Ok discussion thread. >katana vs long sword Which would

>>33986459
longsword because katana is not a tachi or chokuto.

>Skallagrim
Go check him out for a reasonable answer.

But katana is folded millionbillion times like steel

It can cut a tortoise shell no problem

>>33986471
>>Skallagrim
here we fucking go

no, watch Matt Easton and his channel Schola Gladiatora. Skallagrim is a fat furry LARPer.

Honest answers from the top of me head? I would say historically the longsword (or any hand-and-half sword) was superior. It was heavy enough to hack and cleave through heavier armour untill heavy plate armour was being widely used. It's got a double edge making for a larger variety of fighting styles and contrary to belief it was very balanced, durable and although I stated it was heavy it is still light weight enough to be dwung with one hand (but only if you were mounted or using a shield). You also had a nice little crossguard to defend and your hand and disarming your oponent with if you catch his blade with it. Don't forget to end your opponent rightly with the pommel.

>>33986492
>It was heavy enough to hack and cleave through heavier armour
No it wasn't.

>>33986459
Longsword.

>>33986496
By heavy armour I mean chainmail. A cut won't do it but a powerfull swing has been proven to break the links and cut the padding on tested suits of mail. One plate armour became a thing you needed pole arms or warhammers to defeat an armoured opponent in a melee. But if you only had a blade you would try and wear your opponent out, unbalance him and stab him through the slits in his armoured suit.

>>33986459
Longsword. Usually more reach than a katana, better guard. Also more versitile in the way you use it.

>>33986515
> A cut won't do it but a powerfull swing has been proven to break the links and cut the padding on tested suits of mail
Citation needed

All the tests I've seen the swords just bounced off of the mail. Even if it manages to break off a few links, I doubt it'd have enough energy to meaningfully injure through the padded jack.

>>33986492
>>33986496
great, every time we have a sword thread, some fuck head brings up armor, then we get way off topic to the point where we just have two dudes bashing each other with hammers

so between katana and long sword...hammer wins the argument

>>33986459
long sword, cuz it's longer, has a bigger guard, and the same weight as a katana.

also katanas stay bent when long sword flexes

also historical katanas are even shorter than the chinese replicas you get on ebay because it's designed for island manlets to be used as a backup weapon

>>33986515
>>33986539
>>33986560
So, longsword still wins because you can batter your opponent until they get so weak and slow that you can get the point in through an opening?

>>33986539
Many sources point towards "yeah it's possible/probable but you shouldn't" as in yeah, I admi that it's not the best weapon for the job. Like you said it's unlikely a longsword will break through mail, especially against someone who is moving around as well. Testing against dummies on some vids and articles have yielded mixed results. I'll concede that a blade isn't an ideal weapon to use against an armoured opponent, but it's still possible to do damage to an opponent with one if you hit them right. You would never slash at an opponent with armour (unless against unarmoured exposed body parts or when feinting) but an up downwards cleave can break apart mail and bone underneath. Try doing the same with a katana.

>>33986560
Yeah, sorry for going a bit off topic. Just trying to make a point that longswords are better suited against armoured opponents than a katana.

>>33986560
Every one of these threads are identical.

>katana bait exaggerating their effectiveness
>people trash katanas and exaggerate longswords
>blunt force is better because of armor

We just need someone to say "just use a gun" and we'll have a bingo.

>>33986585
>but an up downwards cleave can break apart mail and bone underneath
You'll probably break bone, but mail is unlikely even with full force blows.

>Such weapons of percussion were especially effective against mail armour; repeated blows could shatter bones and kill the victim without even breaking a single riveted link of his hauberk.

>Try doing the same with a katana
Katanas aren't some frail things that will bend the moment you hit anything solid. You wouldn't get as much blunt impact with one, but why the fuck would you cut a guy wearing armor?

You'd choke up on the blade and stab it through gaps and joints, which is the exact same shit you'd do with a longsword.

I'd still pick a longsword over a katana, but people spout as much bullshit about longswords as they do katanas (and I honestly don't even see that many weebs hyping up katanas anymore).

>>33986638
actually a better subject would be messer vs katanas

>>33986638
>You'd choke up on the blade and stab it through gaps and joints, which is the exact same shit you'd do with a longsword.
Addendum:
You could just go around and hit places that were unarmored.

Japanese armor had more exposed gaps due to emphasis on freedom of movement, so in addition to thrusting, a lot of armored techniques aimed for those spots. In Europe, back when mail was the main form of defense, the face would often be exposed.

traditional long sword is better imo.

can be just as sharp if you want (edge retaining may vary if your cutting steel like a fuckwit)

almost all are balance the same way (weight to hilt, katanas are all over the shop)

much better penetration through soft tissue (dont bother trying to stab though plate, just find a chink).

diverse sword style (although katana is awesome too).

>>33986638
I'm just trying to prove my point that a longsword is better from a historical concept. Not shitting on the katana as it has its strengths as well. It's fast and sharp as fuck as expected from a curved blade yet light and surprisingly durable. Even Europeans switched to curved and thinner stabbing and slashing swords once firearms had rendered most heavy armour obsolete (save for Cuirasiers).

>>33986690
one problem I had with katana is the way its handle curves is actually detrimental to it's cutting power unlike most european curved swords that has the handle curves to the opposite direction of the blade, the katana curves to the same direction, which is physically awkard

>>33986483
Hi Matt.

>>33986459
>katana vs longsword
>ppl
>U

You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.

>>33986459
>U act as if the long sword can't be just as sharp

there's no reason for a longsword to be just as sharp.

In fact, when it comes to the longsword, there is such a thing as "too sharp", since you're not hoing to half sword with a katana.

The longsword is a far superior design.

>>33986786
This is what I'm saying. Overall the longsword or bastard sword wins but that doesn't make the katana a bad sword so to say.

>>33986459
Katana is more aesthetically pleasing and better at cutting, plus it's a single edged blade so an inexperienced user is 50% less likely to fuck themselves up if they fuck up

The long sword is better at stabbing and is heftier with more "stopping power"

Both have their pros and cons.

You faggots do realize Katanas were meme weapons from the start, that Samurai romantacized during the Meiji era when their station in life became minimal at best?

They didn't fight with Katana because it wasn't meant for fighting. They used bows on horseback. In fact, before the bullshit history that samurai and the Japanese in general made up about dueling, being skilled with a Katana was a way to say you were shit with a bow, therefore, a shit warrior.

They were brittle, breakable, length of pig iron that HAD to be folded because the carbon content and distribution sucked ass. It's basically what happened when the Japanese tried to reproduce a Dao, failed, and never advanced.

Meanwhile take a look at some of the grappling instruction manuals from German longsword schools, and see how effective it is even against plate wearing enemies where from a wind-and-bind you can drop an armored opponent to their backs and slip the tip threw the joints to disable or kill.

The katana was ceremonial, meant for killing peasants, with bullshit history made up to romantacize a dying social class.

Longswords were tools made to kill in the Eurasian mosh-pit.

>>33987136

Bitter anti-weeb propaganda is no better than masturbatory weeaboo tank-slicing.

>>33987285
You mean basic knowledge of history and metallurgy?

Volcanic iron from the Japanese isles was too rich in carbon content, and they couldn't create a high enough heat to separate it as slag till AFTER westernization.

This created swords with an RC hardness that made them unsuitable for the myth of katana dueling that the Meiji era sold.

Samurai were bowmen. Get over it.

>>33987407
Anti-weeb revisionism is every bit as bad as turbo-weeb romanticism.

We get it, you like HEMA. Get over yourself.

>>33987431
So revisionary that they literally had names for the high carbon, high silicate iron tamahagane and nabe-gane.

You aren't supposed to be on this site if you're under 18. Leave.

>>33986459
Katana because I can actually fight with it .. I was schooled to use the longsword I'd choose that one.

>>33986459
longsword, easily. The katana is the best you can do with the shitty iron Japan had access to. European smiths had access to much, much higher quality iron, and therefore could make a superior weapon able to take much greater punishment than the katana could.

>>33987285
>>33987431
Stupid Wikipedia with its anti-Nippon revisionary history, calling Katana brittle!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamahagane

(And Nabe-gane had worse carbon content. Fuck off with your fantasies)

>>33987407
>Samurai were bowmen. Get over it.

I wouldn't see a problem with that if they weren't lying about it constantly.

>>33987550
Exactly. They were excellent bowmen. Horseback Longbow is fucking hard!

But they weren't allowed to ride around shooting fuckers after the Meiji era arrived, and the Katana was all that was left... so that's when the romanticizing came around.

>>33987604
more like ponymen, asian horses are tiny just like their people

>>33986459
Shotgun. Best sword ever.

>>33987604
It might be worth mentioning I currently live in Japan (Nagoya) and have visited my share of castles in the first few months of being here. The interiors are usually small museums with period weapons and armor. Curiously, katanas don't get a disproportionate amount of display space. A fair share is given to matchlocks, spears, bows, tantos, katanas, etc.

The romanticism is all from pop culture stuff like anime, movies, manga and whatever. I don't think any serious Japanese historian buys into the 'grorious nippon stear' delusion. I haven't really spoken to any, mind you, but that's my hunch.

>>33987676
is it true that the historical katanas are even smaller than the one we see in movies/ebay?

>>33987686
I wouldn't be surprised. Guns are huge on the screen to maximize viewer impact, so it's not a huge jump to assume swords (especially exotic swords) would receive the same treatment.

>>33987676
That's because it was mostly sold to Westerners under the mystical mysteries of the Orient bullshit, as they were the only ones to believe the bullshit that political samurai peddled as history.

Now it's just pop culture that spreads it.

>>33987686
>>33987692

In the museums I've been, the swords all look similar in size to analogous Western swords. I haven't really consumed enough media to gauge whether or not they get exaggerated.

>>33986459
ultimately it wouldn't be about the sword

skill > armor > weapon

>>33987731
More like
Armor>Skill>Weapon.

It's why you could train your whole life with a 130lb Longbow, only for some rich asshole to buy plate and be utterly immune to it, and then next season have your lord replace you with some asshole with a musket.

>>33987110
>is heftier
>>33986492
>It was heavy enough
Jesus Christ you fudds. Longswords weighed in between 2-3lbs. Katana's also weighed 2-3lbs. Longswords were not heavy unless you are a weak sister, at which point going weeaboo won't do you any better.

>>33987741
>have your lord replace you with some asshole with a musket.
Wrong. The term bulletproof comes from armor smiths proving their armor's strength by shooting it with a firearm of the time and demonstrating it took no damage.

Plate armor was still heavily in use long after firearms were a common sight in Europe.

>>33987786
I was waiting for this!

Take a look at what had to be done to make armor musketproof. You basically had to layer the shit. The reason behind this being that the type of steel that made good ablative armor for blows from a sword/mace/etc was shit for musket balls, while the type of steel that would absorb and dent for musket rounds was shit for swords/maces/etc.

At which point, it became too heavy and inconvenient for rich assholes to rationalize using it to win glory anymore, as any fucker with a polearm could trip you/grapple you to the ground, put a stilleto to your visor, and Congrats, you now have to have your lord or house pay your fucking ransom.

Or

You take the money you'd have spent on armor, put it towards a shit load of muskets and peasants to use them, and there you have the next several hundred years of military doctrine.

Where the fuck are you retards getting your information on samurai, katanas, and longswords?

>>33986560
>so between katana and long sword...hammer wins the argument
how else would you beat a dead horse?

Longsword. It has much more reach, a bigger hand guard and is more durable than a katana.
All in all, I think it's the better weapon. I do enjoy the curved blade on the katana, but there are better ways to handle that shape that are more durable and have more range.

>>33987676
Holy crap I can't believe you guys are analyzing it this hard. The entire point of the katana was a status symbol. It was like wearing some bling. A peasant wouldn't have armor or weapons, a lot of their weapons were improvised farm instruments. Katanas being a status symbol were largely geared toward unarmed and unarmored targets. A skilled person with it could easily cut down someone very quickly, there use to be a few people that would test their sharpness by seeing how many corpses stacked up they could cut through in one swing. In a hierarchical society like that, it's not like you're going to have an armored guy show up on your door step looking to brawl, they'd have time to set up for an actual fight with strategy and weapons. In terms of carrying around a blade for status and just incase someone wants to jump you, a katana would probably be a lot more effective than a long sword, they even had drawing it quickly down to an art. It's not like people could even walk around with longswords in Europe, everyone moved toward short swords, if swords were not outright banned where they'd have 'hunting knives' as long as a machete which wouldn't be as good as a katana. I can't believe I fell for talking about this bait.

Longsword

>>33988039
>So many grorious Nippon memes

You mean iaido, the way of drawing a sword, that ancient martial practice founded way back in... 1932

>>33988119
IMPOSSIBRUUUU
RONG SWORD DULL KWI LO they would half sword with it, it was too much sword for them and dull enough to grip the blade, reeeeeeeal dangerous.

File: GermanLS.webm (3MB, 850x479px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 850x479px

>>33986459
In a 1v1 duel, two edge > one.

File: Latest.png (43KB, 490x374px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 490x374px

A

FUCKING

STICK

>>33986459
Longsword
It helps that I actually do train Longsword and other medieval/renaissance weapons.

>>33987786
>The term bulletproof comes from armor smiths proving their armor's strength by shooting it with a firearm of the time and demonstrating it took no damage.
Fun fact: they mostly cheated with weak charges.
http://www.academia.edu/11697870/Bullet_dents_in_armour_-_proof_marks_or_battle_damage_

>>33988267
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whLoS8117_8

>>33986492
Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen.

File: Matthew Parkinson.jpg (146KB, 900x644px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 900x644px

ITT: retards whose only source of information on this topic is from other retards on 4chan who never fully understood it, exaggerated what they did understand, and filled in their knowledge gaps with complete bullshit based on their distorted view of the topic.

>>33989071
That's why people are giving break downs of historical metallurgy, right?

>Doesn't know enough to be relevant, so autists out.

>>33986492
>It was heavy enough to hack and cleave through heavier armour

Kneegrow don't come here and talk about "historical" superiority when you get all your info from Berserk.

>>33989275
are you >>33987136?

>>33989071
/k/ is shit with swords, everybody knows, so what? If you need a decent thread, go to /his/. If you need bullshit memes, cold steel shit and machetes, come here.

> muh longsword
People seem to forget how much of a niche weapon it was. You don't use it with a shield, so you pretty much have to be armored. There's a reason it only became popular when plate armor was s thing. It's not a primary weapon, simply inferior to a polearm. It's not even the best sidearm against armor, that would be a hammer or mace. It was a sidearm for heavily armored knights to cut down infantry and maybe have the occasional bash against another knight, it never had much military relevance and existed for a mere hundred years or so. Stop giving it undue attention.

>>33989735
>knights
A tell tell sign that you are just another idiot not knowing what he is talking about in this thread. Longswords where mostly used by commoners, same goes for plate armor.

>>33986459
Longsword

?
>Longer
>Better guard
>can stab as well as cut

simple

>>33989930
Katanas can stab too bruh.

>>33989735
>so you pretty much have to be armored.
It was also civilian self-defense and dueling sword. In that case it goes without armor.

>>33986539
>>33986638
>>33989354
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXjzSv2q_LY
here's a vid of a Redneck swinging a basic arming sword at a mail shirt without any finesse and he still managed to cut off a few links!
>>33987774
Your right that a katana and longsword weighed about the same, but the point of balance and weight distribution makes the longsword feel heavier.

>>33990357
>but the point of balance and weight distribution makes the longsword feel heavier.
no, the oposite, the pommel acts as a counterweight and brings the point of balance closer to the hand, the Katana feels a lot front heavier.

File: Dragon suddenly.jpg (92KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x999px

>>33989774
>Longswords where mostly used by commoners, same goes for plate armour.
Nigga I hope your talking about mercenaries, men-at-arms or the late period of medieval times (or baiting) because what you just wrote is pure retard! Throughout most of the medieval period the commoners weapons were the spear, the bow, axes, clubs, knives/daggers. If they wore armour it was usually a padded aketon, gambeson or a boiled leather hauberk. Swords and especially plate armour was fucking expensive and only affordable to the nobility, people with money (Burgers, rich Freemen and Landowners etc.) or professional mercenaries with cash to spend. It shows that you don't have a clue when you state that a longsword was a common weapon when throughout many European kingdoms common people were not allowed to own a double edge blade over a certain length. This is why Messers or Haubschwerts were a big thing in Germany and central Europe because it started off as a cutting tool and then evolved in to a sword for battle. It was a way of circumventing weapon laws way back when!

>>33990357
>soldered mail
Opinion discarded.

And again, cutting off a few links doesn't mean you've noticeably cut anything underneath.

File: 16th century German Hand-and-a-half Sword.jpg (57KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x960px

>>33990357
>but the point of balance and weight distribution makes the longsword feel heavier.

Literally the opposite of how it actually is. Katanas are thicker than longswords and have none to very little distal taper which makes their PoB farther up the blade, longswords have distal taper and a pommel to wight down the back end, so the PoB is a couple of inches above the guard.

>>33990422
You got me thinking so I did some googling.
A katana weighed between 1.2-1.4 kg while a longsword could weigh 1.3 kg all the way up to 1.6 kg.

>>33990455
negrito, again, the long sword was a weapon of the 15th& 16th century, thats not even medieval.
Also, it was a common weapon of the time in the HRE, and most of its wearers where not noble knights.

File: 1426467217270.jpg (43KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x706px

>>33986483

Shill detected.

Begone, Shill

File: american-ed.jpg (21KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x398px

>>33990455
>throughout many European kingdoms common people were not allowed to own a double edge blade over a certain length. This is why Messers or Haubschwerts were a big thing in Germany

Mate, your post is bullshit, you should feel ashamed and leave this thread now.

>>33990455
> This is why Messers or Haubschwerts were a big thing in Germany and central Europe because it started off as a cutting tool and then evolved in to a sword for battle. It was a way of circumventing weapon laws way back when!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl-TJ9tZC6E

File: trash hmr.jpg (16KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x231px

>>33990545
Use of the longsword dates back to the late 13th early 14th century herr neger. But, yeas during the time period you mention (15th-16th century) the longsword was a common infantry weapon, but it had evolved into a more estoc like blade rather than a broad blade.

>>33990575
>In late medieval and early modern Spain, carrying swords and later guns was limited to the nobility (hidalguia). There were a number of sumptuary laws which regulated the public carrying of weapons. Individuals could receive royal licenses to carry arms. Usually such licenses were requested because of an individual's meritorious service or immediate need.

>"Throughout Medieval Europe, most people were able to own and (sometimes) carry weapons (including peasants), but that doesn't mean attempts weren't in place to try and curb it. In many cases, the restrictions were usually against carrying in the presence of some higher authority, or carrying them publicly during peacetime.

>It's a bit broad to answer this for every country, so the best I can do is give you a few examples of weapon restrictions:

>In later Medieval France, peasants couldn't carry things like lances, bows, swords, daggers, or cudgels in peacetime. (Kaeuper; War, Justice, and Public Order)

>Swedish King Magnus Ericsson forbade peasants in the Götland areas (especially around the copper mining areas) to carry anything other than a knife to eat with, while allowing their employers the opportunity to have weaponry if there was a risk of them rebelling. Almost a century later, similar laws would be passed against carrying in public spaces, or near the higher nobility (probably as a consequence of Engelbrektsson's rebellions) during the assizes. (Silfverstope; Svensk Diplomatarium II)

Yeah, I'm obviously full of shit...

>>33990591
>but it had evolved into a more estoc like blade rather than a broad blade.
Thats wrong again negrito, there where several type of longswords around, some had estoc blades, many had broad blades. The Classic Oakeshot type XX comes to mind.

>>33990636
Yes you are, you state no source, nothing there is about Germanyyou mentioned, nothing about double edges and so on.

Worse, it is common knowledge that many places in Europe, especially what is today Germany, made it mandatory to own weapon for commoners.
The Messer had nothing to do with circumventing weapon laws and and your whole post is bullshit.

Go read a book.

File: German longswords 16th century.jpg (37KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x400px

>>33990639
Now your moving the goalpost herr neger. Now your arguing sword types! You can't deny that the broad edged blades started falling out of favour vs the thinner tapered blade until we just switched to the rapier!

>>33990636
Funny thing is unlike today Germany was much less cucked than France or Britain where commoners were just slaves of the king.

>>33990681
>made it mandatory to own weapon for commoners.
For Bürgers.

>>33990691
No negrito, broad blades where in use during the time and more common than estoc types. Check your own damn pic for reference.
Also, mentioning a specific subtype of the longsword and mentioning its correct name is not "moving the goalposts"

>>33990720
Yes, welcome to the HRE, where there is myriad of city states and town militias and free men.

>>33990691
>what are Oakeshot Types XX-XXII
>what is falchion
>what is messer

>>33990681
It wasn't universal, and Germany was dozens of different duchies and fiefdoms with varying laws. I know the Messer was a common weapon known as Bauernwehr because it was a commoners sword. Messer might not have evolved to circumvent laws (I'll retract that) but there were still laws regarding the possession of certain weapons by commoners throughout different times and places throughout Europe.

>>33990816
>It wasn't universal, and Germany was dozens of different duchies and fiefdoms with varying laws.
Bring a historic source regarding HRE weapon laws then.

>know the Messer was a common weapon known as Bauernwehr because it was a commoners sword.
You know shit, the Bauernwehr is a thing, and a Messer type. However it is more a fighting knife and had a lot to do with rural guys, but again, this wasn't do to a law. A large working knife makes more sense to a farmer than a sword for edc, and having a small handguard is nice in case the going gets rough, tadaa, Bauernwehr.

>Messer might not have evolved to circumvent laws (I'll retract that) but there were still laws regarding the possession of certain weapons by commoners throughout different times and places throughout Europe.
See, now that is "moving goalposts"
Yes, especially in feudalistic shitholes like Spain and France, less so in the HRE and England.
I most towns owning weapons was mandatory, so was military service. What is true however is that strangers, the dishonest classes and the jews where prohibited from bearing weapons in town.

>>33990737
Yeah, and broad blade was the way to go until the later/end of the medieval period when thinner blades were thrown in to the mix and became more common as time went on. Then eventually everyone was using rapiers and sabres as the go to swords.

File: walloon sword.jpg (33KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x768px

>>33990915
>Then eventually everyone was using rapiers and sabres as the go to swords.

Son, there is literally dozens of different sword types in use at the time.

>>33990907
>throughout many European kingdoms common people were not allowed to own a double edge blade over a certain length.
How is that moving the goalpost when i retracted my statement regarding my knowledge of the Messer and it's origins while still asserting the fact that there were weapons laws throughout different kingdoms of medieval Europe? Something you yourself admitted to being a thing in Spain and France?

>>33991049
Yes you are right, you just switched the subject from Germany and the Messer to everywhere else and weapon laws for a 1000 year period time span, how could that be moving goalposts...

File: 16th century swords.png (6KB, 293x172px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 293x172px

>>33991047
Yeah, here are a few common sword types at the time. Am i saying broad blades WEREN'T used? No, just that they were falling out of favour,

>>33991112
Yes, and let me tell you again, you are wrong, cutting blades in swords fell never out of favour. and where in good use until the end of the sword era.
Thats probably why 7 of the 13 types you posted have a cutting blade.

>>33991101
Will you drop the fucking Messer shit! My point was originally to show that there was nothing common about plate armour or longsword if you were a simple footsoldier up until the 15th century, Roughly 200 years since the longsword first started being mentioned or used and back then metallurgy wasn't in the advanced stages to allow for mass production. We are obviously thinking about different time periods here.

>>33991222
Well, plate armor has per se nothing at all to do with the long sword.
The longsword itself had its heyday in the 15th & 16th century, and it was a fairly common weapon of the time.

You are moving in circles and pretty much everything you claim is either not correct or outright wrong. You sure you want to continue this discussion?

>>33991047
>Son, there is literally dozens of different sword types in use at the time.

How many of those basket hilt types could be used with two hands like the longsword or broadsword? By that point we're not talking about hand and halves, just the blade design and sword type.

>>33991311
Yes, the longsword fell out of use during the17th century and one handed swords where preferred. And those one handed swords often had broad blades.
What are you trying to tell us?

>>33991112
>that pic
>cup hilt rapiers are 16th century now

>>33988978
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Katanas" bullshit that's going on right now. Bastard Swords deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Bastard Sword in Germany for 10,000 Euros (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Bastard Sword.

European smiths spend years working on a single Bastard Sword and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Bastard Swords are thrice as sharp as Japanese swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a Daisho can cut through, a Bastard Sword can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a Bastard Sword could easily bisect a samurai wearing pieces of wood for armor with a simple horizontal slash.

Ever wonder why Japan never bothered conquering Medieval Europe? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Knights and their Bastard Swords of destruction. Even in World War II, Japanese soldiers targeted the men with the Bastard Swords first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Bastard Swords are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen.

>>33986459
Katana but only because I know how to use one but if I had to choose and had equal training on all I'd go with a Viking sword made of Damascus steel