Rapier vs. Katana

[Angel]

Ah, the immutable question of "Which is better?" deeply woven into ancient and long-since-forgotten sword fighting.

People have debated for centuries on who would win in a fight: A European Swordsmen skilled with a Rapier or a Japanese Swordsmen skilled with a Katana?

I myself have practiced fencing for 10 years, starting basic skills a few months after I turned five, and I've been taking lessons in Chinese-style fencing for nearly 2 years.

I own my own katana and have been messing around with it, but I haven't taken any real lessons on how to do the fighting properly.

So although I can't offer perspective from both sides, I must say that the Rapier would win hands down. The katana appears to be built around strong slices and very shrill movements. Hacking with the thing does nothing, even with the sword's reputation as the "sharpest blade".

However, the Rapier is a sword used for very quick strikes in rapid succession. Powerful strikes and thrusts can be used in fluid motion without and stops.

My personal opinion: The fencer would win. :3

Anyone care to debate the matter?

[Raz]

Finally! I'm Happy to see someone interested in ancient combat.

Okay, on this topic.

When it comes to the technology each one has.

Rapier: Fast, made of Extremely hardened iron.
But the fact that it is so hardened it has almost absolutely no flexibility.
(This has been proven) -> A side ward strike hitting the side of the blade would easily break it.

Jabs are effective.

The Katana: Fast. Made out of Carbon Steel.
Much more flexible. the blade is much sharper.

Slashes are effective, however it can be used to stad an opponent just as well.

The Wielder:

European swordsman.
vs.
Japanese Samurai.

i would say the Japanese Samurai would win because of two reasons.

First the technology is is much more advanced.

Second the training an ancient samurai would have undergone was started much better.

They started at a younger age, and dedicate their entire live to the way of the sword. They didn't waste their time with the simple pleasures of life unlike the Europeans. They were dedicated to their profession. I would say in a 1 on 1 fight, its like putting a simple soldier against a Spec-ops commando.

Samurai wins.

[Angel]

All good points, but my reasoning behind the Rapier winning is this:

An advanced block technique is one where the sword is flicked around the blade of the attacker, flicked downwards and back, forcing the sword out of their hand or into a lunge past the blocker.

With the Katana's curved blade, the sword would much more easily be placed under the control of the blocker.

I know for a fact that unless the samurai was strictly prepared to hold the blade in such a manner as to prevent such a disarmament, which isn't very likely, the sword would be easily ripped from their grip.

[Raz]

That is a reasonable point.
But the blade being flicked from a Samurai's hand is simply... no.

The Hilt, made from fiber wrappings allows the user to have a better grip.
And How a Samurai wields his sword would making this move extremely difficult.
The katana, was commonly used as a 2-handed weapon. so the strength needed to sever it from his hands is not something a 1 handed weapon would do.

and i would see the curvature of the katana's blade as more of a helping factor.
I myself own a katana, and sence the blade is curved back would force the rapier wielder to step in closer.
And with that the Samurai could deflect this disarming attempt (pushing the blade to the side) and slash against the opponent from the side.

[Angel]

Ah, right. I forgot about the special grips. >.<

But that could prove a major downfall. Using the block would allow the person to latch onto the sword, pull the samurai in, then lunge forward into a powerful thrust.

I don't think that, with the kinetic motion, it would be too possible for the samurai to dodge/block it. D:

[Raz]

if that were the case, the match would end in a draw.
unless the lucky European pushed the blade through the heart.
I could easily see the Samurai grabbing his hand and thrusting his own blade into his opponent.

I come to this conclusion due to the fact that many Samurai in ancient battles. upon being wounded would still continue to fight until they were slain by an opponent.

Beat that european

[Urboros]

Rapiers while having no side damage are excellent for pokeing people. Fenceing is mostly done for sport in the past so the weapons used in the matches were never very leathal. Rapiers allow for less open space when weilding unlike the Katana. which requires the use of the whole arm.
when swung it leaves the opponet a few seconds of strike time thus the "open" term.

I don't know who would win it depends on the fighters.

[Haley]

Hiroku would win you hands down. D:

A katana takes more muscle, skill, and energy to preform with, i believe. Fencing, anyone could train up for it.. fighting properly with a katana would easly beat a fencer. :]

[OMG MY FACE]

[Kitty]

Neither is better, its the skills that are better of the wielder. Though my personal favorite is a katana.

[Transcendence]

Personally I think the katana would win more than the other because it is a more...sophisticated weapon. I think however, it matters more on how deadly the wielder is not the weapon its self.

[Embla]

I have no real tactical or informational info to contribute, but I learned alot from hearing you two talk XD Very interesting info!
I personally am a fan of the rapier~<3

[Vidd187]

Scythe would beat both of them but of the choises given Katana. For the reason that most people that fence aren't taught from the time they start walking to use the rapier.

[Odd]

You have to consider that fencers don't traditionally wear much armor. Many duels were fought without any armor at all, and if armor was used it wasn't much more than a single breastplate. Samurai on the other hand had extensive suits of armor that covered the whole body and even part of the face. Rapiers were at the height of popularity in the same time that armor was on it's way out, and weren't designed to be used against a fully armored opponent. It is for this reason that I suspect the Samurai would win.

[Lux-Vertas]

Their Both Different Styles:

Fencing is based off jabs and Speed, The Japanese Sword arts are based on Slashing and power

So it's not a fair contest, to make it fair we have to choose a different Art for both person's to fight under:

So: Katana Vs Highland Sword or the Zweihänder, both use slashing tequniques

I can't think of an Eastern equivelent to fencing so...

My money is always with the guy with the big heavy sword, the Katana is the sharpest and most powerful sword of all time, strong and sharp, the blade of warriors