Spanish Rapier Vs Japanese Katana 

There is an important detail, the Spanish not only used the rapier, they also used the dagger in their free hand, in this way they could defend themselves against short-range or multidirectional attacks. A Spanish soldier with a rapier and dagger will generally have the advantage at both short and long range.

I imagine that you already knew that the Spanish and the samurai already fought in the past, to the bad luck of the Japanese. The combats of Cagayan were a series of military confrontations that took place in 1582 between the Spanish Armada of the Philippines under the command of Captain Juan Pablo de Carrión against the troops of Tay Fusa, despite the numerical superiority of the samurai. They did not end well for the japanese.

As an practicioner of the Spanish school "Destreza" as you migth know, I have to say that I am copleatly agree. The rapier is a sword made for dueling, while the katanas of the 17º century haven´t forget their battlefield pourposes. But I would like to add something in the dueling topic. In close combat, as you say, the rapier has a lot of mobility despite its length because of the poit of balance. And to that affirmation you have to add that the Spanish school has "tretas" (triks and moves) for the close combat, being the "movimientos de conclusión" the most important ones.

I collect Japanese swords, but recently bought a rapier. Not only is the rapier much longer but using it in a one-handed side stance puts your heart (for right-handed people) in a place that is harder to stab. The katana being a two-handed weapon, puts your heart in spot where it is relatively easy to trust towards. One on one, I'd give the advantage to the rapier.

The Spanish rapier had very important advantages against the katana. First of all you only need one hand to get the most of it. Adding this to its longer blade gives it a huge range. Meanwhile the katana needs two hands to be used efficiently, which makes the movements way too slower, and the hands stay unprotected. The Spanish rapier followed a path of evolution throughout Europe, while the katana stayed in its primal form due to the limited geographic context where it was used.

Hey Matt, All the Audio is coming through the right channel. (Before anyone asks yes, my headphones work.)

It has to be said that rapiers where mainly a civilian sword. It's name in Spanish is "ropera" or "used with clothes". Spanish military swords of the period used to be beefier and could cut better than rapiers, for the reasons the video explains when getting to larger fights.

Spanish sword technique is a two swords one. We fight with a dagger on the left hand, which is the one that really kills the opponent in the closest sort of combat. Musashi developed this technique too as explained in the Five Rings Book (go rin no sho).

As spanish, I can proudly say that we were great swordmakers. El "Acero Toledano" (Toledan steel?) was pretty famous for quite some time. Cheers!

Curious to see that the four most important swords in history were the Iberian falcata (used by the Greeks and Carthaginians), the gladius hispalensis (later used by the Romans), the rapier and the katana..... Three of them were born in the Iberian peninsula .

There are portuguese combat chronicles from the 16th century about the clash of the spanish rapier sword against japanese katanas. The Japanese swords broke when they collided with the superior quality spanish Toledo steel of the time.

That rapier is BEAUTIFUL. I hope we get a more in-depth video about it

Tienes que tener en cuenta que los españoles utilizábamos también una daga de unos 40 cms. en la mano izquierda junto con el estoque. Por otra parte el estoque es un arma civil, los soldados utilizaban espadas de punta y corte algo más cortas y anchas.

That Spanish rapier is awesome!

The range difference is true. We've all seen it in action in the duels between Raphael and Mitsurugi.

The katana is basically a long, pointed machete. I know it's a very basic definition but I think it defines its function. The reason it continued to be used in Japan in the 16th century, and into the 19th century, was because it was still effective against the armor their opponents used at the time. The war in Europe had abandoned the use of these types of weapons after the advent of firearms. The armor, and the type of cutting weapons that were used at that time were replaced by others with a greater range. An example is the Spanish tercios, made up of a body of arquebusiers, another of pikemen, and one of hand-to-hand soldiers. They were obviously outmatched by other tactics, but they dominated European battlefields for over a century. Then there are the cavalry sabers, which lasted until the first world war, but I think that is a separate issue.

This is one of the main reasons why i want to write/draw/imagine a historically accurate (as possible) story about piracy during the 17th century; there's so many cultures, weapons and warriors from different parts of the world involved: Chinese, Korean, Japanese, English, Portuguese and Spanish can duke it out, and it isn't beyond the realms of possibility at all. Depending on *CONTEXT* any of them can come up as the victor of an encounter too.

90% of those who make these videos have just enough historical knowledge not to mix Romans with cowboys. 1º The rapier was a CIVIL weapon, rapiers were not used on the battlefield. 2º The effectiveness of the western sword on the katana is HISTORICALLY demonstrated. They should only know the chronicles of the time in which the Portuguese maintained commercial relations with Japan and what happened. I'm not even going to talk about Cagallan where the haters of the Spanish empire insist that they weren't samurai but pirates and ronnins (that's if they forget to say that to be a ronnin you first have to be a samurai). It's like wanting to differentiate between a mercenary and a soldier. The motivations may be different but they do the same thing. Not only that, but most of the Spanish soldiers who faced the Asian pirates were Tlaxcalans with basic training in the use of European weapons. In such a way that a design hundreds of years more advanced, as well as its use and handling techniques. In the hands of combatants not born in that tradition, they managed to subdue the users of the much mythologized katana. If these people knew how to read Spanish and Portuguese, they would still be able to transmit something close to true history, the rest seems to have been taken from one of those Hollywood garbage.

The Spanish rapier is usually wielded alongside a short dagger that is wielded simultaneously. In a tight space, that short dagger makes up for the inconvenient length of the rapier.

Excellent explanation as always. Do not forget Spaniards also used to fight with a dagger in their "free" hand. A hint of this can be seen in the movie "Alatriste" Thanks for your lessons, much appreciated.

I once fenced a friend of mine, an iaido instructor, katana vs basket-hilt backsword. He had done alot of open-hand sparring (an instructor in multiple martial systems,) but because of how iaido tends to be practiced, had less experience sparring with swords than myself. It was most enlightening. I don't remember the name of the school of iaido underwhich he studies, but I was working primarily with Silver. Hand-sniping was my first available target. He quickly learned to adjust the way he held the katana to shield his hands with the tsuba. After that, the fencing really began. We both learned alot about ourselves, our weapons, and our techniques in about 12 bouts. I highly recommend such practice with someone you respect and trust, and with both of you open to learning from the other.

Spanish duelists used swords with a small sword in their left hand, or the left hand, which was said to kill more than the main sword, so as not to be left unprotected in combat at closer range, in fact at that time it was called "dextri "That sword technique and it was very popular in Europe.

Another thing in favour of the rapier on a duel is that the rapierist tends to keep the arm somewhat extended, increasing even more the reach difference (I guess Iberian rapierists also tend to do this more consistently)

Also to mention that european steel, specially spanish from Toledo, was far superior than Japanese steel around 1600.

my right ear liked this video

I've read that the Spanish Conquistadors used rapiers, arming swords, falchions, cinquedea, two-handed great swords (Montante) and medieval long swords. Be cool to see a video on why they used so many different kinds.

As someone who practices kenjutsu but also studies HEMA, i wouldn't want to go against a rapier unless my Japanese sword in question is a Nodachi or an O-Katana. There's simply too many advantages on its favor, from the guard to the better reach and a free hand. Getting beyond the point of the rapier and delivering a quick cut or taking control over the blade are the safest bets i can think of, and half swording might be a good option too. Aside from that, all the rapier fencer has to do is stay out of reach and pierce the hell out of me the first chance they get.

My money is on the rapier. Those things are _obscenely_ dangerous. The tip zips about like a wasp, and you can _easily_ step right into a stab. The only thing to do (as Matt says), is to get your blade as close to the mid-point of the rapier as you can, rush them, then draw/push-cut to the head or neck. But...a competent rapier-user will stab you in the face for your trouble. Personally, I'd use a greatsword if I had to fight a rapier-ist.

Esas 2 clases de espadas ya se probaron en enfrentamientos entre las tropas españolas en Filipinas y piratas japoneses, como en Cagayan. La versatilidad de la ropera de 2 filos que se usaron ( hay también de 1 solo filo) ya que no solo es un arma punzante, fue fundamental

Let's not forget that (at least spaniard) soldiers from XVI-XVII century usually didn't use rapiers in battle, they carried shorter and wider ones, almost like medieval sword, since they were more durable and easy to mantain, being the sword the "emergency" last dich weapon.

"Really quite fatally skewered," is one of my favorite descriptive phrases of all time, now. Thanks!

Hi Matt, could you talk about the battles of Cagayan in 1582? There they faced katanas against rapiers and it was not a duel

I'm glad you went into the differences between something being good for a duel in a controlled environment compared to a battle. In addition for the Sengoku Jidai period of civil war in Japan, the Katana wasn't even really the primary melee weapon. It was spears, pikes, naginatas, etc. I think you went into it in an earlier video that in older periods, the longer Tachi was more prevalent, but by the time of the Sengoku Jidao, the sword was relegated more as a backup. The Tachi was shortened, for a more handy personal weapon and we got the Katana.

Something else I've come across. As detailed in the book "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe" there were also wrestling styles on par with jujitsu; the book shows engravings demonstrating the fighting techniques of the time showing how disarm someone with a knife. Hans Talhoffer also did a martial arts manual which also shows how to fight unarmed.

You forget though, that the antimatter edge of the katana annihilates every atom of matter it touches. So all it has to do is touch the rapier to win.

Awww snap! The famous 1582 Cagayan Skirmish?!😲 Btw, that's a beautiful original rapier, Matt! Congrats, and it's great to finally see a SHARP rapier in your collection now!😁

The Spanish and Japanese already clashed more than 400 years ago in the Philippines. 1,500 Japanese ronin vs 40 Spanish... The Spanish won

I do agree with everything said, though I feel swordsman size also deserves a mention if we're going to be comparing blade length. In Musashi's "The 5 rings", he explicitly extolls the virtue of using tachi over katana specifically because of its greater reach and heft. It should also be noted that Musashi (who was estimated to be around 6 feet tall) was considered extraordinarily large compared to his contemporaries, which likely explains why few swordsmen, even among his students, followed his advice on weapon choice. Were japanese swordsmen typically the size of their european counterparts, I imagine katanas would have been longer on average too.

The hand protection of later katana is an issue that has been talked about by the Japanese themselves: there are texts that recommend larger tsuba (up to 10cm in diameter) with minimal cut-outs (to avoid getting stabbed in the hand). Indeed early iron tsuba are quite big, although their lack of decoration may be attributed to technology, time constraints, and priority (function over style).

I think it is quite a late comment on the subject, rapiers vs katana has been around as early as the internet became a thing. Such episodes however were quite rare and are lost to internet legends of misterious Spanish archives listing the various victories of the Hidalgo in the far east. All BS of course, since Iberian countries had to fought against the Ottoman and the Dutch in the time period, and were much more keen on trading in Japan rather than fighting them. Despite the various legends of keyboards warriors, if one digs enough in shrines archive and local history in Japan, we do have something. A skirmish occured in Hirado in the 1560s and it was recorded as the Miyanomae jiken( 宮ノ前事件). The dispute was cauded over the price of a piece of cloth and ended with the death of fourteen Portuguese, including the current Captain-Major Fernão de Sousa. No Japanese were killed, so I wonder if rapiers were involved. In any case, due to preserve the trading relationship, Spanish and Portuguese were ordered to not risk their reputation by the sword in Japan by the authorities in Luzon

It is very interesting and the arguments are very good. I would make an observation, in Spain many people, if they went to war or similar environments, they wore shorter rapiers with a wider blade. We call these rapiers 'roperas terciadas', because it was useful outside of cities or towns. Wonderful video. Greetings from Academia Da Espada (A Coruña).

Soldados españoles y samurais se enfrentaron una vez y el resultado fue apabullante. Batallas de Cagayan

There are a few things I would like to point out. Actually, in the type of confrontations that the Spanish and the Japanese had, rapiers of this type would not be seen on almost any occasion. Similar but wider war-swords ('de punta y corte') were used and, although slightly heavier, they were generally combined with a buckler-type shield. The combination of both plus the armor doubled the advantage that a rapier of that type would already have over a katana.

The Spanish faced samurai pirates when they had the Philippines, a century before the Dutch and English.

And thank you for always having been Matt Easton, another great video sir.

Great overview Matt. Lovely example of each blade! I look forward to you sharing with us some period accounts of maritime encounters between East and West. I'm just finishing up some research to discuss comparing blade length of earlier Japanese swords to European swords (looking at more 13th-16th centuries) so I really appreciate your attention to these early Edo blades!

In 1638 the third Tokugawa shogunate made a law that katanas were supposed to be shorter than they were previously and have shorter handles as well. It would be interesting to see how much those extra five or so inches in the blade as well as the handle, I might change things up. Not to mention the swords before the law were wider and a little bit heavier.

With rapier, however, you have another hand available for you. Most probably holding a much shorter and lighter parrying dagger. It helps a lot in a confined space, as well as parrying and counterattacking.

I’m a bit of a history buff and I had heard and read pretty much a lot about English and Dutch pirates, in contrast this is the very first time that I have heard about the Japanese being pirates, it’s curious.

One disadvantage with the rapier is also its much slower draw time. I have heard that Europeans in Japan always had a parry dagger that they could get out first in case of ambush, and then hopefully buy some time to get out their rapier.

Para un enfrentamiento cuerpo a cuerpo, en una batalla, hay otra espada española que parece que debía ser bastante buena. Era la espada que usaban los íberos y que Roma adoptó para sus legiones: la famosa Gladius romana. La espada media en torno a 30 pulgadas (unos 75 cm) y era robusta, de unos 6 cm de ancha.

This is a trick question. The rapier user would always win, just as long as his sword had a threaded pommel. Katana do not have removable pommels to which you end your opponent rightly.

I like how you will continue to be Matt Easton!

One caveat I’d add to the vid is the inclusion of specific time periods for the scenario as well as where the pirate’s sword may have come from. The katana we know today (and the one Matt is showing) got its common length in the 1630s due to laws imposed by the Tokugawa shogunate. This means all swords in Japan and all katana made in Japan from then on had to be shortened to the 27”-28” blade length we know now. However pirates, being outlaws, could simply ignore these laws and keep their longer blades. During this time many described “Japanese pirates” were actually Chinese and if their blade was forged in a foreign country like China, then the smith obviously wouldn’t have to abide by another country’s law. So depending on the time period as well as where the swords was made, not all katana/katana-inspired blades would’ve been the length that we know them to be (27”-28” blades). That would really only apply to law abiding Japanese who got their blades domestically after the 1630s. That’s not to say these blades didn’t exist prior, but they were uncommon

Great discussion of two famous swords. Thank you.

Not to mention that the rapier wielder might be using a main gauche as well.

Back when kendo was called gekiken there was a swordsman named Oishi Susumu who prized victory above all things (e.g. technical and spiritual development). He was said to have used a 150 cm shinai and with that won most of his fights. Oishi was said to have challenged Chiba Shusaku founder of Hokushin Itto Ryu who accepted and showed up with a barrel lid as a tsuba.

Matt what did historical accounts of the period exactly say about such close combat encounters ?

the spanish empire made fencing a science. the rapier was separated in 10 parts, and it was based on the law of the plank. they were mede to have a couple of fighters between the pikemen and in pike-to-pike combat they would slide in between and cripple legs, also they were very popular between the noblilty and being a great fencer was seen as a status definer

Katana seems like it would also have an advantage in a self-defense context, not only due to its greater utility in close quarters, but also because of its ability to translate seamlessly from sheathed to cutting. A rapier isn't exactly slow to draw if you're skilled, mind you, but it still has more delay simply because you physically can't draw and thrust at the same time.

The rapier was used in the skillful hand of the warrior; in the other hand was a dagger that completed the defense and the attack at close range.

The greatest advantage a katana of that size has over a rapier is that it is a more well rounded sidearm, easy to carry and faster to deploy. Beside the law that enforce the length regulation, there is a reason why such length was also favoured as it worked quite well in a civilian context. The katana is much similar to storta and small swords. As an interesting note there is a Japanese made rapier of the early 17th century preserved in Fujisaka Shrine in Minakuchi-cho, Koka. This was made in Japan probably as a form of parade sword. It was owned by Kato Yoshiaki.

Spain had many conflict with Japanese pirates in Philippines. The bigger battle took place in Cagayan at the end of the XVI siecle.

Wouldn't you be able to "fix" the rapier's monodirectional shortcomings by pairing it with a parrying dagger or bucker? It was my understanding that this was fairly common.

I finally check back in on scholargladiatoria and now he's got a Spanish rapier! I've been waiting for this video forever now!

That the rapier is one handed make me think you have even more of a range advantage. And for fun, with a rapier you can dual wield a shorter weapon which would make it very difficult for a katana wielder. (Especially if it's a flintlock gun)

In the movie HIGHLANDER, you see the Spaniard Villalobos who is Sean Connery and is the master of the Scotsman. There they talk about Toledo and its reputation for making the best swords. Villalobos teaches the Scotsman how to handle the sword in the Spanish style. Even When the policeman has it at the police station, he says that it is Spanish and is worth 1 million dollars. They have always had that fame. There is a reason why Spain was an Empire of 300 years and a very powerful reason in the close combat, it was the Toledan Sword .

Hey Matt, how about montantes? They were from around that time period as well, weren't they? I remember I've seen an Iberian report in which their ship was boarded by pirates/bandits, but the captain killed 3-6 men with his montante and the rest of the bandits fled. I know Figueyredo and Godinho teach how to use the montante in a ship as well, but I see so little historical texts about their usage overall. Could you make a video about that?

In fact, in the second half of the Edo period in Japan, it was once popular to use 160cm long bamboo swords for thrusting in competitions, just like Europeans used long rapiers in duels. However, because many masters pointed out that this long bamboo sword was not suitable for real fighting outside the dojo, they established rules to limit the length of the bamboo sword. This is why bamboo swords in modern kendo competitions cannot be longer than 120cm.

I would definitely say that when it comes to rapier and katana on a ship possibly in a conflict involving pirates that the rapier weilder would definitely have major problems.

As a reference,when the Spanish and Japanese clashed in Cagayán (The Phillipinnes,XVI century),the Spaniards got the victory. Although the battle developed in different phases,the last one consisted in a close range combat. When the defeated Japanese (ronin,wako) fled,the Spaniards kept some katanas as a trophy.

Just to chime in with some historical info (not as much for a historian like you, but for anyone else unaware) during the Edo shogunate, a katana could be at most 3 shaku (feet) in length. Anything longer and you'd get to honourably disembowel yourself. Which resulted in heirloom nodachi and the like being cut down to size and thus, sadly, losing the smith signature on the tang. But, anyway, yes, there was variability, but there also was a hard upper limit. (And most were a lot shorter, around 2.5 ft or less, according to fashion at the time.) Thus every single katana at the time was at a length disadvantage against a rapier. Yes, there was variability, but anything out-reaching a rapier would have been an illegal odachi/nodachi, so you probably would never see one except in a family shrine.

You forget that the sword is one handed and was usually used with a dagger on the left hand for short distances

1:44 We do has to be careful when looking at these events as many times they were described to be Japanese pirates but were actually Chinese or Filipino. In terms of weapons, it is possible they would use katana-inspired blades

The lesson to me is that all these weapons are suited to different circumstances. Like MMA, a good fighter becomes skilled in the variety of circumstances they are likely to face - and skilled in the variety of weapons suited to those circumstances. There is no one weapon suited for all situations, just the one you spend the most effort mastering. Then, it's a combination of will to fight, aggression, athleticism, skill, and weapon suitability that wins a fight in a circumstance. Good stuff!

I think there are a few other points to also consider. First rapiers are relatively easy/safe to grab compared to other sword types. It’s not a simple task or risk-free, but it is one its weaknesses, especially considering how awkward it is to use at shorter distances. Secondly, we would need to consider what the combatants are wearing. Katanas (and sabres) tend to be great textile cutters, and while a strong rapier thrust should easily penetrate any clothing, I do wonder how light thrusts would do against loosely worn robes that were common in east Asia. Finally, the stopping power of a rapier thrust isn’t great. They were primarily developed as civilian weapons and often intended for use in less-than-lethal duels. While a thrust could instantly kill someone depending on the location, we know from modern wound research that penetrating wounds will often fail to stop a combatant if there isn’t enough associated trauma. If that first thrust fails to stop the attacker, either from a miss, a grabbed blade or a thrust that failed to kill, then the rapier wielder is going to be in a difficult position against an aggressive katana user. For me personally I really wouldn’t want to rely on a single rapier in a life-or-death sword fight. I’ve actually experienced having a reasonably large piece of steel stuck most the way through my leg (accident not a fight) and other than the initial stinging pain, I didn’t even notice how bad the wound was until someone pointed out the blood later. I’ve also had a friend get stabbed in the arm during a drunken brawl (which severed a tendon) yet keep fighting afterwards as if nothing happened. He nearly died from blood loss and needed 2 years of rehabilitation, but the point is that if I was dealing with a highly aggressive opponent then I would really prefer a blade with more stopping power that can be used at both long and short ranges or at least the rapier+dagger combination. With the single rapier I feel there is just too much risk getting seriously injured yourself even if you did land a good thrust.

I guess basically in that era the key was using a combination of measures in battle. In a Spanish unit there was someone with a rapier or sword and shield (pike deviation and close melee), another guy with a pike for long range melee, and another guy with a gunpowder weapon for ranged combat, plus some artillery support that could come from cannons, and of course light cavalry for flanking

The Lord of Arms is here🗿🗡🔥💯

The name rapier sword (ROPERA) comes from the fact that it was part of the clothing of any Spaniard between the 16th and 17th centuries. It was impossible to leave the house without the rapier sword, apart from the rough wool cloak and a dagger. There is a supposed phrase said by a captain of the Tercios in Flanders who said, "whatever a Spaniard cannot reach with his hand, he will do with the point of his sword", but it is not certain that it is true.

When facing a rapier my general strategy was to stay at relatively long range and wait for the rapier fighter to make a fully committed lunge and then aggressively close the distance. Anything less and they could backpedal quite easily. If they refused to cooperate then the plan was to stay at longer range and defend until they became tired and frustrated and started to make mistakes. I'm not an expert with either katana or rapier but in my limited experience the katana fared really well. These were one on one dueling type situations and as always, your milage may vary.

I really like these type of vids. Always makes me appreciate more my Kendo trainings and increased interest in HEMA. Man, I really want to give HEMA a go 😃

With the katana you could just grab the end of the handle to gain more reach. One handed cuts even with 2 handed swords are quite common in Chinese swordsmanship, is that not something the Japanese do? It might not deliver as powerful cuts but it deceives your opponent into believing you having a shorter sword than you really do.

As I understood the shorter later Katanas where made for better handling in civil life but also for better drawing speed. So it depends how the duel starts. Would not like to draw a rapier against a katana, but once drawn, the rapier has the advantage in the open and with the enemy at enough distance.

"This isn't one of those 'musketeer vs samurai' videos..." Ah dammit.

Spain, Portugal and England were out of the picture since the 17th century, the Dutch remained but with very strict contact. The US and UK established contact in the 19th century.

Initially, I hadn’t planned on commenting - however, this really is a very interesting topic. 👍🏻🙂 Historically, from the late 16th century and especially following the Sengoku Jidai (ie after ca. 1615), samurai would be carrying daishō. Modern Kobudo (Japanese martial arts dating from after 1868) - like most Iaidō-schools (post 1932) - don’t necessarily have much focus on practice with two swords. Traditional Ko-ryū, however, do often provide training in dual sword-techniques - to some extent or other. Historical evidence thus do suggest, that a Sengoku- or Edo-period samurai could have, in theory, deployed his shōtō (tantō or wakizashi) in conjunction with his daitō (tachi or katana) in order to improve his odds against an opponent with a range-advantage. Such as a European rapier-wielder. Anyhoo - it’s something to ponder, methinks… 🤔🎓⚔️🤓

i really like your channel but i humbly would ask you to use metric system as well in descriptions of swords length. thank you!

The rapier is a more technically advanced weapon from a civilization that was far more advanced that the Japanese in the 17 century. There are recorded encounters between Spanish soldiers and Japanese pirates and the outcome was almost always in favor of the Spanish even in cases of considerable numerical disadvantage.

The Japanese Katana as a weapon is excellent in every way, but Hollywood has terribly exaggerated its combat capabilities. The Spanish Rapier is a weapon of excellent quality, and truly deadly on the battlefield. And this statement is not just an opinion, it is based on the same history and on multiple confrontations throughout history. Like that of the Battle of Cagayan (Philippine Coast -1582) between 30-40 Spanish soldiers of the Tercios and approximately 1000 Japanese pirates, mostly Rōnin, samurai fallen in disgrace or without a lord. The Japanese who survived the defeat, when they returned to Japan, said that they had not faced men, but sea demons dressed in steel. I can't imagine what a shock it must have been for such great fighters to receive such a beating. Because when they fled, after several hours of combat, they left behind several hundred dead compared to 7 or 8 casualties on the other side. A truly incredible feat in my opinion, but true and perfectly documented by both sides.

Matt Easton: If you want to make this comparison, you really have to talk about armor (both the Spanish and the Japanese used armor) and round shields (the Spaniards used them in Asia and other places along with the rapier). In addition, one would have to clarify that a katana is wielded with two hands, but a rapier is wielded with one hand, which makes a significant difference because of the leverage. With a two-handed sword it is much easier to get past a rapier point. The two-handed grip is also the decisive advantage for spears. Conversely, one would have to emphasize that this is exactly why a rapier fighter would never have fought a katana fighter with only the rapier. He would have had at least a dagger in his other hand, but more likely a shield in the context of East Asia. Especially the Spaniards fought in war and especially on ships with roundshields (Rodela) and Rapier together and that troops were called Rodeleros. The Rodeleros were very common troops in the colonies and there much more usual than in europa because of their flexibilty. So an Spaniard would not fought an japanese with an rapier alone, without armour. And neither would the japanese do that. Instead, especially in the foughts from wako / pirates against spaniards both sides would have used some kind of armour and the spaniards would have used roundshields (rodela) or at least (even in a duelling situation) an dagger which changes the game completly.

La espada y Daga Españolas son superiores en parte por el sistema de combate, la técnica Española era la verdadera destreza , por eso conquistamos el mundo, de hecho Japoneses Samuráis y Españoles se enfrentaron en Filipinas,siendo los Samuráis superiores en número la victoria fue Española

So, I read about an encounter between japanese samurai and spanish tercios back in XVI century, in the Philipinnes, which was a spanish colony back in the day, with about 40 spanish tercios and several sailors, led by Juan Pablo Carrión, repelling several hundreds of samurai (ronin) who were pillaging near Manila.

Parrying a cut from a katana(deliverd by a seasoned kenjutsu practitioner) with a rapier... possible if you manage to catch it precisely with the strong, otherwise your guard quite likely can be crushed through, especially if your opponent is from certain styles that emphasise exlposive cutting technique, such as jigenryu. The only things rapier user can truly rely on are: excellent footwork plus having enough space for maneuvering or really good grappling skill.

I've been messing around with my headphones for 5 minutes then I realized I was hearing white noise out of both ears and pulled up another video and realized that it's actually this video's audio thats messed up.

Please keep in mind that the Japanese are very short; even modern day, they are on average the shortest in Asia. If you've ever seen historical Japanese armor from the medieval period, you will understand how tiny the samurai were. I feel like if Japanese swords had been built for westerners they would have been make considerably longer. Something to keep in mind when doing these comparisons.

“This is merely a business arrangement between you, me, and this monkey.” ~ _Captain-General Ferriera to Pilot major Blackthorn in reference to Lord Toranaga in Shogun_

What armour did spanish marines were wearing back at the time? I suppose it wasn't a plate armour anymore.

Great video. But maybe the one with the rapier could gain a slight advantage in close combat by wielding a dagger in his left hand?

As an experienced marina worker I'm a big fan of short choppy swords aboard a ship or indoors. A rapier or spear is great at further distances, but in a house or on a ship you usually can't maintain distance or step back. There are just too many objects and obstacles behind you. A 25 inch blade katana (and certainly every wakizashi) can easily be pulled back behind you or to the side to engage at a few inches away.

There is a critical point about land combat that you might not be taking in count: In the 16th Century armies fight in formations, not a mindless melee like shown in movies. They would face something like the battle scene in the spanish movie Alatriste, where the spanish and the dutch had an encounter in Rocroi. Those weapons were developed to work in conjunction with their strategy, everything arround their strategy and how they fight so you won't find suddenly a group of spanish tercios, for example, running mindlessly into a melee. Why? Because they were trained to work in formation. Most of them have individual fighting skills but in a real battle they would work in formation, either Cuadros or whatever the orders said but wont run over eachother. And that is also extensible to most medieval battles. The infantry used walls of shields, lances, etc. The idea of two european armies clashing and suddenly everyone is in a 1v1 against the enemy happened in movies. In fact, in the battles of Cagayan and out of the bullshit arround the battles, where many people think as a boarding thing with somehow fully armored spanish knights in one side against fully armored samurais on the other side, in those enviroments the spanish rapier ended having a great success in the encounters so even on those situations the katana-like weapons ended, as we say in Spain, "on the wrong end of the sword".