Quote Originally Posted by Kurien View Post
Hello, this is my first time posting in this thread -- heck, this is my first time posting in this entire forum (Roleplaying Games), and I have a few questions to which my weak search fu cannot reveal the answer. (I didn't bother reading the entire thread because that take too long, so I just read the last few posts.)

(1) What is the practicality of using a sword that has room for two hands on the hilt? I assume that is the defining characteristic of a longsword, but what use is it on a lighter weapon such as arming sword size?
As someone who is very much a fan of the bastard sword, AKA hand-and-a-half design, the real strength comes from versetility and practicality. I can (not often do I choose to though) use a bastard sword and shield together, or bastard sword alone. It is also much easier to wield a bastard sword, and remove one hand from the hilt to grapple or perform catches (a very VERY difficult and situational tactic, which I have seen both fail and succeed depending completely on the situation), should close quarters become an issue, without losing a major amount of balance. This has saved my ass more times than I can count.

(4) What blades fit the bill of a medium sized sword with versatile attack options; suitable for both cutting and thrusting; a guard that can protect the hand; and a pommel that acts as a counterweight?
Any sword below 30 inches I would call a medium sized sword (I am going to assume you mean one handed), and just about any guard can and will protect the hand. Even cross hilts from typical broad swords will do this. If you are being hit in the hands often, it is either the fault of one who is specifically aiming for your hand, which is a no-no in just about all good company, there is an issue with your guard and swing and possibly even your grip. If you want total protection for your hand, I'd go with a basket hilt, as they are super comfortable, very well balanced and weighted, and will protect your hand no matter what. But I would be sure to analyse your grip guard and swing first, as most basket hilted weapons tend to be a bit more expensive.
Or invest in better hand protection. GDFB does a great pair of hourglass gauntlets, but they do require some customization once you get them, but anyone can do it.
Incidently, cup hilts and baskets also came about because it was cheaper and quicker to dish out a piece of metal, or build what amounts to a mesh, than it was to forge a solid piece of steel to take the same level of abuse, and it was easier to maintain or repair. And as duels became more cuthroat, aiming for the hands and wrists became an acceptable target option. As for pirates and such, if prisoners were desired, a clean slice around the hand or wrist takes someone out of the fight, and they aren't going to be fighting again for a while with only one working hand being their off hand, unless the person is seriously ambidexterous.


(5) I've read that katanas are renowned for their quality because the swordsmiths spent more effort making it to make up for poor iron in Japan. Therefore I would assume only the wealthy would own such swords because they are expensive, and common troops would be stuck with spears and the like. Would a european, middle eastern, or indian weapon be superior over the katana if the swordsmiths invested similar effort in making their weapons?
Regarding Katanas, you are correct. Japan had very little coal for smelting iron, and the iron ore from japan has an incredible amount of impurities. The folding process was ingenius, in the fact that it works as a cheater tempering process. However, old school Katanas were notoriously brittle. Sharp as hell, great for unarmored targets. But very easy to damage. Sword on Sword action, like all the kung fu/sword fu movies (I refuse to call them samurai movies) out there portray, would destroy the edge on such a weapon, or even cause breakage.
Using modern metallurgy techniques and proper steel, a folded weapon would be remarkable, but again, this technique causes quite a bit of brittleness in the blade. Done with a proper temper, a folded weapon would again be quite remarkable, but it would hold no amazing qualities vastly above and beyond a simple hammer forged sword of similar steel quality.
Don't also forget, that the flex you see in a sword is actually a testament to it's steel quality and temper. Metal does not rely on hardness, but it's 'metal memory' to return to it's correct shape. The tempering process seeks to improve on this quality. The Hank Reinhardt test was to bend any sword over his head by 30 degrees, and if it snapped back to the shame shape and line, the temper was good. If not, the temper was poor. An old school katana most likely would not have survived such a test.

Sword expert Hank Reinhardt answered this question really well. The man had studied some 2000 different swords, handled all of them, prior to his passing. He said "A sword is a sword is a sword. There really is no better sword, there are just some swords better than others at specific things." What that means is, curved weapons are going to be better for slashing and broad cuts, while any straight edge weapon will generally be superior for cut and thrust action. Hank also tested quite a few weapons, both unarmoured and armoured. He used pigs from his property, and would test cut against ones which were already slaughtered. He also put chainmail on dead pigs and tried test cuts with those as well. On an unarmoured target, a curved weapon does better, hands down, because the cutting surface stays on contact better with the target than a straight edge. On an armored target, the straight edge conveyed more kinetic energy, and therefore did more damage to the target under the armor. I don't think he bothered to test plate with swords, he left that for axes and maces and such.
Hope that answers that for you.

(6) Is a lenticular cross-section of a blade inferior to a diamond cross-section?
Again, as another poster pointed out, depends on the blade entirely.