Why do people believe katanas are the best swords?

[hurryupalready]

I do believe do the Katana is the best sword.

Why?

Partially because of bias. Really, that's the frank saying.

But also because it's the STANDARD sword as far as Kenjutsu is concerned.

So it's standard, as far as the Japanese fencing systems are concerned, keep that in mind.

 

Then Standard went to mean "best", and the one I will always prefer over others.

 

Really, nothing else to see here, move along...

Katana is BEST. PERIOD!

 

Don't argue, in the age of firearms and more than firearms (nukes launched from drones?), all swords are a matter of sport, art, collection, martial arts or fantasy; so again, don't argue with me.

 

 

KATANA is best in my world...have your BEST favorite conceptual weapon in your own world if you disagree, and let's reach a conclusion for all coversations about Katanas.

 

May I add this: a Katana is already a big ass weapon with a cutting edge, do you really wish to keep such an item of such dimensions around...in the age of firearms...hmmm. Already unrealistic enough, even more unrealistic if you add a shield or a bigger or more prominent sword.

Sport, martial arts, or whatever, even self-defense...Big fuhking Weapon! Need a bigger one or an additional weapon? You're not realistically serious!

 

BTW scholagladiatoria said it outright: A shield adds efficacity, but not that much, just a slightly better efficacity...so slightly! (see his video on YouTube)

 

ooooh...you like European Lonswords better, but are they not too long to have them kept in immediate proximity? And isn't their guard also too prominent for practical or tactical storage?

You like short swords better, like a xiphos, a gladius or a machette, but isn't there room for a slightly longer sword?

 

So let's keep this simple: a Katana, and nothing more!

 

The Japanese relied on the Katana before firearms, so now we can count on the Katana too, why can we not?

 

Thus, in conclusion, Katanas are the best swords.

 

(best=optimal)

Edited March 21, 2017 by hurryupalready

[Harbringe]

Sorry for all you Katana whoshippers the longsword has been proven to be the best sword. There was a show from Great Britain that tested various weapons from history. They had a test off between the longsword and katana. Labs in various countries were given tasks of testing things like physics of the swords and other sciencey stuff and then the swords were put through their paces to see how they would stand up to excessive abuse in whatever each lab was testing The longsword won by a comfortable margin and just so you know these weren't swords made in different times with different quality of materials , they had both types of swords made using the most modern and sophisticated methods.

 

People have this romanticized ideal of katanas , maybe because it seems exotic to them , same goes for armor , yes Samurai armor was ornate and functional (good) but compare that to the armors being worn by Teutonic knights , those guys were walking tanks and could move surprisingly quickly it was so finely made , they were just badass.

[hurryupalready]

The longsword would be the best? But what is it that you'd personally call "best"?

Would a spear be even "bester"? In a duel, you'll have this long nice reach over any sword of any kind. In a duel, but duels are rare...AH! Never mind, let's somehow carry a spear outdoors, in survival situations and to close quarter combats...

 

And if there are people who have romanticized ideas about Katanas, does it mean that those who dislike romantic impressions got it right, just because?

And don't you have romanticized ideas about "badass" Teutonic nights?

 

You've got to rely on objectivity to make your point, there is no escape for you from objectivity!

 

So as I said, the European longswords are generally bigger, the kind of stuff you'd carry to battle against opponents generally in armour and sometimes on horses. You bring a longsword when the spear itself seems too long for you to either wield in a specific situation or carry to that situation.

 

So a longsword is indeed more advantageous than a katana in some situations where reach matter, but I just don't see the longsword winning every time and by default against a Katana, it almost as if the advantage it has over the Katana is seriously overrated.

It's just an advantage, not the providence for winning in very fight.

You still have a very nice chance to defeat a longswordsman with a Katana. It's a matter of skill, and skill doesn't take more room or space.

 

Do notice that, historically, the Europeans abandoned over time this Best sword ever, and went for rapiers? Yes I think of musketeers, naturally, the guys with muskets. No one seemed committed to carry this monster day in and day out unless really needed. And as soon the first and most archaic firearms appeared, the longsword went extinct very quickly.

And firearms are not going away for the longsword to be revived, you know that?

 

Meanwhile the Katana was still carried around even as late as WWII. Even if no longer needed, a battle-ready Katana was small enough to be carried ceremonially by officers of the Japanese army, while your longsword never was a ceremonial sword in any culture. How can that mammoth of a sword ever be ceremonial?

The Katana became obsolete for another reason: War itself and the culture of war became obsolete for the Japanese.

 

So here is a variable to consider when designating a "best sword" candidate.

It works in a combat situation where no firearms exist, it also serves as a back-up weapon when there are firearms but they are still too primordial to rely on them exclusively.

That's a job for the Katana. The Longsword can no longer justify its existence if any firearm is in proximity.

 

Long story short: The longsword is too long for most scenarios, it's too wide and its large guard only makes it take even more space.

 

But may be you personally want to invest effort and space to carry or to store the mythical longsword, once in a duel, you'll cash back in terms of reach all the effort you put up until then.

But between you and me, I assure you this: In these modern times, you never needed that extra-reach.

I also assume you are willing to give up any possibility of concealed carrying it (not that it is easy to be concealed-carrying a Katana, but good luck trying that with a Longsword)

 

As for materials, you can use any type of steel to make any design for a sword.

No offense but seriously, that was utterly pointless.

Edited March 25, 2017 by hurryupalready

[Harbringe]

 

As for materials, you can use any type of steel to make any design for a sword.

No offense but seriously, that was utterly pointless.

 

Yes situational circumstance is relevant , which is why they had multiple labs testing multiple situations and making the swords to the exact same metallurgical standards is absolutely not pointless . If you made the swords to two different metallurgic standards (one stronger than the other) it would completely invalidate all tests. I don't think you understand the word pointless.

[Ruinedworld]

Highlander.... There can be only one!

[RatB0Y68]

I'd go for a standard longsword or arming sword. Closest thing I can envision to a jack of all trades weapon. Couple with a nice shield and you have a solid, reliable method of defence.

[hurryupalready]

The Katana is a good sword design to casually carry around in your truck or as a machete in a jungle if you don't mind having a big-ass machete for cutting...

 

For crushing things, not so good. I am forced to admit that as a Katana "fanboy": it does have its limitations. Kukris and Kopices would do a better job in that regard as an axe-like sword.

 

Modification may be can make the Katana more like a heavy bladed machette, but then I would find myself on the field of design and not of classicism regarding sword layout.

 

I imagine a Katana with a thicker monouchi (last third/quarter of the blade), without making the blade broader. A look from the back of the blade should outlay a mace-like silhouette to the sides. I think it would also pass as a Kenjutsu and Iaido friendly "Katana", and that's the important part.

 

Cant' do that to European style narrow blade point. GOTCHA! Katana wins :tongue:

 

But if you are going to battle with your buddies against another group of brawlers, bring neither the Katana nor the Longsword, but shields and single-handed weapons. (Spathas for you in the venerable European tradition, but in my case let's see if I can bring a somewhat shorter Katana instead of a Wakizashi)

 

You like fantasising about firearms not being on the battle scene, and in many cases you are right; Yet you forgot that in this age there are also things called molotov cocktails and pepper spray. You wanna fatasise about a modern-day battle without molotov cocktails either?

 

The Longsword was meant to be carried wihile wearing heavy armor. That was when molotov cocktails were unknown, shields are better than heavy armor for protection against them.

 

Riot police use shields and batons rather than longer batons with more stuffed riot gear (modern armor), ask yourself why.

 

Unless you either convert to spathas or you straighten up a Katana to get a short and narrower longsword, then add to it a more minimalist European style guard, then forget the longsword.

Edited March 23, 2017 by hurryupalready

[HeyYou]

The longsword would be the best? But what is it that you'd personally call "best"?

Would a spear be even "bester"? In a duel, you'll have this long nice reach over any sword of any kind. In a duel, but duels are rare...AH! Never mind, let's somehow carry a spear outdoors, in survival situations and to close quarter combats...

 

And if there are people who have romanticized ideas about Katanas, does it mean that those who dislike romantic impressions got it right, just because?

And don't you have romanticized ideas about "badass" Teutonic nights?

 

You've got to rely on objectivity to make your point, there is no escape for you from objectivity!

 

So as I said, the European longswords are generally bigger, the kind of stuff you'd carry to battle against opponents generally in armour and sometimes on horses. You bring a longsword when the spear itself seems too long for you to either wield in a specific situation or carry to that situation.

 

So a longsword is indeed more advantageous than a katana in some situations where reach matter, but I just don't see the longsword winning every time and by default against a Katana, it almost as if the advantage it has over the Katana is seriously overrated.

It's just an advantage, not the providence for winning in very fight.

You still have a very nice chance to defeat a longswordsman with a Katana. It's a matter of skill, and skill doesn't take more room or space.

 

Do notice that, historically, the Europeans abandoned over time this Best sword ever, and went for rapiers? Yes I think of musketeers, naturally, the guys with muskets. No one seemed committed to carry this monster day in and day out unless really needed. And as soon the first and most archaic firearms appeared, the longsword went extinct very quickly.

And firearms are not going away for the longsword to be revived, you know that?

 

Meanwhile the Katana was still carried around even as late as WWII. Even if no longer needed, a battle-ready Katana was small enough to be carried ceremonially by officers of the Japanese army, while your longsword never was a ceremonial sword in any culture. How can that mammoth of a sword ever be ceremonial?

The Katana became obsolete for another reason: War itself and the culture of war became obsolete for the Japanese.

 

So here is a variable to consider when designating a "best sword" candidate.

It works in a combat situation where no firearms exist, it also serves as a back-up weapon when there are firearms but they are still too primordial to rely on them exclusively.

That's a job for the Katana. The Longsword can no longer justify its existence if any firearm is in proximity.

 

Long story short: The longsword is too long for most scenarios, it's too wide and its large guard only makes it take even more space.

 

But may be you personally want to invest effort and space to carry or to store the mythical longsword, once in a duel, you'll cash back in terms of reach all the effort you put up until then.

But between you and me, I assure you this: In these modern times, you never needed that extra-reach.

I also assume you are willing to give up any possibility of concealed carrying it (not that it is easy to concealed-carrying a Katana, but good luck trying that with a Longsword)

 

As for materials, you can use any type of steel to make any design for a sword.

No offense but seriously, that was utterly pointless.

The rapier came about BECAUSE of those guys in several stone of steel. It would slide along the surface, until it found a nook, or cranny to sneak into, and poke the guy inside the steel suit. Firearms were still slow to reload, and on a fair few suits of armor of the time, you can still find the 'proof' dent, where it was demonstrated that the armor would indeed stop a musket ball. :D

[hurryupalready]

 

The longsword would be the best? But what is it that you'd personally call "best"?

Would a spear be even "bester"? In a duel, you'll have this long nice reach over any sword of any kind. In a duel, but duels are rare...AH! Never mind, let's somehow carry a spear outdoors, in survival situations and to close quarter combats...

 

And if there are people who have romanticized ideas about Katanas, does it mean that those who dislike romantic impressions got it right, just because?

And don't you have romanticized ideas about "badass" Teutonic nights?

 

You've got to rely on objectivity to make your point, there is no escape for you from objectivity!

 

So as I said, the European longswords are generally bigger, the kind of stuff you'd carry to battle against opponents generally in armour and sometimes on horses. You bring a longsword when the spear itself seems too long for you to either wield in a specific situation or carry to that situation.

 

So a longsword is indeed more advantageous than a katana in some situations where reach matter, but I just don't see the longsword winning every time and by default against a Katana, it almost as if the advantage it has over the Katana is seriously overrated.

It's just an advantage, not the providence for winning in very fight.

You still have a very nice chance to defeat a longswordsman with a Katana. It's a matter of skill, and skill doesn't take more room or space.

 

Do notice that, historically, the Europeans abandoned over time this Best sword ever, and went for rapiers? Yes I think of musketeers, naturally, the guys with muskets. No one seemed committed to carry this monster day in and day out unless really needed. And as soon the first and most archaic firearms appeared, the longsword went extinct very quickly.

And firearms are not going away for the longsword to be revived, you know that?

 

Meanwhile the Katana was still carried around even as late as WWII. Even if no longer needed, a battle-ready Katana was small enough to be carried ceremonially by officers of the Japanese army, while your longsword never was a ceremonial sword in any culture. How can that mammoth of a sword ever be ceremonial?

The Katana became obsolete for another reason: War itself and the culture of war became obsolete for the Japanese.

 

So here is a variable to consider when designating a "best sword" candidate.

It works in a combat situation where no firearms exist, it also serves as a back-up weapon when there are firearms but they are still too primordial to rely on them exclusively.

That's a job for the Katana. The Longsword can no longer justify its existence if any firearm is in proximity.

 

Long story short: The longsword is too long for most scenarios, it's too wide and its large guard only makes it take even more space.

 

But may be you personally want to invest effort and space to carry or to store the mythical longsword, once in a duel, you'll cash back in terms of reach all the effort you put up until then.

But between you and me, I assure you this: In these modern times, you never needed that extra-reach.

I also assume you are willing to give up any possibility of concealed carrying it (not that it is easy to concealed-carrying a Katana, but good luck trying that with a Longsword)

 

As for materials, you can use any type of steel to make any design for a sword.

No offense but seriously, that was utterly pointless.

The rapier came about BECAUSE of those guys in several stone of steel. It would slide along the surface, until it found a nook, or cranny to sneak into, and poke the guy inside the steel suit. Firearms were still slow to reload, and on a fair few suits of armor of the time, you can still find the 'proof' dent, where it was demonstrated that the armor would indeed stop a musket ball. :D

 

A good point.

 

But you'll excuse my linear thinking.

 

Before the musket, still plenty of armor, Longswords in service.

 

Muskets arrived, armor, but no more Longswords.

 

And aiming for breaches in an armor is no easy task. I find it so hard to imagine sneaking a flexible needle-like blade in there and on the right angle... and even if so, soldiers with muskets just went for the second best choice, simply because you can't discount the Longsword's weight and size as the most significant factor for its abandonment. Longswords ought to have been far more advantageous against armor than rapiers since these ones didn't appear earlier. It's just that additional matterial (muskets and their ammunition, regardless of their effectivity) adds an extra-level of effort when it comes to carrying Longswords.

 

There is something more: A projectile fired from a musket need not to actually go past the armor to deal damage.

 

Concerning bayonettes, I'll leave that to your imagination.

Edited March 23, 2017 by hurryupalready

[HeyYou]

 

 

The longsword would be the best? But what is it that you'd personally call "best"?

Would a spear be even "bester"? In a duel, you'll have this long nice reach over any sword of any kind. In a duel, but duels are rare...AH! Never mind, let's somehow carry a spear outdoors, in survival situations and to close quarter combats...

 

And if there are people who have romanticized ideas about Katanas, does it mean that those who dislike romantic impressions got it right, just because?

And don't you have romanticized ideas about "badass" Teutonic nights?

 

You've got to rely on objectivity to make your point, there is no escape for you from objectivity!

 

So as I said, the European longswords are generally bigger, the kind of stuff you'd carry to battle against opponents generally in armour and sometimes on horses. You bring a longsword when the spear itself seems too long for you to either wield in a specific situation or carry to that situation.

 

So a longsword is indeed more advantageous than a katana in some situations where reach matter, but I just don't see the longsword winning every time and by default against a Katana, it almost as if the advantage it has over the Katana is seriously overrated.

It's just an advantage, not the providence for winning in very fight.

You still have a very nice chance to defeat a longswordsman with a Katana. It's a matter of skill, and skill doesn't take more room or space.

 

Do notice that, historically, the Europeans abandoned over time this Best sword ever, and went for rapiers? Yes I think of musketeers, naturally, the guys with muskets. No one seemed committed to carry this monster day in and day out unless really needed. And as soon the first and most archaic firearms appeared, the longsword went extinct very quickly.

And firearms are not going away for the longsword to be revived, you know that?

 

Meanwhile the Katana was still carried around even as late as WWII. Even if no longer needed, a battle-ready Katana was small enough to be carried ceremonially by officers of the Japanese army, while your longsword never was a ceremonial sword in any culture. How can that mammoth of a sword ever be ceremonial?

The Katana became obsolete for another reason: War itself and the culture of war became obsolete for the Japanese.

 

So here is a variable to consider when designating a "best sword" candidate.

It works in a combat situation where no firearms exist, it also serves as a back-up weapon when there are firearms but they are still too primordial to rely on them exclusively.

That's a job for the Katana. The Longsword can no longer justify its existence if any firearm is in proximity.

 

Long story short: The longsword is too long for most scenarios, it's too wide and its large guard only makes it take even more space.

 

But may be you personally want to invest effort and space to carry or to store the mythical longsword, once in a duel, you'll cash back in terms of reach all the effort you put up until then.

But between you and me, I assure you this: In these modern times, you never needed that extra-reach.

I also assume you are willing to give up any possibility of concealed carrying it (not that it is easy to concealed-carrying a Katana, but good luck trying that with a Longsword)

 

As for materials, you can use any type of steel to make any design for a sword.

No offense but seriously, that was utterly pointless.

The rapier came about BECAUSE of those guys in several stone of steel. It would slide along the surface, until it found a nook, or cranny to sneak into, and poke the guy inside the steel suit. Firearms were still slow to reload, and on a fair few suits of armor of the time, you can still find the 'proof' dent, where it was demonstrated that the armor would indeed stop a musket ball. :D

 

A good point.

 

But you'll excuse my linear thinking.

 

Before the musket, still plenty of armor, Longswords in service.

 

Muskets arrived, armor, but no more Longswords.

 

And aiming for breaches in an armor is no easy task. I find it so hard to imagine sneaking a flexible needle-like blade in there and on the right angle... and even if so, soldiers with muskets just went for the second best choice, simply because you can't discount the Longsword's weight and size as the most significant factor for its abandonment. Longswords ought to have been far more advantageous against armor than rapiers since these ones didn't appear earlier. It's just that additional matterial (muskets and their ammunition, regardless of their effectivity) adds an extra-level of effort when it comes to carrying Longswords.

 

There is something more: A projectile fired from a musket need not to actually go past the armor to deal damage.

 

Concerning bayonettes, I'll leave that to your imagination.

 

non-penetrating damage is painful, yes, but, not debilitating enough to remove your target from the fight. Not to mention muskets weren't the most accurate things in the world.... (when did rifled barrels come about? :) )

 

And with rapiers, it wasn't so much as 'aiming' for a specific spot. All you really need to do was be relatively close, and the rapier, by its very nature, would do the rest. Bear in mind, still not the most effective method of putting down an armored opponent....