Caliber wars with swords...

[taliv]

what jshirley said. also, what is commonly known as the 'katana' also evolved with armor, by getting shorter and shorter. the curvature and type of point evolved and varied widely based on how it would be used, and whether it was expected to be used against armor or light clothing.

The Katana is probably the most overrated sword in the history of the world. They were more of a ceremonial weapon and were rarely used in actual combat.

only in the sense that ccw are also rarely used in actual combat. meaning, it's quite rare for anyone to be involved in combat.

They're not nearly as strong as some make them out to be either because the steel used to make them was of such poor quality. They're just too delicate and easily damaged to be of any use in actual combat.

if you mean they're not magical, then ok. but generally, your statement is not accurate. the steel isn't as good as what can be had today, but it's fantastic for its time and there were plenty of high quality. i've owned several that ranged from 200 to 700 years old, some with papers. two in particular were roughly 500 and 700 years old. both were quite serviceable, despite the former being polished many times to the point that it was quite thin. i still used it daily for many years when i studied iaido, including cutting with it often.

 

[PJSprog]

i still used it daily for many years when i studied iaido, including cutting with it often.

I was thinking about this before this thread was closed elsewhere, and wondering how many of the commenters here who are poo-pooing the idea of the Japanese sword as a formidable and primary weapon have ever actually studied it's use, or Japanese combat history in general. Equating the samurai's katana to a modern soldier's sidearm is a notion born out of ignorance of classical Koryu. While archery was indeed an important part of their battle strategy, there is a very good reason that no one ever referred to the bow and arrow as "the soul of the samurai." And pole arms? Those were the weapons given to the less talented and many times untrained foot soldiers (conscripts, in many cases). They were essentially the pawns sent out first before the warriors trained in sword combat ... warriors who trained with those swords every day of their lives.

Sidearm? Hardly.

 

[JShirley]

Yep. Sidearm. I have several times listed the figures (compiled, IIRC, by Japanese History expert and koryu practitioner Karl Friday) of percentages of deaths by weapon type on several Medieval Japanese battlefields. To summarize, there were more deaths from everything else, including arrows, spears, and even rocks.

 

[PJSprog]

I just read a study published by the UCLA Center for Internal Medicine that found the primary cause of death in modern warfare is trauma from explosions (78%), compared to gunshot wounds (18%). By this, and JShirley's post, I suppose we can conclude that the rifle is not the primary arm of the modern soldier?

 

[hso]

Let's not drift off of the non-firearm topic too far. We know that artillery and airstrikes kill more on the modern battlefield. We've held discussions on the ancient battlefield as well and it was clear shown through good references that archers and spearmen killed more than the sword.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I just read a study published by the UCLA Center for Internal Medicine that found the primary cause of death in modern warfare is trauma from explosions (78%), compared to gunshot wounds (18%). By this, and JShirley's post, I suppose we can conclude that the rifle is not the primary arm of the modern soldier?

You are making an invalid comparison. What weapons create the most casualties has nothing to do with what is the primary weapon of individual soldiers in the Age of Gunpowder artillery.

PJSprog - I was thinking about this before this thread was closed elsewhere, and wondering how many of the commenters here who are poo-pooing the idea of the Japanese sword as a formidable and primary weapon have ever actually studied it's use, or Japanese combat history in general. Equating the samurai's katana to a modern soldier's sidearm is a notion born out of ignorance of classical Koryu. While archery was indeed an important part of their battle strategy, there is a very good reason that no one ever referred to the bow and arrow as "the soul of the samurai." And pole arms? Those were the weapons given to the less talented and many times untrained foot soldiers (conscripts, in many cases). They were essentially the pawns sent out first before the warriors trained in sword combat ... warriors who trained with those swords every day of their lives.

I am one of those "here who are poo-pooing the idea of the Japanese sword as a formidable and primary weapon" who has "actually studied it's use, or Japanese combat history in general." You appear to think the Katana is not only the predominate weapon of the Samurai but also the predominate sword of the Samurai. For most of Samarai history the Katana did not exist. The Katana only starts to become the predominate sword used by Samurai near 1500 AD when the very end of several centuries of long periods of major warfare in Japan are reaching a climax and really only becomes completely dominate after 1600 AD when major wars are no longer being fought in Japan. The whole the sword is the "sole of the Samurai" mystique is not based on what weapons Samurai leaders had their armies and individual Samurai use to win wars. The Katana after 1600 becomes more of a symbol of status and self-defense weapon of unarmored Samurai in the most peaceful centuries of Japan's history. It was so important as a Samurai status symbol that large number of impoverished Samurai sold their real swords and carried fake swords. Do you realize that it was the skillful use of gunpowder weapons (more matchlocks than any contemporary European nation's army possessed), Archers, and massive armies (larger than any European contemporary army) composed of non-samurai armed with pole arms that ended Japan's centuries of major warfare and led to the establishment at the end of the 16th century of the Tokugawa Shogunate and centuries of relative peace?

JShirley - Yep. Sidearm. I have several times listed the figures (compiled, IIRC, by Japanese History expert and koryu practitioner Karl Friday) of percentages of deaths by weapon type on several Medieval Japanese battlefields. To summarize, there were more deaths from everything else, including arrows, spears, and even rocks.

PSprog, this is true through out most of the history of warfare in the Age of Muscle Power. The only army I can think of that intended soldiers to use the sword as the most casualty producing weapon are the Roman Legions during the late republican and early-mid imperial centuries. At no point in Japan's history of major warfare were armies of Samurai wielding Katanas expected to be the dominate inflictor of casualties. PSprog you really need to crack open the books, and then acknowledge the veracity of what JShirley and others are posting.

 

[JShirley]

Nom,

I agree with most of what you said, though I think the predominance of the katana happened closer to 1500 than 1600.

This

The Katana after 1600 becomes more of a symbol of status and self-defense weapon of unarmored Samurai in the most peaceful centuries of Japan's history

is absolutely true. Like boots, cowboy hat, and pistol to a cowboy, only even more culturally significant.

The katana was shorter than previous Japanese swords, so it would be less likely to get in the way of the samurai's primary arms. A half-decent spearman will kill a good swordsman with boring regularity, the bow was the primary weapon of the samurai on the battlefield for many years, and Santa Clause is a mythical character. I'm sorry, PJ, but someone had to tell you eventually. You could say, "The revolver is the soul of the cowboy", but in a real conflict, every one of them would reach for a shotgun or a rifle first, since the revolver is a defensive piece, not a primary arm. Now, the daisho set definitely became the primary tool of the samurai as the likelihood of needing a defensive piece instead of a battlefield tool increased: a shorter blade is quicker to get into action if you have to fight in confined spaces.

 

[hso]

The history of warfare isn't very romantic and the romantics around warfare aren't typically historically accurate. Spears and arrows are the dominant tools of war through history while the swordsmen battling foes is terribly romantic and seemingly heroic, but not very practical for war when you think about it logically a bit.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom,

I agree with most of what you said, though I think the predominance of the katana happened closer to 1500 than 1600.

I agree. I did not convey that very well and have edited my post although I think since that last 100 years before 1600 was filled with massive battles most use of swords by Samurai would occur when they wore armor and many would be wearing their swords edge down and consider their swords to be Tachi.

 

[Nom de Forum]

....the idea of the Japanese sword as a formidable and primary weapon.....

I do agree that the Katana is a formidable weapon in mano a mano combat with any other type of sword or similar sized melee weapon where constricted space does not prevent it from full range of motion. That being said a man skilled in the use of a Rapier, European Cut and Thrust Sword, or even a Pollax is not an easy mark for an equally skilled man using a Katana.