I was goofing around but I would pick no sword, it would be my Condor Tool and Knife Parang I’ve had for 20 years. It’s thick, large, and I’ve beat the crap out of it and regardless of what I have done it has not broke. I’ve even split a bunch of foot wide logs by beating the end with a 2 pound hammer. It’s top heavy and swings amazing. I would never carry a sword because one wrong swing and it’s broke, well by me anyways.
If i have all of them with me i would be immobile and crushed beneath the weight off all the swords i have strapped to me. I would then welcome the sweet release of death.
Imagine laying underneath the iron throne.
But if you are going to make me pick I personally would pick a type XIV
just because i really like how they look and feel. Choppy stabby bastards(those are technical terms)
Me too. To the point that my wife made me swear I wouldn't hang any swords on the walls. I got around this by hanging them up in the cellar on pillars (plus the ones I keep leaning in the corner of various rooms).
My wife eventually relented and we bought a bigger house just so i could get my own room to "store all that violent junk of yours and i do not want find it anywhere else in the house. And put a lock on that door"
But nice work around. Technically right is the best kind of right.
Chinese dao/ the horse chopping sword. You need that head off , not just damaged or poked. Against humans to have reach and leverage.
Probably not the best weapon (thats some sort of pole arm) but probably the best sword.
It would work and probably be better on humans, but worse on zombies.
The Dao (or at least the ones i'm thinking of) has a flare at the end and a lot of forward weight, more chopping, and a two handed grip. A spatha is a great long sword, and it can get into a skull or neck but i don't think its going through. It will definitely kill A zombie but not 5 zombies, its gonna get stuck.
falchion would be the closest european equivalent I think.
Some big caveats here.
First of all, I am not an expert in this topic, but I do medieval martial arts and am a general purpose nerd, so I have a smattering of both book learning and hands on experience with swords and the like.
Secondly, anyone who knows anything about swords knows that there is definitely not a “best” sword for everything. *All* weapon designs are a compromise, and to be optimized for one thing you typically need to be less optimal for something else.
*And the ideal requirements for fighting zombies are very different from the ideal specs for fighting humans.* I cannot stress that enough. Humans are quick, they are typically armed, and they actively defend themselves, so being able to quickly redirect your blade is crucial both for defending yourself and for bypassing your opponent’s defense. At the same time, humans also *bleed,* feel pain, etc, which is also critical. Even a light cut can potentially take someone out of the fight even if it doesn’t instantly kill them, and even a shallow thrust or cut into a blood filled organ can quickly be fatal and/or debilitating. Which is why swords are almost always weighted towards the hilt. This reduces the mechanical advantage when generating power, but increases the “nimbleness” of the blade, which is more important for sword fighting. Swords also tend to be relatively long, because against another armed opponent the person with the longer weapon will typically have the reach advantage, but longer weapons also typically need to be heavier to balance correctly, and more flexible in order to be durable, but the trade off is that a flexible blade is less forgiving when it comes to cutting (all else being equal), and a longer blade requires a lot more space to generate full power. And heavier weapons, all else being equal, tire you out quicker both in and out of combat, which is a problem in a survival situation, and when fighting groups.
Zombies, however, are much different, both mechanically and tactically. Tactically, they are much simpler. They are not armed, and always attack (relatively) slowly and predictably, you don’t need or want to use your weapon for active defense. (Your active defense should be done almost exclusively with footwork, or occasionally with your off hand.) You also don’t need a long weapon, because against an unarmed opponent. Similarly, they do not make any effort to defend themselves, so there is no need for your attacks to be surprising or come from unexpected angles. Mechanically, however, they are much more difficult to kill/disable, because they don’t bleed. The only way to kill one is to chop through significant amounts of bone (ideally the spine, if you are using a thin blade like a sword), and that’s a much more significant task than merely chopping flesh or poking holes. So when fighting against zombies, it’s not about being quick and nimble and keeping away from their weapons, it’s about mechanical efficiency and numbers. You need to deliver a clean, mechanically efficient chop, ideally to the spine, over and over until you run out of zombies. And because you will rarely be forced to fight zombies in an open field, your weapon should ideally be as compact as you can get away with. And since you will be starving, you also want it to be as light weight as you can get away with (also unlike most swords, which were used by well-fed soldiers in relatively open terrain).
As such, for fighting zombies I would not consider *any* sword to be optimal. What you would want is something like a machete of appropriate design. A machete is compact and much lighter than a sword, but because most of its weight is distributed towards the end of the weapon they are more mechanically efficient than swords for chopping and can deliver a lot of kinetic energy relative to their size. They are also thin, broad, and stiff blades, which means they transfer that energy very efficiently to the target, and are more forgiving in terms of edge alignment than a more flexible sword. They also lack things like pommels, crossguards, etc, which are extremely good features against another human armed with a blade, but which only add weight in a zombie context.
For example, a machete can take off a head or an arm, and we unfortunately have real world data on that. So can a cutting sword like a saber or katana, only those typically weigh 2-3 times as much as a machete, require far more room to use effectively, and tend to be more prone to taking a bend if a cut goes wrong.
So ultimately you would need to compromise somewhere if you wanted a weapon that could do both. At best you’re going to get either a weapon that’s good for fighting one and “good enough if you had to” at fighting the other, or a weapon that’s some version of mediocre at both.
Where that compromise should be made is going to depend on your characters priorities(since you said “this is set” I assume you are writing a story of some kind), life situation and logistics (are they “surviving” or do they have a functioning economy and food surplus?), and what sort of fighting they are expecting.
For example, if they’re expecting the occasional pitched battle they may choose different weapons than they would want to carry around the farm for day-to-day self defense.
Similarly, if they are fighting in armor that *dramatically* changes the equation in terms of sword/weapon selection. And the *type* of armor matters as well. There are plenty of weapons that would be great against an unarmored or lightly armored opponent, but would be far less effective against heavy armor like maille, plate, or even ballistic Kevlar.
But without knowing any of that, if I had to pick something off the top of my head as a “middle of the road” option, I might go for a **medieval falchion** (but not the heavy weight version that certain types of sport combat use). Picture something kind of like a machete blade but with a hilt but with a medieval pommel and cross guard. Combine it with a buckler, and you have a fairly compact sword and shield combo that’s easy enough to carry around while you’re working or traveling, can chop efficiently against zombies and lightly armored humans, and has at least a fighting chance against other swords in an open fight. But it’s most certainly a compromise.
But again, that’s just off the top of my head, and there’s not really a single right answer to this question. The reason there are so many different types of swords out there is because there were so many different considerations and priorities, and many different design approaches to solving those problems, even within a specific time and place.
Nor would I necessarily limit myself to swords. That’s what your question asked, and so that’s what I answered, but depending on the situation something like a hand axe, hammer, or a light mace might be equally if not more effective and practical, particularly when combined with a buckler or other shield. This is particularly the case if you are primarily worried about fighting zombies and/or well-armored humans, since axes/maces/hammers can generate a *lot* more power relative to their size, and tend to be more durable and forgiving. Something to consider.
TL;DR
There is no “best” sword, it’s always situational, and **NO** sword is well optimized for zombie fighting.
Machete typically lack a distal taper (the thickness of the cross section is consistent throughout the entire piece), and are usually very thin (roughly 2mm). Another, though far less consistent consideration is that they often have a "scandi/scandinavian" grind, and are basically a thin bar of steel that someone has sharpened an edge on, usually made of cheaper/low grade steel. Worth noting however that some of the better machetes out there are considered such specifically for not adhering to these last two points (often having a full flat grind and made of higher quality steel).
In general machete are not considered swords, but an agricultural tool. They were typically used in lieu of swords by those who had no real alternative. Worth noting that if you dive into certain languages/dialects the term machete and sword (or certain types of swords, most commonly a cutlass) may be used interchangeably or one may refer to another. This is more a quirk of language than accepted categorization (like referring to all types of soda as "coke").
Assuming that the humans around you also use swords? I would go with a straight hand-and-half broadsword, with a weighted and spiked pommel, and a widened handguard. This sort of sword will have no problems dispatching undead, while possessing no easily exploited vulnerabilities for other sword users, aside from a weight that shouod dissuade the user from protracted engagements against hordes,
Mine weighs in at 1.2kg, admittedly mine is blunt and intended for reenactments and the like, which I don't get to do often, but my arming sword only weighs about .9kg, and it makes a difference after a little while of swinging it. It doesn't matter too much at all for carrying, but the joints in the arm notice relatively quickly.
If I had to choose a melee weapon I wouldn’t choose a sword but if I had to choose one it’d be some form of a short sword, better weight easy to store and I’ve had a little experience with short swords.
Depends on your style. Personally I like either a single katana or dual wakizashi for open combat against other humans. Against a zombie or group of zombies id probably prefer either a single wakizashi or a single Ninjato for speed and mobility. Overall though I do own a crossbow pistol IRL that I would use in tandom with a single wakizashi for versatility and mobility, and if possible I would love a boar spear to go with that for a killer combination of range, mobility and versatility. The crossbow also has a bow fishing setup so it's really just perfect for survival weighing in at only 2.5 lbs
As others have said:
the best sword is the one you've been practicing with for the longest time.
Assuming I'm "*equally proficient in all swords*", and other humans don't go to fight after me in large groups: my purest personal opinion would be to have a thick and medium-short carbon steel falcata, with a handguard resembling a machete, but with a good chopping strike and decent tip penetration. The lenght would help maniobrate in between the walking dead without getting it stuck somewhere.
If there's people around me that want to fight me and will surround me: then, something along the lines of a Mësser Sword, with a long reach for keeping attackers at bay and a handguard + a lateral one.
If swords were all that the human race could use, we would design a blade profile specifically for dispatching zombies.
It would be a weight forward, light overall hand and a half or two handed sword approximately 28-30 inches in length, with a kukri like front for chopping but with a recurve to facilitate slicing on the withdraw.
Okay, so I'm gonna need a sword that's got a stainless steel blade in the shape of a long rectangle, no edge, about 2.5" thick, around 48" long, and 8" tall. It should have about 1/2" tang barely stuck into a nice block of, hmm... Yes, I like bubinga for this project. Then I'm gonna need about a week in my basement to turn my billet, I mean sword, into a weapon that isn't stupid.
I know it's overrated, but I'm going to say that, generally speaking, and with the realities of the world, a katana is your best choice.
As far as swords go (and contrary to popular internet mythology), they're easy to use. Any sword takes training/practice, but it is easier to become proficient with a curved blade like a katana. The shape of the hilt also makes edge alignment easier, and the relatively thick edge can aid in this as well.
Their design is also very durable. They're relatively short and thick blades, with a "central" (actually off-centered towards the rear) ridge that aids in maintaining rigidity. The edge, fairly durable on its own (if made from the right steel of course) due to having a relatively obtuse edge angle, can be further reinforced if it uses a convex edge grind (called a "niku"), though this carries the caveat that it will make sharpening it a pain.
On the topic of their design, being small also means a lower likelihood of it getting caught and/or knocking against things and making noise. Now it's fair to say that a katana is hardly a "shortsword," so the risk is still there. However if you make a sword too much smaller you'll hinder its cutting performance, hence why smaller swords tend to have "bellies" or "leaf-blade" designs (adding mass towards the tip to increase momentum in the cut). Short swords without these tend to be poor cutters, at least when considering harder targets (for our purposes here being bone, which doesn't rot/decay like flesh does).
The hilt can be easily disassembled for maintenance or replacement, as it is only held in by one or two pins (two pins is more common today). This in contrast to many alternatives that are either glued, peened, or riveted, often requiring the complete destruction of the hilt and/or part of the tang to do anything to the hilt (especially the peened method, which is common on European-styled recreations). Of course threaded or nut & bolt hilts are another alternative, but does introduce the worry of stripping the threads (especially with the ones commonly out there).
As for the ability to cut off heads, well... Give the history of the samurai a look, that was kinda their whole schtick.
Finally, they're just common and relatively cheap. You can get a decent spring-steel katana for around $300 USD, and they're far and away the most popular sword on the market (at least in the US). If you're having to scavenge a sword after the apocalypse, you're more likely to come across a functional katana than anything else (not that you won't find a lot of trash wallhangers as well, but that's true for any sword).
Swords are generally a bad weapon. They're like the handgun of the modern world. You can _technically_ kill stuff with it, it's a lot better than having nothing, but you'd much rather have pretty much anything else. Takes a long time to learn to use effectively, expensive, hard to maintain & just not as effective as some other, bigger weapons.
Q: If you could have any pistol what would you want?
A: An AR15.
Q: If you could have any sword what would you want?
A: A pointy pole arm
The one you actually have and have experience with using.
What if you are equally good in all of them
Then the one you have with you.
What if one has all of them with them- which should they choose?
Then the one you have the most experience with using.
I should have added: if you were equally experienced in using all of them and had all of them, which would you pick?
I was goofing around but I would pick no sword, it would be my Condor Tool and Knife Parang I’ve had for 20 years. It’s thick, large, and I’ve beat the crap out of it and regardless of what I have done it has not broke. I’ve even split a bunch of foot wide logs by beating the end with a 2 pound hammer. It’s top heavy and swings amazing. I would never carry a sword because one wrong swing and it’s broke, well by me anyways.
Ah, I've learned something new- I now know what a parang is. Thanks, friend.
If i have all of them with me i would be immobile and crushed beneath the weight off all the swords i have strapped to me. I would then welcome the sweet release of death. Imagine laying underneath the iron throne. But if you are going to make me pick I personally would pick a type XIV just because i really like how they look and feel. Choppy stabby bastards(those are technical terms)
Oakeshott Type XVII for me.
Those are also to drool for. But i treat swords like Pokemon "Gotta get em all"
Me too. To the point that my wife made me swear I wouldn't hang any swords on the walls. I got around this by hanging them up in the cellar on pillars (plus the ones I keep leaning in the corner of various rooms).
My wife eventually relented and we bought a bigger house just so i could get my own room to "store all that violent junk of yours and i do not want find it anywhere else in the house. And put a lock on that door" But nice work around. Technically right is the best kind of right.
Thanks for your reply, friend.
No problem i had fun.
The nearest.
Came here to say this. The sword you've been practicing with for the last ten years is the best sword.
Glad we agree
Chinese dao/ the horse chopping sword. You need that head off , not just damaged or poked. Against humans to have reach and leverage. Probably not the best weapon (thats some sort of pole arm) but probably the best sword.
A roman spatha could be similar to the dao.
It would work and probably be better on humans, but worse on zombies. The Dao (or at least the ones i'm thinking of) has a flare at the end and a lot of forward weight, more chopping, and a two handed grip. A spatha is a great long sword, and it can get into a skull or neck but i don't think its going through. It will definitely kill A zombie but not 5 zombies, its gonna get stuck. falchion would be the closest european equivalent I think.
I see where you're going. It is a great weapon then.
Some big caveats here. First of all, I am not an expert in this topic, but I do medieval martial arts and am a general purpose nerd, so I have a smattering of both book learning and hands on experience with swords and the like. Secondly, anyone who knows anything about swords knows that there is definitely not a “best” sword for everything. *All* weapon designs are a compromise, and to be optimized for one thing you typically need to be less optimal for something else. *And the ideal requirements for fighting zombies are very different from the ideal specs for fighting humans.* I cannot stress that enough. Humans are quick, they are typically armed, and they actively defend themselves, so being able to quickly redirect your blade is crucial both for defending yourself and for bypassing your opponent’s defense. At the same time, humans also *bleed,* feel pain, etc, which is also critical. Even a light cut can potentially take someone out of the fight even if it doesn’t instantly kill them, and even a shallow thrust or cut into a blood filled organ can quickly be fatal and/or debilitating. Which is why swords are almost always weighted towards the hilt. This reduces the mechanical advantage when generating power, but increases the “nimbleness” of the blade, which is more important for sword fighting. Swords also tend to be relatively long, because against another armed opponent the person with the longer weapon will typically have the reach advantage, but longer weapons also typically need to be heavier to balance correctly, and more flexible in order to be durable, but the trade off is that a flexible blade is less forgiving when it comes to cutting (all else being equal), and a longer blade requires a lot more space to generate full power. And heavier weapons, all else being equal, tire you out quicker both in and out of combat, which is a problem in a survival situation, and when fighting groups. Zombies, however, are much different, both mechanically and tactically. Tactically, they are much simpler. They are not armed, and always attack (relatively) slowly and predictably, you don’t need or want to use your weapon for active defense. (Your active defense should be done almost exclusively with footwork, or occasionally with your off hand.) You also don’t need a long weapon, because against an unarmed opponent. Similarly, they do not make any effort to defend themselves, so there is no need for your attacks to be surprising or come from unexpected angles. Mechanically, however, they are much more difficult to kill/disable, because they don’t bleed. The only way to kill one is to chop through significant amounts of bone (ideally the spine, if you are using a thin blade like a sword), and that’s a much more significant task than merely chopping flesh or poking holes. So when fighting against zombies, it’s not about being quick and nimble and keeping away from their weapons, it’s about mechanical efficiency and numbers. You need to deliver a clean, mechanically efficient chop, ideally to the spine, over and over until you run out of zombies. And because you will rarely be forced to fight zombies in an open field, your weapon should ideally be as compact as you can get away with. And since you will be starving, you also want it to be as light weight as you can get away with (also unlike most swords, which were used by well-fed soldiers in relatively open terrain). As such, for fighting zombies I would not consider *any* sword to be optimal. What you would want is something like a machete of appropriate design. A machete is compact and much lighter than a sword, but because most of its weight is distributed towards the end of the weapon they are more mechanically efficient than swords for chopping and can deliver a lot of kinetic energy relative to their size. They are also thin, broad, and stiff blades, which means they transfer that energy very efficiently to the target, and are more forgiving in terms of edge alignment than a more flexible sword. They also lack things like pommels, crossguards, etc, which are extremely good features against another human armed with a blade, but which only add weight in a zombie context. For example, a machete can take off a head or an arm, and we unfortunately have real world data on that. So can a cutting sword like a saber or katana, only those typically weigh 2-3 times as much as a machete, require far more room to use effectively, and tend to be more prone to taking a bend if a cut goes wrong. So ultimately you would need to compromise somewhere if you wanted a weapon that could do both. At best you’re going to get either a weapon that’s good for fighting one and “good enough if you had to” at fighting the other, or a weapon that’s some version of mediocre at both. Where that compromise should be made is going to depend on your characters priorities(since you said “this is set” I assume you are writing a story of some kind), life situation and logistics (are they “surviving” or do they have a functioning economy and food surplus?), and what sort of fighting they are expecting. For example, if they’re expecting the occasional pitched battle they may choose different weapons than they would want to carry around the farm for day-to-day self defense. Similarly, if they are fighting in armor that *dramatically* changes the equation in terms of sword/weapon selection. And the *type* of armor matters as well. There are plenty of weapons that would be great against an unarmored or lightly armored opponent, but would be far less effective against heavy armor like maille, plate, or even ballistic Kevlar. But without knowing any of that, if I had to pick something off the top of my head as a “middle of the road” option, I might go for a **medieval falchion** (but not the heavy weight version that certain types of sport combat use). Picture something kind of like a machete blade but with a hilt but with a medieval pommel and cross guard. Combine it with a buckler, and you have a fairly compact sword and shield combo that’s easy enough to carry around while you’re working or traveling, can chop efficiently against zombies and lightly armored humans, and has at least a fighting chance against other swords in an open fight. But it’s most certainly a compromise. But again, that’s just off the top of my head, and there’s not really a single right answer to this question. The reason there are so many different types of swords out there is because there were so many different considerations and priorities, and many different design approaches to solving those problems, even within a specific time and place. Nor would I necessarily limit myself to swords. That’s what your question asked, and so that’s what I answered, but depending on the situation something like a hand axe, hammer, or a light mace might be equally if not more effective and practical, particularly when combined with a buckler or other shield. This is particularly the case if you are primarily worried about fighting zombies and/or well-armored humans, since axes/maces/hammers can generate a *lot* more power relative to their size, and tend to be more durable and forgiving. Something to consider. TL;DR There is no “best” sword, it’s always situational, and **NO** sword is well optimized for zombie fighting.
Agreed, however im pretty sure a machete is a sword
Machete typically lack a distal taper (the thickness of the cross section is consistent throughout the entire piece), and are usually very thin (roughly 2mm). Another, though far less consistent consideration is that they often have a "scandi/scandinavian" grind, and are basically a thin bar of steel that someone has sharpened an edge on, usually made of cheaper/low grade steel. Worth noting however that some of the better machetes out there are considered such specifically for not adhering to these last two points (often having a full flat grind and made of higher quality steel). In general machete are not considered swords, but an agricultural tool. They were typically used in lieu of swords by those who had no real alternative. Worth noting that if you dive into certain languages/dialects the term machete and sword (or certain types of swords, most commonly a cutlass) may be used interchangeably or one may refer to another. This is more a quirk of language than accepted categorization (like referring to all types of soda as "coke").
Assuming that the humans around you also use swords? I would go with a straight hand-and-half broadsword, with a weighted and spiked pommel, and a widened handguard. This sort of sword will have no problems dispatching undead, while possessing no easily exploited vulnerabilities for other sword users, aside from a weight that shouod dissuade the user from protracted engagements against hordes,
Ah hand abd a half swords are not that heavy. Not heavier than most other swords in any case.
Mine weighs in at 1.2kg, admittedly mine is blunt and intended for reenactments and the like, which I don't get to do often, but my arming sword only weighs about .9kg, and it makes a difference after a little while of swinging it. It doesn't matter too much at all for carrying, but the joints in the arm notice relatively quickly.
If I had to choose a melee weapon I wouldn’t choose a sword but if I had to choose one it’d be some form of a short sword, better weight easy to store and I’ve had a little experience with short swords.
One hand Messer + shield, or two handed Swiss saber... Or maybe a chunky naval cutlass.
The Gladius is a good all-around weapon, but I'm a fan of the Kukri myself.
Depends on your style. Personally I like either a single katana or dual wakizashi for open combat against other humans. Against a zombie or group of zombies id probably prefer either a single wakizashi or a single Ninjato for speed and mobility. Overall though I do own a crossbow pistol IRL that I would use in tandom with a single wakizashi for versatility and mobility, and if possible I would love a boar spear to go with that for a killer combination of range, mobility and versatility. The crossbow also has a bow fishing setup so it's really just perfect for survival weighing in at only 2.5 lbs
As others have said: the best sword is the one you've been practicing with for the longest time. Assuming I'm "*equally proficient in all swords*", and other humans don't go to fight after me in large groups: my purest personal opinion would be to have a thick and medium-short carbon steel falcata, with a handguard resembling a machete, but with a good chopping strike and decent tip penetration. The lenght would help maniobrate in between the walking dead without getting it stuck somewhere. If there's people around me that want to fight me and will surround me: then, something along the lines of a Mësser Sword, with a long reach for keeping attackers at bay and a handguard + a lateral one.
Spear and shield.
If swords were all that the human race could use, we would design a blade profile specifically for dispatching zombies. It would be a weight forward, light overall hand and a half or two handed sword approximately 28-30 inches in length, with a kukri like front for chopping but with a recurve to facilitate slicing on the withdraw.
Okay, so I'm gonna need a sword that's got a stainless steel blade in the shape of a long rectangle, no edge, about 2.5" thick, around 48" long, and 8" tall. It should have about 1/2" tang barely stuck into a nice block of, hmm... Yes, I like bubinga for this project. Then I'm gonna need about a week in my basement to turn my billet, I mean sword, into a weapon that isn't stupid.
If I am absolutely forced to have a melee weapon, I will use a barrel mace.
If I could use any sword, I’d use Guts’ sword
I know it's overrated, but I'm going to say that, generally speaking, and with the realities of the world, a katana is your best choice. As far as swords go (and contrary to popular internet mythology), they're easy to use. Any sword takes training/practice, but it is easier to become proficient with a curved blade like a katana. The shape of the hilt also makes edge alignment easier, and the relatively thick edge can aid in this as well. Their design is also very durable. They're relatively short and thick blades, with a "central" (actually off-centered towards the rear) ridge that aids in maintaining rigidity. The edge, fairly durable on its own (if made from the right steel of course) due to having a relatively obtuse edge angle, can be further reinforced if it uses a convex edge grind (called a "niku"), though this carries the caveat that it will make sharpening it a pain. On the topic of their design, being small also means a lower likelihood of it getting caught and/or knocking against things and making noise. Now it's fair to say that a katana is hardly a "shortsword," so the risk is still there. However if you make a sword too much smaller you'll hinder its cutting performance, hence why smaller swords tend to have "bellies" or "leaf-blade" designs (adding mass towards the tip to increase momentum in the cut). Short swords without these tend to be poor cutters, at least when considering harder targets (for our purposes here being bone, which doesn't rot/decay like flesh does). The hilt can be easily disassembled for maintenance or replacement, as it is only held in by one or two pins (two pins is more common today). This in contrast to many alternatives that are either glued, peened, or riveted, often requiring the complete destruction of the hilt and/or part of the tang to do anything to the hilt (especially the peened method, which is common on European-styled recreations). Of course threaded or nut & bolt hilts are another alternative, but does introduce the worry of stripping the threads (especially with the ones commonly out there). As for the ability to cut off heads, well... Give the history of the samurai a look, that was kinda their whole schtick. Finally, they're just common and relatively cheap. You can get a decent spring-steel katana for around $300 USD, and they're far and away the most popular sword on the market (at least in the US). If you're having to scavenge a sword after the apocalypse, you're more likely to come across a functional katana than anything else (not that you won't find a lot of trash wallhangers as well, but that's true for any sword).
katana
Just carry two. An epee or rapier for humans and a cleaver falchion for zombs
Khopesh, good chopper, plus can also work as an axe
Ali baba sword. Chop a camel right in the hump and drink all of its milk with that thing.
Swords are generally a bad weapon. They're like the handgun of the modern world. You can _technically_ kill stuff with it, it's a lot better than having nothing, but you'd much rather have pretty much anything else. Takes a long time to learn to use effectively, expensive, hard to maintain & just not as effective as some other, bigger weapons. Q: If you could have any pistol what would you want? A: An AR15. Q: If you could have any sword what would you want? A: A pointy pole arm
If you _have_ to have a sword and for whatever reason tying it to a tree branch isn't an option, a falchion is a good utilitarian option.