Strategic differences among sabre, rapier, katana, broadsword and golok

golok

golok

Joined
Oct 20, 2000
Messages
4,453
This world since time immemorial has seen swords of many kinds. Spanning across the globe, their sizes, shapes and lengths have been influenced by culture, traditions and geographical considerations.

The question here before us modern day folks is what kind of strategic differences do we see with regard to each sword as listed in the heading.

The physical built of a warrior is to some extent significant to the kind of sword he brandishes.

Let's suppose a duel of swords is about to take place, one guy grabs a sabre, the other wields a katana, what will be the advantages as perceived by each side?

But in reality, what would you see as the outcome?
 
Well, I think what you have here is another one of those "which sword is better" threads. I think usually the general consensus ends up being that there is no better sword and that the warrior that usually wins is the one that gets particularly lucky on any given day.
 
The most skillful and adaptive fighter is most likely the one who would win. In unarmored combat
those swords that are light in weight and quick will have the definite advantage. In the scenario you narrrowed it down to the sabre and the katana,
both are lightweight and quick, and can be used for both thrusting and cutting. Assuming both fighters are equally skilled and make no mistakes,
I personally think the advantage will shift to the katana as the fight drags on, because two-handed control wields more power with less effort. In other words, one arm will get tired more easily than two arms which will result in slower movements.

Of course the best choice for anyone would usually be with whatever they're most familiar with. My training is in foil, but I have used the machete extensively. The katana allows me to use both methods with the added benefit of two-handed control. I have no training in it, however, and those who do will probably cringe at some of what I'm saying.

I started a similar thread about 4-6 weeks ago. See "most effective sword type..." I think the rapier and the katana got the most "votes".
 
Sabers come in many, many configurations. Some are ferocious cutters, others are swift and agile thrusters. I will concentrate on the archetypical saber calculated to strike a balance between the cut and the thrust.

The immediate advantage of the saber is its inherently superior defensive profile the ward iron affords. The two-handed katana can only rely on the dexterity of the wielder to protect against cuts to the hand.

Beyond that, the weapons are fairly evenly matched, it would come down to the swordsman. I would go for a disarm as soon as possible. Redirecting the katana's force and bearing the blade away, I believe I could move my off hand into position and deliver a fatal thrust just a little quicker than the katana swordsman could effectively react.
 
Well how about we take a look at the different attributes of each?

For example;

Katana
Strength- due to it's blade shape and two handed design, it posesses unsurpassed cutting power and incredible speed.

Weakness- two handed design and short blade (relative to many western blades) limits striking range. Blade shape does not lend itself well to thrusts.


Saber (classic curved blade design)
Strength- One handed design offers extended reach, excellent power for the cut, one handed design makes the thrust much more useful.

Weakness- One handed design does not offer the parry strength found in the katana, heavier blade styles significantly lacking in speed.

Rapier
Strength- extreme reach, superlative thrusting ability, incredibly agile and quick. (quick is not the same as fast)

Weakness- Light blade and one handed design makes relative parry strength vastly inferior. No heavy cutting ability.


Who's next?
 
While I believe its unfair to pin the outcome of a fight on the sword used, I personally prefer shorter swords such as the barong and kris. The have immense cutting power, are extremely light/maneuvarable especially in close quaters, and can be used in conjunction with a shield. My own personal fighting preference is real close and personal. In this range longer weapons become very cumbersome. Just gotta remind everyone size aint everything;) Anyways its like un-armed combat. There tends to be 3 spheres of contact, the outer most consisting of kicks and punches, then grappling, and finally ground. Saying a long sword will win due to reach alone is like saying a fighter who uses kicks and punches alone will win against someone who knows grappling and groundfighting since they woulnd be able to get past the 1st sphere of contact. In real fights these things happen, and they happen surprisingly often. So I contend while reach may be nice, once things get close it can become a hinderance. Anyways for longer distances a good spear/lance works well.
 
Ken Cook,
I've heard this several times, yet in my very limited experience, the katana with its very slight curve and pointed tip is very good at thrusting (I'm using rigid insulation board and card board as target). Presumably penetration in the abdominal area would be excellent, however I do wonder about thrust penetration ability between the ribs.
Granted that the preferred shape for a thrusting weapon would probably be straight, yet are not most sabres curved as much a katana? I realize that traditional Japanese training probably stresses the slashing cut in lieu of thrusting, yet this weapon (at least from my limited experience) seems almost as well-suited for thrusting as a cutlass or a sabre.
Why is the Katana not considered a thrusting weapon?
 
Hi Scot,

Realize that all comments are RELATIVE comments. Relative to what? Other sword designs. Is this fair? I don't know, but it might be fun and a little informative for all of us before it's over with.

As far as "Who would win the fight?"
I'm only willing to consider the question if we are discussing two MASTERS. Each theoretical swordsman must be able to bring into play all of the attributes of his chosen weapon. In short, to it's best POSSIBLE ability.
Who wins?
Who cares?
There is no BEST sword design,
Asking "Which sword is best?" is a lot like asking;
"Which kind of apple is best, cherries or screwdrivers?"

But we can take a little time to examine them all relative to each other and possibly learn a little about our own favorites.

For example as Federico said...
<b>"My own personal fighting preference is real close and personal. In this range longer weapons become very cumbersome. Just gotta remind everyone size aint everything."</b>

This is true, and in the latter days of the Rapier, when blade length reached ridiculous proportions, some in excess of 50 inches, many swordsmen learned the HARD way that "Size ain't everything."

However, I believe there is a middle range in there, somewhere under 42 inches and over 36 (may depend on height of swordsman) that is just about optimal.

Close range work is a wonderful thing, and it's the reason you'll always find that big nasty short blade in my left hand,(main gauche) but never forget, you have to get PAST the long blade first. Once you do, with a swordsman who does not know the in close uses of his blade, you've won. If he DOES know the CQC facets, the short blade swordsman has an advantage, but it's still no "sure thing." ;)


To answer Scot's primary question, "Why is the Katana not considered a thrusting weapon?"

First, let me emphasize that I never said you COULDN'T thrust with it, I know far better than that from my own personal experience with them. However they are not as GOOD at thrusting as other designs may be.
If you've never been exposed to Rapier work, nor seen someone who knows what they're doing with a rapier, you honestly can't imagine how fast you can slip the rapier blade into your target. It's main function in life is the thrust, that's what it was designed for, and there is where it truly SHINES. Pretty much the exact opposite of the katana. Does this mean one is "better" than the other?
Absolutely not! It means they're different.

So c'mon...
Back to my original question;
Let's hear from the different practitioners out there, what are the strengths and weaknesses of your own chosen swords?

We can talk later about who will win the hypothetical fight.
:D
 
There is no ONE set of key "moves" to use against a given situation. Reflexes, timing, distancing, dexterity, power, luck all play crucial roles in the outcome of anything.

While a kat can be used one handed, it is predominantly 2 handed, which is limiting in some ways and advantageous in others. Its biggest problem is the lack of shield feasibility. I'll bet shields or secondary weapons for aid in deflection could be of tremendous use.

Another thing about 1 handed use is the extension of the arm is apparently greater. Combined with a longer blade, range can have a definite advantage not only in attacks, but in withdrawls and feints.

Both weapons can be devastating when well made I'm sure. I favor the katana for obvious personal reasons. It was designed for cleaving yes, but it is also rather effective at piercing, though the range and limitations of 2-hand use render it a bit less efficient against a longer weapon.

I never liked discussing these for various reasons. One reason I suppose is that maybe some people are out there wondering what kind of sword to buy, and basing their decision on what they think would win in a fight. If you like something a lot, you can find many reasons why it's better than anything else that exists. It will all wear down to who is better or luckier at a given time.

There is a wide range of katana shapes and sizes, and I'd bet my left nut that sabers came in a wide variety too. Which is faster? The one that's made to be faster. Which is lighter? The one that's made to be lighter. There IS a stereotypical size and weight for a katana, and it's likely quite a bit shorter and a bit stouter than whatever would be a "stereotypical" saber. But stereotypical has little to do with this.

Each weapon is used in a different fashion, but again, there is no single defined set of techniques to be used in a particular scenario. People make choices and those choices can be helpful or harmful to the outcome.

If he can get the saber and katana guys drunk and convince them to knock each other out with chairs, the rapier user will probably win.

Shinryû.
 
1. Duncan McLeod would simply switch to one-handed fencing with his katana if he found the range lacking, thus negating any reach disadvantage. ;)

2. Getting close is good for people who can do it, but it isn't quite the same as a grappler closing the range on a puncher. Many grapplers will shoot through the first few punches and kicks to take the striker down. Can't walk into a sword thrust to close the range. This is not a reflection on anyone's skill but mine, I'm just saying.
 
Gwinny,
Ordinarily, you would have earned yourself 10 saber swats for the "Highlander" reference, but due to the EXCELLENT use of the Ann Pearston quote, you are excused. (THIS time!) ;)

Yes, the katana can be wielded one handed but doing so in an effort to "equalize" with a saber presents yet another disadvantage. The grip of the katana is perfectly designed for traditional two handed use, but in one handed use, suffers greatly in comparison to the saber grip.

Yes, the thumb can be placed on the tsuba for a certain amount of control, but by and large I think it's safe to say that the katana makes almost as poor of a saber as a saber does a katana.

:D

Isn't anyone going to mention the broadsword?
 
Alright, just since I'm out to put my post count up over 4,000 - what about the light bastard sword with 34 to 38 inch blade?
 
As with anything else edge weapons have evolved to reflect what needed to be cut. It wouldn't be fair to do a side by side comparison of weapons in issolation, as each type was specifically designed to achieve a different objective.

How much armor does your opponent have? How much room do you expect to have? What tactical role does this sword fill with respect to other weapons in your arsenal? We have to ask these questions and look at the bigger picture; A Samari sword would have been as useless in Europe as a European sword would have been in Japan, and someone armed with either would have been at a disadvantage during a formal 18th century duel with rapier.

n2s
 
Hold up. Why would a European sword have been useless in Japan?
 
Triton,

Let me start by admitting that, when I suggested that the European sword would be useless in Japan, I was envisioning the European sword at the height of its' battlefield development - say the 14-15th century. Something along the lines of a type XV sword.

The sword tends to be a single handed piece with a triangular blade of 30-33" in length. looking something like an extended dagger. It has a fairly stiff blade, and although it can cut, it is designed to favor the point. The Japanese sword during the same period is approaching the form in which we recognize it today. It is primarily a cutting instrument, although it does have some ability to deliver point.

Delivering point is more lethal, but it's also a very targeted attack and which in my mind makes it harder to deliver than a slashing cut. With the opponents wearing about 50% of the armor encombrance that would normally dress the European battlefeld, the point attack with these sword becomes that much harder. Your opponent is moving faster than he would in Europe, and he can deliver effective cutting blows faster than you can.

This is why I am suggesting that the European swords would be at a disadvantage. Which, tradition aside, is probably one of the reasons why we do not see European style swords catching on within Japan.

n2s

(excuse me while I get my fire resistent suit on) :)
 
Hey N2S,

Not to worry no nomex required. :)

I am not sure that I would characterize the type XV as the eptiome of medieval sword evolution, rather it was simply on of the right tools to deal with the armor of the period for which it was developed. You can fast forward or rewind 100 years and you will find swords like the XII or the XVIII that are equally good cutters or thrusters. Either of those swords would have been easily able to deliver cutting attacks to make the most ethnocentric samurai proud.

As for European swords catching on within Japan (and I assume that you mean in the present day) I think that the entire culture works against this. Very few Japanese are concerned with swords at all or weaponry in general. Even the collectors of nihonto which as far as I know are the only swords that it is legal to possess in Japan (someone straighten me out if I am incorrect) look upon the swords as more of an art form then a weapon, admiring the subtlety of the hamon and the nie rather then cutting up something in the backyard. I would suspect that legal restrictions and cultural indifference probably have far more to do with European swords catching on in Japan (or not) then does any inherent superiority of the katana even over the type XV.
 
In reality, a European sword used with European sword forms could be effective in Japan if the user knew what they were dealing with. However, the same goes for the Japanese sword in Europe. Just because it's a good design doesn't mean every country used it. One idea turned into another, and another and another and certain styles were formed. There is no single perfect form in a weapon like a sword. Just like there is no perfect katana (though people who spend lots of money often hate hearing their HC Bainite-martensite kat isn't perfect), there is no single perfect sword. Every person is physically and mentally different, and those differences will help determine what they like the most and what works best with them.

It feels like we keep answering this with "the sword type is irrelevant compared to the person using it" but for some reason nobody is ever happy with that. That's just what it feels like to me, it may not necessarily be that way. Could just be that folks here like seeing arguments, or that they want to hear someone agree that their favorite sword is best. I dunno anymore. Doesn't seem to be academic really, just argument-prone.
 
Actually, I was just hoping that everyone would list their favorites and what they considered to be the strong points and weaknesses of those favorites.

In short,
What kind of swords do you like?
What do you like about them?
What do you "dislike" about them?
 
If I had plunked down what a Howard Clark L6 costs I wouldn't want anyone telling me it is not perfect either!:)

Okay Ken, My two favorites at the moment are the XVIIIa and the XII. They are both decent at cutting and thrusting and of course they both look really cool!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top