Japanese and European Swords

what were the differences in metal composition in the blades of european and japanese swords?

Do you mean what metals and such were in both or...

yea, whatever you said.

Katanas were made out of steel generally (stronger then iron because of the carbon added to it in small doses {to the iron}) Iron with a low amount of carbon made it easier to bend, meaning less of a chance to break of course.

Medieval swords were also made with steel.

The process of making steel was one that was not understood by the ancients - they knew that somehow some irons were much better than others - tougher and harder, and some areas became famous for producing steel without knowing whay

India was one area that exported steel all around the world in the middle ages.

The famous folding of soft and hard steel and iron together was also known world-wide, indeed today it is known as Damascussing, because of teh fine blades that came from Damascus with the wavy pattern on the blade. However even Viking swordsmiths knew of it.

I'd suggest there was no difference in the makeup of the materials going into blades across the world.

It was around the 10th-11th century when steel was "invented", correct?

One significant difference between Japanese katana/tachi and most European swords: the Japanese used hard, but brittle steel in some sections of the blade, and soft, but flexible steel for the core. The hardness awarded a sharp edge; the softness gave the sword enough energy absorption to resist breakage.

But I would rather have a Toledo rapier.

I have a wonderful video about the making of the Katana. No European blade was ever made that could match it. The steel was folded many times with layers of varying hardness added, as many as 20 layers. The blade was tempered using various means of cooling using clay coatings in varying thicknesses so when plunged into salt water it cools quickly in one area but slower in others. The cutting edge was extremely hard but brittle it was not. It also has a natural cutting action, being drawn across say your arm, it cuts deeper and deeper as you move the blade, requiring no pressure.
The biggest difference was as a result of this very hard, very sharp blade...There was no need for a shield.
The Katana could parry and fend with no detriment to the blade's integrity. The same treatment to a European blade would leave it very battered

.....Orda

A toledo rapier and/or katana would not require a shield, because of orda khan's stated reason, the weapon can block attacks without the blade being damaged. Though, still, wouldn't the damascene technique make for cheaper swords than katana's?

Also, a rapier is much quicker than a shield. A rapier is also quicker than a katana, though less destructive in impact.

Rapiers are used with a technique much different than in Japan, and blade strength is not as critical. They are normally thrust weapons. When two blades meet, the impact between them is much lower than two colliding katana. In European fencing, you generally just deflect the opponent's sword. Rapiers are much cheaper and easier to replace.

Thus, rapiers do not require the quality of a katana.

By the way, katana were not indestructable. They did break often.

Actually Orda it would end up being about a million layers or so.

Oh dear - we're off into the myths of Japanese swords again already?

Much like Emglish Longbows the facts about these fine weapons aer usually clouded by western enthusiasts.

There's no evidence that Japanese swords were any better (or any worse) than the same quality of European ones - the common vs the common and the excellent vs the excellent.

europeans weer layering iron and steel at about the same time the Japanese were, and with the same results. They just didn't have the sword-culture of hte japanese....or perhaps they had it a few hundred years earlier - at he height of chivalry, and it was replaced by firearms that prety much rendered fine swords obsolete - as they did in Japan too.

You probably thought I meant it was folded millions of times, but if you think about it, it ends up being up there (definately much mor ehten 20, which is wht my point was)

Perhaps a discussion as to what makes swords like Masamune's, Murasama's legends is good start. Aside from their supernatural myth (fact??).

I have always read that Japanese swords were better because of the shape of the blade and that tey used a better grade of steel tan the Europeans.

One thing to remember is that we're comparing 16th and 17th century Japanese technology with 12th - early 15th century European in Medieveal:TW. You wonder what European armorers and swordsmiths would have accomplished if they had another 2-3 centuries to develop their craft. Instead, the development of firearms pretty much made even the best armor increasingly obsolete after 1450 or so (one reason for the cut-off date in MTW). By the 17th century there was no point in heavy armor for combat, since the musket ball could easily pierce it. Cavalry became lighter and faster, depending on shock action to overrun infantry and gunners before they could get off many rounds. That led to the use of pikemen to hold off the cavalry and their integration with musketeers (beginning with the Swiss system), until ultimately the invention of the bayonet made the use of pikemen obsolete (although they turned up in odd places even during the Napoleonic wars - as with the Moscow militia pikemen who played a key role during the battle of Borodino in 1812, actually just by standing there).

Some of the earliest steel-folded blades were made by the Angles and especially the Saxons.. they date from the 6th century. The wavy pattern is caused by the sword or dagger consisiting of differents types of steel and then that being folded a number of times...

So that wouldn be roughly 1000 years before the most famous Samurai swords...

Would I be right in saying that Japanes swords went more for the sharpness of the blade and European sword were made more for stabbing and the blade was used more for stunning the enemy then getting your blade point in them. I'm just saying this because someone on this board mentioned that most European blades could be held and it was the point of the blade that made the kill

I think you would be right in saying that Japanese swords generally went in for sharpness, but saying anything general about European swords is a little risky. The sword was a major weapon for a good couple of thousand years in hundreds of different cultures and combat situations: there is no way to generalise about a gladius, a zweihander and a rapier (isn't that the start of a joke?)

Some European swords went in for blunt blades, at least for some of their length, but many if not most were fully sharp. I don't think any went in for stunning at all: a sword is meant for cutting and thrusting, if you want an impact weapon you use a hammer or mace.

If you're going back to the 15th cetury Knight vs Samurai debate, then the typical knight's sword would be used so as to try to get the tip into a chink in the armour. More likely, the knight would use a mace, hammer, spear or axe to do the job a lot better. So would the samurai: a katana is no good whatsoever against a hard target.

Incidentally, katanas are on average heavier than typical longswords, so if anyone will get anywhere by trying to use his sword to stun a man in steel armour it will be the samurai, not the knight (until his blade snaps, of course).

In both Europe and Japan there was historically a big problem getting decent steel for weapons. It was generally very impure, and had to be thumped a lot to get the slag out. As a broad generalisation: Japanese iron was of poor quality, so had to be very extensively worked to get it at all useful. The folding is necessary largely because there is a limit to how much you can hit a soft lump before it deforms into a pancake, so you need to fold it over to keep the lump sword-sized - the folding is not entirely an end in itself. This is true of European steel too, but not so much - there is better iron ore in many areas. There is a lot of contemporary evidence of swords breaking or bending, from both hemispheres.

Pell.R.