Were European swords actually superior to Japanese swords of the same time, or is that just a meme?
Pic somewhat related
Self Bump. This is constantly spouted and I need an official answer.
What time period are you talking about?
Swords have been around in both places for hundreds of years
Japanese steel was shit, so European swords were definetly better.
>>30400792
yes.
-t. me
>>30400699
Yes and no
The Japanese swords were pretty shit, but the fact that they actually managed to make a sword out of such shitty steel is pretty impressive.
>>30401099
This. Armor differences as well.
>>30401099
Steel quality was the same.
>>30401712
Categorically false. The Japanese used bog iron for most of their tools and weapons because they lacked the technology to properly mine and smelt good metal. I'm pretty sure they didn't even know what steel was before the Europeans introduced it to them.
The weapons they made had to flexibility to them and were prone to breaking and shattering when too much shock or pressure was applied. There is a reason why most Japanese fighting forces used polearm's rather than swords.
>>30400699
>Were European swords actually superior to Japanese swords of the same time, or is that just a meme?
Thing is Japanese swords appear to have been made to counter textile armor. They are likely the best in the world at that function. However there is not much in the records for the use of textile armor use in Japan and the designs are evolutions of older land main designs.
>>30401757
Everyone used polearms rather than swords
The steel was the same, the iron quality was poor, there's a difference.
By the 19th century the average sword there was of better quality than the average sword coming out of europe because more care was put into the making of them and they weren't using scabbards that blunted the blades like most sabres
>>30401925
By the 19th Century Europe was fighting with guns.
>>30400699
As a smith, I can say that the praised katana is like a fuckin' crowbar compared to some arming or longswords. I am generalising, but come on, if you want something that slices and slashes good, you make it broad and the edge with pretty narrow angle. If you want something that pokes things good, you make the point narrow and/or double-edged. A katana? Thing made by replacing quality of materials with quality and quantity of work, that is thick, narrow, with a fairly "dull" tip and little distal taper, and are somewhat shorter for the weight. Also, proper guard ís a concern when you don't use shields. Of course, all this is a general statement and there are many tipes of Japanese swords, as well as European. Still, my favourite technique with an european sword is to take it by the blade and go apeshit on someone, using the pommel and guard as a warhammer.
>>30401974
Bayoneted guns.
and besides that, all officers had swords, and all cavalry but dragoons used swords as main weapon.
>>30401974
Everyone had swords, and the use of sabre was widespread. Cavalry used sabres even in WW1, all officers had swords, many infantrymen used swords.
The british troops were complaining that their swords were shit compared to Japanese swords, that they couldn't cut well, that they were dull, they said the same thing about swords coming out of India
>>30401757
Nice memes dude.
>>30400699
>>30402182
>folded a thousa- thousand and one times
>>30400699
>>30402013
>>30402068
And none of that matters because the main weapon of day was the rifle. Of course a resource poor nation is going to produce "better" swords on average. They're producing very few for the very rich, while in Europe the vassal system had largely been abolished and weapons were being mass produced to see limited use by rear echelon or specialized troops.
The Japanese used their swords as self defense weapons, and as side arms on the battlefield.
In any case, unless you are going into an actual melee combat today, 'what sword is better' is less important than 'what looks the best'.
If you got an empty gun and your opponent has a goddamn sword, no matter what shape or size that sword is, your going to have a bad time.
![2014-01-17-Strip_302_NCO_Sword_web[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/3D918NT.gif "2014-01-17-Strip_302_NCO_Sword_web[1].gif")
>>30402416
>what looks the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV
Eternal, final and forever /thread.
>>30400699
No weapon is inherently better than the other, its all situational.
A group of 500 well-trained samurai would have gotten their shit smashed in by a smaller force of medium-armored European knights from the same time period. The Katana is incredibly sharp, yes, but try using one to parry against a mace.
European swords are superior if you're fighting against armored foes who are trained to fight Europeans.
European martial arts were a discipline of brutality that evolved with the technology, where Japanese martial arts incorporate a lot of what I like to call "bullshit combat dancing"
A samurai swings his unbeatable Katana at an Enlightenment-era professional soldier and even if he fails to protect against the swing, he's going to catch a razor-blade against steel mail, which will likely not inflict a mortal wound, and then he's going to grab the samurai by his sword-arm and beat his fucking face in with a gauntlet.
>>30402257
That Japs had been using guns since at least the 1600s though.
European swords were better quality. And better design. According to some treatises thrusts are better for one on one combat due to being more lethal. Slashing is better when fighting multiple opponents. Also length is a big advantage. Ill take a 44 inch long sword over a 37 inch katana in a duel any day
>>30402611
>European swords are superior if you're fighting against armored foes who are trained to fight Europeans.
>swords
>armored foes
Pick one. Swords were sidearms for everybody, Europe or Japan. You don't use swords to attack an armored foe. You go around the armor. There are also mordhau techniques where you use a sword as an improvised mace, but these are obviously not as effective as an actual mace.
>>30402707
I must have missed the part of history class were they were dominant Japanese weapon of the time.
Oh wait that's because it didn't happen because the Japanese were shit at industry until America taught them how.
>>30400699
Is not that a Chinese Zhanmadao?
>>30402926
Japan had more firearms being used in warfare than anywhere else in europe during the sengoku period - 1500's to 1600's
>Hereafter, the guns will be the most important arms. Therefore decrease the number of spears per unit, and have your most capable men carry guns
Maybe you should go back to that history class, you clearly weren't paying attention
>>30401099
but to compensate the Japanese steel making methods were superior.
Memes aside, folding the steel was actually pretty ingenious and turned shitty steel into some really usable stuff.
>>30406604
The method of folding and stacking was around in europe, long before Japan was doing it
>>30401974
As was Japan.
They still used guns, even if they were outdated.
>>30400699
It doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
It doesn't. Every mounted European knight was riding in with a fucking lance. A goddamn long ass spear.
Every Japanese warrior was going in with a polearm.
Polearms were the superior weapons "but which had the superior polearm?" It doesn't fucking matter, a polearm is a polearm.
If, and IF a European knight was forced to fight with his sword he was in deep shit. If a Japanese Samurai as forced to actually fight with his sword, he was in deep shit.
In a war between a European nation and Japan in the age where swords and polearms were the main weapons the tiny, infinitesimal difference between the two nations goddamn sidearms would be so minimal that it would never matter.
No body fucking knows because no body fucking cares. If you truly think that a Japanese Samurai would kill a European knight with his katana you are mistaken, because that samurai would have been killed by the knights polearm at three feet greater reach. And vice versa.
>>30401974
so did the japs, infact the samurai only started fetishizing katanas after they were largely replaced on the battlefield by peasants with guns because they needed something to make them still look special.
>>30402926
le nobunaga face
>>30402840
>swords
>armoured foes
Pick two
Just a meme.
>>30402416
>If you got an empty gun and your opponent has a goddamn sword, no matter what shape or size that sword is, your going to have a bad time.
if that happens you fix bayonet, problem solved (unless you are from a country that believes that bayonet training is useless & doesn't issue bayonets)
>>30407039
What a waste of an archery target.
>>30406880
>chicken winging
The European swords of the time run from plain iron blades, vie case hardened iron to laminate blades to pure steels. Hardening ranges from unhardenable to none to slack quenched to fully quenched. As such, it gets a bit tricky to say how good just the metallurgy is in a European sword at the time. On the Japanese side of things we supposedly see various laminate variants combined with a full quench of the edge, though to be honest I'm wondering if things really where all that constant there.
For the metal production itself we're looking at bloomery steel in Japan, and in Europe either bloomery steel or finery steel (ie pig iron taken down to iron in a finery, and then carburised up to steel, or maybe perhaps possibly just fined down to steel), with some things suggesting that the bloomery metal was considered the better stuff (some armouring centre using bloomery steel for the good stuff, and fined steel for the mass production). Either way there'll be a good deal of hot working (folding) involved in refining the material. The one number I've gotten on Japanese phosphorus content was good (ie very little), heck knows how it varied in Europe beyond the ore from mid Sweden being very low in phosphorus. I recommend "The Sword and the Crucible" as well as "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" here.
Design-wise it all works. Though every now and then you'll have people pop up saying feature X or Y is absolutely crucial, while the guys who actually did live and die by their swords seem to have been of different (and often varying) opinions...
And as for the period and field of use of the katana, it's a weapon that first appears as a sidearm for the basic grunt, and then spreads upwards through the ranks as Japanese warfare shifted focus form cavalry to infantry. It's only after a few centuries of that which we stop seeing it regularily on the battlefield, on account of Japan's unification making battles a damn rare thing.
>>30402206
underrated
>>30402153
Not memes dumbfuck.
Japanese got most of their technology from the books that Dutch traders gave to them
there was a thing about portuguese traders with rapiers absolutely shitting over japanese people in duels that the japanese tried to outlaw duels
>>30401862
>textile armor.
The japanese had metal armor at the very least in the 10th century, and yes, even for the ashigaru, japanese textile armor is a meme.
>>30407649
>not memes
>the japanese didn't knew steel until the 16th century
>not a meme.
The japanese were making steel weapons at least a millenia before that...
>>30407666
>the japanese tried to outlaw duels
And this had much more to do with basic commercial relationships than portuguese beating them (they got even though).
If you try to trade with someone, your people trying to kill their people and vice-versa is pretty bad and both the europeans and japanese had laws and rules about not pissing off the other parties.
This had nothing to do with how well they beat the crap at each others.
Where is the best place to get a decent quality polearm?
>>30407690
I got a polearm for you right here
>>30407672
And the quality of their raw material was shit all that millenia.
The reason their blacksmiths did such incredible crafting was because theis steel at metallurgical level was complete shit, and despite that, they produced very good weapons.
On the other end of the scale you can find toledan steel, the steel was so good that "the zousand forded katana steel" was not needed and indeed arrived at the same conclusion:
A swort is better if has soft interior and hard exterior, at toledo the finest swords where "alma de hierro", or soul of iron, where the exterior was hardened steel with a flexible iron core.
>>30407708
>A swort is better if has soft interior and hard exterior, at toledo the finest swords where "alma de hierro", or soul of iron, where the exterior was hardened steel with a flexible iron core.
And this is exactly what a traditionally made japanese sword is as well.
>>30407700
lewd
[spoiler]
how big?[/spoiler]
>>30406604
Steel making doesn't mean much, because there are completely unrelated aspects that all influence the end result. The chain of production even changes based on solutions you picked previously. Also, it's important to note that when it comes to steel, there are many solutions and sometimes there's not that much of a difference in the end result. Or sometimes you pick what aspect you want in priority and so on.
The japanese used relatively advanced bloomeries for smelting, folding for purifying and breaking up impurities, and then differential quenching.
Europeans had various methods, but one of the advanced ones used blast furnaces for smelting, decarburisation through osmonds, quenching followed by tempering.
As you can imagine, both production chains are completely different and some processes aren't even shared. But overall, the european production chain was more advanced :
- Bloomeries never fully melt the material, so impurities remain stuck inside. Blast furnaces fully melt the steel, therefore impurities float up to the surface and form slag. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Folding would be a waste of time at this point.
- Decarburisation wasn't even needed for the japanese because you just pick the pieces you need. Europeans needed it because of their process choice, and since only pig iron was produced at first.
- Differential tempering allows for a very hard blade and soft core. Europeans used various techniques but usually aimed at a generally better structural integrity through quenching and revenue.
Of course, that's ignoring the ridiculous amount of variation in techniques. Europeans used to experiment alot, finding various ways to improve the steel. For example, concentrated urine was used for better quenching, because the ions provide better heat transfer and the ammonia provides nitrogen that can slightly harden the surface (interstitial like carbon).
>>30400699
Anyone want a real answer?
Many people will say that European spring tempering was superior, because the blade holds up better to being banged around.
The only downside of this is the blade edge is not as hard and does not hold its edge as well.
Japanese swords edges were harder and held an edge better, but as a downside they tended to bend rather than flex.
Yet there was no one in the 15th century saying that Japanese swords were shit compared to European blades, and in fact katana were widely popular in asia at the time, and were copied in china.
>>30407708
Raw materials and techniques were generally similar worldwide.
That a soft core is beneficial to a sword is somewhat questionable. During bending the core is affected the least, and as such it's generally at the surface that a failure will happen, unless we have a major flaw inside.
Mixing a softer core with a harder skin or edges, has been done a lot in older blades. The softer material is cheaper, and since the core isn't as involved in things, putting softer material there cuts cost without really affecting performance, assuming we use a decent amount of steel around it.
As for Toledo, I suspect that the secret there is simply that they had some good craftsmen, and a good PR campaign. They might have made use of a thin clay coat to accelerate cooling during quench, but I've yet to see that claim form a source I feel can be really trusted. I haven't seen anything about Toledo steel form such a source.
>>30407763
>Blast furnaces fully melt the steel, therefore impurities float up to the surface and form slag. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Folding would be a waste of time at this point.
Oxidation during the fining stage re-introduce an amount of inclusions into the steel, meaning that a degree of folding is strongly advised. The carburisation stage that turns the fined iron into steel will also tend to leave the steel extremely inhomogenous, also requring a bit of folding to fix.
So we get a bit less folding going on, in return for having to go through the whole fining and carburisation process.
>>30407909
We should also keep in mind that a full spring temper appears to have been rare in Europe up until ca the end of the 15th century. It's a rather temperamental process, especially with the tempering. Too little and the blade is catastrophically brittle. Too much and it ends up softer than it was before you started. So instead we see a mix of slack quenched and unhardened blades, the ratio probably varying with time and location.
>>30407960
How quickly/universally was it adopted after that? was there a sudden explosion in the popularity of the spring temper or did it catch on slowly, or only for the rich?
>>30406604
Europe folded their steel too. Only problem is that's a shitty way to make steel.
>>30407727
Faggot
>>30407997
seen some examples in northern Europe, never seen a southern European example
>>30407909
I'd like to point out that the Young's modulus of carbon steels do not change with composition, and as such any such steel that was harder/holds its edge would flex long after a softer steel would had bent. This bizarre idea that there is any difference at all between the strength of steels and their ability to flex is entirely false, yet comes up all the time in swords threads.
>>30407997
Shitty compared to what we have today perhaps, but when you have neither the knowledge nor infrastructure to set up a blast furnace-ld converter-hot strip mill line, well, better to have steel than not.
As a tangent, that hot strip mill bit does bring about many of the benefits of folding, as for most of them it's extensive hot forging that's the key, not the folding in itself.
>>30407990
Hard to say, partially because I don't have the book (Alan Williams, The Sword and the Crucible) handy, but it's basically always been in the background as an option, and then it may have grown from that to the standard over half a century? A century?
>>30408019
Another case of "if only I had that book handy" (same book), as there may be examples there for me to provide. Still, this would mean that southern Europe either had metallurgy from the late 19th century, or the blades they produced where rubbish. Neither seems likely compared to them just folding like everyone else.
>>30408022
And on top of that we have the geometric factors. Though I guess to some degree that may be where the idea comes from. A thin blade can flex a lot with minimal strain in the material, so it behaves in a floppy manner but returns to true. A thicker blade won't bend anywhere enar as much with the same force applied, and while it'll take more force to make it take a set as well, it'll be permently bend or break enmtierly at a much smaller degree of banding.
>>30407960
Didn't think of that to be honest. Haven't read up on the subject in years. But obviously the nature of the impurities would be quite different and the folding wouldn't be as extensive. Still, it's obvious as to why it would be necessary.
In any case, as long as people imagine steel production and working to be something like a linear scale of quality, they'll be far away from reality and there's no decent debate to be had.
>>30408022
That fucking garbage. It's amplified by people mixing all of the technical terms into a complete mess. But to be honest even documentaries about sword making are filled with them, so it's sort of understandable. I recall a documentary on katanas where the narrator explains that the edge has a "hard ferrite edge" and a "soft martensitic core" or some shit like that. It's what happens when people transmitting the information have no understanding of it.
>>30401862
Japanese swords were basically big knives; they were meant for you to make deep cuts on the victim, but not necessarily batter your way through their armor. If you encountered a foe wearing anything more than wood-slat armor, you poked him full of holes where he was not armored or pulled back so your archers could take him out.
>>30402840
>Swords were sidearms for everybody
except for like every body who wasn't a lord or knight because the general public/ man at arms were not allowed to use them
>>30407039
>1000 folds
>>30401983
>Still, my favourite technique with an european sword is to take it by the blade and go apeshit on someone, using the pommel and guard as a warhammer.
Priceless
>>30407039
1000 pizza rolls.
>>30408281
The wooden armour was out of the picture before the Japanese sword had diverged from its continental predecessors. Hitting the gaps would be plan A in Europe too.
>>30408292
Laws regarding swords, and other weapons, vary considerably. I wonder if having common people banned from owning swords was ever all that common though.
In Japan, it wasn't until the unification that ownership was regulated.
In Sweden, when we finally got laws about things in the 14th or 15th century they stated that no one (noble or not) was to be armed at certain occasions. Adherence and enforcement could be spotty. The 16th century also saw the state church occasionally pointing out to the priests that they weren't supposed to be armed while holding mass. Later on well-equipped peasant levies managed to make quite a make here and there, and at one occasion got tax exemption in return, making them effectively a low nobility for a while.
In late medieval/early renaissance Germany city laws frequently required that all free burghers own a sword. With cities and towns relying on their own militias for defense, owning and being proficient with weaponry was encouraged, and the wealthy would arm themselves in full knightly wargear.
As for men at arms, that term tends to refer to everyone who was equipped and fighting like a knight, used because the heavy shock cavalry of an army could often consist of both those with the title of knight, and those (both nobelmen and commoners) without.
We should also remember that when it comes to war and battles, most may have lacked the equipment to take part, but as a result, they didn't take part except as victims when things got to the loot and pillage stage. The average solider would be somewhat better equipped, either by his own effort or by his lord handing him what he needed. Somewhere around the late middle ages or so a sword would be pretty much a given even for the most basic rank and file fighters.
>Were European swords actually superior to Japanese swords of the same time, or is that just a meme?
European swords were more varied so I would say that european swords were superior because you have both specialized swords and more versatile swords meanwhile Jap swords were not as versatile.
The Kriegsmesser was a sword that was very similar to the Katana but had a better guard and length to weight ratio.
So imo European swords were better
>>30400699
Generally speaking, people who dickride either side are morons who are talking out of their asses. The whole Europe/Japan dichotomy is dumb in the first place, it's just a regionalized variation of the age old stab/slash debate which ignores that plenty of Europeans favored the cut, along with many Chinese and sandpeople.
That katana is pretty much just a Japanese saber. It does saber things.
>>30405324
>1500s-1600s
>19th century
Weeaboo logic folks. Just change the game to make Japan seem less shitty.
The argument was that Jap swords were better in the 19th century, AFTER Europe had moved on to guns as the primary weapon of war. If you want to go back to the 16th and 17th centuries, before the transition to guns had fully occurred, then you're back to when European swords are of higher quality.
Unlike Japan, Europe actually saw cultural shifts which made a martial social class obsolete. They didn't need to provide snowflake weapons to spoiled rich kids to make them feel special.
It's also why Japan got its ass kicked every time they fought real Europeans.
>>30408599
>the argument is that a short two handed saber is better than a long one handed saber
I don't care what you think is correct but i assure you you're about as smart as a box of rocks.
A Wilkinson blade will be as quality or better to any master smith made Katana and any factory made blade will be as good or better than any cheaply made Katana. if quality is being compared.
And if you think any cut and thrust sword is better than any other, I've got bad news for you.
The english had been using Sabers and backswords against other sword weilding enemies since the 1700s. Indians certainly didn't stop using swords, neither did any of the European colonies in east asia. If you're some idiot that thinks officers were just getting a somewhat sharp bar of metal to flail impotently at brown people, you've just cemented yourself as clinically retarded.
>>30408470
>The Kriegsmesser was a sword that was very similar to the Katana
Not really, it kinda looks like a japanese sword but it's not constructed the same way (really not the same way), both in the blade and in the tang. Besides it's a heavier blade that didn't served the same purpose, so no, it's not really the same.
>>30408022
you can measure the hardness of the deferentially hardened steel vrs spring tempered. its harder, the spring temper flex better, you can see this too by comparing them
>>30408281
Japanese swords went for the gaps,same as European, and the armor was lacquered steel, not wood. They even had mail or coats of plates they could where under it for extra protection
>>30410038
Fromt the few accounts Ive seen of western miltary men in japan at the time, one complained that their swords simply could not cut like the Japanese blades.
This is probably because many officer sabers went unsharpened at the time.
>>30400699
>Were European swords actually superior to Japanese swords of the same time, or is that just a meme?
I'd rather say "one weapon beats another weapon" is a meme.
>>30410303
They don't flex better, that's exactly what he explained. They can flex to a further extent (more deformation) and absorb more energy doing so. But you won't have one being more springy than the other in terms of one being harder to bend than the other. Or at least the difference would require really careful measures.
>>30410038
I never made that argument.
Weeaboo 1 in this thread said that in the 19th century the average sword being produced in Japan was of superior quality than the average sword produced in Europe.
I said that even assuming that's true, the widespread use of firearms in 19th century Europe rendered swords of secondary importance, while in Japan they were still being made for samurai due to Japan's lingering feudal system, which had largely disappeared from Europe.
Weeaboo 2, not wanting Japan to seem technologically inferior, then starts the unsolicited argument that Japan had more guns in the 16th and 17th century, which is likely not true, but is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.
And now we have you, who are also arguing something completely different from what I said. I never made any argument, other than to say that it's absurd to compare the quality of weapons from Japan and Europe in the 19th century, a period when swords had lost most of their military value in Europe.
>>30410785
>other than to say that it's absurd to compare the quality of weapons from Japan and Europe in the 19th century, a period when swords had lost most of their military value in Europe.
And that's what's being disputed.
European sword makers didn't just stop giving a fuck about making a quality sword. cheap swords remain cheap quality and expensive swords remained expensive.
Even swords used by troopers are built exactly for what they're needed. nothing changed because people still used their swords. it's not like today where you only have your sword for the parade. so a shitty 420 stainless can survive.
No, steels only got better as the industrial revolution went on and officers who know what they wanted in a sword got exactly what they needed.
>>30410623
>They don't flex better, that's exactly what he explained. They can flex to a further extent (more deformation) and absorb more energy doing so
explain how flexing further is not flexing better
>>30410785
You're making a lot of wrong assumptions here, which leads me to believe you actually have no idea.
The western swords made in Europe and America from the Industrial Revolution until the WWI were some of the best swords ever made when it comes to the steel used. They were extensively tested as well to ensure they worked, because you didn't want your officers to rely on ballcap revolvers when being attacked by dozens of colonial natives, for example. I have no idea how good the japanese swords in the 19th century were, but it's hardly a stretch to suppose they'd match up to their western counterparts.
Secondly, firearms were introduced in Japan by the Portuguese in the 16th century, and were rapidly adopted. All you had to do is google "japan musket". Do you even know who Oda Nobunaga is?
>>30407039
fat neck beard aside that son of a bitch is pretty god damn sharp
The folding process was necessary to push slag out of the ingot and create a homogeneous blade from iron sands.
>>30408007
I'm not hearing a noe.
>>30401071
Thousands of years, homie. They were in Europe long before the Romans were around
>>30411300
Flexing "better" isn't a good term to use in the first place because that's how you created the confusion. There are scientific terms for a reason.
>>30400699
It's like comparing a crossbow and a long bow
Completely different purposes you big fat dumb idiot.
Katana > European swords vs bare flesh
European swords > Katanas vs anything else
Didn't have armor in Japan so they only needed to cut flesh, armor comon in Europe so they had to deal with it.
>>30412455
>Didn't have armor in Japan
you cant be serious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw&list=PLMUtS78ZxryO9NKU_ceM-LhcnSnAc2kHV
>>30412455
>Katana > European swords vs bare flesh
Mind explain why europeans switched to rapiers instead of sabers when armor fell out of use during the 16th-17th century?
It's not that simple and besides, the japanese had armor. The wood and leather samurai armor is a myth. They just painted or lacquered the metal because it protects it from rust and looks nicer.
>>30400699
Jap swords were good for killing peasants and other unarmoured opponents, not much else.
>>30413540
You realize the tachi started as a battlefield side arm, and there are surviving schools of armored Japanese swordsmanship? yes?
>>30413540
I shouldn't expect much else but memes from this board, but holy fucking shit.
