Katanas are overrated.

Yeah, their's no correlation between Japan's conservative living style and its natural resource quantities. Not to mention its violent military expansion post industrial revolution.

There's not? Their conservative living comes from their long historic need to do so, as they were a very isolated culture forced upon them by geographical factors.

Are you kidding? You're telling me you would rather use a sword which takes needlessly long man hours to produce which is as fragile as glass, instead of a typical European longsword?

Yes, I would much, much rather take a sword into battle that had a long, careful process in it's creationthan one that didn't. Wouldn't you?All different swords were not just made from clay in a day,y'know...Japanese or otherwise. Fragile as glass? That's pretty funny. Do you truly believe that?

Strawman. I didn't say no ritual took place in the building of the weapon. But the Japanese didn't stand around taking weeks to produce an individual sword for that reason alone.

Of course not. But when you make the statement:

"The huge hours of worksmanship put into Katanas was not really from the supposed divine essence of the weapon." , that is not entirely true.....it's believed "divine essence" by it's makerswas very much a partof whatdrove such a highly ritualized event.

Too bad. All those wasted personel could have been put to much more productive use instead of producing a single wanktastic blade that's pathetically fragile and useless against armored opponents.

"wanktastic" blade? Pathetically fragile? I really don't know why I'm bothering responding to your posts, for they reek of ignorance on how the katana was made, what it was designed for,and how it was used. Useless against what.....armored opponents? Samurai also fought armoredopponents, their armor was just not asstrong as medievalknights' armor. Point a battle in history out to me where the Samurai and Medieval knights faced off please. Like I said, the katana was designed with a specific purpose in mind, which was not to slice through 2 inch thick pieces of armor. You are comparing apples to oarnges here.

Didn't you say Japan was a conservative society? Medieval Japan doesn't seem to have been very good at it then.

(Sigh.....)

Yes, after another several weeks of reforging and rebuilding.

Which isbetter than starting all over again, wouldn't you agree? All blades take damage in battle. If you think those that do and require tending toare reflections of poor quality of initialcraftsmanship, then you can't justifiably call any sword ever used to be of any quality whatsoever. Were Broadswords not repaired? Of course they were.

Unparralleled in that it was needless and wasteful? Especially for a weapon that is totally useless against most fighters of the era? Yeah. I won't deny that a Katana is a good sword against an unarmored opponent, but it's popularity in modern media is absurd. Just flip on any anime or movie these days. How many macho guys with metal slicing katanas can you pick out?

Not useless against those they fought against. Why do you continually compare the katana to other swords? The katana was mostlyisolated due to geographical factors. It was used in clan warfare against other Samurai. Sure, it was also used against some invaders as well, which goes to show that it could very much hold its own against other types of weaponry. The katana was not in fact the Samurai's main weapon of choice historically, spears and bows were.

About it's popularity in modern culture: sure it has been blown up out of context and worshipped from the media's exagerrations. But that does not in any way take awayform it's historic significance. You'd have to be stupid to think it could cut through an engine block, I agree. However when you say it would "shatter like glass" that is unrealistic and not at all correct.

Yeah, their's no correlation between Japan's conservative living style and its natural resource quantities. Not to mention its violent military expansion post industrial revolution.

There's not? Their conservative living comes from their long historic need to do so, as they were a very isolated culture forced upon them by geographical factors.Rekunta

Concede.

Are you kidding? You're telling me you would rather use a sword which takes needlessly long man hours to produce which is as fragile as glass, instead of a typical European longsword?

Yes, I would much, much rather take a sword into battle that had a long, careful process in it's creationthan one that didn't. Wouldn't you?All different swords were not just made from clay in a day,y'know...Japanese or otherwise.

Oh come on, I don't know where that engineering myth came from, but a weapon that is more complex is not necessarily better than one that is simplistic.

Fragile as glass? That's pretty funny. Do you truly believe that?

Obviously not.

Strawman. I didn't say no ritual took place in the building of the weapon. But the Japanese didn't stand around taking weeks to produce an individual sword for that reason alone.

Of course not. But when you make the statement:

"The huge hours of worksmanship put into Katanas was not really from the supposed divine essence of the weapon." , that is not entirely true.....it's believed "divine essence" by it's makerswas very much a partof whatdrove such a highly ritualized event.

Concede.

Too bad. All those wasted personel could have been put to much more productive use instead of producing a single wanktastic blade that's pathetically fragile and useless against armored opponents.

"wanktastic" blade? Pathetically fragile? I really don't know why I'm bothering responding to your posts, for they reek of ignorance on how the katana was made, what it was designed for,and how it was used. Useless against what.....armored opponents? Samurai also fought armoredopponents, their armor was just not asstrong as medievalknights' armor. Point a battle in history out to me where the Samurai and Medieval knights faced off please. Like I said, the katana was designed with a specific purpose in mind, which was not to slice through 2 inch thick pieces of armor. You are comparing apples to oarnges here.

Allright, so I am making up scenarios between them. Though it would be interesting to see what would happen if a European medieval army decided to hit Japan for whatever made up reason. :wink:

Didn't you say Japan was a conservative society? Medieval Japan doesn't seem to have been very good at it then.

(Sigh.....)

Yes, after another several weeks of reforging and rebuilding.

Which isbetter than starting all over again, wouldn't you agree? All blades take damage in battle.

You misread. I was implying that they start the blade all over again.

If you think those that do and require tending toare reflections of poor quality of initialcraftsmanship, then you can't justifiably call any sword ever used to be of any quality whatsoever. Were Broadswords not repaired? Of course they were.

Yes, but the process to repair a broadsword didn't take total rebuilding of theblade.

Unparralleled in that it was needless and wasteful? Especially for a weapon that is totally useless against most fighters of the era? Yeah. I won't deny that a Katana is a good sword against an unarmored opponent, but it's popularity in modern media is absurd. Just flip on any anime or movie these days. How many macho guys with metal slicing katanas can you pick out?

Not useless against those they fought against. Why do you continually compare the katana to other swords? The katana was mostlyisolated due to geographical factors. It was used in clan warfare against other Samurai. Sure, it was also used against some invaders as well, which goes to show that it could very much hold its own against other types of weaponry. The katana was not in fact the Samurai's main weapon of choice historically, spears and bows were.

Again, more of my foolish fantasies taking the place of fact.

About it's popularity in modern culture: sure it has been blown up out of context and worshipped from the media's exagerrations. But that does not in any way take awayform it's historic significance. You'd have to be stupid to think it could cut through an engine block, I agree. However when you say it would "shatter like glass" that is unrealistic and not at all correct.

Though which would you consider the bigger problem right now? I consider the exaggeration worse since I generally hate teen culture. But that's just me.

Lightsabers, ftw.

Vrrrraoooo vrrrraaoooo...PSSSSSHHHHH! *slice*

My arm!

I don't mean to be a jerk.

I just find the culture and discipline of the Japanese to be very admirable. And I also don't think different swords from different eras are trash either, they all served a specific purpose and were quite effectiveor they wouldn't have been used. Personally I think the katana is a pretty impressive weapon, not based on meadia or anything of the sort, but from researching their history and use.

Since this thread was named "katanas are overrated" I just felt the need to reply. Nothing personal mate :)

I don't mean to be a jerk. Rekunta

Too bad. I like it when people actually have the willto meat my hateful demeanor head on. It's boring when the other person just stands there and complains "lol you're teh mean!"

Since this thread was named "katanas are overrated" I just felt the need to reply. Nothing personal mate :)

Never took any of it personally. Why should name calling offend me?

They did an experiment on Myth Busters about Swords cutting each other during an engangment, and guess what sword broke the easiest?

A Katana against another one.

Guess what sword completely oblitered the stationary Katana? A scotish Claymore.

Katana's were flimsly compared to European arms in almost everyway.

They did an experiment on Myth Busters about Swords cutting each other during an engangment, and guess what sword broke the easiest?

A Katana against another one.

Guess what sword completely oblitered the stationary Katana? A scotish Claymore.

Katana's were flimsly compared to European arms in almost everyway.

Donkey_Puncher

And where did they find the person that wished to sacrifice such a valued historical artifacts for said experiment? I assume the Mythbusters used a real katana and claymore.....not theones created in a factory.

But I don't doubt that if this scenario did take place back in the old days with the real weapons as they were createdthat this wouldn't have happened. A light, agile sword against a huge one head on?

Yea, I think it's possible it might shatter. Unlikely, but possible.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

They did an experiment on Myth Busters about Swords cutting each other during an engangment, and guess what sword broke the easiest?

A Katana against another one.

Guess what sword completely oblitered the stationary Katana? A scotish Claymore.

Katana's were flimsly compared to European arms in almost everyway.

Rekunta

And where did they find the person that wished to sacrifice such a valued historical artifacts for said experiment? I assume the Mythbusters used a real katana and claymore.....not theones created in a factory.

But I don't doubt that if this scenario did take place back in the old days with the real weapons as they were createdthat this wouldn't have happened. A light, agile sword against a huge one head on?

Yea, I think it's possible it might shatter. Unlikely, but possible.

If I remember correctly, they used real Katana's and a Claymore.

When pitted against each other, both the Katanas chipped each other. The Claymore absolutely destroyed the Katana while it had a little chip in it.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

They did an experiment on Myth Busters about Swords cutting each other during an engangment, and guess what sword broke the easiest?

A Katana against another one.

Guess what sword completely oblitered the stationary Katana? A scotish Claymore.

Katana's were flimsly compared to European arms in almost everyway.

Donkey_Puncher

And where did they find the person that wished to sacrifice such a valued historical artifacts for said experiment? I assume the Mythbusters used a real katana and claymore.....not theones created in a factory.

But I don't doubt that if this scenario did take place back in the old days with the real weapons as they were createdthat this wouldn't have happened. A light, agile sword against a huge one head on?

Yea, I think it's possible it might shatter. Unlikely, but possible.

If I remember correctly, they used real Katana's and a Claymore.

When pitted against each other, both the Katanas chipped each other. The Claymore absolutely destroyed the Katana while it had a little chip in it.

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

There are still quite a few swordsmiths crafting japanese styled blades to this day. I know that Micheal Bell, of Dragonfly Forge comes to mind as one of the few if not the only white people that have been taught traditional japanese blade manufacturing, including a brand new sword made from the ground up with Tameshagene. Others, like Randall Graham and Howard Clark make good approximations using modern steel. Atleast they did a few years ago.

Also, you can just go on the website www.japanesesword.com and buy an antique at auction. As far as the claymore, there are quite a few museum quality replicas out there. Arms and Armor www.armor.com makes a good replica, and their swords are actually considered to be a bit thick and heavy, atleast they were a few years ago when I was really into swords. Here's their reproduction:

"#100 Highland Claymore
The claymore is one of the most recognizable swords in history. A uniquely Scottish hand-and-a-half ****first appearing at the beginning of the sixteenth Century, it is almost certainly a development of the Scots-Irish single hand ****of sword. Shorter and lighter, in general, than the continental two-hander, the average Claymore ran about 55 inches in overall length, with a 13 inch grip and a 42 inch blade. Fairly uniform in **** the sword was set with a wheel pommel often capped by a crescent-shaped nut and a guard with straight, down-sloping arms ending in quatrefoils and langets running down the center of the blade from the guard.

Every able-bodied man in the Highlands carried arms, as can be attested to by John Hume in the passage below written on his experience as a prisoner after the battle of Falkirk (1746). "Thy [the Highlanders] always appeared like warriors; as if their arms [weapons] had been limbs and members of their bodies they were never seen without them; they travelled, they attended fairs and markets, nay they went to church with their broadswords and dirks."

We have chosen to replicate this sword from a private collection as it exemplifies the ****c features of the Claymore so well.

Original: Circa Mid-16th Century, Private Collection

Blade length: 40.1" x 2.1"; Overall length: 56"; Weight: 5.4 pounds"

http://www.armor.com/sword100.html

So, would you please stop trying to say that European swords were extraordinarily heavy?

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

tycoonmike

Yes, giving it more momentum and more force.

But if you'd ask any blackmith or archaelogist on the subject they'll tell you that Katana's are far inferior to most Western armaments and swords.

They were good at what they were made for, killing unarmored opponents. But when pitted against platemail, chainmail, or a broad sword it's the bottom of the barrel.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

Donkey_Puncher

Yes, giving it more momentum and more force.

But if you'd ask any blackmith or archaelogist on the subject they'll tell you that Katana's are far inferior to most Western armaments and swords.

They were good at what they were made for, killing unarmored opponents. But when pitted against platemail, chainmail, or a broad sword it's the bottom of the barrel.

The sword's strength or size doesn't matter in warfare, only the skill that the user has with it does matter. Load a fairly inexperienced European knight down with however much armor and weaponry they used (mideval warfare isn't my strong point), and I can guarantee you that the better trained samurai will kill his opponent, if not through the strength of the sword, then through the effects of heavy armor and arms upon the knight, IE heatstroke, heat exaustion, etc., though I have to assume that these were possible side effects of wearing plate armor over chain armor, I don't positively know.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

tycoonmike

Yes, giving it more momentum and more force.

But if you'd ask any blackmith or archaelogist on the subject they'll tell you that Katana's are far inferior to most Western armaments and swords.

They were good at what they were made for, killing unarmored opponents. But when pitted against platemail, chainmail, or a broad sword it's the bottom of the barrel.

The sword's strength or size doesn't matter in warfare, only the skill that the user has with it does matter. Load a fairly inexperienced European knight down with however much armor and weaponry they used (mideval warfare isn't my strong point), and I can guarantee you that the better trained samurai will kill his opponent, if not through the strength of the sword, then through the effects of heavy armor and arms upon the knight, IE heatstroke, heat exaustion, etc., though I have to assume that these were possible side effects of wearing plate armor over chain armor, I don't positively know.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

blooddemon666

Yes, giving it more momentum and more force.

But if you'd ask any blackmith or archaelogist on the subject they'll tell you that Katana's are far inferior to most Western armaments and swords.

They were good at what they were made for, killing unarmored opponents. But when pitted against platemail, chainmail, or a broad sword it's the bottom of the barrel.

The sword's strength or size doesn't matter in warfare, only the skill that the user has with it does matter. Load a fairly inexperienced European knight down with however much armor and weaponry they used (mideval warfare isn't my strong point), and I can guarantee you that the better trained samurai will kill his opponent, if not through the strength of the sword, then through the effects of heavy armor and arms upon the knight, IE heatstroke, heat exaustion, etc., though I have to assume that these were possible side effects of wearing plate armor over chain armor, I don't positively know.

No, I kind of figured that. I left it up to you to realize what I meant was combat experienced.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Refresh my memory, isn't the average claymore far heavier in comparison to an average katana?

tycoonmike

Yes, giving it more momentum and more force.

But if you'd ask any blackmith or archaelogist on the subject they'll tell you that Katana's are far inferior to most Western armaments and swords.

They were good at what they were made for, killing unarmored opponents. But when pitted against platemail, chainmail, or a broad sword it's the bottom of the barrel.

The sword's strength or size doesn't matter in warfare, only the skill that the user has with it does matter. Load a fairly inexperienced European knight down with however much armor and weaponry they used (mideval warfare isn't my strong point), and I can guarantee you that the better trained samurai will kill his opponent, if not through the strength of the sword, then through the effects of heavy armor and arms upon the knight, IE heatstroke, heat exaustion, etc., though I have to assume that these were possible side effects of wearing plate armor over chain armor, I don't positively know.

Great points, very much agreed.

Knights were by definition trained combatants. They were the lesser nobility, as in the second and third born and so on sons of noble families. As their oldest brother needs to die before they stand a chance at inheriting the manor, all they can really do is military service or join the clergy. So, it's pretty much decided at your birth what you were going to do, and they would start training you at an early age for that. And, the armor was not particularly thick, really the thickness of sheetmetal, as they understood that people need to be able to manuever while wearing it. Also, with plate armor you had each part individually fitted to the wearer, and the weight of the suit was distributed across your body, making it far less encumbering than one would think.

Also, plate armor didn't come around until the 14th - 15th century, and didn't turn into the maximellian(sp) type suits with no vulernable points until around the 16th century. Even then, many soldiers and knights wore armor that was actually fairly reminicent of japanese styles of armor, consisting of alternating layers of leather with iron or steel plates bolted between them. http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=3001. There is a great picture on page 73 of Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight by David Edge which shows a 14th century drawing of a 14th century knight that I would think would be the last thing that most people would think about what a medieval knight would look like. He wears a chain tunic that goes down to his knees, with a coat of plates above that, a simple kettle helmet, a kite shield that goes from his shoulder to his knees, and with his single handed sword held up at a 45 degree angle from his elbow it barely reaches the top of his helmet.

One thing that I find funny is that we've always ignored what the Samurai started life as, Horse Archers. The name for the first samurai code (Kyuba no michi) actually translates to english as the way of the horse and bow.

The samurai were trained to use an enormous longbow from horseback. I don't know if it would compare to the welsh longbow, but here's a description of the power of the welsh bow "Gerald de Barri (known as 'Gerald the Welhman'), writing shortly after 1188, recorded the power of the Welsh bow at the siege of Abergavenny Castle in 1182; there, this forerunner of the English longbow was seen to shoot arrows into a solid oak door to a depth of 'nearly a hand' On another occasion an arrow was said to have penetrated the mail chausse of a mounted soldier, pinning him through his leg to the saddle, and inflicting a mortal wound upon his horse." Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight page 49.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

They did an experiment on Myth Busters about Swords cutting each other during an engangment, and guess what sword broke the easiest?

A Katana against another one.

Guess what sword completely oblitered the stationary Katana? A scotish Claymore.

Katana's were flimsly compared to European arms in almost everyway.

Rekunta

They also used a machine to gain the momentum to break the Katana. A heavier and thicker weapon being swung by a machine should brake a still position katana. That claymore was big and heavy, your agility would take a hit.

Whats so special about strength when you cant hit something quick? Now I'm not saying a claymore would be worse but I would take the Katana with the right training. You can add English armor in all that but thats stupid considering this was about the weapon itself. Thats like saying European swords are good but compared to an M-16 it would have no chance. You are making up a situation were it would effect its chances.

Whats next? Pirates are better then Ninjas because Pirates have guns while Ninjas have kunai's. People complain about Katanas always being in an Anime but your forgetting most Anime is created in the same nation the katana was used.

Whats so special about strength when you cant hit something quick? AgileNate

I think they are beautiful.

Although my favourite sword is not a katana.

that's some hardcore necro