h***@nospam.org
2006-07-25 14:07:20 UTC
Interesting article I stumbled on thought some of you might find
interesting considering the interest in fantasy weapons. Note an
interesting comment about half way down on how to add additional power
to a two handed grip. Think of where you heard that before.
Hal
Katana vs. Rapier:
Another Fantasy Worth Considering
jcbio.jpg (2938 bytes)By John Clements, ARMA Director
There is typically a view that the katana and rapier represent the
ideal cutting blade and the ideal thrusting blade; the "highest"
development of East and West. Every once in awhile it's not uncommon
to hear people speculate on what result might occur in a duel between
a Japanese samurai armed with his katana and an European Renaissance
swordsman with a rapier. It's a worthwhile question to consider.
As someone who has some small experience in both Japanese
swordsmanship and fencing (kenjutsu & kendo) and who has been a
long-time Renaissance swordsman and previously a sport fencer, I can
offer an opinion on this question. From my own experience sparring
with cutting against thrusting swords, I have a few insights. While
there are certainly no historically recorded accounts (other than
unsubstantiated folklore and rumor) as to a one on one duel between an
European swordsman with a rapier and Japanese samurai using a katana,
I think we can make a few very general suppositions about such a
hypothetical encounter.
First, while typical samurai warriors were highly trained soldiers,
the average samurai was not an expert swordsman, perhaps only 5% or so
were its been suggested. Of this 5%, maybe 5% of those were "master"
level swordsmen (not that it matters to the issue at hand whether the
figure was over 99% or less than 1%). Whereas the average European
rapier swordsman, would more or less be an ordinary urban citizen with
or without military experience. He would likely have received some (if
any) professional instruction from a master in a private school of
fence and then would of course have likely some degree of practical
"street-fighting" experience or have been in a duel. The weapon he
used would be one of personal self-defence and duel as opposed to a
battlefield sword.
There is no question that each swordsman was experienced at armed
close- combat. For sake of argument though, let's assume mastery level
by each hypothetical fighter. Let us also assume armor is a non-factor
in the encounter, as are any missile weapons or terrain factors. Let's
additionally assume neither has any major physical advantages over the
other. Further, lets assume that each swordsman is equally ignorant
of the other's style of fight. Though the rapier fighter was ideally
at home in a civilian environment, he would certainly be far from
ignorant of fighting tactics. While it is arguably not relevant to a
duel of single combat, cavaliers and knights of this age were often
well read in military strategy being familiar with the well-known
literature on the subject, such as Vegetius, Frontius, Pizan, and
Machiavellis art of war as well as countless fencing treatises.
An immediate question that occurs then, is would the samurai's
notorious resolute contempt for death and self-disregard lead to an
audacious and immediate offensive attack? Would the rapier fighter's
presumably cautious, cool-headed counter-thrusting style of fight
provoke a simple stop-thrust? The samurai might well hold disdain for
his "barbarian" foreigner's seemingly "flimsy" blade. This could prove
fatal against a weapon with the speed and reach of a rapier. The
rapier fighter himself may also erroneously hold his "pagan"
adversary's cutting style equally in contempt. Underestimating both
the speed and the force of a katana's deflecting counter-cuts can be
disastrous. Even a small snipping cut could often dismember an arm.
Simply stepping to evade an initial cut can even place you in the path
of a powerful second and third one. For the most part though, since
all the psychological factors, although important, are notoriously
hard to quantify, we'll have to avoid them for now.
Personally, from my own experience, I think the outcome of such a
fight would fall in one of either two directions: The samurai would
move directly to make a devastating cut, becoming punctured through
the head, throat, or chest as a result, but still having his cut
cleave through the rapier fighter's head and torso (or at least his
extended arm). Else, the rapier fighter would over time, make multiple
quick, shallow punctures at unpredictable angles of attack to the
samurai's hands, arms, and face until able to deliver an
incapacitating thrust. But at this same time, the samurai would be
carefully closing the distance and waiting until the split second he
could dash the rapier aside and step in with a slice clean across his
opponent's abdomen or face.
Typically, the sword user won't risk stepping into a stop-thrust and
the rapier fighter won't risk taking a swiping cut. The heavier blade
can usually beat the rapier aside but can't respond in time. While the
rapier often can attack but afterwards couldn't recover or parry once
it connects. I have seen both forms of outcomes in my mock-fighting
practices, but more often the Japanese stylist underestimates the
rapier rather than vice-versa. The katana is limited to about 7 or 8
cuts and a thrust -all of which are techniques already contained
within the familiar longsword and short sword styles a rapier fencer
would be somewhat familiar with. Whereas the katana fighter, in
contrast, has no equivalent foyning style of rapier (or rapier and
dagger) fencing in their experience. Historically, in the late 16th
century, it was the rapier's very deadliness at making unpredictable,
lightning fast thrusts from unusual angulation that made it become so
popular so quickly in place of all manner of cutting blades.
As is becoming increasingly well known, the rapier is not the flimsy
tool of the modern sport version, nor is it used in the same flicking
manner. It is longer, stronger, heavier, and involves a greater range
of techniques and moves. The rapier's penetrating stabs have great
reach and are very quick, particularly on the disengage. But it can
still be grabbed and lacks cutting offense. The katana has a
well-rounded offence to defence, and is much more symmetrical in its
handling. It can make great close-in draw cuts and is an agile weapon
with quick footwork of its own. It can be wielded well enough
one-handed if need be, too. Obviously, a katana can't match the rapier
thrust for thrust. What a rapier does best is fight point-on with
linear stabs, and no heavier, wider blade will possibly out maneuver
it. Playing to the rapier's strength by using a katana horizontally is
a losing game.
While the rapier certainly is a "point-based" threat and does not work
well close in, it makes up for this by being able to out thrust
cutting swords, like the katana, by about three feet of range using in
its foyning method specialized footwork such as the lunge. A long
lunge can strike a lethal hit from well outside the effective distance
of a man with a long cutting sword.
If a longer, straighter, double-edged sword adept at stabbing attacks
could not out-thrust the rapier, we may well wonder what chance a
shorter single edged katana, devised for slashing, would have? Besides
that, the rapier was devised to outfight blades that could strike with
both their edges in sixteen possible lines of attacktwice the number
employed by a katanaas well as trap and bind with their large
cross-guards which the katana also did not possess.
The katana itself s not a slow sword. It has a good deal of agility as
well as being able to thrust some. Kenjutsu cuts are delivered in
quick succession using a flowing manner. Its two-hand grip can
generate great power by using a sort of "torqueing" method with
additional force added from the hips. The katana's cutting power and
edge sharpness is also legendary (although often the subject of
exaggeration, sometimes absurdly so). It is a sword of war after all,
and faced a variety of arms and armors. While not every puncture with
a rapier would be lethal, to be sure, virtually every cut by a katana
was intended to kill instantly. During the centuries of the
Renaissance in Europe (the 1400s to early 1600s), Japan was in its
Warring States period; the samurai class were essentially mounted
archers with their main infantry weapon being the spear (yari). At
this time the sword was a secondary weapon. It was only later, during
the peace of the Tokugawa unification when the era of endless civil
war had ended, that the cult of the katana developed around the
samurai as warriors (which in modern times this has grown into
something of a pop-cultural mythology). The rapier on the other hand,
had but one purpose: dueling another swordsman.
Although occasionally argued by some, I do not believe for an instant
that the rapier would be "cut" or broken by a katana. Although katanas
were (more or less) capable of cutting through metal, slicing an
adversary's very sword, especially one as agile as a rapier, is
improbable at best. The rapier really just doesn't offer the
opportunity or the necessary resistance to even attempt it. We might
wonder however about the rapier's recorded propensity to break when
used in cutting. Yet it is necessary to understand that there was
considerable diversity in the geometry of rapier blades. Some designs
intended to produce an especially light and agile thrusting weapons
resulted in particularly thin points that did indeed tend to snap off
when a forcible edge blow was struck with them.
The speed and angulation of the highly methodical and calculating
rapier and dagger style (quiet unlike the dui tempo Baroque form of
modern sport fencing) is also one that would intentionally avoid
contact with a wider cutting blade. (Cutting through highly tempered
and deceptively swift blade of a thrusting rapier with a one- handed
slash from a katana, while an interesting and not inconvenient theory,
it must be admitted is certainly one without any physical or literary
evidence).
In thinking about all this, I have to admit to a certain bias. Being
somewhat familiar with both Eastern and Western systems, I have a good
feel I think for the strengths and weaknesses of each. So I may have a
slightly skewed opinion. When I have sparred with each weapon against
each style of fighter, I know generally what they can and can't do and
adjust myself accordingly. Then again, maybe that makes me more
objective than biased. My own experiences contrasting the two forms
has been in using a variety of implements, including: non-contact
steel blunts, semi-contact bokken (wooden sword) versus replica
rapier, and full-contact padded sword versus schläger (rapier
simulator). Attempting a simulation of sport epee versus bokken
though, is a futile exercise as the super light epee, more often than
it can flash in with a poke, can be easily knocked around and even end
up being bent. As well, shinai versus a foil or epee is just as
futile. The virtually weightless bamboo shinai distorts a katana's
handling far more so than even a foil or epee misrepresents the
performance of a rapier or small-sword.
Very often it has seemed to me, that sport fencers are quite often
much too quick to assume that their own speedy feints, disengages, and
long reach will easily overwhelm a cutting sword. Frequently, what
passes for the kenjutsu that Western fencers have previously
encountered was far from competent. Thus, they are habitually
unprepared for a katana's agile strength and defensive counter-cuts.
The worst thing the rapier fighter can do is to allow his weapon to be
bound up with the point off to the side (once you're past a rapier's
point, the weapon is almost impotent). He also must avoid fighting
close-in where the katana's force and slicing ability will instantly
dominate. On the other hand, Asian stylists unfamiliar with what a
rapier really is and what it can do, severely underestimate it. They
too readily believe what they see in sport epee and foil is the "real
thing", or that the Princess Bride and Zorro fans at the local Renn
faire represent the best the weapon has to offer. The rapier's
deceptive speed combined with its excellent reach and fast, efficient
footwork make it a formidable weapon to face in single (unarmored)
combat. Essentially, underestimating either weapon is a fatal
misperception.*
If we assume the rapier is being used alone, that means the fencer has
its left hand free to seize his opponent's grip, handle, or arm. If we
assume he is using a companion dagger with his rapier, then when he
closes in he has a potential killing thrust at his disposal. Also, the
rapier fighter would not have been ignorant of grappling and wrestling
techniques any less than his Asian opponent.
It is worth mentioning that the rapier was used more often with a
companion dagger. But employing a dagger against a fast katana is
extremely challenging as well as possibly self-defeating. Trying to
trap or block a sword held in two-hands with a light dagger held in
one is not advisable. The samurai might always release one hand from
his weapon and grab his opponent's blade. However, some dagger
techniques against a sword actually resemble those effectively used
with the Okinawan sai --a weapon fully capable of defeating a katana.
Also, the respected two-sword nito-ryu style of the famous Miyamoto
Musashi seems to be much less relevant against the rapier. In this
case, using one hand on two separate swords reduces the katana's own
speed and strength advantages while playing to the rapier's. The two
swords end up being too slow to employ their combination parry/cut
against the rapier's greater speed and stabbing reach.
So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over
another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I
have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its
ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence
and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think
"who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot
question and unanswerable. Thus, what it eventually gets down to is
not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning
and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal
skill.
*End Note: As students of both combatives and history, we must
recognize the limitation that, despite the sincerest attempts, any
modern civilianized (even sportified) martial art practiced for
recreation and health is not the same as one historically practiced
for survival. Few would assert today that medieval styles of fighting
have anywhere been preserved exactly as they once were with the same
level of intensity, expertise, and motivation. However, its no secret
to point out how today's less informed student of Asian martial arts
often imagines his modern style (or at least the popular mythology
surrounding it) is identical in all respects to the version once
practiced in a very different society and culture hundreds of years
past (indeed, even when it comes to historical weaponry, some modern
day practitioners feel their theoretical version is actually superior
to what was done in antiquity for real). What is required then for
objective consideration is a willingness to look at the subject more
as students of history, rather than as emotionally invested adherents
of a belief system. The more a combative digresses from its
originating conditions compelling combat utility, the less martial it
becomes. The counter-argument to this is that preservation is systemic
and endemic to the pedagogy of traditional fighting skills and that
the subtleties of martial arts can only be passed on person to person,
not via texts and images. However, anthropologically, there can be no
question that despite the best efforts, there is no way to ever
verifying the veracity of generational verbal transmission which by
its nature is subject to change over time.
*Note: Interestingly, the Renaissance cut-and-thrust method (as for
example practiced by the Elizabethan master George Silver or described
in various early 16th century Italian manuals) naturally has qualities
of each weapon. It's not unlike that of kenjutsu with many fundamental
principles being the same. It differs significantly of course, in its
footwork and in the application of certain techniques and moves
(particularly thrusts and parries) which were later adapted to its
similar "cousin", the rapier. Cut-and-thrust or side-swords swords
were also commonly used along with a buckler or dagger and the
flexibility of this two-weapon combination can have some advantages
against a single sword in held two hands. It certainly did against
European greatswords on occasion, but this was in the age when such
war swords were already no longer in wide use.
See also The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai?
Back to the Essays Page
© Copyright 2002 by John Clements.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm
interesting considering the interest in fantasy weapons. Note an
interesting comment about half way down on how to add additional power
to a two handed grip. Think of where you heard that before.
Hal
Katana vs. Rapier:
Another Fantasy Worth Considering
jcbio.jpg (2938 bytes)By John Clements, ARMA Director
There is typically a view that the katana and rapier represent the
ideal cutting blade and the ideal thrusting blade; the "highest"
development of East and West. Every once in awhile it's not uncommon
to hear people speculate on what result might occur in a duel between
a Japanese samurai armed with his katana and an European Renaissance
swordsman with a rapier. It's a worthwhile question to consider.
As someone who has some small experience in both Japanese
swordsmanship and fencing (kenjutsu & kendo) and who has been a
long-time Renaissance swordsman and previously a sport fencer, I can
offer an opinion on this question. From my own experience sparring
with cutting against thrusting swords, I have a few insights. While
there are certainly no historically recorded accounts (other than
unsubstantiated folklore and rumor) as to a one on one duel between an
European swordsman with a rapier and Japanese samurai using a katana,
I think we can make a few very general suppositions about such a
hypothetical encounter.
First, while typical samurai warriors were highly trained soldiers,
the average samurai was not an expert swordsman, perhaps only 5% or so
were its been suggested. Of this 5%, maybe 5% of those were "master"
level swordsmen (not that it matters to the issue at hand whether the
figure was over 99% or less than 1%). Whereas the average European
rapier swordsman, would more or less be an ordinary urban citizen with
or without military experience. He would likely have received some (if
any) professional instruction from a master in a private school of
fence and then would of course have likely some degree of practical
"street-fighting" experience or have been in a duel. The weapon he
used would be one of personal self-defence and duel as opposed to a
battlefield sword.
There is no question that each swordsman was experienced at armed
close- combat. For sake of argument though, let's assume mastery level
by each hypothetical fighter. Let us also assume armor is a non-factor
in the encounter, as are any missile weapons or terrain factors. Let's
additionally assume neither has any major physical advantages over the
other. Further, lets assume that each swordsman is equally ignorant
of the other's style of fight. Though the rapier fighter was ideally
at home in a civilian environment, he would certainly be far from
ignorant of fighting tactics. While it is arguably not relevant to a
duel of single combat, cavaliers and knights of this age were often
well read in military strategy being familiar with the well-known
literature on the subject, such as Vegetius, Frontius, Pizan, and
Machiavellis art of war as well as countless fencing treatises.
An immediate question that occurs then, is would the samurai's
notorious resolute contempt for death and self-disregard lead to an
audacious and immediate offensive attack? Would the rapier fighter's
presumably cautious, cool-headed counter-thrusting style of fight
provoke a simple stop-thrust? The samurai might well hold disdain for
his "barbarian" foreigner's seemingly "flimsy" blade. This could prove
fatal against a weapon with the speed and reach of a rapier. The
rapier fighter himself may also erroneously hold his "pagan"
adversary's cutting style equally in contempt. Underestimating both
the speed and the force of a katana's deflecting counter-cuts can be
disastrous. Even a small snipping cut could often dismember an arm.
Simply stepping to evade an initial cut can even place you in the path
of a powerful second and third one. For the most part though, since
all the psychological factors, although important, are notoriously
hard to quantify, we'll have to avoid them for now.
Personally, from my own experience, I think the outcome of such a
fight would fall in one of either two directions: The samurai would
move directly to make a devastating cut, becoming punctured through
the head, throat, or chest as a result, but still having his cut
cleave through the rapier fighter's head and torso (or at least his
extended arm). Else, the rapier fighter would over time, make multiple
quick, shallow punctures at unpredictable angles of attack to the
samurai's hands, arms, and face until able to deliver an
incapacitating thrust. But at this same time, the samurai would be
carefully closing the distance and waiting until the split second he
could dash the rapier aside and step in with a slice clean across his
opponent's abdomen or face.
Typically, the sword user won't risk stepping into a stop-thrust and
the rapier fighter won't risk taking a swiping cut. The heavier blade
can usually beat the rapier aside but can't respond in time. While the
rapier often can attack but afterwards couldn't recover or parry once
it connects. I have seen both forms of outcomes in my mock-fighting
practices, but more often the Japanese stylist underestimates the
rapier rather than vice-versa. The katana is limited to about 7 or 8
cuts and a thrust -all of which are techniques already contained
within the familiar longsword and short sword styles a rapier fencer
would be somewhat familiar with. Whereas the katana fighter, in
contrast, has no equivalent foyning style of rapier (or rapier and
dagger) fencing in their experience. Historically, in the late 16th
century, it was the rapier's very deadliness at making unpredictable,
lightning fast thrusts from unusual angulation that made it become so
popular so quickly in place of all manner of cutting blades.
As is becoming increasingly well known, the rapier is not the flimsy
tool of the modern sport version, nor is it used in the same flicking
manner. It is longer, stronger, heavier, and involves a greater range
of techniques and moves. The rapier's penetrating stabs have great
reach and are very quick, particularly on the disengage. But it can
still be grabbed and lacks cutting offense. The katana has a
well-rounded offence to defence, and is much more symmetrical in its
handling. It can make great close-in draw cuts and is an agile weapon
with quick footwork of its own. It can be wielded well enough
one-handed if need be, too. Obviously, a katana can't match the rapier
thrust for thrust. What a rapier does best is fight point-on with
linear stabs, and no heavier, wider blade will possibly out maneuver
it. Playing to the rapier's strength by using a katana horizontally is
a losing game.
While the rapier certainly is a "point-based" threat and does not work
well close in, it makes up for this by being able to out thrust
cutting swords, like the katana, by about three feet of range using in
its foyning method specialized footwork such as the lunge. A long
lunge can strike a lethal hit from well outside the effective distance
of a man with a long cutting sword.
If a longer, straighter, double-edged sword adept at stabbing attacks
could not out-thrust the rapier, we may well wonder what chance a
shorter single edged katana, devised for slashing, would have? Besides
that, the rapier was devised to outfight blades that could strike with
both their edges in sixteen possible lines of attacktwice the number
employed by a katanaas well as trap and bind with their large
cross-guards which the katana also did not possess.
The katana itself s not a slow sword. It has a good deal of agility as
well as being able to thrust some. Kenjutsu cuts are delivered in
quick succession using a flowing manner. Its two-hand grip can
generate great power by using a sort of "torqueing" method with
additional force added from the hips. The katana's cutting power and
edge sharpness is also legendary (although often the subject of
exaggeration, sometimes absurdly so). It is a sword of war after all,
and faced a variety of arms and armors. While not every puncture with
a rapier would be lethal, to be sure, virtually every cut by a katana
was intended to kill instantly. During the centuries of the
Renaissance in Europe (the 1400s to early 1600s), Japan was in its
Warring States period; the samurai class were essentially mounted
archers with their main infantry weapon being the spear (yari). At
this time the sword was a secondary weapon. It was only later, during
the peace of the Tokugawa unification when the era of endless civil
war had ended, that the cult of the katana developed around the
samurai as warriors (which in modern times this has grown into
something of a pop-cultural mythology). The rapier on the other hand,
had but one purpose: dueling another swordsman.
Although occasionally argued by some, I do not believe for an instant
that the rapier would be "cut" or broken by a katana. Although katanas
were (more or less) capable of cutting through metal, slicing an
adversary's very sword, especially one as agile as a rapier, is
improbable at best. The rapier really just doesn't offer the
opportunity or the necessary resistance to even attempt it. We might
wonder however about the rapier's recorded propensity to break when
used in cutting. Yet it is necessary to understand that there was
considerable diversity in the geometry of rapier blades. Some designs
intended to produce an especially light and agile thrusting weapons
resulted in particularly thin points that did indeed tend to snap off
when a forcible edge blow was struck with them.
The speed and angulation of the highly methodical and calculating
rapier and dagger style (quiet unlike the dui tempo Baroque form of
modern sport fencing) is also one that would intentionally avoid
contact with a wider cutting blade. (Cutting through highly tempered
and deceptively swift blade of a thrusting rapier with a one- handed
slash from a katana, while an interesting and not inconvenient theory,
it must be admitted is certainly one without any physical or literary
evidence).
In thinking about all this, I have to admit to a certain bias. Being
somewhat familiar with both Eastern and Western systems, I have a good
feel I think for the strengths and weaknesses of each. So I may have a
slightly skewed opinion. When I have sparred with each weapon against
each style of fighter, I know generally what they can and can't do and
adjust myself accordingly. Then again, maybe that makes me more
objective than biased. My own experiences contrasting the two forms
has been in using a variety of implements, including: non-contact
steel blunts, semi-contact bokken (wooden sword) versus replica
rapier, and full-contact padded sword versus schläger (rapier
simulator). Attempting a simulation of sport epee versus bokken
though, is a futile exercise as the super light epee, more often than
it can flash in with a poke, can be easily knocked around and even end
up being bent. As well, shinai versus a foil or epee is just as
futile. The virtually weightless bamboo shinai distorts a katana's
handling far more so than even a foil or epee misrepresents the
performance of a rapier or small-sword.
Very often it has seemed to me, that sport fencers are quite often
much too quick to assume that their own speedy feints, disengages, and
long reach will easily overwhelm a cutting sword. Frequently, what
passes for the kenjutsu that Western fencers have previously
encountered was far from competent. Thus, they are habitually
unprepared for a katana's agile strength and defensive counter-cuts.
The worst thing the rapier fighter can do is to allow his weapon to be
bound up with the point off to the side (once you're past a rapier's
point, the weapon is almost impotent). He also must avoid fighting
close-in where the katana's force and slicing ability will instantly
dominate. On the other hand, Asian stylists unfamiliar with what a
rapier really is and what it can do, severely underestimate it. They
too readily believe what they see in sport epee and foil is the "real
thing", or that the Princess Bride and Zorro fans at the local Renn
faire represent the best the weapon has to offer. The rapier's
deceptive speed combined with its excellent reach and fast, efficient
footwork make it a formidable weapon to face in single (unarmored)
combat. Essentially, underestimating either weapon is a fatal
misperception.*
If we assume the rapier is being used alone, that means the fencer has
its left hand free to seize his opponent's grip, handle, or arm. If we
assume he is using a companion dagger with his rapier, then when he
closes in he has a potential killing thrust at his disposal. Also, the
rapier fighter would not have been ignorant of grappling and wrestling
techniques any less than his Asian opponent.
It is worth mentioning that the rapier was used more often with a
companion dagger. But employing a dagger against a fast katana is
extremely challenging as well as possibly self-defeating. Trying to
trap or block a sword held in two-hands with a light dagger held in
one is not advisable. The samurai might always release one hand from
his weapon and grab his opponent's blade. However, some dagger
techniques against a sword actually resemble those effectively used
with the Okinawan sai --a weapon fully capable of defeating a katana.
Also, the respected two-sword nito-ryu style of the famous Miyamoto
Musashi seems to be much less relevant against the rapier. In this
case, using one hand on two separate swords reduces the katana's own
speed and strength advantages while playing to the rapier's. The two
swords end up being too slow to employ their combination parry/cut
against the rapier's greater speed and stabbing reach.
So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over
another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I
have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its
ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence
and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think
"who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot
question and unanswerable. Thus, what it eventually gets down to is
not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning
and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal
skill.
*End Note: As students of both combatives and history, we must
recognize the limitation that, despite the sincerest attempts, any
modern civilianized (even sportified) martial art practiced for
recreation and health is not the same as one historically practiced
for survival. Few would assert today that medieval styles of fighting
have anywhere been preserved exactly as they once were with the same
level of intensity, expertise, and motivation. However, its no secret
to point out how today's less informed student of Asian martial arts
often imagines his modern style (or at least the popular mythology
surrounding it) is identical in all respects to the version once
practiced in a very different society and culture hundreds of years
past (indeed, even when it comes to historical weaponry, some modern
day practitioners feel their theoretical version is actually superior
to what was done in antiquity for real). What is required then for
objective consideration is a willingness to look at the subject more
as students of history, rather than as emotionally invested adherents
of a belief system. The more a combative digresses from its
originating conditions compelling combat utility, the less martial it
becomes. The counter-argument to this is that preservation is systemic
and endemic to the pedagogy of traditional fighting skills and that
the subtleties of martial arts can only be passed on person to person,
not via texts and images. However, anthropologically, there can be no
question that despite the best efforts, there is no way to ever
verifying the veracity of generational verbal transmission which by
its nature is subject to change over time.
*Note: Interestingly, the Renaissance cut-and-thrust method (as for
example practiced by the Elizabethan master George Silver or described
in various early 16th century Italian manuals) naturally has qualities
of each weapon. It's not unlike that of kenjutsu with many fundamental
principles being the same. It differs significantly of course, in its
footwork and in the application of certain techniques and moves
(particularly thrusts and parries) which were later adapted to its
similar "cousin", the rapier. Cut-and-thrust or side-swords swords
were also commonly used along with a buckler or dagger and the
flexibility of this two-weapon combination can have some advantages
against a single sword in held two hands. It certainly did against
European greatswords on occasion, but this was in the age when such
war swords were already no longer in wide use.
See also The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai?
Back to the Essays Page
© Copyright 2002 by John Clements.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm