Long sword VS Katana

The true winner...

Nuff said.

Close second:



1:00 in : "...Brings a Knife to a Gunfight"

My main reply for this was I have heard the entire European vs Asian weapon debate over and over and over... hence why I made the satirical response with the Indy clip. 

People can debate all they want, but I just say look at the history books and see which group held more power or dominated better on the battlefields.  There's your proof, as shown by history.

As for me and weapons... I'll stick with my latex boffer of fantasy design and enjoy just tapping or lightly bruising the flesh of my fellow gamers.

Okay...enter honest to god non-bias party.

This is an arguement forever had and will be till the day the mortal tongue lies down to rest. As with any FIGHT it boils down to the skill and proficiensy of the wielder; BUT this is NOT an arguement on WHO is wielding the blade -- rather WHICH BLADE is better.

The Katana is lighter and JUST as strong as the long sword. The long sword is way heavier, more blunt, yet does exactly the same amount of damage. Therefore the name of the game is which blade has the POTENTIAL (by any wielder) to be swung at a more deadly rate. The name of the game in sword fighting (from one who wields ACTUAL steel) is who-hits-who FIRST. Therefore the Katana allows for a faster and more effecient kill. They're both PROFICIENT and get the job done...but the deed will be executed three times faster by a katana.

And lets not even get into the WIELDER story...or else we're looking at Samurai vs. Knight. Then the knight...sorry to break it to you european buffs...but would more then likely not have stood a chance. Knights depended on brute strength with some technique (Their are many historically accurate portrayals of german sword combat online that you can find.) Samurai depended on technique, and proficiensy. Yes...the knight was fully plated up and was able to take way more damage to their gear...BUT they also moved as thus. Therefore allowing the samuai ample enough mobility to execute both sword and hand-to-hand techniques. Yes...the Euro-swordsman DID have a period martial art which you can find more of on youtube. But lets not speak of the oriental arts...so as said prior...hands down KATANA as a weapon.

OK, it's time for people to educate themselves before speaking.

If you have not seen Reclaiming the Blade (props to Jeff for recommending it) then you really need to see it.

After watching it a tome or two, think about it and consider your answer to this question carefully, then come back and voice your opinion.

Personally, the longsword was used in many more ways than the katana, and was often more durable than the katana, but they are both only tools.  It is the man behind the tool that makes one superior to the other.

The very idea that European knights were less skilled than their Asian counterparts is both ludicrous and ignorant, as both cultures were bred to a warrior background.  With iron being more prevalent in Europe, it was only natural that armoring techniques would be developed that would allow warriors to encase more and more of their bodies in metal, either mail or plate... or both.  Cutting weapons (katana) would grow increasingly less effective in this environment, as, outside of Hollywood, no slashing weapon is cutting through well made armor.  That is why alternative weapons came to the fore, so they could use their WEIGHT and MASS to break bones even through armor and shield.  

As regards the argument that a warrior in plate mail would be slow and clumsy compared to his Asian counterpart, that also is a fallacy.  It has been proven time and again that fully armored warriors could vault into the saddle, catch fleeing archers and even perform simple gymnastics.

People need to stop believing what they read, and seek out those who actually study these things, ARMA being a good place to start.

T

Okay...enter honest to god non-bias party.

This is an arguement forever had and will be till the day the mortal tongue lies down to rest. As with any FIGHT it boils down to the skill and proficiensy of the wielder; BUT this is NOT an arguement on WHO is wielding the blade -- rather WHICH BLADE is better.

The Katana is lighter and JUST as strong as the long sword. The long sword is way heavier, more blunt, yet does exactly the same amount of damage. Therefore the name of the game is which blade has the POTENTIAL (by any wielder) to be swung at a more deadly rate. The name of the game in sword fighting (from one who wields ACTUAL steel) is who-hits-who FIRST. Therefore the Katana allows for a faster and more effecient kill. They're both PROFICIENT and get the job done...but the deed will be executed three times faster by a katana.

And lets not even get into the WIELDER story...or else we're looking at Samurai vs. Knight. Then the knight...sorry to break it to you european buffs...but would more then likely not have stood a chance. Knights depended on brute strength with some technique (Their are many historically accurate portrayals of german sword combat online that you can find.) Samurai depended on technique, and proficiensy. Yes...the knight was fully plated up and was able to take way more damage to their gear...BUT they also moved as thus. Therefore allowing the samuai ample enough mobility to execute both sword and hand-to-hand techniques. Yes...the Euro-swordsman DID have a period martial art which you can find more of on youtube. But lets not speak of the oriental arts...so as said prior...hands down KATANA as a weapon.

What? I read it and all I can do is shake my head. Sad my friend, not saying eastern or western just your argument is has little fact.