Does the iconic blade of the samurai have versatility like western swords?
They seem pretty one-note in terms of use.
>Slash peasant
>Draw the sword and slash peasant before returning it to sheath all in one motion to be a cool guy
>try to awkwardly stab
It doesn't seem to have much in the way of options, plus they seem so delicate.
Samurai in fiction should have more focus on their use of bows and polearms.
Obligatory Deus Vult-
youtube.com
Yes the Katana was basically just an oversized razor blade. Very sharp, very useless against armor. It was a sidearm and they primarily used polearms not swords in battle, katanas were for duels.
But this is games nigga, who cares. Longswords weren't any good for slashing against armor but in games they work fine so who cares if katans can cut too?
But in a one-on-one fight isn't versatility in your weapon even more important than in a mass battle?
Formalized duels, like fencing.
To be fair to fencers, rapiers are much better weapons for personal use.
Katanas stuck around because they are cavalry sabers, and the samurai caster was cavalry.
Western Cavalry sabers seem to have advantage of having a hand guard, and more suited to being wielded with one hand so you can control your horse with the other?
Neither really matters when you use it from horseback. Your hand getting hit is unlikely (and even if it was, they used hand protection, Samurai who went in were heavy cavalry), and you aren't fencing with it, just swinging one handed.
There are many ways to slash and it actually can stab well enough to make a difference. The curve is not that extreme, and the end is very pointy.
>the samurai caster was cavalry
>getting spells, mounts, and weapon skills
Ok, now that just sounds broken.
>a glorified sidearm is trash at anything other than being a glorified sidearm
>compare it to an array of sidearms and main weapons from Europe (because not all europeic swords were sidearms, unlike katanas) which were modified and perfected to be as versitile as possible in most cases and made with good metal instead of shit
>"wow, guys, katanas are kinda trash"
No shit, that's why they were never used as the main tool in warfare
The metal thing is actually way overblown. Having shit sources meant that more work and time had to be put in to get steel at all, which sharply bottlenecked supply. Once they had it though, it was comparable to other steels.
That is alos the reason why they were not the main battlefield weapon, and the reason why they were not improved in terms of functionality.
Kendo, despite being a much simpler, more minimalistic version of swordplay, has a good degree of versatility:
>vertical or vertical-askew cuts to the head
>vertical-askew cuts to the wrist
>diagonal cuts to the flank
>thrusts to the threat
I suggest you study up on kendo a little bit before you come to any conclusions about how a katana can and cannot be used, because it's a good introduction and should help you get the right mindset.
In other sports/arts you see even more variety of cuts (angle and target) and other actions.
The thing to understand is that forms exist to develop good habits and instincts, or as rules for organised competition (be it modern sports or historical duelling)
As far as historical battlefield swordsmanship goes, there was practical cause for much divergence from forms, because forms are just guides, not strict rules. So bludgeoning with the pommel, for example, even though it isn't provided for formally, was probably occasionally useful. Likewise very situational, abnormal types of attack could be used when appropriate, because what happens on a battlefield is always going to be different to what happens in formal training.
The katana is basically a sabre and was often used from horseback (which is something that people forget because modern Japanese sword arts are not equestrian).
Actually the real, iconic samurai weapon is the longbow (equestrian and dismounted). Ask any Japanese weapon artist or mediaeval military history enthusiast, and they should tell you the same.
Real specimens for cavalry use were not the same as those for infantry use. There were design changes precisely because the length, dimensions and mechanics requirements were different.
No, what we call katana have undergone extensive revisions and changes. Nobody cares about the differences because they're all superficially similar, but there are different lengths, different curvatures, and vastly different layering processes. A cheapass mass produced sword might only have two or three simple folded layers that make it less tensile, while a fancy, expensive work could have upwards of 7 made out of different hardnesses and designed to hold up to use better.
The lack of easy steel did affect armor developments though, which is why they stuck to chain and small plates in lamellar configurations until the Portugese showed up and sold them some breastplates (which the Japs called Nanban-do)
>the iconic blade of the samurai
>the real, iconic samurai weapon is the longbow
Similar to swords in Europe, the katana was important as a symbol because it was expensive and legally restricted.
But as was said, the bow is most important practically.
Probably second most important, and in reality more common than the katana for duelling, is the spear.
>Longsword is Blade
>Longsword is Shield
>Longsword is Hammer
>Longsword is Holy Cross
>Longsword is Ranged Weapon
How can weeaboo even compete?
What's a western sword's versatility? not being able to cut through armor? What's a katana's lack of versatility? Not being able to cut through armor?
...
Ultimately one must keep in mind the Katana's limitations, as well as Japan's limitations at the time of it's use.
The Katana is a single edged curved blade, entirely based upon cutting/slashing. It has no armor penetration - no crushing or piercing force to get through sufficiently hard plate.
A samurai vs a knight in melee would be such a hilarious one-sided fight..
But, you have to keep in mind how impressive the Katana is from a sheer materials standpoint. Japan in general has shitty impure iron, so back before global trading the Japanese had to use what they had available to them.
The sheer amount of compensation the Katana makes for what it's made out of is a feat worthy of praise. Everything from the two different hardnesses of the edge and spine of the blade, to the curve, to the technique endemic of that time is all about compensating and making the best out of what you had.
There is a very good reason for why most Katana techniques involve a single, decisive strike. A Katana was liable to break or chip or otherwise weaken after a single impact, so every technique was all about minimizing the strain put on the sword by reducing the amount of strikes. This is also why many Samurai carried two katanas. And they were sidearms regardless - most Samurai used Naginatas or Longbows.
Ultimately, the Katana doesn't have the sheer utility of a standard european longsword with a cross-guard. You can't halfsword with it, you can't murder-stroke with it, and you can't thrust with it. You can only use it to quickly and efficiently dispatch an unarmored opponent.
As I stated above, a Katana is only capable of being used in a cutting motion. Cutting is utterly useless against plate or even most Gambeson style armors.
A European longsword is able to be used as a makeshift hammer, changing the attack to impact, thereby allowing it to rupture the plate. Or you could thrust, puncturing the plate.
Con't.
Ultimately, the Katana is a mighty feat of determination and metallurgy, but it's still a pathetically weak blade by any battlefield's standards. This is entirely because of the metal available in japan. Not because the design is shit - though the design hamstrings itself in usability in any equivalent battlefield simply because it's entirely built around this limitation to begin with. Remove that limitation - shitty metal - and you make the Katana useless. You'd be better off with a Saber if you wanted a similar weapon.
It was mostly ceremonial in use. Any serious fight where a katana wielder fights a longsword wielder would just be a joke.
This isn't to say that Japan was shit or Europe was better. This was to say that their resources were better. Plate Armor or even chain mail would nullify most of Japan's capabilities in general - and Japan simply didn't have enough iron to make plate armor. If they did, the brittle nature of the metal would render it useless.
So, in conclusion, the Katana isn't impressive because it's a good blade. The Katana is impressive because it's a usable blade to begin with.
Thing that always bothers me about that .gif is his form. It's completely wrong.
>you can't thrust with it
Yes, you can.
>Katana is only capable of being used in a cutting motion
This isn't true. You won't be puncturing proper armour with it, but it has a point and the point is used to thrust at un- or lightly-armoured areas.
What about comparing the katana to weapons from periods or contexts in Europe (or elsewhere) in which technology or mineral wealth resulted in similar practical availability of resources? That seems to be the obvious measure of its merit as a weapon.
There's not really any Form that could make a katana come off the better in an impact against an arming sword, is there? Even if its not going to be a normal occurrence to simply slam the two weapons together
There's just one blade happening to be much more fragile than the other.
One would think that the curved nature of the Katana would disrupt the thrust and make it so the force is less concentrated. Not to mention that the Katana simply doesn't have a point at the end comparable to an arming sword.
As for eras? I'd have to say the closest thing I can think of that's fair would be Dark Ages (10th century) europe, with say, a band of vikings vs a band of Samurai. Disregarding the ranged combat (I'm not sure if a viking shield would stop a Daikyu arrow or not) the iconic Ulberht sword would still have superior characteristics to a Katana. The blade would be thicker and much more durable because of the superior steel. Not to mention the presence of proper chain mail and good wooden shields with linen reinforcements.
If a samurai were to lose his range advantage, his Katana wouldn't get past the defenses of a sword+board viking in full warrior's garb.
If a knight were to take the Viking's place, my point would be proven even more. A heater shield would be even better, and an albion sword would allow even better reach and more flexibility.
I'm not talking about the outcome. Obviously the katana is the weaker sword. I'm just being autistic about form. And I mean lower-case "f", his stance and grip and positioning are completely wrong for using a katana.
Not up-to-speed on the physics, though no doubt a thrust with a straight sword is more efficient than a thrust with an equivalent curved sword. But thrusts are common in Japanese sword arts; just because the katana is not the ideal weapon for thrusting doesn't mean that it can't do it.