Is any one type of sword superior to all others?

Question

In Kill Bill: The Bride used a samurai sword.
In Zoro: Zoro used a rapier sword.
In Die Another Day: Bond used a naval saber.
Which would be the best in a fight against another type of sword (assuming that both oppenents are equally skilled)? Rapiers are fast but would a saber be slower but able to break a rapier? Samurai swords lack a hand guards and so are they less good at blocking an opponents blade? I am also wondering if there are any new technologies eg ceramic which would make a more effective sword?
NB I am assuming that the skills of all opponents are equal!

Answer 1

There is no superior sword. It is the practitioner that ultimately makes the difference. Swords, even small ones, are hard to break, regardless of what you see in the movies. They generally flex and finally bend but not break. Ceramic could be very brittle and could be broken in an instance where the steel would only bend.

If both swordsmen were equal in skill, then whoever made the first mistake would lose. We have done some sparring with different styles in our iaido class. My instructor and another student also have studied foil, epee, and sabre, as well as the katana. It was entirely the skill of the swordsman or the first mistake that decided the match every time.

Answer 2

The sword used in older times fitted the times. A samurai sword was folded due to the lack of good metal and that was a great way to make the sword sharp and take some hits. The medieval long sword (weighing less than 4lbs) was designed for splitting armor, battering opponents, piercing through weak points. The claymore was used to dehorse people. The rapier was a "gentleman's" weapon that was used when armor was not used as much. The armor was made not so useful by the advent of firearms. There were two and 1.5 handed swords and whole arts around using them. They gave greater range and were fairly quick. As far as breaking swords, I believe that for some swords, you didn't want them to touch least you knick or damage your sword. However, a medieval long sword, rapier and such could and did block. And the style of blocking is important to. Blade to blade isn't always a great thing. Of course there is a difference between a battlefield and a dual. There was also an experiment on Mythbusters with breaking swords.
OK, here is the spoiler. No sword cut the other sword but swords did break other swords (below the point of cutting and such). There was damage in most cases.

End spoiler
Just the same, the fight goes to the quicker or best cut/pierce of the two in my opinion. The author of the 5 rings emphasised body placement. He favored the two sword fighting style with long and short. He also talked about cutting and thought and such. Of course, he was phenomenal according to records, killing a man with an oar in a sword fight. He also talked about cutting the wrists and legs. Other swordsmans talked about cutting fingers, the forehead, or any target that presented itself.
FYI on techniques... the samurai sword was/is great for the draw and cut. It can also pierce. The long sword can also slice and stab as can many swords throughout history. Some swords where known for being better at one or the other. There is a very large number of swords. The heavier ones tended to be more for ceremony and decoration rather than combat. A war sword or long sword or sometimes a 1.5 hand was light below 4 lbs and had to be as it had to be used for long battles.
Fun topic!

Answer 3

i know that you asked what kind of sword is superior, but you also
placed in the question fictional caricatures. you can not judge a sword by that sort of medium. my 200 plus years sword from Japanese decent has a hand guard. and i have used a multitude
of swords, and all i can say is it is about the ability of the user with
equal skill is the type of sword. we have tried this as an experiment and the samurai always won, maybe because we are all familiar with it, not a lot of people using rapiers or sabers.
with such a primitive and effective weapon i see no real upgrade
to the original sword. the only upgrade would be for the opponent
to possess a fire arm.

Answer 4

Best Type Of Sword

Answer 5

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Is any one type of sword superior to all others?
In Kill Bill: The Bride used a samurai sword.
In Zoro: Zoro used a rapier sword.
In Die Another Day: Bond used a naval saber.
Which would be the best in a fight against another type of sword (assuming that both oppenents are equally skilled)? Rapiers are fast but would a saber be slower but able...

Answer 6

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avcDh

Really, the question you are asking is like asking "what is the best gun?" It's almost non-applicable when considering all the factors. You'd want a shotgun or submachinegun in close-quarters or indoors, but a sniper rifle for long distances. Similarly, different swords have specific designs for specific reasons. Katanas (which do not have "superior quality metal" as an above post stated, but that's for a different argument) are unrivaled in cutting ability, which does well against lamellar and soft armors, two defenses very common in feudal Japan. Other curved blades such as scimitars and sabers were most common for eastern european and middle eastern cavalry because the increased curvature of the blade and speed of the horse both compounded the percussive cutting impact. European longswords were effective at defeating European plate armor because they could be used to thrust in between gaps and even to bludgeon with the hilt. Personally I would choose to fight with a longsword, because of its cutting and thrusting versatility, its long range, ease of use, and its edge durability. Rapiers, the quickest and deadliest thrusting swords, are perhaps the best in an unarmored situation. Once again though, this is a GIVEN SITUATION that they were DESIGNED FOR, in an age when armor was losing its popularity to the advent of guns. Every day and age had their weapons and armor, both locked in a struggle to win over eachother. So the "superior sword" really depends on where, when, and who, which end up giving you sooo many possibilities to choose from.

Answer 7

I personally would pick bastard sword which is very similar to claymore. Those stuff can shatter a bone even if it's not sharp and their handle can be use as a weapon too. It may not be fast, but it's long so smart person would have to keep their distance.

However some people would complain it's too heavy or whatever.

Answer 8

With swords, form follows function.
Most swords fall into two categories, stab or slice.
Until the invention of the Samurai sword, no sword did both.
Samurai swords go through a special process called folding. They are made of many layers of metal, the inside core is flexible and the exterior is harder. I feel sword making reached it's pinnacle with the samurai sword design.

Their have been advances in alloys that improve sword quality. As far as shape there are many radical designs but I still feel the samurai sword has the best shape as it both slices and stabs.

Please don't get all your sword knowledge from Hollywood. There are many fine books on swords.
Samurai swords do have hand guards.

Answer 9

There was a series on the History Channel about 5 or 6 years ago called 'Arms in Action' and they had individual episodes about all kinds of weapons. One of them was a whole episode focusing on the sword. There was one man on the show by the name of Sydney Anglo a PHd historian, and expert on swords, fencing, and historic manuscripts on fencing and fighting.

If I remember correctly he stated in the episode that the Samurai Sword is, "the greatest close quarters combat weapon ever devised," or something to that effect.

Answer 10

Wouldnt a durable sword be more useful in battle where u kill people over and over...i think a samurai sword is the best one on one weapon but in a battle of knights m not sure it would hold up....