Why so much focus on Katanas?

[C.S. Graves]

That's not to say that there weren't "munitions grade" swords turned out by the barrel load that "needed to be only good enough to cut opponents down" all around the world, there were... but those sorts of swords were made in Japan as well. Not every katana is an art object any more then every European hanger is.

Good point... the WWII gunto, for example. The man hours simply wouldn't have existed to equip each officer with the pinnacle of bladesmithing.

 

[Lycosa]

Now I want a Katana!!

 

[Yoshi]

Here's a question I've pondered before: What if the care and meticulous forging, hardening, and polishing that makes the katana so revered was applied to other, perhaps non-japanese blade designs? Imagine, if you will, if Mura Masa had also fashioned ginuntings, claymores, grosse messers, kampilans, daos, falcatas, et cetera...

The simple fact here is, that although there some superb bldes made the world over, the top Japanese blades had more thought and finishing put into them.

I had once read somewhere that part of why the katana had become such an objet d'art was that during a certain period in Japanese history, land became more scarce, and daimyo could no longer afford to use it as a reward for their best samurai. The highly-refined sword became a more economical reward during this period, and it went from being primarily an instrument of melee to an an even greater status symbol. Of course, I can't recall the precise source I had, so who knows?

Swords were given as presents, usualy as a sign of allegiance.

It was not intended to be good or bad merely note the historical record. For whatever reason you have chosen to believe a version of history that seems to be very Japanocentric, one that fosters the concept of the invincible Japanese warrior when defeated it is only because of unimaginable odds... and they are almost never defeated. I suspect that the reality was a bit more prosaic.

Your forgetting the main source of my information!

Regarding the Mr. Clarke issue, I have the highest respect for his skills, but to say that their could not be comparison tests done, replicating their use in war, is ludicrous! Japanese swords were used against Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Mongol, Siamese armour and weapons to name but a few! so all one would have to do is see how they perform on such armour and weapons surely? of course the other thing they were against is bone and flesh, I would have thought pig would be an excellent choice there, so no problems seeing how they would perform in the way they were intended if you ask me. I have certainley tested the ones I own on bone and flesh!

That doesn't even get into the fact that although there are many ancient Japanese blades in reasonable condition to study there are practically NO Viking Era blades in reasonable condition. How do you compare the two and say that something is "the best of them all" when you can't compare apples to apples (whatever your apples are) when studying?

It can be done by various methods!

Not every katana is an art object any more then every European hanger is.

So called Japanese art swords! This was one of the ways of getting the Americans to allow their swords to be made again! In reality there is no such thing as Japanese Art sword!!

Good point... the WWII gunto, for example. The man hours simply wouldn't have existed to equip each officer with the pinnacle of bladesmithing

That is very true, but considering we were originally comparing to so called Viking swords, this is taken out of context.
Only the richest Vikings could afford a sword in the first place, most Viklings did not own a sword, so in theory one would be only be comparing the very best Japanese swords against the Viking sword, or the richest Samurai bought swords, against Viking swords.

Setting that aside however, swords made by the likes of Yoshihara Kuniie in that period were of excellent quality.

 

[Triton]

The simple fact here is, that although there some superb bldes made the world over, the top Japanese blades had more thought and finishing put into them.

The "simple fact?" More thought? Again, how does one quantify this? Is there some record somewhere of where a Japanese smith spent hours sitting around thinking about a blade? Is there an equivalent record somewhere of how an Italian smith did NOT spend hours sitting around thinking of a blade?
More finishing? Are we talking about hours spent with Japanese waterstones vs hours spent with a grindstone? Are we talking about hours spent making a habaki versus hours spent doing the cloissonne work on the sutton hoo sword? Does it take longer to create an higo style tsuba or do the metal inlay to cross and pommel exhibited by many Migration era swords? Do you know the man hours that went into each?

Your forgetting the main source of my information!

Actually, no I'm not. I'm not forgetting it you've merely never mentioned it (at least so far as I can tell) beyond an oblique reference to a "book about Kublai Khan." Once again this merely exhibits the dangers of relying upon a single source whatever it might be.

Regarding the Mr. Clarke issue, I have the highest respect for his skills, but to say that their could not be comparison tests done, replicating their use in war, is ludicrous! Japanese swords were used against Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Mongol, Siamese armour and weapons to name but a few! so all one would have to do is see how they perform on such armour and weapons surely? of course the other thing they were against is bone and flesh, I would have thought pig would be an excellent choice there, so no problems seeing how they would perform in the way they were intended if you ask me. I have certainley tested the ones I own on bone and flesh!

The sort of tests you are proposing would in no way replicate their use in actual combat. There is a significant difference between test cutting against static weapons and armor (and even dead pigs) and cutting against living, armed opponents wearing armor and actively trying to cut you. This of course doesn't even begin to address the technical difficulties of rounding up anything that would be considered a representative body of antique weapons and armor to test cut against and even if that was accomplished it would be impossible to definitively say that said weapons and armor have not degraded to the point that they have rendered the test useless.

It can be done by various methods!

What are they and how does one overcome the problems I noted:

This is a very subjective metric. If someone wants to make the arguement in terms of say consistency of heat treatment, hardness etc. that is fine but again I don't know how you can say anything realistic here. If Japanese sword A is better then Persian Shamshir B in terms of consistency of heat treatment does that mean that all Japanese katana are superior to all Persian Shamshir? What if Persian Shamshir C is better then Japanese Katana A? Do we now reverse ourselves and say that all Persian Shamshir are better then all Japanese Katana? What if Katana A is not as good in terms of heat treatment but has a harder edge then Shamshir C. Does having a better edge but worse heat treatment make Katana A better or worse the Shamshir C?

So called Japanese art swords! This was one of the ways of getting the Americans to allow their swords to be made again! In reality there is no such thing as Japanese Art sword!!

Currently it is not Americans but the Japanese government that places restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of Japanese swords. In any the point I was making was that not every Japanese sword is at the pinnacle of the form any more then any other sword type.

In general and not just in the world of swords if you wish to make a statement like "XYZ is the best!" then you need to be able quantify the qualities that make it the best. Those qualities in turn need to be concrete and measurable. If not, then you are perfectly justified is saying "In my opinion XYZ is the best." Everyone will understand that this is merely your opinion to which of course you are perfectly entitled.

 

[C.S. Graves]

That is very true, but considering we were originally comparing to so called Viking swords, this is taken out of context.
Only the richest Vikings could afford a sword in the first place, most Viklings did not own a sword, so in theory one would be only be comparing the very best Japanese swords against the Viking sword, or the richest Samurai bought swords, against Viking swords.

Sorry if I didn't specify. I was speaking more about any area or historical period where swords were used and produced en masse, at which time the focus overall would typically shift to economy and utility, rather than refinement of the blades.

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---Are you a student of the sword? You may PM or email me.
Thanks.

 

[chuckinohio]

I can not remember the source, it may have been S. Turnbull, but there is an account of a Japanese smith who spent a very long period of time meditating under a waterfall before beginning to forge a blade for a certain Samurai. He supposedly spent this period of time meditating to gain insight and inspiration to produce a blade worthy of the recipients character.

It is my belief that it is accounts such as the above that lend such a mythical aspect to the katana.

"Why, he spent a month meditating and getting his mind right, so that blade must be the very embodiment of all that is right and just in the universe"

While I can in no way dispute the dedication and discipline of the smith who supposedly commited himself in such a fashion, I would say that the sword produced would be no more or no less a product of the smiths skill, and the materials available for him to work with, and nothing more.

The eastern culture has fascinated westerners for as long as we have been aware of it. Couple that with the mystery of the unknown, and some fanciful tales of performance, and presto you have attributes assigned to something that are of legendary proportion.

The winners write the history, let us not forget that, and the winners will inevitably imbue their weapons with legendary attributes, and claim divine assistance. Therefore it would be safe to assume that some if not all of the accounts of swords, such as the Shobu cleaving men clear to their saddles, may be suspect. With that statement made, I would also submit that most if not all historical accounts involving supernatural attributes and performance are therefore suspect.

A Katana may be nothing more than the sum of its parts, or the sum of its parts may total more than one would expect. While it is undoubtedly an efficient cutter and it surely fulfilled its role in a very isolated and rigidly structured environment, it is not the final word in edged weaponry.

My .02

Chuck

 

[Yoshi]

Actually, no I'm not. I'm not forgetting it you've merely never mentioned it (at least so far as I can tell) beyond an oblique reference to a "book about Kublai Khan." Once again this merely exhibits the dangers of relying upon a single source whatever it might be.

It is actualy mentioned, but after having studied the Japanese sword for some 36 six odd years, foil, sabre and epee for about five years, plus having read and studied countless books on the Mongols, Japanese, British etc with regards to their bladed weapons, along with information passed onto me by top teachers and collectors, I also have a fair bit of info in my head as well. I chose to use the previously mentioned book about Kublai Khan, because it is much more up to date, and not pro-Japanese. Quotes from ST book's could well be deemed pro Japanese, even though he has written several excellent books about other cultures, like China, the Mongols, the Ottamans, and European warfare etc.

There is a significant difference between test cutting against static weapons and armor (and even dead pigs) and cutting against living, armed opponents wearing armor and actively trying to cut you.

Cutting against static targets tests the blade, dealing with live opponents is a test of your skill against theirs. The only way to see if Mr. Clarkes swords will out perform a sword made by someone like Minamoto Moriatsu is on static targets, preferably against the armour and arms they would have been used against, ie Mongol arms and armour, the traditional way of doing it btw, and pigs are an excellent way to test how a sword performs on flesh and bone, again a traditional way of testing Japnese swords, much better than green bamboo and tatami.

Currently it is not Americans but the Japanese government that places restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of Japanese swords. In any the point I was making was that not every Japanese sword is at the pinnacle of the form any more then any other sword type.

everything done immeadiately post WWII, had the Americans in mind, even the way the rules came about for the amount of Japanese swords being made per month by a smith. It is well known that these restrictions are not appreciated by several of Japans top smiths.

In general and not just in the world of swords if you wish to make a statement like "XYZ is the best!" then you need to be able quantify the qualities that make it the best. Those qualities in turn need to be concrete and measurable. If not, then you are perfectly justified is saying "In my opinion XYZ is the best." Everyone will understand that this is merely your opinion to which of course you are perfectly entitled.

Plenty of other people have already done so, it just a question of you reading the appropriate findings, and talking to the appropraite people, of course other people will disagree, here though is an interesting link, although the info doesn't state they are the best, the curator is on record as saying that 'the Japanese sword is the most effective sword ever produced'
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/japanese-sword-technology

Lycosa, yes I do practise and teach Japanese sword.

A Katana may be nothing more than the sum of its parts, or the sum of its parts may total more than one would expect. While it is undoubtedly an efficient cutter and it surely fulfilled its role in a very isolated and rigidly structured environment, it is not the final word in edged weaponry

This statement surely doesn't take into account it was successfully used against many different cultures, Mongols, Chinese, Siamese, Koreans, Russians to name but a few?

 

[Lycosa]

Thanks Yoshi. I enjoy your posts. Which is your favorite Katana?

 

[Yoshi]

Hello Lycosa, thank you, are you talking historically or about mine?

 

[Triton]

It is actualy mentioned,

Where? I took a peek at your past posts again and I'm still missing so if you would, point it out. Stephen Turnbull's book is mentioned but that's not a book on Kublai Khan and it wasn't mentioned by you. As I stated I'm not seeing your "sources" referenced.

but after having studied the Japanese sword for some 36 six odd years, foil, sabre and epee for about five years, plus having read and studied countless books on the Mongols, Japanese, British etc with regards to their bladed weapons, along with information passed onto me by top teachers and collectors, I also have a fair bit of info in my head as well.

That's in impressive resume, but you will forgive me if I will note that this hardly makes you an authoritative source, especially in view of some of the unsubstantiated claims you have made to this point.

I chose to use the previously mentioned book about Kublai Khan, because it is much more up to date, and not pro-Japanese.

What is the name of the book and who is the author?

Cutting against static targets tests the blade, dealing with live opponents is a test of your skill against theirs.

So you really don't see the difference between hanging a helmet on a post and chopping at it and putting it on someone's head and chopping at it? You believe that this is testing how a sword would "really be used in combat?"

The only way to see if Mr. Clarkes swords will out perform a sword made by someone like Minamoto Moriatsu is on static targets, preferably against the armour and arms they would have been used against, ie Mongol arms and armour, the traditional way of doing it btw

Again, I have to ask you where are you going to fine a bunch of mint condition Mongol Arms and Armor with which do do your test, even if you accept the premise that static cutting is the same as combat cutting?

, and pigs are an excellent way to test how a sword performs on flesh and bone,

You are of course aware that there are significant difference between live flesh and bone and dead flesh and bone?

everything done immeadiately post WWII, had the Americans in mind, even the way the rules came about for the amount of Japanese swords being made per month by a smith. It is well known that these restrictions are not appreciated by several of Japans top smiths.

I'm sure they were not and are not, but since the Japanese have been running their own affairs for around 60 years now, it seems hardly fair to blame Americans for those restrictions still being in place... which is as noted previously is beside the point.

Plenty of other people have already done so, it just a question of you reading the appropriate findings, and talking to the appropraite people,

There are plenty of people that you can talk to that will tell you that the moon landings were faked, the earth is flat, Kennedy was killed by the Mafia and that aliens blew up the World Trade Center. There are even people that will tell you that the European Bastard Sword is the BEST! If you can believe that... That is their opinion. Facts are typically quantifiable and measureable. They aren't a matter of "talking to the appropriate people."

here though is an interesting link, although the info doesn't state they are the best, the curator is on record as saying that 'the Japanese sword is the most effective sword ever produced'
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/japanese-sword-technology

Where? He doesn't say so on the page you linked at any rate. In fact that page doesn't even appear to be attributed to anyone in particular and in fact that page seems to be some fairly standard information about Japanese swords. Assuming he does for the sake of arguement again I have to ask the question. How does he quantify "the most effective sword ever produced?" What is it the most effective at? Under what circumstances?

This statement surely doesn't take into account it was successfully used against many different cultures, Mongols, Chinese, Siamese, Koreans, Russians to name but a few?

So if I understand you correctly you believe that if a sword is successfully used against many different cultures then it is the final word in edged weaponry?

If that is the case wouldn't we then conclude that the gladius is the final word in edged weaponry?

 

[C.S. Graves]

If that is the case wouldn't we then conclude that the gladius is the final word in edged weaponry?

...or along the same lines, the Mongol sabre, given the vast expense of their empire, even though they were most feared for their mounted archers.

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---Your Katana, please.

 

[chuckinohio]

To answer your question, yes, I did take that into account when I made that statement.

The Katana is no more the final word in edged weaponry than is the Gladius, the Bastard, the Saber, or any Oakeshott pattern you can name.

Each sword discussed has or had it's claim to fame in a certain historical context.

Let me state here and now, that I am not anti-katana, I own a pair, and enjoy them greatly. Do not construe my statements as trying to say that a katana is junk or worthless. I am merely stating that IN MY OPINION anyone who discounts any other sword merely because it isn't a katana is not very sensible.

I do realize that a Kendo practitioner will favor a Japanese blade over say a Claymore, and justifiably so. Then again, a practitioner of western European martial combat will probably not pick a katana as his weapon of choice.

The point made about exposure to, and success against different cultures demonstrates clearly that there are many different sword types that qualify for the cult status that the katana enjoys.

Chuck

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---Which ridge is on you katana... shinogi-takashi or shinogi-hikushi?

 

[Yoshi]

Where? I took a peek at your past posts again and I'm still missing so if you would, point it out. Stephen Turnbull's book is mentioned but that's not a book on Kublai Khan and it wasn't mentioned by you. As I stated I'm not seeing your "sources" referenced.

I'm surprised you couldn't find the Kublai Khan book reference, its there.

That's in impressive resume, but you will forgive me if I will note that this hardly makes you an authoritative source, especially in view of some of the unsubstantiated claims you have made to this point.

Thank you, but I agree it doesn't make me an authority, which is why I read and study other peoples works, so I would only consider myself an enthusiastic student, and not a bad MA practitioner.

So you really don't see the difference between hanging a helmet on a post and chopping at it and putting it on someone's head and chopping at it? You believe that this is testing how a sword would "really be used in combat?"

I think your missing the point, Japanese swords were never tested that way, until combat! but they were tested in the ways I have described, and they are the only reasonable and legal way to test Mr. Clarkes swords against a Japanese swordsmiths sword. When two opponenets met sword to sword is was for a variety reasons, a duel, in battle, a feud etc. but never to see whose sword was the best!

Again, I have to ask you where are you going to fine a bunch of mint condition Mongol Arms and Armor with which do do your test, even if you accept the premise that static cutting is the same as combat cutting?

Have them made, they still are, so there is no problem there, its just a question of the will to do it. Indeed in the rather awfull programme Weapon Masters they kinda of had a try! Featuring Mr Clarke and the Japanese smith Ono Yoshimitsu, and even the very pro-European weapons expert Mike Loads was a tad impressed by the Japanese experience.

You are of course aware that there are significant difference between live flesh and bone and dead flesh and bone?

But not between a live or freshley killed pig.

I'm sure they were not and are not, but since the Japanese have been running their own affairs for around 60 years now, it seems hardly fair to blame Americans for those restrictions still being in place... which is as noted previously is beside the point.

You obviously do not understand Japanese society at all.

There are even people that will tell you that the European Bastard Sword is the BEST! If you can believe that... That is their opinion. Facts are typically quantifiable and measureable. They aren't a matter of "talking to the appropriate people."

They are entitled to their opinion of course, but for us mear mortals talking to and reading about peoples findings is the only way!

Where? He doesn't say so on the page you linked at any rate. In fact that page doesn't even appear to be attributed to anyone in particular and in fact that page seems to be some fairly standard information about Japanese swords. Assuming he does for the sake of arguement again I have to ask the question. How does he quantify "the most effective sword ever produced?" What is it the most effective at? Under what circumstances?

It was the Royal Armories metallurgist lol, who has done extensive re-search into arms and armour from all over the world, and has been in several programmes, the curator has also been on several programmes, just have a nose around! The Royal Armories has also done extensive re-search into weapon systems and techniques, and guess what they reckon the katana is the best sword for combat ever produced!

If that is the case wouldn't we then conclude that the gladius is the final word in edged weaponry?

If you talking shield and sword use in tight formation, you could well have a point, but when the Roman infantry split it was found to be sadly lacking!

or along the same lines, the Mongol sabre, given the vast expense of their empire, even though they were most feared for their mounted archers.

Yo mean like at Hakata bay for example?

in a very isolated and rigidly structured environment

That suggested to me, that one hadn't considered the variety of other weapons the Japanese sword had encountered outside of its Country? I do appreciate you saying your not anti katana btw, as I am not anti many other swords myself.

My favourite katana is a 1977 made blade by Minamoto Moriatsu (retired), nagasa 77.2cm, sori 2.4cm, shinogi zukuri, chu kissaki, iori mune, bo-hi, beautifull blackish itame hada, gunome midare hamon, with plenty of ashi (a good sign), his swords have a high reputation for being excellent cutting swords!!

 

[tedwca]

Ah just seen
(28/07/09) which bit your referring to, I got that from two sources, one was 'The Samurai a Military History' by ST and the other was 'Kublai Khan' by John Man.

Here are the books Yoshi is referring to.

 

[Dave Rishar]

It was the Royal Armories metallurgist lol, who has done extensive re-search into arms and armour from all over the world, and has been in several programmes, the curator has also been on several programmes, just have a nose around! The Royal Armories has also done extensive re-search into weapon systems and techniques, and guess what they reckon the katana is the best sword for combat ever produced!

Best in what context?

Would it be fair to assume that if a given weapon's configuration was simply the best for every situation, culture, and time period, wouldn't everyone have ended up using the same thing sooner or later? And if so, why didn't they?

As for the technology involved in their construction, we've already seen that similar technology existed in other parts of the world at around the same time or earlier; yet, it was abandoned fairly early on, at least in Europe. Why?

 

[fuchikoma]

I'm sure they were not and are not, but since the Japanese have been running their own affairs for around 60 years now, it seems hardly fair to blame Americans for those restrictions still being in place... which is as noted previously is beside the point.

You obviously do not understand Japanese society at all.

The Americans banned manufactruing swords for 7 years. Before that, the Tokugawa shogunate banned ownership of full-length swords for common people (chonin) in 1668, long before the Western world was in any position to dictate Japan's laws. Then, it's common knowledge that in 1876, even samurai were prohibited from carrying swords, limiting them only to police and the new standing army. As I understand it, this has served as the framework for modern Japanese sword law, hasn't it? It has only relaxed a little bit for collectors, but has been in place since before the 20th century.

So doesn't it seem more likely that the restrictions on manufacture and sale of swords in modern Japan is more due to the fact that they are still restricted weapons, instead of upholding a tradition based on a short-term ban imposed by the Americans when swords had already been restricted for well over half a century?

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---Thank you for your sword information.
Have you ever used a Hartsfield Katana or blade?
Don't laugh...