Japanese, Chinese, Viking swords
- Thread starter opr1945
- Start date
Same Trick108 9
Master of Arts
Iāll guess that bright wolf swords was single gripped sword and paired with a shield, so the sword action might have been inclined too thrusts than cutting ?? The Chinese and Japanese sword in that era of 10th century might have been more for the use of cutting(saber) and not paired with a shield
Itās a very difficult question to answer so I asked Claude (Ai). This is what it saidā¦
I should say upfront that "best" depends heavily on context, and a few popular assumptions (especially about katanas) don't hold up well. Here's my honest assessment.
First, a caveat on the categories
"Viking sword" and "Chinese sword" are broad. Viking-age swords were mostly double-edged, one-handed blades; the best (like Ulfberht-type) were remarkably good for their era. "Chinese sword" covers the straight double-edged jian and the single-edged dao, which are quite different weapons. I'll treat the jian and dao as the main reference points, noting where they diverge.
Sharpness
Katana come out on top. Their hard, thin edge geometry and the traditional polishing process produce a very keen edge. Chinese blades can also be very sharp, with the dao in particular holding a good cutting edge, but the average katana's edge geometry is optimized for it. Viking swords were generally less sharp by design: thicker edge geometry made them more robust against shields, armor, and other swords.
Edge retention
Katana's differential hardening (very hard edge, softer spine) gives excellent edge retention, but the same hard edge is more prone to chipping, especially on hard impacts like blade-on-blade contact or armor. Viking swords had softer, tougher edges that dulled or rolled more readily but rarely chipped catastrophically. Chinese blades varied widely, but good ones balanced hardness and toughness well, often with more flexible steel.
Cutting performance
Katana excel at slicing cuts on soft targets (flesh, unarmored opponents). The dao is similar and arguably better at chopping thanks to its curved, weighted profile. Viking swords were versatile cutters but optimized more for powerful, shield-and-armor-aware strikes than for clean drawing cuts. The jian is more of a thrusting and precision weapon than a heavy cutter.
Durability
Here the ranking changes. Viking swords were built to survive hard use: tough, forgiving, and hard to break. Chinese swords, especially the jian, were also known for flexibility and resilience. The katana is the most fragile of the three in terms of damage from misuse, since the hard edge can chip and the blade can bend or break if struck at the wrong angle. Katana were also often used alongside other weapons (spears, bows, firearms), not as a primary battlefield weapon.
Battlefield effectiveness
This is where the myths matter. Katana were largely a sidearm, and on Japanese battlefields the primary weapons were bows, spears, and later matchlock firearms. Viking swords were a primary weapon for elite warriors but were also not the main weapon of most fighters (axes and spears were more common). Chinese swords, particularly the dao, saw widespread military use across dynasties, and the jian was valued for dueling and by officers. In terms of design versatility, Viking swords and Chinese dao were well suited to varied combat conditions, including against armor and shields.
Overall ranking (with caveats)
An honest note on this ranking: it's a judgment call, and reasonable experts would shuffle it. If you weight durability and battlefield robustness heavily, the Viking sword moves up. If you care mainly about cutting ability and sharpness, the katana is first. Also, comparing swords across different eras, materials, and opponents is inherently imprecise, and much popular "katana vs. everything" content is more mythology than evidence.
I should say upfront that "best" depends heavily on context, and a few popular assumptions (especially about katanas) don't hold up well. Here's my honest assessment.
First, a caveat on the categories
"Viking sword" and "Chinese sword" are broad. Viking-age swords were mostly double-edged, one-handed blades; the best (like Ulfberht-type) were remarkably good for their era. "Chinese sword" covers the straight double-edged jian and the single-edged dao, which are quite different weapons. I'll treat the jian and dao as the main reference points, noting where they diverge.
Sharpness
Katana come out on top. Their hard, thin edge geometry and the traditional polishing process produce a very keen edge. Chinese blades can also be very sharp, with the dao in particular holding a good cutting edge, but the average katana's edge geometry is optimized for it. Viking swords were generally less sharp by design: thicker edge geometry made them more robust against shields, armor, and other swords.
Edge retention
Katana's differential hardening (very hard edge, softer spine) gives excellent edge retention, but the same hard edge is more prone to chipping, especially on hard impacts like blade-on-blade contact or armor. Viking swords had softer, tougher edges that dulled or rolled more readily but rarely chipped catastrophically. Chinese blades varied widely, but good ones balanced hardness and toughness well, often with more flexible steel.
Cutting performance
Katana excel at slicing cuts on soft targets (flesh, unarmored opponents). The dao is similar and arguably better at chopping thanks to its curved, weighted profile. Viking swords were versatile cutters but optimized more for powerful, shield-and-armor-aware strikes than for clean drawing cuts. The jian is more of a thrusting and precision weapon than a heavy cutter.
Durability
Here the ranking changes. Viking swords were built to survive hard use: tough, forgiving, and hard to break. Chinese swords, especially the jian, were also known for flexibility and resilience. The katana is the most fragile of the three in terms of damage from misuse, since the hard edge can chip and the blade can bend or break if struck at the wrong angle. Katana were also often used alongside other weapons (spears, bows, firearms), not as a primary battlefield weapon.
Battlefield effectiveness
This is where the myths matter. Katana were largely a sidearm, and on Japanese battlefields the primary weapons were bows, spears, and later matchlock firearms. Viking swords were a primary weapon for elite warriors but were also not the main weapon of most fighters (axes and spears were more common). Chinese swords, particularly the dao, saw widespread military use across dynasties, and the jian was valued for dueling and by officers. In terms of design versatility, Viking swords and Chinese dao were well suited to varied combat conditions, including against armor and shields.
Overall ranking (with caveats)
- Chinese sword (dao/jian combined): a strong all-rounder with good sharpness, solid durability, wide combat use, and adaptable designs across many eras. This ranking relies on treating them as a broad category.
- Katana: best pure cutting performance and sharpness, with excellent craftsmanship, but more fragile and more specialized.
- Viking sword: arguably the toughest and most forgiving, but it gives up some sharpness and cutting finesse, and its design reflects an earlier metallurgical era.
An honest note on this ranking: it's a judgment call, and reasonable experts would shuffle it. If you weight durability and battlefield robustness heavily, the Viking sword moves up. If you care mainly about cutting ability and sharpness, the katana is first. Also, comparing swords across different eras, materials, and opponents is inherently imprecise, and much popular "katana vs. everything" content is more mythology than evidence.
Same Trick108 9
Master of Arts
And Chinese sabers are called knives
Edit : āKatanaā seems to fit into that category too
Edit : āKatanaā seems to fit into that category too
Last edited:
Is it a short but it was the Romanās main side arm.The Romans were the most formidable, toughest army in history.
Same Trick108 9
Master of Arts
The Saxons a people named after the seax, a knife long enough to be considered a sword, early on they were kind of the forerunners of the raiding Vikings, attacking and plundering along British/Albion coastlines causing headaches and troubles for the Roman rulers. The Saxons also had their fighting against the Frankish people , the Franks that derive their name from āFrancaā which means spear. The Saxons āknivesā must have been mighty.
Last edited:
No, thatās a myth. Nor will they cut through stone be they lanterns or huge boulders!
Same Trick108 9
Master of Arts
Similar threads
