Katana VS Longsword - The Sad TRUTH!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2024
- #katana #funny #review
Want more sword reviews? Here's a playlist! bit.ly/3iSh2hX
In today's video we take a deep dive into the truth of which sword is better, a Katana or Longsword. This is a hotly debated topic and by that I mean a bunch of neckbeards online are mad that weebs exist.
Check out @Skallagrim video about katanas • You Know What? That's ...
Big thanks to Brandon for helping out! / brandopig
Swords used in this video:
roninkatana.com/dojo-pro-kata...
roninkatana.com/two-handed-me...
"Bang" by Shiro open.spotify.com/album/1PpIMQ...
Here are the swords I use in the video (this is not sponsored)
roninkatana.com/dojo-pro-kata...
roninkatana.com/two-handed-me...
0:00 Intro
1:04 Cultural impact
4:14 Sparring
7:26 Longsword cutting
13:34 Katana cutting
18:12 Conclusion
For business inquiries email me at Cerberusarms2@gmail.com
Check out my gaming channel: / node
Join my discord! / discord
Instagram: cerberusarmz
/ cerberusarms
What we all need to admit is that all swords have always been romanticized while spears(polearms later) have done the majority of actual combat. Knights and samurai both employed different weapons depending on the situation, and often the sword was the backup weapon not the main weapon. Similar to handguns in modern combat. In the movies handguns are dashing, and make for a great story, but in reality rifles dominate and handguns are the backup weapon.
Ah a fellow lindybeige watcher, correct?
Yeah, that's how I think of it. Aside from the larger 2-handed swords they're more like sidearms and combat knives. The weapon you can carry around in your pocket or holster is usually not going to be the heavy duty weapon.
Now this is the response I was looking for! So many people believe swords were a person's main arm because Hollywood/anime. Spears were way cheaper to make, didn't require much training, had far more range and could more easily deal with people on horseback. You also rarely ever hear about maces but that's a whole different thing.
halberd gang rise up
I've always loved spears and polearms, and was often sad when they were under represented in games. Play a tank in an MMO and it's always say sword and shield, whilst I wish there were more spears and shield combos. Learning later that my preference was the better option made me really question why swords are made to be so awesome whilst the fodder and pawns in games are the ones using spears and failing.
In my mind, if you're playing someone who's supposed to "tank" for a group in a fantasy setting with monsters and such, wouldn't you want a long reaching weapon so you can actually poke the monster's torso or face as opposed to having to stand face distance to their knee, unable to truly block or dodge attacks from it? So surprised and sad barely any game thinks of this and instead portrays the combo as the "poor cowardly man's choice" and prefers to fully romanticize swords or footed knights.
I've had *some* experience learning European Longsword, more specifically the Zweihander (lit. Two-Hander), as opposed to the Hand-and-a-Half shown here. The biggest difference, other than being longer over all, is the difference in balance: the swords I was practicing with had the balance much lower on the sword, specifically about 1-3 inches above the cross-guard. This made the sword very nimble in the hand, and made it very easy to reposition the blade and throw out quick strikes.
As for the balance of Katanas, it actually changed, along with the amount of curve in it, throughout it's history, some being more weighted to the tip, some to the hilt. It depended on the trends at the time.
Sharpness is often touted as the Katana's strength, but you can sharpen any European sword to be just as sharp. Hell, you can make a copper sword just as sharp. The reason European longswords weren't as sharp as Katana is because they didn't need to be. If you are going against someone in plate or chain, slashes won't do a whole heck of a lot. Thrusts allow you to either burst the chains or target weak spots, so thrusting swords were preferred. In Japan, with fewer armored targets, slashing was more common, thus evolved a sword excellent at slashing. A saber would probably be more of an equal comparison to a Katana than a long sword.
Another thing I see not mentioned in this sort of debate is the scale of the combatant wielding a sword. People will often say that a sword is between x and y inches in length. That length would be determined by the person it was made more. Katana were shorter, but so were the Samurai wielding them. A Samurai, based on some very quick research, who between 5'3" and 5'5", where as a European knight could be 6' or more. Thus, it makes sense for the European to wield a longer sword. Another example of this is the Kukri, which is a large knife when wielded by a Eurpeoan or American, but a short sword to the Gurkhas.
Yet another neglected talking point, at least in the discussions I have heard, is the metallurgy used for each. European longswords were mono-steel, where Katana were laminated steel (folded, with different types of steel). This was in part because Europeans had more advanced steel-making capabilities and in part because Europe had access to high quality ore. Europe had access to iron mines, where as Japan had to make do with iron sand. Mono-steel swords have many advantages over laminated steel: they are easier to make, they can be repaired easier, they are less prone to warping, ect.
Finally, I have never seen a true, fair apples-to-apples test/comparison of a European Longword vs a Katana, since it would, in my opinion, require the swords be made for the person testing, based on how those swords were fitted to the warrior carrying them.
Long story short:
The Katana was not a perfect sword, but it was a sword tailored for it's environment.
The Longsword was not a perfect sword, but it was a sword tailored for it's environment.
Japanese soldiers also had steel plated armors. The katana was as useless in against those as the longsword was against european armor, it wasn't intended to be a battlefield main weapon. The ultra sharp katanas were useful in civilian settings or duels, where people had no armor at all and a single slash could kill them.
I doubt that soldiers in war bothered getting them razor sharp, knowing that the edge would get instantly ruined after a single attack
@@apvtethic8818
Except, you know, longswords ARE designed for thrusting first and slashing second, thus intended for going through mail and the joints of plate armour.
@@Shatterfury1871 yeah, trusting into joints isn't the same as slashing through the armor itself.
@@apvtethic8818
You can't slash through plate armor, you can't even hack it with an axe.
You can either have a swing with a mace like weapon or thrust with a pointed weapon.
@@apvtethic8818 "Japanese soldiers also had steel plated armors"
Really? I have never seen that, and as noted in the OP, iron was more rare in Japan and the steel wasn't quite as good. I can imagine small bits of armor being steel, but nothing like the full suits worn by European knights. Maybe you're talking about some kind of scale mail?
Honestly, even thick hardened leather can be great armor. You don't have to have steel specifically to stop a lot of kinds of weapons.
A friend of mine, a historian and sword enthusiast, once told me his opinion of the katana.
The coolest thing about the katana is that Japanese bladesmiths were able to make a good sword from the completely inferior iron ore they had.
True, due the bad quality of their iron, Japanese had to create a new way to forge weapon, infact when the weapon was cooled it would bend, which is why katanas are curved instead of straight.
Agree, it's the ONLY good thing about katana.
@@Noblesseoblige-jy4vg nope. They also objectively look badass cool 😎🤣.
But they're not any kind of ultimate swords, the best ... and so on.
@@logic0905 All swords are cool, but zweihanders beat out everything. Nothing can compare to a sword designed for a berserker in full platemail charging into battle hoping to end a fight before their armor starts to give them heat exhaustion or someone finds a way to get through what is the functional equivalent of bolting shields to every part of your body. While maintaining full mobility at that in surprisingly light and nimble armor.
But then again, the Japanese also forged 12 foot long swords almost literally for the purposes of displaying how skilled they were at making swords (or how wealthy someone was to waste that much iron on a useless sword.) The logistics of creating one in the 1400s would, by itself, be truly impressive regardless of who made it or what culture it came from.
However, they all pale in comparison to the most utterly boring and uninteresting battlefield weapon: A long stick with bits attached to the end.
@@OnyxBMW There are reasons why those supposed to weild Bidenhanders were offered double pay, and why the weapon was only popular for about 40 years. It´s kind od a rubbish idea, especially against polearms.
The fact that he puts the relevance of a weapon that is not used in modern fights was perfect. Finally a sword channel that realizes it is a history channel then a self defense channel. Subscribed.
Saying America didn't have a sword of their own though? The 1860 Cavalry Saber is so iconic American it hurts! Similar designs are still used for ceremonial purposes with our armed forces today.
Now THAT's a great video, and a very fair, in-depth comparison!
I've been wanting to watch this and make a response video for at least a week, I just keep getting distracted by all the other stuff on my to-do list that I have to grind through. Soon though... soon...
Thanks for the shoutout by the way. :)
A katana's inability to adequately "end him rightly" will forever make it the inferior weapon in ny eyes ;)
Spears are better.
one blade was sharper than the other. not fair at all
Can't wait to see that.
@@freddogrosso9835 Spears are indeed a superior sword as it's a sword mounted on a STICK.
I'm as bored of the debate as I am of katana mysticism tbh, they're both tools with pros and cons, which one is best depends on your style. I personally favour the longsword because I like the flexibility of having the false edge. That said, aesthetically I prefer the katana, they just look fuckin' cool, especially folded steel like the Paul Chen Bushido katana, lovely to look at, but blade heavy and a bit unwieldy.
Good thing is due to the way curved blades are weighted it's got like edge aimbot
@Samurai rabit dude I try holding that sword during comic con and I got to say that is the best hybrid type you will ever get and sure there might be other types is close to the mix but that sword itself is just something else and I would like to own it myself.
@Samurai rabit Kriegsmesser
@@jamesandthings4860 The German longsword system has a type of grip called the "Thumb grip" where you place your thumb on the blade and it basically makes your edge alignment 100% lol.
Except when he's waxing on about katanas being weapons of samurai who followed Bushido and were willing to die and the katana is a dps weapon _he's doing the thing._ He's doing the katana mysticism. This is a Game Theory level of analysis and it's a shit video. He excuses his poor technique with cutting on the longsword and the concludes it's merely passable at cutting. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
I love the whole video!
Especially the fact, that you make it clear, that some (if not many) things are based in your perceptions and consideration rather than stating those things as "THE facts"!
And the "And if YOU disagree with me..." part made me cackle like a hen :D
The fact that he keeps his trigger finger straight when showing the two handguns at the end gets my subscription
Some of my observations at random:
Hollywood can glorify swords made for slashing easier than piercing. In Medieval films, the armor gets more focus than the swords do. Funny enough, The Northman movie about the Viking does a good job showcasing a longsword.
European longswords seem to prioritze a multifaceted approach. You have more exaggerated guards, pommels, and a middle balance for a change in stance. The philosophy was likely to reduce the time of your exposure, and to maximize options for repositioning.
Katanas are obviously for slashing like a sabre. Slashing is very effective against unarmored targets, but even against chainmail, wouldn't be very effective. Great for cutting peasants in half as well.
I think because these are for different purposes and modern katanas will take advantage of modern metallurgy, the only way to answer the question is to ask, "Who would fare better, the European Knight in Feudal Japan, or the Samurai in Feudal Europe?"
Personally, I would much rather be armored with plate steel and equipped with a longsword in Japan, than Samurai armor and a 12th century Katana in Bohemia.
you are aggressively underestimating the potency of samurai armor, it was designed to take slashes from the katan and thrusting strikes from spear wielding infantry . the only real defensive advantage you could be hoping to get is from the use of a shield with the idea that it would be unique enough of a fighting style to take a samurai by surprise.
@@lewis1423 yeah but plate armour is that, but tougher. Plate armour was extremely manoeuvre able and being surrounded by plate steel there’s no competition.
@@alphapotato_gd9597 buts its not, they were very comparable they would both be able to stop blow with life saving concussion giving effectiveness and maneuverability definitely goes to the samurai armor. I'm not quite sure what you think samurai armor is made from but it's steel chainmail and maybe leather( and yeah Japanese steel was not the best) but it's going to be as strong as other steel armors, it all depends on either being thicker or better used and the Japanese layering put it to be a more efficient deflection method.
@@lewis1423 There´s no competition. The euro knights were far more technological in their way to wage war. Samurais cannot and should not be compared to European knights since the latter was the peak of soldier/warrior at the time and era (not to mention they weren´t exactly present at the same time but w/e).
the knight´s armor of old would withstand blows from the heaviest swords, to the point where warhammers and mallets were used in combat to cause blunt force trauma rather than slice and cuts. This says something about the armor itself and about how a solder with a katana, designed to slice n dice, would fare against a euro knight. Furthermore if we take into account that when Samurais existed, europe already had black powder.
Hollywood simply is sticking to stunts which are less dangerous. Remember only how Hollywood loves archery, especially ballistic ; ) and not javelins or spears.
"I'm not self centered enough to think my preference is fact" truly the warrior's wisdom, just like in the rest of life, assuming people who are different than you are inherently inferior is arrogant, joyless and dangerous. Variety is the spice of life, stagnation is death.
blah
@@hodidebb197 pretending to be pathological isn't healthy either, it causes as much subconscious harm as the perceived conscious benefits, its a net loss unless one truly is adbormally pathological, which has its own pitfalls even for a soldier.
@@sleepydragonzarinthal3533 Any feeling of superiority is a sign of failure...
@@thermovag not really, that’s moral failure not objective failure. powerful people can feel that but they’re not a failure, objectively.
@@hodidebb197 Failure to improve oneself is objectively a failure.
A refreshing and impartial analysis that realizes that each weapon earned it's place on the pedestal of glory for each of its respective cultures. Thank you!
All moot anyway, when we consider that for actual warfare polearms beat swords pretty much all of the time because of the greater range. Heck, and the English proved that with the longbow.
It's completely partial. When you see him talking about european having a bias, while katana was idolised for decades by japan, you know you're in for a terrible analysis. When he holds the sword with the second hand right above the pommel and complains about vibration...
Your selfdeprecation is honestly so funny and refreshing. So many of the things you say where you're passionate but also recognise it doesnt really matter, it's a sign of a mature and intelligent human being. I want to be your friend.
i will say, as someone who has been deep in this controversy for a long time. i love how respectful and considerate you are with both of the swords and i love how you observe the sword rather than judge it. always been a fan of the Longsword myself, but this video really helped me consider both sides of this argument, and appreciate the Katana for all of it's strengths.
I wish more love was given to other weapons too, I consider myself a mace and shield guy myself
but I have to wonder how great the cutting disparity would have been if the longsword had been sharpened to the same extent as the katana.
@@Blaisem You could ask a similar question re: what if a katana was forged to be stronger/less brittle.
@@Drebolaskan I love maces and shields too!
Also, katanas were used also in the 15th and 16th century. Europe certainly wasn't stuck in the "Middle Ages" (that's also a broad term), so including other swords might be useful for a comparison going beyond cinema influences.
Regarding the grip of the European sword that you have found uncomfortable, I recommend not placing your hand above the pommel but holding the pommel with your left hand. It is much more manageable and mobile, with better leverage to give more force and speed to the slash and faster angles and positions changes.
Results in more fluid swordplay, where a wide variety of different strikes can be chained together
Ps: speak as a scholar and practitioner of medieval fencing
I was definitely still new to wheel pommels when I made this video and you’re completely right. But tbh even after learning how to wield them properly I’m still not a fan. Some people like them but they’re just not for me.
Especially coming from using katanas I prefer to have both my hands wrapped around the handle completely for as much control as possible.
@@Cerberusarms Can you do Long Sword vs Ulfberht that is considered the best sword in the world, but i don't know if you could get ahold of a real Ulfberht without paying a lot of money
You should get a 2 handed sword next time if you want to be using two hands. That's mainly a one handed sword that has extra grip area for if you need some extra leverage.
@@Cerberusarms Kind of on you to get a hand and half sword, great video, but it will always be unfair to either sword, since they aren't perfect analogues. Longsword has blade reach, katanas have handle reach. A full two hander would be even longer than a normal katana. Maybe a two-handed longsword and an o-katana would be a more fair comparison?
@@PureVikingPowersNo such thing as a "best sword in the world". They are all built for different needs, otherwise every culture would have made a similar design through time.
Hahaha. I had to comment; you're hilarious. You're covering a subject riddled with emotion controversy, and you're treating it objectively and in a light hearted fashion. Cheers! Great video.
Interesting hypothetical scenario!: If you had to pick between a katana and a long sword for a duel against another person who also gets to choose, which would you go for? Personally, I lean towards the long sword for its crossguard and the fact that it has a blade on both sides, making it seem more versatile.
The reason the longsword pommel feels weird when you are cutting is that you are not holding it correctly. The lower hand actually grabs the pommel itself, not the handle above it. The pommel is pulled while the handle is pushed, creating more leverage for faster swings and greater control. Remember, with a lever, distance matters.
I was screaming this in my head with every swing. “Why are you holding the longsword like it’s a katana or a bastard sword?!?” Still a great video, but a huge oversight.
Same here. Too bad because his sparring partner seemed to hold it right...
It's a matter of preference, both are found in medieval manuels.
don't forget the pommel is also important for throwing at, clocking the shit out of and "finishing him rightly".
Long sword is _surface blade_ so can't help...
I think one of the main reasons why the Longsword doesnt have the magical reputation of the Katana is simply because the western world has developed away from the longsword for centuries and it got replaced by other weapons more suitable for the current style of warfare. And Japanese society, wich was still very feudal and way behind their technological standarts, was instantly flung 200+ years forward in just a couple of years. A change caused by an external force, causing them to try and hold the old ways precious as an important piece of preserving their cultural identity. And for the west it was seen as exotic and strange, since they have already developed away from their great swords, it felt odd for them to meet a culture holding these blades so dearly.
Also, historically, the iron in Japan was generally of much lower purity/quality, so they were harder to make. That made them more "special" than a longsword was to a European, since they were just being churned out by smiths all over the place (which is also why there are so many different types of "longsword"). A longsword was generally "just a sword", while a Katana was much rarer.
It still took US Marines lives in WW2.
@schizorambling watch your words. They have the power of god and anime by their side...
@schizorambling Why WOULDNT you wanna be that ;-; all the money, and the SEX APPEAL!!
Well that and the cultural nature of ancestor worship, but yeah that was one of the oddities.
Although the Katana is one of the long Japanese swords, the Nodachi is significantly longer. It measured over half the height of its carrier, so it required impressive strength and skill to wield the sword. Because of that, only a few warriors used the Nodachi efficiently. It would be interesting to compare Nodachi to the European longsword.
Better compare that one with a Greatsword / Bidenhänder. I assume similar result as the Euopean would be better for defense and the Nodachi for offense.
@@Rorimac67 Don't underestimate the short blade (not sure about the English term - the short blade is the one that points away from the opponent when holding the blade on the side of the prominent hand). It allows you to strike with both the short and long blade and gives you more offensive options. The lack of it is a disadvantage for any sword with only one edge. With two edges you can strike faster.
Furthermore, the tip of a Katana/Odachi is not as good at thrusting. Not important against unarmoured opponents but against an armoured one (like men at arms, knights and burghers) it will be of significance. Cutting through armour is usually very difficult and even gambeson/thick linen will protect adequately.
So imho, no the Odachi/Katana has no offensive edge (pun intended).
Meanwhile, the zweihänder was as long as its wielder
go hard or go home
W8 Zweihänder has an english name didnt know this@@Rorimac67
Claymores are Scottish sword meshing between 1.2 and 1.4 meters.
great vid! subscribed!
I'd love to see more of the longsword vs katana slow-mo sparing! or even just the clips you already used, but in one place, maybe with light commentary? :D
I loved those last thoughts. "Not everything needs to be a competition". Something people need to remember, two things can be good at the same time and coexist
These things are tools at the end of the day and it is all relative to the user, their experiences and skill.
Like a sword like that in my hands (Any sword) would be about as useful at a caramel flavoured sock.
@@lordhighnesscheshirecat3382 There are some foot fetishists out there that would largely disagree..
@@MostAccuratePsychopath that is probably true haha
There were never any battles between the Norse and the Japanese. The longsword developed in European culture. The Katana in the Asian Culture. Both are truely exceptional weapons. It's called sympathetic evolution. Where given about the same time two distant cultures may develop a technology equally powerful, but have a totally different tool. Like Armor in Japan was not Heavy and thick metal plates, that you have to bash through or put someone on the ground and use your weight to stab through it. So in Japan, a Katana Ruled. Much respect.
Big Broad Swords Bash in the armor and provide more momentum, that you would need to go through plate armor. Someone fighting in Armor, will be slow moving anyway. That is unlike the armor of the Samural. Which is great, I loved learning about samurai armor. Samural armor, is about the same as plate armor... Only lighter and less durable. Would provide an equal amount of protection, in their own fighting culture.
Please stop making valid arguments on the internet. Society isnt ready for that lol
I love Katana's but, if I had to choose one for battle, I am 100% taking a longsword (claymore style). With the guard and straight edge, the parries and counters you can make are phenomenal...and even when your blade dulls, it is still highly effective as a blunt force weapon against heavily armored opponents.
Longsword is for gays
Depends on what you fight against and what your resources are. The Japanese had less iron of lower quality than Europeans. Their plate armor never evolved to be as complex and as fully protective as European armor. Hence, they didn't need to optimize their swords for defeating the kind of armor Europeans had to, and had to make the best sword possible from lower quality iron. Which is why they settled on the katana while Europeans evolved the longsword.
Good luck maneuvering that big b@$tard... you'd be better off using your bare hands.
@@outdoorsman7324 I'm more of a 90lb longbow guy..but at 6'0 200lbs, the claymore doesn't give me any issues.
@@Jib5238 , It's still slow as fu€k... and the people that carried them were barely over five foot. 😂
Came across this in my feed. Thought it would be fluff for a few minutes. Stayed for the whole thing and was rather impressed. Thanks, and subscribed.
Your intro gets instant points for having Rem figurine! That tells me that you appreciate actually amazing anime shows =). As for the swords themselves they were made in totally different cultures and for very different purposes. People who used Longswords usually had to fight against people armed in full armor of some kind and most likely a shield on top of that on their opponent. You needed a heavier blade to have that weight to punch through armor or to inflict at least broken bones if u didn't cut him or even pierce him. When Katana was more in every single movie documentary they always fight almost naked against a sword. I know they had that Samurai armor in wars and what I understand that was very effective armor against Katana as it couldn't cut through it and Katana wasn't designed to pierce either through armor because of the it's blade design.
"They both have their place and their intended purpose"
I like this line a lot because it shows that comparing the two is like that of apples and oranges. While they're both swords, they differ in how they are meant to be used, both fulfilling their respective purposes impeccably.
Except it's really not like comparing apples and oranges they're both two weapons that do essentially the same thing in combat which is protect your life. One happens to do it far better than the other. 🤷 Katanas are for art demonstrations. 😅
yeah, i deal with alot of people that are all like "anime folded 1000 times superior"
This really becomes clear when you look at how the weapons were used in actual combat and how their targets were typically armed and armoured. I'm pretty sure if you brought your long sword and armour into feudal Japan you'd get hacked up in a hurry - but the same would be true if a Samurai tried his stuff on a Medieval European battlefield. One on one with modern protective gear is a very different story - thought I think he still got the point across very well.
@@81brassglass79 In fairness, they were not designed to simply protect your life but to disable your opponent (by wounding or killing). And we need to consider the specific context of the warrior who used them. Originally the Kata was designed as a sword to be used by cavalry, which in Japan generally meant horse archers. Like many swords designed for mounted troops, the curved blade made it less likely to get stuck in its target. The duels that are featured in so many Samurai films tend to be set during the Tokugawa Shogunate when the battles were over. In contrast, the long sword evolved to be used against warriors or soldiers wearing plate armor. Regardless of what one thinks about the swords, European Plate armor was one of the best pieces of personal protection ever developed before guns developed enough to make them mostly useless as a defense. I suspect the slashing attacks of a Katana would be mostly useless against plate armor, which is why the Long Sword in later years was mostly a thrusting weapon (as opposed to earlier Arming swords).
@@81brassglass79 I know i was told to be nice in the comments, but this is probably the single dumbest thing i've read today. A weapon does not protect you from anything, weapons are meant to kill. The thing protecting you is yourself. If you rely solely on your weapon to protect you, you're gonna get demolished real quick. Point being, if you are proficient with your weapon and its paticular fighting style and know how the opponent's weapon works, you will take the win in any fight. A man who is proficient with a Katana can and will beat a man with a Longsword who's maybe less experienced and vice versa. Both weapons have specific strenghts and weaknesses which can be exploited, neither does anything "far better than the other".
"He who knows both himself and the enemy will need not fear a hundred battles.
He who doesn't know either himself or the enemy will suffer a defeat for each victory gained.
He who knows neither himself nor the enemy has to fear every battle."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
As a lifelong sword collector, I love how you addressed the topic fairly and with an open mind. These are war weapons, just like any other. The cultural differences are mainly why the katana is revered and the longsword is just another weapon (European weapons never settled and were constantly changing). If you compared it to a modern idea, look at them like guns. Many nations have versions, and they work differently. They were meant to kill and were designed to function well in the settings and defenses of their time. I love both swords and really don't have a preference (though the katana is gorgeous in a way that warms the heart). They both cut, they both defend, they work well. What's not to love?
From multiple analysis I have seen the long sword was better at thrusting due many have a greater length as well as width. And the katana has a cutting edge due to its shape and design. Both awesome weapons though
I love the katana for looks. My favourite for brute simplicity was the Roman gladius though. Simple and nothing to stick against your mates shield!
@@jammin1881
Swords like the Gladius reflected limitations in bronze, iron allowed for longer stronger blades. King Arthur's 1st blade (the sword in the stone, a tail reflecting the nature of bronze sword production of the time) would have been a relatively short sword much as had been used in Britain for many centuries. His second 2nd blade (the one handed to him by the Lady of the Lake, a tale reflecting a tradition to bury Kings in water with their sword) may have been iron hence the legend of Excaliber the sword of the King. What we have here is a Norman crusader design, they favoured the long cross guard for defence and because it looks like a Christian symbol. It's thought though that the sword that may have killed the most is the Elizabethan Rapier, mostly because everyone carried one.
@@darthwiizius
Just talking largely about the simplistic design. It wasn't the material or even the look (as lets face it) it's an ugly sword!
It just did what it was supposed to do!
dueling* not war weapons.
As someone who owns antique (18th and 19th century) katanas, and trained with swords with a master while in my 20s, I always appreciate your videos. I'm nowhere near your skull, but I do love swords and truly appreciate your extremely informative videos.
They both have different purposes. The katana was made as a duelling weapon, with the intent for the fights to end quickly, whereas the Longsword needed to be made for versatility, since knight combat was incredibly varied.
Katanas were initially made to be a last resort side-arm.......something that the soldier could quickly unsheath if he lost his Yari or other similar weapon. Only later in the Edo period did they become known for dueling.
The longsword wasn't typically for slow hard hits, but for reaching around the opponent's defences and weapon and getting in hits, and the higher (or lower) center of mass allowed it to be rotated easier
It would be lower center of mass, but the long sword was simply balanced to be wielded easier in general. Curved swords such as the scimitar or falx were the ones designed to get around shields lol, and they had the same balance as a long sword. That’s part of the reason that large guards and pommels were favored throughout the Mediterranean and Northern Europe
@@bendover9813 but the reason that longswords were the main sword in western Europe was because of their flexibility in combat. Whilst curved swords (or even axes) were better at disabling larger shields, smaller and more strategic button shields such as bucklers could easily be made useless by simply stabbing the arm above if possible, which is what I meant by reaching around defences
@@boiboi505 yeah, a longsword can be used as a sword mace and shortspear at the same time.
it is also necessary to realize that there is a difference between using a long sword in a battle against an armored opponent, or in a duel of "God's judgment" when the opponents were often unarmored.
@@RadekKapoun usually they wore theire armors in europe even in duels.
Much respect. Great seeing the representation of these great historical blades in action.
There are TONS of issues with a Katana.
1. Angels use Zweihänder / Longswords. Not Katanas.
2. A katana has only one sharp side. Alone this point means half the durability of the blade when carried for a longer time without maintenance, becouse there is only one edge to ruin.
3. It is made from a brittle steel, which further decreases durability when you have to go out into the field for a longer time, becouse instead of bending the edge, which can be re-straightened, it chips, which ruins the edge completely.
4. It is made from a high carbon content, which means it has even less durability in the field, becouse of the high maintenance requirement (For example oils to keep it from rusting. Long swords don't rust as fast. In survival situations or long battles, most people don't have oil laying around to use on their weapon.)
5. If the target has a shield or armor, slicing limits the amount of attacks on the target, becouse slicing only allows to attack the outer silhouette, which means it is extremely easy to defend against slicing by simply using a shield or some sort of plate armor on the sides. This is where thrusting and stabbing is needed to get between the layers of an armor, or around the shield. In a battle with multiple people, the time of most katana wielders in despair trying to somehow bypass armor (even if the target is laying on the ground) is drastically higher, and allows the katana wielders to be attacked much easier by other people. If there is only one mess up of most of the katana wielders trying to stab with a katana, the blade gets stuck between armor and snaps (Becouse katanas don't bend well), and the fight is over.
6. Not being able to move fast in plate armor is a myth and there are several videos on youtube that show people who do all kinds of gym exercises including standing up from laying position with plate armor.
7. Katanas draw their biggest advantage out of attacking an enemy from a cover of an ambush, so he doesn't even try to block the blade, making this a backstabber weapon, and telling books about how japan was not a trustworthy environment, politically, socially and otherwise. You know a countries culture is a mess up, if even the shape of their weapons rely on fighting without honor. It tells and cries a story about the collective failures of its nation.
8. For most people, a Katana doesn't attack faster than a long sword, becouse most of the movement going on in the blade is coming from the arms and the body, not the 1 or 2 kilos at the end of it that they are trying to accelerate. Then you might aswell pick a Longsword which also allows you to thrust, once it has completed its slicing motion. A Longsword can cut better and faster than a katana, becouse the edge is hitting the target earlier than a katana, becouse it is straight and not bent backwards. The modern sword smithes which aren't afraid to get into modern shitstorm crossfire also demonstrate this on youtube by using both weapons sharpened to the same degree on a tatami. Longswords have superior steel for fighting in every way, aswell.
All of this makes a Katana be the object that Japan fanboys want to snuggle and keep close, and then hold up like a Neandertaler to impress other Japan fanboys with it, while saying Oooooooh, a sharp object.
Fazit: A Katana is a waste of metal and only practical in big battles in peoples fantasy. Japan was and is big into indimidating people with stories and fiction, and that remains to be the driving factor of why japan fanboys think katanas would have any kind of use in a survival or real long - lasting battle situation.
A long sword is a weapon of war, a katana is a joke.
Katanas are only favoured by people who don't know war and never fought one. Just like Japans fiction fanbase (including samurais which held fiction above realism)
@Stephan Dankeschön
Really enjoyed watching that, you comparison was well put together, thank you
Great video! When you mentioned that the guard is a bit to sharp I was about to comment that you would use gloves holding sword. Hahaha you got me with the next shot with gloves, wp! Superb video!
I practice HEMA and used to be VERY biased against katanas to the point that it was straight up hate. Skalgrim helped me get over that stupid phase, and I'm glad that both swords are getting their deserved praise on the more slashy and stabby sides of the internet
Dude same. I look back at my longsword-superiority complex with cringe and distaste.
I mean it is superior doesn’t mean the katana is terrible
They simply have different purposes is all. Katana's are more for lightly to unarmored foes, a longsword is for moderate to heavily armored foes.
From what I've read about them, the common katana fighting styles are based in a culture that had very little metal, so majority of what they had was made into tools and weapons. That being said, a quick and devastating blow was what you relied on for combat and, as you stated in the video, they didn't fear death.
The longsword, on the other hand, was perfected to combat armored opponents, as they needed to aim for the small gaps in their armor. Said sword also could be wielded by the blade with the handle acting as a blugeoning weapon as those types of weapons were used to concuss them.
In my overall opinion, each have their marits and were ideal for their location and culture.
Katana also wasn't purely made for "combat" against everything as well, Samurai's trained with bunch of different weapons so Katana was more of a close quarters and self-protection weapon while the longswords were made to be the main weapons of many soldiers of that era "mostly cause it was hard to come by with someone who was proficient with spears, bows and so on and have the wealth to get them (if they werent royalty or worked for them) so the longsword was made with that in mind "given the slightly bigger blade that would be easier to use than a Katana that you could easily break by being a dumbass" putting the pummel there so you can use it as blunt force weapon/tool.
and yes i am very well in knowledge that the peasants wouldn't be afforded the luxury to even have longswords or even shortsword alot of the times, but compared to the exclusivity of the Katana it is worth the mention.
Also, even in europe and whatnot that used to use the longswords, most people didn't have metal covering them, but instead have leather which is a bitch to cut when made well, so that is also a point why the longsword often has very sharp point, so you can stab the person making it much easier to go through that leather armor (mostly only knights had actually full plated armors back then and even they didn't use them at all times)
Long swords were never made to go against armor. It was a secondary weapon and they did develope techniques to take down someone with armor. Half handing is a popular one.
One of the reasons why knights always carried dagger was to defeat armor. (Daggers for everyone!)
Yes Japan had poor quality steel hence why their crafting techniques. I am always amazed how much Japan has accomplished through out it's history given the fact they have like no freaking natural resources.
Plus you also look to the style of fighting and difference between the Medieval Knight and the Japanize Samurai. One was built on Martial arts practice by the Japanize and there other on European bruit force and clash of swords.
Imagine someone mastering both 😳
uh, no. A longsword can very much be used against armored foes with a Mordhau grip, but no sword in the history of weaponry was made to fight plated enemies. A longsword is much more of a status weapon than a battle weapon. They're mostly used in duels
Great video / comparison. Appreciate the format, objectiveness, humor and seriousness blended in.
This is the most honest sword video I've ever seen. And great job calling out the clearly biased creators who lie in their videos.
Interesting take on the subject. They each have strengths and weaknesses because they were developed to fit different niches. However, as for which is better in a life or death situation...
I vote for whichever one you can get your hands on in the moment.
Katana for opponent wearing light or no armor.
Long Sword for Medium and heavy.
:D
A longsword is better than a katana in every way. A longsword weighs the same as a katana and is more durable. Because of the fact that the long is as long as it is, it is also more nimble and can have more powerful blows. It beats the katana in versatility, too, for several reasons. No sword does well against plate armor, but the longsword did have a solution, which was holding it by the blade and using the cross guard as a pickaxe. There was also the pommel (end them rightly...) And the obvious fact that it was double edged and could thrust and cut.
A longsword is the same weight and yet it is more nimble, more durable, more versatile and can have significantly more power in it's blows. A longsword is literally better in every aspect.
@@zerglinglover2303 but katana Japanese mysterious history cool! 😢
I'd go with hoe or a billhook or even a pitchfork. Man that pitch fork does some nasty penetration on any armor and was probably way more readily available in life or death situation than any expensive sword.
@@rasehorn yeah, a spear would be better than any sword 99% of the time.
My grandfather served in the Pacific during WWII and had a kaigunto and a shorter sword that he took off a Japanese soldier when they captured their boat. As a kid I'll never forget how extraordinarily light they were for such size. He kept them oiled and razor sharp. He was a respectful man and treated those weapons carefully. You could see him clearly going through stuff emotionally whenever he took them out of his cabinet.
Traditionally made, for their size they're actually really heavy blades. The one in this video would feather light in comparison.
Wow, that's very respectful of him.
@@MechanicaMenace bimetallic blades, steal forged around an iron core.
Grandad gave me a sword he took from somebody in the Spanish American War. The scabbard is leather, with silver tip and the attachment place at the opening of it. It had blood stains on it, which are STILL there. Soon to be handed down to my Grandsons. (Yes, it's still Sharp, too!).
Respectful would be to hand them back to the family that owned them originally. My two cents.
You’re a good man bud, and I loved your comparisons, contrasts, critique, and your funny lol
I love this guys humor. Would love to see a guest appearance with Shad, though the distance miiiight be a problem.
I'd argue with the general statement of the longsword being a primary thrusting weapon.
Depending on the design, some put a focus on it, but cuts and slashes are certainly a major factor in its design.
It wouldn't be accurate to say they're primarily just thrusting weapons because there are different longsword designs. They can be more or less profile tapered or distal tapered. The more tapered they are, the lighter it feels and quicker it feels while making it pointier for thrusts while less tapering will make them heavier yet also better cutters.
Even within katanas (and katana-related swords like tachi, etc), the details of their design can vary a lot to favor cutting vs thrusting.
They are cut and thrust blades, and certain designs focus on one more than the other. Check out an Albion Principe, versus an Albion Agincourt for example.
Look at the sources my guy, it's not a primary thrusting weapon. Most techniques in all manuscripts that I looked into is heavily biased towars cuts and strikes.
Also them not been sharp id say for some reason european swords especially if they are budget ones are sharpened very poorly. Also its very common the edges to have very bad profile. Modern ones sharpened same way as most knives having secondary bevel as edge, but the angle is very thick so it cant cut well. For example these swords are from same company, but they just simply sharpen the katanas more well based on their name i imagine they are more specialized in katanas too. To me longsword becomes more of thrusting focused weapon if you are dealing with armor, and like others pointed out here there are ton of designs some been monster cutters, but some pretty much thrusters then everything in between that.
@@lalli8152 You make a good point: Longswords focus on thrusting when dealing with armor. Reason: there is absolutely no point slashing at a late mediaeval full plate with anything short of a scify weapon (lightsaber or W40k chainsword). Even thrusts do not penetrate, not even when you hit the chainmail in the weak point like under the arm. But thrusting there in halfsword still hurts and gives you a certain control over your your opponent if you leave the point there, leading to eventual takedown and finish/surrender. This is an entirely different scenario to a combat where any single strike could be fatal.
I guess the longsword design consideration is that a longsword cut, even a light one, is fully sufficient to kill unarmoured opponents easily enough.
In contrast, the katanas design suggests either primary use against unarmored opponents (civil use) or that there was indeed hope to cut through some elements of a samurais armor with a sufficiently specialized weapon. One reason for this is likely the non-availability of tempered steel in mediaeval Japan.
Comparing these two swords is like the ancient equivalent of asking if an M4 or a Barrett 50 was "better". Two specialized tools for particular jobs, which is a point I'm really glad you brought up. People always compare these swords apples to apples, which isn't really fair. This was a great addition to the katana vs longsword conversation, and you added a lot of great points.
Thanks man, this guy gets it 🙏
That's a bit of a stretch. It's more like comparing an M4 to an SR-25
@@Excalibur01 It's just an example bro... If anything it's more of a MK18 to a MK12 or something
@@DJ_Z_2004 Examples need to make sense.
@@Excalibur01 i really don't think anyone was confused. This has gone on for too long, bye bye
We definitely did have a cultural sword of our own in America. It's called the Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber.
Good call. I'm tempted to debate, bring up things like the 1840 noncom sword or the Ames cutlass, but you got it....
cavalry sabers didnt originate from america
@@landlockedcroat1554 Irrelevant. He didn't claim they did. Simply specified a particular model of Cavalry saber. You do realise that there are different types of sabers?
This was a very interesting video. I didnt think i was going to watch it all but i did and im going to have to check out more of your content.
When they were sparring around the 5 min mark, he mentions the longswords size makes it less nimble, however the hema user wasn't making optimal use of the point of his long sword that wouldve allow him to ward of several of the katana attacks which couldve ended with various torso stabs.
most of the hits for the katana user looked like the longsword user wasn't trying.
which is why he says it depends on who is more skilled. Sure that's possible but there are so many arguments etc. For example what if a drawing iado strike takes down the longsword user before the fight even starts unexpectedly. The possibilities are endless, it just all depends on who is better with their blade
@@ninjacrackpots Yes Absolutely
@@ninjacrackpots in a real fight closing distance is very difficult and will get you stabbed
@@ninjacrackpots wow nice anecdotal evidence. It doesent hold up in an argument at all. A longsword would definetly have a range advantage if the person who wielded the sword knew what they were doing. Just how an amateur boxer would dominate 99% of street fighters
You forget to mention that the pommel was also used to break some bones, like a hammer. I live in France, I had the chance to go to some medieval recreations, and looks like these swords were actually often used more like big hammers than like big cutters. A pommel hitting your helmet at full speed with all its inertia must have a nice stun effect, I guess ^^
Yes that is correct! I wish that Cerberusarms actually addressed this point. This technique you're reffering to is called mordhau or murder stroke
Ah yes, the famous mordhau tech
@@Luke-mp7vv Ah yes, I remember now. Thx mate =)
It did more than stun. A proper pommelschlag could kill. It would also wildly distort the helm, making your opponent struggle to see as well or make the helm useless entirely.
Do you need to unscrew it to end your opponents properly?
Having watched some of these videos on swords , this one is well done.
Often your correct though , comparisons are often done between the European midieval swords and oriental.
I imagine for one on one dueling this would be acceptable but for large battles and conflicts the weapon is only as effective as the training of the user.
I only mention this because in the Romans accomplished a great deal with the Gladius , but at the same time revolutionized the method in which an army fights.
You do such a good job , i dont know if its an interest to you but I would definitely love to see you do a peice on the gladius.
Gladius - read a claim that this sword killed more people than any other weapon pre-gunpowder. I think you need to take that within the context that there were a lot of Romans for a long time and we should all take a moment of our day to think about the Roman Empire... but, the Gladius was without doubt a VERY effective weapon for the style of fighting that dominated that part and region of history.
Not completely convinced there is a deep elegance to using one, but they worked.
Good vid, of Skallagrim, Seki Sensei and yourself you were the only one to raise the most obvious difference between the two swords (to me). The difference between use of a single bladed vs a double bladed sword.
I'm sure someone already screamed this in the comments below. You are right the long sword is off balance, but the weight is supposed to be just beyond the guard not on the end or in the middle of the blade. Think about it, if the weight is in the end of the blade you need to have more leverage to pull the blade back to position. The closer the weight is to the grip the easier it is to control and move the weight. There are swords meant to be more like a chopper, cutlass, scimitar, Chinese broad sword. Not the long sword, it is a thrusting weapon and you need to control the tip from the guard. P.S. there are long swords varieties that give the katana a run for it's money. Such as the one Skallagrim was stabbing himself with.
There are many other things that the content creator missed. Like how katana is mostly against unarmored opponents (easier to slash meat when there is no hard materials stopping from doing it or dulling the sharp edges) while long sword is mostly anti-armor (thats why its so "thrust-centered", because the way to beat armor is to get thru the gaps, there are even techniques that help with getting into the gaps better like "half swording". But its not only anti-armor - its also very versatile and does have some cutting power which i believe is mostly for self-defense when you are out do duty). While both have been used on battlefield they both are mostly 2ndary weapons. They are means to be used only after you either have lost your main weapon or its useless for the situation (spears often being the primary weapons). It was a decent video but you can see the lack of expertise because things like these were not brought up. This may come up bit harsh (and is bit inaccurate comparison) but to me this was like comparing potato peeling tool to a can opener. Totally different things for different usage.
guess i handled the wrong longswords, not poking fun at you or anything... just had a different experience than what you are suggesting, a good longsword usually is pretty well balanced at the hilt while (from my experience) katanas are more blade heavy, this seems to align with @Oliver Brubaker , katanas are slash and chop weapons while a longsword is also made to stab and have easier tip handling .... also i agree with Oliver, there are many longswords that are on par and even better at slashing or cutting than the katana, they may have a different name, like the kriegsmesser, it usually was a hand and a half sword like the longsword but could be more about slashing than stabbing, also when you look at some Asian blades like the Chinese Dao or the Indian Khanda .... now that i think about it, Europe, Arabia and western Asia had too much war to be bad at it lol
I guess it depends on what the user wants of his sword, in the medieval period there wasn't any standardised way of making swords, hence why there are so many types. categorising them is more of a modern thing. But I think a more offence longsword would the the balance at the tip for thrusting trough weak spots, while a more defensive longsword has it's balance closer to the handle for manoeuvrability instead of power.
Comparing the two is also an apples and oranges stories (as mentioned before) because the longsword is more effective against heavy armoured foes (like other knights) while katanas are meant to be used against lightly armoured foes like samurai (and peasants, but the same can be said about longswords for the last one)
@@MegaPompoen You have some of this backwards: Samurai were not lightly armored in comparison to who they were fighting, but were instead heavily armored in that context. Only against European 16th century full plate on top of mail and gambeson would samurai armor be considered anything other than heavy armor - and even then it would still be considered medium armor by both weight and protection. This misunderstanding comes about because of the common portrayals of European and Japanese armor - modern portrayals of late medieval European armor tends to emphasize the steel construction, while both modern and contemporaneous samurai armor is heavily decorated with silk and brocades, obscuring the fact that it’s also made out of large steel plates that just happen to be lacquered and painted in bright bright colors. European armor was also often decorated, but instead of painting the armor itself the decorations were often in the form of a surcoat or other brightly colored textile worn on top of the plate - but because these were actively worn garments comparatively few survive to the modern era, while the peak of samurai technology didn’t occur until the 1800’s, long after plate armor had been rendered largely useless in Europe.
You can even see clear examples of the relative protection samurai armor offered, with higher quality suits coming with “proof marks” of where they had been shot with an arquebus (early firearm) showing no penetration and often minimal deformation.
@@robertkb64 Yes but the majority of people a samurai would actually fight with a katana would be unarmored. Samurai wouldn't go around in full kit every day any more than a knight would. When going to war and wearing full armor a samurai's primary weapon would be a bow, gun, yari, or naginata. I think it's fair to say that a Katana is definitely optimized for fighting unarmored opponents such as peasants or samurai in their day clothes.
The answer to katana vs longsword debate is simple. It's dumb, they are complete opposites in many ways, and you'd be comparing a plethora of different swords to one single edged and relatively short sword. It's not that it's not fair, but people should compare a type of longsword rather than trying to see if they're all better. I mean you don't see people compare the tachi vs an arming sword (yeah, a bit of an exaggeration, but still, there's no need for comparison).
Whatever you have to say keep in mind there's over a hundred responses, so you don't have anything I haven't heard all ready, I don't care, stop filling up my notifications.
You are completely right, in addition we have the double edged, with it anyone con make more cuts and move Tha you can do what a Uchi-katana or a Tachi, that's is a clearly disadvantage, another one is the since, a long sword (or two handed sword) is longer that uchi-katana and some tachi, so with a long sword you have a bigger range that your opponent.
Then which is better, obviously the long sword, everything that a expose here is by my own experience, because I Kenjutsu practicing and my friends are HEMA practicing and we make a lot of duels, and I'm always in disadvantage against them.
The debate isn't simple if you are just weighing which one is a technically better weapon.
The longsword wins in every single way.
Japan even BANNED rapiers from duels because so many samurai were dying to them it was a joke, the katana was that inferior.
@@escapetherace1943 do you have a source for that sounds interesting I was also under the impression the japanese government outlawed civilians from publicly carrying any kind of weapon but that was more authoritarian i would imagine
the katana comes in varieties too dawg...please study your nihonto lol but i still agree with you. longsword and katana have more differences than similarities.
@@Flamewolf14 his source is that he made it up, Japan was a fragmented mess during the time Europeans were allowed and nobody could or would enforce a ban like that, and by the time the Shogunate began all but the dutch were banned from doing business due to the Tokugawa's isolationist and economical control policies. If dueling with foreigners was forbidden it wouldn't have been because you fear losing face, but because you shouldn't be fighting to the death with your only business partners, or, and this is more likely, because dueling IN GENERAL was outlawed.
Great vid man, well done and thanks for it
Really enjoyed your video...what you said about balance and reverberation on the blades, reminded me of what happens on tennis rackets. Different people thrive with different equipment. Finding what is more suitable to your height, strength and even the way you hold it is crucial to your success on using it. I guess same goes to swords.
I LOVE the balance this guy has with his critique. I always figured that both were equally good, but to have someone thoroughly test it out for me is super satisfying. Thanks!
Generally they were designed for different tasks. Western Long Swords were not primery weapons. Proper Long Sword was primarily universal, allowing to replace various weapons of war, such as falchion, short spear, warhammer or shield. So they commonly ended in elite units intended for fast response on various threats. Shorter Arming Sword was compact enough that it could be taken anywhere, so it serve as reserve weapon for elites (becoming symbol of status). But in reality most soldiers pick usually spears, halabard or something with better reach of piercing. Also for reminder, contrary to popular believe firearms were introduced in XIV century, predating common use of Long Sword and Full Plates.
As for Japan, Uchigatana (known commonly as Katana) was developed from Tachi, what was in fact just fancy saber. As original Samurai were horse archers. But with introduction of firearms, this role become obsolete. So they repurpose cavalry weapons for new tactic. Commonly involving rapid raids on camps, where medium size, fast but rather heavy blade could easily annihilate typically unprotected light infantry and gunners. Katana was though rather poor counter to traditional samurai armor and was not really used against it. When Long Sword could be used as hammer. In both cases those were excellent weapons for the job. And for reminder Japan and Britain did make tournament to determine which swordsmanship was better. It was draw (though exotic nature of oponent combat style also played role here).
Thing is, they are not. The whole premise in the video is unfortunately wrong. You can't compare a combat weapon by slashing at stationary targets. Sure, the Katana is better at cutting but proper cutting needs perfect edge alignment which you simply will never get in real combat. The reach advancement of the longsword can not be understated. Ask anyone who is a real fighter and they will always say the weapon with the most reach is the best for the majority of scenarios. The other important factor is versatility. Does it matter that the Katana can cut better than the sword? Barely. If you fight an unarmed opponent and get a cut in, they are pretty much dead anyway. But things look vastly different against an armored opponent. Contrary to what you see in Hollywood movies, neither a Katana nor a sword can slash through steel. So the only advantage the Katana had is now gone. With a sword you can half sword into enemy weak points or you can use it as a hammer to bash someones head in. Neither is possible with a Katana. So in about 90% of possible scenarios, the longsword will be the vastly superior weapon and in the remaining 10% only negligible inferior. I think that qualifies for the conclusion that the longsword is the better weapon.
@@michaelwagner6867 What you wrote looks good on paper but history seems to disagree with you. Longsword was by far not that popular than one handed swords and comparably to them was used for relatively short time. That speaks volume about if the reach is "always" advantage for "majority" of scenarios. More universal doesn't necessary spell better on battlefield (by the way why you think you cannot halfsword with katana?). Often you want less options better honed because in pandemonium of battle you don't have much time to think. Armor is overused argument. Many soldiers in Europw were not completely cladded in armor and not all longswords were pointy. Cutting swords were immensely popular in Europe from migration era pretty much until now. Many people approach swords (or other weapons) like if they are stats in video game. Fact is variety swords in Europe shows there is not some universally great design and I would guess lack of it in Japan is more cause of isolation and lack of outside influence.
@@ivanhajko2660 I was purely talking about longsword vs Katana, not overall battlefield weapons. The main weapon of almost all times were spears because, io and behold, the reach. That speaks volume about reach being THE factor.
Why you think more universal would not be better is completely beyond me. In a scenario where you don't know what you will be up against, do you want to prepared very well for 1 specific matchup or rather be well prepared for 10 different matchups? I'd definitely choose the latter. Maybe you can half sword with a Katana, i've never tried it, but it certainly wouldn't work well because it simply wasn't made for stabbing, which the video also shows.
The armor argument is not overused, it is about diversity. The european middle ages were ~600 years long (around 800-1400). Japan was hundreds of years behind technologically which makes a comparison already difficult. You can't have that conversation without setting the specific time frame. And there is absolutely no argument about spring steel being far superior to the brittle iron that was used in Katanas. So this also comes down to technology, rather than just design. Steel was very hard to come by in Japan, and if they got it, it was very poor quality. Hence the folding which, contrary to popular myth, was not what made the Katana "the sharpest weapon evaaa" but to make it at all usable.
It is very simple actually. In war, the most practical and effective weapon will be used. Period. Europe had a lot more and more diverse wars than Japan. Katanas were not used in european warfare because they were not as effective. The Katana did not evolve because in the 1700's the Tokugawa Shogunate declared that swords made during the Koto period (987-1597 AD) were superior to the ones being created then and ordered all swordsmiths to begin rediscovering the old techniques used .This essentially stagnated their swordsmithing during what could well have been a period of innovation and new designs, as it was in Western Europe
Glad that this type of thought process hasn't died out, just an "endangered species."
I like both but at the end of the day the long sword seems to be a much more versatile weapon. People who know what they're doing with one are prone to using the entire sword as a weapon not just the blade especially when they are an armored combatant.
Add to that the definition of “long sword” is a lot more vague than the katana, with there being a sizable variety of blades that could’ve be called a “long sword” while katanas as a weapon classification are almost extremely uniform. If you remove the cultural designators, you could probably include katana as a type of “long sword”, that’s how vague and broad the term is.
the thing is there is Long sword katanas so this comparison is unfair as you comparing a meduim sized blade to a long sword. For this to be a fair comparison agaisnt slimular blades it would have to be a european long sword vs a japnese long sword a nodachi
In armored combat you use the blade the least.
It's just a tiny metal spear in armored combat.
@@Nala15-Artist One other thing about the European longswords is that the guard is made such a way that you can grab the blade and use it like a mace. Slightly more effective against certain armors but then again the most feared melee weapon at that time was the halberd/poleaxe as with its weight and leverage it did care how armored you were, it was gonna get ya good.
Another thing is a long sword is much more usable with one hand than a katana which frees up your other hand for things like a shield, second weapon, punching or just grabbing your opponent's weapon.
"I was a disgusting little weeb" is the best take you have.
Love your work on this video. Also that lo-fi hip-hop bgm is dope, bro
lol I loved the Warcraft Style Statsheet at the end xD
The best sword depends on the fighter & the context.
A quick-draw slashing weapon is great until your opponent has mail. Plate armour is great til your opponent has crossbows & cannon. A spear is great until your enemy doesn't even need to get close to you. .etc
Yes! Thank you! I have always been a little frustrated when people argue which sword (and Martial Arts in general) Is better. It all depends on the fighter, who they are fighting, what they are wearing, where they are, and the context of the fight, and many many many other fact. To say that one thing beats all is not true. I personally love the katana, and like it much better than the long sword, but I don’t think it’s better than the long sword, nor do I think the long sword is better than the katana. The katana is better for me and how I think as a Martial Artist, but the long sword may be better for others people. It all depends on the skill of the person wielding it.
True, and a in hypothetical apocalyptic area in a city environment. I'd take a longsword, less maintenance and more uses and better durability. Even blunt you can still baseball bat the damn thing lol.
@@drzaius8430 Yep, and IMO a straight edge is easier to sharpen. A couple of good river stones, pavers, tiles (unglazed) .etc of varying roughness is all you need
Yes. Warfare evolved constantly in Europe and much faster than Japan. Since it's not been insular culturally. So tools and technologies development outpaced anywhere else in the world.
A gun js great until your enemy throws mustard gas canisters at you
"Battles are won by warriors, not by weapons"
-Sensei Ishikawa, Ghost of Tsushima
Right before his best general burst into flames ! 🤣
U can't use a game as a Parameter bruh! Pick a Master swordsman and put him to face a 13 year Old School Shooter in 10 feet of distance
quoting from a game is cringe as f*ck virgin boy
Until someone drops a nuclear weapon.
@@vitorribeiro796 the average american kid wins
Your videos make me smile. Thanks man
GREAT video! By far the best I've seen on this topic. I love that you get the importance of context and that you included some humor.
Any intelligent person should know that the answer to almost every question depends on context. I think a Katana would be virtually useless in trying to cut through armor, while a stab from a long sword might penetrate. On the other hand, in the frenetic, close range melee like I've seen in Samurai movies, a long sword would be too slow, and the length might actually be a hindrance. I'm just glad I live in a time when being sliced or stabbed by a sword is pretty unlikely.
Agreed, super glad I don’t have to worry about getting sliced by a sword these days!
It comes down to history and location of where these swords were developed. Europe was rich in metal resources, so steel was everywhere and chainmail and armor was common. Longswords were developed in this environment. Japan was an island with limited metallurgic resources by comparison. So katanas were built for cutting fabrics and flesh, but were considerably more fragile.
I believe the most evolved swords were actually the European rapiers of the 16th and 17th century, which could pierce light armor but were also quick for strikes to flesh. And being made of Damascus or Toledo steel were unbelievably strong.
Correct. The final evolution of the sword developed with scientific rigour and through actual bettlefield use encompassed three designs. The rapier for self defence and dueling, the cavalry sabre for use on horseback, and the naval cutlass for use in close quarters combat aboard ships in boarding action. These were independently developed in kultiple cultures, and adopted bretty much gloablly throughout the 18th and 19th century, even in japan.
You also have to keep in mind, that the Japanese didn't develop high temp smelting furnaces like the Indians and Mediterrians did. They had smelting furnaces but those only yielded so much pure material so they had to invent there lamination techniques which gave way to the iconic multipart design that the katana then became known for xD
Great point. People often forget the resource disparity between Japan and Europe. That said, I’d advocate not forgetting about middle eastern swords - after all, it’s called Damascus steel for a reason
@@brendanmckee1846 It would also be interesting to know how easy or hard they are to make in comparison to each other. I have seen TV programs about the skill required to make Japanese swords but not European swords. There is an interesting TV series called War Factories that looked at the production of weapons on both sides during WW2. The Germans made great tanks but they were slow and costly, the allies made okay tanks that were cheap and easy to make. Sheer numerical advantage meant the cheap okay tanks beat the superior German tanks. If you want to supply a fighting force this type of consideration is important.
Ok ok but should I pick Mitsurugi or Siegfried?
Many years ago I discovered some old Samurai movies and, like many, romanticized sword fighting. I studied for a while…
My oldest grandson discovered my Katana collection and wanted to play with them. I told him the same thing my instructor told me “show me that you can use your head first, and I wi show you how to use these”
He is only five… I have time to work with him on his character building. Funny thing is, he is a great example to me of how to be a good human being 😎
That’s awesome, sounds like he has a cool ass grandfather.
Are you really saying that you look to children as examples for humanity to follow?
@@hasegawataizo4069 I say yes, they come to this world so pure and innocent with genuine compation for every being. Until adults infiltrate and polute their minds.
@@hasegawataizo4069 Why not? Children don't judge based on arbitrary and irrelevant features like adults do. They know how to empathize with anyone and anything, and they are not afraid to give support to those who need it. Then they grow up and become more cynical and those traits are either partially or completely erased.
@@baverfjant you have to be trolling. Normally, that's my job. Children do not arbitrarily judge people? Children have amazing amounts of empathy? Their cerebellum is still developing in the hind brain with more progenitor than glial cells. 🤣😂🤣😂 That was a good one. 👍👍
Haven't even watched the clip yet and just subscribed for the laughs I got watching the intro.
i literally subbed because of the intro my kind of vibe man xDD caught me off guard as hell
the REAL sad truth is that both are outclassed by spears
spears are just superior lol
Mikiri counter :
The spear was the king of the battlefield.
Battle axe 🗿
All three are outclassed by guns tho
In a real life situation I would gravitate toward the one I have more familiarity with so I'd go with the AR15 from about 50 meters out. I like that you pointed out some of the issues with both blades (the pommel on the long sword, the thin handle on the katana, and both having a balance that wasn't quite correct) Excellent video and presentation. Thanks. I learned a lot!
I agree about the AR 15 lol
This comment had no business being this funny
I agree
😂
Damn that first sentence was clever
I like this balanced view, my preference as a former HEMA practitioner is the longsword, but as you rightly say it is a difference in styles… the styles are defined by their major difference - the double edge and single edge. That defines their use.
The circular flow of the katana is a thing of beauty bringing the leading edge in, or the block and rapid counter of the double edge longsword.
With more exposure, use and training I think the Katanas movement would get into my head in a good way. Your video has encouraged me to try it out one day.
I just discovered your channel. I wish I knew about you sooner. This is hilarious and educational.
I like the European Long sword a bit more than Katanas because usually you were in full metal armor while fighting with them and then you could even hold the Blade tight because of your Gauntlets and in close range you could use it different. You could also use the crossguard as a hitting weapon. The longsword isnt just the blade.
This is the main reason I put a fully armored knight over any samurai the European armor allowed these dudes to become tanks enough to get up close and do what you want with your opponent.
@@uneducatedisnotstupidlol1504 exactly, and imagine a light blade like a katana hitting a full plate armor, theres no way that would do much damage, thats why the European weapons are in the most cases heavier.
@@savigro2283 Katanas are actually typically heavier than a 'longsword;' in part because they are specialized for cutting, which the heavier blade lends itself to. The European sword lends itself equally to thrusting, however, which is why it is more effective against an armored opponent-- one cannot cleave through steel plate with a slashing attack, but one can maneuver the tip into the joints using techniques like half swording. Those points could be targeted with a cut, but this is way less effective; even chain protects quite well against slashing attacks. Plus, the hilt of longswords are much more effective improvised bludgeons than katana hilts, and bludgeoning attacks are the best kind of attack against plate.
@@savigro2283 thats why longsword were used agianst armorred oponents and katana´s to more lightly armored oponents, also the samurai didnt use katan´s often in a really battle they used their long bow (armor piercing) and a yari (sort of a spear) and they would wear armor where they would have sort of little shields on their shoulders and a helmet and some lightweight plating. conclusion katana´s were not made to fight heavilly armored oponents but used other weapons agianst more heavilly armored oponents
@@savigro2283 A long sword, historically, would do jack dish as well to full plate armour. It's why a typical struggle between two full plate knights would be determined by who ended up collapsing/falling first, allowing the opponent to thrust into the joints between the armour. You are doing the same thing as those who over glorify the katana. At best you might give your opponent in full plate a headache from constantly clanging a long sword against their armour.
The lighting, music, everything is so sublime in this. Well done everyone involved.
Unfortunately, I can only partially agree with you: the production values and information being passed on were excellent but the music was so intrusive and poorly mastered that I had to stop watching half-way through. Very disappointed. I don't see the point of having the music (or rather muzak) at all as it's unnecessary and really detracts from an interesting video.
Loved the opening bit. Watched the whole video. Well done! Will be asking my GM for +1 AC when wielding a long sword now. Thanks!
Whow ... never seen such perfect and professional comparison, great 🙂
Usually the later a sword or armor is, the better it is, metallurgy didn't sit still. It also needs to be kept in mind that the two swords were used in combination with very different protective gear. Shields and armor that fully covered the body head to toe vs Japanese laquered armor. You really notice this with a weapon like the Claymore, or some of the other weapons from the same period. They're practically blacksmith tools meant to open up steel containers.
the later, tge bettee is not true, many thing like aemor went obsolete when new weaponry was introduced, but doesnt mean soldier uniforms from 1700 are better in protecting than mideaval armor
@@bittegibeinennamenein8889 The introduction of firearms changed this. No point in armor when a musket ball will go through your breastplate.
shields were not really used with longswords as it was primarily a two-handed weapon. Not to mention in a set of armour in the 15th century (the start of the rise of the longsword) armour was cap-a-pie plate. Totally head to toe. The only way you are getting thru the armour is via the weak points, armpits, back of legs, groin, palm of hands. When you say claymore, do you mean the actual claymore sword or the highland two-handed sword?
@@markenetube They can actually makes armor that can withstand bullet (which by the time was not introduced the method of rifling), but it's getting more and more counterproductive
@@keevanalrasyidumar5450 Full plate armor became obsolete when noble and rich men stoped their participation in warfare. They could make strong armor against bullets, but it would be counterproductiveand Spaniah tertia besides all of that made change in battlefield. They better paid for mercenaries than to be certainly killed or cripled during battle.
A few years ago, a lecturer of mine who also does historical blacksmithing was tasked to manufacture a replica of an early medieval sword. With the original sword, he travelled all the way to japan to learn the art of crafting damascene steel (back then historical blacksmithing wasnt common in Germany). He said the japanese smiths were absolutely baffled at the quality of the original sword and that they have never seen anything like this.
Anyways, the reproduction alongside the original can be seen in the Archäologisches Museum in Freiburg, Germany.
When the Portuguese imported steel and swords, the Japanese smiths were happy to use them, as they were superior and easier to forge than locally produced metal.
It’s interesting how traditional sword makers use traditional tamahagane, but tool makers like saw and chisel or plane blade makers tend to use modern steels mixed with 19th century iron (if the can get it) from old bridges, anchors, etc. Since swords aren’t actually being used, going traditional makes sense. But tools have to perform and it makes sense to use the best materials.
@@keirfarnum6811 When Europeans encountered the katana and studied it they referred to the quality of Japanese steel as pig iron or impure. In a sword you want contiguous steel throughout. The Japanese of the time did not have easy access to quality sources of iron which is why they focused more on using it for weapons and their armor is made from mostly wood. The practice of folding steel was to drive out impurities which is why you hear about 1000 layer katanas but not 1000 layer longswords. You don't have to forge a sword with a hammer. You can poor the steel into the shape of a blade and use the stock removal technique to grind out the blade. The quality of European steel was better. Tamahagane was good enough for its intended purpose of slashing flesh as most opponents had no armor to speak of.
Modern day steels are alloyed with other metals to allow them to perform better for the steel's intended purpose. I'd be interested to see how Tamahagane holds up against something more modern like T10 tool steel which is made to withstand high impacts.
@@Verdigo76I’ve never heard of anyone actually casting a sword. Did they really do this?
I’m obviously not referring to Bronze Age weapons.
Not good ones! Bad ones, yes!
Great video. I really enjoyed the comparison and overall. I gravitate tours the Katana for all the influence he mentioned, all.
Remember guys!
A sword duel is the situation where a few extra inches REALLY matter
And the cross guard. Protection is key.
❤yeah.. too long you lose
I think the Tachi is more of a comparison to a Longsword. Even then, they're in their own class of sword, shape, etc.
"but what it really comes down to, is the person wielding it" YES.
5:06 - Not bludgeoning... It doesn't have enough mass. However, it DOES fit VERY nicely into the eyeslots on helms. 😵
9:05 - HUH??? That was VERY wrong. Firstly, you measure the balance by laying the flat of the blade across your index finger, with all four fingers extended and the palm of your hand perpendicular to the ground. The "balance" is the point at which the sword is neither pommel-heavy or blade-heavy. You WANT the balance to be as close to the quillons (crossguard) as possible. You NEVER EVER EVER want a sword to be tip-heavy.
9:29- You're cutting with the wrong part of the blade. Ideally, you want the cut made about 1/3 of the way from the tip to the quillons.
10:18 - That's because you're holding the sword incorrectly. The reason the pommel is rounded is because it's supposed to fit into the cupped PALM of your hand.
10:55 - Medieval swords were NOT spring steel. In fact, they were a lot EASIER to bend than modern swords. It's because they were supposed to become rigid due to the inertia of the tip, when the sword was swung full speed.
11:07 - Length of grip and leverage... Again, the pommel goes in the PALM of your hand. That's not true of all medieval swords, but it was found to be a distinct advantage, which is why SO many swords were made with pommels that could be held that way. Also, the grip had to be kept shorter for when the sword was used one handed, with a shield, something which was not a consideration with Japanese swords.
12:33 - VERY true. It's much easier to thrust the tip into gaps between pieces of armor, or into eye slots on helms, than it was to cut through steel plate.
14:35 - You say the "balance" is too far from the tip.
14:44 - You say it's tip heavy. You just TOTALLY contradicted yourself, over the course of nine seconds.
15:12 - As I mentioned at 9:29, you were cutting with the wrong part of the blade, with the European sword.
16:48 - The katana was made to be used against Japanese armor, which had much less iron and steel in it, so it could be sharper. Also, cutting through the lacing on Japanese armor meant pieces of it would fall apart leaving gaps, or parts might fall off entirely. The European sword of that era was being used largely against enemies in full steel armor. Having it "knife sharp" would mean the edge would get nicked from striking steel, and the blade could then crack and break. Therefore, it was what was known as "sword sharp."
BTW, I fought in full-contact tournaments (sword & shield, two handed sword, pole weapon, and "dual wield" (two swords)) for several years, as well as being a "marshal" (referee).
I enjoyed your video, special effects are great!! 😀
As someone who practices HEMA and has a great love for the Longsword, I don't hate the katana. I don't think one is "objectively" better, I think it's more of a subjective opinion. Now do I personally prefer the longsword over the katana? Yes, but that's my personal opinion and I do believe that the advantages of the longsword outweighs the advantages of the katana. But again I don't hate the katana. The longsword and katana have very similar techniques and are used somewhat similarly. The katana wouldn't be my first choice in a duel, but it's definitely not my last. Also some things you said about the longsword aren't true. For example, the point of balance for the longsword isn't closer to the tip, but rather closer to the hilt. That's because it'll give the user more point control. Also another thing, is that in terms of sharpness, the misconception is that medieval swords were blunt or not super sharp, but that's actually not true, because longswords had to be sharp for cutting through padded armor or clothing (obviously not chainmail or plate armor). Another reason why longsword had to be sharp, was because in HEMA there is something called the bind, it's when 2 swords bind or bite into each other, and with a sharp blade, they stick, whereas duller blades tend to slide around more. Now I do agree that longsword are better and are more for thrusting than katanas, but (also depending on the type of longsword) are also very sufficient for cutting too. Other than that, I total agree with your opinions and conclusion, I don't believe one is whole better than the other, they both have their place in history. The victor of the two swords would definitely have to be the better swordsman. God bless and keep up the good work.
I feel its pretty objective to say the longsword is far more versatile. It will always be capable of doing more than a Katana.
@@Madmax45247 OH absolutely. 100%. But what I'm saying is that it's not whole objective to say which one is better.
I think when he said centre of balance he meant centre of percussion, the point at which the blade doesn't wobble when vibrations pass through it, also sometimes referred to as the 'sweetspot' on the blade. Ideally that would be both nearer to the tip with another at the handle to allow cleaner cuts and less handshock.
@@Ilzhain Yeah, the area where a user cuts is closer to the point so about the upper third of the blade. And you could be right about he might mean the point of percussion, instead of the actual point of balance
@@Ilzhain but the cop is supposed to be two thirds up, not at the tip
I really appreciate that you've identified the fighting-style distinction, but I think there are deeper reasons why katanas are so mythologized whereas longswords are significantly less-so. The knight's equipment, down to their horse (and chivalry is an allusion to the fact that knights were mounted) , represented a multi-system combat platform. The armours were more sophisticated than the armours typically available to samurai (knights typically being part of the aristocracy changes the calculus on willingness to die). As you rightly mentioned - the European combat philosophy is fundamentally about surviving the battle, whereas the Japanese philosophy was fundamentally about killing your opponent at any cost. The killing object is naturally going to have a higher prominence in the culture which prioritizes killing in combat.
But none of that is about which sword is "better" - which isn't really a useful concept. They're meant for two different styles of combat in two vastly different cultural contexts, operating against vastly different defensive technologies.
Aren't there plenty european myths that glorify swords?
Werent samurai also aristocracy and mounted soldiers too?
@@maxw565 I think he meant in modern culture
@@brandonwhitehurst6097 they were a warrior caste that generally didn't have much upward mobility as opposed to knights who often came from noble families and could earn land.
@@Dekartz yeah alright true
that shot with the glare running up the sheath was sick, well done @cerberusarms
A jitte (十手, "ten hands") is a specialized weapon that was used by police in Edo-period Japan (1603-1868) Like any tool it was used because it worked. As for European swordsmanship the deadliest style was Florentine. I will add that even if you are the victor in bladed combat, you will often still be required to bleed and may only live for a short time. You will be very cold even on a hot day and it will get dark even in the path of sunlight.
Best part is how he accurately captured the unique, nuanced smarminess of both archetypes
I think it's also worth mentioning the durability and armor-piercing capabilities of both swords. Katanas are notoriously ineffective against armor. This is because Japanese armor was typically lighter and thinner than European armor, so armor-piercing capability wasn't a priority. For instance, during the Mongol Invasion, it was recorded that tachis (proto-katanas) would snap when used against the thick lamellar of Mongolian soldiers.
Longswords however, were much more effective against armor. This is because of many reasons, such as the stronger, more "choppy" blade, the increased maneuverability and thrusting capabilities, the ability to half-sword, etc.
Ultimately, I'd say that katanas are more effective when used against soft targets and longswords are more effective when used against harder targets.
A lot of it had to do with cultural war differences, too. Japanese armor became heavy, middle and late period samurai armor was plate, like the knights, samurai armor was not "soft cloth, bamboo reeds and leather" as some people think, but the samurai and Japanese still for whatever reasons, (probably steel limitations, too) stuck with the katana design after Masamune re-designed the katana to be thicker after the breaking problems incurred with the Mongolian invasion. knight vs. samurai the edge has to go to knights, knight armor and sword was very well equipped to fight their peers, samurai katanas and plate armor was good but inferior for fighting armored opponents, outside of some strategic advantages, e.g. archery, archery on horseback, camouflage traveling in the woods, ease of putting it on yourself / using the bathroom, unlike knights.
that's why you carry a glock along with your katana into battle!
@@sentryogmixmaster Radiating pure Isshin energy.
In addition to that, the pommel, and for certain variants the crossguard, often doubled as a blunt weapon, making it effective against armored targets and in closer ranges.
Against an armored opponent you'd rather not fight with your longsword anyway; you'd rather use a heavy blunt weapon and rock his head, or else wrestle him down and dagger him as you're holding his armor open, or a heavy two-handed piercing polearm to just cut into his armor.
What the longsword excels at is riding by on your expensive horse, wearing expensive armor that keeps you safe, and slicing away at unarmored peasants. Most commoners going into combat had to provide their own armor, and so wore little, because they were so poor.
Haven’t watched the vid past the intro but you’ve earned my like already
Refreshing to see an unbiased review with a rational comments section. Very satisfying.
You mentioned the "balls to the wall" fighting style of Samurai. I went to a Ren Fair once, there was a group that practiced Italian swordsmanship. One thing that stuck with me during the demonstration / lecture was that the average sword fight lasted... 2 to 3 seconds. Regardless of weather you were in Europe or Japan, a "balls to the wall" attitude would have been helpful.
It's not the time that matters. While both fights may have ended in 1 strike, the longsword's strike was also a defense. Although what's funny to me is that Europeans were the ones in full plate and could afford to not care about defense.
@@NyRS-tg4mu in europe there was a lot of weapons wich could bulk or damage plate armour maces, pikes crossbows and longswords so being more defensive on a horse or on foot would be more usefull than running into battle and getting bludgeon with maces
and guns dont forget guns plate armour probably evolved into the curaiss beacouse of the gun
@@oscarandreas1431 True, although most longsword schools seem to teach longsword vs longsword.
@@NyRS-tg4mu yeah but we dont use them in combat now adays and most firearm now could easily kill someone wearing it so its more for sportsmannship and a hobby since it would be anoying to spare against someone with a crossbow on other side of the field
I guess you totally didn't address the main diffrence: Longswords were designed to do damage against heavily armored opponents, wearing chain mails and plate armor. Piercing attacks tend to do more damage than slicing. And that's when the katana starts to have trouble.
That's also why half-swording is a thing, it's easier to control the point and stab where you want. Also longsword isn't the only European sword there were also swords meant for cutting. Polish saber would be closer to katana
Yes, which is why axes and halberds just trivialize swords.
Piercing attacks are more likely to get through armour, yes, but slashes are more reliable in terms of each cut impacting your opponent's ability to fight. Thrusts tend to be either be devastating or ignorable, depending on where on the opponent you hit. Cuts open up bleeding wounds, sting, can sever tendons and ligaments, etc, maybe not a one-shot fight ender (unless you get a deep cut somewhere like the gut or the throat of course), but long cuts tend to impede movement, bleed, etc. more than a non incapacitating thrust will. This is (partly) why cutting swords came back into vogue in the age of gunpowder, when armour became superfluous.
@@eggboy178 In fairness, pretty much any sword smaller than a Greatsword or a No-dachi is intended more as a sidearm/personal defence weapon than a weapon of war. Comparing a poleaxe or halberd to most swords is a bit like comparing a pistol to an assault rifle. Sure, you can do it, but without context the comparison's not that useful.
@Traugurn Burn it was used by husaria
9:51 the frames for this cut caught like a video game animation. so cool
To really do this right, you'd need to compare two swords with similar ranges. This is primarily about long range weapon vs. intermediate range weapon. Both of these families of weapons come in a variety of lengths and ranges though. I think a more illuminating comparison would be to do something like a Tachi vs. this long sword, or a shorter broad sword vs. the Kitana.
"Are neckbeards more cringe than weebs?" Truly the great question of our time.
But.... what about a neckbearded weeb?
@@shamrock3957 I bet both the neck beards and weebs hate them
@@shamrock3957
That's how you'll create a blackhole.
@@tristanbackup2536 lol
I think it’s better to do both at the same time why limit it to one or the other.
That extra length the longsword has is a huge advantage that shouldn't be understated. But both weapons are completely different in their intended use. As you mentioned, the longsword is more of a stabbing weapon, where katana is completely focused on slashing. It makes comparisons between the two a little difficult.
It would be very interesting to see the katana compared to a slashing focused European blade like the Falchion or saber.
You would never use a sword to slice someone in a battle, it would never go torught a Plate Armor, is usless, you need a weapon that can thrust and stabb. Both battles between europeans Knights againts the japoneses were a massacre. And the Japonese used Katanas in both fights. Also the Knights Long Swords were not their primary weapon, the longspear was.
@@nucleocasofloredina Yeah, spears are OP. It's sad that pop culture has pretty much ignore them. But if you lose your spear, you've always got your trusty sidearm. You're right though, the longsword was built with armor in mind. Weapons and armor were always in an evolutionary war, driving progress.
@@timelessninja agreed. a whole spear is a short sword or poignard on a stick, a broken spear is a quarter staff or a bludgeon and a pikeman without his spear is an angry dude with his short sword or dagger as a backup 😅
I agree, the types of Armour they are meant to be paired against are entirely different as well. Kind of different leagues of weapons, like an estoc or polearm versus a scimitar.
VERY rarely are swords used though in a lot of combat. If you look at the most effective militaries they are almost always the second to last weapon used.
Another thing to consider is the types of opponents a given swordsman would face. It has been proven armours like chainmail drastically reduce the threat of a slashing blade, where is a longsword, particularly half handed ( a technique where wearing an armoured gauntlet the wielder would grab the blade of his own sword for a double handed thrust giving more control) could target and pierce sections of chain armour.
I’m more talking unarmored duels. Generally duels are based on the skill rather than the armor one is wearing, wearing such armor in a duel would be most dishonorable.
I like the two handed Gladius, it is short for close quarters combat, is strong enough for power swings, the weight is low enough to pull off one-handed fencing techniques, and is double edged so there are multiple cutting moves a single-edged sword can't do.
As a medieval re-enactor, I have a double handed long sword, it never had a scabbard and shouldn’t have. Mine was hand made, spring steel in our club forge. It’s perfectly balanced and super light and fast. The handle is handmade for my hands, so comfortable. Many battles later, it’s still as good as new.
Bro! Video. Reallly wanna see
He should do Katana vs revolver lol. Same era in history
Every sword needs a scabbard lol it’s literally just to keep it from being damaged over time
Why shouldn't it have a scabbard?
wtf
The most balanced video on this topic I've ever seen. Been a swordfighter for over 20 years and love both weapons for different reasons and I appreciate your video. Totally subscribing to see what else you put out. Thanks!
Apply a decent armour and the Katana is useless. Especially against medieval armour.
@@josephsmith688no sword is good against armor the long sword is only better in that situation because it’s a better bludgeon weapon
A sword fighter? Where do you work...Hollywood?
@@bdoon51 There are other film industies than Hollywood. I'm not of the US. Originally from Africa but I've worked in the UK, Germany, Italy, Australia & India. Different sword styles under many different masters. Every one a vastly different education and its taught me to always be humble and be willing to learn.
@@Osteoporosis-_- i thought katana was supposed to be precise, strike the weak point and all which is why it's lighter than the long sword and also sharper
Very well done. I really enjoyed the vid.
Good balanced comparison. Great commentary. TY
You’re welcome, thanks for watching.
@@Cerberusarms I wish there were more people like you on UA-cam. Many are so plastic in their approach. Substance? What is that. All flash. All sizzle and no steak. I look at your productions and think how I will so similar. I don't have that method clearly in mind other than be true with the facts and simple in my purpose.