Katana's are weak on the flat side. They aren't really meant to be used for parrying. In fact, most sword fights in Japan would be over after the first or second swing. It was commonplace to hold the grip of a katana but not draw it in such a way so that your enemy has trouble judging how long your katana is and what is a safe distance to be from you. Once your opponent is in range, draw it quickly and kill them in one blow, ideally.
The act of killing your opponent in a single blow is called "nukitsuke" from "nukiuchi" meaning "to cut down an opponent" and "tsuke" meaning "to stop an opponent's attack before it begins".
The Sekiro and popular media image of extended katana fights didn't really happen, but if they did, there would almost certainly be some broken katanas.
The reason why Japanese iron is inferior is because of the source of the iron itself, they utilized iron sand instead of rock ore. Rock ore can be made up to 90% ferrous material while the iron sand contains as little as 2%.
This means when you smelt your source material into blooms of iron and slag, the blooms made from sand iron were much smaller. Instead of utilizing a single bloom to make a sword, the Japanese had to work several blooms together. Which is much more labour intensive, and can lead to a lot of imperfections in the final product.
This is why katanas were made out of so little material, and had to be handled with care. They were much more fragile pieces than similar swords made in Korea and China at the time.
Plus, the Japanese developed their iron working much later than their mainland contemporaries, as they never independently invented furnace technology. The technology for furnaces was imported, most likely from the Korean peninsula.
Yeah, Japanese steel wasn’t great, but they were working with what they had available at the time. Katanas were basically made out of iron dust, which had been melted into slag by filtering through charcoal. The resulting chunks of steel were basically straight up slag, not nice even ingots. So the steel they got was actually extremely high carbon in places, but that also meant it was brittle as hell, because those carbon pockets were prone to shattering.
So the folding was invented, to even out the steel’s carbon content (just like how a Damascus steel blade has visible stripes, Japanese steel had invisible stripes of high and low carbon steel) and to lower the carbon content overall; Every time you heat for another fold, you’re evaporating some carbon. So the folding process took the steel from extremely high carbon pockets to a more evenly distributed carbon content.
Now that modern steel processing exists, the only real reason to stick to the folding method is tradition. There’s no need to fold modern steel ingots because they’re already homogenous and can be produced at whatever carbon level you want.
It was probably inspired by Egyptian khopesh since it was used in Ethiopia even before the kingdom of Axum. Thing is, the blade is sharp on both sides. So you could either use its inner side as big sickle to reach around enemy shield and try for the weak spots like neck, face or armpits, or if the enemy didn't had a shield you could turn it to outer side and in this case it was similar to Persian shamshir in being excellent weapon against unarmored opponents.
Two more interesting thing about it was 1: the designs varies greatly, most were shorter and wider, the curvature also varied; and 2: it apparently worked quite well considering it has been in use for possibly over 2500 years and some Ethiopian emperors even organised special elite units wielding it.
I've been watching a japanese sword master on YT demonstrating moves. It's very interesting how they decide when they pull it out which side of the curve they lead with, a choice they make in a split second, and the different attacks each method would have. Even European swords weren't just sharp hammers, they had practical moves and defenses lost in the movies.
most members of the warrior class were little more than brutish thugs. A handful would have taken the strategy of individual combat seriously and they would have done quite well.
The majority of the people they were fighting were lightly armored at best and they could get away with just swinging the sharp end at the unfortunate peasant conscripted to try to stop them.
There are plenty of examples of knights and samurai alike, falling for just the most obvious trap you could imagine. Templars charging in to open gates, samurai rushing to duel a guy who insulted them, in both cases blood drunk and stupid, children of privilege and in armor by accident of birth.
The Last Duel is a decent example of what happens when guys like that and up fighting each other.
We tend to have a romantic view of the past, but we have a great Instagram filter between us and then. Reality is ugly and violent. Few people are artists, even fewer are talented artists. This is true whether they're painting or drawing blood.
I mean... That still works. In Iraq the US Army routinely ran bait ambushes in areas AQ was known to operate. Oh look a single vehicle and they're waving beer bottles around. That's not a trap at all... Meanwhile there's an entire infantry platoon traveling dark and silent just out of the light behind them.
The same guy would write a five-page essay about how much similar curved swords like scimitars and sabres suck, and might actually die if he is shown a khopesh or a shotel.
I worked with a super nice weird guy. He was always bringing in his 3d printed warhammer sets to the shop. Respect. One day he was talking about his sword. I was like, did you buy the sword in a mall? And he said yes, he bought it in a mall. I should have let it go. Anyways I am not friends with that guy.
To be fair it is sharp enough to cut through atoms and space time destroying the fabric of reality allowing you to turn back time to the Big Bang and reshape the universe in your image.