Talk:Katana

Untitled

The page says under forging that cooling the blade slowly causes the iron and carbon to separate. This is not true at all. When a blade is allowed to cool slowly it forms an laminar iron-carbon structure called pearlite. There is no separation of iron and carbon. I am updating the entry to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.235.23 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Access

Before the sword hunt called on by Oda Nobunaga, civilians were allowed to carry weapons. Katana, however, among other weapons, are said to be samurai weapons. Were people who were not in the samurai class allowed to have katana and other "samurai weapons"? And if so, was it easy for them to get (assuming they could afford it)? 98.217.230.157 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Merchants would hire bodyguards (which may have been samurai class with long swords) or would carry a shorter wakizashi themselves. A few affluent classes, such as doctors, were morally opposed to blades and so may have carried short truncheons instead.

The price of blades varied. Many were cheap, and they'd kill you just as dead. Certainly a functional wakizashi could be afforded by those who had much to protect. The skill to use it was another matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

but are they illegle in england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.64.90 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Katanas are underpowered in d20

And there's not a single mention of that on this wiki. I am dissapoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.61.248 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

While that is a hilarious meme, that isn't really appropri... Actually, maybe in a "in popular culture"-section, which this article seems to lack.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

wrong

while much of the information here is good, and it is free of much of the misinformation, a lot of the material here is wrong. The discontinuation of tachi use was due to horses becoming disadvantageous (when they developed effective methods of removing the horses legs etc), hence the began to fight on foot. All Japanese weapons were carried blade side up, aside from the tachi, as doing so endangered the tachi to being knocked into the rear of the horse.

no mention is made here as to why differential tempering was adopted (the ability to carry the sharpest blade possible, without breaking it. In this way they avoided entirely the question that plagued European smiths. This technique is the reason for the katana's repution for being able to cut through steel - because it could in general. any steel hard enough to stop it would shatter from the impact. This is also one of the reasons for the Japanese discontinuation of heavy armor production, it was a liability against swords which could slice through it like butter.

o mention is made of damage to the blade, carrying customs (katanas which were worn while mounted on a horse were worn upside down), and the section regarding daisho is almost entirely wrong. Horsemen wore daggers, foot men wore wakazashi as their offhand weapon. 46.116.74.160 (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Likewise numerous other small details. ##### — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.74.160 (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure whether or not you are serious, but the information you provide is wrong. First of all, the discontinuation of horses had nothing to do with effective methods of removing their legs, but because 1) the Japanese, with few exceptions, never really fielded much cavalry to begin with and 2) cavalry became less important as they adopted modern warfare. Second, the tachi mount is not only more useful on horseback (where it is a must), but also more comfortable while in armour on foot.

As for differential tempering, it is a Japanese curiosity which attempts to achieve the same thing as European blades, by different means. European blades, just like Japanese blades, had soft core/spine steel and hard edge steel. European blades were tempered, however (reheated after quenching), whereas Japanese blades were not - they were differentially hardened instead. It provides a beautiful hamon, but besides that it is not superior to European techniques. As for cutting through steel: no. No sword was designed to do this, and that includes katana. They did have kabuto-wari tests ("helmet splitting"), but no helmet has actually been split. The record is a 13 cm long gash. And the force of impact relies on the swordsman - not the sword.

You further claim that the Japanese ceased to make heavy armour because the katana could simply slice through it. There are two problems with this claim: 1) the katana could not slice through armour (and steel armour was after all made from the same material the katana was made of), and 2) they never stopped producing heavy armour. And besides, the katana was never more than a secondary weapon, anyway. The samurai preferred yumi, naginata and yari as their primary weapons.--Tsuka (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make some slight corrections to what you say:

Europeans had differential hardening. They generally didn't use it for their weapons. All the "fabled" and over romanticised techniques of the Japanese sword-smiths, were known to the Europeans, long before the Japanese learned them from the Chinese (who also knew them long before they came to Japan). Europeans folded (and twisted and other stuff) steel, they had differential hardening (on tools, generally) they applied different metals on different parts of the blade... They did it all ...until they got better steel, and didn't have to. All of those techniques are simply to make the most of flawed steel, and the Japanese never had particularly high quality steel. Japan has never been particularly blessed with natural resources in general, and the furnaces they had were not nearly as good as later European ones, either.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The sword-smiths of feudal Japan were very skilled, but to claim that their skills were unique is silly. The Swords they made, were very good, but to claim that they were uniquely good, in any sense, is silly. The Chinese made swords that were essentially identical (the Japanese blades being based on them), and Europeans, Middle Easterners and others, made swords that were pretty much the same, aside from being one handed and having a different guard. All of the romanticism of the katana and it's manufacture, is purely ignorance/rejection of swords and smiting techniques of other nations, and historical revisionism.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen other examples of multi-layer (varying levels of hardness) blade-making techniques, the one I can most easily cite is right here in wiki! Damascus Steel . And though the wiki article about the Ulfberht swords indicates "The group of Ulfberht swords includes a wide spectrum of steel and production method. One example from a 10th century grave in Nemilany, Moravia, has a pattern-welded core with welded-on hardened cutting edges. Another example appears to have been made from high-quality hypoeutectoid steel possibly imported from Central Asia.[12]". One can find additional information on the Ulfberht here :: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html - 128.172.48.37 (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Disruptive editing of lead

For some time now User:555nhs has been persistently adding the sentence "Some historians argue that katana were among the finest cutting weapons in world military history." to the lead, and has been reverted, by several editors. It's sourced, but not to works that do much except to repeat a truism. It's also in the body, now, under Description, which is fine. However, it keeps getting duplicated in the lead. I'm getting tired of reverting and placing disruptive editing templates (I won't place the final warning, or go to ANI, if it's just my doing so). What should be done? Dhtwiki (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the statement is too vague to be worth including in the lead. It's also ambiguously worded. Is it saying that these weapons are among the best weapons for cutting, or that they have among the finest (ie sharpest) edges, or that the are among the most finely crafted of cutting weapons? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think that statement---despite its parroting sources---has no place even under the Description subheader: It's a conclusion, not a fact, and the sources do nothing to support that conclusion but state it as a truism. This is, however, one of those cases where I think it best to defer to people more knowledgeable than I.Eunomiac (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Three handed use

I've tried to update the opening paragraph to reflect the fact that the Katana was designed for three-handed use by those truly skilled in the art. Please stop reverting my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.33.154 (talk • contribs)

Please explain how. Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not a katana expert.

Am I the only idiot who feels the need to point out that human beings only have two hands? Eunomiac (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested: Section on Efficacy/Comparison with Other Bladed Weaponry

I was surprised to discover this article contained absolutely no mention of the katana's performance as a melee weapon. I've heard everything from "it's the greatest sword ever" to "it's fragile and impractical", and yet neither extreme (nor any middle ground) is discussed in the article. Could a knowledgeable someone please introduce a section on the practical benefits (or lack thereof) of the katana? Eunomiac (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

On WP, a knowledgeable person can't introduce such a section, owing to WP:OR. Such comment would need to come from an independent RS - and there are very few of these that are comparing Japanese and Western swords. The good Japanese writers are largely uninterested in Western swords - a few were, post 1868, but they don't seem to have been that expert on the Japanese tradition. Almost all Western commentary on katana is anime fanboy crap and worthless. Even the handful of good Western writers on katana and shin-gunto haven't made such a direct comparison. Looking to the modern European reenactor community there are plenty with experience through iaido etc, but not many of these are publishing, such that WP would pay attention to them.

So the answers are obvious, but WP will exclude them.

Beisdes which, WP coverage of swords and armour (not just Japanese) is still so poor that there's plenty of scope for improvement in any direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendums

Hi,
should Tameshigiri be included in the list of activities performed with a katana?
From the "I once heard ..." section:
- Japanese ironwork developed in part due to the low quality/iron content of the avaiable iron sand, which required more processes than other iron sources to give high quality steel. Not sure how one should put this, but, a lot of tinkering results in a lot of innovation ...?
- Historical swordmaking had ups and downs, with a definite high well before the Edo period. The Masamune (?) generation managed to harden steel to a hardness only achieved with the introduction of working steel in a chamber with inert gas (argon?). Dunno if it is an urban myth or not, but as part of the history of metallurgy, it seems noteworthy, if true.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Example of a hamon"

The picture of the example of a hamon is a modern acid fake-hamon, 100%. r.m.

You mean it's a modern reproduction? What does the acid part mean? Is it a good likeness? (ie can we keep it in and explain that it's a replica or is it inaccurate?). Thanks, once I understand i will be happy to look at the issue. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS are any of the pictures [|here] better suited? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All real hamons are individuals. Each craftsman has his signature pattern painted by hand, but there are always blemishes on each unit. European 'Damacene method' swords also have a sort of hamon. It is tiny swirls evident in the blade caused by uneven refraction of light in the layered bimetal. The layers were twisted longitudinally and permitted great flex and temeper retension.14.203.207.166 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108101004/http://www.una.edu/faculty/takeuchi/DrT_Jpn_Culture_files/Nihon_to.htm to http://www.una.edu/faculty/takeuchi/DrT_Jpn_Culture_files/Nihon_to.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Error - Picture - Different blade laminating methods

Hello - Issue : I would think soft steel and medium steel are inverted. Soft steel should correspond to red and medium to orange. Justification : https://japaneseswordindex.com/laminate.htm (in addition to basic metallurgy logic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mai Balsych Of Korse (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Katana and uchigatana

Outside Japan, katana is a sword worn with the blade facing up, which became the mainstream Japanese sword after tachi, but in Japan, it is specifically called uchigatana. The term katana in Japan is a broad term that refers to single-edged swords from all over the world, and it is necessary to pay attention to the confusion in the vocabulary. If you connect to the Japanese version of wikipedia from the English version of katana page, you will find information about the world's single-edged sword, and if you connect to the Japanese version from the English version of uchigatana page, you will find information about katana. Therefore, the description on this page overlaps with that of uchigatana. This means that on English wikipedia, someone has to delete the uchigatana page.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

カタナ

カタナ spells out Katana in the Katakana script. However, Katakana script is generally not used for normal japanese words. Instead it is usually used for loanwords, proper nouns/names and technical terms. The sword Katana is none of those. Instead, there is a motorcycle named after the Katana which is called カタナ.

In my opinion the Katakana script of the name should be deleted from the article as it is misleading (and/or irrelevant).R K NI (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@R K NI: Agreed, it is irrelevant here. I have removed the katakana spelling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Samurai sword" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Samurai sword and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Samurai sword until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article nomination

User:192.77.12.11 has nominated this article for good article status, without having contributed to it. I question this. WP:GA says that the nominator should be "...preferably one who creates or contributes to an article..." What do others think of the nomination? Dhtwiki (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If any major contributors would prefer to nominate the article themselves at this point, I am welcome to defer the nomination to them.

192.77.12.11 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@192.77.12.11 I did a quick skim of the article and it needs some work before GA. I can see a few sections missing citations and at least one dead external links. Also, please review MOS:SANDWICH, my knee-jerk reaction is to say that this page is almost too image heavy. Its generally recommended that editors who are very familiar with a topic are the ones to nominate a page. There is no explicit rule that one cannot nominate an article without editing it but it does make the back-end work substantially more difficult for yourself come review time. Have you gone through all the sourcing/prose to make sure its up to snuff?

I don't know how preferences work on the IP side of things but I recommend creating an account and enabling Hidden categories (WP:HIDDENCAT), it will make finding maintenance issues much easier. If you want help, I may be able to provide it but that will likely be a long-haul and you may need to withdraw the nomination. Etrius ( Us) 22:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I honestly haven't reviewed the sources much at all. I think I'll withdraw the nomination for now, as there are probably more capable users to handle it. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

uchigatana redirect

I've redirected the page Uchigatana to this page Katana. The previous content appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of this article. Whether to use the Japanese name or the English name for the article is a separate question; clearly both pages were about the same topic. jnestorius^(talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Average Age When A Samurai Gets Their Katana

Does anyone know what the average age is of when a samurai gets their katana? PleaseAllowThisName (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Japanese iron/steel was of poor quality.

I saw many comments on youtube.

"Japanese iron was of poor quality than European iron.”

"Therefore, Katana steel was inferior to European longsword."

Is this correct? Jaz57 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's complicated. Thus almost any short statement out of context can't be judged to be either correct or incorrect, because there will be some obscure instance where it does make sense.

What do you mean by 'iron' ? Iron ore? Smelted iron? Steel? The overall blade? A Japanese sword (of high quality) is a composite of hard and soft steel and iron, in order that the blade overall functions for the purpose of combat against typical Japanese adversaries, be they either armed and armoured samurai, or else poorly armoured retainers and infantry. But any discussion past that point really needs some background study of weapons, metallurgy, armour and tactics, then a much more detailed and precise statement. The YouTube level of discussion (you didn't even cite which YouTube) doesn't usually reach that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)