Fantastic work as Always. I find the concept of stopping Power of weapon extremely interesting. I think you have covered It in atleast 3 video, that I can rememeber. A comparison of the stopping Power or katana and long sword could be and interesting video if you'll consider that. I would definitely Watch It
You know what's weird? To the Japanese people swords that had mystical or religious baggage attached to were almost all straight swords (the kusanagi, the shichishito, etc), which is why you sometimes see them in anime and manga but no one ever seem to notice.
Might it be because the Japanese, surprise surprise, have a better sense of their own history than the average Japoanophile? I mean, they did use straight swords in the times that correlate with their semi-historical/mythic formative stories, you know, Emperor Jimmu and shit x)
Interestingly enough, part of the reason why straight swords are associated with mystical/religious attributes probably has a lot to do with Chinese influence on Japanese culture and the association of the Chinese jian to cultured, enlightened or holy figures like Taoist immortals, Boddhisatvas, or scholar bureaucrats. So in other words, while Westerners think the Japanese katana is the bestest sword ever, Japanese people probably think the Chinese jian is the bestest sword ever. :P
I mean, straight sword is associated with mythology because it was most prominent during bronze age. Just like how people associates orichalcum and other fancy named bronze age metal with legendary durability.
Japan likes their katana too. They might not be as stupid about it as weeaboos are but they're still proud of them and idealize their awesomeness in various media they create. You're right in that "katana" does literally mean "sword" and that it is used to categorize several types of Japanese sword but that doesn't mean it isn't a specific weapon, simply because its name tends to be used in reference to what were also called uchigatana. On that note, many European swords were never called a specific name when they were actually used either, simply being referred to as "sword" historically. "In the end really debating about this is fun, but ultimately pointless, as swords were never really used on the battlefield, and were only backup weapons." This only applies to swords that were small enough to be sidearms. It makes little sense to have a greatsword or a nodachi as a secondary weapon. Even then, Romans famously use the gladius alongside the scutum, and being a backup weapon doesn't mean you'll never have to use it in war.
this "swords were never really used on the battlefield, and were only backup weapons" is utter bs. I can not think of time period when this was true. Apart from Romans, Greeks and other ancient nations we have account about Franks wearing throwing axes, swords and shields. They started with throwing axes and then fought with swords. No spears are mentioned (early medieval). There is a load of evidence of swords being used extensively in high and late middle ages. Even if you disregard contemporary art which shows swordsmen awful lot, the excavations from battle of Visby show mostly sword wounds. In renaissance heavy cavalry tactic was to unload pistols and immediately revert to swords. Advised tactic for pikemen was also to revert to swords for first row immediately after stopped by opposing pikemen to prevent the pike push. So when the swords have been "not really used on battlefield"? I don't say other types of weapons were not use extensively as well (pole weapons, ranged weapons) but swords are not only some useless last resort weapon. They always were deadly effective.
A small note: The Dutch VOC (East India Company) employed Ronin as mercenaries. The swords were certainly cherished by the Europeans and some sabres in the form of katana were made, one example is in the Reichsmuseum Amsterdam, the weapons rack of Cornelius Tromp were several such sabres and some pole weapons that look like naginata. I'm not sure of the origin of the latter, but you can clearly see the tsuka and tsuba. Note that Cornelius Tromp was neither in the VOC nor was he in Asia, he was the Liutenant Admiral General of the Dutch fleet during the Republic (1650s). Would be interesting to know more about the interaction among Ronin, Chinese, Brits, Dutch and Portuguese in Asia and I bet there were quite a few cases of "European sword vs. Katana", even with Europeans equipped with katana against Japanese with European swords!
There were several accounts of Japanese "pirates" incursions in Portuguese and Spanish colonies, and they usually carried a large profussion of firearms, and more armor than one would think about when talking about pirates. But most didn't go well against real opposition (of course, if you trust sources from the era).I think one from the XVI century mentioned one fight on board a ship in which a small group of Spanish "rodeleros" (obsolete in Europe by then) blunted the main force, while arquebusiers and Filipino spearmen took care of the japanese counterparts before finishing what was left of the main body....great, now I must search for that account, and find the book when I get home.
Aleksandar Lekso Saičić - (Montenegran) He participated in the Russian-Japanese War. The Montenegrin detachment in that war was led by Jovan Lipovac. Lekso was remembered for killing a Japanese samurai in a duel before the battle in 1905. Because of this victory, he was decorated with Russian Orden. He received congratulations on the winning duel from the Admiral of the Russian Fleet Zinovy Rozhestvensky and Admiral of the Japanese fleet of Tōgō Heihachirō.
@Michael Terrell II Lol Lol Lol. A Handful of Spanish veteran soldiers destroyed a force of chinese pirates and japanese Ronins in Cagayan. The pirates were almost ten times the number of the Spanish, and were armed with guns of Portuguese manufacture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles. Thats only the Wikipedia, but you have many other sources covering those battles.
Just read. They fought them on board and later in land. Pike, buckler and sword VS all kind if weapons and katanas. 120 vs 1000. The spanish force Lost 20 - 40 men (between dead and wounded) the pirates lost over 500... And yes, there were many ronins (lordless samurái) among the pirates, as the spanish captured many katanas and samurai swords after their victory on the battlefield (not the naval skirmish). Just read the facts. And if course, the pirates owned many guns, even cannond, bought to the Portuguese. Facts.
The reason why katanas look short is that at some time there was a law which forbids swords longer than certain length so most katanas were shortened to fit legal limits or destroyed some were hidden and survived in original form naturally, sources from before that law was passed, cannot mention this problem because katanas had optimal length at that time
Thereon Inarek I would love to know how they felt about Colonial Era swordsmen, especially considering how this British officer says that the Sabre is "useless in the cut", which is complete nonsense. There are plenty of accounts of European officers performing cuts on opponents, and although I can't remember the specific video Matt talked about it, there was a British Cavalry officer who, after dismounted, parried a bayonet thrust and then sliced his opponents throat open, and dismembered his jaw. You can't do that with a blunt sword.
He was talking hyperbolically, obviously they can cut, just no way near as well. They really liked Portuguese guns the best though. Used them more than Portugal, massed them more than any other country at the time.
In terms of swords or swordsmanship, there doesn't seem to be any Chinese/Japanese accounts that praise the quality of Europeans' swords or swordsmanship. Ming China in particular wasn't very impressed with the Portugese' naval close combat ability, while they were towards the Japanese. (as well as the Wokou.). China was very impressed with the cannons and firearms of the Portugese however, and were keen on importing them. At the same time, Ming China also adapted Japanese-style swords, such as the Miao dao (or Chang dao / Wodao) as well as the Qijiadao. (Dao sabre w/ Japanese-made or style blade). Also something to consider is that plenty of East Asian close combatants may have been armed with relatively more heftier weapons at the time (Dao sabres, Miaodao, long Katana and Odachi, Pikes) compared to European armies, who mostly could have had lighter sidearms. Although many one-handed European swords and battlefield rapiers can also be quite substantial.
By the 16th century the samurai would have been far superior to any soldiers in Europe. Because by that time knights were falling out of favour. Europe had professional soldiers and mercenaries. But they weren't life long warriors trained all their lives like the samurai. The samurai would have held the Europeans they encountered with similar contempt to what they had for their lowly ashigaru foot soldiers who were comparable to the professional soldiers of Europe. And even more so because they believed themselves superior to foreigners in genral. They considered them barbarians, likely because most of the crew members were lowclass rough piraticle people. They admired their cannons ships and breastplates and found the pigeon breasted look very aesthetically pleasing.
Wow, thanks for following up on that topic. Earlier in my life I took fencing (mostly did foil fencing), and much later I took about 10 months of Iaido. They are not kidding about performed a cut as you drew the sword. That cut was introduced in the very first kata we learned (in fact, we were actually setting on our legs and stood up as we drew the sword and cut). I think part of the reason why it would surprise a western fencer, especially in a duel setting is that a fencer's basic position is the "en garde position" where you begin with your feet in the right place and your sword in the right place, facing your opponent, ready to parry, etc. If you think that you need to get let the other fencer who is in front of you get in an en garde position you are not going to be ready for someone who spent thousands upon thousands of hours practicing how draw their sword and cut. Being aware of this, however, would probably solve most of the problems associated with this.
About the length, I remember visiting museums in Japan, where the katana was described as a side arm, and other longer (and shorter) weapons were shown. So I think in Japanese history longer swords did exist. Also there's a video if lindybeige having tried several katanas and noticed that they had different points of balance. I think it is a western (or at least modern) generalization to take several different kind of Japanese sword and calling then all katana
LDN EDD The Katana and Wakazashi were primarily side arms that also represented the social rank of the wearer. The dual blade evolved out of the pre-samurai use of two edged blades. The two swords provided a symbolic connection to the eariler two edged weapons. For early samurai the bow on horse back and the naganita on foot were the primary weapons (the naganita shifted towards be more used by women in later periods) Samurai during the sengaku period empasied the use of the Yari (spear), Yumi (bow), and Tanegashima (matchlock gun) in combat. During the relative (but far from total peace) of the Edo period brought the twin swords more to the fore due to them being the symbol of the samurai class, only a samurai could wear a sword. p.s. please forgive my spelling as I am on my phone with the spell check turned off, trying to spell better on my own.
LDN EDD Spears were primary weapons, swords were sidearms. In war, everyone is gonna want to carry a spear or another polearm/projectile weapon. In daily life, you can't. Whether you were an european man-at-arms or japanese samurai, your choice of main weapon for war was similar - spears, lances, halberds, glaives, bills, bows, etc, as main weapon, and a sword on your hip as a sidearm.
So the guy that never maintained his sword or revolver was annoyed that they didn't perform properly? This same man saw one guy get killed 16 times by a man with a katana? ...Sounds like a right plonker. XD
scholagladiatoria If I may ask, was it common at the time for officers to negate the usefulness of the cut in Sabre fencing? It just seems strange to me, considering some of the other accounts in that book that discuss many feats on the battlefield that involve cuts.
I would say that it is written in an old fashioned way, and what he actually said was that the guy got cut many times and each one could have killed the guy. Banzai frenzy kind of deal. But he may just have been a braggart, he does claim to have been the one to finally kill the guy, or he was referring to bringing back the body with 16 cuts? idk.
In the 19th century, it was actually standard procedure to either NOT sharpen a sabre, or to only sharpen the tip. So why bother using a steel that would keep an edge when the Army doesn't even want them to be sharp in the first place?
The officer complaining about Colt percussion revolvers being unreliable probably never got then right idea to have his men inspect and clean their revolvers. You also shouldn't expect a black powder revolver to go bang every time when you have kept it loaded for a week.
This, even the damned muzzle loading muskets are pretty unreliable in damp weather, sometimes as much as 40% of all shots can be misfires if the powder is not handled well.
If you intend to store a loaded revolver for a longer time, you should seal the chambers with some grease from both ends. I suspect this wasn't done by the gentleman in question, who was more used to regular muzzle loaders that don't necessarily require such precautions...
Yes. You tell that officer who had war experience how he should mannage his people with your youtube theoretical quasi-knowledge of supposed realistic historical conflicts.
Having respect for katana is great. Thinking they are magic and European swords are dull at 25lbs......You might be weeaboo. Metatron is not a weeaboo, he appreciates all cultures.
+Great Danton that's your standard weeaboo answer. Katana weighs as much as a long sword yet only has a single edge and a piss-poor guard. European swords we're also Sharp and agile.
+Great Danton I guarantee you Matt Easton has never said katanas are always sharper than European swords. the Hema Community is pretty tired of the conspiracy that katanas are better than European swords. this conspiracy is perpetuated by people who don't have much understanding of different sword types and believe Japanese anything is better. European sharpen their swords just fine.
Eric Kjellander The sharpness comes from metallurgy and the manufacturing differences. Katana had no tempering step for toughness, and was water hardened. They substituted their clay application for differential hardening to create the toughness in the spine that prevents breakage, but the water quench with zero temper creates very high hardness at the edge. The high hardness will allow for a keener edge and better retention. Slightly sharper when 'fresh' but will stay sharper longer. Couple with the wooden scabbard vs euro metal this will lead to the functional sharpness at any given time to favour the katana, possibly by a large margin. That's not to say they weren't fragile, though.
dimman77 The katana was tempered after quenching. The process is called aitori/aitoru or yaki modoshi ( 焼戻) and both are performed after the quenching (yaki ire). As far as I've understood, It Is a relatively "soft" tempering which remove the internal stress of the blade. Here you can see a blade made with traditional japanese style technique, there are some test of edge against hard material; islandblacksmith.ca/process/yaki-ire-clay-tempering/ The blade was hardened and tempered. After the test the edge was fine. Hope to be informative!
"only a single edge" lol it is a curved sword for one, but also that is like saying it is twice as strong as a european sword as it has a strong spine. 2 edges does make it heavier, weaker, less sharp than single edge. You have to compromise somewhere. Especially it is nigh on impossible to get differential hardening in the same way as a katana. Having said that is not really superior to a single edged european blade. The only point I have real contention with really is the lack of guard... HAVE YOU SEEN A SABER? They usually have SMALLER guards! It is because you do not need one! It is a different style of fighting.
A single stroke from an authentic japanese made katana will slice through an Europoean longsword, splitting the atoms of the iron blade, and cause a nuclear explosion that will warp time on itself and erase the entire family lineage of the longsword user from existence. Obviously the takeaway from this is that slashing weapons are inherently superior to stabbing weapons in both a civilian dueling scenario and battlefield with plate armour. Armour is useless and just for decoration anyways. Katana is the best sword in the world.
I would argue that grappling is not as critical as you make it out, though it does depend on context, on the average it is less important than what truly is the most important thing: formation training. As a soldier in any era of history, the most common type of fighting you will be participating in is formation battle of some form. In formation you work as a team and generally whichever side can stay together longer will win. Once a formation folds, the individual soldiers are easily split up and cut down. As to grappling, you are almost never going to grapple in any sort of battle because you really never get close enough due to spears and shields. Grappling really only comes up in one-on-one fighting which is generally rare at most points in history.
I would also like to add that while grappling is an important part of combat, it is not ideal to be engaged in prolonged wrestling against one opponent. There may be multiple attackers that may jump on you, or the opponent in prolonged wrestling may be bigger & stronger than you. Of course this can be mitigated by being skilled in grappling or an unarmed martial art, but if a person wishes to play safe and rely on his/her weapon rather than expose himself/herself, relying on prolonged wrestling/grappling is far from ideal.
I think LordPotatoraus and Solid Structure are both right. Grappling isn't as important in a large scale battle, but it is very likely a decisive factor in a 1v1 duel. Samurai weren't likely to use the Katana as a battlefield weapon if I understand the Japanese period warfare correctly; and so the Katana's effectiveness as a back-up weapon seems to be less important than grappling skill to me. Having an inhumanly enormous penis seems to be the only reliable method of winning duels consistently.
It means if you are a samurai and occasionally need to use a side-arm to dispatch an uppity farmer, the Katana is a perfectly suited weapon for intimidating the peasants. It's good at cutting through flesh, but not bone or armor, it's good at relatively short range where your opponent won't have a bow or spear.
Nice video! I study Vietnamese and Chinese swordsmanship and I'm curious on Matt's and Swordsmen of the British Empire's take on Chinese and Vietnamese swordsmanship and swords.
@@SM-nz9ff Boxer rebellion was an act of desperation. British simply invaded China and those people fought for the freedom. "Nonsense drilled into the heads". Only an english buffoon would type such a nonsense.
I respect Matt Easton immensely for his objective and professional portrayal of weapons history. He doesn’t give an obviously biased interpretation, but cites actual sources and his professional opinion.
rasnac everyone fears criticism. If you would say that talwars cut better than katanas, then you would be called a katana hater. Just look at the comments. Some of them are hilarious morons who created "katana haters" in their own imagunation.
In speaking of the noises the Japanese make when fighting. I have practiced some Aiki-jujutsu when I was younger and we made different noises based on the attack. They were made to help tighten certain muscle groups which produced a stronger attack. Such as the sound "Toe" when using a kick. If you do it yourself you will see the lower stomach muscles will tighten when making the sound which gives strength to the kick, same as "Hiya" which tightens the upper chest muscles for a hand strike. I would expect the same school of thought out of Japanese sword techniques.
When I was younger I loved the Japanese sword and studied feudal Japan for years. Now that I'm older I still like the katana for what it is but I think I'd take a good longsword over a katana.
Just came back to this video to share some info from my test cutting training, I found that on light targets the sabre cuts just as well as the katana, but when it comes to heavy targets, the sabre cannot cut as well as the katana, it doesn't have the upper mass to follow through enough. I'm talking about infantry officers sabre here, not cavalry, I haven't tested a cavalry sabre against a katana yet.
Cap and ball revolvers misfiring ?? nothing sucks up moisture like black powder and it wont burn if its the slighteest bit damp Wild Bill Hickok religiously fired off and reloaded his revolvers every morning. And his guns never failed him
There is a thrust that I learned in Aikido weapons class where the forward( right ) hand releases the hilt and the left rotates the blade 90 degrees , the left foot slides forward and a push comes from the right foot. It lets the entire length of the sword be used in the thrust. this move is usually followed by stepping off the line of attack and going for a wrist chop as the opponent recovers.
So the big takeaway I'm getting from this is not that the Katana is a fantastic sword (although not shit), but that 19th century European swordsmen were not well trained.
Very true. By the 19th Century, the sword's best days were 400 years behind it. The 19th century saw the transition from Musket to rifle to gatling gun after all. While very romanticized, the sword was - for large swathes of history - a secondary weapon to a spear, lance or polearm, but by the 19th century it was the tertiary (at best) weapon.
DuPont powder and some care in sealing the chambers and caps onto the cylinder would have taken care of their misfire problems with Colt revolvers. A little practice going for head shots would have helped with dropping Samurai.
Gary Church, yes they could, especially during the black powder age, when you were dealing with lower pressures and less effective projectiles. Sometimes steel plate armour were proofed by being shot at. And sometimes it's not that the bullet was stopped, but was deflected (much like the slop on a tank's armour). It's only until we had spitzer (pointy tipped) bullets and smokeless powders that helmets outside of fragmentation protection became redundant. Even then, up-armouring of helmets for protection against firearms was tested and used by the Germans during WW1. Back then silk armour were often used to stop projectiles as well. Duke Ferdinand was supposedly wearing a silk ballistic vest when he was assassinated.
One thing I've wondered about regarding katana verses "other" comparisons is that people often talk about the lack of reach or usual shortness of the katana. BUT; no one seems to address that 18th century Japanese males were often 4 or more inches shorter than European males of the same time period. Since many katana were "custom" made for their wielders wouldn't the reach problem with the weapon just have been the reach "problem" of dealing with a taller opponent? Wouldn't this have been offset in combat by the opponents having or not having, the "proper" length sword for their particular statures? Sincerely Craig
Hmm, I have been doing kendo for about 7 years and recently started studying saber, one thing I realized is that sabers aim cuts with the bellies of the blade, while in kendo we emphasize on cutting with the tip. I wonder if that is the reason that the reach advantage of saber was mitigated.
It's more about physics really. The tip travels at much greater speed, and the smaller contact surface deals higher pressure. The tip of the katana, albeit was purposely sharpened more, won't be that much sharper than the blade itself. Although, the tip is much thinner than the blade so it will cut better.
In western swords at least the tip doesn't cut very well due to some physics I don't understand. Matt Easton talked about this in other videos but there is a sweet spot, center of percussion(?) or something like that that hits the hardest and cuts the most. You can kind of feel it by hitting a piece of wood or similar. Btw, I do have a STEM background but sword cutting is not as simple as longer=faster=hits harder like a hammer, because it vibrates, the weight is not concentrated on the head and it usually has some form of tapering(some parts are thinner than others)
Actually it boils down to the following: sword training in the 19th century was bad (hussars were given 3 months of training and then they were battle ready FFS, well at least in Hungary and Austria), they didn't know how to sharpen their swords and they had some equipment that made the edges even worse. Compared to that everyone who is only a novice with 1 year training seems to be a master swordsman, who had his sword sharepened by a professional.
But really compare even the Hungarians to the British. We have considered the British to be using the swords as clubs since the early 1700s, so yeah. Sword culture simply faded away.
Though that being said, British cavalry regularly beat Indian, Chinese, Sudanese, Russian and Afghan cavalry in hand to hand combat. It is one of the great paradoxes that 19th century British sources regularly say that Indian native cavalry were better trained at riding and swordsmanship, yet British cavalry usually beat native Indian cavalry!
Was this maybe down to a distinction between individual skill, where the Indians had the edge, and ability to perform as a unit, which is how the British came out on top?
But that being said even then we find that the British found satisfaction in engaging with Indians in single combat as well and their chances were fairly great.
The thing with Japanese katana is that there's actually a great many variations in blade and handle length, curvature, blade shape and manufacture method and design. Apart from similar fittings and fixtures, there isn't a truly singular shape. Throw in the many sword schools out there, each with their own techniques and kenjutsu is quite a complex art. A great deal of what can be called jujutsu, was developed as a method of dealing with an armed attacker, so you can get to a weapon yourself and was seen as of less importance than kenjutsu. The cultural attitude towards the Japanese sword has also changed over time, with the mystical beliefs being a much later idea, when there was less armoured combat. On the battlefield it was an important weapon, but was of less importance then the spear or bow. When practicing kenjutsu, the katana has a deceptively long reach, as it is cast outwards like a fishing rod, the main idea, is to always have your sword between you and your opponent and it employs the control of the centre line idea found in other sword arts. The problem I see with a lot of modern Japanese themed sword arts, is that as there are less emphasis on the potentially lethal nature of combat, standards have slipped. I've seen some truly terrible ideas and techniques being put forward as legitimate kenjutsu. One of my main gripes is the over arching of the cut, with the sword being dropped past the hip, in effect leaving the swordsman exposed. I also feel that iaido tends to practiced in a similar way, with less emphasis of there being a serious threat to deal with, that said, iaido is really intended as a moving meditation with a sword.
An interesting swordsmanship anecdote i heared (but, alas, can offer no source evidence for it, pure hearsay on my part) happened in 1905, during russo-japanese war. Montenegro, an ally of the russian empire, sent its contingent to the war. It included a famous swordsman, ex-haiduke, who apparently responded to challenge by a much feared japanese swordsman. They duelled and the montenegrin won, on account of japanese warrior bowing to him before the duel. In that instant, the montenegrin simply took his opponent's head. So much for honor, i guess...
+Gregor Stamejčič The Montenegrin's name was Alexander Lekso Sajčić. It is hard to find reliable accounts in English, but various websites claim he defeated Italian sword masters and others and was a very talented swordsman. Allegedly, his duel during the Russo-Japanese War was a cavalry duel, and the Japanese cavalry saber, though having a grip in the Western style, only had a very short blade (~30.5 inches), so in addition to his skills, Sajčić probably also had a significant reach advantage. This duel was immortalized due to its significance as a morale booster for the Russians who suffered numerous setbacks during the war. However, from all the source material I have seen from that war, the Japanese swordsman tended to come out victorious most of the time, unless vastly outnumbered. Here is an example from a contemporaneous newspaper account: www.tameshigiri.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1905duel_russian.jpg Although a nontrivial amount of swordplay is recorded as occurring in the Russo-Japanese War, it produced far fewer injuries than artillery, bullets, and bayonets.
Gregor Stamejčič He was probably a much,uch bigger man too I imagine. Those Montenegrins are big people and were probably just like that then. The Japanese were not.
Hey Matt, The Katana is short, and varies on the person, becouse the idea is that if you hold it from the part close to the handle, and hold your arm relaxingly the blades edge should never reach the ground, hence you can do full strenght cuts from below as well
Considering the completely different approaches (respectively) of folks fighting with a tulwar versus a katana, how would they measure up against one another? I'd also be particularly interested in how scimitar-fighting (is that the proper term for it? I seem to be forgetting) would fare against kenjutsu or similar (scimitar versus a two-handed katana)--wouldn't the katana have a greater reach in this case (and by the same token, the scimitar fare better at very close ranges)? As well, I haven't come across any sources that've really talked about this in a sort of intra-Asiatic perspective (that is, without using Western gauges as reference: sharper/duller than a sabre, stuff like that). It'd be neat to read what, say, an Indian soldier thought of the Japanese's kenjutsu, or perhaps the other way around? I suspect they'd have to be precolonial accounts and predate the East India Company-- Well, I hope that made some sense! Anyone have good sources they could recommend? (I can't seem to come up with anything worth the search)
I would like to know more about comparison of the blade shape and handle shapes between sabers and katanas. It would seem that while a katana may be used with saber form/style, sabers may not as easily be used with katana forms/styles simply because of the handle difference.
hey Matt, fairly new viewer and I see a 5 Q's hasn't been done in ages but I was wondering what were the rules for POWs in medieval times. how was one treated in reference to social status, common soldier vs captured nobles? some subscribe to the thought that captured nobles were treated well, had decent quarters, were fed well, etc. Others that "hey this noble is my enemy so I'm gonna treat him like crap" and they were basically tortured. Were there any "standard" rules or etiquette to this matter or was it based on individual basis?
I wonder if the sources don't mark the shortness of the katana because it can make effective cuts at or very close to the tip, owing to the geometry of the tip. I should think this would compensate to some extent for the relative shortness of the blade.
i think the reference to repetitive cuts describes the tendency in JSA to maintain body mass centrally, rather than forward as in a lunge, and to deliver a downward strike over and over.
George Silver's "Paradoxes of Defence" would postulate the katana as the better weapon. Interestingly, his measurement for a 2 handed sword's blade is the same as for a single hand sword, the difference being only the length of the hilt, which according to him gives a big advantage to the wielder due to better blade control.
11:45 ... I am left with the doubt of whether they meant that Jiu Jitsu was used in conjunction with the sword skills (as we know samurai did), and therefore, they saw that it is the whole art of combat, not just kenjutsu, that made a difference in fighting a Japanese swordsman.
joaonor "Tanegashima: The Arrival of Europe in Japan" by Olof G. Lidin is probably a good place to start. While it covers a much broader topic than you are asking about, the works cited would likely be an excellent place to research primary source accounts.
+joaonor The book "They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543-1640" is a fantastic compilation of first-hand European accounts of Japan. Here are some excerpts. "The Japanese are much braver and more warlike than the people of China, Korea, Ternate and all other nations around the Philippines." - Rodrigo de Vivero y Velasco "There is no nation in the world which fears death less." -Francesco Carletti "As a pastime they practise [sic] with their weapons, at which they are extremely adept, or write couplets, just as the Romans composed poetry ... They are very brave and put much faith in their weapons; boys over the age of thirteen carry sword and dagger, and never take them off. They have every kind of weapon, both offensive and defensive, and some are of great value; you may even find swords worth 1,500 cruzados. ...They are the best archers I have seen in this world. They look down on all other nations." - Cosme de Torres, S.J.
It's funny that you posted this a few days after you posted the picture of the Japanese Type 32 Sabre Facebook. I actually thought you were leading up to discussing that and perhaps the kyu-gunto in this one. Threw me off, but still a good video lol
I can't even fathom fighting with a two handed weapon of 70cm blade length. Sometimes I feel like 105cm blade longswords are too short! I'm a short and light guy, but even I much prefer longswords around 115-120 and rapiers at 130-140. The difference between 120 and 100 is massive! I can only imagine how it would feel to fight a rapier with a katana, considering their blades can be twice the length of yours while still being one-handed.
Depends on exactly what time period you're talking about. In the Sengoku period, yeah, it was full battle field regalia and the full range of weapons, bow & arrow, polearm (naginata or yari), both swords and anything else that was handy. (Takeda Shingen was reported to fend of his perpetual rival Uesegi Kenshin with a gunbei warclub or fan in one of the few times they fought each other in direct combt). As you head into the Edo-period the katana starts to take higher priority as the paired swords become as much a marker of social status as a weapon and with large scale battles much rarer, it becomes the "everyday" weapon of the samurai and daimyo.
Hard to tell the exact time period on the Legation Guard you're mentioning...1870s, likely they would have still been using 1860 Colts (the 1873 Single Action Army, with cased bullets and primer, might not have proliferated widely through Europe at the time). The 1860s (1858s, 1851 Navy, etc) would be tricky to keep in a ready state unless you were constantly checking: the caps could come off the nipples (on the cylinder) with some jostling or bouncing around...when they weren't misfiring or otherwise jamming up the cylinder. Modern knife vs. firearm theory is that it's very difficult to defend yourself with a firearm if it's holstered and a knife-wielding attacker is within 21 feet. And even though the .44 caliber conical slug or ball can be launched with modern'ish velocities with black powder, the bullets didn't expand, shot placement would have been highly important.
We had a friendship seminar with a Kendo group once, and noted that they are mainly striking with the last several inches of the blade, and flicking them more lightly than you'd expect, like casting a fishing pole. Not because it creates fearsome wounds; because it creates (hypothetically) fatal ones in a split second without committing to a large action. The stroke only has to kill you, not "super" kill you. 6" of katana piercing your skull will do it, and leaves very little room for a counter.
In my experience this whole KATANASARETHEBEST/KATANASARETHEWORST bull is almost completelly rooted on americans' incapability to not be bipartisan. I've spoken with many non-anglo collectors and martial artists and they very rarelly hold these absolute polar opposite opinions from one another like most americans and some english & aussies do.
As an American, I have to agree with you. For some reason, we often seem to feel an urge to pick sides, regardless of subject matter. We tend to treat everything as zero-sum games.
I think the reason you might find it odd that the length of the sword isn't mentioned has to do with modern score keeping. It has transformed fencing and saber into a first poke wins affair. Same with kendo. In a real fight where wounding as opposed to touching matters and with no restrictions on targets or movements a few inches here or there would have been much less significant.
"every cut was death" probably meant that every wound created would have been fatal individually given the time period? I know Im late to the party but that was what immediately struck me when hearing it
Nice video Matt, interesting sources and to me at least, a balanced approach. I can't say for certain why Japanese swords in general have such opposing fans and detractors, the Katana obviously does. To me personally, I think they look beautiful. I think an obvious draw is likely the speed they can be brought into use, as you highlight in your post. Yeah, I've spent too much time watching samurai films and Japanese animae!
I think a big motivator for there being so many detractors is that there are so many rabid fans. Backlash against the people who buy into the mystical reputation from entertainment. But yeah, it is kind of odd there is this false choice of them being either magical uber-swords superior to everything or absolute garbage. Even Matt plays into that in the intro (although mostly that seems to have been bait to get people to watch). They're swords. Often very well made swords that performed very well in the situations they were designed for, but still a sword with disadvantages in other situations.
+DoktorWeasel Maybe it's just the corners of the internet I hang out in, but these days I tend to run into far more katana detractors than fanatics. 5 years ago the situation was reversed, but again this is just my personal experience. I don't actively search out 'weeaboos'.
+MrManifolder That's been my experience too. In the past several years I haven't seen this as much. But then again these days I'm mostly following HEMA, and am not really big into anime or the like so I mostly see the anti-katana backlash. My sample is skewed. But I do think the trend might be real. Probably a mix of the increasing popularity of HEMA and the fact that the katana-fanboys could be so damn annoying and absurd, which just invites backlash. But even the popular culture these days also seems to be less in love with katanas and everything about Japanese martial arts than it was just ten years ago even. Maybe the rise of medieval style fantasy (The Lord of the Rings Movies, Game of Thrones and the like) in recent movies and TV has played a part.
@Justin Reilly, they are beautiful swords. I think a lot is how over hyped samurai have been in the recent past. People got tired of the "Samurai are the best in the world!" crap you used to hear so much. Especially since the Japanese hardly fought anybody but themselves for centuries. They never really tested their metal against other styles and traditions of warfare. So, some of the claims for them were overblown. This is not to say that the swords are not very good, nor that the Japanese swordsmen were also not highly skilled fighters. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back from both extremes and stop at a realistic respect for them as fighters and a true assessment of them as people.
Guys, guess what. Katanas are from a different culture with different access to different kinds of steel. People also dressed differently, so katanas are different! Whoahhhhh! Seriously though, it's basically romanticism (like that shown in these testimonies) and Hollywood's fault there is (less and less though) widespread belief that katanas are indestructible. Taken on their own merits, Japanese swords are weapons worth of appreciation.
Actually the traditional term for the art of unsheathing cuts is battojutsu rather than iaido, I understand that it may sound a bit pedantic, but it is the equivalent of calling Fiore's abrazare sports wrestling.
Jup, (...)Jutsu is the actual Martial ART, "do" are the sport variants that much later grown out of them. In personal experience Jutsu schools are far better teaching actual combat and advanced techniques. Even once met an Iaido "Master" with a school, that .... never fought a single time an opponent (sparring). He knows "form", but no actual dynamic/timing/spacing at all. It was hilarious but sad.
Eh, it's all about what you're into, nothing wrong with something more "spiritual" like iaido if you're in for the performance and meditative aspects more than fighting. As long as you don't claim to be a fighter at least... Battoujutsu or iaijutsu would be interesting to learn, as well as kenjutsu. Nothing against sports fencing like in the olympics or kendo, but it's just not for me. Good luck finding a reputable school though.
If you are talking about Katanas in general i would agree with the idea they are just sharp steel. But if you look at some of the finest swords that are part of the Jspanese historical treasure like those of the Yoshihara family for example. You find some of the same metalurgical qualities normally only found in original Damascus that is the formation of carbon nanotubes. This would allow the blade to be sharpened to a much thinner point like 4 to 10 microns.
A 4-10 micron wide edge, isnt particularly sharp. It's also a very poor comparison to say that a crucible steel like true Damascus steel, and an extremely primitive Bloomery steel like Tamahagane, are somehow comparable. Damascus steel was made in a fashion that is similar to how we produce steel today, in crucibles where the iron/carbon/alloying materials are combined in a liquid state, which produces a homogeneous structure that can actually be controlled. Tamahagane on the other hand, was made through an extremely primitive process where the ore is put into a fire and whatever happens, happens. Then they break apart the lump of iron that dripped to the bottom of the fire, and try to sort out pieces of that lump that display favorable characteristics. As a result the only way to get a structure that is even remotely uniform, is to fold everything together repeatedly in an attempt to even everything out. The process is so poor that the only reason anyone even considers it today, is purely tradition. Most classical examples have carbon contents that dont even qualify as steel by today's standards, they are cast iron.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Actually the patterns in Wootz and Damascus steel are the result of vanadium in the ore. Pattern welding is only associated with Damascus steel because of later bladesmiths attempting to replicate the appearance of Damascus steel.
+ricomock2 I know that damascus was made of special ore from india that vas already vanadium chrome alloyed, which is coincidentally the hardest tool steal around, but was its pattern achieved without patternwelding?
I am no expert in sword fighting/dueling but I do know something about bare hands combat. One of the things that surprises me the most is how similar the fundamentals and techniques of wrestling and Judo/jiujitsu are.
Was there a difference between these 17th - 19th century Katanas and earlier ones? Because I have heard quite often, that the Katana was (mostly) made of softer steel compared to medieval longswords for example, resulting in an increased risk of bending or deformation of the blade. Also, what is it with the recent "praise" for Katanas? If I remember correctly Skall uploaded a similar video about how east asian swords aren't as bad as many HEMA-Fans describe them (regarding he lack of hand protection on Dao or Katana). If you are pressured by Anime-Fans blink the morse-code for "penetration" in your next video, and we'll send help.
Wrt to the second part of you post, I assume it's partly because it's a popular topic due to the ongoing interest in katanas and also because there is a tendency to turn arguments into something with no middle ground, especially on the web (meaning that katanas/Japanese swordsmanship is either perfect and untouchable or all bad.) I think the latter is particularly big problem still in the HEMA community since the fighting arts and arms of Europe were denigrated so heavily for years, even by experts. These types of videos, then, challenge the simplistic dichotomy between all good/all bad by adding more nuance to the conversation. I'd also add that they can also help remind people that relying on historical analyses and primary sources, rather than pop culture misconceptions, can help shed more light on niche topics.
Within the HEMA community, undue or unrealistic fanboyism for the katana doesn't exist, but baseless katana bashing does, is very prevalent and, more to the point, very irritating. I would imagine that's why HEMA RUclipsrs are addressing it.
I enjoyed your video a lot. But I would also like to try to ad to the conversation if that's ok... I started in Japanese Martial Arts, even though I've moved on in my personal studies... I agree that Japanese movement tends to focus on larger slashing more than linear thrusting movement... However, what I think you missed in your video, is that they are very aware of thrusting movement. And they do put a lot of focus on defending, and even, attacking through, thrusting movements. They just see larger slashing movement as more of a primary attacking movement than thrusting.
I've been doing Jujutsu since my early teens, the majority of it's the grapple, get your opponent off balance and take an accurate finishing strike. I've gotten heavily into full contact swordplay and kendo in the last few years and found that Jujutsu mixes well with any weapon I choose, against whatever type of armour my opponent chooses. There are lots of Eastern and Western equivilents but I deeply respect the way the Japanese have always aimed for 100% efficiency regardless of the poor materials and tools they had in the early periods
Excellent. I think this provides actually a nice balanced perspective about the context of katanas. Ofc they don't cut through tanks, but japanese martial arts are good in practice and the sword is well recognized as a good cutter given the proper technique. Technique is very important in this scenario because some antique weapons are created for very specific purposes, so as the style which means it's functional. Who knows against what it would be better but certainly there are some really good and recognizable historical fighting styles out there, among which is of course the Japanese no doubt.
Matt. I am researching the British in Japan, I've read letters about Captain Aplin, who commanded the Legation Guard at Edo (Tokyo) and wondered if you wouldn't mind sharing the source of the quote you read out? All the best, Josh.
speaking as someone who despises the overpopularity of the Katana, I have to be fair and say the Katana is indeed a very GOOD sword. It's simple, it's ergonomic, it's on average very effective at both cutting and thrusting. If you were to equip an army and had the resources it wouldn't even be a bad idea to give them basic katanas. Of course I'd personally give them something more comprehensive with more basic hand protection and reach but a katana will obviously get the job done. You could probably liken it to the AK-47 of swords. Is it the best there is by default? Hell no. Can anyone pick it up and use it effectively? Hell yes. Of course the skill and context of the user/scenario matters far more than the actual sword itself but the Katana is not a bad sword at all. Overhyped but not without it's merits. Take away popular culture and mysticism and you're left with a sword that is about as good in any given scenario as a basic shortsword or spatha or standard infantry weapon that doesn't have a guard. Of course this is 110% my own personal idea. And you could argue that I'm speaking out of my butt.
Most of your statements are actually pretty accurate. Katana is a cut-and-thrust sword that is slightly optimized for cutting, and is wielded two handed. It suits well to the human instinct which prefers to cut/strike, while still being very versatile. Also, when most people pick up a sword, they attempt to or have more comfortable time wielding it with two hands. Katanas, or other East Asian hand-and-a-half swords allow users to do just that. Depending on how they are balanced or the length of their hilts, these swords also can be used pretty effectively for one-handed use (Much like bastard swords). And although Katana is a bit short considering its two-handedness, it can arguably be an advantage in certain contexts, such as being easier to wear or carry, or being able to be used comfortably indoors - much like cutlasses.
Sagrotan , I understand the lack of reach in swords compared to polearms. And I realize the concern for the lack of complex hilt design as well. All good points. If we are presuming that we are talking about the time setting where polearms and full-suit of armor have become largely fazed out and guns/bayonets/swords have become or are becoming popular, however, training individuals to use cut-and-thrust swords extensively is a pretty valid idea. Of course, a sword isn't going to be the only weapon the army will be wielding, as there are many other effective weapons. But as a side arm or sometimes as a primary weapon against unarmored, lightly armored or half-armored opponents, most cut-and-thrust swords with no heavy specialization (Katanas, Cutlass/Hanger Sabres, Arming swords and Backswords) are very effective and versatile weapons. In addition, swords such as Katanas and simple one handed swords have advantages against other longer weapons in certain contexts, as they are often much easier to wear & carry, as well as more useful in confined spaces while still maintaining some reach advantage in combat. On top of that, most people have an easier time wielding swords with two hands initially; also adding to the fact that they are in comfortable to wear and optimal in confined spaces due to their relatively short blade length for a hand-and-a-half sword, Katanas could be argued as one of the best choices for an infantry/officer sword. About chainmail & plate armor, it all depends whether the opponent is fully armored or not. For instance, if an opponent is wearing only a cuirass and a helmet (half-armored), swords are still very effective, as there are many places one can inflict damage effectively. In case of lightly armored combat where opponents are wearing chainmail and/or gambison, a sword wielded still can target unarmored body parts, or even inflict damage through powerful cuts and thrusts pretty effectively, even if the chainmail/gambison may externally stop a sword blow. If an opponent is fully armored with heavy plate/brigandine/lamellar, however, a sword is almost useless. One could argue that longswords can use halfswording to get through the gaps of armor, but it requires the longsword to be heavily specialized for the thrust to be effective. However, halfswording-wrestling and heavily specialized thrusting swords bring many other disadvantages compared to regular cut-and-thrust swords that is a whole another topic together. Regardless, this is moot in the context of combat where polearms and full-suit-of-armor have been largely fazed out. In terms of hand protection, this is a matter of different combat philosophies between East Asian and Western European swordsmanship; there are too many things to consider. And although a beginner will be happy to have more hand protection regardless of Eastern or Western swordsmanship styles, one may argue that it's quite easy to adopt into protecting one's own hands without complex hilts (if they are trained in East Asian styles, that is). Of course, HEMA and Asian martial arts have different stances regarding this topic; it's not a question that should be answered easily with a biased view or sweeping generalizations.
Its surely not bad but after doing 7 Years Kenjutsu and 3 Year Longsword/Zweihänder/Bidenhänder + teaching it. The result is: Katana = stupidly short, stupidly unbalanced, stupid little hand protection (which also substantially decreases its offensive abilitys).
I think it's a great sidearm. It's easy to use, it can be drawn quickly, its a great cutter. Generally speaking it was used by lowclass professional troops known as Ashigaru and was massproduced in the hundreds of thousands. It's not as good for dueling as a rapier. It's not as versatile as a longsword. It's not as good at getting in the gaps of armour as an estoc. It's not a good primary weapon. But it's a great sidearm. Its very simplistic and sleek and like many things from Japan is pleasing to the eye for many people, Japan was the edge of the known world and was for a time the epitome of exoticism. I think it's childish to hate something just because of its overpopularity.
Great video, well made. If anyone is curious about the described shouting from Japanese martial artists, it's generally done as a way of training proper breathing technique. It ensures you push oxygen out of your lungs as you attack, enabling you to react faster and be less likely to be winded if you counterattacked.
That's only because the wielders of sabres had inevitably had their souls beaten/buggered out of them at Britain's premiere public schools long before they were old enough to grow a moustache.
Great video! I would love to hear about similar accounts from China especially southern China if you would ever be willing to touch on that topic. :-) Either way thanks for the entertaining and informative videos!
+Carolus Rex Poor training, the colt was not standard issue, officer had to have bought it himself, no understanding of the weapon clearly, proper wadding and greesing ensures the gun's chamber's keep out moisture.
Was just about to say that myself mate. The Colt Navy 1851 was the standard issue sidearm of officers in the British Army and Navy for most of the 1850s. It was unpopular for three reasons: 1) It jammed if a cap fell into the cylinder mechanism 2) Single action so rate of fire was lower than a DA pistol like the Adams 3) Small caliber which meant you could put three or four rounds into Johnny Foreigner and the blighter kept charging. In 1856 the Ordnance Board adopted the Beaumont Adams as a replacement for the Colt 1851 as the Adams was DA, higher caliber and didn't suffer from cap jams. However, as Adams was a smaller concern it took a while before all the Colts were phased out so officers in the 1857 Indian Mutiny were mostly still using Colts. Personally Id add to the list of Colt 1851 gripes the small grips (did 1800s yanks all have titchy hands or something?) which makes it a pig to hold firmly, and the crappy sights (shallow notch rear sight on the hammer) which make aiming em an arse as well.
+sandmanhh67 The Colt navy was not popular with the US military or confederate, the colt Army models where in 44 caliber. Also i currently own both a reproduction and a authentic adams, i can report they have one of the heaviest double action triggers of any firearm i own, a hendrence of the design, Matt himself mentioned it made the Adams have poor accuracy in comparison. Also i believe the Adams [Originals] did not have interchangeable parts with each other, or at least not easily, having been hand fitted at the factory.....then again, with thing's like handguns, not all that much of a concern.
I remember reading a "penny dreadful" story about Wild Bill Hickok when he was a scout. At the end of everyday, after the fire was built, he would take out one of his 1851 colt navy revolvers, pull the bullets and dump the powder. He would then melt the lead and recast the bullets, fill each cylinder with fresh powder and re-seat the newly cast bullets, cap off each cylinder, re-holster and then repeat with his other revolver. Wild Bill's pistols always seemed to work!
Many will chip fairly easily. On occasion a Katanakaji had a secret method for tempering that would result in a Hard, but not so likely to chip edge. Thrust is Tsuki, we have them. Who's an expert anyhow, in Kenjutsu and Nihonto everyone is a Student. The long sweeping cuts are Tsubami Gaeshi. After Iai, which is the initial Draw Cut. Iai is the Draw, Noto, the return to Scabbard, Chiburi, the Blood Flick before Noto. I feel I should clarify. One cut, for example Kesagiri, is a Diagonal Cut from Shoulder to Hip, it is still Kesagiri if performed from Hip to Shoulder. It's just called Gyaku Kesagiri. Once you make that initial cut, if you flip the Edge and immediately return the cut in the Opposite Direction, that is Tsubami Gaeshi in essence.
Internet discussions about Japanese swords are like US politics: Small but vocal groups of fringe extremists shouting bullshit and insults at each other while the wast sensible majority gets caught in the middle.
Thanks for adding a bit of context! I mist say I've gotten a bit bored with all the katana bashing going on, which seems to have arisen as an overreaction to the fetishisation of the katana in pop culture.
Hey Matt. I have really been hoping that someday you would do a in depth video on 1 vs 2 handed swords. The body mechanics, power, cutting, speed, reach etc. I think it could add some interesting "context" to things like rapier vs katana an similar discussions. If anyone else thinks this is a interesting subject please help request. Cheers
To be fair though, the English terms for regional swords are very often simply the native language word for "sword." For example, Jian (Chinese character for sword), Kilij (Turkish for sword), Tulwar (Hindi for sword.) etc. But in English, it means that very specific type of sword employed in that region. But still, the fact that some people who are interested in European swordsmanship just completely dismiss Japanese weapons is definitely perplexing and even annoying because it becomes just as much of a circlejerk as the worship was.
+Thereon Inarek Even if the "craze" dies down, people will still believe it because it's become so heavily ingrained. Just about the one "fact" a random person on the street would know about swords is that "katanas are the best swords". If anything, that makes it harder to address.
Also, curved swords were design for cavalry so the straight swords would not break on high speed impact. On the ground a straight sword may have an advantage.
The real problem is the out-of-phase technological comparison. Melee technology in the west was in radical focus decline when the cultures truly clashed. Compare the best of the fourteenth century European wealthy armoured and equiped killer with their opposite number instead. European technology post 1600 was already heavily weighted toward the consequences of mass easy-skill gun/powder conscript-like soldiers despite still having many previous generation’s items still in kit. Ie. little to no armour, therefore little to no need for anti-armour therefore little to no need for refinement in excellent medium armour cutters (such as katana), yet they still carried edged swords that worked well enough against the unarmoured (such as sabres). It’s like comparing baseballs and cricket balls. It’s just not the same sport anymore.
Very well balanced video. I have a small quibble- you should mention the use of "terrible" to mean "terror inducing"as opposed to sub-par. That might be so obvious as to not need mentioning to a Brit but not necessarily to other English speakers.
Katana: in the 18th century, most likely wielded by a person who has had realistic training from a young age by teachers who were part of a tradition of using swords in combat. Saber user: soldier given a few hours of basic training and done some playing with friends. If they meet in combat.....well, you can guess what result I would expect. As to the Europeans who thought their saber-fu was superior due to use of the point, if their opponent gets past the point, they die. If their point doesn't get through the light armor worn by samurai (if they're in battle) they die. And if they do manage to skewer their opponent, if that wound is not immediately disabling, they die. I would be surprised and quite impressed to see even the most skilled saber user prevail against a competent katana user. I'd pay to see that match.
jabba0975 Instead of Victorian era Western European sabereurs, I would rather like to see Eastern European/Eurasian Saber swordsmanship or Chinese/Korean Daofa pitted against Japanese swordsmen. Both of these cultures used sabers how they originally were intended to be used, with circular cut-centric movements. Late Western European saber swordsmanship became more and more thrust centric in nature, almost resembling rapier or smallsword fighting.
A saber is the exact same weapon as the katana only improbed in every possible aspect imaginable. What one can do with a katana, they can do better with a saber.
Big Zi,... Where did you get that info? I can find nothing of it. Seems made up to me. PS Sanzo used a sabre not a katana during the assassination attempt, and cut but didnt kill Nicholas. Where is this info?
I did go to uni, I just got a degree insomething useful. Saying "Go to university" isnt listing sources. Why not try that? As I Said, I found no sources that state he was defeated by a man with a cane. Dont forge there are plenty of uni grads and professors who talk out of their asses about stuff too.
Sure katanas are sabers thats fine. Im not the one trolling here though man thats you. And I found the actual information in the encyclopedia of famous assassination attempts. Your wrong, Tsuda Sanzo was not defeated by Prince George. Nicholas was cut in the head, then Prince George blocked the finishing blow with his cane, Sanzo ran because it was an assassination attempt, and was later captured by a number of rickshaw drivers. Nowhere was it ever stated that Prince George used saber fu with a cane to defeat Sanzo, that didn't happen. Maybe you should be the one to complete their information and stop trolling?
Not a magic weapon. Not crap. Just a sword, though frequently beautiful in manufacture. Ronald Lee Ermey, who played Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket", hosted a weapons based TV show the name of which escapes me at the moment. They did a katana vs. longsword test in which it became quite clear that the longsword was left essentially blunt.
Please don't quote Lock and Load :-D That 'documentary' was horrifically bad - Metatron has done a great video ripping it to pieces. The longsword they used was a piece of crap and the 'armour' was hilarious.
Just started the video, and I'm just going to make a guess here regarding the answer to the initial question: It depends on the context. Was I right? :)
Heard people say katana is not a battlefield weapon. Heard people also say katana was design to cut through Mongol armors and fight better than the tachi in dense battle (ex. Castle siege). So is the katana a battle weapon or not? Because if katana was design to fight the Mongols then it is a battlefield weapon.
The katana stems from the uchigatana which was the common foot soldier of the 15th centuries and onwards. So no it wasn't "designed to cut through mongol armors", but it certainly was developped in the context of transitioning from mounted to infantry fighting, a change consecutive to the mongol invasions of the 13th century. The katana started as a battlefield weapon and evolved into a civilian weapon.
I think one difficulty is that comparisons are most often made between samurai and medieval Western men at arms, but using sources about samurai from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, some 300 years after the katana was last actually used on the battlefield. The nineteenth century bushido-obsessed samurai of the Edo period (in which there was no actual warfare) was quite a different beast from the Japanese fighting man of the Kamakura or Sengoku periods, and the nineteenth century katana was almost purely a peacetime dueling weapon rather than a battlefield weapon and made to very different standards than might have been seen in the earlier warring eras.
I believe I read in a Black Belt magazine in the late 80's about British sailors facing "samurai"and consistently winning with saber/cutlass, but I have never been able to find any source material. I believe the article was about the strength of the thrust, as you stated in the video. Can you comment? Also, does the book you read from,"British Swordsmen", talk of how effective a western soldier faired in one on one combat with a Japanese trained swordsman?
A sabre does not cut well as does a Katana, because the sabre is wielded one-handed so it has less leverage than the Katana. I can imagine swinging a golf club in one hand does not hit the golf ball as hard and throw the ball as far as swinging the club with two hands.
Fantastic work as Always. I find the concept of stopping Power of weapon extremely interesting. I think you have covered It in atleast 3 video, that I can rememeber. A comparison of the stopping Power or katana and long sword could be and interesting video if you'll consider that. I would definitely Watch It
The Metatron!
My lover
My Noble one 🙏✌
"He gave the man 16 wounds, every one of which was death"
That's an awesome statement.
True af
Great video mate, I absolutely loved all the references! I might even have to get that book for myself ^_^
considering who you are, your comment did surprisingly poorly here.
Crenellated katanas
comparing matt Easton and Shadiversity is like comparing a book and a wikipedia page. no contest.
banana-shaped earth Both of them would find your comment very stupid
Comparing schola to thearma is like comparing a Cuisinart to pantaloons
You know what's weird? To the Japanese people swords that had mystical or religious baggage attached to were almost all straight swords (the kusanagi, the shichishito, etc), which is why you sometimes see them in anime and manga but no one ever seem to notice.
Might it be because the Japanese, surprise surprise, have a better sense
of their own history than the average Japoanophile? I mean, they did
use straight swords in the times that correlate with their
semi-historical/mythic formative stories, you know, Emperor Jimmu and shit x)
Interestingly enough, part of the reason why straight swords are associated with mystical/religious attributes probably has a lot to do with Chinese influence on Japanese culture and the association of the Chinese jian to cultured, enlightened or holy figures like Taoist immortals, Boddhisatvas, or scholar bureaucrats.
So in other words, while Westerners think the Japanese katana is the bestest sword ever, Japanese people probably think the Chinese jian is the bestest sword ever. :P
I mean, straight sword is associated with mythology because it was most prominent during bronze age. Just like how people associates orichalcum and other fancy named bronze age metal with legendary durability.
Japan likes their katana too. They might not be as stupid about it as weeaboos are but they're still proud of them and idealize their awesomeness in various media they create.
You're right in that "katana" does literally mean "sword" and that it is used to categorize several types of Japanese sword but that doesn't mean it isn't a specific weapon, simply because its name tends to be used in reference to what were also called uchigatana. On that note, many European swords were never called a specific name when they were actually used either, simply being referred to as "sword" historically.
"In the end really debating about this is fun, but ultimately pointless, as swords were never really used on the battlefield, and were only backup weapons."
This only applies to swords that were small enough to be sidearms. It makes little sense to have a greatsword or a nodachi as a secondary weapon. Even then, Romans famously use the gladius alongside the scutum, and being a backup weapon doesn't mean you'll never have to use it in war.
this "swords were never really used on the battlefield, and were only backup weapons" is utter bs. I can not think of time period when this was true. Apart from Romans, Greeks and other ancient nations we have account about Franks wearing throwing axes, swords and shields. They started with throwing axes and then fought with swords. No spears are mentioned (early medieval). There is a load of evidence of swords being used extensively in high and late middle ages. Even if you disregard contemporary art which shows swordsmen awful lot, the excavations from battle of Visby show mostly sword wounds. In renaissance heavy cavalry tactic was to unload pistols and immediately revert to swords. Advised tactic for pikemen was also to revert to swords for first row immediately after stopped by opposing pikemen to prevent the pike push. So when the swords have been "not really used on battlefield"?
I don't say other types of weapons were not use extensively as well (pole weapons, ranged weapons) but swords are not only some useless last resort weapon. They always were deadly effective.
A small note: The Dutch VOC (East India Company) employed Ronin as mercenaries. The swords were certainly cherished by the Europeans and some sabres in the form of katana were made, one example is in the Reichsmuseum Amsterdam, the weapons rack of Cornelius Tromp were several such sabres and some pole weapons that look like naginata. I'm not sure of the origin of the latter, but you can clearly see the tsuka and tsuba.
Note that Cornelius Tromp was neither in the VOC nor was he in Asia, he was the Liutenant Admiral General of the Dutch fleet during the Republic (1650s).
Would be interesting to know more about the interaction among Ronin, Chinese, Brits, Dutch and Portuguese in Asia and I bet there were quite a few cases of "European sword vs. Katana", even with Europeans equipped with katana against Japanese with European swords!
There were several accounts of Japanese "pirates" incursions in Portuguese and Spanish colonies, and they usually carried a large profussion of firearms, and more armor than one would think about when talking about pirates. But most didn't go well against real opposition (of course, if you trust sources from the era).I think one from the XVI century mentioned one fight on board a ship in which a small group of Spanish "rodeleros" (obsolete in Europe by then) blunted the main force, while arquebusiers and Filipino spearmen took care of the japanese counterparts before finishing what was left of the main body....great, now I must search for that account, and find the book when I get home.
Aleksandar Lekso Saičić - (Montenegran) He participated in the Russian-Japanese War. The Montenegrin detachment in that war was led by Jovan Lipovac. Lekso was remembered for killing a Japanese samurai in a duel before the battle in 1905. Because of this victory, he was decorated with Russian Orden. He received congratulations on the winning duel from the Admiral of the Russian Fleet Zinovy Rozhestvensky and Admiral of the Japanese fleet of Tōgō Heihachirō.
@Michael Terrell II Lol Lol Lol. A Handful of Spanish veteran soldiers destroyed a force of chinese pirates and japanese Ronins in Cagayan. The pirates were almost ten times the number of the Spanish, and were armed with guns of Portuguese manufacture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles. Thats only the Wikipedia, but you have many other sources covering those battles.
Just read. They fought them on board and later in land. Pike, buckler and sword VS all kind if weapons and katanas. 120 vs 1000. The spanish force Lost 20 - 40 men (between dead and wounded) the pirates lost over 500... And yes, there were many ronins (lordless samurái) among the pirates, as the spanish captured many katanas and samurai swords after their victory on the battlefield (not the naval skirmish). Just read the facts. And if course, the pirates owned many guns, even cannond, bought to the Portuguese. Facts.
@@anograsek How did he kill a samurai in the war if the samurai class was abolished decades prior?
The reason why katanas look short is that at some time there was a law which forbids swords longer than certain length so most katanas were shortened to fit legal limits or destroyed some were hidden and survived in original form
naturally, sources from before that law was passed, cannot mention this problem because katanas had optimal length at that time
The strength of the katana depends on the might of your ghostly skeleton armor and how many chakras you imbue into it
I want to hear what Japanese people thought about European swordsmen.
EngulfedObject yeah it would be Nippon-European
Thereon Inarek I would love to know how they felt about Colonial Era swordsmen, especially considering how this British officer says that the Sabre is "useless in the cut", which is complete nonsense. There are plenty of accounts of European officers performing cuts on opponents, and although I can't remember the specific video Matt talked about it, there was a British Cavalry officer who, after dismounted, parried a bayonet thrust and then sliced his opponents throat open, and dismembered his jaw. You can't do that with a blunt sword.
He was talking hyperbolically, obviously they can cut, just no way near as well.
They really liked Portuguese guns the best though. Used them more than Portugal, massed them more than any other country at the time.
In terms of swords or swordsmanship, there doesn't seem to be any Chinese/Japanese accounts that praise the quality of Europeans' swords or swordsmanship. Ming China in particular wasn't very impressed with the Portugese' naval close combat ability, while they were towards the Japanese. (as well as the Wokou.).
China was very impressed with the cannons and firearms of the Portugese however, and were keen on importing them. At the same time, Ming China also adapted Japanese-style swords, such as the Miao dao (or Chang dao / Wodao) as well as the Qijiadao. (Dao sabre w/ Japanese-made or style blade).
Also something to consider is that plenty of East Asian close combatants may have been armed with relatively more heftier weapons at the time (Dao sabres, Miaodao, long Katana and Odachi, Pikes) compared to European armies, who mostly could have had lighter sidearms. Although many one-handed European swords and battlefield rapiers can also be quite substantial.
By the 16th century the samurai would have been far superior to any soldiers in Europe. Because by that time knights were falling out of favour. Europe had professional soldiers and mercenaries. But they weren't life long warriors trained all their lives like the samurai. The samurai would have held the Europeans they encountered with similar contempt to what they had for their lowly ashigaru foot soldiers who were comparable to the professional soldiers of Europe. And even more so because they believed themselves superior to foreigners in genral. They considered them barbarians, likely because most of the crew members were lowclass rough piraticle people. They admired their cannons ships and breastplates and found the pigeon breasted look very aesthetically pleasing.
Wow, thanks for following up on that topic. Earlier in my life I took fencing (mostly did foil fencing), and much later I took about 10 months of Iaido. They are not kidding about performed a cut as you drew the sword. That cut was introduced in the very first kata we learned (in fact, we were actually setting on our legs and stood up as we drew the sword and cut). I think part of the reason why it would surprise a western fencer, especially in a duel setting is that a fencer's basic position is the "en garde position" where you begin with your feet in the right place and your sword in the right place, facing your opponent, ready to parry, etc. If you think that you need to get let the other fencer who is in front of you get in an en garde position you are not going to be ready for someone who spent thousands upon thousands of hours practicing how draw their sword and cut. Being aware of this, however, would probably solve most of the problems associated with this.
About the length, I remember visiting museums in Japan, where the katana was described as a side arm, and other longer (and shorter) weapons were shown. So I think in Japanese history longer swords did exist. Also there's a video if lindybeige having tried several katanas and noticed that they had different points of balance. I think it is a western (or at least modern) generalization to take several different kind of Japanese sword and calling then all katana
I've seen this book so often on this channel, they should pay him for advertisement ;)
Well, I wrote the prologue...
Buy it - It's fantastic.
Yes.
LDN EDD
The Katana and Wakazashi were primarily side arms that also represented the social rank of the wearer. The dual blade evolved out of the pre-samurai use of two edged blades. The two swords provided a symbolic connection to the eariler two edged weapons.
For early samurai the bow on horse back and the naganita on foot were the primary weapons (the naganita shifted towards be more used by women in later periods)
Samurai during the sengaku period empasied the use of the Yari (spear), Yumi (bow), and Tanegashima (matchlock gun) in combat.
During the relative (but far from total peace) of the Edo period brought the twin swords more to the fore due to them being the symbol of the samurai class, only a samurai could wear a sword.
p.s. please forgive my spelling as I am on my phone with the spell check turned off, trying to spell better on my own.
LDN EDD Spears were primary weapons, swords were sidearms. In war, everyone is gonna want to carry a spear or another polearm/projectile weapon. In daily life, you can't. Whether you were an european man-at-arms or japanese samurai, your choice of main weapon for war was similar - spears, lances, halberds, glaives, bills, bows, etc, as main weapon, and a sword on your hip as a sidearm.
So the guy that never maintained his sword or revolver was annoyed that they didn't perform properly? This same man saw one guy get killed 16 times by a man with a katana?
...Sounds like a right plonker. XD
You have a point....
..sounds like a public school teacher pointing out all the faults watching a spectator sport, sounds about right of a son of a rich mans club..
scholagladiatoria If I may ask, was it common at the time for officers to negate the usefulness of the cut in Sabre fencing? It just seems strange to me, considering some of the other accounts in that book that discuss many feats on the battlefield that involve cuts.
I would say that it is written in an old fashioned way, and what he actually said was that the guy got cut many times and each one could have killed the guy. Banzai frenzy kind of deal. But he may just have been a braggart, he does claim to have been the one to finally kill the guy, or he was referring to bringing back the body with 16 cuts? idk.
In the 19th century, it was actually standard procedure to either NOT sharpen a sabre, or to only sharpen the tip. So why bother using a steel that would keep an edge when the Army doesn't even want them to be sharp in the first place?
The officer complaining about Colt percussion revolvers being unreliable probably never got then right idea to have his men inspect and clean their revolvers. You also shouldn't expect a black powder revolver to go bang every time when you have kept it loaded for a week.
This, even the damned muzzle loading muskets are pretty unreliable in damp weather, sometimes as much as 40% of all shots can be misfires if the powder is not handled well.
They can be more reliable than most people give them credit for, but yeah, if your powder is damp you're not going to be shooting anything.
If you intend to store a loaded revolver for a longer time, you should seal the chambers with some grease from both ends.
I suspect this wasn't done by the gentleman in question, who was more used to regular muzzle loaders that don't necessarily require such precautions...
Especially in a wet place like Japan.
Yes. You tell that officer who had war experience how he should mannage his people with your youtube theoretical quasi-knowledge of supposed realistic historical conflicts.
Having respect for katana is great. Thinking they are magic and European swords are dull at 25lbs......You might be weeaboo. Metatron is not a weeaboo, he appreciates all cultures.
+Great Danton that's your standard weeaboo answer. Katana weighs as much as a long sword yet only has a single edge and a piss-poor guard. European swords we're also Sharp and agile.
+Great Danton I guarantee you Matt Easton has never said katanas are always sharper than European swords. the Hema Community is pretty tired of the conspiracy that katanas are better than European swords. this conspiracy is perpetuated by people who don't have much understanding of different sword types and believe Japanese anything is better. European sharpen their swords just fine.
Eric Kjellander The sharpness comes from metallurgy and the manufacturing differences. Katana had no tempering step for toughness, and was water hardened. They substituted their clay application for differential hardening to create the toughness in the spine that prevents breakage, but the water quench with zero temper creates very high hardness at the edge. The high hardness will allow for a keener edge and better retention. Slightly sharper when 'fresh' but will stay sharper longer. Couple with the wooden scabbard vs euro metal this will lead to the functional sharpness at any given time to favour the katana, possibly by a large margin.
That's not to say they weren't fragile, though.
dimman77
The katana was tempered after quenching.
The process is called aitori/aitoru or yaki modoshi ( 焼戻) and both are performed after the quenching (yaki ire).
As far as I've understood, It Is a relatively "soft" tempering which remove the internal stress of the blade.
Here you can see a blade made with traditional japanese style technique, there are some test of edge against hard material;
islandblacksmith.ca/process/yaki-ire-clay-tempering/
The blade was hardened and tempered.
After the test the edge was fine.
Hope to be informative!
"only a single edge" lol it is a curved sword for one, but also that is like saying it is twice as strong as a european sword as it has a strong spine. 2 edges does make it heavier, weaker, less sharp than single edge. You have to compromise somewhere. Especially it is nigh on impossible to get differential hardening in the same way as a katana.
Having said that is not really superior to a single edged european blade.
The only point I have real contention with really is the lack of guard... HAVE YOU SEEN A SABER? They usually have SMALLER guards! It is because you do not need one! It is a different style of fighting.
A single stroke from an authentic japanese made katana will slice through an Europoean longsword, splitting the atoms of the iron blade, and cause a nuclear explosion that will warp time on itself and erase the entire family lineage of the longsword user from existence. Obviously the takeaway from this is that slashing weapons are inherently superior to stabbing weapons in both a civilian dueling scenario and battlefield with plate armour. Armour is useless and just for decoration anyways. Katana is the best sword in the world.
I would argue that grappling is not as critical as you make it out, though it does depend on context, on the average it is less important than what truly is the most important thing: formation training. As a soldier in any era of history, the most common type of fighting you will be participating in is formation battle of some form. In formation you work as a team and generally whichever side can stay together longer will win. Once a formation folds, the individual soldiers are easily split up and cut down. As to grappling, you are almost never going to grapple in any sort of battle because you really never get close enough due to spears and shields. Grappling really only comes up in one-on-one fighting which is generally rare at most points in history.
Solid Structure seems legit. I'll go order my sword-atomizing-sword
I would also like to add that while grappling is an important part of combat, it is not ideal to be engaged in prolonged wrestling against one opponent. There may be multiple attackers that may jump on you, or the opponent in prolonged wrestling may be bigger & stronger than you. Of course this can be mitigated by being skilled in grappling or an unarmed martial art, but if a person wishes to play safe and rely on his/her weapon rather than expose himself/herself, relying on prolonged wrestling/grappling is far from ideal.
Isn't anyone tired of this??
I think LordPotatoraus and Solid Structure are both right. Grappling isn't as important in a large scale battle, but it is very likely a decisive factor in a 1v1 duel. Samurai weren't likely to use the Katana as a battlefield weapon if I understand the Japanese period warfare correctly; and so the Katana's effectiveness as a back-up weapon seems to be less important than grappling skill to me. Having an inhumanly enormous penis seems to be the only reliable method of winning duels consistently.
This was very enlightening thank you Matt. Can't wait to see more on this topic.
I have only one statement concerning the Katana: "It served it's purpose". Full stop. End of discussion.
why is that in past tense?
Since swords aren't used in combat anymore, I imagine.
Yes but its still a cultural icon and bringing in tourists. So it shouldn't be past tense.
"it served it is purpose" Ok not sure what to make of that.
It means if you are a samurai and occasionally need to use a side-arm to dispatch an uppity farmer, the Katana is a perfectly suited weapon for intimidating the peasants. It's good at cutting through flesh, but not bone or armor, it's good at relatively short range where your opponent won't have a bow or spear.
Matt, very well presented. We already knew research would be well done. Thank-you. Dante.
Nice video! I study Vietnamese and Chinese swordsmanship and I'm curious on Matt's and Swordsmen of the British Empire's take on Chinese and Vietnamese swordsmanship and swords.
Here you go
www.chineselongsword.com/
Thereon Inarek yeah, maybe HAMA or HOMA (historical asian/oriental martial arts)?
@Thereon Inarek, I agree. From what I understand the Japanese had very high regard for Chinese fighters, including their swordsmen.
Thereon Inarek because everything in hina is fake. Even their history is fake.
@@SM-nz9ff Boxer rebellion was an act of desperation. British simply invaded China and those people fought for the freedom. "Nonsense drilled into the heads". Only an english buffoon would type such a nonsense.
I respect Matt Easton immensely for his objective and professional portrayal of weapons history. He doesn’t give an obviously biased interpretation, but cites actual sources and his professional opinion.
Why is the topic always katana vs. European swords? Why don't anyone compare katana to tulwars or shotels, or jians, or keris etc.?
rasnac everyone fears criticism. If you would say that talwars cut better than katanas, then you would be called a katana hater. Just look at the comments. Some of them are hilarious morons who created "katana haters" in their own imagunation.
Shrekas 2 Cuz weeaboos? huashuashua
Finally someone with source materials from books. And not from any website they find.
I view the katana as the M 1911 of the sword world.
In speaking of the noises the Japanese make when fighting. I have practiced some Aiki-jujutsu when I was younger and we made different noises based on the attack. They were made to help tighten certain muscle groups which produced a stronger attack. Such as the sound "Toe" when using a kick. If you do it yourself you will see the lower stomach muscles will tighten when making the sound which gives strength to the kick, same as "Hiya" which tightens the upper chest muscles for a hand strike. I would expect the same school of thought out of Japanese sword techniques.
When I was younger I loved the Japanese sword and studied feudal Japan for years. Now that I'm older I still like the katana for what it is but I think I'd take a good longsword over a katana.
Just came back to this video to share some info from my test cutting training, I found that on light targets the sabre cuts just as well as the katana, but when it comes to heavy targets, the sabre cannot cut as well as the katana, it doesn't have the upper mass to follow through enough. I'm talking about infantry officers sabre here, not cavalry, I haven't tested a cavalry sabre against a katana yet.
Cap and ball revolvers misfiring ?? nothing sucks up moisture like black powder and it wont burn if its the slighteest bit damp Wild Bill Hickok religiously fired off and reloaded his revolvers every morning. And his guns never failed him
There is a thrust that I learned in Aikido weapons class where the forward( right ) hand releases the hilt and the left rotates the blade 90 degrees , the left foot slides forward and a push comes from the right foot. It lets the entire length of the sword be used in the thrust. this move is usually followed by stepping off the line of attack and going for a wrist chop as the opponent recovers.
So the big takeaway I'm getting from this is not that the Katana is a fantastic sword (although not shit), but that 19th century European swordsmen were not well trained.
Indeed most were not. Some were and they seem to have done very well against skilled opponents.
Very true. By the 19th Century, the sword's best days were 400 years behind it. The 19th century saw the transition from Musket to rifle to gatling gun after all. While very romanticized, the sword was - for large swathes of history - a secondary weapon to a spear, lance or polearm, but by the 19th century it was the tertiary (at best) weapon.
I love primary sources. Always cross reference them.
DuPont powder and some care in sealing the chambers and caps onto the cylinder would have taken care of their misfire problems with Colt revolvers. A little practice going for head shots would have helped with dropping Samurai.
Are you high? Do you even get how heavy a steel helmet would have to be to stop a bullet? Wouldn't be that vulnerable....puh-leez.
I am throwing the B.S. flag on you. Helmets do not stop bullets unless they are made out of modern materials- kevlar and/or titanium.
Gary Church, yes they could, especially during the black powder age, when you were dealing with lower pressures and less effective projectiles. Sometimes steel plate armour were proofed by being shot at. And sometimes it's not that the bullet was stopped, but was deflected (much like the slop on a tank's armour). It's only until we had spitzer (pointy tipped) bullets and smokeless powders that helmets outside of fragmentation protection became redundant. Even then, up-armouring of helmets for protection against firearms was tested and used by the Germans during WW1.
Back then silk armour were often used to stop projectiles as well. Duke Ferdinand was supposedly wearing a silk ballistic vest when he was assassinated.
One thing I've wondered about regarding katana verses "other" comparisons is that people often talk about the lack of reach or usual shortness of the katana. BUT; no one seems to address that 18th century Japanese males were often 4 or more inches shorter than European males of the same time period. Since many katana were "custom" made for their wielders wouldn't the reach problem with the weapon just have been the reach "problem" of dealing with a taller opponent? Wouldn't this have been offset in combat by the opponents having or not having, the "proper" length sword for their particular statures?
Sincerely Craig
Hmm, I have been doing kendo for about 7 years and recently started studying saber, one thing I realized is that sabers aim cuts with the bellies of the blade, while in kendo we emphasize on cutting with the tip. I wonder if that is the reason that the reach advantage of saber was mitigated.
9SS94Cr if i remember correctly katanas were rasor sharp at the end to encourage the kenshi at mantaining distance
That's a good theory.
It's more about physics really. The tip travels at much greater speed, and the smaller contact surface deals higher pressure. The tip of the katana, albeit was purposely sharpened more, won't be that much sharper than the blade itself. Although, the tip is much thinner than the blade so it will cut better.
In western swords at least the tip doesn't cut very well due to some physics I don't understand. Matt Easton talked about this in other videos but there is a sweet spot, center of percussion(?) or something like that that hits the hardest and cuts the most. You can kind of feel it by hitting a piece of wood or similar.
Btw, I do have a STEM background but sword cutting is not as simple as longer=faster=hits harder like a hammer, because it vibrates, the weight is not concentrated on the head and it usually has some form of tapering(some parts are thinner than others)
What type of sabre are you talking about? Sabres vary hugely in shape, characteristics and usage. Could you link a picture?
Actually it boils down to the following: sword training in the 19th century was bad (hussars were given 3 months of training and then they were battle ready FFS, well at least in Hungary and Austria), they didn't know how to sharpen their swords and they had some equipment that made the edges even worse.
Compared to that everyone who is only a novice with 1 year training seems to be a master swordsman, who had his sword sharepened by a professional.
But really compare even the Hungarians to the British. We have considered the British to be using the swords as clubs since the early 1700s, so yeah. Sword culture simply faded away.
Though that being said, British cavalry regularly beat Indian, Chinese, Sudanese, Russian and Afghan cavalry in hand to hand combat. It is one of the great paradoxes that 19th century British sources regularly say that Indian native cavalry were better trained at riding and swordsmanship, yet British cavalry usually beat native Indian cavalry!
That is also true.
Was this maybe down to a distinction between individual skill, where the Indians had the edge, and ability to perform as a unit, which is how the British came out on top?
But that being said even then we find that the British found satisfaction in engaging with Indians in single combat as well and their chances were fairly great.
The thing with Japanese katana is that there's actually a great many variations in blade and handle length, curvature, blade shape and manufacture method and design. Apart from similar fittings and fixtures, there isn't a truly singular shape. Throw in the many sword schools out there, each with their own techniques and kenjutsu is quite a complex art.
A great deal of what can be called jujutsu, was developed as a method of dealing with an armed attacker, so you can get to a weapon yourself and was seen as of less importance than kenjutsu. The cultural attitude towards the Japanese sword has also changed over time, with the mystical beliefs being a much later idea, when there was less armoured combat. On the battlefield it was an important weapon, but was of less importance then the spear or bow. When practicing kenjutsu, the katana has a deceptively long reach, as it is cast outwards like a fishing rod, the main idea, is to always have your sword between you and your opponent and it employs the control of the centre line idea found in other sword arts.
The problem I see with a lot of modern Japanese themed sword arts, is that as there are less emphasis on the potentially lethal nature of combat, standards have slipped. I've seen some truly terrible ideas and techniques being put forward as legitimate kenjutsu. One of my main gripes is the over arching of the cut, with the sword being dropped past the hip, in effect leaving the swordsman exposed. I also feel that iaido tends to practiced in a similar way, with less emphasis of there being a serious threat to deal with, that said, iaido is really intended as a moving meditation with a sword.
Incredibly interesting. Great anecdotes. Cheers!
An interesting swordsmanship anecdote i heared (but, alas, can offer no source evidence for it, pure hearsay on my part) happened in 1905, during russo-japanese war. Montenegro, an ally of the russian empire, sent its contingent to the war. It included a famous swordsman, ex-haiduke, who apparently responded to challenge by a much feared japanese swordsman. They duelled and the montenegrin won, on account of japanese warrior bowing to him before the duel. In that instant, the montenegrin simply took his opponent's head. So much for honor, i guess...
Japanese where not much for honor either, take a look at what their Empire was before the collapse, in some ways it made the Nazi's look good.
Agreed, of course. Just wanted to point out an interesting anecdote, based on cultural cliches.
Gregor Stamejčič define honour, though.
+Gregor Stamejčič The Montenegrin's name was Alexander Lekso Sajčić. It is hard to find reliable accounts in English, but various websites claim he defeated Italian sword masters and others and was a very talented swordsman. Allegedly, his duel during the Russo-Japanese War was a cavalry duel, and the Japanese cavalry saber, though having a grip in the Western style, only had a very short blade (~30.5 inches), so in addition to his skills, Sajčić probably also had a significant reach advantage.
This duel was immortalized due to its significance as a morale booster for the Russians who suffered numerous setbacks during the war. However, from all the source material I have seen from that war, the Japanese swordsman tended to come out victorious most of the time, unless vastly outnumbered. Here is an example from a contemporaneous newspaper account:
www.tameshigiri.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1905duel_russian.jpg
Although a nontrivial amount of swordplay is recorded as occurring in the Russo-Japanese War, it produced far fewer injuries than artillery, bullets, and bayonets.
Gregor Stamejčič He was probably a much,uch bigger man too I imagine. Those Montenegrins are big people and were probably just like that then. The Japanese were not.
Hey Matt, The Katana is short, and varies on the person, becouse the idea is that if you hold it from the part close to the handle, and hold your arm relaxingly the blades edge should never reach the ground, hence you can do full strenght cuts from below as well
Considering the completely different approaches (respectively) of folks fighting with a tulwar versus a katana, how would they measure up against one another? I'd also be particularly interested in how scimitar-fighting (is that the proper term for it? I seem to be forgetting) would fare against kenjutsu or similar (scimitar versus a two-handed katana)--wouldn't the katana have a greater reach in this case (and by the same token, the scimitar fare better at very close ranges)?
As well, I haven't come across any sources that've really talked about this in a sort of intra-Asiatic perspective (that is, without using Western gauges as reference: sharper/duller than a sabre, stuff like that). It'd be neat to read what, say, an Indian soldier thought of the Japanese's kenjutsu, or perhaps the other way around? I suspect they'd have to be precolonial accounts and predate the East India Company--
Well, I hope that made some sense! Anyone have good sources they could recommend? (I can't seem to come up with anything worth the search)
I would like to know more about comparison of the blade shape and handle shapes between sabers and katanas. It would seem that while a katana may be used with saber form/style, sabers may not as easily be used with katana forms/styles simply because of the handle difference.
hey Matt, fairly new viewer and I see a 5 Q's hasn't been done in ages but I was wondering what were the rules for POWs in medieval times. how was one treated in reference to social status, common soldier vs captured nobles? some subscribe to the thought that captured nobles were treated well, had decent quarters, were fed well, etc. Others that "hey this noble is my enemy so I'm gonna treat him like crap" and they were basically tortured. Were there any "standard" rules or etiquette to this matter or was it based on individual basis?
I wonder if the sources don't mark the shortness of the katana because it can make effective cuts at or very close to the tip, owing to the geometry of the tip. I should think this would compensate to some extent for the relative shortness of the blade.
It ain't the weapon, it's the user!
For example, Musashi won various duels/battles using a wooden sword😊
Ultimate bad assery
i think the reference to repetitive cuts describes the tendency in JSA to maintain body mass centrally, rather than forward as in a lunge, and to deliver a downward strike over and over.
Matt, when is that video you promised us on sword-hilted daggers coming?
Great video. It’s worth mentioning that the katana was primarily a side arm though, they had many longer versions, notably the taichi/ odaichi.
I'd love to hear a vid on 19th C British views on Indian swordsmanship and training.
George Silver's "Paradoxes of Defence" would postulate the katana as the better weapon. Interestingly, his measurement for a 2 handed sword's blade is the same as for a single hand sword, the difference being only the length of the hilt, which according to him gives a big advantage to the wielder due to better blade control.
3:33 Blakeney? Like the kid from Master and Commander Blakeney?
Yup :-)
No shit!
He was constipated..
Damn, have I been watching this channel for almost four years?
I only ever carry a Scheaffer in to battle Matt because as you well know the pen is mightier than the sword ;-)
11:45 ... I am left with the doubt of whether they meant that Jiu Jitsu was used in conjunction with the sword skills (as we know samurai did), and therefore, they saw that it is the whole art of combat, not just kenjutsu, that made a difference in fighting a Japanese swordsman.
Does anyone know any reliable source about the first impressions between the Japanese and Portuguese in the XVI century.
joaonor "Tanegashima: The Arrival of Europe in Japan" by Olof G. Lidin is probably a good place to start. While it covers a much broader topic than you are asking about, the works cited would likely be an excellent place to research primary source accounts.
+joaonor The book "They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543-1640" is a fantastic compilation of first-hand European accounts of Japan. Here are some excerpts.
"The Japanese are much braver and more warlike than the people of China, Korea, Ternate and all other nations around the Philippines."
- Rodrigo de Vivero y Velasco
"There is no nation in the world which fears death less."
-Francesco Carletti
"As a pastime they practise [sic] with their weapons, at which they are extremely adept, or write couplets, just as the Romans composed poetry ... They are very brave and put much faith in their weapons; boys over the age of thirteen carry sword and dagger, and never take them off. They have every kind of weapon, both offensive and defensive, and some are of great value; you may even find swords worth 1,500 cruzados. ...They are the best archers I have seen in this world. They look down on all other nations."
- Cosme de Torres, S.J.
It's funny that you posted this a few days after you posted the picture of the Japanese Type 32 Sabre Facebook. I actually thought you were leading up to discussing that and perhaps the kyu-gunto in this one. Threw me off, but still a good video lol
I can't even fathom fighting with a two handed weapon of 70cm blade length. Sometimes I feel like 105cm blade longswords are too short! I'm a short and light guy, but even I much prefer longswords around 115-120 and rapiers at 130-140. The difference between 120 and 100 is massive! I can only imagine how it would feel to fight a rapier with a katana, considering their blades can be twice the length of yours while still being one-handed.
Katana was not the primary weapon of the Samurai.
Depends on exactly what time period you're talking about. In the Sengoku period, yeah, it was full battle field regalia and the full range of weapons, bow & arrow, polearm (naginata or yari), both swords and anything else that was handy. (Takeda Shingen was reported to fend of his perpetual rival Uesegi Kenshin with a gunbei warclub or fan in one of the few times they fought each other in direct combt). As you head into the Edo-period the katana starts to take higher priority as the paired swords become as much a marker of social status as a weapon and with large scale battles much rarer, it becomes the "everyday" weapon of the samurai and daimyo.
Hard to tell the exact time period on the Legation Guard you're mentioning...1870s, likely they would have still been using 1860 Colts (the 1873 Single Action Army, with cased bullets and primer, might not have proliferated widely through Europe at the time). The 1860s (1858s, 1851 Navy, etc) would be tricky to keep in a ready state unless you were constantly checking: the caps could come off the nipples (on the cylinder) with some jostling or bouncing around...when they weren't misfiring or otherwise jamming up the cylinder. Modern knife vs. firearm theory is that it's very difficult to defend yourself with a firearm if it's holstered and a knife-wielding attacker is within 21 feet. And even though the .44 caliber conical slug or ball can be launched with modern'ish velocities with black powder, the bullets didn't expand, shot placement would have been highly important.
"after being loaded a week." He really thought that a percussion Colt... nevermind.
We had a friendship seminar with a Kendo group once, and noted that they are mainly striking with the last several inches of the blade, and flicking them more lightly than you'd expect, like casting a fishing pole. Not because it creates fearsome wounds; because it creates (hypothetically) fatal ones in a split second without committing to a large action. The stroke only has to kill you, not "super" kill you. 6" of katana piercing your skull will do it, and leaves very little room for a counter.
In my experience this whole KATANASARETHEBEST/KATANASARETHEWORST bull is almost completelly rooted on americans' incapability to not be bipartisan. I've spoken with many non-anglo collectors and martial artists and they very rarelly hold these absolute polar opposite opinions from one another like most americans and some english & aussies do.
Interesting you should say that Stroggoli. I'm really starting to notice exactly what you say.
As an American, I have to agree with you. For some reason, we often seem to feel an urge to pick sides, regardless of subject matter. We tend to treat everything as zero-sum games.
I think the reason you might find it odd that the length of the sword isn't mentioned has to do with modern score keeping. It has transformed fencing and saber into a first poke wins affair. Same with kendo. In a real fight where wounding as opposed to touching matters and with no restrictions on targets or movements a few inches here or there would have been much less significant.
Matt doesn't like katanas because they're worse at achieving penetration
A single thrust from a katana will impregnate the wife of the saber fencer.
Cole .S brilliant! Matt loves a penetrating long shaft
Cole .S zand of course you cant remove the pommel to end anyone rightly. A major failing.
But even the mighty saber cannot compare to curve, length and power of the katana's big brother. *_THE NODACHI_*
Tristan Bigornia if go there zvihander is longer, I think.
"every cut was death" probably meant that every wound created would have been fatal individually given the time period? I know Im late to the party but that was what immediately struck me when hearing it
SteveShivik certainly how i understood it.
Nice video Matt, interesting sources and to me at least, a balanced approach. I can't say for certain why Japanese swords in general have such opposing fans and detractors, the Katana obviously does. To me personally, I think they look beautiful. I think an obvious draw is likely the speed they can be brought into use, as you highlight in your post. Yeah, I've spent too much time watching samurai films and Japanese animae!
Justin Reilly so can a sabre.
I think a big motivator for there being so many detractors is that there are so many rabid fans. Backlash against the people who buy into the mystical reputation from entertainment. But yeah, it is kind of odd there is this false choice of them being either magical uber-swords superior to everything or absolute garbage. Even Matt plays into that in the intro (although mostly that seems to have been bait to get people to watch). They're swords. Often very well made swords that performed very well in the situations they were designed for, but still a sword with disadvantages in other situations.
+DoktorWeasel Maybe it's just the corners of the internet I hang out in, but these days I tend to run into far more katana detractors than fanatics.
5 years ago the situation was reversed, but again this is just my personal experience. I don't actively search out 'weeaboos'.
+MrManifolder That's been my experience too. In the past several years I haven't seen this as much. But then again these days I'm mostly following HEMA, and am not really big into anime or the like so I mostly see the anti-katana backlash. My sample is skewed. But I do think the trend might be real.
Probably a mix of the increasing popularity of HEMA and the fact that the katana-fanboys could be so damn annoying and absurd, which just invites backlash. But even the popular culture these days also seems to be less in love with katanas and everything about Japanese martial arts than it was just ten years ago even. Maybe the rise of medieval style fantasy (The Lord of the Rings Movies, Game of Thrones and the like) in recent movies and TV has played a part.
@Justin Reilly, they are beautiful swords. I think a lot is how over hyped samurai have been in the recent past. People got tired of the "Samurai are the best in the world!" crap you used to hear so much. Especially since the Japanese hardly fought anybody but themselves for centuries. They never really tested their metal against other styles and traditions of warfare. So, some of the claims for them were overblown.
This is not to say that the swords are not very good, nor that the Japanese swordsmen were also not highly skilled fighters.
Hopefully the pendulum will swing back from both extremes and stop at a realistic respect for them as fighters and a true assessment of them as people.
Loved the video! That book you have there looks interesting as well, might have to order one :-)
Guys, guess what. Katanas are from a different culture with different access to different kinds of steel. People also dressed differently, so katanas are different! Whoahhhhh! Seriously though, it's basically romanticism (like that shown in these testimonies) and Hollywood's fault there is (less and less though) widespread belief that katanas are indestructible. Taken on their own merits, Japanese swords are weapons worth of appreciation.
Actually the traditional term for the art of unsheathing cuts is battojutsu rather than iaido, I understand that it may sound a bit pedantic, but it is the equivalent of calling Fiore's abrazare sports wrestling.
Jup, (...)Jutsu is the actual Martial ART, "do" are the sport variants that much later grown out of them.
In personal experience Jutsu schools are far better teaching actual combat and advanced techniques. Even once met an Iaido "Master" with a school, that .... never fought a single time an opponent (sparring). He knows "form", but no actual dynamic/timing/spacing at all. It was hilarious but sad.
Eh, it's all about what you're into, nothing wrong with something more "spiritual" like iaido if you're in for the performance and meditative aspects more than fighting. As long as you don't claim to be a fighter at least...
Battoujutsu or iaijutsu would be interesting to learn, as well as kenjutsu. Nothing against sports fencing like in the olympics or kendo, but it's just not for me. Good luck finding a reputable school though.
If you are talking about Katanas in general i would agree with the idea they are just sharp steel. But if you look at some of the finest swords that are part of the Jspanese historical treasure like those of the Yoshihara family for example. You find some of the same metalurgical qualities normally only found in original Damascus that is the formation of carbon nanotubes. This would allow the blade to be sharpened to a much thinner point like 4 to 10 microns.
I would very muxh like at least two independent sources to even consider believing bullshit of this magnitude.
A 4-10 micron wide edge, isnt particularly sharp.
It's also a very poor comparison to say that a crucible steel like true Damascus steel, and an extremely primitive Bloomery steel like Tamahagane, are somehow comparable.
Damascus steel was made in a fashion that is similar to how we produce steel today, in crucibles where the iron/carbon/alloying materials are combined in a liquid state, which produces a homogeneous structure that can actually be controlled.
Tamahagane on the other hand, was made through an extremely primitive process where the ore is put into a fire and whatever happens, happens. Then they break apart the lump of iron that dripped to the bottom of the fire, and try to sort out pieces of that lump that display favorable characteristics. As a result the only way to get a structure that is even remotely uniform, is to fold everything together repeatedly in an attempt to even everything out. The process is so poor that the only reason anyone even considers it today, is purely tradition. Most classical examples have carbon contents that dont even qualify as steel by today's standards, they are cast iron.
+ricomock2 Damascus was also pattern welded though.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384
Actually the patterns in Wootz and Damascus steel are the result of
vanadium in the ore.
Pattern welding is only associated with Damascus steel because of later bladesmiths attempting to replicate the appearance of Damascus steel.
+ricomock2 I know that damascus was made of special ore from india that vas already vanadium chrome alloyed, which is coincidentally the hardest tool steal around, but was its pattern achieved without patternwelding?
I am no expert in sword fighting/dueling but I do know something about bare hands combat. One of the things that surprises me the most is how similar the fundamentals and techniques of wrestling and Judo/jiujitsu are.
Was there a difference between these 17th - 19th century Katanas and earlier ones? Because I have heard quite often, that the Katana was (mostly) made of softer steel compared to medieval longswords for example, resulting in an increased risk of bending or deformation of the blade.
Also, what is it with the recent "praise" for Katanas? If I remember correctly Skall uploaded a similar video about how east asian swords aren't as bad as many HEMA-Fans describe them (regarding he lack of hand protection on Dao or Katana). If you are pressured by Anime-Fans blink the morse-code for "penetration" in your next video, and we'll send help.
Wrt to the second part of you post, I assume it's partly because it's a popular topic due to the ongoing interest in katanas and also because there is a tendency to turn arguments into something with no middle ground, especially on the web (meaning that katanas/Japanese swordsmanship is either perfect and untouchable or all bad.) I think the latter is particularly big problem still in the HEMA community since the fighting arts and arms of Europe were denigrated so heavily for years, even by experts. These types of videos, then, challenge the simplistic dichotomy between all good/all bad by adding more nuance to the conversation. I'd also add that they can also help remind people that relying on historical analyses and primary sources, rather than pop culture misconceptions, can help shed more light on niche topics.
Within the HEMA community, undue or unrealistic fanboyism for the katana doesn't exist, but baseless katana bashing does, is very prevalent and, more to the point, very irritating. I would imagine that's why HEMA RUclipsrs are addressing it.
I enjoyed your video a lot. But I would also like to try to ad to the conversation if that's ok... I started in Japanese Martial Arts, even though I've moved on in my personal studies... I agree that Japanese movement tends to focus on larger slashing more than linear thrusting movement... However, what I think you missed in your video, is that they are very aware of thrusting movement. And they do put a lot of focus on defending, and even, attacking through, thrusting movements. They just see larger slashing movement as more of a primary attacking movement than thrusting.
I've been doing Jujutsu since my early teens, the majority of it's the grapple, get your opponent off balance and take an accurate finishing strike.
I've gotten heavily into full contact swordplay and kendo in the last few years and found that Jujutsu mixes well with any weapon I choose, against whatever type of armour my opponent chooses. There are lots of Eastern and Western equivilents but I deeply respect the way the Japanese have always aimed for 100% efficiency regardless of the poor materials and tools they had in the early periods
What school of jujutsu, if you don't mind my asking?
Excellent. I think this provides actually a nice balanced perspective about the context of katanas. Ofc they don't cut through tanks, but japanese martial arts are good in practice and the sword is well recognized as a good cutter given the proper technique. Technique is very important in this scenario because some antique weapons are created for very specific purposes, so as the style which means it's functional. Who knows against what it would be better but certainly there are some really good and recognizable historical fighting styles out there, among which is of course the Japanese no doubt.
This comment section is fire XD. Love how it isn't cancerous, unlike most other RUclipsrs'...
Matt. I am researching the British in Japan, I've read letters about Captain Aplin, who commanded the Legation Guard at Edo (Tokyo) and wondered if you wouldn't mind sharing the source of the quote you read out? All the best, Josh.
speaking as someone who despises the overpopularity of the Katana, I have to be fair and say the Katana is indeed a very GOOD sword. It's simple, it's ergonomic, it's on average very effective at both cutting and thrusting. If you were to equip an army and had the resources it wouldn't even be a bad idea to give them basic katanas. Of course I'd personally give them something more comprehensive with more basic hand protection and reach but a katana will obviously get the job done. You could probably liken it to the AK-47 of swords. Is it the best there is by default? Hell no. Can anyone pick it up and use it effectively? Hell yes. Of course the skill and context of the user/scenario matters far more than the actual sword itself but the Katana is not a bad sword at all. Overhyped but not without it's merits. Take away popular culture and mysticism and you're left with a sword that is about as good in any given scenario as a basic shortsword or spatha or standard infantry weapon that doesn't have a guard. Of course this is 110% my own personal idea. And you could argue that I'm speaking out of my butt.
Most of your statements are actually pretty accurate. Katana is a cut-and-thrust sword that is slightly optimized for cutting, and is wielded two handed. It suits well to the human instinct which prefers to cut/strike, while still being very versatile.
Also, when most people pick up a sword, they attempt to or have more comfortable time wielding it with two hands. Katanas, or other East Asian hand-and-a-half swords allow users to do just that. Depending on how they are balanced or the length of their hilts, these swords also can be used pretty effectively for one-handed use (Much like bastard swords).
And although Katana is a bit short considering its two-handedness, it can arguably be an advantage in certain contexts, such as being easier to wear or carry, or being able to be used comfortably indoors - much like cutlasses.
Sagrotan ,
I understand the lack of reach in swords compared to polearms. And I realize the concern for the lack of complex hilt design as well. All good points.
If we are presuming that we are talking about the time setting where polearms and full-suit of armor have become largely fazed out and guns/bayonets/swords have become or are becoming popular, however, training individuals to use cut-and-thrust swords extensively is a pretty valid idea. Of course, a sword isn't going to be the only weapon the army will be wielding, as there are many other effective weapons. But as a side arm or sometimes as a primary weapon against unarmored, lightly armored or half-armored opponents, most cut-and-thrust swords with no heavy specialization (Katanas, Cutlass/Hanger Sabres, Arming swords and Backswords) are very effective and versatile weapons. In addition, swords such as Katanas and simple one handed swords have advantages against other longer weapons in certain contexts, as they are often much easier to wear & carry, as well as more useful in confined spaces while still maintaining some reach advantage in combat. On top of that, most people have an easier time wielding swords with two hands initially; also adding to the fact that they are in comfortable to wear and optimal in confined spaces due to their relatively short blade length for a hand-and-a-half sword, Katanas could be argued as one of the best choices for an infantry/officer sword.
About chainmail & plate armor, it all depends whether the opponent is fully armored or not. For instance, if an opponent is wearing only a cuirass and a helmet (half-armored), swords are still very effective, as there are many places one can inflict damage effectively. In case of lightly armored combat where opponents are wearing chainmail and/or gambison, a sword wielded still can target unarmored body parts, or even inflict damage through powerful cuts and thrusts pretty effectively, even if the chainmail/gambison may externally stop a sword blow.
If an opponent is fully armored with heavy plate/brigandine/lamellar, however, a sword is almost useless. One could argue that longswords can use halfswording to get through the gaps of armor, but it requires the longsword to be heavily specialized for the thrust to be effective. However, halfswording-wrestling and heavily specialized thrusting swords bring many other disadvantages compared to regular cut-and-thrust swords that is a whole another topic together. Regardless, this is moot in the context of combat where polearms and full-suit-of-armor have been largely fazed out.
In terms of hand protection, this is a matter of different combat philosophies between East Asian and Western European swordsmanship; there are too many things to consider. And although a beginner will be happy to have more hand protection regardless of Eastern or Western swordsmanship styles, one may argue that it's quite easy to adopt into protecting one's own hands without complex hilts (if they are trained in East Asian styles, that is). Of course, HEMA and Asian martial arts have different stances regarding this topic; it's not a question that should be answered easily with a biased view or sweeping generalizations.
Its surely not bad but after doing 7 Years Kenjutsu and 3 Year Longsword/Zweihänder/Bidenhänder + teaching it. The result is: Katana = stupidly short, stupidly unbalanced, stupid little hand protection (which also substantially decreases its offensive abilitys).
I think it's a great sidearm. It's easy to use, it can be drawn quickly, its a great cutter. Generally speaking it was used by lowclass professional troops known as Ashigaru and was massproduced in the hundreds of thousands. It's not as good for dueling as a rapier. It's not as versatile as a longsword. It's not as good at getting in the gaps of armour as an estoc. It's not a good primary weapon. But it's a great sidearm. Its very simplistic and sleek and like many things from Japan is pleasing to the eye for many people, Japan was the edge of the known world and was for a time the epitome of exoticism. I think it's childish to hate something just because of its overpopularity.
Great video, well made.
If anyone is curious about the described shouting from Japanese martial artists, it's generally done as a way of training proper breathing technique. It ensures you push oxygen out of your lungs as you attack, enabling you to react faster and be less likely to be winded if you counterattacked.
In any case, the sabre doesn't have the soul of a warrior living inside of it, so the katana has the edge there (pun intended).
+Gandalf _ the _ Mandalf Your comment is bad and you should feel bad :)
That's only because the wielders of sabres had inevitably had their souls beaten/buggered out of them at Britain's premiere public schools long before they were old enough to grow a moustache.
So you could call it... a Soul Edge?
+lieutenantkettch or after sometime call it soul calibur lol
Uhm U.s 1860 calvary Definetly had some warrior in them
Great video! I would love to hear about similar accounts from China especially southern China if you would ever be willing to touch on that topic. :-) Either way thanks for the entertaining and informative videos!
"A bad workman always blames his tools" -regarding the Gent who didn't like his revolvers and swords.
But some tools are also bad. This was very possibly a maintenance issue though.
+Carolus Rex Poor training, the colt was not standard issue, officer had to have bought it himself, no understanding of the weapon clearly, proper wadding and greesing ensures the gun's chamber's keep out moisture.
Was just about to say that myself mate. The Colt Navy 1851 was the standard issue sidearm of officers in the British Army and Navy for most of the 1850s. It was unpopular for three reasons:
1) It jammed if a cap fell into the cylinder mechanism
2) Single action so rate of fire was lower than a DA pistol like the Adams
3) Small caliber which meant you could put three or four rounds into Johnny Foreigner and the blighter kept charging.
In 1856 the Ordnance Board adopted the Beaumont Adams as a replacement for the Colt 1851 as the Adams was DA, higher caliber and didn't suffer from cap jams. However, as Adams was a smaller concern it took a while before all the Colts were phased out so officers in the 1857 Indian Mutiny were mostly still using Colts.
Personally Id add to the list of Colt 1851 gripes the small grips (did 1800s yanks all have titchy hands or something?) which makes it a pig to hold firmly, and the crappy sights (shallow notch rear sight on the hammer) which make aiming em an arse as well.
+sandmanhh67
The Colt navy was not popular with the US military or confederate, the colt Army models where in 44 caliber.
Also i currently own both a reproduction and a authentic adams, i can report they have one of the heaviest double action triggers of any firearm i own, a hendrence of the design, Matt himself mentioned it made the Adams have poor accuracy in comparison.
Also i believe the Adams [Originals] did not have interchangeable parts with each other, or at least not easily, having been hand fitted at the factory.....then again, with thing's like handguns, not all that much of a concern.
I remember reading a "penny dreadful" story about Wild Bill Hickok when he was a scout.
At the end of everyday, after the fire was built, he would take out one of his 1851 colt navy revolvers, pull the bullets and dump the powder. He would then melt the lead and recast the bullets, fill each cylinder with fresh powder and re-seat the newly cast bullets, cap off each cylinder, re-holster and then repeat with his other revolver. Wild Bill's pistols always seemed to work!
Many will chip fairly easily. On occasion a Katanakaji had a secret method for tempering that would result in a Hard, but not so likely to chip edge. Thrust is Tsuki, we have them. Who's an expert anyhow, in Kenjutsu and Nihonto everyone is a Student.
The long sweeping cuts are Tsubami Gaeshi. After Iai, which is the initial Draw Cut. Iai is the Draw, Noto, the return to Scabbard, Chiburi, the Blood Flick before Noto.
I feel I should clarify. One cut, for example Kesagiri, is a Diagonal Cut from Shoulder to Hip, it is still Kesagiri if performed from Hip to Shoulder. It's just called Gyaku Kesagiri. Once you make that initial cut, if you flip the Edge and immediately return the cut in the Opposite Direction, that is Tsubami Gaeshi in essence.
Internet discussions about Japanese swords are like US politics: Small but vocal groups of fringe extremists shouting bullshit and insults at each other while the wast sensible majority gets caught in the middle.
“One final point I’d just like to throw in.”
Well-played, sir.
Thanks for adding a bit of context! I mist say I've gotten a bit bored with all the katana bashing going on, which seems to have arisen as an overreaction to the fetishisation of the katana in pop culture.
Hey Matt. I have really been hoping that someday you would do a in depth video on 1 vs 2 handed swords. The body mechanics, power, cutting, speed, reach etc. I think it could add some interesting "context" to things like rapier vs katana an similar discussions.
If anyone else thinks this is a interesting subject please help request. Cheers
Katana hating is the new Katana worship. It's just as, if not more annoying.
Agreed.
"New"
I don't agree. Once Katana worship's gone, that'll be true but, outside the HEMA community, the general population still worships these things.
To be fair though, the English terms for regional swords are very often simply the native language word for "sword." For example, Jian (Chinese character for sword), Kilij (Turkish for sword), Tulwar (Hindi for sword.) etc. But in English, it means that very specific type of sword employed in that region.
But still, the fact that some people who are interested in European swordsmanship just completely dismiss Japanese weapons is definitely perplexing and even annoying because it becomes just as much of a circlejerk as the worship was.
+Thereon Inarek Even if the "craze" dies down, people will still believe it because it's become so heavily ingrained. Just about the one "fact" a random person on the street would know about swords is that "katanas are the best swords". If anything, that makes it harder to address.
Also, curved swords were design for cavalry so the straight swords would not break on high speed impact. On the ground a straight sword may have an advantage.
The real problem is the out-of-phase technological comparison. Melee technology in the west was in radical focus decline when the cultures truly clashed. Compare the best of the fourteenth century European wealthy armoured and equiped killer with their opposite number instead.
European technology post 1600 was already heavily weighted toward the consequences of mass easy-skill gun/powder conscript-like soldiers despite still having many previous generation’s items still in kit. Ie. little to no armour, therefore little to no need for anti-armour therefore little to no need for refinement in excellent medium armour cutters (such as katana), yet they still carried edged swords that worked well enough against the unarmoured (such as sabres).
It’s like comparing baseballs and cricket balls. It’s just not the same sport anymore.
Very well balanced video.
I have a small quibble- you should mention the use of "terrible" to mean "terror inducing"as opposed to sub-par. That might be so obvious as to not need mentioning to a Brit but not necessarily to other English speakers.
Katana: in the 18th century, most likely wielded by a person who has had realistic training from a young age by teachers who were part of a tradition of using swords in combat. Saber user: soldier given a few hours of basic training and done some playing with friends. If they meet in combat.....well, you can guess what result I would expect. As to the Europeans who thought their saber-fu was superior due to use of the point, if their opponent gets past the point, they die. If their point doesn't get through the light armor worn by samurai (if they're in battle) they die. And if they do manage to skewer their opponent, if that wound is not immediately disabling, they die. I would be surprised and quite impressed to see even the most skilled saber user prevail against a competent katana user. I'd pay to see that match.
jabba0975 Instead of Victorian era Western European sabereurs, I would rather like to see Eastern European/Eurasian Saber swordsmanship or Chinese/Korean Daofa pitted against Japanese swordsmen. Both of these cultures used sabers how they originally were intended to be used, with circular cut-centric movements. Late Western European saber swordsmanship became more and more thrust centric in nature, almost resembling rapier or smallsword fighting.
A saber is the exact same weapon as the katana only improbed in every possible aspect imaginable. What one can do with a katana, they can do better with a saber.
Big Zi,... Where did you get that info? I can find nothing of it. Seems made up to me. PS Sanzo used a sabre not a katana during the assassination attempt, and cut but didnt kill Nicholas. Where is this info?
I did go to uni, I just got a degree insomething useful. Saying "Go to university" isnt listing sources. Why not try that? As I Said, I found no sources that state he was defeated by a man with a cane. Dont forge there are plenty of uni grads and professors who talk out of their asses about stuff too.
Sure katanas are sabers thats fine. Im not the one trolling here though man thats you. And I found the actual information in the encyclopedia of famous assassination attempts. Your wrong, Tsuda Sanzo was not defeated by Prince George. Nicholas was cut in the head, then Prince George blocked the finishing blow with his cane, Sanzo ran because it was an assassination attempt, and was later captured by a number of rickshaw drivers. Nowhere was it ever stated that Prince George used saber fu with a cane to defeat Sanzo, that didn't happen. Maybe you should be the one to complete their information and stop trolling?
Very interesting video! Thanks!
Not a magic weapon. Not crap. Just a sword, though frequently beautiful in manufacture. Ronald Lee Ermey, who played Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket", hosted a weapons based TV show the name of which escapes me at the moment. They did a katana vs. longsword test in which it became quite clear that the longsword was left essentially blunt.
Please don't quote Lock and Load :-D That 'documentary' was horrifically bad - Metatron has done a great video ripping it to pieces. The longsword they used was a piece of crap and the 'armour' was hilarious.
Only quoted as counter-example ;)
Wild Bill Hickok was known to fire and reload his 1851 Colt pistols every morning because the powder would get damp after a few days and misfire.
Just started the video, and I'm just going to make a guess here regarding the answer to the initial question: It depends on the context.
Was I right? :)
No, but close! :D
Heard people say katana is not a battlefield weapon.
Heard people also say katana was design to cut through Mongol armors and fight better than the tachi in dense battle (ex. Castle siege).
So is the katana a battle weapon or not? Because if katana was design to fight the Mongols then it is a battlefield weapon.
The katana stems from the uchigatana which was the common foot soldier of the 15th centuries and onwards. So no it wasn't "designed to cut through mongol armors", but it certainly was developped in the context of transitioning from mounted to infantry fighting, a change consecutive to the mongol invasions of the 13th century. The katana started as a battlefield weapon and evolved into a civilian weapon.
consider getting drunk before filming, it makes the videos even more enjoyable
I think one difficulty is that comparisons are most often made between samurai and medieval Western men at arms, but using sources about samurai from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, some 300 years after the katana was last actually used on the battlefield. The nineteenth century bushido-obsessed samurai of the Edo period (in which there was no actual warfare) was quite a different beast from the Japanese fighting man of the Kamakura or Sengoku periods, and the nineteenth century katana was almost purely a peacetime dueling weapon rather than a battlefield weapon and made to very different standards than might have been seen in the earlier warring eras.
I don't think he's ever actually read that book...
I believe I read in a Black Belt magazine in the late 80's about British sailors facing "samurai"and consistently winning with saber/cutlass, but I have never been able to find any source material. I believe the article was about the strength of the thrust, as you stated in the video. Can you comment? Also, does the book you read from,"British Swordsmen", talk of how effective a western soldier faired in one on one combat with a Japanese trained swordsman?
A sabre does not cut well as does a Katana, because the sabre is wielded one-handed so it has less leverage than the Katana. I can imagine swinging a golf club in one hand does not hit the golf ball as hard and throw the ball as far as swinging the club with two hands.
a Scimitar/Shamshir i a one-handed weapon and it has more cutting power than a katana
You should not study clubs and hope to understand swords.
Fathel Guweda because it's more curved like a Kılıç, tulwar or a Polish sabre.
i know that
Thelonius Disreali a rough analogy, not the whole science.
It sounds like the bottom line is, for the most part, a sword is a sword.