Yes, it's true that point of balance plays a big part. However I decided to leave that point for another video, as the swords covered in this video all have quite similar points of balance. Thanks.

Thanks for watching and for the support. :-)

I never thought about different types of edges before but it makes absolute sense! Thank you!

Would be nice to hear a little bit about so-called Flamberge, or flame-bladed swords. Lots of legends, very few facts known to me. How effective they were, how they were used. Were the *teeth* in a straight line, or bent under little angle to different sides to leave wider wounds(I've heard that). Also i've read somewhere that they were prohibited in many contries, and you could be decapitated without any questions for carrying one)

This series of videos is really fantastic!

This is Thrand, great video.

It's so interesting to see all of these different viewpoints. ^.^

Is the width and the tapering of the blade important when cutting? I saw some 17th century swords that seemed very sharp but they were really thin on the last portion of the blade, the blade was "triangular" (just like early medieval swords) instead of having two straight edges that only start to angle at the point of the blade. So If it had like 3cm or a little more at the ricasso and then very soon started to progressively get thiner. Also does the stiffness of the blade has any impact on Its cutting performance?

Are you asserting that a katana of average stats will 'out-cut' a falchion, shamshir or tulwar? If so, what is your basis for that assertion? The tulwar, for example, weighs about the same, has a centre of mass further from the hand, is more curved, has a thinner blade in general and is equally as sharp (if not more so). Which factor in particular would you say means that the katana cuts better than, say, a tulwar?

Yes, I am asserting it. And I am doing so not only with decades of training, study and practice but with actually cutting with the various blades. There are numerous reasons for this. How the swords were designed to be used is one of the major factors and this includes the arc of the cut do to the method of cutting that the blade was designed to be used. Another is that 40 to 60 hours of stone polishing provides a shaping that is unmatched in my experience.

Also; with some minor sound reduction (a different room or even some carpets on the floor) would make it easier to understand what you'e saying. There is always a little "echo" in the sound. The information is so interesting, I wish you could give a bit more attention to presentation to make it more user friendly

I don't think we can say whether the curve of the Japanese sword was accidental in the first place or not, but I would say not, because the earliest examples also have curved tangs which are obviously deliberately curved and welded on. As for when people first realised that curved edges cut better, probably in the stone age! Certainly there are various bronze age swords with curved cutting edges.

There seems to be a disturbing lack of shamshir and tulwar test cutting videos on youtube. If you think they're the best cutters Matt, maybe you should make a video and prove it :P

Serrated edges were used occasionally - particularly in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. In Europe wavy edges were sometimes used - so-called 'flamberge' (and in fact you also sometimes find these in the Middle East and India). They are good for cutting different things - in my opinion serated edges are better for soft tissue (like a steak knife!), but probably get damaged on bone or armour quite quickly (or contact with other blades). They must also be incredibly hard to re-sharpen.

I have a question now. I know, or have heard, that the curve on a katana was accidental and was more a result of hardening the cutting edge and not the back of the blade. So how many swords were intentionally curved, or at what point were people realizing curved blades cut better?

The shaping that takes place on the Japanese blade, 40 to 60 hours of stone polishing, is one of the factors the contribute greatly to it cutting ability. A very sharp edge without the proper and consistent shape of the body of the blade, will prevent the blade from cutting effectively.

I would say that overall weight and center of balance also have a lot to do with a sword's ability to cut, hence why spadroons which are relatively light and have a center of balance near the hilt are not as effective for the cut despite however sharp or thin they were. Thanks for posting.

Hi James, with all due respect though, you are not explaining *why* a katana blade should out-cut other types of cut-centric sword. Shamshir and tulwar are certainly are sharp as katana and have cross-sections which actually create less friction through most targets (as I'm sure you know well, some people use thinner katana for easier cutting). So the edges are equal and katana are less curved. The method of cutting is down to the person, not the sword per se.

Can you tell something about celtic swords. It is so hard to find any information about it. Ptolemaos, Caesar and polybius write each different stories.

Liked, Subbed, keep 'em coming!

True. older Japanese blades tend to have a canted tang, so that the entire blade is at a backwards slant to the hilt. They seem to have stopped being like that in around the 15th century, for some reason. Perhaps heavier armour leading to more use of the point?

re: Curved blade - is this because it is basically improbable to get a curved blade to be straight onto the cutting surface. If you have an acute profile taper, would you have a better cutting surface than if it was gradual?

That's fair. Although I'm not sure if bone would be an issue, I've used a hack saw to modify a re-enactment scramasax into a sharp one and it didn't seem to have that much of an issue with sharpness afterward. I think the biggest issue might be having teeth broke off or having then bent to the side after impact.

At what point is a cut good enough for grave injury and that's all that's needed? Is there such thing as a certain point where a minimum cutting sword is good enough? Is a Spadroon in that category? How about a double edged Smallsword?

Given that a lightsabre needs no force to cut with, just dropping it on would cut, would it be used like a fairy sabre, from quinte and sixte (hand up by the head)?

What about a serrated sword? Would a serrated sword be a good idea for cutting, or would that make it too brittle?

about the katana's thicker cross section and cutting ability: when considering the cutting ability of a blade, in addition to cross section ( and more specifically *bevel grind angle*) you need to consider other factors, for example edge type and material, blade curvature, and technique. While katanas are thick, their edges are very hard martensite, and equally importantly, they are _polished_ edges (a very labor intensive process at that hardness), made to push cut (verse toothier edges I assume european blades were typically given, correct me if I'm mistaken here). A very hard, polished edge will cut with almost no resistance and resist deformation, although it can chip if it hits something hard, which is why in japanese style swordsmanship parrying is accomplished with the back and sides of the blade.. But, as was said in the video, katanas have broad bevels, so a polished edge won't help much anyway right? _But do they have broad cross sections?_ You don't give japanese swords fair credit regarding their curvature, the one you're holding clearly has more curvature than the british regulation blade you compared it with, likely most of which was concentrated toward the tip and out of the shot. Also, japanese swords have had widely varied curvature throughought their history: later katanas were heavier and straighter than their developmental predecessors, _tachi_,which came first, *were curved along their whole length, much like more recent tulwars*, and were worn blade down, mainly as a sidearm for polearm cavalry, and _uchigatana_ which like katana were worn blade up in order to be drawn directly into a strike, but which had much of the curvature of the _tachi_, although mostly towards the tip. Straighter katanas like the one you are holding in the video are of more recent design. The blades are actually forged straight and receive their curvature during the selective hardening phase of construction. Later swords employed larger, oftentimes decorative _hamon_, which, along with their increased weight away from the edge, may have contributed to their reduced curvature. Also worth discussion is the proscribed technique for the fighting with the blade. When properly used, the blade's posture *isn't perpendicular to its path* as it is swung at and strikes the target. The edge comes into contact with the target at a fairly gradual angle, *effectively changing the cross section of the blade*. In the typical conditions that the blade was actually used, namely two-handed slashes, intiated from the shoulders and core more than the wrists and elbows, the actual cutting profile of the blade in the direction of the cut would form a *much shallower angle*. The posture of the blade promotes draw cutting instead of a hacking chop, making for a better cutting blade than we seem to be giving it credit for, all while maintaining rigidity and zealously protecting the blades cutting edge (because remember, in japanese swordsmanship, one always tries to parry with the back or sides of the blade, something impossible with a thinner blade). Lots of people love to love japanese swords and give them far too much credit, but just as often people love to hate them because of all the naive adoration they receive. They are good blades made where good materials were scarce, and developed in the context of an alarmingly militaristic society, to which their effectiveness attests. And now I'm sick of writing.

I am certainly not an expert but I have studied, only a little, martial arts in Japan- Daitoryuaki ju-jitsu as well as some weapon training my general understanding is that the samurai considered the sword much the way modern infantry think of a handgun. It is definitely a good weapon to have, actually it was required for a samurai to carry a daisho (2 swords) but it was more realistically seen as a last ditch weapon on the actual battlefield. The yari or spear was better than a sword on the field, as was a naginata and a yumi or bow, provided you have arrows, was better than a yari. Just as a modern warrior would not use his handgun as his primary weapon, generally, so a samurai would not use his sword. I believe the same could probably be said about European knights or Vikings or ancient Spartans for that matter in regards to the sword. Even in ancient times though there was a mystical cult of the sword in Japanese culture, this actually predates the anime period. LOL Oh and when you are using a Japanese sword to fight an enemy in armor your target areas are the exposed or vulnerable parts of his body, like the inside of his wrists, his fingers, his underarms or an upward strike to his groin, or his feet even, not so much the heavily armored areas like the torso or the top of the head. People who actually wanted to survive such combat were very practical and far less likely to believe in wild superstitions. Just MHO. Thank you

This is the point - sawing with a saw may not damage the teeth, but if you *hit* things with the saw then the teeth get very quickly destroyed.

for the people accusing schola of hating if u have seen any of his other videos if you say the katana is better than make a video and prove it, i am a big fan of the katana and i think kenjutsu is a great martial art but i agree with everything he says there is a big idea because of video games and movies and stories that the katana is made from animantium and has infinite cutting power so his negativity to the katana is rightfully said also hate mail sucks and it is stupid you have the right to speak your mind but it could have easily bean spoke as i disagree of this because of this i also realize i am late to watch this video i just cant stand ignorance and loudmouths

As an Indian I feel proud about Talwars. Thank you for making it a bit popular. :-)

Tachi are not really different in the blade to katana, they just have different hilt fittings and scabbards - in many cases a blade would have both fittings, which could be changed from tachi to katana depending on the intended use (tachi fittings hang edge-down and were used in war, katana fittings are carried edge-up and were generally civilian wear). I think what you mean is that earlier Japanese blades tended to be more curved than later ones, which may help the cut, but hinders the thrust.

So my katana-hype bubble was burst long ago, but I would like to know what the particular characteristics of the katana are actually advantages? If the blade is thicker, does it weigh much more than other blades of it's length? I've heard from Skallagrim, who handled a variety of a friend's katanas, found that some were very top-heavy as opposed to being balanced at the hilt. Would this have any impact on its anti-armour potential by simply delivering more powerful (blunt) force, like war-hammers? The edge would also give it a much smaller surface area to apply the force. Perhaps it can't cut well due to thickness, but maybe it can still pack a wallop, given that it would have (I hope) a more sturdy top-heavy blade. I would also like to know how the hilt length differs from longswords. If the hilt is longer, wouldn't it help with top-heavy weapons? Disclaimer: I have never handled any real swords. I am only trying to learn about medieval weapons in general (without experimenting myself).

There is another very small issue which is the fineness of the edge. The teeth of an edge can be relatively big or small and this is determined by the grit of the stone they were polished with. The finer the grit, the smaller the teeth, and the better the cut because each individual tooth is doing less work. This is an area where katana, by virtue of their marginally harder edges, have a small advantage in slicing, but I find that this is offset by their speed, and edge bevel when cutting.

1. Matt forgot the weight of the blade, especially and predominantly the weight at the upper part of the blade and the balance of the blade: kinetic energy = speed AND mass. That's why we cut trees with axes and not rapiers (if only considering the factors Matt was stating a rapier would cut just as well as an axe). 2. Saying that you can do the drawing cut with any sword is misleading as there is a huge difference in this regard depending on the form of the blade. Basically straight spear pointed swords really suck at the drawing cut compared to a curverd blade with a "fleeing point". You mentioned that Kilich/Shamshir/Talwar were famous for cutting - no wonder, since those are the blade forms optimized for using the drawiing cut technique.

i suppose youd probably add sections on stuff like point of balance like when you compared the late medieval arming sword to the viking sword and explained why the late arming sword and longsword arnt as optimised for cutting

I have cut with actual Wootz Shamshir and they work very well for what they are designed to do. The parameters of comparison are very different for the various blades mentioned. However if you are feet on the ground and you are looking for cutting power alone, it is hard to beat a properly made katana in a sword of the same length. Take your swords and cut what you see me cut in my various videos. You learn the most about your sword when you cut with it.

Mr. Easton, this is a great video series. Thank you for the time and thought you put into sharing your knowledge. @David Christensen (and all the other geeks and fans), there's a discussion that touches on your question but I can't post the link here. Plug this into the KZfaq search bar: "TPLA Live: adapting arts to sabering part 2" I would also be very interested to see Mr. Easton's take on the subject.

It does. Walking diagonally up a hill is easier than walking in a direct line up the same hill - you reduce the gradient. Aside from the fact that with a curved edge at the moment of impact less of the edge is in contact with the target, which concentrates the force into a smaller area. Really basic physics :-)

I think your vids are very informative; Fun to watch. If you g]could get someone to do some minimal camera work and maybe have a script that you could refer to, the quality of presentation would increase exponential. It's still very informative. Thanks

As an aspiring smith I would like to ask where you got your information that the Katana has a harder edge? I can't find a single piece of evidence that would argue that a pearlite matrix is harder than another pearlite matrix simply due to which sword its on. If its a historical context I would love to see the papers though.

True, they have no secondary bevel. However, neither do lots of medieval European swords and lots of other types of sword. Modern replicas which are designed to be blunt and which are then sharpened often have secondary bevels, but Albions do not, for example (as they are made as sharps). This comes under point 2 'cross section' though. Cheers :-)

I will wait for response on what I previously posted let's go to another aspect of efficient cutting and that is how the energy is transferred through the blade and into the opponent as we would like to survive this encounter. The method of doing this is quite different classical Samurai swords arts than it is in modern derivations or in western swordsmanship. Cutting the enemy is one aspect of the engagement. Preventing him from cutting you as well can be a deciding factor in surviving.

Just a precision. Sharpness only involves the few first microns of the edge. The cross-section has four main variables actually: angle at the very edge, angle of the main grind (or "primarty grind"), thickness at the transition point (from edge bevel to primary grind), and thickness of the blade. The edge bevel and primary grind may blend continously, forming a convex edge, You can make a very obtuse edge shave hair, if you want, it's a matter of steel nature and edge refinement.

Can you address The Sharpness of other things/tools from the Middle Ages? Like, How sharp is a Carpenters Axe, A drawknife, or a Cane knife? How are they made different to be Professionally sharp different from a regular ax or knife? I have studied history for a long time, but I don't think people understand the difference.

nice video

Sir, as far as how sharp a tough chopping edge can be and still work extremely well on tough material I would point you towards Gavco knives and his testing. A very thin and extremely sharp blade CAN and will go through bone, wood and such without chipping. Granted he uses modern steels but it can be done with most tool steels properly heat treated. And smiths of old were very good at that part lol.

You missed an important factor - the force applied behind the cutting blade. For example, a two handed sword good at draw cutting (like a katana) allows a force of leverage to be applied after the strike (when drawing the sword away). it is also easier to draw cut like this with a slightly curved blade. This allows a deeper (and in the case of a wider blade, potentially wider) cut. Also, a heavier blade obviously has more momentum compared to the swords weight, so a sword weighted 'like a baseball bat' tends to hit with more force from the cutting edge, again potentially leading to a deeper cut. The katana is not magical compared to other cutting swords, but it does have some good cutting characteristics for its context.

Hehe, I might make a video about this. The main problem with them is that they have no hand protection at all.

The curve of the katana was certainly not accidental - it is highly unlikely that the first Japanese swordsmith to make a katana was somehow unaware of the effect of quench on metal. And if he was trying to make a straight blade and it warped, he'd simply discard the failed blade and try anew. Moreover, he would discard the differential hardening process as useless and go back to making old-fashioned, straight chokuto. I think it is safe to assume that the first smith to make a curved sword - whether in Japan or anywhere else - intended the curve. The fact that the blade curves the way it does (because of the differential hardening, in combination with a thick spine and the thin edge) is a phenomenon the smith takes advantage of, rather than a happy accident.

To me it feels that *chopping* with a katana is a little bit more forgiving/easier to make effective because of the hard edge. Even if the edge alignment is off it feels as if the katana wants to chop through, like it was intended for more of a heavy falchion chop rather than pull cuts for curved swords.

However (applying geek chic) this all depends on what school of physics you want the lightsabre to work in. The original trilogy dictated that the blade created tidal forces which made it cumbersome to handle; Lucas wanted them to fight like longswords, which in normal Hollywood fashion meant like big heavy clunky swords, which we know there not. However the prequel trilogy threw that concept out of the window' for over the top flashy swordplay.

At the beginning you should have talked about angles. Robust doesnt really describe an edge, could have talked about sharpening angles. "Sharpness" is the amount, more so the lack of contact edge at the apex, ie. two sides meeting at a perfect 0 angle having no burr on either side and no flat in the middle ( microscopic differences ).

What about the weight and point of balance? Isn't a heavier blade better at cutting? Of course, as long as you can use it comfortably. Also, aren't swords with point of balance further from the hilt better at cutting? Again, as long as you can still swing them fast enough.

Ah, awesome swing sound at 7:10

Yes. :-)

it be nice if he were to give his opinion on what sword is best for cutting since im trying to get ideas for my sword i want a double edge duelling i want the best cutting and stabbing well being light im forging this myself so videos like this are very useful im making my own damascus steel and im try to make this sword the best for me i fight with both hands so my design needs to aloud that im just wondering if anyone have ideas

Swords that cut soft targets, mats etc., extremely well, such as those used in tameshigiri competitions are not ones that are strong enough on the one hand and shaped properly on the other, for cutting bone and meat. When going through meat with a thin blade the meat has a tendency to "collapse" onto the blade and create friction. When hitting bone, and not cleaving it entirely, it is much easier for a thin blade to get stuck in the bone. The flex in the blade also adds to that possibility.

A number of things missing from this presentation in regards to Japanese swords. The niku in the properly polished Japanese sword is their for a reason. It allows for several things, one is a very sharp edge that is supported by the shape of the body of the blade. The shape of the body of the blade, even though it is thicker, is one of the factors that contributes to the swords ability to cut.

Many other types of sword (European and Asian) are sharpened in the same way as a katana though. Look at falchions, shamshir or tulwar.

I just had the opportunity to view, wield, not cut with this time, a number of the blades that were mentioned here. I am a swordsman and I like blades. I am best know for Japanese however I use, have designed, and enjoy blades from all cultures. The combat reason for the design and how the warrior is going to use them along with knowledge, economics, etc. determines the end product. If I am light fast moving cavalry a Shamshir is an excellent weapon.

Tachi, at least early tachi typically have a thinner blade cross section as well.

In the knights of the old republic Zayne Carrick has cortosis gauntlets that protect his hands and forearms. Cortosis isn't resistante but actually cause a feed back in the lightsabre shutting it down. How interesting would a fight be if you struck your opponents hands and you temp loss your blade?

An actual straigth razor blade, even completly dull, will collapse or chip under the slightest impact, because it a very thin edge, and very low primary grind angle near the edge because of the hollow grind. Regarding edge toughness the main factor is edge thickness, though edge angle plays a part. Regarding penetration in the cut, it's a mix of edge thickness, primary angle and sharpness. The edge open path, the edge bevel makes it tough, and the primary allow force transfer and blade stiffness

I need to clarify one point, because I realized that I skipped a logical step there the harder the edge, the smaller the teeth you can achieve when polishing a sword. So the grit of stone you can use to sharpen an edge is determined by the hardness of the edge. Thank you.

What about a kopis or falcata

1:25 to 2:10 thank you finally some1 who dose not just say that you can sharpen any sword razor sharp and it will work as good if not beter than a katana and before i get called a katana fanboy i am a fan of sabers my prefrence is a french 1822

Not a Katana fanboy. But the katana is optimized for drawing cuts, since it is weighted near the middle of the blade and it has a comparatively longer handle, making a much smoother arc around its central point - from the cutters perspective - than a blade weighted european-style to be light in the hand. Think about the circles traced by the tip of the pommel and the tip of the blade as you lever the blade in a downwards angled slash across your body, like an oar. The katana, with its wider arc bite (smaller ratio between the two circles, meaning the blade is turning around its own axis to a greater degree versus travelling in space, all other things being equal), gives you more leverage on the pull. Not saying its better than a european longsword, because it's clearly not, but its construction does lend itself particularly well to certain kinds of moves, as you say in another video. Thoughts?

Just wanted to mention something auxiliary. The actual word for kilij in Turkish (kılıç) is pronounced like kili"ch". And this "ch" sounds like the "ch" in the english word "change". In Turkish this "ch" may occasionally sound similar to the sound of "j" as in "jamaica". (for example, whenever a word ending with the "ch" sound receives a suffix which starts with a vowel, the ch sound is replaced with j) So, I believe the english representation "kilij" of the actual Turkish word "kılıç" intends to reproduce the sound of "j" as in "jamaica/japan" at the end of the word. Hence, this "j" should be pronounced as in "jamaica". Regards,

My first sword was almost 3 decades ago and was a Katana. Your point? And I can cut better now with the longsword even after only using one for four years. I was good enough with Kenjutsu to own my own school and fully certified to do so by the Head School in Japan.

6. Weight 7. Weight Distribution

I'd like to see what a samurai could do with a broadsword or a saber with a longer handle.

Can we please define what cut means? Are you referring to a chopping/hacking type motion that hits a relatively narrow area, but deeply? Or are you talking about a slashing/slicing type motion that drags along a large area, but shallowly? Honestly, I think we should throw out cut as a term (as well at its children push cut, draw cut, etc) and just use chop and slash.

To compare which sword is better at cutting, you need to get, not just the swords, but the experts of the swords. Each expert will do an expert cut with their own specific sword. Then one can compare which sword cuts better. Same way, you dont measure a martial art punch by making just anyone hit. You get the martial artist to give the punch. Then you can compare which punch is more effective.

There is one other dimension to the edge bevel. The thicker the edge bevel the more room for error there is for aligning your edge properly. Wider bevels or convex bevels tend to make good cuts when slightly off of perfect alignment. This isn't a really big issue, particularly for good swordsman, but can make a sword more forgiving for someone who is learning. Incidentally I practice Ringeck's style of the Liechtenauer system, and I recommend my students watch your videos.

Katanas are good honestly. They're cheap and decent cutters BUT NOT THE BEST! But if you got the money get a Kreigmesser, it's similar to the Katana but better in a lot of ways. Crossguard, longer reach, more resistant assembly, etc.

we need that curved swords video

Sorry auto correct is making my spelling tragic.

I suspect in 'reality' they'd end up being used somewhat like smallswords or rapiers. But without any hand protection the fights would not last long!

The appleseed edge is different. I have done a good deal of cutting with western blades and an enormous about on a wide variety of materials including flesh and bone with Japanese blades. If someone could please show me similar cutting with western cut and thrust swords in the 30" to 33" range that compare with what you can see me cut with a 30" katana I would be interested.

Doesen't the weight of the blade also affect how well it cuts?

A thing you forgot to mention: For speed, the balance matters greatly. If you want a chopping like sword to deal massive force, but slow comeback, get a sword that has a balance point that is farther towards the point. If you want a sword that is very fast and agile, simply for quick cuts in succession, you want a balance point near the handle. Therefore, katanas actually are more of a slower, forceful tool, whereas a European long sword, with it's heavier pommel and cross guard, is more balanced for speed.

Some of the Katana fan boy comments on this video are hilarious. All hail the inexplicably, magically superior Katana. Behold! It slices through men in plate steel and can cut machine guns in half! It never even breaks or bends while performing these incredible feats!

Sorry, but I can't help but clear out some errors you seem to have made. A really keen edge is only fragile if you're burr sharpening. If you're sharpening properly, then the edge won't really be fragile, but quite stable. Also, no matter if you get it to a "razor edge" or not, it's still going to blunt to one point, at which it will be more stable, and stay at that level of sharpness or bluntness. How sharp it is, doesn't matter that much on the angle. Sharpness is measured in the thickness of the very edge (we're talking tens of a micron), which can be achieved no matter the angle. It's actually a bit of an interesting thing regarding how it pushes away and such. Also cross section is much more about the primary bevel than just an edge. The curvature does increase the initial cutting area, and therefore pressure, so in the beginning it will be more efficient, but in the deeper, it does lack a bit.

Neither am I a big fan of katanas. But i have to admit they do cut very well overall among the different blades of each culture. While thickness itself is a factor, you got to look at the edge geometry as a whole to determine cutting efficiency. Even though katanas are thick they are helped by having flat or just slightly convexed zero ground bevel. There's no secondary bevel unlike western swords. This minimize the resistance when going through a target. Because its a single edge blade, the primary bevel is quite gentle as it extends almost the full width of the blade. The edge itself as a result is quite acute. And this is made possible by having hard >60 hrc steel at the edge. The curve is quite significant in some katanas (example cold steel dragonfly series) and surely does help facilitate a smooth slashing draw cut but not so much as to compromise thrusting.

A natural follow up to this video would be which swords thrust well and why. One misconception about this that I have seen is that some people seems to think that straight swords automatically are thrusting swords, which of course isn't the case. By "people" I mean in particular this guy: /watch?v=IMFtawcjh7E&t=4m10s

Most likely? Have you cut with any of the swords that you mentioned and what? If you are comparing sheer cutting power the katana will out cut the blades you mentioned. I am speaking from actual experience using the blades. Now the designs are different for a reason and the Shamsir etc. work very well for what they were designed to do.

Pro and con of a lightsabre is that there is no cutting edge, they are effective from any part of the blade and the speed/power they make contact with doesn't effect how they cut. This all adds up to a weapon where all you need to do is little snipey movements to cause real damage, easy to attack very hard to defend.

A thought: use a computer to analyze the best cutting angle of each sword (weight, shape, balance, material, etcetera), then a computer program to model the force delivered under optimal conditions for each sword. Our technology is easily up to this, but I am unaware of anyone who has done the needed programming. It's really too bad, because the kind of bickering that happens between advocates for different sorts of swords (katana vs longsword, etcetera) could be put largely to rest if someone would. Any programmers care to take up the challenge? :)

If your form/function of the blade is dominated by cuts, and cuts provide a superior cutting surface, wouldn't you end up with a weapon that is dominated by the best surface for your function/form?

also there is the question of balance and blade inertia.

As a small, objective, defense of the katana, in my experience, katana have very little bevel where the flat meets the edge. In this way, they seem largely like a single wedge. This, I think, coupled with the differential hardening of a (traditional) blade, could allow a katana to be marginally sharper than say, a messer. Now, do I think that it might make a difference cutting? Probably not.

I do not believe for a second that a curved blade cuts better than a straight blade of the exact same size and speed

Your under the mistaken impression that western swords do not have a similar edge when in fact, most do. The edge geometry your talking about is called an appleseed edge and is quite the common edge type in ANY battlefield steel bladed weapons from pretty much ALL the cultures.

You could have the best sword in the world, but if the person who wields it suck with swords then the sword is useless

You forgot about game balancing! If you look at the game stats you can clearly see that -- Oh wait.

kingcobra9899 There are several sword, pole-arm and bow variations due to philosophies in fighting styles. There doesn't look like there was any accepted arms race where one culture decided to outright copy another's sword, pole-arm or bow because it was better than what they had. Even the cultures of England went through several variations of the sword as the philosophies changed. Some culture's philosophies never changed and therefore the weapons generally stayed the same.

That katana's sharp end was on the reverse side. How interesting.

Hah! You forgot blade temperature. If a blade is white hot, it will burn through what its cutting. And the temperature is dependent on your imagination. So basically what I'm saying is its too late and I should go to bed now.

What about a swoed with serrations whould that cut any better then others