|
Post by Vestri on Oct 12, 2011 10:58:36 GMT
So I was perusing some comments on youtube and there were a few people arging why Euro swords were so much better than Katanas because they can just use the size, wieght and thickness to just bash through Katanas.
I was wondering if this is just a "mine is better than yours" argument or is there some validity to this? I always of the opinion that Japanese Katanas were forged much better than say, an English broad sword or a french rapier.
I know that Euro combat gravitated to defence technology, which in turn produced blunt force weaponry, where as Asian technology leaned towards offence and therefore pruduced speed and accurate weaponry. Just wanted to be educated on this interesting topic.
Im not here to start a flame war, I just want to learn about the differences, similarities and advantages of Euro AND Asian swords. I just find this idea facinating.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 11:10:51 GMT
Aah... I can feel the headache starting. First, yes, it was just a "mine is better than yours" argument. However, it was grossly mistaken. The longsword was not heavy, thick, or in any way brutish or reliant on blunt force, so the only thing they got right was the size (by which I mean length; the average longsword seems to have had about a 35" or so blade). Watch this and it will change your mind about that misconception:
EDIT: This second video shows the finesse and intensity of the longsword at full speed.
When you get down to it, there are only so many ways you can move the human body (and consequently, a sword) and still remain efficient. Longsword sharpness is a matter of much debate, but I'm of the opinion that they were sharp enough to do their job well, while not keeping it hair popping sharp (as that results in a fragile edge that can chip much easier, or so I keep hearing); plus, keeping it so sharp that it can cut something just by touching it would pretty much negate all of the halfswording techniques.
I can't answer anything about forging, because what I think I know are just wild guesses based on what I've heard around here, so I'll let someone else tackle that beast.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 11:53:05 GMT
None at all. Euro swords as a group are no larger, heavier or thicker than Japanese ones, and even if they were they could not "just bash through katanas" (nor will a katana cut through a European sword).
Only in one very strict sense: the Japanese had to work with really crappy ore. Much of their indigenous iron is in the form of ferrous sand, for heck's sake. They did not make superior blades, they made equally good blades out of woefully inferior raw material. Which is a feat in itself, no mistake, but not quite what katanaphiles like to think.
One thing to remember is that in the process of disarming Japan in the wake of WWII huge numbers of historical swords were destroyed, massively skewing the surviving "population" towards historically significant prized heirlooms. Of course, such precious items also saw much less frequent use and more diligent care than the actual fighting weapons of most warriors, and since good steel was precious, when everyday working swords broke they were cannibalized for raw materials. So it's not that all katana were masterpieces, it's just that the masterpieces are ridiculously more likely to have survived (for these and other reasons), even more so than with European swords.
Neither of these statements is true, as even a passing look at actual historical sources as opposed to pop culture mythos will reveal. Neither Walter Scott's The Talisman (Western brute power vs. Eastern sophistication), nor Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (knightly arms and armour being ridiculously heavy), nor Japanese military propaganda (Japanese swords cutting through guns and rocks) are accurate historical documentaries, nor are any of the later media that have taken them at face value.
European swords are neither exceedingly heavy nor blunt. Japanese swords are neither extraordinarily light nor sharp. They're all just swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2011 12:45:20 GMT
Excellent comments MOK, totally agreed.
Yes, Vestri, the you tube comemnts you saw were just "mine is better than yours", and pretty misinformed too.
|
|
|
Post by Rifleman Lizard on Oct 12, 2011 12:59:31 GMT
It's how well weapons are used that determine their effectiveness but at the end of the day, the katana and the longsword (and the hundreds of variations that exist in both) are clearly very different weapons. Of course history also shows that both swords more often than not went point to point with swords of the same nature, so pitting them against each other is a little odd when they were pretty much worlds apart. Give out the first incapacitating wound and who cares what the other guy was carrying. Concerning youtube; it's fanboys who argue which is the superior weapon, usually with misguided opinions gleaned from eastern anime or delusions of knightly grandeur. Japanese swords have an air of mystery in the western world, which has led to clearly over the top myths about what they are capable of doing. Consequently a lot of people think they can be samurai, that they'd be able to dismember foes with ease. Being a less excitable student/enthusiast of japanese feudalism, weaponry and everything that comes with the two... I hate being piled into this "katanaphile" heap. :lol: The mention of this evil word makes my skill crawl.
|
|
|
Post by chuckinohio on Oct 12, 2011 13:10:28 GMT
Hear hear.
The first guy to get inside and deliver wins.
You could take a Samurai out with a steak knife, does that mean that it is superior to a Katana?
|
|
ChrisA
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by ChrisA on Oct 12, 2011 13:53:44 GMT
For eating steak it certainly is!
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Oct 12, 2011 14:05:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 14:13:38 GMT
Hey, everybody starts out as a n00b. Fortunately, it's a condition easily cured with experience and information; the very first step is to dare ask stupid questions.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 14:21:17 GMT
:lol:
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Oct 12, 2011 14:34:49 GMT
lmsao Mok. Classic.
|
|
|
Post by Vestri on Oct 12, 2011 14:38:25 GMT
Excellent replies.... Im learning a lot. thankyou for the education.
The only reason why I believed the point on european technology leading towards defence was that the amount of technological advances were always defence technology... For example, the first leap in engineering was the establishment of the Crane to build walls, it was only a few centuries later that European technology for attack upgraded from ladders and logs to catapults then to trebuchets.
But Im only being vague, I do appreciate the discussion.
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Oct 12, 2011 14:49:45 GMT
Don't mind our jokes Vestri ... In my honest opinion, most here thought the same as those youtubers, ages before reaching enlightement by spending some time here
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2011 14:58:35 GMT
It works both ways: developments in weaponry drive developments in defenses, and improving defenses create pressure to improve offense. The same back-and-forth process happened in Japan and everywhere else, too. For example, as a general thing the points of early tachi are very narrow and almost straight, for thrusting through gaps in battle armour, while later katana have a more even curve with little taper, being designed for cutting unarmoured targets in civilian duels and self-defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2011 15:12:44 GMT
Hello Vestri, It is a lot easier to compare the pro and cons between katana and longsword because most of us know the general shape and properties of both of these swords. However comparing between Asian swords and European swords is way too general to be of any use. Well the most obvious thing is that there is a ton of variation between the swords used in different culture. Even if we are focusing on single edge swords: we have Chinese dao, Mongol Saber, Indian tulwar, Indonesian parang, golok, Filipino ginuting, Persian scimitar and much more. Even within the Asian continent, there are lots of different forging techniques. There is that Japanese forging method using Tamahagane, but let's us not forget about crucible steel and pattern welding used in some of these Asian swords too. Regarding western emphasis on defense technologies and wall building and eastern emphasis on offensive technologies, don't forget about the Great Wall of China...
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 12, 2011 15:23:15 GMT
Escalation, in short. To quote Gordon from Batman Begins: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics; we start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds. Offenses the world over were developed to defeat defenses. Sword guards were designed to defeat sword blades, trebuchets were designed to defeat castle walls, siege towers/ladders were designed to defeat castle gates, narrow tipped swords (XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII) were developed to defeat chain and plate, guns were designed to defeat armor entirely, armor piercing rounds were designed to defeat Kevlar. The list is endless.
|
|
|
Post by Hiroshi on Oct 12, 2011 16:10:24 GMT
I agree with Jerry, just saying Euro is better then katana is way to general. Every blade design has its pro's and con's and I believe a lot if it is in the hands of the user.
|
|
ecovolo
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,074
|
Post by ecovolo on Oct 12, 2011 16:14:20 GMT
Hank Reinhardt says it best, here: thearma.com/essays/nobest.htmIn particular, this statement: "Most well-made swords did their jobs well, but there never was an all-around sword. Judge them that way, each in its own context -- there is no best." --Edward
|
|
ghost
Member
Posts: 1,323
|
Post by ghost on Oct 12, 2011 16:29:05 GMT
hehe...
Feudal Japan and Medieval Europe progressed very differently. Wars in Japan - usually between the lords or alliances of such; These battles remained so much smaller in scale and frequency than the ones in Europe. The history shows that Japan was relatively isolated and gravitated towards more peaceful times later on.
Wars in Europe were just plain nasty - we're looking at whole nations practicing attrition. Battles were enormous in scale - I think when you consider that tens of thousands of arrows are unleashed in a battle, anyone would try to increase their survivability. Europe remains constantly locked in a power struggle between the supers: Britain, France, Spain.
I'm not too biased towards either -> I'm just trying to point out feudal battles in Japan are very different from those in medieval Europe
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Oct 12, 2011 16:42:38 GMT
Time to whip it out... Carry on.
|
|