I don't really like oversimplified statements, because it always results in people taking the completely wrong conclusions from it. But it's also clear that the statistics vary widely, depending on the situation. I'd also like to add that, based on Karl Friday's Samurai, Warfare and the State and Off the Warpath, the accumulative percentage of sword kills is about 10%, which I'd argue is quite a lot. Just found these two parts to be overly reductive. I agree with almost everything else you said, though.

But that's more an issue of whether the sword connected with its target than the sword's ability to kill. Judging by skeletons I've seen from Japanese battlefields, most cases seemed to include several glancing blows before they were killed.

A katana can most certainly kill in one cut, but that relies on the cut connecting close enough. This was due to their unusual quality, sharpness and durability. It's just a Sword with some minor features that sets it apart.įrom historical records we can tell Japanese swords were highly sought after among everyone who knew of them. Their characteristics vary way too much to make a claim either or. This heavily relies on time period and purpose of the katana. Katanas aren't exactly 'light' compared to other swords It's just a Sword with some minor features that sets it apart. What made Katanas so 'dangerous and effective' is movies and Animes. If you manage to find an opening in their armor, say underneath the armpit, neck or in the pelvis-area, then you are probably in a good spot, other than that it's mostly just blunt damage where you can break someones arm or cut off a hand. Second, if you are going to kill an armored opponent, your best bet is to smack him in the head (you have a large steel stick in your hand and he has a poorly insulated metal helmet) and get him to the ground where you finish him off. If you dig up a battlefield from feudal Japan, most Samurai and Ashigaru were most likely killed by projectiles and spear thrusts (Swords were rarely used as a main weapon, it was more like a sidearm). Leather is quite tough to break through, mail even tougher and don't even get me started on scale and plate. (you can i guess, but combat most likely didn't look like that) You don't kill an armored soldier on the opposing side with just a slice through the air. Well i'm no expert or historian, but Katanas aren't exactly 'light' compared to other swords, on the contrary they are quite thick and heavy compared some European counterparts.įirst you have to wash out everything movies taught you about swordfighting.

Samurai katana combat images