>>13241731This is retarded. European swords were made for thick armors and chainmails, in order to damage the person INSIDE of the suit. The point of those swords weren't to cut through someone's flesh and let them bleed to death, but to break someone's ribcage and let their bodies break from the inside.
Katana were made to slice through skin and bone, to completely lop off a body part of someone. As such, they were made VERY thin and light for better aerodynamics and more swift entry into someone's body. Katana are sharp, but they're NOT strong. They're made for swift movements that decide the end of a battle immediately, rather than prolonged brandishing until one enemy has sustained too much damage to fight back.
Of course a katana is going to break under a European sword. Why would they even try to test that? They're made for completely different things, despite both being swords.
