Poll: What is your favourite kind of sword?

[2733]

you are aware that even the largest of European swords could not cut heavy plate armor, correct? so the katana simply does the same task of cutting a man down with 1/4 the weight.

Slightly late but anyway, you are aware that no Katana could cut through plate armour, correct?
(oh hey, I can act condescending too)

Also a Katana is considerably heavier then a longsword and far worse for thrusting through gaps in armour, they essentially clubbed through defences using weight and momentum.

Correct, no sword can (to my knowledge) cut plate armor, I will not argue otherwise, steel vs. steel it's just not going to happen. A typical broadsword and katana are both around 36 inches and about 2 pounds, my reference to the 1/4 I though you spoke of larger greatswords. lastly, the cutting ability of a katana is much greater because the combination of laminated steel and clay hardening techniques made the edge untempered (very hard) and the back unhardened (soft) while the whole of European swords are tempered (medium hard). harder edges make sharper blades, the Japanese also had better sharpening stones.

I've been learning and practicing sword smithing for a while so I've done a lot of learning about this sort of thing.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

you are aware that even the largest of European swords could not cut heavy plate armor, correct? so the katana simply does the same task of cutting a man down with 1/4 the weight.

Slightly late but anyway, you are aware that no Katana could cut through plate armour, correct?
(oh hey, I can act condescending too)

Also a Katana is considerably heavier then a longsword and far worse for thrusting through gaps in armour, they essentially clubbed through defences using weight and momentum.

Agreed, and why would they be? Not like samurai often faced plate armour...
Also, 1/4 of the weight? Where did THAT figure come from? As flaming squirrel says, the Katana is actually heavier. (not that that makes it slow or actually heavy, just heaviER...weapons aren't made to be weighty, no matter their origin)

You know what's funny about the changes in european swords? How it goes from much slashing and cutting to a very stiff and pointed blade specialised for dealing with armour, then to something in the middle or even completely back since fewer and fewer could afford the more and more expensive plate armour.
Katanas...well they've been like they've been, with very few modifications, for hundreds of years. A cultural thing or one of economy? You decide.

the 1/4 stat comes from that an average (36-38in) katana comes in at about 2lbs while larger flamberge, particularly in the 60-70 inch range (Which were rare I know)could come in at as much as 8lbs, an extreme example true, but I was trying to make a point.

The statistics you choose were correct, but you hand-picked the maximum ever weight of the largest European Swords[footnote]http://thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html : Historical ARMA essay that confirms your European weights[/footnote], and the minimum weight of the Katanas (3 pounds being absolute maximum) Try to be careful when making argumentative points that you don't warp the truth and manipulate the evidence to support your own views, after all, the process of education (especially historical) is about finding the beliefs you hold that are incorrect and changing your viewpoint to suit.

European swords and katanas are incredibly similar, there is no magical aspect of either design, materials, or fighting style that elevated one to be inherently superior over the other.
The only significant differences in performance are purely academic, rising from the shape of the blades (eg, straight blades are faster/more accurate at thrusting, curved blades at slashing) it's design (single edged is sharper than double edged, but the blade is less versatile) length (longer blades means more range, shorter means more maneuverability)

The katana is an excellent sword in its own right, phenomenally sharp, and aesthetically beautiful, while being completely deadly if you get slashed by it. It is truly excellent for the purpose it was designed, but no sword design is perfect (I remember an expert wrote "sword designs are a series of compromises") There are situations that the katana will be better suited than European swords, there are situations that european swords will be better than katanas. At the end of the day the differences are so minute that it comes down to a matter of personal taste, and no one can tell you one way or the other that you like the wrong sword.

 

[Fleetfiend]

I'm not sure if this is completely accurate, but aren't Epees, Sabres, and Rapiers all breeds of the same subset of swords?

Out of those options, I have to go with the Falchion. Just love the style.

Also, not sure if this classifies as a sword, but I'm quite partial to Naginatas. If I could learn to fight with anything, it would probably be one of those.

http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/TS-DRANAGINATA22_540.jpg

 

[2733]

snip

snip

snip

the 1/4 stat comes from that an average (36-38in) katana comes in at about 2lbs while larger flamberge, particularly in the 60-70 inch range (Which were rare I know)could come in at as much as 8lbs, an extreme example true, but I was trying to make a point.

The statistics you choose were correct, but you hand-picked the maximum ever weight of the largest European Swords[footnote]http://thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html : Historical ARMA essay that confirms your European weights[/footnote], and the minimum weight of the Katanas (3 pounds being absolute maximum) Try to be careful when making argumentative points that you don't warp the truth and manipulate the evidence to support your own views, after all, the process of education (especially historical) is about finding the beliefs you hold that are incorrect and changing your viewpoint to suit.

European swords and katanas are incredibly similar, there is no magical aspect of either design, materials, or fighting style that elevated one to be inherently superior over the other.
The only significant differences in performance are purely academic, rising from the shape of the blades (eg, straight blades are faster/more accurate at thrusting, curved blades at slashing) it's design (single edged is sharper than double edged, but the blade is less versatile) length (longer blades means more range, shorter means more maneuverability)

The katana is an excellent sword in its own right, phenomenally sharp, and aesthetically beautiful, while being completely deadly if you get slashed by it. It is truly excellent for the purpose it was designed, but no sword design is perfect (I remember an expert wrote "sword designs are a series of compromises") There are situations that the katana will be better suited than European swords, there are situations that european swords will be better than katanas. At the end of the day the differences are so minute that it comes down to a matter of personal taste, and no one can tell you one way or the other that you like the wrong sword.

I compliment you on your well thought out post, please know that I meant no misinformation with the 1/4 stat, that is simply the sizes I think of when I think of these two weapons, a 1/3 stat is far more typical.

 

[Little2Raph]

At the end of the day a sword is just a hunk of metal (often a most attractive hunk of metal to be sure) - how effective it is depends entirely on the skill of the swordsman (or woman).

 

[The Bum]

I love the Cavalry, have to go with the Cavalry Sabre.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The epee. Largely because I am a fencer and I fence with both foil and epee.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm not sure if this is completely accurate, but aren't Epees, Sabres, and Rapiers all breeds of the same subset of swords?

Not really. The Rapier was one of the first swords after the age of armor largely came to an end. While it was certainly lighter and more maneuverable than past weapons, it was still quite long ~ 5 feet in total) making it relatively unwieldy. The story goes that people were generally satisfied with that until Queen Elizabeth, tired of tripping over the weapons, decreed that all swords worn in her court would be broken off at 3 feet and resharpened. This lead to the court sword and, in time, the development of the concept of linear (rather than circular) fencing. This eventually evolved into the small sword. Thus the Rapier generated a whole line of swords but the result was generally a refinement of the concept of a straight narrow blade designed for thrusting.

The Epee on the other hand is notable as it is exclusively a dueling weapon and notably has a triangular blade.

The Sabre can trace it's origins to the Scimitar relatively easily. It is a curved blade designed for cutting but can deliver a thrust. It is a weapon as suited to a duel as a battlefield.

The difference between the three is easy enough to sum up. The rapier line was a fashion accessory that could be leveraged in defense of suicidal honor, the Epee was exclusively designed for the precise purpose of a duel and the Sabre is simply a practical weapon who's design was largely dictated by trends in warfare.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Im actually coincidently enough looking for a sword to buy for self protection and an ornament somewhat as any old twit can buy a gun and pull a trigger, but the sword will just make a person think twice before starting something with me, that is if he doesnt have gun otherwise im fucked but who cares.

There is a significant flaw with your plan. Really there are several of them. The first is that using a sword with any real effectiveness requires at least some training. By contrast, operation of a firearm is relatively simple as you could acquire proficiency in any particular firearm i the space of a few days. Second, it would largely be impossible to carry a sword on your person in most nations and most of them would be difficult to conceal. That leaves you with the option of carrying it in a car and were you to actually use such a weapon (an incredibly unlikely scenario) it would be difficult to convince any jury of your peers that you acted in self defense. If you had time to get a weapon from your car, you had time to leave the scene altogether after all. Third, if you use it for home defense, you have to consider that one of two scenarios will arise. Either the person is unarmed (in which case your mere presence would probably be enough to disuade) or they are armed in which case they probably have a gun and short of the element of surprise it is safe to say you'd be at a tremendous disadvantage.

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

Katana because there the most well made, plus I can use it, in a way. On top of that I've watched people train with them properly and when you're a master with it you can take down most other swords and such pretty easily.