Garison, you said "Longswords were unquestionably better at thrusting" I have a crapy youtube video that begs to differ. Really though these 2 swords are very similar against heavy armour, to the point where it makes no real difference. A katana will blow away the Long Sword in a cutting fight with crap armour but once you step up into scale and plate the 2 weapons platue out and the only real difference at that point to the killing power of either sword is in the hands of context and that is all.
There is a lot of jingoistic white power bullshit around this EU vs Asia sword debate, I've sat on both sides of the fence. Its almost rascist. But its mostly just ignorance.
Who here can put there hand up and say "Here is scientifc trail of both swords vis a vis thier capacity to blow armour into bits/killing power" I sure as hell can't and I doubt anyone else around here can.
I've used both and they both seem perfectly capable of fucking up your day. I got the same results from thrusts and cuts out of both, the only real difference was the Katana kept going through tougher stuff. The long sword dented an old Ford's bonet wish a slash and the Katana left a hole in it, not much of one but it was thier. I'm not sure what to put that down to, I think its the curve droping more force onto a smaller point.
Thank you for your reply! First, you should know that I am not racist or culturally elitist or whatever. I really love katanas and all asians. I married an asian and I love the culture. I think it is also unfair to mention the bias of "white power" and not mention the overwhelming cultural bias towards katanas, however deserved it may be. In one of my previous posts (that I can't find) I did in fact lobby for katanas to be buffed to show their true potential and reflect reality. Once time my friend had a real katana from japan, and he was playing around with it outside, but he tripped. The katana slipped out of his hands and landed on a car, but unfortunately the blade was facing down and it cut right through the hood, engine block, and even the tire and wheel well before lodging itself 8-inches in to the pavement. So trust me I know the power of the katana and the legendary cutting abilities it possesses that have been proved time and time again.
The longsword, however, was better at thrusting. Scientific evidence for this is abounding. Modern "tests" may or may not show this, depending on the item that is being thrust in to, irregularities in the strength or thickness of different areas of the item, irregularities in the posture, power, and other effects on the thrust of the sword wielder, and irregularities in the swords being used (type of metal, sharpness, hardness, etc). Because of all these areas where possible error can be introduced during an "at home" test, I'm can only reference physics principles and historical examples.
For example, consider the smaller suface area of the tip. The very tip of the tip of both the longsword and katana are the same, but once the sword has pierced 1/2 inch or more in to the armor/flesh/whatrver, the katana's "tanto" point will have a larger surface area and have more resistance going in. This is science.
There are other reasons why the Longsword is a better thrusting weapon, in general, although the katana does indeed have a very servicable and lethal thrust. The longsword is sharpened on both edges, allowing the highly tapered point to pass more easily into (and out of) an object or person. This further reduces the friction and resistance making the thrust not only
easier but also
faster. This is science. In addition, the flex of a longsword blade (especially in latter examples) is very rigid indeed. Many blades had risers instead of fullers on them, increasing this rigidness, allowing more of the push energy to be directed into the point. In addition to the rigidness of the overall blade, the cross-section of the tip of later period longswords morphs into a diamond shape, adding
even more rigidity to the end section of the blade, allowing even more energy to be transferred to the tip during a thrust. Lastly, the Longsword blade is longer, making for a greater reach in thrusting. These is a scientific facts of physics.
Both swords are very good at injuring, maiming, and killing in a variety of ways. Both swords were designed and evolved over hundreds of years to become the best they were at what they did. No sword is superior to the other in general...they both represented the epitome of killing technology at their peaks. Yes, one was created by Europeans and one was created by Japanese...but the human spirit of ingenuity in warfare is pretty much a universal trait. The Katana can punch through metal. The Longsword can hack off a limb. However, I stand by the fact that the longsword was a specially designed instrument made to emphasize the thrust, and that it thrusts more effectively than a katana. Science stands with me...but more importantly, so does history. If a katana's "tanto" point was the most effective way to punch through heavy steel armor and kill an enemy, then Eurpoean weapon smiths would have started using this design, and longsword artifacts of the period would look that way as they evolved from the arming swords of the early middle ages. But, alas, as heavier and thicker armor was used across Europe, weapon designers increasingly tapered and strengthed the tip of the Longsword to counter it, because this is what worked best. They did not change the blade into a "tanto" point like the katana, though they had the ability to do so. I hold these truths to be self-evident.
And yes, I am having fun too. Rage not included.
Here is a very nice essay that thoughtfully considers all of the advantages and disadvantages of katana/longsword design, even taking "cultural bias" into account. It compares cut, thrust, guarding ability, speed, and other technical advantages/disadvantages...all while admitting the shortcomings of such a "study":
http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html