Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The katana is generally over rated, I prefer the wakizashi more anyway, but whatever. There's much better swords out there, but I wouldn't say it's the worst either.
LordofHats wrote: It's really silly but I always thought the Khopesh was really cool looking XD
Spoiler:
Thing just looks wicked. Granted it's more similar to an Ax than a sword in function.
I like it too. The design cause to have more cutting and slashing damage enforce. But it is a Bronze Age or copper weapon. This stuff will bend and dink vs. steel
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 06:13:14
Next insult catches a warning, and maybe even a holiday. Throwing out stuff like 'haters' and what not is primary school arguing and rude to boot, and I won't have it here. The OT isn't exactly glorious as it is
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
LordofHats wrote: It's really silly but I always thought the Khopesh was really cool looking XD
Spoiler:
Thing just looks wicked. Granted it's more similar to an Ax than a sword in function.
I like it too. The design cause to have more cutting and slashing damage enforce. But it is a Bronze Age or copper weapon. This stuff will bend and dink vs. steel
Yeah, even by modern metallurgy standards, I would have it as an art piece on the wall. It doesn't seem like a highly usable weapon compared to others out there.
Disclaimer: I'm a blacksmith as a hobby, and have made several swords and a lot of knives. I take the approach of "well, with modern steel and metallurgy, what is the best way to fashion a weapon?"
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Warhammers were not common in history, so it's not really a relevant question. A Warhammer is much like a Battle Ax. An improvised weapon. A lot of people confuse other weapons with a hammer, like the Hook and Bill, which was designed by the English for a specific battlefield purpose. It wasn't so much a weapon of war as a tool of war. A tool for yanking a knight off his horse.
So why do I get so much haters when I say katana is one of the best cutting blade?
You confuse people trying to dispel a myth with hate. A cutting blade isn't just about cutting. Katanas could hold very sharp edges. Brittle steel is a lot like glass. If can be sharp as feth but it shatters easily. Katanas were very brittle weapons and broke easily. They worked however in an environment where no one was wearing armor and fights tended to end in a few moves. There was no need for the blade to be durable or hold it's edge. In a field battle or a prolonged fight, a Katana would quickly lose its razor edge and become dulled due to the nature of its construction. Durability, flexibility, they matter as much as the edge itself. The very properties that allowed the Katana to hold such a sharp edge, also left it as a brittle (i.e. inflexible) weapon with very little durability. Those weakness meant little to a Tokugawa Samurai though.
Fundamentally this leads to the next big question. Considering the sacrifices the Katana made to hold that edge, is it really the best? No. Not in a practical sense. There were many other weapons like the Kilij, Scimitar, or Jian, that had excellent cutting power but were far more durable and flexible weapons. In a practical sense these weapons can be considered superior to a Katana because they carrying it's same core advantage (sharpness) but make fewer sacrifices to hold it. The Kilij is itself the ancestor to later European sabers and probably one of the most well designed bladed weapons in history. It is just as sharp as a Katana, but has a much sturdier and durable design.
The think that makes the Katana impressive isn't it's cut, but that the engineering behind it. There were a lot of engineering challenges that needed to be mastered for the Katana to be made. As a weapon, the Katana suffered serious draw backs and while it could cut, its ability to cut is often wildly overstated. In many ways effective cutting isn't even about sharpness of the edge but the design of the blade curve and the balance of the weight behind the edge.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Warhammers were not common in history, so it's not really a relevant question. A Warhammer is much like a Battle Ax. An improvised weapon. A lot of people confuse other weapons with a hammer, like the Hook and Bill, which was designed by the English for a specific battlefield purpose. It wasn't so much a weapon of war as a tool of war. A tool for yanking a knight off his horse.
So why do I get so much haters when I say katana is one of the best cutting blade?
You confuse people trying to dispel a myth with hate. A cutting blade isn't just about cutting. Katanas could hold very sharp edges. Brittle steel is a lot like glass. If can be sharp as feth but it shatters easily. Katanas were very brittle weapons and broke easily. They worked however in an environment where no one was wearing armor and fights tended to end in a few moves. There was no need for the blade to be durable or hold it's edge. In a field battle or a prolonged fight, a Katana would quickly lose its razor edge and become dulled due to the nature of its construction. Durability, flexibility, they matter as much as the edge itself. The very properties that allowed the Katana to hold such a sharp edge, also left it as a brittle (i.e. inflexible) weapon with very little durability. Those weakness meant little to a Tokugawa Samurai though.
Fundamentally this leads to the next big question. Considering the sacrifices the Katana made to hold that edge, is it really the best? No. Not in a practical sense. There were many other weapons like the Kilij, Scimitar, or Jian, that had excellent cutting power but were far more durable and flexible weapons. In a practical sense these weapons can be considered superior to a Katana because they carrying it's same core advantage (sharpness) but make fewer sacrifices to hold it. The Kilij is itself the ancestor to later European sabers and probably one of the most well designed bladed weapons in history. It is just as sharp as a Katana, but has a much sturdier and durable design.
The think that makes the Katana impressive isn't it's cut, but that the engineering behind it. There were a lot of engineering challenges that needed to be mastered for the Katana to be made. As a weapon, the Katana suffered serious draw backs and while it could cut, its ability to cut is often wildly overstated. In many ways effective cutting isn't even about sharpness of the edge but the design of the blade curve and the balance of the weight behind the edge.
So what the heck is the problem?
People don't like fanbois.
See, that is where I disagree with you. The special forging technique of soft body and hard edge is the reason why the blade won't break like other too sharp swords. That is the whole reason what make Katana special. You are stating one of the key reason why Katana is special. A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break. And yes there were bending, but not a common thing. The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more. The special forge technique is one of the key reason Black Smith respect such a weapon that can be made super sharp and retain the durability.
The breakage you are talking about include all steel that are too sharp. I know about this and I have mentioned on many post the reason why true katana has this special ability. Please do not confuse "fake" Katana, meaning it is just a extreme sharp steel.. it will break and not a usable battle weapon.
With that said, we can agree to disagree (however, I challenge you to study the special property of the katana blade).
Like I said, if I am right about the special forging technique... then this weapon is very powerful for the purpose of cutting.
You can choose war hammer or any other special "niche" weapon... maces, flail, shrunken, Chakram (India throwing disc), and a Katana were all design to be a special weapon that excel as a niche for certain type of opponent and not a jack of all trade weapon. However, like all weapon... it is still a weapon and can kill all opponent (just harder vs. some).
End of the day... a sword is a sword and is consider one of the most common jack of all trade weapon because of the common workable usage.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use. I consider a Plate mail a niche form of protection that design to protect the user from standard cutting weapon.
LOL, yeah I'm a fanbois of Katana... not even close.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 10:37:31
Isn't the Ulthbert also sharp, durable, and flexible, a characteristic that the katana does not have?
Aren't those characteristics typical of crucible forged steel swords?
Don't get me wrong, I love the katana. I think it's a work of art and a fine example of engineering.
However, I do think it's overrated, especially when you consider European swords such as the Ulthbert and Toledo steel weapons.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
david choe wrote: I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.
At this point, it might just be a language thing, to be honest. If you really wanted to respect all weapons for the the job they required, then you would not have such high praise for the katana. It's a weapon and it fails at dealing any sort of damage against anything above leather armor, which makes it nigh useless in an actual battle. It fails as a weapon. No niche etc.
If you want to consider it being a tool, then that's another issue because a "tool" doesn't have the job to kill another combattant, but can be used in different areas. As stated above, like that game thing, Haidong Gumdu. You wouldn't be able to do such a thing with a longsword.
So it might just be a language barrier causing the irritation. The Katana is a bad weapon but a good tool in its..."niche".
Eh, I don't know if it's that useless. If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor. Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 10:41:59
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the Ulthbert also sharp, durable, and flexible, a characteristic that the katana does not have?
Aren't those characteristics typical of crucible forged steel swords?
Don't get me wrong, I love the katana. I think it's a work of art and a fine example of engineering.
However, I do think it's overrated, especially when you consider European swords such as the Ulthbert and Toledo steel weapons.
I am not sure what you are talking about. But off the top of my head, the two cultures that learn to combine soft body and hard edge were the Viking and the Japanese. The pros were, they can make excellent sharp edge and not break. The cons were expensive to maintain it's sharpness. This special technique allows the metal to NOT BREAK to the normal standard of breakage of normal steel.
So the overrated hype is in a way true why the Katana were special. This understanding part of Katana forging is overlook by most weapons collector and misunderstood and think that Katana is a fanbois.
HOwever, the Vikings were "underrated" in their weapons forging. Many do not even know that the Viking invented this method 100s of years before the Japanese and their steel weapons were superior to most european weapons.
Most important key is the Design of the Katana vs. Ulthbert is that single vs double edge. Yes, the Uthbert were very sharp, but the sword is not a curve single edge blade, so it will never have the same cutting power as a single edge curve blade.
I am not sure of the Scimitar, but if it is not special forge technique... then the sharpness and power comes from the single edge curve blade. Like all single curve blade.... the power of cutting is superior than double edge straight blade.
So over all, the key thing about katana is the forging technique. Any weapon that has this forging technique became a special powerful blade in its own right. However,Katana were all swords that "should" have this standard and therefor special. European or any swords that get this treatment by a specialist black smith is consider extra special. So some Long Sword that got this treatment are very very good, but most long sword are not done this way. All Katana were done this way. I hope this parts explain about the reason why this "myth" is not an exaggeration but you need to understand about forging and sharpness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 10:57:24
david choe wrote: That is the whole reason what make Katana special.
It's special in the same way any other sword is special, which isn't really saying anything.
A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break.
All swords bend to a degree, but the way the metal is forged (and the material used as well) effects how much. The Katana is a very inflexible sword. Super bending is in the realm of some of the fancier Jians and Rapiers XD Those things can go beyond a 90 degree angle and still not break XD
The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Well barring the Imperial Army, the Katana was never used as the weapon of a standing army. And really, issuing swords to soldiers as a weapon probably entered the realm of sheer stupidity around 1880.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more.
I encourage you to study something other than YouTube, the History Channel, and Movies.
retain the durability.
Except it couldn't, which has been stated multiple times. A sharper edge is inherently a more brittle edge. Brittle is not durable.
I know about this
Every post you've made has kind of said that you don't. It's like everything you think you know was taken from The Last Samurai (how awesome was Ken Watanabe in that movie and wtf was Tom Cruis in top billing?) and a bunch of other movies that rant on and on about how cool the Samurai were. The entire idea that the Katana is some how 'special' among swords comes straight out of Hollywood (or whatever the Japanese equivalent is anyway).
If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest moving away from YouTube and the History Channel (where the truth is history!). Hell, a Cracked article, is more informative.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use
That's a joke right? Ignore for a moment that this isn't even just a matter of plate armor (Mail armor was better against swords*), but plate armor was a very common form of protection throughout Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Period.
*Plate primarily developed because of changes in projectile weapons, namely the Longbow and the Crossbow, which went right through mail and various forms of layered armor, and eventually the very heaviest plate was developed to try and ward off the first firearms.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 10:57:45
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless. If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor. Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:05:55
david choe wrote: I respect all weapons as a tool for what the job require. You just hate Katana.
At this point, it might just be a language thing, to be honest. If you really wanted to respect all weapons for the the job they required, then you would not have such high praise for the katana. It's a weapon and it fails at dealing any sort of damage against anything above leather armor, which makes it nigh useless in an actual battle. It fails as a weapon. No niche etc.
If you want to consider it being a tool, then that's another issue because a "tool" doesn't have the job to kill another combattant, but can be used in different areas. As stated above, like that game thing, Haidong Gumdu. You wouldn't be able to do such a thing with a longsword.
So it might just be a language barrier causing the irritation. The Katana is a bad weapon but a good tool in its..."niche".
Now get your fedora straight.
The language misunderstand part is on your end. When I say tool, all things are tool design to do a certain job. A F16 jet fighter is a tool design to bring death from above. A Katana is a sword design to have the "most" effective cut that a sword can have. Based on what I just stated, "a sword designed to have the most effective cut" must be single edge, curve, and very sharp w/ razor like (Katana is a few weapon that can have razor edge because of it's special forging technique). No double edge strait blade will ever have any hope of having and effective cut as a single edge curve blade.
A weapon TOOL is just that. A smart warrior will pick the right tool for the right job. You live in 15 century Japan and you want to walk around all day carrying your bastard sword for protection might have the advantage in a fight vs. Katana... but that is like a cowboy walking around in the wild west caring a gatling gun and not his 6 shooter pistol.
You are the one who keep misunderstanding what I have been saying all along that Katana is an excellent tool for what it was design to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:07:36
"Weapon" and "tool" aren't on the same level language-wise.
A "weapon" is a more specialized "tool". There's nothing like a "weapon tool".
A katana was a good weapon if you limit it to history. It was a good tool because it was the only way to make a good sword out of poor materials. We're comparing it to other weapons, though, and it then horribly fails.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:10:04
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless.
If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor.
Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
But your vacuum weapon test is silly man... I would bring a gun to a sword fight then. Come on....
I consider musket a good weapon and was an epic for it times. A Katana is like that too.
You bring a heavy armor with shield and a long sword vs. me in robe and a Katana is not a far fight is it? How about I say that because you are a greek from the 1000 BC, who wear loin cloth with a bronze short vs. me in robe and a Steel edge Katana ... who do you think will win.
Kidding? Vaccum test? You're a textbook armchair expert here. I've been doing HEMA for a little more than 17 years. Your experience is based on YouTube. I mean...give me a break here.
A chain mail isn't heavy armor, it's basic armor. I don't even need a shield given that a katana cannot get through said piece. As stated before, you want to limit a weapon's effectiveness to its time period and the region it was used in. Which is fine. But don't run yelling around town square saying it's the "best" weapon then, as if matched with other counterparts, it immediately falls short.
And no offense, but even if you had a Katana, I could beat you with a broomstick in a flash. Training trumps anything. That's what I like about melee weapons - any idiot can kill someone else with a gun. A trained melee expert will always beat an inferior opponent.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:18:15
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I don't know if it's that useless.
If it can slice through several prisoners in a single swing, then surely it can beat leather armor.
Also keep in mind that Samurai Armor was typically made of strips of hardened leather.
Yes, as I said above
We either have to compare all HEMA weapons or just limit it to specific conditions. If we choose to do the former, as OP did, then the katana is a terrible weapon. A chain mail is the basic armor and a katana can do nothing against it. Literally nothing. You cannot parry with a katana and you cannot wield a shield either. It has no redeeming values. Leather armor usually isn't considered an actual armor as it offers little to no protection. A leather armor only offers protection against small weapons, even medium ones, such as a longsword, make it obsolete.
Long story short: if a weapon cannot piece a chain mail, your feet might be a better weapon. As in run away. Really fast.
Except the foot soldiers (Ashigaru) tended not to wear mail, and chainmail only started to be used in Japan around the 15th century.
Also, wasn't the katana a secondary weapon on the battlefield? If I recall correctly, the Samurai's primary weapon was a bow or a pole arm.
It seems to me that the katana was better suited as a dueling weapon, one used outside the battlefield, where no one would wear armor.
One could also say that that it's a weapon of authority, as it was usually the samurai class who had them, whilst the peasantry had nothing, not even armor.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
david choe wrote: That is the whole reason what make Katana special.
It's special in the same way any other sword is special, which isn't really saying anything.
A true Katana made by master of the forge will bend instead of break.
All swords bend to a degree, but the way the metal is forged (and the material used as well) effects how much. The Katana is a very inflexible sword. Super bending is in the realm of some of the fancier Jians and Rapiers XD Those things can go beyond a 90 degree angle and still not break XD
The weapon must be maintain so is consider very expensive for an army standard, but if your army can afford such a tool... the advantage of sharp blade is better.
Well barring the Imperial Army, the Katana was never used as the weapon of a standing army. And really, issuing swords to soldiers as a weapon probably entered the realm of sheer stupidity around 1880.
Again, I encourage you to study the Katana a bit more.
I encourage you to study something other than YouTube, the History Channel, and Movies.
retain the durability.
Except it couldn't, which has been stated multiple times. A sharper edge is inherently a more brittle edge. Brittle is not durable.
I know about this
Every post you've made has kind of said that you don't. It's like everything you think you know was taken from The Last Samurai (how awesome was Ken Watanabe in that movie and wtf was Tom Cruis in top billing?) and a bunch of other movies that rant on and on about how cool the Samurai were. The entire idea that the Katana is some how 'special' among swords comes straight out of Hollywood (or whatever the Japanese equivalent is anyway).
If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest moving away from YouTube and the History Channel (where the truth is history!). Hell, a Cracked article, is more informative.
Plate armor were not a common thing you see or use
That's a joke right? Ignore for a moment that this isn't even just a matter of plate armor (Mail armor was better against swords*), but plate armor was a very common form of protection throughout Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Period.
*Plate primarily developed because of changes in projectile weapons, namely the Longbow and the Crossbow, which went right through mail and various forms of layered armor, and eventually the very heaviest plate was developed to try and ward off the first firearms.
This again. if you won't respect the forging technique and what I stated above as fact.. then just agree to disagree and stop the personal insult. I won't stoop to your level.
Correct. As stated before - the katana was a very good weapon in its time and region back then. It was a damn good piece of forging as it required a skilled blacksmith who had to work with terrible materials. Limited to time and region, the katana was an outstanding weapon.
What OP did, however, is to match it to other, comparable weapons and thus take it out of its context. It then falls short and shows severe weaknesses that cannot let it stand against rivals.
Except that's not what it's designed for. Its more accurate to say "a sword designed to not break the laws of the Shogunate concerning blade weight and length but that we can still use to protect ourselves from our political opponents."
No double edge strait blade will ever have any hope of having and effective cut as a single edge curve blade.
That's just plain nonsense... Double edged or straight edged has no relevance to the sharpness of the edge. The only reason the Katana itself has a single edge is because it was a design needed to have a thicker back blade to maintain what little durability the blade had.
This again. if you won't respect the forging technique and what I stated above as fact.. then just agree to disagree and stop the personal insult. I won't stoop to your level.
The only person in the thread who is being rude or insulting is you.
Please stop it.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I do respect the forging technique. Turning iron so bad that no one else in the world ever used it to make a weapon into a useable material is damned impressive. And not only did they make something useable, but it looked pretty sweet too.
What I won't do is pretend the technique was some kind of magic. I might put it in a fiction novel, but facts don't belong in fiction
and what I stated above as fact..
I can't respect fiction as fact. I know I'm from America where we kind of do that as a national past time, but I have principles damn it!
stop the personal insult.
Telling you that your information is incorrect is not a personal insult. Suggesting that you expand your base knowledge if anything is helpful advice
Now I used to insult people for refusing to abandon very factually flawed positions, but mods have told me I'm not allowed to do it anymore
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:28:54
Sigvatr wrote: Kidding? Vaccum test? You're a textbook armchair expert here. I've been doing HEMA for a little more than 17 years. Your experience is based on YouTube. I mean...give me a break here.
A chain mail isn't heavy armor, it's basic armor. I don't even need a shield given that a katana cannot get through said piece. As stated before, you want to limit a weapon's effectiveness to its time period and the region it was used in. Which is fine. But don't run yelling around town square saying it's the "best" weapon then, as if matched with other counterparts, it immediately falls short.
And no offense, but even if you had a Katana, I could beat you with a broomstick in a flash. Training trumps anything. That's what I like about melee weapons - any idiot can kill someone else with a gun. A trained melee expert will always beat an inferior opponent.
But is that not a vacuum test? Do you know what is Katana design to do? Once you have stated that, then you know it was not meant to be a battle weapon but a day to day weapon with one of the most superior cutting blade.. even by modern standard.. it has one of the sharpest cutting edge.
You keep bring this straw man argument and this vacuum test again and again. Do you even understand what "vacuum" test is?
The " I'm running around town square best weapon" is the cutting power and control. No other sword has the same cutting power and control. That right there is where I ended the challenge of the Katana as a superior cutting sword. I never ever stated that it is better than pikes or spit fireball like you are so suggesting that I am clamming.
LOL, you think you are the only guy who train with weapons and MMA here? Don't try to act macho over the internet buddy. I for one have been very gentlemen with my argument and you keep trying to put words in my mouth. You are the intellectually laziness person who keeps bring this childish vacuum test of what the most powerful weapons and armor should be for hand to hand combat.. but fail to see the flaw in that fight...a gun will win. So to me, a sword is a sword. I would prefer to walk around with a side arm sword for protection as a Katana because it is light and comfortable and very killy. Who the hell were plate mail armor around the city all day in Japan? When Samurai goes to war, he brings his full armor, Katana and his main killy battle weapon which is usually a pole arm weapon. Judge a Katana for what it is.
I do respect the forging technique. Turning iron so bad that no one else in the world ever used it to make a weapon into a useable material is damned impressive. And not only did they make something useable, but it looked pretty sweet too.
What I won't do is pretend the technique was some kind of magic. I might put it in a fiction novel, but facts don't belong in fiction
and what I stated above as fact..
I can't respect fiction as fact. I know I'm from America where we kind of do that as a national past time, but I have principles damn it!
stop the personal insult.
Telling you that your information is incorrect is not a personal insult. Suggesting that you expand your base knowledge if anything is helpful advice
Now I used to insult people for refusing to abandon very factually flawed positions, but mods have told me I'm not allowed to do it anymore
Again agree to disagree. You keep saying that the technique is not important and I am telling you that this treatment of the blade is what is key here. You can use the same or close technique to apply to european weapon and that weapon will be superior to it's standard. But you choose to ignore this fact. So we can disagree on this part.
Dude, again with the debate of single and double edge. Strait vs curve, the PROS for single and curve blade is the ability of the blade to have shaper edge and cutting power. That is the whole purpose of the weapon design. IF you do not get this part right, you are very novice at best in understand swords.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:37:45
Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
daedalus wrote: Caveman clubs were better weapons than Katanas because they could kill other cavemen in their period, which was what they were designed to do. Also, they didn't require ANY forging and considerably little upkeep. Therefore, it must have had the sharpest cutting edge.
Clubs did work pretty well for those blasted giants;
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/08 11:40:24
3100+
~4100
~1660
In dedicato imperatum ultra articulo mortis