Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't believe your fight is quite fair anymore.
The fencer has two blades, the kenshi one.
For fair comparison, either the European fighter should wield a twohanded sword or the kenshi should be allowed to use a shorter sword, like a kodachi paired with a tanto.
This isn't traditional, but we're comparing weapons here, not styles.
...Right?

Well, if in armor the samurai would have more, as the Fencer needs alot more freedom of movement. And so he would be at a disadvantage.
So, most likely samurai vs fencer in armor would go to the samurai, as he can still use all of his attacks/movements in heavy armor.

After all, this started to combat the attitude espoused by junior white ninja whose main font of martial knowledge is the highlander tv series.


Unqualified as I may be, either strikes me as an unfair disadvantage. Jass tackles this, sure. I think the occidental can afford to give up his dagger.

On the other hand, your avi is wearing socks and sandals. What the hell?


Absolutely right. Why would the occidental fencer take a two hand grip though?

I think it's important to distinguish between fleche and lunge. It's true, a fleche is a total commitment, suicidal against the kenshi. A lunge just increases reach with a good deal less commitment, and reserving most options for defence, recovery, renewal, or remise.

I think the only chance of a sidearm-less western fencer is the novelty of point attacks to the kenshi. As already mentioned, the katana is a superior fall back weapon, especially against multiple opponents. A thrusting weapon could penetrate that discipline; but the more chances the kenshi has to adapt to parrying low on the blade, the sooner he can execute a debilitating attack.

I'm sorry I will not be able to participate in this discussion, and in fact cannot read further than this comment;
but I appreciate the chance to review the product later.

Okay, let's get this straight...
Are we comparing swords or styles?

EDIT
And I like my socks. Comfy little things. <.<
I sleep with my socks on sometimes. But only clean ones. >.>
Clean socks are sooooo comfortable... heart
Your toes go all wiggly and it makes you grin stupidly. sweatdrop
stare ---> mrgreen <---
My ava's secks. Bunneh secks. You won't believe how many girls have been trying to get into those shorts. xd

Well, yes and no.
Of course, you can only judge the effectiveness of a weapon by looking at the way it was weld.
But you can't compare a single two-handed longsword to two short swords.
You can compare two longswords.
You can compare two knives.
You can compare longbows and shortbows.
You simply can't compare two weapons that aren't approximately the same class.
You can, however, compare the effectiveness of a style or a combination of weaponry.
But since this thread started about the katana, I was wondering if we'd gone off topic or that we made a mistake. ^^;
Excuse the lack of attention on my behalf. ^^;

True, true. But we're talking good fighters here, let's spice it up and make it all myth-worthy. XD
"They fought for seven days and seven nights... And eventually made firends and had sake."
rofl xd rofl

Wow, interesting debate. I've read some valid points, and I've read some things that were just wrong.

Your average, off-the-shelf longsword was of much higher quality than your average off-the-shelf katana.

A katana cannot penetrate armor.

Samurai armor was a mix of woven bamboo, leather and iron scales. The Japanese had no knowledge of chain armor of any kind.

They had a scale maile system. In fact, alot of fights between Samurai devolved into close grappling where they would try to drive their tanto blades up between the scales, and into their opponent.

Bamboo was only used as a structural layout, where strips of iron would be the actual protection. Then the whole thing would be covered in lacquered leather and woven together with silk.

However, vastly inferior to european armor, which was articulated steel plates which distributed the weight evenly. Joints such as the underarm and groin were covered with chainmaile and leather.

A later european longsword had a long, tapering blade with short, chisel like bevel and a hexagonal cross section. Basically a sharpened metal spike with an edge. It was used mainly for halfswording where the knights would grapple and try to push the tip of the blade into a joint, where it's shape and taper could easily spread apart chainmaile. The blade was light, strong, stiff and effective, the epitome of armored combat.

Hammers were later used to puncture plate, but their weight made them difficult to use against a shield wielding opponent, as the shield could deflect the hammer strike, and before you could recover you would find a sword in your chest.

Polearms were always the main weapon in medieval combat. Katanas were never used as a main weapon in combat, and only developed an effective and heavily trained style after Japan was at peace, and the Samurai nobles used their two swords as a status symbol and a dueling weapon. The Samurai valued their skills as an archer more than anything, and then they would master the use of a Yari or Naginata.

The european knights were similiar, while they never used bows in combat, they were master marksman. They did use lances in combat however, and only reached for their swords when they lost their lances. In the late middle ages however, it was not uncommon to see fully armored knights wield two handed greatswords and b*****d swords in combat, where the highly effective and menueverable armor made shields obsolete. The Japanese had the No Dachi Katana, similar in concept to the European greatsword. However, the No Dachi never was utilised as a main all purpous battlefield weapon, and was used exclusivly for breaking up tight pike formations or taking down cavalry. European knights perfered a greatsword because of the effectiveness in combat both against a single, armored opponent, or multiple unarmored opponents. Late in the Middle ages many knights fought on foot with greatswords, as opposed to on horseback with lances.

Greatswords were not nearly as heavy as many think, and anything you may have seen and weilded at a ren fair or sword shop is a wallhanger only. There is no such thing as a battlefield sword that weighed more than 10lb.