A question on sword shape and strength

[Ryushikaze]

This might belong better in off-topic, but as it's about the mechanism and mechanical stresses of these things, I figured SLAM was the logical choice.

In a bit of backstory, I was in a discussion with a bit of a Katana wanker last night. He was holding that the Tamahagane steel and folding process rendered Katanas stronger than European swords. I held this was not so, and that the General strength of the Katana came from their curved edge and razor sharpness, which left them much less durable than European counterparts- even if you made both swords from the same steel. He held this was not true, and cited his snapping of a Reproduction Claymore with his Reproduction Katana as 'proof.' I figure the Reproduction Claymore was just a shitty Claymore.

In short, I know this kid has bought into the Katana wank, especially regarding the 'mythical durability' of Tamahagane and the inferiority of western blades, and I want to try and convince him that it is just wank, preferably with a mechanical explanation and live demonstration.

I've looked through the forum archives and found quite a lot of information, but I was wondering if anyone could provide a more clinical breakdown on the material weaknesses of the Katana as opposed to equally carefully crafted western swords, to show that the Tamahagane folding method doesn't make super swords, especially given western sword with Pattern Weld construction and the like.

Both the extremely simple demonstration and the highly complex explanation would be appreciated.

[Bakustra]

The weaknesses of the katana compared to Western swords don't have all that much to do with the manufacturing process or the design of the weapon, but rather the steel. Native Japanese iron is high in sulfur impurities, which translate to brittleness in the forged metal. Steel made from the iron still has the problem of sulfur. So a Western sword would often be made of better steel than a katana. However, the differences are minimal, because the Tamahagane process was developed to work around the brittleness. So if you took a highest-quality katana and a highest-quality arming sword, then the arming sword would be tougher.

The sharpness of the katana is a weakness in that blocking edge-on will notch the blade and significantly hurt the edge, but a European sword would also notch if used to block edge-on. Schools in both nations thus taught around this problem. European ones either focused on the tip and thrusting (from which we get modern fencing), or taught different methods of blocking. Japanese schools tended to do the latter.

If he broke a claymore with a katana, that's probably a construction problem on the end of the claymore, or else it was heavily worn. In any case, he is right in that the curved edge of the katana is a strength of the weapon, but not in the "ultra-sword" sense. The curved edge (combined with the wedge shape of a katana's blade) enables the opening of deeper cuts than a straight-edged sword would, but this is also the principle used in the cavalry saber, scimitar, and other curved swords throughout history. Since the katana is intended for someone who fought on horseback and on foot, it is less curved than the specialized tachi cavalry sword. Not all Japanese swords are curved, too. Ask him whether a tsurugi or tanto (assuming that he knows what those refer to) is better than an equivalent European sword.

[Broomstick]

Nevermind that a katana and a claymore (I assume you refer to the Scottish claidh mhor) had two very different intended functions...

First of all, there are a lot of shitty katanas out there, just as there are a lot of shitty European swords. Let's get that out of the way. I assume the comparison is to be between the high end of both types of weaponsmithing, right?

OK, now, katanas - REAL katanas, the finely crafted swords of the old samurai, the kind that are handed down as family heirlooms - are actually made of TWO kinds of steel. This is very important. The edge if a very strong but somewhat brittle steel, and that is honed to a razor's edge. The rest of the sword is a softer and more flexible steel that gives the sword its durability and prevents breaking/shattering. The distinctive curve in the katana comes as an artifact of this - prior to tempering the sword is straight, during tempering the two steels contract at different rates, resulting in the distinctive curve.

The very finest katanas are called "5 body blades". That means they can hack through FIVE human bodies at one stroke. Without breaking. And still be serviceable afterwards. That's a really fucking good sword if you ask me. However, katana-wankers don't own those swords. They start at something like the equivalent of $500,000 USD and go up, up, up - some specimens are probably worth millions.

But let's get real here - that would apply to only a very small portion of katanas ever made in history. Most katanas weren't that good.

No, katana wankers get cheap shit swords stamped out of inexpensive steel. Glorified pocket knives, really. They're shit, really intended only for display.

Now, the whole folding and hammering of metal business wasn't unknown in the West. It is believed to have been a part of producing Damascus steel, which was used in some of the finest Western swords.

But not claymores.

There are actually two sorts of claymore. There is the Highland claymore, which is a big ass two-handed sword. One of it's primary functions was to take the front legs off a charging warhorse (think something the size of a Clydesdale or Belgian draft horse) at one stroke. Yeah, that's a nasty-ass weapon, too. Of course, they used it on people, too, during the era of armored horsemen and nobles. Clearly, it had to be a strong weapon to do that and not break. I'm guessing that while it was a big, strong hunk of steel it wasn't as dense as the hard katana steel - a claymore doesn't need a razor's edge to do the job, but it does need to hold together. Even if it didn't cut off the horses' legs, just breaking them would do the job. It served in large part as an anti-cavalry weapon.

(Assuming I have my information correct - someone more authoritative than me might well come into this thread with more accurate information)

I will, again, point out that sword wankers are highly unlikely to own a genuine Highland Claymore. The real deal is heavy, big, valuable (they haven't been made for awhile, at least not the ones intended to be used in battle - display objects are another matter), and expensive as hell because it's basically a museum piece. No, wankers almost always have big ass swords stamped out of steel - glorified pocket knives, really.

The other type of claymore - still used as part of ceremonial dress by officers of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, is a basket-hilt one-handed sword. I'm sure they were fine sword, and good enough for most jobs requiring a sword, but I doubt anyone would consider them the pinnacle of Western sword technology. Again, wankers usually have mass-produced pieces of shit. Given that MOST such claymores made today are intended as props for Highland dancers and as such don't even have a fucking sharp edge most of the time I'm not surprise Mr. Wanker's version couldn't stand up to even a mass-production katana replica.

But, in any case, comparing a high-end katana to a working claymore is a little like comparing a Ferrarri to a Volvo station wagon. Yes, they fall within the same broad category of "sword" or "car", but they ain't quite the same thing.

I don't know what a fair equivalent Western sword to use to compare to the true, high-end katanas. Someone else will have to answer that.

[Spoonist]

I don't know what a fair equivalent Western sword to use to compare to the true, high-end katanas. Someone else will have to answer that.

There is none. Because any such comparison would not be "fair" to the Katana.

Its best use is to cut down unarmered or lightly (wood) armored opponents. Something which in the same era(s) europe had few of. So the evolution of european swords is much faster (and better).

I will come back and make a more relevant post with links after the kid is sleeping.

[Ryushikaze]

Bakustra, Actually, I held that the curved edge of the Katana was part of its strength. His argument is that the Tamahagane folding process renders Katanas far tougher than Western Swords, as opposed to more or less equivalent due to the process improving the overall steel, but that it couldn't make Good Steel significantly better. I did mention that the Katana's curved edge was shared by various western swords which do just as well and better at the Katana's engineered role.
I should probably ask him what he thinks about tsurugi and tanto, since they are constructed using the same tamahagane construction, are they not, just minus the differential metal cooling that causes the Katana's curve?

Broom, thank you, much of that I was somewhat aware of, but far more detailed than my hazy recollection.
I believe he was referring to a Basket Hilt Claymore. It didn't even occur to me to think a Katana could snap the larger kind unless it was a stainless steel crap replica. Come to think of it, that's assuming he's using his western sword terminology correctly.
I did not get a chance to bring up Western Folding techniques, though I was aware of them, since I wanted to be able to provide my sources when I brought the subject up.

Spoonist, I thank you in advance for your information, especially the links.

[Feil]

There's no real direct impact of gross shape on the structural strength of a piece of steel (unless you're applying huge tip-down pressures, in which case the reason why we don't build curved skyscrapers becomes abundantly clear). The cross-section of the metal and its metallurgical qualities will be more important: they will determine, respectively, its stiffness (resistance to flexing); and its edge hardness (in a blade, the ability to cut harder materials and resist dulling), and softness/spring (its ability to deform without being permanently damaged).

The only impact of the curved shape that I can think of is that the cutting edge will be longer than the back edge, so it'll be slightly more resistant to compression forces from the front and slightly less resistant from the back.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, Actually, I held that the curved edge of the Katana was part of its strength. His argument is that the Tamahagane folding process renders Katanas far tougher than Western Swords, as opposed to more or less equivalent due to the process improving the overall steel, but that it couldn't make Good Steel significantly better. I did mention that the Katana's curved edge was shared by various western swords which do just as well and better at the Katana's engineered role.
I should probably ask him what he thinks about tsurugi and tanto, since they are constructed using the same tamahagane construction, are they not, just minus the differential metal cooling that causes the Katana's curve?

Broom, thank you, much of that I was somewhat aware of, but far more detailed than my hazy recollection.
I believe he was referring to a Basket Hilt Claymore. It didn't even occur to me to think a Katana could snap the larger kind unless it was a stainless steel crap replica. Come to think of it, that's assuming he's using his western sword terminology correctly.
I did not get a chance to bring up Western Folding techniques, though I was aware of them, since I wanted to be able to provide my sources when I brought the subject up.

Spoonist, I thank you in advance for your information, especially the links.

Yes. Both are made using tamahagane, but tsurugi refers to any uncurved sword (most are two-edged) and tanto are only slightly curved. The main question to ask him is why so many broke. If they were so much tougher than western swords, then surely we should have more of them today. But we do not, oddly enough. Sabers and scimitars don't necessarily do better, per se, but rather are of similar purpose and design. Resist the temptation to declare the katana inherently awful- they're good swords, but designed for specific purposes, like any other weapon.

[open_sketchbook]

Yeah, katanas are designed to strike really fast against people who aren't wearing armour. They're really good at that. The average European medieval weapon is designed to beat a guy in a steel suit to death with powerful impacts. It's like comparing a car with a bulldozer because they both happen to be vehicles.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, katanas are designed to strike really fast against people who aren't wearing armour. They're really good at that. The average European medieval weapon is designed to beat a guy in a steel suit to death with powerful impacts. It's like comparing a car with a bulldozer because they both happen to be vehicles.

Wrong. Katana are designed for use against silk or wooden armor, but those are not quite "no armor". In particular, try chopping wood with a hatchet. It's not as easy as you might expect, and wooden armor was lacquered to make it harder to bite into. And hatchets are designed to chop with torque- a sword does not have that advantage.

Steel suits were not developed until late in the 15th century and didn't ever become widely used except by the richest. The majority of armor at the time was chain, which is not quite so sword-resistant. Either way, you didn't "beat" anyone to death with impacts with a sword. With a maul perhaps, but even a warhammer is designed to penetrate rather than beat. Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

[Ryushikaze]

Yes. Both are made using tamahagane, but tsurugi refers to any uncurved sword (most are two-edged) and tanto are only slightly curved. The main question to ask him is why so many broke. If they were so much tougher than western swords, then surely we should have more of them today. But we do not, oddly enough. Sabers and scimitars don't necessarily do better, per se, but rather are of similar purpose and design. Resist the temptation to declare the katana inherently awful- they're good swords, but designed for specific purposes, like any other weapon.

Yeah, don't worry about that. My argument isn't that Katanas are bad swords from a design standpoint, just that they're just good swords, not uber swords, sharper and tougher than the western blade, roughly the equal (better in some ways, worse in others) than comparable purposed western swords, less durable than the larger western swords, and that the Tamahagane process and the care taken in making the sword can bring sword made of the inferior Japanese metal up near the quality of western steel, but wouldn't have all that much of an effect if you were starting from already superior metal, that folding techniques stop being worthwhile after a certain point.

Incidentally, Sketchbook, the initial thrust of my argument was much akin to your analogy- "You might not want to drive a Bulldozer around town, but I wouldn't want my car to be hit by one either, and if it did happen, my car would definitely come out worse for wear."
And the Katana was designed for use against armor. Not against the same sort of resilient armor as western, but wood armor is still armor.

[Ghost Rider]

One thing to note, for all swords, is the method they were meant to hurt the opponent. The Katana actually had different slices for killing or just disabling said opposition. So just going by strength is a bit of a misnomer given the way some swords were meant to cut and that said application is not always able to be done with a different blade.

[Serafina]

Nevertheless Katanas were made for different usage than the majority of european swords.
This is really no surprise: Just as you always want the right tool for the job, you want to right weapon for the enemy.
Katana-wankers tend to ignore that a Katana was just ONE type of japanese sword. It's comparable to the european Sabre and somewhat to the Cutlass - those are generally known as "backswords" (due to having only one edge on their "back"). Any fair comparision would compare those two. The Japanese had other sword types as well - notable are the Tachi which was essentially a longer Katana designed for usage from the back of a horse, or the Wakizashi which was a shortsword-like backup weapon, or the Nodachi which was an anti-cavalry sword similar to european greatswords (tough it was rare due to forging inefficiencies).

Either way, the Japanese never developed as many sword types as the Europeans, and they fielded even less regulary.
That's simply because Japan was only one island, compared to a whole continent.


Simply because weapons are designed for a specific task, there can't be a weapon that is better no matter what.

[aerius]

...the Tamahagane process and the care taken in making the sword can bring sword made of the inferior Japanese metal up near the quality of western steel, but wouldn't have all that much of an effect if you were starting from already superior metal, that folding techniques stop being worthwhile after a certain point.

Actually it would, not the folding part but the differential hardening & tempering (hard edge, softer back) used in the blades. Even with the best quality modern steels, differential hardening & tempering allows a significantly stronger & tougher sword to be made for a given weight or a lighter sword of the same strength & toughness. This is why the technique is still used in modern swords as well as large knives such as khukuris.

[open_sketchbook]

Yeah, katanas are designed to strike really fast against people who aren't wearing armour. They're really good at that. The average European medieval weapon is designed to beat a guy in a steel suit to death with powerful impacts. It's like comparing a car with a bulldozer because they both happen to be vehicles.

Wrong. Katana are designed for use against silk or wooden armor, but those are not quite "no armor". In particular, try chopping wood with a hatchet. It's not as easy as you might expect, and wooden armor was lacquered to make it harder to bite into. And hatchets are designed to chop with torque- a sword does not have that advantage.

Steel suits were not developed until late in the 15th century and didn't ever become widely used except by the richest. The majority of armor at the time was chain, which is not quite so sword-resistant. Either way, you didn't "beat" anyone to death with impacts with a sword. With a maul perhaps, but even a warhammer is designed to penetrate rather than beat. Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

That's true. I should have stated "light armour" rather than "no armour", but compared to what the knight was wearing, the distinction is considerably less important.

Even before the development of full plate, your average knight is still running around with padding and chain, plus some form of hardened material under it, and possibly the addition of steel on the shoulders or chest, not to mention the helmet. Chain may not be as absurdly resiliant as plate, but it's still not easy to cut and it's very difficult to get a clean stab in with a broadsword. However, a balanced broadsword is going to impact with more than enough force to break bones, and you can deliever such an attack from behind your shield much more easily than a thrust. The fight itself would be two guys beating the shit out of each other with their swords (and shield, and gauntlets, and so forth) and would end when one guy hit the other in such a way as to force them to the ground, by knocking them senselss, tripping them, or hurting them enough to drop them. Once the other guy is on the ground you can kill him with a thrust and both sides know it, but as a knight is worth more alive than dead he probably gives up and you capture him for ransom. There is a reason that knights tended to be captured more often than killed; you broke out the maces when you didn't much care to take prisoners because it was much more likely to kill another knight outright, and that very much wasn't the goal at the time!

[Feil]

Even before the development of full plate, your average knight is still running around with padding and chain, plus some form of hardened material under it, and possibly the addition of steel on the shoulders or chest, not to mention the helmet. Chain may not be as absurdly resiliant as plate, but it's still not easy to cut and it's very difficult to get a clean stab in with a broadsword. However, a balanced broadsword is going to impact with more than enough force to break bones, and you can deliever such an attack from behind your shield much more easily than a thrust. The fight itself would be two guys beating the shit out of each other with their swords (and shield, and gauntlets, and so forth) and would end when one guy hit the other in such a way as to force them to the ground, by knocking them senselss, tripping them, or hurting them enough to drop them. Once the other guy is on the ground you can kill him with a thrust and both sides know it, but as a knight is worth more alive than dead he probably gives up and you capture him for ransom. There is a reason that knights tended to be captured more often than killed; you broke out the maces when you didn't much care to take prisoners because it was much more likely to kill another knight outright, and that very much wasn't the goal at the time!

Do you have any evidence for this? It sounds patently absurd on the surface. You assert that the sword, the most popular weapon in the history of pre-modern warfare, was preferred because it was less lethal than the less expensive, more durable mace? I am extremely skeptical.

[Stuart]

Do you have any evidence for this? It sounds patently absurd on the surface. You assert that the sword, the most popular weapon in the history of pre-modern warfare, was preferred because it was less lethal than the less expensive, more durable mace? I am extremely skeptical.

It sounds right to me given the prevailing ethos of warfare at that time. It's the old "fill the requirement" principle; the sword was good because it was capable of disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family. A mace on the other hand was a killer, plain and simple. The only way you'd send the victim back to his family was in a box. Thus, the economics ran in favor of the sword rather than the mace. A lot of warfare stuff is counter-intuitive like that.

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier (a real one, not the toys used for fencing) or, even better, an estoc. I've seen it done and it's so ridiculous one can hardly help laughing. The poor guy with the katana just stands there unable to do anything because he can't get past the point of the rapier or estoc. No matter how good he thinks he is, if he commits to an attack he walks onto the point of that sword and gets skewered. My old fencing master used to repeat the lesson daily. "The point will always beat the edge"

[open_sketchbook]

There are lots of reasons the sword was very popular besides it's lethality relative to other weapons against armoured opponents. It's one handed, can be easily stored and worn as a symbol of authority without occupying your hands when not in use, it's practical for attack and defense, and so forth. It's less tiring to use then a mace and more practical against a wider variety of opponents, and it's better suited to a defensive posture.

You have to remember the goals of medieval warfare in Europe, for the average knight, was often not to kill the enemy. He was compelled to the field when his lord ordered, but what made it worth it for him was the possibility of some quick cash. A captured knight or lord was worth a hefty ransom, after all, and the money gained from a good ransom could pay for all manner of extravagance. That's why knights wore heraldry, after all; to turn them into a walking billboard that said "I am the Earl of Buttfuckshire! Don't kill me, I am worth money!" and, to a lesser extent "Hey, come fight me, I am worth money!" so that the wearer of the heraldry could attract (noble) enemies to him in hopes of getting an oppertunity to capture more opponents for ransom. And as a knight was worth nothing dead, they had no reason to bring their more lethal weapon in favour of the sword they would own already. After all, the knight already owned a sword for the reasons stated above; bringing a mace was a decision that translated to "I don't care about the money, I'm going to kill some motherfuckers."

[open_sketchbook]

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier (a real one, not the toys used for fencing) or, even better, an estoc. I've seen it done and it's so ridiculous one can hardly help laughing. The poor guy with the katana just stands there unable to do anything because he can't get past the point of the rapier or estoc. No matter how good he thinks he is, if he commits to an attack he walks onto the point of that sword and gets skewered. My old fencing master used to repeat the lesson daily. "The point will always beat the edge"

We appear to have contridicting teachers, as my instructor told me a rapier fighter was worthless the moment he commited to an attack. There is an essay about this idea here that basically says it'd probably end in a draw with both fighters dead.

(sorry for the doublepost, my other post expired)

[Broomstick]

...the Tamahagane process and the care taken in making the sword can bring sword made of the inferior Japanese metal up near the quality of western steel, but wouldn't have all that much of an effect if you were starting from already superior metal, that folding techniques stop being worthwhile after a certain point.

Actually it would, not the folding part but the differential hardening & tempering (hard edge, softer back) used in the blades. Even with the best quality modern steels, differential hardening & tempering allows a significantly stronger & tougher sword to be made for a given weight or a lighter sword of the same strength & toughness. This is why the technique is still used in modern swords as well as large knives such as khukuris.

The use of different grades of steel and/or other materials is also used in making modern tools as well. Drill bits, for instance - the edges that make the cut might be some alloy that is harder (though more brittle) than the rest of the bit. Diamond bits as well - the diamonds cut (but are brittle) and the matrix holding them is a considerably softer (though still strong) alloy. Saw blades. Etc.

It's hardly a concept or technique restricted to Japan. Or swords.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, katanas are designed to strike really fast against people who aren't wearing armour. They're really good at that. The average European medieval weapon is designed to beat a guy in a steel suit to death with powerful impacts. It's like comparing a car with a bulldozer because they both happen to be vehicles.

Wrong. Katana are designed for use against silk or wooden armor, but those are not quite "no armor". In particular, try chopping wood with a hatchet. It's not as easy as you might expect, and wooden armor was lacquered to make it harder to bite into. And hatchets are designed to chop with torque- a sword does not have that advantage.

Steel suits were not developed until late in the 15th century and didn't ever become widely used except by the richest. The majority of armor at the time was chain, which is not quite so sword-resistant. Either way, you didn't "beat" anyone to death with impacts with a sword. With a maul perhaps, but even a warhammer is designed to penetrate rather than beat. Swords would be used to either strike at joints or impale through the armor.

That's true. I should have stated "light armour" rather than "no armour", but compared to what the knight was wearing, the distinction is considerably less important.

Even before the development of full plate, your average knight is still running around with padding and chain, plus some form of hardened material under it, and possibly the addition of steel on the shoulders or chest, not to mention the helmet. Chain may not be as absurdly resiliant as plate, but it's still not easy to cut and it's very difficult to get a clean stab in with a broadsword. However, a balanced broadsword is going to impact with more than enough force to break bones, and you can deliever such an attack from behind your shield much more easily than a thrust. The fight itself would be two guys beating the shit out of each other with their swords (and shield, and gauntlets, and so forth) and would end when one guy hit the other in such a way as to force them to the ground, by knocking them senselss, tripping them, or hurting them enough to drop them. Once the other guy is on the ground you can kill him with a thrust and both sides know it, but as a knight is worth more alive than dead he probably gives up and you capture him for ransom. There is a reason that knights tended to be captured more often than killed; you broke out the maces when you didn't much care to take prisoners because it was much more likely to kill another knight outright, and that very much wasn't the goal at the time!

You're still wrong. A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy. It is solid metal, but so is a sword for all intents and purposes, and a mace is generally shorter. Sure, it transfers force easier through rigid materials, but chain and padding aren't rigid. Even then, blunt trauma was traded for flanged heads that could dent armor later on. A heavy maul or sledgehammer is closer to what you're thinking of, but those were far rarer weapons on the field of battle due to weight.

[LaCroix]

From the blachsmith's mouth.

The katana folding process is nothing unknown to europe. In fact, every medival swort was folded easily as often as a katana.

Let's go a bit into history of swordmaking.
Japan:
You got iron sand, and your furnaces produce something that is nearly cast iron (.9+ carbon content) This stuff is brittle as hell when hardened and realy impure.
Solution: You weld a couple of bars together, fold the resulting bar onto itself, weld it together, make a bar, fold it onto itself, weld, form into a bar - you do this with a few times, 8 times or so - and you get a bar of which about one third of the material has burnt off, including lots of carbon and most of the impurities, giving you steel ranging in the .6 to .7 range, and a rather homogenous distributions of alloy elements. You either use this to form a single layer sword (cheapo army katana) or use various milder steels in the core to save on the expensive high-carbon steel. Then a bit differential hardening and you have your razorblade.

Your blade is curved and extremely sharp and brittle. If you look at contemporary battle pictures, you will always see that the swords are notched like saws. Japanese swordsmiths make 5-9 replacement blades for every new sword they made, thus was the wear.

Europe:
You got iron ore, but of bad quality. Your furnaces produced a lot of mild steel, lots of wrought iron and little of good steel (0.4 to .6 carbon content)
When the steel blooms come out of the furnace, they are a spongy stuff. You hammer this sponges into bars, weld a couple together, fold onto each other, you know the drill. We just call that process 'refining'...

European swords were in the .5 to .6 carbon range, which made them about as strong (there is only little hardness gained above .45 carbon content), but much tougher. Differential hardening wasn't unknown, as well as modular build with milder core steal and welded harder edges.

So basically, the techniques used were exactly the same. There is no magic japanese swordsmith technique.

Katana vs Longsword - resilence: I know a video of a good katana used against a good broadwords, and the katana bends on top of notching... a German longsword will break the smaller broadsword, and gain only a notch in return. Both weapons are hevily damaged, but the german sword was MADE to impact on metal repeadedly in heated battles, while the katana was more of a dueling weapon (to defend against bandits and peasants - Samurai used lances, pole-axes and other stuff as primary weapons in battle, but not katanas.)

A German longsword can also easily cut tatami rolls, just to counter the myth of katana being the only sword able to do this. The katana is, however, capable to cut more of them in one cut, as its curved blade increases cutting ability. Katanas are definately the sharpest swords around.

On the other hand, a katana will be MUCH faster than an european sword, as it is about 100 to 200 grams lighter than the western design. But even a two-handed sword is only about twice as heavy as a katana. This would mean that in a duel of unarmored combatants (for which the katana was intended, as it was a side arm for daily wear, like a rapier), the katana would be the slightly better choice( but inferior to a rapier/estoc, which were weapons designed to fight swords).

[montypython]

Chinese equivalents to the Katana like the Changdao/Miao Dao as a point of comparison were usually straighter edged than the Japanese blades; this was because the Chinese fighting style for these blades were intended for both thrusting and slashing (combination spear/swordwork), while also being lighter wrt blade length. Because Chinese steel was usually better quality than Japanese steel, Chinese swordsmiths used San Mei/San Mai (three layer) forging of 2 pieces of soft steel sandwiched around a harder carbon steel piece rather than differential hardening.

[Ariphaos]

It sounds right to me given the prevailing ethos of warfare at that time. It's the old "fill the requirement" principle; the sword was good because it was capable of disarming and disabling an opponent while leaving him intact enough to sell back to his family. A mace on the other hand was a killer, plain and simple. The only way you'd send the victim back to his family was in a box. Thus, the economics ran in favor of the sword rather than the mace. A lot of warfare stuff is counter-intuitive like that.

It also has a nice synergy with the symbolism of the cross. And that the sword is a better weapon for dealing with lightly armored peasants than the mace, much like the katana is.

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier (a real one, not the toys used for fencing) or, even better, an estoc. I've seen it done and it's so ridiculous one can hardly help laughing. The poor guy with the katana just stands there unable to do anything because he can't get past the point of the rapier or estoc. No matter how good he thinks he is, if he commits to an attack he walks onto the point of that sword and gets skewered. My old fencing master used to repeat the lesson daily. "The point will always beat the edge"

I've heard similar stories about kenjutsu artist versus longsword and shield. katana gets impaled into the wooden shield edge, shield gets twisted, katana goes flying.

You're still wrong. A mace is not the heavy death-instrument you are thinking of- it's closer to a nightstick in size and not all that heavy. It is solid metal, but so is a sword for all intents and purposes, and a mace is generally shorter. Sure, it transfers force easier through rigid materials, but chain and padding aren't rigid. Even then, blunt trauma was traded for flanged heads that could dent armor later on. A heavy maul or sledgehammer is closer to what you're thinking of, but those were far rarer weapons on the field of battle due to weight.

There was a battle in Spain IIRC that got exhumed - most fatalities occurred to the generally unarmored or underarmored legs (~80%), most of the rest were to the shoulder (~15%). The weakest points of full cover armor are where the underlying surface is rigid, and of these the shoulder is the most vulnerable. One notable element is that all shoulder wounds appeared to be raw blunt trauma - as if a metal rod had caved in the shoulder, but it was unclear if this was due to armor or because maces were being used.

We appear to have contridicting teachers, as my instructor told me a rapier fighter was worthless the moment he commited to an attack. There is an essay about this idea here that basically says it'd probably end in a draw with both fighters dead.

(sorry for the doublepost, my other post expired)

No, he points out that the epee-bamboo stick battle was a moot point. He does say that the katana wielder tends to underestimate the rapier wielder more often than the opposite, and this trend would be even more pronounced in history - a rapier artist knows of falchions and sabers and the strengths and limitations of those weapons and the legends surrounding them in skilled hands. He knows how it cuts.

The samurai hasn't seen the rapier before.

[Ilya Muromets]

If you want a real laugh, put a skilled katana-wielder up against a rapier (a real one, not the toys used for fencing) or, even better, an estoc. I've seen it done and it's so ridiculous one can hardly help laughing. The poor guy with the katana just stands there unable to do anything because he can't get past the point of the rapier or estoc. No matter how good he thinks he is, if he commits to an attack he walks onto the point of that sword and gets skewered. My old fencing master used to repeat the lesson daily. "The point will always beat the edge"

I've heard similar stories about kenjutsu artist versus longsword and shield. katana gets impaled into the wooden shield edge, shield gets twisted, katana goes flying.

That's a usually cited weakness of the katana (and most Japanese sword styles). The Japanese never really developed a shield and sword system, so they have trouble coping with light hand-held shields. I'm no sword expert by any means, but I have heard that putting a katana user up against, say, a guy with the side-sword and buckler is an exercise in frustration for the katana user since a skilled buckler wielder can deflect katana strikes with ease. Can anyone better versed in the used of bucklers corroborate this?

[Ford Prefect]

OK, now, katanas - REAL katanas, the finely crafted swords of the old samurai, the kind that are handed down as family heirlooms - are actually made of TWO kinds of steel.

Three. The absolute best Japanese swords will have been constructed from three different types of steel: hagane, kawagane and shigane, which is basically hard, medium and soft if I remember correctly.