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.
THIS. Even in Japan, a skilled spearman was paid more then a swordsman. The Sword being more a symbol of rank and class. Likewise, the Vikings use of shields and unit tactics mattered more to their success then their actual weapon. The sword is more of a dueling weapon, the spear, polearm, shield and axe are the weapons of the battlefield. Approach a man skilled in a Halberd, Lucerne hammer, naginata, spear etc with a sword, and you will see heaven soon.
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.
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.
@rfe8nn2 European fighting was not only brute force. There was a strong martial arts tradition too, though they largely became "sportified" into boxing and fencing with the introduction of firearms-based warfare. You may wish to take a quick look into examples of unarmed combat techniques (watch?v=W0fV1oB3j4c - note the lack of reliance on holding onto a lapel for throws, allowing use against armoured opponents as shown in the illustrations) and longsword fencing techniques (watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc and watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc). These are just quick intro videos of a couple of minutes each, but should be a good start - the last is only only 1:53 and really shows the speed.
My culture (Frisian) used two handed swords, basically longer long swords, and they didn't rely on heavy armor. Our motto translates into 'rather dead than slave', and every battle with vikings was a fight to the death for both sides. Aiming for small gaps in their armor sounds like shit French of English did, we just swung that long ass blade and chopped limbs off with sheer force. Frisians are some of the tallest people in the world, they say it's the Netherlanders but I'm 6'4", outside of Friesland I'm tall, in Friesland I'm not... our famous leader Grutte Pier was 7 feet tall, his sword was his length, and was said he decapitated 3 men with 1 swing.
Yeah I was gonna say, historically there wasn't so much "sword fights" as there were scenarios of just trying to end things in a single blow. (Blade durability etc.)
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!
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.
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.
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 :)
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. :)
@Joe Doe it's called a longsword bro... it's literally a longer sword. If they were the same length you either are using a tachi and not a katana or not using a longsword.
@Valkyrie Regalia well to be fair you can't use the price as a reason, since if it's to truly be fair, katanas steel when they were used was worse than longswords steel. If you are allowing the katanas to have high quality modern steel that they weren't able to produce, you can atleast allow the longsword to have a sharp edge. And as you say having it sharper isn't necessarily better, as long as it cuts deep enough it will kill either way so it doesn't really matter. Many sword duels in history ended in very fast exchanges since you really don't live most stabs/cuts, atleast according to what I have heard
Something to note is that you can get longer "katana like" blades, such as an Odachi or Nodachi. The problem with those blades, though, would be their giant lengths that can be a lot to deal with.
If I’m being honest, I’d be happy to have either weapon to use because I love the katana as a weapon and the longsword for its origins, I think it just depends on what purpose one is looking for in the sword
Not completely sure how I stumbled across this video.....but damn glad I did! Really cool content. Liked the analytical and practical analysis of each weapon. I'll definitely check out more of your vids!
First time stopping by to see your videos. Great job man! As a fan of both types of swords, I found this really well balanced (no sword pun intended). Definitely will be checking out more of your content. Keep up the great work!
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.
@Delano Van raalte Not really. The atomic weapons were a mercy and took far fewer lives when compared to all the fire bombing. Another thing is Japan shouldn't have thrown the first physical punch if they didn't want to potentially have their teeth knocked out. They disrespected us, underestimated us, and threw the first physical punch. We got up, dusted ourselves off, and knocked their teeth out. Japan is a lovely country with many fine qualities, however they STILL won't own up to all the not so nice stuff they did before and during the war. 3/4 of the youth in Japan don't even know that their country allied with Nazi Germany because it isn't taught over there. Hell, a lot of them don't even know Japan threw the first punch. That stuff makes Japan look bad so the government still downplays (buries) it in their education and they also still minimize all the crap they did to initially start the political fire. Makes it kinda hard to garner up much pity over two bombs. Anyway, wars over and we're mostly friendly now.
@oↄɘAᴎ B҉L҉O҉K҉E҉ if Japan had a renaissance period it was a tiny one compared to Europe, since in Europe the feudal knight’s culture was firmly in the past by the 19th century, while the feudal samurai culture was still very much a thing in the same century. It also took Mathew Perry’s warships entering into Tokyo bay to bring Japan’s isolation policy (pretty much anti renaissance) to an end. During the next twenty years after that event, Japan firmly entered the industrial age.
I’ve always loved two handed swords like ones that would be hard to wield with one hand. So when I found out about a katana(I don’t remember it’s name) that had a long handle and a long blade, I just loved it. It can be light, but also has long reach
I love both swords, I’m British so although I have a more affinity with the long Sword I absolutely love the Katana and the history/culture of the samurai ❤
My first introduction to the long sword was in the movie “Ivanhoe” in te 50s, and I learned abou the Katana in “Seven Samurai” in 1966. Thank you for the excellent review. At the end of the day, like you said, it is not the sword that determines the outcome but the man behind the sword.
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.
Take a European master swordsman with a Longsword in half-plate and chain (standard war uniform when not at tournament and/ or dismounted otherwise too heavy to maneuver at all.). Vs. a samurai who is a master swordsman in his armor even the full armor was light enough for mounted and dismounted combat and have them go at it (non-lethal) it will be a draw. Lethal, whomever got lucky first.
@foroparapente In which paragraph? The first one about knights being from the line of heavy cavalry with the supporting detail of spurs being included in their knighting ceremony? Or the paragraph about how the Black Plague happening at the same time, or even after, the development of plate armor, so could not have been responsible for delaying its development by creating loss of metallurgical knowledge?
@Isaiah Welch No! Knights were descended from the heavy auxiliary cavalry legions of Rome. In the High Medieval period, the ceremony consisted of a night-long vigil of the squires who were to be knighted the next day. The new knights were given a sword, spurs, and perhaps some armor or perhaps just a shield, depending on the sponsor's wealth. So, if they just infantry, why would their sponsor's give them spurs? As to your theory that plate armor didn't happen until the mid- to late-fourteenth century because of the Black Plague, I find it quite ridiculous that the disease which swept over Europe from the 1300s to the 1600s would have caused a loss of knowledge when the two were happening at basically the same time.
I love how much you know about swords and how you use the Katana with the technique mainly for a longsword. Even though you are not doing anything wrong, the way you cut is actually harder to take advantage of. The Katana is used better when cutting from above your head (?) I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly, but that way you can use better the weight of the sword and use even less force! I loved to see the perspective from an european martial arts student. ♥♥♥
absolutely love how you nerded it up at the end with the stats. as someone who has been training in martial arts for over 30 years. I love both the Katana and Longsword. They each have their own style of being used. The katana has more finesse but the longsword has some power to it.
Wow, that was such a thoughtful and fun video! Your love for weaponry is so evident and your explanation of concept so concise and articulate. I love the way you compare them, showing the cultures that inspired the different fighting styles and the importance of these different fighting styles, one not better then the other but are better considered together. The beauty of both are made more bold when you show their strengths, like members in a team taking on different roles. Also that slicing scence was frickin cool, plus, I respect the Sasuke cosplay! Great job man, that was an excellent video that captured why we love weaponry so much! The history and fun found in swordsmanship should unit us weebs and dweebs! You got a new subscriber dude, keep rocking it!🤙👍🔥
@Cerberusarms You're welcome!! Really, mad?! Jeeze, I don't understand how. I really love your approach and I'm really glad you appreciated my comment!! I think it's easy to get lost in a sea of hate so I am so joyful that I could be used as a reminder of how awesome you are doing!! Keep it up man, your videos just keep on getting better, I have learned so much!!! I bow low to you my sensei!!!🙇♂️👍
I’m glad you enjoyed the video! I get so many comments from people getting mad that I’m not biased towards their opinion so it’s nice to hear from someone who gets it. Thanks for watching!
I respected that you were particular about your choice in swords to compare, and acknowledged the bias in reviews. For a while, I still perceived you to be simply a sword fanboy without any functional understanding. Then finally you addressed the importance the fighting form plays in each blades effective quality. That earned a respect from me that is rare.
Enjoyed the video, very much thanks. Just one thing to help with the handgrip, most knights had a longsword AND a sheild so you'd actually have to use one hand even though it's one and a half. The Greatswords were two-handed blades because well bigger and heavier. Also I like the mention of the difference between cuts, katanas I feel are more for civilized duels and longswords were for brutality....
Longswords were not meant for use with a shield (that would be an arming sword) Not much civilised about cutting someone's fingers off then stabbing/cutting them in the crotch, armpit or face.... (Which is what they both did)
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.
@Dimitri Dovel While the number of deaths is absolutely regrettable, comparing them directly is just dishonest. 1- Japan was the aggressor 2 - Those 2500 casualties were the result of an unprovoked sneak attack 3 - Those 2500 casualties need to be added to the untold number of Chinese they slaughtered in the most dishonorable and inhuman ways possible. 4 - Those 2500 casualties need to be added to the atrocities the Japanese committed that make the Nazi's Joseph Mengele look gentle and caring by comparison. 5 - The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to end the Eastern front of a World War that the Japanese threatened to continue, even while obviously defeated, to the very last man, even employing suicide bombers. 6 - The result of NOT bombing Japan would have likely resulted in MORE casualties, more suffering, and an even worse history for Japan. Yes, nuclear bombing cities SUCKS, hard, but it wasn't done out of revenge or frivolous. It was, sadly, the sanest solution (with the understanding of the time) to an insane situation that just threatened to get even more insane. Also, consider, with nuclear weapons, someone was going to get nuked eventually. As a silver lining, at least we got to learn that this is something to NEVER do again while using only a tiny fraction of what nuclear weapons are actually capable of. Remember, it was still highly experimental at the time. A nuclear bomb of even a decade's technology later (and if the war had continued that's what we would likely have gotten) would have left very little of Japan to rebuild.
Pearl Harbor - 2500 Casualties Hiroshima - between 70 and 100,000 casualties, soldiers and civilians. Nagasaki - 40 to 80,000 casualties America has spilled enough blood to send us all to hell , so yeah maybe that “trophy” could bring peace to someone’s bloodline. Just think if it was your grandfather and someone brought you their musket , wouldn’t you feel some connection? And whoever said they are lucky we didn’t wipe them out , ima pray that god gives you the hell you deserve 🖤 much love respect yah mommas and have a good day .
This was a great video and I have no problem with the conclusion. I think the question is the problem. It's apples and oranges. The longsword was intended as an answer to heavy European infantry whereas the katana was designed as a heavy cavalry sabre. Strong enough to break the Samurai armour of the time but light enough use when dismounted. Both are great sword types, I own both and I'm glad I need neither.
Good video. One should however mention that both in Japan and in Europe, there was many, many schools of swordmanship over long periods of hundreds years, and developments in the warfare that ultimately make categories of 'katana' and 'longsword' rather empty without more exact context of an individual piece of weaponry. Also, at least for highly professional elite swordmen it was always also on matter of personal taste what kind measure, weighting, etc. they preferred from their swords, also within same dojos/schools of the art, in both worlds of swords. Please, more content like this.
Great video. I will say that I believe longswords are also known as "hand-and-a-half" swords which your disdain for the grip describes this perfectly. Not normally to be used two-handed, but to have that option in a pinch. The longsword is the balance between the arming sword and the true two-handed swords.
In wars they used the odachi equal in length. Chain mail can not be cutted so the longsword is a thrusting weapon. If robbers entering my house I take the katana. (Iai since 1997) In a war I would always use the longest weapon available. Nice skills!
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
Great analysis! My $0.02: Speed kills, but SKILL almost always wins. With equally skilled opponents I (opinion) would give the advantage to the katana wielder. One thing not touched on was non-blade, i.e. grappling and striking (trapping, elbows, tripping, head-buts etc...) techniques to supplement the sword strikes.
Interesting. In my personal opinion both weapons were or are perfect - for their time and their context. The longsword was to some degree not the main battle weapon of the time for knights (therefore also the strange pommel on yours), it was to some degree more a testimonial of knight hood. In the battles of these swords cutting was by far not the essence with the common use of chainmail or even plate on quality troops. I would really recommend to do some full contact sparring with plate armour to get a feeling how limited swords in general were to penetrate that, especially combined with a shield. Without much knowledge what type of armour were worn below the level of Samurai it would make sense to extend these testcutting a bit to armoured targets, taking into account the different environments of the swords.
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.
Love this analysis. Some things worth noting is that a longsword, as mention, can vary by many variable; length, weight, edge sharpness, they could balanced for thrusting or slashing, as well as over all quality. You could very well be a low ranked mercenary and buy a longsword but it would be a vastly inferior weapon to a wealthy knights sword. Whereas a katana had little variety and while some were certainly higher quality, swordsmiths would always put effort into making them as high quality as they could possibly make them; as for much of their history they were reserved only for Samurai and nobility (of course inferior swords did make their way to black markets and into the hands of freelancers or bandits of some type). Which I think attributes heavily to the legend of the katana being this amazing weapon that can cut through anything, being that those who traditionally (and legally) possessed them, would be carrying their respective smiths finest work. But a master wordsmith crafting his finest longsword would also result in a mind blowing weapon. At the of the day... An AR-15 would demolish both while making very satisfying brratatat noises 😂
I thought I heard before that most katanas were actually poorly made because their steel making process was inferior to modern day practices. So most the original ones preserved that are really good are the outlier high quality ones, while most common people could only afford poor quality steel katanas.
Katana don't vary as much in appearance, but if you handle a historical collection they vary in balance about as much as it is possible to vary (some are hulking cleavers, some are light & whippy) They made katanas of as varying in quality as anyone else during wartime (they were sold in bushels in some cases), the very high end culture is relatively modern from when they became symbols of status/art pieces (modern smiths are legally limited in how many swords they can make a month, so everything is high end)
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?
@Darth Wiizius No. Most gladii were made of steel. And no other blade weapon killed as many opponents as the gladius. The Romans designed a battlefield style and discipline around it. It's not just the blade, it's the way it was used on a battlefield where close quarter fighting had been forced upon the opponent. After the Romans abandoned Britain, roughly 400+/- AD, the state of metallurgy and weapon making there regressed. The Arthur myths deal with the period perhaps a hundred or so years after that. So, yes, a high quality, carbon steel horseman's longsword would have held tremendous advantage.
@Mark Jones agreed - it isn't which sword is better - because you aren't testing them in their environment. A heavy sword is meant to knock someone back and then thrust through the gaps in the armor. If there is no heavy armor you want something fast that can slash. Different scenarios for each, each suited for the armor they went against.
@Niddy He admitted his bias, and you are quite correct. The longsword was designed to function against plate mail and therefore must be able to absorb a ton of shock. The katana was against laquered wood and leather so could be stiff. Different tools for different situations. I prefer the greater function variability of the longsword myself. Despite his bias, he really did do his best to be fair and I appreciate that.
Hey bro, I love how you put the RPG and character roles into the mix. Then you randomly whipped out a couple of pistols, its good stuff, I think its great when people just inject their own humor into things like this.
I think it's an amazing fact that Knights and Samurais lived at the same time, but never met. Both weapons had their advantage for their purpose and I agree none is better than the other one, For their purposes both were perfect weapons.
This is the message I got from this video. The longsword, a jack of all trades, can do anything you want it to, its not the best at anything, but damn good at everything. The katanna a fast agile, peace of metal, made for quick slashing, and the intent to kill. Both swords are unique in there own right, both having reason to use over the other. In a duel, the longsword is the obvious choice. In quick kill environments where mistakes mean death, the katanna is the correct choice.
Very entertaining and informative video. I believe the long sword was intended to be used by one hand. All I could think about was the movie, "kill bill". Lol
I would say the relative power of the two will depend mostly on the relative skill levels of the two fighters. Relative skill levels are VERY important in all forms of sword fighting.
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.
@lolll lolll your correct about the armor situation. I am also so glad that he mentioned the huge variety of long swords that exist in Europe. Many videos tend to ignore that, but he mentioned it which, in my opinion, is very considerate and constructive rather than destructive
Agreed, the longsword and katanas are used by different cultures in different timeperiods. Remember, the old Europeans changed their armors just as often as we change socks in the morning, so for different armor there's ofcourse a different sword to be effective. That's why there's such an huge variety in _just_ the longsword family, like the Zweihänder (two-handed in german) even outside the longsword family there's another good example, the OG, Gladius. The Zweihänder is fucking massive, and the Gladius makes 5 foot guys look tall, but that doesn't make either one bad or good, it depends what armor your enemy is wearing and also what you're wearing or holding, that's why the Romans stuck to a short Gladius, because stabbing was easier for a common legionnaire with those iconic huge shields. As for the Zweihänder, you have to make a huge sacrifice and completely give up the idea of self defense, and you have to be absolutely ripped just to lift it (so basically you just need to be your average sports teacher) but that sacrifice is well worth it because the Zweihänder is really long, and the enemy would be in great danger if he approached you without a way to (somehow) defend himself. Now apply the same mentality to Katanas and you can see how this argument has no real solution, because the Katana also has a wide family of swords built for different time periods and different armor sets.
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.
Katana and longswords are two different weapons based on dissimilar situation. Katanas came from a situation where (in Japan) during the age of the Samurai it was quite difficult to get good quality steel and as such well made ones became quite prized and sword makers went to the effort of using folding techiques in its constructio.. It is also curved because the Samurai (IRL) often started off wielding a speer (often from horse-back) and the Katana was usually a backup weapon. Slightly curved weapons such as sabres and katanas have an advantage vs straight edged swords when fighting from horse back in terms of their slashing abilities. Where the Samurai would be mostly fighting through waves of lightly armoured commoners, I believe that longswords were made with the idea that the wielders of these weapons had to get close and finish off their contemporaries. Longswords were made in an age where enough people had heavy armour that being able to pearce between joints was far more important than slashing and chopping abilities.
You dont want a longsword versus heavy armored opponents. Its kind of a middleground. You can slash unarmored opponents with it easily while still being able to pierce weakpoints in armor through halfswording (basically using it as a dagger) or bludgeon the enemy through the mordhau technique (basically gripping it by the blade and using it as a kind of hammer with the crossguard)
Great video. It would be interesting to see a Katana made out of spring steel vs a Longsword made out of high carbon steel, and how much difference it would make in the results and handling.
That longsword IS high carbon steel. 1060 is not "spring steel" as 5160 is. My longsword is 1095 high carbon. Those two swords steels are nearly identical. The difference being length and cross-section and curve
Great presenter, great subject, confirms what most of us feel intuitively, slightly different tools for slightly different jobs. For those heathens out there, yes, you can open a paint tin with a screwdriver, but honestly, it deals with screws better 🙂
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.
The reason the long sword feels weird is because straight blades aren't designed for cutting but stabbing. It doesn't matter how you hold it you are slashing not cutting.
@Zelena Streha Your weapons were made with newest materials and modern techniques, most likely forged steel. That was NOT standard. Common infantry two handed weaponry was about 4kg with a VERY uncomfortable gravity center. Armor weight varied, but 30kg for men at arms was common. That's without additional equipment. But you don't only have to look at war equipment. Look at farmer's tools. Good luck working with those for a couple hours.
@M0butu Contrary to the common belief, medieval weapons are very light. I have a long sword weighing 1.3 kg (2.86 lb). Famous Danish axe weighed 0.9 kg (less than 2 lb). You cannot fight efficiently with heavy weapons! Not now and not in the Middle Ages! People were shorter and smaller back then, therefore, their armors weighed less than those armor replicas which are in use for exhibition fighting today. In addition, armors were worn only by knights, i.e. the richest, well-fed and well-trained men of the time. If you and I trained fighting in the armor for years every day from young age having no job at all and partying all the time (in time when there is no training), wearing and fighting with armor would be not a big problem for us either.
@M0butu What you're saying is simply not true. People in the Middle Ages were definitely not stronger than people of today. In the early Middle ages men were 1.69 meters (5′ 6″) tall on average. Later in the Middle ages they became even shorter. True, they worked physically all the time so they should be stronger than today's people. On the other hand they had much poorer diet in comparison to today's men (in quality and in quantity) so, on the other hand, their strength would not be so overwhelming in comparison to the modern men of the same height. If one's bodily mass is lower, he cannot be as strong as someone who is taller. A good example is the emperor Charlemagne (Charles the Great) who is said to be "a warrior who was uncommonly [...] effective in battle". The reason for his efficiency was in his height because he was somewhere between 1.79 and 1.92 meters tall (between 5′ 10″ and 6′ 4″). Therefore, men in middle ages were physically weaker than men of today because they had less bodily mass, were shorter, and had poorer diet. It is true though that they were ferocious in battles - therefore, physical fighting with them would be difficult. 🙂
Great video-I love the fact that it is the sharpest sword you own (scary sharp) but you still was smacking the hell out of your friend with it-respect to your friend for staying your friend and keeping his arm… 😄😄😄
Now me personally, if I had to pick one of the two swords I'd pick a longsword because the opponent will probably armored, the katana would cut the armour to a certain extent, or maybe a limb or two. The longsword's thrusting and penetration ability is KEY. As it can go trough the enemy's lungs or throat, resulting in, victory.
Great video, couldnt help wondering how the comparison would change if a shield was included i.e. you can use a long sword either one or two handed so it would have been in some sense a compromise while the Katana is out and out focused on one fighting style.
longsword would be much better in that regard, as you said it was made for both one handed (though this requires a person to have much more training and muscle to be doing properly) and two handed, and Katana's contrary to popular belief, suck against anything that solid "like a shield"
I love this video, however, I have just a couple of pointers. First, you must consider the era for which both of these were made, and the battlefields on which they were used. The long sword (and variants) were invented for combat in an era where armor was mostly steel (chain or plate). I can tell by your form you know more or less how to handle a katana, which is awesome! I love katanas! But the form for a long sword has nothing to do with the tip of the sword and everything to do with the middle to base (by the hilt). Most long swords weren’t very sharp and usually only cut off limbs (if you were lucky) by virtue of their weight and the design of the blade. The design took into account the fact that on the battlefield most adversaries would be almost completely covered with armor! Thus, long swords were designed not to cut, but to break bones and skulls UNDER the foes’ armor! Hence the width of the blade around the hilt! Mostly it was meant to be wielded single handed while the other hand held a shield. In addition, It COULD stab, but you never thrust at an opponent! You only stabbed your foe once they had fallen to the ground. And In that much armor, if you fell to the ground you usually couldn’t get up easily, and thus could be easily stabbed. Samurai armor was mostly lightweight materials for flexibility, using some metal or linked armor around the vital organs, but mostly using thick cloth to protect themselves from other slashing blows. (All they faced in close combat were mostly other slashing weapons in the age of the samurai/katana) the katana is more like a scalpel, vs a cleaver meant to sunder bone. And as you know, the form of the katana reflects this. Deliberate slashing strikes with an emphasis on following through with each stroke! They believed that your form was a reflection on your discipline as a person! They honored their parents and clan with each swing of their blade, which is why a katana’s form is so precise and doesn’t allow for more movement than is necessary. Their sword was their identity and was often passed through multiple generations. It was only to be used to bring victory and honor. They never drew their swords unless it was required! (Bushido is fascinating to study, and I think the world needs more honor in it). Sorry I went off. lol. Huge history fanatic!😅 I study various forms of sword fighting and am proficient in several forms, so I thought I’d add this little tidbit for you in case you were interested. 😊 I did like how you used your intuition to feel out how the weapon could’ve been used! That was really cool to see you using your knowledge of weapons to see how it might’ve been used. Fun video overall! Thank you!😁☺️
I'm a highlander fan but my favorite sword was the kurgan long sword. Being a behemoth of a man the long sword appealed to me. I collect blades and the katana seemed overhyped. My favorite sword of my collection is my claymore
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.
@Gerhard Adler By "royalty" I meant very few. If Putin or Macron lived in the days of knights, their armour and carriages would end up in museums; without a single scratch, because these people don't really fight. You would see their stuff in a museum, and it would look like all the French and Russians were very small and drove very big carriages, except for that orange armour, which would be the biggest one in the museum, and you all know it :). I expect for real battle armour to be simpler, with battle scars, and the soldiers wearing them would be non-randomly selected by battle, like athletes. It reminded me of one German pilot ace, who said he would always target and take out the weakest first. Basically, he was taking out the trash and adds before the boss fight :). In a real battle to the death, there are no rules and the opportunity to backstab offers the golden chance of your survival and the survival of whoever fights that enemy.
@Evaldas Jocys The royalty were the knights, since no one else could afford armour, that's how the whole feudal system worked. To say those armours where from spoiled rich brats sounds very hollywood to me. Usually, europe is diverted into north and south and in that regard germans are north europeans. Germany is besides france and britain the main country were we get our ideas from knighthood. Many ideas, like the trial by combat come straight from germanic law customs and were adapted by other europeans. Therefore germans cannot be seen as an exception from the european knights, but are rather an important part of the development to the idea of knights.
@Gerhard Adler We probably need a bigger sample and find out who the owners were. The armour of royalty or some spoiled rich brats might be smaller as they are not selected for their strength, but could afford expensive and fancy armour made at a very young age :). Modern Germans are on average 10cm smaller than North Europeans. I assume that same differences existed in the past. So, size of knights could vary depending on their origin.
@Evaldas Jocys I don't want to say europeans weren't larger, but i've stand before real german armours that were displayed in castles, and compared to my size (1,90), they looked like as if they were for children. I don't know about the reasearch, but from what i've seen i would guess the average height of north european (knights) would be more something like170-175 cm
@Alpha Potato_GD Well I am not trying say a knight wouldn't be able to move or that the armor is super heavy, just that I believe the samurai armor lighter and easier to move around in. How significant a deference there is, that is another story. Maybe more than you think, or maybe little to no difference at all. I do know that samurai armor give great range of motion and is light.
I would always take a longsword since that's what I'm most comfortable with, i remember watching a lot of duels with them and practicing the maneuvers with my dad using pfc pipes
Great vid! The whole discussion reminds of The 13th Warrior where Antonio Banderas' Ibn grinds down a longsword into something more like a scimitar - more suitable for his own build and fighting style than a sword he can't even swing. One of the Northmen jokes "give an Arab a sword and he makes a knife." The end product however is a sword to match the user's ability and to compliment the technique his culture has taught him.
There is the Shinobi which is the straight blade variant to the Katana, that would be a good comparison in the thrusting against the longsword. Though usually the Longsword normally use Damascus steel which is a better quality than spring steel which will give a better rigid blade in both thrash and thrust. Forged swords is actually better than factory made due to the fact that durable structure of the blade will last longer than factory mass produced. If you go traditional, they were cold forged since gas furnace was never invented in the age of swords, plus the fact that hand forged swords are not the same which will be a unique thing to get. Yet, the largest longsword was used by William Wallace. Since there are famous swords from history. It would be interesting to see an actual sword that was used by Goliath and the very same sword David first used to chop off Goliath's head(after the stone).
Interesting observation about the philosophy of fighting the bushido code instilled in the fighting style, I was thinking something similar about the small thrusting swords at the end of the sword using era in Britain and France, and how they are pretty much designed to be as non lethal as possible, mainly used to draw first blood or disable but not maim your opponent as satisfaction for regaining honour, about as humans a sword can be, In comparison to scimitars and such that the Turks used which based on weapons curve and fighting style was to maim and be as lethal as possible, I went to Edinburgh castle with an Indian friend of mine and on display was an old king of his county regalia on display and his sword, a talwar. And something I noticed that was interesting was they had British officers gear by generation through about ten generations From before during and after the early campaigns in india The first generations where like straight bladed sabre/rapier hybrids, As the Indian war got underway the generations move towards a more and more curved blade until the officers sabre basically matched the talwar curved blade, Seems something about fighting Indians and thier talwars really inspired them to adopt a curved blade on their swords
Knights and samurai served a very similar role and purpose in their respective societies. Sword-wielding, armor-wearing, horse-riding, warriors who lived by a code of conduct (chivalry/bushido) and fought for a lord in a feudal system. One might even say they were more or less cultural equivalents just from different civilizations.
That's true. However, they evolved differently, because of different contexts and resources. There was more and better iron available in Europe. Europe had to deal with a long lasting onslaught of external threats and was culturally much more diverse. Samurais mostly fought each other (although not exclusively), had lower reserves of lower quality of iron at their disposal and had to deal with a much lower cultural diversity. Evolutionary pressure was much higher in Europe, but people also had the resources needed to change faster, and could draw on a higher diversity of ideas and cultures. Japan did the very best that could be done, with the more limited resources it had available.
When the British queen knighted a pirate, chivalry died in England. See my series proving the British Empire wasn't the biggest. Idiots count sand in empty deserts, but not oceans with more worth.
My very first tattoo is of a katana, a longsword, and a khanda sword (indian variant) locked at the tip. I got it at 16. These three disparate cultures developed serendipitously similar cultures at roughly the same time in history, with no contact. We desperately need a return to that mode of thinking today.
The US has a couple of cultural swords. The Arkansas Toothpick and Bowie knife are pretty much short swords at their more extreme lengths, and the cavalry sword was standard issue in the Army for cavalry, and is still in ceremonial use, and the USMC still has them for ceremonial purposes.
Brother, I’ve got to say I loved your video! Excellent perspective. Well made. I think I want to buy those exact two based on your previous purchase. Thanks for taking the time to produce those excellent video.
It always depends on the user. Someone who's really skilled could win using something that's not even commonly acknowledged as a weapon against someone with an actual sword. However something tells me that the katana might become dull/ damaged way faster, or even bend, in a combat situation against the longsword
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.
@Lawrence Lee people here are talking about Japan having low quality iron not whole east Asia, there were very good quality steel in India and China where it was superior to midevel Europe untill 17 or 18th century, Japan is island country and had really poor quality of steel unlike rest of east India where they had more advanced systems of producing steel than Japan
What alot of people tend to forget about the difference of long swords and katana's is that when it comes to slashing, obviously katana's are way more viable but for thrusting it's gonna go for the long swords. The curve of the katana is there for a main purpose, and that purpose is to get more of the slashing movement or slicing movement with the blade better aligned with the target and making it smooth. As for the long sword however it is mainly for defense (which he did say in the video) and again for thrusting. So I don't get it on why people always seem to lean over one weapon but both are really good weapons, just have different uses .
Maybe because I'm not that active in this space, but I wasn't aware that there were fervent Longsword boosters because of anything to do with ancestry. I mean, to me, the longsword seems like the Starbucks of swords... It came about in an era when everybody seems to have had the same few types of swords. I'd be much more attached to a Viking sword than a later, better sword that was used by Danish knights in the 1400's, because they seem to have been just bog-standard pan-European swords. And they were replaced by sabres and rapiers of various types, unlike katanas that stayed in use until the 1940's.
One thing people seem to always miss, is that these weapons were never meant for sparring, they were designed to kill your opponent in just one hit, the longsword being a thrust attack and the karana being a lightening fast slash attack. imo they both do what they were designed to do very efficiently, so you either can't compare them at all, or call it a "draw" and move on.
They're both incredible weapons - Katana is more specialized while the Longsword is more adaptable and versatile. Europeans didn't like dying so much so they came up with a more defensive weapon while the Samurai - like he said - were indoctrinated to not fear death. Personally I would wield both: Katana in my main hand and the Longsword in the off-hand and parry bullets with the Longsword while slashing through the missiles with the Katana before it made contact.
I really appreciate the fact that you mentioned Highlander and Kill Bill. You're definitely a man of culture. I haven't visited this channel before, but I'm glad this video reached my feed.
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 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.
@Ben Dover 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 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
Thing is, the longsword and the katana were never designed with each other in mind. Also the armor worn in the east vs. the west was totally different and each sword was designed to deal with those types of armor. The katana was a razor sharp edge, whereas the longsword would have an edge but a steep angle edge - it would need to pierce mail and withstand striking plates of steel and thick planks of wood (think shields). It didn't need to be fast, it needed to be durable. The katana was designed to deal with light but extremely resilient armors and shields almost never. A katana would get stuck in a viking's shield, a longsword, not so much. Also the katana was designed to be deadly with a grazing hit whereas the longsword was designed to withstand being smashed against an axe and even gripped by the blade and the guard used like an axe. At each of their respective jobs, they were the best sword at the time, and each was better than the other for weapons and armors of the opponents they faced. The best thing for dealing with either would be a crossbow.
Good video. Bad catch is that you use western martial arts when you use katana. You don't have to risk your life when you fight, you have to use proper moves that will let you live and defeat an opponent. I have some experience in kobudo, and used bokken in fight with some hema users. European swordsmen are tots ok, but rapiers are hell. If sparring partner have at least some semblance of footwork and spatial awareness, it's very hard to duel them. I myself prefer fencing saber for mock battles, but it's very hard to get one of good quality for reasonable price.
Your longsword ist at the short end off longswords. It is intended as a singlehanded sword, with a shield/buckler. The handle is long enough to use both hands. Gripp the pommel with your second hand as an aid for thrusting. @13:08 you do not stop a swing. You hit or use the momentum to swing another attack. Finghtingstyles are different between katanas and longswords
In my humble opinion, this is the situation. Despite the external differences, these two swords are similar in purpose. Both swords can be fenced with one hand and two hands, cut, cut and stab, act both on horseback and on foot, both swords have a rich set of techniques for both armored and unarmored combat, approximately the same weight is just over one kilogram. At the same time, the European bastard sword pierces better and the Japanese sword cuts better. Once I saw a reenactment duel in Japanese armor with tachi swords, the techniques were very similar to similar techniques from European historical fencing in armor. Similar conditions give rise to similar actions. But in general, the Japanese sword (especially the katana and its smaller varieties) is more suited for comfortable everyday wear and quick response to danger at any moment. The European bastard sword is more suitable for the direct battlefield, military combat, it is stronger, since it is entirely made of metal, and it is easier for them to wield against a protected enemy, it is better suited for stabbing into vulnerable parts of armor.
@NikolajSAndersen Then why weren't they equipped as primary infantry weapons? Swords were expensive to forge and required combatants to be highly skilled in wielding them in order for them to be effective. In formation, long weapons were a better bet, especially spears, pikes, poleaxes, halberds, bardiches, etc. Swords have almost never been equipped as a primary weapon, with only a couple of notable exceptions. Even in militaries that used a one handed weapon and shield, that weapon was more likely to be a mace, hammer, or axe than it was to be a sword. Swords were expensive and fickle backup weapons. Even knights, who are always depicted in contemporary media with longswords, typically carried a poleaxe as their main weapon.
I appreciate your analytical reasoning. I prefer the long sword because I’m a Texan with Scottish blood. Same reason why the 1911 kicks glocks butt and asks for more (as long as it’s oiled). But I cannot deny the impact the Katana has had on my upbringing. From great swords to hot MK chick, the katana is here to stay. Great video! Earned a sub.
@Xan Ostler it was a simple joke regarding his comment made in the video. I am well aware the ballistic differences (and capacity difference) between the 1911 and modern firearms. All weapons have their place. My 9 is my carry, my 1911 is a range pistol. Just a joke.
This is completely tangent from the video. I’m sorry, would you explain how is a long sword the 1911 in your scenario? Don’t get me wrong, Saint JMB (peace be unto him) was on God’s errand but 9mm ballistics and round count are desirable for a reason. Otherwise police departments would use the 1911. FN double stack 45s are nice and spicy though. (Mosins ands enfields also won 2 world wars but we don’t use bolt action much anymore.)
I would add, as an Iaido (居合道) practioner, that the katana has a definite quick draw/attack advantage. That comes down to the shorter length, curvature, and the fact that the saya (sheath) is a rigid piece of wood.
The shorter length and curvature helps with the draw. The sheaths of 99% of European swords are also rigid wood. The wood just has thin leather glued around it for wood protection/decoration.
What I've seen from this video is that there is no better or worse sword, there are only better or worse swordsmen. I feel that if the katana can be used with Wing Chun techniques in breaking the center-line--using the contact, control, strike chain from Gung Fu--then the katana will win. After all, the Wing Chun stylist uses twin short swords to defeat all other lengths of weapons. I feel techniques and approaches are most important.
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.
@josh jones The longsword is not designed to penetrate plate armor. And the cut of a longsword is just as efficient as that of a katana, which is just a single-edged longsword anyway.
@Cerberusarms no he doesnt. if the question is "which do you prefer?", then either answer is correct. However, if the question is, "what is the better choice in battle?", the answer is objectively the longsword. A katana's slashing abilities are completely useless against chainmail and plate armor. The longsword is designed for the specific purpose of penetrating them. A suited up knight vs a suited up samurai, each with their respective swords, and the outcome will be( 999/1,000) a win for the knight.
@Intranetusa The last point is only true if you isolate your view to the Middle Ages. At the turn of the 17th century the sword replaced the pistol as one of the two new primary weapons of the horse (the other being the doglock carbine), with the foot being the least likely to use their cheaply made munition quality swords. I also see a contradiction where you say 1. medieval artwork shows soldiers marching into battle with shield and sword and 2. carrying shorter swords makes it more likely the sword is a backup weapon. You're also contrasting the length of the sword carried with a shield with the length of a katana, with the latter being "too short to be useful as a primary weapon" (which I agree with). Obviously, an arming sword is as short or shorter than a katana. If an armored knight can use a longsword to "mow down" unarmored opponents video game-style then a samurai could, too. I question whether either was done as a preferred method, as well as how reliable of a source medieval artwork is. And I know there have always been niche units like rondeleros who use swords, so I suppose the point is granted in our original sense of the term "main weapon." Extremely rare and of dubious efficiency, but yes it was tried. Nevertheless during the Middle Ages the poleaxe was the preferred dismounted weapon of the horse (knight/man-at-arms) and the spear/billhook/etc the preferred weapon of the foot, later replaced by the halberd and the pike. By that point the horse for certain used their swords on foot but getting unhorsed was not the ideal situation to begin with. I grant you in the case of a harquebusier or later cavalry using his sword on foot he is using it as a primary weapon--in a "secondary situation".
@Ever Faithful The Romans copied their system from the Celts and Iberians, who also often used swords as primary weapons. Poleaxes are shorter anti-armor weapons - great if you're fighting armored foes. However, it makes just as much sense if not more sense to use a longer sword against less armored foes as the primary dismounted weapon. There are plenty of medieval artwork showing soldiers marching into battle with shield and sword drawn - meaning that is used as a primary weapon. Situations like carrying a longer longsword (including the overlapping claymores, greatswords, zweihanders, etc) or carrying a medium length longsword with a shield, or fighting against lesser armored foes all make it more likely for swords (specifically longer swords) to be used as primary weapons. Situations like carrying shorter swords like "short" longswords that are basically arming swords, or fighting against armored foes, or mounted combat, etc make it more likely the sword is a backup weapon.
@Intranetusa As late as the English Civil War manuals recommended that the horse carry poleaxes for dismounted combat, although by that time there's no evidence anybody ever did. Point being, apart from the gladius I can't think of any European examples of the sword being the main weapon of the foot. On the other hand the halberd was certainly never used by knights in that way and you can't "carry" a halberd as any kind of backup. Not that the halberd had been common yet in the Middle Ages, anyway.
I saw a video, where they said, that a Katana could slash a Longsword into pices. Yeah it was the other way around. When the Katana hit the longsword with full power, the lonsgword got a little scratch. But when the Longsword hit the Katana with full power, the Katana sprang into pieces.
2:35 You are so right! My friends and I love katanas! Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Kill Bill, Ran, and even Last Samurai all are great films to me 🤙 The modern video games like Sekiro and Ghost of Tsushima are also amazing ⛩️
I don't know about "polar oposites", but otherwise, right on brother! They are both very beautiful, very specialized tools designed to do the best best job possible for their place and time. Amazing!
Good video. Your right. Both have their own place. Also. A skilled man with anyone of the two makes them just as deadly as the other. So. Other than that been said. It come down to skills and the way there were used. The long one been up again heavily metal suits. The Kathy been up again others who dress light to move faster.
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!
@Ivan Hajko 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
@Michael Wagner 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.
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.
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).
there are pros and cons to both swords but personally I believe it all comes down to the person wielding it, as they say a tool is only as effective as the skillfulness of the hands that wield it
I always felt katanas were more about speed and not so much blocking but deflecting/pushing away attacks while longsword was more strength and stopping attacks. Would katanas be able to cut through or even pierce a full plate of armour?
Honestly I think part of the appeal of katana arts actually comes from this weird combination of elegance and impracticality. It's a bit like the Klingon bat'leth, it's so outlandish that it becomes mystic.
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)
I can HEAR how sharp the Katana is! I make knives and I purposely leave them a little duller because the customer will ALWAYS test the sharpness and cut themselves on an exceptionally sharp knife!
I think that which weapon is better also depends on what you are up against. Are you fighting on the coast against some Vikings with no or minimal armor who just exited their longships? A single good Katana hit will take an opponent out of the fight, so you'll probably get better value from it. Are you on the plains of central Europe facing armored knights with Zweihanders or polearms? The Katanas' lower range and thrusting ability will make it difficult for you.
![SCREAMS SCREAMS and MORE SCREAMS [Fears To Fathom: Norwood Hitchhike]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dT6taoucBX4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Finesse2Tymes - Mob Tied [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O0CxAfxptiY/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.
THIS. Even in Japan, a skilled spearman was paid more then a swordsman. The Sword being more a symbol of rank and class. Likewise, the Vikings use of shields and unit tactics mattered more to their success then their actual weapon. The sword is more of a dueling weapon, the spear, polearm, shield and axe are the weapons of the battlefield. Approach a man skilled in a Halberd, Lucerne hammer, naginata, spear etc with a sword, and you will see heaven soon.
Best comment ever
@Cathode Ray arrows are just mini spears
Here we have another man of truth
Swords were often used as civilian self defense weapons, similar to pistols
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.
A very interesting and balanced assessment. It would be fascinating to see you doing a similar comparison for armour.
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.
@rfe8nn2 European fighting was not only brute force. There was a strong martial arts tradition too, though they largely became "sportified" into boxing and fencing with the introduction of firearms-based warfare.
You may wish to take a quick look into examples of unarmed combat techniques (watch?v=W0fV1oB3j4c - note the lack of reliance on holding onto a lapel for throws, allowing use against armoured opponents as shown in the illustrations) and longsword fencing techniques (watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc and watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc).
These are just quick intro videos of a couple of minutes each, but should be a good start - the last is only only 1:53 and really shows the speed.
My culture (Frisian) used two handed swords, basically longer long swords, and they didn't rely on heavy armor. Our motto translates into 'rather dead than slave', and every battle with vikings was a fight to the death for both sides. Aiming for small gaps in their armor sounds like shit French of English did, we just swung that long ass blade and chopped limbs off with sheer force. Frisians are some of the tallest people in the world, they say it's the Netherlanders but I'm 6'4", outside of Friesland I'm tall, in Friesland I'm not... our famous leader Grutte Pier was 7 feet tall, his sword was his length, and was said he decapitated 3 men with 1 swing.
Longwords are not better agains armor. In fact all swords are bad against armor. In armored combat swords were not the go to weapon.
Yeah I was gonna say, historically there wasn't so much "sword fights" as there were scenarios of just trying to end things in a single blow. (Blade durability etc.)
@Kimi Timoskainen Spear was the main weapon of a soldier. Longswords were more commonly used as a backup weapon for knights.
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!
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.
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.
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 :)
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. :)
@Joe Doe it's called a longsword bro... it's literally a longer sword. If they were the same length you either are using a tachi and not a katana or not using a longsword.
@Valkyrie Regalia well to be fair you can't use the price as a reason, since if it's to truly be fair, katanas steel when they were used was worse than longswords steel. If you are allowing the katanas to have high quality modern steel that they weren't able to produce, you can atleast allow the longsword to have a sharp edge. And as you say having it sharper isn't necessarily better, as long as it cuts deep enough it will kill either way so it doesn't really matter. Many sword duels in history ended in very fast exchanges since you really don't live most stabs/cuts, atleast according to what I have heard
My thoughts exactly 💯💯
@Cerberusarms can u cake a video on the yamato vs the rebellion
@Cerberusarms Claymore VS Katana VS Sabre VS Jian!🙏
Something to note is that you can get longer "katana like" blades, such as an Odachi or Nodachi. The problem with those blades, though, would be their giant lengths that can be a lot to deal with.
If I’m being honest, I’d be happy to have either weapon to use because I love the katana as a weapon and the longsword for its origins, I think it just depends on what purpose one is looking for in the sword
I loved this explanation. I loved the breakdown of defensive compared to offensive uses. Now all I can think about is halberd vs naginata now
Yaaaas
Not completely sure how I stumbled across this video.....but damn glad I did! Really cool content. Liked the analytical and practical analysis of each weapon. I'll definitely check out more of your vids!
First time stopping by to see your videos. Great job man! As a fan of both types of swords, I found this really well balanced (no sword pun intended). Definitely will be checking out more of your content. Keep up the great work!
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.
@Delano Van raalte the nukes weren’t nearly as bad as what Japan did war crimes wise.
Even the numbers wise, even brutality wise. What
Revolvers and cowboy
Katanas and Samurai
I wanna be the person that does this with my African warrior background. But it’s hard 😂
@Delano Van raalte Not really. The atomic weapons were a mercy and took far fewer lives when compared to all the fire bombing. Another thing is Japan shouldn't have thrown the first physical punch if they didn't want to potentially have their teeth knocked out.
They disrespected us, underestimated us, and threw the first physical punch. We got up, dusted ourselves off, and knocked their teeth out. Japan is a lovely country with many fine qualities, however they STILL won't own up to all the not so nice stuff they did before and during the war.
3/4 of the youth in Japan don't even know that their country allied with Nazi Germany because it isn't taught over there. Hell, a lot of them don't even know Japan threw the first punch. That stuff makes Japan look bad so the government still downplays (buries) it in their education and they also still minimize all the crap they did to initially start the political fire.
Makes it kinda hard to garner up much pity over two bombs. Anyway, wars over and we're mostly friendly now.
@Peter Last well ur comparing a single countrys rebirth compared to an entire continents rebirth lol plus japan went into isolation
@oↄɘAᴎ B҉L҉O҉K҉E҉ if Japan had a renaissance period it was a tiny one compared to Europe, since in Europe the feudal knight’s culture was firmly in the past by the 19th century, while the feudal samurai culture was still very much a thing in the same century. It also took Mathew Perry’s warships entering into Tokyo bay to bring Japan’s isolation policy (pretty much anti renaissance) to an end. During the next twenty years after that event, Japan firmly entered the industrial age.
Great video! Thank you for a pleasant viewing experience! P.S. The swordsman determines the lethality of his weapon.
I’ve always loved two handed swords like ones that would be hard to wield with one hand. So when I found out about a katana(I don’t remember it’s name) that had a long handle and a long blade, I just loved it. It can be light, but also has long reach
I think you mean the Nodachi
I love both swords, I’m British so although I have a more affinity with the long Sword I absolutely love the Katana and the history/culture of the samurai ❤
Historically speaking the spear/ pole arm was the primary fighting weapon in combat swords where more like a side arm something to fall back on
My first introduction to the long sword was in the movie “Ivanhoe” in te 50s, and I learned abou the Katana in “Seven Samurai” in 1966. Thank you for the excellent review. At the end of the day, like you said, it is not the sword that determines the outcome but the man behind the sword.
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.
Take a European master swordsman with a Longsword in half-plate and chain (standard war uniform when not at tournament and/ or dismounted otherwise too heavy to maneuver at all.). Vs. a samurai who is a master swordsman in his armor even the full armor was light enough for mounted and dismounted combat and have them go at it (non-lethal) it will be a draw. Lethal, whomever got lucky first.
@Laura DeKalb In the conclusions
@foroparapente In which paragraph?
The first one about knights being from the line of heavy cavalry with the supporting detail of spurs being included in their knighting ceremony?
Or the paragraph about how the Black Plague happening at the same time, or even after, the development of plate armor, so could not have been responsible for delaying its development by creating loss of metallurgical knowledge?
@Laura DeKalb You make no sense
@Isaiah Welch No! Knights were descended from the heavy auxiliary cavalry legions of Rome. In the High Medieval period, the ceremony consisted of a night-long vigil of the squires who were to be knighted the next day. The new knights were given a sword, spurs, and perhaps some armor or perhaps just a shield, depending on the sponsor's wealth. So, if they just infantry, why would their sponsor's give them spurs?
As to your theory that plate armor didn't happen until the mid- to late-fourteenth century because of the Black Plague, I find it quite ridiculous that the disease which swept over Europe from the 1300s to the 1600s would have caused a loss of knowledge when the two were happening at basically the same time.
I love how much you know about swords and how you use the Katana with the technique mainly for a longsword. Even though you are not doing anything wrong, the way you cut is actually harder to take advantage of. The Katana is used better when cutting from above your head (?) I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly, but that way you can use better the weight of the sword and use even less force!
I loved to see the perspective from an european martial arts student. ♥♥♥
absolutely love how you nerded it up at the end with the stats. as someone who has been training in martial arts for over 30 years. I love both the Katana and Longsword. They each have their own style of being used. The katana has more finesse but the longsword has some power to it.
Wow, that was such a thoughtful and fun video! Your love for weaponry is so evident and your explanation of concept so concise and articulate. I love the way you compare them, showing the cultures that inspired the different fighting styles and the importance of these different fighting styles, one not better then the other but are better considered together. The beauty of both are made more bold when you show their strengths, like members in a team taking on different roles. Also that slicing scence was frickin cool, plus, I respect the Sasuke cosplay! Great job man, that was an excellent video that captured why we love weaponry so much! The history and fun found in swordsmanship should unit us weebs and dweebs! You got a new subscriber dude, keep rocking it!🤙👍🔥
@Cerberusarms You're welcome!! Really, mad?! Jeeze, I don't understand how. I really love your approach and I'm really glad you appreciated my comment!! I think it's easy to get lost in a sea of hate so I am so joyful that I could be used as a reminder of how awesome you are doing!! Keep it up man, your videos just keep on getting better, I have learned so much!!! I bow low to you my sensei!!!🙇♂️👍
I’m glad you enjoyed the video! I get so many comments from people getting mad that I’m not biased towards their opinion so it’s nice to hear from someone who gets it. Thanks for watching!
I respected that you were particular about your choice in swords to compare, and acknowledged the bias in reviews. For a while, I still perceived you to be simply a sword fanboy without any functional understanding. Then finally you addressed the importance the fighting form plays in each blades effective quality. That earned a respect from me that is rare.
Enjoyed the video, very much thanks. Just one thing to help with the handgrip, most knights had a longsword AND a sheild so you'd actually have to use one hand even though it's one and a half. The Greatswords were two-handed blades because well bigger and heavier. Also I like the mention of the difference between cuts, katanas I feel are more for civilized duels and longswords were for brutality....
Longswords were not meant for use with a shield (that would be an arming sword)
Not much civilised about cutting someone's fingers off then stabbing/cutting them in the crotch, armpit or face.... (Which is what they both did)
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.
@Bohemian's music, comedy, etc. all facts
@Dimitri Dovel While the number of deaths is absolutely regrettable, comparing them directly is just dishonest.
1- Japan was the aggressor
2 - Those 2500 casualties were the result of an unprovoked sneak attack
3 - Those 2500 casualties need to be added to the untold number of Chinese they slaughtered in the most dishonorable and inhuman ways possible.
4 - Those 2500 casualties need to be added to the atrocities the Japanese committed that make the Nazi's Joseph Mengele look gentle and caring by comparison.
5 - The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to end the Eastern front of a World War that the Japanese threatened to continue, even while obviously defeated, to the very last man, even employing suicide bombers.
6 - The result of NOT bombing Japan would have likely resulted in MORE casualties, more suffering, and an even worse history for Japan.
Yes, nuclear bombing cities SUCKS, hard, but it wasn't done out of revenge or frivolous. It was, sadly, the sanest solution (with the understanding of the time) to an insane situation that just threatened to get even more insane.
Also, consider, with nuclear weapons, someone was going to get nuked eventually. As a silver lining, at least we got to learn that this is something to NEVER do again while using only a tiny fraction of what nuclear weapons are actually capable of. Remember, it was still highly experimental at the time. A nuclear bomb of even a decade's technology later (and if the war had continued that's what we would likely have gotten) would have left very little of Japan to rebuild.
Pearl Harbor - 2500 Casualties Hiroshima - between 70 and 100,000 casualties, soldiers and civilians.
Nagasaki - 40 to 80,000 casualties
America has spilled enough blood to send us all to hell , so yeah maybe that “trophy” could bring peace to someone’s bloodline. Just think if it was your grandfather and someone brought you their musket , wouldn’t you feel some connection? And whoever said they are lucky we didn’t wipe them out , ima pray that god gives you the hell you deserve 🖤 much love respect yah mommas and have a good day .
@ydenneki Vae victis.
This was a great video and I have no problem with the conclusion. I think the question is the problem. It's apples and oranges. The longsword was intended as an answer to heavy European infantry whereas the katana was designed as a heavy cavalry sabre. Strong enough to break the Samurai armour of the time but light enough use when dismounted. Both are great sword types, I own both and I'm glad I need neither.
Good video. One should however mention that both in Japan and in Europe, there was many, many schools of swordmanship over long periods of hundreds years, and developments in the warfare that ultimately make categories of 'katana' and 'longsword' rather empty without more exact context of an individual piece of weaponry. Also, at least for highly professional elite swordmen it was always also on matter of personal taste what kind measure, weighting, etc. they preferred from their swords, also within same dojos/schools of the art, in both worlds of swords.
Please, more content like this.
Great video. I will say that I believe longswords are also known as "hand-and-a-half" swords which your disdain for the grip describes this perfectly. Not normally to be used two-handed, but to have that option in a pinch. The longsword is the balance between the arming sword and the true two-handed swords.
i actually love this video since he included the style of fighting itself wich i think is more important
In wars they used the odachi equal in length. Chain mail can not be cutted so the longsword is a thrusting weapon. If robbers entering my house I take the katana. (Iai since 1997) In a war I would always use the longest weapon available. Nice skills!
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.
Great analysis!
My $0.02:
Speed kills, but SKILL almost always wins.
With equally skilled opponents I (opinion) would give the advantage to the katana wielder.
One thing not touched on was non-blade, i.e. grappling and striking (trapping, elbows, tripping, head-buts etc...) techniques to supplement the sword strikes.
really good video, very thoughtful and informative without taking itself too seriously. also the sparring was dope.
Interesting.
In my personal opinion both weapons were or are perfect - for their time and their context.
The longsword was to some degree not the main battle weapon of the time for knights (therefore also the strange pommel on yours), it was to some degree more a testimonial of knight hood.
In the battles of these swords cutting was by far not the essence with the common use of chainmail or even plate on quality troops. I would really recommend to do some full contact sparring with plate armour to get a feeling how limited swords in general were to penetrate that, especially combined with a shield.
Without much knowledge what type of armour were worn below the level of Samurai it would make sense to extend these testcutting a bit to armoured targets, taking into account the different environments of the swords.
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.
Love this analysis. Some things worth noting is that a longsword, as mention, can vary by many variable; length, weight, edge sharpness, they could balanced for thrusting or slashing, as well as over all quality. You could very well be a low ranked mercenary and buy a longsword but it would be a vastly inferior weapon to a wealthy knights sword. Whereas a katana had little variety and while some were certainly higher quality, swordsmiths would always put effort into making them as high quality as they could possibly make them; as for much of their history they were reserved only for Samurai and nobility (of course inferior swords did make their way to black markets and into the hands of freelancers or bandits of some type). Which I think attributes heavily to the legend of the katana being this amazing weapon that can cut through anything, being that those who traditionally (and legally) possessed them, would be carrying their respective smiths finest work. But a master wordsmith crafting his finest longsword would also result in a mind blowing weapon.
At the of the day... An AR-15 would demolish both while making very satisfying brratatat noises 😂
@Rage Gaze all ancient steel making processes are inferior to modern technology (by an enormous amount)
I thought I heard before that most katanas were actually poorly made because their steel making process was inferior to modern day practices. So most the original ones preserved that are really good are the outlier high quality ones, while most common people could only afford poor quality steel katanas.
Katana don't vary as much in appearance, but if you handle a historical collection they vary in balance about as much as it is possible to vary (some are hulking cleavers, some are light & whippy)
They made katanas of as varying in quality as anyone else during wartime (they were sold in bushels in some cases), the very high end culture is relatively modern from when they became symbols of status/art pieces (modern smiths are legally limited in how many swords they can make a month, so everything is high end)
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?
@Darth Wiizius No. Most gladii were made of steel. And no other blade weapon killed as many opponents as the gladius. The Romans designed a battlefield style and discipline around it. It's not just the blade, it's the way it was used on a battlefield where close quarter fighting had been forced upon the opponent.
After the Romans abandoned Britain, roughly 400+/- AD, the state of metallurgy and weapon making there regressed. The Arthur myths deal with the period perhaps a hundred or so years after that. So, yes, a high quality, carbon steel horseman's longsword would have held tremendous advantage.
longswords are pretty too, especially the type he uses in the video.
@Ben N
One of my favourite swords. Nothing beats them for asthetics (in my opinion anyway.)
@Mark Jones agreed - it isn't which sword is better - because you aren't testing them in their environment. A heavy sword is meant to knock someone back and then thrust through the gaps in the armor. If there is no heavy armor you want something fast that can slash.
Different scenarios for each, each suited for the armor they went against.
@Niddy He admitted his bias, and you are quite correct. The longsword was designed to function against plate mail and therefore must be able to absorb a ton of shock. The katana was against laquered wood and leather so could be stiff. Different tools for different situations. I prefer the greater function variability of the longsword myself. Despite his bias, he really did do his best to be fair and I appreciate that.
Hey bro, I love how you put the RPG and character roles into the mix. Then you randomly whipped out a couple of pistols, its good stuff, I think its great when people just inject their own humor into things like this.
I think it's an amazing fact that Knights and Samurais lived at the same time, but never met. Both weapons had their advantage for their purpose and I agree none is better than the other one, For their purposes both were perfect weapons.
This is the message I got from this video.
The longsword, a jack of all trades, can do anything you want it to, its not the best at anything, but damn good at everything. The katanna a fast agile, peace of metal, made for quick slashing, and the intent to kill. Both swords are unique in there own right, both having reason to use over the other. In a duel, the longsword is the obvious choice. In quick kill environments where mistakes mean death, the katanna is the correct choice.
Very entertaining and informative video. I believe the long sword was intended to be used by one hand. All I could think about was the movie, "kill bill". Lol
I would say the relative power of the two will depend mostly on the relative skill levels of the two fighters. Relative skill levels are VERY important in all forms of sword fighting.
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.
@lolll lolll your correct about the armor situation. I am also so glad that he mentioned the huge variety of long swords that exist in Europe. Many videos tend to ignore that, but he mentioned it which, in my opinion, is very considerate and constructive rather than destructive
Agreed, the longsword and katanas are used by different cultures in different timeperiods.
Remember, the old Europeans changed their armors just as often as we change socks in the morning, so for different armor there's ofcourse a different sword to be effective.
That's why there's such an huge variety in _just_ the longsword family, like the Zweihänder (two-handed in german) even outside the longsword family there's another good example, the OG, Gladius.
The Zweihänder is fucking massive, and the Gladius makes 5 foot guys look tall, but that doesn't make either one bad or good, it depends what armor your enemy is wearing and also what you're wearing or holding, that's why the Romans stuck to a short Gladius, because stabbing was easier for a common legionnaire with those iconic huge shields.
As for the Zweihänder, you have to make a huge sacrifice and completely give up the idea of self defense, and you have to be absolutely ripped just to lift it (so basically you just need to be your average sports teacher) but that sacrifice is well worth it because the Zweihänder is really long, and the enemy would be in great danger if he approached you without a way to (somehow) defend himself.
Now apply the same mentality to Katanas and you can see how this argument has no real solution, because the Katana also has a wide family of swords built for different time periods and different armor sets.
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.
@Drebolaskan I love maces and shields too!
@Blaisem You could ask a similar question re: what if a katana was forged to be stronger/less brittle.
This is the best KZclip video I’ve seen in a long time. Not just the subject, but the humor and well placed swears.
Katana and longswords are two different weapons based on dissimilar situation. Katanas came from a situation where (in Japan) during the age of the Samurai it was quite difficult to get good quality steel and as such well made ones became quite prized and sword makers went to the effort of using folding techiques in its constructio.. It is also curved because the Samurai (IRL) often started off wielding a speer (often from horse-back) and the Katana was usually a backup weapon. Slightly curved weapons such as sabres and katanas have an advantage vs straight edged swords when fighting from horse back in terms of their slashing abilities. Where the Samurai would be mostly fighting through waves of lightly armoured commoners, I believe that longswords were made with the idea that the wielders of these weapons had to get close and finish off their contemporaries. Longswords were made in an age where enough people had heavy armour that being able to pearce between joints was far more important than slashing and chopping abilities.
You dont want a longsword versus heavy armored opponents. Its kind of a middleground. You can slash unarmored opponents with it easily while still being able to pierce weakpoints in armor through halfswording (basically using it as a dagger) or bludgeon the enemy through the mordhau technique (basically gripping it by the blade and using it as a kind of hammer with the crossguard)
Katana is not a battlefield weapon tho. It was meant for casual wear. :3
I have to say, I really like this conclusion of "each sword is better at what it is intended for".
Great video. It would be interesting to see a Katana made out of spring steel vs a Longsword made out of high carbon steel, and how much difference it would make in the results and handling.
That longsword IS high carbon steel. 1060 is not "spring steel" as 5160 is. My longsword is 1095 high carbon.
Those two swords steels are nearly identical. The difference being length and cross-section and curve
Great presenter, great subject, confirms what most of us feel intuitively, slightly different tools for slightly different jobs. For those heathens out there, yes, you can open a paint tin with a screwdriver, but honestly, it deals with screws better 🙂
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.
The reason the long sword feels weird is because straight blades aren't designed for cutting but stabbing. It doesn't matter how you hold it you are slashing not cutting.
@Zelena Streha Your weapons were made with newest materials and modern techniques, most likely forged steel.
That was NOT standard. Common infantry two handed weaponry was about 4kg with a VERY uncomfortable gravity center. Armor weight varied, but 30kg for men at arms was common. That's without additional equipment.
But you don't only have to look at war equipment. Look at farmer's tools. Good luck working with those for a couple hours.
@M0butu Contrary to the common belief, medieval weapons are very light. I have a long sword weighing 1.3 kg (2.86 lb). Famous Danish axe weighed 0.9 kg (less than 2 lb). You cannot fight efficiently with heavy weapons! Not now and not in the Middle Ages! People were shorter and smaller back then, therefore, their armors weighed less than those armor replicas which are in use for exhibition fighting today. In addition, armors were worn only by knights, i.e. the richest, well-fed and well-trained men of the time. If you and I trained fighting in the armor for years every day from young age having no job at all and partying all the time (in time when there is no training), wearing and fighting with armor would be not a big problem for us either.
@Zelena Streha I want to see you wearing, no, just LIFTING Medieval armor or weapons.
@M0butu What you're saying is simply not true. People in the Middle Ages were definitely not stronger than people of today.
In the early Middle ages men were 1.69 meters (5′ 6″) tall on average. Later in the Middle ages they became even shorter. True, they worked physically all the time so they should be stronger than today's people. On the other hand they had much poorer diet in comparison to today's men (in quality and in quantity) so, on the other hand, their strength would not be so overwhelming in comparison to the modern men of the same height. If one's bodily mass is lower, he cannot be as strong as someone who is taller. A good example is the emperor Charlemagne (Charles the Great) who is said to be "a warrior who was uncommonly [...] effective in battle". The reason for his efficiency was in his height because he was somewhere between 1.79 and 1.92 meters tall (between 5′ 10″ and 6′ 4″).
Therefore, men in middle ages were physically weaker than men of today because they had less bodily mass, were shorter, and had poorer diet. It is true though that they were ferocious in battles - therefore, physical fighting with them would be difficult. 🙂
Great video-I love the fact that it is the sharpest sword you own (scary sharp) but you still was smacking the hell out of your friend with it-respect to your friend for staying your friend and keeping his arm… 😄😄😄
Now me personally, if I had to pick one of the two swords I'd pick a longsword because the opponent will probably armored, the katana would cut the armour to a certain extent, or maybe a limb or two. The longsword's thrusting and penetration ability is KEY. As it can go trough the enemy's lungs or throat, resulting in, victory.
Great video, couldnt help wondering how the comparison would change if a shield was included i.e. you can use a long sword either one or two handed so it would have been in some sense a compromise while the Katana is out and out focused on one fighting style.
longsword would be much better in that regard, as you said it was made for both one handed (though this requires a person to have much more training and muscle to be doing properly) and two handed, and Katana's contrary to popular belief, suck against anything that solid "like a shield"
I love this video, however, I have just a couple of pointers. First, you must consider the era for which both of these were made, and the battlefields on which they were used. The long sword (and variants) were invented for combat in an era where armor was mostly steel (chain or plate). I can tell by your form you know more or less how to handle a katana, which is awesome! I love katanas! But the form for a long sword has nothing to do with the tip of the sword and everything to do with the middle to base (by the hilt). Most long swords weren’t very sharp and usually only cut off limbs (if you were lucky) by virtue of their weight and the design of the blade. The design took into account the fact that on the battlefield most adversaries would be almost completely covered with armor! Thus, long swords were designed not to cut, but to break bones and skulls UNDER the foes’ armor! Hence the width of the blade around the hilt! Mostly it was meant to be wielded single handed while the other hand held a shield. In addition, It COULD stab, but you never thrust at an opponent! You only stabbed your foe once they had fallen to the ground. And In that much armor, if you fell to the ground you usually couldn’t get up easily, and thus could be easily stabbed.
Samurai armor was mostly lightweight materials for flexibility, using some metal or linked armor around the vital organs, but mostly using thick cloth to protect themselves from other slashing blows. (All they faced in close combat were mostly other slashing weapons in the age of the samurai/katana) the katana is more like a scalpel, vs a cleaver meant to sunder bone. And as you know, the form of the katana reflects this. Deliberate slashing strikes with an emphasis on following through with each stroke! They believed that your form was a reflection on your discipline as a person! They honored their parents and clan with each swing of their blade, which is why a katana’s form is so precise and doesn’t allow for more movement than is necessary. Their sword was their identity and was often passed through multiple generations. It was only to be used to bring victory and honor. They never drew their swords unless it was required! (Bushido is fascinating to study, and I think the world needs more honor in it). Sorry I went off. lol. Huge history fanatic!😅
I study various forms of sword fighting and am proficient in several forms, so I thought I’d add this little tidbit for you in case you were interested. 😊 I did like how you used your intuition to feel out how the weapon could’ve been used! That was really cool to see you using your knowledge of weapons to see how it might’ve been used. Fun video overall! Thank you!😁☺️
I'm a highlander fan but my favorite sword was the kurgan long sword. Being a behemoth of a man the long sword appealed to me. I collect blades and the katana seemed overhyped. My favorite sword of my collection is my claymore
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.
@Gerhard Adler By "royalty" I meant very few. If Putin or Macron lived in the days of knights, their armour and carriages would end up in museums; without a single scratch, because these people don't really fight. You would see their stuff in a museum, and it would look like all the French and Russians were very small and drove very big carriages, except for that orange armour, which would be the biggest one in the museum, and you all know it :). I expect for real battle armour to be simpler, with battle scars, and the soldiers wearing them would be non-randomly selected by battle, like athletes. It reminded me of one German pilot ace, who said he would always target and take out the weakest first. Basically, he was taking out the trash and adds before the boss fight :). In a real battle to the death, there are no rules and the opportunity to backstab offers the golden chance of your survival and the survival of whoever fights that enemy.
@Evaldas Jocys The royalty were the knights, since no one else could afford armour, that's how the whole feudal system worked. To say those armours where from spoiled rich brats sounds very hollywood to me. Usually, europe is diverted into north and south and in that regard germans are north europeans. Germany is besides france and britain the main country were we get our ideas from knighthood. Many ideas, like the trial by combat come straight from germanic law customs and were adapted by other europeans. Therefore germans cannot be seen as an exception from the european knights, but are rather an important part of the development to the idea of knights.
@Gerhard Adler We probably need a bigger sample and find out who the owners were. The armour of royalty or some spoiled rich brats might be smaller as they are not selected for their strength, but could afford expensive and fancy armour made at a very young age :). Modern Germans are on average 10cm smaller than North Europeans. I assume that same differences existed in the past. So, size of knights could vary depending on their origin.
@Evaldas Jocys I don't want to say europeans weren't larger, but i've stand before real german armours that were displayed in castles, and compared to my size (1,90), they looked like as if they were for children. I don't know about the reasearch, but from what i've seen i would guess the average height of north european (knights) would be more something like170-175 cm
@Alpha Potato_GD Well I am not trying say a knight wouldn't be able to move or that the armor is super heavy, just that I believe the samurai armor lighter and easier to move around in. How significant a deference there is, that is another story. Maybe more than you think, or maybe little to no difference at all.
I do know that samurai armor give great range of motion and is light.
I would always take a longsword since that's what I'm most comfortable with, i remember watching a lot of duels with them and practicing the maneuvers with my dad using pfc pipes
Great vid! The whole discussion reminds of The 13th Warrior where Antonio Banderas' Ibn grinds down a longsword into something more like a scimitar - more suitable for his own build and fighting style than a sword he can't even swing. One of the Northmen jokes "give an Arab a sword and he makes a knife." The end product however is a sword to match the user's ability and to compliment the technique his culture has taught him.
Loved the video…very fair, balanced and reasonable…and quite humorous as well. You’ve got a new subscriber.
Thanks man, welcome to the channel!
There is the Shinobi which is the straight blade variant to the Katana, that would be a good comparison in the thrusting against the longsword. Though usually the Longsword normally use Damascus steel which is a better quality than spring steel which will give a better rigid blade in both thrash and thrust. Forged swords is actually better than factory made due to the fact that durable structure of the blade will last longer than factory mass produced. If you go traditional, they were cold forged since gas furnace was never invented in the age of swords, plus the fact that hand forged swords are not the same which will be a unique thing to get. Yet, the largest longsword was used by William Wallace. Since there are famous swords from history. It would be interesting to see an actual sword that was used by Goliath and the very same sword David first used to chop off Goliath's head(after the stone).
Interesting observation about the philosophy of fighting the bushido code instilled in the fighting style,
I was thinking something similar about the small thrusting swords at the end of the sword using era in Britain and France, and how they are pretty much designed to be as non lethal as possible, mainly used to draw first blood or disable but not maim your opponent as satisfaction for regaining honour, about as humans a sword can be,
In comparison to scimitars and such that the Turks used which based on weapons curve and fighting style was to maim and be as lethal as possible,
I went to Edinburgh castle with an Indian friend of mine and on display was an old king of his county regalia on display and his sword, a talwar.
And something I noticed that was interesting was they had British officers gear by generation through about ten generations
From before during and after the early campaigns in india
The first generations where like straight bladed sabre/rapier hybrids,
As the Indian war got underway the generations move towards a more and more curved blade until the officers sabre basically matched the talwar curved blade,
Seems something about fighting Indians and thier talwars really inspired them to adopt a curved blade on their swords
Knights and samurai served a very similar role and purpose in their respective societies. Sword-wielding, armor-wearing, horse-riding, warriors who lived by a code of conduct (chivalry/bushido) and fought for a lord in a feudal system. One might even say they were more or less cultural equivalents just from different civilizations.
That's true. However, they evolved differently, because of different contexts and resources. There was more and better iron available in Europe. Europe had to deal with a long lasting onslaught of external threats and was culturally much more diverse. Samurais mostly fought each other (although not exclusively), had lower reserves of lower quality of iron at their disposal and had to deal with a much lower cultural diversity. Evolutionary pressure was much higher in Europe, but people also had the resources needed to change faster, and could draw on a higher diversity of ideas and cultures. Japan did the very best that could be done, with the more limited resources it had available.
When the British queen knighted a pirate, chivalry died in England.
See my series proving the British Empire wasn't the biggest. Idiots count sand in empty deserts, but not oceans with more worth.
Bushido was an invented thing from the 19th century
plus katana steel was always super poor especially the ancient katanas.
My very first tattoo is of a katana, a longsword, and a khanda sword (indian variant) locked at the tip. I got it at 16. These three disparate cultures developed serendipitously similar cultures at roughly the same time in history, with no contact.
We desperately need a return to that mode of thinking today.
very rational, intelligent comparison.
As a Japanese, of course I want katana to be praised, but don't want to blindly admire my own culture.
The US has a couple of cultural swords. The Arkansas Toothpick and Bowie knife are pretty much short swords at their more extreme lengths, and the cavalry sword was standard issue in the Army for cavalry, and is still in ceremonial use, and the USMC still has them for ceremonial purposes.
Great video, completely unbiased and I definitely learnt a lot about these 2 swords
Brother, I’ve got to say I loved your video! Excellent perspective. Well made. I think I want to buy those exact two based on your previous purchase. Thanks for taking the time to produce those excellent video.
It always depends on the user. Someone who's really skilled could win using something that's not even commonly acknowledged as a weapon against someone with an actual sword.
However something tells me that the katana might become dull/ damaged way faster, or even bend, in a combat situation against the longsword
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.
@Outdoorsman aight, 16yo edge ain’t no joke. Have a nice day
@Aсхаб M. , your @$$ will be laying on the ground without it ever clearing the leather. 😂
@Lawrence Lee people here are talking about Japan having low quality iron not whole east Asia, there were very good quality steel in India and China where it was superior to midevel Europe untill 17 or 18th century, Japan is island country and had really poor quality of steel unlike rest of east India where they had more advanced systems of producing steel than Japan
What alot of people tend to forget about the difference of long swords and katana's is that when it comes to slashing, obviously katana's are way more viable but for thrusting it's gonna go for the long swords. The curve of the katana is there for a main purpose, and that purpose is to get more of the slashing movement or slicing movement with the blade better aligned with the target and making it smooth. As for the long sword however it is mainly for defense (which he did say in the video) and again for thrusting. So I don't get it on why people always seem to lean over one weapon but both are really good weapons, just have different uses .
Maybe because I'm not that active in this space, but I wasn't aware that there were fervent Longsword boosters because of anything to do with ancestry.
I mean, to me, the longsword seems like the Starbucks of swords... It came about in an era when everybody seems to have had the same few types of swords. I'd be much more attached to a Viking sword than a later, better sword that was used by Danish knights in the 1400's, because they seem to have been just bog-standard pan-European swords. And they were replaced by sabres and rapiers of various types, unlike katanas that stayed in use until the 1940's.
One thing people seem to always miss, is that these weapons were never meant for sparring, they were designed to kill your opponent in just one hit, the longsword being a thrust attack and the karana being a lightening fast slash attack. imo they both do what they were designed to do very efficiently, so you either can't compare them at all, or call it a "draw" and move on.
They're both incredible weapons - Katana is more specialized while the Longsword is more adaptable and versatile. Europeans didn't like dying so much so they came up with a more defensive weapon while the Samurai - like he said - were indoctrinated to not fear death. Personally I would wield both: Katana in my main hand and the Longsword in the off-hand and parry bullets with the Longsword while slashing through the missiles with the Katana before it made contact.
@Guts thanks, I was about to say that XD
@Guts how did the double edge longsword compare to the single edge scimitar?
A lot of fights were decided by slashing the sword arm, before the killing blow.
Katanas are also brittle and more likely to break then european swords due to Europeans having access to better and more metals.
I really appreciate the fact that you mentioned Highlander and Kill Bill. You're definitely a man of culture.
I haven't visited this channel before, but I'm glad this video reached my feed.
@Cerberusarms No problem. I had a dad who educated me with a lot of classics.
Both classics that really influenced me, glad you found the video entertaining.
Well said. Each have their own place such as all tools do.
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
@Radek Kapoun usually they wore theire armors in europe even in duels.
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.
@War Boi yeah, a longsword can be used as a sword mace and shortspear at the same time.
@Ben Dover 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 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
Thing is, the longsword and the katana were never designed with each other in mind. Also the armor worn in the east vs. the west was totally different and each sword was designed to deal with those types of armor. The katana was a razor sharp edge, whereas the longsword would have an edge but a steep angle edge - it would need to pierce mail and withstand striking plates of steel and thick planks of wood (think shields). It didn't need to be fast, it needed to be durable. The katana was designed to deal with light but extremely resilient armors and shields almost never. A katana would get stuck in a viking's shield, a longsword, not so much. Also the katana was designed to be deadly with a grazing hit whereas the longsword was designed to withstand being smashed against an axe and even gripped by the blade and the guard used like an axe. At each of their respective jobs, they were the best sword at the time, and each was better than the other for weapons and armors of the opponents they faced. The best thing for dealing with either would be a crossbow.
Good video. Bad catch is that you use western martial arts when you use katana. You don't have to risk your life when you fight, you have to use proper moves that will let you live and defeat an opponent. I have some experience in kobudo, and used bokken in fight with some hema users. European swordsmen are tots ok, but rapiers are hell. If sparring partner have at least some semblance of footwork and spatial awareness, it's very hard to duel them. I myself prefer fencing saber for mock battles, but it's very hard to get one of good quality for reasonable price.
Your longsword ist at the short end off longswords. It is intended as a singlehanded sword, with a shield/buckler. The handle is long enough to use both hands. Gripp the pommel with your second hand as an aid for thrusting.
@13:08 you do not stop a swing. You hit or use the momentum to swing another attack. Finghtingstyles are different between katanas and longswords
The ending was a work of art.🤣
In my humble opinion, this is the situation. Despite the external differences, these two swords are similar in purpose. Both swords can be fenced with one hand and two hands, cut, cut and stab, act both on horseback and on foot, both swords have a rich set of techniques for both armored and unarmored combat, approximately the same weight is just over one kilogram. At the same time, the European bastard sword pierces better and the Japanese sword cuts better. Once I saw a reenactment duel in Japanese armor with tachi swords, the techniques were very similar to similar techniques from European historical fencing in armor. Similar conditions give rise to similar actions. But in general, the Japanese sword (especially the katana and its smaller varieties) is more suited for comfortable everyday wear and quick response to danger at any moment. The European bastard sword is more suitable for the direct battlefield, military combat, it is stronger, since it is entirely made of metal, and it is easier for them to wield against a protected enemy, it is better suited for stabbing into vulnerable parts of armor.
Love this. Unfortunately spear’s, unless you’re Brad Pitt, don’t get much romanticized, but are extremely effective even in an untrained hand.
@Rex that’s precisely why halberds were invented
@Helperbot 2000 best comment here
@NikolajSAndersen Then why weren't they equipped as primary infantry weapons? Swords were expensive to forge and required combatants to be highly skilled in wielding them in order for them to be effective. In formation, long weapons were a better bet, especially spears, pikes, poleaxes, halberds, bardiches, etc. Swords have almost never been equipped as a primary weapon, with only a couple of notable exceptions. Even in militaries that used a one handed weapon and shield, that weapon was more likely to be a mace, hammer, or axe than it was to be a sword. Swords were expensive and fickle backup weapons. Even knights, who are always depicted in contemporary media with longswords, typically carried a poleaxe as their main weapon.
@David Lindsey Naginatas all day
@Cos C What is super far from the truth? That a well-trained swordsman can defeat a random conscripted peasant with a spear?
Your initial montage of weeb vs neckbeard owned you my subscription.
Kudos!
One reason Katana's are so popular is due to their design and aesthetics.
I appreciate your analytical reasoning. I prefer the long sword because I’m a Texan with Scottish blood. Same reason why the 1911 kicks glocks butt and asks for more (as long as it’s oiled). But I cannot deny the impact the Katana has had on my upbringing. From great swords to hot MK chick, the katana is here to stay. Great video! Earned a sub.
@Jake B ignore my tangent then. I was being genuine when I was asking how you made that connection but if you were just being funny, have a nice day!
@Xan Ostler it was a simple joke regarding his comment made in the video. I am well aware the ballistic differences (and capacity difference) between the 1911 and modern firearms. All weapons have their place. My 9 is my carry, my 1911 is a range pistol. Just a joke.
This is completely tangent from the video. I’m sorry, would you explain how is a long sword the 1911 in your scenario?
Don’t get me wrong, Saint JMB (peace be unto him) was on God’s errand but 9mm ballistics and round count are desirable for a reason. Otherwise police departments would use the 1911.
FN double stack 45s are nice and spicy though.
(Mosins ands enfields also won 2 world wars but we don’t use bolt action much anymore.)
I would add, as an Iaido (居合道) practioner, that the katana has a definite quick draw/attack advantage. That comes down to the shorter length, curvature, and the fact that the saya (sheath) is a rigid piece of wood.
@Wayne Purcell The manner in which the katana is worn also plays a role as well.
The shorter length and curvature helps with the draw. The sheaths of 99% of European swords are also rigid wood. The wood just has thin leather glued around it for wood protection/decoration.
What I've seen from this video is that there is no better or worse sword, there are only better or worse swordsmen. I feel that if the katana can be used with Wing Chun techniques in breaking the center-line--using the contact, control, strike chain from Gung Fu--then the katana will win. After all, the Wing Chun stylist uses twin short swords to defeat all other lengths of weapons. I feel techniques and approaches are most important.
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.
@josh jones The longsword is not designed to penetrate plate armor. And the cut of a longsword is just as efficient as that of a katana, which is just a single-edged longsword anyway.
@Cerberusarms no he doesnt. if the question is "which do you prefer?", then either answer is correct. However, if the question is, "what is the better choice in battle?", the answer is objectively the longsword. A katana's slashing abilities are completely useless against chainmail and plate armor. The longsword is designed for the specific purpose of penetrating them. A suited up knight vs a suited up samurai, each with their respective swords, and the outcome will be( 999/1,000) a win for the knight.
@Intranetusa The last point is only true if you isolate your view to the Middle Ages. At the turn of the 17th century the sword replaced the pistol as one of the two new primary weapons of the horse (the other being the doglock carbine), with the foot being the least likely to use their cheaply made munition quality swords. I also see a contradiction where you say 1. medieval artwork shows soldiers marching into battle with shield and sword and 2. carrying shorter swords makes it more likely the sword is a backup weapon. You're also contrasting the length of the sword carried with a shield with the length of a katana, with the latter being "too short to be useful as a primary weapon" (which I agree with). Obviously, an arming sword is as short or shorter than a katana. If an armored knight can use a longsword to "mow down" unarmored opponents video game-style then a samurai could, too. I question whether either was done as a preferred method, as well as how reliable of a source medieval artwork is. And I know there have always been niche units like rondeleros who use swords, so I suppose the point is granted in our original sense of the term "main weapon." Extremely rare and of dubious efficiency, but yes it was tried. Nevertheless during the Middle Ages the poleaxe was the preferred dismounted weapon of the horse (knight/man-at-arms) and the spear/billhook/etc the preferred weapon of the foot, later replaced by the halberd and the pike. By that point the horse for certain used their swords on foot but getting unhorsed was not the ideal situation to begin with. I grant you in the case of a harquebusier or later cavalry using his sword on foot he is using it as a primary weapon--in a "secondary situation".
@Ever Faithful The Romans copied their system from the Celts and Iberians, who also often used swords as primary weapons. Poleaxes are shorter anti-armor weapons - great if you're fighting armored foes. However, it makes just as much sense if not more sense to use a longer sword against less armored foes as the primary dismounted weapon. There are plenty of medieval artwork showing soldiers marching into battle with shield and sword drawn - meaning that is used as a primary weapon. Situations like carrying a longer longsword (including the overlapping claymores, greatswords, zweihanders, etc) or carrying a medium length longsword with a shield, or fighting against lesser armored foes all make it more likely for swords (specifically longer swords) to be used as primary weapons. Situations like carrying shorter swords like "short" longswords that are basically arming swords, or fighting against armored foes, or mounted combat, etc make it more likely the sword is a backup weapon.
@Intranetusa As late as the English Civil War manuals recommended that the horse carry poleaxes for dismounted combat, although by that time there's no evidence anybody ever did. Point being, apart from the gladius I can't think of any European examples of the sword being the main weapon of the foot. On the other hand the halberd was certainly never used by knights in that way and you can't "carry" a halberd as any kind of backup. Not that the halberd had been common yet in the Middle Ages, anyway.
The strength doesn't lie in the sword, it lies in the wielder
I saw a video, where they said, that a Katana could slash a Longsword into pices. Yeah it was the other way around. When the Katana hit the longsword with full power, the lonsgword got a little scratch. But when the Longsword hit the Katana with full power, the Katana sprang into pieces.
2:35 You are so right! My friends and I love katanas! Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Kill Bill, Ran, and even Last Samurai all are great films to me 🤙
The modern video games like Sekiro and Ghost of Tsushima are also amazing ⛩️
I don't know about "polar oposites", but otherwise, right on brother! They are both very beautiful, very specialized tools designed to do the best best job possible for their place and time. Amazing!
Good video. Your right. Both have their own place. Also. A skilled man with anyone of the two makes them just as deadly as the other. So. Other than that been said. It come down to skills and the way there were used. The long one been up again heavily metal suits. The Kathy been up again others who dress light to move faster.
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!
Glad that this type of thought process hasn't died out, just an "endangered species."
@Ivan Hajko 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
@Michael Wagner 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.
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.
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).
This was a great video and awesome comparison.
there are pros and cons to both swords but personally I believe it all comes down to the person wielding it, as they say a tool is only as effective as the skillfulness of the hands that wield it
Got the number 9 it is a beast,still going strong 4 years old everything is still intact,Ronin has a great sword
I always felt katanas were more about speed and not so much blocking but deflecting/pushing away attacks while longsword was more strength and stopping attacks.
Would katanas be able to cut through or even pierce a full plate of armour?
Honestly I think part of the appeal of katana arts actually comes from this weird combination of elegance and impracticality.
It's a bit like the Klingon bat'leth, it's so outlandish that it becomes mystic.
Much respect. Great seeing the representation of these great historical blades in action.
Stephan Dankeschön
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)
you cought the stereotypes so perfectly
first 1 min is pure GOLD
I can HEAR how sharp the Katana is! I make knives and I purposely leave them a little duller because the customer will ALWAYS test the sharpness and cut themselves on an exceptionally sharp knife!
I think that which weapon is better also depends on what you are up against.
Are you fighting on the coast against some Vikings with no or minimal armor who just exited their longships? A single good Katana hit will take an opponent out of the fight, so you'll probably get better value from it.
Are you on the plains of central Europe facing armored knights with Zweihanders or polearms? The Katanas' lower range and thrusting ability will make it difficult for you.