Katana vs broadsword

IIRC they used bodkin heads

Bodkin heads were heavy but made of soft iron. They were no good against plate but probably better than expected against maille.

I always thought bodkins were anti-armour, but at least that's the latest one I've heard.
 
Anyway in the spirit of AH, how about early discovery of alloyed steel? The easiest and most useful would be silicon steel. This is a much stronger material than straight carbon steel. All you have to do is throw some quartz into molten iron. Silicon has a lower melting point than iron. Of course high temperature furnace is a must.
 
I know this is titled "Katana Vs. Broadsword", but let's throw in some other weapons, Maces, Morning-stars, Halberds, war Hammers, Kanabo, Naginata, Jitte, etc, etc.

what sort of damage would a War hammer do to Samurai armor?
 
I know this is titled "Katana Vs. Broadsword", but let's throw in some other weapons, Maces, Morning-stars, Halberds, war Hammers, Kanabo, Naginata, Jitte, etc, etc.

what sort of damage would a War hammer do to Samurai armor?
The sharp end would go right through. The blunt end would hurt real bad and knock you out if hit in the head.
 
The sharp end would go right through. The blunt end would hurt real bad and knock you out if hit in the head.

"Hurt real bad"? The point of a warhammer is massive crushing trauma. If you get a clean hit to the head with one, you would be lucky to ever wake up again...
 
"Hurt real bad"? The point of a warhammer is massive crushing trauma. If you get a clean hit to the head with one, you would be lucky to ever wake up again...
Well the other guy is moving. It's all about physics. F = M x A. Acceleration in this case is the deceleration of the hammer during impact. If the target stands perfectly still, the hammer goes from say 100 km/hour to zero in zero seconds, massive damage. If he's ducking at 5 km/hour your hammer is going from 95 km/hour to zero in say half a second. Deceleration is much less. That's a lot less force. That's why any test of a hammer hitting a target sitting on a table is complete bogus.
 
Well the other guy is moving. It's all about physics. F = M x A. Acceleration in this case is the deceleration of the hammer during impact. If the target stands perfectly still, the hammer goes from say 100 km/hour to zero in zero seconds, massive damage. If he's ducking at 5 km/hour your hammer is going from 95 km/hour to zero in say half a second. Deceleration is much less. That's a lot less force. That's why any test of a hammer hitting a target sitting on a table is complete bogus.

What? The deacceleration is almost exactly the same, since the only thing deaccelerating the hammer in tiny fractions of a second is the ex-head of the human you just destroyed, and you needn't worry about any arthritic hammer-wielder who takes a whole half second to deaccelerate a hammer upon impact.

So, no...stationary tests are quite useful, as long as you factor in gravity and/or fluid resistance as contributing to reducing velocity (and therefore final deacceleration) somewhat, though usually that's negligible when you're swinging it at 100 km/hr.
 
Last edited:
What? The deacceleration is almost exactly the same, since the only thing deaccelerating the hammer in tiny fractions of a second is the ex-head of the human you just destroyed, and you needn't worry about any arthritic hammer-wielder who takes a whole half second to deaccelerate a hammer upon impact.

So, no...stationary tests are quite useful, as long as you factor in gravity and/or fluid resistance as contributing to reducing velocity (and therefore final deacceleration) somewhat, though usually that's negligible when you're swinging it at 100 km/hr.
I have to agree; the arguement that being hit in the head by a large warhammer moving at 95 km/h is substantially less dangerous than being hit in the head with a large warhammer moving at 100 km/h does seem rather odd.
 
Top