Grayson Katana Design

kzt wrote:The single edged slashing sword was a step most military cultures went through, then they evolved into designs that were more useful. Japan not changing had a bunch of cultural and actual tactical reasons, none of which would apply to Grayson.

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.
They only carried swords as a "last-ditch-my-bow-is-broken-my-horse-is-unable-to-carry-me" weapon. Actually using a sword in combat meant that they'd screwed up hugely and would be laughed at.
The prevalence of arrows as the main weapon lasted until gunpowder and muskets were introduced, whereupon the Samurai found themselves facing peasants who could use weapons that could out-range their arrows (bad wood in the bows) and could be learned very quickly, whereas archery took years.
The Samurai quickly realized that continuing as archers would lead to their extinction, so they moved across to become bureaucrats. 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. To aid in their acceptance of the sword as a status symbol, they created many tales of mystical swordsmen able to cut down forests with a single slash, making them feel better about carrying the chunk of metal on their belts.
Since Katanas (despite what people may claim) were never truly used in widespread combat, the need to create better blades and experiment with different designs never really gained any traction. 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.
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.

And I agree with the comments about the Grayson Quillions.
Not. Good.
Someone must have been half-asleep in the art department to approve that.
Either that or they've never actually swung a sword in real life.

Michael Everett wrote:

kzt wrote:The single edged slashing sword was a step most military cultures went through, then they evolved into designs that were more useful. Japan not changing had a bunch of cultural and actual tactical reasons, none of which would apply to Grayson.

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.
They only carried swords as a "last-ditch-my-bow-is-broken-my-horse-is-unable-to-carry-me" weapon. Actually using a sword in combat meant that they'd screwed up hugely and would be laughed at.
The prevalence of arrows as the main weapon lasted until gunpowder and muskets were introduced, whereupon the Samurai found themselves facing peasants who could use weapons that could out-range their arrows (bad wood in the bows) and could be learned very quickly, whereas archery took years.
The Samurai quickly realized that continuing as archers would lead to their extinction, so they moved across to become bureaucrats. 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. To aid in their acceptance of the sword as a status symbol, they created many tales of mystical swordsmen able to cut down forests with a single slash, making them feel better about carrying the chunk of metal on their belts.
Since Katanas (despite what people may claim) were never truly used in widespread combat, the need to create better blades and experiment with different designs never really gained any traction. 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.
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.

And I agree with the comments about the Grayson Quillions.
Not. Good.
Someone must have been half-asleep in the art department to approve that.
Either that or they've never actually swung a sword in real life.

Michael,
Thanks for the interesting post. Appreciate the support re: the quillions. Not good at all. In reading all the replies, I thought, "what if there's another reason for the gut-poking horizontal quillions?" Then it came to me. Since this is Grayson, what if they are part of the TEST? Mortification of the flesh? Thoughts?

Rocket88 wrote:Michael,
Thanks for the interesting post. Appreciate the support re: the quillions. Not good at all. In reading all the replies, I thought, "what if there's another reason for the gut-poking horizontal quillions?" Then it came to me. Since this is Grayson, what if they are part of the TEST? Mortification of the flesh? Thoughts?

Dunno about Mortification of the flesh, when the only Grayson's authorized to carry live blades, for some time now, are Steadholders and globally recognized blade masters.

Although, this could be the reason Steadholder Burdette chose not to carry the thing on his hip, as he was entitled to, being not only a steadholder but a recognized master..... and even he left the damned thing scabbarded, and sitting in his aircar rather than keep it riding his hip.

Somtaaw wrote:

Rocket88 wrote:Michael,
Thanks for the interesting post. Appreciate the support re: the quillions. Not good at all. In reading all the replies, I thought, "what if there's another reason for the gut-poking horizontal quillions?" Then it came to me. Since this is Grayson, what if they are part of the TEST? Mortification of the flesh? Thoughts?

Dunno about Mortification of the flesh, when the only Grayson's authorized to carry live blades, for some time now, are Steadholders and globally recognized blade masters.

Although, this could be the reason Steadholder Burdette chose not to carry the thing on his hip, as he was entitled to, being not only a steadholder but a recognized master..... and even he left the damned thing scabbarded, and sitting in his aircar rather than keep it riding his hip.

Burdette probably left his sword in the car due to the weight of the blade, and the fact it makes sitting in a chair difficult, and walking in a crowd awkward.

As for the problems with the illustrated quillions, imagine trying Talhofer's techniques with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... i757-7XD94

Dunno about Mortification of the flesh, when the only Grayson's authorized to carry live blades, for some time now, are Steadholders and globally recognized blade masters.

Although, this could be the reason Steadholder Burdette chose not to carry the thing on his hip, as he was entitled to, being not only a steadholder but a recognized master..... and even he left the damned thing scabbarded, and sitting in his aircar rather than keep it riding his hip.[/quote]
Burdette probably left his sword in the car due to the weight of the blade, and the fact it makes sitting in a chair difficult, and walking in a crowd awkward.

As for the problems with the illustrated quillions, imagine trying Talhofer's techniques with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... i757-7XD94[/quote]

Very cool video, one I had not seen before. My fencing background was collegiate, foil and saber (NOT Epee') at the University of Michigan - Dearborn (the "Fencing Wolves!"). One anecdote our fencing coach told us was the advantage of a one-hand grip, say saber, vs. a two-hand grip - like a Katana. Back in the 1930's a Japanese Kendo master travelled to Hungary (then the POWERHOUSE of saber fencing) & this Kendo master (so the story goes) fought something like 500 bouts (5 point contests) vs. the then reigning Hungarian saber champion & the Kendo master won only 5 or 6 bouts out of the total 500+ that were fought. The point is this, a two-handed grip is much more limiting in versatility and SPEED than a one-handed grip. A one-hand, light sword like a saber or rapier is much more "handy" than a two-hand sword like a Katana, or a Claymore or a European longsword as was shown in the video. In the 16th C. AD, the Spanish "tercio" of pike, rapier & arquebus tore the snot out of the Swiss Pike phalanx and the two-hand Landsknects(German Mercenaries)swordsmen. The Spanish tercio swordsmen would duck under the pike-points, get in close & kill the Swiss pikemen up close & personal, like Honor vs. Burdette. She used an unconventional attack from what Burdette thought was a weak guard.

Back to a one-hand vs. two hand grip advantage: a very cool, obscure movie that illustrates this is "The Bushido Blade" - set in Japan at the time of Commodore Perry's opening of Japan to the west. There is a climactic duel in which an American naval officer is forced to duel a Samurai, saber to katana. The naval officer, schooled in western fencing easily defeats the Samurai through his DEFENSIVE training.

Just for reference: https://bunineblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... rt-graham/

Rocket88 wrote:This is important when wearing a sword on belt, or as in the case of a Japanese Katana, stuck thru a sash; because the vertically oriented Quillions...

Somtaaw wrote:I was under the impression that true Katana's didn't have any quillions at all.

Katanas don’t have Quillions but an oval Tsuba which serves as a hand guard.

Rocket88 wrote:… any 15th - 19th century Samurai would not see the Grayson "Katana" sword as a recognizable Katana, Wakizashi or any other sword contemporary to his time...

Not really, a Sword is a Sword & any sword type comes in many forms as the craft of sword making is just that an artistic craft. A Samurai would most certainly classify it as an oddity but would recognize it as a “long sword”, perhaps not a “Katana” but perhaps a Ninjato, Odachi (large sword = to a Claymore) or simply a Tachi (or just plain “Sword”). Some Ninjato have Quillion like protrusions which (combined with their wood scabbards) allow them to be used as climbing tools (short ladder of sorts)

Rocket88 wrote:… The Christian motif (Cross at the pommel) would have been seen as offensive to a Buddhist Samurai....

Not at all, 1st most Samurai were Shinto not Buddhist & neither have any particular disdain for Christianity or its true teachings, which actually parallel those of Buddhism, peace, due-unto-others etc… most would not even recognize the correlation unless pointed out to them (not that obvious). The main problem would be having it correlated to a Ninjato “assassin’s weapon” (as pointed out) this would cause the most issue.
(on topic) the Grayson sword is more of a ceremonial device (like a scepter). Not really intended to be worn around the shopping mall

Somtaaw wrote:Unlike more Western blades, which needed the quillions not just as a hand guard, but to anchor the blade when thrust through the belt if it wasn't scabbarded.

only in movies. Large Swords (like Claymores) use a Baldric (a very large scabbard that fits down the back) shorter swords use conventional scabbards to protect the blade. You don’t what it banging around getting nicks and dings in the blade (or in your legs from the blade)

Somtaaw wrote:Katana's without the guard could be said to be similar to Star Wars lightsabers of the original trilogy. No quillions to protect the wielders fingers and hand, they used elaborate and practical disengages and parries to protect the hand.

not the same thing, how can you design a Quillion that can protect your hand from a blade that can cut through a blast door?

Somtaaw wrote:Any sword wielding fighter with training should know how to handle the interlocked blades and rely on skill not Quillions to protect their hand.

and get past those same moves as well. Perhaps the reason why the Katana didn’t develop more elaborate designs was an unwritten consensus of “fair play” and the Tsuba was a concession to the fact that they may be used against non-Samurai (Ninja, Civilian upstarts etc…) who “don’t have honor”. You don’t “rely” on them, you use them as a further tool, just as the weighted pommel is often used for “pommelling” (ie. Blocking a high swing with the blade/quillion then smacking them in the face with your pommel).

Somtaaw wrote:At least in the more highly trained and practiced Samurai, as compared to a European noble who more typically played at sword fighting anyways.

where do you get that, you seem to think Western swordsman were untrained halfwits, many European swordsmen were every bit as good and well trained as any Samurai. The Samurai kept their training far into the 19th century, when Europeans had mostly given it up as “obsolete” so the comparison is unequal, compare the late Samurai era (19th century) European swordsman more to the early 20th century (Russo-Japanese war - WWII) Japanese army. I’d put a fully trained 14th century Highlander or Knight up against a Samurai any day. The Samurai didn’t even have real armor. “Samurai armor” is wood and lacquer not steel. That’s why the Katana remained mostly a Slashing blade where long swords and Bastard swords were piercing weapons as well as cleaving (different from a slash – a slash uses motion and sharpness to cut where a cleave uses weight and leverage to smash as-well as cut – like an ax). The Claymore and flamberge can be thought of as not just a sword, but sword, Pike and Pole ax combined. The Slashing blade is all but useless against chain mail, let alone full plate, where a thrust from a long sword or Claymore would go right through that fancy wood paneling.

Extra post deleted by Rocket 88

Weird Harold wrote:Just for reference: https://bunineblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... rt-graham/

Excellent discussion on the design of the Grayson "Katana." The points from Robert Harbin about the "quillions" hanging up in clothes, getting in the way of guards, etc, & just about being useless in every defence (a "sliding" attack?) are especially well put. I think the "quillions" (or "Western-style" guard as DW put it) are placed horizontally so the sword can rest edge-down in stand, and having them oriented with the blade instead of at 90 deg. angles to the blade's direction of travel would have interfered with displaying the sword on a stand. With all due respect to the artist (and don't get me wrong, it's beautiful), he/she obviously did not consult with anyone who has USED a sword. Quillion's do not help defend against a binding attack, they protect the hand from a slashing attack, which, in a duel or fencing bout comes from in front of the fencer, not from the side. Horizontal quillions actually open the fingers up to attack from below & the back of the hand from above. In this case, they are merely decorative, and only decorative when on display, on a short stand. A stand for displaying a sword can be any height you want it to be, and vertical quillions would not interfere with this display on a taller stand in the least. If the sword is carried in a case as with Burdette in Flag in Exile, the Katana is ALWAYS on it's side in the case, and the horizontal quillions would need a much bigger case, or perhaps a cross-shaped case?

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.

The 2 point quillion guard is useful for defense against both slashing and cleaving strikes from any direction, the wielder merely twists the grip to turn them in the direction needed, a sword grip is not glued in-place. modern fencing is not sword-fighting, the foil doesn't even have an actual "blade" just a point. In a real sword fight you use the entire weapon (as with the Pommel example earlier). A sword fighter (with a real Long/Broad/Bastard etc... sword) may find it necessary to use the flat of the blade or even at times to grab the blade and swing the pommel as a club. You can't let yourself be locked into "I have to hold it just like this, at just this angle". There is (I think most will remember) a great scene in "Red Sonja" where (Arnold Schwarzenegger) teaches this to a young prince (Ernie Reyes Jr.). The prince lunges at him with a fencing attack and Arnold just side steps and yanks the sword out of his hand. "hey! you can't do that! I just did!" (or something like that) The deficit of the open areas were addressed later with the "Basket hilt" (of various types). These were best suited to smaller swords such as broad swords or sabers due to them restricting the had position (as described earlier). Something a 2-handed (or "hand-&-a-half") sword is unsuited for. These provide protection all around the hand except directly back & down (where the wrist is). This allows for more hand protection without having to adjust hand position for a parry. This is most commonly found on cutlasses and "main-gauche" or off-had parrying swords (the western counterpart to the Wakizashi and Sai - combined).