The longsword vs katana debate is one of the oldest and most storied bits of nerdy bullshit on the internet. Millions of words have been written, most of them poorly, as weebs and whatever the hell you call European history buffs battled back and forth in the trenches of Reddit and message boards, trying to sort out, once and all, which is better. 

Spoiler alert: it’s pointless. All of it. The whole debate. 

Yeah, I know, sort of anticlimactic, but whatever. 

There is no “best sword.” There are certainly bad swords. You can find those in just about every shopping mall head shop with a stupid name like Dragon’s West or some shit. You know the place. Lots of mystical bullshit on the walls, smells like incense and poor financial decisions, shelves loaded with overpriced figurines. And in the back, you’ll find poorly made hunks of maybe steel (but probably pot metal) disguised as swords. Those, for the most part, we can conclusively call bad. 

But, when it comes to historical, battle-ready weaponry, it’s hard to conclusively call anything bad. 

See, most people have a strong aversion, at least on most days of the week, to getting stabbed. Thus, weapons used on the battlefield fell into one of two categories: functional, or deeply unpopular. If it wasn’t good enough to get the job done, it wasn’t likely to be used all that much. 

Beyond that, defining good or bad when it comes to just about any weapon is all about context. 

Historically, weapons have evolved to fit the needs of the people who used them. A Roman spatha was basically a sharpened plank of steel with a handle, but that was all it needed to be. You don’t need much finesse when you’re charging at Celts on horseback. The talwar, on the other hand, popular on the Indian subcontinent, required a very particular style of swordsmanship to be useful, but was undoubtedly deadly in skilled hands. 

Both weapons would have been of limited use if you tried to press them into service in the other’s role. The talwar could effectively be used on horseback; most sabers could. But for a Roman cavalryman, the oddly shaped grip and the reliance on draw cuts would have been a hindrance. Hand a Punjabi warrior a spatha, and he’s more likely to press it into service as a machete than a sword. It’s meant for brutal, ugly, and utilitarian strikes that leave no room for style or finesse. Perfect for fighting a Celt high out of his mind on mushrooms with his dick out, but not so effective against flowing robes and clear judgment.

The same is equally true with the longsword and the katana. They were both designed to fulfill a particular evolutionary niche within their environments. A 1:1 comparison, then, is pointless. If you want to ask which is better, you first have to ask “better at what?”

Further complicating matters is the fact that, within their own family trees, both the longsword and the katana underwent their own evolutions. 

Consider, if you will, the following chart.

 

If I were to ask you which of those swords would be considered a longsword, you might be tempted to carefully study the distal taper, the style of the crossguard, the shape of the grip,or whether it was meant for one hand or two. All of those are important considerations for choosing a sword, to be sure. 

If you’re using a shield and mostly keep your lead hand behind it, you might want a shorter crossguard, so as to reduce weight and allow a fuller range of motion from your wrist. If you expect to be fighting someone in armor while you’re also wearing armor, you might elect to forego the shield in favor of getting both hands on the weapon for extra control. A narrow tip would be better for finding gaps in armor, while a wider blade would be better for dealing slashes to unarmored or lightly armored infantry. 

But is any of that particularly useful for determining which of these swords would be considered a longsword?

Not really, no. It’s a trick question, because they’re all considered longswords, depending on who you ask and when you ask them. 

Now, there are a number of very learned individuals who would look at that chart and say “well actually…”, and because people in a position to know better would disagree, Dunning-Kruger dictates that quite a few less learned folks will as well. That's all well and good for them, but it doesn't change the fact that no one really agreed on a definition for "longsword" until quite recently. 

The current popular definition holds that a longsword must be a primarily two-handed weapon with a cruciform guard and a straight, double edged blade. And for what it’s worth, that is a perfectly valid definition. But, it is a wholly modern one. 

Exactly what does or doesn’t count as a longsword varies depending on who you ask and when you ask them, to say nothing of the language you ask them in. If you take an arming sword and show it to a 9th century Dane, he might very well nod and say “ᚹᚻᛁ ᛁᛖᛋ, ᚦᚪᛏ×ᛋ ᚳᚢᛁᛏᛖ ᚪ ᛚᚩᛝ ᛋᚹᚩᚱᛞ” [translation: why yes, that’s quite a long sword] before taking your head off with his axe. Show that Dane’s longsword to a 16th century German townsman and he’ll likely scoff and correctly point out that his Langmesser, literally meaning “long knife”, is longer. And then stab you with it. Medieval folk were metal as fuck. 

At the end of the day, what the Norse considered a longsword in the 11th century would vary greatly from what the Normans considered a longsword in the 14th century, and from what the Swiss would use in the 17th century. They might all technically have been longswords in their day, but they were all designed for vastly different purposes and with vastly different levels of technology, and that’s reflected in the design. 

While the katana’s design is more homogenous over the centuries, owing to a number of factors ranging from Japan’s relative isolation to their metallurgical difficulties, it still changes as the centuries pass and as combat styles, technology, and fashions evolve. In times of war, longer reach might be favored, while you might want something shorter and handier in times of peace. 

Therein lies the crux of the problem. How do you choose which style of sword is better when even among their own families, the longsword and the katana change so much?

As tempting as it would be to say “you don’t” and leave it at that, I’ve been around the internet enough to know that that wouldn’t solve a damn thing. I can already hear the weebs and whatever you call someone with “deus vult” tattooed across their Cheetos dust encrusted knuckles gearing up for all out war in the comments. 

As amusing as that would be, the whole point of this little essay is to try to put the debate to bed. Yes, I’m aware how delusional that sounds. No, that won’t change my mind. 

Look, people are always going to find dumb shit to argue about. There’s nothing I can do about that. But maybe, just maybe, I can nudge the needle a little. Move it just a little closer towards common sense. Because honestly, this is one of those hills I’m happy to make a stand on. I’ve heard this debate so many times, from so many people, that at this point, I’m just sick of it. At the very least, instead of repeating myself for the billionth time, I can link them here and be done with it. 

So, with that out of the way, buckle up. We’re going for a dive, and it’s gonna be long and deep. 

Wait, shit. Are we still doing phrasing? Is that a thing?

Whatever. 

Up next: The Longsword.