|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 9, 2010 8:27:29 GMT
I know it's not exactly historically accurate, but I found this while browsing cutting videos on Youtube and thought I would share it here for your viewing pleasure:
One thing that I do find interesting is that I highly doubt R. Lee Ermey has had any training in either weapon, making him something of an unbiased source. However, his rather awful pronunciation of katana aside, I would be curious as to where they got their facts about the length of a katana. The spec given is roughly 8-9" longer than what a historical blade (or even a modern reproduction, for that matter) would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by ineffableone on Oct 9, 2010 11:08:03 GMT
Pokes this thread with 10 foot pole, decides it is too dangerous and runs away.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 9, 2010 11:15:29 GMT
That must be what everyone else who didn't post thought.
|
|
Taran
Member
Posts: 2,621
|
Post by Taran on Oct 9, 2010 18:04:59 GMT
"It can cut through a tank! I saw it when I invaded Japan in '46!"
|
|
Greg
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by Greg on Oct 9, 2010 20:23:59 GMT
Sorry, there are rules for this kinda thing.
Whenever this video is posted, it must be followed by this video, namely the 5:55 mark:
And then a remark needs to be made on how Gunny didn't do a diagonal slice with the longsword (against the leather) so it's not really comparing the same thing.
So there ya go, carry on.
Oh wait, I almost forgot. It's not really in the rules, but it always happens, but someone needs to mention how Gunny didn't half sword the longsword when stabbing into the armor.
Yep, that about wraps it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogus on Oct 9, 2010 20:30:25 GMT
Interesting. He seems to be suggesting that a lot of it comes down to physics, and the much longer longsword is just too floppy to get the job done. I wonder how a shorter longsword/arming sword would have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleJP on Oct 9, 2010 20:41:12 GMT
Or a more rigid type XVIII
|
|
|
|
Post by ineffableone on Oct 9, 2010 21:38:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Oct 9, 2010 22:21:19 GMT
Can anyone translate what is said here at the action starting at the 5:55 mark? I'll take real and whatever you think he's saying  |
|
Greg
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by Greg on Oct 9, 2010 22:29:08 GMT
I believe he's saying, "DAAAAAAGGGGHHH!"
But I could be wrong, my German is a little rusty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 9, 2010 22:58:09 GMT
There was something rather interesting to be noted about that clip, Greg. They're Germans testing a katana alongside a German longsword. But still, an intriguing clip, to be sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Federico on Oct 10, 2010 0:11:29 GMT
Hey Vincent. I won't say anything about the video. I will tell you that your reasoning is flawed though. Sure, Lee Hermey knows pretty much nothing about swords, but it's not because a Toyota Corolla is much easier to drive than a McLaren F1 that it proves the Corolla is superior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 10, 2010 0:40:37 GMT
That's an interesting thought, Federico, but I think your comparisons have far too much of a gap between them. One is a mid-sized sedan that sells for about 20,000$. The other is a high performance racing car; a full tank of gas for it would probably cost the same as the Corolla. You need to scale that back some to a more reasonable comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Federico on Oct 10, 2010 1:18:11 GMT
You're absolutely right. That's like saying that the katana is trash and the longsword is uber great. Nothing is furthest from the truth. With that being said, I used an extreme comparison in order to make the point clearer, since I don't know if our fellow forumites love cars as much as they love swords (I do!). I guess we could compare them to a tiptronic R32 Volkswagen vs. a Subaru WRX with a manual transmission. But I disgress  |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 10, 2010 1:58:18 GMT
Or visa-versa and that the katana can cut through a tank while a longsword couldn't cut through a kitten. While they're both great swords, I think the difference from the video is mainly that longsword he was using was possibly of one of the later types that had duller edges and were meant to bludgeon open a knight's armor (as well as being perfect for half-swording techniques) whereas the point was for slipping through the cracks rather than stabbing straight through. However, I still think it was a rather interesting video given that Gunny (Sorry, I grew up knowing him as that from Mail Call) has no prior training and so doesn't really have a bias towards one or the other.
|
|
Greg
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by Greg on Oct 10, 2010 3:51:20 GMT
Vincent, it might help that you were more informed with who that was and what he does. His name is Stefan Roth, he's a world renowned sword smith both in the western and eastern studies. Not only can he craft them, but he can use them. This wasn't a show of "our sword is better then yours" but it was a "see what happens when the katana doesn't get to slice." You could go on all day about how you don't think that he cut right or how the longsword had more metal. But at the end of the day, Roth was like "Hey, I'm gonna make two swords and try to chop through another sword with it! And here's what happened!" Oh, and your remark, "bludgeon open a knight's armor"... the only sword that I know of that was used to bludgeon open a knights armor looked like this:  The european swordsman was not some dolt that went around just bashing on platemail with a sword. Swords were expensive, like the cost of a new car expensive. Europeans had other weapons like maces and war hammers to deal with plate mail. Then once the opponent was "stunned" they'd be knocked down and either half sworded or in most cases stuck with a dagger that was just a long metal spike. I understand that you have strong feelings for the katana and I'm not trying to come down on you or anything, but you do seem to have a lot of misconceptions about european swords. Don't worry, so did I at one point, we all did. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 10, 2010 4:15:33 GMT
Actually, I'm not that big a fan of the katana, really. My preferred sword is the dao. But consider me educated.
As for my remark about bludgeoning the armor: "In many ways, a Type XVII is more like an impact weapon designed to crack armour or provide blunt force trauma than a cutting weapon." - MyArmoury article on the Oakeshott typology.
What's weird is I didn't actually start this with the intent of getting into a debate about which is better so much as sharing a clip I found interesting. Huh, guess I need to think up better titles in the future, then. But, you are right in one thing, Greg, I do have some misconceptions about Euro swords because, frankly, I've never trained with them or owned them. With swords, I started at Japan and moved West; it is something I hope to rectify, because there are several Euros I like, notably the XIIa (I believe that's what the VA Kriegschwert is), the XVI and XVIII.
|
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Oct 10, 2010 4:36:02 GMT
I think this is silly. Both katana and longswords come in various size, thickness, and geometry. By choosing the size, thickness, and geometry, one can have any outcome one choose. For instance the katana on the second video is a thin blade with bohi and zero niku. It would not survive against bamboo or wooden dowel, let alone a steel longsword. Have a thicker katana with plent of niku, and the outcome would be difference. The problem with the katana this day is that it is reprensentative of the Edo Period, not the Warring Period. Warring Period blades were thicker, more niku, and not as sharp. Of course, one can go to the other extreme and choose one of those monster used by the German mercenaries.
|
|
Greg
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by Greg on Oct 10, 2010 4:49:22 GMT
You have good taste in types I see. But that totally throws me off guard with the MyArmoury article. Just looking at the XVII it screams piercer. I decided to go to MyArmoury and see if I can find where it said that. What I found was this: www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxvii.htmlAnd couldn't find mention of blunt force anywhere in it. In fact, this is what I found, "To combat the armour of the time, it was necessary to make greater use of the thrust to find vulnerable gaps and joints in an opponent's defenses." Perhaps the article you found was someone's speculation on the XVII? Then again, I suppose ALL the information we ever read about is speculation to some extent. But I'm glad you didn't take my information as a "stfu noob" and received it for what it was meant to be, information. I think this is why the western sword appeals to me the most tho. As technologies changed, so did the weapons used to overcome them. I've really wanted to get into Chinese weaponry as well, but until I'm done with college, I'll only be able to afford one blade per year... or so. I was just about to hit submit when I re-read your quoted material. Perhaps what they meant by "crack" armor was that it was a thrusting weapon with a diamond cross section that would open up or "crack" an armor. And if the tip was to dull, the sudden thrust would turn into a blunt force trauma. Their wording is incredibly odd tho, which would lead a reader to assume that they were used like baseball bats. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 10, 2010 5:06:46 GMT
Here's where I found it, Greg: www.myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott2.html#typeXVIIWell, I recognize that there's a buttload of stuff I don't know, so I'm always open to new info. It gets a bit confusing at times, though, with the vast amount of it. That's part of why I got into it to a degree, as well, because there's such a vast difference of sword types and there's good cut and thrust style swords, which appeal to me because I like one handed swords, but because of how I started my training, the slash feels most natural to me, giving me a greater affinity with a sword that's able to cut well and easily rather than one solely for the thrust (probably why I've never developed an interest in rapiers). For me, the dao, specifically the liuyedao, which has a good slashing blade, but a moderate curve so it has good thrusting power as well, emphasizes this attraction, but there are several styles of swords I like, so I'm not one type specific. My motto is 'if it works and I can use it well, all is good.' It's odd that you'd say diamond as the XVII bit on MyArmoury lists it as having a hexagonal, but then again, I believe the Oakeshott typology is closer to a guideline of the general shapes the swords had rather than 'this is what they had an no different' manual as even the next town over could have a different way of making the blade or the hilt. |
|
