Are katanas actually worse than European longswords?

Yeah

Broadly, they're not particularly better but not particularly worse either, it much more comes more down to what you're looking for in a sword, and then also how the sword is made.
The thick profile of their blade makes it quite good at slashing and chopping, they really do work well for that, so if that's what you're looking for then it could be a good type of sword.

>>63836121 (OP)
yeah but considering what they were working with it's impressive.

>>63836432
Somewhat exaggerated, not all the iron they had was shit, but some of it was, and their approach to sword smithing could help make better use out of less good iron.

>>63836121 (OP)
it was easier to wear and draw for EDC, which is better than a sword you left at home

>>63836121 (OP)
the biggest disparity between the swords is that longswords are generally longer and reach is what usually wins the fight

>>63836703
Implying I wouldn't wear my 45'' rapier as my EDC sword.

>"Saar! Your sword keeps knocking over the furniture. Saar!"
Not my problem.

>>63836121 (OP)
Worse for fighting someone in armor? Arguably. They don't have a ton of weight behind the blade that you could swing and bludgeon someone in full plate with, nor do they have the reach or the profile of a sword optimized for thrusting in to gaps.

>>63836121 (OP)
>katana_d20.txt

Yes by nearly every metric.

>>63836121 (OP)
Seems to me that although people have come to recognize that pop culture has overstated their capability to mythological levels, many of those people have overcorrected in their assumptions of what these swords are capable of.
They are different. Ultimately, a sword is a sword, and you wouldn't want to be hit by either.
Going on a tangent here, but to my layman eyes, the kriegsmesser seems far closer in design (even if not necessarily usage) to a European katana equivalent.

On balance, yes. If you lined up all the traditionally made katanas against all the same longswords, about 90% would be good to excellent, and about 45% for the longswords.
The japs simply had better iron ore and better steel production techniques for most of recorded history

Sorry for hijacking the thread but I've been thinking of ordering a newly made nihonto.
Tozando in Kyoto seems to offering a service where you can basically choose a smith and then give specifics you want for the sword, like length, hamon pattern, shirasaya or full decorated uchikatana, etc. Anybody have experience about something like this or other "liasoning services" there might be around?
Also what sort of a price range are we generally talking about when dealing with stuff like this? The Tozando service seems to vary between $7k and $15k as the starting line based on the smith

I hate these dumbass discussions. A sword is a sword, they have different shapes for different purposes and are good at different things, you can't just compare stats and call one outright better like a video game. Euros in fact had quite a few weapons with similar shapes designed for similar combat roles.

Throughout history, other than the big two handers, swords were generally sidearms. Samurai were traditionally horse archers, against armored opponents(other samurai) they relied on heavy warbows or lances(and later matchlock guns), and when they did fight on foot at close range they generally did it with polearms because reach is king. Katanas are excellent for slashing unarmored/light armored foot soldiers from horseback as a backup to your bow/lance, and for carrying around day to day to face unarmored assailants like robbers and assassins. They were not good at piercing armor because they weren't MEANT for piercing armour, they had reinforced polearms, clubs, and heavy duty daggers(pic related) for that. Katanas also had some issues with fragility but thats not because of the design its because of Japan having low quality iron. Also "piercing" plate armor is a nonsensical myth, you're supposed to jam it into gaps which a place where a straight sword has an advantage.

A sword is a sword and the katana was perfectly fine at filling its niche. My only complaint is that for regular day to day carry swords they were a bit long, but that was more of a tradition thing.

>>63837391
>"Saar! Your sword keeps knocking over the furniture. Saar!"
I hate how saar has lost all meaning. What are you gonna be encountering a ton of Indians in the 15th-16th century? Don't cheapen my fun racist memes by using them casually and out of context, they're for shitting on Indians and thats it.

>>63839724
Can't agree more.

>>63836121 (OP)
I personally would like to have a sword I can use to lever against an opponent while moving the tip into a good position to transfer weight for a thrust, which instantly becomes a lethal advantage in a clinch or grapple. Katanas aren't suited to resist that kind of transverse movement of the blade, and their overall profile only makes it less stable in the hand. Considering how often a fight goes to a clinch or grapple, I'd take the longsword.

>>63836121 (OP)
For the purpose of a side-arm sword capable of cutting through the armor of it's expected opponents? Great sword. Good length, unobtrusive, and you're able to carry two just in case you lose the first after losing your spear. In a knight vs samurai sword confrontation? Absolutely the worse sword. Shorter, less protection at the handguard, and is worst in a thrust. Though that would typically be a sidearm vs. sidearm comparison. Keep in mind Samurai were swordsmen by necessity and for a display of wealth and power. Wars were won by the bow and spear first.

>>63836121 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt6WQYtefXA

>>63836121 (OP)
it's like significantly worse steel, especially when you compare it to what was being used in yurop at the time. but most of that is just due to the iron japan had access to and japan was isolated from the rest of the world and katanas were mainly used for slashing against unarmored peasants as opposed to having to stand up to actual sword fighting

>>63839782
>it was their flagship
top fucking kek

>>63836121 (OP)
They're better at cutting. Longswords are better at thrusting.

>>63836121 (OP)
Not really, they're just very different. Japanese swords were sharper but more fragile - they were better for small conflicts between local lords. European swords were built to last through long battles where you'd have to block as much as you have to stab or slice 1000s of times a day.

>>63836432
>considering what they were working with
Why do you people who know nothing about a subject perpetuate stuff they don't understand? The Japanese had three sources of iron: ore to the north that was very similar in quality and composition to Swedish iron ore of the time, iron from China, which was imported in vast quantities and good enough to have been imported all over Europe and was considered high quality, and iron sand, which was poor in iron content, but just means that it needed to be processed by sifting before smelting, and meant you'd need more sand per yield, and a hot enough furnace. They had hot enough furnaces. The bloomers furnaces at the time were very comparable to what the vast majority of Europe used. You've never read a study and know nothing about metallurgy, all you do is repeat shit you read on plebbit.

>>63836432 #
>considering what they were working with
Why do you people who know nothing about a subject perpetuate stuff they don't understand? The Japanese had three sources of iron: ore to the north that was very similar in quality and composition to Swedish iron ore of the time, iron from China, which was imported in vast quantities and good enough to have been imported all over Europe and was considered high quality, and iron sand, which was poor in iron content, but just means that it needed to be processed by sifting before smelting, and meant you'd need more sand per yield, and a hot enough furnace. They had hot enough furnaces. The bloomery furnaces at the time were very comparable to what the vast majority of Europe used. You've never read a study and know nothing about metallurgy, all you do is repeat shit you read on plebbit

>>63839675
...The longsword is a primary weapon.
>Throughout history, other than the big two handers, swords were generally sidearms.
Except not really, as the most successful empire in European history used swords as a primary weapon, swords were extensively used as primary weapons from horseback, and even when swords were used as 'sidearms' they were often and extensively used, not kept in a holster and never used like a modern sidearm.

Also the quality of the katana has literally nothing to do with Japan's iron and everything to do with more primitive metallurgy.

>>63840426
Japanese katanas were made to be sharp but not really brittle thanks to the particularity of their differential heat treatment (not used in Europe) and sandwiched steel (common in Europe). The edge will chip but not break the blade.

>>63840485
The edge will shatter and the whole blade will bend rendering it useless. It is quite fragile compared to European swords of the era.

>>63836121 (OP)
Frequently single-sided, can't stab, so yes.

>>63840520
>can't stab
yeah they can. They aren't anywhere near as sharply curved as something like a shamshir.

>>63840498
>trust me bro, I saw a video that compared a 2000 dollar modern spring steel longsword with a 300 dollar chinese katana

>>63840452
Source on their ability to melt down iron completely?

>>63840551
A $300 chinese katana has better steel than any historical katana.

>>63840557
But not better than a 2k+ sword with modern steel made in Europe. At least compare traditionally forged swords with steel made with traditional processes. If you don't do that, the comparison is completely worthless.

>>63840687
ok, I did. The longsword is better.

this gif always comes to mind

>>63836121 (OP)
They are different weapons made for different purposes and use cases.

Honestly, seeing how retarded /k/fags are when talking about bladed weapons has made me completely disregard anything anyone says on this board.

>t. blacksmith

>>63836121 (OP)
>heavier, shorter, poorer steel
not enough to matter. When the Portuguese came Japan switched to gunpowder. Also when talking about armies of thousands a katana being slightly worse than a longblade doesn't really matter, especially when both aides are using katanas, yari, and guns.

>>63836121 (OP)
What will you get from extremely low quality local iron ore combined with primitive forging methods, even by medieval standards?

>>63841074
>gif

>>63836121 (OP)

Yeah.

I have sword tism and have spent about 20 years playing with swords from various systems (HEMA, Koryu and Kung fu.) I've sparred with all of them at a medium level and a few high intensity battles where you can get your hands broken / get knocked out.

The Katana is a forward balanced, heavy cutting sword. For that, it does great and will severely wreck you. It's point is also strong and makes it good for shoving through chainmail and clothing.

The Longsword (if we consider a sterotypical one) is much more flexible with what it can accomplish. Two edges doubles the kinds of cuts it can do. Like if you think of an X and + directions, a Katana can do them but the LS can reverse cut along the same lines without needing to turn the edge.

The Longsword also unlike a Katana generally has a wide guard that allows dicking around in the bind/redirecting blades and protects the hands a lot more than the oval or circular guard of the katana.

Verdict: Both are tried and tested swords of war that can take off arms, heads or legs. Both can thrust armor. The longsword is just a bit more versatile and useful as an everything weapon. Katana has some advantages in specific scenarios due to it's shape (cutting from the draw from sitting or kneeling etc.) but that's about it.

>>63841335

The raw iron (Tamahagane "Precious Steel") is not low quality but the iron sand is. To fix this they have a huge fire inside a big clay oven and add the iron sand till it melts and forms a bloom at the bottom (the Tamahagane.)

They were skilled enough to do this and make use of different types of steel among other things. So not low quality or primitive, just a pain in the ass to make and Europe had way, way, way more iron to play with and play with it well they did.

>>63840531
They rarely have a proper point, usually just an angled blade tip which is grossly inferior to standard european designs for stabbing.

>>63841603
>They rarely have a proper point
Well that's not even close to true.

>>63840482
>The longsword is a primary weapon.
Yeah, a big two hander
>Except not really, as the most successful empire in European history used swords as a primary weapon
One empire nearly 2 thousand years ago out of a shitload
>swords were extensively used as primary weapons from horseback
Ehh, for the most part that was well after firearms picked up, at least in mainland Europe. Not super relevant to a discussion about what sword is best considering that katanas started seeing usage around like 700ad. Before the 1600s horsemen would usually prefer a lance or something blunt like a hammer or mace as their primary weapon. In my mind this discussion fits a time period of like 1250AD to 1620.

Of course I shouldn't even bother responding to an autistic/esl dipshit like you who doesn't know what the word generally means, but this is more for other people reading this post than you.

>>63843006
>>The longsword is a primary weapon.
>Yeah, a big two hander
discarded

>>63843014
Shut the fuck up you annoying sperg.

ignored

It doesn't make sense to say that one is "better" than the other. Better at what? A gladius is great in a phalanx, but pretty fucking useless in a 1v1 duel.

The Japanese could have made, and indeed did make double edged swords. But the katana (uchigatana), while it is meant for foot fighting, is descended from the tachi, which is a cavalry sword. It was shortened and the wearing position/mounting was optimized for quick draws.
In that sense, it is superior to european longswords of the 1500-1600's. You can get an attack out much faster. In other aspects, maybe not.

>>63843076
>A gladius is great in a phalanx
I mean I guess
>but pretty fucking useless in a 1v1 duel.
But that's wrong. The Roman legionnaires fought in a formation that was much looser than a phalanx, there was several feet between each man. Their fighting was much more alike a duel.

>>63843076
>but pretty fucking useless in a 1v1 duel.
How so?

>>63843113
>>63843187
I mean in comparison to a longsword, or better yet a rapier. You are basically fucked if the guy you're dueling has a sword that's literally twice as long.

Of course, other European swords were not that long when the gladius was still being used.

also
>The Roman legionnaires fought in a formation that was much looser than a phalanx
They moved away from tight formation battles towards this style of fighting as time progressed, hence the switch to the spatha.

>>63843320
>as time progressed,
Yeah, when they adopted the manipular legion and stopped fighting as a phalanx. Long before the spatha.
>You are basically fucked if the guy you're dueling has a sword that's literally twice as long.
Scutum 100% negates the rapier. Likely the longsword as well.

>>63843330
The maniple was still a tight formation.

Either way you usually want a longer sword for dueling. That was true from Rome to Japan, in 200 AD or 1800 AD. If you would seriously choose a gladius over a rapier in a duel, you're trolling.

>Scutum 100% negates the rapier. Likely the longsword as well.
It most definitely does not lol. They still had big shields in the early modern period. You can still use one with a rapier, and they did.

>>63843422
That is nowhere near as big nor as effective as a Roman scutum.

>>63843427

>>63840485
>differential heat treatment (not used in Europe)
Differential heat treatment was absolutely used in Europe.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html

>>63843427

>>63843491
The Japanese method of DHT causing a warped and stressed blade was an unique thing of them, the late European swords had different hardness but not internal stresses on purpose. So no and most European swords pre 1300 weren't event quenched, the usual method was let them cool in air and they had mid-steel like levels of carbon in most of the blade. Stepped quench and other better heat treatments beyond edge hardening were invented during the modernity or later.

>>63841477
Ty 4 dis

what now, gaijin piggu?

>>63843738
>builds a sword for a white person
Thank you based Nippon

>>63836121 (OP)
Design-wise the katana's form-factor was relevant for longer while long swords got replaced by rapiers, small swords, and sabers, but the katana tended to have worse build quality.

>>63839533
If you're still in the thread, try Motohara Blades. I think you'll get better results unless you have an extreme amount of money or strictly want a sword made in Japan. Motohara is a decent custom service for everyone else.

>>63841477
>Koryu

What style(s)? Honryu or not?

why the fuck do nerds go on about the practical uses of swords when they were objectively garbage ass weapons on par with axes, scythes and other farming equipment?
spears and bows dominated the world of conflict for thousands of years, stop arguing over whether grass mower A was superior to grass mower B or the other way around.

>>63847221
(You)

>>63836121 (OP)
A very good katana is basically just a (slightly) curvy European longsword. 'FOWDED ONE BIRRION TIME!' wasn't some ancient masterwork idea passed down from the gods, it was what the Japs had to do to build a vaguely credible blade out of the shit tier iron they had available before global trade. If a Samurai had met a Medieval European knight his katana would not have bisected the knight with a single swing, it would have shattered, immediately, on impact with full plate armor, assuming the Samurai was strong enough to swing it that hard. You only want so much hardness in a weapon design (hard=brittle).

>>63847278
>curvy European longsword
Lmao no, a saber and katana aren't "basically just the same".

>muh folded
European swords were folded too, and welded, and blacksmiths used different grades of steel to create their blades just like Japanese blades. The difference was the heat treatments. Europeans would normalize, and let the blade simply cool in air or a more complex multi-step treatment always maintaining an unstressed blade. Meanwhile Japanese blacksmiths deliberately forced the blade into a stressed state after normalizing the steel, similar to a composite bow, they're using the steel and heat treatment in a different way (same with middle eastern/indians using a different way to forge the Wootz/Damascus steel).
>a vaguely credible blade out of the shit tier iron they had available before global trade.
Their steel was actually very pure and only some unique mines would produce something better as consequence of natural impurities (high manganese and vanadium) like happened with very few mines in Austria, India or Syria. The usual Tamahagane is far better than the usual 'good' European steel (more Mn, Ti and far less S, P).
The only truly bad steels during pre industrialization were those made using low quality deposits with high phosphorous/sulfur (East Germany) or any bog iron deposit (see vikigns).

>>63847750
forgot the pic

>>63841551
Yeah they had to use iron sand, because other sources of iron were even of lower quality. Europe has iron sand too, but Europeans didn't use it, because why the fuck bother. Calling it iron sand, or tamahagane is just a way to obfuscate shit.
Like imagine if some Ouiiboo came here and went
>French tanks are the best, because they use special alloy of LAFONTE. And wow, by the sound of elegant LAFONTE I can only guess, that's basically mithril. But it's not, I just googled French word for cast iron.

>huge fire inside a big clay oven
It was small fire in small clay oven. Something like this is fine for copper and tin, but it barely scratches iron melting point. The resulting slag needs to be mechanically cleaned, iron and coal are mixed unevenly. And guess what, hammering out impurities will only get you so far(and there were lots of those in Japanese iron). Then you select best chunks, via the advanced method of
>looking at it and guessing the content of coal
And the fun part? Celts used to forge like this 800 BC. 2000+ years before Nips. Calling it special, or implying it's "artisanal" is dishonest, because it's literally the most cope method of acquiring steel.

>>63838292
this is literally the most brain-dead otaku take you can have on katanas. The Japanese had vastly inferior resources. That was the whole reason they joinged the Axis in WWII. They also did not develop forges capable of fully melting iron so they never had crucible steel. As a result, they needed to differentially harded their blades after selecting from the wildly varying carbon content they got from a bloomery. A great amount of Japanese swords didn't even survive quenching as a result of this uneven stress.

>>63841074
The euro sword is supported against the table, of course it will fare better.

>>63848150
As far as I remember that ancient video, they did it the other way around too.

>>63836146
>slashing and chopping, they really do work well for that
Same goes for literally any saber from between the Baltic and Yellow Seas.

>>63848033
Iron sand is the best possible ore you can get and produces the best and purest bloomery iron possible. Japan's iron resources in the middle ages were exceptional.
>small fire
Japan's iron smelting work during the Heian Era processed hundreds of pounds of iron per burn in kilns that were 3 stories tall, and separated the coke and slag from the blooms in one go.
The job of the assayers and blacksmiths was to grade parts of the iron bloom by carbon content and then blend them together to regularize it in the desired proportions.
>>63848148
Japan ran out of iron because it used up all of its own high quality ore during industrialization pre-WWI. The Imperial Steel Works plant in Yawata was turning out 150,000 tons of steel per year in 1901 using blast furnaces
Can you please stfu now you are very stupid

>>63840556
the technique was already known to ancient chinese

>muh europoorean steel folded 0 times
Chinese niggas figured out steel in like 300 BC

god Chinese weapons are so fucking kino
and that whole terracotta army shit? Goddamn that was a sick idea

>>63847221
Because I am the storm that is approaching.

>>63847150
I'll look them up, cheers

>>63850082
>gives me random anecdote about China
>doesn't provide source on actual question
???

>>63850969

On the other hand if you want an iaito for practice or suburi then you can probably find various budo stores that sell ones from Nosyudo or Minosaka. Tozando has a decent custom service for those as well with the price (before shipping) usually being less than a thousand dollars unless you REALLY bling it out. Even if you want something to cut with I find this worth mentioning because if it's mainly for decoration, iai, batto or similiar then a shinken is probably overkill. Especially because cheaper ones come with really shit wrappings and Chinese garbage bin koshirae (fittings) but aforementioned iaito come with quite nice ones almost by default and the saya/sheathe fit is good.

>>63836121 (OP)
A European longsword will not only outreach a katana, it's lighter and more versatile.
Put someone in an arena with a Spanish montante against someone trained with a katana and it's going to the guy with the longer lighter more versatile and more maneuverable weapon.

>>63836121 (OP)
They are different swords that existed in a different context, with a different purpose.

>>63836704
Longswords were actually much less used than their smaller counterparts precisely because they were less 'handy' than them. They needed to be used at horseback to unlock their true potential.

Bastard swords (one hand and a half) were the real deal

>>63836121 (OP)
During the same time yes, and that was mainly because Europeans had access to trade to get better metal. Katanas were more status symbols and lethal police batons rather than war weapons

>defeats your sword easily

According to Stefan Roth (one of maybe 20 gaijin in history to be certified as a Japanese swordmaker)

>>63852356
That clip just reminds me of this scene from the Musashi TV series these days. (2:22 if timestamping breaks)

https://youtu.be/MuEqufJjBtA?t=142

>>63836121 (OP)
They were made for an entirely different purpose, but yeah theyre worse for just general open combat.

>>63843738

>>63852356
>one of maybe 20 gaijin in history to be certified as a Japanese swordmaker
He isn't though. He's a great smith, but he's not certified.

>inb4 seething weeb

>>63836704
A good comparison in my eyes would be a jap katana vs kraut grosse messer

>>63836121 (OP)
Katana's are the best sword ever for striking unarmed peasants. 11/10.

>>63856172
This. You have to consider the sword in its context. The European swords were much worse at slicing through armored opponents than the katana was at slicking unarmed peasants.

>>63854954
nodachis are the kinoest greatsword

>>63836121 (OP)

>>63836127
Fpbp

>>63856712
These guys are crazy!

https://www.youtube.com/@dequitem/videos

>>63840452
You cherrypicking motherfucker, it was equal to the best "low iron". Ore to the north is near Swedish... if you refine it in a lab. Chinese pig iron got it's name in this period, meaning a pig probably couldn't break it, and iron sand SUCKS DICK you don't sift it you nearly centrifuge it.
Retard half a wit discovers he knows enough to hurt himself.

>>63848150
It's not better the other way if you're wondering.

No you're one of THOSE people. "People" who can't admit that most blade shapes, construction, and even use were so far sub par you should stick to a polearm. The BEST jap swords were among the most trite common eurofaggotry in quality and design. Japs are not magic, they needed the west to make them any kind of good. Otherwise they're racist alabama shitstains right up to 1945.

>>63843422
What was that retard trying to block?

>>63843738
I want to murder her with cock.

>>63840556
Not him.
Pig iron was a side product but that portion wasn't used for their swords unlike China or post-medieval Europe using pig iron as starting point for pseudo-industrial steelmaking. Japan and China were ahead in high temperature furnaces, Europeans improved the high temperature technology mostly by glass makers and German alchemists, that aside they're behind.
Even nowadays nobody melts iron (low carbon steel) during the smelting because it isn't economically useful, the most common pathways of steelmaking are the pig iron route and bloomery route (direct reduction, DRI, yes, bloomery is still common). The high temperature of blast furnaces improves throughput but it doesn't decrease the carbon content of the product.

>>63836488
>FOLDED ONE MIRRON TIME

>>63836121 (OP)
Slashing design (curved) vs stabbing design (straight)
They're not exactly the same so can't do a 1:1 comparison because of that. Still would suck to get hit by one when unarmored.

>>63850173
It's not the only statuary army, I like it though. Then there was this series of like 1012 statues that were each a little taller but the proportions were impeccable.

>>63836121 (OP)
Nope

>>63843320
>You are basically fucked if the guy you're dueling has a sword that's literally twice as long.
Thats why people used shields anon

All longswords are basic mass produced garbage with not 1/10th of the craft of a Katana so of course not

>>63860387
Katanas exists in a continuum of curvature, many of them can thrust just like European infantry sabers, but some are too curved and looks more like an steppes saber or a naginata (long blade polearm).

>>63841074
This proves nothing.

Katana = pistol
Spear = AK
Bow = artillery

>>63841551
They still make Tamahagane. One batch will produce different levels of quality. The best quality materials taken from any batch are undoubtedly good steel and even totally unique. It just required so much effort and skill to create the stuff and use it to make blades, so I think that's where you get the contrast on the spectrum of "mythical blade status" and "shitty sand blade that breaks easily".

>>63854954
The way they sheathe their swords has always been weird to me.
Seems way too easy to stab or cut your hand if you're not careful.

The Japanese noticed that because iron oxides are denser than other minerals in the sand, they accumulate in places where the river changes direction or speed. The heavier iron sinks to the bottom and the lighter material is washed away. To amplify this effect, they deliberately created diversions in the river to increase the concentration of iron.

What you do is dam off a section of the river and then drag sand into it. Because iron is heavier than the other parts of the sand, it is the thing that gets left behind and everything else gets washed downstream.

With this method, you can get iron sands with 80% iron oxides by weight. That's more concentrated than high-quality iron ore. And since it has fewer impurities, it's an excellent source for high-quality steel.

If you heat up those iron oxides to over 1,250 degrees Celsius, you can break the bonds with oxygen and get pure iron. But pure iron is actually softer than bronze. So in its elemental state, iron provides no advantage.

But nature gave humans a lucky break. One of the few ways you can heat something up to 1,250 degrees is with charcoal, and charcoal is basically pure carbon. If you add just a little bit of carbon to iron, it creates an incredibly strong alloy: steel.

>>63863989
If you do nōtō like a pleb!ashigaru then it's actually pretty simple by finding the spine first and sliding it in. You'd have to be really stupid to stab or cut yourself.

>>63864026
Ashigaru would have to find one hell of a spine to pick up a noble's weapon, so I see how that wouldn't be a problem

>>63863964
Tatara were quasi-blast furnaces and smelters actually were really good making steel (both in quality and fuel efficiency), but like old brick kilns the product wasn't homogeneous, half the metal produced was pig iron, the other half was between high carbon iron to low carbon and the rest (same weight as metal) non-reduced iron oxides.
The +1 ton bloom was broken, blacksmiths selected some blooms, hammer them flat, broke them off into chips and sort them by hardness. A sword will start as a selection of different chips to achieve the correct carbon content for each section of the blade.
Europeans did something similar but pre-late medieval times the bloomeries were too small to achieve a decent bloom and allow selections, they're lucky if a batch was enough to make 3-5 blades. After the development of late Catalan 'forges' and early blast furnaces combined with finery forges, but that barely puts them on par with the tatara that was better than any European equivalent before the 1700.

>>63836121 (OP)
Katanas were made for the warriors of a country which didnt have good iron deposits. While they don't proform as well as European blades, the are well designed and well made.

>>63839675
>spearfags
>swordsweresidarmsfags
Brainlet

>>63839904
Brailet spearfag talking out his ass again

>>63850169
Metal came later to China. In fact bronze was brought there by Europeans.

>>63866633
Wrong.

Tarim mummies in Xinjiang were basal ANE and not Indo-European.

Oldest bronze in China is from Majiayao culture in eastern Gansu.