roshan

Lunatock, you cannot compare a two handed sword such as the claymore with a katana, which was a hand and a half sword. If you compare the Katana with European bastard swords, the bastard swords were lighter. If you take a Katana and a European sword of the same lenght, the katana will be heavier.

Modern day katanas which are replicas of the real thing might be light. But an actual Katana would weigh somewhere between 10-15 pounds which is quite heavy.

Lunatock

It's argueable that the swords crafted in Toledo, Spain. Or Toledo steel, if you will, is better than Damascus Steel. In that time period, Toledo made the best swords in Europe.

__________________

Lunatock

Lots more to consider than just the Katana and the European Bastard Sword. Knight Swords and Knight Armor for example. They depended on brute strength since the swords and armor were so heavy. And when knights fought the objective was to knock your opponent flat on his back.

And the different types of weapons & tactics. Let's say castle or house warfare. Unlike Knights, samurai would use bows & arrows at medium to close range.
And you ever been inside any Japanese buildings? Not quite as spacious as buildings in other countries. Which would suck for fully suited knights and most of thier weapons. Samurai could just unsheath some Wakazashi's, which were made for indoor fighting. And odds are the knights would have to use daggers, as most of thier other weapons would be too big & clumsy, considering the limited space they'd have in a Japanese fortress.

roshan

Do you know the carbon content of toledo blades?

roshan

1. I am not sure what you mean by knight swords. Knights typically used bastard swords or two handed swords. The katana is basically the japanese version of the bastard sword.

2. Knights not only had bows but crossbows too, which were simpler to use.

3. What exactly makes a fully suited knight more clumsy then a fully suited samurai? Both knights and samurai used plate armor.

4. If samurais could use wakizashis, the knight could also use a short sword.

Lunatock

1. Big & heavy, was the norm. They built up thier strength bigtime early in thier training. To compensate for the weight of thier armor and swords.

2. Yes or no: They had them in the fifteenth century? That was the time period stated in the first post.

3. Samurai Armor covered a lot less than Knights armor. And no, Samurai armor wasn't as thick, thus was lighter than 15th century knights plate armor.

4. Well now that's not a stretch is it? Don't recall knights historically carrying two swords. On long sword, one short sword for indoor fighting.

To be honest..that last line made me think of a little kid playing war and looking for an excuse to get out of being "killed".

roshan

1. The Katana was just as heavy and large as these european swords, but less versatile. For example, the curve of the katana made it less efficient for thrusting then the european swords with their thin points and straight blades. Furthermore, the katanas curve meant that in order to thrust with it you need to use two hands which means decreased range, amongst others. The european swords being double edged were also more adaptable then the katana in combat. All in all, sword wise, the european knights had the upper edge.

2. YES! All the way back to roman times when they used the manuballista which was basically an archaic version of the crossbow. The modern crossbow originated in Italy during the 10th century. During the 12th century due to the devastating power of the crossbow the Lateran council declared that it was illegal to use the crossbow against christians! The crossbow kept evolving to become more deadly. In the 11th century crossbows began to be made of composite materials, and during the 13th they began to make crossbows out of steel. By the 14th century european crossbows could produce draw forces in excess of 1000 pounds.

And of course, there was also the english longbow which was much better in range, speed and accuracy then the crossbow, but less force and requiring much more time to master. The longbow could easily shoot through armor at medium range which was from 150-300 yards, but archers also carried lighter arrows which they could use to shoot upto 500 yards.

3. A battlefield european armor would weight around 60 pounds. Japanese armors ranged from 55 to 77 pounds. European armors were also stronger then Japanese ones. In fact during the 16th century the Japanese noted quality of Italian and Flemish armors which they imported from the spanish and the portuguese. European breastplates and helms were incorporated into Japanese armors and these were called nanban gosuko.

4. Knights did not carry two swords. But your missing the fact that knights could basically wield anything. They had mauls, war hammers, lucern hammers, glaives, halberds, long swords, short swords, cut and thrust swords, bastard swords, two handed swords, battle axes, spears, pikes, javelins, lances and many others. They did not only use the bastard sword. If knights were going to enter a small bulding they would most likely carry what weapons were more practical for the job.

Your comments on this topic make it seem that you have been watching too much anime.

Lunatock

1. Go back and read what Snipe said. That Katana's are indeed very good at punching through something when thrusted. It'd more or less depend on how well trained the user is. Back in WW2 the USMC was instucted to use thier rifles to block a Katana wielded by a Japanese Soldier. And was revised after too many cases of the rifles being cut in half.

But since they are known more for slashing than stabbing. You could always go with a Japanese long sword or Tai Chi sword. Which were even better stabbers. Or a Ninja's version of the katana, which was straight.

2. So they'd almost be even at shooting arrows at close range. The Japanese Archers would have better accuracy, and a faster rate of fire than your beloved archaic crossbows. And they were used within a hundred, or even fifty feet. That'd be a nice crash course for European archers at adapt & survive.

3. Ummmmmmm...seeing actual pieces of European Knight and Samurai Armor inside a Museum?! And also being a medieval historian buff? I.e. research

4. All of which except a few short swords and daggers they could muster from their ranks would be equally useless inside the hyopthetical Japanese fortress or castle. Especially the lances & pikes. Moving them into position would be like moving furniture up or down at least one flight of stairs.

And let's say they had a captured stash of Wakizashi's. Let's see them try to beat the samurai with their own weapons with little or no training.

Still stretching. And now making baseless comments that Anime taught me everything I know.

roshan

1. The katanas could thrust no doubt, but were the katanas better then european cut and thrusts or rapiers? The answer is clearly NO, due to the katanas point and curve.

2. Again, read my post. Europeans did not only use crowssbows but they also had great longbows.

3. Please read my edited post. This is what I said: "A battlefield european armor would weight around 60 pounds. Japanese armors ranged from 55 to 77 pounds. European armors were also stronger then Japanese ones. In fact during the 16th century the Japanese noted quality of Italian and Flemish armors which they imported from the spanish and the portuguese. European breastplates and helms were incorporated into Japanese armors and these were called nanban gosuko." European armors were good enough that the Japanese actually began to use european made parts and incorporate these into their native armors. If you want to know more aout this then read "classical fighting arts of japan" by Serge Mol. It is you who needs to do some reasearch and get some actual knowledge of history. European armors were not bulky. In fact due to their sleek design(the armors tended to stick close to the skin and follow the curves of the body unlike japanese suits), they hardly inhibited the mobility of the knights.

4. My point was that if the Japanese had their short wakizashis, then the Europeans also had their short swords. I am not stretching anything, I am pointing out the facts.

bigross86

What about the 14-15th centuries when the Ottoman's attacked and conquered most of Europe, including Constantinople? They used newly invented/improved cannons, and I'd say their mettalurgy and weaponry was far better than the Europeans at the time. One of the main reason they survived as en Empire over such a large land mass for 500 years

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

eMGee

What is "most of Europe" according to you? The Ottomans were barbaric, that was their weapon.

Lunatock

1. That's why I mentioned the ninja version of the Katana, which is straight, and the Tai Chi sword.

2. As great as they were they still weren't used at close range unlike the samurai that used their bows & arrows even if the enemy was up close & personal.

Edited post is the key word. You don't see me going back and changing my posts to better suit anything I've said.

And I guess your going to say that the fact that the Knights Templar wore an extra suit of cloth under their armor to keep the metal from burning them during the day is wrong since I said it. Or maybe you'll edit a previous post to discredit me with something that's "fact" because you say it's so.

Lunatock

The Ottomans were not a barbaric empire (and don't drag islam into this either.) Right up until Constantinople was razed the Ottoman Empire was far more advanced than Europe was. It was after all the educated people left Constantinople and relocated to Europe that the dark ages ended.

bigross86

And while religion did have a main part in it, the Ottomans were courtous to their captoves and citizens, especially the Jews and Christians who according to the Koran are "People of the Book"

eMGee

I didn't originally mention it, but since you do...