[Rim Andries]

I have a slightly different impression of both the longsword and the katana Timo. Maybe that is why I assumed the outcome to be different as well.

In my mind a typical katana (if there is indeed such a thing, ditto for the longsword) weighs in at 1.2kg. A longsword at 1.4kg. Handle length in both pretty much the same. POB further from the handle in the katana. And most definitely a thicker blade on the katana! Not wider. But chunkier and heavier. With in almost all cases a spine that packs a whole lot of meat. Like really: it is super fat. Not only is it big but the thickness reaches far down the blade and far into the blade. It is much bigger then anything I have come across in a longsword suitable for blossfechten. Meaning an agile cut and thrust sword like a XV or XVIII. Whether it be in the edge, central ridge, point or base of the blade; nothing trumps the hugeness of a katana spine. At least, on average, not in the examples I have seen.

That is not to say that I expected the katana to be slower all of the time. Certainly not against the longer and bigger longswords. It is just that I have almost never seen a longsword that was faster. Or a bastard sword. It bugs me a little.

But I guess that is at the essence of the comparison anyway: people say you shouldn't compare apples and oranges. I say why not, they are both fruits. But your apple is not my apple. And your orange is not my orange. And regardless if we can ever determine which is better, most people will have a preference anyway. I guess I am just an apple kinda guy and I want to see my apple do well

Having said that I would like to see a comparison of the two, whilst they share the same statistics in terms of dimensions. If we could find a longer and heavier katana (one that most people would still consider to be a katana) and a shorter and lighter longsword (one that people would still consider to be a longsword), I would be interested in the outcome.

[Nat Lamb]

Dan was not saying that the katana was slow in relation to longswords. What he said was that the katana was a slow clumsy sabre, so if comparing stats, use a sabre, not a longsword.
I am pretty sure that if you put a hand and a half or 2 hand grip on a european sabre, you could whip it around like an absolute demon.

[Craig Peters]

The idea with thrusting against plate is that you're trying to aim for areas that need to articulate and thus cannot be completely solid. The tricky thing is that most of these targets on plate are quite narrow. As a consequence, you need a sword that has a very narrow and acute point section to have any real chance of penetrating. Only swords like an Oakeshott Type XVa, XVII, or XVIIIa or b would have much of a chance. With a katana, you'd probably have to hope your opponent lifted his visor for better vision or ventilation and then aim for the face. Otherwise, trying to wrestle the knight to the ground and kill him there is really the only option.

[Rim Andries]

[T. Kew]

This sort of discussion is a good example of the critical limitations in just comparing mass and length. You really need to be looking at mass distribution and moments of inertia and so on to get a proper comparison going here, and that's before the issues in trying to define a 'typical' longsword or katana.

A few comments along those lines:

For a blade of equivalent mass, adding weight to the hilt will not make it easier to quickly accelerate the blade. You can only increase the moment of inertia by doing so.

Mass near the tip is what's really critical for this. A katana is thicker out towards the point, which counts against it - but the longsword is longer, which also counts against it. Which has more issue due to this depends a great deal on the exact thickness and mass distribution of the specific weapons being compared.

In the end, both are one or two handed cut and thrust swords used as versatile secondary weapons. Unsurprisingly, this tends to mean they're fairly agile and usable in a lot of situations without being necessarily ideal for specific ones, and so are pretty similar overall - there aren't major performance differences, because both are compromise weapons filling similar functions.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Rim Andries]

[Rim Andries]

So Timo you have basically encountered katana's repros that were heavier than their historical counterparts, and longswords that were lighter?

I find this strange because my experience is the exact opposite. I have handled some dozen antique longswords at the legermuseum in Delft (a personal highlight in my sword studies) and all of them were incredibly light. Much lighter than any Albion, Moc or A&A I have had the pleasure of swinging around.

I have handled couple of high quality modern katanas (I am talking blades that cost well over 2000/3000 euro) that were lighter then most statistics I have seen mentioned in articles and books. Unfortunately I have never held an antique, so there is that.

[Philip Dyer]

I think in this speed discussion, people are missing very martially important type of speed, mainly the amount of time of takes for a combatant to cover distance and hit someone. In this respect, the longsword in faster than the katana exactly because it is a longer weapon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGs36FPB_yo

[Matthew P. Adams]

I've seen this type of conversations and there are just way to many variables.

You can compare a specific weapon with another specific weapon, but that doesn't tell you anything that can be transferred to another weapon in the same catagory. Then you have to take into account the human element.

If you are well trained with a katana, you would know to thrust into armor gaps, and you could kill a knight in armor if you were a better fighter than he was.

But if you've killed a man with your sword, it means you have failed to kill him with a bow or crossbow, and then failed again with your spear or pole arm. The sword in both cultures is the equivalent of a pistol, a compromise weapon that is relatively easy to wear.

As far as shattering, one katana may shatter, one might be minimally scratched, it depends on the particular blade, the steel, the temper, the hit, the type and quality of armor, was the armored man moving into or away from the strike, what part of the blade hit, etc etc.

If you struck a katana against an unyielding object I think most commonly you would see the spine take a set, and the edge chip, but it would stay in one piece.

I will say that I think it's a wonderful piece of engineering. They are forged straight, and the lower carbon steel spine contracts more than the edge pulling the sword into the curve. So the harder slimmer edge is in tension when it's finished, kind of blows my mind.

[T. Kew]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Rim Andries]

@tea kew. We seen to have the same ideas when it comes to moment of inertia, which is unsurprising since it is universal and scientific principal. In dutch we call it "(mass)slownessmoment". And indeed it deals with acceleration, rotation and leverage/torque among others. Now I was never a mathematical wonder so I needed you to refresh my memory a little bit. Thanks for doing so in such an eloquent manner.

Also, I like your statement about keeping the preferred length for both swords. Now that I think about it, it is obviously the better approach.

@timo. I am afraid I didn't check the weight of the swords in delft. It never occurred to me, as they were given with statistics already. I am also afraid I lost that information as well. I took a lot of pictures that day, including pics of the descriptions. Sadly these are all gone, as some random %÷€%&₩£# stole my camera from my car only a couple of months later. All that is left from that day are great memories and some sketches I made, but I doubt they will serve you.

Concerning the heavier repros: Pavel Moc makes quite a few of them. As does Jan from Ensifer. Mostly blunts. But I am sure both gentlemen are more than capable of delivering sharps, and have done so in the past. But just like you I don't see them often. And my knowledge/experience with antiques is rather limited unfortunately. Most of it is hearsay. Perhaps that is why my average weight come out lower than yours.

About longswords in general and if we mean the same by that...I think so. I would call the Talhoffer, Ringeck, Earl, Munich all longswords. Some of them are just a little over 1.4kg. I wouldn't call the Mercenary or Constable a longsword, though they are close (slightly longer grip would make them a short longsword imo). I would call the bigger Mocs longswords too. Some of them approach 130cm in length and 1.6/1.7kg. They would be especially suited for later period longsword work (as I understand that even longswords generally seem to get bigger going from the 15th to the 16th century). I would not call them zweihanders just yet: far to nimble (even in one hand) and they simply feel "longswordy", perfectly suited for the various meisterhau, even more so than their shorter counterparts. They look like longswords too. Not zweihanders. Hope this answers some of your questions.

Ps: light end of arming swords? You mean single handed ones? Aren't they well under a kilo at the light end of the scale? Im confused by this remark, since I stated that I found repros (longswords not katanas) to be heavier, and indeed have never come across a repro even close to the weight of an arming sword. Sorry if I am, in return, confusing you now

[Rim Andries]

Oh yeah Timo, check Mocs pricelist for dimensions. His liechtenhauer is a beast of 140cm and 2kg!
His viollet seems to have grown too. Mine is from 2005, and is 1.6kg at 123cm. The new version is bigger and longer.

[Joe Fults]

[Tom Sasser]

The best answers will come from current practitioners of the various arts. The Japanese Sword Arts (JSA) have the advantage of a continuous line of teachers. WMA folks are recreating the arts. Both types of swords were made in the context of warfare and techniques at the time.

Jess Finley and Sean Hayes performing a harnisfechten demo at Longpoint 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ma1B2N8f54

Notice how they strike for the maile; they strike around the plate. The sword tips were very acute for this sort of fighting and could slip between the rings (and possibly break them). Edelson talks about this in his thread.

Mike Edelson's tests the performance of various European swords, a katana (not against maille), arrows and poleax against jack and maille. He also talks about the poleax and it's not very heavy--between five and six pounds. Stop and think: speed is essential in combat and overly heavy weapons are slow. Darwin is satisified

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

Various JSA clubs ran demos at SwordFest 2014 in Alexandria, VA. They talked about targeting, which included unarmored points and joints: thumb, eye, gaps at the neck and throat, palm, under the arm, knee and straps at the waist (I'm sure there are others, but that is all I recall). They did not talk about trying to thrust a katana through the front of the armor.

[Neil Bockus]

Just a note, if anyone talks about a 100lb warhammer, or a 60 pound sword, or whatever, you need to throw the BS flag. The science behind it is: Mass = Volume x Density. We happen to know the densities of both modern and historic steels: roughly .284lbs/cu in. This is about the density of basic iron, and historic steels generally are 98-99% iron. So, too are modern Carbon Steels and Low Alloy Steels used for sword blades (mid-97 to just shy of 99% for 10xx, 51xx and 61xx). There is always a tolerance to that value, but it will adjust the weight by parts of ounces, not by pounds. Here's an example from a study I've been working on for the past 3 years that is still in a bunch of different parts:

"Let’s break the sword down into some component parts:

Blade: 38” long rhomboid pyramid with 1.5” sides and 3/8” altitude
Tang: 8” long rectangle 3/8” wide and 3/8” high
Cross: 8” long rectangle 3/8” wide and 3/8” high
Pommel: 1.5” Sphere

For all of these shapes, we will need volumes. First, that of the pyramid:

V = 1/3 x B x h

Where B = Base and h = Height

The base, in this case, is a rhombus. The Area of a Rhombus is defined as: B x A, where Base (B) is one Face and Altitude (A) is the perpendicular distance from the Base to the opposite side. 1.5 x .375 = .5625. The height is known (38"), so we plug in the height and the Rhombus’ area for the base:

V = 1/3 x (38 x .5625)
V = 7.125in3

Now that we have the Volume of the Blade, let us find the Volume of the Tang and Cross, which we defined as rectangular cubes.

The Volume of a Cube is Length x Width x Height:

Tang and Cross = 8 x .375 x .375
Tang and Cross = 1.125in3 (each)

Finally, we need the Volume of the Pommel, which we have defined as a sphere.

The Volume of a Sphere is 4/3π x radius2:

V = 4/3 x π x .752
V = 4/3 x 3.14 x .5625
V = 2.36in3

[...WORDS...]

Now that an analysis of historic steel compared to modern has been made and the approximate density of the steel is known (.284lb/in3), we can utilize this number as the density for approximating the mass of our steel artifact:

The formula M = V x D can be used for each part. From above:

Blade: V = 7.125in3 x .284lb/in3 = 2.02lbs
Tang: V = 1.125in3 x .284lb/in3 = .32lbs
Cross: V = 1.125in3 x .284lb/in3 = .32lbs
Pommel: V = 2.36in3 x .284lb/in3 = .67lbs

Total Mass: 3.33lbs for a 46” long sword with a highly tapering blade."

Most warhammers and maces that I've been able to find are somewhere between 2 and 3 pounds (single-handed), and longswords are between 2 and 4 typically (out of 36, average 3.34lbs). To make a sword or axe or hammer weigh that much, you'd need a massive honkin' head, or make the thing out of osmium, and you'd still have difficulty (D=.82lb/in3). The people who wielded these weapons couldn't afford them to be so heavy. They had to be light and maneuverable, allowing their user to fight effectively over a long span of time.

[Bryan Heff]

I don't believe you Neil. I googled the internet and found this picture of actual mid evil fighters and as you can plainly see, that one guy's hammer is huge and has to weigh close to 100 lbs and he does not look tired at all.

[Joe Fults]

Its because his hammer is magic...and yes there have been some actual sword vendors over the years who claimed special crystal properties in the steel that did make their swords magic. They were laughed out of all serious discussion and continue to generate ridicule even though they tuned that marketing pitch years ago.

So...his hammer is 100 pounds and he is not tired because its magic.

Samaria did not have magic swords so clearly knight wins.

[Lance Morris]

Hello Guys,

I've abused, used, tested and broken many swords in my years!

Albion, Atrim, del tin, Tinker, BKS, Mark Morrow, Hanwei, Some are tough some less so..


Ive tried so hard to pierce breast plates...cut them..
Crack them.. mostly all I managed to do was dent them..

Its just physics, they're to close in hardness and a person just cannot generate enough power to give a debilitating blow to a breast plate.

I think the reason this issue is discussed so much is we generally feel Katana's are special... that swords are magic...in some way.