I loathe this debate.



Make no mistake - Japanese swords are amazing. Ingenious technolony and design, beautiful, artful - it's easy to see why the katana and similar weapons have taken their place in the modern imagination. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably some deranged, Europhilic swordhipster.



"Guh, Katanas are too mainstream!"



But... Europe ultimately had higher technology and a broader, more diverse base upon which to expand it in. Their smelting technologies were ultimately better, and the broader range of warfare lead to the creation of more varied and diverse weapon and fighting styles.



That said, comparing an isolated and isolationist island to that of an entire continent over a period of however many millennia swords were relevant is so broad and generic that there's no point to be made. The only real thing at stake isn't any actual determination of history, but of self-centered, tribal, "my ancestors made better swords then yours, ergo I'm better than you, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah~!" petulance.





No thank you.