard steel that keeps the edge shard. Once again, it's overly complicated. Historical reasons why this was forged the way it was - not enough steel/bad steel in Japan as opposed to Europe. Folding the steel to remove impuruties is hardly a Japanese invention So here is why I don't like katanas - they are overly limited in their use, complicated in making
the curve is merely a product of heat treatment due to difference in carbon content... the cutting edge is made to be super hard whereas the back of the blade is relatively soft to allow for flex and durability
One thing i will point out is that Katanas can actually thrust quite well against unarmoured targets and would not break if used to thrust, as they are quite stiff and stiff swords generally perform well when thrusting, indeed you really don;t want a very flexible sword when thrusting as less force will be imparted in said thrust. However, against Mail (or even gambeson) they would not fair very well, as the point is simply not acute enough to be effective. Great video tho :)
There are several pommel techniques with it in different kenjutsu styles and I thought it was a bit obvious that there is no reason for one to use "murder strokes" or "half-swording" with it simple because you are holding a light blade that was mainly designed to cut non-armored opponents in its era. The whole comparisson is a bit silly if you ask me.
the average weight of war time Katanas is only a few ounces less then that of long swords... the difference being easily explained by the average size of Japanese being smaller then the average size of Europeans.
+Adrian's Survival Arms Armour and Zombies. Matter of perception. If you where to pick up a longsword in the same mind frame, you would find it to be light. Anecdotal evidence means less then a scale's readout.
Average weight of a Japanese Katana: 2.5-3.0 lbs. Average weight of a European Longsword: 2.5-3.5 lbs. You will notice that most of the weight scale overlaps, but western longswords do get a little bit heavier. That makes sense when you remember that the average size of Europeans is greater then the average size of Japanese, so it makes sense for western swords to be proportionately larger.
Sorry katans weight is not small, war time katanas weight about the same as longsword but are shorter (they have thicker blade). Light katanas are from Tokugawa era and later, which means sword not for real war but for duels and cutting tatami. It Japanese version of smallsword, eppe etc
I have several katanas and no wall hangers. Katanas aren't any sharper than the western swords, and a bad cut will bend the blade. They can thrust better than you think though. I don't think they cut any better/worse than an equally sharp long sword either. It's just another sword created to deal with the combat of it's era.
In fact , japanese samurai use spear,bow even a musket on battlefield rather than a katana Katana is much like a self-defense weapon , basically you won't encounter a gangster or thief wearing a armour in town , right? An assassin,sent by your opponent, won't wear any kind of armour, either. Still, katana may be an option for side weapon ,but why it still kill because ： Not every enemy can afford an armour， even if thet might have one , it has less protection than european armour
katanas have their own philosophy, and it's true that thinking about a katana with a Medieval "chevalresque let's save the princess" mindset makes them seem quite obselet. In fact thinking of anything with prejudices minimizes it and strips it from any sens. In feudal Japan they also had armors, they had other weapons to get the best of a fully armored samurai (usuealy a high rank like a general), or an armored samurai on horse back (heavy cav). The greatest samurais who had an indepth understanding of strategy they were against attachement to any kind of weapon, and any glorefication of any weapon (katana or long sword) would only cripple your abilities in what they called the way of strategy, in fact they were more keen to the understanding of pros and cons, purposes and adventages of every weapon, to make the most of it...in a battlefield, that is the warrior mindset. they can't say I like such and deslike such weapon. and I'd advise you not to, no matter how great or less great one's knowledge can be, he should always include more not less.
Also, because the katana is single edged, if you break the edge, it becomes a very thin stick. If you break a longsword's edge, you can use the other edge, or use it as a hammer, as you mentioned.
For a gang member, using something like a katana or a tanto could actually be useful being that people dont wear plate armor anymore. Killing someone without armor doesnt take much, you just need anything sharp or pointy and stab them in the vital organs. Otherwise, lol in your case id agree with you.
Safer from what? 9mm or .45ACP? He's talking about bringing a knife to a fight. In that regard the slashing weapon is better but even then there are things from 17-19 century Europe that would make Katana inferior. On the other hand for a gang member effective use of Katana or Tanto may bring some benefits in the form of renown or even respect.
Hauke Holst and also people arent wearing middle age armor anymore so you dont gotta worry about armor so much. Id personally have a katana with me at home in case an intruder comes in, ill wait for him to kick the door, wait in a corner, and than chop his head off
My hypothesis on the slight curve of the katana's utility is that it allows the user to make slashes at extreme close range. For example, in the case where the user gets close enough to lodge the blade under the opponent's arm or neck, they can put one hand on the dull side of the blade to add downward/upward force, and then drag the blade across the flesh, creating a deep gash. This maneuver would be extremely useful against an armored opponent, who is often unguarded near the joints, where it's easy to lodge a blade in between. This would be much harder with a straight-edge sword, but also much more awkward with an extreme curve sword like a scimitar (as it would require rotation of the slashing trajectory to align with the blade's curve). Plus, scimitars and sabers are one-handed swords and are meant to be used in a defensive, fencing stance in mid-range combat, not extremely close-range against armored opponents. I think this hypothesis makes sense considering that the Japanese did have straight-edge blades, but those were reserved for assassinations, where users would stab through unarmored targets.
curved swords were developed by horseback civilization when stir-ups weren't yet invented (and therefore enemies were not heavily armored on horses, not to mention horses back then were not strong enough to don heavy armor themselves), so that the blade can slice through enemies using full momentum of galloping horse behind the curved blades. As soon as stir-ups were invented they started using long pointy things instead, as they not only have longer reach, points penetrate better when whole momentum of galloping horse is behind it than few pieces of blade which had to be held by weak wrists. Katana on the other hand weren't used on horseback, as it had to be held by both hands. And it was not even designed for horseback but for cutting. This is extremely terrible. Because generally such a close distance melee requires either top heavy, power striking weapon like axe, zweinhander, glaive, and such, or one handed weapon like longsword, hammer in combination of shield, or even dagger and sword combination designed to fight against fully armored enemies (sword strikes to bruise and cause concussion through the plate armor, dagger for actual kill)
you are thinking about a medieval knight fighting another knight using a katana, in which case it would be horrible because the fighting styles and armor is different for western knights versus a samurai. the katana was designed to be used with a martial art that focused on quick lethal movements where speed and cutting power was essential, whereas the western knights were trained to maneuver the opponent into a position that would leave them vulnerable because the armor was more protective. that would be like saying an Egyptian sickle sword is inefficient in combat because it cant beat a knight in plate armor. weapons are designed to be the most efficient against the armor and fighting techniques of their time and place. i own both a katana and a long sword, both around $400, and the katana is better at cutting and stabbing soft materials whereas the long sword does better against harder materials such as wood. this supports the fact that they were designed for different styles of combat which makes the argument, "this sword is better then that" completely irrelevant.
I agree with much of what you said but it is true that Both knights and Samurai wore full metal armor and frankly the long sword is better at dealing with metal armor, which is why the Katana was a last resort weapon and people preferred longer pole weapons or bows to them.
I like how over 200 people disliked the video presumably instantanously because the title alone - and they didn't even read it right most likely. 11 / 10
Well, personally I would choose my weapon according to the armor type of my opponent. I would never take a katana to a fight with a proper armored knight. Not going to happen. But against someone with light or no protection a katana is a valide option. I my experience it is easier to get around the opponents weapon in a back hand strike with a curved blade. --> no slicing in this move, but stabbing. Concerning the "cross guard" on a katana: This thing is NOT, I reaped *NOT*, for for protection against enemy blows. I'm still waiting to this day for someone to show me a historical move in the Japanese way of fighting which blocks a blade with the "tsuba". Those things could merely protect your hand from sliding in your own blade during a thrusting movement.
Thats not completely true, it also prevents opposing blades from sliding down to cut the user hands durring binds. Also it's very unlikely for your hands to slip from a katana hilt with its ray skin covering not say it wouldn't happen.
Mistaa Spaakles Have you a source for such a "bind move"? Because I never found one. It would be helpful. Yeah, it's unlikely to slip from a katana hilt. But definitely not impossible. Especially in a messy battle. I can't find the specific source anymore, but it suggested that the first tsubas were meant for a easier picking up the weapon while sitting down.
Not a katana fanboy, but there are some things wrong with your analysis. For one thing, thrusts with a slightly curved sword are not completely ineffective. They are just less effective than with a straight sword. Since force follows the structure of the blade, some of the force is directed sideways with a curved sword. Also, the shape is less than ideal, requiring a larger area to make a penetration than with a more optimized thrusting sword. However, those are merely optimizations. You can still thrust with a katana, and have it be quite effective. You just can't thrust as well. Heck, you can thrust with a flathead screwdriver if you are really determined. You can stab into someone's chest or skull very effectively with a katana. This is a technique which is taught and was used. I think Cold Steel has some simulated demonstrations of this up on TH-cam. You will have a much harder time stabbing into chainmail than with a longsword optimized for anti-armor work, however.
I do not know anything about eastern martial art at all, but European sabre techniques use thrusting from time to time... and vice versa rapier can sometimes be used for cutting in Spanish school (Italian methods focus only on the thrust)
And in fact katans is good thruster because of harder stiffer blade (similar as in European thrusting sword or rapiers). But it is not so good cuter, it cuts good but not from curve of blade, which is very light and some European longsword have more cutting angle (yes from straight blade )
Part to simplify, yes. Kendo is more like olympic fancing - they're recreational sports, and while they might derive from classic swordmanship, they have no real intention of being loyal recreations of historical battle scenarios, they're a game. AN interesting game, but a game. So safety and better entertainment > actual combat effectiveness in their design.
The curve of the Katana is actually due to the differential in the steel of the blade. It isn't really done on purpose as it was a result of the forging of the blade. Its actually because the spine of the Katana was softer steel then was the edge, which was hardened. During this hardening of the edge, which produced the "hamon" that wave-like pattern you see running down the edge of the blade, the blade would naturally curve. Some examples of katanas show a very pronounced curve, others only a slight curve.
Because one can serve many more purposes than the other? What would you rather have, a sword that has inferior piercing power, inferior armour pierceing due to not being able to perform murder strokes or pommel strikes, shorter reach or the weapon with longer reach, better armour piercing, similar cutting power, ability to half sword and perform murder strokes and pommel strikes?
For some reason there are people who believe the katana is at best a mediocre sword. You will find lots more videos on TH-cam spouting that nonsense these days than you'll find of people spouting the opposite rubbish. Also: You don't want a very flexy blade for thrusting. You want it to be stiff. Katana are excellent thrusters against soft and medium targets, because what counts here is mainly the sharpness of the edge - not the acuteness of the tip. Being more trained in Japanese sword arts than Western, I actually find it much more natural to thrust with the katana than with a longsword. The katana is a cut-and-thrust weapon; to say that "thrusting is not an option" is sheer nonsense. And half-swording with the katana is called soete-tsuki. The spine is not sharp, so there is no problem whatsoever.
Katana is basically a saber blade on a long hilt. Its not long enough to be a good two hander and it dont have the versatility and is too heavy to be a good one hander. On top of that it got no hand protection. It is a stupid design and at best a mediocre sword. Its unusually sharp though. I'll give it that. But sharpness is not the most important quality of a sword at all.
+Pasan Etternavn It has got far better hand protection than what a simple quillon offers. A quillon also has an offensive purpose, but an opponent's weapon can get past it even if it stops the blade. This is why rings were later added, or Nagels, in the case of Messers - which extend out about as far as a katana's tsuba. In other words, that little disc is really all you need as far as protection goes. It is the same sort of guard you see in swords all over Asia and, not infrequently, Europe as well. Can't have been all bad, can it? And why isn't it long enough to be a good two-hander? How long is long enough, and what do you base that number on? If it weren't long enough, it stands to reason that the Japanese would have made it longer. War is nothing if not practical. Now, you might say that it has inferior reach next to longswords, and it certainly does - but the Japanese didn't face longswords. Except when they faced O-dachi or nagamaki, but neither of these designs remained popular for long. As for versatility, how much more versatility does a longsword really have? The biggest difference is two edges as opposed to one. Beyond this, I can really only think of the murderstroke, but this is a technique which is extremely rarely used anyway. Oh, HEMA practitioners today toy around with it a lot, and I have seen it used a lot, but I have not once seen it used _successfully_. It is something which is _possible_ to do with a sword, just like it would be possible for an unarmed person to use his toe to poke someone's eye out. It isn't likely to happen very often.
Too heavy? They are light even a small person could wield one with one hand. It's two handed for precision. As result it a much faster weapon and wont wear the wielder out nearly as fast. With armored opponents fatigue will set in very quickly within a minute or two inside a formation that not as big of a deal but one on one it's a huge problem.
+Gilmaris You bring up some great points here, and I thought I might elaborate. Katana, when made specifically for someone, were made so that in a resting position, with the blade in hand and rested point down, the tip came within a very small distance of the ground. A wakizashi would be the distance from the hands in an overhead slashing position to the average ceiling height, again minus some small amount. The lengths were well thought out for the way and areas that each of these swords were used, and are in no way inadequate or inferior to the longsword in terms of effectiveness against the intended target. The katana is also primarily a slashing weapon, and thus needs only the edge facing your opponent to be sharp. Technique was developed such that the blade would face your target under most conditions. The Europeans forwent the creation of technique and instead built it into the weapon. Is this superior? In some circumstances, sure. In others, no. As a side note: In reality, to compare these two weapons in some hypothetical situation is folly. If the Japanese and Europeans had ever come to a large-scale battle, /both/ would have adapted or invented weapons to combat the unique challenges that the enemy presented. That is how warfare works.
You're right - the curve in the Katana is too slight to make much difference to a cut at all. It's actually a flaw caused by the quenching process of the differential hardened steel - each side of the blade is covered in a different thickness of clay when it's quenched, causing one side to cool faster than the other. The hardened edge cools first, bending the blade forward slightly, but when the rear of the blade cools afterwards it bends the blade backwards giving the Katana its rear curve. The problem with this is, it makes the sword very fragile - if you bend it, it's either going to shatter or stay bent (Unlike European spring steel, which springs back to shape.), additionally it also reduces the effectiveness of a thrust as all of the stress caused by the thrust is stored up in the curve, giving the blade a weak point where it can bend or break. Obviously, with a Longsword having no curve this isn't an issue. A straight blade with spring steel makes a MUCH better blade for thrusting - though the hardened edge, and single bevel edged cross section of a Katana makes it ever so slightly better at cutting, it's not enough to warrant the obvious flaws in the weapon. You also have to consider that as the centuries passed the Longsword evolved, and branched out into different swords. The Katana pretty much remained the same out of tradition - sure it had slight differences, like maybe a longer blade, or a more curved blade, etc, but the basic design remained the same, meaning that whilst Western cultures were in an arms race to produce more effective weapons and armour, the Japanese weren't so much. Western swords became more specialised for different roles (Rapiers for personal defense, Zwiehanders for heavily armoured combatants on the battlefield that could use two hands because their armour didn't need a shield, etc.). The Katana didn't really change a whole lot.
"It's actually a flaw caused by the quenching process" - That's not entirely accurate. Many Japanese smiths got good enough to not only predict the curve which would form during quenching, but to change the curve and its location based on their layering of clay. That's why katana have three different locations for the primary curvature. "if you bend it, it's either going to shatter or stay bent" - More than likely stay bent, or delaminate, but not shatter. The soft spine was ensured partially for that purpose. If bent, but no delamination occurs, the blade can be fixed quite easily. "Unlike European spring steel, which springs back to shape." - But is more likely to actually break when it fails (and they did). Both swords are basically garbage at that point, just different in their failure. "additionally it also reduces the effectiveness of a thrust" - Only to a small degree. The thick spine also compensates for much of the stress, and Japanese thrusting techniques are quite different from European ones. "though the hardened edge, and single bevel edged cross section of a Katana makes it ever so slightly better at cutting" - This isn't entirely true, either. Katana have a thicker cross-section than a longsword, and were also shorter. They are only 'better at cutting' when used with proper technique; in the same way you can botch a longsword cut with improper edge alighnment, a botched katana cut may not even go through a pool-noodle. "the Longsword evolved, and branched out into different swords." - The 'longswords' blade geometry was virtually the same from the Merovingian (where it was slightly shorter with a rounded tip) all the way through into the Renaissance (where it became overall longer with an acute tip). The only major thing that makes a 'longsword' different from a Merovingian-era sword is hilt-furniture: Cruciform hilt and space for two hands. Often the blade isn't even much longer. And the only major difference between a 'longsword' and a zwehander/bidenhander is the size. Only later examples have the rings present on the guard, or the parrying-hooks; and even then, not all zweihanders had both, or either. "The Katana pretty much remained the same out of tradition" - It actually didn't. The changes to blade geometry are quite obvious when one takes the effort to learn what they are. There are twelve variations to the kissaki (that I can think of), for instance. Overall, the blade geometry of a katana changed many, but more subtle, ways than the longsword. Although the hilt-design was virtually static throughout the centuries, and the actual cross-section was less varied than the longsword, it is even possible to locate historical katana with profile and distal taper, as well as false edges. "Western swords became more specialised for different roles" - You're comparing swords from a whole continent to those of one small, fairly isolated country. To address the evolution of the sword honestly, you would have to pick a country *within* western civilization, and compare from there, otherwise, it's fair game to use all of Asia as a reference point.
It's not easy to find someone in the comment sections that is actually educated on the matter discussed but you did it well buddy, very nice explanations there.
Okay get ready cause I would like to contribute to this topic, and do I have quite a bit to say. To answer the last question "Why people glorify the katana so much" I think we can blame pop culture. Anime, Hollywood and almost everything else features Katana's as the mighty weapon of any great warrior, but it only started because naturally Anime is from Japan, and the Katana is a fabled Japanese Sword. Personally, I think the issue is that you can't compare European Long Swords to Japanese Katana's because they're two opposite weapons of two opposite cultures. I agree that the European Long Sword is far more versatile than a Katana as you can use it like a sword, war hammer or as a spear like you mentioned. The Katana is far less suited for anti armor, because it's a weapon that's designed for one thing and one thing only: Slashing at an opponents weak spot. Samurai warriors who wielded Katana's were trained on how to fight with the weapon and how to not fight with the weapon. The Katana was meant to slip into the gaps of armor and cripple an opponent for a Death Blow. And since Samurai Armor didn't cover as much as European Steel, it would make sense that culturally, there was little need to change the design of the sword. Another big thing about the Katana is that (counter to popular belief) you can't clash blades with a Katana or use it to block swords. The Katana was made to sharp, not invincible. If you clashed a Katana against a European Long Sword, you could see apparent damage to the blade itself. Those 1000 Damascus folds were made for sharp edges, not sturdy spines. This is also why it's guard is so small, it wasn't made to block blades, it was meant to simply keep the hand from reaching the blade and cutting yourself. Also, I would like to correct two things. ONE, the Katana's come in various length's. A basic Uchigatana is your standard 60 to 70 CM, and while that does seem to be the longest sword, they can be made to barely reach 80 Cm. That and Samurai usually relied on pole arms to compensate if necessary. Second, you CAN thrust with a Katana sword. There's a specific technique involved and requires two hands to thrust forward, typically aimed for the neck or heart. An accurate Samurai could likely go right for an open arm pit if available. It's a very specific technique, and sure it's true that it doesn't seem viable to thrust one handed, and the Katana wasn't built for thrusts, it's still possible due to the fact it still has a point. But that's the thing about Katana's. It's a weapon built around a Martial Art. Just like Long swords, Zweihanders and pole arms, the Katana has its own unique techniques that require one to study and master it. Any anime fan can pick up a Katana and swing it about all fancy like, but only a devoted student can learn how to wield the Katana the way it should be. So in summary, the Katana was a Master of One kind of sword unlike the longsword which is a Jack of All Trades. Katana's were meant to cripple enemies with one solid blow, while the warrior was trained to dodge and evade his opponents attacks. Essentially, this was a battle of stamina and focus, not strength and parries. This is why I personally like Katana's. It's not the perfected sword and it really only serves one or two purposes in combat, but it excels in those purposes so well that it makes up for its short comings. I can perfectly understand why a lot of HEMA practitioners don't appreciate the Katana due to its lack of varied abilities, but as someone who really appreciates and admires Japanese culture and especially Samurai Warriors, I find the Katana to be a very powerful weapon for those who wish to master it. And personally, you don't have to be an anime enthusiast to appreciate the sword. I don't like Anime that much because I think it's too cliched most of the time, but I don't let that tarnish the image of what is one of History's greatest weapons. Of course, this is all my opinion. And everyone is entitled to use the weapon they're most comfortable with. Which is why I personally prefer Rapiers over all other swords. Sure, I love Katana's, but the Rapier is just too good of a weapon for me.
As a student of Japanese sword art I appreciate your comments and observations. You rightly point out that there is no magical qualities inherent in any katana. I truley despise the anime/ manga fanboy idealization of the katana. That said a katana is very good at thrusting and there we do train for fighting an armoured enemy. In this case quick thrusts are used to srike unarmoured parts of the body, ie underarm or wrist or groin.
Actually you can thrust very effectively with a katana or tachi, as well as a sabre. There are techniques in Kendo & Sabre fencing for thrusting attacks. You simply have to learn the point of aim for the sword.
not trying to be rude, but you need to do a little more research, the katanas curve can be enough to increase cutting power, however it depends on the type and amount and these depend on era the blade was made what school made the blade what smith made the blade and what sword school the practitioner belonged to. meiboku.info/guide/form/sori/index.htm there is a link to a page that shows the different types of sori or curvature found on katana. in historical katanas made before the edo period, koshi sori seems to be alot more prevalent, and with koshi sori it begins in the first third of the blade and reduces towards the tip but never fully stops. with this type of curvature, it may not appear like it but the blades are much more heavily curved just due to where the curve starts and generally koshi sori style blades of older make or those made to imitate the told master had very very deep koshi sori.
the modern reproduction blades are pretty much all tori sori which is named after a part of the shinto shrine gate. this style of sori is basically useless and only exists because of the artistic style, the smith would control the sori when the quench happened. Even old chokuto or pre tachi and katana type swords from japan show hamon when properly polished to expose it, however these old blades are rarely polished. and a katana if made traditionally will be less sharp then youd think due to the apple seed shaped edge.
I would refer you to the point Snap made in the first minute of the video. Maybe the Katana cuts better than a longsword (it varies from type to type and there's no standard model of either sword, but in general), but so what? Pretty much any longsword can cut will enough to kill an unarmoured opponent, and no Katana ever made can cut through plate armour.
MisdirectedSasha first off historical katana the honjo masamune infact have cut through plate armor, the honjo masamune cleaved a helmet, however keep in mind that historically the best steels were used in swords not in armor. second when you compare a katana to a longsword wouldnt it be fair to use versions of the two that were meant for the same purpose? edo period blades werent meant for war, were made as art pieces many had slag reincorporated back into the blade because smiths could make it look like knots in a piece of wood to go along with the wood grain pattern or even burl patterns they created in the steel. edo period blades often have much more basic constructions and again were never meant for war, the reason they are less curved and the katana in fact is worn edge up is because its less easy to draw and wasnt needed in times of peace, where as in war blades were still worn edge down. and for many periods yes there are more standardized versions of the katana, such as koshi sori being the only kind of sori that was available.
The slight curve is for quick Draw-slashing from the sheath, more of a dueling technique. There's a whole martial art based around it though I forgot what it's called.
This is a really good video. Personally, I don't agree, but I think he makes a great case (and is correct) that European longswords are just more practical than katanas. Bear in mind that most swords in Europe were made by blacksmiths, and the smelting process of katana steel made is far superior in medieval times except for the wealthiest of Europeans who had access to things like crucible steel. Today, that's completely irrelevant (you can probably buy tool steel that's better than medieval katana steel), but back then it would have mattered. Also, the culture in medieval Japan was heavily honor-bound, so people didn't need to fight dirty. In Europe, a sword that you could hit with every part was probably more of a necessity as there wasn't much honor is losing; you just tried to not die. Having never fought with a sword in my life, I like katanas because of their iconic engineering and craftsmanship. They literally are works of art. In their day, they were far superior to just about every European sword except for those owned by the wealthy. Proof in that people still buy medieval katanas today. But, if you had to fight dirty, you could do a lot worse than a European longsword. Thanks for your great videos.
Jesus. The smiting process of katanas is ancient, the Gauls used the same folding method in their swords BC. In Europe they developed better methods of forging good swords and weapons and left the folding technique behind. Secondly the word "honor" is found in every European language and has been around since the Greeks. Europeans had honor and especially to a knights standing in society it was pivotal. what you see in Japan is ritualized duels which were not as common in Europe by the late medieval period, being more an hallmark of the migration age and viking era. Thirdly just as there were good and bad european swords there were good and bad katanas. They were not all made by master smiths. its just that the lesser ones did not survive the ages. and finally the reason why people are fascinated by katanas is the eastern orientalism that occurred in the 70's when hollywood got crazy about china and japan for a while. There we got the kung fu myths and the katana from. In japan they are more connected to the samurai past than Europe is. I think this is beacuse while Europe had a very gradual development into modernity, Japan was shocked into it by western trade, and thus they still had a lot of their medieval culture which became ancient and mystical overnight.
You have very superficial knowledge sorry mate. Btw Katanas were almost never used on the Battlefield, the weapon of choice was the Yumi then Yari Naginata and Odachi 2 of these weapons have very high armor penetration values. The reason MOST Katanas are slightly curved is that you can still thrust with them very effective something you can never do with a scimitar. You should do more research before you release a video and maybe provide sources for your claims. greetings
Other than the trivial effect of reducing contact surface area and turning a cut in to a slight pull cut I think the curve of the katana makes edge alignment easier. A lot of the mass sits backwards from the axis of passing through the handle relative to the movement of the blade. This mass will create torque around the axis of rotation improving edge alignment when the blade is accelerated. The surface area sitting back will also act in a similar way to an arrow's fletchings. After impact the handle sitting forward from the point of impact will pull the edge alignment straighter rather than it deteriorating the further you cut. I suspect this is the main reason katanas seem so forgiving towards poor technique. That being said it would make little difference in experienced hands and I'd rather lose this benefit if it means having two edges and better thrusting.
well i maybe wrong but they were using it mostly against non amour units and bamboo stick(spear)infantry and you actually are supposed to relay on the swing and footsteps to position for a good swing defensively or offensively and do pardon my poor english
and bro check this out the originality of katana zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A8%AA%E5%88%80 btw theres huge katanas meant for cavalry using (150-165cm)somewhere in the books written that time said theres swords that goes up to 280cm which doesnt really make sense but meh
the thing is that the katana is made for killing unarmoured or very lightly armoured opponents. not meant for battle use often in history either. the longsword came to evolve to fight armour more excellently. but the longsword can do a sufficient job at both, and the katana cant fight plated armour nearly as well. so in any situation, i would prefer a longsword, especially because of the range advantage in both situations. you dont need to overkill with a katana, you just need to do enough to disable their arm or leg with one strike, incapacitate them or disarm them, which is significantly easier with a longsword because its easier to grab the blade and the crossguard is bigger and adapted for grappling. Sorry for the bad grammar, i hope somebody agrees
okay, i am not a katana fanboy but i do have to make a few points. As mentioned in the video, the knights mostly used polearms, and it is the same with the samurai, they had polearms and longbows mainly, the katana was like a backup and cqc option. My other point would be on the curve. The katana was designed for fast cuts, and also as a cqc option. The curve helps to transfer unsheating the sword into a slice, also its short lenght also helps with these types of cuts. Not to mention the steel quality in japan at that time, shorter swords needed less metal, also since the quality was bad, longer swords and steel armor was unavailable, there was no need for a longer swords, since swords were already a novelty.
the odachi is a huge sword and samurai armor was made of steel, cutting right after drawing can be done with an sword, curvature doesn't help in that aspect. and well.. yea swords were secondary weapons but that doesn't change anything about what I said...
I think the curve is optimized the draw slash. I read a diary from a british guy recommending westerners to carry a pair of revolvers while traveling in Japan due to the rowing samurai and their quick draw.
There are people saying knight armor was super immobile... there is a video of someone in full plate armor doing a flip and rolling and stuff, and running around
Pretty much the only benefit the Katana has over the longsword is that the slight curve helps with edge alignment; that's probably where the "blunt European swords", and "katana best weapon" misconceptions came from; any old idiot can pick up a katana and cut decently well, but you actually need to practice with the longsword. They can both be as sharp as each other, so that is a stupid argument to make, too
The main reason the Katana/Wakazashi were only slightly curved was actually for Iaijustu. Iaijustsu is a quick-draw technique that was mean to end a fight with one stroke. A straight sword would decrease draw speed. There in fact are examples of straight 'katanas', called Ninjato. They were assassins(ninja) weapons and thrust quite effectively.
Sorry, I do have to correct some points. The katana is just slight curved, and is still considerate straight and can trust pretty well. It's curve don't actually help to curve, and it is curved for very small trade-offs and aesthetic. The main difference of the swords would actually be the footwork one would have to adopt. One technique won't work properly with the other, and that extends to guard and grappling. There is an equivalent to half-swording with the katana, but is very, very different and usually associated with longer blade ones (with jo and yari techniques). Both swords are effective, good sidearms, have different concepts and personally I don't see one to be better than the other. But people have preferences, and usually because of footwork rather than the blade itself - and that is also true in your case, boiling everything down. I know it is quite hard to be found, but it would be nice if you could feel this difference in a Koryu Kendo school (not a Kejutsu Expert Gym bullshit, but somewhere people practice something of the like of Kashima, Kasumu or even some more modern ones). *And after reading some of the comments, I must remember some of you: Modern Kendo is as close to Koryu Kendo as Fencing is to HEMA.
A teacher of me had said that with a katana it's possible to cut a desk in half. I don't think that this is possible, but I would like to know some other opinions
I agree with points you made about katanas. People usually associate katanas with samurai and ninja what they see in movies. Katanas were the back-up weapon not the main one. The main problem with Japanese weapons and armor is the material which is it made of. Japan doesnt have a lot of high quality iron ore to make steel so they usually made armor from iron so it appears dark grey (unlike European armor which was made out of steel and it looks light and shiny). High quality steel was reserved for making weapons. It was so scarce that weapon makers had to fold it into fine sheets to spare as much as they can. It was used only in the top layer of the blade. So what were katanas made of? They were made out of ironwith folded layer of steel on top of the blade. The famous curve that katana has forms when the finished product is hardened with heating and dipping in water. Iron contracts more in volume than steel so it pulls the blade into a curve. Katanas with smaller curve have more steel which means they are better quality. So the best katanas dont have curve at the top. Other problem with katanas is that iron characteristically behaves plastic, so if you bend it, it will stay bent. European swords were made totally out of steel and steel is elastic so if it gets bent it will just pop back in its original look. When you see a original Japanese art of Samurai era you can see that they carried more than one katana because it is more likely to get broken than European sword.
so, not trying to change your opnion but, some facts by someone who pratices kenjutsu: 1- the curve is to allow for iaijutsu techniques. The draw&cut techniques of iaijutsu requires the blade to be curved, that's all. 2- you can trust with a katana. Sure, it's range will be slithly shorter than if it was straight (a few centimeters) but that's it. 3- you can "pommel strike", in fact, most basic cuts will start with a pommel strike before shifting into an attack with the blade midway, and if you so wish, you can just pommel strike, instead of cutting the target (this is not allowed for the lower grades though) 4- half swording is a major part of kenjutsu techniques. That said, I'm not explaining any of the techniques with a katana for someone outside the dojo, please remember that kenjutsu techniques were the military secrets of japan's dojo, and though not used in battlefields anymore, the idea of the techniques been a dojo's secret still exists, hence why we see so much bullshit in movies, animes, cartoons, etc, it's like trying to talk about how X country's special forces operate, it's not the kind of information that is given for people outside the training camp. So, basically, I believe you don't like the katana because you don't the katana. What you don't like in it, are the people that don't know the katana either but glorify it, just like religious people glorify gods they never saw or came in contact with, simply because they heard they were awesome.
In battle I do agree longswords have a significant advantage, but as an everyday carry sword or dueling sword, no one in their right mind would carry around a giant two handed long sword
Snap, mate. You make valid points from your perspective, however kenjutsu and hema as you know are completely different martial arts styles, there is no way you can pick up a katana and use hema techniques, just like you can't pick up a long sword and use kenjutsu techniques. I own and use both long sword and katana, and I have had to learn basic cuts with both types to get the best results. They are both great swords, and from what I have experienced by using both is neither one is better than the other, one is just better for a particular style and use than the other
Actually Thrusting with a katana is an option, and a pretty good option, in kendo we have a technique called Tsuki, which is thrusting, or positioning your sword in the direction of the opponents throat, and yes it might be harder to do since its curved but it is effective, since it unbalances you (or kills you, but no one would want that), and the damage is practically self inflicted since its normally the opponent who rushes into the sword (at least in kendo/kenjutsu). Now don't take me for a katana lover because I ain't, I know the katana's flaws and their limits, but like you said in another video, it is who manages them that matters. I am really interested in HEMA style and I hope to learn more about it, might as well use your videos to it. keep up!
I have to admit my knowledge of swords may be somewhat limited, so I am hoping you or other readers can help me with a question. Firstly I like the point you make that a katanas cutting ability can't come from the tiny amount of curvature that they have... I mean that small curve simply cannot give a blade a drastic improvement in cutting ability right? So I agree with you on that point. However if this is true then the opposite must also be true... I tiny amount of curvature simply cannot have a detrimental effect on thrusting ability, period. Perhaps I missed something but I simply don't understand how a slight curve in a blade makes for an ineffective thrust (Assuming the target isn't wearing Armour). I have never used a sword so I am hoping someone with experience thrusting and cutting can shed some light on this one. This is something that has bothered me for a while because the British used the slightly curved 1845 sword and then ditched it for a straight sword citing that it would be better for thrusting... now this doesn't make any sense in the late 1800's when no one was wearing armour? Or am I simply wrong?
there are multiple things that help the katana in making good cuts, curvature helps with edge alignment and the thicker less flexible blade makes it more forgiving to cut with (aka it's harder to mess up a cut) but the curvature makes it more difficult align the point when wanting to thrust and the stif blade makes thrusting more uncomfortable should you hit something hard like armor and the tip which is already not optimized for thrusting might break because of it. ive also been told that some japanese schools didn't teach the trust at all, they just didnt practice it. overall nothing is impossible, but if you adapt a sword to be better at one thing you give up some effectivity in another area, a katana is not a bad sword at all but it's definetly also not special by any means
Does the katana really have the potential to be sharper than a long sword or any other sword for that matter? I mean if the steel is hard enough to hold an edge I think the sharpness is only determined by how well it is sharpened. Maybe the edge geometry also plays a role but i feel that almost any sword could be made to have similar edge geometry. Correct me if I`m wrong.
You can actually thrust quite well with a katana, because the blade is only a little curved, but you you obviously can't thrust in between the plates of plate armor
your wievs seem to be a little narrow, and definently inspired by full plate mail battle. but katana's was not used against plate, they were used against many layered wool and leather and that makes it hard for the knight sword to get though so you need something that cuts and releases, and the curve on a katana makes the cutting motions much easyer. so it all depends on what your opponent is vearing and your fighting style
I just want to make some corrections on the katana part, but before I start I just want to say that this comment is not biased by any means. Despite me being a iaido practicioner I love all kinds of swords and I don't think that any sword is better than the other because they were all designed in different places to fight in slightly different ways against different types of protection. So I'm doing this only with the intent of giving you some more insight on the katana, not to "defend" it. So now for what brings me here. Firstly, the katana's handguard (Tsuba) primary function was not to block incoming attacks, it's main purpose was to prevent the user's hand from sliding to the blade (speaking of which, the shirasaya mountings, without Tsuba and many other parts, that we see on Steven Seagal movies and Yakuzas were not meant to be used in fights. The shirasaya was more like a resting case to store the blade during peace times hence it not needing the guards etc...) Secondly, stabbing, half-swording AND "pommel" strikes were all used with a katana. In iaido specifically I have learned katas where we use those moves. I know you say that the katana doesn't stab as well as a european sword but it still stabs, and doing it with half-swording allowed you to put more power into it. The "pommel" strikes were done by thrusting the Kashira ("pommel") against the opponents chin or throat, sometimes it was against the wrists while the opponent was going to draw his sword in order to block the drawing motion and/or hurt him in that sensible spot. Anyway interesting video with valid points. Stay well buddy.
On top of everything you mention in the video, which I fully agree with, Katana's were also used more like a status symbol than in actual combat right? Or have I been misinformed? -David
swords were a 2nd choice weapon to begin with, samurai would first use a spear (yari or naginata) and only use the katana if they lost their spear. It is true though that only samurai were alowed to carry 2 katanas at the same time so there was status involved
Samurai wore a daishô, that is a katana and the shorter wakizashi or even shorter tantô. The short sword was used for fighting indoors or in some cases together with the katana as dual wielding. Also polearms were first choice on the battlefield but as in europe, swords were your everyday carry for duels and selfdefence which was more common than battles.
One of the advantages of the Katana is its curved blade. The curved blade allows the user to quickly draw the sword to the users extent while hiding the length of the blade in the same time. The curved blade also allows the sword (with proper sword technique) to cut throught leather armor or obviously flesh (lol) smoothly because of its angle. In realistic battles, as far as I know western knights swords are drawn before the enemy strikes, and for Japanese Samurais they have this one rule where 1 or 2 strikes and the enemy should be dead and the sword is back in its scabbard which is reasonable for the curved blade becuz the Samurais rely on their speed and they do not use their sword for blocking purposes unlike longswords where they go **block this swing block that swing and strike** what im trying to say is it depends on how good the user is and that Katanas have more advantage because you cant just go near the Samurai without the knowledge of how long the Samurais sword is becuz like i said they tend to hide the blade length so one false move and step inside their attack range (depending on how long the katana is in which enemies wont be able to know) and youre dead beause once the enemy is in their reach they draw their swords in insane speed which is where the curved blade is most useful and despite of draw speed they can strike their enemies in different various angles. This why Samurais are dangerous and fearsome in the beginning but as far as i know if u can survive the first strikes they wont return their katanas back to their scabbard and tend to fight you head-on which is where the longswords can then rival the Katana because like i said Katanas are not used to block strikes and they only do when needed (samurais do footwork in avoiding strikes).
curved blade was originally invented to be used on horseback. Where its effectiveness was greater against lightly armored targets, and other horseback targets (when curved blade was popular, many cavalry civilization did not yet invent stir-ups and did not wear heavy armor). It quickly lost its effectiveness as soon as soldiers started armoring up. Samurais themselves never used katana for combat besides for last resort against unarmored targets. Against other samurais, they would use blunt objects or kanabo. European knight against samurais, the samurai will lose every single time. European can use one and a half sword technique specifically evolved to fight against equally well-armored target, or half-swording. Or sword and dagger technique. (these techniques were so effective that unarmored or lightly armored fighter could kill armored targets. And Japanese do not have equivalent techniques because their katana fighting techniques were all invented post adoption of guns, and at this time Japanese samurais were using arquebuses or bows) Japanese katana is two-handed weapon without the cutting and thrusting power of zweihander, nor versatility of longsword which can be used with a dagger or a shield. The weight is also distributed evenly so if you miss a swing, recovery is a lot longer than longsword or zweihander. Essentially an axe without advantage of power of an axe. Japanese samurai will lose 10/10 against knights given same level of competency.
I agree with many of your points. I especially like bigger cross guards because if an edge catches and cuts the fingers it is a Big problem. Can’t fight with fingers so more had protection is a good idea.
European knights had crossguard on the sword, on the wrist, with plates on gloves, and leather glove worn underneath. Katana is not cutting through hands. Samurai's hand was protected but nowhere near the extent of European knights.
I never timed it or did any research on this, but it seems like a katana takes a longer time to make compared to a long sword. So it's probably more efficient to supply your whole army with long swords than with katanas.
Katana is mostly a duel sword, In war, the samurai uses No Dachi, Tetsubo, Naga Maki, Naginata, y Yari. In a duel, or a scramble battle, the Wakisashi and Katana were used in reduced places with almost no armor.
in order to have the optimum of force transfered it needs to be in a 90 degree angle. since the katana, or any other curved sword, have that 90 degree angle due to their shape (part of a cricle) it could possibly enhance the possibilyty of full force transfer. this is highly theoratical so hmm maybe right or wrong.
the katana's curve is meant to reduce vibrations to the hand making them more comfortable to wield and to parry other swords which is actually why it would win over a long sword its just as strong but lighters and quicker to use the katana was actually made to beat straight swords (western swords) i have actually looked into this alot sure there are more options with the western sword in terms of length and has more force but thats just why the katana was made to counter its heaver bigger counter part by parrying and controlling the flow of battle
katanas are not lighter than longswords and they do not vibrate less either, also longswords are not heavy weapons at all, they are not made to apply much force, just speed.
If your talking about a basic katana around 40-50 centimeters then it is a bit lighter I do own a long sword and a katana (do this does not make me an expert) but the was just made to absorb those vibration not saying one does more then the other, and I do love both weapons (and I just found you'd videos on TH-cam and they are alot of fun to watch!!!) I just think it kinda depends on the fight your in or what your most conformable using I do think a katana would win over a long sword if they were to clash but I've never seen it so that's an opinion Awesome videos though man!!! Lot of fun!!!
The Katana is a very special weapon. Handling it requires a completely different style than any other sword. first of, what some people don't know, but most do, you hold it with one hand right at the guard and the other at the end of the handle, so that you have some space between your hands. secondly, you block attacks with the dull back of the blade, not the sharp side. That requires incredibly fast reflexes and self control. Thirdly, and that is something most people get wrong, a Katana is not only used by hitting your opponent with and pulling the blade backwards. You rather turn your entire body, breaking the balance of you opponent, so that his entire body glides down the blade. That is why a bokken is just as dangerous as a Katana.
''you hold it with one hand right at the guard and the other at the end of the handle'' that's how you hold any 2 handed sword ''you block attacks with the dull back of the blade'' no you don't, common misconception ''a Katana is not only used by hitting your opponent with and pulling the blade backwards'' that's just called a drawcut, you always need to apply a little bit of push or pull to a cut for it to have any effect, with any sword
SnapJelly well I have Heard all that in a documentary about them. If that was false, you can't blame me for believing it. I'm just going to trust you on the.
SnapJelly to your last point, I have seen an AI Ki Do blackbelt throwing someone to the ground using a bokken and a simple turning motion. It was not like you understood it. I just can't express myself properly, because I don't know the right words. also since we are already talking, could you make a video criticizing the mistakes in archery, that almost all movies and video games make?
From what I've learnt the Katana is a back up weapon to their main weapon the Bow then spear/ pole weapon then Odachi (Long Sword). The Katana is a medium sword. There are many Katana without a guard too. Its not the main battle weapon. See Jap Expert Metatron site. In this sense the Katana was not used often in battle. The western long sword was however. Also I believe Katanas were not refined much as its more to do with tradition and Japan is an island with not much outside influences. There was a barrier to information / innovations. Europe had many cultures around them and ventured far and learnt much. Japan stuck to their island. Like many Asian cultures they prefer to be agile and shoot arrows at the enemy, kill as easily as possible.
Nice.
The vid is called "Why I don't like katanas".
It is all about why he doesn't like katanas.
He doesn't purport to say "longswords are better than katanas".
The reason why there are so many people who state that "the katana is better than the longsword" is almost certainly, in my opinion, down to the fact that those people *like* the katana more. As simple as that.
Which is why this is a great video.
Katana might has a real edge as a personal carry weapon. The tiny curve of the Katana and the slightly reduced length, believe it or not, allows quick draw slash and quick draw block or parries. In the event of bandit ambush or assassinations, a well-trained katana user can reduce the disadvantage of sheathed weapon to zero. As a battle field weapon, the long sword is better, but again, samurais were elite mounted archers and later musketeers, so the katana has always been a secondary weapon that were designed to spring into action quick when the primary attack methods fail. For instance, when the mounted archers and the musketeers have to face opponents in close quarter combat, the katana allows the user to drop the primary ranged weapon and quickly whip out the katana into action. Basically, it was never designed as a primary battlefield weapon and was always designed to be a slick side arm meant to be used in a "sword slinger" fashion.
0:40
With all due respect... I watched the video where you took the test on weapons when a shirasaya (Japanese sword in a plane wood set up usually for storing the blade) . watching you fail so miserably on that question and the explanation as to why you were going to guess it was a wakisashi or tachi , when it was so obvious that it was a katana. That leads me to believe that you don't qualify to make a opinion on shinkin. I am not being mean but I encourage everyone to watch that video and then ask "how can I even listen to this guys view on these blades. You know nothing about them. So for you to give a opinion on there function is laughable.
@@pypy1986820 swords are sidearms. The drawing speed of the weapon is not much different and won’t make a difference anyways. A longsword is a superior weapon. Katanas are as heavy as longswords (a tiny insignificant bit lighter) and their blade is very thick. The only advantage of the katana IMO is that it requires less skill so it is easier to cut with it. But that is all it can do. Cut. The longsword can cut just as well (if the wielder is skilled) but you can also stab with it and use way more techniques... it’s much lighter than people think (probably due to video game misconceptions).
@@arminius504 You can stab just fine with a Katana too.
The real issue is that Katanas are incredibly short for being a two-handed weapon.
why is John wick talking to us about swords
He got tired of using guns
Ha! He does kind of look like Keanuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuu
To counter Ip man in pt 4
lol that skallagrim referamce was really funny, lmao :D
I'd take an attack helicopter over any sword,.
me 2, from the ground!
Meh, gimme a blindfold and a buttering knife
How would you fuel it in medieval? Hell, you won't even be able to replicate it or draw any usefull knowledge! The only good part is the advanced alloys but even then melting those would either be impossible at that time or impractical.
Why not start with the nukes?
I just so happen to identify as an attack helicopter and I find this offensive as it is objectifying me #triggered
It popularity stems more from the whole Mythos of the Samurai , as a whole , Then with the sword alone.
I like how everyone in the comment section is a sword expert now.
Well I actually have a PhD on swords, and I run a sword school about swords and I own a sword
Dogman PhD on swords? i hope youre being sarcastic, or else you just made yourself look foolish
David Vega Im the foolish one? You sir have been fooled by an obvious joke.
Bad joke
David Vega Fooled by a bad joke you mean
you can't end him rightly with a katana there for long sword is better
Lawliet Ryuzaki get out 😂
End someone rightly? I think end results matter than style, LOL. It's a lousy defense for a longsword.
Dude your comment doest even make any sense ! Youre outta here dude for that foolish comment !
But do you need end them rightly? They'll just end themselves.
European was more advanced in war compared to Japan, European/Middle-eastern steel was stronger and had more variations the Japan, thereby our armors and weapons way of greater quality and power. They even had to use clay to prevent decarburization of steel.
Yes, of course the Katana has great cutting abilities maybe ever greater than European swords, but cutting isn't all. Cutting is quite effective against Farmers and for execution, but not necessarily armor.
-- P.S The Katana is bent because of the water quenching, not increased cutting power.
Katana's where made to be effective for there area same as European. Katanas where actually good at striking and not all Katana's where curved much the Blacksmith Kotetsu had some nearly completely straight Katanas. Katanas where not used on armor but the weak spots like face and arm pits, Japanese use Kanabo's to deal with armor.
Same with European swords though they went for weak spots in the armor not to pierce it.
Honestly if you ask me btw the Samurai Armor is far greater then European armor just due to versatility alone.
- But thats my opinion, its impossible to say something like that as fact.
Some of them were made to be curved , because they are curved the more curved parts of the balde travel a greater distance in the same time as the other less curved parts giving them more power when cutting , it is true that when made the quenching in water gives them a slight curve but if the sword makers did not want a curve they could have easily fixed it .
@@axelmok4_channel391 yeah, thats the basis for kendo
@ daniel (dont want to @ u cause its been 3 years) thats just not true, the speed of the specific area of the blade is determined by the distance from the hilt, not the curve
@@axelmok4_channel391 uhm no. European full plate armor is objectively superior to samurai armor
I would say that both swords serve purpose, the Longsword was designed for a reason as for the katana was. I agree that katanas are overhyped but I wouldn't call them inferior.
mpirarxos that's all hype samurai, bushido, ninjas, and anime.
They haven't dared show another culture beside japanese.
mpirarxos to be fair no one was using armor in the movies
I would
Wise words, friend..
He never called them inferior. He just said he doesn't like them.
I don't like katanas either... you just can't end them rightly!
Woo hoo!
A person who knows what a murderstroke is and that you can strike with the guard and the pommel.
I also prefer the longsword, though I do know how to use both to a certain degree. The long sword is something I do know better though.
Is it not common knowledge?
Kemal Sunal No, not particularly.
At least among the crowds down here. Too much role playing and being too stuck in what the book says, not looking beyond it. Not even knowing some basic history.
Murderstroke isn't particularly effective, because it doesn't fully use the pommel. Now to fully use the pommel to must unscrew it and toss it at the enemy to end them rightly!
sdeep Multani How about striking with the cross guard instead?
I've seen that leave dents in 2mm tempered steel. That's certainly more effective than throwing a pommel.
There Be Game No, but you see the pommel can pierce all the way through the steel, the pommel will also instantly end the fight, due the enemy having been finished rightly.
Actually no. Katanas are excellent for stabbing as well as slicing, so already you're wrong. Also, drawing & sheathing is a lot smoother. Katanas are also lighter & easier to use.
I prefer western swords myself, but one huge mistake that you did is that you used western/european fighting style techniques to judge a Japanese sword. Also, each weapon in history was created to counter the armor types of that era and vive versa.
Samurai had good armor to. Same level as European knights.
Naaahh. I am sorry man, yes Samurai had also plate armor but nowhere near as protective as a Knight's plate armor.
The problem with Japanese swords is that they developed in a closed environment and hardly evolved over the best part of 800 years. Their role was more as a mark of status than as a pure murder implement. People who relied on them for their lives (like Miyamoto Musashi) critiqued them and made adaptations, favouring a longer blade and/or another sword in the offhand for duelling, but for most, they were 'sacred' and couldn't be touched. Weapons and armour in Europe and the Middle East evolved a lot faster because they were actually being used to kill people who didn't want to be killed, and survival was more important than tradition, whilst Shogunate Japan was at peace for around 300 years in the late medieval period.
Not even close, sorry. Compare late medieval plate to same-period Japanese armour and one is clearly superior over the other.
+Battler Evil Actually that's not completely true, some samurais who had the connection and could afford it imported and used European armor from the Portuguese.
I died when you said you can't throw a pommel and end him rightly, that was great
Ive had 10 yrs of intense study in japanese weapondry and though aesthetically they look cool af they arent a great design IN COMPARISON to areas with more readily available quality metal.
Lol whatever
"I've had 10 yrs of intense study in Japanese weaponry" - 🤓🤓🤓
He touched on something important though: if I had a choice between a longsword or a katana, I would choose a spear. I would choose a pointy stick if I had to. Spears and other pointed sticks have been the weapon of choice throughout most of human history: they keep enemies away and they are very good at stabbing enemies. Yes, the longsword has reach, but a spear has better reach, and you can easily draw it back if you get into close quarters. You can throw it if you have to! I agree that most Japanese swords were garbage, but they had good spears and most Japanese warriors used the spear over the katana because they were cheaper and better. Swords have been and always will be a status symbol.
The weakness of a spear is that it's not effective against armor. If you thrusted a spear at an armored opponent and the curve of their armor deflects the force, they could simply grab it away from you. A more effective weapon in warfare would be a halberd or a glaive, where the center of gravity is heavy at the bladed point, allowing it to not only cut through flesh but cause massive damage against armor through sheer blunt force.
like the other reply said, spear is only better choice if the other guy is unarmored.
if both you and the other guy has full plate armor, it is actually better to have a dagger than even a sword. As most fights like this will go to the ground with grappling and wrestling where winner is whoever jams dagger or knife inside gaps of the armor while pinning the enemy down.
Hammer, axe, mace or even a club would be much better choice than a spear against fully armored enemy.
From what i have seen, read on and such. I'm not an expert by any standard, so feel free to adjust if needed
I'm not going to address "katanas folded a thousand times and slice through steel and the souls of your enemies" crap. People who can't separate myth from reality have no bearing here
In my humble opinion, the katana is limited in it's usage for 2 main reasons. First, it has no guard to speak of. \when it comes to two handed fighting, a great deal of European techniques rely heavily on the guard - both as a defense and as an offence. And these techniques are time--proven and effective
Secondly, it can't be paired with a shield - at .least not without losing much of it's effectiveness. It's a two handed slashing weapon - to maximize it you need both hands
I'm obviously not comparing katanas in this capacity to greatswords/claymore/zweihanders, but longswords/bastard/hand-and-a-half or however you would call them. Most European medieval swords were meant to be used with a shield
So basically, a katana is very rigid in how it should be used effectively - it's a two handed slashing weapon, with not really that great a range.
As for construction , i think it's remarkable. A spine of soft steel to keep the blade steady and strong, and a body of hard steel that keeps the edge shard. Once again, it's overly complicated. Historical reasons why this was forged the way it was - not enough steel/bad steel in Japan as opposed to Europe. Folding the steel to remove impuruties is hardly a Japanese invention
So here is why I don't like katanas - they are overly limited in their use, complicated in making
the curve is merely a product of heat treatment due to difference in carbon content... the cutting edge is made to be super hard whereas the back of the blade is relatively soft to allow for flex and durability
yeah nice one..
and easy to break
One thing i will point out is that Katanas can actually thrust quite well against unarmoured targets and would not break if used to thrust, as they are quite stiff and stiff swords generally perform well when thrusting, indeed you really don;t want a very flexible sword when thrusting as less force will be imparted in said thrust. However, against Mail (or even gambeson) they would not fair very well, as the point is simply not acute enough to be effective.
Great video tho :)
There are several pommel techniques with it in different kenjutsu styles and I thought it was a bit obvious that there is no reason for one to use "murder strokes" or "half-swording" with it simple because you are holding a light blade that was mainly designed to cut non-armored opponents in its era. The whole comparisson is a bit silly if you ask me.
Katana are heavy for their size.
the average weight of war time Katanas is only a few ounces less then that of long swords... the difference being easily explained by the average size of Japanese being smaller then the average size of Europeans.
+Adrian's Survival Arms Armour and Zombies. Matter of perception. If you where to pick up a longsword in the same mind frame, you would find it to be light. Anecdotal evidence means less then a scale's readout.
Average weight of a Japanese Katana: 2.5-3.0 lbs.
Average weight of a European Longsword: 2.5-3.5 lbs.
You will notice that most of the weight scale overlaps, but western longswords do get a little bit heavier. That makes sense when you remember that the average size of Europeans is greater then the average size of Japanese, so it makes sense for western swords to be proportionately larger.
Sorry katans weight is not small, war time katanas weight about the same as longsword but are shorter (they have thicker blade). Light katanas are from Tokugawa era and later, which means sword not for real war but for duels and cutting tatami.
It Japanese version of smallsword, eppe etc
I have several katanas and no wall hangers. Katanas aren't any sharper than the western swords, and a bad cut will bend the blade. They can thrust better than you think though. I don't think they cut any better/worse than an equally sharp long sword either. It's just another sword created to deal with the combat of it's era.
A bad cut will not bend a good Katana, trust I've had hundreds of them
@@thearchives446 Using modern ateel I imagine. A traditionally made katana will easily take a bend if you have a bad cut.
All katanas will bend on a bad cut. A bad katana will snap.
In fact , japanese samurai use spear,bow even a musket on battlefield rather than a katana
Katana is much like a self-defense weapon , basically you won't encounter a gangster or thief wearing a armour in town , right?
An assassin,sent by your opponent, won't wear any kind of armour, either.
Still, katana may be an option for side weapon ,but why it still kill because ：
Not every enemy can afford an armour， even if thet might have one , it has less protection than european armour
You just rekt a bunch of weaboos
I Don’t Like Katanas Because It Doesn’t Have a pommel And You Can’t End him rightly
katanas have their own philosophy, and it's true that thinking about a katana with a Medieval "chevalresque let's save the princess" mindset makes them seem quite obselet. In fact thinking of anything with prejudices minimizes it and strips it from any sens. In feudal Japan they also had armors, they had other weapons to get the best of a fully armored samurai (usuealy a high rank like a general), or an armored samurai on horse back (heavy cav). The greatest samurais who had an indepth understanding of strategy they were against attachement to any kind of weapon, and any glorefication of any weapon (katana or long sword) would only cripple your abilities in what they called the way of strategy, in fact they were more keen to the understanding of pros and cons, purposes and adventages of every weapon, to make the most of it...in a battlefield, that is the warrior mindset. they can't say I like such and deslike such weapon. and I'd advise you not to, no matter how great or less great one's knowledge can be, he should always include more not less.
Also, because the katana is single edged, if you break the edge, it becomes a very thin stick.
If you break a longsword's edge, you can use the other edge, or use it as a hammer, as you mentioned.
For a gang member, using something like a katana or a tanto could actually be useful being that people dont wear plate armor anymore. Killing someone without armor doesnt take much, you just need anything sharp or pointy and stab them in the vital organs. Otherwise, lol in your case id agree with you.
Except a long sword would do the exact same thing only better and from a further distance away making you even safer
Safer from what? 9mm or .45ACP?
He's talking about bringing a knife to a fight. In that regard the slashing weapon is better but even then there are things from 17-19 century Europe that would make Katana inferior. On the other hand for a gang member effective use of Katana or Tanto may bring some benefits in the form of renown or even respect.
Lol did I ever say swords are superior to guns? get your shit straight boy
Dont tell me shit i already know. I doubt youd do all that thinking when someone charges up to you with a knife and your throat gets slit hahaha
Hauke Holst and also people arent wearing middle age armor anymore so you dont gotta worry about armor so much. Id personally have a katana with me at home in case an intruder comes in, ill wait for him to kick the door, wait in a corner, and than chop his head off
My hypothesis on the slight curve of the katana's utility is that it allows the user to make slashes at extreme close range. For example, in the case where the user gets close enough to lodge the blade under the opponent's arm or neck, they can put one hand on the dull side of the blade to add downward/upward force, and then drag the blade across the flesh, creating a deep gash. This maneuver would be extremely useful against an armored opponent, who is often unguarded near the joints, where it's easy to lodge a blade in between.
This would be much harder with a straight-edge sword, but also much more awkward with an extreme curve sword like a scimitar (as it would require rotation of the slashing trajectory to align with the blade's curve). Plus, scimitars and sabers are one-handed swords and are meant to be used in a defensive, fencing stance in mid-range combat, not extremely close-range against armored opponents.
I think this hypothesis makes sense considering that the Japanese did have straight-edge blades, but those were reserved for assassinations, where users would stab through unarmored targets.
curved swords were developed by horseback civilization when stir-ups weren't yet invented (and therefore enemies were not heavily armored on horses, not to mention horses back then were not strong enough to don heavy armor themselves), so that the blade can slice through enemies using full momentum of galloping horse behind the curved blades.
As soon as stir-ups were invented they started using long pointy things instead, as they not only have longer reach, points penetrate better when whole momentum of galloping horse is behind it than few pieces of blade which had to be held by weak wrists.
Katana on the other hand weren't used on horseback, as it had to be held by both hands. And it was not even designed for horseback but for cutting. This is extremely terrible. Because generally such a close distance melee requires either top heavy, power striking weapon like axe, zweinhander, glaive, and such, or one handed weapon like longsword, hammer in combination of shield, or even dagger and sword combination designed to fight against fully armored enemies (sword strikes to bruise and cause concussion through the plate armor, dagger for actual kill)
you are thinking about a medieval knight fighting another knight using a katana, in which case it would be horrible because the fighting styles and armor is different for western knights versus a samurai. the katana was designed to be used with a martial art that focused on quick lethal movements where speed and cutting power was essential, whereas the western knights were trained to maneuver the opponent into a position that would leave them vulnerable because the armor was more protective. that would be like saying an Egyptian sickle sword is inefficient in combat because it cant beat a knight in plate armor. weapons are designed to be the most efficient against the armor and fighting techniques of their time and place. i own both a katana and a long sword, both around $400, and the katana is better at cutting and stabbing soft materials whereas the long sword does better against harder materials such as wood. this supports the fact that they were designed for different styles of combat which makes the argument, "this sword is better then that" completely irrelevant.
I agree with much of what you said but it is true that Both knights and Samurai wore full metal armor and frankly the long sword is better at dealing with metal armor, which is why the Katana was a last resort weapon and people preferred longer pole weapons or bows to them.
+Lehel Flothmann samurais had a shit ton more openings
Melting Clocks
A shit ton may be a little harsh but yes Japanese armor did typically have more gaps in it.
ian long a knight with a katana?That's just hard to picture lol.
I like how over 200 people disliked the video presumably instantanously because the title alone - and they didn't even read it right most likely. 11 / 10
Well, personally I would choose my weapon according to the armor type of my opponent.
I would never take a katana to a fight with a proper armored knight. Not going to happen.
But against someone with light or no protection a katana is a valide option. I my experience it is easier to get around the opponents weapon in a back hand strike with a curved blade. --> no slicing in this move, but stabbing.
Concerning the "cross guard" on a katana: This thing is NOT, I reaped *NOT*, for for protection against enemy blows. I'm still waiting to this day for someone to show me a historical move in the Japanese way of fighting which blocks a blade with the "tsuba". Those things could merely protect your hand from sliding in your own blade during a thrusting movement.
Thats not completely true, it also prevents opposing blades from sliding down to cut the user hands durring binds. Also it's very unlikely for your hands to slip from a katana hilt with its ray skin covering not say it wouldn't happen.
Mistaa Spaakles
Have you a source for such a "bind move"? Because I never found one. It would be helpful.
Yeah, it's unlikely to slip from a katana hilt. But definitely not impossible. Especially in a messy battle.
I can't find the specific source anymore, but it suggested that the first tsubas were meant for a easier picking up the weapon while sitting down.
Against an unarmored opponent I'd take a rapier. So my sword is lighter and more nimble and I got about 100cm range on you. What do you do?
+Pasan Etternavn i would take a side sword
"You cant end him rightly" fjhkkkgffdddd
Not a katana fanboy, but there are some things wrong with your analysis. For one thing, thrusts with a slightly curved sword are not completely ineffective. They are just less effective than with a straight sword. Since force follows the structure of the blade, some of the force is directed sideways with a curved sword. Also, the shape is less than ideal, requiring a larger area to make a penetration than with a more optimized thrusting sword. However, those are merely optimizations. You can still thrust with a katana, and have it be quite effective. You just can't thrust as well. Heck, you can thrust with a flathead screwdriver if you are really determined. You can stab into someone's chest or skull very effectively with a katana. This is a technique which is taught and was used. I think Cold Steel has some simulated demonstrations of this up on TH-cam. You will have a much harder time stabbing into chainmail than with a longsword optimized for anti-armor work, however.
I do not know anything about eastern martial art at all, but European sabre techniques use thrusting from time to time... and vice versa rapier can sometimes be used for cutting in Spanish school (Italian methods focus only on the thrust)
Yes there is katana stabbing techniques. but they are not used in modern tournament. I think to simplify things not sure.
And in fact katans is good thruster because of harder stiffer blade (similar as in European thrusting sword or rapiers).
But it is not so good cuter, it cuts good but not from curve of blade, which is very light and some European longsword have more cutting angle (yes from straight blade )
One thing is not about curve but about point aliment with handle, some Polish sabers have point in the same line as handle so the thrust good.
Part to simplify, yes. Kendo is more like olympic fancing - they're recreational sports, and while they might derive from classic swordmanship, they have no real intention of being loyal recreations of historical battle scenarios, they're a game. AN interesting game, but a game. So safety and better entertainment > actual combat effectiveness in their design.
The curve of the Katana is actually due to the differential in the steel of the blade. It isn't really done on purpose as it was a result of the forging of the blade. Its actually because the spine of the Katana was softer steel then was the edge, which was hardened. During this hardening of the edge, which produced the "hamon" that wave-like pattern you see running down the edge of the blade, the blade would naturally curve. Some examples of katanas show a very pronounced curve, others only a slight curve.
I know right, katana is inferior to western sword. It's sad people keep saying katana is superior.
I would not really say inferior.. just different, I personally prefer a straight sword with a crossguard
How can you say one is inferior if they were made for a different purpose
Because one can serve many more purposes than the other? What would you rather have, a sword that has inferior piercing power, inferior armour pierceing due to not being able to perform murder strokes or pommel strikes, shorter reach or the weapon with longer reach, better armour piercing, similar cutting power, ability to half sword and perform murder strokes and pommel strikes?
Levi Ackerman Yeah but the Japanese didn't need to fight against oponents in plate armor and if you wanted longer reach you would use the odachi
and if I wanted more armour piercing and reach I could also use a spear, halberd or polearm.
I prefer the Ulfberht because it's more durable and it's steel is similar to modern steel.
For some reason there are people who believe the katana is at best a mediocre sword. You will find lots more videos on TH-cam spouting that nonsense these days than you'll find of people spouting the opposite rubbish.
Also: You don't want a very flexy blade for thrusting. You want it to be stiff. Katana are excellent thrusters against soft and medium targets, because what counts here is mainly the sharpness of the edge - not the acuteness of the tip. Being more trained in Japanese sword arts than Western, I actually find it much more natural to thrust with the katana than with a longsword. The katana is a cut-and-thrust weapon; to say that "thrusting is not an option" is sheer nonsense.
And half-swording with the katana is called soete-tsuki. The spine is not sharp, so there is no problem whatsoever.
Katana is basically a saber blade on a long hilt. Its not long enough to be a good two hander and it dont have the versatility and is too heavy to be a good one hander. On top of that it got no hand protection. It is a stupid design and at best a mediocre sword.
Its unusually sharp though. I'll give it that. But sharpness is not the most important quality of a sword at all.
+Pasan Etternavn It has got far better hand protection than what a simple quillon offers. A quillon also has an offensive purpose, but an opponent's weapon can get past it even if it stops the blade. This is why rings were later added, or Nagels, in the case of Messers - which extend out about as far as a katana's tsuba. In other words, that little disc is really all you need as far as protection goes. It is the same sort of guard you see in swords all over Asia and, not infrequently, Europe as well. Can't have been all bad, can it?
And why isn't it long enough to be a good two-hander? How long is long enough, and what do you base that number on? If it weren't long enough, it stands to reason that the Japanese would have made it longer. War is nothing if not practical.
Now, you might say that it has inferior reach next to longswords, and it certainly does - but the Japanese didn't face longswords. Except when they faced O-dachi or nagamaki, but neither of these designs remained popular for long.
As for versatility, how much more versatility does a longsword really have? The biggest difference is two edges as opposed to one. Beyond this, I can really only think of the murderstroke, but this is a technique which is extremely rarely used anyway. Oh, HEMA practitioners today toy around with it a lot, and I have seen it used a lot, but I have not once seen it used _successfully_. It is something which is _possible_ to do with a sword, just like it would be possible for an unarmed person to use his toe to poke someone's eye out. It isn't likely to happen very often.
Too heavy? They are light even a small person could wield one with one hand. It's two handed for precision. As result it a much faster weapon and wont wear the wielder out nearly as fast. With armored opponents fatigue will set in very quickly within a minute or two inside a formation that not as big of a deal but one on one it's a huge problem.
Gilmaris basiacally a crossguard offers the protection the katana dobtm dont ask
+Gilmaris You bring up some great points here, and I thought I might elaborate.
Katana, when made specifically for someone, were made so that in a resting position, with the blade in hand and rested point down, the tip came within a very small distance of the ground. A wakizashi would be the distance from the hands in an overhead slashing position to the average ceiling height, again minus some small amount. The lengths were well thought out for the way and areas that each of these swords were used, and are in no way inadequate or inferior to the longsword in terms of effectiveness against the intended target.
The katana is also primarily a slashing weapon, and thus needs only the edge facing your opponent to be sharp. Technique was developed such that the blade would face your target under most conditions. The Europeans forwent the creation of technique and instead built it into the weapon. Is this superior? In some circumstances, sure. In others, no.
As a side note:
In reality, to compare these two weapons in some hypothetical situation is folly. If the Japanese and Europeans had ever come to a large-scale battle, /both/ would have adapted or invented weapons to combat the unique challenges that the enemy presented. That is how warfare works.
You're right - the curve in the Katana is too slight to make much difference to a cut at all. It's actually a flaw caused by the quenching process of the differential hardened steel - each side of the blade is covered in a different thickness of clay when it's quenched, causing one side to cool faster than the other. The hardened edge cools first, bending the blade forward slightly, but when the rear of the blade cools afterwards it bends the blade backwards giving the Katana its rear curve.
The problem with this is, it makes the sword very fragile - if you bend it, it's either going to shatter or stay bent (Unlike European spring steel, which springs back to shape.), additionally it also reduces the effectiveness of a thrust as all of the stress caused by the thrust is stored up in the curve, giving the blade a weak point where it can bend or break. Obviously, with a Longsword having no curve this isn't an issue. A straight blade with spring steel makes a MUCH better blade for thrusting - though the hardened edge, and single bevel edged cross section of a Katana makes it ever so slightly better at cutting, it's not enough to warrant the obvious flaws in the weapon.
You also have to consider that as the centuries passed the Longsword evolved, and branched out into different swords. The Katana pretty much remained the same out of tradition - sure it had slight differences, like maybe a longer blade, or a more curved blade, etc, but the basic design remained the same, meaning that whilst Western cultures were in an arms race to produce more effective weapons and armour, the Japanese weren't so much. Western swords became more specialised for different roles (Rapiers for personal defense, Zwiehanders for heavily armoured combatants on the battlefield that could use two hands because their armour didn't need a shield, etc.). The Katana didn't really change a whole lot.
"It's actually a flaw caused by the quenching process" - That's not entirely accurate. Many Japanese smiths got good enough to not only predict the curve which would form during quenching, but to change the curve and its location based on their layering of clay.
That's why katana have three different locations for the primary curvature.
"if you bend it, it's either going to shatter or stay bent" - More than likely stay bent, or delaminate, but not shatter. The soft spine was ensured partially for that purpose. If bent, but no delamination occurs, the blade can be fixed quite easily.
"Unlike European spring steel, which springs back to shape." - But is more likely to actually break when it fails (and they did). Both swords are basically garbage at that point, just different in their failure.
"additionally it also reduces the effectiveness of a thrust" - Only to a small degree. The thick spine also compensates for much of the stress, and Japanese thrusting techniques are quite different from European ones.
"though the hardened edge, and single bevel edged cross section of a Katana makes it ever so slightly better at cutting" - This isn't entirely true, either.
Katana have a thicker cross-section than a longsword, and were also shorter.
They are only 'better at cutting' when used with proper technique; in the same way you can botch a longsword cut with improper edge alighnment, a botched katana cut may not even go through a pool-noodle.
"the Longsword evolved, and branched out into different swords." - The 'longswords' blade geometry was virtually the same from the Merovingian (where it was slightly shorter with a rounded tip) all the way through into the Renaissance (where it became overall longer with an acute tip).
The only major thing that makes a 'longsword' different from a Merovingian-era sword is hilt-furniture: Cruciform hilt and space for two hands. Often the blade isn't even much longer.
And the only major difference between a 'longsword' and a zwehander/bidenhander is the size. Only later examples have the rings present on the guard, or the parrying-hooks; and even then, not all zweihanders had both, or either.
"The Katana pretty much remained the same out of tradition" - It actually didn't. The changes to blade geometry are quite obvious when one takes the effort to learn what they are. There are twelve variations to the kissaki (that I can think of), for instance.
Overall, the blade geometry of a katana changed many, but more subtle, ways than the longsword.
Although the hilt-design was virtually static throughout the centuries, and the actual cross-section was less varied than the longsword, it is even possible to locate historical katana with profile and distal taper, as well as false edges.
"Western swords became more specialised for different roles" - You're comparing swords from a whole continent to those of one small, fairly isolated country.
To address the evolution of the sword honestly, you would have to pick a country *within* western civilization, and compare from there, otherwise, it's fair game to use all of Asia as a reference point.
It's not easy to find someone in the comment sections that is actually educated on the matter discussed but you did it well buddy, very nice explanations there.
Okay get ready cause I would like to contribute to this topic, and do I have quite a bit to say.
To answer the last question "Why people glorify the katana so much"
I think we can blame pop culture. Anime, Hollywood and almost everything else features Katana's as the mighty weapon of any great warrior, but it only started because naturally Anime is from Japan, and the Katana is a fabled Japanese Sword.
Personally, I think the issue is that you can't compare European Long Swords to Japanese Katana's because they're two opposite weapons of two opposite cultures.
I agree that the European Long Sword is far more versatile than a Katana as you can use it like a sword, war hammer or as a spear like you mentioned.
The Katana is far less suited for anti armor, because it's a weapon that's designed for one thing and one thing only: Slashing at an opponents weak spot. Samurai warriors who wielded Katana's were trained on how to fight with the weapon and how to not fight with the weapon. The Katana was meant to slip into the gaps of armor and cripple an opponent for a Death Blow. And since Samurai Armor didn't cover as much as European Steel, it would make sense that culturally, there was little need to change the design of the sword.
Another big thing about the Katana is that (counter to popular belief) you can't clash blades with a Katana or use it to block swords. The Katana was made to sharp, not invincible. If you clashed a Katana against a European Long Sword, you could see apparent damage to the blade itself. Those 1000 Damascus folds were made for sharp edges, not sturdy spines. This is also why it's guard is so small, it wasn't made to block blades, it was meant to simply keep the hand from reaching the blade and cutting yourself.
Also, I would like to correct two things. ONE, the Katana's come in various length's. A basic Uchigatana is your standard 60 to 70 CM, and while that does seem to be the longest sword, they can be made to barely reach 80 Cm. That and Samurai usually relied on pole arms to compensate if necessary.
Second, you CAN thrust with a Katana sword. There's a specific technique involved and requires two hands to thrust forward, typically aimed for the neck or heart. An accurate Samurai could likely go right for an open arm pit if available. It's a very specific technique, and sure it's true that it doesn't seem viable to thrust one handed, and the Katana wasn't built for thrusts, it's still possible due to the fact it still has a point.
But that's the thing about Katana's. It's a weapon built around a Martial Art. Just like Long swords, Zweihanders and pole arms, the Katana has its own unique techniques that require one to study and master it. Any anime fan can pick up a Katana and swing it about all fancy like, but only a devoted student can learn how to wield the Katana the way it should be.
So in summary, the Katana was a Master of One kind of sword unlike the longsword which is a Jack of All Trades. Katana's were meant to cripple enemies with one solid blow, while the warrior was trained to dodge and evade his opponents attacks. Essentially, this was a battle of stamina and focus, not strength and parries.
This is why I personally like Katana's. It's not the perfected sword and it really only serves one or two purposes in combat, but it excels in those purposes so well that it makes up for its short comings. I can perfectly understand why a lot of HEMA practitioners don't appreciate the Katana due to its lack of varied abilities, but as someone who really appreciates and admires Japanese culture and especially Samurai Warriors, I find the Katana to be a very powerful weapon for those who wish to master it.
And personally, you don't have to be an anime enthusiast to appreciate the sword. I don't like Anime that much because I think it's too cliched most of the time, but I don't let that tarnish the image of what is one of History's greatest weapons.
Of course, this is all my opinion. And everyone is entitled to use the weapon they're most comfortable with. Which is why I personally prefer Rapiers over all other swords. Sure, I love Katana's, but the Rapier is just too good of a weapon for me.
As a student of Japanese sword art I appreciate your comments and observations. You rightly point out that there is no magical qualities inherent in any katana. I truley despise the anime/ manga fanboy idealization of the katana. That said a katana is very good at thrusting and there we do train for fighting an armoured enemy. In this case quick thrusts are used to srike unarmoured parts of the body, ie underarm or wrist or groin.
Actually you can thrust very effectively with a katana or tachi, as well as a sabre.
There are techniques in Kendo & Sabre fencing for thrusting attacks. You simply have to learn the point of aim for the sword.
Longswords are sexier.
I think you should revisit this subject after watching practical videos of swordfighting.
I practice myself mate, I don't need those videos
not trying to be rude, but you need to do a little more research, the katanas curve can be enough to increase cutting power, however it depends on the type and amount and these depend on era the blade was made what school made the blade what smith made the blade and what sword school the practitioner belonged to. meiboku.info/guide/form/sori/index.htm
there is a link to a page that shows the different types of sori or curvature found on katana. in historical katanas made before the edo period, koshi sori seems to be alot more prevalent, and with koshi sori it begins in the first third of the blade and reduces towards the tip but never fully stops. with this type of curvature, it may not appear like it but the blades are much more heavily curved just due to where the curve starts and generally koshi sori style blades of older make or those made to imitate the told master had very very deep koshi sori.
the modern reproduction blades are pretty much all tori sori which is named after a part of the shinto shrine gate. this style of sori is basically useless and only exists because of the artistic style, the smith would control the sori when the quench happened. Even old chokuto or pre tachi and katana type swords from japan show hamon when properly polished to expose it, however these old blades are rarely polished. and a katana if made traditionally will be less sharp then youd think due to the apple seed shaped edge.
I would refer you to the point Snap made in the first minute of the video. Maybe the Katana cuts better than a longsword (it varies from type to type and there's no standard model of either sword, but in general), but so what? Pretty much any longsword can cut will enough to kill an unarmoured opponent, and no Katana ever made can cut through plate armour.
MisdirectedSasha first off historical katana the honjo masamune infact have cut through plate armor, the honjo masamune cleaved a helmet, however keep in mind that historically the best steels were used in swords not in armor. second when you compare a katana to a longsword wouldnt it be fair to use versions of the two that were meant for the same purpose? edo period blades werent meant for war, were made as art pieces many had slag reincorporated back into the blade because smiths could make it look like knots in a piece of wood to go along with the wood grain pattern or even burl patterns they created in the steel. edo period blades often have much more basic constructions and again were never meant for war, the reason they are less curved and the katana in fact is worn edge up is because its less easy to draw and wasnt needed in times of peace, where as in war blades were still worn edge down. and for many periods yes there are more standardized versions of the katana, such as koshi sori being the only kind of sori that was available.
you just earned a new Subscriber!!! time to really annoy my friends with this new info!
158 weaboos disliked
Kostja08a weaboos are gay
Ats lmao
The slight curve is for quick Draw-slashing from the sheath, more of a dueling technique. There's a whole martial art based around it though I forgot what it's called.
Iaido
Polish saber is better and cooler.
Cossack Shaschka is better and cooler.
Nick Dzink Let's call it a draw and let's go defeat turks together with those sabers.
Kamiel Heeres hell yeah!
Maciej Jerzy Malik and polish sabers are about as long and one handed :D
The katana is slightly curved in order to allow it to be easier to cut while pulling it out in one motion
This is a really good video. Personally, I don't agree, but I think he makes a great case (and is correct) that European longswords are just more practical than katanas.
Bear in mind that most swords in Europe were made by blacksmiths, and the smelting process of katana steel made is far superior in medieval times except for the wealthiest of Europeans who had access to things like crucible steel. Today, that's completely irrelevant (you can probably buy tool steel that's better than medieval katana steel), but back then it would have mattered.
Also, the culture in medieval Japan was heavily honor-bound, so people didn't need to fight dirty. In Europe, a sword that you could hit with every part was probably more of a necessity as there wasn't much honor is losing; you just tried to not die.
Having never fought with a sword in my life, I like katanas because of their iconic engineering and craftsmanship. They literally are works of art. In their day, they were far superior to just about every European sword except for those owned by the wealthy. Proof in that people still buy medieval katanas today. But, if you had to fight dirty, you could do a lot worse than a European longsword.
Thanks for your great videos.
Jesus. The smiting process of katanas is ancient, the Gauls used the same folding method in their swords BC. In Europe they developed better methods of forging good swords and weapons and left the folding technique behind.
Secondly the word "honor" is found in every European language and has been around since the Greeks. Europeans had honor and especially to a knights standing in society it was pivotal. what you see in Japan is ritualized duels which were not as common in Europe by the late medieval period, being more an hallmark of the migration age and viking era.
Thirdly just as there were good and bad european swords there were good and bad katanas. They were not all made by master smiths. its just that the lesser ones did not survive the ages.
and finally the reason why people are fascinated by katanas is the eastern orientalism that occurred in the 70's when hollywood got crazy about china and japan for a while. There we got the kung fu myths and the katana from.
In japan they are more connected to the samurai past than Europe is. I think this is beacuse while Europe had a very gradual development into modernity, Japan was shocked into it by western trade, and thus they still had a lot of their medieval culture which became ancient and mystical overnight.
the curve wasn't even intentional, it was just a side effect of the differential hardening
You have very superficial knowledge sorry mate.
Btw Katanas were almost never used on the Battlefield, the weapon of choice was the Yumi then Yari Naginata and Odachi 2 of these weapons have very high armor penetration values.
The reason MOST Katanas are slightly curved is that you can still thrust with them very effective something you can never do with a scimitar.
You should do more research before you release a video and maybe provide sources for your claims.
greetings
*****
+ he looks like a beta orbiter
*****
Look up what a Yoroi is then we will talk again.
You don't have to pierce a steelplate like you had to with european armorpiercing weapons.
I'm pretty sure the only reason katanas are curved is because of the differential hardening process when making the sword.
SkalarwellenReiter katana curved because it look awesome simple as that
Just Noob what's the point of "looking awesome" if it can't compare to other swords?
love your vids man !
Katana was actualy used as a backup weapon, the main weapon for samurai on the battlefield was odachi, nodachi, naginata, yumi etc.
**Grabs popcorn and leans back**
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the katana's curve was simply a side-effect of the tempering process.
A lot of people claim that but I don't know for certain so... can't say
Other than the trivial effect of reducing contact surface area and turning a cut in to a slight pull cut I think the curve of the katana makes edge alignment easier. A lot of the mass sits backwards from the axis of passing through the handle relative to the movement of the blade.
This mass will create torque around the axis of rotation improving edge alignment when the blade is accelerated.
The surface area sitting back will also act in a similar way to an arrow's fletchings.
After impact the handle sitting forward from the point of impact will pull the edge alignment straighter rather than it deteriorating the further you cut.
I suspect this is the main reason katanas seem so forgiving towards poor technique. That being said it would make little difference in experienced hands and I'd rather lose this benefit if it means having two edges and better thrusting.
well i maybe wrong but they were using it mostly against non amour units and bamboo stick(spear)infantry
and you actually are supposed to relay on the swing and footsteps to position for a good swing defensively or offensively
and do pardon my poor english
and bro check this out
the originality of katana
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A8%AA%E5%88%80
btw theres huge katanas meant for cavalry using (150-165cm)somewhere in the books written that time said theres swords that goes up to 280cm which doesnt really make sense but meh
What use does a sword have if you cannot end him rightly?
the thing is that the katana is made for killing unarmoured or very lightly armoured opponents. not meant for battle use often in history either. the longsword came to evolve to fight armour more excellently. but the longsword can do a sufficient job at both, and the katana cant fight plated armour nearly as well. so in any situation, i would prefer a longsword, especially because of the range advantage in both situations. you dont need to overkill with a katana, you just need to do enough to disable their arm or leg with one strike, incapacitate them or disarm them, which is significantly easier with a longsword because its easier to grab the blade and the crossguard is bigger and adapted for grappling. Sorry for the bad grammar, i hope somebody agrees
okay, i am not a katana fanboy but i do have to make a few points. As mentioned in the video, the knights mostly used polearms, and it is the same with the samurai, they had polearms and longbows mainly, the katana was like a backup and cqc option. My other point would be on the curve. The katana was designed for fast cuts, and also as a cqc option. The curve helps to transfer unsheating the sword into a slice, also its short lenght also helps with these types of cuts. Not to mention the steel quality in japan at that time, shorter swords needed less metal, also since the quality was bad, longer swords and steel armor was unavailable, there was no need for a longer swords, since swords were already a novelty.
the odachi is a huge sword and samurai armor was made of steel, cutting right after drawing can be done with an sword, curvature doesn't help in that aspect.
and well.. yea swords were secondary weapons but that doesn't change anything about what I said...
I think the curve is optimized the draw slash. I read a diary from a british guy recommending westerners to carry a pair of revolvers while traveling in Japan due to the rowing samurai and their quick draw.
There are people saying knight armor was super immobile... there is a video of someone in full plate armor doing a flip and rolling and stuff, and running around
Katana is not slightly curved to make it cut better it is slightly curved to make it easier to pull out of its case smoothly.
Does the metal with which a katana is made actually change it's cutting ability?
not really
Don't stab with your Katana boys, or it will break!
Pretty much the only benefit the Katana has over the longsword is that the slight curve helps with edge alignment; that's probably where the "blunt European swords", and "katana best weapon" misconceptions came from; any old idiot can pick up a katana and cut decently well, but you actually need to practice with the longsword. They can both be as sharp as each other, so that is a stupid argument to make, too
The main reason the Katana/Wakazashi were only slightly curved was actually for Iaijustu. Iaijustsu is a quick-draw technique that was mean to end a fight with one stroke. A straight sword would decrease draw speed. There in fact are examples of straight 'katanas', called Ninjato. They were assassins(ninja) weapons and thrust quite effectively.
there is no evidence that the Ninjato ever existed
We should simply make swords entirely out of pommels.
Sorry, I do have to correct some points.
The katana is just slight curved, and is still considerate straight and can trust pretty well. It's curve don't actually help to curve, and it is curved for very small trade-offs and aesthetic.
The main difference of the swords would actually be the footwork one would have to adopt. One technique won't work properly with the other, and that extends to guard and grappling.
There is an equivalent to half-swording with the katana, but is very, very different and usually associated with longer blade ones (with jo and yari techniques).
Both swords are effective, good sidearms, have different concepts and personally I don't see one to be better than the other. But people have preferences, and usually because of footwork rather than the blade itself - and that is also true in your case, boiling everything down.
I know it is quite hard to be found, but it would be nice if you could feel this difference in a Koryu Kendo school (not a Kejutsu Expert Gym bullshit, but somewhere people practice something of the like of Kashima, Kasumu or even some more modern ones).
*And after reading some of the comments, I must remember some of you: Modern Kendo is as close to Koryu Kendo as Fencing is to HEMA.
A teacher of me had said that with a katana it's possible to cut a desk in half. I don't think that this is possible, but I would like to know some other opinions
if it's a shitty desk.... but honestly if a katana can do it any sword could
I agree with points you made about katanas. People usually associate katanas with samurai and ninja what they see in movies. Katanas were the back-up weapon not the main one. The main problem with Japanese weapons and armor is the material which is it made of. Japan doesnt have a lot of high quality iron ore to make steel so they usually made armor from iron so it appears dark grey (unlike European armor which was made out of steel and it looks light and shiny). High quality steel was reserved for making weapons. It was so scarce that weapon makers had to fold it into fine sheets to spare as much as they can. It was used only in the top layer of the blade. So what were katanas made of? They were made out of ironwith folded layer of steel on top of the blade. The famous curve that katana has forms when the finished product is hardened with heating and dipping in water. Iron contracts more in volume than steel so it pulls the blade into a curve. Katanas with smaller curve have more steel which means they are better quality. So the best katanas dont have curve at the top. Other problem with katanas is that iron characteristically behaves plastic, so if you bend it, it will stay bent. European swords were made totally out of steel and steel is elastic so if it gets bent it will just pop back in its original look. When you see a original Japanese art of Samurai era you can see that they carried more than one katana because it is more likely to get broken than European sword.
the curve in a katana comes from the differential heat treat its and it is more aesthetically pleasing for a single edged blade to be curved
so, not trying to change your opnion but, some facts by someone who pratices kenjutsu:
1- the curve is to allow for iaijutsu techniques. The draw&cut techniques of iaijutsu requires the blade to be curved, that's all.
2- you can trust with a katana. Sure, it's range will be slithly shorter than if it was straight (a few centimeters) but that's it.
3- you can "pommel strike", in fact, most basic cuts will start with a pommel strike before shifting into an attack with the blade midway, and if you so wish, you can just pommel strike, instead of cutting the target (this is not allowed for the lower grades though)
4- half swording is a major part of kenjutsu techniques.
That said, I'm not explaining any of the techniques with a katana for someone outside the dojo, please remember that kenjutsu techniques were the military secrets of japan's dojo, and though not used in battlefields anymore, the idea of the techniques been a dojo's secret still exists, hence why we see so much bullshit in movies, animes, cartoons, etc, it's like trying to talk about how X country's special forces operate, it's not the kind of information that is given for people outside the training camp. So, basically, I believe you don't like the katana because you don't the katana. What you don't like in it, are the people that don't know the katana either but glorify it, just like religious people glorify gods they never saw or came in contact with, simply because they heard they were awesome.
the curve of the blade is a side effect of the heat treating process used on the steel. before its quenched a Katana is actually strait, not curved
In battle I do agree longswords have a significant advantage, but as an everyday carry sword or dueling sword, no one in their right mind would carry around a giant two handed long sword
Snap, mate.
You make valid points from your perspective, however kenjutsu and hema as you know are completely different martial arts styles, there is no way you can pick up a katana and use hema techniques, just like you can't pick up a long sword and use kenjutsu techniques.
I own and use both long sword and katana, and I have had to learn basic cuts with both types to get the best results.
They are both great swords, and from what I have experienced by using both is neither one is better than the other, one is just better for a particular style and use than the other
Actually Thrusting with a katana is an option, and a pretty good option, in kendo we have a technique called Tsuki, which is thrusting, or positioning your sword in the direction of the opponents throat, and yes it might be harder to do since its curved but it is effective, since it unbalances you (or kills you, but no one would want that), and the damage is practically self inflicted since its normally the opponent who rushes into the sword (at least in kendo/kenjutsu).
Now don't take me for a katana lover because I ain't, I know the katana's flaws and their limits, but like you said in another video, it is who manages them that matters.
I am really interested in HEMA style and I hope to learn more about it, might as well use your videos to it.
keep up!
I hope I won't disappoint you ^^
I have to admit my knowledge of swords may be somewhat limited, so I am hoping you or other readers can help me with a question. Firstly I like the point you make that a katanas cutting ability can't come from the tiny amount of curvature that they have... I mean that small curve simply cannot give a blade a drastic improvement in cutting ability right? So I agree with you on that point. However if this is true then the opposite must also be true... I tiny amount of curvature simply cannot have a detrimental effect on thrusting ability, period. Perhaps I missed something but I simply don't understand how a slight curve in a blade makes for an ineffective thrust (Assuming the target isn't wearing Armour). I have never used a sword so I am hoping someone with experience thrusting and cutting can shed some light on this one. This is something that has bothered me for a while because the British used the slightly curved 1845 sword and then ditched it for a straight sword citing that it would be better for thrusting... now this doesn't make any sense in the late 1800's when no one was wearing armour? Or am I simply wrong?
there are multiple things that help the katana in making good cuts, curvature helps with edge alignment and the thicker less flexible blade makes it more forgiving to cut with (aka it's harder to mess up a cut) but the curvature makes it more difficult align the point when wanting to thrust and the stif blade makes thrusting more uncomfortable should you hit something hard like armor and the tip which is already not optimized for thrusting might break because of it. ive also been told that some japanese schools didn't teach the trust at all, they just didnt practice it.
overall nothing is impossible, but if you adapt a sword to be better at one thing you give up some effectivity in another area, a katana is not a bad sword at all but it's definetly also not special by any means
Does the katana really have the potential to be sharper than a long sword or any other sword for that matter? I mean if the steel is hard enough to hold an edge I think the sharpness is only determined by how well it is sharpened. Maybe the edge geometry also plays a role but i feel that almost any sword could be made to have similar edge geometry. Correct me if I`m wrong.
i like your video man, but can you make it medium shoot? it's just not really comfortable to see to me tbh.
You can actually thrust quite well with a katana, because the blade is only a little curved, but you you obviously can't thrust in between the plates of plate armor
the curve is to allow the blade to be sliced while being drawn. just in case of a random attack
That would be stupid to curve a blade just for that reason!
People like the katana because they think it's mystical and exotic.
Nothing to do with the sword but your roboraptor give me nostalgic feeling.
your wievs seem to be a little narrow, and definently inspired by full plate mail battle. but katana's was not used against plate, they were used against many layered wool and leather and that makes it hard for the knight sword to get though so you need something that cuts and releases, and the curve on a katana makes the cutting motions much easyer. so it all depends on what your opponent is vearing and your fighting style
I just want to make some corrections on the katana part, but before I start I just want to say that this comment is not biased by any means. Despite me being a iaido practicioner I love all kinds of swords and I don't think that any sword is better than the other because they were all designed in different places to fight in slightly different ways against different types of protection. So I'm doing this only with the intent of giving you some more insight on the katana, not to "defend" it.
So now for what brings me here.
Firstly, the katana's handguard (Tsuba) primary function was not to block incoming attacks, it's main purpose was to prevent the user's hand from sliding to the blade (speaking of which, the shirasaya mountings, without Tsuba and many other parts, that we see on Steven Seagal movies and Yakuzas were not meant to be used in fights. The shirasaya was more like a resting case to store the blade during peace times hence it not needing the guards etc...)
Secondly, stabbing, half-swording AND "pommel" strikes were all used with a katana. In iaido specifically I have learned katas where we use those moves. I know you say that the katana doesn't stab as well as a european sword but it still stabs, and doing it with half-swording allowed you to put more power into it. The "pommel" strikes were done by thrusting the Kashira ("pommel") against the opponents chin or throat, sometimes it was against the wrists while the opponent was going to draw his sword in order to block the drawing motion and/or hurt him in that sensible spot.
Anyway interesting video with valid points. Stay well buddy.
On top of everything you mention in the video, which I fully agree with, Katana's were also used more like a status symbol than in actual combat right? Or have I been misinformed? -David
swords were a 2nd choice weapon to begin with, samurai would first use a spear (yari or naginata) and only use the katana if they lost their spear.
It is true though that only samurai were alowed to carry 2 katanas at the same time so there was status involved
Samurai wore a daishô, that is a katana and the shorter wakizashi or even shorter tantô. The short sword was used for fighting indoors or in some cases together with the katana as dual wielding.
Also polearms were first choice on the battlefield but as in europe, swords were your everyday carry for duels and selfdefence which was more common than battles.
katana is good at slashing, and doesn't bent that much as longsword whilst thrusting, is this point invalid then
One of the advantages of the Katana is its curved blade. The curved blade allows the user to quickly draw the sword to the users extent while hiding the length of the blade in the same time. The curved blade also allows the sword (with proper sword technique) to cut throught leather armor or obviously flesh (lol) smoothly because of its angle. In realistic battles, as far as I know western knights swords are drawn before the enemy strikes, and for Japanese Samurais they have this one rule where 1 or 2 strikes and the enemy should be dead and the sword is back in its scabbard which is reasonable for the curved blade becuz the Samurais rely on their speed and they do not use their sword for blocking purposes unlike longswords where they go **block this swing block that swing and strike** what im trying to say is it depends on how good the user is and that Katanas have more advantage because you cant just go near the Samurai without the knowledge of how long the Samurais sword is becuz like i said they tend to hide the blade length so one false move and step inside their attack range (depending on how long the katana is in which enemies wont be able to know) and youre dead beause once the enemy is in their reach they draw their swords in insane speed which is where the curved blade is most useful and despite of draw speed they can strike their enemies in different various angles. This why Samurais are dangerous and fearsome in the beginning but as far as i know if u can survive the first strikes they wont return their katanas back to their scabbard and tend to fight you head-on which is where the longswords can then rival the Katana because like i said Katanas are not used to block strikes and they only do when needed (samurais do footwork in avoiding strikes).
curved blade was originally invented to be used on horseback. Where its effectiveness was greater against lightly armored targets, and other horseback targets (when curved blade was popular, many cavalry civilization did not yet invent stir-ups and did not wear heavy armor).
It quickly lost its effectiveness as soon as soldiers started armoring up.
Samurais themselves never used katana for combat besides for last resort against unarmored targets. Against other samurais, they would use blunt objects or kanabo.
European knight against samurais, the samurai will lose every single time. European can use one and a half sword technique specifically evolved to fight against equally well-armored target, or half-swording. Or sword and dagger technique. (these techniques were so effective that unarmored or lightly armored fighter could kill armored targets. And Japanese do not have equivalent techniques because their katana fighting techniques were all invented post adoption of guns, and at this time Japanese samurais were using arquebuses or bows)
Japanese katana is two-handed weapon without the cutting and thrusting power of zweihander, nor versatility of longsword which can be used with a dagger or a shield. The weight is also distributed evenly so if you miss a swing, recovery is a lot longer than longsword or zweihander. Essentially an axe without advantage of power of an axe.
Japanese samurai will lose 10/10 against knights given same level of competency.
I'm not sure about other points, but the curve is really helpful for slicing (I have a Bachelor Degree in Physics)
The katana's slight curve often comes from the quenching process ( to my knowledge).
I agree with many of your points. I especially like bigger cross guards because if an edge catches and cuts the fingers it is a Big problem. Can’t fight with fingers so more had protection is a good idea.
European knights had crossguard on the sword, on the wrist, with plates on gloves, and leather glove worn underneath.
Katana is not cutting through hands.
Samurai's hand was protected but nowhere near the extent of European knights.
check out the nagamaki and the techniques used with it - i think it's quite enticing.
I never timed it or did any research on this, but it seems like a katana takes a longer time to make compared to a long sword. So it's probably more efficient to supply your whole army with long swords than with katanas.
yea thats correct a katana made by a "master" could take around 6-8 months
Aventus though what master would settle on making something as simple as a katana is beyond me...
holycow343 A "master" was still using iron-folding techniques abandoned by western societies some 1000 years before
And how many have you done?
Katana is mostly a duel sword, In war, the samurai uses No Dachi, Tetsubo, Naga Maki, Naginata, y Yari. In a duel, or a scramble battle, the Wakisashi and Katana were used in reduced places with almost no armor.
in order to have the optimum of force transfered it needs to be in a 90 degree angle.
since the katana, or any other curved sword, have that 90 degree angle due to their shape (part of a cricle) it could possibly enhance the possibilyty of full force transfer.
this is highly theoratical so hmm
maybe right or wrong.
the katana's curve is meant to reduce vibrations to the hand making them more comfortable to wield and to parry other swords which is actually why it would win over a long sword its just as strong but lighters and quicker to use the katana was actually made to beat straight swords (western swords) i have actually looked into this alot sure there are more options with the western sword in terms of length and has more force but thats just why the katana was made to counter its heaver bigger counter part by parrying and controlling the flow of battle
katanas are not lighter than longswords and they do not vibrate less either, also longswords are not heavy weapons at all, they are not made to apply much force, just speed.
If your talking about a basic katana around 40-50 centimeters then it is a bit lighter I do own a long sword and a katana (do this does not make me an expert) but the was just made to absorb those vibration not saying one does more then the other, and I do love both weapons (and I just found you'd videos on TH-cam and they are alot of fun to watch!!!) I just think it kinda depends on the fight your in or what your most conformable using I do think a katana would win over a long sword if they were to clash but I've never seen it so that's an opinion
Awesome videos though man!!! Lot of fun!!!
The Katana is a very special weapon. Handling it requires a completely different style than any other sword. first of, what some people don't know, but most do, you hold it with one hand right at the guard and the other at the end of the handle, so that you have some space between your hands. secondly, you block attacks with the dull back of the blade, not the sharp side. That requires incredibly fast reflexes and self control. Thirdly, and that is something most people get wrong, a Katana is not only used by hitting your opponent with and pulling the blade backwards. You rather turn your entire body, breaking the balance of you opponent, so that his entire body glides down the blade. That is why a bokken is just as dangerous as a Katana.
''you hold it with one hand right at the guard and the other at the end of the handle''
that's how you hold any 2 handed sword
''you block attacks with the dull back of the blade''
no you don't, common misconception
''a Katana is not only used by hitting your opponent with and pulling the blade backwards''
that's just called a drawcut, you always need to apply a little bit of push or pull to a cut for it to have any effect, with any sword
SnapJelly well I have Heard all that in a documentary about them. If that was false, you can't blame me for believing it.
I'm just going to trust you on the.
SnapJelly to your last point, I have seen an AI Ki Do blackbelt throwing someone to the ground using a bokken and a simple turning motion. It was not like you understood it. I just can't express myself properly, because I don't know the right words.
also since we are already talking, could you make a video criticizing the mistakes in archery, that almost all movies and video games make?
From what I've learnt the Katana is a back up weapon to their main weapon the Bow then spear/ pole weapon then Odachi (Long Sword). The Katana is a medium sword. There are many Katana without a guard too. Its not the main battle weapon. See Jap Expert Metatron site.
In this sense the Katana was not used often in battle. The western long sword was however.
Also I believe Katanas were not refined much as its more to do with tradition and Japan is an island with not much outside influences. There was a barrier to information / innovations. Europe had many cultures around them and ventured far and learnt much. Japan stuck to their island. Like many Asian cultures they prefer to be agile and shoot arrows at the enemy, kill as easily as possible.