Mr. Rogers (post: 1401947) wrote:It all depends on what you need and what factors you are considering. Also,
*summons a hoard of fanboys*
" wrote:Keep in mind, every country and period's weapons and armor are designed to protect against specific strategies. Japanese warfare was intended to take on Japanese opponents. The same can be said for european warfare... Except where it was intended to take out Saracens. :p
Cognitive Gear (post: 1402035) wrote:Something that people should keep in mind when viewing demonstrations of ancient weapons:
Our modern forging techniques are leaps and bounds beyond the original techniques used. So most of the time, the demonstrations are hardly indicative of what the weapons were actually capable of.
Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1402050) wrote:When I say they were using Authentic I am using the fullest meaning of the word. He joked several times that the Katana was worth more than his life. It was the Sensei's prized posession and he and his kids had an understanding that it was a family heirloom to be passed onto him only at death - maybe at their hands. lol
Yamamaya wrote:You also have to consider that a katana wasn't well suited to stab through joints. Weapons like the rapier were better suited for that. Also many knights would wear chain mail under their plate armor hence making a kill very difficult unless you stabbed through the visor. You might use blunt weapons to kill him simply by trauma or you might use a crossbow/gun to wound/kill.
Indeed, Samurais carried the naginata and the yumi bow. However, how would these weapons fare against the European equilavalents such as the halberd and crossbow?
Those swords are crazy expensive and you have to have certain credentials in order to get one, I think.
you are jealous of the pure awesomeness of the katana. since its not a lightsaber you are saying it sucks. the katana you had was most likely a cheap replica. they are supposed the be fast and light. yes japanese swords did changer over time. they started with the tachi, then the katana developed out of that.
I have trained a bit with a katana. Swords are as sharp as you sharpen them to be. Yes, much of Japanese armour was not metal. Yes, some katanas are thinner than others. They vary a remarkable amount, actually. I have handled katanas going back to the 12th century, and was amazed how varied they were in weighting. All weapons are made deadly by the users.
goldenspines (post: 1402066) wrote:Oh man, this thread reminds me of another thread: https://www.christiananime.net/showthread.php?t=55922
Addressing the real issue behind this thread (even though everyone's answers were brilliant about the historical use of the katana, btw), CAA is not a place to complain about a certain demographic in society. Please get a blog for that.
Back on the topic of katanas, I have a katana like sword, but it's not sharp. XD If used properly, it can be deadly against another sword wielder. But pitting a sword against anyone with chain mail or a tank or whatever is foolish. The Japanese know this and most others do as well.
Yamamaya (post: 1402067) wrote::P
A katana was a good sword that much is certain. However it was made to fight against other similar warriors It's form was the same for hundreds of years while the European sword form was constantly changing.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm(this essay addresses the issue quite well).
Also Samurai armor was made of the same metal as the katana so obviously the katana couldn't pierce Samurai armor.(unlike in some movies). The katana is more of a slashing weapon than a bashing weapon.
(If you want to see a really sharp sword check out the swords made by Muslim warriors in Damascus. Their style of sword making was eventually adopted by the Europeans after the Crusades).
Stabbing through a car door isn't that impressive of a feat. You can do that with most blades.
The katana is certainly cool but it has its limits.(also swords were the last resort in every culture including Japanese. They prefered long reaching weapons such as the naginata or spear). Like others have mentioned the Samurai certainly wasn't stupid but neither was the Viking or knight.
Yamamaya wrote:Please don't bring Deadliest Warrior into this. DW is notorious for historical inaccuracies.
But they did get the chain mail right in the Viking vs Samurai episode. Chainmail was riveted not butted like that crap they often use in DW episodes.(However that episode was still crap for a number of other reasons. No Viking worth his salt would strap his shield to his freaking arm.)
Keep in mind that Japan had limited iron ore supplies so they had to make due with what they had, hence the reason why they never used plate armor.
I just get irritated when people automatically assume the exotic east weapondry>>>European weapondry. Keep in mind that European weapondry was just as exotic to the Easterners as their weapons are to us!
Roy Mustang (post: 1402084) wrote:Okay, I won't. I didn't know that your a history major in your high school.
[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]
Ante Bellum (post: 1402173) wrote:I MAKE chainmaille.
Japanese chainmaille did not serve the same purpose as European chainmaille. It was mostly used in joints, to help connect plates, and because it was flexible. It was not made into full suits like in Europe.
Riveted chainmaille is very strong but even today is a labor intensive and very dangerous form of chainmaille to make. While chainmaille is indeed good armor, it did have several weak points. I don't have my notes with me right now so I can't give any specific examples.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests