[Angus Trim]

[Patrick Kelly]

My experience mirrors Gus'. I've found very little, if any functional difference in the cutting power of straight and curved blades. A living target is just as dead if cut with either one and that was the whole point afterall. One thing to remember: there were plenty of sword designs in medieval europe that featured a curved cutting surface, messers, falchions, sabels, etc. Europe was far from a microcosim of straight-blade sword development.

George,

Burton is an interesting read. However, his writing is so overly laden with jingoistic victorian era prejudice that I personally find it hard to take anything he says seriously and I've never felt comfortable using his work as a reference.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!
Knights certainly fought mounted for most of their history. Most words that mean "knight" in other languages (ritter, chevalier, cavaliere, caballero) come from words meaning "rider" or "horseman". The straight, cruciform sword was one of the symbols of medieval knighthood. If a curved sword was more useful from horseback, why didn't the medieval knight adopt a curved sword? The style of sword blades did change somewhat over time, either growing longer and heavier, or becoming more acute, but they pretty much always stayed straight and double-edged. Many of these changes were in response to better armour, so medieval knights and other mounted warriors were not opposed to practical improvements. Some knights used falchions, but it remained the straight sword that was symbolic of knightly rank (along with spurs, etc.).
Again, I believe there may be a cultural tradition involved with why western Europeans tended to use straight swords throughout the ancient, medieval, and Renaissance periods. I think they endured in part because they gained a certain symbolic importance that curved swords lacked.
Again, this is just my humble opinion, but it may help explain the predominance of the straight, cruciform sword in western Europe.
Stay safe!

[Jonathan Hopkins]

From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, the British struggled with what was more effective; the cut or the thrust. This concern was embodied in the relatively frequent model redesigns. The 1796 pattern light cavalry sword was fearsome to be sure, but it seems that many contemporaries thought that the thrusting swords of the French were deadlier. Throughout the 19th century Britain attempted to refine its cavalry swords, often making concesions to both the cut and the thrust. Their final cavalry design was the 1908 trooper's sword, and its focus was the thrust.

The point of all of my rambling is that when faced with unarmoured troops (with the exception of cuirassiers), the military minds of the 19th century were not able to agree on what was most effective in battle--a straight thrusting blade, or a curved slashing/cutting blade. I think Richard's argument about tradition is intriguing and worth some thought. I agree with those who have made the "function dictates form" argument. My knowledge of medieval weapons, armor, etc. is fledgling at best, but to me a straight blade against armored combatants makes more functional sense.

[George Hill]

Partick, that's a good point. Until I dug out the book I had forgotten just how difficult some of his stuff was to really get a hold on.

Jake, the Roman story is undoubtedly a myth. Swords do not cut each other up. They bang each other up some times, but why would the king want his sword banged up too? (Which would happen even if it was a good bit better.)

Secondly, most of the armor that we recognise as being in the Samurai style was metal. It was rather good armor for it's purpose, which was defending against arrows. Nonetheless, the limb protection and overall coverage of killzones was generally not as good as European armor.

Now, in fairness the Europeans had much more iron to forge with then the Japanese, and indeed held their armor in very high regaurd. The book of Knighthood and chivalry seems to hold the possession of good armor as much more important to a Knight then his sword. After all, a Knight could go into battle with a club, but he HAD to have armor to really be considered a Knight.

And no, Kats do NOT cut good steel under battlefield condisions.

[Michael S. Rivet]

[Alex K]

That's how I interpreted it...

[Chad Arnow]

Let's remember to discuss this all objectively, without any personal rancor. These kind of threads often end up turning sour. I don't want to see that happen here.

Please consider this a preemptive warning.

Thanks!

[A. Jake Storey II]

What I said isn't that it couldn't cut through Bamboo but because of the fiber structure of bamboo the sword would get deflected by the fibers. Most of my info comes from books specificly on eather knights or samurai and I'm not sure of the acuracy of either. Now wether or not a Katana could cut through steel armor...The only thing that made a longsword more likely to cut through was it was heavier and would have more mumentum. A sword is only ad good as its metal, and it's wealder. If the sword could fisicly take a shot from a .45 (not sure what it's called but I saw the test video on YouTube) and not have very much damidg then it's likly that it could cut through armer. The only limiting facter is could the Samurai get enuf force in his swing to use such a light weapon? Mabey not, but mabey so. There are some acounts of them cleaving through the cutlesis of some europien sailors, I don't know wether thats true or not but... and I have seen friend use a cheep stainless steel Katana and cut holes into an old Shevy 1 tun van. (it was a pranke, the fan was going to the dump the next day anyway.)

However, this isn't about weather or not a Samurai could face a Knight, but why the most swords of Europe seem to be strait. My own opinnion is leaning twords armor. The only thing that a curved blade has on a strait is the eas of the slash. The only thing slash has on hack is the energy it takes to do the same damage is less. But I don't think a slash would be as efective against good armor.

[Joe Fults]

[Joe Fults]

[Joe Fults]

What I said isn't that it couldn't cut through Bamboo but because of the fiber structure of bamboo the sword would get deflected by the fibers.

If you search online I'm sure you can find plenty of video where swords cut right through bamboo (There was some on the ARMA website). Perhaps its a difference between green and dry, but I'm not sure how much I would trust the stuff to deflect a sword if it mattered.

The only thing that made a longsword more likely to cut through was it was heavier and would have more mumentum. A sword is only ad good as its metal, and it's wealder.

Actually most WMA practioners agree that the longsword might dent, pierce, or deform armor, but it would not cut it per say. That still might be small consolation to the person on the recieving end of a good blow.

If the sword could fisicly take a shot from a .45 (not sure what it's called but I saw the test video on YouTube) and not have very much damidg then it's likly that it could cut through armer.

This is a simple parlor trick designed to impress a unknowledgable or unthinking onlooker. The bullet is lead, the sword is steel. The performance is what one should expect if one takes the time think about the scenario.

I have seen friend use a cheep stainless steel Katana and cut holes into an old Shevy 1 tun van. (it was a pranke, the fan was going to the dump the next day anyway.)

Cut or puncture/pierce? There is a very significant difference here.

[Darryl Aoki]

I don't think Japanese armour was generally made of bamboo. Some of the more outlandish (and showy) helmets may have been built up over a bamboo frame (on top of a standard steel helm), but those modifications were generally ornamental.
The breastplate used in kendo is usually made of bamboo (laminated and lacquered), but that's 'cos it's cheaper and easier to work with. (Oh, and lighter too. I certainly wouldn't want to go through kendo practice wearing a steel breastplate.)
For the most part, Japanese armor was made of laced plates (or scales) of steel; by the end of the Sengoku period (~1580s-1600s), lots of breastplates were made as a single piece, with lacing sometimes added for ornamentation. Arm armor was, from what I recall (I'm away from my references), often made of splints or small plates backed with cloth.

-Darryl

[A. Jake Storey II]

A cut about two feet long were about 18 inches of it had cut all the way through. Other cuts didn't go through at all and do to the cheep nature of the sword it was in bad condition afterwards. But, as i said before, I don't want this to become a debate on which type of warior was superior. That is more an isue of the wealder, not the wepon wealded. Both have streangths and weaknesess. I just found it interesting that one sociaty mostly used curved and another mostly used straight and wondered why.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!
I've found another instance of the sword being used as part of the knighting ceremony, which could help explain the tradition of the straight, double-edged "knightly" sword in Europe.
This is from Richard Barber's The Knight and Chivalry. It briefly describes the knighting ceremony when Louis d'Anjou and his brother Charles were knighted by Charles VI at St. Denis, Easter, 1389. The account states that at Mass the king administered "the usual oath, then bound on their swords and ordered M. de Chauvigny to put on their spurs".
Barber also includes the knighting of Geoffrey of Anjou and the description of the "knighting of Saladin" from L'Ordene de Chevalerie. A few lines and words are different from the version in Knights by Hopkins, but the general meaning remains the same.
Stay safe!

[Bryce Felperin]

[Martin Wilkinson]

These might help people.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

The european straight swords when used against armour were predominantly used to thrust through the gaps in the plate.

Also European swords were not heavy, and for what i can gather Katana's are not that much lighter (if at all) than many examples of European Longswords.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Concerning the curvature of the katana, one interesting theory I read is that it's a side effect of the differential quenching used in the making of the blade. The edge is cooled down very fast, and the atoms do not have the time to condense as much as they do in the back of the blade, which is cooled slower. This causes strain, leading to the curvature of the sword. Of course a skilled swordsmith still has the control of the curvature since he can forge a blade already curved...

As a practitioner of kenjutsu myself, I must say that I have not been taught many moves that would not work equally well with a straight weapon. Draw cuts are not necessarily common in a fight, since it implies that you are really close to your opponent in the beginning of the strike. Plus, you can do a draw cut with a straight weapon as well... The only specific use of the curvature that I know of is a rather subtle move where you take advantage of it for deflecting the opponent's weapon a bit further.

On the whole subject of Richard Burton, draw cuts and blade curvature, I think it's worth citing the article of George Turner on the ARMA site (the relevant sections are "Draw Cuts" and "Blade curvature" a little bit before the middle of the page). Though the tone of the article may seem offensive to some, I still consider the explanations logical at least.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of a Chinese martial artist about this subject of curvature, since in China both the straight, double-edged jian and the curved, single-edged dao were used and are still taught. I was under the impression that the jian was somehow regarded as a more noble weapon than the dao, but then I'm not really knowledgable about that... In Europe there was I believe the same sort of prejudice, and the falchion was maybe less regarded as a knightly weapon than the straight sword.

Overall I do prefer straight weapons but as other said it's just my personal preference, could be cultural but I really don't know.

Oh, and I'm quite sure that medieval japanese armors were not made of bamboo... As far as I know, they were made of metal scales laced with silk. With plates added as firearms developed.

Regards

[Sean Flynt]

I'll offer this Sweeping Generalization: In life-or-death situations, people will tend to use whatever weapon has proven itself to be most efficient at dispatching a given enemy.

More to the point, Europeans used a great many sword forms, both straight and curved. Curved-bladed weapons such as falchions, hangers, sabers and messers can be found throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods everywhere in Europe because they killed people efficiently. Straight, stiff swords proved to be more efficient at killing people in plate armour, so folks who faced such opponents armed themselves accordingly (as the Japanese likely would have done if they'd adopted full plate harnesses). Lacking the resources for fine swords, common infantry dispatched armoured opponents with polearms, which are most effective in the thrust. But notice that short, curved swords are often associated with those common infantrymen. Even some armoured, mounted men favored falchions. And, of course, the Japanese certainly recognized the value of thrust-only arms. Note that the Japanese used both the curved Naginata and the straight Yari. Note also that Europeans used both the straight spear and the curved glaive and war-scythe. Whatever works is what folks use.