The popular 'Katana' bias against European Longswords

[The Black Prince]

In popular media the Japanese Samurai sword (Katana) is often portrayed as being qualitative better as the European swords used by knights.

Here below is an example of this popular phenomenon:

fxYvwEnKRjA

Recently I came across this German movie in which they effectively test the Japanese 15th century katana with a 15th century European longsword. For those who can't understand German, I would advice to only check up the second part of the German video (first video is more introduction, second is testing).:thumb001:

qpEC38sL3iU

5Hy_A9vjp_s

The testing shows (see spoiler, I don't want to spoil it for those who want to watch the video's):

1. Both swords perform equally well on slashing through thick wrapped objects.

2. They also perform equally well on slicing through a small soft object (in this case a juicy tomato) where the botton of the soft object remains on it place while the top is flying through the air.

3. However the Katana fails to cut through a edged side of a steel blade (it bends around it), while the German longswords cuts clean through the edged side of a steel blade.

My opinion (also in spoiler tags):

It surprised me, although I never bought the story that Japanese swordtechnology produced better swords I did think that they, the longsword and katana, would perform more equal.

However I must add that the Katana will probably cut better in the sense of it has a curved blade which makes it more slicing when pulling out an object. Whereas the European longsword has a straight edge giving it a shorter cutting time on the object when the sword is pulled out.

However the straight edge does give the European longsword a strong thrusting ability to pierce armor (f.i. mail) which the Katana lacks.

[Sol Invictus]

Comparing these swords are like comparing any weapon. Look at the AK47 and AR15. There is no "better". Each has their own pro's and cons. If you want accuracy, you pick up an AR15, if you want quickness, you pick up a Katana.

I've been a student of Iadojutsu so I know Katanas like the back of my hand. But I prefer a Roman short sword over either swords anyday.

[Groenewolf]

Not surprising considering the different environments they developed in. I think that samurai armor is less heavy then western knight armor. Mostly because of lack of iron to make more heavy armor. So for the circumstances they where needed they where good enough and better swords where not needed :coffee: .

Here in Europe we had more access to raw materials and could therefore make more heavier armor, therefore creating the need for better swords to cut trough the armor. Alto latter replaced by maces because at the end of the development road of knight armor they became very deadly for those wearing it. Which all became mood with the introduction of fire-arms.

[Liffrea]

From time to time it is interesting to ponder the outcome of an encounter between two of history's most formidable and highly skilled warriors: the Medieval European knight and the feudal Japanese samurai. The thought of "who would win" in an actual fight between these martial experts of such dissimilar methods is intriguing. Who would emerge victorious or who was historically the better fighter is a question occasionally raised, but it is really a moot question. In the case of comparing a knight to a samurai, each warrior used armor, weapons, and methods oriented towards the particular opponents of their day and age. Therefore, neither can be looked upon as being universally more effective under all conditions against all manner of opponents. In one sense, it is like asking who are better soldiers, jungle fighters or ski troops? It depends upon the situation and the environment. Still, it's an interesting encounter to consider. Having some small experience in the methods and weaponry of each, as well as a few cross-training opportunities, I offer my humble thoughts on the matter.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm