Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Abomination]

So I'd favor a rapier with the extra reach to get that first hit in and then run the hell away while your opponent bleeds out, bonus points if he tries chasing you.

I'm picturing an episode of Benny Hill in Japan.

Need a few of those Japanese paper door hallways to get lost in.

 

[Tuxedoman]

snip

I believe your point has already been addressed and I don't need to address it further. Nice to see that you haven't read through the thread though.

Im the opposite, I don't know a whole lot about the assorted Italian teachings and have learned nearly exclusively from German teachings. Flat vs Edge im thinking has its advantages and disadvantages based on the situation you'd use it in.

I believe what we have learned here today is that, indeed, you can not cut through a rapier with a Katana.

It certainly very interesting to see such differences. If you don't mind me asking, what school(s) are you associated with, and what country are you based in?

But yes, I believe we can definitely say you cannot cut through a rapier with a katana, or armour for that matter.

I'd say our school is based off of Hema, but not Hema affiliated? It started out as a bunch dudes who were sick of the politics in Naama, Hema and other large bodies so they went to form their own school where we just study what we're interested in. Its not an 'official' school though. We basically do Longsword, Rapier, Messer and Spearwork/formation stuff.

If you're meaning historical teachers, I've mostly seen the German stuff. Meyer, Ringeck and Wallerstein are the big three, but i've glanced over assorted Italian stuff such as Fiore, and had a look at Tybalt rapier. "He who waits for his opponent to strike will have a poor and joyless art" sums up the methodology we're going by (basically a direct quote from... Wallerstien? I feel I may have the wrong master there...). Strike first, and strike so that you're defending yourself while you're attacking.
Don't quite have that part down.

As for where Im based, i'm one of the New Zealand combatants. Really wish I was in Europe, dem crazy Poles have so many things I'd love to go to

 

[Atmos Duality]

*snip*Not even the Japanese liked the Katana. This ridiculous wankery over it is just bizarre.

I'm pretty sure the wankery came about because it looks cool, and its surge in popularity stems from an unfortunate period of time when a significant number of gamers worshiped Japanese (around the mid 90s to ~2005) resulting in grossly exaggerated, and misinformed assumptions about the weapon's actual capabilities or even usage in practice.

Or as a more callous "internet historian" once put it "Freakin weeaboos and their anime."

 

[Wyes]

snip

Samurai were somewhat equivalent to the knightly class of Europe - they could afford armour.

As for that video - I've seen it many, many times, and I'm far from the only person who's realised how full of crap it is. The two swords get swung in different ways (because the guy using them doesn't know how to use either), the longsword looks like a cheap replica that hasn't been sharpened properly, for that matter the armour looks like cheap LARPing armour rather than proper plate. It is not a good test at all and we shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

If you want good videos, here;


In fact, watch his whole series on katanas. This is a man that knows what he's talking about, and gives a nice balanced review.


By 'poorly forged' I didn't mean that the Japanese didn't know what they were doing - but their forging techniques were designed as damage control for the shitty iron ore they had. This has been addressed time and time again in this thread.

I don't exalt Damascus steel or Wootz steel and so on, because as you say, they are the exact same thing - but the thing is that the Celts and so on were doing it very early in their history (~700 AD) and it was then abandoned when they could create good quality mono-steels (in particular spring steel), because they were better in almost every way. I have no doubt in my mind that, if they had access to mono-steels, the Japanese would've been making their swords out of them. The thing with the softer core in the katana is that it means once the sword bends, it stays bent. This is not true of the spring steel used in later period European weapons (of which the rapier was definitely one of).

The other thing is there's this myth that katanas are somehow sharper than other weapons - they did have harder edges, so it's possible they held an edge for slightly longer (when they didn't break off because they are also brittle due to said hardness). This makes them unsuited to use against metal armours. It's also important to note most modern katanas people are using are optimised for test cutting, and so have a thinner sharper edge than the historical katana.
The point is that they are definitely not suited for metal armour (but then, no sword was ever designed for cutting through metal armour), and leather armour still poses a problem (hence the samurai's own lamellar armour) for katanas, as it does with most other swords.

snip

Very interesting discussion.
I've heard mixed things about whether or not the katana parries with the edge or the flat, because I was aware of the brittle edge it has. It's worth noting though at least for the guy with the rapier that, really that encourages parrying with the edge, because you want to ruin the katana's edge.

snip

Ah, I see. Any chance you do re-enactment also? Because I have seen the argument for flat parries crop up in re-enactment circles. Still, I'm a little surprised at this popping up in NZ. My school (Stoccata) is based in Aus (y'know, the mainland ), and the only real proponents I've seen of flat parrying have been from the US.
Very interesting indeed!

And yeah, the Poles are kind of nuts...

 

[Nieroshai]

To rather compare historical examples of, say, a samurai and a musketeer, would be smarter. Weapons are designed for the type of warfare they were used for. Samurai fought in an armor very similar to steel lamellar and wore face masks along with their helmets. Rapiers were wielded by combatants wearing no armor or a simple breastplate. If a samurai were to charge a (gunless) musketeer instead of squaring off with him for a fencing match, the musketeer might get in a couple good thrusts. There is also a good chance that those thrusts would glance off or bend the sword, as Samurai armor was originally designed for warfare in which arrows were common, and the samurai would deliver several far deadlier strokes. From that point on, the musketeer is trying his best not to get his limbs chopped off by a mobile Cuisinart. If he were to wield a saber or cutlass, other swords from his era and geography, he would stand more of a chance and still have reach and a single hand free. Now if it was a simple duel between a fencer and an armorless samurai in the street, it still comes down to the first hit and the lethality of the first hit. The first rapier strike must hit a vital organ, and the wieldder must be fast and precise. Samurai trained in iaijutsu, the art of the quick-draw kill. Sometimes this would be done one-handed, sometimes not. Either way, a katana can easily sunder or ruin a foil or rapier, and when a cut is made it is likely to disable. A stab to the arm with a rapier causes bleeding and pain. A katana cut to the same place can do anything from a nasty gash to removal of the limb without sacrificing a drastic amount of speed.

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail. A samurai wouldn't mind bleeding a little, or even bleeding to death later after the fight, if he had the satisfaction of disemboweling and decapitating his foe.

 

[Wyes]

Seeing as how so many people seem to be confused as to the cutting power of katanas compared to other weapons, guess what?! I have another fine video;

snip

I'd just like to point out that the foil and the rapier are very, very different weapons. Rapiers actually have quite substantial blades, and it is unlikely the katana would break the rapier (short of bracing the rapier against something).

 

[Abomination]

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail.

Didn't Rob also just grab the fencer's weapon by the blade to nullify it, then deliver his coup de grâce? Don't get me wrong, total badass moment, but somewhat unlikely and unorthodox.

 

[Wyes]

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail.

Didn't Rob also just grab the fencer's weapon by the blade to nullify it, then deliver his coup de grâce? Don't get me wrong, total badass moment, but somewhat unlikely and unorthodox.

Gripping the blade is quite common in historical fencing systems.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snip

Naw, I haven't done any re-enactment yet as I don't have a soft kit, or a historical hard kit. I think it could be a lot of fun, but I don't know what the rules are like in Re-enactment and Living history circles. I don't like having to cripple myself by disallowing grappling and Half-Swording.

It could be that the older guys have been pulling knowledge from the US groups and teaching it to us, I dunno. If it stops the other guy from stabbing you, then all is well. Modern blades certainly wont get destroyed with edge on edge stuff, so I guess nowadays it really is a non-issue.

But yeah, there's a number of school up in the North Island from memory with a sizable(ish) member base. I think we're one of three groups in the South Island, and by far the youngest.

Mainland?

I feel this proves that WE are the mainland here.

And im getting off topic >_>

Edit: On topic, grabbing a blade is common. Swords don't magically cut what they touch. Plus you can grab the blade without actually touching the edge of it.
That, and if you're fighting with swords you would almost always be wearing some form of gloves, both in a modern sense and in a historical sense.

 

[Abomination]

This situation is not just limited to katanas versus rapiers. Watch Rob Roy to understand better: Rob wielded a broadsword and his opponent had a rapier. Rob took several jabs and tiny slices from the light piercing weapon. However, the battle ended when the broadsword finally split the fencer through the collarbone and several ribs. While only a movie, the situation is accurate in how the weapons work and fail.

Didn't Rob also just grab the fencer's weapon by the blade to nullify it, then deliver his coup de grâce? Don't get me wrong, total badass moment, but somewhat unlikely and unorthodox.

Gripping the blade is quite common in historical fencing systems.

On a foil, right? Not with a bare hand on a bladed weapon though... that's a way to lose, er, ALL your fingers.

 

[Abomination]

Edit: On topic, grabbing a blade is common. Swords don't magically cut what they touch. Plus you can grab the blade without actually touching the edge of it.
That, and if you're fighting with swords you would almost always be wearing some form of gloves, both in a modern sense and in a historical sense.

But the scene has him literally grabbing the blade with his bare hand. I mean, any fool could just realize that if they pulled the blade away from the grabber they'd just cause him to cut himself fairly deeply.

I can understand doing so with a leather or mesh glove but a bare hand? That's some Guts biting the sword bullshit right there.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snip

Nope. Any sword you can grab and not get cut. You don't wrap your fingers around it mind you, rather you pinch the blade with your fingers and twist your wrist to lock it in place. You wouldn't go into a fight being like "Yeah! Im gonna pull his sword down so fast!", rather its a situational thing you could do if you had the chance.

If you want a 5 minute video of two guys with big beards


Although this isn't the greatest example..

Edit: I personally wouldn't even fight with bare hands, as hand wounds are super easy to receive. Again, you can do sword grabs bare handed, but unless you're very fast and attack/grab at the same time, it could go badly.

 

[Heronblade]

Presumably we're approaching this as equally as possible.
Evenly skilled, open room, no armor.
This is a question of swords and their fighting styles, not the situations they might be put in.

You'll never establish anything once you start fiddling with more parameters and assuming everyone is fighting on the moon.

That's just the problem.

Both weapons are designed for a specific situation, and any advantages or disadvantages will change based on the extraneous details.

I'm hardly an expert on this subject, but a rapier is primarily designed as a dueling weapon, its advantages will be maximized in the situation you described. However, those advantages mostly disappear when the setting changes to a chaotic battlefield where most combatants are wearing armor, the katana's main playground. Testing a katana in a formalized duel and declaring it to be inferior to the rapier based solely on that outcome is not exactly giving the weapon an equal shake. The reverse is true as well.

A more extreme example of this might be in comparing a simple knife to a rifle. Both are very effective weapons, but which one has a distinct advantage over the other heavily depends on a number of other factors.

 

[Wyes]

On a foil, right? Not with a bare hand on a bladed weapon though... that's a way to lose, er, ALL your fingers.

Nope, any non-curved sword. So, rapiers, broadswods, longswords etc.

snippy snippy

Ostensibly I started out doing re-enactment, but when I realised I could do as a martial art I dropped the re-enactment immediately. The problems with re-enactment are you really can't do historical techniques with the safety gear most re-enactors use (excluding the full harness guys) - face isn't a target, a lot of groups don't like hand or forearm blows, the knees or below etc.

And see if they've been pulling stuff from the ARMA, because they're the main group I'm aware of that advocate flat parrying, and I know they like their German stuff.
But yes, modern blades and even historical blades won't get destroyed with the edge on edge stuff (although obviously edge damage is a thing that does occur... which in fact you find on museum pieces). But cool, glad to hear there's some HEMA-y things happening in Un-Zud!

And I suppose I can't compete with your mainland cheese...


EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, my rapier/italian instructor's wife is a kiwi, and I'm pretty sure she's mentioned the HEMA stuff in NZ. I think you guys have some jousters too?

 

[cerebus23]

-snip
-

That was an awesome read, thanks for such a detailed post!

***

Someone else mentioned the Katana would have better control and more speed, due to the Rapier being one handed and the Katana being 2 handed, in your opinion how big a difference is there, and would this have a noticable effect on the fight?

First, thank you, I poured tons of time and effort into that one, so it's nice to see that someone actually read it.

Now, about the actual point here. Using two hands does provide superior control during a cut or slash compared to one. But, adding a hand doesn't really significantly change the amount of speed you have, though it does deliver more force on impact. The problem comes primarily in defense. It is very, very difficult to parry a thrust with two hands on a sword, the available range of motion that you have becomes much smaller, compared to just using one hand. You can only place blade in areas that both your hands can reach. Go ahead and try it out. All you really need is something like the size of a ruler that you can put both your hands on. Hold it like you would a sword with two hands, and move it around in front of you, figure out how far you can reach. Then try it with just one hand. That aside, the motions you have to make to parry most thrusts are of the circular variety, where you move you blade in a circular fashion part way around the thrusting blade. This action is much easier with a one handed grip.
Also, like I mentioned in my mammoth post, there's the disadvantage of reach with a two-handed weapon. If you're not familiar with a fencing lunge, it might not be so easy to picture.
Here's what that looks like:

Spoiler

Let's you go quite a ways. Even if he is a foilist...

It was an awesome read thanks much for it.

You should check out miyamotos book of 5 rings, especially when he talks about if you have crossed blades you should be cutting the enemy already, and his insistence that you should be able to use a katana one handed as easily as you can 2 handed.

Some of the techniques you describe i can see in some of miyamotos teachings.

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

Also the ability to block with the katana, blocking edge to edge was never ideal and would break, chip weaken, your katana, but that soft flexible spine was great for it and allowed your blade to flex while parrying with the back or side of the blade.

Bend not break was how katanas were designed to be used. And when you cut you cut with conviction to end the fight.

Most real sword battles were brutally short affairs anyway, the clashing of swords 10 50 times stuff is pure hollywood, mucking about like that in a real battle would get you killed. Most fights were one or two passes between samurai and done. And at the highest levels between masters it was by millimeters those fights were generally decided, and over nearly instantly.

 

[Tuxedoman]

Snips

Yeah, they're some of the Napier guys im pretty sure. I'd love to go to some of the big events up north, but again, I need the money for travel and whatnot.

There's clearly a bunch of people here who do martial arts with both eastern and western weapons. We should just have a big ol bout-off and get it over with

 

[demoman_chaos]

I am loving most of this discussion, a lot of really informed opinions coming though.

Spoiler: Ieyke

As someone actually trained in the proper use and techniques of the katana, and familiar with the techniques and design of rapiers, I can tell you the katana wins this EASILY.

The katana is essentially a peerless melee weapon just in general, but the rapier also suffers from numerous glaring weaknesses.

Assuming two opponents of equal skill, the katana's wielder has a massive advantage of speed, control, power, versatility, and even quality, essentially leaving only reach as an advantage to the rapier. ...an advantage which exacerbates the rapier's disadvantage in control.

For the love of Freyja do NOT post that piece of utter shit video of R. Lee Emery and take it as any sort of truth. The weapons used are utter rubbish, and you can clearly see in the leather test that the longsword doesn't even have a sharp edge. It is entirely blunt.

The katana in reality is a 3-4 lb sword, the rapier weighed in 2-3 so the rapier is lighter. There is no advantage in speed, as the human arm only moves so fast and 2 handing doesn't make your arm move faster. The smaller movement is the faster movement, and the rapier has smaller movements.

Spoiler: Ecoho

got to go with katana my friend as ive seen this fight and that's who won the best of five match.

let me clarify, I watched a kendo teacher and a fencing teacher go at it in a best of five match and the kendo teacher avoided most of the fencing teachers thrusts by using the standard side step and deflect maneuver after seen his opponent thrust about three times the kendo teacher counter attacked every time he was thrusted at allowing him to score "kills" while only taking grazing blows. It was a fun match to watch and if I can ever track down the video one of my classmates made ill try to upload it here but that pretty much settled that debate for me.

A sport fencer uses a much shorter blade with very limited attacks and even more limited range of motion. They are limited to staying on the line, thus the side-steps would be alien to him and he wouldn't be prepared to counter.
I just did some rapier play today with a friend. From what our tests showed, the rapier has a significant advantage. The reach was the biggest issue, getting inside the point was troublesome. Even just two handing my "rapier" (it is a 3/4 inch dowell cut to size and given a hilt and padded tip) gave me a much longer gap to cover than he. It was also rather difficult to parry, for by the time I recovered from knocking his tip away it was back towards me. I could really ever only get decent cuts on his arm and that was by using a longsword guard.

Spoiler: Wyes

Just like to point out that two handed weapons are faster than one handed weapons. More leverage => more speed.
However, speed is not the be all and end all of fencing, very far from it. In fact, a common mistake novices make is trying to swing as fast as possible, rather than at the correct speed. This gets them killed a lot.

Wrong on that one mate, as the human arm can only move at a certain speed. Adding another hand won't really improve how fast your arm moves. You have more control so you can recover after the first swing, but the speed of the swing isn't related to how many hands you have on the blade. A short sword like the katana (27" is the length of a naval cutlass, many one handed European blades were near or over 44") isn't going to benefit like a poleaxe might (Where you point would apply).

Spoiler: ardias014

Um guys, you are aware the katana is also a thrusting weapon, right? n a duel it is debatable that a rapier would win, but on a battle field a rapier would be worth next to shit compared to a katana or any other blade for that matter. I would like to see someone take a rapier against a pike or yari formation and see how they fared.

Also demoman_chaos, the bow was initially the main weapon for samurai, but it didn't remain so. Also a katana is not useless against a spear wall. When confronting a spear wall you have to knock pike and spears out of the way, which a rapier cannot do, this is why weapons like the zweihander were used in pike formations in Europe.

The problem with taking a short 2 handed sabre like the katana against a spearwall isn't that there is one spear, it is that there is about 12 spears that can hit you. You parry the guy in front of you, then get stabbed by the guy 2 to his right. You get past the first spear, then the 2nd man runs you through. Spears have far more leverage in a bind, meaning you are going to have trouble pinning even just one. With the long grip, they can very quickly recover from your attempt. You really can't get past a spearwall with such a short weapon. The best defense against a spearwall is a shield or a spear of your own.

Spoiler: Callate

Well, firstly, one should note that people using katanas were more likely to also be wearing armor. Rapiers were really designed to be used by unarmored bearers against unarmored foes.

Secondly, a longer blade also makes for a longer draw time; many katana practitioners specifically trained in iaijutsu, meaning that in some situations they would be attacking while the rapier practitioner was still clearing sheath.

Thirdly, a long thrusting weapon is great when you hit your opponent from the outside; not so great if your opponent moves inside of your ready attack area with a cleaving weapon. See Rob Roy.

Some of these issues become less meaningful if the rapier user was using a main-gauche.

It should also be noted that many katana users knew one-handed as well as two-handed techniques.

I tend to favor the katana user. I do like rapiers; they're fast and elegant weapons. But if I was in a fight for my life, give me the katana.

First point is meaningless, as the issue is an unarmored duel. I won't go into the armor differences, but I will say Japanese armor isn't up to par with that of Europe.

2nd point is also meaningless. The rapier isn't slow to draw, so the difference in draw time is going to be minimal. If the "musketeer" was expecting a fight, he would have his weapon drawn long before the "Samurai" was in range for that.

3rd point is wrong, as it is easy to step backwards. Assuming the musketeer was right handed, moving so his right foot was towards the back would allow him to thrust someone within arm's reach while moving him another step out of the samurai's reach. The samurai would already have to cover 2 or 3 step's worth of distance to get close enough to strike.

Spoiler: Ieyke's later posts

-snipedy doo dah, sniety ah-

Quite laughable really I must say. You really seem keen on this idea, but it is not a correct one.
Speed- The arm moves only at a certain speed, adding another hand doesn't increase that speed. Using an weapon of the same weight one and two handed, you will see very little difference (Save for polearms for the most part). Smaller movements are faster than larger ones, and in this case the rapier has that advantage locked down. Both for parries and attacks, it requires much less movement than the katana.
Control- The longer grip does give faster recovery from cut, but the balance of the rapier allows effective movements with just the wrist. Another thing to note is that after you beat a blade (knock it aside), it becomes a race to recover. It isn't difficult to use the momentum the beat has giving to the blade to recover, simply by curving the momentum (same principle as the nunchuks or other flails).
Power- This boils down to speed, which isn't really different between 1 and 2 handed attacks. With proper technique, a one handed slash can do as much damage as a properly executed 2 handed slash. The power of any attack comes mostly from the hips, not the arms.

As for the 2nd post on this page, dear Freyja you are absolutely silly. You realize how easy it is to avoid a beat when you are expecting it right? A simple turn of the wrist and you miss completely and expose your entire body to whatever your opponent wants to do to you. As for the video, you are comparing some soft steel on a table to a tempered spring steel blade held by a person. Very very different things that simply don't correlate.

A katana as a shield against arrows? One arrow, extremely difficult to believe but theoretically plausible. A volley of arrows from a unit of archers, abso-facking-lutely not.

Another note, samurai are just humans. Some were good, some were terrible. There were just like every other warrior of all the other times, just smaller on average than most (Romans were small guys too). Those cartoons have nothing to do with reality there mate.

Spoiler: cerebus23

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kHs0tXeq9Y] video of mine shows my katana trying to stab through my butted chainmail and THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTEVAKWWvOk] is my other mail test where I try my other katana and other things against my butted mail. Note how neither katana really got a clean thrust through BUTTED mail. Historically, mail used a combo of solid and riveted rings and thus was much harder to penetrate than my butted mail (which did very well against the katana, also THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIA3anizbo0] is me testing the katana against thick leather). Plate armor can withstand the force of an English longbow at 20 feet, a bow which has the draw of about 120 lbs launching an arrow of about 3-5 lbs at well over 60 mph giving it FAR FAR FAR more punch than the katana could DREAM of mustering.

 

[Wyes]

Argh, I had written out a lengthy response and then the forum broke...

People seem to really under rate the ability of the katana to thrust, i dare say it is a better pure thruster than a rapier since a katana thrust will pierce armor plate. where correct me if i am wrong but a rapier would probably bend if thrust into a piece of plate armor.

Most real sword battles were brutally short affairs anyway, the clashing of swords 10 50 times stuff is pure hollywood, mucking about like that in a real battle would get you killed. Most fights were one or two passes between samurai and done. And at the highest levels between masters it was by millimeters those fights were generally decided, and over nearly instantly.

The katana can and was used to thrust. But, if you thrust into plate armour with a katana, it's going to bend out of shape, and stay bent (if it doesn't just skim off). That is the disadvantage of the soft iron spine. Almost exactly the same thing is going to happen with a rapier, except unless you go nuts and bend it too far so it snaps, it'll spring back into shape (hence spring steel). Neither will penetrate the armour.

As for the length of sword fights - it's pretty variable. On battlefields yes, you're not doing to see extended sword fights. In duels? Different story, you can see anything from a few seconds up to minutes (maybe half a dozen).

There's clearly a bunch of people here who do martial arts with both eastern and western weapons. We should just have a big ol bout-off and get it over with

There it is! That's the solution!

There are a few videos out there of cross-discipline bouting, but they're usually not very good.
This is one from one of my instructors, but as you can see they're not using steel and it wasn't intended to be terribly serious.

Wrong on that one mate, as the human arm can only move at a certain speed. Adding another hand won't really improve how fast your arm moves. You have more control so you can recover after the first swing, but the speed of the swing isn't related to how many hands you have on the blade. A short sword like the katana (27" is the length of a naval cutlass, many one handed European blades were near or over 44") isn't going to benefit like a poleaxe might (Where you point would apply).

I disagree. If you want I can show you the equations, but angular velocity is directly proportional to the torque applied. Simply put, two hands => more torque (strength of two arms instead of one) => more angular velocity. This is just simple physics. This has also been my experience, having done several one handed and two handed systems. Having two hands allows you to cut, recover, and transition faster. The only thing you can't do faster is a thrust or change the direction of a thrust.
This comes down to the fact that the sword doesn't cut through the motion of the arms directly, it by using the motion of a lever, with your arms applying the torque to the lever. Two arms => (not quite) twice as much torque.

Also, 44" is way too long for your average one handed European blade - the more typical rapier length is about 40" max, with many preferring shorter blades. Typical broadsword/backsword/sidesword blade lengths are about 34-36", and longswords (not true two handers like the so-called 'zweihander') not very much longer than that (say 36"-38").

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I think in the hands of two masters, the lighter and more flexible rapier would win in a no-armor sword off 7 out of 10 times. If armor is keeping those thrusts out of the equation, give me the katana.