Longsword vs katana - which is better?

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Raphael Khan, please adjust your settings to allow others to comment. In answer to your question, no the no-dachi would not be as well suited to comparison. The no-dachi is a large primary weapon of war like the montante and zweihander. The longsword is a weapon carried at the waist for civilian self defence, and as a sidearm in war, just like the katana,

[@aqwial8098]

+Academy of Historical Fencing sorry dude but u kill your comparison in this vid with me since u are not using a true normal 2 handed only longsword but one on the lower end of size and weight and how many hands u need to weild it

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Aqwia L It's just a prop. However, for the practice of something like Fiore, which is a commonly practiced longsword style, it is easily representative of the weapon.

[@aqwial8098]

Academy of Historical Fencing however if u are going to make a realistic comparision between a long sword that u have to use 2 hands for and a katana then u need an accurate representation not something representive. Half a kilo of weight changes everything, and size as well, if it it smaller than the actual thing then it changes the results. If u don't use the actual normal size, weight, and specs for both then u kill the validity of your argument/comparision peridod

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Aqwia L Not really. There are an immense variety of sizes of longswords. It is valid to compare a range of them. The adjustment for length and weight makes exactly the sort of change to a fight that one might expect. As well as the fact that one again, it is a prop. Watch out videos of longsword vs katana and you will see longer longswords in use. This Albion was ideal for the video.

[@aqwial8098]

Academy of Historical Fencing listen for the last time ok. In this vid u are comparing 2 handed long swords to 2 handed katana. U didn't say any long sword out there u said specificly 2 handed. Then for the comparision u pull out a 1 handed to 1 and a half handed long sword. Right there u are contaminating the results since a true 2 handed long sword weighs more than that sword and is longer. Those 2 facts alone will drastically alter the results. Now if u had said from the beginning that u were using long sword both 1 handed and 2 handed or long swords in general, and not added in the 2 handed part, then u would be fine and I would of not said anything. However because u specified 2 HANDED and then used a sword that wasn't a true 2 handed weapon that is why I say you made your results invalid and untrue. The whole rest of the vid is pointless because u messed it up 2 minutes in. OK

[@rainick]

Here is the real question: Can you throw the pommel?

[@indigorio7451]

Another Skallagrim Fan here?:D

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+rainick Only if the rest of the sword detaches itself, which I have seen once! Mike was once sparring at an event in Denmark with a Hanwei/Tinker longsword when the blade snapped and all hilt furniture slid off as a result, then he threw the pommel and grip at his opponent.

[@yukido42]

+rainick no, i don't think they have the move end him rightly, but they do have a move to end themselves rightly(hara-kiri)

[@rainick]

yukido asuna That's metal too.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

+Academy of Historical Fencing That sounds really cool. Do you have a video of it?

[@bansheemopar]

You totally forgot to mention that historical katanas are not spring tempered. They are basically hardened high-carbon edges with unhardened low carbon bodies. And therefore bend quite easily, unlike longsowrds that flex.

[@loganplourde886]

And when you can flex well, all the ladies want you. (flexes muscles to attract ladies)

[@jackyniu5194]

I disaggreasee wiht u, accordig to animoos, katana hav magical powers and ther3 4 byter than da long sword. That was sme hard core facts. In your ugly fucking face non animoo lover. This is the reaction I get every time when I’m trying to explain to a weeb why a katana suck ass. Fucking anime isn’t real life and you are not the main character bitch, chill down.

[@hazardous0887]

I always saw that the katana had more artistic and ceremonial value than it did practical value. Not saying it's not useful, just saying it has more of a "meaning" behind it and this was true. The creation of a katana was a pretty complex and artistic process and was mainly used for ceremonial purposes. And the opposite was true for the longsword. It had a more practical and versatile value as it was made for war and had much more use than the katana and evolved considerably more so than the katana. But does this mean it wasn't artistic and ceremonial like the katana was? No, the longsword is pretty symbolic and it has some ceremonial purposes of its own. Basically, it all boils down to what you want most.

[@yvesgomes]

Really informative comparison. And props on the epic beard, bro.

[@flametitan100]

I like the overview. They're different swords made for different styles of fighting, and therefore have situations where you'd want one over the other. Also, some of the contexts I hear about on internet debates seem to be a battlefield situation, in which case it's probably not fair to compare them, simply because I don't see either side actually using swords in a pole arm fight.

[@CanadaMMA]

The Katana was an incredible feat of sword making. However, as a weapon it is lacking compared to most longsword types. I'm not even a fan of the longsword myself. I'd much rather use a Scottish broadsword or rapier paired with a buckler or main gauche.

[@danrg26]

I would rock a flail with tower shield

[@alexpiggford2757]

+Bronald Grump With the flail he's using, yeah. But you'll find most flails are two handed, like a polearm, because of the farming implement it was based on. In this case, the pole the flail head was attached to would be longer than the chain, causing no risk to user.

[@Caelinus]

Personally, if I wanted to survive, I would go to plate and a poleaxe if on foot, and plate + lance and mace if on horseback. Polearms are freaking amazing, they just look silly, so everyone underestimates them.

[@TheBoxingCannabyte]

I love polearms as well, if i had a zombie apocalypse situation I'd have my italian longsword on my waist and carry a war spear which the one I made from one of cold steel's SK5 spearheads stands a little over 5 feet which is short for me (I'm 6"3, however the italian longsword is fairly long for a lot of folks and perfect for me), that and throwing knives which im competent at, and/or a tomahawk for multiple purposes.

[@urbanmyths95]

minor nit-pick but i think it's important to mention the offensive use of the pommel and cross-guard both of can be used to strike the opponent when up close and i don't think tsuba can be used in same way

[@robinthrush9672]

+urbanmyths95 Not to mention that if both are fully armored the longsword can be used upside-down to swing like a hammer.

[@urbanmyths95]

Robin Thrush in fairness he stated both opponents would be unarmoured

[@robinthrush9672]

urbanmyths95 I know, I'm just throwing that out there. If armor were introduced, the longsword would show itself even more superior regarding the cross-guard and pommel.

[@urbanmyths95]

Robin Thrush well then a mace or a warhammer would better decause would a sword is better with an unarmoured but when armoured the mace would destory the swords the context is key in this situstion

[@robinthrush9672]

urbanmyths95 The video wasn't a which is better "a katana or a mace/warhammer" though. Your comment also was about longsword vs katana. Keeping with katana vs longsword it's best to use them in the context in which they evolved. A long sword, while not the best weapon against plate, was designed to have a point to get between the gaps, flex rather than break of contact, and allow for blunt usage to mimic a hammer. The katana also existed along side armor, but didn't really adapt to it. Warhammers and maces can also be used against unarmored opponents, but they have less reach and finesse.

[@raphaelkhan1668]

It seem like it would be more accurate to compare a no-dachi to a longsword than a katana.

[@olivialambert4124]

I would argue the opposite conclusion. A longer japanese sword existed at the length of an average two hander and upwards - the odachi. However it simply wasn't used because the katana offered the ideal. In the principles of japanese combat with a well trained combatant the sword length really isn't the exceptional advantage it is with western and lesser trained fighters. Japanese combat focused on movement and footwork as the primary defence, side-stepping an attack whilst giving your own strike and as such its more important to make sure your strike is accurate and well timed than it is to use the extra length to harass and/or get an early strike in. The reason I go for the katana over the longsword lies exclusively in the conditions of the fight - unarmoured 1v1 combat. The japanese fighters didn't have shields and so their armour was designed to protect from arrows, an extremely dangerous threat at the time. Armour can't do everything and so effective arrow protection meant a poor melee protection as it used poor protection layered many times in a bulky fashion much like modern kevlar armour, and much like kevlar a sword (or knife) has no problem penetrating its specialized design. So the japanese sword spent nearly a millenium being designed around the exact same style of combat against ineffective armour in a 1v1 fashion. On the flip side the longsword had many different styles of armour to contend with from little to none all the way through to the steadily increasing strength of thick plate armour. It had to deal with shields, it had to deal with multiple different styles of combat, and the combat it saw was primarily a clash of large armies (without the 1v1 only style of "honourable" combat the japanese armies practised). Now with the constantly evolving conditions the longsword was not only designed for completely different combat to the fight mentioned, but those conditions were constantly evolving throughout its lifetime so it never had the stability to hit the peak of perfection. Had the fight stipulated even moderately effective chain armour I think the longsword would be in a far better place, had it been a fight against a shielded opponent I also think the longsword would be in a better place. Had it been a larger fight than 1v1 I think the longsword would have preferred that as it doesn't rely on mobility as its main defence but I can't see that having changed the outcome, unlike the other two. I think this was a fair video but I wonder if as an European martial artist he overlooked the style in which the sword was fought with for the katana.

[@Lord_Viscerate]

Olivia Lambert Jesus Christ, this comment deserves way more attention!

[@Lord_Viscerate]

Alan Wadey Fuck off Alan

[@LionofAllah-37]

Humm.. So you really spend all that time researching, I wonder about the motive that pushed you to it.. Anyway and shortly we katana, long sword & short sword I think none of them is perfect for battle or 1v1 combat, the best choice will be the bastered sword with proper armor. That's it.

[@olivialambert4124]

@@LionofAllah-37 I used to do martial arts, now I have constant pain and spend excessive amounts of time in bed. The katana is essentially the Japanese version of the bastard sword. It is similarly sized and usable with both one hand and two, though of course strongly favoured for two hands. Proper armour isn't really part of the equation, the Japanese didn't have "proper armour". And if proper armour does become part of the fight, other weapons quickly become favoured such as the mace and the zweihander, weapons able to knock an opponent down to give a reasonable attempt at attacking vulnerable spots. Or for the Japanese, the yari giving a good stabbing capability which is strongly favoured against armour. The bastard sword was unfortunately fairly rare. It is my favourite european sword, but people typically favoured other weapons in combat, or other weapons in an unarmoured duel, the latter being its best role. But a buckler and one handed sword was particularly popular in a duel and the bastard sword was a little too large and cumbersome for daily life, hence being less common than one might think.

[@LionofAllah-37]

@@olivialambert4124 one thing the katana don't have pummel unlike bastered sword, pummel can do alot of damage even knock down a man with armor, you are a great woman and your condition sads me , I'll pray for you. Best wishes.

[@kodydavis9598]

Nice and simple comparison. Well done

[@Tadayoshikun]

Can you talk about sword techniques used for both weapons?

[@manuunam23]

Nice vid, mate. Very informative, very professional

[@fw5903]

Hi Academy of Historical Fencing! I just want to ask, if you could do a video about the polish "szabla" from the 16th ant 17th century. I alway wondered what makes it special and so ^^. So I would be more than pleased , if you would do one . Thank you very much.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Simply put it is near impossible to do so. I could talk about the swords themselves. I have some great books on the subject and have handled a number of originals, but in terms of how they were used, we simply do not know. The earliest documentation on the Polish sword style is from the 1830's, long after the old methods had been forgotten, often called the cross cutting art. There are people who try and re-create it in an experimental archaeology kind of way, but there is not material to really work with, so the truth is we don't know what Polish sabre fighting would have looked like back then.

[@fw5903]

I understand and I appreciate your answer. Thank you for you good will ;).

[@Lobster_Lars]

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Bummer. But we still have Jerzy and Roland so that's cool.

[@Russtynails87]

its nice to hear someone who researches, analyze facts

[@ME_YA4P]

Longsword. Half-swording, pommel and guardwork, mastercuts, backstrokes, superior materials and more reach for similar weight. Also, just plain cooler.

[@wms_raggedwarrior1232]

M.E. YA4P that is your opinion for me the katana looks waaaaayyyyy cooler than a plain longsword

[@Xion_Toshiro]

It comes down to: Which are you most comfortable with? Which is best for you? Its like a preference of say: Sodas

[@michal2173d]

what about compering a Polish Husar saber to katana i've read a lot about that and i'm interrested in that topic

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+michal2173d British Napoleonic sabres are essentially identical to Polish sabres. This is because Britain was drawing influence from Hungary and Hungarian sabre styles. The size, shape and weight of the blades as well as the hilt type. The one I show is a pattern with brass hilt, but many had steel, look at the 1796 British light cavalry which it was based on and was also used for the same purpose, it is in almost every way identical to a Polish sabre.

[@Corristo89]

The problem with European weapons and armor is that Europe was anything but homogenous during that time. There were massive differences between knights from Germany, Italy, France, England, Hungary and so on. Some favored massive plate armor, others focused more on looser meshes and ergo the weapons designed to combat those types of armor varied a lot. Japan on the other hand was culturally homogenous and the standard weapon of the samurai was the katana, often accompanied by the wakizashi. Katanas varied too, but their overall length and shape remained relatively stable over the decades, even centuries, whereas the longsword changed quite a lot. So it's very difficult to compare "the" longsword against "the" katana.

[@Yourantsally]

+Corristo89 yes europe was mixed culturally, but longswords stayed about the same all over, as well as the armour being worn by most people i europe was comparable at one time, I.E. a german knight in the 11th century wouldn't have wildly different armour than an english or spanish knight, but different types of pieces my be popular in those areas, such as a sallet vs a bascinet, or a barbute vs a sugar loaf. Also all samurai didn't primarly use katana, just like how all knights didnt primarily use swords. Some samurai would focus on the yumi and only switch to the katana if caught in a melee, or some would only be horsemen, such as used by the takeda, and be well versed in using a lance and riding, and less so in dueling, and some samurai would choose to use heavier two handed weapons like kanabo or nodaichi, and switch to the katana in close quarters or if their heavy weapon broke.

[@MartinGreywolf]

A bit late to the party here, but still. What japanese fencing really looked like and what modern styles do today are probably quite different - Edo era woodcuts show samurai holding the katana differently from what we see today (both hands near tsuba most frequently, and a lot of one handed use), and there are precious few actual manuals translated. One of them that is translated, Book of Five Rings by Musashi does have quite a bit of binding and edge-on-edge action, it even has a move that is more or less Zornhau, called Fire and Stones cut. This is one of the reasons I'm rather dubious when people say that something is or isn't done when fencing with a katana in historical context. Even styles with a long history changed a lot from the time katana was used in earnest. I think we should demand the same rigor from ketjutsuists as from HEMA people - if you say it was/wasn't done, show me a historical document proving, or at least supporting, the claim.

[@toyotaguy2000]

+MartinGreywolf You wont get historical documents as the scrolls are secret to each school as they were in history thus why you cannot just go to chapters and find one. Take for example old Tennen Rishin Ryu there really is no manual for it but its use was quite extensive during the boshin war by a famous shinsengumi member okita soji Backtrack to the Edo period with the yagyu shinkage-ryu being the shoguns favoriate and backtrack to the sengoku-jidai where a variety of schools of kenjutsu so-jutsu, and iaijutsu come to be. Kenjutsu if you want to feel its intensitiy merely head to japan pick any ryuha from the Edo period and have fun learning hundreds if not thousands of variety of technique. I like all systems of fighting kenjutsu is a dedicated historical system to preserving ways of killing another man with a sword as are many HEMA, and middle eastern systems. We have musashi himself with his hiten ichi-ryu school quite famous in the late sengoku jidai and early Edo period to which many samurai sought techniques from said school. Its really a matter of the warrior some were spear-men others sword wielders and each school catered accordingly. There is plently of evidence of each schools founding, existance and techniques. there is also plently of evidence of ronin open schools being closed down rather quickly compared to more well established ryuha of the time. As a practitioner of kenjutsu who uses tennen rishin ryu technique the idea to kenjutsu is to make use of the mune (spine) of your sword to parry the enemy away if you use the "Ha"(edge) area the idea is trying to absorb the blow on the body or "Niku" of your katana thus less chipping occurs.

[@gwynbleidd1917]

@@toyotaguy2000 👌 🆗️

[@jasoncutugno8577]

I do like this video I think it is rather fair, I am just curious. Why is it you didn't mention a key aspect of HEMA the ability to bind or half-swording ? A longsword in close quarters using half-swording would be a viable. Is it just because you are trying to only speak of the features of the sword itself ? I only mention because you mention the Iaijutsu technique of drawing and cutting.

[@alexyu6928]

Katana does cut slightly better due to the very thin sharp edge however in actual sword fight it is unavoidable to have edge to edge contact with the opponent's blade and edge damage will occur. Samurai were taught to avoid edge to edge contact by twisting the blade at the last moment to block an incoming cut with the flat or spine of his blade, that works sometimes but also added a bit of a delay to counter act and follow through attack. A longsword with two edges will counter act a incoming cut faster and deadly follow through attack. I have both and I am not a sword fighter, I use my swords to cut water bottles, tatami, and pool noodles and I found both kinds of swords to be fun to play with.

[@MrKirby2367]

Oh God this old chestnut !??!! Ok here goes in broad strokes. I choose the longsword over Katana because. a. Length, the longswords on the whole have a longer reach. b. THE GUARD. Hand protection people ! This is not Hollywood for those who have not fenced with a longsword the hands are very vulnerable, which is why we spend so much time and money searching for better and better gloves. The Katanas Tsuba provides next to no protection compared to the longswords guard, and then when you start adding rings to it. The funny thing is in the movies no one EVER gets hit on the hands or for arms or legs or the head for that matter. Because it's choreographed to make it as safe as possible. I'm sitting here right now with a huge black bruise on my thigh because I wasn't quick enough to block a cut. (from a single hand as it happens) Just personally given the choice I'd never choose the Katana over my longsword or for that matter my viking sword with shield or my Type XVI with buckler. Not even if the world were to be over run with zombies. I'll leave the debate about blade shape, quality of steel, length of blade and who actually use what to others. Have a great day everyone enjoy the sport.

[@mrkiky]

+Bloodaxetheirritable There's an awful lot of hand cutting in Star Wars though :D

[@MrKirby2367]

Yes but Kylo Ren's light sabre offers more hand protection. So again the longsword style for me personally wins out again.

[@tullyDT]

+Bloodaxetheirritable Hand protection! the very reason I went with the side sword

[@MrKirby2367]

I know ! Right ?!?

[@tullyDT]

*Intact fist bump*

[@ItohKuni]

This was really cool. I just had a quick question. Do you have any videos where you guys spar with a great sword? Like a really long long sword? I've always wondered how those things were supposed to be used and if they were ever more practical in battle for anything over a normal length sword. But amazing informative video and keep up the awesome work Bro :)

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Here is one. Though they are very hard to use correctly in s safe fashion. A large amount of zweihander/montante technique relies on constant motion as cuts are carried through with power from one to another. Those cuts deliver immense striking power, so we have to be careful. As a result it is far less realistic than other fights we have. With ever improving safety gear, it will get better though. kzbin.info/www/bejne/faaXc2Bna7h4otU

[@ItohKuni]

That is awesome! I'll leave my comment in that video instead!

[@dviper2093]

I wish people would compare the longsword to the Tachi rather than the katana.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+dominic parisi Most people aren't interested though, or even see the difference :-) In reality, the dividing line between tachi and katana in the principal era of the longsword was a transitional one, to the degree that it can often be a case of them looking the same, until you look to the mei. During the European renaissance the Katana had almost completely replaced the tachi, and therefore it is the key weapon to compare to equivalent commonly carried swords such as the longsword and rapier.

[@pg5137]

+Academy of Historical Fencing hadn't the tachi been replaced by katanas after mongolian invasions, which proved that tachi were not able to cut through mongolian boiled leather armor?

[@mintyfresh4855]

false. The tachi is just a longer katana and was the standard sword of the samurai until it basically died in 1600 after the Battle of Sekigahara and the birth of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The Tokugawa Era brought on the popularity of the katana since there were barely any wars and the samurai never really needed to fully arm themselves.

[@Paladinpal]

I believe the most important factor to consider is the application each weapon was designed for. The katana is clearly designed primarily to slash, while the longsword was kept straight for superior thrust. Most footsoldiers would have been unarmored or very lightly armored on the battlefields of europe, requiring less slashing power. However, those that were armored would have likely been wearing chainmail, an armor highly resistant to slashes but susceptible to thrusts. I am uncertain as to what sort of armor your typical japanese soldier would have faced, but circumstances likely warranted the design, as was the case for the longsword. Therefore, it is difficult for a side by side comparison and the respective blades ought to be (in my opinion) rated on their individual designed uses on the battlefield.

[@michaelhermelijn2018]

+ahffm11 very true, but keep in mind the average soldier couldnt afford a sword, neither in japan or in the west.

[@wms_raggedwarrior1232]

ahffm11 could not have said it better

[@markhollas7585]

I am an love me a katana but this video brought up a good point. Many times the long/broadsword is considered a blunt force weapon, and the katana is a slicing blade. However with the taper of a long sword, combined with a draw, it should slice well as well.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Mark Hollas Yep. It is a little easier to cut with a katana because of the natural draw of a curved edge, but with just very basic training you can cut extremely well with a longsword. Ultimately either sword that places a good blow with correct edge alignment against a vital target area is going to end the fight.

[@markhollas7585]

+Academy of Historical Fencing very well put

[@xzarcillo]

About durability:Longsword or any in steel in the world in fact pretty much>Katana,you have to compare the historical swords,most people i think,and i do myself think of Katana or longsword,in their respective historical representation,i want to believe that,and the Japanese Steel,was one of the worst out there,compared to european ones,it is recorded in some spanish philippines captain,how katanas broke in combat if i remember well.

[@davidwalshy9158]

Would you say that a longsword and katana with the same length blade and overall size would be virtually equal for unarmored combat? It seems once size is out of the equation their relative strength and weaknesses pretty much balance out. I watched a video about a study that was done on surviving examples of Japanese armor from their warring periods and the conclusion of the study was that the armor was generally fitted for people that were between something like 4"8'-5'3 (142cm-160cm) tall. I don't remember the exact dimensions, but it was something very close to that. Basically, they were really short. Is it possible that katanas tended to be shorter than European blades because they were simply being used by smaller people? I don't remember the exact source for that so I could be wrong, but I remembered that it seemed very reputable.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+David Walshy If they were of equal length then yes it would near enough equal out, but that would be a less likely matchup of course, just because of the typical sizes each of them were made in. The height is something I have brought up in a few videos on the subject. All research I have seen would suggest that a typical Japanese man in the European renaissance period would average around 5', so your figures match up with that. Height of European men of that time was averaging 5'6", obviously with a bitch of variation between some nations. Yes this will have had an impact on sword size. Most swords were made in proportion to the user(s), but what is deemed a perfect length to that size will obviously vary according to style, master, etc. However, the length of European swords till make them on average larger than Japanese swords even when put into the context of the proportions of their users is still larger, just not as much as one might think when only comparing the swords side by side.

[@Skierxman]

Better at what ? When the Vikings came ashore to raid, they fought with spear-like objects, percussion weapons, and axes. On the medieval battlefield, knights and infantry fought with projectiles, spear-like objects, percussion weapons, and axes. In feudal japan, warriors and soldiers fought on the battlefield with spear-like objects, percussion weapons, and axe-like objects. With few exceptions, the sword was then what the pistol is now--a sidearm for personal defense , home defense, or a last-ditch weapon in close quarters on the battlefield. It was a secondary weapon. Also, the outcome of battles usually hinged primarily on who had the best armor and tactics, not who had the best sword. Both style of swords come from two distinct cultures and regions and neither was used as a primary battle weapon. They weren't designed to compete with each other. In modern times, outside of HEMA and other controlled recreational and sporting activities, people don't fight with swords and don't fight in armor. IMO, the question of katana vs longsword is entirely moot. Instead of tying yourself up in ambiguity and worrying about which option is best or better, just pick the design/era/culture that interests you most and study the tactics and become proficient in its use.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Skierxman You need to watch the video first before commenting, as you will realise that the context is well set out. Against one another, in an unarmoured fight. A battle, a melee, armour, none of that is considered. You cannot say one weapon is better than another outright, but you can compare them for specific tasks, or against one another in a set context, as in this video. This is a fringe subject which we cover as a curiosity element to our studies and practice of martial arts. Mainly because lots of people are curious enough to want to think and talk about it. But of course if you don't, that's fine.

[@Skierxman]

+Academy of Historical Fencing Yes. Sorry. I agree with what you are saying. I just think people get overly concerned with which weapon or item is best or better and never take the time to fully appreciate an item for what it is and what it represents. With that being said, if I was in a zombie apocalypse and was forced to engage in an actual un-armored fight to the death with an individual and was given the option of choosing an average example of a longsword or an average example of a katana, I would pick up the longsword. The added reach, pommel, and cross guard would be the deciding factor. Another factor to consider here is performance under stress. It is easy enough to engage in sparring with pads, armor, and face guards. However, if faced with a real-world scenario where severe injury or death is almost certain for one or both participants in an encounter, it is my opinion that instinct would eventually usurp training for many people, myself included. For many individuals, the stress and fear of the encounter would likely end up as a smash-fest, where the sword becomes a club. The longsword would make the better club. The Katana is also very very unforgiving of poor technique. Just being realistic.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Skierxman Indeed the context has to be considered and rarely is. As for the zombie apocalypse, I wouldn't choose either, a good falchion or a mace would be far more preferable. When the opponent isn't armed and finesse and fine control not a requirement, the rules are completely different!

[@Raytrek79]

What about speed? Obviously it depends on the strength and skills as per Warrior, but a lighter sword would be somewhat more agile. But if you are in heavy armour that would be irrelevant.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Armour isn't so relevant to this debate. Armoured combat is a different affair altogether, and swords are not well suited to it anyway. About speed, well we have established that proportionally the longsword and the katana are of similar weight for their size, and in proportion to their typical users of course. A katana is faster to draw and some close range techniques can be faster because of its smaller size, but the longer blade will be travelling faster at the tip. One sword is not faster than the other, just a little different.

[@Semiotichazey]

I didn't hear you mention it here, but it might be worth considering the different balance points on these swords. Although longswords tend to be a little heavier, their center of gravity also tends to be closer to the hilt. I am guessing this makes them a bit more agile when it comes to quickly pivoting (great for thrusting), whereas the katana seems more weighted for a heavier swing. I'm not sure exactly how this would affect 1v1 unarmored, not to mention 1v1 armored. I'd be curious to hear about an analysis for armored combat, although I suppose that just begs the question "what armor?" My impression is that these swords are suited to dealing with the kinds of armors they were more likely to encounter. Also, I believe that Japan had to deal with lower quality iron deposits, which may tie in to what the video was saying about the sharpness (and brittleness) of the katana. In other words, these swords represent adaptations to their respective environments.

[@quegames4786]

+Semiotichazey Another point (about the weight) Europeans are on average larger

[@Semiotichazey]

Fuyh Wqe Sure, but I wonder if that was as true back then. In museums, one sees a lot of old European armor which was designed for people shorter than modern Europeans. Diet and prenatal care seem to have at least some effect.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Semiotichazey It's true that Europeans were a lot smaller then than they are today, but same goes for Japanese. I did a load of research into this a few years ago and remember the rough figures. Taking something like the 16th century as a comparative date, European male height was average 5' 6-7", as opposed to Japanese, around 5'. Of course there is a good bit of variation between different European nations, and even differences between rural and town peoples. In England in that time period for example, those in rural areas came out a good few inches taller than those in the towns, and the more well off taller than the poorer peoples.

[@Semiotichazey]

Interesting...that last bit is still true today, but perhaps for different reasons. CEOs, for instance, tend to be significantly taller than average. In fact, I suspect cause and effect have switched places when it comes to success and height. But I digress...

[@quegames4786]

I'm talking about weight of the sword being proportional size wise to the user

[@gavatron1980]

I think a longsword guard offers a lot more protection than a katana tsuba. There are also a lot more specific techniques you can perform with it. You also did not mention the advantage of having a steel pommel on the longsword (for attacking, but i think it could possibly add to the durability of the sword)

[@Shenruss]

Appreciate this video. Could you however, please, offer some context into the different _uses_ each sword was designed for to give a better idea of their differencves?

[@temperededge]

Consider: Europeans themselves were also larger than the average japanese of the time, so blade length (for hand and a half blades) comes out around even when taken in proportion. So then all things being equal, the two weapons are too similar to say which is superior.

[@mattlazer640]

Im more of a long sword guy myself, but I really like the katanas circle guard.I could be wrong on this, but it seems like the circular guard could defend your whole hand instead of just the front or back. Im aware that some longswords have a "nail" that guards their knuckles, but I still prefer the katana guards. (my favourite guard is rapier, love their design)

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Longswords come with a tonne of different guard types, all the way unto rapier type guards, but the traditional medieval longsword is of course a simple cross quillion. In terms of how much protection it offers, the straight cross guard offers a lot more protection than the katana's disc, simply because in almost every action the edge is turned into the opponentt's blade and brings that guard into play. If you do some sparring with both you really notice the difference. The longsword guard protects an awful lot for what it is. The Katana disc will only provide additional against strikes that go down the flat of the blade, which is far less frequent.

[@swiyth]

And there's the added benefit of longer cruciform hilts being better able to perform in the bind, I think. A circle guard probably won't catch your opponent's blade as well as a straight or slightly curved one can. It's pretty crucial for the German style, which does a lot of winden, with longer, more thrust-oriented blades.

[@mattlazer640]

Academy of Historical Fencing Thank you for the reply, this definitely changed how i see the guard

[@mattlazer640]

swiyth Interesting

[@Sub7er2011]

the katana is overhyped the longsword puts way more utility into any battle! The longsword can cut very good and pierce through armor way better than a curved weapon

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Yes it is, but you can't blame the sword for modern pop culture. Reality is both katana and longsword are ill sutied to armoured fighting, there are far better weapons for that, and when they were used against armoured opponents it was thrust work, which both worked reasonably well for. They are both very good swords.

[@Stupacalypse82]

What about when you start factoring in half-swording and guard/pommel work?

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Halfswording is predominately for armoured combat, and against a smaller weapon in unarmoured, it would be especially useless, as it will merely lose you reach and open up the arms to nasty cuts. As for pommel/guard work. There use is vastly over exaggerated, particularly in unarmoured combat. Ever since that once scene in Kingdom of Heaven, everybody is obsessed with using guard and pommel. The reality is that they are a tiny part of the longsword system, and if you got so close as to have to use them against a katana, you really screwed up!

[@adenyang4398]

I would also like to add that while halfswording is a good arsenal to have in swordsmanship (particularly armored defense), it is not ideal to engage in prolonged wrestling against bigger & stronger opponents. Instead, it would be preferable to strike from a distance using impact weapons, such as maces, warhammers and truncheons. Even a dagger may be a far better option than a sword if one is engaging in fully-armored fight.

[@davidwalshy9158]

You're comparison of the katana to european swords is the fairest I've seen. Some of the other notable youtube channels that deal with hema have given equally as accurate comparisons, but their enthusiasm for European blades and lack there of for katanas is always at least somewhat obvious.

[@РоманГогешвили]

Oh! I thought I had an idea that narrow mono-steel blade which is heavily tapering towards the point and is designed to be nimble, has less weight by length of the blade proprtion than differentially gardened katana with meaty blade and wide point? Although, hilt length migth hide the difference.

[@kjvwarrior777]

When I was a fencer in college, I once went up against a Japanese woman who had trained all her life, she was so fast I couldn't touch her sword, she took me out 5-0 very quick. (Women were allowed to fence in male contests, but men were not allowed to fence in female contests)

[@greggpennington966]

For what task ? Or type of combat ? Seems an apple to orange comparison...

[@Agorante]

This is a badly posed question. It assumes that the katana and the Longsword were roughly contemporary but were in different places. That's not the case. The Katana was a static weapon that basically never changed for almost 900 years whereas in Europe and the most of the rest of the world weapons underwent continuous development. You have another video comparing the Katana with the Rapier. The Rapier was invented around the beginning of the 16th century whereas the Katana had been developed probably five hundred years earlier. Yet the Rapier was supplanted by the small sword a century or so later and the Katana continued. The Katana did not endure unchanged for so long because it was such a good design - quite the contrary. The Katana endured unchanged because Japanese society at that time was static and hostile to foreign influences and change. With the Tokugawa Shoguns Japan closed itself off to the world and tried to turn back the clock. The Katana - a very old fashion sword made of bad steel by old fashion methods - is a symbol of that period.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Patrick Boyle Indeed, but that isn't a reason to not compare them. The katana did exist in the same time period as the rapier and the longsword, and likely did meet them in the numerous accounts of contact and conflict between Europeans and Japanese in small skirmishes and other potential hostilities between individuals. That in itself is reason enough to compare them in context.

[@edi9892]

There are three other things to consider: I) Katana have a different point of ballance and do have little tapering making them very stiff, but less agile (bit like a crowbar). Longswords tend to bend during cuts and thrusts wasting energy and making tip-cuts and parries with the upper part ineffective/dangerous. II) traditional Katana are not made of springsteel as european swords are. When they bend, they stay bent! III) longswords were used in halfswording and the pommel and guard cut be used to incapaciate enemies in armor

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+edi About longswords bending, they do not bend on cut and thrust. They are more flexible and will return true typically, however they will not flex on the thrust unless there is a lot of had resistance, which the human body is not. Also, they will not flex on the cut either, unless you strike with the flat, which you would not. Cutting with the tip is perfectly strong in most cases with the longsword, though it is not the best part to cut with clearly,.

[@edi9892]

Academy of Historical Fencing I noticed it on test cuts on cardboard. However, flexing becomesonly an issue, if something harder is hit (I presume bone, hardend leather etc.)

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+edi Blades flexing on cutting is because of poor edge alignment. Hardened leather is very effective at stopping cuts, but bone is actually a lot softer and easier to cut than people realise, they are nothing like the hardness that bones reach once they are outside of the body and living tissue,

[@hakuoh4919]

one thing a lot of people overlook is that European swords were designed to counter full suits of plate, while the Katana was not. Half plate maybe but not full plate. the environment would have cooked the knight alive in his own armor in japan.

[@hakuoh4919]

yes i know that but cold and humid are two diffrent things. your talking temp i'm talking humidity. japan and Europe have HUGE differences in climates. That effects the armor you can wear, which in turn affects the weapons you are most likely you can use.

[@Fuzzycat16]

+Hakuoh no...they made maces and bludgeon weapons, you had more chances of taking down an armored opponent while half-swording than trying to thrust in the weak points.

[@hakuoh4919]

fair enough, and thats another thing the European swords were made for that the katana was not. Half swording. i actually forgot about that earlier thanks.

[@loganplourde886]

+Matthew James Jude Gray there are warm bits too (I'm just being difficult here)

[@demomanchaos]

For confined spaces, half-swording gives the longsword the advantage (I don't believe there was much half-swording done with the katana but I recall seeing a sparse few things). The second edge helps significantly, as does the larger guard and longer blade. The only advantage the katana has is a minor cutting advantage and a slightly quicker draw. Everything else is basically even, with the longsword having a few extra features. It terms of damage resistance, the katana has a harder but more brittle edge and tends to bend and take a set rather than flex while a longsword will flex at lesser impacts but will snap once it breaks its tolerance level. From all I've seen it tends to take more to break a longsword but the katana will be more easily repaired once past its limit.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+demomanchaos Half swording without armour is extremely dangerous, you would present massive targets and openings to the katana user, even in confined spaces.

[@demomanchaos]

Academy of Historical Fencing Isn't halfswording shown in the manuals used by unarmored fellows against blokes in armor?

[@jakewolf079]

+demomanchaos there are half-swording in traditional Japanese swordarts.

[@demomanchaos]

鄭皓宇 "I don't believe there was much half-swording done with the katana but I recall seeing a sparse few things" Yes I am aware a few things exist but I've only ever seen a very small amount and not nearly as in-depth as European manuals.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+demomanchaos It is true that there is a range of halfswording shown in and out of armour, but it may not represent typical scenarios. For example it is common for teachers to show students techniques when the student is in armour and the teacher is not. Either way, halfswording would be used there because you are fighting an armoured opponent, and it would be the only way to cause serious damage to his body. In this video we are very clearly looking at unarmored combat. Even then there are some of the halfswording techniques shown for unarmoured combat, and that is what I meant by those would be incredibly dangerous against the katana. To use halfswording against a smaller lighter weapon would be very dangerous. It loses the reach advantage you have in open ground, and the shorter blade can still exploit you in confined spaces because it is more manageable in them.

[@TheAllMightyJoe]

The real Question for comparison was that in the day where and when they were being used how much time effort money and people were needed to make them. A well made Katana would require folding the steel many time, shaping the steel, heating and cooling different parts of the sword to different temperatures to temper it properly before sharpening. The proses can take weeks to months depending on the quality of the sword, for each sword. That is why swords were passed down through generations, because they cost so much and took so long to make. which is why a Katana avoids striking another blade. A Long Sword on the other hand can be made in a couple of hours. A master smith and an apprentice or two could make over ten swords a day of just as good quality.

[@michaelhermelijn2018]

+Grim Reaper i think you over symplify things, for one, making a decent long sword takes more then a day unless u go chineses and simply cut it from stock steel. As for the forge time of the katana has to do with geography. the iron ore the japanses smiths had was of shitty quality thus they needed to develope the complecated process. given the chance they jumped at better quality ore and were done much faster (polish not included) then the month of time you posed. long story short : it comes down to mettalurgy.

[@discipleofkhorne9472]

depends on the swordsman and school of thought, this is why I hate these sorts of debates because it all depends on how you think and how you fight. excellent video though.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Disciple of Khorne We have always brought it up that the fighter and his ability is the most important factor. But that doesn't mean the weapons used aren't significant. As also brought up in the video, context is everything.

[@discipleofkhorne9472]

Academy of Historical Fencing precisely, but a persons skill with an individuals weapon is a key to the persons success and the persons skill against a weapon. You might be a good swordsman but how well would you do with or against a halberd.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Disciple of Khorne Of course, but I assumed proficiency with a weapon. As for how well I would do with or against a halberd. Well we have always taken an eclectic approach to variety of weapons used. As instructors, and for the more advanced students in the club, we practice with a vast array of weaponry, and that includes pole arms. We have/do use spear and pole axe for example, and are arranging useable halberds soon. As for how well would I do against a halberd, with just a sword, well that is a prime case of the one weapon (halberd) having a massive advantage in the context. When you compare weapons you must compare them according to equal skill, and then adjust afterwards as to how it will effect mismatched skill. For example, a lesser skilled fighter with a polearm will typically beat a much better skilled fighter with a sword.

[@discipleofkhorne9472]

+Academy of Historical Fencing and that is how a HEMA club should be run. keep up the good work.

[@lunacorvus3585]

I think those longsword which has broad tip could cut as same as(even better) than katana.....

[@wms_raggedwarrior1232]

李枕谕 i onvlce saw this documentary on the longsword vs the katana and both had to cut a thick block of ice, guess what. the longsword merely chipped the ive while the katana cut the entire block of ice in half. so im gonna say the katana is way sharper than the longsword

[@barefoofDr]

Japanese sword style changed in late Muromachi period, late 15th to late 16th century, to a thrusting style. The blades became straighter and had a longer point to facilitate this type of sword fighting. I have a blade of this period and it only has a 1/4" of curve in 26 1/2" of blade length. It is the only time that Japanese blades straightened out from there first beginnings which followed Chinese straight swords.

[@РоманГогешвили]

You are wrong. The European longsword has less striking power because of narrow blade and very close to hilt point of balance. You are off the point with the blunt force trauma: katanas do have more weight on theend and are less nimble in hands than longswords.

[@shushuyu]

Technique > Speed > Power. If you can't apply your techniques you won't be able to do it fast enough because you're not use to it. When you can't do it fast enough and accurate enough you won't be able to apply the explosive power that comes from the former two being combined. There is one main factor that comes into mind when you want all of three of the aspects to be evident and thats weight. Kind of like a hawk striking it's prey when it's swoops down from the sky. Technique, speed, and power. My pick will always go to the weapon that gives me the most potential for the three aspects I've mentioned to be at the highest level and they're the lighter weapons. My pick? Katana. If the longsword went for 1lbs-1.4lbs and if it was 36", then I'd definitely go for THAT longsword but it won't be a longsword anymore it'll be a custom sword called, the "Light Hawk Wings".

[@shushuyu]

+Wethewax That's not true. It depends on what katana you're using and HOW you use it. Just a simple change in your cutting technique can mean heaven and earth when you're make a cut. You can't maneuver the longsword like you would with the katana. I can transfer the Chinese broadsword forms to the katana with ease but with a longsword...it's quite goofy. I'm one to never use heavy swords or equipment which is why I laugh at hema players and their "realistic" fighting. I mean really...they have a point system just like any other sport, how is it more realistic? Just because they wear steel armors and whack each other with blunt steel? It still depends on technique. That is why...the smallsword/jian will always be the victor imo-atleast if I'm the one fencing. Float like a butterfly sting like a bee. You can't do that with the longsword...but you can with the katana. The weight is just that much of a difference.

[@shushuyu]

+Wethewax It's important to address that our body frames aren't the same. So you can't accurately compare the "average" katana being used to the longsword that's being used even though both of these swords at the lowest weight starts at 2.4lbs. Most people don't used "2.4lbs" longswords back then. I'm sure they went for something heavier to get more power from the weight to dent the armor or else the claymore wouldn't come into existence. Europeans used plates, most Asian countries don't because they value mobility but of course this all depends on the era. It's still a fact that you won't see a tincan man from Asia. So it's not necessary for them to use a "heavier" sword to pierce through that plate armor. So 2.4 being average for Europeans? I don't think so. I know a thing or two about the longsword and most of the techniques I've seen being used are aimed at people who are evenly armored, not under-armored. You can tell a lot from all that wide stance and the way they cut or thrust. The opposite of Kenjutsu or kendo for that matter. I can make deep consistent head cuts with minimal arcs with a katana on the other hand...with a longsword? It's impossible for me. So I truly do think that it's a weight issue. Maybe you're right...at the lowest point...they both start at the same weight but the way it's being used the longsword practitioners make it look heavier and goofy compared to the people here.

[@shushuyu]

+Wethewax "the katana was slightly faster in the attack" I rest my case. Thanks.

[@shushuyu]

+Wethewax You basically helped me prove my point that the weight of a katana in terms of preparatory movement is faster than that of a longsword. This was my point all along. Easier maneuverability means that you can control the sword easier. This obviously include cuts, thrusts, and parries. When you can consistently repeat your attacks EVEN IF SLIGHTLY it's considered a huge advantage. This is the difference between a parried head cut followed up with a wrist cut to a single failed head cut that was parried. Do you know swordplay?

[@Caelinus]

Any differences in their handling are going to be slight enough that your technique is far less dependent on your weapon and far more dependent on your training. They are both, at the core, lengths of sharpened metal. The Katana was designed to emphasize cutting , the longsword was designed to emphasize thrusting. Depending on how you trained, one would feel unwieldy in comparison to the other. There is no real difference in their "potential." The only difference that matters is in the discipline of the user. As for the idea of lighter being better: this is just not true. Force is mass*acceleration, and so a heavier blade will often impart much more force against whatever you are hitting, and your speed with it is still going to largely depend on your personal strength. And the heavier blade could be either type of sword, as there is a lot of variation in types. So, essentially, if you had a choice on what weapon to use in war it would come down to: 1) Which one did you train with? 2) Get the longest/heaviest version of that kind of sword you can handle effectively. 3) If fighting people in heavy armor, use a polearm.

[@houayangthe3rd]

is this a reupload? I could've sworn you already made this video.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Mistaa Spaakles Nope. There was a Rapier vs Katana video a few weeks ago though that you might be thinking of, and a Sabre vs Katana will follow them shortly.

[@houayangthe3rd]

+Academy of Historical Fencing Is that so? Well that wonderful, keep up the good work and thanks for the videos.

[@cesaresp101]

+Academy of Historical Fencing what do you guys consider to be the best sword for a duel? Skill is most important obviously but the weapon matters too

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Cesar Espinoza Sometimes this can be like a rock, paper, scissors scenario so it isn't always easy to answer. It is a subject we will do a video on though. Overall the best I would say is rapier, when combined with an offhand dagger. It has lightening speed, point control, excellent reach, excellent hand and arm protection. When all this is combined with an offhand dagger that allows more openings to be created and afterblows protected against, it is an immensely powerful setup. If you specifically wanted to restrict it to one weapon only and no companion then I would likely say a medium weight sabre with a good size bowl guard (or similar protected type of guard) These are fast and versatile while striking with immense power.

[@metteuston7699]

Hi folks Mett Euston here of skoolaglodityroria, Spodroon best both kutana and sword

[@oldmate104]

+Mett Euston LOL he loves a good old spodroon :P

[@mrkiky]

oh man, the lengths people go to to troll poor youtubers like Matt and Skall :D

[@meatystew5088]

the katana is worse cause it hasn't got a proper pommel, so you can't end him rightly

[@meatystew5088]

the katana is worse cause it hasn't got a proper pommel, so you can't end him rightly

[@meatystew5088]

the katana is worse cause it hasn't got a proper pommel, so you can't end him rightly

[@grinningchicken]

The HEMA people seem to prefer the longsword over the Katana. Pointing to things like the protection length balance and ability to use one handed make it a better weapon. I usually throw in light armor in an equation because a civillian might happen to be wearing some kind of light protection and a weapon that can deal well with that possibility as would be a advantage. Longsword stabbing ability seems like another edge.

[@grinningchicken]

***** even with mail I thing the backsword were preferable to katana because of the hand protection like presenter mentions for rapiers v katana discussion. you still had thrust of unarmored part as well as cut of extremities and a sword which was easy to use in one hand leaving the off hand for a buckler or dagger.

[@robinthrush9672]

+grinningchicken HEMA = Historical *EUROPEAN* Martial Arts. While I agree with other points made, I just had to point out that a reason why they prefer the longsword in practice combat is because it is European and the katana is not.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Robin Thrush Maybe. For some certainly. Many people in Europe are as obsessed with Japanese swords as we are with European though, and some love both. I like to think I came to the weapons I did because I appreciate their effectiveness and style. The spadroon is a classic British sword, but I accept that it is junk. Whereas I do own quite a number of non-European weapons and love them. The Indian Tulwar for example that I own several of, and shamshirs, love those too.

[@robinthrush9672]

Academy of Historical Fencing I'm just saying that HEMA practice with European weapons regardless of if there is an objectively better weapon from another culture. Now, HEMA people can still *like* foreign weapons, but the reason they don't practice with them is based on their origin. The more you practice with a weapon, the more you will favor it. Muscle memory and emotions and all that. HEMA practitioners also have better reasons to prefer the weapons than katana cultists ever seem to come up with. Martial fans (non-practicioners like myself) tend to be less heavily in favor of European over Japanese weapons. I used to be a "katana cultist", but vids like this showed me the general superiority of Europeans arms. I particularly like the variety of attacks a longsword gives over a katana.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Robin Thrush I get where you are coming from. As a club we only teach European weapons of course because we are a school of European swordsmanship, But we do have a lot of martial artists who train in other styles from other nations, and I do encourage them to bring their styles and weapons to the club for sparring practice. One of the problems is that for a lot of non European styles there are not the suitable training weapons because a lot of those styles either aren't as popular, or don't do a lot of high contact sparring with realistic training weapons. It is something we are working towards though. I personally would love a steel blunt shamshir, but nobody makes a realistic one, even getting blunt katana's for sparring is really not easy.

[@fernandoalvarezdelgadillo6780]

I´d love tachi, uchigatana, jingum sword type but if I only can choose 1 sword blade for a long battle I would choose the Albion type longsword or something between xv and xvi century.

[@althesmith]

Even Musashi made the point that the speed of a shorter sword was nullified in the field by the problem of dealing with your opponent's reach.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Al M Almost any disadvantage in a fight can be overcome, because ability and experience are overriding factors, but that does not make it any less a disadvantage.

[@OrkarIsberEstar]

ok gotta make adjustments. - 1) The Longsword was NOT a civilian weapon for self defense and unlike the Katana not meant for daily carring around in case a self defense situation occurs. A longsword is a weapon of war that is primarely used in warfare against unarmored and armored opponents alike while the Katana is meant for unarmored enemies only as it easily bends if it hits solid surfaces. So you are comparring a weapon of war with a weapon of civilian self defense here. The european equivalent of a civilian self defense and duelling weapon would be the rapier, arguably the arming sword or a sabre but not a longsword. 2) original european longswords were made from MUCH higher quality steel than traditional Katanas that till were ripe with impurities. Comparing 2 of those made from modern monosteel seems fair but totally misses the point as the traditional weapons would have handled very differently. An original Katana was very likely to break or bend in combat which is the main reason the Samurai prefered weapons like the Naginata for actual warfare, a traditionally made lonsgword is kinda ok for all situations, a Katana is just not reliable, clearly not if you gotta hit armor with it. 3) A Katana is designed as a cutting weapon against unarmored foes, the longsword is designed to be a thrusting weapon used against armor, hence a comparrison makes little sense. Its like comparing a sniper rifle to a shotgun - they serve 2 entirely different purposes so saying that the sniper rifle is better at taking out targets at a distance aint fair cause thats what its designed to do while the shotgun is for close range use where it excels compared to the sniper rifle. 4) Before someone states i hate Katanas or Longswords - i hate both equally i prefer poleweapons =P better reach better armor penetration, better ability to fight in war (formations) better against cavalry and i think they even look better ^^ 5) Geez...yes the Katana will cut slightly better cause its curved but the longsword is not designed to cut well it is a thrusting weapon! It may deliver a bit more blunt trauma but the heck thats totally unimportant cause you stab with it...(primarely) thats like saying the shotgun is crap because it cant shoot at large distances, thats not the point of making a shotgun 6) You should not aim to parry with the guard? Yes you should thats the entire reason it is there. You should not try to parry with the blade because it is much more likely to break or bend than the guard. You likely wont be able to parry with the guard directly and will let the ebnemy strike glance off your blade and redirect it but actually parrying with the guard is the thing yu sould try to do cause its a solid thick piece of metal while the blade is thin and more likely to have structural failure. 7) durability: If both swords are made with modern monosteel they are about as durable. If they are made traditionally with methods and steel of the time, the longsword is much more durable simple because japanese steel, prior to indsutrialisation was put bluntly - crap, which is why the japanese bought european steel like hell as soon as they could... 8) which sword is better in combbat? totally depends on the circumstances. If it is for a self defense situation in cvilian life against unarmored opponents the katana is the better choice - the longsword needs more space to be used effectively and sucks at close confined spaces and it cuts worse, also is slower to draw. If you are fighting on a battlefield, in special if you are up against armored opponents, the long sword clearly is the better choice. And guess what...thats cause those swords were created for these destinctive purposes....its just like asking which gun is better to shoot at 1000m distance a sniper rifle or the shotgun? nah guess what...but if you are talking about fighting inside a house with a distance of maybe 5 -m 10 meters you really should take the shotgun.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Orkar Isber (Estar) You are making quite a few sweeping statements there that aren't entirely true. The longsword was not merely a weapon of war, and the katana was not merely a weapon of self defence. The longsword was very much carried and used in civilian life, and this is precisely why the majority of surviving treatise teaching it relate to completely unarmoured combat in a civilian context. Both were carried in war, both were carried in civilian life. Whether there is a proportional difference in how many were carried in each context is something that could be debated, but does not change the fact that they were frequently being used for the same purpose. About the longsword being a thrusting weapon to be used against armoured foes, well, some were, but the majority were more universal than that. Surviving longsword treatise teach more cut work than thrust, except for those that relate to armoured combat. Longsword blades varied quite a lot, and even though there was a trend for going to more acutely shaped blades for thrust work In the 15th century, there was also a revival or more cut based blades with almost broader tips. As for comparing them to pole arms, they can be compared, but that finally is an extreme comparison. Of course a polearm is better than a sword for most instances, but a sword is better for all those occasions were a polearm cannot be carried, is cumbersome for the job it is needed for, where there is far less armour etc. Context is everything, polearms and swords excel at different things, and are better than one another depending on the context of the situation.

[@OrkarIsberEstar]

Academy of Historical Fencing ok i did make an overstatement but what i wanted to say is the longsword was a primary weapon, the Katana was a secondary weapon. The katana was usually the weapon the Samurai fell back if his primary weapon broke (like Naginata) while the longsword was the primary weapon used with a dagger as backup. You didnt use a longsword as sidearm. Also The longsword is too large and cumbersome to use in self defense - the treatises deal with duells mainly not actual self defense. If we talk about arming swords then yes that is perfectly fine, it is a sidearm, a secondary weapon and was indeed used for civilian protection. A longsword is meant for the battlefield and a duell. A Katana is more meant for a duell and self defense situations. To point out my point . a poleaxe aint used as self defense weapon cause its too cumbersome to use in civilian life and not used as sidearm because its just too big to wield another big weapon ^^ Yes both weapons can cut both can thrust but longswords were made to be able to pierce gaps in armor AND to cut of course but the focus is on thrusting (yes mainly but we talk about average dont we?) Yes context is everything thats what i try to imply - you cant really compare Katana and longsword as they were created for different contexts. In late medieval europe when longswords were around you encountered a lot of armor. The katana mainly encountered light and no armor (yes Samurai did have various kinds of armor but the Katana wasnt intended to fight those

[@crazyscotsman9327]

+Orkar Isber (Estar) You lost me as soon as you said the long sword is too large and cumbersome. A longsword is not cumbersome at all. (I know I have been training with steel ones for 4 years now, and I know there are those who know their stuff then me. However I am very familiar with a longsword.) While it was more common for the arming sword to be used for self defense it was for different reasons, it is the easier weapon to carry, (and one can carry a buckler with them very easily which is why in my opinion it was the more popular weapon combination then the Longsword by itself besides it also being arguably easier to get good with.) However if you carry even a long longsword which is in the realm of 37 inches it is still not that hard to draw and defend yourself. (I did tests with this as well, and I was able to draw from the hip a 37 inch longsword in less then half a second when I was given a random call to draw. And that was from literally only an hour or two of practicing the draw, and shifting into a parrying position.) Now earlier longswords focused more on the cut I would argue that when plate armor became more widespread it adapted to becoming more thrust focused to get through armor, but before I would say it was more focused on the cut or piercing mail which is why it never became a curved weapon as a Grosse Messer is a completely different animal to a longsword in my book. But that's my two cents on it.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Orkar Isber (Estar) Of course the longsword was carried as a sidearm and in civilian life. It is not cumbersome, or too large. In fact, it is frequently in proportion to the katana for the size of the user. Neither was it used that often as a primary weapon of war, swords were almost always secondary, including the longsword. Longswords were not made to pierce gaps in armour, some were, a great many were not. There is not a focus on thrusting with longsword. Go and look at any longsword treatise, and unless you are looking at specifically armoured treatise (which are less common anyway), the focus is very much on the cut. Just look to German longsword in the liechtenauer lineage, the most commonly practiced source for the longsword. At the core of the system are the five masterstrikes. Four of which are dedicated to cutting, and 1 (schielhau), can be used for both, though is still principally for cutting. We aren't talking about armoured combat, because that is not the context or scenario we are considering. Longswords were carried in civilian life and became quite fashionable, and going into the renaissance a great many more complex hilted versions were manufactured in great numbers for this purpose.

[@OrkarIsberEstar]

Academy of Historical Fencing maybe we have different ideas when a longsword is catually a longsword. For me the term longsword applies to swords that are meant to be used 2 handed and lengthwise reach the chin of the wielder if the swordtip is on the ground. Bladelengths of at least 100cm not included the handle or pommel. And anything that is actually as big or even bigger than the wielder id count as great sword. Yes in treatises longswords are used for cutting (like Zornhau) but really it is a straight blade with quite often a very pointy tip and narrow weak of the blade that clearly favors thrusting - it has enough mass to cut well anyway and in a civilian or duell context for which the treatises were written, armor was usually no concern unless we talk about tournaments but we also have treatises for those who also deal with other "classical" tournament weapons. Yet as far as i know the longsword was in war more used as primary weapon it was simply too long to be carried along with something else and not get in the way - archers may have had one as back up as they didnt have to carry it around in melee but a poleaxe and a longsword? Besides that for a self defense weapon afaik shorter weapons were more common like the Katzbalger or the Messer - cause self defense situation would usually occur in confined space and a longsword aint good in a narrow street or bar.

[@gundanium3126]

i have a few questions regarding the different techniques used by long sword and i hope you answer in a some what timely manner them as Wikipedia does not really go in depth with how they were used in combat. I have seen demonstrated in the Nova episode that investigated the Ulfberht viking age broadsword ( this sword has replaced the katana as my favorite sword of all time, however only if it is a true Ulfberht and not a cheap contemporary knock off) as well as some other documentary that these weapons cut more with its weight then a sharp edge. in these documentary i have heard that every part of European Long sword could be used as a deadly weapon. i have seen someone strike holding the edge and using the cross guard as a hammer, or that the pummel could be used to deliver a killing blow. also as you can use a long sword as a spear like weapon with the techinque called half swording wouldn't this make the long sword Superior in in closed spaces compared to the Katana if both swords are already drawn. for a purposes of this sinaro it will take place in the american Highlander series were immortals are real. so a (i picked the centery as a aproximent date) 14th century immortal knight washed up on japans shore. he finds a inn and is then attacked within the closed space of the inns halway by some samurai both groups having swords drawn. in my minds eye the European he processed to kill the samurai by using half swording thrusts to to beat the katana 's fast slash with a thrust. is this how the fight would end up or would the immortal lose his head and die?

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+gundanium Yes the whole longsword was used as a weapon, however not as much as some people would have you believe. The use of the pommel and crossguard, and halfswording techniques, all of that is most commonly found in armoured combat, where you have protection from cuts, and the fight changes drastically because of that protection. In an unarmoured fight those techniques are far less common, with the pommel perhaps being the exception as there is still a lot of closing, grappling and wrestling in longsword. As for dealing with immortals, well that changes things drastically, and is not something we ever give thought to. But were the situation you suggest to happen, I would expect the longsworsman to get his arms cut up so badly that he was incapacitated, and lose his head soon after.

[@gundanium3126]

thank you for answering my question so quickly its giving me quite a bit to think of. i gave the used the highlander style immortal thing as it was the easiest way to explain why a 14h century knight wound up in japan during the 14th century.

[@robinthrush9672]

I think scholagladiatora came across one or two instances of longswords being used against katanas historically. I may be misremembering though and confusing it with a different European sword. At the end of the day, Europeans respected Japanese swordsmen.

[@TomdeArgentina]

The curved weapon not only can cut better, provided the right contruction and technique, but is better as far as defence to deflect attacks. The easiest point of attack has always been the wrist and hands where the katana has a clear advantage as it allows to adjust the angle of the attack at the last moment with a slight mouvement while the straight heavier sword will be slower. I also believe the sword showned could loose its tip from a fast katana attack aimed at breaking it wich would be possible if the long sword user tries to fight defensively and wait for an opening to stab.

[@mrkiky]

+TomdeArgentina I think the steel quality would have to be pretty low for you to be able to break the tip off on purpose while the sword is held by human hands. Not to mention that your strike has to be fast enough not to leave you open which would make it less powerful.

[@quegames4786]

+TomdeArgentina Bear in mind that's due to relative size and strength of the person , Europeans are generally larger and stronger (on average) so it is simply proportional, the Katana's weight is pretty much the same its not inherently faster and why is it better at blocking? Why is a curved sword better in defence?

[@TomdeArgentina]

***** I understand your point. I'm assuming a successful faint answered by a failed parade - because there's no real attack - and then the hit to the tip - from a safe distance - . There are other situations when the combatant with the longsword can let his sword be more or less idle.

[@mrkiky]

TomdeArgentina I'm still not convinced that would do it, even if 2 people would be trying to make this happen on purpose and just slam the flat of the tip with the edge of the katana. At least if you take into consideration modern springy steel, that's still a pretty thick slab of metal. Maybe steel that was used historically would be more prone to this, but it's always more difficult to take materials into consideration rather than just design. On the other hand, using modern materials could simply make what was formerly a design flaw, not be a flaw at all and would make speculations inaccurate. Who knows...

[@TomdeArgentina]

Of course, certain modern materials with modern craft would make it amost impossible to break it whatsoever with human strength. But I've seen modern swords in combat and they do break...

[@qiangluo1974]

katana is stiffer. it less likely to flex if entry angle isn't so good. when cutting an unpredictable moving target katana is easier to bite into the material before it start to flex. longsword need better entry angle or it will flex before it can bite deep enough.

[@qiangluo1974]

the main disadvantage of katana is that it has too short of the reach against a longsword. i don't really mind the disc guard. the disc guard also protect the sides and less restricted to your movement.

[@quegames4786]

+Jarlath Burns 'Longswords are more defensive weapons' What on earth gives you that idea? I'm not mocking but seriously a weapon in two hands is an offensive weapon. You can defend but you really aren't as good (i'm talking unarmoured) the defence is not great especially compared to sword & shield. You want to kill the person as fast you don't want to stay off you don't have shield to aid defence you're more vulnerable. Even if you are correct (which I cast serious doubts on) then its not the inherent property of the sword but the style in which you fight

[@quegames4786]

Ok so I misread you but that's still the style not the sword. Also I thought you'd said the Katana was more defensive, probably me misreading you? And I now am going to make a request of evidence because i find it hard to believe there is significant difference in terms of defense vs offense. True the Samurai claimed to not care about death but they wouldn't get very far with a style that didn't emphasise reposts etc. I think, if you look deeply at the styles, there's very little separating them a move here and there but the overall feel is the same

[@googleuser9730]

What was the name of the sword that the European soldier on the right was using?

[@duksingchau8948]

+Anthony Genaro I assume you mean the guy in red? A saber.

[@googleuser9730]

Oh thanks.

[@duksingchau8948]

Np.

[@burt2800]

+Anthony Genaro +Duksing Chau It's spellt sabre ;)

[@duksingchau8948]

No its not. ")

[@gwynbleidd1917]

They actually cut pretty equally if they're of equal quality. Idk wtf you're talking about.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

We've done loads of cutting with both, overall the katana a little easier due to the curve providing a natural draw, which is one advantage of curved blades over straight, and they often carry a little more mass in the tip which helps too. No doubt longswords can cut very well too.

[@LCO213]

Which is "better" is a matter of perception, individual skill, and even the quality of the specific sword. Not all long swords, and not all katana are created equal. However, people don't have a need for swords anymore so this is a pointless argument, which seems to be debated by biased fanboys and not people who actually train formally in sword arts. I love all swords and own many different styles, but I am most skilled with the katana so to me the katana is better.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+LCO213 Individual skill is always an overall important factor of course, and that will have an effect on the fight, just as the weapon will. If you watch the video it is not which is a better sword, but which is better in a particular context of putting them against one another, and that is where they can be compared. Quality shouldn't be too much of a problem, as most katana and longswords at the time period that they existed were well made, at least as far as we can tell from remaining examples, and then the quality should rarely have an impact on the fight. Not having a need for swords is not a reason not to discuss a subject, otherwise why does anyone even bother training In sword arts? As for the argument being made by fanboys who don't train in sword arts, you may be true in many cases, but I have been training with swords in martial arts for 20 years now. I too have a love of a great many swords from around the world and different time periods. You have to take skill out of the equation when comparing weapons, because you need to be objective. Establish how the swords will do against one another, or may do, and then you can put them into the hands of fighters and see how the individual skill effects the fight. So a sword that would have an advantage can give a lesser fighter a greater chance for example. Or unbalance what would have been a fair fight.

[@daric_]

The funny thing is that both weapons were more like "backups". In war, soldiers in medieval Japan and Europe were more likely to use pikes or spears and bows. So people perpetuate the "knight sword vs katana" conversations when the two a) most likely never met in actual combat and never will and b) were used much less often in warfare than the weapons mentioned above. It's like debating whether Justin Bieber or Michael Jackson would be a better president of the United States. The question is odd and there is no hard, empirical evidence that one could beat the other. It's all hypothetical.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Daric Indeed, and that is what makes them well suited for comparison, is that they largely served the same purpose and were carried in the same context. As for whether they did meet. The encounters between the Japanese and Europeans in the renaissance resulted in a number of small skirmishes, often aboard ships, but sometimes on land too. Sadly we will never know exactly what swords were used in these encounters, but it is certain that they would have clashed with swords. Longswords of varying types were still used at that time period, though it is more likely that variations of sidesword and rapier were used. First hand accounts of combat rarely describe the exact weapons in use sadly, but either way, the subject interests people, and that is why we discuss it and put it to the test sometimes. IF you were to try and teach something specific for it or run a club based on it that would be far fetched and a little silly. But we do it as a little extra curiosity for a little fun.

[@daric_]

Academy of Historical Fencing Definitely. I agree with what you say (to the extent that I understand the subject of historical fighting...which is next to nothing). I wasn't trying to come off as insulting to you. The video and research were great. It was more like an observation on the internet's obsession with the topic and there is no real final answer due to the reasons you and I mentioned. But the internet will continue to try to find an objective answer to which is better. However, most experts explain that the skill of the combatant is often much more important than the weapon itself.

[@secutorprimus]

Different blades, different cultures, different styles, different purposes. Bam, just described most of the argument.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Not really. Because this discussion isn't about which did a better job at its intended purpose, but how they would fare against one another in a one-on-one fight. Comparing specific performance of two swords at particular actions is very different to comparing how they will compare against one another in a particular context, as this video outlines.

[@chopstick1671]

Im a bit late, but are we not gonna talk about the fact longswords are often double-edged where katanas are not?

[@ipbthunder]

i don't know if this is true but from what i have found online most katanas are around 40 in long.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+ipbthunder Total length many are yes. The measurements I talk about in the video are blade lengths.

[@xqiuvmah]

all great points, the only thing i would disagree on is your deliberation on which is tougher and the protection of the cross guards. i think the katana would be far superior to the long sword in terms of durability because the steel used in forging the, historically accurate ones at least not the cheap replicates labeled zombie killers or some shit like that, katanas, and the way they were forged with the dual tempered steels with a hard edge and softer spine to allow flex while keeping a razors edge. now it is true that the katana's cross guard has limited to no defensive ability and that is because it wasn't designed for parrying and blade locks. everything about the katana is designed to be fast and incredibly powerful.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

The way a katana is made allows for a harder edge certainly, although that doesn't mean a longsword can't be every bit as sharp, only that the katana should hold that edge for longer. Of course few fights and even melees last long enough for that to have an effect. One thing that is certain though is that the katana does not flex well. The softer spine helps the blade to not snap as the front is so hard it would be brittle by itself, but this also means they do not return true. When a katana is put under a lot of pressure you will often find that spine breaking, if you like, and the blades deforming massively. And I do mean very well made traditional blades. As for speed and power, well not really anymore so than the longsword. They are typically the same weight proportionally. The Japanese made their blades the way they did largely because of access to poor quality materials, forcing them to do a lot of work to create good quality blades with few impurities.

[@Caelinus]

"The Japanese made their blades the way they did largely because of access to poor quality materials, forcing them to do a lot of work to create good quality blades with few impurities." In my opinion this is the most impressive part of their sword smithing, and is often what gets lost in the Katana worship. The smiths managed to make swords that performed very well using sub-optimal materials. That is a significant feat of engineering and problem solving. The idea that they are magical unbreakable super weapons disguises the real accomplishments made by their smiths, assigning myths to them rather than recognizing what they actually did.

[@itsmederek1]

The curvature on the katana is not enough to lend an advantage in cutting. They are only curved because of the heating process. The curvature is a byproduct not a feature.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Derek Warner The reason for the curvature does not change the fact that it is a feature, and yes it does make a difference to cutting. Have you tried doing cutting tests with curved and straight blades? Assuming a similar quality of blade and sharpness of course. The difference is certainly noticeable, and that is hardly surprising, because any amount of curvature will provide a natural draw to a cut.

[@TorianTammas]

Thanks for the video. I appreciate your work. You took a theme which is loaded and one soon might get into heated arguments. I agree that we have terms which are loosely defined as it was never a clear classification. My perspective is clearly influenced by the German Langschwert (Longsword) as it was used in the Fechtbücher (Fencing Manual). I personally consider a Londsword a sword with does not have a much longer blade then a "typical" sword but it has a longer grip so you can use it with both hands. The sword you use is more along a one and a half hand sword or a Bastardsword. As Katana and Longsword are "typically" used with two hands I think a representative with a longer grip might be better. I do not want to nitpick you do great work!!

[@Gibraltar_tank]

For everyone who just came into the comments to learn the answer, NONE IF THEM depends on who weilds it and katana is a back up weapon

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Most swords have been backup weapons in most periods of history. Though both of these were worn in civilian wear and used in self defence, as the context in this video outlines. As for the 'depends on who wields' them argument. That is always significant, and discussed in all my videos, but the weapon has an effect on the likely outcome too. Some weapons have an advantage over others in a scenario. That can tip the balance between evenly matched fighters, or give a lesser fighter a fair chance for example.

[@Giagantus]

Easily the best comparasion

[@MyouKyuubi]

I would go for the katana, not only does it cut better because of it's curve, it draws better because of it's curve, it's compatible with natural arm drawing movement, which makes it ideal for atacking while drawing the sword... The longsword can't do that, it's longer, and has no curve, you have to spend about a second or so drawing the blade first, then another second getting ready for battle... whereas the katana draws and attacks in the same second. Now as for the length, if the longsword can deal a killing blow within the range of the katana wielder, the katana can draw fast enough to attack the other persons drawing hand. Remember, drawing a katana out of its hilt is an attack of its own, its extremely practical and extremely fast. Most tales about using katanas sound something along the lines of "It was over before it even began." pretty much, such tales do not exist for broadswords or longswords because they are completely straight, and drawing them from their hilt is an extremely time consuming and awkward movement.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Madao Actually you can draw and cut from the scabbard with a straight blade, but the longer they become the more difficult it becomes. Many of the smaller longswords (bastard swords) can easily cut from the draw, but every inch does make a different to speed and difficulty. It is a lot faster than you might think though, particularly as they were often carried In either a loose suspension system with a wide range of movement, or actually carried in the hand (in their scabbard). Also, there is a lot more to a fight than the draw. The massive emphasis on the draw is largely edo period (really after longswords). A great majority of accounts of Japanese sword combat is recorded as with swords drawn, and European encounters with the Japanese never make any note of the fight from the draw.

[@MyouKyuubi]

Academy of Historical Fencing "Actually you can draw and cut from the scabbard with a straight blade, but the longer they become the more difficult it becomes." Hence why the LONGsword, is not a practical option. :3 "It is a lot faster than you might think though" Actually, it is a lot slower than one might think... I dont know if you have experienced that kind of adrenaline rush before, but in the heat of battle, 1 second can feel like five minutes. I've experienced it before, myself... many times. "and European encounters with the Japanese never make any note of the fight from the draw." Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a war between japan and european soldiers at that age? I can't remember any.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Madao If the longsword were not a practical option, it would not have been used. The Europeans evolved weaponry to fight a great many different cultures over hundreds of years. If the sword didn't work for it's purpose, it would have changed. Often arming swords were worn as sidearms, and they are on average about the same size as katana's. Longswords vary, but at the small end of the scale, they are often about in proportion to their user as the katana was to theirs. Adrenaline of course effects things, but it effects both fighters, I was talking in proportion. The difference in drawing a katana and the sort of small bastard swords worn in a similar fashion is very small, and most recorded fights happen from drawn swords, or with enough time to draw. The draw time is relevant to the argument, but so is a tonne of other factors. Every choice you make with a sword is a compromise. The katana is very short for a two handed sword, that in itself is a compromise, which is a disadvantage when fighting from drawn. So yes, in the instance where both fighters started very close, the katana would have a slight advantage, start further back or drawn and the longsword does. Every decision you make with a sword is a compromise, there is no perfect sword. No substantial wars no. However there were a lot of smaller actions, many on ships, some on the land. Often between ronin and merchantmen. Particularly there were encounters with the Portuguese and some English too.

[@MyouKyuubi]

Academy of Historical Fencing "If the longsword were not a practical option, it would not have been used." Armor is heavy, and limits movement aswell as cutting your stamina in half, you tire out much faster... You honestly believe people inventing one of the LEAST practical kinds of protection, would invent practical weaponry? Are you fucking kidding me? :P being an armored knight with a longsword against an unarmored samurai with a katana, would be like being a sports boxer with boxing gloves fighting against a martial arts master trained to kill people... You focus too much on the fight, and too little on the kill that ENDS the fight. You can have all the stamina in the world, but you will never, ever be as agile as an unarmored person, that in itself, is such a huge handicap, it may aswell render you irrelevant in a fight. "Often arming swords were worn as sidearms" What sword wasn't? lol. Greatswords probably werent, but... that's a different discussion entirely. "Adrenaline of course effects things, but it effects both fighters" Yes, so in those 5 minutes, one fighter would feel mobile and ahead of the game, whilst the other knows exactly what is coming, but is stuck still trying to clumsily draw his sword. I've experienced that kind of adrenaline rush myself, ALOT. I know precisely what it feels like to know exactly what's coming, but being unable to move fast enough to do anything about it. "and most recorded fights happen from drawn swords, or with enough time to draw." The golden rule, people treat others as they, themselves want to be treated, warriors were still scared for their own life, and kept to codes of honor because of that fear. So yes, i guess that kind of kills most of my argument, i suppose "Every choice you make with a sword is a compromise." Of course, it's all what you personally prefer, you accept a swords strength, but also its weaknesses because you feel that sword fits your personal fighting style, more or less, or you feel this sword is a good counter to another kind of sword/armor. "The katana is very short for a two handed sword, that in itself is a compromise" The katana's hilt is abnormally large because you are supposed to use techniques, and skills, and precision with the sword. Whereas a typical longsword is just for wildly swinging back and forth, with some occasional stabbing attempts in between. Basically, in a fight between swords of same weight, and length, the one with the largest hilt, wins... It's just basic physics, the larger the hilt, the easier it is to maneuver the blade. Yes the katana sacrifices length, but gains stability and parrying ability... In other words, it gains the ability to handle longer enemy swords. "No substantial wars no." Thats a shame, i guess we can never really know how it would go between a samurai and a... traditional knight, for instance. In any case, i personally believe the katana is one of the most adaptable swords in the world, and it only meant to strike, if it can kill in that one strike, otherwise, would stay on the defensive until an opening shows itself. : /

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Madao You think Europeans invented impractical armour? As for what sword wasn't designed to be worn as a sidearm? Well a great many actually. longswords can vary from small bastard swords upto small two handers, which cannot be worn. The montante, the zweihander, and the Japanese and Chinese or course had similar weapons that were not intended to be worn as sidearms, hence why both of those developed styles for two people to draw each others sword, or carry the sword in hand, or on horseback etc. The sword with the largest hilt doesn't win. Longer leverage makes for faster snapping actions, but shorter hilts are more agile, again there is no perfect answer. "Whereas a typical longsword is just for wildly swinging back and forth, with some occasional stabbing attempts in between," No it isn't. In fact longsword is just as refined as the use of the katana, and in so many actions is actually the same. This is the sort of nonsense spouted by 19th century collectors who knew nothing about swordsmanship. Another thing, if you look at the context I setup in this video, it was for an unarmoured bout between the two. As both weapons were commonly carried for civilian self defence, as well as many other unarmoured scenarios such as combat on and around ships. The katana is a good sword, that much is not in doubt. The concept of the katana is only meant to strike if it can kill in one strike isn't quite true. Really it is not that different from the longsword, or a great many other weapons. Fights with longswords were not the theatrical type you see in the movies., First principal is to strike your opponent down with a single strike to one good opening, just as would be done with the katana. And an emphasis on incapacitating and killing strikes exists within all systems, and injury reports support this. Go and look at original fighting treatise for the longsword and some of the similar texts that exist for the katana and you really will find so much in common. It is also of note that the Europeans had regular contact with the Japanese in the 16th century, and yet over the next three hundred years of sword usage and export, the katana never influenced European sword design in any way. Swords are designed to be used within the context and culture they are developed in, and against those enemies they may have to face. If it had been so universally useful, it would have caught on. Like the sabre did for example. The sabre was beginning to catch on in northern Europe in a big way around that time.

[@Templarkommando]

Here's my big deal. When you consider the differences between a Katana and a European long sword you're not looking at weapon differences that are so great as to make one extremely useful over the other. Each has strengths and weaknesses. A longsword has that tapered blade which would be excellent at getting through chain or plate. Supposedly, folding the katana yields a more durable blade that can hold an edge better. I'm not sure that I believe this gives a definitive edge (pun) over European weapons since the Celts were doing pattern welding since like the 2nd century A.D. I think it comes back to the question of style. If you've ever seen the movie IP Man (great movie btw), Master Ip, a master of Wing Chun basically says that a style of martial arts isn't excellent based on where it's from. It's excellent based on the individual skill and hard work of its practitioners. These skills aren't given a general stroke to classify them. There are bad swordsmen and good swordsmen in HEMA and in Kendo.

[@SidewaysGts]

+Templarkommando "Each has strengths and weaknesses. A longsword has that tapered blade which would be excellent at getting through chain or plate" Some context may be required here. Youre not going to literally pierce *through* the chain or plate. You didnt go through armor, you went a round it. Youd aim to get the tip of the blade in places not covered by armor, going around the plates to do so. Through the visor or neck, the armpits and shoulders, in the elbows, up through the groin, behind the knees- Etc. At best some longsword would have long, reinforced, needle like tips- These werent to necessarily break through the maille (Not to say it COULDNT happen, but its not something youd expect), instead youd jab a few centimeters of steel into the poor devil undenearth, getting him to recoil in pain- Hopefully opening him up for a more lethal blow. " Supposedly, folding the katana yields a more durable blade that can hold an edge better" This is largely just a myth. The folding of the metal doesnt make the sword inherently stronger- Its something the japanese did because the metal they had to work was "dirtier", with higher amounts of slag and impurities in it. Folding the metal helps drives these out. Carbons also basically an "impurity", and will be driven out as well- Which is why they only folded any particular ingot about a dozen times (give or take a few). The whole "whee layers!" is a trivial fact, and bullshit point assuming the smith did a good job and actually forge-welded all the layers into one uniform piece anyways. Europeans actually used to fold the metal to make their swords as well- About two *millenia* (not a typo, 2000 years) before the japanese were folding the metal for their swords. They stopped doing so when they were able to produce (as well as import- they were importing some of the best stills in production in the world at the time from the east, and did so for hunders of years) metal of high enough quality that these arduous steps became unnecessary. Katanas were actually quite fragile within the context of battle- They were easy to bend, and due to how they were differentially quench hardened in place of being tempered into spring steel, when bent- they wouldnt "flex" back. BUT this did allow them to utilize a relatively harder edge than what you saw on a european sword. Most katanas had a edge that measured about 60ish rockwell (with spines in the 30ish rockwell range), while most european blades had a relatively consisten 50'ish rockwell measurement throughout. This allowed the edge a bit of durability within the context of their intended use- Slicing unarmored opponents. Swords get damages during use, they dull, they chip, they crack. Use a sword, ANY sword, and youll get wear and tear. This helped katanas resist that wear and tear when cutting through bone. Theres SOME truth to the concept being asserted- But its often misrepresented by ignorant fan boys. Katanas are amazing weapons :)

[@Templarkommando]

That's all that I meant by getting through plate or chain. I didn't mean that you'd literally break through the armor, but that the tapered bit of the sword was really good at getting into holes that already existed in the armor. Mail by definition already has a bunch of little holes, so the game is to have a weapon that is small enough to fit in them. For plate, there are all the little joints and places where it's difficult for an armorer to completely protect.

[@jeffdanials5866]

The Katana is much better at beheading peasants who neglect to bow, while the longsword is for combat against an armed opponent.

[@mintyfresh4855]

why compare 2 different types of swords in the first place? Longsword is sword well used in the field as a PRIMARY weapon whereas the katana is just a reliable side arm for the samurai like you would with a messer or a dagger. Katana is known for its versatility of quick action in case of surprise; their quick draw and the techniques around them. Particularly it's very effective in an urban setting or in a building. Other than that, no samurai would charge into battle with the katana as their primary. They would use their Tachi, or spears, or naginatas, Nodachi and so forth which have much better reach. Or even using a bow and arrow if they are archers. Better to compare a nodachi with a longsword than the katana.

[@junkyyard2273]

Longswords were also sidearms because who would even use them against armor? Nodachis are more equivalent to greatswords than longswords due to the weight difference

[@kenichiotaku3693]

Wasn't the katana also known as the sword that cuts other swords? Also is a well known fact that a katana can easly pierce metal plates, slice through steel pipes and do damage against metal armor.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Kenichi Otaku Is this meant as a joke? I'd hope so, but after hearing people try and state these silly facts as real its hard to tell.

[@kenichiotaku3693]

Academy of Historical Fencing Yes, it's a joke. Althoug it's true that for some reason, katana has that nickname, I couldn't possibly belive a katana actually cuts metal since I never tryed it out.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Kenichi Otaku Thank goodness for that. Using a katana against steel armour is like trying to play chicken with a car when you're riding a motorcycle, you might put a ding in them, but you're gonna come off a mess.

[@kenichiotaku3693]

Academy of Historical Fencing Indeed. I understand that, I mean we have to be realistic. Tho there are a lot of fancy legends about the potential of a katana, more or less true, it's still just a sword.

[@blut6781]

+Kenichi Otaku A katana could cut metal. If it was copper and an inch wide ;)

[@Toadyru]

how long does it take to make a true katana......how long does it take to make a long sword

[@ewabakowska6785]

+Lee Walter, well, if you make katana of equally shit material they used to have in Japan, then obviously it takes more to make a katana. Which is still a worse sword.

[@tomwilliams7326]

It's interesting when he says that the average longsword is 30% heavier than the average katana and later says that the longsword is 30% heavier. So basically a longsword and a katana of equal length and quality are likely to be the same weight? Quite honestly the better sword is always going to be the more weildable for a given enviroment, and for most situations, that is going to be a lightweight, long : you guessed it: Rapier.

[@tomwilliams7326]

+tom williams but it's okay to carry your $10k katana as a side arm.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+tom williams They are very rough averages of course, but yes, as a rule, katana and longsword are roughly in proportion to weight and size. Context is of course everything, and the rapier excels at civilian self defence for that reason. It evolved for that purpose, but the rapier still only existed on a comparatively short time period compared to the katana, so we have to consider how other weapons compared in different eras.

[@tomwilliams7326]

Academy of Historical Fencing The rapier, and polearms, are the superior weapons of this world, excluding ranged weapons.

[@AleksandrKramarenko]

+tom williams The weight of the katana is misleading because when thinking about it you probably don't factor in the size of the blade. I remember reading how somebody compared the weight vs size of a few different katanas and longswords, and then came to the conclusion that the katana is heavier for its size. I don't remember why that was, though. Maybe it was the different materials used in the katana? Anyway, if you look at the Wikipedia articles you can sort of draw the same conclusion: Katana 1.1 kg / 60 cm = 0.0183 1.3 kg / 72 cm = 0.0180 longsword 1.1 kg / 90 cm = 0.0122 1.8 kg / 110 cm = 0.0163 This is not exactly a scientific test but it does show you a similar pattern. If you look at the above numbers it shows the katana as always being quite a bit heavier per centimeter. I'm guessing that if you find a bastard sword of similar length to the katana and then compare the total weight, the katana will be quite a bit heavier. What this basically means is that European swords gave you more bang per unit of weight.

[@tomwilliams7326]

Sascha Kramarenko Well said sir.

[@alexwaren2030]

katana is generally worse, but that largely spawns from the japanese "bushido" culture; hence, no cross guard, and much less armor on the respective weilder of it compared to that of the longsword. Given the choice of what to use in combat though, I would prefer a mongolian composite bow and a horse.

[@Ranziel1]

+Alex Waren Samurai had some pretty heavy armor and later even purchased European armor. Everybody likes to stay alive. By the way, I'd prefer a crossbow and a castle wall in front of me.

[@TailicaiCorporation]

Honestly I didn't really watch the vid. If you are going for power, the long sword is easily better from a physics and engineering standpoint. If you are talking about ease of handling and speed a katana is much better. I am not sure really why this is a debate, because what would win depends on the user and not the weapon. And if it was based on knight vs samurai there are still variations to consider such as how much armor, what era, and setting. I would tend to settle with speed over brawn, but with these two a mere speculation simply doesn't work.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Then you should have watched the video. Firstly, longsword does not inherently have more power. It's typical greater length can result in a faster tip, but the katana often has more mass in the tip than many longswords do. The katana is a very powerful cutter, and in fact many longswords in the era of the katana taper to such acute points that their best cutting point is much further down the blade, and equivalent in length to where a katana would cut. Ease of handling and speed? Katana is smaller, but longsword often has more leverage due to larger grip, and often less mass in the tip, therefore one is not inherently faster, they are different and faster and slower at different tasks. The fact that the user is the overriding factor is a given, which is a statement I have made over and over. But some weapons have advantage over others, to the degree that it can give an edge to a matched fighter, or even up a fight between mismatched skill, etc. Armour - if you'd watched the video you'd have known that we are talking about an unarmoured fight, which is where both were most commonly used. Neither sword was a primary battlefield weapon, both were worn as secondary in war, and then in civilian wear in daily life. The concept that longsword is brawn and katana is speed is a popular culture myth. Please do watch the video before commenting, little point to any of it otherwise.

[@TailicaiCorporation]

+Academy of Historical Fencing First I had simply got caught up in the comments while the video was playing and i was tired. Now, though, I have watched the video and my answer still stands. I simply missed the unarmoured comment at the beginning earlier. The increased length of the long sword would create more exertion on the body period, and having more weight would only multiply that even if only inches longer. And I was talking about the katana having a fast draw speed and long hilt. I'm not saying I'm an expert on either weapon, or even that I've done extensive research (though I've done a little). I have held and used both for only a small amount of time and comparing the two my answer, as aforementioned, stands.

[@TailicaiCorporation]

+Academy of Historical Fencing Oh and not to argue, that is simply a defense to my statements. I have nothing against you or what you said in your comment.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

The issue of trying to decide on speed, or how much it exerts you is problematic. Partially because the construction is quite different, and partly because the methods often vary. A lot of longsword technique is done with rotational work, which doesn't exert the body too much at all. Also the lack of mass in the tip for many longswords, and the counter balance of the pommel mean that it can be more agile in some regards. This is all because there is a lot more to how a sword handles than just it's total weight, or even length. To give you a comparative example, the 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword averages about 1kg, and is known to be a very hefty and heavy sword that is physically exhausting to use. And yet a 1kg arming sword of the same length and weight would be considered agile. Why? mass distribution. The heavy cavalry sword has no pommel and a lot of mass in the tip. The arming sword typically tapers much more to an acute point, and is counter balanced by the pommel. So for the same weight and even size, the handling and pressures on the body are completely different.

[@TailicaiCorporation]

Cool that's good to know. I know that was explained to an extent in comparison to the katana.

[@toshir100]

objective enough, if a little sparce.

[@torsteinbarnard2713]

I am having a real time figuring out if this guy means to compare the swords, Japanese or European swordsmen, or tactics because he switches from one to the next instead of just focusing on the swords as stated. That renders this a moot discussion and rather pointless. You can't bring draw time into the discussion and say it is practiced more by one warrior so that makes that SWORD a better sword. That would be a practice and martial arts comparison which is a another discussion entirely.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

It is a comparison of the swords against one another in a set context, as outlined by the video. Therefore it needs to include elements of both direct comparison of the swords, and the likely methods in which they would be used.

[@torsteinbarnard2713]

You had some very interesting facts in the video and I learned quite a few things from you. For that, I wish to thank you. Strictly meant as constructive criticism; you just mixed too many tangibles into the comparison that have nothing at all to do with the sword itself. I tried to express that by pointing out the part about the draw and the amount of practice emphasized by Japanese swordsmen. At that point you crossed over into a discussion on martial arts training without recognizing it. By that, I mean the amount of practice or lack thereof, does not have any bearing on the quality or capability of one physical sword versus the other. You simply crossed into another topic, or subject if you will, and worked it into a sword comparison. The best way to compare swords(as intended or as the title leads one to believe) is to limit the discussion to the actual sword itself because users, tactics, and/or amount and type of drill are variables that are not an actual quality of the weapons in question and adds billions of unknown possibilities that mutate the discussion into other subjects entirely. You really need to ask yourself what do you want to discuss and then ask yourself "is this a quality or capability of the sword or is this a quality of a warrior, the martial art, or amount practice and use?" in order to set the proper boundaries to the discussion. In short, you should think of it as putting the sword into the hands of someone with no training, no experience with swords, no history of combat, and then you will focus on the swords themselves. I hope that makes sense. It is like handing a backward teenage farmer a Katana and his identical twin clone a longsword etc and then putting the two swords through their metaphorical paces. That would place things on a level that doesn't mix up sword qualities with schools of martial arts, duration and quality of training, amount of practice, and what have you. Those points are totally different subjects for comparison and cloud the discussion of two swords. You simply want it where the attributes stand alone and any foreign variables are removed/limited.

[@torsteinbarnard2713]

Once again for emphasis, I enjoyed the video and learned quite a bit from it. I am also a subscriber and my intent here is to share my knowledge with you and to help you. I am not just trying to be a jerk and act like a fool. Thanks again brother.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

The amount of training to draw the sword may be edging into a separate topic, but I suppose I mentioned that out of a sheer curiosity. The impact aspect of the draw is that due to the katana's size, it is faster and easier to draw, and also much easier to make that draw an attack, and that is why at those close ranges from a draw it has an advantage. About putting the sword into the hands of someone with no training. I don't agree with that. Context is everything, and that is why I outlined a situation and for context for these weapons to meet, rather than using them in a head to head competition. It would be perfectly legitimate to compare them against one another for specific tasks, but that was not my intention.

[@torsteinbarnard2713]

In that context, don't you think that this mingles style, training, practice, tactics, AND the swords? I guess it is more a matter of video title if you want to keep it in that context? I thought it was a comparison of swords and perhaps I hung on that. Either way, it was an informative video and I look forward to future videos.

[@GoatOfWar]

due to the extra weight on the european swords, the european swordsmen would physically have a slight advantage too.

[@dukeofburgundy4229]

+patrick dikkereet Longsword and katanas are usually of quite equal weight.

[@GoatOfWar]

+The Duke really?

[@ME-hm7zm]

I'm thinking the whole katana v longsword thing must have become a right of passage for WMA channels. All of the big names in WMAdom with YT channels (or websites) have done something on it, and at this point it's flogging a long dead horse, really. Hell, the discussion was old and tired when I first came on board for HEMA/WMA stuff a decade ago. But then again, what do I know.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+Michael Eversberg II In our experience there are few old and tired discussions in HEMA, perhaps the 'flat parry' :-). Constant development, research and progress can make all the difference rather than accepting an age old truth. People will always be interested in the subject, and it does no harm to experiment and have some fun with it. The biggest problem is that so many people only look at it theoretically, we do that, and put it into our sparring too. Ultimately the mixed weapon fighting is some of the most popular subjects on youtube, if people want it, we will provide it.

[@JustGrowingUp84]

+Academy of Historical Fencing "Flat of the strong, flat of the strong, flat of the strong!" Lol, sorry... :D

[@ME-hm7zm]

TheFilthyCasual "It's such a simple concept!"

[@AnwarHaikalRuslan]

I really want a katana, but I don't want to be associated with being a weaboo. I already have a langschwert, bastard sword, and crusader sword.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Owning a katana doesn't make you a weaboo, nor practicing with it. Preaching that it is the greatest sword ever made makes one a weaboo. If you want one, get one. I've owned a few, and am looking for another now.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

It certainly is a small sword yes. Many swords over time have been scaled to the user (though not always). How that scaling Is worked out is by the master, style, culture or user. For a round comparison, a katana for a 6' man would usually have a blade length around 30", whereas an equivalent European longsword for the same man would be around 38". So they are both small because the people were shorter, but also scaled differently to the user.

[@deanwhitley6365]

All I wanna see is 16th century knights armour tested against Longsword, Rapier, Katana, and Scimitar. With all four weapons strike the centre of the chest plate with 'traditional' slashing blows first and then with traditional thrusting blows. Record the impact/damage data from the first tests and then the penetration/damage data from the second tests. No funny business. No bullshit experts and no variations of impact zones just because "that isn't where knights/samurai would target". THEN get four highly skilled swordsman (proven master Longsword, Rapier, Katana, Scimitar) in traditional gear and have them spar for 3 min rounds in an open arena. Winner of the tests against full plate armour is obviously the better sword with the winner of the swordsman showing the weapons actual effectiveness in a capable persons hands

[@dablop1]

Well, the results would be consistent at "ohh look, a sctatch" This is primarily because a sword cannot cut through steel armour. Sorry I really do not mean to be a douche bag, but that is what that sort of armour is there to stop.

[@deanwhitley6365]

Regardless the data would still be immensely useful in determining key factors of a blade. I honestly don't understand what's so hard to get about a scientific study designed to gain data on swords. Seriously. I get that no sword mentioned can pierce the armour. And that's the point. Don't go for 'wow how fun was chopping into that' factors like in a Deadliest Warrior wank fest with ballistic dummies and stuff. Just 4 well armoured dummies designed to gain data for results. Hacking into pigs or fake corpses or anything else and logging the damage done isn't good science and will not yield a true result. This test will. Impact damage, penetration damage, slashing damage, speed in specific users hands (different users have different attributes) and also blade durability can be accurately logged. How in hell are you going to test a spring steel longswords durability vs a rapier against a ballistic gel dummy? It would take 100 users, 1000000 dummies and 10 years. Testing against armour will actually yield results

[@thegoodfooddude7395]

Ok so I gotta weigh in as a pro Katana person....well a pro Japanese sword person because a traditional Katana is a great weapon no doubt but Japanese swords were as much works of art and beauty as weapons of war and a person would consider a Japanese sword as a central part of their own soul....just shows you how respected and appreciated these weapons were and I know longswords were treated with respect as well in the Knightly tradition...I do not think either single sword is superior by any vast means they both do things well and other things they dont do so well, but I prefer a Katana as its what I know and what I am good with. I do own traditional european longswords and well to me they just feel slightly clumsier and less refined than a NoDachi or Katana or Wakizashi or even the western invention the Ninjato which is not a traditional Japanese weapon but it is based on a straight bladed Katana that was historically used very early in the Katana history, and I find this straight non curved version very comparable to a small thinner bastard sword and I think my bias is based solely on the Japanese blade profile which is thinner more narrow and slightly shorter. Being a shorter person I think this is why larger european swords are hard to weild since I am 5'8" which is dead in between your average height for a Japanese samurai who was typically around 5'5"-5'7" and a European Knight which ranged from 5'8"-6'3" on average so I feel scale may also have a lot to do with it as well. All in all the 30% smaller size on average is why I prefer Japanese blades they just fit me better.....I dont hate on anyone who feels European swords are superior they are majestic and Kingly weapons indeed, but for my money there is something to be said about the beauty and elegance as well as the ease of use and Ergonomics of a Katana.

[@casimiriii5941]

you should do a saber vs katana

[@casimiriii5941]

p.s. I think this is the most objective video on this (for what reason I don't know) rather controversial and polarizing subject. Good job.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

+David Craft I already have done!

[@voltron736]

Long Sword is best. Long sword, beats, battlestar galactica.

[@foxstar612]

But could a katana cut through a pommel that has been thrown?

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Only if it was forged from unobtanium.

[@mryayayify]

Or added some high-tech cutting aids to them.

[@mhaxen4081]

If he shaves his beard and takes off the shirt, he would look like Randy from Trailer Park Boys.

[@voidstar5563]

Katana more for mid combat Long swords well they are called LONG so they've got range. I watched a video about katana vs long swords, it turns out the katana outclasses the long sword. Katana in slash and piercing is much more heavier than a needle thin blade.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

Outclasses it how? Needle thin blade? A longsword is not that. I think you are also considering the percieved effectiveness of a blow, without considering the likelohood of a blow landing.

[@voidstar5563]

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Watched a video about. The katana has less range but more damage. The long sword in the other hand has more range. There was a test of the long sword vs the katana on cutting a block of ice. The long sword couldnt even do much to the block of ice. As for the katana it cut clean through the block of ice. Another test of the long sword vs the katana is armor piercing. There is a metal plate of armor in a training dummy. The long sword stabs the armor and dummy, it barely stabs through this sheet of armor. The katana did a much more dangrous job, not just the stab but also caused a large arc in the dummy. The katana outclasses the long sword BUT since the katana has less range, the long sword could have the chance to win in a fight. Both of these weapons have their pros and cons but In my option, I think the katana has more benefits because of the draw rate is faster and damage is much more deadlier.

[@ΝικηταςΡουτσακος]

You mean this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGbXpp6ihc-nd7c ?

[@616lordofdarkness]

does he know that a european swords crossguard isnt, only a guard , but also a weapon?, in combat a fighter would go close and strike the cross right into the enemys face... so well longswords also were made of better steel due to european smithing mills build since the 13th century...

[@hip-hophighlights3394]

Talk about the metal don't forget katana's cut, even matal.

[@Wafferman2000]

there is only one way to settle this, FIGHT TO DEATH!! with a Katana and a long sword respectively.

[@candiecalifornia5601]

the correct answer is Gun!

[@ironhorde2205]

european swords not even steel. retard europeans completed their first succesful steel work year of 1988

[@xpiredration1387]

@@ironhorde2205 they are not so retarded if they managed to colonize every shit they discovered

[@Ric885]

the hole topic of katana vs western sword is pretty stupid in my opinion. the reason why the swords are so "different" is because the japanese honor tradition, they prefered to specialise theyr fighting style for each purpose using an universal weapon (aka katana). that's why there were 100ds of different styles all using one sword. on the other hand western culture was about results. they prefered to have one tool for one job, but only few ways of how to use said weapon. An other problem I have with the topic is when people start talking about guards. Yes the tsuba ofers pretty much no protection, but it didn't have to. japanese styles were focused on killing the enemy befor he could kill you, having to parry wasn't realy a priority. in the end the topic people are trying to compare a jack of all trades and master of none against a tool that performs best at what it does but sucks at anythign else.

[@AcademyofHistoricalFencing]

That would be an issue if we were to compare them task for task, but that isn't it at all. We are comparing them against one another in a fight. That is of interest because during the 16th century and onwards there were quite a number of clashes between European and Japanese swordsmen. To consider what that would have been like is interesting. Also, as for the Katana parrying, there are plenty of parries with the katana, they just try to avoid edge on dead parries to minimise damage to the structure of the blade and edge.