@@vampirecount3880 : In a german museum, either the Zwinger arms collection, or The Green Chamber museum, both in Dresden, i saw a ,Samurai' sword from 17th century.If the blade was japanese, perhaps traded from portugiese or dutch merchant, but the handle was german made, by the saxon court jeweller. He did not knew the material, so he ( the jeweller) used glasslike ,Emaille'.
"And then your stuck with something with no point at all..." Not only a description of what could happen to a katana that hit armor, but the description of most comment threads involving katana vs. longsword.
During the renaissance the ancient Greek art of growing a neckbeard was rediscovered, and Columbus brought the first Mtn Dew to Europe. These technologies allowed the weeaboo to flourish for the first time.
Not really, Romans did the same thing when they started detesting their own culture. The 16th century weebos were just that, elite idiots who didn't appreciate what they had so they had to get fascinated with what was where the grass was supposed to be greener.
One comment about the differential hardening: Most swords in europe up till the industrial revolution were typically shallow hardening steels. Most of these you would never actually fully harden regardless of your quenching medium resulting in a differential heat treat and thusly a hamon. However it is rather more obvious in Katanas because the polishing in japanese swords is a very technical thing which was appraised since the 11th century and thusly has been worked on continuesly. So european swords would also reveal a hamon often times if polished in the way of the japanese tradition simply based on the materials used, meaning shallow hardening steel. The hamon would not be as purposeful typically but it would definitely be there. A great source regarding this topic if people are interested is Ilya from the channel "that works" who has a video about common misconceptions regarding medieval types of steel.
Thank you. No one seems to bring this up and people treat katana and longswords as polar opposite things when really they were far closer than many other swords. I also have the modern notion of the “unbendable longsword that will always return true”. In reality they’d take a set after a dramatic bend just like a katana
I could imagine if they got one, they might have used it as a dress sword, simply because it’s pretty and exotic and obviously well made and expensive (and thus both a status symbol and a conversation starter).
It's always fun to imagine, during a zombie apocalypse or something, a chap breaking into matt's house and finding all those weapons: " awright, let's see... wooooooo! woooooHOHOHOHOHOHOHO"
I dunno, seems kinda risky. Of all the people who are going to be surviving in a zombie apocalypse, a competent swordsman with a house full of weapons would be high on the list and they might object quite vigorously to burglars.
i guess knights are rich ppl so they do what they want, as long as they can make sure they dont die haha. maybe chinese straight sword got more similarity in design with european sword that wont affect what he is used to as much as a japanese sword design?
I looked that up (Google is your friend), and the sword wasn’t (so far as we know) buried with him; it’s shown on the sculpture of the guy from his tomb. But yes, the hilt looks a lot like a jian (and not much like any European or Middle Eastern sword of the period). Which isn’t proof - the sculptor, or a European armourer, may just have had a weird day - but looks interesting. It’s not off-the-scale weird, though; Europe and China were in indirect contact via Silk Road traders and Mongol conquerors. If a Chinese sword got traded from East to West as a cool curiosity, well, people liked cool military gear then as much as they do now. A Japanese sword, on the other hand, would be quite freaky; Japan’s contact with the outside world was very limited until the 16th century.
@@jean-sebastienmatte2358 Don't get me wrong, I totally agree the statistics there. The issue is that the the groups are still not the same, and far mpre importantly Matt wasn't just talking about the nut cases. If anything, Matt being polite and respectful of the people he is mentioning suggests he is talking about the non nut case portion of the people who are enthusiastic about japanese swords (which also makes then less likely to be a weeab in the intended insuly sense of the word, and likely even in the proper sense as well). It is too mischaracterized even as insult.
@@MindForgedManacle I have a reputation as the joy of the party, and I intend to keep it! Why else do you think people keeps asking me if I am fun at parties?
It's like using an AK in a NATO country back in the early years of the cold war. You can but all that trouble acquiring that sword would make you less inclined to use it really.
Actually, I think soldiers in Vietnam would probably disagree? Would be nice if someone corrected me if I am wrong, but early in that war capturing some AKs was a pretty sweet occasion for the soldiers on the "good side".
@Jacek N It was due to bean counter in the US military. AR15/M16 is probably one of the most "durable" modern combat rifle. "Durable" because you cannot simply assign a word to any weapon system, but for the purpose of ak47 vs m16 at that time in that context, ak is better for a while. The issue m16 faced was "bad powder". Before US adopt 556nato as their standard battle rifle caliber, they use 762nato. After US switch to 556, m16 platform specifically required a newer powder that has a different burning characteristic compare to powder in 762nato. The engineering and manufacture team make sure to use all the stars, underline, bold and italicized character so the US army know that old powder doesn't works, new powder works, use old power bad shit happen. But bean counter say, eh, we still have a huge stock pile of old powder. Who cares if the john doe from chicago die in vietnam, balancing the balance sheet is more important. So, disaster happened. Due to the fucked up burning characteristic, in many instance, m16 would malfunction with only a couple round, and start to works itself apart after maybe less than a thousand rounds. Eventually lames were being thrown around, but no one that was actually responsible were locked up. Only good thing comes out of it was the army actually acknowledge the problem and use the correct powder. During almost the entirety of vietnam war, troops tend to not trust m16 even if the correct stuff were sent to them. It wasn't until the next war, new soldiers with new training and correct equipment sworn their life on m16.
Um. A bit if that. However, they were not issued with cleaning kits. The chamber and barrel weren't chromed or otherwise treated to be durable in a wet jungle environment. They quickly became dirty, rusted, clogged by mud and non-functioning. Rather quickly, in the same war, these problems were rectified by 1969 with the M16-A1, which had a forward assist, Chrome barrel, improved feeding 30 round magazine, and more adjustable gas block. You have been sold a popular myth. It's been repeated ad nauseam for over two generations. It's based in a kernel of truth, but it's 99% Bullshit. Yes, dirty burning ball powder was something of a problem. It's a problem that disappears with a reasonable cleaning schedule. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the powder used, ask any handloader. Like everything else powder characteristics are all a set of trade-offs.
On the battlefield is a tough one, but I'm sure someone could justify going to battle with it as their side weapon. In noble life? Abso-fucking-lutely. If a knight had a katana, it would be such an oddity and the other nobles would totally be jealous of his strange but familiar weapon. If a knight ended up having one, it would be a status symbol for sure. There's no doubt in my mind that he would wear it around when doing non-combat stuff at the very least.
Keep in mind, in the middle age there were no animes, movies or history channel dokus, making the katana a mythical super weapon and the european longsword a dull heavy metal club.
Few things to address in the video; By the 15th century, Japan was massively exporting swords in China and other parts of Asia, even more during the 16th century, when few swords arrived in Europe as well. The blade shape of Japanese swords could roughly recall to a Swiss sabre or a Kriegmessers, so it won't have been an extremely exotic weapon. Also while we are use to classic style of katana, it should be said that some points had a more slender tip which would have increase its use in armored fightings - things like osoraku zukuri, okissaki and nagamaki/naginata naoshi blades. To me this point is of little relevance, as both Knights and Samurai had weapons optimized to deal with armor: spears, bows, guns, daggers and the like. Moreover, European blades were definitely not as spring as their modern replica counterpart. Most of the swords even in Europe, up until the 17th century, were made with iron or low carbon steel core - for reference, see the analysis of A. Williams. Even some types of rapiers show these structure, and we could read how storta swords were made in Brescia, Italy, in the 17th century thansk to the Catastico Bresciano, in which a iron core is used. You can't have much springness in the sword if the core is of low carbon steel as the material won't react to hardening and quenching. I have elaborated more here: www.quora.com/Would-the-Japanese-forging-techniques-have-worked-in-Medieval-Europe-if-it-was-introduced-to-the-blacksmiths-there-If-so-how-would-European-swords-have-looked-like/answer/Luca-Nic-1?ch=10&share=dd5a5e27&srid=3z2sJ Most European swords would have had very similar properties to Japanese ones, with a softer edge. Speaking of edge hardness, yes it is indeed a over generalization as a softer edge would be simply more easy to bend and roll comapred to a harder one, which will chip under heavier stress. However, a rolled edge is still a critical and potential point of failure, and such thing would happen more frequently with softer edge. Still, without considering edge geometry, material and the like. Ultimately, I am afraid to say that concerning the Mongol invasions, there are no sources to back up such claim of Japanese swords consistenlty breaking or chipping. There are no historical sources that say so, and while one could argue that the lamellar suits available to Jin and Song dynasty were more comphrensive, Japanese armors of the period were not entirely different from that. Most importantly, we do see Korean and Chinese troops wearing mostly coats and very few lamellar suits during the invasion of Japan, so if anything, such armor was not present there. It is a very weird statement to claim, that the very same Japanese swords which are referred to "double helmet splitter" in the chronicles of 100 years before failed against padded and lighter form of armor. I also think you are not entirely correct on the point snapping. A Japanese tip like the one you are showing is just more resilient due to profile and thickness.
As a reference, an enquiry was received at the Royal Armouries from a member of the public living on the site of the battle of Edgehill that took place during the Civil War in 1642. It involved the discovery of the very corroded remnants of a sword blade in the garden of the enquirer. The remains, about 18” long, retained a well preserved copper habaki indicating that it was in fact a Japanese blade, almost certainly from a wakizashi. There is no positive evidence that the blade dated from the time of the battle, other than the amount of corrosion. If it was a genuine relic of that battle, someone who fought there was carrying a Japanese wakizashi ( Ian Bottomley, Diplomatic gifts of arms and armour between Japan and Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries)
European swords were not iron or low carbon steel. They had three methods of steel before the 17th century: Bloomery, Crucible and the Blast Furnace. We all know Europe had the bloomery furnace. The Crucible method was obtained via Oriental Trade and the Blast Furnace (which made cast iron) was used in A.D. 1100
And why have a softer core if the blade is thin enough to flex? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that most European swords were hard throughout? Because if the only reason to have a soft core is if you have a thick blade (katana)
@@voltekthecyborg7898 Well, European steelmaking was not very different from the ones used in Japan, incidently. I wouldn't say that they had or used crucible steel methods, it was more likely that they imported the so called wootz material to make some blade since I haven't seen any good or conclusive evidence to support the opposite - more so it's quite convincing that the swords made with such material, the ulfberth, beside being rare and prized for their quality, stopped to be made precisely when the trading route in the eastern regions ceased to exist and never to be remade in Europe again. These factors support import of material rather than native production. The same goes for the blast furnace; it didn't spread all over Europe nor became a mainstream method of production until the late 15th and 16th century (For reference, read anything made by A.Williams which underline precisely this point in many of his works). Bloomery steel was used all the way along with decarburized cast iron to make sword and armor in the medieval and renassaince period. Still, method of production of iron and steel have little to do with how swords were made in terms of lamination etc.
@@voltekthecyborg7898 European swords: I'll give you a sample presented by A.Williams in his book the Sword and the Crucible: i.postimg.cc/9Mmyx2MK/20210721-104026.jpg To give you a legend, Type I are monosteel homogenous blade, Type II are folded heterogenous steel mixed togheter, Type III laminated with different steel (low carbon core/ high carbon edge), Type IV and Type V have iron core. As you can see, the majority of the blade had some form of laminated construction with iron or low carbon steel construction. Why? Because it was extremely cheaper having such blades, and the majority of blade made were of average quality. And being thin doesn't mean it will take a set automatically if you hit something just because it has a iron core - but even if it happen, you could straighten it back.
You talked a lot about the similarities between the European longsword and the tachi, but it seems to me that the Swiss saber is even closer, with a very similar blade profile. I’d love to hear you compare those two. Given what you said about the longsword being more suitable than the tachi for the European context, what advantages would the Swiss saber bring for a European soldier?
The problem with the idea of an "European" soldier is that such context doesn't really exist. Japan is actually quite a significant area in total, but its inhabitable area is far more limited (33% ish) and it was relatively self-isolated as a region. Generalizations there still miss a bunch of regional differences, but they hold on better and offer far more general insight than an European generalization. For example, There are connections and similarities, specially aesthetically, but the context of what the Brit were dealing with in and out of their islands and the swiss in their land locked territory are distinct, which means what is suitable and by how much varies noticeably.
So, to summarise: Could they? Yes, because it looks enough like a sword that they could probably be able to figure out how to use it. Would they? Not if they had a choice, because there are enough differences to make it not interchangeable, and so have to be used differently, from the swords they were more used to. Which would be a huge disincentive in life-and-death situations such as warfare, where you'd want to use something that you're most familiar with (which is not to say necessarily the most effective) as much as possible.
the design of the sword is closely related to the style of use if the western knight was given a Japanese sword, he also had to change his fencing style, so that he could take full advantage of the sword that cuts if he himself did not know, surely the blacksmith knew what a sword it was and what its best purpose was
I think any knight who would consider wearing a messer or falchion, especially in civilian wear (and, it has to be said, sometimes in war too (I don't get it either)) would at least give it a passing glance. It's a well made blade, and it's not completely alien to what he was used to. I think the biggest reservation would be that dinky guard, and, of course, the moment he saw it bend, he might throw it away because he'd probably just expect a spring temper. But yeah, the longsword (or arming sword) is just a better weapon for the context of a medieval knight. Go figure ;P
I think what is overlooked is that swords need maintance, so how does the knight get an smith who has the knowledge to maintain the sword. If you have an rare expensive sword you can not repair or replace, using it could be an other question.
@@pouncepounce7417 it's a sword, not a rocket engine. any blacksmith who knew how to handle a high quality sword could take care of a Japanese sword too. maybe not reproduce one from scratch, but repair
@@DevinDTV To an low degree, japanese iron was not very high quality, they had to use tempering and so on to an much higher degree to produce quality. So I think the smith would have to be familliar to an degree with how such an sword was made. I do smithing as hobby and furniture repair as paying work, in booth the major thing is the research to repair something is often more involved than the actual repair, that you would botch easy without the research though. Booth, swords and rockets, you do not want to mess with them without knowing how they are build...
@@pouncepounce7417 If you wanted to do something like replacing the tang or fixing damage to the blade, you’d probably need someone familiar with it. But if you’re just going to keep it polished and sharp, or even stick a messer hilt on it, that wouldn’t be difficult. Realistically it would probably just be used for display and worn on formal occasions. A knight/noble might commission a copy if he liked how it handled and cut, and that would obviously be difficult to replicate.
@@bluemarlin8138 yes and no, europeans had better steel aviable, so copying it not that hard, repairing the original, that is where i see more trouble. Everything on the japanese swords is done with the purpose of making an good sword from not so good material. If you have better steel no need for different tempering and so on. You can make it probably less wide too. everything made for utility in mind was always as today done to serve an purpose, nothing more, japanese swordmakers did make the in an fancy way due to need, that was my point (and an european smith would have to travel to japan to learn that, back then, to be able to repair them.)
One with black plague? *I think I just read that wrong Is random, but I heard Mongols used bodies that were infected, and launch them over walls if they were risiliant. But I might be wrong
I’d love to see a test of how the cutting and thrusting performance of the katana compares to a type XIIa or type XVIIIa longsword. The type XVa longsword is essentially a thrust oriented sword, not really a cut and thrust design (Ie: Its super pointy to penetrates mail better, and gives up the blade mass to cut well anywhere near the tip). So let’s see a comparison of Japanese vs European cut and thrust hand-and-a-half swords. I hear a lot of sword people say that the pointier European sword will thrust better. But I note that it also flexes on the thrust - so maybe the thrusting performance is similar ? I also hear a lot of sword people say the katana cuts better at the tip. For a type XVa - I agree. But a type XIIa or XVIIIa ? It has less mass near the tip than the Katana, but also have a wider thinner cross section at the tip, and 4-5 extra inches of lever-arm to generate tip speed. Come-on Matt - do a test for us !
Archaeologists have found a Han Dynasty era jian scabbard at Chatalka, in what is now modern Bulgaria in Eastern Europe. It dates to the 2nd century AD during the time of the Roman Empire. www.academia.edu/9234763/A_Han-dated_hydra_-type_nephrite_scabbard_slide_found_in_Chatalka_Bulgaria_the_earliest_and_most_distant_example_of_Chinese_nephrite_distribution_in_Europe
Early Japanese swords were strait. As the horse warrior, referred to as "Kyuba no Mishi" that is, The way of the Bow and the Horse, still practiced in Yabusami, mounted archery. Later blades became curved for mounted slashing. To equate the tactics of east and west is difficult and the periods differ. Best seen in Master Yamaoka Tesshu's, No Sword School, the last of the era.
Katanas were made curved because of the quenching process. The curve has little to do with mounted slashing. The Straight katanas (chokutou) were ancient Japanese, same as the tsurugi. And katana curvature has nothing to do with increased cutting over European swords. If there is a difference, it's so minute to even count it. If you want better cutting, then the sword has to have a more dramatic curve on it (like the talwar and shamshir)
@@voltekthecyborg7898 the earlier Japanese chokuto were also differentially hardened so that means the Japanese new how to control the curvature and the curve of early tachi was intended for horseback. And yeah the curve on Japanese swords is not where it’s cutting power comes from, it’s the heft
@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 Curves only help with cutting if it deeply curved (many sabers, scimitars and sickle swords. Or be the Khopesh and have both)
@@voltekthecyborg7898 yeah exactly. I wouldn’t say most sabers because while decently curved sabers exist, most of them seem to have the same curvature as a katana (that is if they have a curve at all). Really curved swords would be things like kilij, shamshir, and tulwars of both the midd east and India respectively. The curve on a tachi would be located toward the base of the blade where it met the hilt and was notably conducive to drawing from horseback and making slashes at opponents below. The katanas curve was more in the center of the blade and was not as good at this task.
Man, you do a great job on these videos. I've got a MA in History, so I appreciate the lengths you go to reference sources and be transparent about your videos. I'm no expert on your subject, but you're a damn good scholar IMHO. I trust you as a source of information and look forward to your next video. Cheers!
just wanna say your japanese is getting better. i appreciate the efforts you take to learn the way the local culture/people would have pronounced certain things. cheers matt
Historie is someway compresed to the wars for us, in between the wars thw Mongols did a lot of trading though too. The Northmen where traders and went on a Viking from time to time, but it is what they became famous for. But wars are pretty impressive so they get more space in the written historie of there times than Joe the trader.
I make no excuses for the man. Nor will I crusade against him for it. He can do ads for whatever he wants, including this. Still gonna poke fun at him whenever he shills that atrocious game.
Question: Was the "Folded 1000 times" thing misinterpreted from being folded into 1000 layers? That just takes 10 folds. And was also done elsewhere, but that's beside the point.
Yes to the first question and the process of folding impure high carbon steel to make a serviceable sword was done in parts of Europe where access to better quality steel was limited.
@@voltekthecyborg7898 Folding a sword a 1000 times will not only reduce the steel to iron, it will also reduce the iron back to ironoxid. After 1000 folds you maybe have enough iron left to make a nail out of it
The biomechanics of a human wielding a sharpened steel bar would be about the same (allowing for any variation in stature) assuming the bars are about the same, regardless of the bar's country of origin. It turns out swords are a lot like people: the similarities are more important than the differences. But... Would a Samurai use a European longsword? ;-)
"can be used relatively comfortably in one hand" says the epic man who can wield a greatsword in one hand and do longsword moves with a sledgehammer...
Every healthy and not too frail adult can do longsword moves with a sledgehammer. Not necessarily well or for long, that is where training/conditioning comes in, but you just need to pick it up and try.
@@louisvictor3473 Not quickly either, and probably not with much accuracy. Training/conditioning will improve the accuracy, probably can't do much about the recovery speed or maneuverability.
@@samueldimmock694 that goes into the "well" part :) And agreed, it wouldrequire going into super hero territory for the mass and balance difference not to impact celerity.
Regarding the anti-armor context especially, the longsword would also seem to have the additional advantage over the katana in that the longsword's cross-guard can be used for percussive, and potentially penetrative, strikes when the weapon is gripped upside down (especially as per your earlier "weirdest weapons of the middle ages" video), whereas the tsuba wouldn't seem to be as great at that.
I've re-watched this recently and I thought that there is a slightly different way in which a medieval knight might use a Japanese sword, perhaps even more likely than there is another way the answer to such a question is also an "yes, but caveat". Perhaps not a historical Japanese sword bought from japan made for japan, but a commissioned Japanese-design sword made using european metallurgy rather than japanese, with minor tweaks such as a bit more aggressive tapers and finer tips. For example, a tachi inspired on the famous Kogarasu Maru blade (doubled sided, obviously longer, point reminds me of viking/migration era sword).Or something based on anything by Masamune (all genuine surviving samples I've seen have rather pointy tips already). In short, I think they'd have been happy with the general design, but made from European steel.
When a question like this comes up, i can't help but recall that scene from Highlander 1, when Connor is presented with the "Toledo Salamanca Broadsword" and when asked what it is, he replies with......."A sword....." :D
I imagine it depends on the opponent and situation. If we’re talking katana vs gambeson or brigantine I could see the knight using a katana very effectively with minimal effort. Times and cultures change but humans remain relatively the same so I could see a knight trying it out for the novelty factor and using it if he liked the cutting capacity while keeping his dagger 🗡 and a mace or pole arm for armored opponents. I could see the knight adding a cross guard over the disc guard (or replacing it) though for added hand protection. As you mentioned it depends what the knight would be most likely to encounter and armed himself accordingly.
Pre-Samurai Japan is always interesting. It's fairly obscure compared to the more wideliy known latter part of their history. I don't know what kind of applicable information is available on the topic, so there may not be enough for you to do a video on, seeing as how you tend to focus more on the weapons instead of general history. If there "was" something for you to talk about there, I'm quite sure that I'm far from the only person who'd love to watch that video! ^_^
Captain Context! Wrestling is an important strategy for both, but perhaps more for the Japanese. Half swording was less common. A fragile sword point was of prime consideration, thus a shorter sword or dagger was used more often to give the “coup de grace” after an opponent was forced into submission via grappling. Textual evidence of this is cited in many epics like the “Tail of the Heike” from the late 12th century. The designs of the Japanese and European long swords reflect the different types of strengths & weaknesses of their respective armors. European knightly armor had better overall protection against sword cuts, but less so to thrusts. Japanese armor had different areas of vulnerability that a cut or slashing attack could exploit. Examples such as chords and fasteners to the helmet, shoulder and torso were targeted to compromise those areas. Other soft points that had less protection include the arm pits, face and throat, the inside of the legs and arms. Again the sword was useful to injure, maim or disable an opponent before grappling him. On a side consideration, a European Knight could expect to be ransomed with little loss of face if he was defeated. I do not know if this has any bearing on the primary topic. Also as Matt likes to point out, the sword in both Europe and Japan was primarily a sidearm, a back up weapon. The bow, spear or other pole arm was often the primary weapon of a war.
What we call a "katana" is the daito (long(er) sword, compared to the shoto), and the wakizashi is the shoto (short sword). The word'wakizashi" itself means companion sword (if I remember correctly). When you wear the daito and the shoto together it's called a daisho (which literally means long-short, or something like that). About using the daito with one hand: yes you can hold the daito with one hand, and yes, you can even swing it with one hand, but you cannot fight effectively with the daito one-handed in my opinion (that's what the shoto is for, and it can still be used two-handed for even more power). Swinging your sword one-handed at someone whilst riding by on a horse doesn't equate to using a sword one-handed in a melee (when you make a strike from on a horse, you don't really even swing the weapon, you just kind of let the weapon run into your target using your horse to power the blow, if I'm not mistaken).
A minor nitpick: Tachi, not katana, were used by the Japanese, to fight (and win against) the Mongol invasion. My opinion: Katana, being curved, is superior at cutting and superior from horseback. It also has better edge alignment. The small crossguard is a moot point if one is wearing gauntlets, which medieval knights did. European swords very slowly did develop a shape closer to the katana, ie, curved blade, but it took them a lot longer to get there.
I think the reason knights used messers and falchions, and they might consider the katana, is the fact that most warfare wasn't field battles. Many experts know this (I'm sure you do as well), and will point to sieges. However, even more common than sieges was chevelche (small war) where you ride into a village, kill some peasants and steal some supplies then ride away before your enemies actual army could show up. This is the sort of action where a falchion and even a katana would shine, when you could easily expect to face no armor.
Not medieval, but later definitely. In the 1670-s Transylvania a lad named Thomas Kapust used an original Katana blade and even decorated it in his own style. www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/17230-japanese-sword-with-european-mounting/
"Sword against armor" comes up an awful lot, as if the sword were the only weapon available. Surely, when facing heavy armor, a warhammer would surpass any type of sword, and still afford someone the use of a shield. It just seems like swords, of all kinds, are a bit too focused-on. Not having a wooden haft, they do tend to survive the ages better, so we have better physical examples of them. And, since swords were largely a rich-man's game, all of the combat-related literature of the day (also a rich-man's game) would have featured them more heavily than 'lower status weapons'. Like, if a person owns high-end sports cars, they are more likely to want to study up on high-end sports cars...as opposed to tractors or delivery trucks.
That's actually a very good question: Would a Knight of the 13th Century use a period correct Katana? My thoughts on this would that they probably would if they had come into possession of one, especially if they had taken notice of all that it was capable of doing
@@majesticgothitelle1802 every sword has it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages A katana could be used in certain situations where a warbrand could be seen as cumbersome
I kinda doubt knight would have seen much benefits in using one over swords he already was used to. Less hand protection, less reach than european two handed swords actually less than many single handed ones, and worse at fighting armoured individuals (half swording, murder strokes ect.). Maybe been exotic blade could have made it sort of prestige item, but even then it would more likely been as decoration like during time europeans bought katanas in later centuries.
@@karlsmith2570 knight would use a katana there already swords in the western world similar to it. But I would say the knight would uses a different styled compare to the Japanese when fighting with a katana.
I couldn't quite understand what you mean by the hard edge being more brittle until later you explained the tip example. I thought it was like having a block of soil that crumbles if you grip it too hard in your hands. Here's what I think a medieval knight would do with a katana: "That baby is not seeing going to see action! Paid good money for it and it's going in my sword collection for showing-off only to my noble friends." For other topics to discuss, how about comparing different specialized polearms between Europe and Asia? That could be interesting to think about what each side would think about the weapons being used in war.
I have zero experience on armored warfare, so NO comment in it Fencing with katana is not different from fencing with long sword. The main difference is the length, which make katana somewhat more applicable for 1 handed use. One seldomly blocks with cross or attacks with attack with back edge, so these are minor things. From the group: side sword side sword+dagger side sword+buckler sabre rapier rapier+dagger long sword katana. Long sword and katana are the most similar weapons by large in context of shirt fencing.
The only time a medieval knight would use a katana would be if he somehow got magically teleported to Sengoku period Japan, met a daimyo, and served as his retainer to fight.
I suppose the japanese sword could be quite useful to a mounted knight when facing unarmored foes, in much the same way that a 19th century cavalry sabre would have been.
Main thing people love to.forget about katana or sword in general.atleast with samurai that is. The sword was always secondary in terms of warfare. Basicly your main weapon broke, lost or ran out of ammo or in a small space. Atleast untill the edo period when duels where a big thing.
@@louisvictor3473 agreed you wouldn't count duels. More just people who get into Japanese war history love to over embellish katana as a main weapon due to the dueling in edo is what I meant.
Before watching the video, my answer. Sure, knights used lots of different weapons. I'm sure they could find a use for the katana/tachi. I'd guess they'd try to use it similarly to a falchion/messer.
There is one thing that you didn't touch on that I think should have merited a bullet point in there - they are very similar weapons, but at the same time they ARE different. A knight spent years training with his own favored weapon - no one that spends a long time training with something is going to try something different when his life is at stake, except out of desperation. So yeah, one more point to the "might look awesome, might feel awesome, might be awesome, but I am going to stick with the thing I know works"
Why do we assume that an armored knight would most likely fight other armored knights? Knights are shock cavalry, who would be best used against the flanks of infantry formations that aren't bristling with spears. Knight vs Knight encounters would likely be the cavalry of one side intercepting the cavalry of the other, in which case they would be attempting to un-horse each other with lances, then rely on footmen to capture the knight. Those footmen could be men-at-arms in full plate, but in many cases may just be levy troops or more lightly armored soldiers. If the sword is a secondary or back-up weapon for armored cavalry who may have been un-horsed, then the falchion is an excellent choice.
Thinking about the man at arms with a Langmesser... I feel like if I were to provide my own equipment in a medieval war, I'd want myself as well protected as possible, so I'd be much more willing to stretch myself financially for the best armor I can buy and just use whatever sword I already owned for protecting myself against bandits. Then maybe later I could upgrade later. Especially when that weapon is my secondary weapon anyway. I'm already hoping I never have to draw that sword. I'll use my primary polearm as much as possible thanks.
I thought of something you could've mentioned, although someone else may have mentioned it, but it is the differences in resources. From some historical accounts I have heard, steel in Japan was far less available than in other parts of the world. This came to mind when you were holding both swords in your hand and I thought about how the European sword you held appeared overall bigger compared to the Japanese sword. It may not seem like that big of a deal if a sword required some more steel, but the cost of it could be incredible for Japanese society at that time. So, what I think could be worth thinking about is how Europeans could develop different swords for different purposes where as the Japanese changed their fighting techniques to adapt to armor. For example, I trained a little bit in kenjutsu and their was lots of emphasis towards avoiding the enemy instead of blocking the enemy like seen in fencing, reducing the amount of steel on steel contact. The medieval knight would need some basic information about what the Japanese swords were made for. As far as I know anyways, Japanese swords aren't designed to be armor beaters, but I could be entirely wrong. I thought I was going somewhere good with this but I forgot now the point I was wanting to make.
The proper answer is of course: They would have loved the katana, because it cuts through plate armour like paper... :P (no, I am not being serious...)
To be fair, everything cuts through any armour like paper. I dont even know why, im popular culture works, people even bother to use armor at all since it protects as much as a baby's skin.
There is an interesting connection here in the metropolitan museum of art cloisters wing in New York city. There is a tomb of a knight where on the knights coffin the depiction of his sword is certainly not of European origin. Its speculated that it may be a Chinese or Mongolian sword.
Great video. You may have mentioned it, but another thing to consider is... The people are professional warriors. You don't just switch up a weapon you've trained with all your life with something you haven't. Not when your life is on the line.
General answer (that is, except for some eventuality) is not. Medieval knights were exposed to middle eastern curved-single edged sword for centuries and never favored it over the straight, double edged sword. And that means another thing: curved, single edged swords must have been also quite effective against chainmail, as the moors didn't switched either.
Matt, IF i was a rich young martial knight who was enamored of a Samurai sword that I had somehow come into the possession of-I believe that I might have commissioned a smith to retrofit a cross guard-just simply using a tsuba a couple of inches larger in diameter would have answered the purpose.
What about the inverse? A samurai with a "knightly" sword (or other European sword)? (Also, thoroughly enjoyed the video. I had forgotten about the stories of Mongol armor and snapping tachi tips.)
Not that I would know, but I can imagine that in the Japanese style of swordfighting the lack of a large crossguard wouldn't have been an issue as it circumvents the necessity (by pushing incoming blows away instead of allowing it to slide down to your guard and using hanging guard stances maybe). Instead it would have been unnecessary extra weight, slowing you down and tiring you faster when you move your hands around, and possibly even something that gets in the way/pokes in your forearms when using certain stances and cuts (and when wearing it in your scabbard when you're fighting with a polearm/shooting with a bow/going to the market). For such reasons they could have considered it a nuisance rather than an improvement. I imagine that if the Japanese found a larger crossguard useful, they would have made the "crossguard" the katana already has bigger, and that the sword was as much developed for their type of swordmanship as the swordmanship was developed for their swords, i.e.: the two evolved together.
@@smaug131 Would the crossguarf have been extra weight? Not really, medium longswords weighted pretty much like medium katanas, the pommel makes more difference than the crooshguard, but mostly on the balance rather than weight i think.
You end up with the same main problem - you have a weapon that is similar to your own, but functions differently enough to hinder all the years you put into your training. You would be able to make it function, yes, but you would definitely not use it as your first choice simply because it is not what you are used to fighting with.
Many arming and long swords that I've studied show soft cores with hardened edges that bend and set as well. From the studies I read and done until the late 1400 early 1500 blades had little spring back and would set more often than spring back, with the exception of swords made for kings/nobles that were made to be of highest quality and not common military weapons.
Without having watched more than the intro, I'm gonna guess probably not. 14th-15th century longswords were quite specific in that they tapered a lot into a very sharp and thin and pointy tip so they could thrust it into small gaps in the plate. The Japanese swords are more about cutting than thrusting and you can't really cut through plate. Someone like a Man-at-arms who'd be less likely to face off heavily armoured opponents on the frontline and instead fight people in gambesons might have used it. I'd say, if the person would have used a Messer they probably would have used a japanese style sword, too.
Hypothetically a Knight was a trained killer, give him a sword and he will use it. A Langmesser is in concept a Katana, a Knife is a Tanto ...instruments people used to train with swords and lances, and armour...a warrior.would have little problem . simple opinion. ...Would a Roman Legionnaire use a Katana? hell yes. Get armed, accomplish the job, done.
What would a Roman even do with a Katana ? I mean sure in some scenario where he's unarmed in need of blade and nothing else is available. But for everyday carry ? He and his friends fight in shield walls with short swords and spears.
How could a roman legionaire even get a katana? The times don't match. Besides, roman legionaires were standard equipped, they didn't get themselves their gear. And a katana wouldn't have worked for the tactics of the early empire roman legion.
Not just differetially hardened, but also made with two different steels of different carbon levels. The steel of the core and spine is closer to mild steel then the harder steel of the edge.
i feel like a japanese sword that made it to england would be hung up on a mantle to show wealth, since they were immensely expensive in japan, and then the markup for getting it across the continents would make it to pricey to pull out of the sheath. they might show it to a blacksmith, who could try and make a bastardization of the katana and the falchion. might look neat
Dear Matt, as a response to your comment that most kenjutsu dates back to 16th century and onwards, I would like to draw your attention to Katori Shinto Ryu, one of the remaining koryu (old style martial arts). You have referenced this art yourself in earlier video's, for example regarding half swording in kenjutsu. Although we don't know precisely to what extent the current form resembles what the founder envisioned, at the least it is an unbroken line of martial techniques dating back to the middle or late 15th century. As this was a time of constant war in Japan, we see the techniques in the art are to a large degree designed to be usefull in armour, and to counter armour and weapons of the day. This video gives some insight into just that: ua-cam.com/video/CEeW-CFyJVc/v-deo.html You might very well be familiar with said video, but if not, I hope it'll be of use to you. Keep up the great video's, I'll always be back for more context!
Read a book by Neal Stephenson (Historical fiction) where he touched on this though it was set late 1600's. The attitude his characters took were "hmm nice sword, I will stick with mine but that is cool" the book was The Baroque Cycle which is a massive book and worth a read though it is more about the dawn of the enlightenment rather than swords and weapons.
Matt, are you familiar with William Adams? 16th century Englishman who served as a samurai under Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu. Not a knight, but was given the right to carry the weapons of a samurai. Then again he never made it back to England from Japan.
I don't really understand the context of this question since it kind of takes two broad concepts without defining specifically what the limits are and ultimately turns it into an opinion piece. What do you define as a medieval knight? Specifically time, and place or culture. Franks? Norse? Germans? French? Italians? Slavs? Are we going to go into Hussars, do they count? What do you define as "use" ? In the context of what? A duel? A personal side-arm choice? A change or shift of military supply for an entire army? In the heat of a battle on a dark knight when both opponents are groping in the dark to swing with whatever they pick up? What are we defining as how this foreign blade reached this theoretical situation? Are we trying to base this in historical facts? Or are we putting a person in a sandbox and stuffing this blade in their hand telling them to have at it? When you say 'Samurai Sword' are you talking about the Waring States Period? The Mongol Invasion? The Edo Period? I would assume the Meiji Reconstruction would be too modern so it'd have to be before that. Either way, the current concept of the Katana didn't fully develop until after the Mongol Invasion. Prior to that, there wasn't any unified concept towards a Katana and not all the swordsmith schools made such blades regularly. There were all kinds of blades used by Japan's warriors, and not all of them were constructed in the same way. Taking a step back about cultural weapon exchange in general. Consider this. If it was army vs army, and after getting exposed to a foreign weapon, surviving, and coming back with trophies - would you use a trophy weapon to replace your own? Did you lose your weapon of choice? Would you risk damaging or destroying your loot/treasure/trophy of glory in a follow up battle? That's a personal decision at the end of the day. Assuming that your primary weapon isn't a sword, and it most likely isn't, the next question after using it would be "how long can I keep using this?". And that depends on how well you or your smiths can maintain the weapon or repair it if it gets chipped or snapped. If the point of this question to ask whether or not being exposed to a foreign weapon would change the culture who faced it - then that depends if we're asking about historical examples. The Romans for instance adapted and changed then made their own many weapon and strategies they faced off against. Even the gladius and the shield they are commonly associated with came from other cultures they faced. That said, their neighbors weren't always so successful in adapting things successfully like the Romans did. Not every warrior called a "knight" wore full-plate. There's evidence that they used more than a longsword - and the other weapons that they used depended on the local supply, skills, and logistics that were available. If they were to work together as a unit then you'd see more uniformity in their gear. Calvary were known to use more hacking and slashing weapons as a secondary during the same period that knights in full-plate existed, including those that were on horseback equipped with pistols. If we're talking about a military force then they would have used whatever their commander told them to, trained them to use, and outfitted them with. If we're talking about a singular individual then it boils down to preference and personal decisions so the question becomes moot. If we're trying to find an exact historical example of a western warrior utilizing a blade from the rising sun... then instead of looking at Europe you can just look at the historical examples of foreigners who were accepted as 'samurai' in Japan, outfitted and equipped with the same gear that they used locally, which in the context of this question - yes, they used a katana. An example towards that idea would be Yasuke in 1579 served Oda Nobunaga. He wasn't a knight, but he was a foreigner. Later period examples of soldiers from foreign nations becoming Samurai can be seen in the 1800's around the Bosin War... an example of French Navy Officer Eugène Collache comes to mind... a gent who wore a kimono when other Samurai were transitioning to western trousers. If 'we're being stickler about a 15th century time period, then there are recorded examples of Japan's neighbors such as Koreans who served in various positions in Japan and were given rank as Samurai and allowed to wear swords. Honestly the question for the video is kind of a headache because it can really go in any direction.
John of Montecorvino was a Franciscan missionary who established the Catholic Diocese of Peking (Beijing) around 1306! It existed for a reasonable amount of time, though i believe it disappeared with the Black Death. That said, there was obviously communication back and forth between China and Europe and it would not be too far a stretch to imagine goods from Japan reaching Europe via that route as well.
Could you elaborate on one point though (pretty please)? I was taught that European swordsmiths did use "differential" techniques as well, but they more commonly used differential *tempering* rather than differential hardening (giving somewhat different properties). Is this true? Or rather: how often was differential tempering and differential hardening used for European swords? At what eras? Or were most of European swords quenched/tempered uniformly (throughout the times)? P.S.: I know I'm late :-)
Question for potential video: How do you feel that someone with an extensive background in certain other martial arts would translate to HEMA/Fencing? Obviously being in good physical condition is a positive, but for example, how do you think an orthodox western boxer who is drilled to naturally fight with their "weak" side foot and hand forward would adapt to fencing with saber or rapier where the strong side is usually forward to help with reach and other things? Or how perhaps how would an experienced olympic-style wrestler who is used to keeping their strong foot as the lead adapt to using a medieval arming sword and shield or a longsword where the opposite might be preferred? Do you think having these natural instincts would have disadvantages to one trying to learn certain weapons? If so, how much would it matter. And if not, how do you think these instincts would affect learning otherwise or what advantages could it bring?
Now, cutting-only swords were still used in Europe - many katzbalgar were and even in the 1700s many broadswords used in the British isles had very little if any point to them.
It seems pretty simple to me. Would an average knight choose a katana or a tachi as a first preference? No. He'd want a longsword designed for armoured fighting. But would he be baffled or hugely disappointed? No. He'd basically treat it like this: www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/knecht-mark-II/smKnecht-mark-II.jpg Or this: cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2080/1501/files/A489_Wallace_Collection_-_original_large.jpg?v=1524822178 (EDIT: 20:30 oh there we go) Also bear in mind that Europeans had centuries of exposure to foreign cultures using sabres from Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the steppes. So, while they wouldn't have recognised a katana specifically, they would've just thought, "oh it's another type of foreign sabre".
Here's a couple of thoughts I've had about modifying a katana. Has anyone ever seen a Katana with any kind of European style handguard? Whether that be a medieval period or Renascence and so on. Also has anyone tried to sharpen it's blunt side? Not changing the curve of the blade in any way, just adding another sharp edge.
They'd probably use it about as often as they used their arming swords, so practically never. Also probably not as effectively, if they wanted a horseback weapon to use one handed, there's better choices for that, and if they needed a backup weapon when dismounted they'd want something more pointy and with a bigger pommel for half swording and ending them rightly.
Thanks for the video Matt! One additional consideration that I'm curious about: are differentially-hardened blades easier or more difficult to maintain wrt weathering or rusting? For instance, in a long military campaign where essentials such as blade oil and smithy supplies might be sparse, is one type of blade more or less ideal?
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/Hm5VOi and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
On the topic of video suggestions, I'd love to hear more about East Asian armor, since you mentioned Mongol vs Japanese armor in this video.
8:30 - 8:40 I dont mean to complain but that was a professional cut right there
Can I get the transcript for the Raid Shadow Legends advertisement?
Is it part of the contract that you need your face to take up the whole screen during the Raid content?
Never. Raid is a microtransaction vehicle masquerading as a shitty smartphone game.
The best use a European could get out of a Japanese sword is showing off to everyone how rich he is.
In the XVII cntury yes, in the middle ages no one would know where that sword came from so it would be just a guy with a strange sword.
I believe it's what Matt said in of his previous videos on Katanas, talking about Victorian era rich people showing off their richies and connections.
@@vampirecount3880 : In a german museum, either the Zwinger arms collection, or The Green Chamber museum, both in Dresden, i saw a ,Samurai' sword from 17th century.If the blade was japanese, perhaps traded from portugiese or dutch merchant, but the handle was german made, by the saxon court jeweller. He did not knew the material, so he ( the jeweller) used glasslike ,Emaille'.
@@brittakriep2938 and that's the reason germans lost all wars.
Mistake: I don't know , if the blade was really japanese.
I would, does that count? ;)
Hey Metatron, how about a reply video with the reverse question, long sword used by samurai? Love your content mate.
how about a katana with a crossguard?
Yes.
🤔
@@grantcox4764 how about african warrior using a nodachi with a European throwable pommel?
I predict 2 answers
1. It depends
2. Context
I was a little more decisive with this one.
@@scholagladiatoria i was close i guess
"And then your stuck with something with no point at all..." Not only a description of what could happen to a katana that hit armor, but the description of most comment threads involving katana vs. longsword.
11:15 so essentially, historically speaking, Weeaboos didn't exist until the 16th century.
Correct. Weeaboos came into being to combat the problems they faced at that specific time.
During the renaissance the ancient Greek art of growing a neckbeard was rediscovered, and Columbus brought the first Mtn Dew to Europe. These technologies allowed the weeaboo to flourish for the first time.
Yes, that's when Sir Weeb came from his journey to Japan and start spreading admiration for Japanese culture
OwO
Not really, Romans did the same thing when they started detesting their own culture. The 16th century weebos were just that, elite idiots who didn't appreciate what they had so they had to get fascinated with what was where the grass was supposed to be greener.
I don't play Raid Shadow Legends but I'm grateful to them for having sponsored half the Internet.
One comment about the differential hardening: Most swords in europe up till the industrial revolution were typically shallow hardening steels. Most of these you would never actually fully harden regardless of your quenching medium resulting in a differential heat treat and thusly a hamon. However it is rather more obvious in Katanas because the polishing in japanese swords is a very technical thing which was appraised since the 11th century and thusly has been worked on continuesly. So european swords would also reveal a hamon often times if polished in the way of the japanese tradition simply based on the materials used, meaning shallow hardening steel.
The hamon would not be as purposeful typically but it would definitely be there. A great source regarding this topic if people are interested is Ilya from the channel "that works" who has a video about common misconceptions regarding medieval types of steel.
Thank you. No one seems to bring this up and people treat katana and longswords as polar opposite things when really they were far closer than many other swords. I also have the modern notion of the “unbendable longsword that will always return true”. In reality they’d take a set after a dramatic bend just like a katana
I could imagine if they got one, they might have used it as a dress sword, simply because it’s pretty and exotic and obviously well made and expensive (and thus both a status symbol and a conversation starter).
It's always fun to imagine, during a zombie apocalypse or something, a chap breaking into matt's house and finding all those weapons:
" awright, let's see... wooooooo! woooooHOHOHOHOHOHOHO"
I dunno, seems kinda risky. Of all the people who are going to be surviving in a zombie apocalypse, a competent swordsman with a house full of weapons would be high on the list and they might object quite vigorously to burglars.
@@RobanyBigjobz yeah definitely haha, it's just, hypotetically, in case the house was empty for some reason lol
you are ignoring the possibility that you also have to face zombie matt easton, armored and armed to the teeth
@@kepinpin5277 well that depends on the CONTEXT :P
@@kepinpin5277 🙄🤔😳
I've read about a 13th century French Knight named Jean d’Alluye that used a Chinese Jian sword on the battlefield and the sword was buried with him
i guess knights are rich ppl so they do what they want, as long as they can make sure they dont die haha. maybe chinese straight sword got more similarity in design with european sword that wont affect what he is used to as much as a japanese sword design?
I looked that up (Google is your friend), and the sword wasn’t (so far as we know) buried with him; it’s shown on the sculpture of the guy from his tomb. But yes, the hilt looks a lot like a jian (and not much like any European or Middle Eastern sword of the period). Which isn’t proof - the sculptor, or a European armourer, may just have had a weird day - but looks interesting.
It’s not off-the-scale weird, though; Europe and China were in indirect contact via Silk Road traders and Mongol conquerors. If a Chinese sword got traded from East to West as a cool curiosity, well, people liked cool military gear then as much as they do now. A Japanese sword, on the other hand, would be quite freaky; Japan’s contact with the outside world was very limited until the 16th century.
Conner MacLeod is waiting for the host to join the conversation
I could see a knight getting his hands on a Japanese sword, flex testing it, bending it, and then selling a mostly straight sword for pub coin.
"Japanese sword-o-philes"
It's okay to say Weeaboo Matt
That isn't what a weeab is.
@@louisvictor3473 You are right, but there is a strong correlation between being a weeb and being an obnoxious katana supremacist.
@@jean-sebastienmatte2358 Don't get me wrong, I totally agree the statistics there. The issue is that the the groups are still not the same, and far mpre importantly Matt wasn't just talking about the nut cases. If anything, Matt being polite and respectful of the people he is mentioning suggests he is talking about the non nut case portion of the people who are enthusiastic about japanese swords (which also makes then less likely to be a weeab in the intended insuly sense of the word, and likely even in the proper sense as well). It is too mischaracterized even as insult.
@@louisvictor3473 why are you ruining the fun?
@@MindForgedManacle I have a reputation as the joy of the party, and I intend to keep it! Why else do you think people keeps asking me if I am fun at parties?
It's like using an AK in a NATO country back in the early years of the cold war. You can but all that trouble acquiring that sword would make you less inclined to use it really.
Not so much acquiring, but imagine maintaining it.
Actually, I think soldiers in Vietnam would probably disagree?
Would be nice if someone corrected me if I am wrong, but early in that war capturing some AKs was a pretty sweet occasion for the soldiers on the "good side".
@Jacek N
It was due to bean counter in the US military.
AR15/M16 is probably one of the most "durable" modern combat rifle. "Durable" because you cannot simply assign a word to any weapon system, but for the purpose of ak47 vs m16 at that time in that context, ak is better for a while.
The issue m16 faced was "bad powder". Before US adopt 556nato as their standard battle rifle caliber, they use 762nato.
After US switch to 556, m16 platform specifically required a newer powder that has a different burning characteristic compare to powder in 762nato.
The engineering and manufacture team make sure to use all the stars, underline, bold and italicized character so the US army know that old powder doesn't works, new powder works, use old power bad shit happen.
But bean counter say, eh, we still have a huge stock pile of old powder. Who cares if the john doe from chicago die in vietnam, balancing the balance sheet is more important. So, disaster happened.
Due to the fucked up burning characteristic, in many instance, m16 would malfunction with only a couple round, and start to works itself apart after maybe less than a thousand rounds.
Eventually lames were being thrown around, but no one that was actually responsible were locked up. Only good thing comes out of it was the army actually acknowledge the problem and use the correct powder.
During almost the entirety of vietnam war, troops tend to not trust m16 even if the correct stuff were sent to them. It wasn't until the next war, new soldiers with new training and correct equipment sworn their life on m16.
@Ze4l Fish You would still need to know how to maintain and more importantly, you would need actual fitting AMMO....
Um. A bit if that. However, they were not issued with cleaning kits. The chamber and barrel weren't chromed or otherwise treated to be durable in a wet jungle environment. They quickly became dirty, rusted, clogged by mud and non-functioning. Rather quickly, in the same war, these problems were rectified by 1969 with the M16-A1, which had a forward assist, Chrome barrel, improved feeding 30 round magazine, and more adjustable gas block.
You have been sold a popular myth. It's been repeated ad nauseam for over two generations. It's based in a kernel of truth, but it's 99% Bullshit. Yes, dirty burning ball powder was something of a problem. It's a problem that disappears with a reasonable cleaning schedule.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the powder used, ask any handloader. Like everything else powder characteristics are all a set of trade-offs.
On the battlefield is a tough one, but I'm sure someone could justify going to battle with it as their side weapon. In noble life? Abso-fucking-lutely. If a knight had a katana, it would be such an oddity and the other nobles would totally be jealous of his strange but familiar weapon. If a knight ended up having one, it would be a status symbol for sure. There's no doubt in my mind that he would wear it around when doing non-combat stuff at the very least.
Keep in mind, in the middle age there were no animes, movies or history channel dokus, making the katana a mythical super weapon and the european longsword a dull heavy metal club.
Depends on the style of katana
Few things to address in the video;
By the 15th century, Japan was massively exporting swords in China and other parts of Asia, even more during the 16th century, when few swords arrived in Europe as well. The blade shape of Japanese swords could roughly recall to a Swiss sabre or a Kriegmessers, so it won't have been an extremely exotic weapon.
Also while we are use to classic style of katana, it should be said that some points had a more slender tip which would have increase its use in armored fightings - things like osoraku zukuri, okissaki and nagamaki/naginata naoshi blades. To me this point is of little relevance, as both Knights and Samurai had weapons optimized to deal with armor: spears, bows, guns, daggers and the like.
Moreover, European blades were definitely not as spring as their modern replica counterpart. Most of the swords even in Europe, up until the 17th century, were made with iron or low carbon steel core - for reference, see the analysis of A. Williams. Even some types of rapiers show these structure, and we could read how storta swords were made in Brescia, Italy, in the 17th century thansk to the Catastico Bresciano, in which a iron core is used. You can't have much springness in the sword if the core is of low carbon steel as the material won't react to hardening and quenching.
I have elaborated more here:
www.quora.com/Would-the-Japanese-forging-techniques-have-worked-in-Medieval-Europe-if-it-was-introduced-to-the-blacksmiths-there-If-so-how-would-European-swords-have-looked-like/answer/Luca-Nic-1?ch=10&share=dd5a5e27&srid=3z2sJ
Most European swords would have had very similar properties to Japanese ones, with a softer edge.
Speaking of edge hardness, yes it is indeed a over generalization as a softer edge would be simply more easy to bend and roll comapred to a harder one, which will chip under heavier stress. However, a rolled edge is still a critical and potential point of failure, and such thing would happen more frequently with softer edge. Still, without considering edge geometry, material and the like.
Ultimately, I am afraid to say that concerning the Mongol invasions, there are no sources to back up such claim of Japanese swords consistenlty breaking or chipping. There are no historical sources that say so, and while one could argue that the lamellar suits available to Jin and Song dynasty were more comphrensive, Japanese armors of the period were not entirely different from that. Most importantly, we do see Korean and Chinese troops wearing mostly coats and very few lamellar suits during the invasion of Japan, so if anything, such armor was not present there. It is a very weird statement to claim, that the very same Japanese swords which are referred to "double helmet splitter" in the chronicles of 100 years before failed against padded and lighter form of armor.
I also think you are not entirely correct on the point snapping. A Japanese tip like the one you are showing is just more resilient due to profile and thickness.
As a reference, an enquiry was received at the Royal Armouries from a member of the public living on the site of the battle of Edgehill that took place during the Civil War in 1642. It involved the discovery of the very corroded remnants of a sword blade in the garden of the enquirer. The remains, about 18” long, retained a well preserved copper habaki indicating that it was in fact a Japanese blade, almost certainly from a wakizashi. There is no positive evidence that the blade dated from the time of the battle, other than the amount of corrosion. If it was a genuine relic of that battle, someone who fought there was carrying a Japanese wakizashi ( Ian Bottomley, Diplomatic gifts of arms and armour between Japan and Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries)
European swords were not iron or low carbon steel. They had three methods of steel before the 17th century: Bloomery, Crucible and the Blast Furnace. We all know Europe had the bloomery furnace. The Crucible method was obtained via Oriental Trade and the Blast Furnace (which made cast iron) was used in A.D. 1100
And why have a softer core if the blade is thin enough to flex? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that most European swords were hard throughout? Because if the only reason to have a soft core is if you have a thick blade (katana)
@@voltekthecyborg7898
Well, European steelmaking was not very different from the ones used in Japan, incidently.
I wouldn't say that they had or used crucible steel methods, it was more likely that they imported the so called wootz material to make some blade since I haven't seen any good or conclusive evidence to support the opposite - more so it's quite convincing that the swords made with such material, the ulfberth, beside being rare and prized for their quality, stopped to be made precisely when the trading route in the eastern regions ceased to exist and never to be remade in Europe again. These factors support import of material rather than native production.
The same goes for the blast furnace; it didn't spread all over Europe nor became a mainstream method of production until the late 15th and 16th century (For reference, read anything made by A.Williams which underline precisely this point in many of his works). Bloomery steel was used all the way along with decarburized cast iron to make sword and armor in the medieval and renassaince period.
Still, method of production of iron and steel have little to do with how swords were made in terms of lamination etc.
@@voltekthecyborg7898 European swords: I'll give you a sample presented by A.Williams in his book the Sword and the Crucible:
i.postimg.cc/9Mmyx2MK/20210721-104026.jpg
To give you a legend, Type I are monosteel homogenous blade, Type II are folded heterogenous steel mixed togheter, Type III laminated with different steel (low carbon core/ high carbon edge), Type IV and Type V have iron core.
As you can see, the majority of the blade had some form of laminated construction with iron or low carbon steel construction.
Why? Because it was extremely cheaper having such blades, and the majority of blade made were of average quality.
And being thin doesn't mean it will take a set automatically if you hit something just because it has a iron core - but even if it happen, you could straighten it back.
"Why does this Messer not have a crossguard?"
I do imagine that it'd probably get rehilted into being a kriegsmesser.
You can’t, the messer has a different tang.
Perhaps if the katana is a chokuto or Japanese straight saber. In addition the word katana just means sword in Japanese it is not a type of sword.
@@FistsofGodfrey a larger tang could be forge-welded on
Perhaps just replace the disc guard with a cross guard instead of rehilting it. That's what I'd do.
@@ArmorFrogEntertainment I like that idea.
You talked a lot about the similarities between the European longsword and the tachi, but it seems to me that the Swiss saber is even closer, with a very similar blade profile. I’d love to hear you compare those two. Given what you said about the longsword being more suitable than the tachi for the European context, what advantages would the Swiss saber bring for a European soldier?
The problem with the idea of an "European" soldier is that such context doesn't really exist. Japan is actually quite a significant area in total, but its inhabitable area is far more limited (33% ish) and it was relatively self-isolated as a region. Generalizations there still miss a bunch of regional differences, but they hold on better and offer far more general insight than an European generalization. For example, There are connections and similarities, specially aesthetically, but the context of what the Brit were dealing with in and out of their islands and the swiss in their land locked territory are distinct, which means what is suitable and by how much varies noticeably.
So, to summarise: Could they? Yes, because it looks enough like a sword that they could probably be able to figure out how to use it. Would they? Not if they had a choice, because there are enough differences to make it not interchangeable, and so have to be used differently, from the swords they were more used to. Which would be a huge disincentive in life-and-death situations such as warfare, where you'd want to use something that you're most familiar with (which is not to say necessarily the most effective) as much as possible.
Good point but this is still a stupid video because it’s a easy answer
the design of the sword is closely related to the style of use
if the western knight was given a Japanese sword, he also had to change his fencing style, so that he could take full advantage of the sword that cuts
if he himself did not know, surely the blacksmith knew what a sword it was and what its best purpose was
I think any knight who would consider wearing a messer or falchion, especially in civilian wear (and, it has to be said, sometimes in war too (I don't get it either)) would at least give it a passing glance. It's a well made blade, and it's not completely alien to what he was used to. I think the biggest reservation would be that dinky guard, and, of course, the moment he saw it bend, he might throw it away because he'd probably just expect a spring temper.
But yeah, the longsword (or arming sword) is just a better weapon for the context of a medieval knight. Go figure ;P
I think what is overlooked is that swords need maintance, so how does the knight get an smith who has the knowledge to maintain the sword. If you have an rare expensive sword you can not repair or replace, using it could be an other question.
@@pouncepounce7417 it's a sword, not a rocket engine. any blacksmith who knew how to handle a high quality sword could take care of a Japanese sword too. maybe not reproduce one from scratch, but repair
@@DevinDTV To an low degree, japanese iron was not very high quality, they had to use tempering and so on to an much higher degree to produce quality.
So I think the smith would have to be familliar to an degree with how such an sword was made.
I do smithing as hobby and furniture repair as paying work, in booth the major thing is the research to repair something is often more involved than the actual repair, that you would botch easy without the research though.
Booth, swords and rockets, you do not want to mess with them without knowing how they are build...
@@pouncepounce7417 If you wanted to do something like replacing the tang or fixing damage to the blade, you’d probably need someone familiar with it. But if you’re just going to keep it polished and sharp, or even stick a messer hilt on it, that wouldn’t be difficult. Realistically it would probably just be used for display and worn on formal occasions. A knight/noble might commission a copy if he liked how it handled and cut, and that would obviously be difficult to replicate.
@@bluemarlin8138 yes and no, europeans had better steel aviable, so copying it not that hard, repairing the original, that is where i see more trouble.
Everything on the japanese swords is done with the purpose of making an good sword from not so good material.
If you have better steel no need for different tempering and so on.
You can make it probably less wide too.
everything made for utility in mind was always as today done to serve an purpose, nothing more, japanese swordmakers did make the in an fancy way due to need, that was my point (and an european smith would have to travel to japan to learn that, back then, to be able to repair them.)
The "stances" are also largely interchangeable..
Yep, poste = kamae for the most part.
The correct question is:
Would a SAMURAI Sword use a Medieval KNIGHT?
wielding an UNSPEAKABLE coconut
@@wahlex841 with an UNRULY girth
Yes, but it would only use emotional manipulation for monetary gain.
Yes. See the Tachi. The Tachi is based on the Chinese Jian / Dao - much like the European rapier / longsword.
One with black plague?
*I think I just read that wrong
Is random, but I heard Mongols used bodies that were infected, and launch them over walls if they were risiliant. But I might be wrong
I’d love to see a test of how the cutting and thrusting performance of the katana compares to a type XIIa or type XVIIIa longsword. The type XVa longsword is essentially a thrust oriented sword, not really a cut and thrust design (Ie: Its super pointy to penetrates mail better, and gives up the blade mass to cut well anywhere near the tip). So let’s see a comparison of Japanese vs European cut and thrust hand-and-a-half swords.
I hear a lot of sword people say that the pointier European sword will thrust better. But I note that it also flexes on the thrust - so maybe the thrusting performance is similar ? I also hear a lot of sword people say the katana cuts better at the tip. For a type XVa - I agree. But a type XIIa or XVIIIa ? It has less mass near the tip than the Katana, but also have a wider thinner cross section at the tip, and 4-5 extra inches of lever-arm to generate tip speed.
Come-on Matt - do a test for us !
Answer: No. There were no machine gun barrels to slice.
well you and 22 peoples are absolutely wrong there were gun barrels even at that time....
@@maszkalman3676 But not MACHINE gun barrels.
@@Likexner your point is mute this is now a weeb channel this is historical guns coexisted with these kind of weapons...
@@maszkalman3676 do you are have stupid?
@@samarkand1585 At least he's not mute...
There is A tomb at a subsidiary of the metropolitan museum of art in New York showing a Chinese sword at the hip of I believe a French Knight
Archaeologists have found a Han Dynasty era jian scabbard at Chatalka, in what is now modern Bulgaria in Eastern Europe. It dates to the 2nd century AD during the time of the Roman Empire. www.academia.edu/9234763/A_Han-dated_hydra_-type_nephrite_scabbard_slide_found_in_Chatalka_Bulgaria_the_earliest_and_most_distant_example_of_Chinese_nephrite_distribution_in_Europe
Early Japanese swords were strait. As the horse warrior, referred to as "Kyuba no Mishi" that is, The way of the Bow and the Horse, still practiced in Yabusami, mounted archery. Later blades became curved for mounted slashing. To equate the tactics of east and west is difficult and the periods differ. Best seen in Master Yamaoka Tesshu's, No Sword School, the last of the era.
Katanas were made curved because of the quenching process. The curve has little to do with mounted slashing. The Straight katanas (chokutou) were ancient Japanese, same as the tsurugi. And katana curvature has nothing to do with increased cutting over European swords. If there is a difference, it's so minute to even count it. If you want better cutting, then the sword has to have a more dramatic curve on it (like the talwar and shamshir)
@@voltekthecyborg7898 the earlier Japanese chokuto were also differentially hardened so that means the Japanese new how to control the curvature and the curve of early tachi was intended for horseback. And yeah the curve on Japanese swords is not where it’s cutting power comes from, it’s the heft
@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 Curves only help with cutting if it deeply curved (many sabers, scimitars and sickle swords. Or be the Khopesh and have both)
@@voltekthecyborg7898 yeah exactly. I wouldn’t say most sabers because while decently curved sabers exist, most of them seem to have the same curvature as a katana (that is if they have a curve at all). Really curved swords would be things like kilij, shamshir, and tulwars of both the midd east and India respectively. The curve on a tachi would be located toward the base of the blade where it met the hilt and was notably conducive to drawing from horseback and making slashes at opponents below. The katanas curve was more in the center of the blade and was not as good at this task.
@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 Of course, some other sabers don't need a curved blade to be good at cutting (I.E., the Cutlass and Cavalry Sabers)
Man, you do a great job on these videos. I've got a MA in History, so I appreciate the lengths you go to reference sources and be transparent about your videos. I'm no expert on your subject, but you're a damn good scholar IMHO. I trust you as a source of information and look forward to your next video. Cheers!
just wanna say your japanese is getting better. i appreciate the efforts you take to learn the way the local culture/people would have pronounced certain things. cheers matt
I mean.. Don't see why not, if there was nothing else.
This is indeed one answer.
@@scholagladiatoria I think the real question for the katanaphiles is: Which sword would be best for a Japanese schoolgirl in a zombie apocalypse?
yepp!
long answer: hell yes!!!
@@Dream_Weapon I think the answer is probably a massive nodachi and also her special move where she decapitates zombies between her thighs.
@@Dream_Weapon the falchion
The Mongal’s where at war with....um? Everyone... might be the simplest explanation
Historie is someway compresed to the wars for us, in between the wars thw Mongols did a lot of trading though too. The Northmen where traders and went on a Viking from time to time, but it is what they became famous for.
But wars are pretty impressive so they get more space in the written historie of there times than Joe the trader.
Love this sort of content Matt, you're spoiling us!!
I love the soulless look in Matt’s eyes when he shills that silly game.
You are a monster, sir.
It pays his bills and allows him to make great content, so I'm not complaining.
But the game is absolutely atrocious.
At least he puts some effort into it. Shows you how wholesome he is, most people just blurt the lines and make a joke to be done quickly with it.
man's gotta eat
I make no excuses for the man. Nor will I crusade against him for it. He can do ads for whatever he wants, including this. Still gonna poke fun at him whenever he shills that atrocious game.
Question: Was the "Folded 1000 times" thing misinterpreted from being folded into 1000 layers? That just takes 10 folds. And was also done elsewhere, but that's beside the point.
millefeuille has 1000 layers, and it’s much tastier than swords.
Yes to the first question and the process of folding impure high carbon steel to make a serviceable sword was done in parts of Europe where access to better quality steel was limited.
Folding any sword 1000 times will reduce a steel blade back to iron because it removes impurities and carbon
@@voltekthecyborg7898 Folding a sword a 1000 times will not only reduce the steel to iron, it will also reduce the iron back to ironoxid. After 1000 folds you maybe have enough iron left to make a nail out of it
The biomechanics of a human wielding a sharpened steel bar would be about the same (allowing for any variation in stature) assuming the bars are about the same, regardless of the bar's country of origin. It turns out swords are a lot like people: the similarities are more important than the differences. But... Would a Samurai use a European longsword? ;-)
"can be used relatively comfortably in one hand" says the epic man who can wield a greatsword in one hand and do longsword moves with a sledgehammer...
Every healthy and not too frail adult can do longsword moves with a sledgehammer. Not necessarily well or for long, that is where training/conditioning comes in, but you just need to pick it up and try.
@@louisvictor3473 Not quickly either, and probably not with much accuracy. Training/conditioning will improve the accuracy, probably can't do much about the recovery speed or maneuverability.
@@samueldimmock694 that goes into the "well" part :) And agreed, it wouldrequire going into super hero territory for the mass and balance difference not to impact celerity.
Regarding the anti-armor context especially, the longsword would also seem to have the additional advantage over the katana in that the longsword's cross-guard can be used for percussive, and potentially penetrative, strikes when the weapon is gripped upside down (especially as per your earlier "weirdest weapons of the middle ages" video), whereas the tsuba wouldn't seem to be as great at that.
Matt Easton: shall we say “Japanese swordophiles”?
Me: WEEBS!”
I've re-watched this recently and I thought that there is a slightly different way in which a medieval knight might use a Japanese sword, perhaps even more likely than there is another way the answer to such a question is also an "yes, but caveat". Perhaps not a historical Japanese sword bought from japan made for japan, but a commissioned Japanese-design sword made using european metallurgy rather than japanese, with minor tweaks such as a bit more aggressive tapers and finer tips. For example, a tachi inspired on the famous Kogarasu Maru blade (doubled sided, obviously longer, point reminds me of viking/migration era sword).Or something based on anything by Masamune (all genuine surviving samples I've seen have rather pointy tips already). In short, I think they'd have been happy with the general design, but made from European steel.
When a question like this comes up, i can't help but recall that scene from Highlander 1, when Connor is presented with the "Toledo Salamanca Broadsword" and when asked what it is, he replies with......."A sword....." :D
I always find that hilarious. Most people throughout history just called them swords.
Makes you wonder why we feel the need for all the pretty labels.
@@clothar23 probably because we are history nerds! :D
@Bold who ever said anything about the historicity of that sword mate? :D
@Bold read in order mate, the man asked why we feel the need to categorize things =))
Today’s drinking game:
Take a shot every time Matt says “the fact is...”
Take a double every time that fact is simple!
plz no! I don't want to die from alcohol poisoning!!
I'd freaking die from alcohol poisoning
The fact is, context!
Dude this is - almost word for word - the comment I was about to make
I've never understood the point of drinking games, and never understood the point of drinking to be (really) drunk.
I imagine it depends on the opponent and situation. If we’re talking katana vs gambeson or brigantine I could see the knight using a katana very effectively with minimal effort.
Times and cultures change but humans remain relatively the same so I could see a knight trying it out for the novelty factor and using it if he liked the cutting capacity while keeping his dagger 🗡 and a mace or pole arm for armored opponents. I could see the knight adding a cross guard over the disc guard (or replacing it) though for added hand protection.
As you mentioned it depends what the knight would be most likely to encounter and armed himself accordingly.
Pre-Samurai Japan is always interesting. It's fairly obscure compared to the more wideliy known latter part of their history. I don't know what kind of applicable information is available on the topic, so there may not be enough for you to do a video on, seeing as how you tend to focus more on the weapons instead of general history. If there "was" something for you to talk about there, I'm quite sure that I'm far from the only person who'd love to watch that video! ^_^
Captain Context! Wrestling is an important strategy for both, but perhaps more for the Japanese. Half swording was less common. A fragile sword point was of prime consideration, thus a shorter sword or dagger was used more often to give the “coup de grace” after an opponent was forced into submission via grappling. Textual evidence of this is cited in many epics like the “Tail of the Heike” from the late 12th century. The designs of the Japanese and European long swords reflect the different types of strengths & weaknesses of their respective armors. European knightly armor had better overall protection against sword cuts, but less so to thrusts. Japanese armor had different areas of vulnerability that a cut or slashing attack could exploit. Examples such as chords and fasteners to the helmet, shoulder and torso were targeted to compromise those areas. Other soft points that had less protection include the arm pits, face and throat, the inside of the legs and arms. Again the sword was useful to injure, maim or disable an opponent before grappling him. On a side consideration, a European Knight could expect to be ransomed with little loss of face if he was defeated. I do not know if this has any bearing on the primary topic. Also as
Matt likes to point out, the sword in both Europe and Japan was primarily a sidearm, a back up weapon. The bow, spear or other pole arm was often the primary weapon of a war.
Before watching this video:
Would a medieval knight use a katana? Sure, but not against opponents clad in metal.
What we call a "katana" is the daito (long(er) sword, compared to the shoto), and the wakizashi is the shoto (short sword). The word'wakizashi" itself means companion sword (if I remember correctly). When you wear the daito and the shoto together it's called a daisho (which literally means long-short, or something like that).
About using the daito with one hand: yes you can hold the daito with one hand, and yes, you can even swing it with one hand, but you cannot fight effectively with the daito one-handed in my opinion (that's what the shoto is for, and it can still be used two-handed for even more power). Swinging your sword one-handed at someone whilst riding by on a horse doesn't equate to using a sword one-handed in a melee (when you make a strike from on a horse, you don't really even swing the weapon, you just kind of let the weapon run into your target using your horse to power the blow, if I'm not mistaken).
A minor nitpick: Tachi, not katana, were used by the Japanese, to fight (and win against) the Mongol invasion.
My opinion: Katana, being curved, is superior at cutting and superior from horseback. It also has better edge alignment. The small crossguard is a moot point if one is wearing gauntlets, which medieval knights did. European swords very slowly did develop a shape closer to the katana, ie, curved blade, but it took them a lot longer to get there.
Excellent video Matt! I'm definitely a katana enthusiast, but i am in mo way one of those kind of katana enthusiasts. Lol
I think the reason knights used messers and falchions, and they might consider the katana, is the fact that most warfare wasn't field battles. Many experts know this (I'm sure you do as well), and will point to sieges. However, even more common than sieges was chevelche (small war) where you ride into a village, kill some peasants and steal some supplies then ride away before your enemies actual army could show up. This is the sort of action where a falchion and even a katana would shine, when you could easily expect to face no armor.
Not medieval, but later definitely. In the 1670-s Transylvania a lad named Thomas Kapust used an original Katana blade and even decorated it in his own style.
www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/17230-japanese-sword-with-european-mounting/
"Sword against armor" comes up an awful lot, as if the sword were the only weapon available. Surely, when facing heavy armor, a warhammer would surpass any type of sword, and still afford someone the use of a shield. It just seems like swords, of all kinds, are a bit too focused-on. Not having a wooden haft, they do tend to survive the ages better, so we have better physical examples of them. And, since swords were largely a rich-man's game, all of the combat-related literature of the day (also a rich-man's game) would have featured them more heavily than 'lower status weapons'. Like, if a person owns high-end sports cars, they are more likely to want to study up on high-end sports cars...as opposed to tractors or delivery trucks.
try giving a crossguard strike with your sword wich is too weak to parry
That's actually a very good question:
Would a Knight of the 13th Century use a period correct Katana?
My thoughts on this would that they probably would if they had come into possession of one, especially if they had taken notice of all that it was capable of doing
But the real question would they want to when they already got one like a warbrand & kriegsmesser.
@@majesticgothitelle1802 every sword has it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages
A katana could be used in certain situations where a warbrand could be seen as cumbersome
I kinda doubt knight would have seen much benefits in using one over swords he already was used to. Less hand protection, less reach than european two handed swords actually less than many single handed ones, and worse at fighting armoured individuals (half swording, murder strokes ect.). Maybe been exotic blade could have made it sort of prestige item, but even then it would more likely been as decoration like during time europeans bought katanas in later centuries.
@@karlsmith2570 knight would use a katana there already swords in the western world similar to it. But I would say the knight would uses a different styled compare to the Japanese when fighting with a katana.
A knight would use a katana, but actually choosing it as a weapon of war ? Probably, if he forgot tp pack his arming sword.
I couldn't quite understand what you mean by the hard edge being more brittle until later you explained the tip example. I thought it was like having a block of soil that crumbles if you grip it too hard in your hands. Here's what I think a medieval knight would do with a katana: "That baby is not seeing going to see action! Paid good money for it and it's going in my sword collection for showing-off only to my noble friends."
For other topics to discuss, how about comparing different specialized polearms between Europe and Asia? That could be interesting to think about what each side would think about the weapons being used in war.
I have zero experience on armored warfare, so NO comment in it
Fencing with katana is not different from fencing with long sword.
The main difference is the length, which make katana somewhat more applicable for 1 handed use.
One seldomly blocks with cross or attacks with attack with back edge, so these are minor things.
From the group:
side sword
side sword+dagger
side sword+buckler
sabre
rapier
rapier+dagger
long sword
katana.
Long sword and katana are the most similar weapons by large in context of shirt fencing.
Matt pronounced tachi correctly ! \^^/ This is the cherry on top of a very very interesting video (as usual, but still worth mentioning). n_n
The only time a medieval knight would use a katana would be if he somehow got magically teleported to Sengoku period Japan, met a daimyo, and served as his retainer to fight.
As the katana, held close to the neck for a closeup, slices the carotid neatly as Matt gesticulates spasmodically while lecturing...
Maybe.. but there isn't a good tip for grappling. It can stab, but not pointy like a spear or bullock knife
I suppose the japanese sword could be quite useful to a mounted knight when facing unarmored foes, in much the same way that a 19th century cavalry sabre would have been.
Main thing people love to.forget about katana or sword in general.atleast with samurai that is. The sword was always secondary in terms of warfare. Basicly your main weapon broke, lost or ran out of ammo or in a small space. Atleast untill the edo period when duels where a big thing.
@@almorarask2532 Still, you wouldn't count duels in terms of warfare. I believe this was about the knight at war, not the knight at civilian life.
But the sabre and its construction (spring steel) shows what was preferred. The Japanese sword was probably not as suited as a falchion here.
@Bold oh one hundred percent. Not saying they where not weapons of war. Just in warfare they where a secondary choice. Not the main weapon
@@louisvictor3473 agreed you wouldn't count duels. More just people who get into Japanese war history love to over embellish katana as a main weapon due to the dueling in edo is what I meant.
Differential hardening is very popular in antique period done in different way by slicing with red hot blade through mound of wet clay or dirt.
But can you throw a katana pommel? Like really a genuine question.
Yes, quite easily - the kashira is easy to remove. But it weighs about the same as a few coins, so it won't do much.
Before watching the video, my answer.
Sure, knights used lots of different weapons. I'm sure they could find a use for the katana/tachi. I'd guess they'd try to use it similarly to a falchion/messer.
Always insightful. Keep it up.
There is one thing that you didn't touch on that I think should have merited a bullet point in there - they are very similar weapons, but at the same time they ARE different. A knight spent years training with his own favored weapon - no one that spends a long time training with something is going to try something different when his life is at stake, except out of desperation.
So yeah, one more point to the "might look awesome, might feel awesome, might be awesome, but I am going to stick with the thing I know works"
Why do we assume that an armored knight would most likely fight other armored knights? Knights are shock cavalry, who would be best used against the flanks of infantry formations that aren't bristling with spears. Knight vs Knight encounters would likely be the cavalry of one side intercepting the cavalry of the other, in which case they would be attempting to un-horse each other with lances, then rely on footmen to capture the knight. Those footmen could be men-at-arms in full plate, but in many cases may just be levy troops or more lightly armored soldiers. If the sword is a secondary or back-up weapon for armored cavalry who may have been un-horsed, then the falchion is an excellent choice.
Thinking about the man at arms with a Langmesser... I feel like if I were to provide my own equipment in a medieval war, I'd want myself as well protected as possible, so I'd be much more willing to stretch myself financially for the best armor I can buy and just use whatever sword I already owned for protecting myself against bandits. Then maybe later I could upgrade later. Especially when that weapon is my secondary weapon anyway. I'm already hoping I never have to draw that sword. I'll use my primary polearm as much as possible thanks.
I thought of something you could've mentioned, although someone else may have mentioned it, but it is the differences in resources. From some historical accounts I have heard, steel in Japan was far less available than in other parts of the world. This came to mind when you were holding both swords in your hand and I thought about how the European sword you held appeared overall bigger compared to the Japanese sword. It may not seem like that big of a deal if a sword required some more steel, but the cost of it could be incredible for Japanese society at that time.
So, what I think could be worth thinking about is how Europeans could develop different swords for different purposes where as the Japanese changed their fighting techniques to adapt to armor. For example, I trained a little bit in kenjutsu and their was lots of emphasis towards avoiding the enemy instead of blocking the enemy like seen in fencing, reducing the amount of steel on steel contact. The medieval knight would need some basic information about what the Japanese swords were made for. As far as I know anyways, Japanese swords aren't designed to be armor beaters, but I could be entirely wrong. I thought I was going somewhere good with this but I forgot now the point I was wanting to make.
The proper answer is of course: They would have loved the katana, because it cuts through plate armour like paper... :P (no, I am not being serious...)
But what about dragons?
@@stanlim9182 Damn! You got me there!
To be fair, everything cuts through any armour like paper. I dont even know why, im popular culture works, people even bother to use armor at all since it protects as much as a baby's skin.
I hate to break it to you. While paper cuts unarmoured targets fairly well, it will not cut through plate armour.
@@vampirecount3880 well some people get plot armor... That seems to work pretty well, until it suddenly doesn't
4:10 to skip to the video
Matt :"Would a Medieval Knight use a Samurai Sword?"
Me : "That depends...." LMAO.
if the knight plays mount and blade and finds the "strange sword" hidden in Thir and Sargoth's streets, YES
I remember as a teen a friend bringing a WWII bring back Katana to spar with me using a Sabre. By the time we were done he had a saw.
There is an interesting connection here in the metropolitan museum of art cloisters wing in New York city. There is a tomb of a knight where on the knights coffin the depiction of his sword is certainly not of European origin. Its speculated that it may be a Chinese or Mongolian sword.
Great video. You may have mentioned it, but another thing to consider is... The people are professional warriors. You don't just switch up a weapon you've trained with all your life with something you haven't. Not when your life is on the line.
The fact is, a sword is a sword.
*Inserts Mr. Incredible image meme*
pretty wrong
General answer (that is, except for some eventuality) is not. Medieval knights were exposed to middle eastern curved-single edged sword for centuries and never favored it over the straight, double edged sword.
And that means another thing: curved, single edged swords must have been also quite effective against chainmail, as the moors didn't switched either.
Matt, IF i was a rich young martial knight who was enamored of a Samurai sword that I had somehow come into the possession of-I believe that I might have commissioned a smith to retrofit a cross guard-just simply using a tsuba a couple of inches larger in diameter would have answered the purpose.
What about the inverse? A samurai with a "knightly" sword (or other European sword)?
(Also, thoroughly enjoyed the video. I had forgotten about the stories of Mongol armor and snapping tachi tips.)
Not that I would know, but I can imagine that in the Japanese style of swordfighting the lack of a large crossguard wouldn't have been an issue as it circumvents the necessity (by pushing incoming blows away instead of allowing it to slide down to your guard and using hanging guard stances maybe). Instead it would have been unnecessary extra weight, slowing you down and tiring you faster when you move your hands around, and possibly even something that gets in the way/pokes in your forearms when using certain stances and cuts (and when wearing it in your scabbard when you're fighting with a polearm/shooting with a bow/going to the market). For such reasons they could have considered it a nuisance rather than an improvement.
I imagine that if the Japanese found a larger crossguard useful, they would have made the "crossguard" the katana already has bigger, and that the sword was as much developed for their type of swordmanship as the swordmanship was developed for their swords, i.e.: the two evolved together.
@@smaug131
Would the crossguarf have been extra weight?
Not really, medium longswords weighted pretty much like medium katanas, the pommel makes more difference than the crooshguard, but mostly on the balance rather than weight i think.
You end up with the same main problem - you have a weapon that is similar to your own, but functions differently enough to hinder all the years you put into your training. You would be able to make it function, yes, but you would definitely not use it as your first choice simply because it is not what you are used to fighting with.
Many arming and long swords that I've studied show soft cores with hardened edges that bend and set as well. From the studies I read and done until the late 1400 early 1500 blades had little spring back and would set more often than spring back, with the exception of swords made for kings/nobles that were made to be of highest quality and not common military weapons.
Without having watched more than the intro, I'm gonna guess probably not. 14th-15th century longswords were quite specific in that they tapered a lot into a very sharp and thin and pointy tip so they could thrust it into small gaps in the plate. The Japanese swords are more about cutting than thrusting and you can't really cut through plate.
Someone like a Man-at-arms who'd be less likely to face off heavily armoured opponents on the frontline and instead fight people in gambesons might have used it.
I'd say, if the person would have used a Messer they probably would have used a japanese style sword, too.
Hypothetically a Knight was a trained killer, give him a sword and he will use it.
A Langmesser is in concept a Katana, a Knife is a Tanto ...instruments
people used to train with swords and lances, and armour...a warrior.would have little problem .
simple opinion.
...Would a Roman Legionnaire use a Katana? hell yes.
Get armed, accomplish the job, done.
What would a Roman even do with a Katana ? I mean sure in some scenario where he's unarmed in need of blade and nothing else is available.
But for everyday carry ? He and his friends fight in shield walls with short swords and spears.
@@clothar23 Break a long way from the tip, reshape it? But Romans used longer swords, particularly later on.
How could a roman legionaire even get a katana? The times don't match. Besides, roman legionaires were standard equipped, they didn't get themselves their gear. And a katana wouldn't have worked for the tactics of the early empire roman legion.
@@arx3516 ...I know....it was too far pushed.
@Bold That's the point, exactly. Even if they got it thanks to a Time Machine, they couldn't use it.
Not just differetially hardened, but also made with two different steels of different carbon levels. The steel of the core and spine is closer to mild steel then the harder steel of the edge.
Isn’t bloomery steel shallow hardening? Wouldn’t you get a soft core on western swords regardless of the quench?
That and the fact that even in the west most swords were made with low carbon steel cores
Super important detail that is universally overlooked
You should check out and review a documentary called "Knights" it's pretty accurate but I'd bet you could make a lot of content picking it apart
i feel like a japanese sword that made it to england would be hung up on a mantle to show wealth, since they were immensely expensive in japan, and then the markup for getting it across the continents would make it to pricey to pull out of the sheath.
they might show it to a blacksmith, who could try and make a bastardization of the katana and the falchion. might look neat
So no tip, no cross guard, only one edge, more likely to break, less reach...I'd rather have a quarterstaff.
Dear Matt, as a response to your comment that most kenjutsu dates back to 16th century and onwards, I would like to draw your attention to Katori Shinto Ryu, one of the remaining koryu (old style martial arts). You have referenced this art yourself in earlier video's, for example regarding half swording in kenjutsu. Although we don't know precisely to what extent the current form resembles what the founder envisioned, at the least it is an unbroken line of martial techniques dating back to the middle or late 15th century. As this was a time of constant war in Japan, we see the techniques in the art are to a large degree designed to be usefull in armour, and to counter armour and weapons of the day. This video gives some insight into just that:
ua-cam.com/video/CEeW-CFyJVc/v-deo.html
You might very well be familiar with said video, but if not, I hope it'll be of use to you. Keep up the great video's, I'll always be back for more context!
Read a book by Neal Stephenson (Historical fiction) where he touched on this though it was set late 1600's. The attitude his characters took were "hmm nice sword, I will stick with mine but that is cool" the book was The Baroque Cycle which is a massive book and worth a read though it is more about the dawn of the enlightenment rather than swords and weapons.
Matt, are you familiar with William Adams? 16th century Englishman who served as a samurai under Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu. Not a knight, but was given the right to carry the weapons of a samurai. Then again he never made it back to England from Japan.
The book Shogun is loosely based on Adam's story. It's a pretty good read
I don't really understand the context of this question since it kind of takes two broad concepts without defining specifically what the limits are and ultimately turns it into an opinion piece.
What do you define as a medieval knight? Specifically time, and place or culture. Franks? Norse? Germans? French? Italians? Slavs? Are we going to go into Hussars, do they count?
What do you define as "use" ? In the context of what? A duel? A personal side-arm choice? A change or shift of military supply for an entire army? In the heat of a battle on a dark knight when both opponents are groping in the dark to swing with whatever they pick up?
What are we defining as how this foreign blade reached this theoretical situation? Are we trying to base this in historical facts? Or are we putting a person in a sandbox and stuffing this blade in their hand telling them to have at it?
When you say 'Samurai Sword' are you talking about the Waring States Period? The Mongol Invasion? The Edo Period? I would assume the Meiji Reconstruction would be too modern so it'd have to be before that. Either way, the current concept of the Katana didn't fully develop until after the Mongol Invasion. Prior to that, there wasn't any unified concept towards a Katana and not all the swordsmith schools made such blades regularly. There were all kinds of blades used by Japan's warriors, and not all of them were constructed in the same way.
Taking a step back about cultural weapon exchange in general. Consider this. If it was army vs army, and after getting exposed to a foreign weapon, surviving, and coming back with trophies - would you use a trophy weapon to replace your own? Did you lose your weapon of choice? Would you risk damaging or destroying your loot/treasure/trophy of glory in a follow up battle?
That's a personal decision at the end of the day. Assuming that your primary weapon isn't a sword, and it most likely isn't, the next question after using it would be "how long can I keep using this?". And that depends on how well you or your smiths can maintain the weapon or repair it if it gets chipped or snapped.
If the point of this question to ask whether or not being exposed to a foreign weapon would change the culture who faced it - then that depends if we're asking about historical examples. The Romans for instance adapted and changed then made their own many weapon and strategies they faced off against. Even the gladius and the shield they are commonly associated with came from other cultures they faced. That said, their neighbors weren't always so successful in adapting things successfully like the Romans did.
Not every warrior called a "knight" wore full-plate. There's evidence that they used more than a longsword - and the other weapons that they used depended on the local supply, skills, and logistics that were available. If they were to work together as a unit then you'd see more uniformity in their gear.
Calvary were known to use more hacking and slashing weapons as a secondary during the same period that knights in full-plate existed, including those that were on horseback equipped with pistols. If we're talking about a military force then they would have used whatever their commander told them to, trained them to use, and outfitted them with.
If we're talking about a singular individual then it boils down to preference and personal decisions so the question becomes moot.
If we're trying to find an exact historical example of a western warrior utilizing a blade from the rising sun... then instead of looking at Europe you can just look at the historical examples of foreigners who were accepted as 'samurai' in Japan, outfitted and equipped with the same gear that they used locally, which in the context of this question - yes, they used a katana.
An example towards that idea would be Yasuke in 1579 served Oda Nobunaga. He wasn't a knight, but he was a foreigner. Later period examples of soldiers from foreign nations becoming Samurai can be seen in the 1800's around the Bosin War... an example of French Navy Officer Eugène Collache comes to mind... a gent who wore a kimono when other Samurai were transitioning to western trousers.
If 'we're being stickler about a 15th century time period, then there are recorded examples of Japan's neighbors such as Koreans who served in various positions in Japan and were given rank as Samurai and allowed to wear swords.
Honestly the question for the video is kind of a headache because it can really go in any direction.
Damn that Sallet is sleek. Love these kinds of videos keep'em coming
John of Montecorvino was a Franciscan missionary who established the Catholic Diocese of Peking (Beijing) around 1306! It existed for a reasonable amount of time, though i believe it disappeared with the Black Death. That said, there was obviously communication back and forth between China and Europe and it would not be too far a stretch to imagine goods from Japan reaching Europe via that route as well.
Could you elaborate on one point though (pretty please)? I was taught that European swordsmiths did use "differential" techniques as well, but they more commonly used differential *tempering* rather than differential hardening (giving somewhat different properties). Is this true? Or rather: how often was differential tempering and differential hardening used for European swords? At what eras? Or were most of European swords quenched/tempered uniformly (throughout the times)?
P.S.: I know I'm late :-)
Question for potential video:
How do you feel that someone with an extensive background in certain other martial arts would translate to HEMA/Fencing? Obviously being in good physical condition is a positive, but for example, how do you think an orthodox western boxer who is drilled to naturally fight with their "weak" side foot and hand forward would adapt to fencing with saber or rapier where the strong side is usually forward to help with reach and other things? Or how perhaps how would an experienced olympic-style wrestler who is used to keeping their strong foot as the lead adapt to using a medieval arming sword and shield or a longsword where the opposite might be preferred? Do you think having these natural instincts would have disadvantages to one trying to learn certain weapons? If so, how much would it matter. And if not, how do you think these instincts would affect learning otherwise or what advantages could it bring?
17:56 Did you just say that the pommel isn't going to make a lot of difference? Pray that Skallagrim doesn't hears about that :P
Now, cutting-only swords were still used in Europe - many katzbalgar were and even in the 1700s many broadswords used in the British isles had very little if any point to them.
It seems pretty simple to me. Would an average knight choose a katana or a tachi as a first preference? No. He'd want a longsword designed for armoured fighting. But would he be baffled or hugely disappointed? No. He'd basically treat it like this: www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/knecht-mark-II/smKnecht-mark-II.jpg
Or this: cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2080/1501/files/A489_Wallace_Collection_-_original_large.jpg?v=1524822178
(EDIT: 20:30 oh there we go)
Also bear in mind that Europeans had centuries of exposure to foreign cultures using sabres from Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the steppes. So, while they wouldn't have recognised a katana specifically, they would've just thought, "oh it's another type of foreign sabre".
Here's a couple of thoughts I've had about modifying a katana. Has anyone ever seen a Katana with any kind of European style handguard? Whether that be a medieval period or Renascence and so on.
Also has anyone tried to sharpen it's blunt side? Not changing the curve of the blade in any way, just adding another sharp edge.
Wouldn't adding a crossguard basically just make it a kriegsmesser/langemessser?
They'd probably use it about as often as they used their arming swords, so practically never.
Also probably not as effectively, if they wanted a horseback weapon to use one handed, there's better choices for that, and if they needed a backup weapon when dismounted they'd want something more pointy and with a bigger pommel for half swording and ending them rightly.
Thanks for the video Matt! One additional consideration that I'm curious about: are differentially-hardened blades easier or more difficult to maintain wrt weathering or rusting? For instance, in a long military campaign where essentials such as blade oil and smithy supplies might be sparse, is one type of blade more or less ideal?