Why fence left handed?

I should say that I'm no expert in any of these fields, I just have a bit too much free time on my hands at the moment

I was sort of ruling out the human element, since it's difficult to quantify and control for. I was just judging based on the martial arts of both weapons and adding my own logic, that being fast and direct generally lands more hits when the opponent is heavier and attacks more circular, and you only need one good hit if we're talking about swords!

But you do bring up an interesting point about experience. The rapierist would have had previous experience fighting against two handed swords.

Point rapier.

Well lets put other weapons to the side for the time being, that only muddies up the question.

The European long sword as the potential to be a blunt trauma weapon, it's heavy enough, and we have manuscripts detailing how you could hold the blade and use the handle as a "hammer" to deal blunt trauma. But I'm not too sure how well this will work with the katana, having handled a few I don't really see the potential to deal serious blunt trauma say in comparison to the European long sword. So yeh you're right about that!

But more importantly the tip of the katana can very much be used for stabbing, in fact the katana has been demonstrated to be able to stab clean through Medieval European plate armour. Which in comparison to it's competitor the rapier, makes it more suited for the job of opening cans. Also this sturdier blade can take more of a beating and so is a better "shield".

As for more lightly armoured infantries I guess we can both agree that the katana is superior?

Point katana.

Ahem, my bad, I meant something like the long sword (two handed or otherwise), or a viking sword. Like I said no expert xD



In summary, one is not better than the other, but they have their specific advantages and disadvantages. Can we agree on that?

 

Wait are you left handed?

2 things come off as interesting about that story:

1.) If you are left handed, it goes to show just how important it is to use your superior hand.

2.) It also shows how important it is to spar AGAINST lefties vs. righties, because of the difference in attacks angles, target areas, openings, etc. Which is along the reasoning of my question.

 

Just in response to a little tangent that wasn't meant to be serious anyway, those "toothpicks" we use weren't ever meant to be proxies for rapiers. They were originally proxies for smallswords, which were MUCH smaller, lighter, and thinner than rapiers.

Spoiler

 

I think he's setting himself up for failure, because for a given number of training hours, he'll never have quite as precise point control as he would if he was using his dominant hand. And precise control is extremely important in fencing, far more important than the LH/RH issue.

 

If against a longsword, then nope. No agreement there. The katana stabbing through the plate armour was cheap theatre plate. You could likely replicate the feat with a bowie knife. Against proper Milanese plate, no dice. The katana is better for battlefield than a rapier, sure. But a rapier is a duelling, self-defence and back-alley brawling weapon. It was never intended for the battlefield. Also, remember that the rapier is a very robust weapon. It is more than capable of parrying the stoutest blows that a longsword or katana can deliver. Looks can be deceiveing. A good rapierist is a VERY dangerous opponent for even a longswordsman.

Compared to the longsword, the katana was somewhat primitive in construction. It's a little like comparing a Fokker Dr.I triplane to a P-51... both iconic weapons, but from different levels of technology. The katana's fabrication methods are similar to what the Norse used in the 900's, which was abandoned in Europe with the advent of the blast furnace. If katana-like swords were inherently superior, European armies would have adopted the kriegsmesser and swiss sabel universally, but they didn't. Compared to a longsword, a katana is 400 years out of date, even if the katana came later in history.

Meh. They're context-dependant. If the katana were so great, the Portuguese would have adopted it. The rapier is not for the battlefield, and the longsword was falling out of use as a battlefield weapon by the time European swordsmen went to the far east. There was never an opportunity to compare their performance large-scale in life and death situations.

Besides, on late medieval battlefields, it's missile weapons and polearms that win the day.

-Mark

 

Yes.

-Mark

 

More importantly, Mark knows that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro.

 

I should've said this earlier, I was just using the longsword as a katana "proxy" for Europe. Since we know how they stake up against the rapier in combat. But as mitlov stated, we should probably replace rapier with the smallswords xD

IMO long sword vs. katana is down to the human element. They are similar enough weapons, with similar enough fighting styles that you really can't compare on the level of the weapon alone. But that's very different from rapier vs. long sword and rapier vs. katana where I favour the rapier. So the bolded section you and I are already in agreement.

Being more technologically adept doesn't necessarily denote that something is better than it's predecessors.

The only advantages that I personally see the longsword having over the katana is that it is longer, and that it's is double edged, both of which also have it's draw-backs. For example a longer blade makes the weapon heavier (especially when a bigger pommel is added to correct for balance), and it's length can be an issue when fighting in more closed quarters (or when surrounded by objects or allies).

As for construction, I'll leave that to the more qualified amoung us I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

I don't know if we can be so certain about the Portuguese not wanting to adopt the Katana. It may have been an issue of the Japanese not wanting to devolve that information. Also it wasn't till the Edo period that the sword became the icon that it is now. By the time the Portuguese were in Japan Bows and pole-arms were king (as they were pretty much everywhere else in the world). So if anything the Portuguese would adopt these, but at this point they had firearms, so why would they care for pole-arms and bows? If I remember they were more interested in trade for ores and cultural items, not for arms.

 

Too much martial arts, not enough discussion of the greatest film of all time
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs"]Princess Bride Sword Fight - YouTube[/ame]

 

unless your enermy has studied his Agrippa....

 

Which I have.

 

It usually does.

I don't see how being double edged has drawbacks. Weight isn't much of an issue... a 2.5 lb sword vs a 3 lb sword makes virtually no difference at all. Length isn't a problem either. That's why they have points, and why spears (which are even longer) are ideal for close quarter combat. A katana can be drawn faster, and on average will cut slightly better, that's it.

Considering how many Japanese pirates (some of which were Ronin samurai) the Portuguese killed, I'm sure they were able to get their hands on as many katanas as they wanted. But you're right, in the burgeoning age of firearms, swords were less useful.

Interestingly enough, the Japanese were pretty eager to get European breastplates. Also, when the Japanese were using swords on the battlefield, they used the older style tachi, which is much more like a longsword in dimensions.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

OHHHHH!! Now I get the jokes!

The chap in the black looks like Zorro. I guess I'll put that on my summer movie list.

 

I can't believe that there's anyone who hasn't seen that movie. It's like I'm in Bizarro world or something.

-Mark

 

and to end this thread, which both made me watch the film again last night and start looking for a fencing school lol

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

With swords and weapons that's very subjective. The simple stick has stood the test of time, needing only minimal upgrades to become one of the most useful weapons in history, the spear. And then there's the whole debate on which weapon is better the staff or the spear.

So agree to disagree.

With a single edged sword you can make the back of the blade thicker which makes for a sturdier and stronger blade, and in theory could use less materials (which was very important for the Japanese of old). Also in a very conjured up situation, you could be cut with your own blade with minimal armour.

Spear's aren't really comparable, they are exclusively linear weapons. They are fairly useless for cutting, which is different from the MO, and MA, of longswords. Not to mention spears are long range weapons and swords are middle to close range weapons, each range has different things to worry about. What would be more comparable would be the halberd, but polearms aren't quite swords, so it's a major case of apples and oranges. I just think that cutting is the name of the game with regards to thinning out lighter infantries, and I see the katana is better than the longsword here.

I would like to comment on the point of balance with regards to the longsword, but I've never handled one before.

Actually those were mostly Chinese pirates, so they could of had more than enough Dao. Plus even if they were ronin, there's no guarantee that they were armed with swords.

When the Portuguese came to Japan it was a country in war, so being interested in European weapons and armour isn't too shocking. It was during this period that the Japanese started using firearms (by way of the Portuguese of course).

As for the tachi being closer to the longsword, I can't totally agree with you there. Sure it was longer, but it was also lighter and had a more prominent curvature.

 

Ahh movies aren't my thing if I'm honest, I've only seen about 5 movies that were released between 2009 till 2013.

 

I'm not sure that's a serious debate. Circumstancially, sure. Carrying a staff might be acceptable where carrying a spear isn't. But if we're talking about application on a battlefield, no rational military was going to favour a blunt staff over a spear. Even in personal combat, given the option of a blade, I think most people who were serious about ending someone's life were going to go with the bladed option. Even us eskrimadors wouldn't generally say we'd rather have a stick than a machete if it were a real battle.

 

The entire movie is that good, the entire way through, without fail. Hilaroius and fun. It's just fantstic. See it. See it now.