[CowboyPete]

This one's going to be a battle of the hemispheres. The Beast from the East vs the Best from the West.

I'm speaking of course about the Katana vs. the Bastard sword. Both weapons are staples of their respective medieval/fuedal history and fantasy. Both have proven versatility and effectiveness, boasting single or double hand use as well as a powerul blend of range, power, speed and defensive capability.

That being said, they're very different. Katana's are single bladed and curved, a design made for cuts where the blade is drawn across (and into) the target. Bastards, on the other hand are straight, a design made for hacking cuts. Both can be use for thusting attacks but this is a secondary feature for each sword. They were each designed to go up against different types of armor and other weapons in different types of combat.

So which is better?

[King Kabuki]

Here's some visuals to go along with the theories being presented here. So Pete's post doesn't look so half-ass by comparison. lol

Katana images:





Katana in-motion:

(This dude is kind of sloppy.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WXyh...&search=Katana

Bastard sword:







This was the closest thing I could find to Bastard-style sword use that wasn't Ren Fair crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDCOH...dieval%20Sword

[Doughbelly]

No such thing as a "generic" katana. Designs were different depending on the era and intended usage. Some are very curved, some are straight, some are meant to be armor choppers, some are intended to be soft tissue cutters, so on. Even a total amateur such as myself can immediately tell the difference.

[Leviathan333]

When you cut chicken, do you chop it with a knife, or slice it?
Same thing for ****l/wood.

The curve on a Katana (or scimitar or whatever) helps slice deeper, and the blade only needs to be thick enough to support the one edge so it's typically lighter and easier to parry with.

I never understood the idea of straight blades, unless they were short swords/gladius/knives in which case it's handy to be able to swing it both ways as well as stab.

On the battlefield, spears and bows/guns work a lot better anyways.

[CowboyPete]

Originally Posted by Doughbelly

No such thing as a "generic" katana. Designs were different depending on the era and intended usage. Some are very curved, some are straight, some are meant to be armor choppers, some are intended to be soft tissue cutters, so on. Even a total amateur such as myself can immediately tell the difference.

Truth be told I'm a medieval sword afficionado so my katana knowledge is limited by comparison. On the same hand, there isn't a specific design that says "a thing with these dimensions is a bastard sword." A bastard can range by as much as a foot in length and have dozens different designs for the hilt and pommel. The one thing all Bastards have in common is they're made to be used with either one hand or two.

The guys in the second of Kabuki's pics are actually weilding Longswords. You can tell because the hilt is made for one hand only.

I'll see if there's some way I can get some video of me and my crew sparring with wooden Bastards to show some various techniques.

[CowboyPete]

Originally Posted by Leviathan333

When you cut chicken, do you chop it with a knife, or slice it?
Same thing for ****l/wood.

The curve on a Katana (or scimitar or whatever) helps slice deeper, and the blade only needs to be thick enough to support the one edge so it's typically lighter and easier to parry with.

I never understood the idea of straight blades, unless they were short swords/gladius/knives in which case it's handy to be able to swing it both ways as well as stab.

On the battlefield, spears and bows/guns work a lot better anyways.

You chop with a butcher knife. It works damn well, especially with wood (axes...).

Straight blades are good for a number of reasons, including ease of production and little know/used "back handed" attacks. The aren't really back handed so much as with the side of the blade on the side of the thumb knuckles as opposed to the outside of the fist. A wider blade also means the flat will stand up to wear and tear from parrying over more strikes than a thinner blade. Heavier also means more momentum in a swing, which means more damage.

Spears, bows/guns and swords all have their place on the battlefield. That's another weapon vs. weapon.

[King Kabuki]

Yeah guys, let's not clutter this up with "Well a Howitzer would take them both out." No shit.

This is about theory versus theory, comparisons of lands and tactics that might have never otherwsie met, or if they did meet, how could it go?

Straight blades had their day in battles. Sacrificing slicing efficiency for chopping power as well as stabbing technique efficiency had quite a prominent standing I think. Even European sword smiths had to be somewhat previously aware that curved blades are more efficient for slicing.

So the question of why choose a straight-blade is actually quite a theoretical question.

Pete?

[Sohei]

I say since the katanas design facilitates a greater range of motion than a primarily stabbing/thrusting sword the katana would win assuming both wielders were of comparative skill.
You can stab with a katana and slash with a thrusting sword, but I think the katanas shape makes it more maneuverable. As CPete said a bastard sword is called a bastard sword because its in between a traditional 1-handed sword and a 2 handed sword so its desigend to be used either way. I think the thrusting sword is used primarily with a shield if it is one-handed and if it is 2-handed then the wielder is sppossed to use its weight to batter opponents shields and weapons.

[CowboyPete]

Of course, the fight would come down to the skills of the fighters in question. Of course, assuming it's the "mirror match," it's incredibly tough to call.

I could certainly break it down better if I'd trained with a katana before but I'll try anyway.

Offense:
Thusts are better executed with a Bastard. The drawing cut of the Katana and the hacking cut of the Bastard are about even.

Bastard 1 Katana 0

Defense:
A Bastard is often used with a shield. I don't know of Katanas ever being used with shield but the Wakazashi (?) can be used for a better defense. Yes this adds other elements into the debate but I'm adding them because they're used just about as commonly in either case. A good 40'' diameter shield is a much better defensive tool than a Wakazashi but the Wakazashi is a much better offensive tool so a half point each here.

Bastard 1.5 Katana 0.5

Speed:
This may be contrary to popular opinion but Katanas and Bastard swords can be weilded with just about the same speed. 0.5 each here.

Bastard 2 Katana 1

Power:
This one's tough. While I think the extra weight of a Bastard gives it more momentum and overall force, the design of the Katana makes it a more effective force multiplier. Katana gets the nod here.

Bastard 2 Katana 2

I can't think of any other major categories to judge with. I guess I'll have to give a .1 point edge to the bastard because A) it's much easier for a novice to pick up and use effectively and B) I like it more.

If you don't like my breakdown, suck it. Suck it good then write your own.

[Doughbelly]

Originally Posted by CowboyPete

Offense:
Thusts are better executed with a Bastard. The drawing cut of the Katana and the hacking cut of the Bastard are about even.

A couple more things I'd like to point out.

The efficacy of the cut depends much on the type of armor your opponent is wearing. Anyone who's ever goofed around by swinging around a replica falcetta or a large kukri knows that the more a blade is weighted forward of the center line, the more it feels like an axe or hatchet. Great penetration, but not really a precision cutter. This is one of the reasons why it's much easier to chop wood with a kukri than with a bowie knife of similiar size/weight.

Curving a blade back allows you to put more of your cutting edge on the draw, but one of the other things it does is it effectively pushes the center of balance further down towards the hilt for a blade of the same length. This reduces your angular momentum, which has the effect of reducing power on your stroke but you gain it back by putting more of the cutting edge on target as well as a little bit more controllability.

The other major flaw in your line of argument is that you start comparing apples and oranges. The "katana" was and still is meant to be a two handed weapon. The idea that it was a common thing to wield a katana in one hand and a wakizashi in the other is a misconception. In fact, although it wasn't unheard of, it was fairly unusual, at least before Musashi. After Musashi gained his near mythological status as an unparralleled swordsman and developed his two sword style, everyone (including the current mediums in which westerners get their popular impressions of the Japanese battle arts) thought this way MUST be better. The truth is a little bit more complicated because Musashi himself never hesitated to say that his techniques were difficult to learn and they were not necessarily for everyone.

In a battlefield situations it is presumed that Musashi used one sword, in the standard manner. It is in one on one, unarmored dueling situations where the two sword style really shines.

Which brings us back to armor. The classical Japanese battlefield sword techniques emphasized attacking the least armored parts of the opponent, which in practice amounts to a lot of targets on the vulnerable points on the arm. Even on the battlefield, the katana was meant to be more of a precision instrument rather than a "get in there and fuck the other guy up" mentality.

Another thing to think about is that armor was developed to a much higher degree in the West, going back all the way back to antiquity, to the days of Greek hoplites. The other end of the spectrum is particularly true in Japan, where the lack of natural resources, particularly good iron ore, may have contributed to lack of effort paid to the development of heavy ****l armor. This is one of the reasons why the swordsmithing techniques in Japan developed to the level they did - they had to make do with what little they had.

Anyway, this has become a really long past and I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Which is better, a Porsche Carrera 4 or a Land Rover. Both are cars that can put power to all four wheels and in that sense they're similiar, but they're built for very different purposes.