# Katana vs European Longsword



## C. Hook (Oct 18, 2008)

I confess. I love medieval weapons, and there are none more beautiful for me than the sword. 

The knights vs. samurai threads are common (One could say too common), but I found no threads discussing the tools of their trade. Both the katana and the European longsword are icons of power, corruption, beauty, wealth, courage, honor, etc...

So which one is better?


This amazing article really digs deep into the specific parts that make each sword a winner, but it is too objective for us bloodthirsty OBDers.

So, again, which one is better? Why? Is speed better than easy technique change? Are thrusts better than cuts? Does the hard-yet-easily-chipped edge of the katana give it an advantage over the soft-yet-springy Western blade? Which is cooler looking?

I remind you, this is a battle of swords, not knights or samurai. This isn't about which is better for piercing European plate armor, or which takes more effort to make (They actually both take impressive amounts of effort).


----------



## Grandmaster Kane (Oct 18, 2008)

Katanas are much easier to cut with

Longsword are more effective in battle ( assuming you are properly trained with it)


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 18, 2008)

Grandmaster Kane said:


> Katanas are much easier to cut with
> 
> Longsword are more effective in battle ( assuming you are properly trained with it)



They both were highly effective in battle. The European longsword was a better thruster, but was worse at cutting blows, both of which were used in battle.


----------



## Grandmaster Kane (Oct 18, 2008)

But longsword can slash, thrust and crush


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 18, 2008)

You can't thrust with a Katana?


----------



## Xelloss (Oct 18, 2008)

Its not made to thrust, also most katanas where of really low quality metal, due to the low mineral mines in japan.


----------



## Kool-Aid (Oct 18, 2008)

Katanas are aesthetically better.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 18, 2008)

Xelloss said:


> *Its not made to thrust,* also most katanas where of really low quality metal, due to the low mineral mines in japan.



It was made like most swords, to cut and thrust. It just happened to be better at cutting than a longsword and worse at thrusting. Only a few swords (Rapier) have really not been able to do one of these things.

Also, doesn't the way they are forged (With a central core) help to nullify most of the durability problems?



Kool-Aid said:


> Katanas are aesthetically better.



I personally prefer the cruciform hilt and straight blade of the longsword.


----------



## Xelloss (Oct 18, 2008)

Yes outside toledo spanish sword in my opinion japanese got the best forging, still their material was low quality.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 18, 2008)

Xelloss said:


> Yes outside toledo spanish sword in my opinion japanese got the best forging, still their material was low quality.



But like I said, isn't the finished sword still good durability? It certainly is more prone to chipping and breakage, but it does have a harder edge.


----------



## Grandmaster Kane (Oct 18, 2008)

the durability was absolute shit when the force was no forcused on the cutting edge


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 18, 2008)

I love this site.

Of note:



> Another Myth is the a Katana is stronger then a normal longsword in battle. Not true in the sense that Japan has vastly inferior iron quality (at least when applied to a European sword) as not to mention a costly effort in Japan where a master swordsmith would have to go to great lengths to remove impurities from the iron, such as the famous 'folding of the blade' (though this was normally left to the apprentice).



I couldn't say whether that's true or not.


----------



## Banhammer (Oct 18, 2008)

I have a toledo longsword and I tell you, that little bugger can cause some fucked up damage.


----------



## Red (Oct 18, 2008)

Viking Battle axes are better.

Since we can all agree that Long swords are better from a technical stand point I don't see the point in this thread except arguing opinions. Yay.

But just for the heck of it. Katana is a better weapon if you want to look matrix cool.


----------



## Platinum (Oct 18, 2008)

I like the European Longsword better in a battle.


----------



## Berserkhawk z (Oct 18, 2008)

Longsword all the way


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 18, 2008)

berserkhawk z said:


> Longsword all the way



Like a really really long sword?


----------



## Zoidberg (Oct 19, 2008)

Personally European longswords are more beautiful than Katanas, but the longsword is more effective in combat, seeing as how it can break through plate armor while Katanas cannot. 
Though in design I prefer middle eastern or indian blades.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Oct 19, 2008)

I prefer holding long swords


----------



## Gorblax (Oct 19, 2008)

Katanas, I think, are a bit more practical in an actual battle. A large part of the longsword's design is ceremonial.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

battlerek said:


> Personally European longswords are more beautiful than Katanas, but the longsword is more effective in combat, seeing as how it can* break through plate armor* while Katanas cannot.



Complete bull. Sorry, but there is there is no way EITHER sword is cutting through European plate armor.



battlerek said:


> Though in design I prefer middle eastern or indian blades.



I prefer the African hooksword, which was specialized to go around shields. 



Red said:


> Viking Battle axes are better.



Off-topic posts are better. Also, the battle-ax, while better in the sense that it requires (MUCH) less training and is better against most infantry does lack the straight out speed and agility of a sword, making it much less useful in combat against non-mounted sword users more (Of course, there really aren't many sword users, other than people wielding falchions and the like). 



Red said:


> Since we can all agree that Long swords are better from a technical stand point I don't see the point in this thread except arguing opinions. Yay.



Not really. If you pitted a katana made from the best materials against a (European) longsword made from the same materials, it becomes obvious that the katana is a better cutter and is quicker, although I do agree that the longsword is better in battle.



Gorblax said:


> Katanas, I think, are a bit more practical in an actual battle. A large part of the longsword's design is ceremonial.



Really? You do realize that the longsword is better at stabbing and more versatile, right? You do realize that the "ceremonial" cruciform hilt actually is a better guard, right? You do realize that samurai mainly were archers, while knights while unmounted mainly used swords, right?


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

Don't you guys watch anime? Katana can cut through anything with no resistance.

Don't you guys watch movies? Long swords weigh a ton!

I'm curious, how effective are longsword parrying methods against the attack styles  of a katana? I don't think katana are faster than liong swords when both are of comparable weight and both are being wielded by experts of their art. I wonder how likely it is for a katana to get wedged into a shield lol, that'd be a pretty cool fight scene. 

Saying samurai were mainly archers though depends on what era samurai you're talking about and their rank.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

HOYLTHIS said:


> Don't you guys watch anime? Katana can cut through anything with no resistance.
> 
> Don't you guys watch movies? Long swords weigh a ton!



Hardy har har.



HOYLTHIS said:


> I'm curious, how effective are longsword parrying methods against the attack styles  of a katana? I don't think katana are faster than liong swords when both are of comparable weight and both are being wielded by experts of their art.



The sword style of a katana is supposedly faster, and their general shape makes them better at fast cuts.



HOYLTHIS said:


> I wonder how likely it is for a katana to get wedged into a shield lol, that'd be a pretty cool fight scene.



Yeah, shields make swords their bitches.



HOYLTHIS said:


> Saying samurai were mainly archers though depends on what era samurai you're talking about and their rank.



There was no era during which they were mostly sword users, which is what mainly matters. In later eras, they used guns. They were also good with a polearm apparently. For swords, they would use a dagger close up along with a larger sword. Many used two swords (NO, they did NOT duel wield, which is completely stupid and useless with swords.), one of them being slightly shorter.


----------



## Zen-aku (Oct 19, 2008)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I love this site.
> 
> Of note:
> 
> ...



^This i know to be true

Also

Excalibur > Kusanagi


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 19, 2008)

Zen-aku said:


> Excalibur > Kusanagi



That's like comparing sex with Elizabeth Hurley to getting raped by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas


----------



## Zen-aku (Oct 19, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> That's like comparing sex with Elizabeth Hurley to getting raped by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas



actually its more like Sex with Elizabeth Hurley vs Sex with ....some Japaneses actress...


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 19, 2008)

Nah, getting raped by Lucas and Spielberg is closer


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> There was no era during which they were mostly sword users, which is what mainly matters. In later eras, they used guns. They were also good with a polearm apparently. For swords, they would use a dagger close up along with a larger sword. Many used two swords (NO, they did NOT duel wield, which is completely stupid and useless with swords.), one of them being slightly shorter.



The pike was a very popular tool for the samurai as it dealt against mounted fighters very well. And towards the progression to the end of  the samurai I believe you see the sword becoming used a lot more. 

But this dagger and long sword you're talking about is in reference to stuff like Tachi I believe where on the ground it wasn't very useful, and so the dagger was better suited for the closer range. But there is definitely a progression from larger swords and eventually to the katana as we know it which could signify that there was a period of greater demand for sword utility.

Oh and, Kusanagi isn't a katana..


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

HOYLTHIS said:


> The pike was a very popular tool for the samurai as it dealt against mounted fighters very well.



There's the polearm I mentioned. Finally, I'm actually right.



HOYLTHIS said:


> And towards the progression to the end of  the samurai I believe you see the sword becoming used a lot more.



Yeah, but it was still second-banana to ranged weapons.



HOYLTHIS said:


> But this dagger and long sword you're talking about is in reference to stuff like Tachi I believe where on the ground it wasn't very useful,



Using a sword on top of a moving horse is completely useless. Using a dagger is even worse. 



HOYLTHIS said:


> and so the dagger was better suited for the closer range.



Yep. A little known fact about Knights: When unmounted, they would often use daggers at close range.



HOYLTHIS said:


> But there is definitely a progression from larger swords and eventually to the katana as we know it which could signify that there was a period of greater demand for sword utility.



Probably. It could also show the transition away from mounted warfare, since greatswords were best against horses.

I like arguing with someone who likes talking about medieval weaponry. Nerds unite!


----------



## neji1988 (Oct 19, 2008)

well in terms of power + Thrust it goes to the europoean long sword hands down.

BUT in terms of speed and reaction speed as well it goes to the kantana due to its light weight.. 

sooo if the fight is all about trying to hit each other really hard and see who dies it would be the european long sword BUT if its about a swift battle it goes to the kantana


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

neji1988 said:


> well in terms of power + Thrust it goes to the europoean long sword hands down.



What? Thrust involves power. If you mean cutting ability, the katana takes that easily.



neji1988 said:


> BUT in terms of speed and *reaction speed* as well it goes to the kantana *due to its light weight..*



How the hell is reaction speed a sword quality?

You do realize that a European longsword is the same weight, right?



neji1988 said:


> sooo if the fight is all about trying to hit each other really hard and see who dies it would be the european long sword



As I said before, katanas are better cutters, longswords are better thrusters.



neji1988 said:


> BUT if its about a swift battle it goes to the kantana



...

The speed advantage the katana has is countered by the defensive options and versatility of a longsword.


----------



## Teach (Oct 19, 2008)

Longswords are infinitely more effective.


----------



## Gorblax (Oct 19, 2008)

Looks like I have a whole lot to not care about learning when it comes to swords, I guess.


----------



## Zoidberg (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> Complete bull. Sorry, but there is there is no way EITHER sword is cutting through European plate armor.


Really? Then how do you exactly kill a fully armored knight at close range?


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

battlerek said:


> Really? Then how do you exactly kill a fully armored knight at close range?



You thrust through the gaps of the armor, which is easier than it sounds for a good swordsman.


----------



## RWB (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> You do realize that a European longsword is the same weight, right?



From what I've been taught, that's not right either. The average longsword is actually lighter than the average katana.

But you might be right.


Still, the silly notion that longswords weigh 40 pounds or so... XD

Heck, a full suit of plate armor can weigh in under that.


----------



## Zoidberg (Oct 19, 2008)

RWB said:


> From what I've been taught, that's not right either. The average longsword is actually lighter than the average katana.
> 
> But you might be right.
> 
> ...



And the knights would still have the same mobility as a Mail-armored Samurai.


----------



## Federer (Oct 19, 2008)

Well, Discovery Channel is good for your education. 

There was a documentary where they compare both swords, the Katana came out the top. Both swords can cut easily trough human flesh, the katana ways lesser than a European sword and it's a stronger mix of metal. It's proven.

The Katana, or the samurai-sword (as some people say) is the superior sword.


----------



## Berserkhawk z (Oct 19, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> Like a really really long sword?



Yes really really long


----------



## neji1988 (Oct 19, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Well, Discovery Channel is good for your education.
> 
> There was a documentary where they compare both swords, the Katana came out the top. Both swords can cut easily trough human flesh, the katana ways lesser than a European sword and it's a stronger mix of metal. It's proven.
> 
> The Katana, or the samurai-sword (as some people say) is the superior sword.



OH yes lol i just remembered about the documentary, its already proven in testing that the samurai sword is the Ultimate weapon for swords


----------



## RWB (Oct 19, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Well, Discovery Channel is good for your education.
> 
> There was a documentary where they compare both swords, the Katana came out the top. Both swords can cut easily trough human flesh, the katana ways lesser than a European sword and it's a stronger mix of metal. It's proven.
> 
> The Katana, or the samurai-sword (as some people say) is the superior sword.



No.

Versatility and range beats a very slight speed advantage by far.



As for weight... From what I've read, the Longsword usually weighs in at 3-5 pounds, while the katana weighs in on 4-6.


----------



## Federer (Oct 19, 2008)

RWB said:


> No.
> 
> Versatility and range beats a very slight speed advantage by far.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm sorry. But if every expert on this issue says that the Katana is better, I'll go with the experts opinion, because their research is a fact.


----------



## RWB (Oct 19, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Well, I'm sorry. But if every expert on this issue says that the Katana is better, I'll go with the experts opinion, because their research is a fact.



Every expert?


Now that's epic. Proof pls?


----------



## Federer (Oct 19, 2008)

RWB said:


> Every expert?
> 
> 
> Now that's epic. Proof pls?



Well, like I said. Watch Discovery or National Geographic. Or search the net, because I'm too lazy to find a proof. I'm certain that the Katana is the superior sword, I watched the documentary I while ago, but I watched it clearly, because I like martial arts. 

And I'm an European, but I still say the Katana.


----------



## Enclave (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> You thrust through the gaps of the armor, which is easier than it sounds for a good swordsman.



Or you beat them senseless.  Great thing about long swords is that they have a lot of force behind them, force that gets transferred to the plate wearer.  Though this is more effective with broad swords and bastard swords due to their heavier weight.


----------



## Roronoa-zoro (Oct 19, 2008)

Part 1

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgp1A09-p3A[/YOUTUBE]

Part 2 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdXWlZP98PY[/YOUTUBE]

The Katana pisses on old european swords.


----------



## Zetta (Oct 19, 2008)

Longsword was made out of purer and more durable metal than a katana. Also, as sharp as a katana is... molecular edge gets ruined when faced with something it can't cut. Chances are the longsword would dull the katana after a few clashes.


----------



## Xelloss (Oct 19, 2008)

Contrary to popular belif samurais avoid to clash their swords agains 1 another to avoid what you already point out Zetta, they prefer dodge but would parry if necesary.


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

Because Discovery channel can't be biased and interviews experts who are idiots?

If you read the articles on the site in the OP it's pretty clear that a lot of the "experts" don't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to sword craft or actual fencing. If you're an expert and you claim that European swords were heavy and clumsy, then you must have obviously never handled a sword in your life.

A large part of the katana's cutting ability has to do with how you cut with it, using pretty much full body motions in your swings. If you handled it like a European long sword, or even a tsurugi, the cutting ability would be hindered greatly. Even though you can technically use a katana with one hand, you can never use a shield with a katana. A katana may be able to cut through bambo and straw effortlessly, but compared to a kite then it's going to get stuck. The utility of the European sword alone gives it a victory.


----------



## Federer (Oct 19, 2008)

HOYLTHIS said:


> Because Discovery channel can't be biased and interviews experts who are idiots?
> 
> If you read the articles on the site in the OP it's pretty clear that a lot of the "experts" don't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to sword craft or actual fencing. If you're an expert and you claim that European swords were heavy and clumsy, then you must have obviously never handled a sword in your life.
> 
> A large part of the katana's cutting ability has to do with how you cut with it, using pretty much full body motions in your swings. If you handled it like a European long sword, or even a tsurugi, the cutting ability would be hindered greatly. Even though you can technically use a katana with one hand, you can never use a shield with a katana. A katana may be able to cut through bambo and straw effortlessly, but compared to a kite then it's going to get stuck. The utility of the European sword alone gives it a victory.



Don't agree with you, from the same source as the OP:



> Nonetheless, a curved blade is mechanically superior to a straight one at delivering edge blows to produce injury. And due to its hardness, the single curving edge of the katana is very good at penetrating even hard materials with straight-on strikes. Verdict: Katana.



Why do you think that the European sword didn't become popular in Japan? Facing the mongols, the Japanse had to have greate weaponary to defeat them, they choose the Katana, because it's superior.


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

All right, you try picking up a katana and wielding it like a short sword using a shield and you tell me how effective the cutting ability becomes when you're unable to use the full body motions that supported cutting with the katana. 

The source from the OP actually uses fencing manuals from the Medieval times as sources as well as uses sources from the leading sword Historian of the 20th century. I think I can trust those sources a little bit more than fanboy "experts" who wank to the mysterious hype around the katana because the Japanese were able to sell it off that way.


----------



## RWB (Oct 19, 2008)

Then there's also the fact that the "Longswords weigh 40 pounds"-myth was supported by a so called expert.


----------



## Cacofonix (Oct 19, 2008)

It depresses me that "historical experts" can be weaboos.


----------



## Lord Yu (Oct 19, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Why do you think that the European sword didn't become popular in Japan? Facing the mongols, the Japanse had to have greate weaponary to defeat them, they choose the Katana, because it's superior.



Wait a minute when did the Japanese face the Mongols?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Oct 19, 2008)

skill of the wielder


----------



## Federer (Oct 19, 2008)

Lord Yu said:


> Wait a minute when did the Japanese face the Mongols?



Watch the video's of *Roronoa-zoro*, he didn't put them for fun, you know. And besides, that's non-factor here. It's about the swords, not the wielders. My opinion doesn't change.


----------



## Gig (Oct 19, 2008)

Lord Yu said:


> Wait a minute when did the Japanese face the Mongols?



The Mongols invaded twice but they got routed by nature before they could reach the Japanese shore at least one of those times not sure about the other time think it was the same result.


----------



## Lord Yu (Oct 19, 2008)

I know that. The first wasn't superly major and I know the second Encounter was the Kamikaze event. I was just wondering if there was a third event I was missing that would have any effect on their weaponry. I just remember it made them build seawalls around almost all the coast cities.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Oct 19, 2008)

Mythbusters tested a katana against a Scottish Claymore, a gladus, and a rapier. Every weapon the katana struck against except the rapier ended in the katana getting nicked and damaged while the opposing sword was undamaged.


----------



## Gig (Oct 19, 2008)

Lord Yu said:


> I know that. The first wasn't superly major and I know the second Encounter was the Kamikaze event. I was just wondering if there was a third event I was missing that would have any effect on their weaponry. I just remember it made them build seawalls around almost all the coast cities.



I don’t think there was a 3rd event I just think Sabakukyu is raising bullshit to make his argument stronger. Something on the lines of the Mongols wtf pwned Europe and they where defeated by Japan so Japan >>>> Europe.

Though that logic could work it fails in the fact that 1 Europe had not made contact with Japan yet during the age of the Mongol empire so how Japan would get there hands on a European sword I don’t know and secondly the Mongols never engaged the Japanese in battle so even if they had made contact with the Europeans his point that the katana was better for facing the Mongols holds no weight what so ever.


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

Watching the second video made me pissed.

The samurai were archers from the very beginning.

During the Mongol evasions, there was no such thing as a katana. The swords back then were considerably larger and used on horse back.

There was no mention about the Mongols using the pike, which revolutionized Japanese warfare afterwards.

A katana hitting another sword, especially on its edge, would damage it greatly. The guy in the last few seconds of the second video doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about to be an expert.

It's so obvious that the documentary was EXTREMELY biased to the Japanese, probably because they were getting Japanese money for it...Even when it talks about the crafting of the sword it goes into some mysterious magical tone that in reality was just as complex as the forging of European swords.

Really the only thing they got right with out a retarded spin was the fact that warfare on Japan was very different from warfare of the continent.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Why do you think that the European sword didn't become popular in Japan? Facing the mongols, the Japanse had to have greate weaponary to defeat them, they *choose the Katana, because it's superior.*



That's like saying the Europeans chose the longsword in their battles against the Turks because it was superior.

Katanas were used be because the specific forging method overcomes the inherent weaknesses of the iron material. In the East, katanas were chosen because of need for a sword design that could utilize the poor iron. In the West, European swords were chosen because they were easier to make in large quantities.

And the guy you quoted never said that the katana has less cutting power.



Roronoa-zoro said:


> Part 1
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgp1A09-p3A[/YOUTUBE]



I started getting doubtful at the part where one guy said a katana could slice through iron plates and other sword blades, and I started vomiting when they spent a minute describing how Uuber the katana is.

Unbiased, those people are not. The way they described the European blade was frankly insulting.



neji1988 said:


> OH yes lol i just remembered about the documentary, its already proven in testing that the samurai sword is the Ultimate weapon for swords



There is no fucking ultimate weapon for swords. A greatsword is better at cutting, a rapier is better at thrusting, a hooksword is better at getting around shields, and a dagger is your best friend in close quarters.



Sabakukyu said:


> Well, Discovery Channel is good for your education.



Not really.



Sabakukyu said:


> There was a documentary where they compare both swords, the Katana came out the top. Both swords can cut easily trough human flesh,



And the longsword can thrust better.



Sabakukyu said:


> the katana ways lesser than a European sword



They both weighed around 4 pounds.



Sabakukyu said:


> and it's a stronger mix of metal.



No. It's widely known that Japanese swords typically used worse materials, which was why they used the complex folding process to make katanas.



Sabakukyu said:


> It's proven.



I somehow believe Mr. Medieval Sword Expert in the first article more.


----------



## Enclave (Oct 19, 2008)

I quite enjoyed how that one guy said the Katana could cut through iron plates only to then see later in the video only ever showing a Katana cutting through bamboo.


----------



## Xelloss (Oct 19, 2008)

I agree katana where no mean to clash agains such weapons, not even agains other katana. Hell a claymore del more damage on its striking force and blunt damage than its actually cutting edge... if it had.

Also the refered sword where Tachi and where mean to kill samurai while mounted.

I don´t question the superiority of european sword, but they agains comparing a claymore with a katana its stupid, long sword, and rapier are more close to a katana... hell a simitar.


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 19, 2008)

Lol, European swords were purely offensive you couldn't defend with them that's why you needed a shield or hoped your helmet was strong enough...

Who the fuck is that guy? It's obvious he doesn't know shit about the subject of European fencing. Across the continent the idea of parrying was a basic foundation to survival.

And then afterwards they go on to show a kata. I don't know, if any martial artists tried to use their kata in combat chances are they'd get their ass kicked. 

Discovery channel failed hard.


----------



## Choshino (Oct 19, 2008)

I love longsword the power it has and the danger you have in your hands when you are holding it ^^, 
But I love the katana of some reason, you know this way the samurais in anime always draws the sword, and then pull it back and THEN the cut comes and the opponent is dead.

-Hawk calling, Over and out-


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

...

*Discovery Channel:* The katana is, like, the coolest sword evah! It can cut through iron plating! The European longsword sucks!
*Expert:* Why do you say this?
*Discovery Channel:* The longsword's all heavy and stuff. It's not as sharp. 
*Expert:* Really? How much do you think a longsword weighs?
*Discovery Channel:* I don't know. Bring in the other expert!
*Japanese Sword Fanatic:* Everyone knows that a longsword sucks. They have no defense, and they weigh 5 tons.
*Expert:* Really? How much does a katana weigh?
*Japanese Sword Fanatic:* Only 7 pounds! 
*Expert:* 
*Discovery Channel:* Like, the Japanese are so awesome because they were too brave to invent those shields those pathetic Europeans were safe behind.
*Japanese Sword Fanatic:* Hahaha, everyone knows European knights were predominately archers and didn't fight at close range!


----------



## Vault (Oct 19, 2008)

longswords are much faster than katana since longswords fighting is one handed as opposed to katana double handedness


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

vault023 said:


> longswords are much faster than katana since longswords fighting is one handed as opposed to katana double handedness



No. They both use one hand or two hands. In fact, using two hands would make an attack FASTER, since it has more control and uses the body's momentum.


----------



## Vault (Oct 19, 2008)

but a katana's curve means harder handling with 1 hand as opposed to the straight double edged of a longsword


----------



## Enclave (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> No. They both use one hand or two hands. In fact, using two hands would make an attack FASTER, since it has more control and uses the body's momentum.



Actually the long sword is primarily meant to be wielded single handed due to the fact that they also had a shield.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

Enclave said:


> Actually the long sword is primarily meant to be wielded single handed due to the fact that they also had a shield.



Well, it depends on what kind of longsword you're talking about.

I'm talking about the two handed long sword, not the bastard sword.



vault023 said:


> but a katana's curve means harder handling with 1 hand as opposed to the straight double edged of a longsword



The Japanese sword style used the entire body for blows, but could hold the sword in one hand or two.


----------



## Darklyre (Oct 19, 2008)

About the only way a katana could win in a direct sword clash is if it shattered on impact and the shards flew into the opponent's throat.


----------



## Vault (Oct 19, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> Well, it depends on what kind of longsword you're talking about.
> 
> I'm talking about the two handed long sword, not the bastard sword.
> 
> ...



your talking about a two handed longsword, you should have said 

but to get the maximum impact from a katana its two handed even defensively iit uses 2 hands


----------



## mystictrunks (Oct 19, 2008)

battlerek said:


> Really? Then how do you exactly kill a fully armored knight at close range?



Pound his brains in with blunt force.



Sabakukyu said:


> Well, I'm sorry. But if every expert on this issue says that the Katana is better, I'll go with the experts opinion, because their research is a fact.



Historical experts right? As we all know history isn't made of facts, just debates.


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 19, 2008)

mystictrunks said:


> Pound his brains in with blunt force.



For some odd reason, I felt hungry when I saw this.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 19, 2008)

mystictrunks said:


> Pound his brains in with blunt force.
> 
> 
> 
> Historical experts right? As we all know history isn't made of facts, just debates.



Oh Mystictrunks, why are you so smart?


----------



## -Maya- (Oct 19, 2008)

battlerek said:


> Really? Then how do you exactly kill a fully armored knight at close range?




Most? Battered and clubbed with Swords Maces Morningstars intill they fall over at which point they would be as helpless as a Tortoise on the Back of it's shells and then finsihed off with a Dirk to the joints


----------



## Darklyre (Oct 19, 2008)

-Maya- said:


> Most? Battered and clubbed with Swords Maces Morningstars intill they fall over at which point they would be as helpless as a Tortoise on the Back of it's shells and then finsihed off with a Dirk to the joints



Plate mail was surprisingly unencumbering for the wearer. Knocking a knight on their back wasn't as debilitating as you might think.

Besides, you don't fight knights with regular infantry unless they're packing spears or pikes.


----------



## RWB (Oct 19, 2008)

-Maya- said:


> Most? Battered and clubbed with Swords Maces Morningstars intill they fall over at which point they would be as helpless as a Tortoise on the Back of it's shells and then finsihed off with a Dirk to the joints



Considering the armor weighs less than 40 punds... hardly. Then we have the fact that it hardly restrains arm and leg movement.


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

This thread .


----------



## Sylar (Oct 20, 2008)

A katana is way better than a longsword. 

I mean you can take a bear down if have a katana. A BEAR!


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

Couldn't resist.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Oct 20, 2008)

_Personally i don't like either. I would far prefer to wield a hand and a half sword (longer handle, better swings) or a claymore (long long blade, good for cleaving)._


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 20, 2008)

I'd rather have a gun


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 20, 2008)

I'd rather have a katana gun with magical bullets.


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

While we're on the subject of magical weaponry, I would like to order a Sharkzooka. You heard me...


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 20, 2008)

Why? The aura radiating from the katana would just melt the sharkzooka since katana are made out of anti-universe.


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

But it shoots Sharks!


----------



## Gig (Oct 20, 2008)

HOYLTHIS said:


> Why? The aura radiating from the katana would just melt the sharkzooka since katana are made out of anti-universe.



Then I’ll shot you with my chainsaw custom bazooka which shots chainsaws which on contact explode into more chainsaws which then implode on contact and form black holes which suck you into a dimension which is made of chainsaws 

Chainsaw >>>>>>> Katana it's canon


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

Chainkatana?


----------



## HOYLTHIS (Oct 20, 2008)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrSbE_e6TNg[/YOUTUBE]

Katana wins


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 20, 2008)

I want a GoW assault rifle with the PWNsaw attached


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Oct 20, 2008)

i love katana more XD


----------



## Zetta (Oct 20, 2008)

To conclude this thread.

As a weapon, the longswords boasts many more advantages. From durabillity to construction to reach to usabillity.

When they clash, it would be the user who decides the winner.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Oct 20, 2008)

battlerek said:


> Really? Then how do you exactly kill a fully armored knight at close range?



Maces and war hammers.


----------



## ipakmann (Oct 20, 2008)

From what i understand medieval weapons are made to bludgeon and beat your opponent to death. Katana are slimmer and can make cleaner cuts.

so I'm undecided


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 20, 2008)

When they clash the longsword would typically shatter the katana. A katana has a certain hardness and density to the steel on the outer part of the blade to keep it's sharp edge longer. That causes it to be brittle and shatter more easily. With a decently made longsword you should be able to smash a rock (not cleave it but just smash it real hard) and the sword should remain essentially functional. With a katana however this is not the case. 
That's not to say that technologically a longsword is superior to a katana at all, but if these two weapons would clash it just so happens the longsword has an advantage.


----------



## Darklyre (Oct 20, 2008)

Gray Wolf said:


> Maces and war hammers.



Yup. You either use blunt force trauma, since plate armor isn't the best at stopping that, or strong piercing weapons like arrows or spears, to defeat the plate's tensile strength. Blunt weapons also let you do things like knock the target around and deal out concussions.


----------

