Sword question... East and West

L

Longden

Joined
Jun 22, 1999
Messages
579
Probably asked a million times, but swordforum ( http://www.swordforum.com )looks like its down for maintenance, and I didn't see a search feature there anyhow.

So maybe one of you blade affectionados know ...

Swords differ quite a bit from culture to culture, as do the styles of using them. In particular, the Japanese katanas and the western saber, both appeared (I think) around the same time and yet differed in their construction and use.

Recognizing that different weapons typically evolve around different sets of needs, I wondered how different those needs actually were, and whether combatants armed with katana and sabers are equally matched or not.

If not, then are there any speculations as to why the supposedly inferior sword/technique was never adopted by the other side. Both adherents seemed to enjoy a development and deployment period of several hundred years ... surely enough time for bladesmiths and fencers to find the optimal weapon and technique for combat.

I mean, both east and west had foot soldiers and horse soldiers, and both had armor. Yet western and eastern fencing swords and styles seem worlds apart.

Anyone know the answer ... or know a link that where this was discussed? Thanks.
 
Longden, try posting that question in the Tactical Forums 'Practical Tactical' forum here at BladeForums. There are some folks who hang out there who might be able to help. Also try www.netsword.com.

It's a very interesting question. Please let me know via email if you find anything that sheds light on this question. I am curious too.

Paracelsus
 
Thanks Paracelus, in fact your link shows (as I suspected) that the subject had been argued to death. Here's one of the threads participated by no less than our own Snickersnee:
http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000064.html

I'll have to check a few more hits on a "katana" search there, but there seems to be skeptics on both sides of the fence (to be expected) with a general consensus that katana's wouldn't hold up well against heavy western armor and cutlery.

I'll pass on "Practical Tactical" ... the image of 18th century katana vs saber falls short of practical.
 
One thing, do not, repeat, do not get into a "who will win: a katana user or a (your choice)western sword user of equal skill?" debate! They go nowhere and generally result in great heat.

Thw saber was developed as a one-handed weapon, generally curved and single edged, to be wielded by a horseman while the katane was developed, as I understand it, to be wielded by two-handed by an armored (generally) warrior on foot. The kat could, and often was used one handed, but its true power was in its two handed use, again as I understand it, sort of like the late Medieval bastard sword. Of course, my understanding of the katana may be wrong,as I am not a Japanese sword fan. But I do know something of the design and evolution of the saber.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
Oh, come now Hugh! Isn't a good debate (fight) about swords to the point? Going nowhere is fun sometimes. And this time of year, I could stand a little more heat.

I'm guessing that most seventeenth century Katana weilding Samurai Warriors, on foot Or horseback, would quickly defeat, by bisection or maybe even trisection, most seventeenth century saber weilding European Warriors.

I don't think the relative merits of the weapons involved would matter very much at all. The Mind behind the blade would make the difference.

Paracelsus, Mystic Shaman and Miyamoto Musashi Wannabe

[This message has been edited by Paracelsus (edited 01-18-2000).]
 
Paracelsus, remember that the Japanese style developed as a result of the banning of firearms in Japan. Part of the reason that they closed the society was that they realized that the gun made everyone equal (God made men, Sam Colt made them equal). The style; therefore, was a hothouse flowerthat could not survive exposure to reality. This reality was forced upon them in the form of Commodore Perry.

By mid-17th Cent. Europe, the sword was on its way out as an effective weapon, being steadily replaced by ever more effective firearms, and, much as I love a good sword, I havce to agree with such as John Mosby who sneered at sabers during the War of Northern Aggression and directed his Partisan Rangers to carry as many revolvers as they could obtain, sometimes as many as six. The point that I am trying to make is that katana vs. saber (or any other western sword) is probably two parallel lines in the same plane, they would never meet! They are just too damned different in cultural concept.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
In general,straight swords are best used by people on foot while curved swords are best used by people on horses. Straight swords are more oriented towards thrusting and curved swords do better for slashing. When you slash with a straight-bladed sword, the shock travels toward your wrist and your target equally. A curved sword sends most of the shock towards the point. This is important because tremendous impact energies are generated by running horses.
When Japanese swords were first developed, warriors fought mostly on horses and the swords were curved with a deep curve. Later, thay got straighter as fighting on foot became more common.Japanese swords retained their curve for two reasons: the Japanese have an abiding respect for tradition and horsemenship continued to be held in esteem right up to the modern era.
The brilliance of the design is that it a bastard sword, that is that it has the blade length of a one-handed sword and the handle of a two-handed sword. This means you can almost get the power of a two-hander, but it is light enough to use one handed, this also gives more range

------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict
 
Hugh
do not, repeat, do not get into a "who will win: a katana user or a (your choice)western sword user of equal skill?" debate!
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that Hugh, but I had expected as much. No, my question revolves around the idea that if one method is superior, why didn't it take hold in both cultures? There's much admiration among sword fans for the katana, but I wondered what its strategic weakness was, if a similar weapon didn't develop in Europe .. or why western style armor and weapons didn't develop in Japan. Samurai have been around since the 12th century, so possibly we can exclude the factor of firearms (at least till the 17th century).

The more suitable scenario is how a 13th century Japanese army equipped in western style armor and using western weaponry (excluding firearms), would prevail against a traditionally armed and armored army.

In every battle, there's always an "ace" who prevails because of superior skill. No one doubts that a Chuck Yeager can take out (in his prime) a lesser opponent even flying a mediocre fighter (it's the pilot, not the plane) ... but on a battlefield, the question becomes less one of skill, and the superior weaponry seems to weigh heavily as a factor along with the number of players.

I discussed this last night with my son and realized that Japanese armor probably lacked the bulk and coverage of western armor. This may have been due to a scarcity of raw materials, but may also have been influenced by the climate (try marching medieval armored troops thru a rice paddy!). And given the monsoon and humidity, it seems that a western styled medieval armored invasion of Japan would certainly have failed until the advent of WD-40
smile.gif


Likewise, a Japanese styled invasion of Europe would have to reckon with the heavy armor and heavy swords of the enemy. Even with their lighter armor and faster swords, it would take a lot of good luck to find all the weaknesses in a heavily armored opponent ... difficult at best, in a melee on foot, on the battlefield. By contrast, the other guy only needs a few solid blows.

No doubt, one of the reasons the un-armored Mongols stayed on their horses with their bows during their successful invasion.

Two-handed use does give more power, but at the expense of reach. This also brings up the image of Star Wars light-saber battles, where the weapon is held in two hands. There was obviously no armor suitable to deflect the "blade", so would the battle technique have been more likely played as a saber/epee style one-handed bout?

One-handed use gives reach, but loses something in the security of the grip, tho it may be of little comfort to the two-hander to be holding the sword still when the one-handed enemy's sword is in you.
 
I am not a very good student of the history of warfare or cultural anthropology, but I think part of the reason the Japanese style of swords did not take hold in the Western world is because you can't separate the weapon, and the use of the weapon, from the Culture in which it evolved.

Hugh is quite correct in pointing out that the closure of Japanese society from the rest of the world in the sixteenth century allowed the culture of the Samurai to continue to flourish long after the sword had diminished in importance in European warfare. Any swordsman, or knife wielder, is at a severe disadvantage compared to the bearer of a fire arm. Admiral Perry's conquest of Japan by a relative few soldiers arriving in boats was accomplished by the Europeans use of fire arms including cannons.

That said, technology of any sort (e.g. pottery making, steel working, the evolution of gun powder) made its way quickly around the ancient world. The actual use of that technology varied use from culture to culture.

The Katana sword and the way of the Samurai (Bushido) evolved in the entire culture of the Ancient Japanese and was, like much of Japanese culture, strongly influenced by Zen Buddhist philosophy.

The European style of warfare and the weapons and technology used evolved in an entirely different culture. Hugh is correct pointing out that the Man to Man confrontation of a Samarai wielding a Katana, and a European Warrior with a saber, rarely occured because of the geographic isolation of these cultures.

The Katana would probably not have provided any sufficient technological advantage over the Saber in the style of fighting prevalent in Europe.

I still think, however, a sixteenth century Samarai on foot with a Katana would quickly defeat most sixteenth century Europeans wielding sabers. It is understood that such a comparison is not historically revealing, but is interesting to think about. I guess my difficulty with the original question is that I don't think you could find an 'equivalently skilled' European swordsman.

As I said earlier, I don't think the relative merits of the weapons involved would matter very much at all. The Mind behind the blade would make the difference.

So in the new hypothetical battle posed by Longen, I would bet on the 13th century Samurai army defeating the European army even when using European weapons. But I'm not sure. My point is that I don' think it's possible to select one example of technology (the Katana) and directly compare its merits to a similar piece of technology from an entirely different culture.

The ancient Romans use of a short thrusting sword in combination with a shield was superior in battle to the European 'Barbarians' use of heavy broadswords. The Roman solier had only step into and block the downward arc of the slow moving broadsword, and quickly dispatch his enemy with a short thrust beneath the ribs. The Roman sword was not used primarily as a slashing weapon. So a comparison of the Roman short sword and the European broadsword is similarly problematic to the comparison of the Katana and the Saber.

No doubt Japanese style of warfare, with an emphasis on edged weapons, would not (and did not) fare well against the European style of warfare emphasizing ballistic weapons. A direct comparison of pieces of warfare technology is not possible without considering the entirely cultural milieu in which the technology is employed.

Paracelsus
 
Paracelsus, there's a "cult of invincibility" sometimes in regards to the katana (and all the attendant techniques).

My point was not really to post a Japanese samurai army on a battlefield against a European army per se, but rather to explore why, if the katana is so good, did western nations (pre-gunpowder) not develop similar techniques. If a katana/samurai had found there way into 13th century Europe, would the style of combat have displaced the existing forms. I think that the use of heavy armor would favor the western form.

For the same reason, I think your reasoning about the Romans and barbarians falls short. The Romans weren't dealing with armored opponents. One of the things that got me thinking about this was a video of "MacBeth" with the climatic battle between MacBeth and MacDuff, each wailing away at each other's armor with their broadswords bouncing off until they could find an opening.

I'm beginning to think that the western arms/armor were an integral "system", whose strength lies in having both in battle.

Likewise, the katana's strength may be in its speed, but only against un (or lightly) armored opponents. Just a guess ... but thanks for all the feedback.

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 01-18-2000).]
 
That's the point! Any combination of arms and armor ond/or other weapons must be seen as a whole. The Romans beat the tar out of the barbarians mostly as a result of superior training and discipline in combination with the scutum, gladius, and pilum, just as the Hanoverian troops of William, Duke of Cumberland, beat the tar out of the highland clans under Prince Charles, including mine. using training, discipline, proper muskets, bayonets, and cannon. History is replete with examples where the systems beat other systems. Individual pieces of a system may have been better, but you have to look at the system as a whole.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
I think we all agree here Longden. My expression of the ideas may have fallen short, but I agree completely with the thoughts expressed by Both you and Hugh.

A Samurai warrior isolated somehow in Europe would probably have quickly adopted the armaments and styles of the Europeans. I do not think there is anything Mystical or invicable about the Katana sword itself. However, I do think there is something very special about the warrior philosophy and way of life practiced by the Ancient Samurai.

Paracelsus
 
Bushido was just dandy unless you happened to be one of the peasants who was in the way. Of course, the same could be said of chivalry and serfs or Spartiates and helots or whatever. The "empty hand" or karate developed as a defense for the peasants against the samurai.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
Another way to pose this question ....

If you were suddenly resurrected as a 13-15th century warlord in Japan, fully aware of existing Japanese weapons and techniques AND also cognizant of 13th-15th century western weapons and techniques (sans firearms), how would you equip and train your troops for combat.

Does the katana wielding soldier represent your penultimate warrior? Remember that you'd be going against equally well trained and equally well armed (albeit maybe different weapons, given this question) contemporaries (whether they be samurai or conscripted farmers).
 
Me? I'd opt for training them as Roman legions of the Late Republic (say those of Gaius Julius Caesar) or of the Early Principate(say those of Vespasian or Trajan). From all that I have been able to learn, they were the best infantry of any era before gunpwder.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
scutum, gladius, and pilum
Click to expand...

They sound like out of my old Botany class, but I know they're not. Probably shield, sword and spear?

Also, refresh my Julius Caesar... are all the materials at hand in 13th century Japan to make the weapons/supplies you need?

How do you say "Veni, vidi, vici" in Japanese?

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 01-18-2000).]
 
The comment was made that Japanese armor does not have the coverage of European armor . This is true, and with good reason. First, Japan is mountainous in the extreme. and the second is that it is very humid. A person in full field plate would suffocate while carrying out the exertions necessary to travel over such terrain. Japanese armor developed as a defense against arrows, not swords as the Samurai started out as horse archers. Also, Samurai and Katanas were fully developed as distinct entities prior to the Taira-Minamoto wars of the 1180's

------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict

[This message has been edited by fudo (edited 01-18-2000).]
 
Thanks Fudo, this explains why full body metal armor never caught on in Japan (probably tricky eating pickles with a chopstick too). Care to speculate on the advantages of the katana vs any other blade style in the context of the time?

And thanks for clarifying the date. I guess 12th century should pretty much preclude any mention of firearms. Hmmm, I don't have any history references around me ... anyone know what the state of affairs was like in Europe circa 12th century?

1066 was the Battle of Hastings, so 12th century should be before the Crusades, I'd think.
 
Y'know, I just finished a book I'd highly recommend and is relevant to the discussion.

Can't recall the author, but it's a paperback: "Gates of Fire", a very historically correct narrative of the Spartan's stand at Thermopilae(sp?).

It starts by laying out the training, culture and weapons of the Greek Hoplites, 2,500 years old. These were what can only be described as "HEAVY infantry"...these guys had large amounts of bronze armor, big 20lb shields and 8ft spears as their prime weapon. Their backup was something distantly related to a 20" or so Khukuri, a short chopping sword.

Culturally these guys were a world apart from the Bushido. They fought as a single integrated unit, locking shields and forming a "moving wall of armored mayhem" that could withstand cavalry charges and shred the hell out of any light infantry.

If a Spartan dropped his personal armor in mid-fight due to exhaustion, it was no big deal other than being a risk to his personal safety. Drop his SHIELD and his citizenship was stripped in disgrace. The Shield each carried protected the guy on his left, not himself, and he could not force another to take that risk. They did drill training up the wazzoo because as they approached the enemy, fear could make them all scrunch to the right as they hid behind their right-side neighbor's shield.

Advancing at a walk, then a run (yet maintaining perfect formation over broken ground, in the dark if necessary) these guys could take point-blank massed archery and shrug it off due to armor and teamwork.

In stark contrast, I've studied a bit of classic Japanese sword. SIDEWAYS MOVEMENT and footwork is a key element. The Japanese fought as a herd of highly skilled individuals; the Hoplites, Romans and most later western armies right up to the present fought as a single highly-integrated massively disciplined killing machine.

At Thermopilae, the Spartans and some allied Hoplite-style units totalling about 4,000 guys held a stretch of beach between the sea and a cliff, about 800 yards wide(?). Narrow enough that their flanks were covered, anyhow. Massed about 10 or more deep, they held as the Persian Emperor threw various types of subject troops at 'em, 10,000 at a time.

For seven days, the Greeks led by the Spartans chewed 'em up and spat 'em out. My opinion is, you could have thrown 20,000 Samurai in there and they'd have fared no better. Pit one Samurai (who were basically light infantry) against a single Spartan, the ol' Greek wouldn't last five seconds.

Teamwork and discipline matter. The Japanese had discipline all right, but of a different type; they weren't drilled in team operations for days straight, no sleep, in a pattern not terribly different from USMC Basic Training circa 1944, before things got "watered down" in the present politically correct day. Units of Samurai weren't forged into "bands of blood brothers who'd die for each other" such as the Greek system we still (sorta) use.

It's NOT the weapons, it's not even the skill; it's the teamwork, drills and stamina that make the difference, that keep a line from breaking when things get tough.

If your interest is personal individual defense, the Japanese (and somewhat similar FMA) skills are fine.

Jim
 
Advancing at a walk, then a run (yet maintaining perfect formation over broken ground, in the dark if necessary) these guys could take point-blank massed archery and shrug it off due to armor and teamwork
Click to expand...

How would they fare against flaming oil?

So Hugh would train them as Roman Legionaires and Jim would train them as Spartans (sorta the same thing? ... strength comes from teamwork).

So my question, given Fudo's observation about the terrain and climate ... how effective are those tactics and weapons in a humid, mountainous area? I don't know my Japanese geography nor history well enough to know how many Japanese battles were fought on open battlefields vs nook and crook. It may be that there's scant opportunity (or room) to lock shields to form anything but little killing machines.

Good stuff tho guys! I wonder why there was never an emphasis in Japan (or China) on the use of shields? Maybe again as Fudo pointed out, the humidity, heat and terrain (and maybe physique) might preclude its use? If that's true, then there goes the Greek phalanx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top