Any tip to beat longsword using the katana?

I quoted you because at one point I was thinking about katana-longsword hybrid too. When I really imagined it came out an o-katana with a cross guard. Trying to figure out how I can hang it on my belt, I realized that any big guard would make the hybrid to lose some of the advantages that a curved blade has in a 'rushing to take it out' moment. And since the cross guard or any of the european guard has the purpose to protect the hand and use it for hitting with it in close combat, I came with the elbow protection that can give the same if not more advantage in a sword fight. Now, sorry to quoted you. I promise to not disturb your zen with a dot when you log in.

People say this because the edges are very hard on differentially-hardened blades. DH blades can chip badly if hit on the edge, while a softer-edged blade will notch. (The largest chip I've taken off a DH edge was 3cm long by 5 or 6mm deep.) It can also crack. If either a chip or crack goes all the way through the hardened zone (the hamon), it's considered a fatal flaw - the blade is a write-off. Might not be unusable, as in you can keep fighting with it, but a long-term write-off. The worst case is a crack all the way through the blade, in which case your sword is suddenly shorter (a laminated blade is more likely to crack all the way through).

It should survive blade-on-blade contact well enough, as long as it isn't edge-on-edge.

Deep notches aren't good for your blade, either. A typical bastard sword isn't designed for edge-on-edge contact either.

Some swords have a long ricasso, or the base of the blade is left unsharpened (or close to unsharpened), in order to survive edge-on-edge contact better. Because then it isn't really edge-on-edge, but edge-on-"edge".



The thickness looks OK. Bastard swords and longswords designed for cutting are often 5-7mm thick at the base, and about 2mm thick near the tip (maybe 1.5mm to 3mm).

Longswords designed for thrusting tend to be about 8-10mm at the base, and about 4mm near the tip.

The Hanwei claymore weight looks fine for what it is.

Here is an example of almost exactly the same weight and size:

www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=36130&partId=1&page=1

That explains it very well, thanks. I guess katana style swords just feel more sturdy to me. More made for the cut I've stopped looking at any other swords, but I'll keep the bastard and the claymore for display. Next up, wakazashi and chisa!

They are quite sturdy. It's a key part of their design. That's for two reasons:

1. To be stiff enough for effective thrusting.
2. To be strong enough to survive hitting things. Especially hard things, like armour (which you'll hit by accident when trying to hit unarmoured parts of an opponent), and your opponent's weapon when you parry/block their attack or they parry/block your attack.

They sacrifice cutting ability to get that "sturdy". Some things that would make them more effective cutters:

1. Thinner blade. Not the whole thing, just the main cutting section. The base could still be thick, but make the last 8-10" thinner, perhaps about 2mm.
2. Make the blade wider. Again, the last 8-10" or so.
3. Move the ridgeline closer to the spine, or all the way to the spine.
4. Have a short grip with pommel or base of grip to encourage hammer-grip draw cuts.
5. More curved blade.
6. Longer blade for a faster-moving tip.

1, 2 & 3 will give a more acute edge angle, with better cutting on soft targets. 4 & 5 give better draw-cutting, with better cutting on soft targets. A katana avoids 1, 2, & 3 for better thrusting and better sturdiness, 5 for better thrusting, 6 for convenient sidearm size, and 4 for better thrusting and a hand-and-a-half grip (and the continuation of the curvature of the blade into the grip gives some of 4 anyway).

What kinds of swords have these features?

• British 1796 light cavalry: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


• British 1796 heavy cavalry: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6


• British 1890 cavalry: 1, 4, 6 (much more thrust-oriented than the above 2)


• Tulwar: 1, sometimes 2, 3, 4, often 5, sometimes 6


• Shamshir: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6


• Messer: 1, 2, 3


• Kilij: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


• Oxtail dao: 1, 2, 3


• Cutting-oriented longsword: 1, 6


• Kopis: 1, 2, 3, 4


• Dha: 1, 2, 3

While a katana cuts well, most of these swords cut better (if equally sharp). But most won't be as good at thrusting, and none will perform as well as a general-purpose sword on an armour-rich battlefield (where the katana evolved). Given equal metallurgy, they won't be as sturdy as a katana.

Of those swords above, the 1890 is the closest equivalent to a katana: a cut and thrust sword. But it was developed for a battlefield with almost no armour, so has a thinner but less robust tip. Also slower than a typical katana, due to more weight and more length (more length gives you a faster-moving tip during a swing, but it takes more time to swing it). Another close equivalent would be the liuyedao or yanmaodao - these have similar compromises between cutting, thrusting, and sturdiness.

Note that modern "competition cutting" katanas, which are designed to be better cutters on soft targets at the cost of sturdiness, add 1, 2, & 3 to the basic katana.

See if you had bothered to explain your line of thought from the start there wouldn't have been a head-scratching lack of effective communication. Bringing up elbow armor in response to a quote about pairing a katana blade with a European hilt doesn't make much sense without the proper context. Cheers.

Needs more nagel.

You speak words I understand!

It has more energy, and more momentum. The trick is to make it move at the same speed, without taking any more time to reach that speed.

If the opponent is only going to be a cutting mat on a stand, then heavy is fine, within reason. If the opponent is a thinking and moving opponent who doesn't want to get cut, then speed starts to matter more.

Thanks for the list by the way, I'll be checking a few of those swords out.