Koshigatana? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Koshigatana? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Pyrate_Jib
12-10-07, 07:18 PM While in Tokyo I visited the "Tokyo-Edo Museum" which has a great historical bend on the origins of the city from the 1500's to now. They had plenty of English text to help me out but at one point they mentioned at Koshigatana in a sword reference (there was no item to see). My reaction was "what the heck is that? I bet someone on the D&D community know!"

Any ideas?
Jenrock
12-10-07, 08:05 PM A five second wikipedia search tells me that it was a predecessor to the wakizashi. It is mentioned in the first paragraph of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikuchi) article. I'm sure a google search can tell you more.
narukagami
12-11-07, 12:27 AM I'm going to assume its written "腰刀" which I think roughly translates to "waist sword," which may be archaic terminology for what we today would call a "wakizashi."

Gonna have to look into this alittle more.
meigin
12-11-07, 05:42 PM You're right koshigatana translates as waist sword, and it was tucked into the beltline first. The common meaning is short sword, although koshigatana has also been identified with the knife (tanto).

Note that originally the longsword (tachi) were worn tied to the beltline by the sageo, during the Kamakura period (1185-1333). Later during the Edo period (1600-1868) the short sword we know as wakizashi (side sword) was worn in the belt with the katana, and the sageo became a decorative fastener.
Pyrate_Jib
12-15-07, 08:43 PM You're right koshigatana translates as waist sword, and it was tucked into the beltline first. The common meaning is short sword, although koshigatana has also been identified with the knife (tanto).

Note that originally the longsword (tachi) were worn tied to the beltline by the sageo, during the Kamakura period (1185-1333). Later during the Edo period (1600-1868) the short sword we know as wakizashi (side sword) was worn in the belt with the katana, and the sageo became a decorative fastener.

I saw a lot of tachi blades (just the blades mind you!) and my wife asked the question what was the difference, tachi and katanna. Aside from how they are carried I didn't have an answer. Help!:confused:
narukagami
12-15-07, 09:09 PM Chances are they were made in the Koto 古剣(?) (old sword) "era" of swordmaking, so the other difference (besides mountings and how they were worn) would be in construction method and durability. Much documentation on the particulars of the construction style of Koto-era swords is lost, apperantly. But it is known they were made much more durable then swords from the 16th century onwards.

Swords made in the Shinto 新剣(?) (new sword, not to be confused with the religion) "era" are more or less the embodiment of what people associate with the "samurai sword" when they hear the word "katana." They tended to focus more on aesthetics than durability and most of the time were... well... not very durable.

There is a reason why the sword was not actually the samurai's primary weapon.
KLGChaos
12-17-07, 11:30 PM Chances are they were made in the Koto 古剣(?) (old sword) "era" of swordmaking, so the other difference (besides mountings and how they were worn) would be in construction method and durability. Much documentation on the particulars of the construction style of Koto-era swords is lost, apperantly. But it is known they were made much more durable then swords from the 16th century onwards.

Swords made in the Shinto 新剣(?) (new sword, not to be confused with the religion) "era" are more or less the embodiment of what people associate with the "samurai sword" when they hear the word "katana." They tended to focus more on aesthetics than durability and most of the time were... well... not very durable.

There is a reason why the sword was not actually the samurai's primary weapon.

Yeah, that held true even for Western cultures. Swords are popular by today's standards, but back in the day, they were more for support than anything. You were better off with an Axe or other weapon that had much better penetrating power against the opponents armor.

Though if you put a Western Sword vs. a Katana, the poor Katana would probably shatter. :\
narukagami
12-18-07, 12:09 AM Yeah, that held true even for Western cultures. Swords are popular by today's standards, but back in the day, they were more for support than anything. You were better off with an Axe or other weapon that had much better penetrating power against the opponents armor. Yeah, I think thats really true for all cultures, the world over, when you really think about it.
Samurai seemed to prefer ranged weapons for the longest time, bows from early on and eventually guns. When it came down to melee, spears and other polearms were preferred.

But enough of that tangent. :P

Though if you put a Western Sword vs. a Katana, the poor Katana would probably shatter. :\ Too many situational variables to make an accurate statement about which is universally "better".
But, I have heard of and read about a few battles where bushi would actually come prepared with several swords because they knew they would eventually break in battle. So I'd tend to agree that the average baseline arming sword was probably a lot more durable than the average baseline katana.
KLGChaos
12-18-07, 09:34 AM Too many situational variables to make an accurate statement about which is universally "better".
But, I have heard of and read about a few battles where bushi would actually come prepared with several swords because they knew they would eventually break in battle. So I'd tend to agree that the average baseline arming sword was probably a lot more durable than the average baseline katana.

Yeah, I heard that same thing. Katanas are razor sharp, but because of the way they are made, they are very rigid, with little flexibility. This led to them shattering fairly easily.

By contrast, Western swords were usually heavier and a bit more flexible and were usually much duller, because a sharp sword edge would most likely just break against plate armor without actually penetrating it. They would actually just try to bludgeon each other to the ground with the duller blade and then find a chink in the armor while the opponent was helpless.

Of course, this just shows the differences in not only the materials available and the way swords were made, but also the differences in armor.

The reason the Katana became more rigid in the later periods may be due to less reliance on armor (thanks to the invention of firearms), so more cutting more became more preferable than durability.
meigin
12-23-07, 05:27 PM The reason the Katana became more rigid in the later periods may be due to less reliance on armor (thanks to the invention of firearms), so more cutting more became more preferable than durability.

Firearms would be one factor, but I would also count the Meiji Restoration and the general abolition of the samurai class and wearing of swords (1868). This move took away the authority and power of the samurai class, as Japan became a centrally law governed nation - the institution of a police force and regular army.

These advents to modern times made the need for swords pointless, and the practice kenjutsu (swordsmanship) move from war science to the martial way as it is seen today. This is best defined by the example of Iaijutsu becoming modernised as Iaido. This is one of the great shames of martial arts as many methods and techniques were lost to time. In later years (post WWII) it is quite widely kown that a number of "instructors" were by government influence granted high level grades to re-populate the sword community - now having realised the damage done to a national treasure.

Further, with these changes causing martial arts to shift from war-like practices to expressions of inner pursuit, realistic cutting could only be sought through tameshigiri (test cutting of inanimate items, such as rice mats soake in water, bamboo and others), is no doubt what has fashioned a change in the temperment of the japanese sword.

There is a counter arguement - why then were Japanese officers given swords (gunto) during WWII, if they are losing relevancy? Simple, the build up for war was sponsored by the government fostering an overwhlming sense of national pride - nothing is more symbolic than the sword. Also bear in mind that previously if you were not of samurai linage (only by birth) you could not wear the sword, so the peasant class army was suddenly (in their minds) elevated with great esteem.

A bit of a ramble, apologies, but I though some might appreciate the background info.

P.S. Yeah, I study kenjutsu.
narukagami
12-23-07, 05:31 PM There is a counter arguement - why then were Japanese officers given swords (gunto) during WWII, if they are losing relevancy? Simple, the build up for war was sponsored by the government fostering an overwhlming sense of national pride - nothing is more symbolic than the sword. Also bear in mind that previously if you were not of samurai linage (only by birth) you could not wear the sword, so the peasant class army was suddenly (in their minds) elevated with great esteem. Simple answer: Massive propaganda campaign that in turn elevated samurai and katana to ideals that never actually existed.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pyrate_Jib 12-10-07, 07:18 PM	While in Tokyo I visited the "Tokyo-Edo Museum" which has a great historical bend on the origins of the city from the 1500's to now. They had plenty of English text to help me out but at one point they mentioned at Koshigatana in a sword reference (there was no item to see). My reaction was "what the heck is that? I bet someone on the D&D community know!" Any ideas?
Jenrock 12-10-07, 08:05 PM	A five second wikipedia search tells me that it was a predecessor to the wakizashi. It is mentioned in the first paragraph of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikuchi) article. I'm sure a google search can tell you more.
narukagami 12-11-07, 12:27 AM	I'm going to assume its written "腰刀" which I think roughly translates to "waist sword," which may be archaic terminology for what we today would call a "wakizashi." Gonna have to look into this alittle more.
meigin 12-11-07, 05:42 PM	You're right koshigatana translates as waist sword, and it was tucked into the beltline first. The common meaning is short sword, although koshigatana has also been identified with the knife (tanto). Note that originally the longsword (tachi) were worn tied to the beltline by the sageo, during the Kamakura period (1185-1333). Later during the Edo period (1600-1868) the short sword we know as wakizashi (side sword) was worn in the belt with the katana, and the sageo became a decorative fastener.
Pyrate_Jib 12-15-07, 08:43 PM	You're right koshigatana translates as waist sword, and it was tucked into the beltline first. The common meaning is short sword, although koshigatana has also been identified with the knife (tanto). Note that originally the longsword (tachi) were worn tied to the beltline by the sageo, during the Kamakura period (1185-1333). Later during the Edo period (1600-1868) the short sword we know as wakizashi (side sword) was worn in the belt with the katana, and the sageo became a decorative fastener. I saw a lot of tachi blades (just the blades mind you!) and my wife asked the question what was the difference, tachi and katanna. Aside from how they are carried I didn't have an answer. Help!:confused:
narukagami 12-15-07, 09:09 PM	Chances are they were made in the Koto 古剣(?) (old sword) "era" of swordmaking, so the other difference (besides mountings and how they were worn) would be in construction method and durability. Much documentation on the particulars of the construction style of Koto-era swords is lost, apperantly. But it is known they were made much more durable then swords from the 16th century onwards. Swords made in the Shinto 新剣(?) (new sword, not to be confused with the religion) "era" are more or less the embodiment of what people associate with the "samurai sword" when they hear the word "katana." They tended to focus more on aesthetics than durability and most of the time were... well... not very durable. There is a reason why the sword was not actually the samurai's primary weapon.
KLGChaos 12-17-07, 11:30 PM	Chances are they were made in the Koto 古剣(?) (old sword) "era" of swordmaking, so the other difference (besides mountings and how they were worn) would be in construction method and durability. Much documentation on the particulars of the construction style of Koto-era swords is lost, apperantly. But it is known they were made much more durable then swords from the 16th century onwards. Swords made in the Shinto 新剣(?) (new sword, not to be confused with the religion) "era" are more or less the embodiment of what people associate with the "samurai sword" when they hear the word "katana." They tended to focus more on aesthetics than durability and most of the time were... well... not very durable. There is a reason why the sword was not actually the samurai's primary weapon. Yeah, that held true even for Western cultures. Swords are popular by today's standards, but back in the day, they were more for support than anything. You were better off with an Axe or other weapon that had much better penetrating power against the opponents armor. Though if you put a Western Sword vs. a Katana, the poor Katana would probably shatter. :\
narukagami 12-18-07, 12:09 AM	Yeah, that held true even for Western cultures. Swords are popular by today's standards, but back in the day, they were more for support than anything. You were better off with an Axe or other weapon that had much better penetrating power against the opponents armor. Yeah, I think thats really true for all cultures, the world over, when you really think about it. Samurai seemed to prefer ranged weapons for the longest time, bows from early on and eventually guns. When it came down to melee, spears and other polearms were preferred. But enough of that tangent. :P Though if you put a Western Sword vs. a Katana, the poor Katana would probably shatter. :\ Too many situational variables to make an accurate statement about which is universally "better". But, I have heard of and read about a few battles where bushi would actually come prepared with several swords because they knew they would eventually break in battle. So I'd tend to agree that the average baseline arming sword was probably a lot more durable than the average baseline katana.
KLGChaos 12-18-07, 09:34 AM	Too many situational variables to make an accurate statement about which is universally "better". But, I have heard of and read about a few battles where bushi would actually come prepared with several swords because they knew they would eventually break in battle. So I'd tend to agree that the average baseline arming sword was probably a lot more durable than the average baseline katana. Yeah, I heard that same thing. Katanas are razor sharp, but because of the way they are made, they are very rigid, with little flexibility. This led to them shattering fairly easily. By contrast, Western swords were usually heavier and a bit more flexible and were usually much duller, because a sharp sword edge would most likely just break against plate armor without actually penetrating it. They would actually just try to bludgeon each other to the ground with the duller blade and then find a chink in the armor while the opponent was helpless. Of course, this just shows the differences in not only the materials available and the way swords were made, but also the differences in armor. The reason the Katana became more rigid in the later periods may be due to less reliance on armor (thanks to the invention of firearms), so more cutting more became more preferable than durability.
meigin 12-23-07, 05:27 PM	The reason the Katana became more rigid in the later periods may be due to less reliance on armor (thanks to the invention of firearms), so more cutting more became more preferable than durability. Firearms would be one factor, but I would also count the Meiji Restoration and the general abolition of the samurai class and wearing of swords (1868). This move took away the authority and power of the samurai class, as Japan became a centrally law governed nation - the institution of a police force and regular army. These advents to modern times made the need for swords pointless, and the practice kenjutsu (swordsmanship) move from war science to the martial way as it is seen today. This is best defined by the example of Iaijutsu becoming modernised as Iaido. This is one of the great shames of martial arts as many methods and techniques were lost to time. In later years (post WWII) it is quite widely kown that a number of "instructors" were by government influence granted high level grades to re-populate the sword community - now having realised the damage done to a national treasure. Further, with these changes causing martial arts to shift from war-like practices to expressions of inner pursuit, realistic cutting could only be sought through tameshigiri (test cutting of inanimate items, such as rice mats soake in water, bamboo and others), is no doubt what has fashioned a change in the temperment of the japanese sword. There is a counter arguement - why then were Japanese officers given swords (gunto) during WWII, if they are losing relevancy? Simple, the build up for war was sponsored by the government fostering an overwhlming sense of national pride - nothing is more symbolic than the sword. Also bear in mind that previously if you were not of samurai linage (only by birth) you could not wear the sword, so the peasant class army was suddenly (in their minds) elevated with great esteem. A bit of a ramble, apologies, but I though some might appreciate the background info. P.S. Yeah, I study kenjutsu.
narukagami 12-23-07, 05:31 PM	There is a counter arguement - why then were Japanese officers given swords (gunto) during WWII, if they are losing relevancy? Simple, the build up for war was sponsored by the government fostering an overwhlming sense of national pride - nothing is more symbolic than the sword. Also bear in mind that previously if you were not of samurai linage (only by birth) you could not wear the sword, so the peasant class army was suddenly (in their minds) elevated with great esteem. Simple answer: Massive propaganda campaign that in turn elevated samurai and katana to ideals that never actually existed.