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

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.

I'm not gonna get into this discussion at all. Its the internet and that allows you to think whatever you want. But a broad generalization such as you made is actually dependent on so many factors that to simplify it like that is foolish.

For unarmored European urban warfare from ~1550-1750 the rapier was top notch. However, they were retired in favor of the short sword. Also to be noted is that during this time all manner of cut and thrust sword still continued to flourish and evolve.
 
I'm not gonna get into this discussion at all. Its the internet and that allows you to think whatever you want. But a broad generalization such as you made is actually dependent on so many factors that to simplify it like that is foolish.

For unarmored European urban warfare from ~1550-1750 the rapier was top notch. However, they were retired in favor of the short sword. Also to be noted is that during this time all manner of cut and thrust sword still continued to flourish and evolve.

I believe you are referring to "small" sword, not "short" sword.
 
I believe you are referring to "small" sword, not "short" sword.

Yes.

0001174_424.jpeg


Some rapiers have a good deal of length to them and one good aspect of the evolution to the small sword is its more comfortable to wear!
 
I'm not gonna get into this discussion at all. Its the internet and that allows you to think whatever you want. But a broad generalization such as you made is actually dependent on so many factors that to simplify it like that is foolish.

For unarmored European urban warfare from ~1550-1750 the rapier was top notch. However, they were retired in favor of the short sword. Also to be noted is that during this time all manner of cut and thrust sword still continued to flourish and evolve.



I dont know what being on the internet has to do with anything..
The fact is that dueling swords evolved into specialist thrusting weapons with some cutting abilities while military swords maintained solid cutting and thrusting capabilities. The small sword developed because it was easier to carry and also because the italians developed a system of parrying using the blade instead of a dagger or a cloak- so that the blade had to be smaller to manipulate.

In Japan there was not the same distinction between civilian and military weapons. thats probably why the samurai continued to carry a military weapon.
 
Dueling swords in a small part of the world for a relatively short time period. Your general statement prior was that thrusting is superior. I agree but within historical context. Take the rapier to India. Maybe it flourishes and becomes the de facto dueling weapon but maybe it doesn't.

The samurai carried katana because there was no outside forces that made them change their weapon needs-- i.e. cultural isolation. Had rapiers made an appearance there we likely would have seen a different dueling scenario.


My point is that unarmored dueling needs are specific and inherent to the era in history and the geographic area in which they occur. In Japan for example the battlefield arts were largely abandoned during the Tokugawa Shogunate. The Shogunate united Japan from its warring state era (constant civil war) and brought an era of peace relative to the constant fighting that had occurred previous. Budo changed from dealing with armored battlefield opponents to unarmored single combat duels. Why then if thrusting is supposedly so superior is there no rapier-like sword during this period? The answer is for the Japanese there was no need.


Also rapiers (with a very few exceptions) make awful cutting swords. There are a few examples of rapiers with flattened sharpened tips but the vast majority of rapiers lacked proper blade design and bevel to be an effective cutter. In fact rapier were often not sharp at all until the very tip and could be grabbed by the bare hand-- this was the case with many medieval swords. The dull blade of a cut and thrust sword (dull except the final section of the blade) could be gripped to allow for a powerful strike with the pommel of the sword to an armored opponent. Basically the sword could be flipped around and used as a mace.



By the way, in the rapier vs. katana argument all things equal I give 67% of the matches as a draw or to the rapier. Katana were specialized and being shorter cutting swords were at a disadvantage to a rapier. Katana can certainly win the duel it would be a difficult task though. I have no illusions of a katan (or any other sword, including rapier) being inherently superior or perfect.




The Japanese actually had a weapon that gave them an edge over a rapier-- the o-dachi. I can poke you from far away!

norimitsu_odachi.jpg


This last part is obviously a joke :)
 
Dueling swords in a small part of the world for a relatively short time period. Your general statement prior was that thrusting is superior. I agree but within historical context. Take the rapier to India. Maybe it flourishes and becomes the de facto dueling weapon but maybe it doesn't.

The samurai carried katana because there was no outside forces that made them change their weapon needs-- i.e. cultural isolation. Had rapiers made an appearance there we likely would have seen a different dueling scenario.


My point is that unarmored dueling needs are specific and inherent to the era in history and the geographic area in which they occur. In Japan for example the battlefield arts were largely abandoned during the Tokugawa Shogunate. The Shogunate united Japan from its warring state era (constant civil war) and brought an era of peace relative to the constant fighting that had occurred previous. Budo changed from dealing with armored battlefield opponents to unarmored single combat duels. Why then if thrusting is supposedly so superior is there no rapier-like sword during this period? The answer is for the Japanese there was no need.


Also rapiers (with a very few exceptions) make awful cutting swords. There are a few examples of rapiers with flattened sharpened tips but the vast majority of rapiers lacked proper blade design and bevel to be an effective cutter. In fact rapier were often not sharp at all until the very tip and could be grabbed by the bare hand-- this was the case with many medieval swords. The dull blade of a cut and thrust sword (dull except the final section of the blade) could be gripped to allow for a powerful strike with the pommel of the sword to an armored opponent. Basically the sword could be flipped around and used as a mace.



By the way, in the rapier vs. katana argument all things equal I give 67% of the matches as a draw or to the rapier. Katana were specialized and being shorter cutting swords were at a disadvantage to a rapier. Katana can certainly win the duel it would be a difficult task though. I have no illusions of a katan (or any other sword, including rapier) being inherently superior or perfect.




The Japanese actually had a weapon that gave them an edge over a rapier-- the o-dachi. I can poke you from far away!

norimitsu_odachi.jpg


This last part is obviously a joke :)

Why then if thrusting is supposedly so superior is there no rapier-like sword during this period? There are several answers to this question. First Japanese society is deeply conservative and only change when external pressures forces them to do so. They lacked the scientific energy for innovation that the Europeans had at the time. they could adapt other cultures innovations and infact improve upon them- eg muskets- they actually improved upon the original firing mechanism. They didnt have the quality steel required to make the thin speciliast thrusting swords.The most important factor, I believe, is that the sword is a symbolic weapon and represents the samurai power as a privileged warrior class so the design could not deviate much from the battlefield weapon.

A thrusting sword is essentially like a a single hand spear. it is possible to kill someone just by pointing it at your opponent and they might run themselves into the sword. the distance is a major factortoo - held single hand a thrusting sword has a much greater range then a cutting sword and even more than a 2 handed sword. the hand/arm target on a cutting guard position is very open to attack against a thrusting sword, unless the guard is changed to a position similar to a thrusting sword.

The disadvantages of a specialist thrusting sword are that it is difficult to strike against multiple opponents, it lacks the strength to deflect battlefield weapons such as spears and it has no concussing force against armoured opponents. Thats why Europeans maintained a more robust cutting and thrusting sword for the battlefield right up to ww1.

As far as the % advantage given to the rapier against a katana, any small advantage you can get to win a fight and save your life is worth it. I view a fight between a katana and rapier either going the rapier damages the limbs of the katana to the point of not being able to continue or being open to a fatal blow or the katana recklessly moving in for the kill and then it is 50/50 or both die.

Musashi could probably have beaten anyone with a blunt piece of wood.
 
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.

This is not a fair assessment of eastern combat arts.
Please search for Kuroda Tetsuzan on youtube and see how he approaches cutting techniques.
 
Why then if thrusting is supposedly so superior is there no rapier-like sword during this period? There are several answers to this question. First Japanese society is deeply conservative and only change when external pressures forces them to do so. They lacked the scientific energy for innovation that the Europeans had at the time. they could adapt other cultures innovations and infact improve upon them- eg muskets- they actually improved upon the original firing mechanism. They didnt have the quality steel required to make the thin speciliast thrusting swords.The most important factor, I believe, is that the sword is a symbolic weapon and represents the samurai power as a privileged warrior class so the design could not deviate much from the battlefield weapon.

A thrusting sword is essentially like a a single hand spear. it is possible to kill someone just by pointing it at your opponent and they might run themselves into the sword. the distance is a major factortoo - held single hand a thrusting sword has a much greater range then a cutting sword and even more than a 2 handed sword. the hand/arm target on a cutting guard position is very open to attack against a thrusting sword, unless the guard is changed to a position similar to a thrusting sword.

The disadvantages of a specialist thrusting sword are that it is difficult to strike against multiple opponents, it lacks the strength to deflect battlefield weapons such as spears and it has no concussing force against armoured opponents. Thats why Europeans maintained a more robust cutting and thrusting sword for the battlefield right up to ww1.

As far as the % advantage given to the rapier against a katana, any small advantage you can get to win a fight and save your life is worth it. I view a fight between a katana and rapier either going the rapier damages the limbs of the katana to the point of not being able to continue or being open to a fatal blow or the katana recklessly moving in for the kill and then it is 50/50 or both die.

Musashi could probably have beaten anyone with a blunt piece of wood.

Well written. As I said (which you expanded on nicely) there was no need in Japan for changing weapons and no desire either. Lol you called the Japanese conservative-- that's like calling the surface of the sun warm!

I have read everything written by and written about Miyamoto Musashi and in my younger days when I lived for a short time in Japan I even got to spend 9 months training in a juttejutsu style that was a branch off of Musashi's father's style.

It is very rare to be able to simply read a book and increase your budo but if you can read and understand what Musashi means it will indeed make your budo better. He certainly is a compelling figure and by accounts other than his own a fantastic fighter.
 
Back
Top