|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 4, 2021 20:32:50 GMT
Alright, well, the only personal experience I have out of the three scenarios listed here is the fight between two inexperienced people. I've done plenty of backyard brawls with my brothers and friends (none of us having had any kind of training with any kind of melee weapons), using wood poles/sticks of various lengths, blunt steel swords, fencing foils, foam and PVC trainers, and polymer training weapons of various kinds.
My brother is about the same height and weight as me, has about the same level of athletic ability as I do, and has the same amount of experience with untrained sparring that I do. In other words, I'd put him on the same skill level as me. In all the fights we've done over the years, whichever of us had the longer weapon consistently "won" the fight. We'd keep track of solid hits to vital areas, but obviously we're no medical experts, so maybe in a real fight things would be different.
Even when sparring with knives or daggers, an extra inch or two of blade was enough to give whoever had it a significant advantage.
As other have mentioned, we'd often get double hits, usually a "fatal" blow from one guy and a crippling but not instantly fatal blow from the other guy.
In a real fight between two equally unskilled people, one with a longsword and one with a katana, I'd bet on the person with the longsword each time. From my inexperienced experience, the longsword wielder would probably keep tagging the katana guy with small cuts and thrusts to the hands, arms, legs, and head until the katana guy was too cut up and debilitated from pain and blood loss to properly respond to a fatal attack. Then the longsword guy would finish him, most likely with good thrust to the body. Or the katana guy would rush and they'd both get fatal hits in. In a rare case, the katana guy might be able to rush in past the longsword point and get a fatal hit in or initiate a grapple.
As for medium to high level skill, I have no idea.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,260
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Aug 4, 2021 21:07:55 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana).
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Aug 4, 2021 21:14:01 GMT
Good observation. At higher skill levels, a clear reach advantage is even harder to overcome. We are not talking about 2-3" of difference, that would be easier to compensate. We are talking about 9-12" difference of not just a point that's further away, but 9-12" additional edge, I talked about the extra area in coverage before. Higher skills of the fencers enable more consistent performance and better exploitation of an advantage this clear.
This is not to even mention all the extra tools in the longsword fencer's kit, such as have a double edge to enable lots and lots of false edge motions for easier and faster riposte, the overall distribution of the weight on the blade enables more precise point control, the better protection of the crossguard and manipulation of the opponent's blade in bind, the assistance of leverage in wrestling and takedown, using hilt components to hit opponents at close range.
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Aug 4, 2021 21:17:04 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana). I think that's exactly right. We need to consider the context weapons are used. Some weapons clearly have advantages over others for a reason, if you look at the evolution and history of these weapons. If you look at a katana and a Filipino ginunting, it would be disingenuous to acknowledge the former's edge over the latter in a open 1 on 1 duel. But the ginunting is designed for jungle warfare, so there's a good reason for them to exist in that form.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,260
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Aug 4, 2021 21:27:12 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana). I think that's exactly right. We need to consider the context weapons are used. Some weapons clearly have advantages over others for a reason, if you look at the evolution and history of these weapons. If you look at a katana and a Filipino ginunting, it would be disingenuous to acknowledge the former's edge over the latter in a open 1 on 1 duel. But the ginunting is designed for jungle warfare, so there's a good reason for them to exist in that form. And the ginunting, like the kukri, offers much day to day utility function, because over 99% of the time you're just using it as a tool, not weapon.
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 4, 2021 21:57:58 GMT
This will probably make me very unpopular but I find these fanboy arguments rather dumb and often the arguers not very informed. I mean, by experience the vast majority have never held antique weapons nor have they researched, so really, it boils down to an argument between people who like shabby Chinese replica or katana versus the shabby Chinese replica of WMA weapons. Me, I say apples and oranges and probably no point in comparing. Especially if all your information is what some hanwei line is like. I’d rather hoard every genuine example I can get and let the ghosts sort it out. [Fun fact: in Japanese, "katana" just means single-edged swords. So a pattern-1796 British Light Cavalry sabre would be called a katana in Japanese. A bronze khopesh is also a katana. However in English, I think when we say "katana" we specifically have a certain type of Japanese sword in mind. Very true, Japanese classify them as uchigatana. Calling it katana is like calling spada de lato, swords, sure they are but not all swords are spada.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 22:16:40 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana). Do you have a source for that? In either context and genre? Specifically your take on katana?
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Aug 4, 2021 22:34:48 GMT
Well, I'm not convinced a longer sword isn't generally an advantage. Sure, I wouldn't be able to exploit that advantage against a more skilled opponent, but given two fighters of comparable skill, I would think the longsword's reach would be an advantage over the katana.
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 4, 2021 23:06:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Aug 4, 2021 23:15:33 GMT
"And if two shall fight with staves or swords, or what weapons soever, the one of them having his weapon longer than the perfect length, and the other shorter than the perfect length, he that has the longer has the vantage, because the shorter can make no true cross in true time."
George Silver, Paradoxes, Chap. 28
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 23:37:59 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana). Do you have a source for that? In either context and genre? Specifically your take on katana? While I wouldn't agree they were used mainly for them, I would argue they were better suited to one on one duels, that and they were the most frequently used weapons in one on one duels, and the battle field normally favoured pole arms and bows And if we count the book of five rings by musashi, it gives evidence. Not saying whose right or wrong, but just throwing some evidence out there
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 5, 2021 0:17:32 GMT
If you read the Princeton study you will see that until the Onin War they were the chief means of non-bow death. Mind you once civil war began in earnest (onin war) pikes became dominant and swords a close quarters weapon for when formations collapsed into chaos. But the same thing could be said about European warfare. Like in Japan, war in Europe ca 1580 was pike and shot not sword and shot. Same logic could claim western swords were only dueling weapons.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,260
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Aug 5, 2021 0:49:53 GMT
Katana were mainly (specifically) used one on one in duels with other Katana in Japan while versatile European Longsword were used in every way vs most weapons and most countries & cultures (faced a larger crucible and certainly more than Japanese Katana). Do you have a source for that? In either context and genre? Specifically your take on katana? I should have specified main weapon vs spear, bow and such...but that could apply to longsword as well, so I'll plead ignorance (translation incorrect) thinking period where only elite warrior class could wield and settle things with duels. Personal defense Katana for sure was used. Longsword I think more used due to larger geographic area, meaning longsword faced many more different weapon types and combinations compared to tiny (by scale) mainly isolated Japan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2021 0:53:48 GMT
If you read the Princeton study you will see that until the Onin War they were the chief means of non-bow death. Mind you civil war began in earnest (onin war) pikes became dominant and swords a close quarters weapon for when formations collapsed into chaos. But the same thing could be said about European warfare. Like in Japan, war in Europe ca 1580 was pike and shot not sword and shot. Same logic could claim western swords were only dueling weapons. Thank you for that, I'm going to enjoy reading this once I get home
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2021 1:01:36 GMT
If you read the Princeton study you will see that until the Onin War they were the chief means of non-bow death. Mind you civil war began in earnest (onin war) pikes became dominant and swords a close quarters weapon for when formations collapsed into chaos. But the same thing could be said about European warfare. Like in Japan, war in Europe ca 1580 was pike and shot not sword and shot. Same logic could claim western swords were only dueling weapons. Except for the rodelero
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 5, 2021 1:07:53 GMT
Although Spain stoped fielding them because commanders had the stupid habit of having them charge intact pike formations instead of broken ones. The result being carnage of swordsmen. But yeah, swords of any land, excellent close quarters and personal defense weapon. Not so excellent on the field.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,260
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on Aug 5, 2021 1:13:20 GMT
"And if two shall fight with staves or swords, or what weapons soever, the one of them having his weapon longer than the perfect length, and the other shorter than the perfect length, he that has the longer has the vantage, because the shorter can make no true cross in true time."
George Silver, Paradoxes, Chap. 28I think I'll just stick with the length advantage (particularly sniping with that double edge) and versatility facing so many different weapon combinations.
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 5, 2021 1:30:18 GMT
That’s a lot of speculation, and if so, why were swords so seldom a field weapon in Europe? See spears, absolutely a ton of spears, or pikes, or lances, or long bows, maces even and I imagine handing given mail. Not so many sources about the Hundred Years’ War, or Italian Wars being a sword war apart from Spain using them once formations had collapsed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2021 1:30:56 GMT
Although Spain stoped fielding them because commanders had the stupid habit of having them charge intact pike formations instead of broken ones. The result being carnage of swordsmen. But yeah, swords of any land, excellent close quarters and personal defense weapon. Not so excellent on the field. Yes and no. Waxing, waning and waxing again. ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com/2012/06/rodela-rodelero.htmlFor the video minded regarding katana, one could do worse than watch 1950s Japanese films and all the Zatoichi episodes. Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Drunk Merchant on Aug 5, 2021 1:35:52 GMT
Eh, seems to say they were a niche close quarters (push of pike) and siege environment weapon and also used in colonial wars. I like how they got turned into spaghetti westerns TBH.
|
|