Longsword vs Katana, Rapier vs Scimitar, CUTTING VS THRUSTING?

marceloISbest said:
Yield (engineering) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see on this chart, piano wire has the 3rd highest ultimate strength overall behind Carbon Fiber and UHMWPE and the highest of all the metals. It is made of A228 high carbon spring steel usually.

Ive looked at and admired Mission Knives quite a bit, with their Ti blades. They show alot of vids/pics demonstrating the plasticity and toughness of the titanium blades. With that said, how does Ti and Ti alloys compare to Carbon spring steels in flexibility/strength?


Also, the military uses Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds to take out enemy tanks at over 2000m, depending on atmospheric conditions, but detailed specs are classified. Anyway, these rounds are basically long, narrow darts made of Depleted Uranium. Would it make it easier to penetrate plate if the sword, spear-point, or arrowhead were made of DU? Kind of a crazy question, I know, and it would most likely be much much heavier, just wondering if there would be any difference in armor penetration having the weapon or point made of something so dense?

This is what they look like:
M829 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Mass X Velocity = Force. If you can keep the velocity constant the heavier tip will do more damage/ penetrate better. Of course the tip also has to not deform under the impact to a degree that excessively changes impact surface. Hence iron sword lighter but better than Lead sword :)
 
Eh Mass x Acceleration is Force. Force doesnt exactly have much to do with penetration actually. I think you are thinking of Kinetic Energy. Which is = 1/2mv^2. I know what you mean though. Transferring the most amount of KE to the target as possible. And I know Pb is not good to use, hence my comparison in the earlier post.
 
F=ma. Mass x acceleration. A heavier sword has better cutting power because the momentum is greater. Swinging a sword faster increases the impact force but not necessarily the cutting power. Cutting properly is using technique (in kenjutsu we 'wring the towel' on impact) and the momentum of the sword to break the initial resistance upon impact.
 
/ end thread CLAYMORE

WS-120276.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cutting leaves you more open to attack than thrusting so if you planned on that then I'd carry either a shield or a main gauche.
It's why I always laugh at the eastern arts. Big flashy movements = dead.
 
Ummm..no.

If that were the case, then simple natural selection would have ensured that thrusting sword arts dominated every culture. The fact that European and Eastern Sword arts thad both cutting and thrusting indicates that neither is inherently superior.
 
It has nothing to do with how effective it is. The more aggressive a person is the more inclined they are to swing rather than thrust (or at least that's what I've observed).
 
Of course he is. But it has nothing to do with the way skilled swordsmen fight. Cutting properly requires considerable skill. A cut will begin from a guard position, and end in a guard position and against an opponent you know will thrust there are certain guard positions that are highly effective. You wont be made any more exposed then you would if you limited yourself to a thrust. To put it simplistically, high holds the advantage against low, center holds the advantage against high and low holds the advantage against center.
 
Alex Good said:
Cutting leaves you more open to attack than thrusting so if you planned on that then I'd carry either a shield or a main gauche.
It's why I always laugh at the eastern arts. Big flashy movements = dead.
Click to expand...

If you think kenjutsu is big flashy movements you are watching too many YouTube videos of wannabe LARPers pretending to know how to swordfight. Most of the Western sword experts agree that kenjutsu and Renaissance swordfighting techniques are very similar.

Katana are also excellent thrusting weapons. If you use hirazuki properly you thrust with a slight curve to match the curve of a sword. Since a katana has boshi (temper line that extends to the point of the sword) the tip is very hard and sharp and capable of piercing all but full-plate.

Boshi:
boshi-japanese-katana.jpg




Alex it sounds like you are as ignorant as the Japanese fanboys who think a katana can cut through a car. So sad.
 
Alex Good said:
Cutting leaves you more open to attack than thrusting so if you planned on that then I'd carry either a shield or a main gauche.
It's why I always laugh at the eastern arts. Big flashy movements = dead.
Click to expand...

I think the best comparison is boxing.

An inexperienced brawler who throws haymakers (big,flashy,powerful) will easily be picked apart by a technician's jab.

Generally, straight punches are safer and you are less open to attack when you throw them rather than hooks or other round punches which is what makes them very important for amateur boxing.

However, at a higher level hooks and uppercuts are just as important as straight punches if not more so (depends on your personal style). If you limit yourself to only thrusts you are at a significant disadvantage. In the end what is important is proper technique.

I am guessing here, but I imagine thrusts are easier to parry and counter than short, sharp cuts.
 
Gurkha said:
I think the best comparison is boxing.

An inexperienced brawler who throws haymakers (big,flashy,powerful) will easily be picked apart by a technician's jab.

Generally, straight punches are safer and you are less open to attack when you throw them rather than hooks or other round punches which is what makes them very important for amateur boxing.

However, at a higher level hooks and uppercuts are just as important as straight punches if not more so (depends on your personal style). If you limit yourself to only thrusts you are at a significant disadvantage. In the end what is important is proper technique.

I am guessing here, but I imagine thrusts are easier to parry and counter than short, sharp cuts.
Click to expand...

Thrusts are also countered by lateral movement. In both kenjutsu and Western arts attacking and defending at the same time is paramount. Both Renaissance martial arts and Japanese martial arts teach many techniques that are a sidestep and strike combined.

Pretty good boxing analogy there. Basically any technique used at an improper time can be disastrous.
 
SweetDaddySiki said:
Ummm..no.

If that were the case, then simple natural selection would have ensured that thrusting sword arts dominated every culture. The fact that European and Eastern Sword arts thad both cutting and thrusting indicates that neither is inherently superior.
Click to expand...

When Europeans started to apply scientific methods from the renaissance onwards they evolved at a much faster rate than any other culture and dominated the world. They invented penicillin, electricic light bulbs, flying machines, efficient guns etc.
Their prefered method of individual sword combat was with long thin thrusting weapons.
 
Gurkha said:
I think the best comparison is boxing.

An inexperienced brawler who throws haymakers (big,flashy,powerful) will easily be picked apart by a technician's jab.

Generally, straight punches are safer and you are less open to attack when you throw them rather than hooks or other round punches which is what makes them very important for amateur boxing.

However, at a higher level hooks and uppercuts are just as important as straight punches if not more so (depends on your personal style). If you limit yourself to only thrusts you are at a significant disadvantage. In the end what is important is proper technique.

I am guessing here, but I imagine thrusts are easier to parry and counter than short, sharp cuts.
Click to expand...

I think your boxing analogy can be improved by equating punching with your knuckles with thrusting with the point and stricking with your forearms with cutting with the blade. Jast as there are a wide variety of different angles with hooks, uppercuts etc- there are just as many varied andles of attack with the point of the blade by thrusting. striking with your forearms is simply less efficient.
 
esotamoc said:
I think your boxing analogy can be improved by equating punching with your knuckles with thrusting with the point and stricking with your forearms with cutting with the blade. Jast as there are a wide variety of different angles with hooks, uppercuts etc- there are just as many varied andles of attack with the point of the blade by thrusting. striking with your forearms is simply less efficient.
Click to expand...

Slashing is no less efficient than stabbing in terms of winning a sword fight. Thrusting arts are no better than slashing arts. Just different. Better in certain situations sure but cutting is as well. The fact that Europeans conquered most of the world has nothing to do with their sword arts as the thrusting rapier did not conquer the world.
 
esotamoc said:
When Europeans started to apply scientific methods from the renaissance onwards they evolved at a much faster rate than any other culture and dominated the world. They invented penicillin, electricic light bulbs, flying machines, efficient guns etc.
Their prefered method of individual sword combat was with long thin thrusting weapons.
Click to expand...

The rapier was at first a cutting and thrusting weapon. It was adopted because it was a very handy sword to carry around with you in civilian clothes, changing into a duelling and civilian self defense tool. Because it was not used for war, when battlefield swords like the longsword became obsolete, the rapier remained and continued to evolve. It got lighter and narrower and even easier to carry at your side. This rendered the blade useless for cutting, so european fencing grew into a thrusting art.

On the battlefield cutting and thrusting swords remained the norm until sword finally vanished from most western armies in the 20th century.
 
SweetDaddySiki said:
The rapier was at first a cutting and thrusting weapon. It was adopted because it was a very handy sword to carry around with you in civilian clothes, changing into a duelling and civilian self defense tool. Because it was not used for war, when battlefield swords like the longsword became obsolete, the rapier remained and continued to evolve. It got lighter and narrower and even easier to carry at your side. This rendered the blade useless for cutting, so european fencing grew into a thrusting art.

On the battlefield cutting and thrusting swords remained the norm until sword finally vanished from most western armies in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

It also got shorter I believe, evolving into the short sword around the mid 1700's. Sweet Daddy confirmation on that?
 
supernova said:
Slashing is no less efficient than stabbing in terms of winning a sword fight. Thrusting arts are no better than slashing arts. Just different. Better in certain situations sure but cutting is as well. The fact that Europeans conquered most of the world has nothing to do with their sword arts as the thrusting rapier did not conquer the world.
Click to expand...

In unarmoured single combat with single sword and no shield thrusting is superior. On the battle field it is different- you need something more versatile there.

the fact the Europeans conquered the world had a lot to do with their military technology. they applied the same scienntific enerdy to single sword duelling during this period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,885
Messages
55,452,299
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top