LogFAQs > #896037660

darkknight109 posted...

Katana designs were anything but standardized, unless you're talking about relatively recently. Size and shape were highly variable, from short swords to swords that were longer than the samurai using them was tall. Even the characteristic curve of the modern katana wasn't a universal design and, particularly in its earliest incarnations, straight-edged katana do exist.

You're basically describing fringes, though. More importantly, there was far less variation among katana than longswords.

mayatola posted...

but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world.

[Citation needed]

They each excelled in their respective roles: the gladius as a short, thrusting weapon used in close combat in conjunction with the scutum (the roman shields that basically covered the entire left side of the soldier)

Given the mechanics behind a thrust, a longer weapon adds more power. As a one-handed sword, a gladius wouldn't have nearly as much thrusting power in the first place.

mayatola posted...

the katana as a two-handed weapon cutting weapon (

A what?

mayatola posted...

but yes, it can also thrust, and I did practice Shinkendo for around 2 1/2 years

So can a scimitar and khopesh, but it's not as practical.

mayatola posted...

The longsword is a long, straight, double-edged blade. It didn't cut as well as the katana, and as far as thrusting, yes it was long, but that's what made it unwieldy. For thrusting, you only needed to penetrate three inches into your opponent's midsection or torso. The gladius did that very well while allowing you to fully control your shield (which was the real workhorse). Also, because it's short, it's very easy to retract the blade after you hit your opponent for another thrust (likely at another opponent). In a crowded melee, you'll probably have to drop your longsword and draw your short sword or dagger after you pierce your opponent. As for the katana, you just cut through your opponent and your blade was free to strike at another. Of course, the katana wasn't designed to cut through opponents wearing full plate, so I couldn't really argue about it's effectiveness against a knight, but it definitely cut through conscripted soldiers with ease.

1) The longsword isn't any more unwieldy than a katana, especially considering variations within the longsword (doubly so since shorter versions *could* be used one-handed)

2) The gladius was generally used against less-armored opponents. And shield-heavy tactics were a bigger thing back before people started to wear stronger armor.

3) Given that longsword and katana had similar length, any concerns about "crowded melee" would apply to both.

4) The shorter end of the longsword continuum (39in) isn't much longer than a longer gladius (which ranged 24-33in)
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.