possible crossover?

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

Ah yes... It seems that he has a book out. Hmmm. Does anyone know what other cultures used a straight, single-handed, fairly long, relatively light, double-edged cut and thrust sword that I might want to look into?

Also, where can I find an essay that talks about comparisons of the various one handed cut and thrust swords that are part of the Western martial arts, and how they compare?

[Jonathan Ellis]

I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger". Would you mind explaining?

according to modern marvels on he history channel the katana blade has a profile perfected for cutting; with an edge that "never needs sharpening". According to the discovery channel's weapon master show the construction differs with the "handle" and "blade" steels being folded separately of two different types of steel then forge welded together as the form is created. this creates a soft core and a very hard edge that stays sharp even after cutting. In contrast the european sword is made of one piece of steel that is of one type of steel. The core is softer because of the tempering methods. The edge must be sharpened on a regular basis and cutting edge is not designed to cut through people(from shoulder to hip) in one pass. This info was presented to me on these programs and is the basis of my thought process. If these things are true then it would seem to make sense to pair the strongest fighting system with the strongest tool. if this information is not true then please tell me what I missed what is wrong and why.

[Stacy Clifford]

Please do a bit of searching on this forum to help answer your questions regarding forging and edge hardness. That exact topic has been addressed here many times.

[Benjamin Smith]

There are actually several examples of straight double edged swords in Africa and the middle east. You'll have to do most of that research yourself though. There was a new book that came out on middle eastern weaponry recently. We don't specialize in those weapons, we specialize in European weaponry and fighting styles in the Renaissance period specifically and you can't expect us to know everything about every sword ever used in every culture.

[Gene Tausk]

I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger". Would you mind explaining?

according to modern marvels on he history channel the katana blade has a profile perfected for cutting; with an edge that "never needs sharpening". According to the discovery channel's weapon master show the construction differs with the "handle" and "blade" steels being folded separately of two different types of steel then forge welded together as the form is created. this creates a soft core and a very hard edge that stays sharp even after cutting. In contrast the european sword is made of one piece of steel that is of one type of steel. The core is softer because of the tempering methods. The edge must be sharpened on a regular basis and cutting edge is not designed to cut through people(from shoulder to hip) in one pass. This info was presented to me on these programs and is the basis of my thought process. If these things are true then it would seem to make sense to pair the strongest fighting system with the strongest tool. if this information is not true then please tell me what I missed what is wrong and why.

Jonathan - I am going to echo Stacy's comments here. Do a search of this Forum, not to mention the articles, and you will have more than enough information for you to draw your own conclusions. I can only add the following:

- getting your information about the katana, or just about anything else for that matter, from the History Channel as your primary source, does not bode well. The History Channel also does programs on UFO's, "psychic" powers and the Bermuda Triangle (and what these have to do with history is beyond me). A program on The History Channel is not what I would call a "primary source." It's more what I would call a "down a six pack on a slow night for a laugh" source.

- You seem to be attempting to fuse together an Asian weapon with Western fighting manuals which were designed for other types of weapons, such as the longsword, sword and buckler, etc. AFAIK, there is no primary source in Western sword arts that uses the katana. If you want to learn how to use the katana, you will have to go to Japanese sources.

Once again, reference through this Forum for answers. I'm sure you will find plenty.

[Jaron Bernstein]

And it also helps with chi circulation and cuts through anything by its mere presence. More seriously, a katana is a just sharp piece of metal, just as any sword from any origin.

[Michael Olsen]

Hi Jonathan,

As others have said, television is not exactly a very highly respected medium for scholarly understanding - they frequently present misinformation or information that is simply wrong.

This has, basically, miseld you to believe a couple of things that are not true.

according to modern marvels on he history channel the katana blade has a profile perfected for cutting;

This begs the question: for cutting what? A katana is definitely not as good at cutting wood as an axe, and not as capable at delicate tissue work as a scalpel. In fact, the edge geometry (the shape of the edge itself) among katana changed overtime, just as it did in European swords.

The edge of a katana was never "perfected" - it changed as the combat it faced changed.

with an edge that "never needs sharpening".

Katana need sharpening, like any other sword or anything else that cuts. How do we know this? There is an entire occupation (that has been made into an art) concerned with sharpening and polishing katana. Like many things in the Japanese sword arts, the sharpening and polishing of the sword is a complex and very intense process that is both time consuming and expensive. However, it does not yield the mythical blade that cuts through other swords, rocks, machine gun barrels, or a horse and rider in one fell swoop.

According to the discovery channel's weapon master show the construction differs with the "handle" and "blade" steels being folded separately of two different types of steel then forge welded together as the form is created. this creates a soft core and a very hard edge that stays sharp even after cutting.

This seems to be about half true. The Japanese used different types of steel for the Shin-Gane (body steel) and for side, back, and blade steels. The patterns of application differed over time, allowing for different performance variables. However, a general pattern did emerge: a softer core and a harder edge.

The edge, like any sharp edge, does dull and chip, however, and the sword, like any other, can bend and break.

In contrast the european sword is made of one piece of steel that is of one type of steel. The core is softer because of the tempering methods. The edge must be sharpened on a regular basis and cutting edge is not designed to cut through people(from shoulder to hip) in one pass.

I can't say whether or not the European swords were designed to cut from shoulder to hip in one pass, or whether the Japanese swords were either. (Is there any documented evidence of this?) However, I do know both were designed to kill. As far as I can see, against an unarmored target, both swords are easily capable of doing their job.

An important element to consider is that both Japanese and European weapons and martial techniques were, in some sense, created in a vaccuum. That is, the Japanese were not fighting the Europeans and the Europeans were not fighting the Japanese. So the weapons the Japanese created were designed to fight other Japanese and Asian countries. Likewise, the arts they developed for their weapons were targeted against other Japanese and Asian arts. Europeans created their weapons and martial systems to fight other Europeans. Trying to mix the two, as I said before, would be a bit like trying to play tennis with a badminton racket.

[Jonathan Ellis]

hello again all.

let me try to clarify further what I mean to convey the thought.

This begs the question: for cutting what? A katana is definitely not as good at cutting wood as an axe

first of all axes chop wood, splitting them with brute strength with the grain or against it. if you have chopped wood at all you know this.

and not as capable at delicate tissue work as a scalpel

Ok, a scalpel? that is not even a weapon (of course it could be used as one, but not the point). The point is that if you want to compare cutting, we are talking flesh here, you have to compare it to another obgect designed with the same base thought as it. The axe is close since it can be used to chop into flesh and wood. a scalpel does not work because it is designed to cut flesh to save lives not destroy them.

the edge geometry (the shape of the edge itself) among katana changed overtime, just as it did in European swords.

Ok what is this, an effort to shut me up? Of course it changed, but if you look at what we call a katana now or a longsword now we are talking about the last version created, the epitomy if you will. this has no bearing on the argument one way or the other.

There is an entire occupation (that has been made into an art) concerned with sharpening and polishing katana

This is the original sharpening. I am talking about sharpening after every battle, and of course it can and does chip, bend and break. To not do so would fly in the face of newton and his laws of thermal dynamics. It does not however need to be sharpened after a few rounds of cutting like many European blades do.

it does not yield the mythical blade that cuts through other swords, rocks, machine gun barrels, or a horse and rider in one fell swoop

Uh, I, first of all, know this and, second of all, did not suggest that this could be possible. I have done enough research to realize that those things are not.

I can't say whether or not the European swords were designed to cut from shoulder to hip in one pass, or whether the Japanese swords were either. (Is there any documented evidence of this?)

Yes there is. In fact, there is an entire sub-sport within Japanese swordsmanship dedicated to cutting. These competitions are centered around the goal of slicing human analogs with a single action. Masters of this action produce a cut that is clean and smooth, despite the target being several solid inches in diameter.

However, I do know both were designed to kill. As far as I can see, against an unarmored target, both swords are easily capable of doing their job.

This actually helps my argument more than yours. By this statement you show ignorance because any weapon can kill; it is how the weapon does the action that determines the strength and efficacy of that weapon. the longsword's geometry shows us that it placed an emphasis on thrusting into an enemy's body. It came to a straight point to take advantage of the small spaces between armor plates. The katana's geometry shows that it emphasizes cutting into an enemy. the blade was designed to kill despite the enemy having a layer of armor. that being said euopean steel armor would stop a katana's cut.

Trying to mix the two, as I said before, would be a bit like trying to play tennis with a badminton racket.

Using the logic that went into this cutting remark I could easily say that comparing the scalpel to to the katana is like comparing the flint-lock musket to an M-16. Yeah both kill but what kills better? A better idea of what i want to do is play tennis but instead of using the traditional wooden racket I want to play with the state of the art carbon-fiber one. A katana is still a sword and is within the same "sport".

Jonathan - I am going to echo Stacy's comments here. Do a search of this Forum, not to mention the articles, and you will have more than enough information for you to draw your own conclusions.

As for this comment let me just say that I have done so on both fronts. If I stated any conclusion I may have come to the comment might look like " Well, if you've made up your mind why are you asking this question? Stick with the traditional way of fighting and shut up". I am asking the question because I want the best. People have said that there is no perfect sword, however there is a best sword, just as there is a best gun. There are many guns and no gun can do all the jobs that are out there for guns to do, however there is a gun that can do many / most of them. this means that is is not perfect but is the best for most situations the wielder will come across. The same logic that can be used to determine the best gun can and should be used to determine the best sword. This is what the practitioners of these martial arts did as the technology changed. if the had the ability to they would have made their swords from titanium alloy because it is stronger and lighter than steel. using this mindset instead of a purist mindset will allow the practitioner to achieve an understanding of why something is not just that it is.

A program on The History Channel is not what I would call a "primary source."

Just because there are regrettably some stupid shows on a particular channel it does not mean that all information presented therein is false. Most shows are as credible as a history book or encyclopedia. Also what about the dicovery channel where most of my information came from? they are usually thorough in documentation and there word is fairly valid. Please look into my claim before slamming it and calling me an idiot. That is not very conducive to getting me to see your way.

[Gene Tausk]

Jonathan: you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and are finding "insult" where none was intended and none was given. Take a step back, breath and look at this rationally. I will also repeat my admonition that you look through the Forum and the articles because much of what you ask has already been asnwered.

[Gene Tausk]

You wrote:


"As for this comment let me just say that I have done so on both fronts. If I stated any conclusion I may have come to the comment might look like " Well, if you've made up your mind why are you asking this question? Stick with the traditional way of fighting and shut up". I am asking the question because I want the best. People have said that there is no perfect sword, however there is a best sword, just as there is a best gun. There are many guns and no gun can do all the jobs that are out there for guns to do, however there is a gun that can do many / most of them. this means that is is not perfect but is the best for most situations the wielder will come across. The same logic that can be used to determine the best gun can and should be used to determine the best sword. This is what the practitioners of these martial arts did as the technology changed. if the had the ability to they would have made their swords from titanium alloy because it is stronger and lighter than steel. using this mindset instead of a purist mindset will allow the practitioner to achieve an understanding of why something is not just that it is."

I don't think you have read this article:

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

[Stacy Clifford]

if the had the ability to they would have made their swords from titanium alloy because it is stronger and lighter than steel.

OK, I have to comment on this myth. I saw a good article on this idea a few years ago (on SFI of all places) that pointed out good reasons why titanium is still not as good for swords as steel. First, titanium is approximately equal to steel in structural strength (meaning it doesn't bend any easier) and slightly less hard than steel (meaning the edge will chip, scratch and dent a little easier). The fact that it is lighter weight than an equal volume of steel makes it stronger pound for pound, but not stronger in the absolute sense. It's just like a 150 lb. guy and a 200 lb. guy both being able to lift a maximum of 400 lbs. One is more impressive than the other, but the net result is the same either way.

Second, a sword's cutting power is determined by its momentum (mass x velocity), all else being equal (edge geometry, blade construction, etc.). Suppose a steel sword weighs 3 lbs. and an identical titanium sword weighs 2 lbs. You've lost 1/3 of your mass from the momentum equation with titanium. If you can swing the steel sword at 50 mph, your momentum is 3 x 50 = 150. In order to achieve the same momentum with titanium, your velocity has to increase by 50% to 75 mph to compensate for the loss of mass. If all other factors are equal, momentum is what will determine how deeply two swords will bite into a target. So the question is, will a difference of one pound off an object that only weighed three to start with allow you to increase the speed of your swing by 50%? Very doubtful. If swords actually weighed 40 lbs. then this might mean something, but at low weights that we handle easily, the small increase in speed is not likely to make up for the loss of mass in determining the amount of damage done. The warrior using it may not tire as much from a single blow with a titanium sword, but he will have to increase his effort (probably the number of blows) to cause the same amount of damage that a steel sword would in just one.

So basically while titanium is a fantastic replacement for structural steel in airplanes, bicycles and buildings, providing equal performance with less mass, it doesn't provide equal performance when serving the purposes of the sword.

[Stewart Sackett]

hello again all.
A better idea of what i want to do is play tennis but instead of using the traditional wooden racket I want to play with the state of the art carbon-fiber one. A katana is still a sword and is within the same "sport".

This statement does suggest that you are under the impression the Katana is superior to the Longsword. I simply do not believe the evidence supports this position.

It is true that Japanese swordsmanship includes a tradition of test cutting but I’ve never seen any cutting demonstration with a katana that could not be replicated with a Longsword (although the weapons do slice differently). So if 2 weapons have comparable weights & cutting power but 1 offers superior reach, superior thrusting ability & a false edge which increases the available angles from which a person can deliver a cut…what exactly is it that makes the katana “the state of the art carbon-fiber one”?

P.S. as for the original metaphor (tennis with a badminton racket): both the longsword & the katana were designed to fight human beings but specifically to combat people wearing armour. Just as in tennis & badminton the form of the racket is dictated by what’s being hit, in combat the form of a weapon is effected by the form of those defenses it is designed to overcome.

[Jonathan Ellis]

well you have one thing right I do believe that the katana is a superior blade. I also think that the japanese swordsmanship is inferior to WMA. so yes I am trying a hybrid(if I thought that the longsword was superior then this article would not exist). The first thing I have to address is that stupid tennis metaphor. You cannot play tennis with a badmitten racket because it was not designed to take that kind of force. It is a little insulting because it implies that the katana is inferior, not even equal, to the longsword. I have read the article of no beast blade, and I must say that while he is right that no blade is better than another because each has a job to do also understand that most of the jobs for swords have dried up. This is the fate of most weapons: as technology improves that which cannot be upgraded becomes obsolete and discarded. This leaves two varieties of sword in my mind: one handed coupled with something or two handed. In my mind the construction of a two handed weapon should be long enough to exceed the reach of one handed swords but light enough to be used with one hand, so the length will be shorter than a true two handed sword,this leaves the hand and a half sword and the katana for what I want now does this help explain what I mean? Also, about the titanium I'm glad that you have knowledge on this and am happy to be wrong but the point was that tradition meant squat to them and if something better came along they would have adopted it. If I am wrong which I might be please explain why I am wrong. I am not that intelligent and need things spelled out for me. thank you for your time.

[Gene Tausk]

well you have one thing right I do believe that the katana is a superior blade. I also think that the japanese swordsmanship is inferior to WMA. so yes I am trying a hybrid(if I thought that the longsword was superior then this article would not exist). The first thing I have to address is that stupid tennis metaphor. You cannot play tennis with a badmitten racket because it was not designed to take that kind of force. It is a little insulting because it implies that the katana is inferior, not even equal, to the longsword. I have read the article of no beast blade, and I must say that while he is right that no blade is better than another because each has a job to do also understand that most of the jobs for swords have dried up. This is the fate of most weapons: as technology improves that which cannot be upgraded becomes obsolete and discarded. This leaves two varieties of sword in my mind: one handed coupled with something or two handed. In my mind the construction of a two handed weapon should be long enough to exceed the reach of one handed swords but light enough to be used with one hand, so the length will be shorter than a true two handed sword,this leaves the hand and a half sword and the katana for what I want now does this help explain what I mean? Also, about the titanium I'm glad that you have knowledge on this and am happy to be wrong but the point was that tradition meant squat to them and if something better came along they would have adopted it. If I am wrong which I might be please explain why I am wrong. I am not that intelligent and need things spelled out for me. thank you for your time.

Something else to read:

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

And this:

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

So you think the katana is a superior blade and that Japanese swordsmanship is inferior to Western swordsmanship? And you base this sweeping generalization on........?


Before you answer, let me just state that any sentence beginning with "I saw it on the History Channel/Discovery Channel/PBS/NBC/Nat Geo Channel/The Playboy Channel or The Violence Channel or anything ending with "Channel" or anything with "website" will not be taken seriously.

[Sam Nankivell]

well you have one thing right I do believe that the katana is a superior blade. I also think that the japanese swordsmanship is inferior to WMA. so yes I am trying a hybrid(if I thought that the longsword was superior then this article would not exist). The first thing I have to address is that stupid tennis metaphor. You cannot play tennis with a badmitten racket because it was not designed to take that kind of force. It is a little insulting because it implies that the katana is inferior, not even equal, to the longsword. I have read the article of no beast blade, and I must say that while he is right that no blade is better than another because each has a job to do also understand that most of the jobs for swords have dried up. This is the fate of most weapons: as technology improves that which cannot be upgraded becomes obsolete and discarded. This leaves two varieties of sword in my mind: one handed coupled with something or two handed. In my mind the construction of a two handed weapon should be long enough to exceed the reach of one handed swords but light enough to be used with one hand, so the length will be shorter than a true two handed sword,this leaves the hand and a half sword and the katana for what I want now does this help explain what I mean? Also, about the titanium I'm glad that you have knowledge on this and am happy to be wrong but the point was that tradition meant squat to them and if something better came along they would have adopted it. If I am wrong which I might be please explain why I am wrong. I am not that intelligent and need things spelled out for me. thank you for your time.

Actually, I think the tennis metaphor did not imply the longsword was any better than the katana, but rather just illustrated that you should use the proper tool for the proper job. A tennis racket isn't fast enough to play badminton with, while a badminton racket isn't strong enough to hit a tennis ball.

But that's besides the point.

Although I understand you might have a personal preference for the katana, no evidence exists that shows it is "superior" to any other form of sword on the planet. I have a personal preference for the longsword, but that doesn't mean I think it is in any way superior to any other form of hand-and-a-half sword.

Also, one of the main points many people are trying to get across here is that most longsword arts are simply not made for the katana. A katana is quite a bit shorter than the longsword (longsword average blade length 34" to 38", katana average blade length 27" to 30", to my knowledge) and lacks the crossguard that is integral to many longsword techniques. Likewise, try using the longsword in the manner of a katana and you'll end up conking yourself in the head with the crossguard. Sure, both have two-handed handles and weigh around the same, but both handle quite differently. A katana is more blade heavy than a longsword, it also is quite a bit thicker than a longsword. This produces a cutting style that is quite different than the longsword, which means longsword strikes might not work as well with the katana.

Sure, you can try mixing WMA with a katana, but why not simply learn kenjutsu with a katana or WMA with a longsword? After all, that's what they were designed around. Japanese martial arts are no less inferior than Western martial arts (wow, for once, I am defending the east against perceived "western" martial superiority ).

Of course, you can always use a grossabel (hand and a half saber) or a kriegmesser (war knife) if you want to learn longsword. These weapons have roughly the same dimensions of the longsword, but are curved just like a katana. It is possible that these weapons were used in the same manner as a longsword.