What is the best sword? European Sword or the Katana?

[Ghostpanther]

For?

Different weapons were designed in the way that they were for different reasons. If you increase a weapon's capability in one manner, it usually comes with disadvantages in others.

You can look at most weapons in most areas that saw a lot of warfare and there will be a reason that they are the 'best' at meeting the exact needs that they were crafted for.

This is a great answer. The Roman Gladius sword for example, was a short broadsword, designed for up close combat in close knit formations for the Legions. Great for thrusting, used in conjunction with a shield, yet not so heavy to wear the line infantry legionnaire out. So as many have already posted, depends on what purpose you want with one. I have two Knight swords on my wall, for looks. But if I ever had to use one for self defense, I would not pick ether.

[Trifle]

In the whole "European Knight vs Samurai" hypothetical, the Knight generally kicks the piss out of the Samurai. Because the katana's pretty much ineffective against steel plate armor, while the broadsword won't have any problems dealing with the Samurai's laquered armor.

To be fair, a broadsword is ineffective against steel plate armour too. You have to either half-sword (hold the sword by the blade to get better control of the tip) and aim for gaps in the armour, or go for a murder stroke (hold the sword by the blade and bash the enemy with the hilt). Well made plate was pretty much impervious to cutting.

Against plate you're better off using a heavy poleaxe of some description (halberd, glaive, pike etc) or a spear/lance.

[draynay]

To be fair, a broadsword is ineffective against steel plate armour too.

If someone is silly enough to be wearing plate armor then you just shoot them.

[breadisfunny]

the halberd obviously is. perfect for lopping off draenei's heads.

[Endus]

To be fair, a broadsword is ineffective against steel plate armour too. You have to either half-sword (hold the sword by the blade to get better control of the tip) and aim for gaps in the armour, or go for a murder stroke (hold the sword by the blade and bash the enemy with the hilt). Well made plate was pretty much impervious to cutting.

Against plate you're better off using a heavy poleaxe of some description (halberd, glaive, pike etc) or a spear/lance.

I mean, "ineffective". You're not stabbing people through plate.

Some typical one-handed straight-blade swords, though, were essentially built as cleavers for anti-armor; the intent is that you hit a weaker point like a joint, and either you can cut through the armor directly, or at least bend something in a way that limits your opponents' motion. The edge is more intended to be a narrow focus point for impact force than an actual cutting edge, in these cases (though often, it did both). Emphasis definitely on "some", though, because medieval European weaponry is like a giant Swiss army knife of fairly specialized tools.

In actual warfare, of course, this didn't really happen much; you were more likely to get mobbed by infantry, shot with bodkin arrows, trampled and drowned in the mud by cavalry, etc. Knight vs knight single combat is a tournament thing, really.

[Tziva]

As people have already said: you're going to need to be more specific with variables. There's no correct answer to this question divorced from context.

Various swords were designed the way they are to be the best possible based on their context and circumstances of use, who or what they are being used against, and with materials that were available to that region at the time. That's even assuming you are asking about efficacy with "best" and aren't just talking about quality or aesthetics or collector's value or whatever.

What is the best in ambush jungle warfare isn't going to be the best on a horse against an armored attacker isn't going to be the best against against someone in very close quarters. What is best for slashing might be very bad for stabbing and vice versa.

[Trifle]

I mean, "ineffective". You're not stabbing people through plate.

You're not stabbing through the plate with swords, the idea is more to stab through where the plate isn't. Which is why half-swording techniques were invented, as well as why fully armoured knights sometimes used daggers. Also it's the reason why Estocs were developed.

Some typical one-handed straight-blade swords, though, were essentially built as cleavers for anti-armor; the intent is that you hit a weaker point like a joint, and either you can cut through the armor directly, or at least bend something in a way that limits your opponents' motion. The edge is more intended to be a narrow focus point for impact force than an actual cutting edge, in these cases (though often, it did both).

Do you have a source for this? I have trouble believing you could get enough force on a sword blade to cut proper plate, even on a joint. And if you're aiming to get inside the joint or focus impact energy, stabbing is generally better at both.

In actual warfare, of course, this didn't really happen much; you were more likely to get mobbed by infantry, shot with bodkin arrows, trampled and drowned in the mud by cavalry, etc. Knight vs knight single combat is a tournament thing, really.

Generally agreed, but archers were better at bringing down the horses than the armoured knights. Arrows tended to bounce off plate outside of 50 yards, and couldn't really penetrate enough to do damage outside of 20-30 yards.

[Endus]

Do you have a source for this? I have trouble believing you could get enough force on a sword blade to cut proper plate, even on a joint. And if you're aiming to get inside the joint or focus impact energy, stabbing is generally better at both.

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Sword-His.../dp/162636401X, among others. Sorry it's not directly linkable.

It's not really "cutting" the plates, you're either getting enough force to cleave through chainmail/leather at the joints, or you're bending the thinner joint plates so they don't bend properly any more. Kind of like how you sometimes can't open a car door after another car smacks into it.

[draynay]

The effectiveness vs. plate argument always seems needless to me, plate armor had such a brief heyday militarily speaking. Its a very small window during the military life of the sword. The previously mentioned broadsword was contemporaneous to firearms and as such did not have to contend with already obsolete plate armor. Comparing different cutting swords vs. plate is also silly since thrusting weapons were what evolved to counter them. Furthermore it is also a poor comparison because different swords are suited to different jobs and a military force would not make swords to solve problems it did not have.

[Polyxo]

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Sword-His.../dp/162636401X, among others. Sorry it's not directly linkable.

It's not really "cutting" the plates, you're either getting enough force to cleave through chainmail/leather at the joints, or you're bending the thinner joint plates so they don't bend properly any more. Kind of like how you sometimes can't open a car door after another car smacks into it.

Also you're still nailing someone with a 2ish lbs metal club. That's going to suck.

[Trifle]

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Sword-His.../dp/162636401X, among others. Sorry it's not directly linkable.

It's not really "cutting" the plates, you're either getting enough force to cleave through chainmail/leather at the joints, or you're bending the thinner joint plates so they don't bend properly any more. Kind of like how you sometimes can't open a car door after another car smacks into it.

Ah, thanks but looks like I won't be able to check it out. I did find some cool videos on Youtube though:

Armour capabilities & anti-armour sword techniques
Arrows vs armour

[Sunseeker]

Like, a standard longsword?

I mean they serve two totally different combat functions.

It's like asking if a grenade or a handgun is superior.

[the game]

Klingon bat'leth

[Donatello Trumpi]

Which is better?

Katana because it means japanese sword

[Lochton]

It isn't even close.

European swords.

The mythologized "steel folded a bajillion times" thing with Japanese blades came about because Japan is incredibly poor in iron resources, and what iron they have is filled with impurities, so you needed to work it that hard to make it worth anything. This is also why they favoured laquer armors and the like rather than steel; there just wasn't enough steel to make it feasible. As a consequence, katana and the like were built to handle only those lighter armors, and mostly serve as slicing tools (rather than cleaving, you run the edge along the surface rather than chop), which worked well because you also need less steel for that kind of blade. The lighter blade construction also means it's less resilient, however, and a lot easier to snap or break with a blow from the side.

Europe had much higher-quality iron deposits to work from, and while their weapons were thus a lot easier to produce, they were as functional, and more flexible.

In the whole "European Knight vs Samurai" hypothetical, the Knight generally kicks the piss out of the Samurai. Because the katana's pretty much ineffective against steel plate armor, while the broadsword won't have any problems dealing with the Samurai's laquered armor.

Edit: And this isn't some cultural "haw haw, Japan sucks" nonsense. The craft that went into Japanese bladecrafting is insane and complex, and there's a reason a whole mythology sprung up around it. But Japan was hamstrung with poor natural resources, and that shaped the way their arms technology developed, for better or worse.

Basically this - though with an added note, comes down to what business it is meant to handle.

[Shinzai]

Another thing about plate armour: The limbs of plate armour were only about 1mm thick. They could still be sheared through with enough force.

Preferably, war hammers or maces were used against knights/armour wearers. The head/face guard, arms and legs were the most viable targets for such weapons. Lances could penetrate most plate and halebards were used for limb removal also.

On the subject of which sword is better, I'd go with the majority of Western swords, regardless of usage/comparison as they tended to be more durable and stronger by design.

[Rennadrel]

Considering you aren't, by tradition and as a student of Japanese martial arts, allowed to even own a dulled katana until you are a 3rd degree black belt, and can't own a sharpened one until 4th, that should tell you something about how dangerous the weapon is.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to be a bit more specific. Which european sword vs katana? Katana isn't an umbrella term for all japanese swords fyi.

Likely the samurai's katana, which were only for the elite of the elite warriors in feudal Japan, usually given to samurai who were the protectors of the nobles and generals of their armies.

[Endus]

Considering you aren't, by tradition and as a student of Japanese martial arts, allowed to even own a dulled katana until you are a 3rd degree black belt, and can't own a sharpened one until 4th, that should tell you something about how dangerous the weapon is.

As a point of note, this is nonsense some particular dojo came up with as a reward scheme for their students. There is no "allowed to own" regulations about katana like this.

Likely the samurai's katana, which were only for the elite of the elite warriors in feudal Japan, usually given to samurai who were the protectors of the nobles and generals of their armies.

"Samurai" wasn't a classification based on martial skill. They were the "nobles". In the Edo period, a lot of samurai were bureaucrats and artists, not warriors, because the era was mostly peaceful.

[ranzino]

As a point of note, this is nonsense some particular dojo came up with as a reward scheme for their students. There is no "allowed to own" regulations about katana like this.

....

such a system is not dumb, though.
as you may know you are supposed to re-sheat the katana without looking at it; an unexpericenced person might cut or even sever their thumb doing so.
not to mention you have to maintan a grip or the swords moves on its own...

dont try this at home if you dont know what you do.... he is a 10th grade for reasons

[Shadowferal]

To answer the question; It depends on the martial skill of the one wielding the sword.