Agh, tanka, don't take this personally, but almost everything you say about katana makes my brain hurt. Then again, so, so, so much insanity has been thrown back and forth on the subject in this thread and the linked one that I really shouldn't just single out you.

As for axes, a lot of you have it completely backwards. Axes are not slow weapons at all, and, in fact, require extreme agression, speed, and endurance at the cost of defensive capability to use. You don't hit and pull back; this will get you killed, as axes are appallingly useless defensive weapons. You attack and you never stop attacking. Even if it's not a single handed battle axe and you're doing it huskarl style, you still swing that thing pretty continuously. There's a reason axes are so deeply culturally associated with ancient Viking/Nordic tradition.

I realize that, but the sheer mass of an axe means it's a slower weapon to swing around.

~J

That depends entirely on the type of axe you're talking about. Hatchets and tomahawks are pretty quick and efficient weapons in and of themselves.

I tend to classify those as hatchets and tomahawks rather than, say, axes

But that is my own personal definition, I admit. You have a point.

~J

You were pretty much dead-on with your earlier comment, though. If training and talent are equal, any weapon is going to be woefully efficient in the hands of a well-trained combatant. Even cricket bats and LP albums (dammit). Some weapons are just easier to learn and to use than others, hence axes being a better choice for a lot of people compared to katana (or a gun vs. a bow).

In regard specifically to axes, they are actually quite a bit smaller and lighter than popularly imagined; rotational inertia's an issue, yes, but they can be lighter than a comparably sized longsword, and skilled use of one (assuming comparison to theoretically equal skill with a traditional European style longsword) is going to involve more movement— and with reason: the more you move and the more you attack, the more you compensate for your utter lack of defensive capacity. If your stamina runs out before your opponent's, you are screwed.

[edit]

To clarify, not taking issue with skill being, most often, the ultimate determinant. That is more or less a given.

As for an axe being a slow weapon - it really depends on the user.

A strong enough man could employ a sledge hammer with the same speed another man might use a claw hammer.

The same applies to axes - if you aren't strong enough to swing one with any particular degree of speed, you probably need to think about a smaller weapon choice.

-Siege

Pft. Give me a katana. It can cut through time.

Only if you get a real one that's been folded 100,00,000 times so that it's mono-molecular.

We could? *sniffle*

Yes! And the map to find the iKatana is on the back of Dunkelzahn's Will! Guarded by a horde of zombi!

Did you seriously just use "zombi" as the plural of zombie?

Honestly, I don't want any weapon based on the marketing scheme of the iMac.

In general axe combat you shouldn’t be just hacking. You take a swink and take of a head pull it back hooking another’s legs tripping it over swing the back of the blade into another’s chin as you ready for the next chop. With this type of action your probably looking at a slower kill rate than a sword but moor of the zombies near you will be of balance.

For most people (myself included) this is a les intuitive type of combat than connect the sharp edge with the enemies flesh as hard and often as possible. My personal preference would be a moderate weight sword for welding in 2 hands or a pare of light axes (but I don’t think I could take out zombies with those

I would question the ability of a katana witch is moderately light for its length to reliably sever the head of a zombie in the hands of a less than skilled individual. Even with the advantage of immobile opponent and heavy weapon the headsman’s axe was not always a single slash decapitation.

Where is Doctor Funkenstein that he wants to use a cricket bat? I have never met a American that was into cricket. As an Australian I will have to vote cricket bat as being a valuable weapon.

Edward

It's not an area I'm personally well-trained in, but having seen colleagues working out with axes (typically one-handed war axes paired with shields) I've come to realise that there's a lot more subtlety and speed to axe combat than I had once believed. Mind you, I've had my eyes opened a lot to mediaeval Western melee combat; one of the lads on the SLA Industries list teaches it, and the number of misconceptions we have on the subject are startling, often enhanced by the pop-martial arts movies.

EG: Katanas are better constructed than longswords? 90% of them were actually of weaker construction, because the fighting styles didn't emphasise blocking and parrying. Only the very best swords were of the quality we tend to ascribe to the weapon in general. On the flip side, a longsword was a real bastard to try and break - typically forged from 3 steel rods braided together and beaten out.

Western Europe had no unarmed martial arts? Wrong again. It seems we had some quite advanced unarmed techniques, but they, like the armed combat techniques, fell by the wayside because we adopted firearms for war long before the Orientals did.

The other classic, incidentally, was using a greatsword in a confined space. No problem, says the Dodd. Apparently there's a style called half-sword or something like that; one hand on the hilt, one halfway down the blade, you use it a lot like a staff.

Actually in a sword versus axe fight my money is not the the guy with the axe. Several reasons to this one.

A: Seeing as how I have personally snapped 1 inch steel rods with my axe I imagine I could snap a sowrd being used to parry quite well

B. If armor is involved the sword is at a disadvantage. Plate armor was designed to stop the aword, meanwhile axes and maces deliver enough power to a small area to damage the armor and the person underneath.

C: Lastly say sword or katana and people cringe a little. Say battle axe and they cringe a lot.

If the person is blocking the axe with their sword, they deserve to get it broken.

Personally, I'm a fan of having steel bars under bracers, blocking with that arm. It stops the axe cold (shatters your arm though) and the guy wielding the axe tends to be a bit, well, surprised. Take the advantage and kill the guy with the sword.

Again, it all comes down to skill. I'm more versed with a katana than any other weapon, so I prefer it.

Against armor, yes, slashing weapons tend to suck. If you pit a knight against a samurai, chances are good the knight will win because he has armor. If the samurai can get a good shot in between the armor, then he can win. Outside of that, he really has no chance, as katana weren't designed for stabbing.

...Dare I ask?

It's the old, old argument that has cropped up a googleplex and one times in fantasy arguments, especially among barely literate gaming geeks.

In summary:

"The samurai would win because of his l337 martial arts skills - sorry, ski11z - and uber katana!"
"The knight would win because of his uber armour and rock hard sword!"

In short, long-time roleplayers practically pull their hair out when the subject comes up

Except I read a decent article as to why... One of the Dungeon (yes, yes, D&D magazine) mags that was put out recently, I believe.

The answer is the Samurai would win because the Knight would sink on his way to Japan from all the heavy armor. Samurai never leave Japan unless they’re going to the US, in which case they carry guitars.

~J

So will most guns. It's why armies carry them now.

The uselessness of the katana against armour is probably a myth. Samury warriors did were farley heavy armour. Of cause it is very different in style so they would need to learn the weak points in western armour while western armour defeating techniques where more portable, revolving around hitting it very hard at a joint.

One other point. I would much rather survive an attack using a katana than an axe. Axe wounds tend to be very messy and not heal well involving shattered bones and such. A good katana well welded and I will have a nice clean slash that a competent surgeon will have a far easier time putting back to rights. Not saying I would like it but I don’t want to have crushed bones to deal with as well.

Edward

Samurai armor wasn't made of metal in plates. It was hard leather (sometimes) over bamboo shafts. Bamboo is hard to cut through, but metal is harder.

Axe, katana, what ever. Chain saw. I dont have to swing.

You have been taken in by their cunning once more. Those are Ninja disguised as Samurai disguised as Ninja, and those are really keyboards. You can tell, because only a Samurai would have been so careless as to carry a guitar as a Ninja.

~J

Unless it was done in Japan. Japan's magical, dontcha know?

Unless you are talking about the katanas the Hard Master and the Soft Master made for Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow before Zartan killed the Hard Master. Because those swords were the shizznit.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Here are the documents that appeared in dragon, from the writer's website. He's a true scholar of the form and probably knows more about what he's talking about then any one of us here at the boards.

I'm surprised. Those are actually remarkably informed and intelligent.

Indeed.

What instrument did the Knight wield?

~J

Bongo drums.

Depends on the era, of course. By the 15th century he had the complete drum kit.