Ok, I have searched the web and found several topics about this and well I wasn’t satisfied with the results…Anyways, can anyone give me the pros and cons of katanas and European swords. To specify what type of European sword, lets just say it’s a long sword or a bastard sword. Also, heh heh for my curiosity, which one would be better if two warriors (a knight and a samurai) not wearing any armor, just using the blade, who would win?

Well, that would depend on how good a warrior they are, wouldn't it ?

There are too many factors involved to say for certain who would win. The Samurai could win one day and the knight another. It depends on their psychological mind-set, how confident they are, how well-rested, the terrain, etc...and as johnny said, their skill.

I've only heard that a Katana is higher "quality" and far lighter than European swords, so I don't know much...

Well depends on what you are going to do really...

Cut down people without armor, the Katan's edge is sharper and would be ideal, for a well protected knight in chainmail or heavier the Katana would probably be as effective as a butterknife vs a file´t, IE can work but would take time and considerable skill ;)

The heavier european swords can deliver a "punch" even through armour since they are heavier. The european swords are made to last a long battle whereas the "brittle" katana is more sensitive in that regard.

It's not the size of the swords that make the outcome of the fight but the size of fight in the swordwielders.

If you take the best weapon ever made you can still be gutted by a mad fisherman with a crooked er.. knife if you don't know what you are doing. ;)

Truth is a knight would win as many samurai were taught that parrying was a sign of a coward/dishonourable and that they should take the blow. Japanese styled blades were built purely to damage and cut, with very little solid build to hold off from heavy impact.
Europeans however had a different honour system where parrying was allowed and encouraged as it kept you alive. And when unarmoured the design of the blade favours European designs which were meant for hurting lightly armoured plebs, whereas a katana is built for harming armoured foes.

Is it conceivable that a heavily-swung European longsword could shatter a katana?

Well, katana is lighter, more aerodynamic and looks really cool, so as long as you aren't fighting paladins wearing Full Plate Mail with a +3 against katanas, I'd pick it.

Maybe an European lonsword could break a katana, if you took the whole force of the blow with the blade instead of just steering it away, which could alone do some nasty things to your wrists. At least it would hurt.

Oh, and if you really are going against a mad fisherman wielding a rusty butterknife, you'll need at least a laser-guided rocket launcher, a battlemech and an imperial star destroyer. Mad fishermen can inflict massive damage. Skinning fish is great practice.

Well, I can attest that the katana has no problems with armor. :D Also, as far as the mind-set, I would pick the samurai everytime. The only people who became samurai were so conditioned that most really didnt consider fear the same way a rational person would. Their entire purpose was to kill their opponent, and, if they are really good, even survive the battle. Though most of them just worried about dying a glorius death, rather than worrying about dying itself. As far as the blades are concerned, I dont think the long sword would break the katana. In fact, depending on the quality of the other sword, the katana could possibly cut through it. Remember these are weapons that an entire culture developed their lives around. Their sole purpose was to make it as perfect as they could. Also, I have to give props to samurai, who could block arrows with the katana! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Dron's verdict: Samurai

*knew that this would be Dron's verdict, as many long hours have been spent on this discussion*

I'd say that even one of those nice, 14000 layer katanas would have trouble cutting through particularly thick plate mail...I sure wish I knew how thick the steel was in full plate! Katanas can cut through the roof of a car...but a 1/4 inch of steel? I think not.

The katana however, is, even by modern metallurgical standards, almost the perfect sword. True, better swords can be made, using better alloys than lowly steel, but they basically have to be made in the same process as the Katana. Really, while I have no doubt that there were indeed poorly made Katanas that would break in battle, I must say that only the finest of European swords would survive in the conflict with an average or better katana. So...if the sword is Excalibur, or it came from Toledo Spain, or Damascus Syria, then my bet would be, based soley upon the equipment (as in, assuming all else equal, which is mildly absurd) that the knight would triumph. The Samurai would win if (using same invalid assumption) the European sword was not of high quality, the armor was not the best, thickest steel, and the katana was at least average.

Katana, every time. The katana's blade is SO THIN at the edge uncomparable to the western blade, that the amounts of pressure produced by it can cut through more than the average razor blade. You don't nééd mass to cut through something like armor, only pressure, and the pressure from a katana is SO much larger than a broadsword or so that the katana will win. That said, a katana is way lighter and faster to wield, so knight takes a swing, usually misses due to having a heavy slow lumbering sword, and gets slashed five times in the time it takes him to recover the swing.