You've got some good points here. I would like to take a stab at responding. By the way, are you aware of
www.swordforum.com If you like this stuff you should check it out, if you haven't already.
Originally posted by Zero-sen
:The Katana was far supoerior to the "crusader blades" or european edged weapons in their primary use and construction. Folded steel is far stronger and resilient than pressed or hammered steel.
Folded steel
can be stronger, but Europeans used a variety of construction methods which also yeilded very stong, flexible blades too (including folding). Also, both the ages of the knight and samurai spanned hundreds of years. Unless we limit our conversation to a specific time period, doing the euro vs. jpn thing is like the apples and oranges thing. For example, Vikings could fold and weld in patterns that could be more complex than a Japanese sword. Perhaps the swords of the Crusades were sub-par (I'm not familiar with that period) in the metallurgical sense.
Folding steel does not by itself make a strong blade. Folding helps to even out the carbon distribution in the metal and work out the impurities of a low grade material (Japanese smiths used iron sand for a period before imports from abroad became available) and make a stronger blade that way. Folding steel of already high quality won't make it much stronger, and in fact introduces the chance for messing it up and making it weaker. If you have something of high quality already, you will get a strong blade without fancy folding, cores of soft steel and springy outer skins.
Blade strength will come down to the skill of the smith and the materials at hand. Both cultures made plenty of ho-hum swords, folded and not.
Originally posted by Zero-sen
:The katana was designed as both offensive and defensive weapon. I have used both types of swords and attempting to block with the side of a western blade and it'll bent right over on you, Try the same with the Japanese Katana and you can rest assured you won't have to discard your sword.
What kind of sword were you using and what did you hit it with? If you smack a thin rapier (think three musketeers) on the flat with a kataka, darn right it might bend! Simple physics. Thick sword hits thinner sword on thinnest face - thin sword bends. If you tried the same thing on something like a longsword or a claymore you will get a different result. I have heard stories of well made katanas bending while cutting tatami because of a twisting of the blade on the part of the user. Steel is steel and all of it will bend under the right conditions. Folded or unfolded, Japanese or european really doesn't have much to do with it.
Eurpoean swords were used defensively and offensively as well, but they also had armour, shields, off-hand weapons to deal with or rely on as well(depending on the time period).
Originally posted by Zero-sen
:I'm no expert on western edged weapons or Japanese edged weapons, but didn't western swords need a dagger or something to block and parry with? A Japanese blade needed no such backup weapon it's prety fearsome on it's own.
Different strokes for different periods. The weapons you are thinking of are called off-hand weapons and were used for blocking and perhaps attack. These made an appearence mainly with the rapier (again think musketeers) and at fairly advanced stage of european weaponry (around the Renaissance I think? Books not handly...please correct me). Back when knights were still in plate armor and such, sword techniques usually called for the ability to use both hands (half-swording etc). With the rapier and main-gauche [sic?] combatants were lightly armored, if at all, and so could not count on a suit of armor to absorb or deflect blows.
As armor and fighting styles developed in Europe, weapons and their uses changed too. The Japanese seemed to find something they liked and stuck with it, preferring variations on a theme. This dymanics in European tactics does not denote inferiority, nor does the static nature of the Japanese sword say they had the best sword ever. Both places faced different situations and developed accordingly).
Originally posted by Zero-sen
:Also as for the cutting aspect Japanese swords were/are superrior. I belive Stephen Turnbull the Japanese historian commisioned a study into this too.
Curved weapns are far more efficient at this job than straight edged weapons, especially for cavalary. Mainly due to curves moving more efficiently in an arc than a straight line.
Yes the Japanese katana, or any curved weapon, work very well on horseback and your geometry is correct. Indeed on an unarmored target the Japanese blade will probably cut better. This is not to say European swords were not as sharp or couldn't deliver a nasty cut. Forensic archeology has pointed this out. I would choose to run my bare hand along neither a katana nor a long sword, that you very much
There were also European blades designed to maximize the cut - broadsword, backswords, falchions etc. Plus, a sword does not have to be razor sharp to kill someone.
Originally posted by Zero-sen
:Imagine charging someone with your nice spanish steel blade and smacking the guy (who is also wearing a helmet) square in the face and wheeling round to find.....he's still standing. Fair enough if the sword was extremely sharp you may have cut or even damaged the helmet. Try the same on the same guy with a Katana and you can guarantee the guy's head'll split like a melon. I have quite a bit of Tameshigiri experience and i have tried this with both my own katana
Please don't be running at people with swords!
All things being equal (sword weight etc) I think you could expect to finish up with one dented helmet and two damaged swords.
This is a bit of apples and oranges again and the time period issue. If your point is just about cutting power through armor, there is plenty on the Net about such stuff an I encourage you to browse the link I included at the top of this post. In short, swords of any culture did not do well against armor under
battlefield conditions . I am aware of the controlled tests with a katana on a helmet. There were several flaws with this test, and it resulted only in cutting a few inches, hardly enough to kill a man who would probably be wearing padding and such under that. Add in the chaos and uncontrolled nature of battle and you are much more assured of a kill by going for a gap in a bit of armor than trying to cut through it. Thrust to the face would do just as well if you are keen on head injury (esp. with most open-faced Japanese helmets). Under the right conditions and with a blade designed to do so, aromor shearing results could probably be reproduced for any culture's weapons, not just the katana.
Lastly, a sharp sword is not going to "cut" through armor any better than a duller one. Getting through thick metal has much more to do with blade geometry, weight and momentum.
Thanks for the great post Zero-sen! I can see where you are coming from and from experience a lot of the east vs. west sword thing is just a matter of preference and brass tacks. It can be really hard to compare two such different martial traditions!
). 
