Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Perfection: Thy name is Katana! ...Really?

13

Comments

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    Anduin said:


    Lastly, on the british culture thing... what language are we using?
    :)

    Not German.

    You're welcome from America, Europe.

    AnduinAHF
  • AristilliusAristillius Member Posts: 873
    Haha moopy... Let us try not to be too nationalistic here? Your grandfathers contributed very importantly to fight the Nazis and we are all thankful for that. (Not sure if you are serious, trying to defuse this here).

    Anduin
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    Well, I suppose I was serious in that it was fairly important, but it was probably as much in Americas long term interest as it was in Europes short term interest.

    Mostly I was being silly.

    AristilliusAnduin
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited January 2013
    Well if we're thanking people for beating the Nazis, I'm under the impression that Russia the Soviet Union actually deserves a lot/most of the credit.

    Post edited by TJ_Hooker on
    ReadingRamboAnduin
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    TJ_Hooker said:

    Well if we're thanking people for beating the Nazis, I'm under the impression that Russia actually deserves a lot/most of the credit.

    Nyet, nyet, Soviet.

    Army under Patton > Soviets. Could have ended the war earlier if they had not held Patton back until the soviets were in position. I realize that can be debated, but Patton's, and the men that served under him, success rate speaks for itself.

    Oh, also, better red than dead. Too bad we didn't let Patton handle the soviets like he wanted to, would have saved us 40 years or problems.

  • RadhamanthysRadhamanthys Member Posts: 106
    @Anduin I get your point that Britain has widely influenced the world. Many things or traditions that are used in several countries are there because of Britain. But, also there are many more other things/traditions that come from other countries.

    Yes, we are using the english language, because this is widely know. If I was using my mother-tongue you most probably would not understand me, so in order to communicate with you and several other people from many countries around the world, I select to use the English language, since this is the language that all of us can in some degree use. Why is that? I think because several big countries (UK. USA, Australia) are using this and these countries have influenced several other countries. Also, English language is a pretty simple language that can be easily learned.

    I could ask you what alphabet are now using or what numbers (the answer is roman, arabic), in order to show you that several other countries have had the same or bigger influence in the world we are living. If your point was to show that Britain have influenced the world I totally agree, but if you think that Britain is the number 1 country in terms of influencing/changing the world, I would have to disagree.

    Anduin
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    edited January 2013
    My wife wanted me to test a theory she has, are you british @TJ_Hooker / @ReadingRambo?

    Let me un-derail this also:

    image

    Checkmate.

    AristilliusTJ_HookerAnduin
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    @moopy you win this round...

    PS: I'm Canadian. So like, half British, half American.

    Anduin
  • LoneWolfDonLoneWolfDon Member Posts: 25
    I guess it's personal preference, and as far as actual use and results thereof could be influenced by if one has training with a particular weapon.

    Myself, having trained in the Martial-Arts for a long time, and having some training with the Katana (as well as several other weapons), personally it would be my favorite sword of choice if I had to pick one to use.

  • AnduinAnduin Member Posts: 5,745

    Let me just say this: Who cares, actually? If people like to boast with katanas, let them. There are bigger problems in the world to worry about.

    Wife has just sorted this out for us after reading my epic post.

    Guys who like Katana's want a bigger bend in their carrot.

    Guys who like longswords want a straighter carrot, now come down here and eat yer tea...
    (note no carrot was served or eaten)

    So there you have it... Although I'm not sure that sword envy exists... LOL!

    Aristillius
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @Anduin Your post seems to suggest, um, issues... ;) "Longswords, for those whom the length of their... carrots... is an issue." ;D

    Anduin
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,481
    I don't think anyone really cares about which swords works best, it's an aesthetic argument. The swords and their respective wielders have a ton of associated culture that go with them, both of which have their attractions.
    We're going to continue enjoying what we enjoy regardless of the countless shouty American-style info videos that continue to be produced on these nerd-phrodisiac topics.

    There's a real battle being fought out there guys, choose your blade wisely..

    image

    TeflonAristilliusAnduinlolien
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    Didn't get past page 3 without bringing up penises.

    On another thread we didn't get past page 3 without a picture that destroyed my eyes.

    Are we 4chan!?

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    @moopy you made me curious, what was your wife's theory that involved whether I was british or not?

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    @TJ_Hooker

    Um... I mean this in a completely unoffensive way if it comes off that way.

    She studies military history and doesn't believe the Soviets were a force to be reckoned with compared to the German, or American armies circa 1942-1945, and her experience with people that inflate the Soviets military power, as opposed to Hitler splitting his army or the harsh winter he sent them in (and the Soviets still lost more people than Hitler did), tend to be British.

    She is of the belief that even if Hitler had not attacked the Soviets, America would have still been able to take Berlin with as tired as the German army was from fighting France and England for so long.

    I mean, a year before Hitler attacked Russia, Russia attacked Finland to try and take it and the Soviets had 3 times as many men, 30 times as many aircraft, and 100 times as many tanks, and Finland still beat them bad. The Germans were unified and you saw that in their army and how well they fought. The Soviets were dealing with Stalin's great purge where he kept killing his own officers and people, so the population and the army weren't unified.

    She is of the opinion that the Soviets always suffered from too much internal strife, and were doomed to beat themselves.

    That was the condensed version. I got an hour lecture on the subject when I mentioned this thread.

    _MY_ reasoning was America had people like Audie Murphy and out of 128 men they were down to 19 left. He had the men that were left retreat, and he stayed on the front lines by himself, and he single handedly battled them for an hour, took a leg wound and ignored it

    He finally ran out of ammo, retreated back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized them and led a counter attack that forced the Germans to withdraw.

    They asked him why he took out an entire company of German infantry, and he said "They were killing my friends."

    TJ_HookerAnduintoanwrathSirK8
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited January 2013
    moopy said:

    @TJ_Hooker

    Um... I mean this in a completely unoffensive way if it comes off that way.

    She studies military history and doesn't believe the Soviets were a force to be reckoned with compared to the German, or American armies circa 1942-1945, and her experience with people that inflate the Soviets military power, as opposed to Hitler splitting his army or the harsh winter he sent them in (and the Soviets still lost more people than Hitler did), tend to be British.

    She is of the belief that even if Hitler had not attacked the Soviets, America would have still been able to take Berlin with as tired as the German army was from fighting France and England for so long.

    I mean, a year before Hitler attacked Russia, Russia attacked Finland to try and take it and the Soviets had 3 times as many men, 30 times as many aircraft, and 100 times as many tanks, and Finland still beat them bad. The Germans were unified and you saw that in their army and how well they fought. The Soviets were dealing with Stalin's great purge where he kept killing his own officers and people, so the population and the army weren't unified.

    She is of the opinion that the Soviets always suffered from too much internal strife, and were doomed to beat themselves.

    That was the condensed version. I got an hour lecture on the subject when I mentioned this thread.

    _MY_ reasoning was America had people like Audie Murphy and out of 128 men they were down to 19 left. He had the men that were left retreat, and he stayed on the front lines by himself, and he single handedly battled them for an hour, took a leg wound and ignored it

    He finally ran out of ammo, retreated back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized them and led a counter attack that forced the Germans to withdraw.

    They asked him why he took out an entire company of German infantry, and he said "They were killing my friends."

    Interesting. I more or less thought the same thing about the Soviets being uprepared and unorganized at the start of the war, but I thought they had gotten their shit together by the end. I guess it kinda boils down to whether you give credit to the Soviets for taking care of Germany's eastern front, even if it was mostly because of terrain/weather and divided forces, rather than actually out-fighting them. I'll defer to your wife on this one though, as about half my knowledge of WWII comes from me spending a full day on the couch, nursing a hangover, watching WWII documentaries last Remeberence Day (Canadian version of Veteran's Day, in November).

    Also, I think every country had their own versions of Audie Murphy but we're just less likely to here about them than our own homegrown heroes. For example, Finland had Simo Hayha. And if single badasses can be sufficient to turn the tide of a war, then there's no wonder the USSR failed to invade Finland.

    And no offence taken.

    Post edited by TJ_Hooker on
  • AnduinAnduin Member Posts: 5,745
    @moopy We can sort this right now! Did Audie Murphy carry a longsword or a katana? Hope he got a medal!

    @ladyrhian issues with vegetables exist... Although more from my wife. She won't touch em.

    @Moomintroll I really felt for the carrot in that last post... It made me CRINGE in mock agony...

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    @Anduin

    Obviously a katana, as I proved earlier it can cut a tank.

    SirK8Anduin
  • gesellegeselle Member Posts: 325
    Weapons as swords, axes etc. have always been used to deliver most damage on your enemies. So if your enemies wear chainmail and plate armor, the katana turns into a liability. A katana, sharp as it is, is absolutely useless against heavy armor. This is the reason why during medieval times in europe, heavy weapons were favoured, an axe, heavy mace or special daggers were able to pierce heavy armor either with sheer force, or exploiting weaknesses in the armor design. A katana was designed to fight people in rags, or light armor, not steel.
    A samurai for example wore armor made of linen like material, that can be cut and pierced by a katana, but protected the samurai from arrows. Arabian nations had scimitars, they have curved blades similar to katans, to inflict maximum damage on enemies you would encounter in their respective climate and/or culture. Same for Egypt.
    Btw. folding steel has never been a technique exclusive to japan, it's been around europe too. And in japan this folding steel was the only known way to create swords that don't break. The katana was hard to create, and was unfit to equip big armies in short time, thus becoming a weapon of the high class.

    Look at the roman empire, they were true masters of warfare. Short swords, tower shields, and plate reinforced leather armor, and the pilum, . An army of samurai would likely suffer a humiliating defeat, fighting roman legionnaires.

    Tl;DR: The katana is a ceremonial weapon, and from a military viewpoint, this weapon is junk.

  • KaltzorKaltzor Member Posts: 1,050
    Well, Katanas look "cool" and they're foreign and all that I think is a huge factor in it... And yea, they may be better at piercing through armor with brute force than the Medieval European swords but that isn't exactly the only method of getting through a suit of armor...

    I would like someone put a Katana against other swords than a Longsword... Maybe things like the Claymore or the Zweihänder.

    Anduin
  • RadhamanthysRadhamanthys Member Posts: 106
    @geselle I think you have mistaken the clothes, that samurai wore in everyday life (as seen in movies), with the armour that they wore in war (yoroi). This armour consisted of a breast plate, iron shoulder protection, gauntlets with iron plates, iron helmet, shin guards with iron splints etc.
    The katana is very effective against this armour; Since there is no reason to attack the stronger parts of the armour, the samurai always aimed at the openings of the armour, either with a piercing or a slashing/cutting attack.
    The katana is not a ceremonial weapon but a bad-ass weapon that in the hands of a skilled warrior can be lethal against any other kind of weapon.

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    @Radhamanthys

    I stopped reading that guys post at "A katana, sharp as it is, is absolutely useless against heavy armor"

    Because he obviously doesn't know, as you so correctly said, that a katana is used to attack the weak points in armor.

    I read more of it now, the roman legion was strong, not because of their individual warriors, but because of their formation, and the strategy of their leadership.

    I have no doubt the roman legion would destroy an army of samurai. I also have no doubt that in a duel a samurai would destroy roman legionnaire, which kind of negates the equipment concept.

    Also, "a katana was made to fight people in rags"... I reread that and I now regret taking the time to respond, this is either trolling or ignorance. Maybe both.

    Radhamanthys
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,823
    @Radhamanthys -

    the samurai always aimed at the openings of the armour, either with a piercing or a slashing/cutting attack.

    Did you just say katanas were used to stab people with.

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    scriver said:



    Did you just say katanas were used to stab people with.

    Yes.

    Katanas were used for slashing, AND for thrusting, typically a thrust would be aimed at a weak points in armor.

    Moomintroll
  • RadhamanthysRadhamanthys Member Posts: 106
    @scriver Yes, thrusts (called tsuki in japanese) are very common in all japanese traditional sword schools.

  • gesellegeselle Member Posts: 325
    edited February 2013
    @Radhamanthys Samurai armor had no plating, iron scales were used to increase protection. And you can't pierce a full plate armor with a samurai sword, and exploiting weaknesses in the armor is a huge drawback, as they are often hard to reach (armpits), and were often reinforced, not to mention every knight was very well aware of these weaknesses. So your only chance is to exploit a weakness, otherwise a plate armor makes you virtually immune to a katana.

    Samurai armor was primaly designed to shrug off arrows and spears, as regular folk had no chance to acquire a sword. Japan is a country of almost no natural ressources, and iron was a rarity. And as samurai armor was also made of iron scales, it was also really heavy. But it was held together by linen, and a katana/sword could tear this armor apart. And the japanese had no armor plating. They imported it later.

    Do you guys really think people back then wouldn't think of a curved folded blade 1000 years ago? A light weapon like the katana has no use against heavy armor, there is not enough force to pierce through steel, it was never designed to do that. Slashing? No chance, dont even start. You have a light weapon against a curved plate armor, or chainmail, which protect excellently against slashing weapons. Pierce? Special bodkin arrows were needed to pierce plate or chainmal armor, and only katanas with special tips have a chance to pierce through a well crafted chainmail, but it is hopeless against plate armor.

    And what is a katana supposed to cut instead of clothing/leather? Bamboo or what?! The japanese even imported european plating to protect themselves against swords. Face it the katana is not the perfect weapon. Compared to european weapons it was/is antiquated junk. Weapons were always designed to fight your enemies most effectively. You can't cut steel with a katana. Especially not if the steel used is purer and harder and in general of better quality, which european steel was.
    The katana is good for duelling as it allows fast slashes and pierces with a good range, while dealing fatal wounds.

    Regarding roman warfare: They never needed long swords or katanas, as they were fighting in close formation and with tower shields, limiting free space, so a short sword would suffice, as you save iron, and stabbing is always better than slashing if the enemy is unarmored. It is one of the first things a soldier learned in the legion.

    Aristillius
  • RadhamanthysRadhamanthys Member Posts: 106
    @geselle In war you try to exploit all the weakness of the opponent! Trying to hit the stronger part of the armour with a katana or longsword or zweihander is stupid! You will never survive the battle.

    As for your opinion that the katana cannot cut through steel, you are obviously mistaken: Katana can cut through kabuto (japanese iron helmet), so that means that it can cut also through several parts (not the stronger perhaps) of any armour.

  • gesellegeselle Member Posts: 325
    edited February 2013
    God damn it, with what logic should a katana cut through superior steel? It can't you can't cut plate armor, for gods sake, where do you take this from? You can't even pierce plate armor with armor thrusters regularly, and a katana was never meant to. And a samurai helmet was inferior in quality, and cannout be compared to european steel. A longsword should achieve the same, too

    "Medieval Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005 enjoy your read, if you are able to gain access.

    and http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

    Edit: Any knight worth his plate armor knows his armor's weak points, and he also sees his enemies. Guess what? Your katana will get dull before you do any significant damage to the plate armor. Before japan was able to import pure iron, their blades were utter crap, and in europe they would have been used only for aesthetics, but as a war tool?! Trash that crap and get a mass produced longsword, which has a higher quality, costs less, and has superior weight balancing. And you can at least knock someone in plate armor unconscious with the hilt of your weapon, which is not possible with a katana.

    Edit2: Sword vs. Helm, I don't know where you got that misconception, that a sword would ever cleave a helmet made of solid iron. A Katana cleaving a Kabuto just proves my point, what lousy material the japanese had to work with.

  • ChowChow Member Posts: 1,192
    I haven't followed the discussion too clearly, and from what I gather it's mostly about people trying to sound intelligent and lecture us about how things were in the real world. Do also remember that this isn't the real world.

    I'll acknowledge katana probably wasn't a very good sword at cutting through armor, and was rather more fragile than people claim, but I still think it was a pretty cool weapon, because of its design, how it was the prominent weapon of the samurai, ritualistic importance, the thousand-folding thing, and all that stuff. And personally, I think all these things, making it a fantastic and mystical weapon, would in fantasy also translate into it being pretty effective too. I mean, if it was just a really fragile longsword, then wouldn't that be incredibly anti-climactic?

    I'll stay away from all the real life history talk and steelwork and whatever, because I'll readily admit I know absolutely nothing of those subjects. You can keep on going with that if you like.

    MoomintrollAristillius
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    Actually, at a certain point, samurai were equipped with plate mail which were designed based off European armors. So the samurai completely agree with you that European armor is superior. Not really the point.

    You are straw manning, I haven't seen anyone say a katana would cut through full plate mail armor.

    There are several degrees of armor in between rags and full plate mail, and you are trying your hardest to make that seem like the only two options. There are very few, if any, unprotected joints in full plate mail, making a katana thrust very unlikely if not impossible.

    I'd rather have a mace or flail up against full plate mail than a long sword. Therefore a long sword, by your logic, is a ceremonial weapon, and from a military viewpoint, this weapon is junk.

    And you keep, purposefully from the looks of it, confusing strategy / formation with equipment.

    Obviously a short sword was better given the roman legions strategy / formation. That doesn't make a short sword better than a katana, or a mace, or a flail. It makes it better for the roman legion, given their strategy and formation.

    The roman legion would have wiped out a samurai army. That doesn't make a short sword better than a katana. That makes the roman legions leaders strategies, the training of the legion to those strategies, and the weapon choices of the leaders for those strategies just that good.

    Anyhow, lets bring this back to D&D. Full plate mail already has modifiers for slashing and piercing. So let us compare JUST the long sword and the katana with no armor. The katana has better techniques to parry and then thrust letting the longsword slide off the edge of the curved blade. So I'm guessing that is why they gave the katana 1d10 over a longswords 1d8 over a shortswords 1d6, and all 3 are going to be less useful against full plate mail.

    In D&D, two guys fighting it out in full plate mail, one with a katana and one with a mace, the guy with the mace is going to have a much better time due to the full plate mail modifiers.

    TL;DR

    Full Plate mail is obviously better than samurai armor, which is why samurai eventually adopted European style plate mail. So if you compare a samurai vs a guy with a long sword in full plate mail. I'm guessing the second guy has a better time. Which is largely unimportant to the discussion, compare a guy in full plate mail armor with a katana vs a guy in full plate mail with a longsword. Now make that same comparison for chain mail, again for leather, and now again for cloth.

    In the first comparison it would probably end up being more or less equal, being able to use the long sword a little more bluntly might help. Either a tie or longsword comes out on top a bit.

    In every single other comparison the katana comes out on top due to being able to parry and thrust into a chink in the armor. Thus a katana gets a 1d10, and a long sword gets at 1d8.

    TL;DR the TL;DR

    Werebears can eat through plate mail, therefore plate mail is ceremonial and from a military viewpoint is junk.

    Radhamanthys
Sign In or Register to comment.