Cut iron or concrete ???

[DHB the cutter]

Hello,
This is my first time here, I`m from Brazil, and I really admire the quality of the forums, I ask you to forgive any kind of english error. I`m trying to do my best.

I`d like to discuss one thing, I saw lots of people doing mistakes about the resintence of one sword blade, I listen a person that I know telling that there are swords that cut iron or even concrete. I know that even samurais took a lot of care with their swords, and they avoid to hit one against another (differently of the movies), we all know that in iai do practice, we learn how to hit a person in very little movements, and not hitting one sword in the other ones. It is been known that even the finnest japanese swords like the Massamune (that is now in Tokio Museum) could have flaws if it hit in other swords. The japanese sword smith (in japanese samurai eras) used iron of the edges of the streams, with an adequate forging process, and a nice combination of other metals, laminating it, the swords are simmilar as the good ones today, but some people thinks that they are better, the cost of the old ones are very higher by the historical value, and not for being much better, even the really samurais avoid to hit one sword to another, so anyone would like to speak about this? Do you believe that swords can cut iron concrete or hard things or its a legend ???

 

[Loki]

A sword is meant to cut/pierce flesh and bone. Be it katana, rapier, type XIII greatsword or gladius the mission was the same - dispatch a human foe. Iron bars, concrete blocks, machine gun barrels, etc. are the stuff myths are made of. You can beat all sorts of things with a sword but eventually you'll damage/break the blade. Stories and films are nice fantasy but reality is more mundane.

 

[Triton]

Absolutely, I don't think anyone in the previous thread mentioned is really advocating the idea that you go take your nihonto out and start chopping on concrete blocks. What we were talking about were some isolated destructive testing cases that were done to see just how far a particular type of sword could be pushed.

 

[Robert Marotz]

Whether you're dealing with traditional nihonto, or contemporary modern pieces, you will have a vast variation of quality from very poor to downright amazing. The advantage in modern times is that with the tools and means we have, we can be very consistent in making high quality pieces. I'm not going to say modern blades are better than older blades, or vice versa. Don't jumble all of the old swords into one quality ranking, because it's certainly not fair to do so. It'd be like meshing the Howard Clark and Michael Bell swords with Rittersteel, Windlass, and Art Gladius.

But to get a little closer to the spirit of the question...

The purpose of swords are not to cut materials like concrete or iron bars or trees. One reason a maker would use destructive testing would be to determine the upper limits of their current work, and try their best to improve on it.

Why would they want to push the limits with their work? I can't speak on behalf of all the makers, but here's a reason that makes sense to me.... They want to make something forgiving to people who are new at cutting and might otherwise damage (bend/chip) a lesser sword due to poor technique. This also ties into the ability to make a reasonably light and quick sword without sacrificing a significant amount of durability. A "tough" sword is also safer to use for obvious reasons.

Perhaps some makers are motivated by learning, and want to be able to improve their understanding and control of metal.

I'm sure there are other more conventional "business" reasons to make abusable work...

But swords aren't designed for that kind of use, and most makers still don't suggest that you abuse your sword in any way.

Historically, yes there's a lot of stories that are probably exaggerated over time, but some amazing things can be, could have, and have been done with swords. Remember that when iai was becoming more popular, swords were gaining acceptance as a weapon of class. Prior to the Tokugawa period, swords were more often seen as simply weapons, without any "soul of the samurai" concepts attached to them.

You can look at a wide variety of sword styles, not just Japanese, and see a lot of exaggerating that has developed over time. Of course, just like with the Japanese swords, other swords can be capable of some very impressive things in the right hands.

 

[DHB the cutter]

Triton, when I said that I listen to some people that said such thing, I was not referring to this forum site, but some people I know here in Brazil, so please don`t take it to this site, I only want to discuss a topical that some people that could see and learn with people that know about this issue, like you .

 

[DHB the cutter]

Hello again,
I totally agre with you mr. Robert Marotz, and I like your oppinion and discussion.

 

[Elwin]

What about armor? Sure, it couldnt have been as thick as some of the things we've been talking about, but the sword had to go through it. Also, I was under the impression that samauri armor had some metal in it, covering vital areas and protecting the arms and legs. Wouldnt this mean that a katana or tachi had to cut through some metal, depending on where the enemy was hit? I realize the armor wasnt a complete suit of steel, but some strategically placed plates or bars could make a lot of difference.

 

[DHB the cutter]

Hi Elwin,

The armour of a samurai could really have some parts of metal (most iron), but the most of the armous was of leather, in small parts one upon each other, besides cloth and bamboo parts. This would made the armour more light and usefull than the european ones (full of metal). The katana are weapons to cut not to hole or to smash the oponents (but it can do this also), so the katana would not be destroyed easily if it hit iron but its not used for this purpose, because it really could damage the weapon. Remember that samurais were a kind of body guards of the shoguns (that were very rich people), and for them there were some sword smiths that were continually forging, fixing and polishing the swords that had some kind of flaw. They could be used against little parts of iron, but this didn`t mean that they didn´t suffer any damage.

 

[Robert Marotz]

Hi Elwin,

Like DHB had stated, armor sometimes utilized metal components.

And again, like DHB said, the idea was to avoid striking armor. Yes, in a wide-scale battle you will likely end up contacting armor with your sword, and of course it'd be good to have a sword that wouldn't be badly damaged in the process...but if you can expect to just cut through armor, there's fairly little incentive to wear it. It's not very light, it slows down your reflexes, and it's uncomfortable.

With iai, speed is an important consideration. It is also precise, and a very competent practitioner would do their best to get around armor if their opponent is wearing any.

However, I won't say that cutting through armor is impossible. I'm sure it's been done, since there were a lot of years and opportunities to try it. Some cutters have even recently done test cuts into old iron helmets with potentially devastating results and little to no damage on the swords. However, such tests deal with a static target, which is quite a bit different from a warrior who is not only moving around, but is moving around to try to avoid your blows and kill you too. When trying to directly confront armor's protective qualities, other weapons are favored well over the sword. I think if you look at European arms and armor, you'll find that the sword is, again, not the choice weapon against armor.