Talk:Myrtenaster/@comment-6582316-20150721050852/@comment-25555436-20150722011144

-Wrong, Katanas rely more on speed. They are designed to be lighter than western swords, to slice quickly and finish the enemy in few hits. They can't be lightweight however, otherwise they wouldn't be able to slice as easily as they do (being made of sharp material only gets it so far on it's own).

With a Katana, one wants to finish the enemy quickly in a single slice or 2, a quick hit and not one more, although of course this also depends on the style used. Western swords relied much more on their weight than on speed, which means that in practice they were heavier, if only a bit, and the western swordsmanship with most sword types relied on their weight to cause great damage to the enemy.

Result: Katanas are lighter comparatively, and as such much better against lighter-armored oponents. However, their inferior weight makes western swords more effective against better armored enemies, and in the west pretty much everyone had tough armor. Because of the blade design, most western swords also had better stab potential.

-Greatswords were made for 2 reasons: Polearms, like you said, and true, heavy armor. They over-relied on their weight more than their sharpness to crush and hack the enemy appart no matter how strong their armor was. Problem was that this made them harder to wield. They, personally, are not really much better against polearms, of the "glaive/spear/halberd" types, since a stab is much faster than a slash even if both weapons are heavy. So a spearman can easily kill anyone with a greatsword unless they suck at aiming their spear.

They still had their uses though.

-Yes, that is what I mean by "sword".