Longsword vs Katana, Rapier vs Scimitar, CUTTING VS THRUSTING?

[marceloISbest]

Okay, Im not an expert on swords at all. But I do like the history and analyzing the tactics of mechanics of fighting in general. I know that vs discussions suck and never have a consensus, but I just want to know the attributes of each. Overall, it seems thrusting is more efficient in the manner that you usually have to be stronger to deliver lethal slashes yet thrusts can be performed perfectly without much strength and thrusts also seem to be better at defeating armor. Armor should be considered in all contexts in what Im talking about here.

Basically, what sword/steel combination is best at defeating hard and soft armor, specifically chain maile and plate? Could the katana have held up without breaking after coming into contact repeatedly with metal plate armor? Would cutting be better, or thrusting? Also, what was/is the best/strongest and most durable steel to use for a sword, mainly a thrusting sword? Im assuming one of the harder spring steels if talking today, as it would be nearly impossible to break a leaf spring, but they most likely didnt have those types back then, I hear alot of praise for Damascus or "wootz" steel over its incredible strength and flexibility while also holding an edge. Also, imo, I think one of those modern fencers would get handily whooped by an old school kampfringen practitioner or really anyone who effectively combines the wrestling/grappling aspect with their weapon. If anyone has knowledge on the subject, please elaborate.

 

[mixmaster staph]

Swords were not used blade-first against plate armour. A technique called "half-sword" was used, in which the sword was gripped either the wrong way round, using the pommel and handguard as a blunt weapon, or in a way such that one hand is gripped on the pommel and one hand on the blade, so the point could be directed more accurately into the armour's joints.

Swords in the late medieval period often had areas of the blade blunted specifically so these techniques could be used.

Chain was also, contrary to popular belief, pretty damn hard to penetrate. A lot of "testing" on pseudo-historical TV shows involves butted mail, which is NOT real chain. It's just links twisted together. Riveted mail is a good example of historically used chain.

The disadvantage with chain is that even though you're not gonna get cut, a sword will still do a lot of damage in terms of blunt trauma.

Grappling was also a commonly used method to defeat heavy armour.

In terms of your wanting to compare different swords and steels...from everything I've seen (I've wondered the same thing in the past and have done a fair amount of internetz research on the topic) there's not a great deal of difference, and the most important aspect to armour penetration seems to be weapon weight, assuming equal athletic ability of users.

 

[esotamoc]

Waits to see what SweetDaddySiki has to say..

 

[marceloISbest]

Swords were not used blade-first against plate armour. A technique called "half-sword" was used, in which the sword was gripped either the wrong way round, using the pommel and handguard as a blunt weapon, or in a way such that one hand is gripped on the pommel and one hand on the blade, so the point could be directed more accurately into the armour's joints.

Swords in the late medieval period often had areas of the blade blunted specifically so these techniques could be used.

Chain was also, contrary to popular belief, pretty damn hard to penetrate. A lot of "testing" on pseudo-historical TV shows involves butted mail, which is NOT real chain. It's just links twisted together. Riveted mail is a good example of historically used chain.

The disadvantage with chain is that even though you're not gonna get cut, a sword will still do a lot of damage in terms of blunt trauma.

Grappling was also a commonly used method to defeat heavy armour.

In terms of your wanting to compare different swords and steels...from everything I've seen (I've wondered the same thing in the past and have done a fair amount of internetz research on the topic) there's not a great deal of difference, and the most important aspect to armour penetration seems to be weapon weight, assuming equal athletic ability of users.

Thanks buddy, I always thought, kinda similar to MMA, that having better wrestling/grappling, or atleast wrestling applied to swordsmanship, would make a very big difference in a fight.

So they didnt usually use weapons to straight up penetrate through armor? I think I remember reading somewhere about "armor piercing daggers" or some such, source may have been bogus though. Thoughts?

 

[mixmaster staph]

Thanks buddy, I always thought, kinda similar to MMA, that having better wrestling/grappling, or atleast wrestling applied to swordsmanship, would make a very big difference in a fight.

So they didnt usually use weapons to straight up penetrate through armor? I think I remember reading somewhere about "armor piercing daggers" or some such, source may have been bogus though. Thoughts?

Well I guess spears would do the job against chain under the best possible circumstances. Warhammers were most definitely used to fuck plate wearers up, and were basically a spike with a ton of weight behind them.

In terms of daggers? I've not read anything, so I'm gonna use some logic. I have a feeling that you'd have a very hard time doing anything with a dagger while standing up, because you wouldn't be able to generate much power, however if you take the guy down you'd open up the possibility of throwing hammerfists with the dagger, which you couldn't do with a sword due to the length. That might be why those daggers were made.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Okay, Im not an expert on swords at all. But I do like the history and analyzing the tactics of mechanics of fighting in general. I know that vs discussions suck and never have a consensus, but I just want to know the attributes of each. Overall, it seems thrusting is more efficient in the manner that you usually have to be stronger to deliver lethal slashes yet thrusts can be performed perfectly without much strength and thrusts also seem to be better at defeating armor. Armor should be considered in all contexts in what Im talking about here.

Both Thrusting and slashing have thier places. Thrusting is often harder to stop. It also extends your reach. However, slashing can be more immediately decisive. Thrusting is better at defeating armour, but only in certain specific cirumstances. A slashing sword often lacks the acute point and stiff blade needed for armour fighting. Neither is better, and both have thier place.

Basically, what sword/steel combination is best at defeating hard and soft armor, specifically chain maile and plate? Could the katana have held up without breaking after coming into contact repeatedly with metal plate armor? Would cutting be better, or thrusting?

No sword is good at defeating armour. Generally speaking, the preferred battlefield melee weapon of the knight (and the samurai) was some form of polearm or spear. A polearm such as the pollaxe will give you the neccessary power to deal with good armour. Trying to cut hardened and rounded steel plate with the katana, (or any sword) will probably just damage the blade.

Also, what was/is the best/strongest and most durable steel to use for a sword, mainly a thrusting sword? Im assuming one of the harder spring steels if talking today, as it would be nearly impossible to break a leaf spring, but they most likely didnt have those types back then, I hear alot of praise for Damascus or "wootz" steel over its incredible strength and flexibility while also holding an edge. Also, imo, I think one of those modern fencers would get handily whooped by an old school kampfringen practitioner or really anyone who effectively combines the wrestling/grappling aspect with their weapon. If anyone has knowledge on the subject, please elaborate.

A thrusting weapon needs to be very stiff, and acutely pointed. Any decent steel will do really. Fencing is a sport derived from certain styles of swordplay. You cannot, nor should you compare the two..they are meant for entirely different purposes. I will say that fencers are very highly tuned athletes, and a fencer already has most of the base skills needed to adapt his or her style.

In any case, there was a entire specialised form of sword fighting known as "harnischfechten" that was developed to deal with men in armour. It involved alot of grappling, half swording and dagger use. The Japanese also employed styles to deal with armour. The styles are very different, the basics are the same..break joints, throw to the ground, expose seam, stick something pointy into it. Knights used a special dagger known as a rondel, which was a very stiff spike-like weapon. This was used in an icepick fashion to stab into the seams, which would force open the links of the mail.

Its important to note that there wasn't much in the way of modern Catch or BJJ style groundfighting. First guy on the ground generally died, and you cannot take side control against a pollaxe.

Rondels:

myArmoury.com: The Rondel Dagger

Harnischfechten:

SwArta Harnischfechten - YouTube
hammaborg halbschwert gladiatoria 13r + 13 v - YouTube

Japanese armoured techniques from Takenouchi Ryu: (Starts around 2:15ish)

Nihon Kobudo Takenouchi Ryu - YouTube

 

[supernova]

Great post SDS.

Weapons and armor were tools-- each had their specific use and strengths and weaknesses. No sword was effective against plate, lamellar, or O-Yoroi(Japanese great armor) armor which is why it took the gun to make heavy armor go away.

Rondels, jitte, and hachiwara were used after grappling to stab exposed flesh or through seams in the armor. There are some kenjutsu styles that used the back of the blade to bludgeon an arm, shoulder, or leg to knock down an opponent without damaging your sword.

Bushido does not require the use of a sword-- its ideals in fact frown upon the misuse of a sword. Trying to defeat an armored opponent with a sword is typically a misuse.

Also it has to be mentioned that Feudal Japan had two distinct eras:

Sengoku: A period of constant civil war where various warlords were all vying for control. The bow and spear were the main battlefield weapons and the sword was reserved as a last ditch emergency weapon.

Shogunate: During the shogunate there was peace in Japan. Many samurai turned to the arts as there were not nearly as many wars to fight. This also signaled a shift of fighting tactics. Gone were large battles with armored combatants. The trend during the shogunate was the duel-- one on one, no armor, with swords. This is where the sword became the main and coveted weapon of the samurai.




I cannot speak for European styles as my knowledge is limited but SweetDaddySiki can answer your questions. I feel between the two of us we have all of Europe and Asia covered in regards to sword knowledge.



Post I just made showing jitte and hachiwara:

Great knife but 'tanto tip' is a modern marketing ploy. The few historic examples of the American style tanto point on a Japanese sword all come from Aizu province during the late 1400's by a group of swordsmiths who did it because it was quicker and easier. They were simply pumping out swords for the civil wars that were constant. The traditional tip of a sword is the hardest part to make and polish correctly.


A real tanto tip looks like this:

Or this:

Or this:

Armor piercers were jitte or hachiwara
Jitte:

Hachiwara:

 

[esotamoc]

Both Thrusting and slashing have thier places. Thrusting is often harder to stop. It also extends your reach. However, slashing can be more immediately decisive. Thrusting is better at defeating armour, but only in certain specific cirumstances. A slashing sword often lacks the acute point and stiff blade needed for armour fighting. Neither is better, and both have thier place.



No sword is good at defeating armour. Generally speaking, the preferred battlefield melee weapon of the knight (and the samurai) was some form of polearm or spear. A polearm such as the pollaxe will give you the neccessary power to deal with good armour. Trying to cut hardened and rounded steel plate with the katana, (or any sword) will probably just damage the blade.



A thrusting weapon needs to be very stiff, and acutely pointed. Any decent steel will do really. Fencing is a sport derived from certain styles of swordplay. You cannot, nor should you compare the two..they are meant for entirely different purposes. I will say that fencers are very highly tuned athletes, and a fencer already has most of the base skills needed to adapt his or her style.

In any case, there was a entire specialised form of sword fighting known as "harnischfechten" that was developed to deal with men in armour. It involved alot of grappling, half swording and dagger use. The Japanese also employed styles to deal with armour. The styles are very different, the basics are the same..break joints, throw to the ground, expose seam, stick something pointy into it. Knights used a special dagger known as a rondel, which was a very stiff spike-like weapon. This was used in an icepick fashion to stab into the seams, which would force open the links of the mail.

Its important to note that there wasn't much in the way of modern Catch or BJJ style groundfighting. First guy on the ground generally died, and you cannot take side control against a pollaxe.

Rondels:

myArmoury.com: The Rondel Dagger

Harnischfechten:

SwArta Harnischfechten - YouTube
hammaborg halbschwert gladiatoria 13r + 13 v - YouTube

Japanese armoured techniques from Takenouchi Ryu: (Starts around 2:15ish)

Nihon Kobudo Takenouchi Ryu - YouTube

Once again- great information/links

 

[Midnighter]

I'd say the best sword against armor would be the long/broad sword.

Even if it didn't pierce the armor/mail, blunt trauma could still be caused, more so, than I'd imagine, would be capable from a katana.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

No. Longswords weigh just about the same as a Katana and have less mass at thier tips due to distal tapering. They would make a lousy bludgeons. In fact people involved in the recreation of European sword arts often spar at high speed with steel replicas while wearing period gear and gain only a few bruises.

Fechtschule Gdańsk 2010 - YouTube

 

[Midnighter]

From what I've read longswords weigh almost twice as much.

I'm open to see new info though, since I haven't ever made any in depth studies.

Also, there is no comparison between sparring and an actual fight to the death.

 

[supernova]

Its a myth bred out of the thinking that katana are so much better than European swords. the truth is they are very similar in many ways.

A warrior in battle would be easily fatigued by a four and a half/five pound one-handed sword. My favorite combat katana weighs 2.7lbs with full koshirae (full mounting) and most European swords weighed similar-- 2.5-3.5lbs.

Hand and a half 'war swords' often weighed less than 4 lbs, and even the great two handed swords weighed less than 6.

What Did Historical Swords Weigh?


If you are going to read anything about European swords make sure it is written by Ewart Oakeshott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

From what I've read longswords weigh almost twice as much.

I'm open to see new info though, since I haven't ever made any in depth studies.

Also, there is no comparison between sparring and an actual fight to the death.

The idea of the super heavy medieval sword comes from 18th century fencing masters and 19th century historians. There is an optimal weight range for two handed swords. This weight ranges between 2.5 to 3.5 pounds. Most longswords and nihonto fall in this range.

 

[marceloISbest]

Thanks alot yall. Just wanted to clear it up that swords werent used for straight up piercing through armor. Im guessing if defeating armor is whats wanted, then something with a good amount of weight behind it and a stiff, spiky point is the best bet.

Ive been reading alot up on thearma website, is it any good or just lame?

Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

In an unarmored fight, what would be preferred for fighting opponents of many different random/all types of styles? Like what would be the best all around to use against a swordsman or many that you know nothing about? Im guessing a rapier because of the quickness and reach but I could be totally off..

 

[supernova]

Arma is legit.

Rapier is a solid choice.

Its all bout what you prefer. Generally one sword is not better than another.




I'm partial to Japanese blades myself.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Ive been reading alot up on thearma website, is it any good or just lame?

Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

Arma is very solid in terms of training and scholarship. They are somewhat controversial for other reasons.

In an unarmored fight, what would be preferred for fighting opponents of many different random/all types of styles? Like what would be the best all around to use against a swordsman or many that you know nothing about? Im guessing a rapier because of the quickness and reach but I could be totally off..

I would say spear

But in terms of sword, its the man behind the sword, not the sword itself. Just a little note..rapiers are a great choice, but they aren't faster. Rapiers are actually damned heavy.

 

[marceloISbest]

Really? Guess Ive been reading a bit of misinfo I had heard rapiers were known to be light and wielded with a fast type of style. Also, when fencing with the foil and epee, what swords are those supposed to replicate?

And supernova, do you know what type of steel was used in the older days with katanas and the hardness of it? I always hear of how its harder steel at the edge and softer towards the back with any manner of different structures/methods to how its folded but theres never a whole lot of specifics on it. Also, with spears and polearms and the like, what was generally a good material and were spears usually edged?

And whats the reasons of arma being controversial?

Sorry for all the questions Im just intrigued with the subject as of late with the new Assassins Creed coming out and absolutely loving the series in the past(gay I know). Just wanting to learn as much as possible about the basics of how each weapon is used and what constitutes them. Cars(mainly domestic/hot rods and V8s) and rifles as well as BJJ and to a lesser extent MMA are my main big interests. Metallurgy has always interested me quite a bit as it goes hand in hand with choosing the right parts for an engine, definitely wouldnt consider it a strong area for me but I sure would love for it to be.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Really? Guess Ive been reading a bit of misinfo I had heard rapiers were known to be light and wielded with a fast type of style. Also, when fencing with the foil and epee, what swords are those supposed to replicate?

People tend to mistake rapiers for fencing foils. A rapier often weighs about 3 pounds. Its quite heavy. Modern fencing, while being ultimately derived from rapier, is more directly descended from the much lighter Smallsword which replaced the rapier in the late 1600's

And whats the reasons of arma being controversial?

Most of the reasons deal with personality of its president. The critics of John Clements claim he is arrogant and has turned the organisation into a cult of personality based around him. ARMA has also been criticized for its closed nature. Most HEMA organisations are open and freely exchange information with one another, attending each others seminars and tournaments. ARMA is perceived as not interacting openly. Its curriculum and training techniques are considered to be copyrighted and are not released to the public. Its holds its own seminars and tournaments that are closed to outsider orgs and they do not send people to outsider events.

Sorry for all the questions Im just intrigued with the subject as of late with the new Assassins Creed coming out and absolutely loving the series in the past(gay I know). Just wanting to learn as much as possible about the basics of how each weapon is used and what constitutes them. Cars(mainly domestic/hot rods and V8s) and rifles as well as BJJ and to a lesser extent MMA are my main big interests. Metallurgy has always interested me quite a bit as it goes hand in hand with choosing the right parts for an engine, definitely wouldn’t consider it a strong area for me but I sure would love for it to be.

1060 is a common and popular steel that is used for swordmaking today. Premodern steels were inconsistent, and required extensive working to make them usable. The folding process and the differential hardening found on Nihonto were done just for this purpose. Folding the steel evened out the carbon in the steel, while differential hardening allowed the smith to use the higher carbon lumps for one part and the lower carbon lumps for another. If the Japanese had access to high quality steel, they never would have employed the process, because it is time consuming and can structurally weaken the blade. All things being equal a through hardened, monosteel blade is stronger, but when you do not have access to good steel, you must make do with what you have.

Modern steels have precisely controlled carbon, so we can take a steel billet, precision machine it, heat treat it and get a better blade than anything the ancients could do. What we do not understand so well is the issues of design..balance and blade harmonics that the premodern smiths had learned from centuries of experience.

 

[supernova]

Traditional nihonto steel came from iron sands and extracting consistant quality ore form them was a process in itself. The historic swords that have been examined show that the quality of steel varied wildly and good smiths were responsible for making good swords not good steel.

Modern steel that is used for swords is made in lab like settings and the quality is very high. For instance my 1983 Akitsugu Amada is a tungsten steel alloy very similar to t-10 tool steel and the steel is not folded as there are no impurities to remove and the carbon is already distributed evenly.

Soft steel and harder steel were laminated together in one of many ways:

Then the blade gets painted with a clay slurry that allows the back of the blade to remain more insulated from heat in the tempering process. Thiss clay slurry-- the way its painted on-- causes the various shapes of the hamon-- temper line.

Types of hamon:

After reaching a certain temperature the blade is quickly plunged in water. The types of steel (the harder tempered edge and the softer steel core) contract at different rates which causes the famous curve.

Polishing --> sharpening --> sheathmaking/mounting --> sword.



Spears were edged and a superior weapon on battlefields.

You can see the hamon on this Sengo Muramasa-made spear which indicate similar properties of a katana.

 

[Irenaeus]

Traditional nihonto steel came from iron sands and extracting consistant quality ore form them was a process in itself. The historic swords that have been examined show that the quality of steel varied wildly and good smiths were responsible for making good swords not good steel.

That folding technique is mind-boggingly impressive (to me at least). It's an incredible testament to the skill and resourcefullness of japanese swordssmiths that they were able to create good weaponry from so inferior raw materials.

It seems like European swordsmiths had a far easier time making a good blade, due to the widely available high-quality ore.