Nip swords are marvels of engineering because they took shit materials and made an excellent sword. However if you use top-tier steel and top-tier European forging methods you can achieve a much superior result.
Turn on Closed Captions for the video below, it's from a German Documentary showing that the classic European longsword was just as effective (if not more so since it didn't have to be razor sharp to achieve the same results) and could be used in much more versatile ways, like using the sword as a hammer or a lever to disarm the opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVCWGwvctt4
>>7 >top-tier European forging methods
Obvious European sword and armor was superior to Japanese. That was consequence-less since when Europeans meet Japanese, Europeans deprecated bladed weapons for guns. Japanese were very backwards in weapon tech.
Since then Japanese adopted European weapon tech, AFAIK there was no indigenous Japanese weapon tech adopted by anyone, after that time.
So Japanese GTFO their swords.
>>36 I never got why is comparing swords that never met in fight a thing. Moreover, both swords had different use too, against different oppononents etc. Retarded I say.
>>37 The point is so you can masturbate over your theory of whether a knight or a samurai would have won in a fight.
Besides, sometimes warriors who were made for a specific type of battle did come up against warriors who specialized in other fields. For example, when the Persians came up against the Greeks, their cloth armor and wicker shields that had proved very effective in high-speed combat against plains barbarians ended up being useless against bronze Greek weaponry and armor. So just because a warrior was made for a specific type of battle doesn't make them incomparable to a warrior made for another type of battle.
Swords are best weapon, Japs had it right with the Katana and Samurai. Gunfags GTFO.