Sword sharp is still quite sharp. In untrained hands it might not cut a piece of paper cleanly, but the difference between a European sword (for which ever sword you might have in mind given the great differences in the make of them) and a katana or any other eastern, middle eastern, Eurasian, or Indian sword is negligible when used correctly.[/quote]
Actually, you are very wrong there. The style and proper use of the blades differ greatly. Also, you can’t very well lump an entire regions weaponry in a single clump.[/quote]
With all due respect, I’m not the one who said European swords had no cutting ability. If you reread my comments, you’ll see that I’m saying that most swords the world over have the same cutting ability.
If you tried to hack with later era european arming swords, you would be lucky to pierce the skin. They were designed for stabbing, to the point where the "blade" can actually be held by an unarmored hand to aid with said stabbing. In contrast, a stabbing with a katana is idiotic as any solid object will warp or break the blade. In the case of larger european swords, they are actually designed to be swung, but their edge was designed to be more like a wedge that could pierce armor and badly break bones.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from, but I would advise you to treat the source as suspect especially when it makes sweeping generalizations that European swords have no cutting ability, European swords were mainly employed in thrusts to puncture armor, makes references to vague terms like “later era European”, and can’t even distinguish the blunt ricasso from the rest of the blade when referring to half-swording.
First of all, on the topic of sharpness. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1980
"“Razor” sharp is a meaningless term. As I’ve seen it applied to swords it can mean anything from “stupid” sharp, to relatively blunt {one major catalog vendor used to use “razor” sharp to describe the secondary bevel they applied to their swords, secondary bevel having an included angle of 60 degrees}.
“Stupid” sharp is so sharp that the edge is actually dangerous. The edge is a very good cutting edge, but is not sustainable and will need lots of maintenance…
“Paper” sharp is still real sharp, sharp enough to do everything “Stupid” sharp will do when the sword is used as a sword, but will also cut paper, the paper dragged across the edge…
“Sword” sharp won’t cut paper reliably the way “Paper” sharp will. However, “Sword” sharp will do everything that paper sharp will cutting, and is far more sustainable. "
We have ample evidence that European swords were sharp, if you look at the fighting manuals like the Nürnberger Handschrift, Filippo Vadi, Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33 all of them makes use of swipes, sweeps, and cuts along with the strikes and the thrusts, and other more exotic moves.
Swords like these:
From the 10th, 12th, and 15th centuries respectively, are incredibly thin and at most having a thickness of 3mm. These are swords that are meant to be sharp first and foremost, and secondly to retain that edge when used. Yes thrusting is an integral part of the European martial arts that employed these tools, but so were cuts.
As for stabbing with a katana is not idiotic, people did do this historically. Even for the Japanese now watered-down martial arts that utilize swords like Kendo, you’ll find that they make extensive use of thrusts. This sport might not have been the same as taught back then when people really were training to kill people with these instructions, but in most cases where a martial art has to adapt to being a sport when the tools it uses fall out of practicality, it still retains most of the core techniques. All they drop are the more dangerous and hard to control moves that might end up seriously hurting a sparring partner.
What you’ve probably encountered in the way of swords are actually sword-like objects, they’re made to look like swords, but their metallurgical constitution are far from the real thing, and most are kept blunt because they can’t sustain a sharp edge and would chip if force was applied to one that was. Modern day replicas might seem like they’d be superior to the ones made back then, what with othe advance in technology that’s taken place, but this is generally not so. Most of the swords on the market right now are little more than wall hangers. Functional SLOs go up into the range of a cost of an second had car. The more expensive ones that actually mimic museum pieces in weight, constitution, and balance go for far more than that. This is not to mention the weight and balance are often off, but that’s beside this point.
There are swords that are used when fighting a heavily armored opponent like this: http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-7-gross.jpg
Still retain a cutting edge, for the most part because swords were meant to be used around armor rather than against it and to find the weaker points like the armpits and the neck. And truthfully, even in the transitional stage in the 1400s to the late mid 1500s where the stage is in full swing, and the renaissance was getting into full swing, fully armored opponents were still a rarity on the field. That’s to say nothing about the medieval period. Even in the early renaissance period where munitions grade armor plating was being produced, it was still a scarce thing to find on the battlefield, and they often didn’t perform close to the quality plates anyway.
You’re probably thinking of an estoc, which is basically a rod with a reinforce tip with guard and handle. This thing was meant to fight armored opponents, but it’s relatively rare for the aforementioned reasons. For the most part in the medieval ages, many of the people fighting were not properly armored contrary to what movies and video games depict.
As for the comment about grabbing the sword when stabbing. This move is called half-swording. The blade near the guard is often kept blunt if the wearer doesn’t have any preferably hand protection, or if they do have hand protection in the form of maille mittens, or quality made leather on the palms of their hand, the blade can still remain quite sharp. The blunted area, if it’s blunted, is called the ricasso and is gripped when half-swording.
This technique is often used when fighting an armored opponent. http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html
That being said, people armored like the two in the link are quite rare on the battle field. Most medieval armies, as well as early renaissance armies were levies and conscripts. Only a tiny section of officers, nobles, and their retainers had the ability to afford any significant protection, and they’re often the ones who helped in cutting through the unarmored folk where a sharp blade is preferred.
With 2 different weapons in the proper hands, you will never see the same style used.
As far as I’ve seen, there are some technical differences, but the human body is mostly the same the world over. The Japanese don’t have any extra joints in their arms or legs, extra muscle groups, or can bend their spine better than an Arabic person. Most of the styles employed are quite like each other because the basic human frame limits the possible movements one can make.
If you look at the stances across cultures that people use when holding a two handed sword, you’ll find that many of the neutral stances are the same. As well as the techniques involved.
But this is getting beside the point. My original comment wasn’t that people fought the same way, because they obviously didn’t though did operate within the same framework for some weapons, but that in skilled or trained hands, a European sword, or any other sword that has comparable specifications, will be able to cut things mostly on par with each other.
