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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
@@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.
Just a piece of advice, for a longsword, you should take the pommel in your second hand, not the actual handle. That will give you a bigger range of motion and will let you do way faster swings.
True! but he already seemed weird with the longsword, when he complained saying that the balance should be at the tip, like he wanted a hammer or something? 9:00
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Some great content on this video. "The main difference is not the blades, it is the fighting style" Also the comments on 'Fearlessness' are so true. There's a reason the Vikings were recruited to the Varangian Guard (Byzantium)
The bigots factor 1 is double side blade ed 2 I would put my €€€ on the worries that had a shield the shield is the second may'be up most first in the old school ground to ground battles Infact shield war fare locking in shield's would play out like crushing the oponete aeg ever been on a train flat out peek hour an u cannot move even just breath same tactics were done that why the glatis being small had more of the advantage
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.
@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
"End the fight with a single devastating strike or die in battle." Must be a terrible feeling to realize there's no way to get through your enemy's armor in a single strike then.
@@Nathan-vt1jz I was thinking about that as well. However, there was ring mail in Japan as well. I am also not so sure the lowly foot soldiers of Europe had that much mail armour.
But that's exactly where context comes in...european warfare we were armoured and blunt force trauma/ bludgeoning ones enemy to death was often the most effective way Whereas as stated in the video the katana is primarily a slashing weapon that would be inefficient against western and european armour but was superb when it came to eastern combat due to the lighter varieties of armour used
@@seanb-ss9seyep, although thrusting weapons were used about as much as bludgeoning weapons (ex. Spears, halberds, pretty much any pole arms along with stilettos and other thrusting daggers as emergency weapons for polearm users)
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.
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.
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
@@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!
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.
I think you nailed it at the 6:30 mark about fighting styles. You want a rifle for distance & a handgun for closer requirements. Different blades are for different designations & end results, & skill levels. I've taught martial arts including blade use & defense but always open minded & willing to learn. Great job on this!
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.
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.
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
"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.
@@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.
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)
This was an extremely well put together video comparison. 👍 And I love seeing full contact sparring! Also, as a nerd - I LOVED the stats chart at the end. Good on you man! Great video. 💯
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.
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
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.
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.
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!).
OK. I'm a Westerner with similar background as described in vid, have always been pro-katana... After 5 mins into the video, I find myself now leaning towards Longsword... Great presentation so far.
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
Ok, if you had to choose. You get the longsword and your oppenent gets the katana, or vice versa, which are you picking? That pretty much settles the debate.
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.
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.
First time finding your content and the experience for me was similar to your description of the katana - sharp and well balanced, even with a bit of wisdom there in the end. I’ll come back for more! 🙌
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.
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.
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
@@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'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.
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 😎
@@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. 👍👍
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhj 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
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.
It’s the same in modern warfare. For more than a century now, artillery has been king, and precision fires is on the ascent (sensors and AI will make precision fires king soon). But we still worship the soldier and his rifle. I think this cognitive dissonance is because the people and weapons we revere say a lot about the soul of a nation. It’s actually a good thing, all the way up until you’re planning a military operation, at which point planners must be honest about such things. I honestly thing primacy will go back to infantry, when the strike complex is good enough that they can quickly call down the ‘hammer of dawn’ wherever and whenever they need it.
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.
@@Saeshy04 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.
@@Saeshy04 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
@@Saeshy04 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 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.
I'm here because of Metatron's recent video discussing this one. I'm glad he left key points out and directed his viewers here. As a 90s kid, I fully agree with the introduction describing the feeling of that point in time. A friend of mine had some swords including a katana (we were around 15-16, I guess). We threw the rotting apples we'd cleaned from his granddads yard at each other trying to cut the apples out of the air. Mostly we used his katana, because the European style swords we got from the fancy jnife and cigar place in town were all heavier with looser fittings. Great memories of my Weebneck days
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!
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 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
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 ^^
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.
As someone who's also studied both I was fully prepared to nerd rage after this video. But honestly well done man. Very fair comparison of the two! Very accurate. They are very different swords :D Opinion is one thing, but the facts are they're both great, but different. I'd like this twice if I could :)
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
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.
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.
Great video. Btw 6:58 this scene always makes me laugh, how they run as if they're stepping on burning charcoal or something, especially Alexander XD - subscribed!
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.
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
@Ninja Crackpot 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
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.
Well, very few people fought with swords anyways. They where mostly a backup, personal defense or dueling weapons. When it comes to weapons absolutely nothing compares to the spear. Not even modern firearms can touch how much the humble pointy stick shaped humanity... Hell, it even predates humanity.
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!
@@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
I've always felt the longsword is the better weapon, due to reach and it being as fast due to the two handed leverage, but without a doubt the katana's pros are very compelling, and the sword design is a work of beauty and anyone would be a fool not to want to have one of each in their collection. I liked your phrase about "not being so self-centered so as to make one's preferences fact".
there was 3X match's with everything historical and vary well trained in there craft the plate-armour 1600-Italian/German men won 2 out of 3 so id say the long sord is marginally better than kitona but using JDM daggers 🗡vs long probably not a winner combo as it's to slow to weild on target aka pistol vs sniper rifle
@Luca Baki was that the UFC/tap-out/knockouts style event ? as it was entertaining in middle evil styles and suited up not a boxing fan but both looked dangerous and one round looked like one swing/stab away from death of the contestants
I do think that there is a definitive answer on which is better. But it's what is best for the person who is putting a sword in their own hands not just in general. For example if you prefer a more defensive style then the hand and a half sword is going to be better. But on the other hand if you take a more aggressive approach then the nimbleness of the katana might be a plus but at the same time a two edged sword might also be preferable. Maybe a physically smaller fighter might gravitate towards the katana. My point is on an individual level there is always going to be a right choice but as a whole it's like comparing a hammer to a screwdriver both have their place.
The longsword is objectively better in a duel on an open field which is not surprising as the katana was a highly ritualised article of samurai attire which was also part of indoor costume whose main prominence was in fact during the 300-ish years of peace while the longsword was a battlefield or travel sidearm primarily for self-defence which got discarded soon as there were better alternatives in the form of guns. However, that does not reflect on metallurgy or artisanship. There are also many Japanese battlefield swords like the tachi or nodachi which are of similar length as longswords. The main issue is that we are comparing a Japanese pistol-equivalent with a European equivalent to an smg or shotgun. EDIT: oh right, also katanas are better indoors where longswords can't handle the cramped environment but it's not like europe had not it's equivalents in arming swords.
@@SenorZorros it comes down to armor. longswords are designed to overcome high tech(for the day) armor. a katana's slashing would be useless. a battle ready knight vs a battle ready samurai wouldnt even be a competition. the knight wouldnt even have to consider defense, just a single thrust
I love your comparison with the swords. It really is fun to see their comparison. It feels like two cultures participating in a sort of game. However, I do have one criticism. Usually, the point of balance for longswords aren't directed towards the tip. Rather, they are near the crossguard of the sword as this is the function of the pommel (Their hand stopping capabilities came as more of a bi-product). That being: to redirect the point of balance of the sword (Or center of gravity). Not only that, longswords often had a distal taper which makes the width of the sword along the distal plane smaller, therefore reducing weight. This is done to make it maneuverable for the wielder as they are meant to target the gaps of the armor or to simply just make the sword more maneuverable. Edit: I also wanted to mention. Although yes, the sword is made out of spring steel, it is made out of sturdier, less spring-ier steel since a very flexible/ductile sword would be less effective at thrusting when most of the force gets dissipated through it's flexing and not the actual thrusting/piercing.
I agree with you, that in most cases the point of balance was at the ricasso. I only wanted to mention that sometimes swords were made more top heavy, sacrificing some mobility for cutting power.
I dunno what he meant with the point of balance like that, but it definitely wasn't the center of gravity, which is what you're thinking of. You can absolutely bet the center of gravity is closer to the hilt on both of the swords in the video.
@@zerberus_ms And modern tech... Swords can be better. Things like Carbon Fiber, Titanium Alloys, High Carbon Steel, and Aluminium can add differences to "the Modern Knight" like we do with bicycles. In fact... Even the Fantasy Scythe can be practical if you design it well. Following the Hook Polarm and Halbard designs.
This video answered a lot for me, I am a fan of both of these blades, (Mostly because of Skyrim) and I like seeing an objective video talking about the ups and downs of the both of them, definitely helps with accurate storywriting
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.
@@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.
Not sure why this showed up in my recommended feed, but I’m glad it did! Really well-made comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of these iconic swords! Your explanations were very helpful and easy to understand.
sub earned gj. I don't sub often good luck! keep up the quality and impartiality. It was very insightful to recognize Gen X, Millenial, and Gen Z exposure to the katana through media. Asian took over our the West's martial arts culture for a very long time. Most kids in America pick up a Gi for Karate or Tae Kwon Do before boxing trunks or a fencing mask. It is nice to see appreciation weapons in general through another's more experienced perspective.
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.
From what I remember, longswords were more balance towards the hilt, meaning the blade could be moved around with more ease, while katanas had most of their balance in the blade itself, making it more like a sharp club.
Longswords are also primarily made for stabbing i believe while katanas, with their curved shape, are better for slashing, so maybe it needs more weight on the blade for that
@@yunkinto The Katana is better at slicing, but more due to the weight distribution. The curve isn't exaggerated enough to make a real difference, it helps, but not enough to really make a difference, you still have to draw your sword in to really cut anything instead of just hacking a blade into it.
Sort of. In a longsword the tip can be moved with more agility because the weight is near the hand, this combined with its straightness makes it easier to hit thrusts. The curved blade and the more top heavy nature of a katana makes it a better chopping weapon.
there are 23 types PLUS the subtypes of just STRAIGHT european swords. Their weight and balance was all over the place, hence so many types for diff purposes. They didnt just differ in looks.
I always felt like I've been in the minority for not being enamored with the katana's appearance. I can admire the craftsmanship and pure artistry of it, but something about it just doesn't appeal to me as a weapon. Of the two, I definitely gravitate towards a longsword more because it feels like it's a more versatile and rugged weapon and having a cross guard is definitely a boon for confidence if I ever had to fight with it. I think part of it is I don't think I'd feel bad about beating up a longsword, whereas a katana feels almost wrong to use and abuse. It's like taking a Jeep for winter driving verses a sports car. Is this completely irrational and discounting centuries of practical use? Absolutely. Even so, I think I'd be more comfortable using and training with a longsword.
I agree. My best katanas I don’t even touch because they’re so nice and I’d hate to even slightly damage them. On the other hand I don’t own any really expensive longswords so I’d probably feel the same way. I’ve got a really like Lockwood blade on the way so we’ll see.
@@Cerberusarms Glad to hear we're on similar wavelengths! I was actually curious if you were going to collect high-end swords other than that brilliant $2,000+ katana; I can't imagine you'd ever take that out for training for the aforementioned reasons haha
You're not in the minority. You're just another person who thinks they are special cause they got what they think is an alternate opinion. I've always thought it to be pathetic.
@@YouCaughtCzars it’s almost sad in a way right? What you get for that $2,000 should be a very nice looking but also extremely well put together blade. A tool meant for cutting and to be used but instead it’s a looking piece. The more you pay the better weapon you should get right?
I really like your overall assessment, and I would say that our preferences as Americans are directly tied to how Hollywood portrayed the blades. I was drawn to the katana in my teens as it was representative of what I loved about Asian martial arts. The discipline, pursuit of perfection, physical and mental training, and character development seemed enshrined in the elegant katana. Conversely, medieval European martial arts and weapons were portrayed as slow, brutish, and clumsy. They were only effective when the protagonist wielded them with more determination or anger, and the west was looked upon as being without any real martial culture. As HEMA grew in popularity, the opening up of old traditions that had collected dust as Europeans became fixated on ballistics revealed otherwise. In fact, Europeans had high quality weapons, the best armor, and very technical martial systems. This is probably why HEMA practitioners display their annoyance at so many who still cling to the fanciful claims of 20th century katana cultists. I would disagree with you on one point, and that is that they really are not very different weapons being that they were primarily used by armored warriors vs other armored warriors. Oh, and the longsword is still useful up close when half swording or wrestling. Thanks for the fun comparison, and whether it's the knight trained with a longsword and skilled at ringen, or the samurai training in kenjutsu and jujutsu, it's the skill set of the individual that was most important.
I agree, I was the same growing up. Just don’t see how these grown men could get so upset about children from another country really liking katanas. Seems rather narcissistic for hema practitioners to feel the need to bash another swords simply because they feel their ancestral sword isn’t getting as much love from people who don’t even practice swordsmanship. Also I do mention the longsword can be effective in close range but that was really only because it was necessary/viable when wearing full armor. In an unarmored duel against a katana, halfswording would be suicide imo. The moment your hand leaves the longsword handle to grab the blade you’d be struck on top of the skull by any competent katana user. Overall good insight tho, thanks for watching.
@@Cerberusarms yep, people should not get so emotionally invested in sword differences among old cultures. I would not say with certainty that an unarmored half sword technique is vulnerable to the katana wielder. Like any and all techniques, the success is dependent upon the practitioners and unique circumstances of that moment. I for one am surprised that more people do not utilize skilled grappling when in close.
@@drzaius8430 it is a funny predicament. I suppose the sword maintains an aura of mystery and nostalgia for most cultures, even ours as we master firearms.
You're not transitioning into half-swording while in measure though, and that's by FAR not the only close range technique with them. Pommel strikes, draw cuts, sturzhau/kurzhau, WRESTLING are all close range techniques mentioned over and over again in the treatises. I have not seen almost any wrestling with kendo/kenjutsu, so likewise I could say the moment I got close with longsword (in krieg), I'd be able to take down almost any kendoka while keeping my sword between theirs and my body. Or you draw dagger because it's a better weapon for the range, and unless it's a judicial duel, you have a dagger if you have a sword in all likelihood. I honestly suggest you try to find a good HEMA group, because it sounds like a lot of your experience is with keyboard warriors and gyms that are focused on winning unarmored tournaments rather than trying to do actual historical combat recreation. HEMA guys can be annoying with trash talking the katana, it's not a bad weapon at all, but there's a lot here that just sounds ignorant or from bad experiences.
A slight error while cutting with the long sword: you kept hitting too close to the tip. It was meant just slightly lower than that... Overall, great video, great points made with absolutely true conclusion. Keep up the good work!
you can find out with wich portion of the blade to hit easily by holding it loosely at the grip, and hitting it so that it vibrates. there should be two portions where the blade doesnt move when vibrating one at roughly 2/3 to the tip, the other in the grip, that might be not the case with yours, and causing the uncomfortable hand shock on impact.
He also makes a slight error when striking with the katana. The strikes should come from over the head not over the shoulder and should have the left hand centrally located (moving up and down) and all the power in the left with the right as a guide. As a lefty in Kendo I hit a bit too hard and my accuracy is not as great (stupid right hand).
One note is that the longsword can be used in close quaters very effectively if its weilded in half sword technique. You just lose that extra protection from the crossguard and may lose some fingers to your opponent.
@@WarDaft yes and no. The parrying hooks (as they are called) are meant for parrying, and definitely not for halfswording. Even ignoring they only are common on Zweihänder and thats not the type of sword you usually half-sword with, they are far too close to the handle, such that you'd grip in front of them. The real trick to not loose your fingers is that you usually use half-swording when you fight in armour, and thus have some kind of gauntlets to protect your hands.. for close-quarter you'd ideally use your dagger (if the space is limiting) or back of a step (if you're just being too close to the enemy). Half-swording is not really primarily made to fight close-range but to have more precision in your thrusts. And since it's pretty heavily limiting your angles of attack, you generally need some armour to protect yourself in the first place.
Longsword is NOT primarly a thrusting weapon. It is made for cutting and thrusting equally. Also, the fact that the coin-shaped pommel is cutting into your hand is the reason, why it was installed mainly onto a one-handed arming swords, while the longswords generally had pear or cone shaped pommel.
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.
I mean, thousands of people trusted their literal lives on either of these swords. So one would think that both are pretty capable in their respective uses. Therefore your conclusion is definitely the right one. Good job on that one. One additional thought: To really assess the usage of both swords, you'd also have to take into account what respective armor they had to fight against: The relatively light Japanese armor or the heavy medival European armor. Maybe that explains why one was crafted to excel in slashing and the other in thrusting.
Samurai had pretty good armour as well made out of bamboo i think (dont go raging on me if im wrong) with main weaknesses being under the shoulders and the neck. But i still do agree that the fighting stiles were the complete oposites
Little note for the long sword, when using both hands, center the pommel in the palm of your guide hand to let it roll with the cut instead of fully on the handle, this will still give you good grip and alow for better follow through on the cut, this will also help keep the pommel from biting into your hand as much when you swing along with giving far greater tip controll for rapid thrusting, or changing the blades direction when attacking or defending
I think this debate about which sword is better will always come down to the skill and experience of the individual warrior. First of all the katana was more practical for the samurai since he was a mounted warrior. Throughout history curved swords such as the katana were more practical in mounted combat. It is also important to note that a samurai was definitely well trained to face off against opponents with pole arms such as the naginata, so all this fuss about swords being obsolete may be misinformed if a samurai was well trained in iaido to deliver one immobilizing strike before an opponent even made a move. So all the talk about skewering samurai with a long sword may be pointless if you can get chopped in half before you even blink. Similarly a well trained knight with a long sword may prove a formidable opponent for an unmounted samurai.
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
@@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
As a kid in the 80s there were some celebrated European inspired swords in my childhood entertainment before the katana. He-Man, Voltron, and Thundercats all had badass swords. Link even already had his master sword. As for American movies I’d say Conan’s sword is pretty iconic.
I loved this video! I liked how you boiled it down to DPS vs. tank at the end, haha! People commonly don't consider the rest of their respective gear: The knight's armor, shield, side weapons (lance, shortsword, etc.), and the samurai with their unique armor and standard side weapons, such as the wakizashi or even a bow. Both were designed specifically to combat themselves, not each other. Culturally speaking, they were so different as well!
this isn't true. while the samurai were designed to combat themselves, knights were not. europe wasn't isolationist in nature like japan. the knights were the result of facing many different kinds of warfare. it's why japanese martial arts have little use in reality.
I think better comparison is offense vs balance, as "tank" would just imply it's good at defending and nothing more, even tho longsword is lot more versatile in both offense and defense.
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 reason the bastard sword's handle is so uncomfortable is that it's not as long as a long sword. The balance may be off because that particular sword emphasizes cutting more than thrusting. You also have to grip with one hand, pivoting with the other, and change those grips on the fly. It's more difficult than it sounds, so that's why that particular sword was rather niche. It is worth noting that the katana is actually *heavier* than a European arming sword. The weight is mitigated so much that it is a feat of ingenuity.
Comments like this are common and suggest a lack of experience using swords. You dont "have" do that stupid switch-off conan pivot with a bastard sword in fact thats simply never a good use. Whack at your friends with some bits of wood instead of watching purely wrong movies.
@@lostpony4885 It's just a simple matter of changing the pressure of your grip, no hand switching needed. Edit: I do admit that the wording was clunky.
Another major factor for long swords is the cross section/fullers. Blade geometry determined the effectiveness for the swords thrust vs chop. Swords with a thick diamond shape were more specified for thrusting whereas blades with a wider, flatter blade with more fullers was more efficient at chopping. Great video with non biased explanations on sword role and fighting style
I love the answer of "It depends on the swordsman". I hear that as the conclusion here and there and it's so satisfying despite it technically being a non answer to an age-old, yet irrelevant question. It just makes sense. Good insights like yours help a lot too bro. Nice to see visual examples,
And in any honorable context where booth ooponents recieve equal armor it holds true. Wich is how you should always do weapon comparisons. The main part why Knights would more often win against Samurai is superior plsted armor that perfectly counter a Katanas focus of cuts. But it takes away from the actual skill or weapon used. Its like comparing handguns but one opponent is in full ballistic armor. Its unreasonable.
I like and appreciate both. Two vastly different cultures (that never mixed or fought each other - samurai vs knight) came up with what each considered an effective weapon for war. And let's not forget that it was spears, pole weapons, and arrows that did the heavy lifting in medieval warfare.
Yes, spears, pole weapons and arrows were a part of Medieval times...and they were also a part of both cultures that never met in battle...and both those weapons systems were devised by both cultures in order to reduce the risk of potential for either of these swords getting into their own ranks. Both side`s recognized back then, that neither of these swords was anything to sniff at, if it got among your ranks.
I love some weapons of history such as these swords. To be honest, I usually gravitate towards the Long Sword myself, but as you stated, it is better for the one that wields either one best.
Yeah if the long sword has a good user parry disarm head is gone but if the katana has a good user then quick beheading before you notice it’s unsheathed they are both really great things
Beatiful weapons! You can see how well suited they are for their specific goals, and the philosophies they represent. The defensive fighting style of the Longsword, dancing around the opponent's assault with devastating counters. Or the offensive fighting style of the Katana, capitalizing on opportunity to deliver deadly slashes at the opponent's weak spots. Both are excellent options in a duel, and the efficiency of either comes down to the style of the person who wields them. funny how much potential we can squeeze out of sharp sticks huh
@@celticdeamon567 Hm? Thats true, but you wouldn't be using a sword in armoured combat if you could help it. There are much better choices for a battlefield than swords. Swords were great protection during travels, general daily routines, or duels, where you would need a bit of protection, without necessarily being covered in protection. If a Knight and a Samurai met eachother on the street, and drew blades against one another, it would be impossible to tell who would win, since they are so closely matched in terms of skill, and mentality.
@@chumleyhuffington1450 a man at arms would have many tools to accompany the sword to solve those problems. But if he didn't have them he would use halfswording and pommeling. Both of those things you can't do with a katana since it lacks the weight and durability. Also come on. A mailed, and metal plated knight Vs a samurai. Samurai wearing bamboo armour with a sword that cannot penetrate steel and has zero value as a makeshift mace or hammer or axe Vs a knight that has mail, steel plate and the capacity to stab through, cut through and beat down the other with a further reach advantage no less. It's no contest.
@@celticdeamon567 Half-swording isnt a replacement for a specialized bludgeoning weapon, and it would have only been done if there was literally nothing else to use. The Longsword is balanced to be used for slicing and thrusting, not swung over an armoured combatant. Besides, no knight or samurai would wear their battle equipment into town, or on their travels. At most, they would wear mail for protection, or in the samurai's case iron plates or other such guards. In that situation, a situation where swords would see expected use as a weapon of personal protection, both combatants would be on relatively equal grounds. On the battlefield of war, if a Knight and a Samurai engaged, the last thing they would be using is their swords, since both have an arsenal of much more efficient weaponry.
SCA member here... All weapons have their place in time. For me skill with a weapon is much more important. If you know how to use it, you are deadly. Just my 2 cents worth. Love your channel!
A nice video! I still wanna point out a thing you missed in the sparring section. Half-swording essentially gives you more speed and control over the tip of the longsword. (You can grip the ricasso of the blade, or the blade itself, and use the sword a little like a spear.) It's definitely a versatile sword. :D
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
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.
Some other big differences is if you look at the height of the Katana, vs the same time period in Europe, you'll find that metal and sword tech was far superior in Europe who were using blast furnaces and could precisely control the amount of steel and it's distribution of it, while in Japan they were still working with wrought iron, and had issues with controlling steel. Furthermore, European armor was far superior and doubtful a Katana would stand much chance a full plate knight.
Bloomery steel. They made up for it with skill though. Their forging techniques were far beyond filling a mould and sharpening it. Folding the steel would remove impurities and they made their swords out of different piece of steel which were tempered differently. A hard carbon steel edge for blade retention and a softer spine for absorbing shock and preventing the blades from shattering
Being completely honest, not even a long sword would ever stand a chance in an armored duel. On the battlefield the main weapons were in fact: hammers, maces and spears, not surely swords that are good for duels and for cutting but without chainmail or plates to protect the body
@@asgharelcg1059 except in Japan, it was predominantly bows and arrows were a primary weapon and a wakizashi was the secondary weapon. in Europe, long swords, were more commonly used with a shield, however the secondary weapon for most knights and archers were arming swords and as you rightly said, armies primarily fought with hammers and spears. The most famous use of spears here in England is the battle of Bosworth fields, which ended the war of the roses, where we saw the first use of the pike in the isles (invented by and then brought over by swiss mercenaries, recruited by Henry VII)
@@Kamikrazeee8888 not really, actually in feudal Japan main weapons of the battlefield where spears (yari and naginata) bows where almost ritual or secondary weapons and tachi (then the katana) where the last resource. They became main focus (with guns on battlefield) during edo period while there where bo wars and almost no one wear any armour, like the European counterpart with french estoc or Italian spada da lato for instance when armor aren't anymore the main defence and cutting weapons had any chance in duels or short range fight
Very much enjoyed watching this: I'm usually pretty dubious about the whole is X better than Y thing but great video and nice, practical and fair comparison. Thanks.
I own one of each as I love medieval weapons because I'm a longbow archer and I totally agree with you, if I were to actually use one in combat I'm not sure which of the two I'd choose, possibly the katana as I have a soft spot for them but like you said, the longsword has superior range so a hard choice to make, excellent video by the way!
Thanks! It all comes down to preference, anyone who tells you that you’re wrong has most likely never even held a real sword and is definitely untrained.
Cool yea I'm a mace wielding paladin in my LARP group. I'd cast Holy on you though if I could get within range and that would restrict your access to piercing weapons and it's gg then my guy.
Archers were arguably the most decisive soldiers in battle until firearms. Surviving an archery hit required costly armor, chain-mail I believe I heard was ineffective against a crossbow bolt, & no hand-held weapon would get a strike in before an arrow strike. But archery isnt "sexy" like the lone knight with his sword and suit of armor costing the equivalent of a Ferrari or 2. Samurai meant "way of the horse & bow", Samurai fought with bows on horseback, the sword rose in symbolism after the fall of the Samurai to Meji Japan modern military. We need a "Samurai vs Mongol" who would win a real war as they both actually fought.
I’d say katana if not armored, but if armored then a longsword. Clearly a katana can chop a body up much more easily, but a longsword is designed to find weaknesses in armour through thrusting, it’s also got more weight for better ‘clubbing’ through chain mail. This should have been factored into this analysis.
Longer= more better..(That's what she said)😝 But that katana hit it like no other.. People love these weapons because they are both proven through history. They both shaped countries and forged dynasties. They both have their place. I gotta tell you. I watched some of your videos a few months back.. it led me to watching other "sword videos." I started looking into kendo schools and none were around. I never heard of HEMA but I found a Fiore longsword school. I've been going for 2½ months now. I absolutely love it. And if anyone reading this has never tried it, DO IT!! You should at least see what is about. Any sword art.. you'll be glad you did
That’s great man, glad you’re enjoying Hema! It’s a ton of fun to spar with full gear. I prefer it to kendo because it’s true sword fighting, less a sport.
yes both proved in history but lets not kid ourselves, European war tech was massively better than anything else. Cheap to make, easy to use is always ALWAYS much better from a military standpoint. A katana is worthless if you need three months to make one. Arming swords where a dime a dozen, most of them weren't even heat treated cause why would they? You die either way.
@@lettuceman9439 what are you talking about? I'm sure you're referring to the katana... it had a longer life span of use....What do you think was going on with the longsword in Europe? As far as I know it was mostly in use in the 1300s- 1500s+.. Armor changed, weapons evolved. Please explain to me how dynasties weren't forged with either weapon. Longswords were all across and highly used in a war torn Europe.. A longsword enforced the law or destroyed the law. It dominated in its time.
To be fair both never have been primary weapons if we're talking about actual warfare. Status symbols, duels, self-defense - sure. Battlefield? A backup. So countries & dynasties were shaped by polearms & bows if anything. Axes. Early firearms too. Oda Nobunaga for example widely & very successfully used arquebuses in his army.
With swords and their historical use and stats I can only say: "It depends." What period sword do you mean? Who made the sword? Who was the sword made for? What was the combat style the owner preferred? Because both Katana and Longsword or other European sword went through loads of development and each owner had his sword made to his own taste and budget. Those things weren't exactly a series made item and did bow to fashion. While modern replica of a Longsword or any European sword is made of springsteel, comparable kind of steel actually existed in Europe only for some 200 years during Viking era. And it was used in very limited numbers. All other swords were pretty stiff in comparison, some hard, others soft, some scary sharp, other only partially sharpened, some relatively blunt, some expensive, others cheap. So taking a modern replica of a sword and testing it is really more of a test on how a modern company makes swords, rather than what was the sword like during its heyday. I myself have a real historical sword and that thing has an edge as hard as a rock, while the spine is soft and bendable and it certainly doesn't flex very much.
you're making up a lot of shit here and conflating your opinion for fact a lot. you can absolutely make the statement that european swordcrafting was significantly more evolved and sophisticated than japanese swordcrafting, we have ample evidence to back this up. there's no "lol some swords were soft" or "some swords are hard & brittle", longswords were required to have a standard, especially in how hard and flexible they were. the longsword in particular becomes popular in the middle of the middle-ages in the 1100s, long after europe has developed very good forges all over the continent
Was wondering if someone mentioned this in the comments. The longsword felt oversprung for a historical weapon of that type. Historical steels didn't commonly reach that level of spring until much later, allowing the development of weapons like the rapier. Watching the fights in action, I have to wonder if the extra flexing of the longsword caused undesirable torquing that reduced the wielder's ability to maneuver. Though as the video mentioned, none of this really matters in the real world. The deployment and skill of the swordsman is going to be the biggest difference. Which is to say the katana loses not to the longsword, but to the heavily armored European warrior who is nearly invulnerable to simple cuts.
@@nickwayne2 The point is: You can't make a fair historical comparison using two modern made swords. And even if you get the real thing, each sword made was an original with unique characteristics, so you still only judge that specific sword and not really the class the sword vaguely fits it.
I still find it interesting that swords still have an almost magical, cultural significance. Especially when you consider that in most cultures and ages, varieties of pointed sticks (spears, pikes, halberds, etc.) were much more important weapons. But these are mostly considered culturally trivial.
Probably because no matter the civilization, because of how wasteful swords are with metal. They always became a status symbol. For each sword made, you could have probably armed 5 people with spears.
I read somewhere that a psychology study actually determined that people are innately more afraid of blades and clubs than they are of guns. I guess the hypothesis was that since blades and clubs have been around since our early evolution we have an instinctual awareness of the danger, but guns being a new development has to be a learned fear. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but it's an interesting idea that kind of ties into your comment I think.
@@generalx13 It doesn't help that firearms typically represent a "quick" death in media, while physical weapons are considered brutish or slow. If you _had to die,_ would you fear a single shot to the head or the guy that swings and hopes he kills you in the first hit?
I think its likely that we dont fully understand the history of pointy sticks vs swords... Swords are vastly more versatile, and much easier to carry as a side arm (pointy sticks not easy to carry). Pointy sticks are how you start a battle, but the second the lines break down they are unwieldy in small spaces. Thus side arms would be drawn. I think the reason we love swords is that they were the every day carry weapon (like a pistol is today), and they were also likely the weapon a high end soldier would be holding at the end of the battle (again due to lines breaking down). Also due to the swords versatility when facing an unknown opponent, and an unknown field of battle, it gives you the best average chance of survival. I know that is probably to much nuance for this type of discussion but our ancestors were not stupid, they valued what they valued for a reason...
@@chrismcaulay7805 I think the point is more about volume of use than quality. Aka: swords are expensive so the average peasant hastily drafted into war would have some variety of pointy stick. Only a few elite soldiers would have actual swords. In fact, in Japan it was literally illegal for anyone but a Samurai to even own a katana. Evidently culture doesn't focus on what is more common, but what is more valuable.
Okay, I would consider the long sword a bastard sword, and I'm inclined to believe that the balance point should be closer to the hilt and I've never seen anyone test the balance of a sword like that. Other than that, excellent work. There are techniques I would never use on a curved blade, and techniques I would never use on a double edged blade. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago, and I am please to see people starting to understand this. Can you show people why the over the shoulder draw is so dangerous? Excellent job, keep up the good work.
"I would consider the long sword a bastard sword" - you are basically right. Main and only difference between LS and BS - length of the handle , its a bit bigger on a BS. But balance for both swords is pretty much the same.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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'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.
Just a piece of advice, for a longsword, you should take the pommel in your second hand, not the actual handle. That will give you a bigger range of motion and will let you do way faster swings.
True! but he already seemed weird with the longsword, when he complained saying that the balance should be at the tip, like he wanted a hammer or something? 9:00
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.
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.
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.
Some great content on this video. "The main difference is not the blades, it is the fighting style" Also the comments on 'Fearlessness' are so true. There's a reason the Vikings were recruited to the Varangian Guard (Byzantium)
The bigots factor 1 is double side blade ed
2 I would put my €€€ on the worries that had a shield the shield is the second may'be up most first in the old school ground to ground battles Infact shield war fare locking in shield's would play out like crushing the oponete aeg ever been on a train flat out peek hour an u cannot move even just breath same tactics were done that why the glatis being small had more of the advantage
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.
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.
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.
"End the fight with a single devastating strike or die in battle." Must be a terrible feeling to realize there's no way to get through your enemy's armor in a single strike then.
lol, I thought the same thing. Armor was less robust in Japan due to the availability of iron. Even still this was not the reality of combat in Japan.
@@Nathan-vt1jz I was thinking about that as well. However, there was ring mail in Japan as well. I am also not so sure the lowly foot soldiers of Europe had that much mail armour.
But that's exactly where context comes in...european warfare we were armoured and blunt force trauma/ bludgeoning ones enemy to death was often the most effective way
Whereas as stated in the video the katana is primarily a slashing weapon that would be inefficient against western and european armour but was superb when it came to eastern combat due to the lighter varieties of armour used
@@seanb-ss9seyep, although thrusting weapons were used about as much as bludgeoning weapons (ex. Spears, halberds, pretty much any pole arms along with stilettos and other thrusting daggers as emergency weapons for polearm users)
@@seanb-ss9se that's not true. longswords are still superior against light armours.
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. 😂
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.
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 you nailed it at the 6:30 mark about fighting styles. You want a rifle for distance & a handgun for closer requirements. Different blades are for different designations & end results, & skill levels. I've taught martial arts including blade use & defense but always open minded & willing to learn. Great job on this!
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.
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
naginata
nodachi
some japs weapons
"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.
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
This was an extremely well put together video comparison.
👍
And I love seeing full contact sparring!
Also, as a nerd - I LOVED the stats chart at the end.
Good on you man!
Great video.
💯
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
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.
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.
OK. I'm a Westerner with similar background as described in vid, have always been pro-katana... After 5 mins into the video, I find myself now leaning towards Longsword... Great presentation so far.
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.
Ok, if you had to choose. You get the longsword and your oppenent gets the katana, or vice versa, which are you picking? That pretty much settles the debate.
@@dalehammers4425 That's is 100% false.
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.
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?
First time finding your content and the experience for me was similar to your description of the katana - sharp and well balanced, even with a bit of wisdom there in the end. I’ll come back for more! 🙌
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..
@@SanguineofNergoth 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 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'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.
A real fucked up part is making me choose between a long sword and a Katana.
I prefer an axe or a claymore.
I vote for the directional explosive.
@@Psycho-Ssnake 😂🤣😂 That's not what I meant but that's hilarious...
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. 👍👍
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.
@@ZergIingLover 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.
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.
@@Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhj 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."
Great video / comparison. Appreciate the format, objectiveness, humor and seriousness blended in.
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.
It’s the same in modern warfare. For more than a century now, artillery has been king, and precision fires is on the ascent (sensors and AI will make precision fires king soon). But we still worship the soldier and his rifle.
I think this cognitive dissonance is because the people and weapons we revere say a lot about the soul of a nation. It’s actually a good thing, all the way up until you’re planning a military operation, at which point planners must be honest about such things.
I honestly thing primacy will go back to infantry, when the strike complex is good enough that they can quickly call down the ‘hammer of dawn’ wherever and whenever they need it.
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.
@@Saeshy04 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.
@@Saeshy04 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
@@Saeshy04 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 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
I'm here because of Metatron's recent video discussing this one. I'm glad he left key points out and directed his viewers here.
As a 90s kid, I fully agree with the introduction describing the feeling of that point in time.
A friend of mine had some swords including a katana (we were around 15-16, I guess). We threw the rotting apples we'd cleaned from his granddads yard at each other trying to cut the apples out of the air.
Mostly we used his katana, because the European style swords we got from the fancy jnife and cigar place in town were all heavier with looser fittings.
Great memories of my Weebneck days
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
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
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?
Fantastic video, appreciate how you display and describe both sides objectively.
As someone who's also studied both I was fully prepared to nerd rage after this video. But honestly well done man. Very fair comparison of the two! Very accurate. They are very different swords :D Opinion is one thing, but the facts are they're both great, but different. I'd like this twice if I could :)
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.
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.
Great video. Btw 6:58 this scene always makes me laugh, how they run as if they're stepping on burning charcoal or something, especially Alexander XD - subscribed!
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
@Ninja Crackpot Yes Absolutely
@Ninja Crackpot in a real fight closing distance is very difficult and will get you stabbed
@Ninja Crackpot 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
I think the Tachi is more of a comparison to a Longsword. Even then, they're in their own class of sword, shape, etc.
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
Well, very few people fought with swords anyways. They where mostly a backup, personal defense or dueling weapons.
When it comes to weapons absolutely nothing compares to the spear. Not even modern firearms can touch how much the humble pointy stick shaped humanity... Hell, it even predates humanity.
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
I've always felt the longsword is the better weapon, due to reach and it being as fast due to the two handed leverage, but without a doubt the katana's pros are very compelling, and the sword design is a work of beauty and anyone would be a fool not to want to have one of each in their collection. I liked your phrase about "not being so self-centered so as to make one's preferences fact".
there was 3X match's with everything historical and vary well trained in there craft the plate-armour 1600-Italian/German men won 2 out of 3 so id say the long sord is marginally better than kitona but using JDM daggers 🗡vs long probably not a winner combo as it's to slow to weild on target aka pistol vs sniper rifle
@Luca Baki was that the UFC/tap-out/knockouts style event ? as it was entertaining in middle evil styles and suited up not a boxing fan but both looked dangerous and one round looked like one swing/stab away from death of the contestants
I do think that there is a definitive answer on which is better. But it's what is best for the person who is putting a sword in their own hands not just in general. For example if you prefer a more defensive style then the hand and a half sword is going to be better. But on the other hand if you take a more aggressive approach then the nimbleness of the katana might be a plus but at the same time a two edged sword might also be preferable. Maybe a physically smaller fighter might gravitate towards the katana. My point is on an individual level there is always going to be a right choice but as a whole it's like comparing a hammer to a screwdriver both have their place.
The longsword is objectively better in a duel on an open field which is not surprising as the katana was a highly ritualised article of samurai attire which was also part of indoor costume whose main prominence was in fact during the 300-ish years of peace while the longsword was a battlefield or travel sidearm primarily for self-defence which got discarded soon as there were better alternatives in the form of guns. However, that does not reflect on metallurgy or artisanship. There are also many Japanese battlefield swords like the tachi or nodachi which are of similar length as longswords. The main issue is that we are comparing a Japanese pistol-equivalent with a European equivalent to an smg or shotgun.
EDIT: oh right, also katanas are better indoors where longswords can't handle the cramped environment but it's not like europe had not it's equivalents in arming swords.
@@SenorZorros it comes down to armor. longswords are designed to overcome high tech(for the day) armor. a katana's slashing would be useless. a battle ready knight vs a battle ready samurai wouldnt even be a competition. the knight wouldnt even have to consider defense, just a single thrust
I love your comparison with the swords. It really is fun to see their comparison. It feels like two cultures participating in a sort of game. However, I do have one criticism. Usually, the point of balance for longswords aren't directed towards the tip. Rather, they are near the crossguard of the sword as this is the function of the pommel (Their hand stopping capabilities came as more of a bi-product). That being: to redirect the point of balance of the sword (Or center of gravity). Not only that, longswords often had a distal taper which makes the width of the sword along the distal plane smaller, therefore reducing weight. This is done to make it maneuverable for the wielder as they are meant to target the gaps of the armor or to simply just make the sword more maneuverable.
Edit: I also wanted to mention. Although yes, the sword is made out of spring steel, it is made out of sturdier, less spring-ier steel since a very flexible/ductile sword would be less effective at thrusting when most of the force gets dissipated through it's flexing and not the actual thrusting/piercing.
I agree with you, that in most cases the point of balance was at the ricasso. I only wanted to mention that sometimes swords were made more top heavy, sacrificing some mobility for cutting power.
Even longswords made for cutting have wide triangular blades, not really rectangular as we see in earlier typologies
I dunno what he meant with the point of balance like that, but it definitely wasn't the center of gravity, which is what you're thinking of. You can absolutely bet the center of gravity is closer to the hilt on both of the swords in the video.
@@zerberus_ms
And modern tech... Swords can be better.
Things like Carbon Fiber, Titanium Alloys, High Carbon Steel, and Aluminium can add differences to "the Modern Knight" like we do with bicycles.
In fact... Even the Fantasy Scythe can be practical if you design it well. Following the Hook Polarm and Halbard designs.
@@mrkiky I think I mis-phrased it, but yeah, I am referring to the center of gravity
This video answered a lot for me, I am a fan of both of these blades, (Mostly because of Skyrim) and I like seeing an objective video talking about the ups and downs of the both of them, definitely helps with accurate storywriting
"Not everything has to be a competition." The irony of saying this about swordplay is not lost on me. :) Entertaining video.
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
Not sure why this showed up in my recommended feed, but I’m glad it did! Really well-made comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of these iconic swords! Your explanations were very helpful and easy to understand.
It showed up in mine because I've been watching a lot of sword forging videos.
sub earned gj. I don't sub often good luck! keep up the quality and impartiality.
It was very insightful to recognize Gen X, Millenial, and Gen Z exposure to the katana through media.
Asian took over our the West's martial arts culture for a very long time. Most kids in America pick up a Gi for Karate or Tae Kwon Do before boxing trunks or a fencing mask.
It is nice to see appreciation weapons in general through another's more experienced perspective.
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.
From what I remember, longswords were more balance towards the hilt, meaning the blade could be moved around with more ease, while katanas had most of their balance in the blade itself, making it more like a sharp club.
Longswords are also primarily made for stabbing i believe while katanas, with their curved shape, are better for slashing, so maybe it needs more weight on the blade for that
@@yunkinto The Katana is better at slicing, but more due to the weight distribution. The curve isn't exaggerated enough to make a real difference, it helps, but not enough to really make a difference, you still have to draw your sword in to really cut anything instead of just hacking a blade into it.
Sort of. In a longsword the tip can be moved with more agility because the weight is near the hand, this combined with its straightness makes it easier to hit thrusts. The curved blade and the more top heavy nature of a katana makes it a better chopping weapon.
@@GGysar thanks for the info, i just repeated what i heard other people say
there are 23 types PLUS the subtypes of just STRAIGHT european swords. Their weight and balance was all over the place, hence so many types for diff purposes.
They didnt just differ in looks.
I always felt like I've been in the minority for not being enamored with the katana's appearance. I can admire the craftsmanship and pure artistry of it, but something about it just doesn't appeal to me as a weapon. Of the two, I definitely gravitate towards a longsword more because it feels like it's a more versatile and rugged weapon and having a cross guard is definitely a boon for confidence if I ever had to fight with it.
I think part of it is I don't think I'd feel bad about beating up a longsword, whereas a katana feels almost wrong to use and abuse. It's like taking a Jeep for winter driving verses a sports car. Is this completely irrational and discounting centuries of practical use? Absolutely. Even so, I think I'd be more comfortable using and training with a longsword.
I agree. My best katanas I don’t even touch because they’re so nice and I’d hate to even slightly damage them. On the other hand I don’t own any really expensive longswords so I’d probably feel the same way. I’ve got a really like Lockwood blade on the way so we’ll see.
@@Cerberusarms Glad to hear we're on similar wavelengths! I was actually curious if you were going to collect high-end swords other than that brilliant $2,000+ katana; I can't imagine you'd ever take that out for training for the aforementioned reasons haha
Just a note about the wheel pommel, you can grip it and use it for extra leverage.
You're not in the minority. You're just another person who thinks they are special cause they got what they think is an alternate opinion. I've always thought it to be pathetic.
@@YouCaughtCzars it’s almost sad in a way right? What you get for that $2,000 should be a very nice looking but also extremely well put together blade. A tool meant for cutting and to be used but instead it’s a looking piece. The more you pay the better weapon you should get right?
Probably the greatest intro I've ever seen, fell instantly in love. So funny.
I really like your overall assessment, and I would say that our preferences as Americans are directly tied to how Hollywood portrayed the blades. I was drawn to the katana in my teens as it was representative of what I loved about Asian martial arts. The discipline, pursuit of perfection, physical and mental training, and character development seemed enshrined in the elegant katana. Conversely, medieval European martial arts and weapons were portrayed as slow, brutish, and clumsy. They were only effective when the protagonist wielded them with more determination or anger, and the west was looked upon as being without any real martial culture. As HEMA grew in popularity, the opening up of old traditions that had collected dust as Europeans became fixated on ballistics revealed otherwise. In fact, Europeans had high quality weapons, the best armor, and very technical martial systems. This is probably why HEMA practitioners display their annoyance at so many who still cling to the fanciful claims of 20th century katana cultists. I would disagree with you on one point, and that is that they really are not very different weapons being that they were primarily used by armored warriors vs other armored warriors. Oh, and the longsword is still useful up close when half swording or wrestling. Thanks for the fun comparison, and whether it's the knight trained with a longsword and skilled at ringen, or the samurai training in kenjutsu and jujutsu, it's the skill set of the individual that was most important.
I agree, I was the same growing up. Just don’t see how these grown men could get so upset about children from another country really liking katanas. Seems rather narcissistic for hema practitioners to feel the need to bash another swords simply because they feel their ancestral sword isn’t getting as much love from people who don’t even practice swordsmanship.
Also I do mention the longsword can be effective in close range but that was really only because it was necessary/viable when wearing full armor. In an unarmored duel against a katana, halfswording would be suicide imo. The moment your hand leaves the longsword handle to grab the blade you’d be struck on top of the skull by any competent katana user. Overall good insight tho, thanks for watching.
@@Cerberusarms yep, people should not get so emotionally invested in sword differences among old cultures. I would not say with certainty that an unarmored half sword technique is vulnerable to the katana wielder. Like any and all techniques, the success is dependent upon the practitioners and unique circumstances of that moment. I for one am surprised that more people do not utilize skilled grappling when in close.
@@torstenscott7571 we debate swords in America... America the land where we revolutionized fire arms and still have some of the great hand guns.
@@drzaius8430 it is a funny predicament. I suppose the sword maintains an aura of mystery and nostalgia for most cultures, even ours as we master firearms.
You're not transitioning into half-swording while in measure though, and that's by FAR not the only close range technique with them. Pommel strikes, draw cuts, sturzhau/kurzhau, WRESTLING are all close range techniques mentioned over and over again in the treatises. I have not seen almost any wrestling with kendo/kenjutsu, so likewise I could say the moment I got close with longsword (in krieg), I'd be able to take down almost any kendoka while keeping my sword between theirs and my body. Or you draw dagger because it's a better weapon for the range, and unless it's a judicial duel, you have a dagger if you have a sword in all likelihood.
I honestly suggest you try to find a good HEMA group, because it sounds like a lot of your experience is with keyboard warriors and gyms that are focused on winning unarmored tournaments rather than trying to do actual historical combat recreation. HEMA guys can be annoying with trash talking the katana, it's not a bad weapon at all, but there's a lot here that just sounds ignorant or from bad experiences.
A slight error while cutting with the long sword: you kept hitting too close to the tip. It was meant just slightly lower than that...
Overall, great video, great points made with absolutely true conclusion. Keep up the good work!
you can find out with wich portion of the blade to hit easily by holding it loosely at the grip, and hitting it so that it vibrates. there should be two portions where the blade doesnt move when vibrating one at roughly 2/3 to the tip, the other in the grip, that might be not the case with yours, and causing the uncomfortable hand shock on impact.
He also makes a slight error when striking with the katana. The strikes should come from over the head not over the shoulder and should have the left hand centrally located (moving up and down) and all the power in the left with the right as a guide. As a lefty in Kendo I hit a bit too hard and my accuracy is not as great (stupid right hand).
One note is that the longsword can be used in close quaters very effectively if its weilded in half sword technique. You just lose that extra protection from the crossguard and may lose some fingers to your opponent.
You ever see those swords where the blade has spikes sticking out a foot or so above the guard?
There you go.
@@WarDaft that's what they're for? I genuinely didn't know that 😂 it thought they were purely aesthetic
@@WarDaft usually in the twohanded.... dont forget that pommel was also very efective...
@@WarDaft yes and no. The parrying hooks (as they are called) are meant for parrying, and definitely not for halfswording. Even ignoring they only are common on Zweihänder and thats not the type of sword you usually half-sword with, they are far too close to the handle, such that you'd grip in front of them. The real trick to not loose your fingers is that you usually use half-swording when you fight in armour, and thus have some kind of gauntlets to protect your hands.. for close-quarter you'd ideally use your dagger (if the space is limiting) or back of a step (if you're just being too close to the enemy). Half-swording is not really primarily made to fight close-range but to have more precision in your thrusts. And since it's pretty heavily limiting your angles of attack, you generally need some armour to protect yourself in the first place.
@@andreas_rr They are not always parrying hooks, sometimes they are a demi-guard, depends on the sword design.
Longsword is NOT primarly a thrusting weapon. It is made for cutting and thrusting equally.
Also, the fact that the coin-shaped pommel is cutting into your hand is the reason, why it was installed mainly onto a one-handed arming swords, while the longswords generally had pear or cone shaped pommel.
That really depends highly on which time we are talking about. The middle ages was a long time.
@@daftwulli6145 Indeed. And thus I find unfair to call out a "definitive" answer with using just a single example.
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!
I mean, thousands of people trusted their literal lives on either of these swords. So one would think that both are pretty capable in their respective uses.
Therefore your conclusion is definitely the right one.
Good job on that one.
One additional thought:
To really assess the usage of both swords, you'd also have to take into account what respective armor they had to fight against:
The relatively light Japanese armor or the heavy medival European armor. Maybe that explains why one was crafted to excel in slashing and the other in thrusting.
Plate mail isnt all that heavy at all. You can easily run and roll in it.
@Cfxtest
I know that it's way more flexible than it looks like.
But saying that it's not heavy is kind of a stretch, though. 😅
Samurai had pretty good armour as well made out of bamboo i think (dont go raging on me if im wrong) with main weaknesses being under the shoulders and the neck. But i still do agree that the fighting stiles were the complete oposites
I have no clue what you're talking about. Japanese armor was not "relatively light".
There was even Japanese armour for musket shots they were not light...
Little note for the long sword, when using both hands, center the pommel in the palm of your guide hand to let it roll with the cut instead of fully on the handle, this will still give you good grip and alow for better follow through on the cut, this will also help keep the pommel from biting into your hand as much when you swing along with giving far greater tip controll for rapid thrusting, or changing the blades direction when attacking or defending
I think this debate about which sword is better will always come down to the skill and experience of the individual warrior. First of all the katana was more practical for the samurai since he was a mounted warrior. Throughout history curved swords such as the katana were more practical in mounted combat. It is also important to note that a samurai was definitely well trained to face off against opponents with pole arms such as the naginata, so all this fuss about swords being obsolete may be misinformed if a samurai was well trained in iaido to deliver one immobilizing strike before an opponent even made a move. So all the talk about skewering samurai with a long sword may be pointless if you can get chopped in half before you even blink. Similarly a well trained knight with a long sword may prove a formidable opponent for an unmounted samurai.
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
As a kid in the 80s there were some celebrated European inspired swords in my childhood entertainment before the katana. He-Man, Voltron, and Thundercats all had badass swords. Link even already had his master sword. As for American movies I’d say Conan’s sword is pretty iconic.
We did like our Excalibur like weapons. Weapons of strength and power.
@@stephenphelan626 Steel isn't strong, Boy! Flesh is stronger...
..what is the Sword, compared to the hand that wields it?
I loved this video! I liked how you boiled it down to DPS vs. tank at the end, haha! People commonly don't consider the rest of their respective gear: The knight's armor, shield, side weapons (lance, shortsword, etc.), and the samurai with their unique armor and standard side weapons, such as the wakizashi or even a bow. Both were designed specifically to combat themselves, not each other. Culturally speaking, they were so different as well!
this isn't true. while the samurai were designed to combat themselves, knights were not. europe wasn't isolationist in nature like japan. the knights were the result of facing many different kinds of warfare. it's why japanese martial arts have little use in reality.
I think better comparison is offense vs balance, as "tank" would just imply it's good at defending and nothing more, even tho longsword is lot more versatile in both offense and defense.
best and most objective comparison I've seen so far
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
Best part is how he accurately captured the unique, nuanced smarminess of both archetypes
The reason the bastard sword's handle is so uncomfortable is that it's not as long as a long sword. The balance may be off because that particular sword emphasizes cutting more than thrusting. You also have to grip with one hand, pivoting with the other, and change those grips on the fly. It's more difficult than it sounds, so that's why that particular sword was rather niche.
It is worth noting that the katana is actually *heavier* than a European arming sword. The weight is mitigated so much that it is a feat of ingenuity.
Comments like this are common and suggest a lack of experience using swords. You dont "have" do that stupid switch-off conan pivot with a bastard sword in fact thats simply never a good use. Whack at your friends with some bits of wood instead of watching purely wrong movies.
@@lostpony4885 It's just a simple matter of changing the pressure of your grip, no hand switching needed.
Edit: I do admit that the wording was clunky.
@@lostpony4885 Condescending and arrogant my friend. That’s the source of your comment.
Another major factor for long swords is the cross section/fullers. Blade geometry determined the effectiveness for the swords thrust vs chop. Swords with a thick diamond shape were more specified for thrusting whereas blades with a wider, flatter blade with more fullers was more efficient at chopping. Great video with non biased explanations on sword role and fighting style
I love the answer of "It depends on the swordsman". I hear that as the conclusion here and there and it's so satisfying despite it technically being a non answer to an age-old, yet irrelevant question. It just makes sense. Good insights like yours help a lot too bro. Nice to see visual examples,
And in any honorable context where booth ooponents recieve equal armor it holds true. Wich is how you should always do weapon comparisons.
The main part why Knights would more often win against Samurai is superior plsted armor that perfectly counter a Katanas focus of cuts. But it takes away from the actual skill or weapon used. Its like comparing handguns but one opponent is in full ballistic armor.
Its unreasonable.
When you think about it everything boils down to the individual
I like and appreciate both. Two vastly different cultures (that never mixed or fought each other - samurai vs knight) came up with what each considered an effective weapon for war. And let's not forget that it was spears, pole weapons, and arrows that did the heavy lifting in medieval warfare.
Yes, spears, pole weapons and arrows were a part of Medieval times...and they were also a part of both cultures that never met in battle...and both those weapons systems were devised by both cultures in order to reduce the risk of potential for either of these swords getting into their own ranks. Both side`s recognized back then, that neither of these swords was anything to sniff at, if it got among your ranks.
A knight would destroy a Samurai
I love some weapons of history such as these swords. To be honest, I usually gravitate towards the Long Sword myself, but as you stated, it is better for the one that wields either one best.
Wow I think this is one of the few videos that had me in hysterics. Well done sir. Excellent video.
"but what it really comes down to, is the person wielding it" YES.
Yeah if the long sword has a good user parry disarm head is gone but if the katana has a good user then quick beheading before you notice it’s unsheathed they are both really great things
"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
Beatiful weapons! You can see how well suited they are for their specific goals, and the philosophies they represent. The defensive fighting style of the Longsword, dancing around the opponent's assault with devastating counters. Or the offensive fighting style of the Katana, capitalizing on opportunity to deliver deadly slashes at the opponent's weak spots.
Both are excellent options in a duel, and the efficiency of either comes down to the style of the person who wields them. funny how much potential we can squeeze out of sharp sticks huh
you can murder someone with a small rock.
You can't slash through European armour
@@celticdeamon567 Hm? Thats true, but you wouldn't be using a sword in armoured combat if you could help it. There are much better choices for a battlefield than swords. Swords were great protection during travels, general daily routines, or duels, where you would need a bit of protection, without necessarily being covered in protection.
If a Knight and a Samurai met eachother on the street, and drew blades against one another, it would be impossible to tell who would win, since they are so closely matched in terms of skill, and mentality.
@@chumleyhuffington1450 a man at arms would have many tools to accompany the sword to solve those problems. But if he didn't have them he would use halfswording and pommeling.
Both of those things you can't do with a katana since it lacks the weight and durability.
Also come on. A mailed, and metal plated knight Vs a samurai.
Samurai wearing bamboo armour with a sword that cannot penetrate steel and has zero value as a makeshift mace or hammer or axe Vs a knight that has mail, steel plate and the capacity to stab through, cut through and beat down the other with a further reach advantage no less. It's no contest.
@@celticdeamon567 Half-swording isnt a replacement for a specialized bludgeoning weapon, and it would have only been done if there was literally nothing else to use. The Longsword is balanced to be used for slicing and thrusting, not swung over an armoured combatant. Besides, no knight or samurai would wear their battle equipment into town, or on their travels. At most, they would wear mail for protection, or in the samurai's case iron plates or other such guards.
In that situation, a situation where swords would see expected use as a weapon of personal protection, both combatants would be on relatively equal grounds. On the battlefield of war, if a Knight and a Samurai engaged, the last thing they would be using is their swords, since both have an arsenal of much more efficient weaponry.
SCA member here... All weapons have their place in time. For me skill with a weapon is much more important. If you know how to use it, you are deadly. Just my 2 cents worth. Love your channel!
A nice video!
I still wanna point out a thing you missed in the sparring section.
Half-swording essentially gives you more speed and control over the tip of the longsword.
(You can grip the ricasso of the blade, or the blade itself, and use the sword a little like a spear.)
It's definitely a versatile sword. :D
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
Some other big differences is if you look at the height of the Katana, vs the same time period in Europe, you'll find that metal and sword tech was far superior in Europe who were using blast furnaces and could precisely control the amount of steel and it's distribution of it, while in Japan they were still working with wrought iron, and had issues with controlling steel.
Furthermore, European armor was far superior and doubtful a Katana would stand much chance a full plate knight.
Qq
Bloomery steel. They made up for it with skill though. Their forging techniques were far beyond filling a mould and sharpening it. Folding the steel would remove impurities and they made their swords out of different piece of steel which were tempered differently. A hard carbon steel edge for blade retention and a softer spine for absorbing shock and preventing the blades from shattering
Being completely honest, not even a long sword would ever stand a chance in an armored duel. On the battlefield the main weapons were in fact: hammers, maces and spears, not surely swords that are good for duels and for cutting but without chainmail or plates to protect the body
@@asgharelcg1059 except in Japan, it was predominantly bows and arrows were a primary weapon and a wakizashi was the secondary weapon. in Europe, long swords, were more commonly used with a shield, however the secondary weapon for most knights and archers were arming swords and as you rightly said, armies primarily fought with hammers and spears. The most famous use of spears here in England is the battle of Bosworth fields, which ended the war of the roses, where we saw the first use of the pike in the isles (invented by and then brought over by swiss mercenaries, recruited by Henry VII)
@@Kamikrazeee8888 not really, actually in feudal Japan main weapons of the battlefield where spears (yari and naginata) bows where almost ritual or secondary weapons and tachi (then the katana) where the last resource. They became main focus (with guns on battlefield) during edo period while there where bo wars and almost no one wear any armour, like the European counterpart with french estoc or Italian spada da lato for instance when armor aren't anymore the main defence and cutting weapons had any chance in duels or short range fight
Very much enjoyed watching this: I'm usually pretty dubious about the whole is X better than Y thing but great video and nice, practical and fair comparison. Thanks.
I own one of each as I love medieval weapons because I'm a longbow archer and I totally agree with you, if I were to actually use one in combat I'm not sure which of the two I'd choose, possibly the katana as I have a soft spot for them but like you said, the longsword has superior range so a hard choice to make, excellent video by the way!
Thanks! It all comes down to preference, anyone who tells you that you’re wrong has most likely never even held a real sword and is definitely untrained.
Cool yea I'm a mace wielding paladin in my LARP group. I'd cast Holy on you though if I could get within range and that would restrict your access to piercing weapons and it's gg then my guy.
Mace it's all about them that's why on battle field in war soldiers mostly used them. One good hit game over. Stupid using sword
Archers were arguably the most decisive soldiers in battle until firearms.
Surviving an archery hit required costly armor, chain-mail I believe I heard was ineffective against a crossbow bolt, & no hand-held weapon would get a strike in before an arrow strike.
But archery isnt "sexy" like the lone knight with his sword and suit of armor costing the equivalent of a Ferrari or 2.
Samurai meant "way of the horse & bow", Samurai fought with bows on horseback, the sword rose in symbolism after the fall of the Samurai to Meji Japan modern military.
We need a "Samurai vs Mongol" who would win a real war as they both actually fought.
I’d say katana if not armored, but if armored then a longsword. Clearly a katana can chop a body up much more easily, but a longsword is designed to find weaknesses in armour through thrusting, it’s also got more weight for better ‘clubbing’ through chain mail. This should have been factored into this analysis.
Longer= more better..(That's what she said)😝 But that katana hit it like no other..
People love these weapons because they are both proven through history. They both shaped countries and forged dynasties. They both have their place.
I gotta tell you. I watched some of your videos a few months back.. it led me to watching other "sword videos." I started looking into kendo schools and none were around. I never heard of HEMA but I found a Fiore longsword school. I've been going for 2½ months now. I absolutely love it.
And if anyone reading this has never tried it, DO IT!! You should at least see what is about. Any sword art.. you'll be glad you did
That’s great man, glad you’re enjoying Hema! It’s a ton of fun to spar with full gear. I prefer it to kendo because it’s true sword fighting, less a sport.
yes both proved in history but lets not kid ourselves, European war tech was massively better than anything else. Cheap to make, easy to use is always ALWAYS much better from a military standpoint. A katana is worthless if you need three months to make one. Arming swords where a dime a dozen, most of them weren't even heat treated cause why would they? You die either way.
>Forged dynasties
Not to be that guy but only one did
@@lettuceman9439 what are you talking about?
I'm sure you're referring to the katana... it had a longer life span of use....What do you think was going on with the longsword in Europe? As far as I know it was mostly in use in the 1300s- 1500s+.. Armor changed, weapons evolved.
Please explain to me how dynasties weren't forged with either weapon. Longswords were all across and highly used in a war torn Europe.. A longsword enforced the law or destroyed the law. It dominated in its time.
To be fair both never have been primary weapons if we're talking about actual warfare. Status symbols, duels, self-defense - sure. Battlefield? A backup. So countries & dynasties were shaped by polearms & bows if anything. Axes. Early firearms too. Oda Nobunaga for example widely & very successfully used arquebuses in his army.
With swords and their historical use and stats I can only say: "It depends." What period sword do you mean? Who made the sword? Who was the sword made for? What was the combat style the owner preferred? Because both Katana and Longsword or other European sword went through loads of development and each owner had his sword made to his own taste and budget. Those things weren't exactly a series made item and did bow to fashion. While modern replica of a Longsword or any European sword is made of springsteel, comparable kind of steel actually existed in Europe only for some 200 years during Viking era. And it was used in very limited numbers. All other swords were pretty stiff in comparison, some hard, others soft, some scary sharp, other only partially sharpened, some relatively blunt, some expensive, others cheap. So taking a modern replica of a sword and testing it is really more of a test on how a modern company makes swords, rather than what was the sword like during its heyday. I myself have a real historical sword and that thing has an edge as hard as a rock, while the spine is soft and bendable and it certainly doesn't flex very much.
you're making up a lot of shit here and conflating your opinion for fact a lot. you can absolutely make the statement that european swordcrafting was significantly more evolved and sophisticated than japanese swordcrafting, we have ample evidence to back this up. there's no "lol some swords were soft" or "some swords are hard & brittle", longswords were required to have a standard, especially in how hard and flexible they were. the longsword in particular becomes popular in the middle of the middle-ages in the 1100s, long after europe has developed very good forges all over the continent
So what’s your point? Longsword bad? You level Dex, don’t you?
Round shield, battle hammer or mace. Everything else is for posers. Except the crossbow, obviously.
Was wondering if someone mentioned this in the comments. The longsword felt oversprung for a historical weapon of that type. Historical steels didn't commonly reach that level of spring until much later, allowing the development of weapons like the rapier. Watching the fights in action, I have to wonder if the extra flexing of the longsword caused undesirable torquing that reduced the wielder's ability to maneuver.
Though as the video mentioned, none of this really matters in the real world. The deployment and skill of the swordsman is going to be the biggest difference. Which is to say the katana loses not to the longsword, but to the heavily armored European warrior who is nearly invulnerable to simple cuts.
@@nickwayne2 The point is: You can't make a fair historical comparison using two modern made swords. And even if you get the real thing, each sword made was an original with unique characteristics, so you still only judge that specific sword and not really the class the sword vaguely fits it.
That intro is the best thing I've seen in my life.
Excellent video: fair, balanced, humoristic and with just enough self deprecation to make it truly humble without false modesty. You gained a follow.
seconded!
I still find it interesting that swords still have an almost magical, cultural significance. Especially when you consider that in most cultures and ages, varieties of pointed sticks (spears, pikes, halberds, etc.) were much more important weapons. But these are mostly considered culturally trivial.
Probably because no matter the civilization, because of how wasteful swords are with metal. They always became a status symbol.
For each sword made, you could have probably armed 5 people with spears.
I read somewhere that a psychology study actually determined that people are innately more afraid of blades and clubs than they are of guns. I guess the hypothesis was that since blades and clubs have been around since our early evolution we have an instinctual awareness of the danger, but guns being a new development has to be a learned fear. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but it's an interesting idea that kind of ties into your comment I think.
@@generalx13 It doesn't help that firearms typically represent a "quick" death in media, while physical weapons are considered brutish or slow.
If you _had to die,_ would you fear a single shot to the head or the guy that swings and hopes he kills you in the first hit?
I think its likely that we dont fully understand the history of pointy sticks vs swords...
Swords are vastly more versatile, and much easier to carry as a side arm (pointy sticks not easy to carry).
Pointy sticks are how you start a battle, but the second the lines break down they are unwieldy in small spaces. Thus side arms would be drawn.
I think the reason we love swords is that they were the every day carry weapon (like a pistol is today), and they were also likely the weapon a high end soldier would be holding at the end of the battle (again due to lines breaking down). Also due to the swords versatility when facing an unknown opponent, and an unknown field of battle, it gives you the best average chance of survival.
I know that is probably to much nuance for this type of discussion but our ancestors were not stupid, they valued what they valued for a reason...
@@chrismcaulay7805 I think the point is more about volume of use than quality.
Aka: swords are expensive so the average peasant hastily drafted into war would have some variety of pointy stick. Only a few elite soldiers would have actual swords.
In fact, in Japan it was literally illegal for anyone but a Samurai to even own a katana.
Evidently culture doesn't focus on what is more common, but what is more valuable.
Okay, I would consider the long sword a bastard sword, and I'm inclined to believe that the balance point should be closer to the hilt and I've never seen anyone test the balance of a sword like that.
Other than that, excellent work. There are techniques I would never use on a curved blade, and techniques I would never use on a double edged blade. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago, and I am please to see people starting to understand this.
Can you show people why the over the shoulder draw is so dangerous?
Excellent job, keep up the good work.
"I would consider the long sword a bastard sword" - you are basically right. Main and only difference between LS and BS - length of the handle , its a bit bigger on a BS.
But balance for both swords is pretty much the same.
So basically what I’m hearing is longsword better 🗿