Top ten greatest weapons in history

[Double A]

I'm a big fan of pre-industrial warfare.

10.) The atomic bomb/nuclear weapons in general - Possessed by most developed countries today
9.) The pike - Used from the Ancient Macedonians up into the eighteenth century
8.) The English/Welsh Longbow - Used by England from about 1200 to about 1500
7.) The bombard cannon - Used by the Turks from about 1350 to the nineteenth century
6.) The Roman Gladius - Used by the Romans
5.) The Saxe - Symbolic weapon used by the Saxons until about 1000
4.) The Franchesca (throwing axe, I probably have the name wrong) - Used by the early Frankish tribes
3.) The horse - From the era of the stirrup until the twentieth century
2.) The composite horse bow - Used by nomadic tribes of horsemen (such as the Huns or Mongols)
1.) The human body/mind - Durr

Wait... not only are atomic bombs pre-industrial, they aren't as powerful as composite bows? And what's the deal with the Gladius hate? I mean, the Romans only conquered most of Europe, their main sword can't be that great.

 

[OptimisticPessimist]

edit: on second thought, I really don't wanna get involved in this.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Ok you have me there on two things, one of which I'll retort. I guess it does depend on the wielder most of the time, but a weapons design is still important.

Weapon design is still important, yes...but only if you're trying to specifically accomplish a certain action (fighting a specific armor, fighting using certain techniques or in specially-constrained circumstances, etc.), not if you're just straight-up fighting. That was the point of the <url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html>third link I gave you a while ago.

P.S.
"simple chain-mail", can block anything because of its design. It's why we still use the simple design structure to make bullet resistant vests today.The only way to get through it is to thrust through it, which a Katana can do, because it has been documented in Japanese War history. Though the Ninjato is able to easily achieve this.

You know, much as I absolutely loathe Deadliest Warrior for its arbitrariness disguised as "science," they actually did test katana penetration versus chainmail. The chainmail wins. Which isn't to say chainmail can't be penetrated, of course; that's why <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilletto>stillettos were invented.

As for ninjatou...you mean that modern invention that's basically just a straight-bladed katana (making it of questionable value even versus the earliest Japanese sword, the double-edged, straight-bladed tsurugi)?

Disclaimer: This following article contains trolling gold against weaboos. If you are offended by a portrayal of Japanese "culture" from a source other than Rurouni Kenshin, please kill yourself.

A katana was mostly an piece of art, not a weapon.

Er...not arguing the fact that they were status symbols more than anything, and they were at best secondary and usually tertiary weapons of the samurai before the Edo period (and thus, mostly weren't that good with them), but they were still considered to be and treated as true weapons.

-The edge was brittle, so you had to akwardly toggle between blocking with the back and attacking with the front.

The first part is true, yes, but that's why you're not supposed to block at all, if you can manage. They're not much different from most western swords in that fashion.

-The weapon was double-handed, which meant you couldn't use a shield.

Ignoring, of course, that that doesn't make it less of a weapon in a culture that didn't develop shield defenses. Or European zweihander counterparts.

Or alternate off-hand weapons in European warfare, like main gauches and cloaks though that's probably irrelevant.

-They were impractical to make in large numbers and preserve quality, which hampers their use as a military weapon.

Exactly. You also missed the prohibitive amount of effort needed to make them quality in the first place...although really, that's the impressive thing about them.

Bottom line: They're good to look at, but nothing more.

I wouldn't go that far. They're still effective weapons; they're just comparatively impractical due to high maintenance, and they were developed for a certain set of historical circumstances. The fact that kenjutsu exists at all should stand testament to that.

Which is why they have such a heavy internet following. Most katana fans are 300lb WoW-addicts who would die within the first three seconds of an actual swordfight.

I'm assuming this is the "trolling" part of your disclaimer. Was it necessary? I don't think most Japanese people are that fat.

 

[Knifewounds]

A Katana? Kind of played, don't you think?

I was expecting something a bit more interesting.

And absolutely useless against chainmail.

Even though you could just thrust the blade into the chain mail, and it'll go through just like another sword. I mean all you need to penetrate chain mail is a pointy tip, and a strong blade which the katana has. And don't give me that oh, the katana's not a thrusting weapon bs. It's curved design doesn't hinder any of its abilities.

You have no idea what you're talking about here.

Next you'll be saying that Japanese Officers would cut through machine gun barrels with them in WWII.

The katana has next to no armour piercing capability. Hell, I don't know much about swords but I know that much. The blade is flat, and in order to get through the armour, you'd have to be pushing more of it away. If you're going for an armor piercing weapon, a stabbing weapon was best with a very thin blade, so you could get between plates and the like.

Your entire list is really nothing more then weapons you thought looked cool. These aren't the greatest weapons in history. Hell, you're picking weapons from all over time that really can not be compared with one another. Perhaps if you had this as some of the most iconic weapons of all time I'd give it to you, but greatest, no.

Just no.

Sure they are *rolls eyes* Let me simply state that I've wielded most(note the word Most) of these weapons, and drew up this list out of my experiences with them while still doing an ample amount of research for them. I'm judging these weapons based on their own merits, and effectiveness in their time period + what they did for future weapons. Back to the katana debate. No of course the katana isn't the best piecing weapon, but saying it has none of downright ignorant. The katana is plenty capable of piecing through light armor, and even if it cant piece through heavier armor the blade is still able to bones through the armor. After all you have to remember that the katana can still inflict 1000's of pounds of force in its slashes. In the long run armor really isn't that much o
f an issue for most longswords since they can still just inflict bunt force trauma.

1000's or pounds of force, site your sources. You have no idea what you are talking about, i posted videos of tests of a both katana and longsword, used against real chain mail, and others posted ARMA articles. It does not go through chain mail or plate armor, i has no advantage over shields. Your nothing more than a Weeabo.

At the end of my post I stated that the katana could only go through simple light armors, and not chain, and plate mail, but still had the force to break whatever bones lay underneath that. I said nothing about it going through it(well maybe, but by about half an inch). Oh, I should try to justify that 1000's of pounds of force thing before you bring it up again as ammo for a flaming retort. Well, the answers very simple, the katana does have that kind of force; that's what gives them such a powerful cut. That force comes from the curve that acts like a spring when you swing it which dramatically increases the pounds of force when you hit something. I still find it quite funny that you call me a weeabo considering I'm more into Greek, and Roman culture than I will ever be with the Japanese. It's merely just a childish insult. And here's a way I can get around a shield. I'll just break the arm behind the shield, or wait for an opening in my opponents attacks for me to lunge a counter attack into, or just exploit the blind spot the shield leaves to sweep around, and maybe cut his head off if I'm feeling charitable enough not to chop at his legs instead, and even if the shields small enough to leave a small blind spot then its still gonna leave a lot more openings for me to strike at. And do you know what the sad part is? I could do all of these with any sword longsword, not just a katana. But lets strip everything down. How would a sword like a Viking sword stack up to katana if the wielders have no armor or protection , and have to rely squarely on the sword they're using? (btw your still entitled to ***** about my last statements I want want you to consult this question)

Lets see whats wrong, the blade acts as a spring, nope that has already been touched on.

Break the arm behind the shield, nope. Unless you believe what deadliest warrior told you. In a battle against the sword and shield the Katana wielder is at the disadvantage. It does not create a blind spot of the user of the shield, the other person has the blind stop. Cut at the legs, not much movement is needed to block that same thing with the head. Try to smash it, the sword gets stuck, most shields were not strapped to the arm, the videos i posted explain why, but in light i will give a condensed version. Its so if something when through the shield like an arrow or spear it would not make the arm behind it useless. Even the Romans knew this, the pilum was not only an effective weapon to kill with it also made the shield useless by not pinning the arm to the shield but breaking the shield. The blind spot argument is funny though ill give you that. The blade gets stuck in the shield not some super anime cut through. Viking shields were meant to break, and be lightweight, you could at least watch the video of the Katana not going through the shield.

As for doing the same thing with a longsword, nope. Katana were used in different ways because of the single blade. With the longsword you could use a wrap around becuase it has both sides bladed. I would also point to the European bastard the cousin of the Katana, can be used as a Half-sword.

As for stripping everything down, does having a Katana make you a better swordsman? The viking sword does just fine against a Katana. The better swordsman wins in that scenario. Unless you can point to some magic the Katana makes someone better as a swordsman.

Ill even post the links to all the videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCJ_eNIptPo

I don't even have to ***** about that last part, its just so ridiculous to assert that the Katana makes you a better swordsman. Weeabo is an good description.

No sword can make someone a better swordsman, but a weapons deign will hinder its users if it has a design flaw. As for technique, and all that we could argue over all day, after all there are so many ways to use these weapons, and a master of any could find a way around another's advantage so that argument would ultimately be pointless. However I will still argue that you could still break someones arm behind a shield as long as you can generate 160 psi to do that. I did like those videos though, I found them very interesting. As for that weeabo thing, does adding something significant of a major culture on a best of list really make me an obsessive freak? I mean if that were the case I'd of put a gun that shoots sexy albino women in dominatrix outfits, and kegs of budlight at number one.

 

[Jenkins]

hmm.

Bowie knife is just a big blade, thats it. nothing special about it.

Katana doesnt deserve to be on this list. its just a sword, nothing special there.

Halberds while cool were also crap, a weapon given to peasants enlisted in a lords army and usually for anti-cavalry. in reality if you got anywhere close this weapon itd be quiet easy to parry if you know how to use a sword and once you got past the blade part your screwed. unlike the crossbow which gave any farmhand long range and powerful shot. this weapon was NOT used by knights.

RPG7's are also craptastic but I guess they MIGHT deserve a spot here because they are easy to procure.

also if you need to put a bow, put the recurve or longbow up instead. the longbow was the English's secret weapon while the recurve bow made accuracy and power improvements with less effort.

You're an American aren't you?

what gave me away D:

The fact that you pay such little respect for revolutionary weapons, your understanding of said weapons is little to none and the quickest way out for you is to disagree, projectile weaponry seems to be your more favoured and because of it's lack of culture makes America an easy target, and the only weapon you seemed to be fond of is the cowards way out, making for last ditch attempts toward a losing battle, soon found as effective, is then resorted to the first choice. This... is what defined you as an American.

tell me good sir. what about any of those weapons I did not agree with are revolutionary? RPG7? I don't think so. think Panzerfaust or Bazooka. Katana's and bowie knifes are not revolutionary. this is talking about best WEAPONS. since when did ANYONE use a bowie knife in combat OR a Katana outside of Japan? the Katana is actually a brittle sword due to the process in which the blade must be honned for its slashing capability. Halberds were not revolutionary either. think blade on the end of a pole, its been done COUNTLESS times before the halberd, which just put multiple blades on a pole. it WAS a weapon given to peasants who were enlisted, best used for anti-calvary and not troop to troop combat nor knight to knight due to its weight. the recurve bow revolutionized the normal bow by allowing horseback riders to use it, thus mobile Calvary with a distanced punch because the style of the bow allowed it to be drawn easier. the LONGBOW was an amazing weapon allowing for total rampage of enemy troops from a distance unheard of at that time.


please, do not insult me without doing proper research, I have done mine and I listed as to why I felt this way. Also I find your view on American's insulting, every country has its twats and whatever country you come from obviously has theirs.

 

[massaffect123]

The pen.

Saves lives and ends wars.

And can make a decent weapon when honed to a fine point and dipped in fast acting poison, then thrown from 10 feet away.

 

[Knifewounds]

Disclaimer: This following article contains trolling gold against weaboos. If you are offended by a portrayal of Japanese "culture" from a source other than Rurouni Kenshin, please kill yourself.

A katana was mostly an piece of art, not a weapon.

-The edge was brittle, so you had to akwardly toggle between blocking with the back and attacking with the front.

-The weapon was double-handed, which meant you couldn't use a shield.

-They were impractical to make in large numbers and preserve quality, which hampers their use as a military weapon.

Bottom line: They're good to look at, but nothing more. Which is why they have such a heavy internet following. Most katana fans are 300lb WoW-addicts who would die within the first three seconds of an actual swordfight.

I'm a katana fan... and a broadsword fan... and a rapier fan, and kilij fan, and basically every sword ever made fan... yet I'm a physically fit healthy young male(mostly from practicing how to use each of these swords). I do have to love your broad generalizations though. Though you did give me an idea for my next list that's sure to piss people off. I need to do one of military weapons via tanks aircraft physically enhanced super monkeys, ya know, be all legit with it.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Wait... not only are atomic bombs pre-industrial, they aren't as powerful as composite bows?

Not defending the "pre-industrial" thing (I don't think that's what they were trying to imply, though), but yeah, atomic bombs? They're actually not as useful as you might think. Mainly due to world circumstance; it's widely accepted that the only legitimate use of a nuclear bomb is in retaliation against another nuclear attack...which isn't especially necessary, because actually using a nuclear bomb is to present your ass to the world and invite them to kick it with the spiked boots of conventional warfare. MAD doctrine is outdated by this point, and nukes are a security liability. Especially if your conventional security sucks, because the only people who can use a nuclear weapon with little fear are small, non-state groups against whom deterrence doesn't work (like terrorist cells). Also, there's a minimum range before which use of a nuclear bomb screws you over with fallout.

Basically, nukes are an invitation ticket to the world's biggest Mexican standoff, and little more.

you're right, that is a polearm. Well in that case I'll just get myself a nice heave waraxe and call it good.

Works for me.

Or, it would, except...

The problem with spears is once your opponent gets inside the reach of the spear it is very hard to continue to use the spear and still fight effectively, which is where my shield comes in.

Not really. I'm a wizard, you see. Once you get "inside my reach," I magically turn my spear into a staff.

The shield would be a problem, admittedly, but at the very least, it would mean your weapon is tied up, and your avenue of attack predictable, especially if you had the spike.

That's cheating, no one ever said anything about magic (which is for cowards by the way, HARRUMPH)

I changed my weapon, so now it's not tied up except for tied up in your belly, mwahaha.

True, now that you have a genuinely close-range weapon, I'd have more trouble. Hmm...

If you have a nice set of heavy plate just charging into the fray is a great idea though, it makes it even more fun.

Well...assuming you have a weapon, of course. With plate armor, a knife wielder would be one of the four people you wouldn't just want to charge at unarmed (the others being the mace-wielder, the crossbowman, and the gunman), since they can exploit your one weakness. You'd have to be a pretty good unarmed combatant to do that without fear.

...actually, <url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/G&WinRF.htm>that's not all that implausible, come to think of it.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

The pen.

Saves lives and ends wars.

And can make a decent weapon when honed to a fine point and dipped in fast acting poison, then thrown from 10 feet away.

Or you could just walk up behind someone and stab them (in the skull for me because it's more fun), there's no need to get too technical. Humans are a very, very easy thing to kill.

 

[Grigori361]

Snip

Now I'm not interested in getting into the discussion, but an English (I assume that's the kind you mean) longbow has to be trained in for decade to become even able to effectively pull the sting without endangering yourself, there are maybe 10 people alive today that can handle that weapon. they were NOT used by peasant conscripts, That said, they were not used by nobility either.

However I would still call it one of the best weapons ever made it rendered any and all forms of personal armor useless. I once saw a demonstration, it nearly punched clear through the armor that would have been on first generation tanks.

Ouch

 

[Knifewounds]

Before I read the thread I knew katana would be listed as #1. It is worth noting that during the westernization of Japan rapiers/sabers were quickly overtaking katanas. The curved blade is an excellent design, good for swift movement and deeper cuts, but is much less effective against armor. When it bares down too it though, when armor is of little concern, the fastest wins out (all other factors being comparable). When armor is a factor, you want mass and leverage (while retaining balance and versatility). This is where the honorably mentioned claymore shines. Penatrating power without the unwieldy balance of an axe or polearm (though some polearms were every bit as good and in some situations much better, though the greatsword was fielded specifically to take out the long-shafted types). Katana is a good balance to be sure, though. There is no "King of Swords" so to speak. Many are situational or there wouldnt be such a variety even within cultures.

I would love to hear some more feed back from other sword fanatics.

I think the main reason katanas were over taken in Japan wasn't because rapiers/sabers were better, but that they were cheaper, and easier to make, and the heavy western influence drove many Japanese people away from their own culture, though this statement is just idol speculation as are 99% of my replies. You do have a very good point, there is no king of swords, and most are situational, but out of all the swords I think the katana could handle the most situations, but let it be known that the Claymore is very close to the katana, and that it, and a few other swords like the kilij, and rapier would have been on this list if I didn't want just one sword on it. I knew people would complain about the katana being on the list no less than being number 1, but it was one of those weapons that I'd get hated on for leaving in, or leaving out so it was kinda hard to put it there at all.

The first part is true, one Katana takes approximately 6 months at least to fabricate. Most Japanese military soldiers had a family sword passed through the generations, and anyone who didn't was provided one by the military, though most of the people who ended up getting one that way had wished that they had a family sword, because the military Katana were sub-par because they had to be made in bulk. As for the western swords, Rapier was forced on the citizens for the fact that Westerners thought (and still think) that they, and everything they do is superior. Using a Rapier was a different combat style entirely and needed teaching, while it was more efficent to have the citizens use what they already knew. Sabers were forced on for close to the same reason, Western civilization believed it to be similar to a Katana, so they thought that not much change needed to happen. (and pardon me for asking, but just exactly how is a Claymore like a Katana?)
There's more but I don't want to bore anyone.

Heh, I should elaborate on the katana Claymore thing. I didn't mean the claymore was like the katana I meant the they were almost equals as weapons. Very interesting comment though.

 

[Steamtech]

I actually would have placed the Halberd in a better spot. The essence of the swiss army knife polearm, it could be used so many ways on the battlefield that it really doesn't get enough renown. A lengthy Halberd can be used in formation to break a cavalry charge, while still retaining the capabilities of a polaxe against infantry. The shorter halberds were weighted well enough to be used as a stave in close quarters, and those metal-shod butts can cause signifigant concussive damage. Also, the beak of either edition (the curved spike on the back) could be used as a medieval can-opener on any armored opponent. This was the weapon that caused the lords of the Dark Ages to stop frequenting the battlefield themselves, because any lord that could afford to outfit his kerns with halberds made the average serf conscript deadly enough to slay any armored knight on horseback.

Also, on the Katana: Not to join in the bashing, but i'm going to join in the bashing. It is an excellent weapon, FWIDF (For What It's Designed For). However, on the conventional ancient battlefield, it is a largely useless weapon. Japan has always had very poor deposites of iron. This led them to inadvertedly discover how to make excellent steel in their attempts to stretch what iron they had. As weapons took priority, most armor was made from cloth, hide, and laquer (spelling?) with occasional studs and rivets of metal. As such the Katana was designed to be and stay extremely keen-edged, so as to cut such materials with ease. Its not good against armor because the kinds of armor it was designed to face were NOT MADE OF METAL! Also, it is a personal and dueling weapon. The length of the blade and required slashing motion makes it inconvinient for formation fighting, as very, VERY few katanas were balanced for use with a shiels, and the style of combat it was favored in would result in the troops getting tangled with their neigbors.

All in all, I think I'm coming at this from an army-vs-army perspective. While I recognize that the thread listed them based on how good they were at their intended purpose, I still feel the Katana falls below the #1 position. If I had to give that position away, it would most likely go to Chinese Wushu, tied closely with Thai Bo and similar forms. The Martial Arts are still prevelent since their conception, and the studies of the human body that go hand in hand with them are utilized by every serious weapon maker since the dawn of time. To make an object lethal, one has to understand what lethality truly is, and for that, Martial Arts take the cake.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

Disclaimer: This following article contains trolling gold against weaboos. If you are offended by a portrayal of Japanese "culture" from a source other than Rurouni Kenshin, please kill yourself.

A katana was mostly an piece of art, not a weapon.

-The edge was brittle, so you had to akwardly toggle between blocking with the back and attacking with the front.

-The weapon was double-handed, which meant you couldn't use a shield.

-They were impractical to make in large numbers and preserve quality, which hampers their use as a military weapon.

Bottom line: They're good to look at, but nothing more. Which is why they have such a heavy internet following. Most katana fans are 300lb WoW-addicts who would die within the first three seconds of an actual swordfight.

I'm a katana fan... and a broadsword fan... and a rapier fan, and kilij fan, and basically every sword ever made fan... yet I'm a physically fit healthy young male(mostly from practicing how to use each of these swords). I do have to love your broad generalizations though. Though you did give me an idea for my next list that's sure to piss people off. I need to do one of military weapons via tanks aircraft physically enhanced super monkeys, ya know, be all legit with it.

"Legit"?

 

[theultimateend]

IMO the greatest weapon in world history is the nuclear bomb. Not because it is powerful, but more so that it radically changed the nature of world conflict forever. Conventional total wars between nation-states have become all but extinct.

There are a few stubborn world leaders not willing to admit that .

They try every 3-5 years to say they'll nuke another country then get quiet. Then after another 3-5 years they threaten in.

War has to regress a bit for many major nations to make it feasible. Nuclear war is just not gonna happen.

GM Rico

 

[WanderingFool]

The love affair in the West with katanas annoys me. They are not lightsabers, they cannot cut through another sword, and their quality actually varied considerably. A katana was only the perfect weapon for ITS PARTICULAR BATTLEFIELD - i.e. against other soldiers wearing no armor or armor made of bamboo wood.

Against a full suit of late-medieval European ruffled plate armor, slashing swords are relatively useless. European swords of this time were used more as clubs than cutting weapons. Puncture-style weapons such as crow's beaks and pikes were far more effective against plate armor, as were crushing weapons (maces, mauls, hammers) that could cause blunt force trauma to the wearer through the armor.

IMO the greatest weapon in world history is the nuclear bomb. Not because it is powerful, but more so that it radically changed the nature of world conflict forever. Conventional total wars between nation-states have become all but extinct.

I agre with this guy, the Katana is not some mystical weapon of lore, its beautiful, but not to usful against a good set of chainmail or plate, hell, just a shield would give the westrnr an advantage.

I also agree with the Nuke. The best weapon is the one that doesnt need to be used.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

Before I read the thread I knew katana would be listed as #1. It is worth noting that during the westernization of Japan rapiers/sabers were quickly overtaking katanas. The curved blade is an excellent design, good for swift movement and deeper cuts, but is much less effective against armor. When it bares down too it though, when armor is of little concern, the fastest wins out (all other factors being comparable). When armor is a factor, you want mass and leverage (while retaining balance and versatility). This is where the honorably mentioned claymore shines. Penatrating power without the unwieldy balance of an axe or polearm (though some polearms were every bit as good and in some situations much better, though the greatsword was fielded specifically to take out the long-shafted types). Katana is a good balance to be sure, though. There is no "King of Swords" so to speak. Many are situational or there wouldnt be such a variety even within cultures.

I would love to hear some more feed back from other sword fanatics.

I think the main reason katanas were over taken in Japan wasn't because rapiers/sabers were better, but that they were cheaper, and easier to make, and the heavy western influence drove many Japanese people away from their own culture, though this statement is just idol speculation as are 99% of my replies. You do have a very good point, there is no king of swords, and most are situational, but out of all the swords I think the katana could handle the most situations, but let it be known that the Claymore is very close to the katana, and that it, and a few other swords like the kilij, and rapier would have been on this list if I didn't want just one sword on it. I knew people would complain about the katana being on the list no less than being number 1, but it was one of those weapons that I'd get hated on for leaving in, or leaving out so it was kinda hard to put it there at all.

The first part is true, one Katana takes approximately 6 months at least to fabricate. Most Japanese military soldiers had a family sword passed through the generations, and anyone who didn't was provided one by the military, though most of the people who ended up getting one that way had wished that they had a family sword, because the military Katana were sub-par because they had to be made in bulk. As for the western swords, Rapier was forced on the citizens for the fact that Westerners thought (and still think) that they, and everything they do is superior. Using a Rapier was a different combat style entirely and needed teaching, while it was more efficent to have the citizens use what they already knew. Sabers were forced on for close to the same reason, Western civilization believed it to be similar to a Katana, so they thought that not much change needed to happen. (and pardon me for asking, but just exactly how is a Claymore like a Katana?)
There's more but I don't want to bore anyone.

Heh, I should elaborate on the katana Claymore thing. I didn't mean the claymore was like the katana I meant the they were almost equals as weapons. Very interesting comment though.

Studies, combined with the fabrication and forging of bladed weapons that I do and the training in the blades that comes with it, you tend to learn quite a lot. (well, except for the "Custom Fantasy Blades" that I do, mainly for fun/sometimes commisions... there's no real training style for that)

 

[Knifewounds]

Disclaimer: This following article contains trolling gold against weaboos. If you are offended by a portrayal of Japanese "culture" from a source other than Rurouni Kenshin, please kill yourself.

A katana was mostly an piece of art, not a weapon.

-The edge was brittle, so you had to akwardly toggle between blocking with the back and attacking with the front.

-The weapon was double-handed, which meant you couldn't use a shield.

-They were impractical to make in large numbers and preserve quality, which hampers their use as a military weapon.

Bottom line: They're good to look at, but nothing more. Which is why they have such a heavy internet following. Most katana fans are 300lb WoW-addicts who would die within the first three seconds of an actual swordfight.

I'm a katana fan... and a broadsword fan... and a rapier fan, and kilij fan, and basically every sword ever made fan... yet I'm a physically fit healthy young male(mostly from practicing how to use each of these swords). I do have to love your broad generalizations though. Though you did give me an idea for my next list that's sure to piss people off. I need to do one of military weapons via tanks aircraft physically enhanced super monkeys, ya know, be all legit with it.

"Legit"?

That was kinda a joke. Next time I make a list I'm going to attempt to make it less controversial, so it seems more legit. Though that last statement was supposed to be ironic. like how I state "via tanks, aircraft physically, Enhanced Super Monkeys, ya know" and then say "be all legit with it"

 

[massaffect123]

The pen.

Saves lives and ends wars.

And can make a decent weapon when honed to a fine point and dipped in fast acting poison, then thrown from 10 feet away.

Or you could just walk up behind someone and stab them (in the skull for me because it's more fun), there's no need to get too technical. Humans are a very, very easy thing to kill.

Oh I know that. Not even my idea. I was quoting a comedian whose name escapes me at the moment. I was trying to be funny and (apparently) failing.
And why can't I be technical? What's the point of killing people if it can't be done in an elaborate and unnecessarily complicated manner?

 

[Shadows Inc.]

The pen.

Saves lives and ends wars.

And can make a decent weapon when honed to a fine point and dipped in fast acting poison, then thrown from 10 feet away.

Or you could just walk up behind someone and stab them (in the skull for me because it's more fun), there's no need to get too technical. Humans are a very, very easy thing to kill.

Oh I know that. Not even my idea. I was quoting a comedian whose name escapes me at the moment. I was trying to be funny and (apparently) failing.
And why can't I be technical? What's the point of killing people if it can't be done in an elaborate and unnecessarily complicated manner?

Because you can kill someone with a cotton-ball... and I think that is the starting point to where you can kill anyone with anything, in just about any way.