Japan is underpowered in EUIV

[Guardian54]

Using the term "Rape" other than the context of a legal conversation will cause a person to receive an unkind message from a moderator

Noted, have corrected.

Why did they made them thicker then? Afaik iron was very expensive in Japan at that time.

So instead of an expensive sword that will last at least a few good hits you want two half-price blades that break on the first try at a block?

...Does that answer your question?

Chinese Dao type blades (something between scimitars and katanas) with thick spines and single-sided blades were much, much better than katanas in staying power.

 

[Woifee]

I would bet my left ball you want win a fight against nme with your katana against me wit my ventral european sword & armory.

Europeans swords are superior to japanese in every way.

Yes I know the origin post was to troll or beeing funny, but still, japanese swords are crap!

 

[Voffvoffhunden]

I'm not clear on how katana fighting gives +chance of new heir. Is it:

1. Katanas attract all the ladies?
2. Katana fighting technique can also be applied in the bedroom?
3. The katana is so sharp that you can cut your heir in half and both halves can keep walking around like nothing happened, thus producing another heir?
4. Because eff yeah?
5. SCRUBDOWN?!?!?

Thanks for clearing this up.

I am assuming you are refering to the final idea in this set:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=469950447&tscn=1435431932


However, I am slightly confused, as you yourself have offered not only a thoroughly researched and historically accurate response, but FIVE thoroughly researched and historically based reasons.
That said, if the mod reaches 30 subscribers, I will add one unique historical katana-event for each of your five historical reasons.

Shalom, Voffvoffhunden (Takahashi)

 

[chrnno]

I would bet my left ball you want win a fight against nme with your katana against me wit my ventral european sword & armory.

Europeans swords are superior to japanese in every way.

Yes I know the origin post was to troll or beeing funny, but still, japanese swords are crap!

Personally I feel that for that kind of fight the people involved matter far more than the tools involved. Give me the best sword, armour and whatever against someone with training and experience even unarmed I would probably lose.

 

[Sernista]

Personally I feel that for that kind of fight the people involved matter far more than the tools involved. Give me the best sword, armour and whatever against someone with training and experience even unarmed I would probably lose.

Exactly. Unless you've got one side armed with a foam bat and the other with a good halberd, differences in weapon quality only matter so much. ARMOR quality can be a huge force multiplier, but differences between two, similar styles of sword? You might as well have a debate over saber hilt styles. It can matter, but rarely anywhere near so much as skill, psychology, or simple luck (defined here as the variation in performance between the same person in the same conditions, between different attempts).

 

[IIWW]

Exactly. Unless you've got one side armed with a foam bat and the other with a good halberd, differences in weapon quality only matter so much. ARMOR quality can be a huge force multiplier, but differences between two, similar styles of sword? You might as well have a debate over saber hilt styles. It can matter, but rarely anywhere near so much as skill, psychology, or simple luck (defined here as the variation in performance between the same person in the same conditions, between different attempts).

There is the same difference between katana and european sword as between japanease and european armors.

 

[Woifee]

Personally I feel that for that kind of fight the people involved matter far more than the tools involved. Give me the best sword, armour and whatever against someone with training and experience even unarmed I would probably lose.

I have a good sword and a more or less stabdard european armor.

In a real figt you need much mor luck as a you wich in the beginning, but if someone trys with a katana against a europein sword, the european will most likly win because katanas are terrible in every way.

 

[Sernista]

There is the same difference between katana and european sword as between japanease and european armors.

Katana and WHICH european sword? You're trying to compare a specific style of weapon and the entire production of a continent! Differences between a Katana and an old school viking-to-"knightly" one hander, sure. Differences between a Katana and a hefty falchion, alright. Differences between the Katana and a robustly built saber, stretching but I'll grant it. Differences between a Katana and a good Hand-and-Half, though? There are differences in blade shape and particularly hilt design, but by and large they're both agile, versatile two handed swords with pretty good reach for a weapon that can be belt-carried, that are quite deadly in either the cut or the thrust. That's what matters in the context of weapon usage. Are there differences in metalworking techniques? Sometimes, yeah. Europe had as far as I know generally phased out pattern-welding by the relevant time period. But the difference in actual use characteristics from that is limited. A well made sword is durable, flexible, and generally resilient against harm. A terribly made sword is a danger to anyone in the vicinity, friend or foe. Both those kinds of sword exist in both regions, and in both regions the actual warriors wouldn't be caught dead with the latter. European and Japanese sword-smiths both knew what they were doing, as did the people who used these swords. They wouldn't be any happier to go onto a battlefield with a sword-in-name-only than troops today would go out with guns that jammed every few rounds. Given these swords both were in use for centuries, and in periods when the sword was a militarily viable weapon? I have the sneaking suspicion they worked!

 

[IIWW]

Katana and WHICH european sword? You're trying to compare a specific style of weapon and the entire production of a continent! Differences between a Katana and an old school viking-to-"knightly" one hander, sure. Differences between a Katana and a hefty falchion, alright. Differences between the Katana and a robustly built saber, stretching but I'll grant it. Differences between a Katana and a good Hand-and-Half, though? There are differences in blade shape and particularly hilt design, but by and large they're both agile, versatile two handed swords with pretty good reach for a weapon that can be belt-carried, that are quite deadly in either the cut or the thrust. That's what matters in the context of weapon usage. Are there differences in metalworking techniques? Sometimes, yeah. Europe had as far as I know generally phased out pattern-welding by the relevant time period. But the difference in actual use characteristics from that is limited. A well made sword is durable, flexible, and generally resilient against harm. A terribly made sword is a danger to anyone in the vicinity, friend or foe. Both those kinds of sword exist in both regions, and in both regions the actual warriors wouldn't be caught dead with the latter. European and Japanese sword-smiths both knew what they were doing, as did the people who used these swords. They wouldn't be any happier to go onto a battlefield with a sword-in-name-only than troops today would go out with guns that jammed every few rounds. Given these swords both were in use for centuries, and in periods when the sword was a militarily viable weapon? I have the sneaking suspicion they worked!

And a bastard sword, since this was the european equivalent. Just like You won't compare Colt 1911 to MP-40, but to parabellum.
Katana was heavy, which made it poor for most sword fighting techniques, and not agile.
They worked, but have You compared the samurai's armor with knights armor? te heaviest stuff for both of them, say XII cent (just as example)? They worked because japanease armor were just as bad as their swords.

 

[Sernista]

Japanese armor was hardly the useless article you're making it out to be, unless the only standard for armor coverage you find acceptable is the most expensive articulated harness. But even setting that aside for the sake of argument - neither the Bastard or the Katana were primary battlefield weapons intended to defeat the heaviest armor available. They're generalist weapons. When a knight wanted to fight someone in heavy harness, he didn't go for his longsword, he grabbed his pollaxe! Can you fight harness with a longsword? Yes, with difficulty. Can you do it with a Katana? Well, to my knowledge detailed techniques for fighting armor aren't a thing that has survived too much, but it has to be remembered that most of our knowledge of Japanese swordplay is filtered through the Tokugawa period, when the mainstream user of a Katana wasn't expecting to face armor any more than a spanish rapier fencer would be - they were both civilian weapons. I strongly suspect that the Katana had just as much of a tradition of down-and-dirty harness fighting as the European swords did - though that's not really a falsifiable claim, I admit. But when it came to battlefield combat, odds are both the European and Japanese fighters would rather be using a primary weapon (for example, a good hafted weapon or polearm) than their sword sidearm.

 

[Beagá]

Personally I feel that for that kind of fight the people involved matter far more than the tools involved. Give me the best sword, armour and whatever against someone with training and experience even unarmed I would probably lose.

Considering gladiators always had some kind of weapon... I guess in real world being armed is a huge advantage. Or maybe romans just loved blood too much.

You can lose if you are Hodor.

 

[IIWW]

It was armour with coverage of light armor and wieth of heavy one. I call it useless.
And bastard sword was able to go through full armour. No, not with difficult, with ease. It was very agile weapon, and pushes were the technique specifically to fight an armoured enemy. The agility was the main advantage of longsword over katana. Actually, was it even possible do make a push with katana?

 

[chrnno]

Considering gladiators always had some kind of weapon... I guess in real world being armed is a huge advantage. Or maybe romans just loved blood too much.

You can lose if you are Hodor.

It is an advantage sure but much less than skill or experience is. Given that me and most of the world's population has neither I doubt the weapon would do much more than delaying the loss a bit.

 

[Sunspawn]

It is an advantage sure but much less than skill or experience is. Given that me and most of the world's population has neither I doubt the weapon would do much more than delaying the loss a bit.

I dunno, sometimes a half-crazed amateur with a pigsticker can be more dangerous with a well-trained swordsman simply because the trained swordsman cannot anticipate what the hell the idiot will do.

 

[Will Steel]

I don't know about the weight of Katana, but for sure it is not the most amazing cutting blade as some western stereotypes have made it out to be. There is the Talwar, actually having nearly twice the weight of Katana but used to an excellent effect since 13th century.

The unique disk-hilt that was used in Indian swords since antiquity, forces the wielders to move the sword in a particular style, and combined with weight it can make for very fast and unstoppable attacks.

 

[Reverend Belial]

I don't know about the weight of Katana, but for sure it is not the most amazing cutting blade as some western stereotypes have made it out to be. There is the Talwar, actually having nearly twice the weight of Katana but used to an excellent effect since 13th century.

The unique disk-hilt that was used in Indian swords since antiquity, forces the wielders to move the sword in a particular style, and combined with weight it can make for very fast and unstoppable attacks.

I don't know what exactly that dude does, but I want his job

 

[chrnno]

I dunno, sometimes a half-crazed amateur with a pigsticker can be more dangerous with a well-trained swordsman simply because the trained swordsman cannot anticipate what the hell the idiot will do.

Yes weird shit happens, beginner's luck and all but it is not likely to. Out of all thousand times the amateur might win a few but the overwhelming majority won't, if it wasn't like that we wouldn't be using- and have used- trained people for fights(and everything else) instead just relying on half-crazed amateurs.

 

[Pellucid]

...why are people actually arguing about this?

 

[IIWW]

...why are people actually arguing about this?

because, as always, the discussion have gone its own way. The fact that OP was not serious does not mean further discussion isn't.

 

[Sunspawn]

because, as always, the discussion have gone its own way. The fact that OP was not serious does not mean further discussion isn't.

Who cares about the OP? Discussion!