Rapier vs Katana

Not much to say about this one. Might want to write such a fight one day, so I want to know more about both types of swords, how you fight with them, and how they would fare against each other, if we assume that the wielders are equally skilled with their respective weapons.

I'm not much of a sword guy, but I'd assume that the Katana wielder would have stronger swings due to usually using two hands, while the Rapier wielder would have better thrusts, but again, that's just an assumption from a total sword noob.

Ok, get to discussing.

Both weapons are intended to be used with another blade for parrying; the Main Guache and the Wakazishi. The Rapier is too thin to take a hit; whereas the Katana was respected too much to risk damaging the blade, so the suicide dagger (which was supposed to hurt anyways) was used.

edited 12th Jun '15 12:15:31 AM by dvorak

The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts answers your question in detail.

I kinda started skimming through it after a while, but the gist of it seems to be it depends on the skill of both users or one dude gets stabbed, the other gets sliced.

You want a detailed answer, you get a detailed article.

Fair enough.

I will try to really look at it at some point, but I got the answer I wanted for now.

I'm a rapier user myself- been to reenactments, but never up against a Katana weilder. The rapier has the greater reach, the Katana has the wider range of potential attacks, so generally the Katana will be on the tactical offense, trying to get close enough to the Rapier weilder to land a blow. That means trying to bat aside the point of the rapier long enough to slip inside. Not as easy to do as it sounds, however, as rapier experts are trained to deal with that (we have a way of twisting our blade around so that it avoids being engaged yet ends up right where it started).

It really comes down to armor. If the Katana user is wearing heavy enough body armor, the Rapier guy could be screwed.

Ok, this is cool.

I mean, I was just wondering if one would have an advantage over the other, but from the sound of things, it depends on the skill of the users, and the strategy.

It seems like it could go either way.

How long are Katana blades usually? It sounds like the Rapier has a reach advantage.

In those days before mass-production, the length of any sword was tailored to the hieght of it's user, but on average a rapier would have been around 48-49 inches with a blade on average around 42-43 inches. Not sure about the katana, but my impression is that they were generally at least several inches shorter.

Also, it makes less of a difference because of how they were used. A katana is used for slicing draw-cuts, meaning that even though it may not be much shorter than a rapier, its effective range is less. The rapier-fighter wants to keep his opponent at range, the katana-fighter wants to close.

At extremely close range it would suddenly switch to Main Guache vs. Wakizashi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qJBGlChcXU

This should help you.

It isn't quite as simple as 'katana cuts, rapier thrusts.' They could both do both, but not as well.

I saw a show on TV that compared a rapier against a scimitar, as used in some historical battle. The advantage of the rapier is that you can keep your opponent at bay, since it has a longer blade and you strike with the point. The scimitar might do more damage, but you have to get inside your opponent's guard to strike with it.

Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81vorq4E5CE

While the conclusion is not entirely innaccurate, there were a lot of problems with that video. First of all, that isnt a rapier. Also, both sides used both straight and curved blades (the Crusaders used a type of single edged sward called a "Falchion" which was very similar, though not identical, in appearance and function to a scimitar). The scimitar depicted in the video isnt a design from the middle ages. At that period, the sword an Islamic warrior would have used would have looked more like this (scroll down to see the tapestry). Again, scimitars were meant to be used on horseback (as the tapestry shows)- not on foot as in the video. And finally, their analysis (that a curved blade does more damage than a straight one) is very inaccurate. Axes are often equipped with straight blades, but do more damage per weight than any sword. Yes, you can employ draw cuts more effectively with a curved sword, and this result in longer cuts, but hacking cuts go deeper and have better armor penetration. Both sides would have been heavily armored, so...

Well, it's the history channel, what can you expect?

edited 24th Oct '15 5:26:33 PM by DeMarquis

The Katana can and has been used alone, in a one or two-handed style. The Niten Ichi Ryu is a way of dual-wielding the katana and wakizashi, but for the most part, the companion sword was meant for situations where the Katana wouldn't be appropriate (rooms with low ceilings for example). Also, I'm rather unsure if the rapier has anything comparable to the Iaijutsu draws that a Katana user can pull off.

Yeah, Musashi using two blades at once was a sign of his eccentricity and incredible skill. Most samurai didn't use their katana and wakizashi simultaneously for the same reason modern soldiers don't use a rifle and pistol in each hand very often - the short blade is for when you need to react quickly and when the fight is at close enough quarters that the long blade would be impractical.