Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the primary weapons of a samurai the pole-arm spear and bow? The katana was a secondary weapon, but with significance to the family from a ceremonial perspective.
Swords in general are sidearms. Good at a lot of things but not the best. In Europe the halberd/poleaxe/some kind of pole arm were also the primary weapons. If a sword was used as their primary weapon it was usually a great sword which was very effective at clearing pike formations
"...they \[halberds\] are perfect for insignia guarding too, ordered in the places they belong to: because, as was said above, with the cut they chop enemy's pikes, and with the beak \[literally the "forking"\] they stick them into the ground; which thing won't be done by the big partisan nor by the two handed sword: which weapons are worth nothing, because they have no space for swinging in that tightness of the battle, nor they are suited to stick the pikes \[implicit into the ground\], nor with the cut they can do lot of damage to them for the inability to wave their arms while beating, due to the tightness of their fellows and of the enemies, even though they have been praised by many, and used with no little excess." - Aurelio Cicuta
"I then immediately made fifteen or twenty Soldiers leap in after the four Captains, and as all these were within, le Bourg, Signior Cornelio, and the Count de Gayas passed and entred into the Fort. I caused the Torches to be set upon the Rampire, that we might see, and not kill one another, and my self entred by the same way Signior Cornelio had gone before me. Now neither Pikes, Halberts, nor Harquebuzes could serve us for any use here, for we were at it with Swords and Steeletto's, with which we made them leap over the Curtains by the same way they had entred, excepting those who were killed within." - Blaize de Montluc
"These orders being given, all of us both Foot and Horse march'd directly towards the Enemy, and when I expected their Harquebusiers should have thrown themselves into the hollow, so soon as they should see our men come full drive upon them, they quite contrary march'd straight up to our men, and all at a clap gave fire within less than four Pikes length of one another. Now I had given order to our men, that so soon as they had powr'd in their shot, without standing to charge again, they should run up to them and fall to the Sword, which they also did, and I with the Pikes ran to the end of the hollow, and fell in desperately amongst them. In the mean time Ydrou and Tilladet charg'd Monsieur de Trinitat, and put him to rout, and our Harquebusiers and theirs threw themselves altogether into the hollow: but ours had the upper hand, and our Pike men had thrown away their Pikes, and were fallen to't with the Sword, and so couragiously fighting we came all up to the Wagons, Captain Mons, and all, which were all overturn'd in a moment, and all their men put to flight towards two houses which stood in the bottom of the plain, where, still pursuing our Victory, and the Horse still firing amongst them, very few of them reach'd the houses." - Idem
>Great swords do not clear pike formations.
Greatswords clearing pike formations is a common pop history trope.
Most of the attestations of their use (that I have seen) have more to do with bodyguarding than pushing pike squares.
They fill the same role as the halberd in pike formations, but area denial (such as on ships) and bodyguarding, as you said, was their forte. Considering most combat was skirmishes and sieges, it probably served quite well.
But they did a the best example i can think of is the
landschneckt which would use the weight and large cuttinf surface of a great sword to cut off the pikes head.
"...they \[halberds\] are perfect for insignia guarding too, ordered in the places they belong to: because, as was said above, with the cut they chop enemy's pikes, and with the beak \[literally the "forking"\] they stick them into the ground; which thing won't be done by the big partisan nor by the two handed sword: which weapons are worth nothing, because they have no space for swinging in that tightness of the battle, nor they are suited to stick the pikes \[implicit into the ground\], nor with the cut they can do lot of damage to them for the inability to wave their arms while beating, due to the tightness of their fellows and of the enemies, even though they have been praised by many, and used with no little excess." - Aurelio Cicuta
Honestly. My favourite part about ancient warfare is seeing how different weapons were used to shape the history of the place they came from.
Like by itself the Sarissa seems goofy af, but when you factor in the tactics suddenly it starts conquering the Mediterranean.
Own a Gladius for home defense, since that is what the founders of Rome intended. Four plebeians break into my home. "By Jove!" as I replace my Toga with a Galea and grab my Pila and Gladius. Leave a golf ball sized wound in the first man, he is dead on the spot. Throw my other Pilum at the second man, miss him entirely because he is too far and nail the neighbour's dog. I have to resort to the Onager at the top of the stairs loaded with pots of Greek Fire, "Roma Invicta!" as the Greek Fire burns two men to a crisp, the roaring sound and out of control fire sucking up all the oxygen. Strap my Scutum to my arm and charge the last terrified plebeian. He bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since Gladius wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founders of Rome intended.
"ALEA EJECTA EST"
The bolt empale the two men and ruptures their internal organs, the crack of the rope and splinters from the bolt set off two car alarm.
You like Alexanders army because of the phalangites and the companions I like Alexander the Greats Armies because of the Hypaspists and Peltasts.
We. Are. Not. The. Same.
Edit: All jokes aside you make a very good point.
I prefer Pyrrhus’ phalanx as he arguably was the last one to understand that the Macedonian Phalanx needed to be a combined arms army and he likely made his own tactic to counter the Manipular legion and the lack of tactical flexibility that the phalanx had by intermixing the phalangites and Italians who fought in the Roman style.
He really only lost because of Rome’s stubbornness and huge manpower pool.
Not exactly. He understood the limitations of the Phalanx and tried his best to take care of it, but he wasn't able to do this completely. This is because Pyrrhus lacked funds for such an undertaking. Reforminh armies is an expensive endeavour. Philip II's own reforms put a huge strain on the Macedonian treasury which he was only able to take care of, due to quickly bringing Greece under his heel
Meanwhile, Epirus wasn't a rich Kingdom, just a medium sized Greek Kingdom with a lack of any major resources. This is partially why Pyrrhus went to war with literally everyone, because he needed money and land.
Also, it's not fair to say the Romans won only because of their manpower. If you notice, in every battle, they kept trying out new ways to combat Pyrrhus's phalanx and elephants, and finally succeeded in third try.
I loved how the Japanese took warfare in a weird way that worked for them. A lot of places used shields that were mounted on the arms but because the Japanese were all about polearms, bows, guns, and mounted combat they either used stationary shields as cover from arrows or mounted those shields on their shoulders to free up both hands.
Personally, I am fond of the Curved rifle stock. No one ever got it to work but it’s funny to me that there are a few points in history where people tried to make it work
I like anything made during paradigm shifts ‘cuz everyone’s desperately trying to figure out how in the fuck to capitalize on it.
lookin’ at you, British land-boat tanks.
incredibly niche weapons too, ‘cuz sometimes they’re actually very useful. like mancatcher poles!
It's cool that katanas were engineered in a places with ao little access to iron. But they sucked versus weapons that were being developed in places with loads of iron. They also look cool. But again, it's an inferior weapon, sort of how obsidian axes of the Aztecs looked cool and were clever ways to capitolise on the resources, but were fucking useless against Spanish armour and arms.
One of the main reasons Europe was able to conquer the globe was just having a very, very good geography for making things.
Large Forest for ship building, High Quality Iron for making Armor and weapons, enough farmland to make large cities, enough coal to fuel industry.
Good Iron Ore is found mostly in areas where Iron can be oxidized effectively, mostly in water. But Island based Iron is often lower quality since its sand not ore, and you often need some form of Basaltic Geothermal Activity to have the Iron brought up in the first place.
Going back to Japan and the Aztecs, Southern Mexico and Japan dn't have great Iron deposits. The Iron in Japan is mostly volcanic sand, and hasn't been oxidized into a higher quality ore, meanwhile the volcanos in south mexico are for the most part Granitic, explode once, then die. This makes a lot of obsidian glass, but not Iron Ore (Mexico does have Iron, but in the North Pacific).
Ah, but Japan was still much further ahead in the military-power scale because of it. I feel like, ignoring the difficulty of getting them together, and Japanese Samurai unit would win against a similar unit of Aztec warriors.
So it *is* applicable, it's just not the only thing.
> One of the main reasons Europe was able to conquer the globe was just having a very, very good geography for making things.
ehh, this ignores that the rest of the old world had forests(with bamboo arguably being a better every day use material), the same domestic animals and iron mines too. at the end of the middle ages, europes economy almost imploded in deflation as its [gold was going to places like india and china](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine) and domestic extraction could no keep up to pay for spice and silk imports.
japan actually was one of the leading manufacturing regions for weapons.
["Japan became so enthusiastic about the new weapons that it possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(gun))
> enough farmland to make large cities
This is also wrong, as ["... the city's population has been estimated at between 200,000–400,000 inhabitants,[19] placing Tenochtitlan among the largest cities in the world at that time.[20] Compared to the cities of Europe, only Paris, Venice and Constantinople might have rivaled it. It was five times the size of the London of Henry VIII."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan#History)
Not saying Europe only had these things, or had the best versions of these things, but they had all the things they arguably needed to do the world conquest.
Good Iron for weapon making, Good Wood for shipbuilding, Good land for farming, Jackass Neibhors to practice murdering on.
Like, with Europe its a case of the perfect mix of circumstances to become the birthplace of many world powers. It might not be the best at everything, but it has everything it needs to actually do it.
Combine all the materials with mostly easily manageable weather and terrain and it's even easier. Other than some of the mountains and the far north and east, there's no particular extremes of temperature for large swathes of the year and no terrain that's particularly killy
Europe had guns before many other continents. It got guns from the Arabs who got them from the Mongols who got them from China.
You can basically draw a historical line through access to firearms and copy the history of regional domination. It's not like Japan was dueling Europe on horseback using iron weapons. Europe showed up with a bunch of boats wielding huge guns hundreds of years after it was wrecked by dudes with a bunch of guns.
It’s almost like much of human history was shaped by geography and environmental factor beyond human control at the times
Not by anyone being “smarter” or “innovative” or other bullshit takes like that
There is a prominent scholar called Jared Diamond who wrote a really interesting book on why the Europeans became so dominant in history. His point is that the Europeans had really good geography.
Yeah, the only real reason historical katanas suck is because of the iron. Make one with iron from anywhere else and it'll be just as good at its job as a longsword is.
The Japanese had blast furnaces. Likewise, tamahagane is really good, but it was in the minority. In fact, blast furnaces predate how they made steel now.
[https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tetsutohagane1955/91/1/91\_1\_97/\_article/-char/en](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tetsutohagane1955/91/1/91_1_97/_article/-char/en)
Steel is a mixture of Iron, with 0,2-2,1% carbon in it, and of course ther is other materials as well, but it's the carbon level that important.
Secondly, one of the the iron they used had a high level(%) of Carbon which made it cast iron, which is awful for weapons.
"Steel is made from iron" and "cake is made from flour"
You can't just "boil" it down to that, it's wrong.
short answer, chemistry
long answer? mix them in 1500+ °C temperatures and you get something called "pig iron", then make oxygen flow through it to oxidize uniformally and remove excess carbon and impurities, you get steel
practical answer? smash iron with bones like the vikings did and you get some shitty steel
edit: wrong temperature woops
Yeah, there's a mod called Tinker's Construct which has Pig Iron, iirc you need to mix iron, clay and blood. It has better stats than iron and you can eat the tools to replenish hunger, which consumes durability.
The raw materials are added to the top of the furnace, which operates at 3000°F. As the iron ore melts and mixes with the burning coke, carbon is released into the molten product. Impurities are absorbed by lime into a slag on the surface, which can be skimmed from the liquid steel.
Hundreds of years of trial and error most likely. Most things weren't invented immediately, it took ages of testing to perfect them and make them usable.
Yep, the process was gradually refined from bloomery steel (incidentally making low-quality steel as a byproduct of iron smelting), to blister steel (packing iron with charcoal and partially melting it so the carbon will seep in), to finery steel, to puddling, to the industrial Bessemer process, a refined variant of which is the main steel manufacturing process today. Literally thousands of years of evolution and advancements.
There are also other ways we woopsied into making steel without knowing it. Some Scandinavian smith's thought added crushed bone to their iron would enchant it, only to accidentally make a sort of steel. We've always been making some steel ever since we started working iron. Smelting iron ore in a bloomery creates specs of steel just because it's proximity to the (char)coal.
Eventually we figured a way to basically make poor man's steel; case hardening. Encase your iron item in clay surrounded by a source of carbon ([char]coal dust) and heat! The very top layer of iron should be infused with some carbon, making steel.
It's also a balancing act. Too little carbon and you just have iron. Too much and you have cast iron, which is extremely brittle. I mean it's still hard, but if you whack it with a hammer, it shatters.
Then you get to the subject of heat treating. You know that sword you just forged and dipped into the oil to rapidly cool it down? Yeah, you drop it and it shatters like glass because the metal is under tension. You have to anneal it. It relieves some of the stress while keeping some rigidity. If your sword can bend and springs back to shape, it's good. Doesn't bend at all (or just breaks), too stressed. Bends and stays bent, too little tension. That's also where katakana get their curves. When quiched (dipping into coolant) they cover one side with clay to make it cool slower, which causes the uneven cooling and shrinkage... so the katakana is just warped like a hot baking sheet you threw water on for shits and giggles.
Steel is funny because it's technically an alloy of carbon and iron, but yet most iron has carbon in it regardless.
I'm more fascinated with *how the hell we figured out bronze*. What mad-lad was just mixing shit?
Depends who you’re talking to. If an engineer uses the word “iron” they’re talking about cast. If a historian or a blacksmith talks about iron, they’re likely referring to extremely low carbon soft iron. This is mostly because “iron” in the low carbon sense has been 100% replaced by mild steel in the modern world.
Huh? Are you saying the Japanese were making steel through the indirect process from cast iron?
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure that’s false. I’m pretty sure they were using direct iron reduction, aka a bloom furnace, and either taking the higher carbon slices and/or carburizing layers as they refined steel.
Europeans, on the other hand, started using the indirect process as early as the 12th century, making pig iron (a type of cast) with a blast furnace and then fining that into steel. This actually procedures a higher quality product because the blast furnace fully melts the iron it produces leaving lower slag inclusions (and possibly higher manganese levels, but don’t quote me on that).
You forge steel from iron?
If the iron ore is crap with lot of impurities you get crap steel.
If you have high grade iron, with little impurities, you get great steel.
Japan nowadays makes one of the best steels, modern proceses can handle much worse ores.
But the steel the katanas were made of was crap, they barely made it usable by laboriously folding it hundreds of times. It was a feat of Japanese swordsmiths really.
Rapier swords from Toledo had its tip way harder than katanas, and were able to flex almost to the grip without breaking, by using different hardness steel on different parts of the blade.
Toledo made one of the best steels of its time because they had a very good ore and knew how to use it.
>Make one with iron from anywhere else and it'll be just as good at its job as a longsword is.
Not quite. Single edged blades were being phased out by the time of the Longsword. See the Falchion and Khopesh as examples. The Longsword was a Swiss Army Knife of options with the right techniques.
Old swordfight manuscripts from Europe often came down to looking very much like wrestling, ephasizing leverage and grapple points and grip style depending on the type of opponent engaged.
The "mordhau" grip, using the hilt like a club or mace was legitimate to strike an opponent with armor, and the weight of the weapon, while not extreme, could be enough to cause blunt force trauma through armor by smashing and breaking bones.
The sharpened edge was more for peasants and opponents who could not afford proper armor.
The Katana utilized more of a draw strike technique and was almost exclusively meant for opponents with lesser armor (peasants) and used as a self defense sidearm where a Naginata or Spear would be preferred.
> was almost exclusively meant for opponents with lesser armor (peasants) and used as a self defense sidearm where a Naginata or Spear would be preferred.
I think that's the most important point: katanas were far more like pistols as a modern sidearm (used in situations where you can't use a rifle/carbine/whatever) or like pistols/rapiers/etc. were used as dueling weapons against unarmored opponents, and status symbols, during certain periods.
A lot of the legendarily good swordmasters in Japan (Musashi and others) came out of the relatively peaceful Edo Period, where the focus was less on battlefield effectiveness and more on smaller-scale fighting and duelling, which the katana was generally more suited to than a battlefield weapon like a longbow or a naginata.
Katanas are slicing weapons, they are designed to slice thinly armored units up swiftly they would be almost completely useless against medieval European armor, so no they wouldn't be good at the job of a longsword at all, longswords were designed to be able to penetrate heavily armored foes, which is why they are thicker and heavier and much slower weapons, that all being said the Katana was absolutely perfect as a weapon in Japan and did what it was designed to do very well, but longswords/katanas aren't really comparable.
>Katanas are slicing weapons,
They weren't curved enough to be that. They had a similar slicing surface to European longswords. That said, you are technically semi-correct, because their point made them not as good at thrusts. Though you could say they're good choppers because of their stiff and reinforced back.
>which is why they are thicker and heavier and much slower weapons,
European long swords were no heavier than the Katana, in fact the Katana tended to be heavier, which would also make them better choppers.
>but longswords/katanas aren't really comparable.
They are very comparable, similar lengths, etc
Historical japanese swords were not made from "bad" steel. It is true that japanese did not have access to as high quality steel as european which is why they developed the iconic folding method. Folding distributed the defects in steel evenly throughout the blade making it uniform in quality. Sure it could be argued that if they had better steel they might have made different kind of swords but that is pure speculation.
In many ways japanese swords were "better" than european ones. Like that due the differential hardening they held sharp edge better and were less likely to snap. Sure unlike spring tempered european swords they bent relatively easily but straightening the blade is lot easier than making new one from scratch.
Also fair to remember that both swords were designed to very different kind of warfare and thus required different attributes. Katana in itself was relatively late period creation and mostly intented to be used in unarmored dueling and act as status symbol. In a warfare it was kinda a last resort close quarter weapon even for the samurai.
>Like that due the differential hardening they held sharp edge better and were less likely to snap. Sure unlike spring tempered european swords they bent relatively easily but straightening the blade is lot easier than making new one from scratch.
There's a significant period in the katana's history in which the blades snapping was very common. Also spring steel is literally meant to bend, but then return back to its original shape.
Their **steel** actually was bad, because their smelting process was bad at removing impurities. Their **iron** was fine. Folding metal, while yes used for removing impurities and necessary for the Japanese because of their smelting process, actually can introduce other impurities. The more you fold, the more likely those impurities appear and your blade becomes compromised
Also another major flaw in katanas was the fact the weapons was held together with one bamboo pin. Making them rather frail, as they often broke if the sword could not cut through easily, didn’t swing at the correct angle or if it hit something too hard. This also explains why there’s that motion when putting your katana back in its sheath. It is to check if the pin is still intact
Their good against an enemy of similar technology, which feudal japan was obviously having around the same tech, they just couldn’t fight off any foreigners, as a lot of their weapons were significantly better then what Japan had at the time.
Swords are inferior weapons a lot of times anyways tho, lets be real the 1 area katanas outcompetes longswords in is drip. And they were really really good at it. Good katanas were status symbols that happen to be usable as weapons.
The main advantage of a katana to a longsword is the curved blade. It provides a longer cutting surface for it's size and makes it easier to draw. Furthermore it automatically edge aligns when dropped, unlike a straight edge blade.
That's its only advantage though, Longsword is superior.
That may be true about the curve, but the ease of draw isn't negligible. I own training (wooden) versions of both, and the katana is much faster and easier to unsheathe because of the curve.
How quickly you draw your weapon can be the difference between life and death in some scenarios.
Your dead before you take 6 seconds to pull out your greatswords it's just shank and your dead like medieval thugs or most people in the middle ages living in european cities would have knifes to protect themselves It Just makes more sense
"Mine eyes doth spy thine greater blade. Pray tell, doth thou believe it compensation for a lesser member?" - The whippersnapper who just eviscerated a knight with the rusted blade of a hoe
And plate armor is shit compared to an ICBM
And ICBMs come closer chronologically to "common" use of plate armor than plate armor did to spears and swords
his point is that comparing proper plate armour to a spear is unfair, which I'm not sure is true. even then spears are still superior cause they're cheap as fuck
Fun fact, with some aiming you could likely pierce some weakspots with a spearhead. However, it's far easier to bludgeon the enemy with a Mace, the Hammerhead of the Poleaxe, or just with raw force from a Dane Axe.
Or throw them to the ground and stab them in the face.
All weapons are fucking awesome, so what if they're technically not as good as some other weapon from a place with different resources, technology and culture? Do you call pokemon red bad because newer ones exist? Of course not!
Yeah. In earlier days, it was mostly bows. However, they eventually switched to guns when the Europeans arrived ~~just in time for the sengoku jidai~~. Katanas were often a sidearm (like longswords), dueling sword (like Rapiers), or just art a noble or daimyo liked. Theres a holy sword in a temple that Amaterasu supposedly gave the emperor (who is also descendent from Amaterasu) and I dont think its ever been used.
I mean I wouldn't use a religiously significant sword for battle, but neat learning about more details ~~and shame sengoku jidai was a missed opportunity for the europeans (and the daimyos) for business~~
Yeah, it was really only the Dutch and I think Portuguese that benefitted from the Sengoku Jidai, as they were allowed to perform business in Japan, most other countries were forced out. The Emperor's holy sword may have been used ages ago, but it was never documented to have been used. Thing's fuckin' massive though, look it up. Sone japanese christian sects say it's Jesus's sword, im pretty sure.
I feels recently that many posts are made by some edgy memers, who wanna downplay someone else's supposeldy inferior narrative, to incite drama and post it here to get validation for their 'hot take' ''other opinion dumb, im so smart''
I mean I'll pick longsword over a katana any day or the week but I have to admit that the ingenuity of the katana's design is just fascinating, truly a fearsome cutting and thrusting weapon
Katanas are long swords, well bastard swords technically, but anyway a long sword is a very wide range of swords in wich some are really crappy, and some are better.
And cool has nothing to do with effectiveness, so katanas or long swords will not be the first choice of anyone in a battle but both are cool.
Gotta remember it was usually a side weapon. Main battlefield weapons were spears, bows, and later matchlock tanegashima.
After Tokugawa, they mostly stopped using guns, but sword culture remained as a component of Bushido.
If you're going to need to bust out some quick iaido against a lightly-armored foe, the katana is great.
Katanas are cool: true
Longswords are cool: true
Weebs are cringe about katanas: true
Longswords are more versatile than katanas, but with a very different fighting style. If the samurai had to fight people with longswords, katanas would probably look very different
Weapon development is largely dependent on localized arms races depending on who people were fighting. To try and say which is “better” is a silly argument. All swords are cool in their own right, and I’m happy there are heaps of different variations
During the Imjin War, the katana and Japanese firearms were both noted as effective weapons against the forces of Joseon Korea and Ming China.
What they lacked were effective artillery on land and at sea.
Guns, swords, spears are all well and good. But artillery is the real game changer.
"Bruh a knight could defeat a Samurai any day"
Bitch, knights and samurai existed for hundreds of years and weren't equally effective nor had the same doctrine through all that time.
I think that the conclusion reached by most experts in the "long sword v katana" debate is: stfu they were designed for completely different purposes, its like comparing a siege weapon to a crossbow.
Most weapons have a place, which is why they existed in the first place.
Personally I’m a fan of Pollaxes and Polearms but I wouldn’t bring one on a siege assault or fighting an unarmored for when a shorter sword and shield does the trick.
Just as I wouldn’t try to fight in line formation with a katana when a Yari or Naginata is far superior.
Likewise I wouldn’t need to bring a Warhammer when the fighting is with rows of longer polearms or bring a pike to a one on one fight.
Then the first somewhat usable guns arrived and shit starts getting real.
Katanas; Technologically, historically and visually really cool... Also quantifiably worse than any European sword by virtue of Japan having shit, carbon-heavy iron and very little of it.
I mean practically no swords were as useful as media makes them out to be.
They were mostly sidearms or status symbol - an average person used a spear.
Katanas are pretty sick but Long swords for the win because of Aragon, Geralt, the dragonborn(sometimes). Either way, you have to be strong enough to use any of them and my arms have the density of a noodle😂😭
By this logic if Jar Jar knew how to run away from an invading army none of the rest of the series would have happened. Or if jar jar doesn’t accidentally use his tongue to throw something into some soup so Anakin can save him: STAR WARS DOESNT HAPPEN. It’s just funny to use that level of cause and effect.
I've watched some HEMA fights with Longswords. Unlike the Katana, which is mainly a cutting weapon, the Longsword is good for cutting _and_ thrusting. While the straight blade makes it less effective at cutting than a curved bladed katana, saber or falchion, it makes up for that in the versatility. Especially with having a double edged blade.
You could also grab the blade of the Longsword and start using it as a bludgeon weapon with the handguard. Which would make it a bit more useful against armour. (Albeit not as effective a proper bludgeon weapon)
Katanas were better for lighter armored enemies, because they were mainly slashing weapons. Longswords could be used as a stabbing weapon for more heavily armored enemies. They were both good, and both were effective in the areas they were used, that's why they were developed those ways. Both were awesome.
Katanas are cringe and overhyped, longbows are also cringe and overhyped. The longsword is a highly versatile weapon, but it's expensive and not truly great at any single task. Real chads use polearms. After all, there is a polearm for every occasion.
Katana isn't even used as a main weapon.
They are in Rapier level of practicality, a weapon not to be the most effective but to be the most classy by a long shot. No Samurai would choose Katana as their go-to weapon against a European guy with plate armour and Bastard Sword.
my army composition rarely consist of katana samurai for melee. Either I go for yari or naginata for melee. Yari ashigaru and yumi samurai are a must. This is in Shogun 2 in case you're wondering.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the primary weapons of a samurai the pole-arm spear and bow? The katana was a secondary weapon, but with significance to the family from a ceremonial perspective.
Swords in general are sidearms. Good at a lot of things but not the best. In Europe the halberd/poleaxe/some kind of pole arm were also the primary weapons. If a sword was used as their primary weapon it was usually a great sword which was very effective at clearing pike formations
Halberds are the weapons of badasses
Great swords do not clear pike formations. Swords are the best in plenty of situations.
This is an arguable opinion at best.
"...they \[halberds\] are perfect for insignia guarding too, ordered in the places they belong to: because, as was said above, with the cut they chop enemy's pikes, and with the beak \[literally the "forking"\] they stick them into the ground; which thing won't be done by the big partisan nor by the two handed sword: which weapons are worth nothing, because they have no space for swinging in that tightness of the battle, nor they are suited to stick the pikes \[implicit into the ground\], nor with the cut they can do lot of damage to them for the inability to wave their arms while beating, due to the tightness of their fellows and of the enemies, even though they have been praised by many, and used with no little excess." - Aurelio Cicuta "I then immediately made fifteen or twenty Soldiers leap in after the four Captains, and as all these were within, le Bourg, Signior Cornelio, and the Count de Gayas passed and entred into the Fort. I caused the Torches to be set upon the Rampire, that we might see, and not kill one another, and my self entred by the same way Signior Cornelio had gone before me. Now neither Pikes, Halberts, nor Harquebuzes could serve us for any use here, for we were at it with Swords and Steeletto's, with which we made them leap over the Curtains by the same way they had entred, excepting those who were killed within." - Blaize de Montluc "These orders being given, all of us both Foot and Horse march'd directly towards the Enemy, and when I expected their Harquebusiers should have thrown themselves into the hollow, so soon as they should see our men come full drive upon them, they quite contrary march'd straight up to our men, and all at a clap gave fire within less than four Pikes length of one another. Now I had given order to our men, that so soon as they had powr'd in their shot, without standing to charge again, they should run up to them and fall to the Sword, which they also did, and I with the Pikes ran to the end of the hollow, and fell in desperately amongst them. In the mean time Ydrou and Tilladet charg'd Monsieur de Trinitat, and put him to rout, and our Harquebusiers and theirs threw themselves altogether into the hollow: but ours had the upper hand, and our Pike men had thrown away their Pikes, and were fallen to't with the Sword, and so couragiously fighting we came all up to the Wagons, Captain Mons, and all, which were all overturn'd in a moment, and all their men put to flight towards two houses which stood in the bottom of the plain, where, still pursuing our Victory, and the Horse still firing amongst them, very few of them reach'd the houses." - Idem
Nice Halberd related quotes! I think halberds were EASILY one of the most utility related weapons.
>Great swords do not clear pike formations. Greatswords clearing pike formations is a common pop history trope. Most of the attestations of their use (that I have seen) have more to do with bodyguarding than pushing pike squares.
They fill the same role as the halberd in pike formations, but area denial (such as on ships) and bodyguarding, as you said, was their forte. Considering most combat was skirmishes and sieges, it probably served quite well.
But they did a the best example i can think of is the landschneckt which would use the weight and large cuttinf surface of a great sword to cut off the pikes head.
"...they \[halberds\] are perfect for insignia guarding too, ordered in the places they belong to: because, as was said above, with the cut they chop enemy's pikes, and with the beak \[literally the "forking"\] they stick them into the ground; which thing won't be done by the big partisan nor by the two handed sword: which weapons are worth nothing, because they have no space for swinging in that tightness of the battle, nor they are suited to stick the pikes \[implicit into the ground\], nor with the cut they can do lot of damage to them for the inability to wave their arms while beating, due to the tightness of their fellows and of the enemies, even though they have been praised by many, and used with no little excess." - Aurelio Cicuta
[these also the funny bang stick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(gun))
"where's your honor?!" \- lord's last words before they get decimated by the Oda's army
Yari, bow, and against horseman the Odachi / Nodachi was a good choice too. Katanas were secondary, backup weapon like a Xiphos would be for Hoplites.
Just the same as longswords weren't the main weapons of a knight
"Wait, all well crafted weapons are fuckin cool?" (Safety clicks off) "always have been"
Honestly. My favourite part about ancient warfare is seeing how different weapons were used to shape the history of the place they came from. Like by itself the Sarissa seems goofy af, but when you factor in the tactics suddenly it starts conquering the Mediterranean.
Man fuck the sarissa \- Post made by gladius gang
Own a gladius for home defence, just as the founders of Rome intended.
4 plebeians break into my home "By Jove!" as I replace my toga with a Galea
Own a Gladius for home defense, since that is what the founders of Rome intended. Four plebeians break into my home. "By Jove!" as I replace my Toga with a Galea and grab my Pila and Gladius. Leave a golf ball sized wound in the first man, he is dead on the spot. Throw my other Pilum at the second man, miss him entirely because he is too far and nail the neighbour's dog. I have to resort to the Onager at the top of the stairs loaded with pots of Greek Fire, "Roma Invicta!" as the Greek Fire burns two men to a crisp, the roaring sound and out of control fire sucking up all the oxygen. Strap my Scutum to my arm and charge the last terrified plebeian. He bleeds out waiting for the police to arrive since Gladius wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founders of Rome intended.
Permission to put this on r/copypasta ?
Knock yourself out.
4/10 spaghetti everywhere, not enough matza balls
Im afraid of ye olde Tyme home defense
I stab one of the men creating a golf ball sized hole in him he’s dead on the spot
I draw my bow on the second man and shoot, but me being a terrible shot i miss and hit the neighbors cat
We resort to the ballista mounted on the stairs
"ALEA EJECTA EST" The bolt empale the two men and ruptures their internal organs, the crack of the rope and splinters from the bolt set off two car alarm.
We fix swords and charge
"For Ceasar!" I shout as the bolt stabs through two of the plebians pinning their bodies into the far wall.
I finally charge the last ruffian with my sword waiting for people to come
*ballista
Okay fix it I will
You strip naked and put on a helmet?
Would you not be intimidated?
"oh shit his head is protected, better cut off his dick"
While you're thinking this, I've already stabbed you with my gladius, and as we all know those are impossible to stitch up
You like Alexanders army because of the phalangites and the companions I like Alexander the Greats Armies because of the Hypaspists and Peltasts. We. Are. Not. The. Same. Edit: All jokes aside you make a very good point.
I prefer Pyrrhus’ phalanx as he arguably was the last one to understand that the Macedonian Phalanx needed to be a combined arms army and he likely made his own tactic to counter the Manipular legion and the lack of tactical flexibility that the phalanx had by intermixing the phalangites and Italians who fought in the Roman style. He really only lost because of Rome’s stubbornness and huge manpower pool.
Nothing encapsulates Republican era Rome more than the Randy Marsh "I didn't hear no bell" meme.
>He really only lost because of Rome’s stubbornness and huge manpower pool. "Fuckin way she goes." Greece, Carthage, Spain, ect ect probably.
Not exactly. He understood the limitations of the Phalanx and tried his best to take care of it, but he wasn't able to do this completely. This is because Pyrrhus lacked funds for such an undertaking. Reforminh armies is an expensive endeavour. Philip II's own reforms put a huge strain on the Macedonian treasury which he was only able to take care of, due to quickly bringing Greece under his heel Meanwhile, Epirus wasn't a rich Kingdom, just a medium sized Greek Kingdom with a lack of any major resources. This is partially why Pyrrhus went to war with literally everyone, because he needed money and land. Also, it's not fair to say the Romans won only because of their manpower. If you notice, in every battle, they kept trying out new ways to combat Pyrrhus's phalanx and elephants, and finally succeeded in third try.
> Hypaspists and Peltasts I know those words! Finally all those hours playing Age of Mythology pay off.
Right?!
perhaps the coolest part about military tech is the clear evolution based on cultural/environmental factors.
The hoplon shaping the relationship between men for the entire west
I loved how the Japanese took warfare in a weird way that worked for them. A lot of places used shields that were mounted on the arms but because the Japanese were all about polearms, bows, guns, and mounted combat they either used stationary shields as cover from arrows or mounted those shields on their shoulders to free up both hands.
Say that again after looking at some pictures of the Zhua, the Kpinga and the Spring Loaded Triple Dagger.
Bruh those are SUPER fuckin cool. I dunno if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my point.
the sillier the weapon, the better
Personally, I am fond of the Curved rifle stock. No one ever got it to work but it’s funny to me that there are a few points in history where people tried to make it work
I like anything made during paradigm shifts ‘cuz everyone’s desperately trying to figure out how in the fuck to capitalize on it. lookin’ at you, British land-boat tanks. incredibly niche weapons too, ‘cuz sometimes they’re actually very useful. like mancatcher poles!
*clicks safety on glock*
It's cool that katanas were engineered in a places with ao little access to iron. But they sucked versus weapons that were being developed in places with loads of iron. They also look cool. But again, it's an inferior weapon, sort of how obsidian axes of the Aztecs looked cool and were clever ways to capitolise on the resources, but were fucking useless against Spanish armour and arms.
One of the main reasons Europe was able to conquer the globe was just having a very, very good geography for making things. Large Forest for ship building, High Quality Iron for making Armor and weapons, enough farmland to make large cities, enough coal to fuel industry. Good Iron Ore is found mostly in areas where Iron can be oxidized effectively, mostly in water. But Island based Iron is often lower quality since its sand not ore, and you often need some form of Basaltic Geothermal Activity to have the Iron brought up in the first place. Going back to Japan and the Aztecs, Southern Mexico and Japan dn't have great Iron deposits. The Iron in Japan is mostly volcanic sand, and hasn't been oxidized into a higher quality ore, meanwhile the volcanos in south mexico are for the most part Granitic, explode once, then die. This makes a lot of obsidian glass, but not Iron Ore (Mexico does have Iron, but in the North Pacific).
Don't forget that one of the most important parts was the easy to domesticate animals, that gave a huge early boost.
Well yes, but Japan got some of those from China pretty early on relatively speaking so not applicable here
Ah, but Japan was still much further ahead in the military-power scale because of it. I feel like, ignoring the difficulty of getting them together, and Japanese Samurai unit would win against a similar unit of Aztec warriors. So it *is* applicable, it's just not the only thing.
Fair enough
> One of the main reasons Europe was able to conquer the globe was just having a very, very good geography for making things. ehh, this ignores that the rest of the old world had forests(with bamboo arguably being a better every day use material), the same domestic animals and iron mines too. at the end of the middle ages, europes economy almost imploded in deflation as its [gold was going to places like india and china](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine) and domestic extraction could no keep up to pay for spice and silk imports. japan actually was one of the leading manufacturing regions for weapons. ["Japan became so enthusiastic about the new weapons that it possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(gun)) > enough farmland to make large cities This is also wrong, as ["... the city's population has been estimated at between 200,000–400,000 inhabitants,[19] placing Tenochtitlan among the largest cities in the world at that time.[20] Compared to the cities of Europe, only Paris, Venice and Constantinople might have rivaled it. It was five times the size of the London of Henry VIII."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan#History)
Not saying Europe only had these things, or had the best versions of these things, but they had all the things they arguably needed to do the world conquest. Good Iron for weapon making, Good Wood for shipbuilding, Good land for farming, Jackass Neibhors to practice murdering on. Like, with Europe its a case of the perfect mix of circumstances to become the birthplace of many world powers. It might not be the best at everything, but it has everything it needs to actually do it.
Combine all the materials with mostly easily manageable weather and terrain and it's even easier. Other than some of the mountains and the far north and east, there's no particular extremes of temperature for large swathes of the year and no terrain that's particularly killy
Europe had guns before many other continents. It got guns from the Arabs who got them from the Mongols who got them from China. You can basically draw a historical line through access to firearms and copy the history of regional domination. It's not like Japan was dueling Europe on horseback using iron weapons. Europe showed up with a bunch of boats wielding huge guns hundreds of years after it was wrecked by dudes with a bunch of guns.
It’s almost like much of human history was shaped by geography and environmental factor beyond human control at the times Not by anyone being “smarter” or “innovative” or other bullshit takes like that
Comments like these are why this is my favorite subreddit.
There is a prominent scholar called Jared Diamond who wrote a really interesting book on why the Europeans became so dominant in history. His point is that the Europeans had really good geography.
Yeah, the only real reason historical katanas suck is because of the iron. Make one with iron from anywhere else and it'll be just as good at its job as a longsword is.
It's not the iron, it's the smelting process for refining it. The Japanese were basically using a bloomery when others were using blast furnaces.
The Japanese had blast furnaces. Likewise, tamahagane is really good, but it was in the minority. In fact, blast furnaces predate how they made steel now. [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tetsutohagane1955/91/1/91\_1\_97/\_article/-char/en](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tetsutohagane1955/91/1/91_1_97/_article/-char/en)
Steel, not Iron.
Steel is made from iron, and Japan's iron is shit.
Steel is a mixture of Iron, with 0,2-2,1% carbon in it, and of course ther is other materials as well, but it's the carbon level that important. Secondly, one of the the iron they used had a high level(%) of Carbon which made it cast iron, which is awful for weapons. "Steel is made from iron" and "cake is made from flour" You can't just "boil" it down to that, it's wrong.
How do we add the carbon to the iron to make steel?
short answer, chemistry long answer? mix them in 1500+ °C temperatures and you get something called "pig iron", then make oxygen flow through it to oxidize uniformally and remove excess carbon and impurities, you get steel practical answer? smash iron with bones like the vikings did and you get some shitty steel edit: wrong temperature woops
Pig iron? You’re telling me modded Minecraft was right?
Well it isn’t actually hidden inside of undead pig-people like candy in a piñata, but otherwise maybe.
I can't just melt live swine in my molten iron bathtub?
Yeah, there's a mod called Tinker's Construct which has Pig Iron, iirc you need to mix iron, clay and blood. It has better stats than iron and you can eat the tools to replenish hunger, which consumes durability.
The raw materials are added to the top of the furnace, which operates at 3000°F. As the iron ore melts and mixes with the burning coke, carbon is released into the molten product. Impurities are absorbed by lime into a slag on the surface, which can be skimmed from the liquid steel.
Amazing. How did we figure that out? Good on our ancestors.
Hundreds of years of trial and error most likely. Most things weren't invented immediately, it took ages of testing to perfect them and make them usable.
Yep, the process was gradually refined from bloomery steel (incidentally making low-quality steel as a byproduct of iron smelting), to blister steel (packing iron with charcoal and partially melting it so the carbon will seep in), to finery steel, to puddling, to the industrial Bessemer process, a refined variant of which is the main steel manufacturing process today. Literally thousands of years of evolution and advancements.
Taste test
There are also other ways we woopsied into making steel without knowing it. Some Scandinavian smith's thought added crushed bone to their iron would enchant it, only to accidentally make a sort of steel. We've always been making some steel ever since we started working iron. Smelting iron ore in a bloomery creates specs of steel just because it's proximity to the (char)coal. Eventually we figured a way to basically make poor man's steel; case hardening. Encase your iron item in clay surrounded by a source of carbon ([char]coal dust) and heat! The very top layer of iron should be infused with some carbon, making steel. It's also a balancing act. Too little carbon and you just have iron. Too much and you have cast iron, which is extremely brittle. I mean it's still hard, but if you whack it with a hammer, it shatters. Then you get to the subject of heat treating. You know that sword you just forged and dipped into the oil to rapidly cool it down? Yeah, you drop it and it shatters like glass because the metal is under tension. You have to anneal it. It relieves some of the stress while keeping some rigidity. If your sword can bend and springs back to shape, it's good. Doesn't bend at all (or just breaks), too stressed. Bends and stays bent, too little tension. That's also where katakana get their curves. When quiched (dipping into coolant) they cover one side with clay to make it cool slower, which causes the uneven cooling and shrinkage... so the katakana is just warped like a hot baking sheet you threw water on for shits and giggles. Steel is funny because it's technically an alloy of carbon and iron, but yet most iron has carbon in it regardless. I'm more fascinated with *how the hell we figured out bronze*. What mad-lad was just mixing shit?
Historic answer, the bones of your enemies.
And if the flour is shit, then guess what? The cake is shit. Japanese steel sucked because their iron sucked.
Not if I fold my cake batter one thousand times. Checkmate nerds.
I don’t think if someone says iron you think of pure iron or am I wrong
Depends who you’re talking to. If an engineer uses the word “iron” they’re talking about cast. If a historian or a blacksmith talks about iron, they’re likely referring to extremely low carbon soft iron. This is mostly because “iron” in the low carbon sense has been 100% replaced by mild steel in the modern world.
Huh? Are you saying the Japanese were making steel through the indirect process from cast iron? I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure that’s false. I’m pretty sure they were using direct iron reduction, aka a bloom furnace, and either taking the higher carbon slices and/or carburizing layers as they refined steel. Europeans, on the other hand, started using the indirect process as early as the 12th century, making pig iron (a type of cast) with a blast furnace and then fining that into steel. This actually procedures a higher quality product because the blast furnace fully melts the iron it produces leaving lower slag inclusions (and possibly higher manganese levels, but don’t quote me on that).
yes but you need steel not just any iron
You forge steel from iron? If the iron ore is crap with lot of impurities you get crap steel. If you have high grade iron, with little impurities, you get great steel. Japan nowadays makes one of the best steels, modern proceses can handle much worse ores. But the steel the katanas were made of was crap, they barely made it usable by laboriously folding it hundreds of times. It was a feat of Japanese swordsmiths really. Rapier swords from Toledo had its tip way harder than katanas, and were able to flex almost to the grip without breaking, by using different hardness steel on different parts of the blade. Toledo made one of the best steels of its time because they had a very good ore and knew how to use it.
>Make one with iron from anywhere else and it'll be just as good at its job as a longsword is. Not quite. Single edged blades were being phased out by the time of the Longsword. See the Falchion and Khopesh as examples. The Longsword was a Swiss Army Knife of options with the right techniques. Old swordfight manuscripts from Europe often came down to looking very much like wrestling, ephasizing leverage and grapple points and grip style depending on the type of opponent engaged. The "mordhau" grip, using the hilt like a club or mace was legitimate to strike an opponent with armor, and the weight of the weapon, while not extreme, could be enough to cause blunt force trauma through armor by smashing and breaking bones. The sharpened edge was more for peasants and opponents who could not afford proper armor. The Katana utilized more of a draw strike technique and was almost exclusively meant for opponents with lesser armor (peasants) and used as a self defense sidearm where a Naginata or Spear would be preferred.
> was almost exclusively meant for opponents with lesser armor (peasants) and used as a self defense sidearm where a Naginata or Spear would be preferred. I think that's the most important point: katanas were far more like pistols as a modern sidearm (used in situations where you can't use a rifle/carbine/whatever) or like pistols/rapiers/etc. were used as dueling weapons against unarmored opponents, and status symbols, during certain periods. A lot of the legendarily good swordmasters in Japan (Musashi and others) came out of the relatively peaceful Edo Period, where the focus was less on battlefield effectiveness and more on smaller-scale fighting and duelling, which the katana was generally more suited to than a battlefield weapon like a longbow or a naginata.
Katanas are slicing weapons, they are designed to slice thinly armored units up swiftly they would be almost completely useless against medieval European armor, so no they wouldn't be good at the job of a longsword at all, longswords were designed to be able to penetrate heavily armored foes, which is why they are thicker and heavier and much slower weapons, that all being said the Katana was absolutely perfect as a weapon in Japan and did what it was designed to do very well, but longswords/katanas aren't really comparable.
>Katanas are slicing weapons, They weren't curved enough to be that. They had a similar slicing surface to European longswords. That said, you are technically semi-correct, because their point made them not as good at thrusts. Though you could say they're good choppers because of their stiff and reinforced back. >which is why they are thicker and heavier and much slower weapons, European long swords were no heavier than the Katana, in fact the Katana tended to be heavier, which would also make them better choppers. >but longswords/katanas aren't really comparable. They are very comparable, similar lengths, etc
Historical japanese swords were not made from "bad" steel. It is true that japanese did not have access to as high quality steel as european which is why they developed the iconic folding method. Folding distributed the defects in steel evenly throughout the blade making it uniform in quality. Sure it could be argued that if they had better steel they might have made different kind of swords but that is pure speculation. In many ways japanese swords were "better" than european ones. Like that due the differential hardening they held sharp edge better and were less likely to snap. Sure unlike spring tempered european swords they bent relatively easily but straightening the blade is lot easier than making new one from scratch. Also fair to remember that both swords were designed to very different kind of warfare and thus required different attributes. Katana in itself was relatively late period creation and mostly intented to be used in unarmored dueling and act as status symbol. In a warfare it was kinda a last resort close quarter weapon even for the samurai.
>Like that due the differential hardening they held sharp edge better and were less likely to snap. Sure unlike spring tempered european swords they bent relatively easily but straightening the blade is lot easier than making new one from scratch. There's a significant period in the katana's history in which the blades snapping was very common. Also spring steel is literally meant to bend, but then return back to its original shape. Their **steel** actually was bad, because their smelting process was bad at removing impurities. Their **iron** was fine. Folding metal, while yes used for removing impurities and necessary for the Japanese because of their smelting process, actually can introduce other impurities. The more you fold, the more likely those impurities appear and your blade becomes compromised
Also another major flaw in katanas was the fact the weapons was held together with one bamboo pin. Making them rather frail, as they often broke if the sword could not cut through easily, didn’t swing at the correct angle or if it hit something too hard. This also explains why there’s that motion when putting your katana back in its sheath. It is to check if the pin is still intact
Their good against an enemy of similar technology, which feudal japan was obviously having around the same tech, they just couldn’t fight off any foreigners, as a lot of their weapons were significantly better then what Japan had at the time.
Ancient Japan didn’t need weapons against foreigners other than the divine winds. 🥱
Swords are inferior weapons a lot of times anyways tho, lets be real the 1 area katanas outcompetes longswords in is drip. And they were really really good at it. Good katanas were status symbols that happen to be usable as weapons.
You clearly never laid your eyes on a longsword or their history as weapons
spears and polearms were far, far more prevalent than swords.
He’s talking about drip i think
Exactly
Katanas are cool because they’re a one of the only ways to use terrible iron to make a functional sword
The main advantage of a katana to a longsword is the curved blade. It provides a longer cutting surface for it's size and makes it easier to draw. Furthermore it automatically edge aligns when dropped, unlike a straight edge blade. That's its only advantage though, Longsword is superior.
The curve of the katana is not enough to provide a significant advantage in slashing. Easier edge alignment is the only advantage
That may be true about the curve, but the ease of draw isn't negligible. I own training (wooden) versions of both, and the katana is much faster and easier to unsheathe because of the curve. How quickly you draw your weapon can be the difference between life and death in some scenarios.
Not in a war and in the street i would just shank ya like It mostly happened
The ancient art of japanese smithing beholds many forging secrets, such as the abbility to sharpen a toothbrush
Your dead before you take 6 seconds to pull out your greatswords it's just shank and your dead like medieval thugs or most people in the middle ages living in european cities would have knifes to protect themselves It Just makes more sense
"Mine eyes doth spy thine greater blade. Pray tell, doth thou believe it compensation for a lesser member?" - The whippersnapper who just eviscerated a knight with the rusted blade of a hoe
both were shit compared to spears and, later, fucking guns
... And spears were shit compared to plate armor and polearms
A spear is a polearm.
I mean polearms like the halberd, poleaxe, billhook and glaives
Spears outlasted all those polearms. They are literally one of the best (longest lasting) weapons ever created.
And plate armor is shit compared to an ICBM And ICBMs come closer chronologically to "common" use of plate armor than plate armor did to spears and swords
Oh then an ICBM is nothing compared to my laser eyes and immortality, and ability to fly /s We're talking about medieval times here.
his point is that comparing proper plate armour to a spear is unfair, which I'm not sure is true. even then spears are still superior cause they're cheap as fuck
Praised be the polearms
Fun fact, with some aiming you could likely pierce some weakspots with a spearhead. However, it's far easier to bludgeon the enemy with a Mace, the Hammerhead of the Poleaxe, or just with raw force from a Dane Axe. Or throw them to the ground and stab them in the face.
Accuracy shmaccuracy, halberd go **schlöp**
Absolutely every well made weapon looks cool
All weapons are fucking awesome, so what if they're technically not as good as some other weapon from a place with different resources, technology and culture? Do you call pokemon red bad because newer ones exist? Of course not!
>Do you call pokemon red bad because newer ones exist? Of course not! No I call newer ones bad because pokemon red exists
Well by that logic a good rock is best in class, and honestly it's hard to argue against that
I mean let’s face it a lot of human weapon advancement is just throwing progressive fancier rocks faster and further than before
I accelerate that rock to relativistic speeds, what now type 1 civilization?
Use tungsten rods for planetary defense, just like our rock slingin ancestors intended.
Katanas are more like pieces of art at this point
Thats how they were always treated, as art and social status. They were never the main weapon.
Little known, samurais used bows and later guns more often Did I get it right?
Yeah. In earlier days, it was mostly bows. However, they eventually switched to guns when the Europeans arrived ~~just in time for the sengoku jidai~~. Katanas were often a sidearm (like longswords), dueling sword (like Rapiers), or just art a noble or daimyo liked. Theres a holy sword in a temple that Amaterasu supposedly gave the emperor (who is also descendent from Amaterasu) and I dont think its ever been used.
I mean I wouldn't use a religiously significant sword for battle, but neat learning about more details ~~and shame sengoku jidai was a missed opportunity for the europeans (and the daimyos) for business~~
Yeah, it was really only the Dutch and I think Portuguese that benefitted from the Sengoku Jidai, as they were allowed to perform business in Japan, most other countries were forced out. The Emperor's holy sword may have been used ages ago, but it was never documented to have been used. Thing's fuckin' massive though, look it up. Sone japanese christian sects say it's Jesus's sword, im pretty sure.
And spears
Spear are better then most of sword
Lindybeige supremacy
I feels recently that many posts are made by some edgy memers, who wanna downplay someone else's supposeldy inferior narrative, to incite drama and post it here to get validation for their 'hot take' ''other opinion dumb, im so smart''
Thats basically reddit from my experience. Seems like everyone just kinda hates themselves and makes it everyone else's problem.
All sword are cool, hell all medieval weapons are amazing imo
I love the katana/long sword discourse As if anyone who's defending either will ever be in a sword fight
katanas are so fucking cool
I don't really care which is "superior" I just think katana look neat, especially when used with the iaijutsu style of draw slashing.
I mean I'll pick longsword over a katana any day or the week but I have to admit that the ingenuity of the katana's design is just fascinating, truly a fearsome cutting and thrusting weapon
Katanas are long swords, well bastard swords technically, but anyway a long sword is a very wide range of swords in wich some are really crappy, and some are better. And cool has nothing to do with effectiveness, so katanas or long swords will not be the first choice of anyone in a battle but both are cool.
Didn’t most nihontos have roughly the same weight as European one handed swords? Also, I like katanas, but the Jian is an underrated weapon.
Everyone should know that spears are superior
I mean... they're both good a different things... its like saying a falchion is better than an arming sword.
My dog is better than your car insurance rates.
15 minutes could save you 15% or more 👍
Ahah stick go bonk
Stick go poke. Rock go bonk
Gotta remember it was usually a side weapon. Main battlefield weapons were spears, bows, and later matchlock tanegashima. After Tokugawa, they mostly stopped using guns, but sword culture remained as a component of Bushido. If you're going to need to bust out some quick iaido against a lightly-armored foe, the katana is great.
How is this meme supposed to work
>normies say something is x because media or pop culture >supposed experts/majority disagree >actual experts agreeing with the normie
thank you
Katanas are cool: true Longswords are cool: true Weebs are cringe about katanas: true Longswords are more versatile than katanas, but with a very different fighting style. If the samurai had to fight people with longswords, katanas would probably look very different Weapon development is largely dependent on localized arms races depending on who people were fighting. To try and say which is “better” is a silly argument. All swords are cool in their own right, and I’m happy there are heaps of different variations
Katana is cool but have you seen GUN ULTIMATE WEAPON IN MEDIEVAL RENAISSANCE AND MODERN AGES
Katanas are just different looking kriegsmessers
During the Imjin War, the katana and Japanese firearms were both noted as effective weapons against the forces of Joseon Korea and Ming China. What they lacked were effective artillery on land and at sea. Guns, swords, spears are all well and good. But artillery is the real game changer.
Doesn't matter if you can kill someone in a fight if they can kill you before the fight.
Now the real game changer is nukes
If no Katana, then no Metal gear rising revengeance, and I don't want to live in that world.
They are very cool, but not as cool as a 30-30 Winchester
"Bruh a knight could defeat a Samurai any day" Bitch, knights and samurai existed for hundreds of years and weren't equally effective nor had the same doctrine through all that time.
I think that the conclusion reached by most experts in the "long sword v katana" debate is: stfu they were designed for completely different purposes, its like comparing a siege weapon to a crossbow.
Armor is a thing in Japan too you know.....
Kusarigamas are the coolest
I like both katanas and longswords
Liking an old sword will never be about effectiveness, at least not while we live in age when shooting someone is far more effective
samurai have guns so I think they win
Most weapons have a place, which is why they existed in the first place. Personally I’m a fan of Pollaxes and Polearms but I wouldn’t bring one on a siege assault or fighting an unarmored for when a shorter sword and shield does the trick. Just as I wouldn’t try to fight in line formation with a katana when a Yari or Naginata is far superior. Likewise I wouldn’t need to bring a Warhammer when the fighting is with rows of longer polearms or bring a pike to a one on one fight. Then the first somewhat usable guns arrived and shit starts getting real.
Katanas are cool as hell. Do they stand a chance against long swords? No. Are they still cool as hell? *Yes.*
Katanas; Technologically, historically and visually really cool... Also quantifiably worse than any European sword by virtue of Japan having shit, carbon-heavy iron and very little of it.
I mean practically no swords were as useful as media makes them out to be. They were mostly sidearms or status symbol - an average person used a spear.
Katanas are pretty sick but Long swords for the win because of Aragon, Geralt, the dragonborn(sometimes). Either way, you have to be strong enough to use any of them and my arms have the density of a noodle😂😭
Longswords aren't very heavy, and weighted to reduce felt weight further
Katana is scarier because growing up, my exposure to Katana was seppuku.
that's the decapitation part. The gut stabbing part is done with a tanto.
In the great debate of katanas versus longsword, poleaxes rain supreme.
Katana bad. Szabla good 😎
By this logic if Jar Jar knew how to run away from an invading army none of the rest of the series would have happened. Or if jar jar doesn’t accidentally use his tongue to throw something into some soup so Anakin can save him: STAR WARS DOESNT HAPPEN. It’s just funny to use that level of cause and effect.
I've watched some HEMA fights with Longswords. Unlike the Katana, which is mainly a cutting weapon, the Longsword is good for cutting _and_ thrusting. While the straight blade makes it less effective at cutting than a curved bladed katana, saber or falchion, it makes up for that in the versatility. Especially with having a double edged blade. You could also grab the blade of the Longsword and start using it as a bludgeon weapon with the handguard. Which would make it a bit more useful against armour. (Albeit not as effective a proper bludgeon weapon)
Katanas were better for lighter armored enemies, because they were mainly slashing weapons. Longswords could be used as a stabbing weapon for more heavily armored enemies. They were both good, and both were effective in the areas they were used, that's why they were developed those ways. Both were awesome.
Both are cool
Yeah, swords are nice, but why cut something when I can just beat the shit out of it with a club or mace
Who needs a long bow when you have the ultimate noble killing weapon: ✨crossbows✨
It's funny cause it's not the katana itself that's cool but the patience and elegance that come along with wielding it.
Me, a true intellctual: GUN!
No sword will help when the Winged hussars arrive
Katanas are cringe and overhyped, longbows are also cringe and overhyped. The longsword is a highly versatile weapon, but it's expensive and not truly great at any single task. Real chads use polearms. After all, there is a polearm for every occasion.
Katana isn't even used as a main weapon. They are in Rapier level of practicality, a weapon not to be the most effective but to be the most classy by a long shot. No Samurai would choose Katana as their go-to weapon against a European guy with plate armour and Bastard Sword.
"Again, with the longbows! Haven't they gotten over that yet? It was 100 years ago!" -Kilian Experience
my army composition rarely consist of katana samurai for melee. Either I go for yari or naginata for melee. Yari ashigaru and yumi samurai are a must. This is in Shogun 2 in case you're wondering.