This group hasn't seen much action, so I figured I'd give you guys something to think about.

What, to you, was the worst type of blade in existence?

plastic table knife

4961522
4961531 simple

The Drake Sword from Dark Souls.

It's a huge piece of shit. Even looks kind of like one.

4961532 true enough...

4961532 lol.

4961522 not necessarily the worst, but I have heard from qualified people that the Katana is highly overrated.

Anything made with Pakistan steel. The steel will fold like a cheap suit and never be right again. It also doesn't hold an edge worth crap.

4961522 The one in the hands of an idiot.

4961835 Good answer!

Sticking with real world blades that and are not artwork or a prop (meaning made for or from some form of media rather than being made to be used), I'm going to have to go with the butterfly knife (aka: balisong) because those things are just accidents waiting to happen. I swear half the point of those knives is to find as many ways to cut your hand wide open as possible in the shortest amount of time.

4961522 Swords from skyrim

4962038 They are actually considered art, I do believe. My own personal opinion would have to be a fighting knife, with a massive guthook. It was shaped vaguely like a boxcutter, but I can't remember the name or even where I saw it.

4961522

This weird-ass reverse bath'let kinda thing:

4961546

Seriously, though, it's pretty much the best weapon while you are getting started with the game and sorta essential for early grinding.

I once somehow managed to kill a Black Knight with that sword at, like, level 30 or so. and then he dropped his ultra greatsword. That was one of the most awesome experiences I've ever had in a video game.

4961591

not necessarily the worst, but I have heard from qualified people that the Katana is highly overrated.

That depends on what you mean by "overrated." I mean, they are not bad swords at all, and when viewed in their proper context they are actually quite excellent. Plus, like all swords, the quality varies a lot from one blade to another.

They are only "overrated" in the sense that they are not actually these mystical, unbreakable, feather-light, lightning quick, supernaturally sharp things you see in movies and cartoons. They're just, you know, nice cutting swords.

4962038

I'm going to have to go with the butterfly knife (aka: balisong) because those things are just accidents waiting to happen. I swear half the point of those knives is to find as many ways to cut your hand wide open as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Dunno, my brother had one of those and it was surprisingly easy to use once you get the hang of it.

Wish I knew what happened to it, would be fun to learn some balisong tricks as a hobby.

4962038 practice practice practice.

4962499 if i recall correctly, besides the weeaboo bullshit, the reason why was because the weapons were made incredibly inneffectively, materials were shit in ancient japan, the armor was just as shitty, and many people dont acknowledge that it was a last resort weapon. Otherwise, with the countless variations of swords that european smiths have been making since even before that, the only thing the katana has going for it is aesthetic.

4962131 the karambit?

4962780 I guarantee you don't have enough hands to waste on that.

4962811 The manufacturing of the katana was incredibly labor intensive but did actually do a good job of turning terrible materials into a serviceable sword. That said, it was significantly worse than most European weapons because the Europeans had very good materials to work with which allowed them to produce alloys that were equivalent to modern spring steels so they are significantly thinner and far more durable than the katana. Furthermore, due to their limited supply of iron ore and its poor quality, the only armor the Japanese had for most of their history was made of wood so the katana is completely useless against real armor. Another thing that really didn't help was that the highly traditional Japanese did very little experimenting so their weapons did not improve over time like European weapons did.

4962811 Nah, more rectangular than that, and with a guthook. (A guthook is a hook that is part of the blade, but not the whole blade)
Again, I dunno where I saw it, so it may not even exist in real life.

4962038 I was in High School when butterfly knives were "the thing" to have. Everyone who had one in my area cut themselves in pretty freaky ways, including myself when one of the pins holding my brother's knife together popped loose, and the blade swung free on one side. The next candidate for "WORST" was the cheap knock-off Rambo knife I got instead of a butterfly knife...

4962811

if i recall correctly, besides the weeaboo bullshit, the reason why was because the weapons were made incredibly inneffectively,

I wouldn't say that. Japenese bladesmithing was for the most part incredibly sophisticated, and they made the most of the materials and technology they had. They were made in a very complex way but so were, say, most quality swords made in the iron age and nobody thinks they were made "inefficiently."

That said, I do think the traditional katana construction has one somewhat unfortunate trait, in that I believe the hilt construction is mainly the result of a design flaw. Specifically, the tang tends to act as a lever against the hilt, and the elaborate hilt wrappings are basically meant to counteract that. This is something that could be relatively easily fixed with a revised tang design more in line with what you'll find in other swords, only the Japanese apparently never bothered with that. Still, the katana does work fine the way it is, so it's not exactly a problem. It's just something I think could be done better.

materials were shit in ancient japan,

From what I understand, this is a common misconception. Japan doesn't have very good iron deposits, making it difficult to actually produce decent metal. But once the metal itself was properly processed, it was more or less comparable to medieval bloomery iron. They didn't have the sort of quality mass-production steel made available in Europe from the late Renaissance and onward, but all things considered all there was nothing particularly wrong with Japanese weapons.

As a matter of fact, thousands of katana blades were actually exported to Ming Dynasty China during a period of increased cultural exchange, because the Japanese blades were far superior to the very cheap dao issued to the Chinese military at the time, and they needed better swords to deal with the Chinese Sea pirates who were a major problem for China and Japan alike. In general, Japanese swords were historically valued very highly by just about all other cultures that came in contact with them.

Besides, I don't really consider this a relevant issue - certainly not for us. If you buy a medieval or Renaissance style sword today, it's going to be made out a modern type of steel that is very different and in most cases better than anything you would find in Europe when that style of sword was used. Likewise, you can buy a katana made from modern tool steel, mono or laminated, deferentially or through hardened, depending on what you prefer or can afford. So for all practical purposes, what actually matters is how the design of the sword performs and suits your fighting style or preference.

Saying that the katana is a "bad sword" because at some point they were made from steel that is inferior to some other kind of steel in a completely different context is a gross generalization that, honestly, makes it seem like you are going out of your way to find ways to criticize this weapon.

Side note: "Ancient Japan" isn't really a phrase you want to use, since that only applies to the very early eras of Japanese history. That far predates what we consider to be a "katana," which only appeared as a replacement for the older tachi around the 15h century or so, and remained in use all the way into the 19th century, meaning it is no more ancient than say the rapier. When most people say "ancient Japan", what they actually mean is feudal Japan.

and many people dont acknowledge that it was a last resort weapon.

"Last resort" isn't quite the right way to put it. The sword is a sidearm. It's a weapon that is easy to carry around, making it very versatile and practical, but it's not meant to be used as a primary battlefield weapon. This is true for all swords, no matter when or where they were made.

It's like saying a semi-automatic pistol is only for "last resort." That may be true in a strictly military context, but that's not really the point. It's a matter of context: A polearm (or, for a modern comparison, an assault rifle) may technically be a "better" weapon, but it's far less convenient.

Otherwise, with the countless variations of swords that european smiths have been making since even before that, the only thing the katana has going for it is aesthetic.

Again, context. It's true that there is a vast degree of variation in European swords, but that variation occurred over the course of a thousand years or so, during which weapon technology in Europe went through a number of paradigm shifts that the much more isolated Japan didn't. The highest degrees of variation when it comes to swords occurred during the Renaissance, and then later in the 19th century, both of which were eras where armor was no longer much of an issue, which opened up more options for how people could kill each other.

If you instead look only to the swords of the European medieval era, you will find that there really wasn't much variation at all, and what variation you do find is directly related to armor technology. In the iron and viking age, all swords basically looked the same - single-handed, double edged cutting weapons for a time where armor was relatively rare and not very advanced, and the sword was practically always paired with a shield. As armor improved, European swords develop more acute points. Eventually shields become optional, leading to an increase in two-handed swords. Finally, improvements in firearm tech slowly starts to make armor increasingly obsolete, and suddenly you see a much wider range of different sword types.

The fact of the matter is, once you have a sword that does the job well enough, you tend not to mess with the design unless circumstances change in some considerable way. A medieval knight wouldn't have traded his arming sword for a tachi, but then a samurai wouldn't have traded his tachi for an arming sword either. The weapons simply do not make sense outside of their context.

Speaking of context, I would like to point out that it was not always a matter of having the optimal killing tool. There are a lot more factors than that. For example, it is believed that the reason the rapier became so popular as a civilian weapon had much to do with how cities were built during the Renaissance - there were a lot of narrow alleyways, where a very thrust-centric, linear fighting style worked much better than swinging a cutting implement around. However, some two or three hundred years later another thing changed: Europe got better roads, and riding around in carriages became more stylish than riding on horseback. This made the rapier - which has to be carried in a baldric - seem a bit cumbersome and it was soon replaced with the smallsword, which was light enough to be hung from a simple clip or button and then easily removed. The smallsword is generally considered to be an inferior weapon to the rapier, yet the rapier was rendered obsolete simply due to fashion,

And on that note, I would like to round this little rant up by pointing out that the katana was, in fact, quite valued as a collector's item in Europe back in the day, because the Europeans considered them both beautiful and of very high quality. So this modern notion of the katana as a very overrated sword doesn't seem to have been shared by our ancestors, for whom the comparison would have been somewhat more relevant,

idk

4964690 TL;DR most of that was irrelevant.

If the bladesmithing was sooo sophisticated, why were the Europeans doing it 2,000 YEARS beforehand? Either way, having a degree in Operations Management, I'll tell you that "sophistication" is a laughably poor excuse to defend a inefficient process.

The only person here who's called it a "bad sword" is you, I said it was overrated, and within everything you said, you seem to be making a great deal of proving it without even going into the weeaboo bullshit.

"Context" is a moot argument in this regard because to quadriplegics a psychopath was a plastic breadknife is an efficient killing machine.

and finally, this gem:

the katana was, in fact, quite valued as a collector's item in Europe back in the day, because the Europeans considered them both beautiful and of very high quality. So this modern notion of the katana as a very overrated sword doesn't seem to have been shared by our ancestors, for whom the comparison would have been somewhat more relevant,

Have you ever heard of souvenirs?

Much like when I bought my butterfly knife, I didn't do so knowing it was a benchmade, or under the assumption that I may get jumped in a dark alley one unlucky night. I bought it because it looked cool and I wanted something to play Five Finger Fillet with. I don't doubt that Europeans wanted them when they visited Japan and believed the merchants when they told them through engrish that it was "Made wit finest steel, oh Albino, San." (which, by the way, they were probably selling said swords to buy fucking guns). But don't confuse correlation with causation on this. As you said, they didn't buy the katanas because they wanted to use them for anything beyond a nice conversation piece. I even said that one of the only things the katana has going for it is aesthetic, and if given the chance I would buy a set of Samurai armor if I ever visited Japan, but I would do so knowing it was going into a display case, not because I was going to go rob a drug store with it....

God damnit, Now I want to go rob a drugstore in authentic Samurai Armor and post it on YouTube...

4964246
4963431

I'm a lightweight, and when I go drinking, right at the point when I am still in full control but have had a few beers, I love to pull out my butterfly knife, do a thumbroll into my palm, close it, then do a finger roll into an icepick and say, "Anyone want to play Five Finger Fillet?"

4964690

From what I understand, this is a common misconception. Japan doesn't have very good iron deposits, making it difficult to actually produce decent metal. But once the metal itself was properly processed, it was more or less comparable to medieval bloomery iron. They didn't have the sort of quality mass-production steel made available in Europe from the late Renaissance and onward, but all things considered all there was nothing particularly wrong with Japanese weapons.

You understand wrong. Iron ore deposits are never pure and many European deposits have unusually high concentrations of other metals which significantly improves the performance of the final alloy. This was actually strategically important in World War II where the Germans put a lot of effort into keeping Sweden selling them iron ore because of the high quality of the steel it made due to these impurities.

Similarly, the quality of the alloy is dependent on the refining and forging process and the Europeans were far ahead in that area. The Japanese were not able to purify their steel to the same degree that European smiths did which is why they had to use pattern welded alloys for the katana and why the katana has serious durability problems. In contrast, European smiths were using alloys comparable to modern materials more than a thousand years ago which made far superior swords which did not easily chip (katana blocks are performed with the flat of the blade because the edge will not survive a block unlike European swords which block edge to edge) and tend to spring back if bent (the katana just stays bent and is destroyed).