Grayson Katana Design

MAD-4A wrote:

Rocket88 wrote:..."quillions"... would have interfered with displaying the sword on a stand...

I don't think for this issue it matters either way, a high level sword which is displayed as a measure of status (or even a museum piece) would have the stand designed around it, not just an "off-the-shelf" generic stand used for it so the direction of the quillions would effect the design of the stand, not how well it displays from it.

I think everyone has lost sight of the minor detail that Grayson swords weren't developed as display pieces, but were developed as weapons of war. The basic design, including the quillions, is centuries old and not concerned with "display" but is concerned with "function."

You are losing track of the fact that they are not very functional weapons. People much more qualified than me have just spent the past few days explaining why this is.

kzt wrote:You are losing track of the fact that they are not very functional weapons.

Not at all. The Grayson Sword depicted is probably NOT an accurate description of the swords described in textev. But the discussion had turned from denigrating functionality of the depiction to squabbles over how suitable for display they are.

2 handed slashing swords are NOT the peak of hand-to-hand weapon development, despite what you might have learned from bad samurai movies. So if you stuck with that for centuries you are not using it in combat or you are so bound up in "tradition" that you won't look at superior alternatives. Since Grayson doesn't have any actual tradition involving swords (as they didn't bring any) I really don't see any alternatives here other then they didn't actually use it in combat.

Michael Everett wrote:The thing about Katanas in Japan was that early Samurai were actually embarrassed about their swordsmanship. The Samurai class at the time were primarily archers utilizing large bows (wood problems meant the bows had to be taller than the users) to strike down any rebellious peasants at a distance. They also used the bows while riding on horses, doing slashing attacks that swept them into arrow-range of their enemies and back out again.

The original definition of samurai was ( professional ) mounted ( armoured ) archer.

Similar deal to some European style nobility, they got land or taxation rights in exchange for providing a mounted archer(originally themselves, later X number of various troops ) whenever needed by whoever managed to stay top dog.

Michael Everett wrote:The prevalence of arrows as the main weapon lasted until gunpowder and muskets were introduced

And even then, it remained in use a long time yet. First muskets came in the 16th century, last effective mass use of bows was in the 19th century.

Michael Everett wrote:whereupon the Samurai found themselves facing peasants who could use weapons that could out-range their arrows (bad wood in the bows)

Double incorrect.

Japanese yumi were fully capable of penetrating the armour used at the time at close range, and as this by comparison would require draw power similar to a highpowered English longbow, talking about "bad wood" results in a big WTF are you talking about?
Common 30lb bows were often used because it was poorly protected and trained lower quality troops facing each other.
Samurai normally used MUCH stronger bows. 50-60lb was probably the absolute minimum, and has been suggested as mostly being used by children for training and house defense by less trained family members.

Secondly, effective range of muskets vs that of bows, no bows did not get outranged.
Muskets are at their most effective at VERY short range(Swedish warfare in 17th century showcases this extremely well with how they would hold their fire until getting anywhere from 10 to 30m(rarely as far as up to 50m), and usually did not take much losses while marching up to that point, while then causing massive losses on their opposition with closed range massed fire).
The only muskets that could fire and expect to hit ANYTHING at longer range than bows were finely crafted ones using very precise loading done by expert shooters, these were even more rare than welltrained archers to the point of being effectively nonexistant until 18th century. Because it was easier to be accurate with quality crossbows.


The major difference lies in the fact that muskets is a weapon that can be used for industrialised, large scale warfare.
A weapon for the masses.

Gunpowder can be produced in bulk quantities.

Bullets can be cast in huge numbers at a time extremely cheaply, or even be recast by troops in the field over a campfire(some European armies and mercenaries had tools for this at platoon or company level as standard equipment).

Muskets can be massproduced even with early means of production.

Musketeers can be trained in weeks or months while archers takes months or years(and only the ones with years of training tend to have the ability to use high drawstrength bows).

Michael Everett wrote:The Samurai quickly realized that continuing as archers would lead to their extinction, so they moved across to become bureaucrats.

Uh, that´s seriously misleading and effectively untrue even if it´s partially true if you´re very selective in how you look at it.

Michael Everett wrote:However, they needed something to show that they were of a higher class than the illiterate workers, so they chose their previously-disdained swords and created new ways of fighting that used the Katana.

This happened LONG before muskets entered the nation at all.
And by improving on personal armour as well as developing techniques to minimise damage from arrows, most samurai could survive several arrowhits, and later on not seldomly a fair number of musket hits (note that this was not uncommon in European warfare either, but the samurai style armour was better at stopping projectiles up until the European reinforced armours became normal), as long as they were not taken at too close range.

Michael Everett wrote:It is somewhat ironic that Katanas made from modern steel and similar are actually more durable when used than the Katanas made using the traditional methods.

That´s a myth, or maybe i should call it a countermyth, which for some reason have gained popularity based on stupidity(probably).

It´s mostly based on comparisons with cheapskate swords made en masse during the Tokugawa-period of swords being a "title" rather than a weapon, when samurai DID get tossed over to administrative affairs more often than not and didn´t have the cash to pay for quality swords. (and to a lesser extent naginatas, as they often used the remains of broken swords for their blade section)

Hiqh quality swords, all that have been examined have been completely different from the cheapskate ones, and drastically better.

Maru and Kobuse swords are just cheap, nothing special.

But Soshu Kitae and similar process designs, no, modern steel is definitely not better than that.
Of course, swords made like that costs ridiculously more.

Michael Everett wrote:Of course, since Katanas were made from pig iron, trying new designs would have been a problem since the original material just wasn't all that good.

Pig iron?

Pig iron does not have much in common with tamahagane which was the normal material for swords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamahagane


Seriously, what´s with all the hate? The Japanese highend quality swords WERE awesomely good, why´s that a problem?

While extremely rare, similar swords were made in Europe as well, and are probably behind several of the "magical swords" myths.
They were just not made often enough(because almost noone wanted to pay the insane pricetag!) for any to survive to modern days.

Europe also didn´t really go much for slicing swords, instead focusing on cutting/stabbing/clubbing swords, which are cheaper to make of decent quality.

Slicing swords is a class of its own, and for good reason, because they ARE potentially much more effective/dangerous.

The closest Europe has come to use something similar was some few cavalry from 18th-19th century, who had slicing-style sabers, the idea being that this would reduce the risk of the cavalryman to break his arm when striking at full speed.
And they worked, and were very good at literally cutting heads off (even through armour, but that often ruined the blade), but they cost several times a normal saber and were harder to handle properly as well as breaking more easily, and were mostly abandoned soon.
Being overtaken by pistols.

Tenshinai wrote:The original definition of samurai was ( professional ) mounted ( armoured ) archer.

Actually it's "one who serves" or servant (of the Lord/Master - later Sho-Gun). & irrespective of the weapon used. Yes, against (rare) mass peasant uprisings or in major battles, they used the Bow, but did not disdain the sword, it was used quite often in single combat, duels, etc... and was a visible status symbol (like the scepter) for those of the warrior cast. For anyone not of that cast to pick up, and try to wield one, was a capitol offence, beheading on the spot! this is where many other weapons stem from. the Tonfa and Nunchaku were both grain flails, pressed into service as weapons, and the Kusarigama is a combination light reaping sickle and chain flail. The sword was also very ceremonial (not just for seppuku - but especially for that). You really can't stand as personnel bodyguard for a lord with a longbow.

Tenshinai wrote:...and house defense by less trained family members.

Not less trained, the Wife of a Samurai was a Samurai, they were every bit as trained but were in-charge of home "defense". This lead to a stigma (a kind of perversion of bushido) that "defense" is "women's work" and (later) "less honorable" then "not honorable". "A 'man' should be attacking, not defending" This is what lead to (in the IJN) the "destroyer" and "escorts" being disdained by the IJN. They had them because they realized that they needed them, but those assigned to them were usually the last picked (dregs - political bottom of the list, etc...) and even the defensive duties on the ships (damage control, Fire fighting etc...) were done by the "lower" members of the crew. Resulting in poor performance (note the very poor performance of IJN convoy escorts against the US Sub campaign, as well as the poor performance of their DC efforts). By then they didn't allow women to fight much less be on a warship.

MAD-4A wrote:Actually it's "one who serves" or servant (of the Lord/Master - later Sho-Gun). & irrespective of the weapon used.

You are almost correct.
Though I referred to practical meaning rather than etymology(as that is usually a very convoluted thing when dealing with Japanese words).

The original meaning is closer to "one who serves nobility", with the nobility in question at the time being the kuge social class. The "old" aristocracy which later became mostly courtiers.

Yes, against (rare) mass peasant uprisings or in major battles, they used the Bow, but did not disdain the sword, it was used quite often in single combat, duels, etc... and was a visible status symbol (like the scepter) for those of the warrior cast. For anyone not of that cast to pick up, and try to wield one, was a capitol offence, beheading on the spot! this is where many other weapons stem from. the Tonfa and Nunchaku were both grain flails, pressed into service as weapons, and the Kusarigama is a combination light reaping sickle and chain flail. The sword was also very ceremonial (not just for seppuku - but especially for that). You really can't stand as personnel bodyguard for a lord with a longbow.

You´re messing up timeframes.

When the samurai were created(de facto), having swords or not was completely irrelevant, not because it was disdained in any way but simply because it was not a requirement.

The sword as part of the "uniform" became truly a norm during the later Heian-period when the kuge class warriors and the samurai melded into the bushi/samurai/buke class.

And the the term "yumitori"(bowman) was used as a title of prestige for highly skilled warriors, regardless of weapon used, long after samurai no longer referred to a mounted archer.
That should tell you how important it originally was.

Not less trained, the Wife of a Samurai was a Samurai, they were every bit as trained but were in-charge of home "defense".

Oh, i wasn´t referring to the ladies specifically, while far from all were extensively trained, the vast majority could easily defend against multiple non-samurai, and a fair number were at similar level as their husbands.

This lead to a stigma (a kind of perversion of bushido) that "defense" is "women's work" and (later) "less honorable" then "not honorable". "A 'man' should be attacking, not defending" This is what lead to (in the IJN) the "destroyer" and "escorts" being disdained by the IJN. They had them because they realized that they needed them, but those assigned to them were usually the last picked (dregs - political bottom of the list, etc...) and even the defensive duties on the ships (damage control, Fire fighting etc...) were done by the "lower" members of the crew. Resulting in poor performance (note the very poor performance of IJN convoy escorts against the US Sub campaign, as well as the poor performance of their DC efforts).

Quite true and most stupid. This went so far that it actually included all kind of "technical posts", so sonar and radar among others were often manned by people utterly unsuited for it.

Whenever captains made sure ALL their crews were welltrained and capable, a single destroyer or escort ship often had more impact than 10 with the "common" crew quality distrubution.

By then they didn't allow women to fight much less be on a warship.

Indeed, which is kinda weird due to how up until the Tokugawa period of imposed limits, Japan had a small but steady stream of females joining regular military units.

Tenshinai wrote:Whenever captains made sure ALL their crews were welltrained and capable, a single destroyer or escort ship often had more impact than 10 with the "common" crew quality distrubution.

As Adm Nimitz put it (in a letter to the Nurnberg trials regarding Adm Donitz) 'If you hang him, you have to hang me. I did the same thing to the Japanese. I just succeeded.' (or more like the Japanese failed to win). The disdain for Defense extended to the Convoy which was perceived as a "defensive" strategy, when in reality it is an offensive one - gather all the bait in one place and wait for your prey to come. The Same even goes down to their Naval Architecture, which is why they were so long in adopting triple turrets, for the Yamato (the 15.5cm was a special item - when built the Mogami class was a "large light" cruiser with triple 15.5s - they reached their treaty limit on heavy cruisers - but were designed to be refit for the twin 20cm heavy cruiser turret - inspired the USS Brooklyn Class) it was thought (by them) that more twin turrets allowed for more targets to be engaged at once (offensive) where fewer (triple) turrets concentrated armor for thicker protection (defensive) - truth is the triple concentrates the guns together for greater accuracy (offensive) where more turrets means fewer guns lost when a turret is knocked out (defensive)

Tenshinai wrote:Indeed, which is kinda weird due to how up until the Tokugawa period of imposed limits, Japan had a small but steady stream of females joining regular military units.

One of the poor western adoptions.

Since this thread is about swords, I thought I'd risk a minor thread-jacking.

I re-read The Sword of the South, and when the sword Bahzell gives to Kenhodan is described, I tried to figure out what it was.

It was described as basket hilted, straight, lancet tipped, two edged, and a 38 inch blade.

Sounds kind of like a rapier to me, although I dont recall textev about it being primarily a thrusting sword. It does kind of sound like an extra long spadroon. 38 inches is a lot for a single handed blade of significant width. With a lancet tip it sounds like a narrow blade, or at least a narrowing one. Ive seen pics of narrowing long swords intended to thrust into armor, but would be pretty heavy one handed.

BTW I think it was following a link on YouTube from earlier in this thread that I came across the Schola Gladitoria channel which has all sorts of info on swords.