I disagree on the weapon point. Our knives were unable to pierce the armor of the heavily armored knight also. The katana has it's charmes due to it's extremely light weight and manouvrability while retaining a top strength. It is really remarkable how light they really are.
Before you ask, I have katana's and medievil onehanders. the katana's win by far. Certainly with the fighting skills the samurai had next to them. I honestly believe that a trained samurai would win from a trained knight.
Yeah, guys, I also have lots of replica weapons and my aluminium katana wins out because I've went up against a knight in full body armour and WON lol.
See, this is the prime example of "I DONT HAVE A CLUE". He says knives can't go through full body armour (
), samurais would win (despite being in seriously inferior equipment, and POTENTIALLY just being trained thugs - depending on what Japanese period we're talking about, of course) and that katanas have a good strength.
Buying aluminium katanas and then claiming that they'd win out against Western weaponry isn't good, k guys?
I have a broad dislike of curved swords with the sole exception of the cavalry saber. Against armored targets, they absolutely suck.
Cavalry sabres WERE designed to chop, though, and not cut. Similar weapons (the "scimitar" vein of things) were also designed for the chopping.
Damascus/Toledo steel and thousand-fold blades have exactly one thing in common - neither of them existed. They were stories made up by medieval smiths to sell their shit.
But... They did. Maybe not thousand fold blades (they just don't make much sense) but damascus and toledo steel certainly did.