This is sure to annoy the katana plunkers

[Sir Ulrich]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA[/youtube]
Showed that video to one of my friends who kept going on and on about how he thought the katana could cut through a european blade. I actually believe that European swords are better made than katanas are. Besides the katana would be more likely to bend due to the soft core and hard edge. European swords were made of a single piece of continuous steel that was tempered to bend back.

[Sir James A]

This is a debate that could get pretty wild, though being on a european-based forum, there's probably some justifiable bias. Having sat on both sides of the fence, I'll throw in my 2 pence worth.

Katanas have incredible heat treatment properties that would rival nearly all european blades. There's an extremely impressive japanese swordsman, Isao Machii, who has done some pretty insane things with a katana. Including cutting a steel pipe and cutting through a steel sheet without damaging the sword (). There's lots more on him if you google; the plastic bullet and the pea are jaw-dropping. Swordsman aside, the soft back of the katana is what allows the sharpened, hard edge, to stay that way without cracking. They will cut like there's no tomorrow, but that's about as far as it gets; they're single edged and not designed for thrusting, either.

European swords (longswords in particular) aren't likely to get cut through. Bent could be a mildly possible expectation, but you're talking about varying angles of impact, whether or not the holder is gripping and pushing the sword so hard it doesn't knock back into him before bending, etc. They are also great cutters, and their utility lies in the double edge and the easy-to-stab-with tip. "Combos", as we usually think of them, have extreme variety and practicality with a longsword.

Mythbusters did an episode a while back about a katana that cut through a gun. They never got it to work, and broke a few blades trying, if I remember right. Even with the gun barrel softened, it didn't work - and who would go into battle with a squishy sword?

In the end, a longsword would be awkward in japanese context, and a katana would be awkward in european context. I think the most reasonable thing I can say is that each weapon is designed with a specific intent when battling in a specific region and time period with specific styles of armor and combat - and each weapon excelled at performing it's specific intent.

Either one would do horrible, unspeakable things to an unarmored opponent with a half-decent strike. Dead is dead, as they say.

(I think the video is from a History Channel special called "The Samurai". Been a while since I saw it.)

[Sir William]

Yea, there's just a tiny bit of bias on my part...I appreciate the katana for what it is...a fine weapon capable of great and terrible things, but it is not bullet-proof or impervious to damage and it can NOT keep an edge w/out ever having to sharpen it.  You can thank Hollywood for the unwashed masses who believe all of the above.

I should mention, however, that the katana is actually quite good in the thrust- don't let the curve in the blade fool you, the tip is plenty sharp and penetration of lesser substances are barely noticeable.  I will allow though that the katana was built with the emphasis toward the cut; as anyone who's ever cut with one can tell you, they do excel in a pure cutting format.

Having said that, I am partial to the European knightly sword.  You all know most of the reasons, but it isn't JUST because knights used them; the double edged sword isn't just a tool of war, but a symbol of ages past, when life was hard, at times fleeting- whole nations were forged or brought down by fire and sword; every warrior needed one and every king could not rule w/out one.  Even now, the very image of a sword evokes knights on horseback, sword raised high in mailed fist, gleaming in the new dawn...

Or is it just me who sees that when looking on a sword? 

I'm also of the mind that if a Knight were to go up against a Samurai, (to be fair, we'll keep them in the same period, late 16th C) the Knight would win through superior arms and armor and perhaps even fighting tactics. 

Don't let that stupid show Deadliest Warrior mislead you- they're just in it for the ratings.

[Sir Ulrich]

Katanas were basically cutting weapons thats about it. They suck against armor, you'd probably damage the blade trying to pierce armor, you need something like an estoc to go through armor to thrust through the rings in maille or the gaps in plate. Considering katanas were probably used against unarmored masses of peasants they prolly did their job well for what they were functioned for, I still would take a European sword over a Katana any day cause whenever I wield a Katana it just feels awkward in my hands and has to be wielded and used totally different from a longsword. Longswords are just more versatile than the Katana, thus in my eyes better. Maybe it's cause I'm European and prefer the weapons of my ancestors, or maybe it's cause of the same reasons Sir William said. And no you're not the only one who sees that I sorta do as well.