why do you suppose...

[Chris Ouellet]

Well, you might be right, I just have read that they would use
lacquered wood and leather to make it stronger. You can check a book titled "Arms and armor of the Samurai"

I don't own that book, I'll look it up in the library. It would be the first time I've heard of researched text indicating wood in Japanese armor, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Could you make my life easier and please give me a page number? It's by Ian Bottomley correct?

When European armor and chain mail appeared blades were useless against them, if you wanted to stop one of those knights you had to thrust... and do it hard. Katana are not good at that, European weapons are.

Specialized weaponry never subplanted the sword. It's top myth #8:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm
Armor merely modified the sword and the techniques, blades were never useless against them. Besides, a solid blow from a specialised weapon may be more difficult to land than a solid sword blow. While your armor will prevent instant death it won't prevent incapacitation due to sword impacts. The thrust may finish it, but no manual I know of indicates to only thrust at your opponent (I could be wrong).

Katana are actually surprisingly good at thrusts. Obviously not as good as tapering European swords but definitely not to be ignored. Here's the link Stacy alluded to:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

One characteristic in European weaponry is its constant adaptation to new battle circumstances, that is why there are so many. Japanese tradition prevented any innovation on its weapons.

Whoa, no sir, you're flat wrong, innovation is not a Euro-centric commodity. Japanese swords went from straight to curved, yari changed shape dramatically over the ages as did their bows and arrows.
Even within sub-categories of weapon types there were continual modifications from shobu zukuri which had essentially no distal taper to shinogi zukuri with quite pronounced distal taper with reinforced points for additional thrusting rigidity.
This is a good website:
http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/nihonto.htm

[Francisco Urbano García]

I don't own that book, I'll look it up in the library. It would be the first time I've heard of researched text indicating wood in Japanese armor, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Could you make my life easier and please give me a page number? It's by Ian Bottomley correct?

I Bottomley and A P Hopson by Saturn Books ands its ISBN is 1-86222-002-6. Don't know the page number, sorry about that

...blades were never useless against them. Besides, a solid blow from a specialised weapon may be more difficult to land than a solid sword blow. While your armor will prevent instant death it won't prevent incapacitation due to sword impacts. The thrust may finish it, but no manual I know of indicates to only thrust at your opponent (I could be wrong).

Fair enough, by useless I meant "not mortal" making thrust power in a blade a must.

Katana are actually surprisingly good at thrusts. Obviously not as good as tapering European swords but definitely not to be ignored...

Agreed, the same way the cutting power of a straight sword is not something to me ignored, but when thrusting is a must you don't choose a Katana or any curved blade; it is a matter of geometry and physics.

Whoa, no sir, you're flat wrong, innovation is not a Euro-centric commodity. Japanese swords went from straight to curved...

Well those straight blades were actually Chinese/Korean but to prove my point about how resilient were Japanese to innovation check this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/kyugunto.gif

That's a Japanese sword design introduced in 1934, you see the European handle? It was a lot more efficient than the traditional handle for that kind of swords but... soon after they changed it back to the traditional handle. why? Tradition NOT innovation or efficiency.

I mean, they even try as much as they could to avoid the use of firearms, trying to isolate their country from foreign influence.

Or just considere the Tanto! most of them are single edge when, obviously, is much more efficient as a stabbing weapon a double edge straight blade.

So, well, just my opinion, but when it comes to innovation and adaptation to new war circumstances Europe was far ahead than Japanese.

[Maxime Chouinard]

Yeah, definitely a good point. Curves do make aiming a thrust more awkward, which proves an inhibiting factor.

Depends on what you are used to. Training is an important factor. I tried both of them and didn't saw much difference, except that if you use the curve correctly it can work to your advantage as the point is harder to parry when it actually wraps around your blade.

Agreed, the same way the cutting power of a straight sword is not something to me ignored, but when thrusting is a must you don't choose a Katana or any curved blade; it is a matter of geometry and physics.

Actually the stiffness of blade and the angle of penetration may have more to do with this than the modest curve of a katana. I will refer to the same test by Michael Edelson to disprove the myth of the poor thrusting ability.

That's a Japanese sword design introduced in 1934, you see the European handle? It was a lot more efficient than the traditional handle for that kind of swords but... soon after they changed it back to the traditional handle. why? Tradition NOT innovation or efficiency.

Don't go think that fascist Japan was the same as feudal one, Japan was profoundly changed by the Meiji restoration. In the 30's, Japanese government was trying to uphold "traditional" values (at least what they thought would be) to give moral high ground to their soldiers. Having traditional elements in their swords and equipment was one of those things.

The Japanese were actually known for their openness to new concepts, they adopted European firearms and modified them (to the extent that Chinese soon preferred Japanese matchlocks to Europeans one), same things with armors that Japanese armorers didn't hesitate to replicate and modify it for Japanese tastes (adding parts mostly and different artwork). We could add religion, ships, scientific and political concepts. The list is rather long. And we don't even talk about Meiji Japan who transformed a medieval country into a modern military and industrial behemoth in 20-30 years. Who says strict traditional society? Actually the Meiji government is responsible in most part for the rigidity and the conformity we normally stick on Japanese culture (from my experience I would say it's not really true outside of Tokyo), mostly to imitate Victorian values of the time. Japanese before then were not seeing themselves as a country, nor did they spoke the same language or had the same customs or way of doing war. Meiji wanted to change all this to create a unified Japan, and mostly succeeded.

I mean, they even try as much as they could to avoid the use of firearms, trying to isolate their country from foreign influence.

Hum... which period? Edo period? Because in the 16th century Sengoku period, one single army in Japan had more guns than all France or England. They also developped strategies to use them that wouldn't be used in europe before aother century. At Nagashino. 38 000 soldiers of the Oda clan were present, 10 000 of them were gunners. And the battle of Komaki was actually one of the first trench battle, where soldiers dug their position, firing at each other, nearly no melee fight was made. Did I heard strict traditionnals or myth debunking?

Now if we talk about the Edo period, that's another thing. Firearms were not of much use because first they were highly reglemented, and there were not many wars for them to be used. But that's the official side of things... We know that smuggling was not efficiently controlled by the shogunate, as the Satsuma clan had modern cannons and guns that actually impressed 19th century observers. It is even known that in 1725, the Yoshimune shogun invited Hans Jurgen Keyserling to teach modern horseback riding and fighting to his men. Again, traditionalism?

Or just considere the Tanto! most of them are single edge when, obviously, is much more efficient as a stabbing weapon a double edge straight blade.

Actually most tanto were straight, even more so when we talk yoroi doshi (armor piercing daggers, here is an example from the 17th century, two edges, perfectly straight, very obtute: http://www.japaneseswordsltd.com/yuridoshi1.jpg). Some had two edges, and spear points were often used as blades. As for the double edge, it is not a norm. Many rondel daggers have one or no cutting edge. All techniques I have seen when a tanto is used against armors are aimed at the same weak spots that appear in european armor (armpit and neck mostly).

As for the wood in Japanese armor, I have never seen or heard about this from even top researchers in the field, nor have I seen anything else than metal armor and very rarely leather. I don't know what's the exact reference but I suspect they mixed up with training armor (bogu) or even prehistoric armor.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

They didn't care that it that the D-Shape grip was more useful for cavalry,

Why "more useful for cavalry?" Sure, the knuckle-guard literally protects the knuckle and makes it harder for the cavalryman to lose his sword, but a cavalryman who's used to wielding a sword without a knuckle-guard may find it (a hilt with a knuckle-guard) quite awkward and restricting.

That point aside, I think the statement that the Japanese refused to use the European-style cavalry saber in 1934 is mostly wrong. First, the shin-gunto models were first introduced in 1934; they were not in general military use before that, so they were meant to replace older models rather than being replaced by new European-style models. Moreover, the 1934 and later shin-gunto models were mostly meant for officers and NCOs, not for the rank and file, and even then the cavalry (including many of its officers and NCOs) continued to retain and use the late 19th-century, European-style cavalry sabers. Just look at photographs and illustrations of WW2-era Japanese cavalry units.

Last but not least, dissing the "traditionalist" element in the decision to introduce the shin-gunto is a bit daft, in my opinion. It was a conscious choice (however misplaced) to evoke the martial traditions of the past, and it's not qualitatively different from the Neoclassical tendencies of Renaissance European commanders who wanted to paint a Greco-Roman veneer over "modern" developments in military tactics and discipline. To revile one and not despise the other is...well, irritatingly inconsistent.

They even try to ban the use of firearms in the country so that top keep things traditional

This is utter nonsense. The use of guns was banned in Japan by the winning faction that managed to unify the land after a long, sustained, and highly destructive period of civil wars where firearms saw very extensive use, and this ban only affected people who were not affiliated with the winning faction; the Tokugawa troops and armories themselves continued to maintain large stores of firearms and train in their use. So, in short, the ban was meant to make sure that everybody else (aside from the Tokugawa victors) had no effective access to significant quantities of firearms. "Keeping things traditional" was only the excuse put forth by the official Tokugawa propaganda machine to make the ban sound a bit more palatable (and even then none of the other Japanese clans were fooled).

[LafayetteCCurtis]

One characteristic in European weaponry is its constant adaptation to new battle circumstances, that is why there are so many. Japanese tradition prevented any innovation on its weapons.

This myth has been dealt with once before in this thread, but I feel the need to put forth one more evidence against it: the Japanese devised methods for waterproofing their firearms that were somewhat different and more comprehensive than what the Europeans used at the time. The Japanese water-stop devices were actually somewhat more effective than the European's simpler pan cover and cloth/leather binding, but then the Europeans might not have needed to be so obsessive as the Japanese were about the matter since European soldiers were generally not expected to wade through waterlogged rice fields when they wanted to seize or defend rich agricultural lands....

The Japanese never developed such impregnable armor as their European counterparts, and thus thrusting was much less of a concern.

The first part of the statement is largely true, but the second part...not so much. If you look at the techniques used by some of the older and more traditional Japanese schools to face armored opponents, you'll find a great deal more thrusts and half-swording moves than in the unarmored fighting techniques. Rather like European methods, in fact.

Hum... which period? Edo period? Because in the 16th century Sengoku period, one single army in Japan had more guns than all France or England.

Which Japanese army compared to the French and English armies in what period? If indeed there was ever such a gap, the Europeans obviously closed it very, very quickly....

They also developped strategies to use them that wouldn't be used in europe before aother century.

Not really that long--half a century at most. Oda Nobunaga was first known to have used the rank rotation system in 1554 while European armies were already using maneuvers like "firing by advanced rank" and "firing by forlorn files" before the end of the 16th century. Moreover, the Japanese rank rotation strategies might not have been entirely original since I remember reading about a theory linking them to the rank-rotation methods that had been practiced by Chinese crossbowmen since around the time of the Tang dynasty (which was the time of most intense cultural contact between Japan and the mainland) or even earlier.

[Francisco Urbano García]

They didn't care that it that the D-Shape grip was more useful for cavalry,

Why "more useful for cavalry?" Sure, the knuckle-guard literally protects the knuckle and makes it harder for the cavalryman to lose his sword, but a cavalryman who's used to wielding a sword without a knuckle-guard may find it (a hilt with a knuckle-guard) quite awkward and restricting....

Interesting... you ask why is more useful and then you explain why... hahaha are you fighting yourself?

...Last but not least, dissing the "traditionalist" element in the decision to introduce the shin-gunto is a bit daft, in my opinion. It was a conscious choice (however misplaced) to evoke the martial traditions of the past...

fightint yourself again???? hahaha I mean, you say my statement is "daft" and, in the next sentence, you argue that they wanted to "evoke martial traditions"!!! hahaha.

They even try to ban the use of firearms in the country so that top keep things traditional

This is utter nonsense.... "Keeping things traditional" was only the excuse put forth by the official Tokugawa propaganda machine to make the ban sound a bit more palatable (and even then none of the other Japanese clans were fooled).

Again, again and again... Now the traditional thing is "utter nonsense" but you also say that that was the official Tokugawa explanation but that you don't believe it because it is just propaganda.

Well, you know what, you might be entirely right. In the Tokugawa era I was not living in Japan but, even if I was, perhaps you would not believe me and you just would say I was a victim of the Tokugawa propaganda. As far as I know, the cultural embargo from foreigners was not just about weapons but hey!... again, I was not in Japan at the time, and probably those sources that I got the info from were not living there either... er... so I am open to learn out of my utter nonsenses and daft statements... always

Agreed, the same way the cutting power of a straight sword is not something to be ignored, but when thrusting is a must you don't choose a Katana or any curved blade; it is a matter of geometry and physics.

Actually the stiffness of blade and the angle of penetration may have more to do with this than the modest curve of a katana. I will refer to the same test by Michael Edelson to disprove the myth of the poor thrusting ability.

I am not saying anything about poor thrusting in curved blades, just pointing out that straight blades are better at thrusting. It is a matter of physics and geometry. Try to hammer a nail with a "modest curve" in a piece of wood, and then try again with a straight one.

So unless you give me reasons based of physics and geometry this stands true:

Thrusting: Straight better than curve, and double edge better than single edge.
Cutting : Curve better than Straight

which means that for stabbing this:

http://school.ghs.edu/Shakespeare%2006/07%27/Elizabethan%20Homepage%20magnus%20and%20grant/Weapons/dagger.jpg

is better than this:

http://www.samurai-swords-for-sale.com/store/images/T/japanese-swords-samurai-swords-tanto-cold-steel.jpg

Now, perhaps the reason why the Tanto geometry was not improve for stabbing was not for traditional reasons, perhaps they kept that geometry just in case the samurai had to commit suicide (seppuku)... Perhaps, but if that is the case, keeping that stabbing blade with such geometry just in case you have to kill yourself... Well, sounds to me pretty traditional, don't you think?

So I believe it fits now to end with a Japanese proverb: "If you believe everything you read, better not to read" (Disclaimer: I just read this is Japanese, so it might not be Japanese at all)

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Francisco-

Did you just post up a fantasy-esk style supposed European blade, and compare it to a historically sound Japanese blade?

hmmmmm?

[Maxime Chouinard]

I am not saying anything about poor thrusting in curved blades, just pointing out that straight blades are better at thrusting. It is a matter of physics and geometry. Try to hammer a nail with a "modest curve" in a piece of wood, and then try again with a straight one.

So unless you give me reasons based of physics and geometry this stands true:

Thrusting: Straight better than curve, and double edge better than single edge.
Cutting : Curve better than Straight

I'll only answer this as you visibly didn't took time to read the rest of my post nor Curtis's one.

In both type of blades there is a loss of energy, youre right. But the japanese sword is in general stiffer (if your nail was as stiff at this it would probably get in much more easily), while the european one is more springy (I know there are exceptions, but this is from my testing of several Albion models). Now why does the european sword flex? To avoid breaking mostly, as concentrating too much energy could result in damage, as the material always has it's limits. I think that both cultures actually found different ways, even if unintentional at first, to solve the same problem.

Which Japanese army compared to the French and English armies in what period? If indeed there was ever such a gap, the Europeans obviously closed it very, very quickly....

I'ts taken from Giving up the gun, by Noel Perry. I'ts not really surprising considering Japan was the most populous country back then (25 millions) and was the largest weapon producer in Asia.

Moreover, the Japanese rank rotation strategies might not have been entirely original since I remember reading about a theory linking them to the rank-rotation methods that had been practiced by Chinese crossbowmen since around the time of the Tang dynasty (which was the time of most intense cultural contact between Japan and the mainland) or even earlier.

That's interesting, if you get the source let me know.

[Francisco Urbano García]

Francisco-

Did you just post up a fantasy-esk style supposed European blade, and compare it to a historically sound Japanese blade?

hmmmmm?

I was comparing its geometries arguing that the European dagger was much better suited for stabbing that its Japanese counterpart.

I took that one as example because it is so pretty, but if you want historically European daggers, no problem, these are antiques:

http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/600/1884.24.216.jpg
http://www.oronoz.com/imagenes/marcadas/imagenes05/050811.jpg
http://www.antiquefirearms.com/images/edge/bigdagger1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2413101347_680960b994.jpg?v=0
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3193454/2/istockphoto_3193454_ancient_spanish_dagger.jpg

All of them better suited that a Tanto for stabbing.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Yes no problem, you don't need to convice me, it's just these fine historical examples of European arms are far "prettier" than any fantasy blade- Thanks for posting such cool examples- AP

[Maxime Chouinard]

All of them better suited that a Tanto for stabbing.

Of course, if you had read what I wrote you'd know that's why they used yoroi doshi, like the one I showed, to pierce armor or even a yari tanto: http://www.nihontoantiques.com/images/Yari%20tanto.jpg

Not a regular tanto.

[Francisco Urbano García]

All of them better suited that a Tanto for stabbing.

Of course, if you had read what I wrote you'd know that's why they used yoroi doshi, like the one I showed, to pierce armor or even a yari tanto: http://www.nihontoantiques.com/images/Yari%20tanto.jpg

Not a regular tanto.

Fine, I know there are many funny tantos out there like these:

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/unji.htm

but if that pretty double edge tanto was better for piercing armors... Why were not those straight double edged blades the most popular for short blades? Tradition perhaps? Japaneses culture not accepting changes easily? I don't know, perhaps it turns out that those straight double edge blades were more common that the general "idea" I have about samurais and one edged slightly curved tantos. perhaps my information is wrong.

As for the Japanese sword being stiffer than Europeans and thus very good at thrusting. I am sorry that I can not explain myself clearly. It seems you believe I am opposing European blades as a whole vs Japanese blades as a whole and then you point out that Japanese are stiffer.

But if a Japanese smith would use his so stiff steel to make a double edge straight sword and then, with the same steel, he makes a katana. The double edge straight sword will thrust better.

so regardless the steel you use to make a blade, double edge straight blades are better at thrusting.

- I am not saying katanas are bad.
- I am not saying katanas cannot thrust.

[Stacy Clifford]

Katanas aren't stiffer because of the steel used, they're stiffer because of the geometry of the blade. With only one edge and not much width, the cross section of the blade is basically a triangular wedge, which is not going to flex as much as a thinner, wider diamond shape. European single-edged blades wouldn't have flexed as much either. Swords like estocs were very stiff because the cross section was strengthened by a thick riser down the middle. Both were intentionally designed as they were because of the way they were used. Europeans parried with the flat, so their blades needed to be able to absorb that shock without breaking. By most accounts the Japanese seem to have preferred parrying with the back or spine of the blade more than the flat, making flex in the flat dimension less important. Both do what they were intended to do very well. People get too hung up on differences in steel from East to West, but really it's mostly about the engineering.

[Maxime Chouinard]

but if that pretty double edge tanto was better for piercing armors... Why were not those straight double edged blades the most popular for short blades?

You mean in modern reproductions? Market demand? For real antiques, those types are not so very rare occurance, why there are fewer is simple, most of what we have is from the Edo period, a rather peacefull period with very few needs for armour piercing daggers. As for tradition, we already made he point that Japan wasn't the rigig traditionnal society that we like to stereotype. It had it's traditions like any other culture, and had a better results in adaptation than many if not most.

But if a Japanese smith would use his so stiff steel to make a double edge straight sword and then, with the same steel, he makes a katana. The double edge straight sword will thrust better.

Maybe, after all there are double edged katana, most yari are double edged too. But like the tests have demonstrated, I'm unsure about the need for two edges, except for daggers against targets that can actually be serrated, thus aiding in the thrust, like was (or wasn't actually) the case with the rondel. A test against mail would be interesting, if Mr. Edelson wins the lottery .

Katanas aren't stiffer because of the steel used, they're stiffer because of the geometry of the blade.

You are right that geometry has a lot to do, but it isn't the only variable in play. The japanese heat treatment and ore result in higher hardness, even more so in post sengoku period (which wasn't necessarily a good thing). It's still a fact that a stiff blade will concentrate more energy in a thrust, as fewer energy is lost, like the estoc. But the estoc doesn't need to hold any edge, and so can use a different shape that doesn't compromise it's integrity in thrusting.

Europeans parried with the flat, so their blades needed to be able to absorb that shock without breaking. By most accounts the Japanese seem to have preferred parrying with the back or spine of the blade more than the flat, making flex in the flat dimension less important.

Actually no. There is no universal standard for blocking in Japanese ryu ha. As far as I know most parry with the flat or shinogi of the blade. I have some images of blades that were visibly used a number of times to parry direct hits with the flat and survived with a few nicks. Katori Shinto ryu parries a lot with the back but not in all cases. But some even block with the edge, so it's never been a consensus like many things in these arts.

[Francisco Urbano García]

You mean in modern reproductions? Market demand? For real antiques, those types are not so very rare occurance, why there are fewer is simple, most of what we have is from the Edo period, a rather peacefull period with very few needs for armour piercing daggers...

Well, your knowledge about history is much wider than mine, but if what you say is true, then how can you explain samurai in the edo period going away from such a good piercing armory tanto to another tanto not so good at stabbing and piercing... why would they do so... mmm... tradition? Perhaps having a tanto that looks better for killing yourself (seppuku) is more honorable? that would be pretty traditional choice too, right?

I'm unsure about the need for two edges, except for daggers against targets that can actually be serrated, thus aiding in the thrust, like was (or wasn't actually) the case with the rondel. A test against mail would be interesting, if Mr. Edelson wins the lottery .

Well, you just gave an example in which two edges are an advantage but there are many more; against a a mail for instance. Just for the sake of a mental experiment imaging a unique steel ring from the mail, and imagine you try to thrust through it.

With one edge you will have a point in the ring that you can expect to break, with two edges you will have two points that can be broken, and thus, increasing your chances to go through the mail. Besides, imagine the tip of the sword does not hit the center of the ring but in one of the sides, and imagine the edge is facing the ring. If you only have one edge the tip will be trap between the ring and the stuff behind the ring because the backside of the blade can not cut through.... or just imaging moving your hand left and right trying to make the hole bigger in a hard surface; with one edge blade you coul only move in one direction... so on.

So there might be situations where the difference between one edge or two edges is nil, but in some others two edges are favored so, overall speaking two edges are better at thrusting. Perhaps you can come up with a situation where one edge is clearly better?

The japanese heat treatment and ore result in higher hardness, even more so in post sengoku period (which wasn't necessarily a good thing). It's still a fact that a stiff blade will concentrate more energy in a thrust, as fewer energy is lost, like the estoc...

I don't really know if you're comparing the best Japanese possible steel with the best European possible steel. I guess that most swords in Europe and Japan were mass produced for soldiers, and the quality of those blades could not be the best... are the mass produced steels the ones you're comparing?

Because if you're comparing the best possible steels then I can mention that in Spain there is a famous sword called Tizona (kind of Excalibur in England) that belonged to El Cid (kind of Lancelot). That sword dates to the year 1040 and it has large amounts of Damascus Steel, which at the time might not be that weird since half Spain was occupied by Muslims and El Cid was fighting them.

So I might be wrong on this but I understand that Damascus steel had amazing properties that had nothing to envy to the Japanese steel, I even read an article talking about nanotubes in the edges of Damascus Steel.

But some Arma member also mention about Norse having similar ore techniques to the Japanese in the 9th century... even before them!

With all this I mean that perhaps the point that Japanese blades were as good at thrusting as Europeans despite being single edge and curved in part because they were stiffer than Europeans... Well, might not be entirely true. At least not in all blades and all times.