Why so much focus on Katanas?

[not2sharp]

The Katana has been recently popularized in films, literature, and TV; we should remember that during the 1950s and 60s, you could have purchased WWII captured katanas by the bucket load for a few dollars a piece. Even as late as the mid 1970s top quality examples were selling for very reasonable prices. It is only when the Japanese economy really takes off during the 1980s, that collectors in Japan decide that repatriating these swords is a cool thing to do, and the prices and hype on these swords really takes off.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with the design of the katana; however, swords were always designed in parallel with armor and techniques, and what may have worked in Japan, may have proved nearly worthless on a European battlefield of the 13th century. The sword in general was a secondary weapon in Europe during the period, used primarily against lightly armored opponents; the weapon of choice against a well armored opponent would have been a pole arm, mace, morning star, or war hammer - things that could deliver a fatal blunt force trauma without having to locate a chink in the armor. Nor, were Japanese sword making techniques all that unique; modern technology has revealed that most of the ancient European swords were also made using similar folded iron processes. It is just that the Japanese swords were used as primarily weapons as recently as the 19th century, while their European counterparts had been relegated to cheap mass produced ceremonial/secondary use a couple of centuries earlier.

In an open unencumbered environment, given unarmored equally skilled opponents, the rapier would likely prove the sword of choice. It was fast, versatile, lethal, and had reach. Then again, if it comes down to a duel, the man behind the sword is far more important then the weapon itself.

n2s

 

[mar12duk]

sword and fittings...tachi koshirea

http://s215.photobucket.com/albums/cc2/mar12duk/Tachi Koshirae/?action=view&current=CIMG2009.jpg


All Swords Rule !!!!!!

 

[Triton]

The Katana has been recently popularized in films, literature, and TV; we should remember that during the 1950s and 60s, you could have purchased WWII captured katanas by the bucket load for a few dollars a piece. Even as late as the mid 1970s top quality examples were selling for very reasonable prices. It is only when the Japanese economy really takes off during the 1980s, that collectors in Japan decide that repatriating these swords is a cool thing to do, and the prices and hype on these swords really takes off.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with the design of the katana; however, swords were always designed in parallel with armor and techniques, and what may have worked in Japan, may have proved nearly worthless on a European battlefield of the 13th century. The sword in general was a secondary weapon in Europe during the period, used primarily against lightly armored opponents; the weapon of choice against a well armored opponent would have been a pole arm, mace, morning star, or war hammer - things that could deliver a fatal blunt force trauma without having to locate a chink in the armor. Nor, were Japanese sword making techniques all that unique; modern technology has revealed that most of the ancient European swords were also made using similar folded iron processes. It is just that the Japanese swords were used as primarily weapons as recently as the 19th century, while their European counterparts had been relegated to cheap mass produced ceremonial/secondary use a couple of centuries earlier.

In an open unencumbered environment, given unarmored equally skilled opponents, the rapier would likely prove the sword of choice. It was fast, versatile, lethal, and had reach. Then again, if it comes down to a duel, the man behind the sword is far more important then the weapon itself.

n2s

As a point of information, it is my understanding the sword really wasn't the primary weapon in Japan either, but once again it was the polearm and the bow that were primary battlefield weapons, but as in Europe the sword was a symbol of status except to the nth degree.

*note that I am not disagreeing with the above post merely attempting to add to it.

 

[chuckinohio]

As a point of information, it is my understanding the sword really wasn't the primary weapon in Japan either, but once again it was the polearm and the bow that were primary battlefield weapons, but as in Europe the sword was a symbol of status except to the nth degree.

*note that I am not disagreeing with the above post merely attempting to add to it.

Seeing as how there were many many more common foot soldiers engaging in battle, than there were Samurai (who were the ones allowed to wear swords) I would say that your entirely correct.

Chuck

 

[galen59]

Functional art........... R.

 

[Yoshi]

Even as late as the mid 1970s top quality examples were selling for very reasonable prices. It is only when the Japanese economy really takes off during the 1980s, that collectors in Japan decide that repatriating these swords is a cool thing to do, and the prices and hype on these swords really takes off

If your talking about WWII Gendai, then it is only recently they have started to attract good prices, however quality Japanese swords have always fetched good prices.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with the design of the katana; however, swords were always designed in parallel with armor and techniques, and what may have worked in Japan, may have proved nearly worthless on a European battlefield of the 13th century.

The dominent Military force in Europe in the 13th century were the Mongols, the Japanese defeated the Mongols fleet with its combined force of Mongols, Korean and Chinese soldiers, in 1281. By the the time the kamikaze hit, they were already beaten, by the much smaller Japanese force Recent evidence has shown that why some of the boats sank was due to Korean workers sabotaging the boats when making them, sea going boats in that era should have been able to survive a storm.

Nor, were Japanese sword making techniques all that unique; modern technology has revealed that most of the ancient European swords were also made using similar folded iron processes

Which swords might that be?

while their European counterparts had been relegated to cheap mass produced ceremonial/secondary use a couple of centuries earlier

So wrong, the sword was a vital side arm of European armies, and most were excellentley made, like the 1803 Infantry Officers sword, or the 1796 light cavalry saber, and so on.
1803 pattern;

the rapier would likely prove the sword of choice. It was fast, versatile, lethal, and had reach.

That I would suggest is a myth, the Italian masters that came over to England, were very reluctant to duel with sword and buckler English masters, as they had been trounced on several occasions by them. Ontop of that the rapier lost out to the saber (using real sabers etc) in a series of contests in England.

Then again, if it comes down to a duel, the man behind the sword is far more important then the weapon itself.

Whilst to a degree I understand where you are comming from, why was it then that when a famous rapier master lost against the sabre master, that when they swapped swords the rapier master won with the sabre against the very opponent that defeated him, when the same opponent was using his rapier!! The sabre proved to be the better weapon, even in the hands of a rapier master!

Would a Musashi expect or defend effectively against a primarily thrusting attack?

Lets not forget that Musashi was not an a-typical classicly trained samurai, he was in the main self taught, non the less both himself and classicaly trained Samurai spent a great deal of time training against thrust and lunges, both from tachi/katana and Yari. Also don't forget that the Japanese looked at and closely studied western swords and soon realised they did not match up to their own.

I like your point about asian and western fencing styles being somewhat dissimilar

only if your talking rapier and small sword, what about sabre, hand and half swords and so on?

Seeing as how there were many many more common foot soldiers engaging in battle, than there were Samurai (who were the ones allowed to wear swords) I would say that your entirely correct

only from 1588

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---What a post. thanks!

 

[tedwca]

Which swords might that be?

As mentioned earlier, the Vikings had folded steel swords earlier or equal to the Japanese swords.

http://www.octavia.net/anglosaxon/Patternweldedswords.htm

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword.htm

Any links to the famous sabre and rapier masters? Links to the Italian masters avoiding the sword and buckler crowd? Somewhere I have a book that by a Dutch traveler who states the samurai were the equal to all but the best Spanish and Italian swordsmen, but I can't remember what it is.

 

[Yoshi]

Tedwca,

Exactly my point, viking swords (although most were not made by vikings, but were probably Frankish in origin), are infact of a completely different construction to Japanese swords, and although nicely made, are not on a par with top quality Japanese swords, for many reasons.

No links, but well recorded in documentation in England, and it is easy to forget that the rapier was a weapon of fashion, and certainley not the best sword by any means, perhaps the best thrusting sword ever was infact the duelling epee. Professor M Thieriet was the guy if my memory serves me correctley.

 

[Triton]

The dominent Military force in Europe in the 13th century were the Mongols, the Japanese defeated the Mongols fleet with its combined force of Mongols, Korean and Chinese soldiers, in 1281.

That is not my understanding of how things worked out:

The first invasion devastated the Japanese. The battle took place on the beaches where the two forces met. The Mongols had several advantages; The Japanese were overwhelmed and began to retreat. Not knowing they had won, the Mongols feared the Japanese were coming back with reinforcements and also retreated.

During the time period between the first and second invasion, the Japanese built walls to protect themselves from future invaders.

Seven years later, the Mongols returned. They found themselves unable to find any suitable landing beaches due to the walls. The fleet stayed afloat for months as they depleted their supplies and searched for an area to land. After months of being exposed to the elements, the fleet was destroyed by a great typhoon. The Japanese called it Kamikaze. The Mongols never returned. The Japanese were saved by the walls they had built and nature's fury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze_(typhoon)

A Cliff's notes version certainly but coincides with other reading I've done.

Exactly my point, viking swords (although most were not made by vikings, but were probably Frankish in origin), are infact of a completely different construction to Japanese swords, and although nicely made, are not on a par with top quality Japanese swords, for many reasons.

What would those reasons be? I would also be interested in how you quantify "on par with." The construction of course was different it almost had to be considering the lack of raw decent raw materials that Japanese smiths were dealing with but the swords were forge welded and had harder edges and softer bodies just like the katana.

 

[Yoshi]

Triton, the 1274 invasion, was infact probably an expeditionary force, not an invasion force! The Mongol expedition had around 40,000 troops of which there were around 25,000 Mongol troops. The Japanese had an absolute maximum of 10,000, some estimates have it much lower!
For sure the the Mongols had more men and better tactics, and gave the Samurai a real hard time, as no Mongol accepted the customery individual challanges the Samurai were used to doing. But even so the Mongol fleet didn't have it all their own way, for example Sukesada killed 24 Mongols with his sword before being showered with arrows!
Such was the resistance from the vastly outnumbered Japanese that the Mongols were unable to get a proper beachhead. The Mongol leaders were surprised by the Samurai resistance and retreated to their boats, however the Samurai got together some small boats and boarded the Mongol vessels causing havoc, some Samurai comming back with several heads of their enemy. Ontop of this the Mongols had almost run out of arrows, and the desicion was taken to return home, but before that a storm struck like in 1281, breaking up the fleet, a double whammy!!
As for 1281, the odds were even greater against the Samurai on the previous 1274 expeditionary force, except for the defensive wall a change of tactics, and re-designed blades to deal with the tough Mongol Leather armour.
In 1281 the fighting strength of the Mongol force (not including sailors, cooks etc) was around 140,00 men, made up of Mongols, Chinese and Koreans. The Japanese fighting strength was anywhere from 2,300 to 6,000 at any one time according to Japanese written accounts of the time, however modern historians gauge the Samurai strength to be between 20,000-40,000 men, whichever account of Samurai strength is right, the Mongol fleet had a huge advantage, certainley initially the Samurai strength at Hakata would have been quite low.
Fierce hand to hand fighting took place at Hakata bay, and once again the Mongols were unable to gain a beachhead. There is a great written account of the 12 year old Samurai Suketoki who announced his name to a high ranking Mongol General, and shot him with his Yumi killing him. Also once again the Samurai took to boarding Mongol boats and killing all those onboard.
By the time the Typhoon arrived the Mongol fleet was finished, this is well documented.

Viking swords, from just the Hurstwic link, I think says it all;
A/ Despite using this pattern welding process, sword blades from the Viking age were far from ideal. In many cases, hard iron strips were welded onto the edge of the sword to provide a material better able to hold an edge. Even so, some stories describe how, during an extended battle, swords became so dull that they no longer cut. In chapter 109 Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, at the Battle of Svölðr, King Óláfr asked his men why they cut so slackly (slæliga), since he could see the blades did not bite. His men replied that their blades had become too dull and dented to cut.
B/The stories also describe instances in which a sword blade bent during a fight. In chapter 49 of Laxdæla saga, Kjartan was ambushed as he rode up the valley past the small hill in the foreground of the photo. He was not carrying his usual sword, a gift from the king, but rather a lesser sword. Several times during the battle, Kjartan had to straighten his bent blade by standing on it.
C/In chapter 13 of Gull-Þóris saga, Þorbjörn's sword blade broke when he hit Þórir's helmet with it. Hrafn hit Gunnlaug's shield with his sword so hard that the sword broke off below the hilt in chapter 11 of Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu.

 

[tedwca]

Page 40 of The Samurai Swordsman By Stephen Turnbull
seems to confirm your details. I had also only heard the abbreviated details before. It helps if you post links to sites that can confirm and expand on your information. I hate hearing a tantalizing bit of info and then never being able to confirm it or expand upon it.

 

[Triton]

Triton, the 1274 invasion, was infact probably an expeditionary force, not an invasion force! The Mongol expedition had around 40,000 troops of which there were around 25,000 Mongol troops. The Japanese had an absolute maximum of 10,000, some estimates have it much lower!
For sure the the Mongols had more men and better tactics, and gave the Samurai a real hard time, as no Mongol accepted the customery individual challanges the Samurai were used to doing. But even so the Mongol fleet didn't have it all their own way, for example Sukesada killed 24 Mongols with his sword before being showered with arrows!
Such was the resistance from the vastly outnumbered Japanese that the Mongols were unable to get a proper beachhead. The Mongol leaders were surprised by the Samurai resistance and retreated to their boats, however the Samurai got together some small boats and boarded the Mongol vessels causing havoc, some Samurai comming back with several heads of their enemy. Ontop of this the Mongols had almost run out of arrows, and the desicion was taken to return home, but before that a storm struck like in 1281, breaking up the fleet, a double whammy!!

I have to say that sounds like a very Japanocentric view of the events, possibly even more so then that promulgated by the Japanese themselves who revere the kamikaze for a reason and credit it not the samurai with the salvation of Japan from the Mongols.

Here's another version:

The first Mongol invasion of Japan occurred in 1274. In November, an armada of nearly 900 vessels containing more than 40,000 troops was dispatched from Korea. The armada demolished Tsushima and Iki islands and arrived at Hakata Bay on November 18th. On the following day, the troops landed on the bay and fought the Japanese defense on land. The Japanese were no match for the Mongol's cavalry tactics and weaponry including their small explosive bombs, which the Japanese had never encountered before. The Japanese defense had no choice but to retreat to a fortress near Dazaifu. That night, when the Mongols retired to their ships, a severe storm hit the island, sinking 200 ships and killing over 13,000 Mongol soldiers. As a result, the remaining armada retreated back to Korea, ending in an unsuccessful invasion.

The Japanese referred to this miraculous wind as the Kamikaze (divine wind), and believe that their island was protected by the gods. Although the country was saved by the storm, the invasion proved that the Japanese were no match against the Mongol on land or sea. As a result, the Japanese strengthened their army in fear of another invasion, and constructed a stone wall, 20km long, along the coast of Hakata Bay. Kublai Khan, on the other hand, never gave up on Japan and renewed his demands of Japan in 1275 through envoys sent to Japan.

Bibliography:
Hoops, Richard, "The Divine Wind" in Earthwatch Radio <http://seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/earthwatch/archive/1992/earthwatch101308.html> 8 July 1992.
Hori, Kyotsu, "Mongol Invasion of Japan," Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1983) pp. 243-244.

Rossabi, Morris, "Kublai Khan," Encyclopedia of Asian History (New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1988) pp. 365-367.

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/china/MongolJapan.html

Viking swords, from just the Hurstwic link, I think says it all;

Actually no it doesn't although it does highlight the problem of relying upon a single source or reading too much into individual incidents. If I were to point you to a plethora of stories about breaking of katana (and there are plenty of such stories) would you then conclude that katana were sub par?

Were there poor quality "viking era" swords? Of course. Were there high quality "viking era" swords? Yes again. Were their poor quality katana? Of course. Are there high quality katana? Yes again.

It's an odd thing to me is folks that believe in the inherent superiority of one particular blade type or construction process over another. Different blade types existed because they were designed to do different things. A viking era sword would be completely inadequate to attack an opponent in Gothic plate however an Oakeshott Type XVIIa would do much better.

A construction process is only as good as its implementation and the raw materials used Japanese smiths made some amazing (and some terrible) blades with very little in the way of resources but no traditionally made katana can do the things that a Howard Clark L6 bainite katana can do. Does that mean Clark's methods are superior?

Personally, I try to appreciate the skill and knowledge that goes into the construction of all good swords whether they be Japanese katana, Petersen Type Xs, Oakeshott Type XVIIIas, swept hilt rapiers, Persian Shamshirs or Indian Patas. My two cents...

 

[C.S. Graves]

Personally, I try to appreciate the skill and knowledge that goes into the construction of all good swords whether they be Japanese katana, Petersen Type Xs, Oakeshott Type XVIIIas, swept hilt rapiers, Persian Shamshirs or Indian Patas. My two cents...

:thumbup:

It all goes back to that childhood convinction within our boyish hearts: Swords are cool. Period.

 

[Jeff Clark]

Sword designs often track the state of the art in armor and other weapons. In ancient times the mainstays of serious battles were likely to be variants of spears and bows and arrows. Your sword was used more for close in work when the ranks broke down and a melee started. Your field combat sword was designed to be effective against typical armor in your area. In colder climates where it was practical to wear heavy armor the sword might need get really heavy or be replaced by an armor cracking axe or mace. In hotter climates your sword might only have to deal with lighter mail and it could be more of a sabre.

All that tended to change when firearms became common. Since armor could not offer full body protection it generally became reduced to torso protection (similar to today's kevlar vests). Swords became even more secondary armament on the battlefield and their design started to be driven by civilian or off-duty needs. The foil, epee, and sabre of the European fencing schools were more optimized for wearing around town and coping with criminal attack or duels than for the battlefield melee. They were designed for daily wear in an era when a common pistol was an unreliable one-shot monster you carried on your saddle rather than wore to town.

Japan was an island and was late to receive the blessings of the flintlock. They developed armor that was light enough in weight to be more commonly worn than in Europe. Their weather was also cool enough to allow more armor to be worn for more of the year. The Katana was more of a battle sword than the European sword had been for centuries. It was designed to be heavy enough to cope with some armor and yet light enough to carry around. The longer handle helped to balance the sword for one hand use and still allow powerful two-handed strokes. I would not want to have to deflect a katana with a European sabre (and I have fenced sabre in college competition). The obvious speed and power of a katana are admirable. The recentness of their use helps to make them technically rather sophisticated. Their place in Japanese movies and cartoons explains much of the rest.

 

[Yoshi]

Hello Triton,

The first Mongol invasion of Japan occurred in 1274. In November, an armada of nearly 900 vessels containing more than 40,000 troops was dispatched from Korea. The armada demolished Tsushima and Iki islands and arrived at Hakata Bay on November 18th. On the following day, the troops landed on the bay and fought the Japanese defense on land. The Japanese were no match for the Mongol's cavalry tactics and weaponry including their small explosive bombs, which the Japanese had never encountered before. The Japanese defense had no choice but to retreat to a fortress near Dazaifu. That night, when the Mongols retired to their ships, a severe storm hit the island, sinking 200 ships and killing over 13,000 Mongol soldiers. As a result, the remaining armada retreated back to Korea, ending in an unsuccessful invasion.

Not a bad quote, but a huge amount more re-search and facts have been done and discovered since 1992, inlcuding the translation of the Invasion Scrolls;
Of the potential 900 vessels only 300 were warships, the rest were much smaller craft. Some Mongolian Historian question whether it was an invasion force, it was typical of Mongol tactics to send a smaller force first, to test the water, as they did in Russia for example.
Tsushima is nearer Korea than Japan, and only had a small force under So Sukekuni, they put up a fierce fight, but were somewhat outnumbered, and out done by the Mongol Phalanx. The Mongols killed 6,000, of which many were women and chidren.
Iki is much smaller than Tsushima, was under Taira Kagetaka who was defending it with a much smaller force than that on Tsushima. They were quickly driven of the beach by the vastly bigger Mongol force, and retreated into the castle, not much more than a wooden stockade. When no re-enforcements came Kagetaka, led hi men out only to find the Mongols had gathered up men localy to be used as a human shield, so they dropped their yumi, and drew their swords and attacked the Mongols, to be overwhelmed, Kagetaka retired and commited seppuku. However the Mongols had used a lot of arrows fighting at Tsushma and Iki.
Even in Mongol accounts, it is recorded that initialy there was only a few disorganised Samurai on Hakata bay, and they were able to advance a kilometre inland quite quickly, but then the Samurai started to appear in more numbers. At the end of the day the samurai barricaded themselves into Dazaifu. During the night some 300 open boats attacked the Mongol fleet, with a combination of Samurai and burning boats, which had a devastating effect on the fleet, which was in disarray before the storm hit. Korean records claim 13,000 men of the fleet drowned, who and what those men were we don't know, Korean sailors, Chinese, or Mongols or a mix of all three?

but no traditionally made katana can do the things that a Howard Clark L6 bainite katana can do. Does that mean Clark's methods are superior?

Since when has there been extensive testing between the two, to see which performs better in the job that katana and tachi were originally designed for?

Aside from my own personnel views on Japanese swords, a good many sword historians and metallurgists, believe the Japanese sword to be the best of them all!

Hello tedwca, the info I got a lot of my info from, was from a book about Kublai Khan!!! and nothing to do with ST. Ah just seen
(28/07/09) which bit your referring to, I got that from two sources, one was 'The Samurai a Military History' by ST and the other was 'Kublai Khan' by John Man.

 

[Lycosa]

Yoshi---Thank you for you posts. This is all very interesting.

 

[C.S. Graves]

Here's a question I've pondered before: What if the care and meticulous forging, hardening, and polishing that makes the katana so revered was applied to other, perhaps non-japanese blade designs? Imagine, if you will, if Mura Masa had also fashioned ginuntings, claymores, grosse messers, kampilans, daos, falcatas, et cetera...

In many other cultures though, the sword need only be good enough to cut opponents down, and in places where iron was not as scarce, blades could be produced on a larger scale, with less perfectionism being put into the average user. Of course, there's always exceptions... the legend about Richard III and Saladin showing off their famous blades for example.

I had once read somewhere that part of why the katana had become such an objet d'art was that during a certain period in Japanese history, land became more scarce, and daimyo could no longer afford to use it as a reward for their best samurai. The highly-refined sword became a more economical reward during this period, and it went from being primarily an instrument of melee to an an even greater status symbol. Of course, I can't recall the precise source I had, so who knows?

 

[Triton]

Hello Triton,

Not a bad quote,

It was not intended to be good or bad merely note the historical record. For whatever reason you have chosen to believe a version of history that seems to be very Japanocentric, one that fosters the concept of the invincible Japanese warrior when defeated it is only because of unimaginable odds... and they are almost never defeated. I suspect that the reality was a bit more prosaic.

Since when has there been extensive testing between the two, to see which performs better in the job that katana and tachi were originally designed for?

You seemed to have changed gears here a bit. A few posts back you mentioned that you believed that swords of the Viking era were "sub-par" because of some anecdotal stories of poor quality swords. You seemed to be basing your definition of "sub-par" on performance in terms of durability, flexibility and edge retention. Mr. Clark's L6 katana can do thing in those terms that no one would want to try with a traditional katana made out of tamagane.

http://www.swordforum.com/summer99/howardclark.html

Now it seems you want to talk about performance in terms of what the swords in question were "originally designed for." That's fine, I made that point myself earlier in this thread. The truth of the matter is that we'll never know if a Howard Clark L6 outperforms a traditionally made katana in combat, those types of wars don't happen anymore. By extension we don't know if a katana would outperform a Viking Era European sword because again, those types of wars never happened and never will.

Aside from my own personnel views on Japanese swords, a good many sword historians and metallurgists, believe the Japanese sword to be the best of them all!

Who? Again how do they quantify "best of them all?" This is a very subjective metric. If someone wants to make the arguement in terms of say consistency of heat treatment, hardness etc. that is fine but again I don't know how you can say anything realistic here. If Japanese sword A is better then Persian Shamshir B in terms of consistency of heat treatment does that mean that all Japanese katana are superior to all Persian Shamshir? What if Persian Shamshir C is better then Japanese Katana A? Do we now reverse ourselves and say that all Persian Shamshir are better then all Japanese Katana? What if Katana A is not as good in terms of heat treatment but has a harder edge then Shamshir C. Does having a better edge but worse heat treatment make Katana A better or worse the Shamshir C?

That doesn't even get into the fact that although there are many ancient Japanese blades in reasonable condition to study there are practically NO Viking Era blades in reasonable condition. How do you compare the two and say that something is "the best of them all" when you can't compare apples to apples (whatever your apples are) when studying?

 

[Triton]

Here's a question I've pondered before: What if the care and meticulous forging, hardening, and polishing that makes the katana so revered was applied to other, perhaps non-japanese blade designs? Imagine, if you will, if Mura Masa had also fashioned ginuntings, claymores, grosse messers, kampilans, daos, falcatas, et cetera...

Actually they were. Historical evidence in many cultures shows us that the swordsmith was highly respected in many cultures, and that the same sort of formal even ritualized construction was used practically world wide. For every Masamune there was an Ingilrii or a Ferrara. That's not to say that there weren't "munitions grade" swords turned out by the barrel load that "needed to be only good enough to cut opponents down" all around the world, there were... but those sorts of swords were made in Japan as well. Not every katana is an art object any more then every European hanger is.

Japanese culture did take sword worship to extremes of course, but a sword was an item of art, prestige and status in many cultures.