Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 1

I removed this bit...

The Japanese sword blade was razor sharp on one side and blunt on the other. The sharp edge was made of almost 3000 layers of metal forged together, giving the edge great strength. The remaining body of the blade was soft in comparison, making the overall sword somewhat more flexible despite its hard edge.

Because it's worded misleadingly and partially contradicts/partially reiterates the later Construction section.

My apologies if this text is not in the correct section. I noticed when reading this article, that there is a contradiction. Section 4.0 contains the statement " Contrary to popular belief, this does not result in super-strength of a blade. The process of repeatedly folding the blade is performed in order to purify the metal". This says that folding DOES NOT increase the katana's strength. However in section 4.2, it suggest that "Lastly, it (folding of the metal) strengthened the metal (perhaps by more evenly distributing the imperfections)." I am not sure which version of this is true, can anyone comment on this? Mushin 21:01, 22 May 2005 (GMT)

Both versions are correct, although wording could be tightened. Folding will burn out some imperfections and homogenise the metal, both of which are likely to strengthen it somewhat, but they don't make it "super-strong" as many people seem to believe. Will tweak the wording a bit.

Thanks for the edit, I think the article reads more consistently now. Mushin

Does anyone know the average number of times a blade would be folded? What are the typical ranges of folds? -- TOertel

Blades were folded up to seven or eight times, which gives a few hundred (2⁷ or 2⁸) layers of iron and carbon, the result is a laminate that very closely mimics steel -- mike dill

As for magical properties, see above.

See what above? Theres no reference to magical proerties anywhere in the article. DryGrain 09:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the article states:

<<Though seeming to be an indestructable blade, if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting of nearly any material (soaked reeds for example) resulting in lower effectiveness as a weapon.>>

such fable-like statement seems questionable to me. It should be taken out. Or perhaps added such as "practioners belives that ..." Xah P0lyglut 18:39, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Its a shame that while the WW2 composition table of metals is given, its not mentioned anywhere what (outside of ceremonial functions) the major use of the katana was during WW2; namely, the beheading of Allied POWs. But I can't see anywhere neat to add this info. Kudz75 04:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could write a section on the history of the use of katanas, where their use by officers in WWII as a badge of office, a battlefield weapon, a prized trophy of Allied solders, and yes, as a tool of execution would be well worth a mention along with the rest of the history of the weapon. Just as long as we avoid PoV, of course. --Paul Soth 17:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I'm unsure if the katana was used for such executions in WWII, the wakizashi has been the traditional blade for decapitating prisoners or performing the final cut for seppuku. I know they continued using the wakizashi is such a fashion until the 1900s, so it may have been those swords instead of the katana. Also, most WWII katanas were typically machine manufactured and, while functional, were of poor quality compared to the handmade family swords. They were typically issued to NCOs and general officers. There are a few swords that were handmade during this period, but usually using the non-traditional methods.

Should This Katana topic have added to it something about the Bokken or Bokuto? the wooden sword that the Samurai trained with?

Someone rather bizzarely replaced the Myths section with a translation in French. Reverted to the English language version as this is the English wikipedia --kudz75 07:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

<<if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting>>

My understanding is that the ha is prone to chipping rather than rolling due to it hardness (hence the use of niku to alleviate this).

• Maybe someone would like to contribute more to the methods of how the swords were worn? There is a bit of information on it in section 3.4 (Classification by mode of wear), but I for one have never quite been able to understand the bit about 'buke-zukuri'. It has always confused me as to how the blade is situated on the body. I think it'd be nice if someone could contribute more to this area, or at least referrence to a page explaining more about the modes of wear. - Jacon M

Unwind-protect

Japan's policies

While I am aware of Japanese policy concerning World War II era or prior family blades, but does this extend to contemporarily manufactured ones? Such as, if one were to purchase a sword from a master in Kamakura, would they be able to take it out of the country? Another factor to this question is that the edge is sharpened (dulled is obviously alright to transport from the country). -S.G.

Not a problem, AFAIK. The blade first has to be properly documented with the Japanese authoroties as they are considered cultural treasures. Unwind-protect 12:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

It says that "Carrying a non-sealed katana is illegal in present-day Japan" in the article. This is just plain incorrect, or at least very poor wording.

Of course, people in Japan can own nihonto. They can also transport them. They can use them for martial arts practice, and that means taking them to the dojo. Now, of course, wearing a sword around is going to have people calling the police (especially if you are a gaijin like me), and they may even be able to arrest you (the law in Japan is rather grey, at least for practical purposes), but so long as you have the license with the sword at all times, you can definitely carry your sword around(in a sword-bag, at least).

You can transport blades into and out of Japan, but doing so is a bureaucratic nightmare. I haven't had to do that yet, so I haven't looked into the details 100%. If you are transporting one into Japan (for polishing, etc.), you have to make sure it isn't a showa-to (mass-produced swords from WWII). If you try bring one of those in, they will give you (as I understand it), the option of having it sent back, or having it melted down(they are seen as being symbolic of Japan's aggression in WWII, and since they were mass-produced, are seen to have no artistic merit).

You can generally transport blades(even sharpened) out of the country, so long as it isn't a national treasure. Some other conditions may apply. But keep in mind that you can pay, even for a gendaito from a mediocre swordsmith, around 20,000 USD. New gendaito start at about 6,000 USD minimum. -JD

Suggestion: Combine the Japanese swords into one page

I have an idea which I belive would help to improve the accessibility and also the efficiency of the information on the various Japanese swords (and other weapons forged by a similar technique).

My suggestion is to have one page, perhaps "Japanese Swords", which contains the bulk of the history and detailed information regarding the subject. The latter part of the page would go into detail describing the individual differences between the weapons. The various specific pages "Katana", "Wakizashi", "Tachi", "no-dachi", "tanto", etc, would all be redirects to "Japanese Swords".

Other uses for a Katana

I wouldn't know about executing POWs. But here's a much more fun use for your Katana: apparently they were used to put the lines on a goban (Go board).

The best reference I can offer is the Go Wiki: http://senseis.xmp.net/?path=MakingYourOwnEquipment&page=SurfaceFinish -- can anybody else confirm this?

(Makes sense to me, since Go was a samurai pastime.)

Not an actual katana, but a curved metal ruler somewhat resembling a katana. The process is called "tachimori", lit. tachi molding and this is what led to the confusion. Don't ever try using a katana! :) Revth 14:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional Information

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I was part of a team which wrote an extensive dissertation on Japanese arms and armor, and it would be relatively easy for me to expand upon this page (and any Japenese armor page, or Japanese tactics/strategy page). For example, I could add a significant amount of information as to the history and legends of Japanese swords, explanations (and diagrams) and the various parts of the blade, explanations of the grains of the blades, types of 'ha' (polished edge), some of the advanced construction techniques utilizing multiple metals in single blades, the markings on the tang, sheath and hilt construction, etc, etc. Plus an solid bibliography, and pictures if they are advisable.

As you see, there is a lot of information I could add. But I read the Wiki posting policies, and they state to keep the articles short. I certainly can't do that if I want to add this. Plus, I don't have a firm grasp of what is and isn't wikiquette-permitted. So - please, somebody tell me: should I add to this article? Or should I make new articles (for example, one for grains and edges, one for tangs and hilts, etc) and then just post links on this article?

-Craig

Sep 4 '04

Be bold in updating pages. There are thousands of people on Wikipedia who can look at articles and make a good decision about whether they should be split up/lumped together. There aren't nearly as many who can provide detailed information about Japanese swords, so make that your priority; if there's a problem with the structure, it'll get fixed.

That said, my call would be to include most of the sword material on this page (with appropriate use of sections and subsections), because it's slightly less trouble to split material after writing than it is to lump it back together. FWIW, Katana is currently about a quarter of the suggested max page length; be terse, but don't be shy about adding information.

General etiquette: make sure what you use is public domain, log in before making significant changes, and where possible integrate your additions with pre-existing material. --Calair 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how 'terse' I was, but I've modified it. Feel free to hack it up, gentlemen. And ladies, I suppose. Just make sure you cut STRAIGHT ACROSS when you slice away text, or your blade will chip and curl. :D

Ugh, I just realized I didn't incorporate the new manufacturing section into the old one. I didn't see it. Bad parsing on my part! I... um, I think I'm gonna wuss out and let someone else rectify that.

Oh, I'll put a history section in later. I'm all Wikied out at the moment, though.

Craigp 04:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Looked like the easiest solution might be to turn the old section into a precis of the longer version - Craigp, can you have a look at the precis and see whether it looks accurate to you?

I've taken the liberty of reorganising the sections into what I hope is a more natural sequence, and renaming a couple of bits ('terminology' is redundant, since just about every section in this article involves terminology, and 'things to hold on to' included several things that weren't really for holding onto).

A few questions:

* "Often as many as thirty (folds)". There's a *lot* of confusion out there (and I may well be a part of that confusion, I'm just an interested layperson) about how many folds were involved; my understanding was that ten to twenty was typical, and thirty was pretty much an upper limit. If anybody has a good source for numbers, it would be much appreciated. And if thirty was common, somebody please correct what I wrote in the 'Myths' section.

* "Lastly, it hardened the metal (probably by burning out some of the carbon)." My understanding is that hardness *increases* with higher carbon content, so burning out carbon would lower the overall hardness?

* "One is the saya, which is generally made of wood and considered the ‘resting’ sheath, used in place of a more fragile and expensive sheath. The other sheath is the more decorative or battle-worthy sheath which is usually called either a jindachi-zukuri or a buke-zukuri..." What's this one made of, if not wood?

And thanks for the detail, this is fascinating reading :-) --Calair 06:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing in the old version looked INCORRECT except a passing statement about tachi being longer than katana, which is only marginally the case. So a precis based on the old production technique would be fine.

Thirty is an upper max for folding (for reasons which are actually already gone into on the page). Although each fold requires a lot of time, remember that these swords were considered on the same level as religious artifacts to the samurai, and there were eager apprentices to do the folding in many cases. The swords we had at the museum were either gunto (not folded) or folded between six and eighteen times. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the 'common' number was: I would bet it changed dramatically as time went on, decreasing during the shinto era. Perhaps someone could contact a current day Japanese swordmaker - I bet they would know. (Although they're probably sick of answering what has got to be the most common question...)

High carbon = hard metal is right, I think. I managed to get myself confused when rephrasing my dissertation. :P But the fact of the matter is, folding makes the steel more resistant to impact without making it significantly softer. If someone else has a scientific reason this exists, let me know, or just put it in! I'm afraid I sort of just let that hang in my dissertation.

* "One is the saya, which is generally made of wood and considered the ‘resting’ sheath, used in place of a more fragile and expensive sheath. The other sheath is the more decorative or battle-worthy sheath which is usually called either a jindachi-zukuri or a buke-zukuri..." What's this one made of, if not wood?

The saya, or resting sheath, is made entirely of wood, with cords or ribbons. The battle-sheath is made of bamboo or wood core, either plated or banded with metal (usually highly decorative metal). I could go into greater detail on the sheath construction page, if you want - I figured it was extraneous.

Hey, there's no corresponding pages for various spear types, armor, or military techniques. I suppose I'll have to create those, too, hmmm? I'll look at the samurai page later, and see if anything needs... adding. :D <--- (definitely the smiley of the day.)

Craigp 15:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Folding: maybe we should just leave it at "up to thirty" without implying anything about whether this was usual? I know working metal can affect its strength & hardness, but I don't know the details of the metallurgy.

Sheath: it just seemed odd to mention that the first is made of wood, and then say nothing about the second. Might as well add the detail (see below for comments on organisation). --Calair 23:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Metallurgy: I would like a reference cited for the notion that Katana were up to 3% Carbon in places. This is well into cast iron territory. Any blade with this high a level of Carbon would be as brittle as glass! I think this part should be edited until a reliable source can be cited.

Too Long!

Okay, now it's really long. Let me know if and how you cut it down, would you? I'd like to be able to know what the procedure is in the future.

Wow, I didn't realize how much STUFF I had. I've got even more on other, similar topics, too. Japanese armor is actually more interesting than this stuff.

Craigp 17:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think I can cut this down quite a bit; remember, this doesn't have to be a self-contained article. Explaining how politics affected the role of the katana is good, but you don't have to explain the politics as well. There are entries that already cover much of that (see History of Japan for starters) and you're better off linking to those pages rather than recreating material that's already on Wikipedia.

I'll trim it down and paste some of the snipped material here; if anybody wants to look at the relevant history/culture pages and see whether it can usefully be transplanted there, go ahead. --Calair 23:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, done. I cut a lot of side material (see recs below), removed a few bits that seemed redundant, and juggled stuff in an attempt to reduce length; it's back to about 29K now. --Calair 01:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a way to shorten the article, I'd strongly recommend ditching the parts on katana fiction. These parts make it seem like little kids were contributing to Wikipedia. The adherence to fact is what gives Britannica and Encarta a leg up on Wikipedia. If some people really want to read about Anime and Highlander, maybe the fiction parts should be moved to a separate article called "Katana (Fiction)" or "Sword (Fiction)" - JHP 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the sections on katana fiction and moved them to a new article. JHP 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Snipped material

Snipped from Katana on Sept 7th to keep it on-focus; I recommend looking at the appropriate pages to see whether this should be incorporated into those. Please delete material from this page once it's found a good home, or is deemed redundant. --Calair 01:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a bad piece of writing littered with questionable or false informations with a little understanding of Japanese history. For example, daimyo didn't exist in Asuka period and battles were between clans. Mongolian attacks were in Kamakura period and the decline of Ashikaga shogunate power was complete before the arrival of muskets. It wouldn't be a bit of damage to wiki if these were simply deleted. Revth 15:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with either Japanese history or the katana to assess the accuracy of this stuff, except for occasional points of science, so I'd rather leave deletions to those who feel qualified to make those judgements; my involvement here's more in the presentation.

BTW, this and your other recent addition to this talk page should not have been flagged as minor edits. That tag's reserved for things like spelling corrections, formatting, and rearrangement of text. --Calair 23:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'sall fine by me. I was trying to keep the history linked to the sword, but if it was still too much, out it goes! As to accuracy, much of what I see below has been reorganized into periods of history. I do not believe I intended to imply that the mongols attacked before the thirteenth century: in fact, I believe I stated outright that that is when they attacked.

I did, however, use daimyo before the term actually came into use. Sorry: I considered it a word that was backwards compatable, although now I remember it might not have been. Either way, it's not important enough to me to fight over. Also, the Ashikaga Shogunate lasted from 1336-1573, when Oda Nobunaga took power. Guns came into being only a few decades before the shogunate went out. Therefore, they may not have had any influence on the decline of the shogunate, but it seems unlikely they had no influence on its demise. In fact, one of the primary features of Nobunaga's tactics were his use of muskets. But, out it can go, too! By the way, my exact words were, from below (I don't believe these were edited):

This was called the Muromachi period, and lasted until 1573, when guns destroyed the samurai power base.

So it was the musket that brought the downfall of the Ashikaga Shogunate. Smaller factions could equip their men with muskets and do impressive damage, more than an equivalent number of samurai. This caused a number of previously insignificant factions to gain power in a situation of rising chaos.

... which is strongly worded but NOT incorrect in ANY sense. I was trying to show the incredible rejection of guns, and in order to do so I needed to show that guns had greater power than swords. Nobunaga's use of guns was the mark of the destruction of the Samurai martial power base. The struggle thereafter to restore that martial power base is the unique feature of Japanese history... but that marks the time... the MOMENT... that muskets rendered sword arts obsolete.

I do fairly careful research, but I also make mistakes. This is re-compiled from a collection of essays I wrote in a team more than five years ago, so you'll have to forgive (and point out) any mis-compilation on my part. However, you (Revth) speak too strongly in opposition. The information is not without merit.

Craigp 01:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you explicitly gave a date to the Mongol invasion (pre-snipped version can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Katana&oldid=5706218). It was mentioned after the War of Onin (late C15th) and the next chronological reference afterwards was 1573, so I took this to mean it'd happened somewhere between those two. That's why I mistakenly lumped it in with Muromachi/Ashikaga; apologies for the confusion. --Calair 02:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggest moving to samurai: The samurai class in Japan is unique throughout the world, and although more detailed and accurate information can be found under the entry for them, for our purposes is it enough to think of them as roughly equivalent to a European medieval lord, except for the small fact that samurai spent much of their time practicing combat. A huge percentage, relatively speaking, of the Japanese were bushi (warrior nobles, what the samurai are often called). At times, this reached as high as ten percent! In comparison, in Europe less than 1% of the population were warrior nobles.

To Asuka period: In the sixth century CE one clan conquered the core island chain, bringing about a time of relative peace - wars between daimyo (generals) rather than emperors were common.

To whichever eras are most appropriate (may also want to add something in Dark Ages here): Unlike the dark ages of Europe, which consisted of a decline in arts and sciences, Japan did not fall into barbarism, but instead continued to study art and culture.

To Muromachi Period and/or Ashikaga Shogunate:

During this time, the Mongols attacked. During their attacks the young emperor (a thirteen year old boy at the beginning of the Mongol attacks) gave a huge amount of power to a 'Seii-tai Shogun', which means 'barbarian-subduing generalissimo'. Assisted by a timely and extremely famous hurricane, they fended the Mongols off. However, the shogun kept his power, arranged for it to be hereditary, and claimed much of the real power. The shogunates, as the progression of shogun were called, were much of the driving force central to the dark ages. This was called the Muromachi period, and lasted until 1573, when guns destroyed the samurai power base. ... So it was the musket that brought the downfall of the Ashikaga Shogunate. Smaller factions could equip their men with muskets and do impressive damage, more than an equivalent number of samurai. This caused a number of previously insignificant factions to gain power in a situation of rising chaos.

To Edo Period and/or Tokugawa Shogunate:

Three of Japan’s greatest men arose from this period of chaos. Oda Nobunaga, who brought central Japan to heel (mid to late sixteenth century); his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who finished uniting Japan (late sixteenth century); and, lastly, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who consolidated everything under the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603, creating a government which lasted hundreds of years. This time was known as the Edo period, and it was a period of radical policy changes in the Japanese government. One such policy change was in how Japan dealt with foreigners, another with how it dealt with weapons.

Until now, foreigners had been tolerated, but no longer! Until now, guns had been watched warily, but no longer!

It is impossible to get perfect details from this era, as Japan had cut off virtually all contact with the outside world, and the Japanese records are not quite clear on the subject. However, what is certain is that the Tokugawa Shogunate ordered that gunpowder could only be made in the capital city of Nagahama, and then steadily enforced this rule until very few gunpowder manufacturers existed outside of the government’s own employ. They continued placing restrictions on guns and steadily ordering fewer and fewer themselves, until by the beginning of the eighteenth century they had all but ceased ordering them. To make this disarmament reach further, they collected weapons from the citizens of Japan to melt down and use for nails in the construction of a great statue and shrine to Buddha. This was never constructed, but the swords and muskets were melted down...

It took over a century, but the last battle in Japan in which guns were a significant factor (before their reintroduction in the nineteenth century) was in 1637, and even then, they were used by foreigners, not Japanese. The only guns produced in Japan after this time until the late eighteen hundreds were the few dozen that the government ordered each year, and they were never used in battle.

...the Japanese culture in general advanced. The literacy rate was about 40% among all men (far higher than any European country), and Confucianism and intellectualism became important aspects of Japanese culture. Haiku came into existence.

Curious (sheathes)

This is the first time I've ever heard the terms "buke-zukuri" and "jindachi-zukuri" used to refer to the physical sheath and not just the style of wear.

Ronin didn't carry wakazashi?

Can anyone cite a reference for the assertion that ronin did not carry a daisho but only katana? I find it hard to believe that this was the case given the fact that there were several ryu which taught kenjutsu techniques involving two swords (either as a basic form or in special circumstances). The assertion that wakazashi were only worn by retainers seems a bit odd, as does the assertion that only retainers would commit seppuku. It's a poor example, but the 47 Ronin comitted seppuku and in a legal sense they had no master, even if they were avenging his death. Also for purely practical reasons I have a bit of trouble with this? What did a samurai do if he lost his lord? Put is wakazashi in safe deposit at HSBC? Destroy it and buy a new one if he got a new master?

My understanding is that it was actually the wakazashi, not the katana that was the true privilege of the samurai, at least in the sense that it was always carried even when the katana was stored or left at the door in a formal setting. Even samurai who were not trained in kenjutsu carried wakazashi as a symbol of their rank as I understand it.

Can anybody clear this up? Inquiring minds want to know. Gabe 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

== ^^ Answering that question. As I have heard, but am not entirely sure, Ronin did carry only one sword which is the katana. And yes, some ryu were taught to use techniques that involved two swords. A brilliant mind, of which i believe entirely, informed me that they were taught to use two swords in the case that they could achieve a second sword in battle, like a fallen sword or by taking their enemy's sword in combat. I cannot verify this for sure, but here you go...

  --Inquiring mind

Peer review toward FA anyone ?

Would someone be interested in applying for a peer review of this article and making another attempt to have it reach a Featured Article status ? Rama 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it need to go back to PR? It was already on FAC... I think it should just go straight back to FAC.  ALKIVAR™ 10:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of a Peer review first to make certain that it makes it with flying colours. Rama 12:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this is dumb.

>> Chisa-katana were not common weapons since usually a katana was made for a shorter person or a wakizashi for a larger person. <<

The above quote from the Katana entry seems to be illogical. Perhaps it should be the other way around.

Why is this on Cleanup?

It seems fine to me. Taking off the tag now. Karmafist 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

this article is highly inacurate... please do more research into nihonto. sorry... lets start with the comment that the wakazashi was the privilage of the samurai... in the time of the samurai proscriptions where made about how long of a blade could be carried, not how short... you will find that even merchant class was permitted a wakazashi.

---

The imported Chinese swords were not "double edged", they were single-edged straight swords.

Police using katana?

Does anyone have a source for this?

Katana remained in use in some occupations, police sometimes using katana not only to catch criminals but to defend themselves from criminals who could be armed with katana as well. At the same time, Kendo was incorporated into police training so that police officers would have at least the minimal training necessary to properly use one.

TomTheHand 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Diagram

Can one of our German(?) speaking wikipedians translate the diagram depicting the katana's components? Would be nice if you could also find a source for it (the de:wiki link is broken). Thanks. Tronno (talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Japanese sword

As this is an article for a Japanese curved single-edged katana sword, I don't understand why the influence of the Chinese straight swords has to be emphasized and required so much description as below, which was written in the former article. I don't see people boasting their ancestors' influence (nothing to do with people living today!) in articles such as Economy of Japan or Manufacturing industries of Japan, although it is apparent that Japan has learned from the west (but also creating unique products and modern culture).

During this period, Chinese swords of the Tang Dynasty were popular in Japan among the royalty, so Chinese and Korean swordsmiths were invited and recruited to Japan where they taught the native Japanese swordsmiths the respective Chinese swordmaking techniques of:

a) forge-welding / laminated construction

b) repeated forging and folding of sword blanks to enhance the quality of the steel

c) differential heat-treatment using clay

d) ridged cross-sections (consisting of 2 variants known to the Japanese as kiriha-zukuri and shinogi-zukuri). Early swords were in the style of mainland Chinese swords; straight, and either double or single edged.

The Nihongi (together with the Kojiki, known as the 2 oldest classical histories in Japan) was complied in AD 720 (Tang Dynasty or the equivalent Japanese "Nara" period) and records a poem* by Empress Suiko (died AD 628):

"My good Soga** ! The sons of Soga !Were they horses,they would be the steeds of of Hiuga.Were they swords,they would be the good blades of Kure***............."

• *From the "Nihongi", translator: W.G Aston, Charles E. Tuttle Company 1998
• **Soga clan was one of the most powerful clans in the Japanese Imperial Court at that time.
• ***Kure was the Japanese pronunciation for "Wu", one of the 3 states of China during the 3 Kingdoms period (220AD - 280AD). In this case, the Empress used it to denote China.

Because of this reason and by compairing the volume of other periods, I prefer the older article which only says,

At the same time, the Japanese took inspiration for swords from the Chinese. Early swords were merely duplicates of Chinese swords, straight and double-edged, but the warring stability of the Asuka period promoted the advancement of weaponry.

This does include the Chinese influence.-- Nobu Sho 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

fiction

Saying that lightsabers and Jordan's 'Callandor' are similar to katanas was unclear to me. I think this assertion is based on an earlier paragraph stating that katanas are believed in popular myth to possess magical powers. However, there are other instances of so called magical swords in myths and legends. Also, while I have never seen Callandor, I have seen lightsabers (on film of course) and they don't look anything like a katana - for one they are straight and can cut from any direction.

I have taken the sections on katana fiction and moved them to a new article. JHP 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on National Treasures bothers me. I understood the designation of National Treasure was invented (?) by McArthur when he discovered many of the traditional Japanese arts had practically died during the war. Bonsai, tea pot making, sword making, and others received this designation. But, as I understand it, this designation is POST WWII.24.10.102.46 07:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Short sword or tanto for suppuku?

The artile now reades: "The long blade was used for open combat, while the shorter blade was considered a side arm, and also more suited for stabbing, close combat (such as indoors), and seppuku, a form of ritual suicide." But I think it's not the short sword (wakizashi), but the TANTO that was used for seppuku (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku).

I've been under the impression that it was the other way around. Many samurai, both early and late, usually carried the tanto into battle for use in close combat. Generally they only equipped the short wakizashi when they were carrying the katana: in other words outside the battlefield. Fully armoured Samurai wishing to commit suicide on the battlefield most likely never had the time to do it in any real formal matter, so they prolly (if the situation allowed) stormed into a throng of enemies and get cut down true "samurai-style". Of course there are exceptions. There are several stories about samurai retainers fighting to hold the enemy at bay while their lord takes off his armour and commits seppeku in the formal matter. And just for curiosa: I read about one samurai who committed seppeku by putting his sword in his mouth (point inside his mouth) and jumping of his horse at full speed.

So my own opinion is that when the samurai were in civilian gear, off the battlefield and carrying the katana and wakizashi, they would (when called for) usually commit seppeku using their short wakizashi sword rather than the tanto. Samurai-women used tanto when they committed seppeku though, (they didn't carry swords of their own).

Fred26 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the wakizashi would be used for seppeku. The tanto was always carried, inside or in battle, and the wakizashi was also carried at all times unless in a house of a friend or at home. The katana was not worn around town, though was the most useful in battle. The wakizashi was used for close combat, and also could be a substitute if the katana was broken, dropped, or bent.

There is another weapon in the same size as a dagger (tanto), essentially an armour-piercing weapon that was most useful in battlefield-scenarios. Another reason not to use wakizashi on the battlefield. Fred26 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the tantô for seppuku is well documented. Suicides on the battlefields must have been done using it, as the wakizashi was not carried. Similarly, for judicial suicides documented during the Tokugawa era, the condemned man was provided with a dagger, not a wakizashi length blade (but was often beheaded even before he had time to actually cut himself). It is often assumed that the wakizashi may have been used for suicide in less formal settings, when it was worn rather than a dagger, though there are no definite sources regarding this and it may be a try at explaining an actual use for the short blade, and a reason why the samurai caste insisted on carrying it. It must be noted, though, that during the Tokugawa era, non samurai who were allowed to wear swords, such as scholars and doctors, or commoners allowed a weapon permit for traveling, wore wakizashi; the katana being reserved for actual military personnel and police. --Svartalf 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to European swords

I think it should be added that the katana was not a primary weapon but rather a secondary weapon used either as a last resort,to finish off a foe, or for a warrior to kill himself. Also while the katana was a great cutting weapon it was useless against armor and so it may be better than European swords for cutting the European swords are more practical given the requirements of the time (swords which would damage armor).

Where did you get that idea? It is true that, in the beginning (say, between the 10th and 13th centuries) the bow, spear and naginata were the weapons of first engagement, and the tachi was a last resort... that's because 1) the katana smithing techniques were not yet perfected and 2), the O yoroi type of armor severely restricted arm movements, thus making fencing impractical. On the other hand, as time went on, armor changed, making sword fighting easier, the archery duels lost of their importance, the naginata went out of fashion, and the yari was progressively relegated to mass use by ashigaru commoners, while the noble samurai increasingly relied on the katana, as it replaced the older tachi and the less restrictive dô replaced the yoroi . Historical sources recount MANY fencing duels and feats of swordfighting, their frequency increasing with time, and lethality being high. I suspect you overrate the efficiency of armor which, despite being excellent protection, did not suffice to completely guard its wearer from harm.

As for being mostly used to finish off foes or kill oneself, you're dead wrong. head cutting and belly slitting were generally done with a much more convenient tool : a dagger, which samurai, when in armor, carried instead of the longer wakizashi that went with civilian and ceremonial clothing. The examples of samurai using the long blade for suicide are rare and regarded as exceptional ... when the text does not make it clear the great sword was used, assume a short blade. The act was hard enough without making it harder by use of inconvenient tools.

I may agree that katana may not have been very useful for hacking straight at an armoured part of the foe (though a few instances of helm cleaving are reported), but European blades, in the age of plate armor were not any better at the task. Those were either thrusters, made to get through the weak spots, a task at which the katana is equally adept, or glorified clubs that quickly lost any cutting power if they had any to begin with.--Svartalf 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious if there have been any studies about possible correlations between the European sword/Japanese sword size ratio and the European person/Japanese person size ratio.

- Regarding "glorified clubs": to my knowledge, no considerable quantity of swords meant for *clubbing* armoured opponents was ever produced, regardless of what some misinformed Victorian historians may have thought. Striking attacks against armoured opponents with the edge of the sword certainly aren't common in the surviving fighting treatises of the time.