/k/ - Weapons

>>503 (OP)
It is stylistic. Jap guard is a flower European is a Cross.

>>503 (OP)
The disc guard is technically worse than the cross guard, but back in their respective eras they meant precious little in actual combat, because both blades were used as secondary weapons by their wielders, so they never really engaged in prolonged duels with their swords, where the shape of the guard mattered.

>>558
How is it worse? I'm a noob, but it seems like a guard that covers the handle 360 degrees would be better. Also, if these were secondary weapons, what was the primary weapon? Bows? A lance?

>>564
The main purpose of the tsuba/disc guard was to prevent your hands from sliding forward and to help your retain your grip, plus they served as ornaments, that's why historical examples have such ornamental engravings and motifs.
It all stems from basic japanese sword combat, which highly discouraged the usage of direct parries ie. blade on blade contact, because historically speaking, japanese swords were quite brittle, since they never really figured out how to make spring steel. The cutting edge of a katana was very hard, it wasn't rare that their hardness was around 60 HRC, which meant they were almost as hard as glass, but they were also as brittle as glass, so swordsmen avoided hitting hard surfaces with their weapons to avoid breakage. That's why the tsuba was more of an ornament than an actual guard, because a samurai wouldn't smash his blade directly into yours or to your guard, because it would have severly damaged it's edge or even resulted in the blade breaking apart. That's also why unlike the guard of european swords that kept evoling through the centuries to offer more and more protection, the tsuba remained relaitvely the same and the fact that they weren't main combat weapons also meant that there was no practical reason to make them more effective as actual guards. I'm not saying they were useless as guards, but the fact that japanese swordsmen themselves rarely used them to parry suggets that they weren't really seen as such.
>if these were secondary weapons, what was the primary weapon? Bows? A lance?
Exactly. Most samurai were mounted archers or used spears on foot, while knights were mostly lancers and also used spears or other polearms on foot.

>>520
The Japanese guard (Tsuba) Exists more so to prevent the user's hand sliding up the handle onto the blade rather than prevent enemy weapons from taking off their hands

>>564

You can outright catch and stop people's swords with a crossguard. You can intentionally stop people's attacks with them entirely if you predict the trajectory of someone's cut. The Japanese tsuba is way too small to do that, or offer the same kind of protection from your hands. In real swordfighting, you twist the sword a lot to change the orientation of your crossguard in combat to try and stick out the two prongs in whatever way would cuck your opponent the most. Your opponents sword is stopped dead in it's tracks if you ever catch their blade on your guard, and you're in a prime position to counter cut.

It's pretty grim that, when I ask specifically for how the tsuba could possibly be better, the only answers I get are "they didn't really use the guard and it was mostly for decoration." Sad. That definitely makes the katana and objectively worse weapon, and that sucks because they look so cool. Honestly, the kriegsmesser is the superior weapon because it's basically just a katana with a crossguard and side nagel for extra knuckle protection. But, I already have and already use a kriegsmesser. I'm looking for a reason to get excited about using a katana instead, simply because I like Japanese swords. Also, getting smacked in the hands and forearm is legit the easiest target to go for in fencing at any time, especially with two handed swords, it's much more important than you might think. I know that swords were a last resort sidearm for samurai in real life, but I can't believe they never even tried to make better guards. I cannot possibly imagine why.

>>625
> I can't believe they never even tried to make better guards. I cannot possibly imagine why.
As I said, they've had no practical reason to do so. Take WW2 for example. Rifles kept evolving through the war to a point where the concept of the modern assault rifle was born, because people needed their mainline weapons to be as effective as possible, so they've put a lot of effort into figuring out new ways to make them more effective as combat tools. Meanwhile, sidearms remained pretty much the same, no side wasted precious time and energy on developing more effective pistols and revolvers, because they were 2nd or even 3rd line weapons and they didn't influence the outcome of any major battle, unlike rifles and machine guns.
The katana was treated in the exact same way. Contrary to what retarded movies like The Last Samurai suggests, japs understood the importance of modernizing their weapons and military tactics, that's why they created their own matchlock and later flintlock muskets that did evolve through the centuries, because they were mainline weapons that needed all the upgrades to make them more effective. However, when it came to their side weapons, they didn't really need to put much effort into modernizing them because they were basically irrelevant in a real battle. Katanas weren't crappy blades, they fulfilled their roles as secondary weapons well, the problem is that people keep comparing them to mainline weapons (europeans used swords/sabers as primary arms way more often) and they obviously look worse in such a comparison. It'd be more fair to compare katanas to katzbbalgers or cutlasses since those were secondary weapons as well and it that comparison the katana does look like a decent weapon.