| Author |
Message |
M. Eversberg II
|
 Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 5:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| George Hill wrote: | | Douglas G. wrote: | Consider this comparison, canned versus bottled beer. Some will contend that bottled beer tastes better therefore it
is superior. Others will counter the can is lighter and more durable, allowing the canned beer to be more safely taken
and add to the enjoyment of remote and scenic places. These are both good aguements, but I think more research
needs to be done. I'm heading to the 'fridge!
. |
Bah. There's no contest there. Bottled beer is much better. IT TASTES better, drinks better, is healthier for you because of the lack of bits of aluminum in your drink..... (Which is also why it tastes better.)
Bottled beer wins EVERY time. EVERYONE knows that.
Now a better contest is which brand..... |
Bah, everyone knows draft beers win over bottled and canned any day 
A welcome to the OP, I recommend you read that ARMA article.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
      |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not one who is sayinf one is far superior to the other - Katana or Longsword, nor am I saying either of the wielders are better than the other. Both are capable weapons, and were probably wielded in capable hands.
| Quote: | | People get "worked up" because questions of this nature almost always involve stereotypes and just plain bad info about weapons: myths people have been trying to debunk for years. Many people still believe katana can cut anything and that European swords were slow, heavy, sharpened crowbars wielded by brutish, slow-witted men with no culture. Simply not true. |
Exactly, Chad! I think more than this thread the Spike channel "Viking vs. Samurai" has me a bit worked up 
Instead of trying to learn and make a good documentary, they have a whole series based on setting inaccurrate stereotypes up as fact with "experts" confirnming these stereotypes.
Maybe with the "heart bursting" thing a bit of my inner Dan came out though
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe there can be an outcome with the knowledge of the people here. This could and perhaps can insight much information on the other topic, Knight vs. Samurai. The weapons used... matter a great deal. so if there was some true blue information to come out of this discussion There is only one way I could imagine that to occur.
1.considering on paper(computer forum) both are experts in their forms of fighting.
2.Choosing the fighting style/technique of the Samurai
3.Choose the fighting style/technique of the Knight
4. compile a huge list of every attack from the Samurai and then the defensive manuvere the knight would use
5. compile the opposite list for the knight attacking the Samurai
6. complie two lists of counter attacks for the knight and Samurai
7. compile a list of defensive manuvers against such counter attacks.
8. consider a factual basis for fatique to be calculated as time in the fight elapses--I forgot so this one should have been first
9. compile yet another list of hand to hand fighting in the case that each the knight and Samurai are relieved of their weapons.
10. Shall the situation be a knight on foot, a knight on horse back, or a dragoon vs a Samurai on foot, horse back, or ( i dunno if they had dragoon style Samurai.
11. will only the swords be considered in the fight or shall other weapons be employed which means the use of several other weapons come about.
.................. myArmoury.com VS. Deadliest Warrior...... DUN DUN DUUUUUNNNNNNN<<sound effects
p.s. I would totally be willing to help in any way I could to come up with these list's
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
12. Realize how much time you've wasted.
Also, Samurai started their "life" as horse archers in a war against the Emishi people. The social parallel's between the two are astounding.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Brass wrote: | | Warriors are capable and scary individuals. They fight skillfully and with great passion. Give one the greatest Katana ever made, and the other a length of steel pipe, and I would not bet on the outcome. Even if you gave one an m-16, and the other a steak knife, and turned them loose in a dark forest, I would not bet on the outcome. |
Steak knife vs m-16? not a cert to be sure, but I think most bookies would not be offering even odds...
And I looked over the origional quote, and I think I found where everything started
"This is because the length of the Longsword makes it more unwieldly, while the size of the katana is the perfect for sword fighting" (emphasis added by me)
The katana is the perfect sword for sword fighting... in the style of sword fighting which utilises the katana. Not sure how you would go trying to use a katana for various lichteneur techniques (half -swording ouchies), likewise, trying to use a XVIIIb for an Iaijutsu technique is doomed to failure.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Christopher,
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | I believe there can be an outcome with the knowledge of the people here. This could and perhaps can insight much information on the other topic, Knight vs. Samurai. |
But insight into what? This is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (And the answer: It depends on the tune.  )
| Quote: | | The weapons used... matter a great deal. |
They really don't. I've been training in the German Liechtenauer tradition for some time now. Give me a $10 machete, and I can promise you that I'm still going to use it in the Liechtenauer style. Give me a steak knife, and I'll still do the same.
| Quote: | | 1.considering on paper(computer forum) both are experts in their forms of fighting. |
Not only is this debatable about who is an expert between different arts, but even within the same tradition you will have differences in skill between two people of the same rank. Are all black belts the same level of skill?
| Quote: | 2.Choosing the fighting style/technique of the Samurai
3.Choose the fighting style/technique of the Knight |
There are MANY styles of fighting between those two cultures, especially when you factor in the various time periods.
| Quote: | 4. compile a huge list of every attack from the Samurai and then the defensive manuvere the knight would use
5. compile the opposite list for the knight attacking the Samurai
6. complie two lists of counter attacks for the knight and Samurai
7. compile a list of defensive manuvers against such counter attacks.
|
There are an infinite number of combinations of attacks and counterattacks. Can you compile a list of every single attack, counter attack, and their variations in collegiate wrestling? No. Its flat out impossible. Martial arts aren't a list of techniques, otherwise it wouldn't be called a martial ART. You learn techniques as examples of core principles, and then you use those principles to inform the techniques. And even if you tried doing this, you'll find far more similarities between the cultures than you will differences.
| Quote: | | 8. consider a factual basis for fatique to be calculated as time in the fight elapses--I forgot so this one should have been first |
If you take two Marines who've gone through the exact same training, will they both fatigue after the exact same amount of stress? No, there are too many factors. So this is impossible to calculate.
| Quote: | | 9. compile yet another list of hand to hand fighting in the case that each the knight and Samurai are relieved of their weapons. |
Bare handed fighting is not a separate art. It is an integral part of the martial art systems of both cultures. And even if you separate them, there are still the exact problems I mentioned above.
| Quote: | 10. Shall the situation be a knight on foot, a knight on horse back, or a dragoon vs a Samurai on foot, horse back, or ( i dunno if they had dragoon style Samurai.
11. will only the swords be considered in the fight or shall other weapons be employed which means the use of several other weapons come about.
|
The fact that you have to ask shows just how many variables can come into play here.
I'm of the opinion that trying to do these types of comparisons can be a fun mental excercise as long as you remember that you can't come to any serious conclusion. The moment you start trying to qualify these intangible things as fact, though, you start creating misconceptions.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
 |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand, there was a book I forget the title of that showed the evolution of war making from prehistoric days til later times.
THey actually did a comparison of two armies fighting from differetn time periods (not a one on one battle). They had Alexander and his Macedonians against the English at Waterloo. It was an interesting comparison, and pointed out that the Macedonians probably would not have fared that badly aginst the English.
They compared rates of fire, marching times, hand to hand abilities, ranges of weapons, etc. etc. While of course it is all conjecture, it made a pretty convincing argument that Alexander might have fared better at Waterloo than Napoleon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stirling Matheson
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: |
Steak knife vs m-16? not a cert to be sure, but I think most bookies would not be offering even odds...
|
The M-16 isn't exactly known for reliability. I say we consider it as a bludgeoning weapon.
Fac et Spera
Moderator - www.swordwiki.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Bill Grandy
I'm of the opinion that trying to do these types of comparisons can be a fun mental excercise as long as you remember that you can't come to any serious conclusion. |
This was exactly my point...
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Longsword and katana |
|
|
Hello! and Welcome to myArmoury.
I'm gonna agree with the sentiment expressed already that the ideal sword is dependent on factors of context such that we cannot name one single sword as THE ideal sword.
There are a few points in your post that I'd like to specifically address.
| Byron H. wrote: |
This is because the katana is more optimized to the more difficult task of cutting, while being able to be used for thrusting, which is a far easier task by far. |
If you've ever used a meat cleaver or wood axe, or seen one used, then you should understand that effectively using a sword to cut/slash/chop is not a complex activity in itself (doing so in a fight so that you don't also get hit etc. is difficult). I suspect you would agree that a wood axe would cut well enough to end a fight, frequently with a single hit, without need for complex technique.
The draw cuts for which katanas are famous are more complicated but they are not a necessity for winning a swordfight. They are an option; the German tradition of Lichtenauer has three kinds of attacks: cut, slice and thrust. The hau or cut (lit. hew) is separate from slicing techniques. Slicing techniques were most definitely used though from what I know of Japanese sword arts the specifics techniques and context are different.
The emphasis on the draw cut seems to me to be technique geared towards getting the most of the particular shape of sword used for the katana. Again it's not essential for using swung attacks to win a sword fight.
| Byron H. wrote: |
For instance, after every stroke a longsword user is left wide open, which means a katana user can kill him quickly. |
This is true only of a poor longswordsman. In fact period manuals on the use of the longsword admonish fighters not to do such things. The Meisterhau (master cuts) of the Lichtenauer tradition exist, in part, to keep this from happening.
After every stroke with my longsword I have usually hit something: the other person or their sword. Either way I'm not open. If I am open at this point then it is because of the skill of my opponent and is not dictated by the weapon. If I have not hit something then my opponent has almost certainly voided backwards which means that the length of the weapons is very relevant. If I have a longer weapon then I have the advantage when they back-up.
The double edge of the longsword also helps with recovery time. Since I can make a return cut with the back edge (short edge in Lichtenauer) I can execute techniques not available to the katana for quickening the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore footwork plays a key role in this situation. I lean back after I've missed with a single triangle step making it difficult for an opponent to hit me in the tempo where my sword is out of position. If they have a shorter sword than me and have backed out of range to my sword then they have that much farther to go to get back into range against me.
Byron, you seem to have to place little value on the advantage of range in a sword fight. If a swordsman knows what they are doing with a longer weapon then it is exceptionally difficult for the person with a shorter weapon to ever get close enough to hit them.
| Byron H. wrote: |
. . . this makes the Longsword inherently telegraphic. |
Telegraphing is an error of technique not sword design. Plenty of people telegraph punches and it's not because their fists are designed wrong  Not telegraphing requires study of body mechanics and then training in the coordination necessary to make a strike hit as quick as it can be perceived. Non-telegraphic strikes are clearly indicated in the fechtbuchs (fight manuals) of the German Medieval longsword tradition. We are instructed to cut so that the point follows a straight line to the target. How to do this is not obvious and it's not how novices cut.
A heavier and/or poorly balanced weapon will take longer to get up to it's max speed which will make it seem more obvious coming in. However, a longer weapon will have a higher tip speed (for the same rotational velocity) and so it will actually be moving faster by the end than the shorter weapon. Add to this the advantage of range and the longsword will travel a greater distance in the same time than a katana, surely a benefit in a fight.
| Byron H. wrote: |
He's not taking into consideration the huge edge flaws which are present in European swords, which hinder their ability to cut though. |
This seems to be the usual stereotype of Medieval swords as poorly made, dull etc. This simply isn't true. Sharpening is not rocket science and there are plenty of European swords pulled out of rivers and churches that are still sharp enough to cut flesh half a millennium or more since they were last sharpened.
As I mentioned above the period manuals specifically include slicing techniques for the longsword. It seems unlikely that such instruction was repeated for 180+ years if the technique didn't work.
There a quite a number of types of blade geometry (follow this link to see what I mean) present in European swords. Some, like the hollow-grind, are only useful on acutely sharp swords otherwise they are a lot of effort for nothing.
Please elaborate on this particular point if you wish to pursue it any further. Otherwise please understand that the European sword smiths were creating fine, masterpiece swords before the Japanese culture existed.
| Byron H. wrote: |
. . . weapons in Europe, I forget their names, that are similar to the katana in the sense that they are curved, two handed swords |
Your friend is probably referring to langes messer or possibly falchions. These swords come in a wide variety of lengths, some close to katana and others not.
They are not katanas but they worked well enough to persist for hundreds of years but they weren't as efficient against metal armour and so are perhaps more appropriate for early Medieval periods and civilian use (though not exclusively).
The slicing power of a katana is completely useless against an opponent wearing metal armour (mail or plate). A straight sword is a more efficient thrusting weapon than a katana. Every dedicated thrusting weapon ever designed (spears, estocs, rapiers, foils etc.), whether by Europeans, Japanese or any other culture is straight. This illustrates well that a straight blade is preferable for thrusting. The katana can thrust. And can thrust well but not as well as a straight sword. It is a matter of relative ability
The European sword was largely intended to defeat people in metal armour where slicing is useless, cutting can work and thrusting works well. A sword design intended to maximize cutting and thrusting while leaving aside slicing makes sense for the context hence straight blades ending up more common than curved in Medieval Europe.
More important ultimately is skill with the weapon. A novice swordsman with katana will lose to a master of the longsword or a master of the spork
If I am skilled at using the longswords' range to my advantage then the extra 6 to 12 inches will be useful. If the warrior with a katana is skilled at bridging the range gap then it will be less so.
Cheers. I hope you've learned something and gained some respect for the longsword too.
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Minturn
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I was going to prove which sword was better, long sword or katana with a big fight between the two but when I put them in the arena (aka the guest bedroom) despite my best effort to get them riled up, they just sat there, doing nothing. Taunting them proved ineffective as well.  So, sorry the big fight was a bust. There just may be more to this then just the swords. More testing will be required. Maybe the bedroom was too constricting and they need more room to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joel Minturn wrote: | | Well I was going to prove which sword was better, long sword or katana with a big fight between the two but when I put them in the arena (aka the guest bedroom) despite my best effort to get them riled up, they just sat there, doing nothing. Taunting them proved ineffective as well. So, sorry the big fight was a bust. There just may be more to this then just the swords. More testing will be required. Maybe the bedroom was too constricting and they need more room to fight. |
Thank you that is awesome!
My friend just reminded me that Mushasi Miyamoto demonstrated the superiority of an oar to the katana by winning a fight with one.
(Which illustrates my point that when properly wielded the longer, heavier weapon is not a liability.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael G.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | On the other hand, there was a book I forget the title of that showed the evolution of war making from prehistoric days til later times.
THey actually did a comparison of two armies fighting from differetn time periods (not a one on one battle). They had Alexander and his Macedonians against the English at Waterloo. It was an interesting comparison, and pointed out that the Macedonians probably would not have fared that badly aginst the English.
They compared rates of fire, marching times, hand to hand abilities, ranges of weapons, etc. etc. While of course it is all conjecture, it made a pretty convincing argument that Alexander might have fared better at Waterloo than Napoleon. |
Arther Ferrill's The Origins of War is the book you are thinking of, I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Bennison N
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | My friend just reminded me that Musashi Miyamoto demonstrated the superiority of an oar to the katana by winning a fight with one. |
Cool that you mention that instance, because Miyamoto-san apparently carved the oar into the shape of a sword. So the oar effectively became a wooden sword anyway. And he did this because Sasaki, who I believe was his opponent, was said to have been famous for having an extra long sword. So he made his oar-sword even longer, and won easily. (Personally, I don't think it was THAT easily, but I wasn't there, so I can't argue.)
This shows that the Katana is not the PERFECT length for sword fighting, because Sasaki was a famous and successful duellist with a sword longer than everybody elses'.
And it also shows the value of skill over weapon, because a specially made extra long Katana for a well known duellist is so so SO much better quality a weapon than an oar carved into sword shape during a boat-ride.
Yet Miyamoto-san won.
I love Longswords. I don't have one, but one day I will. I can't use one very well, I've always tended to do Jianshu forms or Kenjutsu techniques with the ones I've handled so far, but again one day I will. You need to know them to know swords (plural). I 100% don't agree that Katana are superior, just different with more movies made about them is all.
"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius
अजयखड्गधारी
|
|
|
|
|
Addison C. de Lisle
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an unrelated note, this is one of the more intelligent, civil katana vs. longsword threads I've seen
www.addisondelisle.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 395
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is unarmoured combat? Is that when the participants are naked? Does armour in this argument include textile only armour or is the definition in this context meant to relate to more advanced types of armour.
If the argument is that a katana is better because it is shorter, quicker and sharper then I would say a knife would be superior to a katana because they are even shorter, quicker and can be sharper.
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, but that which it protects. (Faramir, The Two Towers)
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Tue 05 May, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bennison N wrote: | | I love Longswords. I don't have one, but one day I will. I can't use one very well, I've always tended to do Jianshu forms or Kenjutsu techniques with the ones I've handled so far, but again one day I will. You need to know them to know swords (plural). I 100% don't agree that Katana are superior, just different with more movies made about them is all. |
Bennison, I like that. Well said.
I get asked the K vs S question at living history events every so often and some people really don't want to hear the answer.
"I think it depends on the swordsman, the day, and sometimes... luck."
A good long sword is fast & agile and my last 7 years of studying the early German longsword masters has taught me that "after every stroke a longsword user is left wide open" is not true statement (as long as the swordsman is trained in any real system of the middle ages).
Cheers,
David
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Wed 06 May, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have trained with both, though not very extensively, and I have to chime in with the crowd that does not put a definative advantage to one or the other, and have to agree very much with the quality issue, I have trained with very cheap boken, who were a lot slower than quality ones, who were slower than a good reproduction, I have trained with wooden wasters that do not have distal taper, and with an Albion Lichtenauer, which also is a world of difference.
I think it is impossible to make an unbiased decision when you are not trained (I am not trained, I have trained, which is a big difference) in both techniques, and have excellent material in your hands, but probably not even then.
I must say I think a longsword is a bit faster, but this is probably more involved with my most recent training than a more rational argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Smallridge
|
| Posted: Thu 07 May, 2009 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | If you've ever used a meat cleaver or wood axe, or seen one used, then you should understand that effectively using a sword to cut/slash/chop is not a complex activity in itself (doing so in a fight so that you don't also get hit etc. is difficult). |
Thought I'd call you on that, even if you address it later. A cleaver or wood axe would have a very, very different centre of gravity. Understanding how to use a longsword's centre of gravity to cut efficiently and quickly with minimal effort is both non-intuitive and the biggest challenge my WMA group finds in teaching new people.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Thu 07 May, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Smallridge wrote: | | Steven H wrote: | | If you've ever used a meat cleaver or wood axe, or seen one used, then you should understand that effectively using a sword to cut/slash/chop is not a complex activity in itself (doing so in a fight so that you don't also get hit etc. is difficult). |
Thought I'd call you on that, even if you address it later. A cleaver or wood axe would have a very, very different centre of gravity. Understanding how to use a longsword's centre of gravity to cut efficiently and quickly with minimal effort is both non-intuitive and the biggest challenge my WMA group finds in teaching new people. |
Well . . . a sword is more difficult than an ax I'll grant you that, but my essential point that fairly simple technique will work to end a sword fight still holds. The katana slicing technique is good but not required for a hit from a sword to do what it's supposed to do.
The first time that I test cut I "only" got a few inches deep in to the target (tatami-like foam). Only a few inches would probably end a fight. It only took a dozen or so tries to reach the point where I usually got all the way through.
Ultimately even a crappy hit from a four foot sharpened steel lever is gonna be a serious problem. So much so that test cutting does not seem to have been a part of any sword practice that I know until the modern era - when the swords weren't often used in combat anymore.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic