why do you suppose...

[Eddie Smith]

...that Europeans as a whole generally chose long, straight, double-edge swords, if it is the case that curved swords cut better and single edge swords can be sharper?

[Andy Spalding]

I am probably simplifying this too much, but, becasue Europeans for the most part, wore armor.

[Eddie Smith]

Hadn't really thought that line Euro armour is more "meaty" than asian armours. I guess I'm so used to practicing w/o armour that I didn't think along those lines.

[Randall Pleasant]

...if it is the case that curved swords cut better and single edge swords can be sharper?

Facts are assumptions? What un-bias testing has been conducted to prove beyound a reasonable doubt that curve swords do in fact cut better? What possible affect could a second edge have on the steel that would stop a sword from be sharpen as much as a sword with only one edge? In both cases I don't want to just take the word of someone to studies the katana.

Any way, only two of the five master cuts can be performed with a curved or single-edge sword.

[Gene Tausk]

...that Europeans as a whole generally chose long, straight, double-edge swords, if it is the case that curved swords cut better and single edge swords can be sharper?

And you base this assumption that curved swords cut better and single edge swords can be sharper on.................?

[Stewart Sackett]

A straight, double edged blade offers greater versatility due to the ability to cut with the false/back edge. Also Europeans wore armour.

The curvature of Japanese swords is a necessary design element that compensates for the poor quality of Japanese iron/steel. If the Feudal Japanese had access to better minerals they probably would have ended up with swords more like those of Medieval Europe.

[Jaron Bernstein]

A straight, double edged blade offers greater versatility due to the ability to cut with the false/back edge. Also Europeans wore armour.

The curvature of Japanese swords is a necessary design element that compensates for the poor quality of Japanese iron/steel. If the Feudal Japanese had access to better minerals they probably would have ended up with swords more like those of Medieval Europe.

Uh, guys, don't forget the curved messer and grossmesser. Also, katana/tachi designs changed over time as well. They weren't always with such a pronounced curve.

[Joel Norman]

Ummm, yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with the original post. Europeans as a whole did not choose straight, double-edged swords all of the time. Think of the above mentioned messers, as well as other falchions, backswords, dussacks, and of course the sabre which lasted the longest out of any european sword. Some of these had more curvature than others, but the fact remains that single-edged weapons were always around.
Concerning messers and the like, a thought struck me just now. Since it has been stated that katanas were made as somewhat curvy single edge weapons due to an inferior quality metal, I wonder if this would also be true of european single-edge swords? We do know that originally messers were regarded as long knives for peasants; the idea that a true sword was a weapon for the high-class goes back for ages in germanic and scandinavian cultures. Were messers and the like simply easier to make? If so, was this possibly because the metal didn't have to be as high a quality? I'd never really thought of all this before. . .

[Sam Nankivell]

...that Europeans as a whole generally chose long, straight, double-edge swords, if it is the case that curved swords cut better and single edge swords can be sharper?

They didn't choose one or the other, they stuck with both. We have curved swords and straight swords from most periods of European history. In ancient times, we have curved swords like the machaira. In medieval times we have grossemessers, kriegmessers, sabers, falchions, you name it. Of course, one you get into the late 17th Century, the popularity of the curved saber really takes off for military use. Likewise, straight double edged "sabers" are also used alongside curved ones up until World War I. Even taking a look at the swords worn in ceremonies by modern armies, there are just as many curved ones as there are straight ones.

Other cultures, such as those in India and China did the exact same thing and simply kept both forms of sword.

It seems only the Japanese only really "chose" between the two and picked a curved sword. Sometimes, not even, I have seen some tachi and katana that seem to have very, very shallow curves.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Actually, the inferior quality of Japanese iron ores was the thing that forced Japanese swordsmiths to use folded contruction each time--because their raw materials weren't good enough to be worked into a more homogeneous non-folded construction. It's probably not the reason why the Japanese ended up with curved swords; professional scholars and historians are still puzzling about this one, and the explanations advanced vary widely from pure aesthetics to the prestigious position of cavalry (and the curved weapons they preferred--not a very convincing explanation IMO) to the tendency to take Chinese/Korean borrowings to the extreme, including the higher popularity of curved swords among the Tang-dynasty models that originally inspired the Japanese blades (made necessary, some say, by the need to equip large numbers of infantrymen who had only rudimentary training in swordsmanship and hence better given weapons with which they wouldn't have to worry about cutting themselves on the false edge).

[I. Hartikainen]

The European sword reflects the shape of a cross. This is partly a cultural thing. Different blade shapes and types, as well as different individual swords have different cutting capability, but the curved edge generally cuts better due to the more emphasized effect of drawing the edge on contact since smaller area makes contact at a given time.

Remember also, that for example the longsword is a tool designed to work against rather heavy armor, the treatises speak of "strikes" rather than "cuts" most of the time.

And finally, a swords edge (regardless of how one parries, let's not go in there) wears out quicker if it is very sharp, and even a blunt sword is a perfectly usable killing tool.

- Ilkka

[RayMcCullough]

Here is something to think about on why the katana is curved....

It is easier to quick draw a curved blade. The samurai of later periods spent less time in pitched battles and the katana got lighter and more suited to the highways and byways. Quikly drawing down a man in the street becomes a priority as opposed to a battle where the sword would be worn differently and usually drawn before the enemy was on top of you.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I have always wondered why the Japanese never developed a cross or other similar thing for the katana (in any of its versions, including the earlier more straight bladed forms). That goes with my other question of why the gladius and viking swords also didn't have a very meaningful cross.

[I. Hartikainen]

The Japanese sword is also held differently from an European one, leading to different options in the initial draw where the curve helps, as suggested by Ray.

Why the swords don't have a crossguard, my opinion is that in the proper use of the sword a long crossguard is not really that necessary, and it's function, in a sense, is cultural and aesthetic. If you look at the treatises, the techniques that rely on / utilize the crossguard either defensively or offensively are not that many. The blade provides for both the defense and the offense.

When the protection is needed from blades sliding down against the edge, even a tsuba is protection enough.

The art of the sword most likely developed out from the use of a stick, which, by nature, doesn't have any protection for the hand.


- Ilkka

[Shane Smith]

The Japanese sword is also held differently from an European one, leading to different options in the initial draw where the curve helps, as suggested by Ray.

Why the swords don't have a crossguard, my opinion is that in the proper use of the sword a long crossguard is not really that necessary, and it's function, in a sense, is cultural and aesthetic. If you look at the treatises, the techniques that rely on / utilize the crossguard either defensively or offensively are not that many. The blade provides for both the defense and the offense.

When the protection is needed from blades sliding down against the edge, even a tsuba is protection enough.

The art of the sword most likely developed out from the use of a stick, which, by nature, doesn't have any protection for the hand.


- Ilkka

Let's be careful not to forget nor discount all of the techniques that work from kron in the source-texts. I'd rather land my cuts from a distance of course, but when I close to grips, I'm darn glad for that crossguard. It is certainly no needless thing and was put there for darn good reasons...both cultural and practical I think.