Japanese Traditional Sword Making - General

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ITS FOLDED 7000 TIMES. ITS THE BEST WEAPON EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS AND SUPERIOR TO ANY WESTERN WEAPONS AS IS EVERYTHING FROM JAPAN.

[QUOTE=OvB;33346330]WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ITS FOLDED 7000 TIMES. ITS THE BEST WEAPON EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS AND SUPERIOR TO ANY WESTERN WEAPONS AS IS EVERYTHING FROM JAPAN.[/QUOTE] IT CAN CUT THROUGH SOLID STEEL ADAMENTIUM DOORS JUST ASK MY FRIENDS FRIENDS UNCLE HES FROM ASIA

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33344652]That's true for most if not any sword. They would at best bruise you when they hit the padding. And swords were too expensive (and for the more noble/skilled) so that's why spears were used for the poorly trained bottom of the pyramid soldiers.[/QUOTE] I think the spear is quite underestimated. I mean, as a soldier you would most likely be scared shitless to approach a formation of spears pointing right at you. On another note, I'm I the only one who finds the Chinese Jian swords beautiful? Sure they are badly designed weapons but gorgeous nonetheless.

[QUOTE=acon5;33347603]I think the spear is quite underestimated. I mean, as a soldier you would most likely be scared shitless to approach a formation of spears pointing right at you. On another note, I'm I the only one who finds the Chinese Jian swords beautiful? Sure they are badly designed weapons but gorgeous nonetheless.[/QUOTE] [img]http://chineseswords.freewebspace.com/images/jian4.jpg[/img] Looks badass.

[IMG]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2640/screenshot2011111918293.png[/IMG] Is that.. [i]tape[/i]? [i]Ancient tape techniques[/i]..

[QUOTE=Downsider;33348081][IMG]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2640/screenshot2011111918293.png[/IMG] Is that.. [i]tape[/i]? [i]Ancient tape techniques[/i]..[/QUOTE] That's what real samurai did if they broke their sword in half, just tape it together.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33347902][img]http://chineseswords.freewebspace.com/images/jian4.jpg[/img] Looks badass.[/QUOTE] Remote linking does look badass.

[QUOTE=acon5;33347603]I think the spear is quite underestimated. I mean, as a soldier you would most likely be scared shitless to approach a formation of spears pointing right at you. On another note, I'm I the only one who finds the Chinese Jian swords beautiful? Sure they are badly designed weapons but gorgeous nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Not by me though. In return for it's unwieldyness and poor effectiveness you get a weapon that's easy to use and can be used for extended periods of time unlike swords. This guy has a bunch of video's about spear. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4[/media]

[QUOTE=J!NX;33348118]That's what real samurai did if they broke their sword in half, just tape it together.[/QUOTE] But that's not the sword. That's the sheath.

[QUOTE=doomkiwi;33335167]The Katana isn't a weapon that can be compared to other swords of the same time period from other countries because it quite simply did not fulfill the same role. I mean, you can, but that's like comparing a spoon to a knife and saying the knife is better because it's harder to cut things with a spoon (THAT'S NOT WHAT A SPOON IS USED FOR GENIUS). It wasn't a destructive instrument of war, it was a dueling or one on one combat weapon, made to take advantage of the ability to slice while being taken out of its scabbard in one swift motion. It's the quick draw revolver of the sword world. It's supposed to end a fight before anything prolonged happens.[/QUOTE] This is very spot on. In Feudal Japan the weapon of choice for the farmer footsoldier was either a naginata or low-quality katana. Spear were more used by foot infantry, and the only people who made effective use of the katana were trained samurais that actually had a sword of decent quality. Also they actually don't train how to parry attacks and such, they just learnt how to dodge things. Most Katana duels were just two people waiting for an opening and use that. You rarely heard the clash of swords. Looking at battlefields (espcecially sekigahara), it was noted that a lot of the deaths probably came from your head being smashed in. They examined corpses on site and noted that almost everyone had the left side of their skull smashed in. This indicates that whatever weapon they used, it wasn't exactly made for stabbing and slashing. And also lol at the people here implying that there were european swords that weren't of bad quality. Obviously, in wartime you can't just shit out a bunch of top-grade swords if you have to equip everyone and your mother with them. [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=genkaz92;33338063]As far as I am aware, truly ending a fight or killing someone in full plate was extremely rare to begin with, even with a matched knight fighting the other. According to a thread about this very topic (which was made some time ago) most of the knight fights ended either with one of them falling over from exhaustion or forcing the other to surrender.[/QUOTE] Full plate armor was never used by footsoldiers. They could never manage to walk more than a couple of kilometers without becoming exhausted. It was used for sitting on horses with a polearm. Knights in the field had chainmail and a clunky helmet. Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421] Full plate armor was never used by footsoldiers. They could never manage to walk more than a couple of kilometers without becoming exhausted. It was used for sitting on horses with a polearm. Knights in the field had chainmail and a clunky helmet. Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] That is very interesting, I wonder whether there were any exceptions (in the area of full plate armor).

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421]Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] Why? Do you think the knight wouldn't be trained in combat just because he has better armor? There's no factual or historical evidence for a "samurai" (who weren't even warriors after the first couple of centuries of their existence) somehow being superior in actual combat to other troops. Please don't mindlessly propagate this myth.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421]Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but, a pure slashing weapon vs armor that makes slashing impossible... do the math. Do you seriously think someone with training in combat + armor would win against someone with mere training? maybe if the samurai has a spear or a bow, but just a Katana, if he won, that'd be pure blind luck. A knight is trained in blocking/possibly dodging if need be, as well as taking blows and dealing with them. If a samurai has that training, minus blocks, he should be even still equal, but without an opening, like a samurai needs, he's fucked, because there is no opening to very little opening. And because the knight may have that one opening, don't you think he'd expect a slash to that very opening and be more alert about it?

Katanas are extremely sharp and deadly, whats up with comparing them to European broadswords ect. they are both total different in combat and technique.

I'm sorry but anyone who says that a European sword would win out vs a Katana because"The Katana would shatter" is fucking idiot. It's not like the sword has to be replaced after every battle, it was meant to take punishment.

[QUOTE=dark soul;33352970]I'm sorry but anyone who says that a European sword would win out vs a Katana because"The Katana would shatter" is fucking idiot. It's not like the sword has to be replaced after every battle, it was meant to take punishment.[/QUOTE] It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Steel was scarce and poor in Japan, in Europe it wasn't. The katana was not meant or made for blocking a blow, and the fighting style greatly reflects this reality.

Bring a shield to the fight, Katana instantly almost useless. Sword vs sword and shield means the guy with the shield would win in almost every fight.

It's officially [i]that[/i] thread now.

I think new japanese swords made of proper metal are pretty fucking effective, though.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421] Full plate armor was never used by footsoldiers. They could never manage to walk more than a couple of kilometers without becoming exhausted. It was used for sitting on horses with a polearm. Knights in the field had chainmail and a clunky helmet. Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] They wouldn't march in full plate obviously, but they did fight on foot. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Battle_of_Barnet_retouched.jpg[/img] As seen here, knights on horseback and on foot. They retired to the back after a couple minutes of fighting. Then when they were back up to strength go back in. Much like the romans did, but without the whistle.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421] Full plate armor was never used by footsoldiers. They could never manage to walk more than a couple of kilometers without becoming exhausted. It was used for sitting on horses with a polearm. Knights in the field had chainmail and a clunky helmet. Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] Just to point out that a modern soldier carries as much, if not more weight in equipment than your average European knight did, and the European knight had significantly better weight distribution from the armour, which only weighed around 20kg when made of good quality steel (modern soldier is around 20kg of equipment, but not distributed as evenly). With training (which a knight was expected to do often, and rigorously) the knight wouldn't be that encumbered by plate and mail, and would actually be able to jump and run. Knight against knight fighting was basically a stalemate at any time, one had to wear the other out, or pin him down. The only real way to beat a plate and mail knight is to smash bones with blunt force trauma, or to get him under the joints with a piercing weapon. Now, jousting armour weighed up to 55kg or so, which is where the "not able to mount / dismount horses" claims come from, and the same for the not able to run claims. Your rich, noble knights would fight on horseback, but there were a large amount of knights who couldn't afford an expensive warhorse (like a suit of plate and mail, a warhorse was very expensive) Also, I'd give a standard middleages man-at-arms with chainmail a decent chance against a samurai. Chainmail's generally underrated by most people, but there's a reason it was so widespread - it worked. It turns slashing into blunt force, which is absorbed by the padded leather underneath and the katana is designed for slashing.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;33355072]Just to point out that a modern soldier carries as much, if not more weight in equipment than your average European knight did, and the European knight had significantly better weight distribution from the armour, which only weighed around 20kg when made of good quality steel (modern soldier is around 20kg of equipment, but not distributed as evenly). With training (which a knight was expected to do often, and rigorously) the knight wouldn't be that encumbered by plate and mail, and would actually be able to jump and run. Knight against knight fighting was basically a stalemate at any time, one had to wear the other out, or pin him down. The only real way to beat a plate and mail knight is to smash bones with blunt force trauma, or to get him under the joints with a piercing weapon. Now, jousting armour weighed up to 55kg or so, which is where the "not able to mount / dismount horses" claims come from, and the same for the not able to run claims. Your rich, noble knights would fight on horseback, but there were a large amount of knights who couldn't afford an expensive warhorse (like a suit of plate and mail, a warhorse was very expensive) Also, I'd give a standard middleages man-at-arms with chainmail a decent chance against a samurai. Chainmail's generally underrated by most people, but there's a reason it was so widespread - it worked. It turns slashing into blunt force, which is absorbed by the padded leather underneath and the katana is designed for slashing.[/QUOTE] 20 kilo extra on everything you do. It's actually better to have it all on your back so that your arms and legs don't have to lift the extra weight every time you attack. No knight would be able to hold out for longer than 10 minutes without being extremely exhausted. Samurai don't slash just anywhere. So chainmail is useless. It takes away the obvious target, but everything else is still available. Face, neck, hands, legs, armpits, etc. A samurai is effectively wearing plate mail mixed with plate. His helmet also protects his neck, his gauntlets protect his wrist and his lower legs are unreachable due to their fighting style (which is actually true for most fighting styles).

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33355142]Samurai don't slash just anywhere. So chainmail is useless. It takes away the obvious target, but everything else is still available. Face, neck, hands, legs, armpits, etc. A samurai is effectively wearing plate mail mixed with plate. His helmet also protects his neck, his gauntlets protect his wrist and his lower legs are unreachable due to their fighting style (which is actually true for most fighting styles).[/QUOTE] The man-at-arms would have the standard helm, gauntlets, boots and a long mail hauberk, with the possibility of a gorget so the armpits are the main exposed bit there, and they're unreachable unless you pin him down. The samurai fighting style is based around one on one combat with someone who will fight in the same manner. The man at arms will have a shield and one handed weapon, probably a Danish axe, and would have no qualms with striking the samurai in what they would call a dishonourable way, for example a blow to the face with the shield's stud. The steel on the axe would be greater than the quality of the lamellar leather and iron armour a samurai wears, and thus he would be able to deal grevious damage if he gets a blow in. Also, chainmail is not useless, it offers amazing defence against any slashing, and moderate protection against piercing. (most "arrow vs chainmail" tests use an arrow striking at 90 degrees against a pinned sheet of mail, often held upside down, when the main advantage is how it hangs, combined with the flexibility, both of which are removed by the tests. Then there's the fact that a 90 degree shot is near impossible to get) The samurai has the same weight issues that a European knight has, and their armour is subpar due to the iron, as nice as the lamellar is. And again, there's the issue of the lack of a shield, which is such an insane disadvantage that it's hard to find a word for it. Oh, and the modern ballistic plates and the like which soldiers wear are set up in critical positions, too, and the soldiers can wear it for multiple days on end. Obviously a full suit and swinging a hunk of steel is gonna be less comfortable and more tiring, but I'd imagine that short of actually fighting, they could wear the armour for half a day or so.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33349421]This is very spot on. In Feudal Japan the weapon of choice for the farmer footsoldier was either a naginata or low-quality katana. Spear were more used by foot infantry, and the only people who made effective use of the katana were trained samurais that actually had a sword of decent quality. Also they actually don't train how to parry attacks and such, they just learnt how to dodge things. Most Katana duels were just two people waiting for an opening and use that. You rarely heard the clash of swords. Looking at battlefields (espcecially sekigahara), it was noted that a lot of the deaths probably came from your head being smashed in. They examined corpses on site and noted that almost everyone had the left side of their skull smashed in. This indicates that whatever weapon they used, it wasn't exactly made for stabbing and slashing. And also lol at the people here implying that there were european swords that weren't of bad quality. Obviously, in wartime you can't just shit out a bunch of top-grade swords if you have to equip everyone and your mother with them. [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] Full plate armor was never used by footsoldiers. They could never manage to walk more than a couple of kilometers without becoming exhausted. It was used for sitting on horses with a polearm. Knights in the field had chainmail and a clunky helmet. Still an advantage for a knight vs a samurai, but a samurai highly trained in taijutsu and bushido arts would probably win.[/QUOTE] I personally know people that move around in full plate armour for hours. As in, they fight each other and move.

Even some reports of people being able to swim in full plate, too.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;33355433]The man-at-arms would have the standard helm, gauntlets, boots and a long mail hauberk, with the possibility of a gorget so the armpits are the main exposed bit there, and they're unreachable unless you pin him down.[/QUOTE] Ah yeah sure, i was thinking mail and some sort of helmet and maybe gloves or mail mittens. Mainly because a neck guard (forgot the name of the thing) wasn't very commonly used from what i've read. But then again, it's probably pretty standard for men at arms with a low budget as they could just do with a cheaper alternative to plate/ mail. I really don't know about their weapons, but surely they can't carry a small sword, shield and pole weapon..Would make more sense to have just the shield and sword or the pole weapon.. Samurai used pole and katana, but i bet that's because Samurai were legally required to carry a katana.

[QUOTE=dark soul;33352970]I'm sorry but anyone who says that a European sword would win out vs a Katana because"The Katana would shatter" is fucking idiot. It's not like the sword has to be replaced after every battle, it was meant to take punishment.[/QUOTE] Even when they started to import iron after the end of the japanese isolation, you were still trained to not hit stuff with the katana except for your enemy. Katana's were never meant to do actual Blocks, more like swift parries where the swords just were touching [editline]20th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sami-elite;33355638]Ah yeah sure, i was thinking mail and some sort of helmet and maybe gloves or mail mittens. Mainly because a neck guard (forgot the name of the thing) wasn't very commonly used from what i've read. But then again, it's probably pretty standard for men at arms with a low budget as they could just do with a cheaper alternative to plate/ mail. I really don't know about their weapons, but surely they can't carry a small sword, shield and pole weapon..Would make more sense to have just the shield and sword or the pole weapon.. Samurai used pole and katana, but i bet that's because Samurai were legally required to carry a katana.[/QUOTE] Only formally, most trained samurai used a spear in battle, unless it was a duel. Naginata was mostly superior to the Katana with it's high reach. And durability.

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33355638]Ah yeah sure, i was thinking mail and some sort of helmet and maybe gloves or mail mittens. Mainly because a neck guard (forgot the name of the thing) wasn't very commonly used from what i've read. But then again, it's probably pretty standard for men at arms with a low budget as they could just do with a cheaper alternative to plate/ mail. I really don't know about their weapons, but surely they can't carry a small sword, shield and pole weapon..Would make more sense to have just the shield and sword or the pole weapon.. Samurai used pole and katana, but i bet that's because Samurai were legally required to carry a katana.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine that the man-at-arms would only carry a shield and the axe, not too sure for the samurai, but I assumed that despite their original start as horse-archers, they'd just carry a naginata and katana, with no shield. Really, the shield is the deciding factor, as a weapon it's dangerous, and the protective abilities are unmatched.

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33355638] I really don't know about their weapons, but surely they can't carry a small sword, shield and pole weapon..Would make more sense to have just the shield and sword or the pole weapon.. Samurai used pole and katana, but i bet that's because Samurai were legally required to carry a katana.[/QUOTE] Most any spearmen would carry a blade either long or short.

[QUOTE=sami-elite;33355638]Ah yeah sure, i was thinking mail and some sort of helmet and maybe gloves or mail mittens. Mainly because a neck guard (forgot the name of the thing) wasn't very commonly used from what i've read. But then again, it's probably pretty standard for men at arms with a low budget as they could just do with a cheaper alternative to plate/ mail. I really don't know about their weapons, but surely they can't carry a small sword, shield and pole weapon..Would make more sense to have just the shield and sword or the pole weapon.. Samurai used pole and katana, but i bet that's because Samurai were legally required to carry a katana.[/QUOTE] Although I can imagine most samurai bringing a spare wakizashi or katana to battle, in case their naginata breaks.