Japanese Swords "Mythbusting" - Part 1









Oyamada Bitchu no Kami Masatatsu 小山田備t中守昌辰 holding a Japanese sword while facing a volley of bullets, from Koetsu yusho den Takeda-ke nijushi-sho 甲越勇將傳武田家廾四將 by Utagawa Kuniyoshi.





Hello everyone and welcome back!

The title is already quite self sufficient to explain the topic of this article, but I would like to write few forewords before starting this long but needed post on Japanese swords.

First of all, for the usual readers, I have to apologize for the long time period with no post nor articles: currently I'm moving house in another country, and without being boring, this is a long process and requires some time, unfortunately. Nonetheless, I'm trying to stay as active as possible and for those who are waiting for an article or a reply to a comment, thank you for your patience and again, sorry for the delay.



Another important premise is that this article won't be the average "katana mythbusting" article were the pop-culture idea of a katana (and Japanese swords in general) is torn to pieces; we don't need more of these, there already plenty of debunking videos, blogs, articles and so on talking about "how the Japanese swords is not made with supersteel" or "how they won't cut into other swords" and most importantly, that they are just swords.

We all know that, luckily.



Indeed, I think that with the needed wave of "debunking katana arguments", the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, creating new myths which are meant to downplay the Japanese swords, and those are the myths I will address here.

Moreover, I have already explained in detail some of the following myths, so for those who would like to know more, check the links throughout this article!



And finally, this would "ideally" be a top 10; in the first part I will start with the first 5 common myths I was able to came up with. I have already a following list to comment and finish, but if you have more ideas, please feel free to comment here below! I'm pretty sure that most of the "requested" myth to address would already be in my list, but if we came up with more, this might have a part 3 as well.

Now let's get to it!





Myth 1: Japanese swords were made with pig iron/ inferior steel quality.



This is one of the most common sentence you can find in a random internet comment which talks about the katana.

And yet, in a historical context, it is very far from being true.

Of course in a modern day context, with 21st century technology, 16th century Japanese steel in comparison is definitely inferior.

Just like 16th century European, Indian, Persian or Chinese steel is inferior to modern steel, because we have more than 500 years of progress.

But through the lens of 16th century technology, the amount of impurities (called slag) found on Japanese steel used for swords was not higher, on average, in comparison with other cultures swords. Sure, it is possible to have a wide range of quality within Japanese swords, but high quality swords were definitely worth it. Hello everyone and welcome back!The title is already quite self sufficient to explain the topic of this article, but I would like to write few forewords before starting this long but needed post onFirst of all, for the usual readers, I have to apologize for the long time period with no post nor articles: currently I'm moving house in another country, and without being boring, this is a long process and requires some time, unfortunately. Nonetheless, I'm trying to stay as active as possible and for those who are waiting for an article or a reply to a comment, thank you for your patience and again, sorry for the delay.Another important premise is thatarticle were theidea of a katana (and Japanese swords in general) is torn to pieces;, there already plenty of debunking videos, blogs, articles and so on talking about "" or "" and most importantly,, luckily.Indeed, I think that with the, the pendulum haswhich are meant to downplay the Japanese swords, andMoreover,so for those who would like to know more, check the links throughout this article!And finally, this would "be ain the first part I will start with the first 5 common myths I was able to came up with. I have already a following list to comment and finish,please feel free to comment here below! I'm pretty sure that most of the "requested" myth to address would already be in my list, but if we came up with more, this might have a part 3 as well.Now let's get to it!This isyou can find in a random internet comment which talks about the katana.And yet, in aOf course in a modern day context,16th century Japanese steel in comparison is definitely inferior.Just like 16th century European, Indian, Persian or Chinese steel is inferior to, because we have more than 500 years of progress.But through the lens of 16th century technology, the amount of impurities () found on Japanese steel used for swords. Sure, it is possible to have a wide range of quality within Japanese swords, but







A Japanese tatara - the first step of the traditional creation of Japanese steel.

I have already talked about the two common misconceptions used to "explain" why Japanese swords supposedly were made with low quality steel is the fact that they more often than not used satetsu (iron sand) and a bloomery smelter, the kera oshi tatara.

However, in reality, while satetsu wasn't the only source available, it wasn't even that bad in the first place, and moreover, in Japan an indirect steel making process was known (zuku oshi tatara) and widely used, so decarburized cast iron was used for blademaking (like in China and in Europe), which means that both assumptions are not valid to support the statement of Japan having/producing bad historical steel. Again, I did plenty of research on this and you can find my results (with references) in my "Iron and Steel in Japanese Arms&Armors" series.



Another widely used statement is that "katana were made of pig iron".

Again, this is simply not true.

Pig iron (or cast iron) has a carbon content higher than 2% and thus is very brittle and unsuitable for blademaking.

According to every single swords analyzed, there is no evidence that such high amount of carbon was found in the edge of Japanese swords.

Moreover, pig iron was decarburized before using it to make swords: this is the exact same process used by the Europeans to make their swords after the 14th century alongside bloomery production (which was still widely used there up until the 18th century). I have already talked about the quality of the native steel sources found in Japan and the smelting processes they had during the feudal period , butused towhy Japanese swordswere made with low quality steel is the fact that they more often than not usedand a bloomery smelter, theHowever, in reality, while satetsu wasn't the only source available,, and moreover, in Japan an, so decarburized cast iron was used for blademaking (like in China and in Europe), which meansAgain, I did plenty of research on this and you can find my results (with references) in my "series.Another widely used statement is that "".Again,(or cast iron) has a carbon content higher than 2% and thusfor blademaking.According to, there isMoreover, pig iron was decarburized before using it to make swords: this is the exact same process used by the Europeans to make their swords after the 14th century alongside bloomery production (which was still widely used there up until the 18th century).







A modern picture of pig iron made through modern industrial process.

Another funny contradiction to this widely used theory is that occasionally, you can find the idea of Japanese blade makers to not have a high temperature smelter and using pig iron in their blades; however, to consistently produce pig iron (or cast iron) in the first place, you need a high temperature smelter. In fact, the whole concept of blast furnaces is to produce cast/pig iron and then decarburized it into steel!









Myth 2: The curvature is not intentional but generated by quenching



This is another famous misconception used to explain the fact that Japanese swords are usually curved, and unfortunately is taken as true even by some student of Japanese swords.

While it is true that the differential hardening process creates a curvature, this is not neither the main process or the factor that decide the degree of the sori ( 反り) .







A beautiful screenshot of the queching process traditionally found on Japanese swords.

In fact, the bladesmith decides before and after the quenching the design of the curvature by forging the sword with a convex (or concave) curvature and then adjusting it later after the blade has been quenched and prior to the final tempering. The latter process has even a name and it is called sorinaoshi ( 反り直し) .

Japanese blades in fact could have different degrees and positions of the curvature, or no curvature at all.

This is quite evident when we compare Heian period tachi with later straight Kinnoto (勤皇刀). Much of the style and design of the curvature was dictated by the fashion and functionality of the time period.

The idea that the curvature was applied with a random process and without intentional decision making is thus false; and this led us to another myth.







A muzori katana, with no curvature in the blade but a minimal and gentle curvature in the hilt.





Myth 3: The curvature doesn't add any benefits.

This is again a very popular statement, and it is often used in conjun ction with the last myth I've discussed to explain the shallow curvature found especially on katana, but it doesn't really follow any kind of logic.

As we know, the process of Japanese swordmaking allow the maker to decide the degree of the curvature as well as to make a straight sword.

So why bothering adding the shallow curvature if that didn't have noticeable effects? Moreover, beside the fact that there are few degrees of curvatures find on Japanese swords - so generalizing is already a bad idea - not every of them is shallow (not to mention straight ones), the same design is also found on late European sabers and in some types of kriegmessers.

The effect of curvature in blades is still very disputed, and even more if the curve of the blade is not very deep.

But having a curvature is a tradeoff, because you are losing thrusting power in some way, since a straight sword has a much easier time when it comes to this particular motion.

So in a context where weapons were constantly tested in and improved in battlefields, it doesn't makes sense that the shallow curvature found on katana (and others types of swords) is only detrimental.







A Bizen Osafune sword with a moderate curve.

So, while it is stille very debated, it is worth starting with the fact that a curved blade (even if not dramatically curved) helps with draw cuts and slashes: when the blade is cutting and meet another object, the curvature aid with the movement and create a slicing motion (drawing or pushing the edge along and into the target medium). This is effect is increased whit greater curvatures (at the cost of losing thrusting efficiency), but still even a slight curvature would help with that.



But it's not all there; a curved blades has an advantage in the cutting motion because the curvature tends to redirect the blade towards the edge line.

To put it simply, when swinging a curved blade like a katana, you can feel that the blade naturally want to get proper edge alignment with the target.

This is quite important, because wrong edge alignment leads to ineffective and poor cut and could damage the blade as well.

So even a slight curve does help with consistency in the cut because of the natural edge alignment orientation. This is a massive advantage when it comes to cutting reliably different targets in different situations.







A modern reenactor cutting tatami mats with Japanese swords - taken from this video .

Does it mean that straight swords are inferior in the cuts? Absolutely no, in a general context.

The fact that curved blades have a more natural alignment doesn't exclude the fact that a straight blade could have a perfect edge alignment too with proper techniques.

Curved blades are more user friendly compared to straight ones; but still, a lot of people forget the fact that even with 10 years of cutting training, techniques could be hindered in a battlefield scenario by the fact that in a historical context people fought for their lives against living opponent and not tatami mats.

This is very important to consider, and the natural tendency of curved blades towards proper edge alignment in this precise scenario is indeed an advantage.



This is exactly how bad edge alignment looks like and how can lead to a failed cut. From a very highly suggested video of Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria.

Finally, curved blades, even if the curve is shallow, have an easier time at displacing other blades in a bind: rotating a curved blade moves the whole blade and/or tip a good distance depending on how curved it is. A straight sword has to use a larger motion to move the tip and blade the same distance.

This is somewhat hard to understand without sparring experience, but is a well known fact known by European sword masters of the 16th and 17th century as well as modern Hema and Kenjutsu practitioners.

In fact, this is what Francesco Antonio Marcelli has to say about the curved swords of his period:



"The sabre is not made of three parts like the sword: forte, terzo and debole, it is considered to be made of just one part, which includes the whole blade, because it has all the same strength and quality. So, the sabre is considered to be all forte, because you can hurt and defend with any part of it, be it the point, the middle or the one close to the hilt.



You can severe the enemy with any part of a sabre’s edge (I say edge, because the sabre doesn’t hurt with the point), all parts have equal strength, with no quantity variation, because the blade doesn’t vary in quality."

With this knowledge in mind, Marcelli is saying that the curved blade of the saber makes it excellent at displacing opposing blades without being as easily displaced (the forte is best at that).

However, it is worth pointing out that this fact might be related to the way the sword is balanced rather to the curvature itself (a point that still stands in the case of Japanese swords, since they tend to be blade-heavy). And although is a little bit of generalization here, it is worth pointing out that said features are shared with Japanese swords as well.



Moreover, the curve helps with the movements involved in iaijutsu; this is still disputed, but a curved sword has a natural cutting motion when it is drawn from the scabbard, and it has a larger centre of percussion to the blade while also maintaining a large area to slash with it. So there are plenty of benefits derived in the katana's "typical" curve which are often either overlooked or forgotten.





A very simple and yet effective diagram of the types of sori found on Japanese swords. Although they depended on the time period, it is not rare to find all the 3 types of curves in 16th-18th century Japanese swords. Taken from here.





Myth 4: The disc handguard serves no purpose



Another widely discussed point is the rather minimal handguard found on Japanese swords, the tsuba - 鍔 .

The first thing that I want to point out is that the tsuba is a handguard that can still protect the hand in a considerable way, despite it is often described as a useless piece - pretty much as it is not there at all, which is obviously false.

Another thing to consider is that bigger tsuba existed too and they can cover a good portion of the fist; some of them have a diameter of 10+ cm which is more than enough to protect the hand against cuts and strikes when the point of the blade is facing the enemy.

Bigger tsuba are often found on longer Japanese blades, like nodachi.



Finally,, even if the curve is shallow,: rotating a curved blade moves the. A straight sword has to useThis is somewhat, but is a well known fact known by European sword masters of the 16th and 17th century as well as modern Hema and Kenjutsu practitioners.In fact, this is whathas to say about the curved swords of his period:With this knowledge in mind, Marcelli isHowever, it is worth pointing out that this fact might be related to therather to the curvature itself (a point that still stands in the case of Japanese swords, since they tend to be blade-heavy). And although is a little bit of generalization here, it is worth pointing out that said featuresas well.Moreover, the curve helps with the movements involved in iaijutsu;, but a curved sword has, and it has a larger centre of percussion to the blade while also maintaining a large area to slash with it. So there are plenty of benefits derived in the katana's "typical" curve which are often either overlooked or forgotten.Another widely discussed point is the ratherfound on Japanese swords, theThe first thing that I want to point out is that the tsuba is a handguard that, despite it is often described as apretty muchAnother thing to consider is thatand they can cover asome of them have a diameter ofwhich is more than enough towhen the point of the blade is facing the enemy.Bigger tsuba are often found on longer Japanese blades, like nodachi.

A quite big tsuba also known as 大鍔. Notice how big is the handguard compared to the blade - this gives you an idea of the dimension!

Yet at the same time is quite interesting that in Asia (and especially in Japan) we do not see fancy or heavily protective handguards (crossguards are not very common at all): this is easy to explain in the context of sword and shield usage in China and Korea and other Asian countries that often used small, round handguards.

However, while in Japan were never really as popular as in China or Korea, so there should be a practical reason for the lack of a considerable handguard/crossguard development (in swords!); and in fact there are some.



If you have paid attention to the previous myth, you would have already read that the curvature, the fact that Japanese swords are balanced towards the tip (blade heavy), as well as the two handed handle which can increase the leverage, make katana and Japanese swords in general very good at displacing opposing blades without being as easily displaced.

This means that a Japanese blade is less likely to end in a bind with another sword (which is where a crossguard might be very useful) and that most of the actions could happen towards the final portion of the blade.



With this things in mind, it is easy to see that using a Japanese swords as it should be used does allow the user's hands to be relatively safe and less likely to be hit (and if that happen, a tsuba could still catch most hits directed to the handle).

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to say that a tsuba can protect better than yout average late 15th century European crossguards, but I'm quite confident that Japanese swords (and a lot of Asian curved swords with similar handguards ) don't need a crossguard to be effective at keeping the hands safe, and not only for the aforementioned reason.



A crossguard, as much useful as it is, it's a rather simple and easy design. In fact, it was known and used in Japan for various types of polearms (nagamaki and nodachi as well).

Their purpose was to hook the enemy weapon as well as protect the hand too. Yet at the same time is quite interesting that in Asia () we do not see(crossguards are not very common at all): this is easy to explain in the context ofin China and Korea and other Asian countries that often used small, round handguards.However, while in Japan shields were used , theyas in China or Korea, so there should be afor the lack of a considerable handguard/crossguard development); and in factIf you have paid attention to the previous myth, you would have already read thatthe fact that Japanese swords are, as well as thewhich can, make katana and Japanese swords in generalThis means that a Japanese blade is(which is where a) and thatWith this things in mind, it is easy to see that using a Japanese swords as it should be used does allow the(and if that happen, a tsuba could still catch most hits directed to the handle).Don't get me wrong,, but I'm quite confident that Japanese swords () don't need a crossguard to be effective at keeping the hands safe, and not only for the aforementioned reason.A crossguard, as much useful as it is, i. In fact, i(nagamaki and nodachi as well).Their purpose was to hook the enemy weapon as well as protect the hand too.







A Japanese "crossguard" on a yari. Putting such guard on a katana or a tachi wouldn't have been impossible if they deemed necessary to protect the hand.

The Japanese of the period would have put such devices (called hadome in Japanese) on their swords if they wanted to do so or if various hands injuries would have occurred during the long period of usage of these blades, and we would have seen them in the foreign adaptations of the katana as well (more on this later).

Morever, Japanese artisans of the 17th century were familiar with even more complex guards too! In fact, European style small swords hilt and guards were produced in Japan for the foreign market due to their lacquerware work.







A famous example taken from the Met museum of a European sword fitted with a hilt made in Japan, from the 18th century. There are quite a few hilts and handguards made in the same fashion, to testify that the Japanese were aware of such design and know how to replicate them.

So all things considered, it just makes sense that Japanese swords don't need bigger handguards/ crossguards (otherwise, we would have seen them!), which come at some costs: they lower the point of balance so they remove power in the cut (but increase the control of the blade) as well as adding weight and increasing the time needed to deploy the sword (a more complex handguard is just more cumbersome when you have to grab the blade and unsheathed it quickly).



So when one wants to evaluate/compare handguards functionality in sword designs, he has to consider that it's not really about a static comparison, but there are some tradeoffs to take into account and that no sword should be considered without its related technique&usage.





Myth 5: "Japanese swords are too heavy for their length and/or too heavy to be used one handed"



This one is another very famous myth that comes either in that form or in "Japanese swords are too heavy for their weight".

But is that true? Short answer, No.



A Japanese blade usually (not most of them) has a thick spine on the back which allow the blade to be rigid, sturdy and gave it mass behind its cuts: those are important properties that allow the blade to cut well and withstand quite a lot of abuse.

However, not every Japanese blades have this feature. Some of them have some form of distal taper called funbari, especially early swords and nodachi, that allow it to be longer without increasing its mass.

And are those swords really that heavy that they can't be used with one hand? Now there are a lot of data on the "average weight" of said swords, but a lot could change and it's hard to verify them, anyway let's take them for granted.



A two handed katana with a blade in between 68 and 73 cm of length is usually in between 900 g to 1500 g, more or less. The average is usually 1000-1200 grams.

That's roughly the same weight and length of European one handed arming sword, and it's slightly lighter than a European longsword (again, average are concerned so take this with a pinch of salt).

Of course weight is only a part of the whole issue, a katana is better used with two hands because of the way it is balanced (which is not that different on how early European arming sword were balanced!).

But it's totally possible to wield a Japanese sword, be it a Tachi or a Katana, with one hand without having to struggle.

One example is the famous Musashi Koryuu school (niten ichi ryu - 二天一流 ) which dual wield a katana with a shorter wakizashi.

And although it's the most famous one, dual wielding traditions existed before that in Japan.

So it is totally possible to use a Japanese sword with one hand and a shield (as we occasionally see) or with another companion shorter sword.



Moreover, in the Chinese adaptation of Japanese katana, said sword was occasionally fitted with one handed handle.

This is also true for a short uchigatana style called katate uchi ( 片手打ち) which has a shorter handle.

Said sword had a shorter handle but a blade of smiliar length of the ones usually associated with katana, hence at least 60 cm of length.

They are definitely not too heavy (read as very unbalanced andunwieldy) both for a one hand or two handed sword.



