[Hector A.]

[Jussi Ekholm]

I have to raise my hat to Timo, it's amazing to see how you are always participating these debates on multiple forums with solid reasoning .

I've never understood the whole comparison (with the purpose of finding superior one) on different swordtypes, warriors etc. There is a huge variance within swords that can be called longswords, same for katana.

I don't really want to participate on this debate as I see it kinda fruitless. However as longsword sized katana was asked for before in this thread, so I'll post this (no this is not a typical katana, but very rare occurrance, possibly the donator of this sword practiced very special & peculiar type of swordsmaship [that's what the Japanese koshirae book said]. The sword was donated to Matsubara-Hachimangû in 1644. It's very long and almost straight. Unfortunately as this was in koshirae book, it lacks finer details about blade size.

Nagasa: 100,8 cm
Sori: 0,6 cm
Tsuka: 29,9 cm



So that could be an equivalent of c. 130 cm longsword.

Closest longsword to more common sized katana I found this on research work of Alen Lovric:

XIIIa.8 (Private collection)
Length overall: 99.7cm, Blade length: 77.4cm, Weight: 1,683g (3lb 11.4oz)

For comparison to that I could throw something like: http://www.toukenhataya.jp/goods/sword/sword_s1036.html

Blade length: 76,5 cm (not including habaki). Weight: 1,100g (2,4 lb)

[Luka Borscak]

[Pieter B.]

Are there any manuals of traditions of using the Katana on horseback? I know there are a few depictions of it in HEMA manuals but I do not know how often and how effective a sword would be against a guy on horseback wearing armor.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Existing sources vary regarding the effect of sword blows on plate armor. I suspect it depended and depends on the sword, wielder, and armor in question. Lots of sources, however, suggest that historical warriors both Western European and Japanese struck blows at armored foes, regardless of whether such blows often accomplished nothing. For example, according to Gutierre Díez de Games, Pero Niño made even single-handed sword strokes effective against opponents in full circa-1400 harness. And a 17th-century Japanese infantry manual apparently indicates that good swords could make effective cuts against helmets. On the other hand, Fourquevaux's 1548 manual describes men-at-mans as virtually invulnerable to the point that even targeting them with the couched heavy lance was a waste of time.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Luke Adams]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I know about this passage of the Zohyo Monogatari (1646) via Stephen Turnbull's translation in the Osprey Ashigaru book: "Aim at the helmet, but if because the loan swords have dull blades you can only chop, aim at the enemy's hands and legs and you can cut at them." I've never known quite what to make of this quotation. It seems to imply that sharp swords should be able to cut helmets or at least stick to them enough to inflict blunt trauma.

[Timo Nieminen]

This book:
http://myArmoury.com/books/item.0752490001.html
might have an English translation.

(I haven't read it. Looks interesting.)

[Pieter B.]

[Henrik Granlid]

Not really.

If you stand eye to eye with a dummy and you start making horizontal and diagonal cutsat about shoulder height, you will target the face and neck quite a lot. Add in extra torque and speed and you will now cause wounds where it's hard to secure a rigid defense. Grand bascinets and kastenbrust helmets may be the only ones from that time to properly do so and not every soldier was armed in the latest fashion.

[Pieter B.]

[Jussi Ekholm]

Guess I can't keep my nose out of these...

The thing is most collectors of European swords just classify all Japanese swords as one. At least that's how I see it. Similar scenario would be if I talked about European swords and would not make any difference between swords used during the First Crusade and Late Renaissance.

There needs to be more specific dating, are we talking about Japanese swords in 1300's, 1500's, 1700's? Swords, armor, warfare, everything evolved in Japan over the years.

Mongolian armor had little to do with why katana were like they were during certain periods. Mongol Invasions happened in 1274 and 1281. They had an impact to the design of tachi and Japanese military tactics at the time. They were anticipating 3rd invasion to follow the two earlier ones. Then there was 60 years of civil war during Nanbokuchô period 1334 - 1392, which had very large effect on the evolution of the Japanese sword. Early Muromachi represents the transitional stage from tachi to katana. By the time of Ônin war 1467-1477 (another civil war) katana had mostly replaced the tachi as warfare had evolved. Ônin war was the start of Sengoku jidai, where the whole country was in turmoil and wars were fought until Japan was unified, and final rebellions supressed in early 1600's. Then there was peacetime during Edo period which lasted until roughly 1850's.

So for the evolution of katana I think most interesting years are from early 1400's into early 1600's. There are considerable changes to the sword during these periods. Even though I must agree that if you are not into Japanese swords the differences might seem minor. Personally I try to focus my own collecting to Kotô (pre-1600) swords, while I can appreciate Shintô and later swords they don't have the same historical significance to myself.

There are many legends and stories surrounding the Japanese sword. It must be thought through what a person for example living in 1600's might have believed. Superstitions were still very strong at that time. There have been accounts in medieval Japan where someone has ruined a perfectly good sword because he tried to cut a stone lantern in half (feats like that are mentioned in legends).

Making the sword sharp is not rocket science and I believe it was common knowledge for every seasoned warrior. Of course during the heat of civil wars, lots of new recruits were brought in and they had never seen war, might not ever held a sword before. There is also a counter-saying to that (that swords were so dull they didn't cut), some sources mention that some dulled their swords a bit when going into battle. This was done to protect the sword as you knew you would be facing armored opponents, so you wouldn't want super scary sharp blade (which for example many of todays trick cutters and tameshigiri contestants use). Thin & very sharp edge is easier to damage than bit sturdier edge. Yet it does not make huge difference to performance.

As for helmet cutting, you might want to look into kabutowari, I think Obata Toshishiro has the modern record: http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html Notice how the helmet is set at optimal height for this feat. I think usually when helmet cutting with Japanese swords is brought up people think anime-style helmet cutting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=m0GjJyR6ZuA#t=737

Japanese armor has weak spots, like armors from other cultures. Nordic head of Tenshin shôden Katori shintô-ryû is a member of our nihonto group. At one of our meetings which focused on Sengoku jidai tanto he held a small demonstration for various ways of using tanto against armoured opponents of that period. For example even with yoroi-doshi (armor piercer) variant of the tanto you do not attack the strong portion head on, unless it's a desperate situation. You aim for the weak portion and pierce through there.

As for the Antony Cummins book, I would be bit cautious when looking into it. You can find much of his ninjutsu stuff online (his youtube channel for example), and I find him to be bit controversial person. Personally I do not like his representation style but I applaud his strong passion towards ninjutsu research.

[Dan Howard]

[Rim Andries]

[Luka Borscak]

Strikes at the head and neck are showed everywhere and in any period, regardless of the helmets. So I guess the most reasonable conclusion is that such strikes were effective although they had no real chance of cutting through helmet. Similarly, strikes against lower arms and hands are also often effective even through plate defences. Sharp swords "stick" to metal surface better so it sounds logical that when striking helmet or arm armour you would still want your blade to be sharp even if you knew you can't cut through armour. I am sure someone is going to say that the swords are not designed to strike at metal armour, and I agree with that. But it is still useful to know what strikes at what places give you more chance to deal damage through armour when you are in a situation when you face an armoured foe with a sword in your hand.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Rim, it's very nice to see new faces in sword collecting circles. This isn't exactly a hobby that draws huge crowds into it.

One of the reasons people tend to frown upon these is because they've been discussed over and over during the years. I remember how I lurked SFI, myArmoury & other places as a kid in early 2000's, those topics were already popular debates back then.

One thing about the X vs. Y debates is that it's usual that people participating the debates have focused on one side, and do not see the other side. I agree that my view is skewed towards Japanese swords as I've spent years collecting and researching them. Sure I would love to know more about European swords, but you can only research as much as you have time, and I'll spend my time researching Japanese swords, and if I look into European stuff it's mostly Viking age stuff. However I think I'm usually defending European swords in Japanese sword forums and vice versa.

[Rim Andries]

Thank you for your warm welcome Jussi,

I am not exactly a new face: I have been a member on this forum and a HEMA student for almost ten years. It is however only since recently that I decided to join the conversation, so I guess you are right after all.

I applaud your attitude. I try to do the same: playing an advocate on both sides, if only to try and bring some reason to the more close minded fools out there. That is not to say that I am the best equipped person in terms of knowledge and expertise to do so.

On the odachi versus the katana when it comes to the longsword comparison: you are probably right. It is just that the katana is an icon. There is just no escaping it in that regard...I think. And for what it is worth: it is still a cut and thrust sword. Capable of being wielded with one or two hands. A versatile sidearm. Belonging to an equally iconic class of warriors. In that way it is just like the longsword, though I agree the odachi is closer in terms of dimension and weight.

Finally, my experience is that the appreciation of the longsword in modern times really is only a few decades old. Or young rather. Victorian times did a lot of damage. The katana on the other hand has been glorified for so many generations it is almost impossible for a novice to see what the sword is actually about, and how it was used. It certainly wasn't used to split the atom

Anyway that is how I feel. I love the longsword. I love the katana too. I just love it a little bit less... Glad to see you appreciate it though! It is just as deserving of a fan base as any other sword!

[Ben Coomer]

@ Rim, regarding the "oh no, not another katana vs. longsword debate."

Some of it comes from having to drag the longsword for "crowbar with a kind of an edge" to something worthy of study. Like you, I got interested in longswords from RPG's and the like, but in the early 90's there just wasn't much out there. You might find a wall hanger and try to adapt some fencing and stage fighting ideas into it. And then be really disappointed. Meanwhile, ninjas and samurai and katanas were everywhere, and very positively represented. If you could have a debate with someone about the merits of swords, the default was "samurai's rule, knights drool" and be lucky to get someone to acknowledge that a knight might be able to defeat a half-trained samurai, even when they know practically nothing about swords at all.*

Now things are different, and more honest conversations are happening. But you still get "Through my vast research (consisting of watching media and taking a few kendo classes), I have concluded that the katana is the BEST EVAH!!" and people thinking 10 lbs. is a reasonable weight for a longsword.

So some of us "old timers" have to try really hard to avoid flaming people over the issue because its almost an ingrained response to the bs we've had to deal with. That its starting to manifest as the other extreme is just depressing, if not surprising.

*True story.