Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Man.. I've stated many facts about the design and technique of Katana making which result in the unusual sharpness of a blade.

Only two cultures (beside some specialist blacksmith out there) that I know off make weapons like this.The Viking and the Japanese.

Because of this, I think Japanese wins on single edge cutting blade and Viking wins for double edge cutting blade.

If anybody mentioned long sword.. then right there... look at Viking broad sword.. it is better.

So Viking and Japanese wins IMO.

If you do not understand how special these swords are made and why it make them sharper, then you miss the whole concept.

But again, sharper =/= better. Its just sharper.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
If it cannot cut through armour that makes it a bad sword.Hitting the armour more times then a longsword can IS NOT GOING TO HELP.having a sharper blade is no help if it becomes blunt after hitting the armour. Besides the b*sterd sword is simply the best sword.who can Argue with a name like that?

The feminist are more fond of the broadsword.

I'm just kidding, I adore the fancy basket hilted broadswords. They are gorgeous.

david choe wrote:
Man.. I've stated many facts about the design and technique of Katana making which result in the unusual sharpness of a blade.

Only two cultures (beside some specialist blacksmith out there) that I know off make weapons like this.The Viking and the Japanese.

Because of this, I think Japanese wins on single edge cutting blade and Viking wins for double edge cutting blade.

If anybody mentioned long sword.. then right there... look at Viking broad sword.. it is better.

So Viking and Japanese wins IMO.

If you do not understand how special these swords are made and why it make them sharper, then you miss the whole concept.

You don't seem to get it. A viking broad sword would lose to both a 15th century longsword and a rapier. It has no thrusting power nor range.

 Soladrin wrote:

david choe wrote:
Man.. I've stated many facts about the design and technique of Katana making which result in the unusual sharpness of a blade.

Only two cultures (beside some specialist blacksmith out there) that I know off make weapons like this.The Viking and the Japanese.

Because of this, I think Japanese wins on single edge cutting blade and Viking wins for double edge cutting blade.

If anybody mentioned long sword.. then right there... look at Viking broad sword.. it is better.

So Viking and Japanese wins IMO.

If you do not understand how special these swords are made and why it make them sharper, then you miss the whole concept.

You don't seem to get it. A viking broad sword would lose to both a 15th century longsword and a rapier. It has no thrusting power nor range.

then a crossbow wins right?

IF any blacksmith who can make those sharpness edge and apply to the say weapon.. you would consider that weapon "magical" or powerful, +1, no armor save. ..LOL

Whatever weapons you think is the best, have the japanese or viking apply their "special" technique... and that weapon is the superior of that class right?

You keep missing the concept of this special sword making ability which makes it a superior blade. Once the blade is granted superior... the rest is skill. The superior blade will only add to the skill of the fencer.

#1 Special making technique is what make Katana superior than most sword. Alll swords has it + and - depends on situation. I won't get into that anymore. It is so childish.

The Katana technique is one of a kind and only Viking is another group who make superior weapons like this.

david choe wrote:


If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.

First of all, Viking swords were utterly terrible for the most part. What you refer to are Ulfberth swords that were extremely rare and valuable. Secondly, your "closest to a magic sword ever" is inferior to most if not all comparable weapons. I am not exactly sure how that is "magic". At all.

Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.

Yeah. Katanas are terrible weapons but make for good decorative pieces. So people can brag about "Yo dude, that sword got folded 42 times!" while never actually doing any fighting with it.

You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.

No, I'm a well-experienced sword fighter for a little more than 17 years now, having far more knowledge about the weapons in question than you do. You're not seeing swords as weapons, but...pieces of work. Decoration. Maybe even art if we want to go that far. I'm, as everyone else in here, just point out that as a weapon, katanas downright suck. They are inferior weapons that cannot even hurt an opponent with a very basic piece of armor. If you cannot penetrate basic armor, then your weapon is useless. The weapon's sharpness is useless as it immediately loses it in an actual fight. You cannot hurt your opponent, you cannot parry and you cannot use a shield or something akin to defend yourself. That means your weapon is trash. And being good vs. unarmored opponents is worthless. As I told you above: even with a mere kitchen knife, a single strike kills you. Sharpness doesn't play into it at all.

tl;dr: You love katanas and the way of creating them, but as a weapon, they horribly suck.

david choe, you don't know what you are talking about.

Give it up.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But again, sharper =/= better. Its just sharper.

Well yeah dude. It helps to have sharper weapon that is design to cut right? It doesn't hurt.

Let me ask you this, wouldn't you want the Katana or Viking weapon making ability to add to your weapon of choice so your blade would be sharper and won't break? Freaking yes! And they do have them.. those are weapons that powerful Kings or Knights used them or at least base on story.

However, the Katana is one of a kind... because of the technique of forging... it made their sword curved... so this technique might not work for a long sword. But using similar Viking technique... you can have the almost same effect and a superior edge than a typical european sword.

So again, argue with me all day about how stupid Katana is not the best... when science stated that only two cultures make special sharper blade than any other culture and why that makes them some of the best quality blade out there.

You could say this katana thread just became a little...








...edgy.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH.

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But again, sharper =/= better. Its just sharper.

Well yeah dude. It helps to have sharper weapon that is design to cut right? It doesn't hurt.

Let me ask you this, wouldn't you want the Katana or Viking weapon making ability to add to your weapon of choice so your blade would be sharper and won't break? Freaking yes! And they do have them.. those are weapons that powerful Kings or Knights used them or at least base on story.

However, the Katana is one of a kind... because of the technique of forging... it made their sword curved... so this technique might not work for a long sword. But using similar Viking technique... you can have the almost same effect and a superior edge than a typical european sword.

So again, argue with me all day about how stupid Katana is not the best... when science stated that only two cultures make special sharper blade than any other culture and why that makes them some of the best quality blade out there.

I would actually prefer a practical weapon that can actually kill an armored opponent, and also happens to kill unarmored ones dead too.

Something like a bastard sword, or a zweihandar, or a kilij, or a basket hilted broadsword, etc...

I agree with david enthusiastically. I remember there was a guy in Lupin the Third being able to cut through planes and gak with his sword. I mean, if that's not a glowing endorsement of how good katanas are in anime, then I don't know what is.

We... we are talking about anime, right?

Being able to kill an armored enemy is the most basic function any weapon has to be able to fulfill. Not only is it highly necessary, but...well, logic dictates that if it can take out an armored enemy, it might, maybe, be able to do the same to an unarmored one.

And really, less Hollywood please. One body hit will take you out right on the spot. No "Ugh I got hit 8 times but will still keep on fighting!".

Katanas are cool and all, but if I had to fight a foe in medium to heavy armor, they would be the last kind of sword I would want to have.

Something like a Falcata works well in a wider range of situations, simply because of the mechanics of force. Unless you are fighting forces with substandard armor compared to say, platemail, simple force nets you much more than sheer sharpness.

 Sigvatr wrote:

david choe wrote:


If a long sword were using this same technique to make or very close ... then it would be of Viking quality. I give Viking props for making good weapon. But Viking is not the whole Europe. So to jude this sword, you have to respect how it was made and how sharp it can get. Viking and Japanese swords are in the top 1st place. It is the closet to a magic blade we can have. You heard of legionary European sword... well it was made something like this techniques to get the sharpness.

First of all, Viking swords were utterly terrible for the most part. What you refer to are Ulfberth swords that were extremely rare and valuable. Secondly, your "closest to a magic sword ever" is inferior to most if not all comparable weapons. I am not exactly sure how that is "magic". At all.

Again, with great sharpness like those blade you would need to maintain it a lot vs. metal surface like plate mail. But if you are a King or Lord, those special blade is cool to have. Not ideal for Army, unless you are freaking Samurai...This is why Katana is legionary for an army wide to have.

Yeah. Katanas are terrible weapons but make for good decorative pieces. So people can brag about "Yo dude, that sword got folded 42 times!" while never actually doing any fighting with it.

You seems to have no concept of weapons and art of making weapon at a... you just want to smash and say... will I kill you. This is just stupid.

No, I'm a well-experienced sword fighter for a little more than 17 years now, having far more knowledge about the weapons in question than you do. You're not seeing swords as weapons, but...pieces of work. Decoration. Maybe even art if we want to go that far. I'm, as everyone else in here, just point out that as a weapon, katanas downright suck. They are inferior weapons that cannot even hurt an opponent with a very basic piece of armor. If you cannot penetrate basic armor, then your weapon is useless. The weapon's sharpness is useless as it immediately loses it in an actual fight. You cannot hurt your opponent, you cannot parry and you cannot use a shield or something akin to defend yourself. That means your weapon is trash. And being good vs. unarmored opponents is worthless. As I told you above: even with a mere kitchen knife, a single strike kills you. Sharpness doesn't play into it at all.

tl;dr: You love katanas and the way of creating them, but as a weapon, they horribly suck.

yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol
Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana

dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.

Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!

enough of your disrespect.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Katanas are cool and all, but if I had to fight a foe in medium to heavy armor, they would be the last kind of sword I would want to have.

Something like a Falcata works well in a wider range of situations, simply because of the mechanics of force. Unless you are fighting forces with substandard armor compared to say, platemail, simple force nets you much more than sheer sharpness.

I'll take the Kukri.

I love seeing Katana haters. It shows in the dumbest ways just as a Katana fan boys are.

I just respect Katana and consider the best for what it was design to do.

LOL, so many uneducated or "arm chair" weapons expert here.

The dumbest statement that keeps coming up is I would rather use a mace or other weapon of choice to crack armor and not a katana. That is such as straw man argument.

I already told you every weapons has a niche and who ever is the best niche of that is the best weapon of that niche. However, it is still a weapon.

One can argue that War hammer is the best weapon vs. Plate because the niche for Warhammer is armor cracking. I wouldn't pick war hammer in a personal duel with no armor vs a Katana.

Katana niche is Sharpest cutting edge with control precision. That is the claim... I didn't say it cuts armor knights in half or shoot fireball.
Proof of why it has the sharpest cutting edge is how it is forged and the design of the weapon is how it has control precision. Example is the execution beheading leaving the head hanging.

Holy cow... the intellectually laziness of this discussion is amazing.

Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

david choe wrote:
I love seeing Katana haters. It shows in the dumbest ways just as a Katana fan boys are.

I just respect Katana and consider the best for what it was design to do.

LOL, so many uneducated or "arm chair" weapons expert here.

Yep, HEMA practioners are dumb "arm chair" weapons experts.

david choe wrote:

yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol
Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana
dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.
Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!
enough of your disrespect.

Actually as mentioned before it was the Anglo Saxons, not the vikings who mastered the paired iron and steel blank swordcraft, and were the only ones to do so outside Japan. Viking swordcraft was somehat different and did mix the metalurgy but in a different manner.

There are some surviving Anglo Saxon swords today, and they are remarkably robust allowing for how old they are. They dont hold an especially good edge, but they parry well do not easily rust and can take a beating, and are there for status as kuch as combat. An anglo saxon warrior would tend to prefer the axe, spear or mace though. The true nature of Anglo Saxon swordmaking was rediscovered by recreative archeology compared with surviving blades only recently. Due to the cultural apocalypse under Normal occupation this and most other forms of saxon culture did not survive.

Meanwhile you have still not addressed properly the huge list of advantages an equally skilled field rapier user would have against a katana user, both in and out of armour.

Sigvatr has the truth of it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.

Your arguement can basically be paraphrased as and is intellectually indistinguishable from: lol the Katana is uber, cause its +4 razor sword zomg

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.

Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

david choe wrote:

yep... you have no clue...
Viking blade sucks... lol
Katana going against Armor when those armor were not around Katana
dude, I fence too and your disrespect of Katana shows you have no clue about weapon. I also do MMA and I totally respect all forms of martial art. They all have it's advantages and disadvantages.
Your dumbest argument is claiming Katana vs. armor. Get a pole axe or war hammer for that. It is like MMA saying that Jujisu is useless in Heavy weight boxing. Not if it was a street fight and somebody is on the ground!
enough of your disrespect.

Actually as mentioned before it was the Anglo Saxons, not the vikings who mastered the paired iron and steel blank swordcraft, and were the only ones to do so outside Japan. Viking swordcraft was somehat different and did mix the metalurgy but in a different manner.

There are some surviving Anglo Saxon swords today, and they are remarkably robust allowing for how old they are. They dont hold an especially good edge, but they parry well do not easily rust and can take a beating, and are there for status as kuch as combat. An anglo saxon warrior would tend to prefer the axe, spear or mace though. The true nature of Anglo Saxon swordmaking was rediscovered by recreative archeology compared with surviving blades only recently. Due to the cultural apocalypse under Normal occupation this and most other forms of saxon culture did not survive.

Meanwhile you have still not addressed properly the huge list of advantages an equally skilled field rapier user would have against a katana user, both in and out of armour.

Sigvatr has the truth of it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Are you, after 4 pages, ever going to back that statement up by actul arguments that have not been re-butted a long time ago or are you just going to say the same thing over and over again?
Repeating an argument that has zero base isn't quite a good way of making a point.

Your arguement can basically be paraphrased as and is intellectually indistinguishable from: lol the Katana is uber, cause its +4 razor sword zomg

give it up with your straw man argument. Read what I've stated what Katana niche is.

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.

Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?

A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.

sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.

Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.

the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.

A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.

Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.

So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.

You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.

And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol

 Grey Templar wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.

Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?

A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.

Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.

For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!

For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.

For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?

IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).

Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.

You know what, this thread is done. You clearly won't accept that the katana isn't a special snowflake.

Even from an artistic stand point I think the Katana is overrated. I'd much rather watch a Jian in performance than a Katana Jian's are gorgeous.

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.

Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?

A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.

Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.

For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!

For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.

For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?

IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).

Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.

And we've all showed you have tons of other weapons would do that that same job and many others besides. Ergo, its inferior because its too specialized and other things can do the same job just as well.

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.

Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.

the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.

A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.

Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.

So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.

You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.

And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol

OMG, I thought I was going crazy... there is still hope in Dakkadakka community. Why can't they understand the niche of Katana???

david choe wrote:

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
sigh...
The katana developed in a vacuum of a arms race, other than some limited conflicts with forces outside the Japanese islands..the design was perfected for a very Japanese style of warfare..against other likewise armed opponents.

Hollywood has done quite a job of highlighting it as the supreme cutting implement and to be honest it is kinda a 3 foot razor blade...and is very good for slicing soft armored and lightly armored targets..a peasant killer.

the same usage that most European swords had in field battles..when confronted with plate armor, or even layered flexible armor..the sword does not preform well..usually requiring half blading or grasping the blade and using the point to go for gaps in the armor.

A mace..hammer (with a spike or pick on it), a axe or rondel dagger.was usually more effective in the defeating of the heaviest armor....and Katana never really had to deal with what would have been its biggest foe..metal rimmed large shields.

Back in my live-steel days I use to school the katana boys with a large shield and warhammer..used aggressively is hard to deal with and if sharp blades were used..the shield would hold up even better.

So for killing unarmored peasants..the Katana would excell..same as a falchion..broadsword..or anything sharp.

You must remember that European weapons had to deal with and adapt to a much larger and varied set of defenses and offences..and were abandoned when firearms pretty much leveled the playing field..in japan, the isolated nature of the islands let the sword linger for alot longer than elsewhere.

And unless anyone has fought for their life in mortal combat against a armored and armed sword wielding opponent while be likewise equipped..we are all somewhat "armchair" just some have a bit more grasp at how the weapons preform and how to maneuver with them, I did alot of re-enactment combat prior to joining the army..and would still not qualify it as anything other than a enthusiastic amateur..or a trained enthusiast.
Now if we want to talk modern combatives..that I can safely say I have some real world experience. lol

OMG, I thought I was going crazy... there is still hope in Dakkadakka community. Why can't they understand the niche of Katana???

Because the niche of the katana has no points. It's niche is the same as any hard object, it can kill people.

Yeah. We'll be sure to use our Katana's next time we need to go out and kill some peasants

 Grey Templar wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the katana should be respected for what its designed to do. look cool sitting on a mantle piece or cutting the head off a prisoner. But for killing people on the battlefield its pretty piss poor.

yeah dude, but Samurai usually have spears or pole arm for that. Katana is a side arm. Do you consider a 9mm piss poor, no... AK 47 or M16 is the main killy in battle field.. but 9mm is a side arm and all around carry weapon.

Holy crap... you think Samurai walk around with long bow or a pole axe all day?

A 9mm can actually do the job of being a weapon, the Katana can't.

Really, the thousands of heads not attached to the body would disagree. The thousands of Japanese pleasant that were slaughter by it would disagree.

For the 6 pages now....get this to your head:
Best design for cutting and control because of the sharpness.
Yes, it is a side arm and nice to carry around as status symbol. Also not heavy. Very killy if you need to use it right then and there. A great personal self defense. It is a Sword!

For War, it is a side arm. One of the best practical side arm sword. Very light and elegant. You want to carry around a bastard sword all day? Much lighter than most european weapon to carry as a side arm. How often would a person pull out a sword to fight? Not much. So lets carry a weapon that is light and killy if need be.

For day to day, a personal self defense weapon.
For slaughter vs. defenseless or none skill enemy like rogue or village rebellion rebels. You want to bring a heavy pole axe and chase around fast moving target? It is a sword and it is light. It is a great weapon in a city fighting where movement like running around is involved. You want to run around after people with battle axes?

IN the sword category, it is great for day to day use of a sword (which is not much, but as a symbol of protection).

Dude, it has it niche for what it does.
I told you many many usefulness.

And we've all showed you have tons of other weapons would do that that same job and many others besides. Ergo, its inferior because its too specialized and other things can do the same job just as well.

The different between you and me is that, I never claim that long sword or claymore were useless or sucks like they way you have stated as a Katana hater. I always mentioned that Katana has it niche and out perform it's niche vs. other weapon tools. I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.