Odd Weapon Questions

Okay, we've all heard things like Claymore v. Katana (Katana for design superiority) or Rapier v. Katana (almost always Rapier due to speed, angles of attack, and confusing style against a slash weapon.) Knives almost always loos to anything with reach, sorry. But I have a few weapons I've not managed to find a lot of information.

• Cinquedea "Five Fingers": these "knives" were readily available to Italian civilians and ranged in size from 10-24 inches. They were carried horizontally above the buttocks for a left hand draw.
• Pata: basically a gauntlet sword from India. Stories of the weapon being used in pairs to great effectiveness. Length ranges 10-44 inches.
• Goedendag "Good Day": Think a long baseball bat with a spike on the end. Sounds crazy I know but this thing proved devastating against french knights.

How would these weapons, in the right hands, fair against each other and more conventional weapons? This is more of a comparison of how they were used as weapons are fundamentally flawed in different ways judging from how they're designed (see Rapier v. Katana above)

Also, how does Japanese pattern welding stack against Damascus Steel? Damascus Steel is made by taking high carbon steel with traces of vanadium, drawing it into wire, wrapping it into shape, hammering, and carefully annealing it, resulting in carbon nano-wires running through the work. Remember, Talking materials, not weapons. P.S. Damascus Barreled shotguns are Not True Damascus Steel, do not make judgments on their horrid history.

Adding a question bout the capabilities of the Katana. They are one weapon I've not been able to fine a lot of Certifiably Accurate information due to biases and rigged tests (Saw one where they put a katana through a water jet cuter... but left out the abrasive powder.) In general I need to know what happens if a katana were to strike a 1/2x1/2 inch steel bar (both a homogeneous and a folded or "laminated" bar) at the angels of 45 and 90 degrees.

Unfortunately my signature does not hold as true as I'd like.

edited 29th Sep '10 6:48:01 PM by Lockhart

Goetendag are anti-armor weapons. So they'd be best against a fighter who depends heavily on armor, such as a knight. Also, from what I understand they're really cheap and don't take much skill to use, which is why they were wielded by peasants. The peasant victory in the Battle of The Golden Spurs can't primarily be attributed to their weaponry, however, since being outnumbered by mounted knights should still have been enough. But the peasants had better planning and were underestimated.

All depends on the skill of the person wielding said weapon.

To the european sword's defense, they did the rolled bamboo mat thing like you typically see with a katana, and the wuropean designs sliced through it just fine. However, due to greater mass, it required more effort on the part of the wielder to recover for a follow-on strike. So, given two swordsman with equal physical statictics, the katana-wielder will be able to reattack faster. The broadsword-wielder will be having to play defense more often, I'd imagine, and simply wait for the katana-wielder to mess up or expose himself.

A European sword's greatest advantage- and which one are we talking here specifically, longsword? Broadsword? What?- is that it's much better at armor piercing and the whole stabby thing than katanas are.

Katanas are fucking amazing at slashing, but their stabbing is sub-par and somewhat goofy and they're terrible against armor.

If both combatants are without armor, katana wins hands-down- it is faster, better at tearing an unarmored human to shreds, and is simply about a billion times more dangerous than the European sword is gonna be.

Against light armor, like most Samurai armor, it's about equal. Katana focuses on speed, the European on ability to ignore armor.

Against heavy armor, like French Plate Mail, European sword wins hands-down- katana can't go through the armor fast enough before the European sword goes all boogy-down on the dude.

So really, it's not a question of weapon, it's a question of armor.

I was going to bring that up - the armor thing - but didn't. European armor at the height of it's advancement is still being looked at today for inspiration. Japanese armor was much lighter and such. Less metal used in its construction?

Firearms made it all pretty much obsolete.

^^ Katanas are surprisingly good stabbing weapons despite the fact the Diagonal Cut and other slashing moves are its prime advantages. On that show Weapon Masters they tested the katana against iron armor and it stabbed right through it. Yes iron armor is inferior to steel armor but if it penetrated iron armor with no significant damage to the blade that's not a bad stabbing weapon.

It depends on the armour you and your opponent are wearing. Swords tend to be faster and more accurate than hafted weapons but the latter are better against metal armour.

What are we talking about when we say "european sword"? Most designs are just as fast and light as a katana, as well as having a second edge. But people keep assuming that all european swords are the doppehander, while the variety is very pronounced.

Most knights/samurai, didn't even have armor, they couldn't afford it. So swords were usable against the common troop(and then, the polearm was more widely used), and special weapons were designed for killing armored foes.

That said, swords were never used realistically for fighting armored warriors. In fact, knives were used more often, for their ability to get through joints and breaks in the plate.

Japanese armor was dealt with in much the same manner, with things such as arrows or bags of spice in favor of taking a sword to heavy leather.

This is coming from a practitioner of Ba Gua swordsmanship. And a collector of such weapons.

I'd probably rate Damascus steel over Katana forging, just because of the trace elements, which apparently can have a pretty huge effect. More for wear resistance than strength, I think.

Didn't Mythbusters show you need something like a mechanical press to break a sword? If you whacked a steel rod...well, whatever else, you'd probably chip the blade, or crumple the edge up, if it were sharp enough. Probably wouldn't be able to chop through in one swing, at least.

From the images I've found [1]◊ I'd imagine that the Cinquedea would be utilized as a backup weapon in a military conflict, or something carried for self-defense for civilian use. From the blade's profile, it looks like it'd make a good thrusting weapon, something akin to the gladius perhaps.

From what few books I've read on the era, the armor used in the period was evolving from the classic "knight in shining armor" model to lighter and more flexible types due to the advent of firearms, so at least against lighter infantry I imagine that the blade could have been of some use.

Unfortunately, my book search only turns up passing mentions and the occasional sketch of the weapon, so I'm left with simple speculation.

edited 3rd Dec '10 11:55:10 AM by carbon-mantis