It's okay, I think most of us got your point, but racial allegories are generally frowned upon. Not your fault; I'm more thick-skinned than most, and understood your point, but these days people tend to have hair triggers, right?
Fair enough, it wasn't a serious comment though.
I do have to say that I'm with you on the discussion, though. I think the real point that Balgin is trying to make is that there is a perception of katanas being superior, and it really isn't incorrect.
But that's my point, it is absolutely incorrect!
You have to compare the Eastern obsession with swordcraft with the Western need for utility.
This assumes the Japanese have no need for utility and the west no sense of aesthetics or performance. Both are wrong. The katana is a very functional sword, especially considering the limitations to Japanese had to work with. And do I really need to defend Europe's aesthetic achievements?
In Europe, where the "iron bar" swords come from, you had Crusades and infighting and all that to contend with, and so blacksmiths at times had to crank out unlimited numbers of utility swords that really were just sharp crowbars. They served their purpose well enough, because they were can openers--they existed to get through the tin can and into the deviled ham in order to kill the "bad guy."
When people mention to crusades, they may think of knights in shining armour, but the 3rd crusade was in the late 12th century, slap bang in the middle of the age of mail. There was no tin cans then, so there was no need for swords that could "open" them (more on this point in a bit). Wide bladed slashing swords that tapered to a serviceable thrusting point were the norm.
Here are some examples of these type of swords taken albionarmorers.com, probably the best productions replicas around:
The Knight
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-knight-xii.htm
The Templar
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-templar-xa.htm
The Baron
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-baron-xiia.htm
They are munitions grade, made in bunches, but individually finished, just like munitions grade swords in the 12th century. They may not be ornamented as much as many katana, but there is definately an understated elegance and subtlety about them, IMO.
Now, can opener swords did make a brief appearance in Europe, but they were never crude weapons, and were pretty much abandoned when people realised swords just weren't effective against plate armour compared to warhammers et al.
Here is an example of one (not the skinny blade is also quite thick, so it isn't a ragile sword whatsoever):
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-landgraf-xvii.htm
Katanas, however, were a point of pride, and so there was some extra care taken in forging the best of them (but by no means the lot of them) so that the samurai could win the fashion contests necessary to bolster their position. It's just a different kind of sword, is all.
The Europeans had just as many fops as the Japanese!
When it comes down to it, the technical aspects of blades are incomparable to any general degree. As a fencer, I have beheld Italian rapiers that have made my mouth water, and seen katanas that have left me cold. I'm no expert, but I know a good blade when I see one, and not every blacksmith in the world (Occidental or Oriental) can make a good blade.
You are of course correct, and to a large extent, that is my point. To blindly accept and then talk about the superiority of one form over another is unfortunate. There are reasons for every single aspect of a sword's design, and more often than not, they are solutions to the same problems that both worked. Europe had more forms and designs because it was a more cosmopolitan culture and had more solutions to find problems for!
On the whole, however, it seems like more care went into the forging of a katana than the forging of your average Western sword (though I admit that there truly isn't even such a thing, when you get down to it).
How sophisticated the steel refining techniques are isn't always indicative of the effectiveness o the finished product. The japanese used iron sand that they refined by continuous folding (amongst other techniques). The Turks used wootz (also called damascus today). The pre 11th century Europeans and the Chinese used pattern welding (also called damascus today). All these techniques are attempts to homogenise steel (ie, to get everything else out of it). All worked, and all, in the best examples, would result in a blade that was effectively homogenised, albeit with a unique appearance.
Some time in the 11th century, European smiths refined their forging processes to the point where pattern welding was no longer needed. They could get the desired result (ie homogenised steel) without the need for complex forging methods. That's why a crusade era sword looks like plain steel.
None of these methods are better than the others. You could argue for the superiority of the European method based on the fact it was homogenised, but the other results were just as good if done right, albeit with a much higher labour cost.
I won't say that katanas tended to be sharper or harder or uber or whatever, but I will admit that if you're looking for the odds on a particular blade being of Masterwork quality, you're playing the odds by shopping for a katana rather than a gladius or claymore. The West had many long martial periods of cranking out meat cleavers, and the East (or Japan, rather, since China has the same basic blade history as any country in Europe) made more of an art form out of it.
You say this, but follow it up with:
Still, there are many (innumerable) examples of chop-shop katanas, and there are voluble numbers of brilliantly-made Western blades from any era. In the end, I think we need to remember that we're looking at a larger volume of swords from Europe, with a larger variety, and in the end it's simply a matter of taste.
This is exactly right. Rich people demand aesthetics in any culture. Soldiers demand effectiveness and reliability in any culture. Good smiths make good swords, indifferent ones make indifferent swords. Don't matter what colour their skin is! :shock: :shock: :shock:
Then again, maybe I'm just known for talking out my ass.
Your post doesn't back that up.