Editing Sword (section)

== Sword-related stupidity ==
	
Oh there is so much of it...
	
=== Carrying a sword ===
	
For some reason, everyone in fiction carries their sword on either the left hip or on the back, from the right shoulder to the left hip. The latter we will come to in a moment, first we will discuss the hip-holstered sword.
	
While it is certainly true that carrying a sword on the hip opposed to one's sword arm, one has plenty of room to dramatically unsheathe their sword. In the Middle Ages and earlier though, this was not always done like that for a few practical reasons. First up is the shield: when one is in formation and wants to draw their swords having a raised shield in one hand means that one has to keep their shield hand out of the way when drawing their sword, compromising their defense, or by turning it so the tip is pointed to the side, and drawing it to one's sword arm side, though this could risk hitting someone else's leg with the scabbard, or in the face with the pommel if in formation. If one is mounted on a [[horse]] (like a [[knight]]) however, the sword is not carried on the opposing hip for a different reason: drawing one's sword form the opposing hip would mean either pulling the sword past the reins or the horse's neck, which might very well result in cutting the reins or the animal's neck. These two problems for both mounted and pedestrian soldiers was solved in a very simple way: the sword was carried on the same hip as one's sword arm. This limits one's drawing distance, but unless one is a [[C.S.Goto|deformed munchkin]] you should be perfectly fine drawing a one-handed sword from the same hip as the sword arm. Romans for instance always carried their swords on the right for this reason. The katana on the other hand were always carried on the opposite hip, but this was because the Katana was a slashing weapon as such you could turn your draw motion into a cut.
	
The second point is back-mounted sheaths. Useful for carrying, not combat. Unless you are Dhalsim from Street Fighter or are armed with knives you are not going to be able to draw a single-handed sword from your back. Doing so would involve over-stretching, pulling the sheath down with your shield arm (giving up your defence, a big no-no) and a short sword. Go watch a movie featuring someone with back-mounted swords: you never see them draw their weapons on-screen. And two-handed weapons are right out. Carrying a sword on your back is for hiking across open country, NOT marching to the battlefield. Soldiers armed with large two-handed swords carried them into battle much like their [[spear]]-wielding colleagues: [[Dwarf|held over the shoulders as the soldiers sung songs of war and victory.]] Though that doesn't mean that fantasy or sci fi settings can't have any back-carry, period. A commong way of addressing this in sci fi is to have essentially have some form of magnet on the back which engages when the sword makes contact (this is oftentimes also used to carry long guns), though the precise practicality of this method is questionable. In fantasy then this may be achieved through specialized back scabbards; the Middle Earth games, for example, feature a type of scabbard where part of the flat is exposed; and then there's the finned scabbard design as popularized by the content creator and fantasy novelist Shad Brooks. Another feasible means of doing a ''type'' of back-carried, back-drawn sword is to carry the sword on the side of a backpack, and then draw the sword in the same motion as one is removing the backpack.

===Sharpness===
There are two misconceptions about swords - one is that combat swords were rather blunt and relied on the power of impact, and another that they were sharp enough to shave with and could cut padded cloth with little to no effort. The truth as always in the middle - blunt blades are obviously stupidly impractical (such a "blunt edge" usually comes from a flanged mace, not a sword), and extra sharpness leads to a brittle blade, making the edge extremely vulnerable to chipping. Sure, in some cultures swordsmiths could get away with razor sharpness if metallic armor and shields weren't widespread and fencing styles developed in ways to avoid parrying, but really it only lasted for very long in Japan. With ''modern'' swordsmithing, using modern materials and techiques it's quite possible to make the blade both resilient and razor sharp, but even then most HEMA practitioners prefer reasonably sharp swords, because they last fucking FOREVER when made with top-grade modern steel, while razor-sharp ones made from the same stuff would ''eventually'' wear down from use.

Ironically, some of the absolute sharpest swords are also the most primitive. Stone swords made from obsidian or other vitreous (i.e, glass-like) rocks are absolutely sharp enough to shave with- hell, obsidian blades can have a cutting edge as thin as 3 nanometers (which incidentally makes them prized by surgeons, who appreciate the need to make precise incisions). However, any sort of vitreous material tends to be quite brittle. Some swordsmiths circumvented this by setting many sharp "teeth" into a sturdier frame (e.g. the Aztec macuahuitl/macana that used obsidian shards embedded on the edges of what was essentially a cricket bat).

===Reverse grip===
Yes, reverse-grip fighting looks really cool with lightsabers in [[Star Wars]]. But in reality, except in some fringe cases (finishing a downed enemy, for instance) reverse-grip was not used in swordfighting. Now, early medieval daggers were held in reverse grip to stab down with more force and pierce through mail, that is indeed correct. Open any serious book on knife-fighting today and you will find some reverse grip techniques, correct again. But those are meant for small and light weapons. The moment you reach the size of a larger parrying dagger, it simply becomes impractical to use a reverse grip as it greatly reduces reach and control one has over their weapon. This is even more true for even a small sword like an arming sword, and becomes ridiculous for one meant to be used with two hands. As a general rule, the longer the weapon is, the less practical it is to use reverse grip.

===Cutting off limbs and heads===
Possible, but heavily impractical and dangerous (to one attempting it). The reason is swords are really bad at cutting through solid hard materials, and one of such materials is bone. You can cut through a bone with a sword, but it needs excessive force, meaning either excessive speed of a swing or mass of a sword itself, to a point it becomes hard to control the sword and can lead to a dangerous overswing that leaves you '''dead''' open to counterattack if you don't end up hitting yourself by mistake. And because the sword blade isn't magically immune to damage, it '''would''' blunt, chip, or even break in contact with a human bone. Worse even, it could ''stuck'' in the bone, effectively disarming you. And the best part is, cutting ''to'' the bone most times does as much damage as cutting ''through'' it - a man with his neck arteries and veins cut is just as dead as the one with his head chopped off, and an arm or leg with severed muscles and strings is just as useless and painful as the one cut off clean. And don't even start with cleaving people in half. Machetes are better at damaging bone because they are meant to chop hard material such as wood and sugarcane, though at best it would cause a compound fracture. There are a few varieties of swords created for untrained peasants that were made to be both heavy and cheap, hoping to cause a single limb or head cut. Some swords were specifically made to cut off heads, but they were meant to be used as executioner's tools rather than weapons and are highly unlikely to have been used on a battlefield.

=== Parrying all day long ===
	
If you have a sword and your enemy has a sword, one thing that you can do is use your sword to stop the enemy's blade. This is called Parrying and it is a valid action in a sword fight. However, in fiction (especially visual fiction) sword fights will often involve each side constantly slashing each other for minutes at a time hitting nothing but the opponent's blade. In real life this did not happen. Usually a sword fight is over in a few swings, especially one on a battlefield. Even in a "pure" sword duel (No shields), opponents do not slash and parry continuously like how they're stereotypically portrayed in media and instead only attack in short intervals before retreating and attacking again or until one of you suffers a fatal wound. This was the case for three reasons:
*Eventually, you will suffer from fatigue and make a mistake, costing you your head if you don't take a few seconds to catch your breath and your rational opponent will be thinking the same.
*Dodging the attack completely is preferable to parrying as it leaves your sword intact and actually leaves your opponent open for an attack.
*Unless both of you have Slaaneshi-tier reflexes and are telepathic, it is nearly impossible for any sword fighter to match their opponent's moves in that magnitude for minutes-on-end that doesn't involve the duel being choreographed like a play (even if you were trained by the same teacher).

A real sword fight is NOT parrying all day, as seen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQMqlFY7T64 here]
	
The first reason why this is the case is simple, the objective in a sword fight is to get your sword to hit the enemy, not his blade. The second reason is (if you have one) a shield is better suited to staving off an enemy blow than a sword. The third is that in a battle situation, you are vulnerable to another attacker if you are occupied in endless parrying. The fourth is that swords are not magically immune to other swords. If you parry a blow, your sword gets damaged, which is why the sort of "edge-to-edge" parry you always see in movies are questionable. It would dig huge divots out of the softer sword, if not both of them at once. Sword fighters of some schools tended parry with the flat of the blade unless they're using a specialized weapon with flanges or notches to catch and disarm or break the other weapon, while in others edge-to-edge was considered an acceptable move, since it provided better grip, more reliable block, better use of cross-guards and inevitable blade damage could be repaired later, while your cracked skull could not. It was a matter of [[skub]] both when sword-fighting was relevant and in modern HEMA community.

For those wondering why movies do this if it's so unrealistic and bad, it's simple: most actors and stunt doubles aren't trained swordsmen. But, considering even a dull prop sword without edge is still a heavy lump of metal that can hurt someone very badly if taken fully in the face; parrying all day is performed for safety reasons. The trick here is that, while learning to correctly handle a sword takes a long time; it is easy to train someone that has never wielded one before to perform a couple of very basic and predictable routines that [[pretend|make it looks like]] they're trying to hit their opponent. Said routine is then mirrored by the other person they're 'fighting' with, resulting in safe moves where the swords rhythmically and repeatedly clang loudly against one another (a practice called "Flynning" or "pirate halves" after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Flynn Errol Flynn] swashbuckling pirate movies; or "ferrailler" in French, i.e. clanging metal together.) The cool metal-on-metal sound effects give the impression both 'combatants' are really going at it, where in reality they actually are playing it really safe with moves both know are coming and how to deal with. Said impression of a dynamic can then easily be enhanced even further with taking shots from different angles and other camera tricks for a movie, and by having the two characters play off each other in various ways during the fight.

=== Swords and dual wielding ===

If you go to battle with a one-handed sword, you'd generally want some other weapon in your off hand as well. Ideally it should be a shield or a buckler, but lets face it: if you're going into battle, a sword is probably your sidearm, and your main weapon is likely to be two-handed or incompatible with shields in some other ways, and if you use a sword for self-defense against bandits or assassins on the town's street, chances are you didn't bring a huge-ass shield as part of your civilian outfit, and the only other weapon on you would likely be a dagger. So you grab your ''other'' sidearm, like a dagger or a small axe, or maybe even a mace or warhammer. Why not another sword? Well, wielding a single sword requires a lot of skill and attention to do it properly, and operating two requires ''more'' than twice of both, since you use the other sword with your off-hand, which by definition is weaker and less dexterous. That's not to say, master swordsmen didn't try it - some of them did, often with quite a success on tourneys and duels, but none of them was crazy enough to go to war with double swords when sword and something less skill-intensive is so much more sensible. Once you got two weapons in your hand you ''do not'' get to attack twice as often, like it's normally portrayed in traditional or video games - a good attack move requires muscle effort from a whole body, but by attacking with both hands simultaneously (like with showy "scissors" move movies and video games so love) you can only use your arms and to an extend shoulder strength. What dual wielding is really about, is attacking with one weapon and defending with another. This allows you to parry an enemy attack with one weapon and simultaneously retaliate with another, or attack with one weapon without compromising your own defense (much). So contrary to how it's normally portrayed in media and games, dual-wielding is a defensive technique rather then offensive one. And you'd need that extra defense, since with one-handed weapons you would have lower reach. This is also the reason why people didn't block enemy attacks by both their weapons crossed, which is another showy but extremely impractical move popularized by media - one weapon is almost always enough to deflect a blow, and using both you'd just throw away the immediate counter-attack feature, which is the prime selling point of double-wielding. Now double-wielding might look to you like a poor man's sword-and-shield style, but there is one more thing: your options for attack angles are doubled with two different lethal weapons no less, which makes defending against your attacks hell of a lot more difficult for your opponent. Sure, shields and bucklers could and would be used for bashing people, but it's nowhere near as lethal as dagger or axe to the face.

Now, in the Renaissance there was such a thing called the main-gauche or "parrying dagger," but these usually required special training to use effectively, and some models came with specialized designs to aid in parrying; for example, "swordbreakers" had notches to catch the enemy blade and twist it out of their hands, while the trident dagger had spring-loaded sides that could also catch the blade. However, daggers were not used to attack unless the wielder was able to lock blades and close in... which would put you in range of the other guy's dagger as well.

Another notable exception are the Chinese Butterfly Swords, a pair of short single-edged swords used in Wing Chun martial arts. The blades have to be short so that the user doesn't accidentally stab themselves as they swing them around; its also very handy to keep them short since using the swords just require the same moves as unarmed Wing Chun, so no specialized training was needed if you were already a practitioner. As far as we know, these were never used as battlefield weapons, but were pretty handy in a street fight.

There were also several schools of swordplay that focused on the use of two full-sized swords, such as the Japanese Niten Ichi-Ryu school founded by the swordmaster Miyamoto Musashi, but these took years of training to become proficient in let alone master. Generally, these schools required that would-be practitioners have extensive experience in wielding a sword in the off-hand and strongly advised against use by amateurs.

=== Cutting arrows and bullets ===
	
Actually, this is possible: if hit straight-on, a sword will cut a bullet in half in mid-flight. Sometimes you'll see this as evidence by the Katana-cultists ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPQ1W3qobys The glorious bastards actually tried it!]) that the Katana is a uniquely sharp/strong weapon, but ''any'' blade will cut through a fast-moving block of lead, even a butter knife. The problem with this is that you are standing right behind where the bullet is going, you are now shot twice. If you're not standing right behind where the bullet is going... why are you bothering cutting it in half? The same goes for arrows, but there is likely more batting aside involved (sort of like it goes in [[Star Wars]] with lightsabers and blaster bolts). Also the arrow won't split in half like a bullet, for various reasons related to wood grain, arrow wobble, etc. and unrelated to swords. The thing is, if you can move so fast that you can deflect incoming projectiles (the projectile from a decent [[Bows and Arrows|bow]] can easily go faster than your car does at close range) you should be able to just dodge them instead of bothering with looking fancy. But no human being is capable of dodging a battlefield's worth of arrows/bullets because those thing are just too fast and you do not (or even cannot) see them coming. So unless you're precognitive or have some kind of [[Weeaboo Fightan Magic]] you're not going to do well stopping projectiles with your sword. Oh, and this damages your sword of course. As you can see in the test video above the blade only broke on the seventh impact, but each bullet being cut chipped away at the blade... and would all other things have been equal, forging a blade costs one hell of a lot more money and time than casting and loading a cartridge. Just get the hell out of the way!

=== Pistol and Sword ===
	
40k is in love with combining a sword in one hand and a pistol in the other and as far as 40K weapon stupidity goes, Games Workshop actually gets it almost right this time. In ye olden times, pistols were slow to reload and inaccurate so it only made sense to have a melee weapon along with the pistol. Pirates were partially famed for this combo. Rather than shoot at range and run the risk of missing, they would close to melee range, deflect the enemy's sword, then stick the pistol in the enemy's gut and pull the trigger. Afterward, they would either drop the gun and draw another or flip it round and hold it by the barrel to use it like a club, only reloading in opportune times. Beyond pirates, this was basically universal practice among all civilian or military sailors at the time.

The other and somewhat more relevant reason that 40K uses pistol and sword was because this was a common weapon combination of the assault troopers in World War I; if you look at the Imperium's other tech, they take a lot of "inspiration" from WWI (several tanks are blatant ripoffs of real world tanks of the era). As the war progressed, commanders realized that defending a trench from an oncoming wave of men was handled sufficiently with bolt action long rifles supported by static machine guns, but these were useless when assaulting a trench. Thus, after discussing with the men who had the most experience in taking enemy trenches, they gave them the weapons they requested: small, handheld weapons that were easy to use and wield within the confines of a trench: especially pistols, trench knives, clubs, sharpened shovels (and later trench guns and sub-machineguns). These were much easier to bring to bear in narrow, muddy trenches where the rifles of the defenders were much harder to maneuver. Officers in WWI were also equipped with a sword and pistol as standard, and they weren't just for show, they'd get used both to direct their own troops and to clear trenches, both theirs and the enemy's.

Also, there are several additional reasons why it makes perfect sense in the 40k or 19th century context:
* A sword can never run out of ammunition. Handy when you are engaging [[Tyranids|a swarm of enemies]]. Though you still need to sharpen and repair it from time to time, this isn't nearly as much of a problem as it is for earlier firearms.
* A sword can parry. If you are fighting in melee against [[Orks|an opponent who prefers hand weapons]], and are armed with just a rifle or a pistol, you can only hope to hit your enemy and incapacitate him before he chops you down. Good luck doing that to an Ork. On the other hand, having a sword means you can at least try to defend yourself against other melee weapons. Makes sense now why a sword continued to be an officer's and nobleman's weapon well into the gunpowder age?
* A sword is not that noisy compared to firearms (or bolters, for that matter). Sure, a melee fight isn't silent, there are bound to be clangs and screams, but it's not nearly as overt as an unsuppressed firearm discharge which can easily reach an ear-shattering 130 dB. There is a reason why people need to wear ear protection at gun ranges. Never mind it also produces flash and smoke, more so if you are using non-smokeless powder. So if you, say, managed to take an isolated enemy position within a wider front line [[Kayvaan_Shrike|with melee weapons only]], there is a good chance the enemy won't know about it for a while. Granted, you can [[Raptors_(Chapter)|snipe from afar using advanced suppressed rifles and scopes]]- but you don't always have the luxury of doing that and ''swords are still quieter''. All of this is assuming you aren’t using a chainsword of course.
* [http://www.military-today.com/life/stab_vest_vs_bullet_proof_vest_the_definitive_guide.htm Bulletproof vests often struggle against knives] (Armor resistance to piercing vs slashing vs. crushing damage is one of the most common "realism" systems done in RPGs and tactics games, both /v/ and /tg/, for a reason.)
* 40k has [[Power Armour]], which can only be reliably threatened either by melee [[Power_weapon|Power Weapons]], or goddamn anti-tank guns. And unless you are a Space Marine yourself, you can't just fasten a [[Lascannon]] onto your belt and call it a day, so if you don't want to end up facing a Space Marine or [[Tyranid_Warrior|a similarly armored xeno monstrocity]] with just a lasgun, grab that power sword. On the reverse side, while Space Marines are superior to regular humans at any combat range, this is particularly true at close range, where their shock value is much greater and enemies could not focus fire to capitalize on their numerical superiority or use cover to compensate for their squishyness compared to marines. Whether marines struggle against particularly competent force of humans or [[Tau|shooty Xenos]], finding a way to break through their fire and enter melee (which is not always easy) is a key to victory both on tabletop and in the lore. Also, in fluff (and RPGs), power swords are remarkably good at breaking enemy non-power weapons while parrying or being parried, adding to their value in defense. Two reasons why they are very popular amongst officers and champions alike.
**This means there are gradations in weapon/armour interaction; [[Flak_Armor|flak armour]] defeats weaker [[Autogun|firearms]] and [[Lasgun|lasguns]], but falls to [[Bolter|bigger]] [[Shuriken_Catapult|and]] [[Gauss#Necrons|scarier]] [[Plasma#Pulse_Weapons|advanced]] guns, which are nigh useless against [[Power_Armour|power armour]], which can't protect against [[Power_weapon|power weapons]] or [[Plasma_gun|advanced]] [[Meltagun|anti-tank]] guns. So unless you happen to have the latter either [[Incubi|on very fast elite melee units]], on [[XV-8 Crisis Battlesuit|sufficiently mobile weapon platforms]], or simply [[Aspect_Warrior#Fire_Dragons|in abundance]], when Adeptus Astartes come for you, you are beyond screwed, just as in fluff.
**While [[Terminator]] armor does protect against most common power weapons, the aforementioned advanced anti-tank guns still have a good chance at hurting them anyway and the greatly reduced speed puts them at a disadvantage against enemies that are either faster than they are or can hit them from far away. And while they do have Power Fists equipped as standard, they're slow enough to give an appropriately geared opponent the chance to kill them before they get a chance to use said power fists. So it all works out...unless you're dealing with Assault Terminators, that is. In that case, you're screwed if you're stuck in melee with them if you're not a Dreadnought or something equally big and nasty.
[[C.S. Goto|With that said, sometimes]] [[Matthew Ward|GW takes it a little too far.]]

=== Unsheathing fun ===

Quick: what sound does a sword (or any blade weapon) make when you unsheathe it? If your answer is something along the lines of SHWING!, think about how a sword would make this sound upon being drawn. It has to be dragged against other metal, but this can causes a whole series of engineering nightmares: if your sword is dragged alongside its sharp edge it blunts, which is obviously not desirable. If you draw it against it flat (or its non-sharp edge if your sword is single-edged) the engineering involved would have to be so precise that the sound is produced, but this would create such a narrow fit for your blade that it would be very difficult and heavy to draw and sheathe, and when temperatures cause the metal to expand or contract your sword gets either stuck or dangles loose in its scabbard. This is obviously not desirable as well.
	
A more accurate reproduction of what sound a sword makes is to pull up the sleeves of whatever shirt you are wearing: a soft "ffffp"-esque sound. This is because sword sheathes were often made out of wood or leather, with sometimes some kind of fur inside of it. This held the blade snugly in place, would prevent it from falling out if held upside down and would not provide more wear on your sword than combat would.

And whatever dumbass thinks he's 2cool4sheathes will soon learn that cutting his furniture/legs is a very good reason to start wearing a sheathe for his sword.
	
=== How not to make swords ===
	
[[image:Conan sword casting.jpg|thumb|300px|left|How to make a sword shaped ingot of pig iron which is of less value to you in a fight than a nice heavy stick]]
	
Making a sword from steel is a fairly complex and tricky process. Generally it was done by specialized swordsmiths once societies got big enough to support them. Common village blacksmiths could make swords, though not good ones. Making a steel sword involves taking a form of ferrous metal (be it an ingot of iron, a hunk of scrap metal or a sandwich of different types of steels) and heating it until it got soft, gradually hammering it into a sword shape, re-heating periodically as it cools during forging and then getting reheating it again to temper it and quenching in oil to give it strength. A sword does take a fair bit of time to make. As it's a tricky job, swordsmiths did not live alone in isolated workshops but rather worked together in guilds to help train new swordsmiths, while whole families (male and female) were involved in the process of making swords one way or another. They were also not adverse to using mechanical assistance such as water powered trip hammers to help them get things done quickly and efficiently, though forging by hand did allow them to be more precise about things, so it was a case of "Am I being commissioned to outfit a unit in bulk or to make a masterpiece for an officer?".
	
[[image:Chinese_Trip_Hammers.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Trip Hammers, for when a smith does not want to use his muscle for all the hammering]]
	
In any case, as it gets the hell beaten out of it during forging what you start with does not look like what you get when your done. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E6TzT0eCYs What a medieval swordsmith would not do is cast a sword shaped form of Pig Iron (the type of liquid iron which you can make with pre-industrial technology, full of impurities and carbon), wait for it to cool into a semi-solid form, hammer it on an anvil for a bit and dunk it into water.] If you try that and it does not shatter on the anvil or shatter after being dunked into water due to cooling so rapidly, it will shatter after the first blow. Note that casting was a legitimate way to make one type of sword; the ones made of bronze, although bronze swords do not match up to the performance of a properly-made iron sword. (Note for the pedantic: you CAN quench in water instead of oil, but it's extra work for no real benefit since you risk warping the blade and need to temper it afterward).

Also, nobody ever quenched a blade by thrusting it into a living guy's chest. That is an obvious bit of often repeated embellishment and rumor about Damascus Steel blades (which were made with the previously mentioned sandwiches of steels) which wormed its way into folklore and you're a moron if you think otherwise.
Firts there's a, let's say, logistical problem: a sword is a meter long or more, and you need to immerse it completely to get a proper quench - and the supply of people at least a meter thick is quite unreliable outside America... Or did they use elephants and walruses? Then there's the metallurgical problem: when you quench steel you want it to cool in a quick, controlled and homogeneous way to avoid warping and having differtial hardening where you don't want differtial hardening. Flesh is not a good at dispersing heat, so your sword will probably not harden at all, and even if this gruesome process did somehow work, you'd need an army of clones to get repeatable results.

=== Folded a thousand times ===
[[image:Forging_Techniques.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Various Japanese forging styles.]]

''Ah, Guroriasu Nippon Sutiru, Foruded Ova 1000 Times....''

This is, as you might expect, bullshit, even if it contains a (small) grain of truth. Japanese swords were created by combining three types of iron alloys, which (if you drop weaboo names) were basically low carbon steel, high-carbon steel and extra-high-carbon pig iron. The limitations of Japanese smithing techniques made it so smelting of those alloys happened below their melting point temperature (or, in other words, they became soft and malleable but not liquid), hence they were unhomogeneous and contained lots of impurities. So it was ultimately plain common sense to "knead" the mix (like you would do with bread) to get an homogeneous bar by stretching it on an anvil, folding it back, forge-welding the 2 parts together again. Repeat, repeat and repeat until (almost) all of the impurities were driven out.

This process, called lamination, was meant to spread the carbon content in the steel and remove inclusions by bringing them to the surface where they could be hammered away as slag. It also created layered laminated steel with layers of hard but brittle high-carbon steel and soft but plastic low-carbon steel (actually pig iron and high-carbon layers initially, but by the time laminating was done enough carbon would burn out of them to change their type) which combines the strong points of both, so the blade could be almost as sharp as hard steel and almost as flexible as soft steel. (You have to give it to them, the Japanese swordsmiths really did do a good job considering the limitations they had to work with.) This was however an horribly time-consuming process (and thus costly), not to say prone to errors. And even if everything works correctly, the very act of working the steel means you lose some every time you work it: external layers of steel burn off, slag detaches from the workpiece, small pieces fly away with every hammer strike - so you would try to keep work to a minimum. Keep in mind that the number of layers of your sword doubles with every fold: 2-4-8-16... and so on, so after 10 folds you get 1024 layers, and after 20 your steel is as homogeneous as it can get due to having over a million layers that blend in each other, losing all the sexy benefits of laminating. One thousand folds would theoretically get you more layers than there are atoms in the perceivable Universe (it's 302-digit number in case you wonder), you'd also end up with only a small fraction of steel you started working with, and almost all the carbon in it would burn out long before you reach 100 foldings, leaving you with almost useless soft iron. A traditionally forged Katana isn't folded a thousand times (perhaps a dozen, if even that), though it does possess over a thousand discernible layers in its structure when looked at with a microscope.

Other nations also used techniques similar to folding (welding) to get over impurities and make layered steel sandwiches, but then one day some smart Indian smith invented crucible smelting to make much purer steel right of the bat, and after that another Indian smith invented tempering which was cheaper, easier and more cost-effective than laminating. Some enterprising Chinese and Arabian traders spread these techniques all over Asia and Europe, so people there immediately stopped folding/welding their Glorious Steel and adopted the better (mostly less time-consuming and hence cheaper) technology. All, of course, except for the isolationist hicks that decided to isolate themselves from the rest of the world and only found about these technologies when Commodore Perry gently knocked their front door off.

A huge chunk of the reputation of Japanese swordsmithing comes from the fact that, by the time Europeans forced their way into the island, swords had became largely a ceremonial part of officers' uniforms in the Western militaries and so little attention was given to their crafting that their quality had become quite poor, not even half as good as they were made but a century before. Low-tech Japanese swords, on the other hand, were still crafted for actual battle and killing people rather then pointing at the enemy to inspire your troops, so they were of the highest quality their technology allowed. Naturally westerners were amazed by the quality of Japanese swords compared to their own stamped mass-produced junk (and keep in mind this was during a low point for Japanese swordsmithing due to reduced demand for swords- a law passed in 1876 banned the public carry of swords for all but a small number of military officials), and here's where the Glorious Nippon Steel bullshit took its origins.

One a sidenote: none of the swords the IJA used during WW2 were Katanas, they were actually similar-looking Guntō; mass-produced with modern means. The ones made for NCOs were produced from train tracks while the officers got hand made units, and due to a shortage of the steel traditionally used for making swords they were often made from steel that wasn't layered at all. While effective when compared to mass produced bayonets, this was the age of automatic weapons where bringing a blade to a gun fight was pretty much suicide in most instances- as a matter of fact, since they were made with the same mass production process that led to the decline of sword quality in the West, these swords were actually ''worse'' overall than the old Katanas. Anybody who claims that they got a genuine Katana from killing a Japanese soldier in WW2 or that their grandfather picked one off the body of a dead officer are full of shit, since construction of traditional-style katanas didn't restart until 1953. While modern katanas are of much better quality, this is due more to the extensive quality control standards placed on swordsmiths by the Japanese government rather than the quality of the steel itself. That said, you can always buy mall ninja grade trash that looks like a katana but is actually stamped stainless steel less deadly than a heavy stick.

Odds are if your buddies claim to own a genuine katana at all they're either mistaken or lying; genuine katanas cost $3,000 at the very least, and that's before factoring in the cost for a licence to own them due to their legal status as art objects. That if they can make it on to the waiting list, as only a few thousand are produced a year. It's much more likely they own a replica made with modern machine production techniques and composed of ordinary stainless steel. While stainless steel may not get rusty and works fine for kitchen knives, it's much too brittle to be used for any sword that isn't purely ornamental.