As the video explains, it comes down to the metallurgy--specifically that the Japanese were treated to a very high hardness compared to the European swords which makes the Japanese blades more brittle. (This is why stainless steel makes a poor sword blade). Thus, on a blade on blade strike (or strike against any hard object) the Japanese sword would fracture and perhaps break whereas the European sword would not. The fighter using the longsword also has more leverage than the fighter using the katana if the swords get into a bind. And once in a bind, the longswordsman has more options than the samurai using a katana. And more.
VIDEO: "Why KATANAS Would LOSE to Medieval Longswords (The Physics They Don't Tell You)"
The Cutting Edge (9 min.)
It's a shame that the Chinese lost their *really* good metallurgy (and regressed back to the same level of multi-steel, differentially hardened blades that the Europeans did through the first few centuries AD) before the Japanese started importing their sword-smithing. The Chu and Han (2-4 centuries BC to 2 centuries AD) steel swords that have been dug up and polished still had a good spring temper, and Chinese blades from that period were traded all the way to Western Europe (especially Scandinavia). The Scandinavians (more so whatever Germans decided to contribute names like Ulfberht for the maker marks) had already gotten up to that good of crucible steel and even some generally decent tempering for the lower quality blades by the time the Japanese started making tachi. Of course, the streaming services will let you watch the NOVA episode about katana but not the episode about the Ulfberht swords... Thankfully, someone put up a low quality version on youtube: https://youtu.be/namXt4Etn_o
ReplyDeleteCool. Thanks for sharing (and digging up the link to "banned" NOVA episode).
Delete