Difference between "katana" and "tachi"

Discussion in 'Weapons' started by Moosey, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    While I was on my holidays in Japan, I went into a museum which had displays of swordcraft.

    Some of the swords were referred to as "katana" and others as "tachi". From the information on display, I could only pick up that katana were a newer design than tachi and that katana were worn in the scabbard with the cutting edge of the blade facing up, while tachi were worn with the edge facing down.

    What I couldn't work out was whether there was any difference in the sword itself that made it a tachi or a katana. Can anyone enlighten me?
     
  2. koyo

    koyo Passed away, but always remembered. RIP.

    The katana is used mainly on foot hence the edge up and the scabbard tucked in the hakama. See photo of Mifune,

    The tachi was worn on a horse or in full armour hence blade down and hung at the side. See photo of samurai.

    If you see a katane slung like a tachi it may mean that the warrior is a gunner. They tended to carry the sword in this manner to protect the point if they went to their knees to fire.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    That's the main ones. Tachi are older design, slung edge down from the waist, and were originally designed for wearing on horseback. The origins of the katana are as a secondary sword to the tachi, refered to as an uchigatana, and was slung in the belt edge up. As time went on (moving into the Edo era, and away from battlefield armour-clad usage into "street wear"), the katana became the standard "long" sword, rather than the shorter accompanying one. That role was taken by the Wakizashi.

    In terms of technical differences between the blades themselves, that depends on the era. Early tachi tended towards narrower blades with short kissaki, for ease of use with a single hand while on horseback, and a sori (curve) located closer to the tsuba, while katana have their sori closer to the centre of the blade. This tends to give a tachi the appearance of a deeper sori (which it has, but not to the degree most see it as having). Later tachi would be similar to katana in terms of design, with tachi possibly being longer than katana typically would, but again that depends entirely on usage.
     
  4. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Thank you very much! That's good information!
     
  5. Bronze Statue

    Bronze Statue Valued Member

    The others have already mentioned the major likely differences in design. Along that line, here's an article (with a timeline and pictures at the bottom) showing the common blade designs over time.

    However, there isn't always a difference in the sword itself. It was often quite possible that the same blade could have been remounted in one type of fittings or the other (e.g. a blade of tachi-esque characteristics or a blade that was used originally as a tachi that was then set in an uchigatana mount, or vice versa).

    It is also the case that the two words can be used as generic terms; tachi ("wide blade") referring to longswords of all types (regardless of fittings, blade construction, etc.), and katana ("sword") referring to swords in general.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2010
  6. Neil Gendzwill

    Neil Gendzwill Valued Member

    You can tell which it originally was by the location of the smith's signature on the tang, which was IIRC always on the side facing out as the sword was meant to be worn.
     
  7. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    Gotta back up what Neil just said. If it is fully mounted, the koshirae will dictate whether it is mounted in a katana or tachi style. If it is unmounted, the signature is the only way to tell a tachi from a katana. If a sword is mumei so it has no signature, there really is no way to tell if it was orginally a tachi or katana.
     
  8. Ace of Clubs

    Ace of Clubs Banned Banned

    As previously mentioned, the tachi was a cavalry sword.

    Another thing to add, the tachi was far more curved then your edo period style katana and was carried blade down (as opposed to blade up), it also hung from the hip as opposed to being tied to a belt. The reason for these factors is when drawing from horseback you wanted to swing around the head of your horse in a wide arc to avoid cutting your mount.

    The main difference (in use) between tachi and katana is that a katana is a 'push and pull' sword where as the tachi is a slashing weapon (like a sabre).

    The tachi also had a longer tsuka than edo jidai katana (but shorter than sengoku jidai wakizashi).

    Often mounted Samurai would wear tachi and wakizashi (or kodachi), in case they their mount was felled in combat because the tachi was not so great for close quarters fighting (works a treat with a spear though).
     
  9. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Unfortunately, with almost every detail you mention there, Ace, the actual answer is "sometimes". It was sometimes deeper in curvature, but not always. Often the curve was just closer to the tsuka (called Koshi Sori), giving the impression of a deeper curvature, without actually being so. And some tachi weren't that deeply curved. The usage is a little out, as well, really, with most differences in technique being more influenced by the clothing expected to be encountered (tachi tending towards smaller kissaki to help fit between points in yoroi, katana being more of a "daily wear", might only expect to encounter unarmoured opponents, and so on).

    Not quite sure what you're meaning by "Sengoku jidai wakizashi"; did you mean the Uchigatana that was the precursor to the katana? Wakizashi refers to a short blade worn on the side (literally: "inserted at the side"), so it's the best that I can think of, in which case it's basically the same thing.... I haven't come across anything classed as a Wakizashi in armour, Kodachi, yes, Uchigatana, sure, Yoroi Doshi, certainly, but nothing called a Wakizashi. Oh, and the lengths of tsuka were not set in stone, they could really be anything the owner desired, so stating that they were longer than one, but shorter than another isn't quite right either.

    As to the end of your comments there, you seem to be confusing different periods in Japanese warfare history. And sword against spear? I'll take the spear, thank you. In fact, against a spear, I'll take a spear. Swords don't really "work a treat", unless you are particularly skilled.
     
  10. Ace of Clubs

    Ace of Clubs Banned Banned

    Wakizashi as in 'side arm' of the time.

    I didn't mean sword against spear, I mean sword & spear, one in each hand.
     
  11. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Hmm. Then I'd use a better term. And really? Sword and spear, one in each hand? Then I'm not sure how much experience you have with Sojutsu, that's really not a good plan, and doesn't turn up in any spear system I've ever seen for good reason.
     
  12. Ace of Clubs

    Ace of Clubs Banned Banned

    Quite experienced.

    Which ryuha have you seen that teach soujutsu?
     
  13. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Really, Ace? Okay, the second part first, then I'll explain why it seems, to me at least, that your understanding of Sojutsu is a little off if you think holding a spear in one hand and a sword in the other is a good idea.

    Ryu-ha first, though. You did ask, after all.

    Kukishinden Ryu

    Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin Ryu

    Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu

    Kashima Shinryu

    Toda-ha Buko Ryu

    Tatsumi Ryu Heiho

    Hozoin Ryu Takeda-ha

    Owari-Kan Ryu

    The above are a combination of personal training experience, visiting dojos and watching the training, talking with the instructors about this exact topic, many videos and books, articles, and so forth. Seems a decent cross-section, I feel.

    Now, there are definate differences in each of the systems (for example, Toda-ha Buko Ryu features Sojutsu in kata against Naginata, with the idea of the Naginata "winning", using the spear as a teaching device to further the understanding of the central weapon of the Ryu. Katori Shinto Ryu is the same with their approach, the concept is teaching a swordsman how to handle an opponenet armed with a spear, Hozoin Ryu and Owari-Kan Ryu both focus on the spear, each with their own speciality [Owari with the Kuda Yari, Hozoin with the Jumonji and Katakama Yari], so they deal a lot with spear versus spear... I could go on, you know...), but there are also some very constant ideas. These are based primarily on the practicalities and strengths of the weapon itself, all of which go against your idea of dual wielding with a sword, it must be said.

    If one were to hold a spear in one hand (a theory as to why the Japanese didn't really develop a hand-held shield to any major degree, instead just ones fixed in the ground, goes to the prevalence of two handed weapons; Naginata, Sword, Bow, and Spear. So their "shields" were built into their armour), you would rob it of the very strengths the weapon offers. You would rob it of some of it's reach advantage (as you couldn't slide it through your hands for extending thrusts), you would rob it of it's power (by pushing and twisting with the rear hand, the very reason the Owari-Kan Ryu developed the Kuda Yari, by the way), you would rob it of it's ability to deflect incoming thrusts from another spear, you would rob yourself of a fair amount of control over the weapon itself (9 feet of haft extended by one hand is not easy to get exactly where you need it), and so on. And if you are holding it in your right hand (assuming that you would, it's the "power" hand for most people, after all, and Japanese arts are very right-centric), then you're holding your long sword in your left hand? Similar issues are applied here as to the spear in a single hand, although the sword isn't as badly affected. But the point it that you are compromising both weapons unnecessarily to the point where they will both lose effectiveness, and someone half-decent with a single weapon will simply take the dual-wielder out, especially if the single weapon holder is using a spear themselves.

    So if you are "quite experienced" in Sojutsu, do you mind if I ask exactly what you mean by that? Are we talking a bit every now and then over a few years, or something a little more? Oh, and while we're at it, can you supply any Ryu-ha that supports your concept of dual wielding? As I said, it goes against every Ryu that I have come across, but that doesn't mean I've seen them all.
     
  14. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    Sorry, but I have to call BS on this one.
    I agree completely with Chris. Of all of the various sojutsu and sword demonstrations that I've watched, both in person or on video, I've never heard mention anywhere of anyone trying to use both sword and spear at the same time ... ever. The first time I've heard it mentioned at all is your post. My actual experience with sojutsu is not very extensive, but from a Japanese sword perspective, there are a hundred different things that make using both at once a very bad idea.
     
  15. Kogusoku

    Kogusoku 髭また伸びた! Supporter


    Combatively illogical. You use one or the other, not both at the same time.
    If you had ever used a real spear in keiko you would know how heavy and unwieldy it is to use single handed.

    Sure, some of us gaikokujin montei are quite big and have some muscle to back up being able to handle a spear and a sword simultaneously unlike our Japanese counterparts, some of whose descendants used such weapons in reality.

    Try doing tai-sabaki or a decent counter at speed under stress while wielding both weapons. Bear in mind a real yari is iron, oak and a two foot long spear, sometimes three (including the nakago that fits into the 7' plus emono).

    I thought to put in a couple of cents, since I do train in sojutsu.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2010
  16. Brian R. VanCis

    Brian R. VanCis Valued Member

    I too have never observed a Japanese system that utilized sword in one hand and spear in the other. (never)
     
  17. Rosie the Riveter

    Rosie the Riveter Valued Member

    The Tachi is used predominantly in combat. The Tachi is moderately heavy and slightly curved. Because of this, the tachi is not compact. It requires work to carry around.

    The Katana, on the other hand, is relatively compact and serves as a newer alternative to the Tachi because it is less heavy and straighter, as oppose to the Tachi.

    The Tachi has been dubbed as being superior in quality by several sword theorists, but despite it's effectiveness, I honestly do not believe it's efficient like the Katana.
     
  18. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Predominantly used in combat?

    As opposed to what? :confused:

    In what way does it require work to carry around?


    Which sword theorists?
     
  19. Rosie the Riveter

    Rosie the Riveter Valued Member

    Yes, as opposed to the Katana, the Tachi is used in combat. I think the Katana is being used more now because it is less heavy than the Tachi and more compact (easy to carry, etc). The Tachi is relatively heavy and because of this, it remains to be more effective than the Katana, but the Katana is more efficient and practical.
     
  20. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Hmm, not strictly true, though. Early tachi were actually lighter than typical katana, with a deeper curvature (sori) located closer to the tsuba (called koshi sori), and a shorter tsuka, as the main use was single handed on horseback. Later versions that were occasionally found on the battlefield ranged from something akin to this mounted version all the way up to very large forms, although these were very rare by most accounts. Many early tachi were also a fair bit shorter than "typical" katana, with the kissaki typically small (ko kissaki), whereas katana tend more towards Chu Kissaki or O Kissaki (the smaller tip made them less "tip-heavy", as well as fitting inbetween the armour a lot easier).

    I get the feeling that by "in combat", you are refering to pitched battles there, and it must be said that swords were a back-up weapon at best for the vast majority of warriors, with spear and naginata being much more common. The reasons are pretty simple, with the polearms having a far longer reach, more versatility in range (by shifting along the hafts), and less skill being needed to simply repeatedly jab forward with a spear.

    EDIT: For reference, though, here is a school that uses katana, not tachi.... at least, a variant of them. It's called the Kage Ryu, a rare system based on drawing a katana, but with a special twist!

    http://www.hyoho.com/Nkage1.html

    Make sure you visit all the pages, especially the second one if you want to see a real Katana or two!
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2011

Share This Page