Is this a Japanese swordsman in a fight to the death with a western* fencer or in a sporting competition? Western fencers train to win sporting competitions they don't train to develope skills of direct use in killing or injuring people. If the Japanese swordsman was in a points based fight with a western fencer where light touches with a blunt weapon were the rule then the western fencer would almost certainly have the edge. If it was a full on sharp n' heavy blade, max force scrap accompanied by blood curdling screams then the western fencer might be able to use his blade to defend enough to escape but probably wouldn't win as there are no "real" weapons that western fencers use in their training. To make it really interesting you should give the Japanese fencer and western fencer clothing and weapons that they're both unfamiliar with to see who adapts the quickest Fencing isn't entirely 1 dimensional. The fencing piste is about 14m x 2m in size. It is possible to use the piste width to manouvre round an opponent slightly to change what you see of his target and what he can (or can't) see of yours. Single side steps with a counter attack are also a common defensive move. Ducks to avoid hits and jumps to land hits are also common. *I define western fencing as the FIE governed Olympic sport variety. There are others that are more historical and/or martial arts oriented.
Still a hard one to call..... Both would have to be top swordsmen, not all Knights or Samurai were expert slicers. As in many skilled Escrimador deathmatches, it would come down to the first one to make a mistake or miss a parry. This means it could be either, we all make inexplicable mistakes. But, when pushed for an answer I would say the Japanese swordsman because so much comes down to survival of the most well armed. Lets face it, the Japanese sword is superior. There is, however, so much taken for granted with this statement I feel kind of uneasy with this idea. I still think my first comment is the most likely.
Is this a duel to first blood or to the death? If it's first blood I'd probably say the fencer, but to the death probably the samurai. The thing about the fencing sword is it's not easy to get a single hit on someone and kill them unless you either slash their throat or stab them in the heart. Granted you could try circling their wrists with the tip of the blade like a jian, but that takes time. Also what kind of fencing sword are we talking about here? I've seen very light epees and very heavy sabres. The katana the moment the fencer leaves themselves open and they're within range, it's end game. Also I'd assume that the samurai would have some experience in unarmed combat where the fencer may or may not.
No, seriously, why the hell do you think it is so popular and so revered? It was a technological marvel for its time.
Because its exotic and hollywood thought that is was cool. Do a search on katana here on MAP. The topic of why the katana isnt the most godly of all weapons has been discused several times. And I agree Wynston. sport fencer would be killed rather quickly by anyone who trains as though the weaposn are sharp and intends to kill not score points.
From an historic point of view I meant. But, yeah, I have to agree, this is a valid point. Damned Hollycrud! Lol
Historic from whose veiwpoint? I dont recall ever reading any European accounts of the high quality of Japanese swords. I have seen in Reneaisance oil paintings suits of armor and katana from Jpana but they were always in a portrait some where where they didnt seem to be important.
I agree totally; style and weapon matter not, it's singularly up to the exponent, how well he trains his mind, body, senses. although i will admit i do favour the Samurai Katana, but that's just a personal thing.
The point i tried to make was a katana is typically only a little shorter than a rapier and could easily beat a rapier aside to go strait through parrays to cut up the swordsman. As for sabres and so on, the sword is one handed but the same weight making it slower compared to a katana which is still longer.
You have to catch the rapier with the beat first - hard to do when rapier fencers are trained to disengage in tempo or can make change beats. You have to define sabre a tad better - infantry, calvarey, Radaellian dueling sabre - they all have very different weights. I know there have been exibitions where sabre fencers have beat kendo fencers, mostly with cuts to the hand. At any rate, I'd be more likely to take a schivona against a katana than anything else. Even better if I can take a dagger or buckler as well. Chris
Erm are you sure. Last time I checked the length for a katana sized for the average westerner is less than 30 inches. IM fairly certain that Rapiers have a blade in excess of 36 inches, 40 being the norm with some being much longer. Also Sabres tend to be around 36 inches in length and around 2 pounds or so where as katana tend to weigh inexcess of 3 pounds. So a katana relaly isnt any where the length of rapier and it still loses out to a sabre in terms of weight.
A whol one pound extra on a second arm totally. A competant sword user with reasonable strength has no problems with a katana in terms of weight. A rapier blade can be about 40 inches to 44 but the point is a katana just has to put the blade in the way and the rapier can't move it, making blocks far easier but also the length means that if the block is far enough down the blade the rapier fencer can't bring the blade back accross the body if they need too. The other thing is the rapier couldn't stop the katanas cuts due to its superior weight.
The longer rapier means that the fencer can keep the katana user in his range but out of distance of the katana - slipping back to avoid threats while continuing the threat to the kat user. The longer the rapier blade though the slower the point control - nevertheless, it buys more distance which the kat user needs to cover to threaten him. The rapier also has the advantage that should the kat user try to keep the rapier on an outside line as cover as he closes to distance the rapierist can draw cut to the kat users hands IF the kat user's overlap is so great that a simple point evasion is not enough - while avoiding (this would indicate that the rapierist had missed his opportunity to evade the blade in the first place!). A rapierist is unlikely to try to block an incoming cut, more likely to evade laterally and attack in single time. You need to remember distance and range when considering this hypothetical fight. You also need to beware of the wide diversity of 'rapier' blades and consequent styles (we haven't even touched on a Spanish Destreza scool rapierist and what they would do to a kat wielder - even Silver had some admiration of them and he was a most vocal advocate of cut and thrust over the Italian thrusting rapier schools!). Edited to add: The katana is going to be quicker - no mistake, but the rapier is moving in smaller circles, minimising any speed advantage either way - it's range that the rapier has in it's favour. On the whole - it is going to be the users that decide the fight though, not the weapons IMHO. Best Adam
Weastern fencing in general is of cource not superior to other styles of fencing (Eastern). I asume that this was to attract attention, wich it has (loads of posts ) The point here is that there are too many random factors. I sincierly think that there are far more similarities between the EMA and WMA than there are differences. Olympic fencing shouldn't be compared with katana-style-fencing; I agree that that would be a onesided affair because the olympic fencer simply isn't trained to injure; it would be like have an olympic rower taking part in a sailing-competition. If you take similar swords and techniques, I think that the best MA'er would win. The only other case I can think of that would proove predictable, would be the Landsknechte vs. the Samurai -in full armor. why? The Landsknechte with his full plate armor and longswrod is trained to take out somebody armed as him with grappelingtechniques that are integrated with his swordsystem; a Landsknechte would drill in how to use his longsword as a tool for wresteling as well as a tool for cutting and stabbing. His thrusts would be able to pierce the samurai's on several places, and he's trained to realize that cut's won't slice through armor. He'd win as his opponent (the samurai) wouldn't appear to be very different from what's he's trained to kill; whereas the Landsknechte would appear as somthing very different from what the samurai would have been trained to kill. If both parties dressed down, it would again become an open question, but due to the slightly longer longsword and the robust crossguard, I'd still put my mony on the Landsknechte.
never mind the fact that a rapier and katana will be very close in weight so again the katana really donest have any advantage by virtue of it being a katana. And its easy to move your blade around the other guys balde, its called winding, or working from a bind, in KDR and Im pretty sure that it has several other names in other styles.
A little off topic but Cudgel, would you mind explaining what exactly binding and/or winding is? I've seen it mentioned alot but don't quite know what it means, lol. And for the argument side of things, we really shouldn't be hearing anything about the weapon itself. Its the art against art sid eof things we should be looking at, not weapon vs weapon. The finest made warrior-neo-musashi-20 thousand layer katana is going to be worthless if you give it to someone who has no idea what to do with it. Ciao for now guys.
Binding/winding (as I use the terms) is when you "engage" the opponents blade, so that the blades touch eachother. All sword arts have this consept. This consept is based on the fact that if you don't have control (meaning knows where the opponents blade is and wants to go), you're into a seriously hazardous situation! You see- the hand is quicker than the eye, so you react quicker to the opponents actions when our blade is in contact with him. The slight alterations in preassure is picked up quicker by your brain than visual input. (This is why it's normal to say that if you enter a knife-fight; exect to be cut; because it's impossible/impractical to wind/bind with knives because of the short distances knifefights take place in.)
aah, I'm begginning to see the light, lol. That's what i would call 'sticky blades'. I'm not sure if that's the correct term for what we do in kenjutsu, but thats what i call it, lol. I have a feeling i may have picked it up reading a book of five rings. But all that aside, i understand exactly what you mean....it's a very useful tactic, and a great example can be seen in The Twilight Samurai (either of the fights). I have a friend from my kenjutsu class that has 6 years of fencing behind him...i really should ask him for a spar, it'd be interesting to see how it goes...i sparred him in a bokken vs bokken match a month ago and accidently gave him concussion (it was a one-hit match - beside the injury it was very cool and a perfect example of proper swordfighting, without meaning to brag), but i think it would be very different if he had a rapier (or rapier equivelant of the bokken), for all the reasons mentioned above, namely longer range and the speed that he can move. He was state champion so i think i'd lose very quickly, lol. thanks again Cudgel!
