Comments on: Katana

By: sujirou

sujirou — Mon, 10 May 2010 21:41:46 +0000

check this out: http://swordforum.com/forge/js-basicforging.html It shows how the samurai sword is superior to its european couterpart.

By: Ferhart

Ferhart — Sun, 02 May 2010 12:14:45 +0000

Hallo sehr geilen Weblog betreust du. Ich selber habe auch schon länger eine eigene homepage gebastelt, nähmlich eine Suchmaschine. Momentan noch zu finden auf http://beta.jerome.de . Währe nett wenn du mir berichtest wie du sie findest und was noch schlecht daran ist. Ein Redesign kommt erst im laufe des Monats noch hinzu. Schönes Wochenende – 345zhf4

By: fail

fail — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:23:25 +0000

I cant believe what half of you are saying, a katana bests any type of european sword by a long shot…… cutting power, weight, use, evertything is superior….. learn before you write stuff down

PS. I bet half of you who have commented havent even used a sword before

By: Meh

Meh — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:18:58 +0000

One thing i will say about all you flamers out there. The Katana didn’t truly come to its pinnacle and iconic shape and power untill the new sword period. This was the time that warfare changed and the Japanese came up with a design for a sword that will still have the killing power and strength of their contenders but were also faster and somewhat easier to use. The curve of the blade is to improve aerodynamics creating faster strikes and thus the style of Battojutsu which is the art of cutting and killing an enemy in ONE strike whilst unsheathing the blade came into play as this meant that warriors wielding the katana can conserve energy and fight for longer. The groove most commonly found on the katana is used so that any blood on the blade can easily be removed with a flick of the wrist (and then the warrior carries on killing) but the groove also means that the blade can cut through flesh easier as it allows the blood to flow out through the groove an the openings it creates thus resulting in a faster and easier wounding.

The european sword (Damascus, Broadsword, Claymore e.t.c.) was used primarily as a show of stength. The armour worn in combat against these swords weighed down the warrior and limited movement. In a fight it doesn’t matter how much power or srtrength you have if your opponent is too fast it is useless.

THIS is why the katana was considered and still is considered one of the greatest weapons used in armed combat.

By: kagac

kagac — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:36:37 +0000

you should not forget that they were made for each of the swords
while the european swords were made to fracture and break, as well as “pass through” the reinforcement, which was quite heavy and thick, the katana and oriental weapons they had q be light, in the east, is light armor, made for flexible movements .

each sword was made for different purposes, in order to confront european heavy armor, the oriental, in this case the katana, to cross the light armor.

if it is true that the katana is the most honorable representation of a samurai, it is true that Rounin took them and attack them

the strength of the katana is the speed and precision of the cut, the strength of europe is the brute force as such.

sorry for my poor english

By: Jee

Jee — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:47:55 +0000

Having trained both (medieval and modern) European and Japanese swordsmanship. I would say the swords are about equal. However European swordsmanship is or was far more pragmatic, the Europeans didn’t worship their blades. Number of ocasions that ive had made a kill with the proponents own sword, something witch which i doubt a Japanese swordsman would have ever considered.

The reason Japanese are seen as better is as swordsmen is that Europeans had phased out the sword for a few hundred years. I would contend that Europeans were MUCH better than attributed for but much of the lore got lost. There are still a few schools of weird martial arts available in Europe, usually being carried onward by just one master. One of the pities is that the European tradition is almost all but lost because the sword became extinct in a real battlefield.

In any case a real sword fight is actually very booring to watch as uninitiated, theres a reason why gladiators were a special breed of fighters trained for molecularity over practicality. MOST sword fights end in a few seconds, usually the first one to move within range loosing the game.

But I wouldnt dismiss the quality of a katana, having wielded a real one i must say its a very fine piece of weaponry. European swords usually being a bit inferior in quality, but rest assured its enough. The end difference in combat is not significant, indeed the samurai wouldnt risk loosing their katana* in battle.

Besides for war I would pick a pole arm every time. So the samurai who used a Yari are indeed on to something (I would be happy to use a glaive the european counterpart, in combat against any of you wielding the best katana, you loose almost by default) A sword has its uses, but not the best thing to wield in war. Mainly better as a sidearm than a 6-12 foot pole.

PS. By the way a katana can be used for thrusting. The first time I saw that in real time directed at me I went, huh, what just happened and passed out.

By: Cyp

Cyp — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:48:28 +0000

First to what the first two said… I believe they make a bit of confusion , they say European swords, but actually mean Damascus swords http://www.realarmorofgod.com/damascus-sword-making.html

They are comparable to the katanas at streight , flexibility and ability to cut.

But there is one more thing the Katana has and this thing is unique to it, and actually is the reason I put my vote on the katana: the shape of the Katana is much more aerodinamic , means it allows you to cut more precise, and apply blow after blow with almost no time between them. Compared to that the Damascus sword is rather bulky. To compare a Katana with a Damascus sword at this chapter is comparing a surgeons scalpen to a butcher’s knife. When fighting a lot of people in a crowded place the Damascus sword is better, but for anything else Katana alll the way.

By: reality check

reality check — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:25:11 +0000

As for European craftsmanship, it is widely believed that katanas are better made because more of them have withstood the test of time far better than any western sword. At first glance this logic seems good enough, but if you look harder at the reality of the situation the truth will become clear. Samurai were primarily mounted archers. Yes that’s right archers, go cry about it. When they did get into melee it was usually with a long spear called a yari. Only after their opponent got to close melee range would the samurai use his sword. Also, the katana was highly ornamental (why put so much work into something that is barely a weapon without making it at least aesthetically valuable?) so the care taken with the sword dramatically exceeded what was shown to western weapons. Why? Because it was hard to get another. Why was it hard to get another? Because the iron ore in Japan is CRAP. So a belief was started that since your sword was probably the only one you would get you should make it a part of yourself. That is why the samurai considered their sword their honor, and the wakizashi their soul. Does this make the samurai any more honorable than their western counterpart? No. It just means that they cared for their sword more.

By: reality check

reality check — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:14:46 +0000

I’m sorry, but the extreme difficulty in making a katana came from the quality of iron ore in Japan being the worst in the world. That is why tamahagane, or “jewel steel,” was created. Also the katana was typically only folded around 10-20 times, creating many layers that would become smaller than the molecules they were made from if there were more folds than 20 (about 1,48,576 layers). so stories of a katana being folded over a million times are not exactly true. and as for how long it took the Japanese to learn to make the katana, actually you can thank the Chinese for that: the folding method used to make Japanese steel viable for weapons was stolen from the Chinese. All in all a katana is actually heavier and has a shorter blade than a European arming sword (katana 4-5lbs, arming sword 2.5-3.5lbs). Also, Japanese sword styles like kendo, kenjutsu, & battojutsu are very much form over function where as all sword styles from the middle east onward towards Brittan were all about effectiveness, with no flashy impractical moves that make asian styles favorites in movies. Again I apologize to anyone who thought otherwise, but you should seriously take a long look at how the world really is.

By: PS

PS — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:38:39 +0000

I’m just going to add a few things.. Katana is not a warfare weapon.
They were made as a display of status during peacetimes.
But at war, the samurai would carry a longer and slightly heavier sword(sorry, i cant recall what they are called atm), made in the same way, but for a different purpose.

And if you really look into it, it’s not hard to realize that European swordsmanship IS inferior to Japanese. Design, sharpening, details, composition not to mention the work required just to wield it properly.