Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 23:51:46 GMT
Well since the conversation has expanded a bit I pose the question - Which sword has conquered most of the world at one time or another ?
No I don't know the answer but my guess would be the gladius .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 0:19:12 GMT
Swords were not primary battle weapons in any area
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 0:29:37 GMT
I didn't sat "tall" did I? :lol: No, unlike the Japanese, they really lived their ideals, and didn't create them after the history like the code of "bull-shido" and pretend they lived them all along, which were ripped off from the Chinese Buddhist and Daoist principles anyway and perverted and twisted in typical Japanese fashion to render them into strict guidelines for suicidal obedience to a warlord! The Ancient Greeks, athletic they definitely were, some basic history here - these guys invented the whole concept of athletic development, physical training for competition, etc remember where the Olympic games came from? To quote the wiki article, "History of Sports" - "... It was predictably in Greece that sports were first instituted formally, with the first Olympic Games recorded in 776 BC in Olympia..." The whole ideal which has survived into our modern world, the ideal male physique of the ancient Greek statues and abilities of physical prowess in sport and combat. Watch TV today, your sports channels or action films - yes, those masculine archetypes do have a historical origin! Also, to get back to your original point, depends which part of ancient Greece you are referring to, the Acropolis isn't in Sparta. The Spartans were the warrior nation, much taller according to many sources. The Spartan king was according to archeological finds around the 6 foot mark, which was very tall for that time, they put it down to the better diet of the nobility at that time. Though hardly the most credible source, 'The Deadliest Warrior' series puts the Spartan warrior at 5' 8" and 165lbs. However tall these guys were, they were strong, and battle proven (we've all heard about the Battle of Thermopylae), these guys carried shield that were historically conformed at 17-33lbs and trained in hard, full contact physical training from the age of 10, you'd be hard pressed to conclude they were not athletic, muscular and strong. If the rest of ancient Greece had that ideal, the Spartans would have embodied it to a much greater degree. Agin to quuote the wiki article on Sparta "...At Sparta's heyday in the 6th to 4th centuries BC, it was commonly accepted that "one Spartan was worth several men of any other state."
|
|
|
Post by chuckinohio on Apr 5, 2012 0:53:01 GMT
If you phrase that as "what sword was carried by the armies that conquered the largest section of the world", you would most likely be looking at Roman or Mongol weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 1:03:14 GMT
No, I don't dislike the Japanese, I only dislike their persistent fabrication and perversion of factual history, as I dislike any other group doing the same, such as the nonsense in English history about Crecy being won due to the superiority of the longbow against knights in armour plate! :lol: Ok, it's more than height, it's a range of racial genetic factors such as musculature, bone density, frame (skeletal) size, muscle distribution on the body, body types (such as ectomorphic, endomorphic or mesomorphic). Evolutionalry biology has made great inroads into this type of research. Ever wondered why bodybuilders or powerlifters are either European or Afro-American and not Japanese? Japanese have different body types with considerable less musculature, even with the availability of growth hormones and androgenic steriods (remember the Chinese womens swimming team a few decades ago, they looked like female "Terminators". Ever thought why the majority of US medals are won by Afro-American (who can genetically have up to 25% Caucasian genes), who are typically very strong and athletic and excel in the power and speed events, such as sprinting, but differ radically from continental Africans, who have thinner leaner bodies and make the best long distance runners - but none of these amazing athletes actually partake in the swimming events (because their bone density/musculature is not ideal for the water), which are dominated by Caucasans? In events where being light and super fast, like table-tennis, the Chinese dominate. Think Bruce Lee, blinding speed vs Chuck Norris, raw power (that's a light hearted example by the way!) :lol: The Samurai ideal was historically a thicker waisted older man with a heavier base - that was their cultural ideal, just because it seems indferior to a westerner doesn't mean it's wrong for them. That body type in a western action film, it would never cut it. Since Japan has westernised, it has adopted many western ideals, so in their movies, they embody western appearances and physical ideals now, even in their cartoons or video games. Case in point, even if you look at the women in their cartoon images, the curvy, buxom female characters are not typical Japanese body types now, are they? Since you've asked for reference, here is an excert from ARMA ( www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) "Interestingly, while the European concept of physical fitness among knights by the 15th century emphasized the classical Greco-Roman youthful physique of a narrow waist and broad shoulders on a lean frame, the Japanese ideal was one of a more mature man having a wider base and broader middle –no doubt reflecting the natural ethnographic characteristics of each race, but also influencing the fighting techniques they employed." Incidentally, with long swords, I was referring to functional infantry swords comparable to the very long European equivalents, of which there are non in the Japanese sphere. To qoute the wiki Odachi article: "Purpose The possible functions of the ōdachi can be categorized as follows: As a votive offering to a shrine (or specifically to its patron gods. Some ōdachi were use in prayer before a war, while others were displayed (sometimes in temples)—reputedly as legendary swords from mythology. The average length of an ōdachi is 65–70 inches long (approx 165–178 cm), often with a 4–5 foot blade. This made them unsuitable for close-quarters combat. Instead, they are commonly believed to have been used by fighters on horseback, as the blade length would allow them to take down infantry (without risk of being pulled off their mount). Like other trends, ōdachi were often in vogue, most notably during the Edo Period, so it was not uncommon to see the swords used in various ceremonies. Note: Practically speaking, the function/use of most ōdachi fall into the first two categories—as ceremonial objects and cavalry swords." Also, remember, anything over 3 shaku (one metre or 30") can be classified as an odachi!
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,104
|
Post by LeMal on Apr 5, 2012 1:03:41 GMT
Which is rather cautionary to all we modern "sword geeks" since both the Romans' and Mongols' attitude toward their swords were, well ... rather workmanlike and unromantic.
Did it deal a lethal blow? Was it of a reasonable overall weight? Was it constructed so as not to fall apart when striking a reasonable target? Then use the damn thing--and "no whining!" :twisted:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 1:08:51 GMT
Spot on Chuck, you beat me to the reply! :lol: Those two were the greatest empires the world has ever seen, and technically, the Mongol empire was larger, so, yes, the Roman gladius and the Mongol scimitar or sabre or whatever they used was actually called! Also, as Edelweiss has correctly stated, swords weren't primary weapons.
|
|
|
Post by lamebmx on Apr 5, 2012 1:15:37 GMT
You forgot to mention, the spartans, commonly starved the young boys to force them to hunt and steal food. Had a couple additional effects, they already knew hunger and would be able to fight better while starving and it helped them keep that amazing physic to run around in man thongs and a shield. Okay, the man thongs are probably made up lol.
Blackthorn, to deny bushido is to deny chivalry and is more of an opinion of your perception of people. People then just as people now led chivalrous and virtuous lives, heard the same rants about it back in their day and dealt with others that proved the ranters right. Those concepts did not magically appear in the 20th century, and it was not all talk to everyone. Now change your handle to whitethorn, put your chin up and start opening doors for the ladies! lol, that was completely meant as a joke, its your life, live it how you please.
I think people conquered most of the world, no sword can do much without a hand to swing it. It would be kinda cool if you could watch from afar and change up different armies training and weapons and see how it pans out. How would Thermopylae have panned out if the Persians felt exposed on the water so they made it a point to land and unload a lot faster. How would the japanese had fared against the mongels if they had an experience of a broader range of same type weapons?
dang it, can you all stop replying so I can actually get a post in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted:
and then i have to edit because the conversation srifted away and my first sentence was really confusing :evil: :lol:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 1:20:06 GMT
Precisely, they were tools for war, and looked the part. Sure there were some that were embellished here and there, those carried by higher ranks to denote position, authority and status, but these were in the minority. It's only the late period Japanese that prissied up their swords into impractical "art works" designed for a pampered life. Even pretty European dress swords (rapiers and smallswords) were a heck more practical. All that rubbish about how a katana can't be unsheathed in a room where a woman is present, and it has to be held in a certain way so you din't breathe on the blade, and that when a woman is bringing her man's katana to him, her hands cant touch the saya (scabbard) and she has to wrap her sleeves around her hands to hold it, need I continue...None of this BS such as "the diamonds on my ito are uneven!" If a Spartan ever came out with such a comment about their weapons, they would have most likely been summarily executed on the spot by their peers before they managed to finish the sentence! :lol: It's cool if you collect Japanese swords of that period for what they were, I do, but its another think to think that this is the standard by which swords were constructed and treated worldwide!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 1:56:50 GMT
It was worse than that, the babies which were physically deformed were tossed off a cliff (basic genetic selection), and the training which even the children undertook was full contact so they can get used to the pain. Their food was intentionally a tasteless porridge or gruel sort of thing, to harden them up so they don't get "soft" with the comnforts of life. When we use the term "spartan" we use it to decribe something functional, minimalist and basic. That was a hed, demanding life where they did nothing but train for war. As they said, Athenians were farmers, potters, sculptors and everyday folk, who served in their state's armies, but all the Spartans were warriors, they did nothing else but train every day for war. If you've met modern Spartans even today, you still have those characteristics of being very stoic, disciplined and determined people. With the code of bushido, I like deconstructing historical myths to get to the real facts, and my reseach leads me to conclude that it is more of Japan's mocked up history and has no basis in fact, it is merely a literary ideal (ie. from story books) about mythical samurai who, as described, never existed. To sperate the opinions from historical facts, here is what the reknown scholar and historian Karl Friday has to say on the topic in his article "The Historical Foundations of Bushido", published on the Koryu.com website ( www.koryu.com/library/kfriday2.html): "Much of the code of conduct for samurai prescribed by early modern and modern writers, then, was at odds with the apparent behavioral norms of the actual warrior tradition. By the same token, much of the "bushido" preached by the government and the militarists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was at best superficially derived from the "Way of the Warrior" espoused in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. " I encourage people to read the whole article, it's very enlightening, and it also discusses the clasic book "Bushido: the Soul of Japan" which was originally written in English by Nitobe Inazo's in 1905. He was a scholar of European culture who knew very little about Japanese history, and tried to try to create parallels between bushido and the European code of chivalry, which is where the misinformation stems from that is still around today that the Japanese practiced something close to the European knights as a code of conduct. From many accounts, the behaviour of samurai would have been consideren unethical and downright immoral by the standards of European chivalry! Personally, I'll take the real ethical codes that did defend the women and children, and opened doors for them, rather than the fabricated ones that were never practiced, thanks! :lol: Yes, it's the people that make the difference, the Spartans won because of who they were as people, a warrior race, courageous, strong, and determined. The weapons were secondary! Imagine what would have happened if the Mongol fleets were't messed up by freak storms, and landed all their troops, Japan would be a historial afterthought and would now be a satellite of China, and we'll all be collecting jians!!! :lol:
|
|
SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Apr 5, 2012 2:04:12 GMT
Which is exactly how I like to regard swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 3:20:46 GMT
Likewise!
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Apr 5, 2012 11:02:54 GMT
Well I tend to be on an Internet argument mood today... (just a joke) And the fact that Odachi have been my passion for a long time, I tend to like them very much, although they are not that popular. Well my preference lies in sword between 3 shaku and 4 shaku in length. And swords of this length are perfectly usable. Sure there are swords that are greater than this length too, some which were meant to be used and some that weren't. I have always thought that odachi would have been of somewhat lesser quality in the Nambokucho period, again no hard stated evidence, just my personal thinking. Sure some of them were made with time and love to show the skill of the smith but I tend to think many of them would have been kinda crude, proper swords but truely nothing fancy. Rivaling courts and impressing the other with military likely being one factor. The factor of having men carrying huge swords (think of two-handed German Landsknecht swords), would have psychologigal advantage too. 1 shaku=30,3cm so shortest possible sword to classify as an odachi is 3 shaku=90,9cm=36" Norm in sword length in Nambokucho period was c.90cm to little over 100cm. With some usable odachi being in 130 to 150cm range. The information in english of odachi is pretty hard to find, but the bits and pieces are out there. I tend to disagree with some of the points that are presented in that wikipedia article. Depending on the size of the odachi the use would be varied. Sure swords around 3 shaku in length might have been used from the horseback just like regular tachi, however when you start getting in c. 4 shaku and upwards lengths, well there are more suitable weapons to horseback use. I believe the large odachi were carried by ground troops. Some sources state that they were wrapped in cord down to the middle of the blade. The actual purpose of this is unclear but I believe it was to add the versatility of the sword. And it could be used in similar way that huge European swords could be used (half-swording, is that the term?) Part that puzzled me in that ARMA essay is this part "European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6' to about 6'5"). Although, other evidence suggests average European heights in the 16th century were just above 5 feet." I've read stuff by mr. Clements in the past and I believe he knows his stuff in HEMA scene. But most of the studies I've seen on human height in medieval times suggest the length of c. 170cm 5'7" to 5'8" for average males, here is one link to Q&A about Arms & Armor by Metropolitan Museum of Art. www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/h ... htm#size_b Whether the empire was conquered with sword,spear,bow or firearms, you can find fairly reliable size estimates under this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empiresAnd regarding Bushido, it was written in very harsh times. Therefore resulting in harsh and dark "code". One Japanese writer has written that "a samurai may have tried to live by the really hard code like bushido but in reality they very rarely succeeded in it". And no the "chivalric Europeans" were no better, we raped women, killed babies, burned villages, tortured people, switched sides just as much as the Japanese did. There were lots of really nasty things happening in medieval warfare here in Europe too. Legends will always be legends, and with enough time passed, it's impossible to say what is truely true without a time machine. As a last thing I can say I've seen some Japanese bodybuilders with pretty impressive physique. These last 2 comments were meant to ease my above ranting a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 13:10:41 GMT
Hi Jussi, In the Nanpokucho Era (1334-1393), the focus switched from cavalry to foot soldiers, and the tachi was replaced by the newly emerged long two handed sword infantry swords, the odachi or nodachi, with blades over a meter long, as long as 120-150 cm. Around the Early Muromachi Era (1394-1466), these blades were replaced by shorter ones that were lighter and could be drawn faster by infantry. Late in this period most of the swords were uchigatana around 70cm (28") long. What you describe with cord binding to the middle of the odachi blade is a sword that is gripped like a Euro sword in the half-swording technique, but half swording is used to brace and strengthen a thrust, whereas an odachi is a curved sabre with a draw cutting blade, and you wouldn't thrust a half-sworded sabre blade, it was held like that to shift the point of balance back to make the long, unbalanced blade (remember, these things have no pommel weight for counterbalance!) more usable. What they were in fact doing was turning the huge blade into something closer to a nagamaki (which means "long wrapping"). The nagamaki is believed to have evolved from the long nodachi/odachi swords of the 14th century, and it's of no coincidence that the nagamaki reached its peak during the middle of the Muromachi period. The development from odachi to the equally long nagamaki and the shorter uchigatana says something about the practicality of extending a Japanese style blade to those lengths. As SeanF mentioned in a previous post in this thread " Though due to the nature of the katana's design it doesn't facilitate getting much longer. The moment of inertia increases exponentially as the sword gets longer and since the katana has both less distal and profile taper than a Euro it doesn't quite 'scale' the same way in terms of length." Basically that's the physics if it, pure and simple. While Euro swords stayed at those lengths because the designs could scale to those sizes, the Japanese has to abandon the design for a short pole-arm for longer reach and a shorter two-handed sabre for sword combat. With Bushido, it wasn't written in hard times, to quote one commentator - "One of the most-quoted lines of the Hagakure is "The way of the samurai is found in death." This is all well and good in a period of peace. There's not too much fear of death." The whole concept of Bushido is soundly discredited by historians - you might want to read the article "Bushidó or Bull? A Medieval Historian’s Perspective on the Imperial Army and the Japanese Warrior Tradition" by Karl F. Friday ( ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_friday_0301.htm). To give you Dr. Fridays's bio: Dr. Karl Friday is professor of history at the University of Georgia and is the author of Hired Swords: The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan (1992), Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture (1997), and Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan (2003). He has spent a number of years living, training, and doing research in Japan; he presently holds the menkyo kaiden license and is a certified shihan in Kashima-Shinryu. From the abstract describing his book "Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval Japan" - Karl Friday, an internationally recognised authority on Japanese warriors, provides the first comprehensive study of the topic to be published in English. This work incorporates nearly twenty years of on-going research and draws on both new readings of primary sources and the most recent secondary scholarship. It overturns many of the stereotypes that have dominated views of the period. Friday analyzes Heian -, Kamakura- and Nambokucho-period warfare from five thematic angles. He examines the principles that justified armed conflict, the mechanisms used to raise and deploy armed forces, the weapons available to early medieval warriors, the means by which they obtained them, and the techniques and customs of battle. A thorough, accessible and informative review, this study highlights the complex casual relationships among the structures and sources of early medieval political power, technology, and the conduct of war. This guy knows his subject matter: For those who can't be bothered to read the above referenced article, here is a summary of it from another website ( www.dctkd.org/bibliography/readI ... ?pubID=307): "Friday argues that the true historical behavior of the samurai has been confused with the more modern concepts of the "Way of the Warrior." He contends that characteristics like "an aim to die" and the absolute fealty to one's lord are more the constructs of a later class of samurai in the 17th and 18th century. These later samurai were "bureaucrats and administrators, not fighting men; the motivation held in common...was a search for the proper role of a warrior class in a world without war." There is little evidence that medieval samurai followed a code as strict as the one developed in these later centuries. In addressing the more likely reasons behind the atrocities committed by the Imperial Army, especially against civilians and prisoners of war, Friday argues for a more practical view. He claims there are no historical precedents in the history of the samurai for such actions. Friday concludes by saying that a better explanation of the behavior of the Imperial Army can be found in the "specific circumstances of the war, the political atmosphere...of the 1930's, and the process through which Japan emerged as a modern nation." When reading this article, I was pleasantly surprised by the content within. Friday makes compelling argument against the linkage of the samurai and the atrocities of the Imperial Army. His thinking is quite clear and logical. Also admirable of Friday is his ability to discuss such a volatile topic without passing judgment. He does not make any excuses, but he does not condemn, either. He merely points out the inconsistency of earlier perspectives. I would recommend this article to anyone, especially those interested in military history. Either way it is an extremely readable essay" The code of chivalry of the Europeans was a real code, written at the time it was practised, and like all human ethical systems, it did not make saints of ordinary men, it would be naive to think that. What it dis is create a real ethical code which knights strived to achieve: To quote the wiki article: "When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas: 1.Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord. 2.Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord. 3.Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women." As Dr Friday states, "There is little evidence that medieval samurai followed a code as strict as the one developed in these later centuries." Of what little the samurai did follow, when it suited them, was blind unwavering obedience to a warlord who only cared for his own power, but it was under the coercion that any obedience was given. If a samurai 'dishonoured' himself, whatever that means, basically not doing something favourable to a warlord, not an ethical principle, the samurai would be killed and stripped of rank, so the family of the samurai would fall from a position of aristocracy, or at least, great favour from the warlord, to a life of poverty andhard work as peasants for every generation from that point on. There is no doubt whatsoever that medieval knights followed an ethical code that was concerned with more than warfare. There were vitues to fellow men which helped social cohesion and instilled a charitable and noble demeanor. their virtues to God contained the idea that they served someone higher than a feudal lord, and their vitues towards women engendered a respect and a sense of servitude to the female gender. Not like the Japanese samurai whose women wore unworthy of being in the same room as the unsheathed blade, or who could not even touch the scabbard with their bare hands! :shock: With Japanese bodybuilders, yes they exist, they are the exception, not the norm, and its amazing what you can do with growth hormones and androgenic steriods these days, like I said before! It's simple evolutionary biology, all races are not the same physically! You don't really need science to tell you that, our eyes are sufficient! :lol: There is no guesswork with a lot of the history, just lots of sound research, and lots of mythmaking coming from the Japanese... Incidentally, according to the Japanese, the Nanking massacre in WWII never happened, it's nice to just be able to deny the ugly bits of a nation's history and cling to fabricated myths, such as the emperor's bloodlines being directly descended from theJapanese Shinto sun goddess Amaterasu, making them divine, which they only recanted under duress as one of the conditions of surrender to the USA 67 years ago. Now tell me who is making up stories??? :?
|
|
|
Post by Fifteenthirty on Apr 5, 2012 14:51:00 GMT
Plenty of muscular Asians. Even big Japanese (sumo). Africans may not compete in swimming due to a lack of Olympic sized swimming pools to train in since childhood, rather than bone density. Speed and power events are valued and much practiced in American school and college sports. People, cultures, and even swords are more the same than they are different.
Katana cut better. Longswords stab better. Neither has ever won a war or proven cultural superiority. Tactics and technology win wars: the capacity to allow the ordinary member to lead a happy fulfilling life determines the superiority of a culture.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Apr 5, 2012 15:27:47 GMT
Oh no, please no, not that again. Look, katana don't cut better. Period. This is a common misconception deriving from the fact that katana are easier to cut with due to the in-built curve but they most certainly don't cut better when you know what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by lamebmx on Apr 5, 2012 16:00:09 GMT
and there are some videos showing the katana stabbing better. There are just way to many variables in both constructions to say, with any level of authority and conclusion, on such a general statement. IMO discounting half handing techniques, katana has stabbing due to stiffer construction, A better cut in the sense of fine controlled cutting. longswords with a greater destructive cutting power due to higher possible tip speed, and/or amount of rotating mass and that masses design. longswords also have the edge in toughness due to the more common difference in tempering, and the fact you start out with two edges.
Is an apple better than an orange because you can eat the skin? Is an orange better than an apple because its thick skin contains a jucier fruit?
|
|
|
Post by Opferous on Apr 5, 2012 16:21:41 GMT
Seeing some discussion about bushido and what not, I figured I'd jump in quickly. While the current public perception of bushido is mostly a result of later period works, such as Hagakure, it's important to note that even then, it wasn't a popular idea even among the samurai of that period. Hagakure would likely have been considered somewhat radical, especially considering that Tsunetomo, the author, was essentially a bitter old ex-samurai who hadn't been allowed to kill himself with his master and ended up complaining about how not-hardcore everyone else was. However, Hagakure would have been popular with the general public, hence the banning of the book in its day and the continuation of the idea of bushido into the current day.
This doesn't mean that there was no code for earlier samurai though. It's important to note that for much of Japan's history, it's philosophy has been influenced by China, as much as they hate each other today. And the one school of thought that lasted throughout much of Japanese history was Confucianism. If there was any code that at least the higher up samurai would have followed, it would've been based on Confucianism (which you can also blame for the unfair treatment of women).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 16:33:35 GMT
Um, no, there are whole fields of science demostrating physical differences in various racial groups! Look up evolutionary biology. Afro-americans swimming ability is not related to swimming pool access any more than their success in sprinting is related to access to athletics tracks! Speed and power events are what they excel in, as do Caucasians, hence the the emphasis in US schools. A rapier is not a katana which is not a falchion which is not a talwar which is not a longsword. Different classes of swords are all built for different purposes, and have strengths and weaknesses in very specific area, as do racial collectives of people! The science is there, people adapt and evolve to best suit their conditions and approaches to life, they are very unique and diverse, and not a homogenous group of identical clones and we can't artificially equalise them with ideological mental constructs. Just like role play characters in games to use the crudest analogy (but in which I suspect many of the people here will be familiar with), there are classes of characters, with very specific attributes to their classes, and even each of the characters in the class can vary in regards to how their attributes are allocated. the Japanese were colloquially refered to as a "dwarf nation" historically by the Chinese, and Vikings were known for their size and strength, and as such were used as the personal bodyguards to the Byzantine emperors, and as elite units in the Byzantine army from the 10th-14th century, they wwere the Varangian Guard. They're quite different according to history, as they are still now. It's not about the superiority of a culture, it's about the fabrication of history and the misrepresentation of fact. Trying to compensate for a nations percieved inadequacies by making up nonsense just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. Most of what fraudelently passes as Japanese culture was intentionally and selectively borrowed from the Chinese, its culture, religion, city planning, political structure, language, dress and education were all borrowed from China. The 7th-9th century AD in Japan's history is ommonly referred to as the "period of borrowing,” because many aspects of Chinese society were consciously and intentionally adopted. Guess where all these "typically Japanese" institutions came from - folded steel sword smithing, tea ceremony, bonsai, origami, kanji (written language), calligraphy, Zen Buddhism, their strict politeness system, their value of simplicity and humility? Yes, you guessed right, China! If you're wondering about their affinity for things Chinese, consider the genetic evidence: Japanese Origins ( www.bbjapanese.com/free-resource ... etics.html) It is now believed that modern Japanese people come mostly from the people of the Jomon Era (15,000-500 BCE) and the Yayoi Era (500-100 BCE). The Yayoi people’s origins has long been debated and is still left as somewhat of a mystery. The Jomon Era people are composed of Ice Age settlers and those from China and/or Korea. DNA tests have proven the likelihood of the Japanese being descended from this mix of these two types of people. About 54% of paternal ancestry and 66% the maternal ancestry hasve been found to be of the “Sino-Korean” (meaning both Chinese and Korean) origin. A recent study on the Japanese genetic sequence showed 4.8% Uniquely Japanese, 24.2% Korean, 25.8% Chinese, 8.1% Ainu, 16.1% Okinawan and 21% “other”. The Korean genetic sequence showed 40% Uniquely Korean and The Chinese genetic sequence showed 60% Uniquely Chinese. These genetic differences are significant and truly displayshow the large amount of genetic variation in the Japanese. All I see is a race struggling with their national identity and fabricating history to try and prove their uniqueness, and even worse, their perceived superiority, where all they have is a collage of Chinese and Korean culture and genetics! The worry is that newbies read all their nonsense and come to the forums believing all the misinformation and idealizations of history, Not good... :shock:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 16:36:40 GMT
Well put!
After all, we now that the best cutter is the dadao and the best thruster is an estoc! (Joking!) :lol:
|
|