Why so much focus on Katanas?

On the katana side again- very ignorant question- did samurai arm up with shields as well? The long handle looks like it would be very hard to manage one handed.

Silly as it is, that warrior vs warrior program got me thinking with the Spartan vs the Ninja episode. I love 2 handed swords, but a shield and short sword looked very, very dangerous.
 
The Samurai did not use shields. The superb balance of the Katana makes it easy to use with one hand.
 
Shields were used but it was rare. You also have to remember that the sword (both in Japan and Europe ) was not the primary weapon on the field. The spear/pole arm was.
 
Bors said:
Shields were used but it was rare. You also have to remember that the sword (both in Japan and Europe ) was not the primary weapon on the field. The spear/pole arm was.
Click to expand...

gotcha...they used it solo? No like the greeks/spartans who used shields and spears together as primary arms?
 
For someone with more knowledge than me: How much of a factor could it be that, when you actually start trying to cut things, edge control is easier wih a two-handed sword?
 
MVF said:
For someone with more knowledge than me: How much of a factor could it be that, when you actually start trying to cut things, edge control is easier wih a two-handed sword?
Click to expand...

If you are proficient with your sword and have proper form and lots of practice, edge control is about the same.

But for a beginner, it can depend a lot on what you as an individual are comfortable with. I had an easier time one handed because I was already accustomed to using a machete, khukuri, or hatchet, all of which are used with one hand. The only two handed "weapon" I was familiar with was a baseball bat and it took me a long time to unlearn that.
 
My neat Kat will have blood grooves or a raised ridge line. I like light and fast.
 
Lycosa said:
My neat Kat will have blood grooves or a raised ridge line. I like light and fast.
Click to expand...

:confused: ??? :confused:

I don't quite understand the statement here...also it's worth mentioning that there's no such thing as a "blood groove." It has a different name in every culture, but in English it's known as a "fuller" after the blacksmithing tool used to produce it, and in Japanese terminology it is a "bo-hi." The raised ridge line I'm a bit lost on, honestly.

Also, whilst the blade Bors posted does indeed have a straight blade and chisel tip, the square tsuba was rare on any style of Japanese sword, and I do not believe there are any chokuto with square tsubas known to have existed (not that it's impossible). I think one of the more compelling reasons would be that the corners would probably poke and rub on clothing when carried.
 
Bo-hi is what I mean. Me was takin English. :D
The cross section of a "raised ridge line" looks kinda like a diamond shape.
got it now?
 
Lycosa said:
Bo-hi is what I mean. Me was takin English. :D
The cross section of a "raised ridge line" looks kinda like a diamond shape.
got it now?
Click to expand...

Only Nihonto I've seen with a diamond cross-section throughout are Moroha-zukuri, which are double-edged throughout their length. They are rare as Tanto, rarer still as Wakizashi, and AFAIK nonexistent as Daito.

Maybe you're thinking of Kissaki-moroha-zukuri? Double edged for only a portion of the blade, maybe 1/3 the way back from the tip. Cold Steel sells a version of this.

I suppose, if one loosely defines a diamond cross-section, one could consider the U-no-kubi-zukuri under this category. This involves a beveled, but not sharpened, spine, which widens to full thickness at the tip and for a bit towards the Habaki.

I love all of these blade shapes. Katana in general have come to bore me, since almost all one sees is boring black Ito and black Saya on Shinogi-zukuri. It's the offbeat stuff I really like.
That said, I have a jet-black Chisagatana from Cold Steel. Not an overly interesting geometry, but it's a hellish cutter. Plus I modified it, so it's a litttttttle bit different than the norm (I think my picture thread is still on the main sword-discussion page).
 
Lycosa said:
The shinogi-takashi, is the raised ridge line.
Click to expand...

I can't find mention anywhere of "Shinogi-takashi".

The Shinogi itself isn't raised. It's simply the very crisp transition between two intersecting planes. The ridge formed by the Shinogi-ji (flat of the blade) and the Ji (edge bevel between the ridge and the Hamon) meeting.

This is a very difficult process resulting from the polish. Same goes for the Yokote. Many manufactured swords will fake these, using opposing grind-directions to make it appear that there's a distinct intersection of planes.
 
Source: The Samurai Sword, A Handbook, by John Yumoto, pages 54 and 56.
 
Bors said:
If your arguing katana vs modern Olympic sword I'm not so sure. While the Olympic sword has the speed and handling advantage it's only a thrusting weapon. I would think the katana would have the advantage in a real duel. In an Olympic duel I would think the saber/epee would have the advantage do to it's speed.

Now if you arguing actual saber vs Katana wielded by masters then I would say a draw or in the case of a real duel both might very well die do to inflicted wounds.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I understand correctly, the Olympic style Saber dueling method does incorporate a fair amount of slashing or cutting maneuvers for points as well as thrusting. Olympic Saber style seems to be a blend of the two, with a favoring toward the slash as a quick way to score a point.

I would have to agree that in a real fight by masters, neither is likely to survive, and the one to draw first blood will likely come out on top. I might give the edge to the Saber master only because their style should include more thrust attack options which the Samurai might have more trouble parrying, but that is probably splitting hairs. I doubt a saber thrust attack would permit an adequate counter parry on a determined Samurai slash, especially a sacrificial maneuver. My guess is that the duel would likely end in a stalemate, with both combatants expiring.
 
I don't know if you consider genocide war, but look at Rwanda. 500,000 machetes were distributed by political factions to the Hutu. Major loss of life.
Even barring this, machetes are still used all over the third world as battle weapons in conflicts large and small.
Chuck, I like your point about asian and western fencing styles being somewhat dissimilar. I have often wondered what a master from either discipline would do when faced with a highly skilled, but (to him) unconventional attack. When you train with rapiers or foils a slashing attack is not really considered to be a serious danger. Would a Musashi expect or defend effectively against a primarily thrusting attack?
We need weapons MMA.
 
Even a highly trained practitioner in a certain fencing style will be limited in his training by the weapon that he trains with.
Given that, I would think that a highly trained eastern combatant would have a slight edge in defending against a thrusting attack. My reason being, that eastern practitioners tend to be more diverse in their training and a wider variety of weapons are prevalent and accepted.
Western styles seem to be more rigid, and rely on gentlemanly combat. Your rapier duelist may not have ever had to defend against a stave, or flail, two weapons that are still prevalent in eastern combat.
The Eastern swordsman very well could overwhelm the Western combatant assuming that he got past his guard without sustaining a mortal wound in the initial move. Even piercing him with a rapier, would not prevent his counter strike with the katana though, so maybe the eastern practitioner holds the edge with weapon efectiveness.
It would be interesting to see who could effectively defend and counter.

Chuck
 
chuckinohio said:
Western styles seem to be more rigid, and rely on gentlemanly combat. Your rapier duelist may not have ever had to defend against a stave, or flail, two weapons that are still prevalent in eastern combat.
Click to expand...

I think it'd depend on how far back in western history you go. Gunpowder certainly undermined the prevalence of a variety of melee weapons, but there seemed to be quite a variety between the middle ages and renaissance. Cudgels, flails, sickles, scythes, belts (?!), bladed shields, and a huge variety of plain ol' sword designs, you name it.

With regards to a thrusting-style against a backsword-user, one western sabre expert said that defence is possible provided the sabre/backsword is of equal length to the rapier-type blade. The defence typically consisted of a slash to the thrusting hand. Given this, I figure if you paired up a westerner with a rapier and samurai with a katana of equal reach, it could be anybody's game. In either event, accuracy would have to be dead-on for either. I'd give the speed advantage to the western fencer, and damage per blow to the samurai.
 
That's kinda where I drew my conclusions as well. One good blow from the Samurai and the fight would pretty much end, but he might not be able to get inside enough to deliver it without succumbing to the extended reach of the fencing style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top