Okay, how did the katana actually compare to European swords of the time, Veeky Forums...

There were shitty Euro swords and shitty Japanese swords.

The best Euro swords came from Scandinavia which still hosts the largest iron mines in the world. Austria (the relative location of ancient Noricum) hosts some large iron mines too.

>blades
He very obviously means arquebuses and muskets which quickly supplanted yari and katana in Japanese warfare.

Real life isn't video games.

Long well made sharp steel sticks tend to be quite lethal if used with force on human bodies.

I didn't say why european steel was superior, just that it was. obviously iron sands in japan weren't as nice as the hematites and magnetites of europe, but the "why" wasn't really the question.

if "if"s and "but"s were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a merry christmas? what if africa developed the nuke before america?

>dude a blade is worse than a gun, that means it's shit lmao

But that is something you CAN compare. You CAN make a katana with the same steel quality as an European sword.

Considering that European blades were commonly used alongside guns rather than all but completely replaced... yeah, that means it's shit in comparison.

Both were used very occasionally. What's your source for the katana NEVER being used again after guns were introduced?

What? they never stopped using swords and spears in warfare, they never even totally gave up the bow for the gun

The Japanese sword is nearly a thousand years old. Obviously a lot of things changed over the centuries and not all European blades were of the same quality.

Few if any European swords ever got as hard an edge as a katana, however that isn't the ultimate measure of a blade. Many Renaissance blades were undoubtedly more durable, due to the way they were hardened.

Overall the katana was a high quality sword respected throughout east and south east Asia, but there were European swords arguably as good or better depending on what you are looking for

none of these autists ever do tests with modern quality blades though

one because it's expensive as fuck, have you tried to contract a blacksmith from japan for a katana recently?

two because nobody cares besides permavirgins like yourself

you could also compare a water buffalo to a flamingo. why should you, though? japanese smiths never made swords with european steel resources and techniques.

>What's your source for the katana NEVER being used again after guns were introduced?
Right there with the Strawman you're skipping down the Yellow Brick Road with.

However, in reality, the gun became the most important aspect of Japanese warfare during the late Sengoku period.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(Japanese_matchlock)#Sengoku_period

>they never stopped using swords and spears in warfare
You can fuck off with your Strawman too.

The Japanese never used swords after being introduce to gu-

FPBP

They never supplanted them either. You can look at battle field injuries and see that while Guns got caused a plurality of injuries--not a majority--swords and spears were used about as much as they were when warfare was conducted with the bow with only a down-tick of a few percentage points

FORDED 1000 TIMES
VERY HONORABRU
VERY SHARP
VERY MANY RACERATION

I take that back they had a majority, but the spear and sword only decreased by a few percentage points like I said

B8. Japs were still using katanas in WW2.

It supplanted the archers.

>I take that back they had a majority
>but they didn't supplant these other things as the most imporant aspect of warfare
This fucking weeb delusion. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

>Japanese officer swords which were largely ceremonial makes them the most important aspect of Japanese warfare
You can fuck off down the Yellow Brick road with your Strawmen too.

It supplanted both.

> as a result, in the year 1567 Takeda Shingen announced that, "Hereafter, the guns will be the most important arms, therefore decrease the number of spears per unit, and have your most capable men carry guns"

You can fuck off with your bulllshit, faggot: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guntō

>Mass-produced guntō swords became standard equipment in the new military, taking the place of the swords worn by the samurai class during the feudal era.

>officers issued swords as a symbolic gesture towards the samurai of old
>therefore it was the most important
Guess those Arisaka rifles were just for show then, eh?

>This fucking weeb delusion. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

I mistook the statistics a little you can look up Thomas Conlans work yourself, other statisic compilations like Suzuki's largely support it and arrive at similar numbers for the period.

Look them up and you will see that while the gun became the projectile of choice, use of swords and spears didn't decrease by much.

It was designed to be ridged in order to make the most use out of the low quality iron ore. If it clashed with a European steel broadsword from the same period, it would get badly damaged pretty quickly.

Takeda Shingen and Oda Nobunaga begged to differ, but what did they know.

>therefore it was the most important

Nice strawman retard. You were the one claiming katanas weren't used anymore after guns were introduced. You were proven wrong.

>katanas weren't used anymore
That is a strawman argument which I've continually refuted ITT. I never said they were never used.

Oda armed his men with long yari as well as guns. Like in Europe it was pike and shot, with the occasional sword use when weapons broke and you were in a shitty situation.

But his tactics centered around the firearm and not the Yari which brings us back to the original point that Japanese warfare in the late Sengoku period centered around the firearm shifting away from the yari and bow. Thus, the firearm supplanted these. Now weebs raus.

>low quality iron ore.
Nigger, learn to metallurgy! iron & steel don't work that way.

The latest research shows that only the bow was supplanted by the gun--essentially taking its place, though the bow was still present, and was the second highest wound dealer is surviving records

Again If you actually read professional historians you would know this.

You are completely and purposely ignoring the point that was made: that Japanese warfare centered around the tanegashima after it's introduction. Your own statistics reflect this. Please stop being stupid and accept that you were incorrect.

Well it did in the same way that it centered around the bow before, but

>Considering that European blades were commonly used alongside guns rather than all but completely replaced

>He very obviously means arquebuses and muskets which quickly supplanted yari and katana in Japanese warfare.

My point was always that yari and sword use was hardly changed by the introduction of the gun, and the statistics I am using totally support that

>and the statistics I am using totally support that
Then post them. Surely you have nothing to hide by actually posting those statistics.

Rather than look up the orignail sources, most of which I have Ill cut and past off a forum

Friday, Karl, "Off the Warpath." Budo Perspectives, ed. Alex Bennett, Auckland, New Zealand: Kendo World Publications, 2005.

Friday's article references the above four. According to his article, Conlan examined 1302 14th century battle reports, and found 721 identifiable wounds, which broke down like this:
73% - arrows
25% - swords
2% - spears

Suzuki examined 175 14th century battle reports and found 554 casulties, broken down thusly:
87% - arrows
8% - swords or naginata
3% - rocks
1% - spears

Examining 1291 reports from the 15th and 16th centuries, Conlan found:
439 arrow wounds
343 gunshot wounds
192 spear wounds
79 injuries by stones
50 sword cuts

Suzuki found for 1501-1560, 620 battle wounds broke down like this:
61% - arrows
21% - spears
16% - stones
3% - swords

while for 1563-1600 (after the introduction of the gun), 584 casualties broke down as:
45% - gunshots
21% - arrows
17% - spears
6% - cutting injuries
5% - rocks
4% - combos of the above

kendo-world.com/forum/forum/kendo/history/23659-the-frequency-of-using-the-sword-on-a-battlefield

Europe had access to better quality iron which meant it was easier to smith a blade. The japanese had to spend more time to produce the sword. However at the end of the day, the quality of the steel (or iron) was the same even if it took longer for the japanese smith to forge it.

That said, the katana is inferior to european and even chinese swords in every way.

It was the length within the range of a one handed long sword but held in 2 hands. This meant it had a far shorter reach than european swords of similar lengths. It was also curved on one side which... is fine considering their enemies arent fully armoured most of the time. Different circumstances.

In any case, during periods of ACTUAL war and not write bad poetry and pretend to be honorable, the samurai used pole arms, bows and GUNS with regularity.

A samurai going to war against a knight would not be primarily armed with just a katana. I would even argue that a samurai armed with an arquebuis would most times beat a medieval "knight" but then a samurai with a gun is living in a time when knights no longer had an important role on the battlefield. And a samurai from the warring states would defintely lose to the european armies at the time.

Actually, Oda's tactics was typically breaking the opponent's attack with guns, then counter charging and submerging the enemy with his larger force of spearmen. That's exactly how it went in Nagashino for starters.

>bow decreases by 66%
>spear decreases by 20%
>"cutting" injuries can literally be anything
>everything else decreases significantly
>all after the introduction of the tanegashima
Thanks for clearing that up.

Fascinating

But does this account for people KILLED by specific weapons?

In few battles were arrows for example ever the majority of killing blow even in battles like Agincourt. Yet here they represented the majority of wounds.

The spear decreased by 4%

cutting injuries could be anything but probably refer to slashing weapons

WE already established that the gun reduced bow use, and as you can see the gun never got over 50% of wounds so I was right about it being a plurality rather than a majority of wounds

It represents wounds, I think Conlan made a separate row with the amount of people who died. gun and spears killed at a very high rate from what I remember, while arrow wounds tended to be very survivable

Bows have the fancy trait of being able to wound people in far wider area than early firearms and being less deadly than early firearms.

21 to 17 is a decrease of 20%.

those are percentages 21% to 17%

Allow me to teach you basic math. 17/21 = ~.81 1-.81= .19 for a decrease of 19%. I fucked up rounding earlier so the wounds saw a decrease of 19%, not 20, but the point still stands. That's a pretty fucking significant drop that only looks minor in comparison to the whole.

Fair enough, though given the numbers of 17% and 6% I would say there was not a significant decrease in melee fighting. compared to 21% and 3% from before guns became a major factor.

"Cutting" injury can be literally fucking anything, though. If you're grazed with an arrow, it'll appear to be a cutting injury. It's a very vague statement and given that the best soldiers were given rifles over other weapons, it would make sense that there would be a significant increase in grazing "cutting" injuries not necessarily from melee weapons. It's conjecture, but I'm sure that the claim on weapon injury type is largely conjecture as well.

Few things are ever certain in history, at best these statistics give us a broad outline of the trends in Japanese warfare, and show that melee was still quite prevalent at the end of the sengoku.

I think that refutes the earlier claims that the gun supplanted swords and spears.

Cutting injuries is a vauge statment, though I think it most likely refers to wounds from slashing weapons, of which there were a few different types. You could choose to read it differently, these were after all compiled from after battle records of the time so some injuries could be confused, any stab could be counted as a spear or any slash a sword cut, But its the best info we have and I think it blows out of the water

>I think that refutes the earlier claims that the gun supplanted swords and spears
It did though, even by your own statistics, it decreased significantly in a metric that would be a certainty and only increased in a very vague one that could be any number of things which isn't conclusive. Again, you're willfully ignoring that the tanegashima was the core of the Japanese military following it's introduction.

While spear use night have decreased some a significant percentage, they were still a very central part of both the order of battle, and actual casualties.

No one is denying the important role the gun played in any army of the time which was not hopelessly outdated. I think the fact the bows were made secondary to the gun as a projectile weapon demonstrates that. But they were still lining up in rows of pike men to protect projectile users, they were still charging to drive the other army off the field, the nature of warfare was not radically different, nor did any weapons used previously disappear, even the bow was still a major weapon.

This isn't much different that Europe at the time

Europe placed more emphasis on pike rather than shot during the same period and the reverse is true for Japan so that's a false equivalence.

Do you have statistics?

this
it's a traditional sword, stopped being useful after 1100-1300ad and design never got reworked on. The naginata was the superior weapon.

European spears were also better than European swords in general, so I don't see your point. Both of them were side-weapons.

Not going to lie to you, I'm looking for actual statistics and everything I'm pulling up isn't giving statistics, but arquebusiers were allegedly fewer in number than pikemen.

The naginata and the sword are on a totally different class of weapon, it's silly to oppose them, especially considering you could wear both at the same time (and more).

When did it stop being used? when did it stop changing? certainly not in 1300.

Even when it wasn't the battlefield weapon of choice it was the dueling and self defense weapon of choice, if only be virtue of the fact you wore one everywhere.

The issue was much less that iron sands in Japan were lacking it was more that they had no blast furnaces and oxidisation ovens. i.e. their smelting technology wasn't as good.

However, it should be kept in mind that Europe didn't have that for most of the middle ages either. Bloomery iron - which was essentially the same stuff that Japan had - was the material which Europe used to make swords from the antique up to and throughout the middle ages..

I didnt say stopped being used, I said stopped being useful. Learn to read, weeboo.

>Even when it wasn't the battlefield weapon of choice
Yet most if not all high-rank soldier had one. You don't pick just one weapon when you go to battle. Swords are good because everybody got them.

>it's a traditional sword, stopped being useful after 1100-1300ad
At that time the katana wasn't even invented yet.

And as long as people fight in melee combat it is NEVER not useful to carry a sword by your side.

People in Europe did so as well, even if their primary weapons were something else.

Wearing one was traditional, just like some ww1 officers still wore sabers even though they were completely irrevelant.

>Yet most if not all high-rank soldier had one
Most if not all modern high-ranking military men have crows or stars. They serve the same practical purpose: a status symbol. That a jap could potentially draw and kill someone with theirs is irrelevant.

>not even invented
check urself b4 u rek urself
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

it didn't stop being useful ether, it was just as "useful" in 1400 as 1300.

I'm not even sure what metric your using? battlefield wounds? dueling culture? economic impact? the ability to defend against other weapons?

>Wearing a sword in a no-guns environment is the same as wearing a sword in a gun and artillery environment.
Yeah no, there was still lots of battlefield techniques applied to the sword. In the grand scheme they weren't very relevant, but people didn't ditched them either, it has a niche.

Contrary to the cake, you can have a status symbol and use it. Being a symbolic weapon says nothing on its efficiency.

>Starting around the year 1400, long swords signed with the "katana" signature were made.

>in a no-guns environment
That is not only wrong, but so stupidly wrong that all you have to do is scroll a little up the page to see just how stupid you are.

Guns were commonplace in Japan only after 1543, strangely there's a lot of things happening before that date warfare wise...

Less folding layers than most weapons created afterward 1400. Just archaic design in general and too time consuming to make. It just got outclassed, that's all.

>muh duelling culture
lmaoing@urlife

isn't this done to death?

watch a youtube video

>ignoring the first paragraph of the chapter you quoted from
>The first use of "katana" (gatana) as a word to describe a long sword that was different from a tachi occurs as early as the Kamakura Period (1185–1333).
We can all do cherrypicking, m8.

>muh techniques
You're conflating training with the weapon then

This was not yet what was later known as a katana.

The development is clearly described:

>The evolution of the tachi into what would become the katana seems to have continued during the early Muromachi period (1337 to 1573). Starting around the year 1400, long swords signed with the "katana" signature were made. This was in response to samurai wearing their tachi in what is now called "katana style" (cutting edge up).

I wouldn't expect a phoneposter to be able to read but it clearly says that the evolution of the tachi into the katana was not yet done in the early Muromachi, i.e. in 1337 it was not yet completed, which should tell you that you were completely off with your assessment.

In 1100 - 1300 the katana was not yet invented.

Statistics say the sword wasn't commonplace in combat usage after the 14th century. We're talking single digits here.

many if not most swords were not made by folding, nor is that super important depending on the method you are using.

post 1400 was probably when japanese swords were most popular abroad. there are examples of imported japanese blades all over Asia. What exactly was it being outclassed by? European blades which were not in the region and had little to no impact on warfare in Asia?

>>muh duelling culture
>>lmaoing@urlife

If we are talking about swords--not just japanese swords-- then dueling culture becomes a relevant topic.

>Less folding layers than most weapons created afterward 1400.
What do you think is the purpose of folding the metal? It is a pre-process step that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual construction. The amount of necessary folding steps purely depends on the material you're working with.

>Just archaic design in general and too time consuming to make. It just got outclassed, that's all.
Outclassed by what? If you only have bloomery iron at your disposal, how else are you supposed to turn it into functional swords?

Depending on who makes the katana they're usually a combination of two different slabs of steel. A high carbon slab and a low carbon slab. This creates the perfect balance of flexibility and rigidness in a sword.

All other swords lack this from what I understand.

The Japanese sword, with a handful of exceptions was a side arm.

during the same period the spear had like 2% casualties, arrows were around 70 or 80%

The statistics say that we're dealing with one-digit percentages here. If more than 1% of the wounds stem from swords, then they're not an insignificant quantity because one in hundred is actually quite a lot in absolute numbers given the numbers of participants in battle and by no means a small chance to encounter a situation on a battlefield where a sword ends up useful.

Tbh those both supreme in their own ways, eurofags will bring up chai mail and japcunts will bring up speed and sharpness. They were both prime for the setting they were in.
It's sorta pick up truck vs f1 car
Chances are anything steeper than 5 degrees will get a f1 car stuck but a truck would loose in a race vs the car.

>inferior to Chinese swords

These swords are useless and fragile as fuck.

>All other swords lack this from what I understand.
No.

This is a picture of an Alemanni Sax from the 5th century AD. These weapons were actually made exactly like katana in the kobuse fashion, i.e. wrapping a carbon rich mantle-steel around a more ductile core steel and then quenching the edge.

The weapon was polished by Japanese polisher so you can even see the hamon on it.

Similar effects were achieved by different means, e.g. various types of differential quenching.

I would say only the rapier truly outclasses it, but it was invented in 1500, not 1400.

>speed
Katana are not "fast" weapons. They are actually quite bulky.

They're quite heavy indeed, but their design is aerodynamic by nature. They produce faster slashes.

>2558078
Inch by inch I dont think they are that different from a long sword in terms of weight

Fair enough I'll concede. In 1100-1300, it was still being worked on. Designating longed curved swords as katana/gatana was still very much in practice though. Regardless over whether some minor innovations were still being carried out (if sauce is true) it got taken over by naginata as weapon of choice for infantries for centuries to come. Probably also the fact it was an upper class weapon meant demand was lessened and thus need for innovation was lessened equally, meaning other weapons caught up to them in terms of cost or durability.

>a long sword has the same characteristics as another long sword
Well done

How are they aerodynamic when they're this bulky? A western sword has a much flatter blade which is much more aerodynamic.