Longswords were mainly made for stabbing. You can generally tell the main techniques of a sword from the shape: curved for cutting/chopping (more weight towards the end, curve helps with cutting), straight for stabbing (straight means less resistance for stabbing). The swords were made to stab into the open joints and eye holes. Much, much easier than trying to crush something with a bladed weapon.

Yes, if you are facing heavy plate armor, you want maces and hammers. They are good at both crushing the armor (making it hard to even breath since it got punched in) and transferring impact to the organs. The other option is to use various types of picks: have a single big spike on the size so that the force of your swing is concentrated on a single, sturdy point. Picks basically serve like medieval can openers, and are great for dealing killing blows through armor (Although, obviously, they could get stuck; that is why many picks had a hammer head on the opposite side, for more ‘free’ crushing hits as well).

Generally, maces and such were not as wieldy as sword… that is the point. If you want a heavy, crushing blow, you go with a mace. If you want finesse, you want a sword. Which is why this author is stupid. If this girl handed him a mace, then I would say ‘fair enough that you don’t like it’. Maces tend to work best with a shield style (since you can use the shield to block while recovering your weapon), VERY different from a 2 handed sword style used for katanas.

Also, something I found odd:
“The crafting technology to produce glass seemed to have developed in this world. Although its quality was not comparable to earth, rather the glass here was murky and uneven.”
The earliest history of glassmaking can be traced back to the Bronze Age circa 3500 BCE, in ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. It is thought that they discovered glass as accidental by-products of metal-working. Glassmaking in South Asia likely goes back to around 1730 BCE. Glassblowing techniques are thought to have been first invented in the Middle East some time before 1000 BCE. China discovered glassmaking considerably later, with the earliest evidence being dated to the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770–256 BCE). Roman glassware has been found in Chinese tombs dating back to the Northern Han Dynasty (206 BCE–9 CE). By 1 BCE, advances in Roman industry saw the introduction of glass blowing, and by 100 CE the dominance of colorless “aqua” glass. Glass was also used extensively throughout the Middle Ages.

Basically, if a society at least has access to bronze metal-working technology, it’s pretty likely that they’ll have discovered glass.

The issue is that the character (and presumably the author) seems to making the tired old “the katana is the superior sword” assumption based on obviously incorrect information and what is likely some degree of nationalistic pride . The assumption that European swords were intentionally blunt to be used like clubs isn’t just wrong… it’s a blatantly stupid assumption to make. They’re swords, which by literal definition are weapons made from sharpened bars of metal. There have been edgeless swords that defy this paradigm (the estoc/tuck being the notable example designed specifically for combat against armor) but they were the exception rather than the rule—and even then weren’t used for crushing, as they had very sharp points intended for piercing the gaps in the armor. And besides, it’s not like a katana would be any sharper than any other sword of similar material (that is, steel)—the sharpness of the sword depends on how thin the edge is ground down to, and the absolute minimum is an atom’s thickness regardless of material or forging technique (but such a thin edge would be more fragile than a snowflake).

I do, however, find something Renya thought to be particularly ironic:
“The iron used for the blade was of inferior quality devoiding the blade of any feeling of life within it. […] It is very likely that the crafting skill advanced only this far resembling this motion[.]”
You may be aware that the Japanese used a particular technique in forging katana. If not, you can read about it in detail on Wikipedia. But basically they took two pieces of different steels and joined them by heating them and hammering them together over and over—giving the it a hard inflexible edge but a soft flexible back. This general type of forging technique is known as “pattern welding.” They devised this method in about 1100 CE and got relatively good at making the katana by 1300 CE, and they kept the technique and design until modern day. Meanwhile, the Celts developed a similar form of pattern welding back in 700 BCE and mastered it by about 300 CE—and by the end of the Viking Age (1000 CE), pattern welding was basically discarded by European swordsmiths because of an increased availability of crucible mono-steels (which had always been regarded as superior quality to pattern welded steels, even since the time of the Romans with Toledo steel and Damascus steel). The reason Japan stuck with pattern welding so long is because Japan had poor iron reserves—the iron they used for making katana (known as tamahagane) didn’t even come from ore, it came from “ironsand” (which is exactly what it sounds like—sand considerable amounts of iron-containing minerals in it). Which you can probably guess, when compared to the conventional rich iron ore you dig up in a mine, is fairly shitty as far as “iron quality” goes.

Oh, you did ask if full plate was not overly common in medieval times, right? Well, “full plate” wasn’t available for the majority of the “Medieval times.” The oldest type of “full plate” you’ll get is during the later half of the Late Medieval period (“alwyte armor,” circa 1420). Anything before that would be “partial plate,” otherwise known as “transitional armor.” It’s during the early Renaissance period when “full plate” truly became commonplace… only to fade away into obsolescence with the introduction of firearms.

Actually plate armors were VERY expensive so they were very rare on the batlefield. So others opponents were more lightly armored, so sword still must be sharp. Also dull sword… isnt it a clear opposite of the whole idea of the sword? Well but still plate armors, even if rare were still on battlefields. When that happened, knights have mastered many techniques designed specially to pierce armor. Excluding obvios aiming for gaps betwen metal plates, there were techniques like half-swording, when you grab sword by blade with 1 hand to help you block, parry and thrust the sword like dagger into gap, or for example murderstroke, when again you grab sword by blade but with 2 hands to use the hilt like a hammer 🙂
Here catch more about this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo :D.
Also im sorry for my horrible grammar today xD

Is he that wrong with it though? I mean, no matter how sharp your blade, cutting through full plate is nothing you can accomplish easily. So, unless they were pierced with edged spears the only plausible method to deal with full plate would be to crush it with hammers, flails or whatever?
Or did you mean the fact that full plate was not overly common in medieval times?

Thanks to Translator and Editor and Proof Reader for doing Chapter 6!! ^^

I don’t understand Renya at all.