both would be worse than a simple dagger indoors in many ways. with half swording you could make it work but i give the advantage to the better thruster there being the longsword
Why should they? They developped as cavalry swords were heavy armor was worn, you won't find much large crossguards in european swords around the 10th century either.
The actual reason is that the Japanese never really used heavy plate armor like Europeans did
Crossguards weren't for protecting your hands really (that came later with basket rapiers), they were for stopping your hand and enemy blades from sliding too far up/down, and turning your sword into a Lucerne hammer to break bones through plate armor when you turn it upside down
Also because the samurai were horse warriors and archers before they were swordsmen. the tachi was used on the battle field as a main weapon from a horse, the katana almost never, it was a personal weapon, status symbol and last resort.
that led to really cool shit like Japanese full armor with articulated pauldrons- when you drew your bow, the pauldrons folded out of the way automatically, and dropped back into place when you weren't shooting
https://i.imgur.com/jCxmi6r.jpg
YUU CHARRENGEH ME?!
now now, that one is purely ceremonial, like this one. Zhanmadao were used in combat, albeit briefly
Because there's limited binding in kenjutsu which is were the crossguard is most useful. When you're just trading blows, the tsuba is perfectly adequate and actually would protect the thumb and index finger better, though the forearms would naturally be more exposed. You could say the same about european swords, why did it take so long for guards to protects the side with rings or a nagel? Ultimately, it's just not that critical until binding is a central part of your fencing, thus why rapier and point-fencing in general lead to much more elaborate guards.
Also Tsuba are very easy to make and adjust and were used for controlling weight distribution and balance in a way which would be much harder with a long bar. It's
Assuming men of the same reach, with similar protection and skill it's...not instantly clear.
Katanas are more of a slashing weapon than a stabbing weapon, but they do have recourse to good point attacks. A longsword is the better thrusting weapon, but it's not a truly gigantic difference. Where the katana fails is abysmal or even nonexistent protection for the fencer's hands, which can matter quite a bit.
If you want a more uneven west vs. east matchup, change the longsword for a developed rapier. The rapierist will probably take home the laurels, unless it's a cavalry fight.
If both combatants are well armored and of equal skill I am giving the advantage to the katana as it is of a more robust construction due to its single edge blade geometry and tapered chisel point. Westerners made robust single edge swords too but the longsword is not an example of one
i would strongly question with your characterization of the katana as 'more robust' but the context makes it completely irrelevant anyway. in an unarmored duel (and an armored duel would only advantage the longsword to an insane degree) the idea that they would reach their material or construction limits is insane.
A longsword would absolutely be idea in heavy plate armor. A katana is useless against plate armor.
You say longswords are weak but you are forgetting they were rarely used in a chopping motion versus armored foes, but via stabbing straight-on into the gaps in the armor.
>A longsword would absolutely be idea in heavy plate armor. A katana is useless against plate armor.
Both would only be useful for point attacks against vulnerable parts of the armor (what era plate harness are we discussing?). The katana is perfectly capable of making effective, precise thrusting attacks.
>the katana is perfectly capable of making effective, precise thrusting attacks.
Not against classic late-medieval full-body plate armor
As soon as it gets between two pieces of tightly-fitted steel plates, it's going to want to twist. One-edged cutting blades are not built for twisting. Stabbing works fine for the lighter armors of Japan and the typical non-wealthy European, but not for plate
i would strongly question with your characterization of the katana as 'more robust' but the context makes it completely irrelevant anyway. in an unarmored duel (and an armored duel would only advantage the longsword to an insane degree) the idea that they would reach their material or construction limits is insane.
self reply i did a tard and just skimmed your post missing that you meant in armor specifically, to which i would just reiterate that the longsword is massively advantaged. like, katana guy is fricked advantaged. the katana's point is both wide and thick so getting into gaps and forcing through layers of chain and gambeson is a real problem. the katana isn't designed for half swording, though you could definitely do it, it just wouldn't be as good or versatile. the longsword can stand in for a mace, a hammer, or an anti armor dagger while with the katana you can just... kind of support the thrust.
as for robustness, the longsword can actually bend and spring back to true. the katana has a very hard edge and soft spine, which makes it vulnerable to chipping at the edge and taking a set if bent in any way at the spine.
The propensity of a weapon to flex on impact reduces its ability to propagate force through armor. This is true of both cutting and stabbing. It is the geometry of the katana (being shorter, thicker, and more massive) which grants it its advantage, not any mystical metalworking techniques
>The propensity of a weapon to flex on impact reduces its ability to propagate force through armor.
1. part of why you half sword is that it stiffens the blade
2. the fact that the longsword actually fits in the gaps in armor because it's made to do that is significant here >This is true of both cutting and stabbing.
trying to do any cuts against the guy in full steel armor who's coming in to put your ass on the ground and get his tip inside you is a fool's errand. he just won't care. worst case, you bend your heirloom piece before you die. >not any mystical metalworking techniques
what the frick did i say that you found mystical? i will happily demystify it for you
>katana user halfswords
What now eurocuck? And don't say they didn't do just that. I played Mitsurugi in soul calibur so I'm an expert on this topic
11 months ago
Anonymous
i talked about katana half swording in the post you replied to anon. this isn't a true historical scenario so i'm not discounting ahistorical techniques. the katana isn't designed for half swording, there are inherit design limitations: you can't use the hilt (it's a fragile lightweight mess) or crossguard (it's a horn disc), it's not as good as s thrusting weapon (not straight, broad tip)
11 months ago
Anonymous
>noo you can't halfsword a weapon with a nice beefy flat spine to hang onto because of the hilt or some shit
Lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't say you couldn't. I said it's not as good for that, because it's not designed for it. twice. over two posts.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I wouldn't take him seriously anymore, you can actually spot the moment when the katanagay realized he was losing this hard and fell back on the old "twas merely pretending" schtick.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No, I just stopped giving a shit, because my point was made and nothing was said to refute it. A tapered chisel point on a single edged blade is the most durable possible construction for a stabbing implement and a thick spine and heavier overall construction make it better for transferring impact through armor. Of course slapping someone in their breastplate isn't going to do anything, but if you get an opportunity to ring someone's bell in combat, you'll take it. I'd rather have a heavier and more rigid weapon to do so regardless of what name it is given
Japanese steel was borderline plastic compared to Europeans, the most powerful shoguns all carried European swords, katana was for the poorer ranks that spent of of their days tilling rice paddies
Buke =/= kuge and also this daisho thing is only true for the edo-era, before that, the bushi/samurai status wasn't really a codified thing and though big families like the Genji and Heike sure were dynasties of warriors, plenty of the vassals came from all sorts of places. And then it gets worse during the late part of the Ashikaga shogunate when it's everybody's game. When you have people like "Hojo" Soun and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, you know that "samurai" meant little in terms of fixed identity.
Neither
Different tools for different jobs.
I still think that european swords of the late middle ages are slightly better weapons, mostly for the use of a handguard.
Katana is a better sidearm, longsword better primary weapon, but it depends on your other gear/armor and the length and construction of the particular blade
Longsword if outdoors. Katana if indoors.
Katanas weren’t good for using indoors either, that’s what the wakizashi was for
both would be worse than a simple dagger indoors in many ways. with half swording you could make it work but i give the advantage to the better thruster there being the longsword
i guess if you're just mowing through a horde of peasants the katana would be cool but I'll take the longsword, probably has better steel anyway.
both mog nogs
Not huge into swords but I've always wondered: How come you don't see katanas with large cross guards?
Katana are just mostly ceremonial sidearms but I have never found a satisfying explanation for why tachi don't have large crossguards
Why should they? They developped as cavalry swords were heavy armor was worn, you won't find much large crossguards in european swords around the 10th century either.
Japs have tiny hands.
The actual reason is that the Japanese never really used heavy plate armor like Europeans did
Crossguards weren't for protecting your hands really (that came later with basket rapiers), they were for stopping your hand and enemy blades from sliding too far up/down, and turning your sword into a Lucerne hammer to break bones through plate armor when you turn it upside down
>Crossguards weren't for protecting your hands
this is flat out wrong. And not just your hands, but your wrist, forearm, and body. Pic related
Also because the samurai were horse warriors and archers before they were swordsmen. the tachi was used on the battle field as a main weapon from a horse, the katana almost never, it was a personal weapon, status symbol and last resort.
that led to really cool shit like Japanese full armor with articulated pauldrons- when you drew your bow, the pauldrons folded out of the way automatically, and dropped back into place when you weren't shooting
now now, that one is purely ceremonial, like this one. Zhanmadao were used in combat, albeit briefly
This weapon is responsible for a thousand deaths in warfare for every one death from a katana.
But the gun does more.
a practical odachi would have been more similar to the zhanmadao, i just like big sword
What about just a nodachi?
>that one is purely ceremonial
found the redditor, it was used by a gigachad on horseback
Because there's limited binding in kenjutsu which is were the crossguard is most useful. When you're just trading blows, the tsuba is perfectly adequate and actually would protect the thumb and index finger better, though the forearms would naturally be more exposed. You could say the same about european swords, why did it take so long for guards to protects the side with rings or a nagel? Ultimately, it's just not that critical until binding is a central part of your fencing, thus why rapier and point-fencing in general lead to much more elaborate guards.
Also Tsuba are very easy to make and adjust and were used for controlling weight distribution and balance in a way which would be much harder with a long bar. It's
My dick
They are the same thing
>katana: short but heavy sword
>knight sword: ligther, longer, better point, better guard, better CM
Katanas are swords for single blow duels or secondary weapon for samurais of the sengoku period. The knight sword are real general purpose swords.
>Who mogs?
Whoever is better at swinging a sharp metal stick because they are just slightly different flavors of sharp metal sticks.
I'll take the sword that's actually sharp.
That doesn't narrow it down.
Assuming men of the same reach, with similar protection and skill it's...not instantly clear.
Katanas are more of a slashing weapon than a stabbing weapon, but they do have recourse to good point attacks. A longsword is the better thrusting weapon, but it's not a truly gigantic difference. Where the katana fails is abysmal or even nonexistent protection for the fencer's hands, which can matter quite a bit.
If you want a more uneven west vs. east matchup, change the longsword for a developed rapier. The rapierist will probably take home the laurels, unless it's a cavalry fight.
If both combatants are well armored and of equal skill I am giving the advantage to the katana as it is of a more robust construction due to its single edge blade geometry and tapered chisel point. Westerners made robust single edge swords too but the longsword is not an example of one
i would strongly question with your characterization of the katana as 'more robust' but the context makes it completely irrelevant anyway. in an unarmored duel (and an armored duel would only advantage the longsword to an insane degree) the idea that they would reach their material or construction limits is insane.
A longsword would absolutely be idea in heavy plate armor. A katana is useless against plate armor.
You say longswords are weak but you are forgetting they were rarely used in a chopping motion versus armored foes, but via stabbing straight-on into the gaps in the armor.
>A longsword would absolutely be idea in heavy plate armor. A katana is useless against plate armor.
Both would only be useful for point attacks against vulnerable parts of the armor (what era plate harness are we discussing?). The katana is perfectly capable of making effective, precise thrusting attacks.
>the katana is perfectly capable of making effective, precise thrusting attacks.
Not against classic late-medieval full-body plate armor
As soon as it gets between two pieces of tightly-fitted steel plates, it's going to want to twist. One-edged cutting blades are not built for twisting. Stabbing works fine for the lighter armors of Japan and the typical non-wealthy European, but not for plate
self reply i did a tard and just skimmed your post missing that you meant in armor specifically, to which i would just reiterate that the longsword is massively advantaged. like, katana guy is fricked advantaged. the katana's point is both wide and thick so getting into gaps and forcing through layers of chain and gambeson is a real problem. the katana isn't designed for half swording, though you could definitely do it, it just wouldn't be as good or versatile. the longsword can stand in for a mace, a hammer, or an anti armor dagger while with the katana you can just... kind of support the thrust.
as for robustness, the longsword can actually bend and spring back to true. the katana has a very hard edge and soft spine, which makes it vulnerable to chipping at the edge and taking a set if bent in any way at the spine.
The propensity of a weapon to flex on impact reduces its ability to propagate force through armor. This is true of both cutting and stabbing. It is the geometry of the katana (being shorter, thicker, and more massive) which grants it its advantage, not any mystical metalworking techniques
>The propensity of a weapon to flex on impact reduces its ability to propagate force through armor.
1. part of why you half sword is that it stiffens the blade
2. the fact that the longsword actually fits in the gaps in armor because it's made to do that is significant here
>This is true of both cutting and stabbing.
trying to do any cuts against the guy in full steel armor who's coming in to put your ass on the ground and get his tip inside you is a fool's errand. he just won't care. worst case, you bend your heirloom piece before you die.
>not any mystical metalworking techniques
what the frick did i say that you found mystical? i will happily demystify it for you
>katana user halfswords
What now eurocuck? And don't say they didn't do just that. I played Mitsurugi in soul calibur so I'm an expert on this topic
i talked about katana half swording in the post you replied to anon. this isn't a true historical scenario so i'm not discounting ahistorical techniques. the katana isn't designed for half swording, there are inherit design limitations: you can't use the hilt (it's a fragile lightweight mess) or crossguard (it's a horn disc), it's not as good as s thrusting weapon (not straight, broad tip)
>noo you can't halfsword a weapon with a nice beefy flat spine to hang onto because of the hilt or some shit
Lmao
i didn't say you couldn't. I said it's not as good for that, because it's not designed for it. twice. over two posts.
I wouldn't take him seriously anymore, you can actually spot the moment when the katanagay realized he was losing this hard and fell back on the old "twas merely pretending" schtick.
No, I just stopped giving a shit, because my point was made and nothing was said to refute it. A tapered chisel point on a single edged blade is the most durable possible construction for a stabbing implement and a thick spine and heavier overall construction make it better for transferring impact through armor. Of course slapping someone in their breastplate isn't going to do anything, but if you get an opportunity to ring someone's bell in combat, you'll take it. I'd rather have a heavier and more rigid weapon to do so regardless of what name it is given
Katana. Especially eurokatana.
>zhanmadao has entered the chat
YUU CHARRENGEH ME?!
Katana are more aesthetic and what the frick else are swords good for these days
Japanese steel was borderline plastic compared to Europeans, the most powerful shoguns all carried European swords, katana was for the poorer ranks that spent of of their days tilling rice paddies
Only samurais (nobles) could wear the daisho (pair long-short), are you moron?
Buke =/= kuge and also this daisho thing is only true for the edo-era, before that, the bushi/samurai status wasn't really a codified thing and though big families like the Genji and Heike sure were dynasties of warriors, plenty of the vassals came from all sorts of places. And then it gets worse during the late part of the Ashikaga shogunate when it's everybody's game. When you have people like "Hojo" Soun and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, you know that "samurai" meant little in terms of fixed identity.
Neither
Different tools for different jobs.
I still think that european swords of the late middle ages are slightly better weapons, mostly for the use of a handguard.
Katana is a better sidearm, longsword better primary weapon, but it depends on your other gear/armor and the length and construction of the particular blade