|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 22:00:42 GMT
Some other thoughts: am I correct in assuming that the katana was less of a battlefield weapon and more of a personal protection weapon for unarmored combat (duels, street fights, etc.), comparable to the European rapier in function if not in form (or a handgun in modern times)? I believe that up until the 1400s the tachi was the main battle sword. Tachi is written like this: 太刀, while katana is just this: 刀; the difference being this character: 太, which, if I am correct, means "fat" or "thick" or "large; long", or something of the kind. I know the tachi is generally longer than the katana by a few inches, but is it thicker or heavier? "太刀" is "big sword". The older kanji were "大刀", also "big sword", which is still used as the kanji for "daito" (and the same characters are "dadao" in Mandarin). As for tachi vs katana, the tachi is a cavalry sabre, often longer and thinner/narrower (more tapered), to keep acceptable one-handed handling. The katana is an infantry sword; it very much developed on the battlefield. As Japanese armies grew in size, and the number of available horses didn't, there was no choice other than to switch to infantry-based armies (which they might have done anyway, even with more horses). Thus a change in the way the sword was worn, and a reduction in size. This happened about 150-200 years before the end of large-scale warfare (depending on exactly when you date the evolution of the katana and also the end of large-scale warfare). Don't recall seeing any weights for tachi of original length, so no idea of what was typical, or useful comparison with katana weights.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Oct 8, 2016 23:22:12 GMT
As of geometry designs and their relationship to durability, European designs did not win either. Many of the European design was much thinner and broader in the cross section than the Japanese design, resulting in a sharper bevel, which meant easier damaged in hard contact. They have different preference in distal taper too, which the European gets much thinner than the oriental ones. Given the metallurgy back then, it wouldn't hold as good as now. It's just physics. Oriental swords like Jian or katana, often come as thick as "anti-armor thrust oriented European swords", like estoc! They just have different idea of preferred "sturdiness", in the trade off of reach and speed. I started off as an Euro sword fan and knew all the "pro-euro swords arguments" through ARMA (back then it was called HACA, like almost 20 years ago) but learned all these about other cultures' swords and direct compare along the 2 decades.
|
|
|
Post by althesmith on Oct 9, 2016 0:23:16 GMT
Extremely simple to answer. First off fairly soft steel forms the bulk of the blade except for the cutting edge. Second, a thicker blade overall (with Nihonto, distal tapers of more than 25 per cent are rare, whilst Western swords tend to get much thinner despite the hype about "heavy" Western broadswords) means that when a blade gets flexed to a certain point the elastic limits are reached very quickly and there is a permanent deformation.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 9, 2016 0:24:09 GMT
But think of a thin viking sword DH like modern katana but with the bad steel in this time. It would be worse. In their context all swords "win" (if not tooo bad made). In my country were made the medieval messers, which are their own thing too.
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 9, 2016 0:28:46 GMT
Extremely simple to answer. First off fairly soft steel forms the bulk of the blade except for the cutting edge. Second, a thicker blade overall (with Nihonto, distal tapers of more than 25 per cent are rare, whilst Western swords tend to get much thinner despite the hype about "heavy" Western broadswords) means that when a blade gets flexed to a certain point the elastic limits are reached very quickly and there is a permanent deformation. Excellent answer. Isnt that a pretty extreme limit though? For modern katanas? Unless you're just going crazy with your sword? Or new to swinging it? What I'm saying is, practicing control should negate that, shouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 9, 2016 0:38:01 GMT
"Blades bend, if flexed too much"
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2016 1:01:59 GMT
Second, a thicker blade overall (with Nihonto, distal tapers of more than 25 per cent are rare, whilst Western swords tend to get much thinner despite the hype about "heavy" Western broadswords) means that when a blade gets flexed to a certain point the elastic limits are reached very quickly and there is a permanent deformation. But think of a thin viking sword DH like modern katana but with the bad steel in this time. It would be worse. The thinner blade needs to be bent further before it takes a set (or breaks, depending on heat treatment), while the thicker blade needs more force bending it before it takes a set (or breaks). Assuming the same mass, a sword twice as thick and half as wide is 4 times stiffer, and only bends 1/4 the amount under a given force. But the strain for a given angle of bending is twice as high, so it can only be bent 1/2 as far before failing. So despite being 4 times as stiff, it can only survive double the force bending it. If the force becomes less as the blade gives due to the force, the thin blade can win. If the force stays the same, the thick blade will win. In practice, the force often becomes less, especially during parries and cuts. In thrusts, the force can become higher: the component of the force acting to bend the blade is small as long as the blade is almost straight, but as the blade curves under the load, it becomes easier to bend. (This isn't simple. You can start with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling and proceed into a whole bunch of mathematics.) This, and the advantages to thinness for cutting, lead to "cutting = thin", "thrusting = thick". Consider the urumi:
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 9, 2016 1:08:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 9, 2016 1:31:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by connorclarke on Oct 9, 2016 2:11:30 GMT
Fullers make blades stiffer.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2016 2:17:41 GMT
Fullers make blades stiffer. ... for a given weight. Basically, a blade with a fuller can be thicker, and therefore stiffer, for the same weight. If you take a blade and cut/grind a fuller into it, it will become less stiff.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 3:24:40 GMT
Oh no, your not supposed to have a differing opinion! The mass opinion that medieval swords are superior in every way is fact! Didn't you hear? /sarcasm If you are a fan of katana in any way, you gotta bow at the knee and surrender to the superiority of the European blade, because obviously every single katana fan thinks the katana is a steel cutting light sabre, cause none of us have ever seen the millions of YouTube videos "demystifying" the katana A DH edge is only an advantage when it's on a euro! And this has anything to do with the facts I presented regarding the durability of European swords and how their consistent profile evolutions leaned towards benefiting durability? If you have something to bring to the debate do so rather than just make snide remarks. I'll do whatever I want. Anytime I bring anything to a debate, it goes ignored or misread. I make a point which I think is pretty clear, instead I get "points" that have nothing to do with anything I said. See the katana vs longsword thread. I great example is that I never claimed that a long sword couldn't cut tatami, I just said a Katana would do better. But what do I get? Videos of longsword a cutting pretty thin tatami mats. I say a long sword has better defensive capabilities. What do I get in response? Someone saying neither have defensive capabilities (of a long sword doesn't have defensive capability, what the hell is the advantage in a cross guard? Obviously it does defend). I just get fed up with the HEMA community. You guys will say anything it takes to feel superior and more correct than anyone else. I stopped trying to argue or convince otherwise. What's the point? You guys got heads like concrete. Instead of actually refuting the points I specify, you guys tend to ignore my point. So screw it, I'm going to do the same thing. Don't like it? Maybe you guys can learn that superiority attitude you have isn't productive to anyone. But I doubt you will. You never see an apple owner in a galaxy thread, claiming superiority, much in the same way you never see a katana owner in a longsword thread claiming superiority. You only see the reverse So snide remarks is what you guys get. I tried intelligen discussion and legit points, and I even admitted when I was wrong. I have yet to see the HEMA group do the same
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 3:27:45 GMT
When the HEMA community is able to be more flexible with their views, maybe I will be too. You guys don't even see your superiority complex, cause you guys are in an aggressive denial. Like galaxy owners.
All I ever get is regurgitated information, like as if my supposed to go "oh there is that intelligent opinion only smart people have, I must be stupid for disagreeing". I never see anyone actually reading my posts.
Also, typing on a smart phone is a b*tch so excuse the typos
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 3:57:52 GMT
Chances are I won't reply to this. So don't bother quoting me. I'm sick of having conversations where my point goes ignored or misread. It just proves to me that no one is interested in reading. They just wanna talk. They just wanna puff their chest and regurgitate information so they can think they are an expert. If you have the hive mind, you are correct right? As long as you change when it changes, you will always be able to think you are smart and correct.
It's frustrating me. I will ignore your response because I will only get rude if I continue. I would rather not
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 4:00:51 GMT
Give it time. Soon, everyone will compare katana duels to western gun fights, realizing they are a specialized weapon, more comparable to a polish sabre than a long sword. And I'm pretty sure I'm the first who pointed it out too. So I hope I get credit. Read the messages and see when they are posted. I'm confident I might have been first to say it.
I came here wanting to debate at one point. But to debate, you gotta read my posts too. Not just rush to make your own. But I never seen anyone really consider my points as a possibility. I just see "why should I? I'm right and your wrong!". A superiority. You guys gotta realize: there is no truths in the sword world, where are the facts? Paintings? Written information? We can't even trust our own news sources, why should we trust the sources from a past when people believed frogs rained from the sky? Hell with that noise. There is no real truth. I would be willing to listen if you guys were, which you already proved that you weren't. I'm sick of talking to myself out loud. Everyone here just wants to hear themselves when they speak. No one cares about ideas outside their own until it's a hive mind,
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2016 4:28:46 GMT
I great example is that I never claimed that a long sword couldn't cut tatami, I just said a Katana would do better. But what do I get? Videos of longsword a cutting pretty thin tatami mats. No, you didn't just say that a katana would do better. You said that a katana would do enormously, overwhelmingly, spectacularly better. To quote you: "Now take the longsword to tameshigiri, you will see a properly made katana shine like a super nova". For a katana (or any other sword) to shine like a supernova in comparison, a longsword would have to be a very poor cutter. You also said (later) "I also understand that you can make a long sword that is an even better cutter than a katana", but you're now complaining that other people dared say that longswords might cut adequately in comparison to katanas? I say a long sword has better defensive capabilities. What do I get in response? Someone saying neither have defensive capabilities (of a long sword doesn't have defensive capability, what the hell is the advantage in a cross guard? Obviously it does defend). You said that the "Katana is a fantastic cut and thrust design optimized for offence. It's not a defence weapon". I didn't notice anybody disagree with any of that except the use of "fantastic". More than one person said that longswords are also optimised for offence. They're weapons, not shields. That's not the same thing as saying a longsword has no defensive capability. (A katana also has quite respectable defensive capability - watch some koryu kata and you'll see plenty of defensive stuff done with a katana.) If you disagree that they're optimised for offence, rather than defence, you could try explaining why you disagree. Explain clearly! If you don't disagree, then why do you have a problem with people saying it? You want to continue discussing these points instead of letting them rest, fine, continue the discussion. If you just want to complain that people disagreed with you, what's the point? If you complain that people didn't understand the points you were making, think about whether you could have made your points more clearly (hyperbole like "supernova" and "fantastic" doesn't help).
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 4:37:07 GMT
Fantastic is a representative of my opinion. I'm still allowed those. I want to embellish my posts ? Artistic license. I think katana can cut amazingly considering how thick and stiff it is, and how well it can still thrust. I don't care you disagree. Whatever. But when people start acting like their opinion is "fact" I get annoyed.
When is the last time you admitted to being wrong? Or that another might be correct?
My original point, to begin with, was that Katana is very specialized, but still people say it's inferior. I agree, a longsword is superior for HEMA, but when has anyone admitted that a katana is superior at its specialization?
Every weapon has a purpose. And the people who made them are way more deserving of the title "expert" than anyone on this forum. But stil, I see HEMA "experts" trying their hardest to "prove" that the katana is an inferior weapon. Even you ignore my points. Instead you focus on little nitpicks of my phrasing instead of my over all point. Maybe I worded myself badly, but if you guys showed an ounce of care to even listen to my point instead of being superior acting -insert impoliteness- I would be willing to discuss and elaborate on my point
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 9, 2016 4:39:52 GMT
Katana is specialized much in the same way polish sabre is, but it's compared to longsword all the time, which is stupid
|
|
|
Post by connorclarke on Oct 9, 2016 4:43:56 GMT
Any time people want to get into a semprini fit about which is better, I just go on YouTube and check out legitimate martial artist with swords. For example...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 5:04:56 GMT
I think katana can cut amazingly considering how thick and stiff it is Have you ever seen / have you ever held a real traditional made antique Nihonto? They often are rather thin, much thinner than the contemporary swords usually known around here...i only point this out because it shows that the absolute knowledge isnt yours either. By the way, you have a serious attitude / temper problem...and i always thought i am bad at this...
|
|