Wolfire Games Forums

if it's weapons evolved from farming implements you want, then we need sai. they originated as a tool for poking hole to put seeds in. but they would have to be authentic though, or i will go on a killing rampage. no blades on em, just whacking. man, i love sai....

AngelixD wrote:I'd just like to chime in about the use of a katana really quick. The katana was not a weapon designed for blocking. It's basically used as a really big razor. The idea is not to move your sword until you are able to strike a killing blow. If you look into the way a katana is contructed and maintained, you will see that an edge block will destroy the usability of a sword, while a side block will snap it in half. While an impressive weapon, the katana was pretty much useless after attack, until the swordsman had the opportunity to bring the blade back into a fighting stance.

Of course you do not block with such a weapon (do not believe everything Tarantino tells or shows you). You can, however, deflect it. You use the back of the blade (mune), move inwards of the opponent's blade arc and swat it aside by making contact with her or his mune. I have only seen this done, and it was by a master of the sword... I don't think it comes easily, so the first one to get in a good slash is almost sure to win the fight.

As for repositioning the blade... Musashi himself writes that you should not only attack while you have the blade in the stance before the blow, but also right afterwards, thus not letting up. Buggered if I know how, though...

3 years later

lugaru 67

weapon #1: shotgun











.

Wow. You're more than 1 year late on this one..... not that it's that big of a deal .

David wrote:While the katana is obviously not a lightsaber-like supersword, it is arguably the most effective and versatile two-handed cutting weapon... ...there is no sword that is as effective in as many situations.

While I have no personal experience - from what little i've seen of actual technique and use I would argue the longsword would take that particular crown.

I'm not going to try and argue against the effectiveness of the katana however - they are renowned for a very good reason, even if the myth surrounding them often gets blown out of proportion.

At anyrate - the longsword is really more suited for armoured foot combat while my understanding of the katana use if much more geared towards personal defence and attacking fleeing foes as it is a weapon evolved from a cavalry saber.

Contray to popular belief (so my research into the subject has led me to believe) the Samurai's primary weapons of war were the bow and spear - both used from horse and foot. Of course the Samurai were armoured and the blades were expensive - bows and spears by comparison aren't and are generally better against armour anyway.

Wow - that rant lasted longer than I expected :S

I'm expecting the weapons to handle differently in any case - weapons aren't specifically "better" - there is always some kind of trade off (though very high quality weapons are almost always worth theirs).

I've had a longsword in my hands - it's very heavy. You need a lot of strength and technique to use it properly. Imho it doesn't stand a chance against a katana, simply because it's not as fast to use.

I wouldn't be so confident in that claim.

No doubt the Katana wielder does have a speed advantage - but for someone properly trained it is far less than imagined - and the longsword wielder has a much wider range of moves (2-edged blade, strong thrusting weapon and half-swording) and a significant reach advantage.

If the opponents are armoured - even lightly - i would quite happily put my money on the longsworder (assuming equivelent skill levels).

Unarmoured it would be much closer - as the katana's keen blade can maximise on any successful strikes.

And anyrate I feel the arguement is far from as clear cut as most people seem to think.

I'd love to see an actual armoured fight to death with longsword vs katana.

*Searches youtube*
Lookie here! I couldn't find katana vrs longsword, but just look at this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhDOPbl ... ed&search=
Shortswords ftw!

Meh, I don't know. While it may or may not be stage combat I wouldn't put my money on that being the real technique.

blades were expensive - bows and spears by comparison aren't and are generally better against armour anyway.

Very true, in my research (if picking up a few gems of knowledge here and there from PBS shows could be considered research) It was said that pretty much any blacksmith can make a spear or an axe head, but you need a speicalized swordsmith to make a sword.

The samurai's katana was more than merely a weapon of war or self-defense. It was the symbol (along with the wakizashi) of the samurai's status, and a representation of his soul.

During a battle, few samurai were mounted, unlike European knights. They fought with whatever weapon was their favorite, or with which they were most skilled, but it's true that a katana was not the best weapon for melee battles.

There were special, larger and thicker battle swords, but these were unwieldy and as often as not were thrown at the approaching enemy or discarded when the melee began. Eventually they were only made as a sacrifice at Shinto shrines.

However, there were plenty of opportunities for ranking samurai to offer to engage in personal combat for honor and status while the foot soldiers thrashed out the main fighting under a hail of arrows. For this they would use their katana.

But by and large the katana was more a symbol than anything else.

On the other hand, heavily armored European knights rarely fought on foot in a pitched battle. The could barely move, and needed huge horses to get around. Again they tended to concentrate on whaleing away at other knights while the poor foot soldiers slogged through the mud.

Once a knight was down, he was pretty much dead meat. The foot soldiers swarmed him and quickly dispatched him.

Even in tournaments or duels, knights rarely killed each other with broadswords. They'd whack away until one was knocked down, then the other knight would sit on his chest and demand surrender.

If the downed knight refused, he'd be killed with the misericord, a short broad knife which was forced through his visor into his face.

In Japan as in Europe, full armor was expensive and unwieldy. There were numerous other less expensive, more mobile styles. In Europe, the most common armor for broadswordsmen was often multiple layers of quilted fabrics, but the idea was not to get hit with a full swing. The focus was on deflection, blade locks, disarming and knock-downs.

And I feel certain that in single combat, a samurai armed with a katana facing an equivalently armored European foe armed with a broadsword would usually emerge the winner.

The mobility alone would be an advantage, as would the strike speed of the weapons. And samurai were more skilled at the various hand-to-hand arts, either armed or unarmed, such as judo, than their Western counterparts.

Plus the variety of strikes and thrusts with a katana is wider and more adaptable, in spite of being a singe edged weapon, allowing exploitation of weaknesses or chinks in the armor. Broadsword manuals of the time list fewer actual specific strokes, and more techniques for guarding, blocking and locking.

It might take a while, but I believe the samurai would eventually win by attrition, connecting more often for minor injuries until the knight was exhausted.

I'd love to see the fight though.

Usagi wrote:The samurai's katana was more than merely a weapon of war or self-defense. It was the symbol (along with the wakizashi) of the samurai's status, and a representation of his soul...

...However, there were plenty of opportunities for ranking samurai to offer to engage in personal combat for honor and status while the foot soldiers thrashed out the main fighting under a hail of arrows. For this they would use their katana...

...But by and large the katana was more a symbol than anything else.

I had a feeling this was the case.

However I will argue with anyone about how mobile plate is - people can do cartwheels in field plate (quite different from full plate which is used in jousting tournements only and never actually on the field of battle).

I'll see if I can find that video - but yeh, cartwheels. Armour doesn't slow you down so much as it tires you out. Obviously you wont be sprinting about but then you'd be stupid to in a fight anyway.

I think this question all depends on the specific time period, weapon and armour. Broadsword is quite different to longsword - and would often have been used by people (as you say) with Quilted Gambeson as a primary or secondary armour with chain. The katana would probably fair well against that - but broadsword is (to the best of my knowledge) also used with a sheild.

However, depending on your personal view, the classic image of the knight is a man in plate armour - and plated knights fought on foot and mount both. On foot the pole-axe or bastard sword - on horse the lance. Knights wouldn't have used sheilds on foot once plate was invented. Plate is pretty amazing stuff - and you need all the power or finesse you can get to beat it which a sheild can interfer with.

In that regard I would expect the knight to have an advantage in penetration and protection over his eastern counterpart.

Of course this is a stupid discussion really - Japanese technology advanced faster than western to a point and then remained fairly stagnated - Western technology evolved slower, but contantly changed as the traditions surrounding it constantly changed - the tools and the meaning behind them is totally different.

A Katana is a work of art - a status symbol and a quick end to a duel.

The broadsword is a weapon of war - made for killing pure and simple.

So long as L2 respects the relative advantages/disadvantages of the tools (weapons/armour) I'll be happy.

PS - yeh, that would be a cool duel to watch. But like all things its more down to the fighters skill than the tools they use.

I think it's hard to know how mobile plate was when it was invented; the metal technology of today can create lighter weight pate, and who wouldn't prefer that?

As for stagnating technologically, the Japanese always adopted new ways of killing quickly. They incorporated the matchlock and flintlock, and developed the rolling barrage before Europeans did. But after Japan was closed to Western influence, their insular society indeed tried to maintain outmoded traditions.

Japanese warriors have always been fearsome enemies, from the Mongol wars through WWII. Partially this was because of the warrior tradition, deeply rooted in their culture, and partially their devotion to Japan, in the person of the Emperor, considered a direct descendant of the founding gods of Japan.

But as in WWII, an all volunteer force from a larger country rich in resources and technological know-how and production capacity would win in the end.

BTW, the only broadsword techniques I ever saw or practiced were two-handed. The sword was just too heavy. A mace would be better for blanging away with a shield in the other hand.

There are one-handed techniques though which take advantage of the momentum of the sword. As I said, that's pretty advanced sword bashing.

Edit: I found this article quite interesting in this whole context.

Good article.

Particularly this:

Latham also added that, “The nature of the body cut at, however, affects the result very much.” He then concluded by commenting that the common mistake is to believe a strong man would take a heavier sword so he could do more damage with it. “The weight a man can move with the greatest velocity is that with which he will produce the greatest effect, but the lightest sword is not necessarily the one he can move the quickest. It is possible for a sword to be so light that we feel the resistance of the air in making a cut with it, and this is what we express when we say a sword feels ‘whippy’ in the hand. Such a sword is worse than one too heavy.” (Latham, p. 414-415).

As I understand the Katana is designed for the draw cut this is slightly less of an issue - but this certainly explains the range of weapon weights quite well.