Settling the Debate: Katana, or European Sword?

The way to settle this is to stop comparing them. I see so many people go on about this that I have to take a stand. I come from a bushi background. My mother is a world class kendo practitioner. My grandfather had his own school. My line traces back to retainers of the Hojo daimyo of Sengoku Jidai. I grew up surrounded by Japanese swords of all kinds, and I even went into kendo club in high school.

If I can see the virtues of the European sword, surely European fencing enthusiasts can see the virtues of the katana and we can stop this silly debate. For one thing, the height of the representative English longsword was a few centuries before the katana even existed. Secondly, they exist to fight different enemies in different ways. Perhaps most pressing, European swords come in all sorts of shapes and sizes (and Japanese swords have quite a few too!) that don't all directly contrast to the katana to begin with.

Some might say a cavalry sabre is the closest thing, but the weight and metal composition are nothing alike. Others compare the good old bastard sword with the katana, but bastard swords are straight, two-edged affairs with cross guards, while katana are single-edged backswords with round or square tsuba. Katana were often more ornate, while most European swords (short of some 15th and 16th century épées and the like) were far more utilitarian in their design.

The katana is an elegant, graceful and precise weapon... in the hands of a kenjutsu practitioner. In the hands of a European swordsman, it would probably feel bulky and unwieldy, due to the way European fencing styles work. You can't really wield it like a longsword, as it's not built for half-swording; it's a bit small for that. You can swing it like a standard arming sword, but it's much heavier in the hand than it should be. Katana are only really effective for kenjutsu.

Likewise, put a rapier or a flamberge in the hands of a Japanese swordsman and the shape and balance of the blade will be too awkward for the vast majority of kenjutsu forms. They're just not the same weapon. Does that mean one is more or less effective than the other? No. It simply means they were conceptualized to meet different challenges. Katana were primarily sidearms for samurai, who were primarily archers until the late 16th century. They were meant to make a display of status and privilege, and when used for battle, they existed to strike swift and decisive blows against foes in lacquered armor who fought primarily without shields.

European swords were made first to hack. Then to hack heavier, through a hauberk. Then to find gaps in enemy plates. Then the pierce the tiniest openings in full suits of plate armor. Then to ride through levied foot troops on horseback, taking advantage of speed and elevation. The challenges the two types of blades were made for just aren't even nearly the same.

In summary, katana and European swords can co-exist just fine, particularly in places like video games. One isn't better than the other. Let's all stop bickering now.

... All this said, viking swords are inferior to both High Medieval straight swords and Sengoku katana. It's just a fact. It's all about technology, and Viking swords were made with inferior technology.

(Additional note: No, katana were not magical. But neither were European swords, and I recall plenty of legends regarding European swords. Excalibur ring any bells? Durandal? Fragarach? Caladbolg? It's not only Japan who does this.)