Was Lindybeiges video on katanas correct? Are they terrible swords that were not actually used in combat?

>katanas are merely symbolic and nothing else

lol no, we have a fuckload of sources mentioning their usage in battle, especially in sieges where stuff gets cramped.

Same goes for Europe, most of your engagements will be sieges, and you can't really climb a ladder or fight in hallways of a tower with a fucking halberd.

European swords just put more emphasis on piercing though and were used to fight fully metal armored opponents.
They were mostly dueling swords and a secondary weapon. Let's leave it at that mkay?

>most of your engagements will be sieges

You are joking right? Sieges were very rare and avoided as much as possible.

modern historians of Japanese warfare tend to minimize the role of the sword in order to fight the mysticism and misconceptions that have built up around it, but as wound records show it was used in combat.

If you found yourself fighting melee on a Japanese battlefield you would have a decent chance of getting a sword wound.

Haven't seen Lindy's videos, but what we know of katana forging techniques does tell us that katanas would not have been used as a primary weapon against other armored katana wielders, and instead used against lightly or unarmored peasants.
Moreso than even Europe the sword signified social class, and we know this directly because of Japanese sword rituals.

Nice bait.

They’re a good sidearm.

Has there ever been an official Kendo vs HEMA tournament?

katanas are something like spartans that have now been anti jerked, nobody honestly belives that they cut though tank barrels or something but the katana haters are honestly more delusional.

don't think so but it wouldn't be conclusive either way, for what its worth in unarmored combat weapons with reach dominate and if spears are dissallowed rapiers dominate

Oh boy. Ok, lets talk frankly about this, because this is one I hear all the time. For background, I practice multiple styles in HEMA, used to be a Kendoka, and fight various systems of armoured combat including ACL.

The flat problem that Kendo/Naginatado/Jukendo etc etc are /not/ a martial art form. I don't say this as an insult, but it is no more a martial art than Olympic fencing. Its a solid base to kick off from, and will be advantageous to allow someone to take the next step up, but in the end, it is a specialized sport. You would need someone who studies and practices practical Iajitsu/Kenjitsu.

If you take a Kendoka and an Iajitsu practitioner of the skill and physical status, armed them with live weapons, and had them go at it, the man who practices fighting will beat the man who practices sport. Same with an Olympic fencer vs. a historic fencer of equal state.

Now, there is some other notes. Japan in history had to ban first gaijin from carrying rapiers, and then the import of rapiers by locals, because of the overly effective nature of the weapon.

I will also present these:

Modern Fencer vs. Modern Kendoka. 90% of the vids, the fencer wins.
youtube.com/watch?v=_ST1wRzfgmI

JABL (The Japanese branch of HMB/ACL/BotN style combat), where a guy is trying to use Japanese armour and weapons vs Euro. This is a bit more anecdotal, but you'll see what happens.
youtube.com/watch?v=TWiaRhQDZFE

Just my .02 cents. make of it what you will.

no shit the katana is not the sword you want against some guy in full plate, neither is a tulwar. Doesn't make them bad though

Notice that the majority of the post was focused on unarmoured fencing, but alright, be salty.

Also, there are european systems to defeat the curved swords of the Turks and Indians. Pic related.

Did he say they were terrible? They are good cutters that is easy to use. It's the lack of reach and defensive capabilities that makes it less well suited for melee.

Softer does not mean worse. The bending part is a weakness, but it also gives it certain advantages, such as a longer lasting edge.

This. The main reason the katana is the way it is, is not because of practical use in mind, but because it acts as a symbol. This does not mean it isn't supposed to be practical. It just becomes secondary.

I'd rather have a katana as a sidearm over any one handed weapon, might as well use both hands

Is the implication here that swordplay is somehow harder/more important to pick up than bow skills? Like m8 you could be a decent swordsman within a few months, it would take years to become a decent Bowman and lord knows how you would fare in an actual battle or even on a horse.
If anything the sword gave them more time to dedicate to feudal duties ; swords don’t require near weekly maintenance and daily practice to stay effective

probably a lot easier to become a decent bowman, you just need to shoot in the general direction of the large mob of an enemy. Swords actually do require weekly mantience or even more often in certain climates

Not to the point that the Japanese did bow warfare though? You’re speaking of a mass of conscripted archers.
Before the advent of the Katana the Bushido code was centered around a Spear, Horse, and Bow, in a very ritualized form of warfare. There weren’t masses of enemies to shoot. You were a warrior who would face a small group if even that of other warriors.
This may be a good argument later down the developed line (even then, it’s not. English Longbowmen were a legitimate profession before the advent of truly professional soldiers)

>Using imgur link to prove your point
I would point you to reddit but I'll just post the non-edited version

not even hitting with the right part of the sword

>European swords just put more emphasis on piercing though and were used to fight fully metal armored opponents.

You just outed yourself as knowing nothing. European swords evolved greatly over time in Europe in response to arms races and varied enemies, some are designed for cutting, some thrusting/piercing, and some both. Japan's historical isolation meant that it didn't need to evolve its weaponry, so overgrown fish knives were fine.

>that
>proving anything
I could slice through a Portuguese rapier in the same position with a katana and prove the exact same amount of nothing as we both know the rapier won those fights.
Thin, slashing blades are not made to full on take the brunt of a fucking long sword strike, the aim would be to direct the blow away from a solid connection, as this gif illustrates the futility of that.
It also doesn’t help that the swords were forged for completely different styles of warfare

In general though he’s correct. European warfare was dominated by various forms of shock cavalry and anti shock cavalry weaponry for centuries until the advent of gunpowder decisively broke that balance of power. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say they were meant to fight fully armored enemies and pierce their armor

>Rapier won those fights
Post proofs then

>midway through his swing the longsword breaks
>in the close up the katana turns into a longsword
really jogs the noggin

>Unironical conspiracy theories about fucking swords of all things

Pic Taken from page six of the linked document
naippe.fm.usp.br/arquivos/hobby/Sawasu_Part_3.pdf

Kek, no. It's just that he posted an edited version of the gif saying that it was the unedited one. The correct one is this one, the one that was in the link.

It’s fair but really that vid proves a lot of nothing, mainly because I don’t think I could see many situations where a sword would swing at a sword that stable. A human would not have held that long sword as steady or as strongly as literal metal clamps, tho I understand those chaps likely didn’t want to actually swing swords at eachother

Yeah against unarmed peasants even a shit stick will do

>slice through a rapier
didn't matt try this for 5 mins straight just to debunk it?

They were decent swords that were considered fine by foreigners. They were not mythical but they were not bad.

A shitpost by an unknown guy in an internet forum is not usually considered good evidence.

>Alberto Barbossa says they wuz winning everything and sheeeit
Colour me surprised

He posted the source, you subhuman faggot. Off yourself.

The source he posted was a forum post, by the way those archives, have never surfaced in public as far as I am aware, and I have searched for them

didn't those little gooks ban the importation of rapiers?

You’re right, that’s why the shitpost cited the Portuguese national archives as his source explicitly, as well as the Japanese teacher who corroborated the story by having descendants in the conflict as well as one of the newer designed katanas made to combat the rapiers. Japanese records, while making no mention of the exact numbers, do verify that Portuguese rapiers (and weapons in general) were banned in the trade ports as a direct result of samurai-sailor conflicts, and considering the Portuguese were disarmed instead of slaughtered, I’d wager they were either diplomatically immune which makes no sense or respected combatants who had proven to the samurai they weren’t the usual conscripted fodder they fought.
Or you could go post this thread on /k/ and get blown out in a much more impolite manner.
Faggot

Most national archives require a written or oral request before releasing documents, as they are considered national treasures and Europeans really like their rituals and etiquette

I am going to assume your not arguing in good faith due to a racial slur but not that I am aware of.

they did however ban sailors from carrying swords because they were getting into large scale brawls with the locals which were endangering trade relations.

As far as I know there were no proper duels ever recorded, or at least no one has ever publicly presented such records.

He didn't "collaborate" the story, he gave a very different account of the encounters.

???
That exact and much fuller post is in the document I linked
You do realize the event in the national archives of the Portuguese and the event the Japanese teacher referred to were two separate occasions?

Are you a fucking phoneposter, illiterate, or just an asshole? The post you replied to used "corroborate" correctly, and then you quoted it as "collaborate", with scare quotes, no less. Did you make a genuine mistake, or was it a really lazy attempt to make him look dumb? Because that's what it looks like.

I dont know why its so hard for people to comprehend that they're different things.

But user sword is sword life is rpg there’s always a best sword

Sorry I did not see the link.

Nevertheless, I have trouble accepting a source I cannot see, in the case of the supposed Portuguese records

It’s honestly the best we have. Swordplay is more niche in America than in europe so it’s very hard to find first hand English language documents on it.
Doesn’t help that america was raised and weaned on gunpowder.
I do understand that thought process though

implying that the impact would be 100% absorbed by the sword in a real fight.

are you retarded? right?

youtube.com/watch?v=_q0MlNiTs6Q

This thread has gotten away from the original question. The fact is that katana were used in battle and were respected by outside observers, including many Europeans.

That, does not make them OP, it doesn't mean they could beat any other type of sword in a fantasy fight. It means that they were effective swords

They're fucking swords. They weren't as magic as weebs make them out to be but they weren't as useless as HEMA supremacists claim. They're sharp pieces of metal used to cut or stab and really aren't that different in structure or function than swords anywhere else. It's not complicated.

The katana was principally a sidearm. Its use was that you could legally carry it around for non-war business and hopefully not get robbed.

People here saying that the katana was not comparable hecause it was a sidearm or meabt to be used against peasants etc
So did the japanese have a "real" sword other than the katana that was usable against real full armored enemies as a primary weapon?

Personally I find people actually into hema are much more interested in Japanese sword arts than totally dismissive, though they might still hold some popular misconceptions because they are not super familiar with the weapon.

I think most of the supremacists dont actually do hema, or are only tangentially involved.

No, heavy metal armor was relatively unknown in Japan and to a lesser extent the Far East in general.
It seems to be a uniquely European phonomonae of covering oneself head to toe in heavy forged metal plates

Katanas are the sports car for swords.

Those people are half wrong. most swords were side arms or civilian dueling /self defense tools.

The real difference is that there are so many different scenarios a sword can be used in, and different swords were made for different circumstances.

The closest sword the Japanese had to a primary weapon is the nodachi.

Mate you have over one hundred varieties of hammers throughout the world I would not recommend a single one for every task. Swords are tools, they were created with intent, with a use in mind, not mindlessly put together by a machine or a blacksmith pouring over schematics. A stabbing blade was inclined to be thick as to not be broken off in the heat of battle
A cavalry blade was often medium sized , relatively thin and one sided as they were reliant on the horse’s momentum to carry most of the force of the slash, had to be small enough to not be a burden in the saddle or while dismounting/mounting.
Japanese literature is written almost exclusively by the warrior elite, some of their most prolific philosophy can be found in the same pages as sword training and meditation techniques, they were often even intertwined.
It’s unique

>Are they terrible swords that were not actually used in combat?
I thought that swords in general are more of a backup/sidearm weapon rather than your primary.

>Waste hundreds of my men and probably farmers at best or lose thousands at worst due to a good defense of defenders
>Or just starve them out or other less direct assault methods maybe lose a few to disease

Really fucking tough choice there mate because commanders weren't stupid back then.

Yes seiges are bad, which is why a good defensive stratigy forces the attacker to take certain fortifications in order to control the land or safely enter deeper into your territory.

That is why, despite it being a terrible idea, people attacked castles and forts all the time.

Castles in Japan were never made to withstand siege, they were made to withstand earthquakes. And Japanese tactical doctrine was one of extreme aggression. They would sally out and meet in the field, very rarely would you have an army storming castle walls.

I swear to fucking Christ it's like you people get all of your knowledge from manga and anime and never read actual books with sources.

can we not just agree that they were mostly a side arm (like swords usually were) best at cutting more than thrusting thst later also gained heavy use as a symbol for the warrior class/elite?
I thought that was the general idea. Let's end this silly thread please.
And Op, you should be watching scholagladitoria more than you watch lindybeige. Lindy is more for entertainment purposes and opinions(and sometimes though provoking discussions) rather than fact.
As said before, katanas were best for cutting snd more specialized for it than thrusting due to lack of fully metal armored opponents and as a result, lack of steel on general. Long words were most useful at thrusting in gaps of armor as a side arm again. Only one side of the katana was really focused on and it was very sharp tbf. Japanese swords had over all less refined steel as a result of the shortage mentioned earlier so it was less flexible and more prone to bending/breaking . The swordplay actually took that into account and thus techniques like Akaido were sometimes implimented and more emphasis was put into landing clean strikes and trying to avoid clashing with swords as much as possible as this Akaido master explains (ignore the obvious weeb) here.
youtu.be/RvgxD3O-OPI

>Castles in Japan were never made to withstand siege

while I understand in the right hands and with the right technique, poking a person full of little holes can be deadly, if looked closely, had that been a real katana, that guy's shoulder/neck (and if no helmet ear/face too) could be sliced pretty badly. I doubt he would survive that. This is assuming no full plate of course(which corresponds with the period when such a European sword would be used).

Not tournament but

swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?68102-The-Last-Samurai-Refought

I certainly agree that it was just a sword like any other, but Japanese armor was made of steel. you certainly could not cleanly pierce it with any type of sword, you had to go for the gaps.

Alsoi polease ignore this video. Aikido was founded in the early 20th century, and is not a sword art. This is a much better example

youtube.com/watch?v=OWsqzeCtlRY