OP's assertion is the biggest leap in logic I've seen in this century...
IMO, the only thing it calls into question is the credibility of the people History Channel calls "experts"...
Point is, we HAVE 18th century European swords, intact and functional, and they are sharp and deadly as fuck all!
To assert that the entire tradition of European swordmaking is shit based solely on what amounts to be ancient hearsay is not just unscientific, it's plain retarded, mate.
were they "hawkered" by the same scum that instigated the Revolution , also the Russian revolution milking the country of it's wealth and murdering it's gentilepopulation !
The same parasites that defragmented Germany ,Britain ,USA with impunity whist claiming victim status ! READ -"51Documents"Brenner"TheHostAndTheParesite"Felton SOON
@wolfdragga Could you not also argue that European pattern-welding predates even the vikings? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't many Germanic cultures use the same, or similiar, technique (Merovingian Franks, Anglo-Saxon, and migration period groups)?
@wolfdragga Well that's the point I was trying to get across. I just wasn't entirely sure if it was correct. I'm a history major and am currently writing a 15-page term paper over the significance and impact of early Germanic black-smithing techniques in Europe. It takes a lot of research, but damned if it isn't an interesting topic.
@Kdanc86 that guy is correct. an axe was semi blunt beacuse it would crushbone through armor. the bread analogy was to prove that coming staright down on it would CRUsH it ( same as it would with a machete btw) you would need to slice to get through the bread. If you try to slice with an axe, you die. also, the wood has a clean "cut" because you are spliting it with the grain, it's weakest point. I do agree however that the ececutioners kept thier axes blunt for show.
This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Anyone who has used a heavy chopping axe knows that it needs not to be more than semi-sharp to cleave a piece of firewood. It's the weight, the delievery of the stroke, and the precison that decides wether you can take a head of or not.
European blades do not have the razor edge of oriental swords, because the edge is useless against heavy armour. It's the thrust that kills an armoured opponent. They have enough edge to cut an unarmoured opponent.
Depending on the era in question, European swords could very well be sharp as a motherfucker.
But you're right about one thing - treating edge sharpness as the sole deciding factor of the swords quality is sheer folly.
Much more important would be the blade's balance and flexibility - areas in which European blades outdid their Japanese counterparts on a regular basis.
What do you mean that European blades " outdid" their Japanese counter parts in balance and flexibility? You make it sound as if in the ancient world knights and samurai compared their swords in an objective test and the European blades were more flexible. There is a video on YT comparing modern remakes of the longsword and katana cutting various armors and blocks of ice. In all test the katana outshined the longsword by a mile. Check it out.
What I mean is that when you take two historical blades, and conduct genuine scientific tests on them (as opposed to the sham that is the video you're referring me to), you will see that tempered European blades have far more tensile strength than their untempered Japanese counterparts.
As for the video - it's bollocks.
The test subjects are of very questionable quality, the longsword appears to be unsharpened and the handler is an amateur - his strikes are very inconsistent.
The long sword appears to be dull yet it manages to cut through the cabbage with ease? The man handling the katana is also a amateur so what is your point? How do you know how much tensile strength a genuine katana has if you have never tested it? The fact is that European longswords broke and they broke very often.
My point is that the video is unscientific - you cannot draw an conclusions from it.
Also, in one sentence you say that unless I personally conduct the tests, I cannot attest to the conclusions, yet in the very next sentence you do the exact thing yourself!
Hypocrisy much?
I know of what I speak because European swords, while having the same carbon content as the Japanese ones, were tempered, while their counterparts weren't.
I did not mean you personally. Japanese swords were tempered, tempering simply means heating the metal up and then quenching it quickly. Really do you know what you are talking about?
Tempering is a form of heat treatment, but not all heat treatment is tempering.
Tempering consists of two sets of heating/quenching, whereas Japanese smiths preformed only one.
Additionally, tempering occurs on much lower temperatures than what the Japanese did - when tempered, the steel never gets to the point where it starts to glow.
Tempering is a form of heat treatment, but not all heat treatment is tempering.
Tempering consists of two sets of heating/quenching, whereas Japanese smiths preformed only one.
Additionally, tempering occurs on much lower temperatures than what the Japanese did - when tempered, the steel never gets to the point where it starts to glow.
European smiths used uniformed tempering, where the whole blade is heated up and then quenched. In contrast Japanese smiths used the Chinese method of differentiated tempering, where thick layers of clay are placed on most of the blade while the edge is either not covered in clay or is covered in a thin layer. The "hamon" or white smoke line directly above the edge of the katana is proof of tempering. Really how do you not know this?
Read what I wrote one more time, specifically the part about the differences between between ordinary heat treatment (differential, or otherwise), and actual tempering.
See how what you said has nothing to do with what I was talking about?
Differential heat treatment is NOT tempering, ergo, "hamon" is not proof tempering.
See this video for a demonstration of what tempering is, and how it differs from regular heat treatment:
One more thing - the whole point of tempering is that it rendered techniques such as differential heat treatment obsolete.
Tempering made steel very flexible, without compromising on hardness (much), thus negating the need to leave one side of your sword soft, to act as a shock absorbent.
Basically, tempering is a far more advanced method of heat treatment.
that guy is a moron. A knife wont cut through bread if you press down. Right. What if you take a machete and chop down powerfully? You can bet that the bread will slice cleanly apart. Plus if he has ever used an axe to chop wood you will note how you can cleanly split log into pieces. It depends on how well you sharpen it. Executioners deliberately kept their blades blunt for a more brutal effect. A clean kill was not considered a proper kill.
Wood splits because you bring the axe down with the grain. If you attempt to do this more 'wily' woods, like spruce or pine, you may still end up with a problematic cut. Also, if you put the log sideways, it's not going to split so easily. I would imagine that a mixture of muscle, bone and sinew would be far more like a sideways log than an upright log.
@MrGuvnah No. It wouldn't. Flesh and bone is very fragile compared to other types of materials. In the movies whenever you see someone 'cut' you have a little trickle of blood running down from a little cut on their forehead or whatever. The reality is that any blade will cut you open like a side of beef. Even a half hearted cut.
Too many variables to talk about sword sharpness here with any definitive answer. I would imagine that sword makers have learned much since then that would aid to the sharpness of swords since the swords of this particular era were produced. Steel, for one, was not a meticulously regulated commodity and they may very well have been wielding swords that blunted from simple poor steel choices. Tempering could also have been what modern, scientifically backed sword smiths would consider inadequate.
the problem with this experts is that they have no experience weilding or handling the weapons they talk about. well, at least most of them. if they did have any experience with surviving examples of historical swords, instead of cheaps reporductions , they will know best than to make such fallacious statements.
I agree with you, but in this video they didn't talk about any weapon at all, they talked about axes and swords of execution. I would call those tools rather than weapons.
That's not to say that a sword doesn't gets blunt. All swords will be a little blunter after a beheading. But the difference is that knights of the upper class could and would afford better blades to help them survive in battle. An executioner would only afford a less good sword to help him behead criminals.
@mechupanlamonda It's all about if the executioner gave a crap, not if the historian has swung an axe. These experts go off witness accounts and journal entries where the norm was the executioner having to take two or three swings to sever a person's head. It was so gruesome that rich people would pay for professionals to hand out their own executions, just to make sure the person swinging the axe or sword had sharpened it and was a good aim.
@Vernonrz that's the problem. most of historians have not wielded an historical sword. they call them cumbersome compare to the epee of the modern fencing sword, when, in fact, a 3 pound sword is not heavy at all. by the way, someone just corrected my comment. this are not weapons but tools. so the title of the video is pretty retarded and don't proof anything at all.
How does this end the debate? It's an off the cuff comment with no primary sources quoted, and taken completely out of context. Why not look at the actual surviving swords? What about the X-rays of ancient euro swords showing pattern welding? What about the bevel angles? Better yet, look at how drastically differently reproduction swords can perform with varying degrees of sharpness. And consider the fact that if you're up against armor you don't want a super sharp, fragile edge?
An exact engineering drawing of an antique sword of Type XIIIb done by Peter Johnsson. This is the archetypal broad bladed arming sword commonly associated with Knights. On this drawing we see the actual cross section carefully measured and drawn - anyone who can handle a protractor will find out the bevel angle to be about 24°
They need to bring back the guillotine for executions. Much more humane than hanging, the gas chamber, or the electric chair. It's also faster than lethal injection, though much bloodier.
Believe or not, the guillotine was created with efficiency in mind, to avoid dramatic failures (people still alive with half cut necks, head dandling from the torso , this sort of horrors happened too often), to render the execution cleaner and quicker. It was actually a more humane way of executing someone.
(cont.) The katana was super sharp and effective because of how it's used. The arming and longsword was sharp, but not as much, and effective because of how those swordsmen used that to their advantage.
oh and @HereTheArtBegins, the katana has more of a wedge shape cross-section, while the longsword had a lenticular one. or a flattened diamond. or hexagonal. It really depended on the type of sword. And I would know about the shape of the katana, as I do own one
(cont.) Half-swording where you grip on the blade itself to increase the power of a thrust or even using Mordhau (murder blow) to smash an opponent's helm with the pommel by gripping the blade entirely and striking. Any of those techniques done with a katana would leave you without fingers. They were just not needed in the Japanese school of the sword, but that does not mean they were not effective (e.g. Joan of Arc).
(cont.) useless, but the European plate made you very much like a walking can. Very good for defense, and thus a razor's edge was not deeded. In fact, the reason the European sword was, at one time, very broad was to help inflict more damage through the armor, rather than cut it. More heft to bash into your opponents. NOT (I can't emphasize this enough) a metal slab though, because the sword could produce devastating cuts. Another helpful technique for attacking armored opponents was
Let me put it this way: I have studied a lot about swords and how to use them book-wise. I have a lot to learn, but from what I do know, the Japanese katana was generally sharper than the European arming or longsword.let me emphasize one thing though: just because something is duller, does not make it "inferior." Japanese armor was plated, but to cut down on weight, the armor was not made entirely of interlocking and articulating metal parts like European plate armor. Not to say that it was
Honestly, I've never seen any actual evidence that katana are sharper. The edge geometries and cross sections of European swords, depending upon the individual sword, promote extremely sharp blades.
Sharpness has more to do with the individual sword and what the user wants to get from it from what I've seen.
Thats very interesting about the Circassians. I'll need to read about that.
If we look at the principle on an individual level, If I'm a good pugilist and you're a good grappler, you're going to do everything to bring the fight to the ground because you will have victory there. I am going to try to keep the fight on our feet, try to sucker you into fist- to- cuffs where I will have the advantage. Fighter pilots try to draw their opponents into the strengths of their aircrafts
One of the arguments I see the most often as the tamahagane is some special type of steel that when subjected to the folding technique of pattern welding becomes some god-like super metal capable of cutting people, guns, cars, tanks, and buildings in half. When I try to tell them that tamahagane is just iron with lower carbon content that requires pattern welding to even out the carbon content to give it it's strength and flexibility, alot tend to ignore me or even call me a know-it-all.
ok ok ok people people people japanese steel is nothing better than the wests steel what what different was the geometry of the angle of the of the blade ok? western blades used wet stones to sharpen the sword it was just as sharp as the katana but! with its flat grinned edge made more friction the geometry of the katana edge made the thing it cut push away from the blade making it faster easy to cut ok? everyone understand now? its geometry not the steel.
Actually there were a variety of edge geometries in Western swords going back to the Viking period at least; many of these geometries, like "lenticular" cross sections, are essentially identical to the edge geometry on katana.
What was different was that the katana is curved; this elongates the cutting surface so that more of the target is cut by the body mechanics of the swordsman. There were curved medieval swords as well, like the kriegsmesser.
@HereTheArtBegins no the katana has special geometry the vikiing sword did not have the same ok? dude i love vikings i love knights i think there the best but no they didnt or everyone would be saying how good the viking sword could cut ok
The katana has a "lenticular", or "lens-like" cross-section; you see essentially the same sort of cross-section in European swords. The difference is that the iconic European sword is thinner, and has two edges, whereas the katana has one edge. However, there were single edged, curved European swords as well.
People don't say how well European swords can cut because European swords don't have the hype-factor behind them that Asian swords do. It's ignorance, mostly.
@HereTheArtBegins i agree with you on that Hollywood made the katana seem like it can cut threw anything and there is nothing sharper its just all crap people dont understand
What a lot of people fail to realize is that Europeans had access to a lot more steel than the Japanese. Since they had more steel they could make more swords. It could be afforded to make more lower quality swords than high quality ones and it stands to reason that there were far more lower quality swords than high quality. So, there were more than likely many excellent European swords, just not as many as the lower kind. That's not to say that every katana ever made was a gem either.
(cont) The debate over which is better is silly. if an army of samurai's fought an army of knights...it would be a bloodbath...like any war. The victor would be the one who could bring his opponent to his fight, and who could exploit his opponents weaknesses. Just as it always has been. Of note is the historical reality that Japan has usually struggled with this, and that the west is now ridiculed for doing it. Thoughts?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Japan has struggled with bringing the fight to its enemy and exploiting weakness? I think that may have been true in Japan up until the first Mongol invasion, but after that the Japanese gave up on highly ritualistic combat in favor of practical military tactics. There is a reason why Japan was not conquered until the 1940's that is because Japan has been willing to evolve and adopt new tactics when necessary.
@Plato86 well it also helps that they're an island. And also that no one other than the mongols ever tried to invade them. The great majority of innovations the Japanese made in their tactics were for the purpose of defeating other Japanese. Although after the attempted Mongol invasions they were more conscious of the risks of invasion.
@Plato86 no one really tried to conquer japan in the colonial era. when military action was threatened by foreign entities (IE: commodore perry in 1855) the japanese acquiesced to those threats because they knew they wouldn't stand much of a chance i they went to battle against them
@Plato86 That could be why japan was never invaded, or... because it was a) a series of islands surrounded harsh water and a rocky coast, not being conducive to a naval landing b) had only 2 real credible threats, The Koreans and the Chinese, both of whom were far more interested with crushing the constant tirades of rebellions they faced c) Japan has nothing that anyone would actually want to take: small amounts of poor iron, a few horses and poor agricultural land d) all of the above
@p40ace100 Exactly man both armies r highly trained elites that never would have seen those ranks unless they prove they r worthy of them in the end the human mind is the same any1 who give fighting a lot of thought and practice can come up with almost the same results as some sports and samurai arent that high when they fought the Circassians they said about them:We cant fight these Russian samurai even though Circassians had their own way of fighting
@p40ace100 We do seem until recent years to be "immersed "is far eastern warrior ethos.Certainly since World War 2 eastern martial arts have mushroomed beyond belief.
My own theory and it is only a theory would be our warrior ancestors were as good as any other martial artists but we moved on as the science of war moved on.It was warrior evolution where the far east stayed at one point in history.
Our weapons were more than adequate and those that wielded them just as dedicated to the art.
You tube search welt der wunder and watch the katana vs long sword vid. Its interesting. These are also modern weapons not medieval ones. My own minimally schooled opinion is both were effective tools of war. The European long sword being much more flexible and suited for the fight that evolved in Europe. The katana much sharper and suited for the fight that evolved in Japan.
The anime subculture wasn't content to just hijack Saturday morning cartoons and video games and the attention spans of middle school students, was it? Now that shit's leaking into world history and discoloring our understanding of technology and warfare and who the hell knows what else.
I blame the history channel for this, too. Flagrant B.S. has become the standard whenever katanas enter a discussion.
I wasn't even aware that subculture existed - it must be keeping a low profile. Are there video games and TV shows that portray Medieval knights as untouchable juggernauts swinging lightsabers?
If you're talking about groups that flog the idea that Europeans are RACIALLY superior, I'd call that a lunatic fringe more than a subculture.
Neat. Name some, and give me an example of a widespread misconception they've propogated. (Characters who are recognized as having superhuman abilities won't count, for obvious reasons.)
and what does this have to do with european swords? that guy didn't adress any sword, rather, he was talking about the execution axe, not a battle axe. i seriously miss your point. unless, you wanted to troll. there are several european swords that can match the katana, and several other that can surprass it.
Executioners in that age used a "Sword of Justice" which was not a weapon at all. It was designed to be extremely sharp so as to provide as painless a death as possible. This means a very acute edge angle. Edges such as those do not hold their sharpness well.
Furthermore, Japanese swords did not have to defeat iron armor, since iron was not abundant in Japan. European swords did. This meant they could not be curved and needed strong points and thick blades. It's slashing vs. skewering swords...
If I can sharpen my every day carry knife well enough to shave my face with, I think I could do the same with any sword with a primary bevel (and I actually have with my machete).
@Mistwraith99 Indeed--you may not be able to get an axe as sharp as other cutting instruments, and I have no idea how sharp the axes used in executions actually were, but you can get an axe sharp enough to cleanly cut paper fairly easily.
rifle. it is not the most pwerful or most accurate, or even the one with the highest rate of fire, but it is the best in combat because it can do everything well enough and in a very versatile way.
to cut through human fleash easily. You do not need a .50 caliber sniper rifle to shoot a man dead. Europeans are practical people. They wanted a sword that woud get the job done well thats it. They were not looking to impress a bunch of guys online. The european long sword is one of the best designed swords ever made, not because it could cut the best or thrust the best, but because it did it all well and its designed made very versatile in employing combat techniques. Kind of like an assault
the problem was not that they could not make a good sharp sword that held its edge, the problem was good quality swords in old times were very expensive, and people were not going to spend that kind of money for an executioner. There were blades in old Europe that to this day swordsmiths can not copy its quality. As far as the katana its just a sword thats it. You guys have never killed with a blade so stop arguing about what you dont know. You dont have to have the sharpest blade in existance
Ridiculous. This video doesn't even say anything about swords, only about axes used for executions - and even the statement about those is highly debatable at best. Simply ridiculous. Thumbs down.
Once again, an another argument "pro bluntness" exists; it is a wide spread myth in mass media which sayseuropean steel was sh*tty and could not be sharpened. This is nonsense!
-- schwertbruecken . de / pdf / staehle . p d f
-- myarmoury . com / feature _ bladehardness . h t m l
-- gladius . revistas . csic . e s /index . p h p /gladius/article/viewFile/218/222
Here we have many swords from 9-11th centuries which are made from homogenous steel with around 1,1% carbon and only very little sulfur and phosphorus. Those steels are suprisingly similar to modern tool steel W1 (or AISI W1) which is used in cutting devices, chisels etc.
A ceremonial sword from Essen (Germany) was carefully examined, including x-ray and spectral analysis, see next comment....
Now we see that even early medieval blades could match modern tool steel in their properties! There were of course bad blades (as elsewhere) but best of them were by no means "sh*tty".
The myth of "poor quality of european steel" was born in 19th century when cheap mass produced swords in great amounts were available. The loss of the quality was not only caused by the mass production, the end of cold weapons era made good quality swords simply gainless.
Victorian Era Romantics like Walter Scott then romanticized old swords, and the given contrast between old days and mass produced cheap modern blades has done the rest. Those views were reanimated in 1970-s when "asia hype" sweeped over the West, the myth of "sh*tty heavy clumsy european swords" has risen like a phoenix from the ashes.
Personally I've never seen an analysis of ancient steel as good or even better as the ceremonial german sword below. Hope someone proves me wrong...
Mike Loades showing a original sword in an excellent state of preservation. It's pretty obvious that it does not weigh "20 pounds" and there are many close-ups of the blade itself. The edge is clearly visible, no rounded bevels, no "half inch thick". It's amazing how easily sword myths can be destroyed - just by looking (or even wielding) a real antique sword!
This part of the blade is pretty near its Point Of Percussion, the part most important for cutting. Now TRY to get this part of the sword BLUNT!!! First you can try a edge angle of 50-70 degrees, but then your blade will be completely plain with a rounded bevel - you'll have to change the whole blade design, and the result will be a blade not capable of ANY cutting! Stage combat props and wallhangers are such designs.
Unfortunately no existing antique sword is known with a plain rounded edge design. If you try to grind away the sharp edge you'll sacrifice width, changing blade shape again.
The answer is - those antique swords ARE DESIGNED TO BE SHARP! 3mm thickness and 40mm blade width are automatically sharp by its 30 degree bevel. The given design found at the swords simply does not allow "bluntness".
The argument of "european swords were blunt" is entirely based on the assumption that euro swords were very thick. Genuine antique swords intended for cutting tell us however that they actually were pretty thin - 5mm at base, 4mm at 1/3, 3mm at 2/3 and only 2mm at the tip - on average! Not more thick than our kitchen knives!
The image of "thick blades" comes exclusively from the wide popularity of stage combat props, fake thick sword-like-objects used for "brute bashing" on stage.
@Protherium The whole idea of "euro swords being blunt" is pretty dumb. There are antique swords in the Museum of London and other Euro museums were some of the swords left from the 1400's and 1500's are still extreamly sharp. As for them being very think I hate when people think that. 9 out of 10 times they are thinner than the Japanese Katana making them very good cutters. I have a sword made by Albion and it has a single bevel and its extreamly sharp. A longsword that slices like a katana.
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/Zornhau-ZEF-7-gross . j p g
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF07 . p d f
At 2/3 of the blade; width 2,41cm, thickness 0,573mm. A flat diamond cross section is more simple than a lenticular one, simple calculation gives us some 27-28°.
And that's my final point: Katana and euroswords have PRETTY SAME EDGE ANGLES AND GEOMETRY!!
Sharpness of a sword and its tissue resistance depends on the very edge geometry, not curvature or hardness, as often claimed by ignorant.
According to this, there is no reason why arming swords and longswords should be duller than a katana. A chisel bevel would normally have 60 to 90 degrees, a wood axe 45°, which is never seen at european antiques.
@Protherium You have a good point, and there's something else to add here - as a friend says, there's no need to cut someone in half to kill him - you just have to make 2-3 cm deep crack in his head. So it is something more than just cutting ability - it is the whole design, that shows, that these European weapons were made with clear thought of their use in fencing context. Having a razor-sharp edge is not so good for the blade. Even a completely dull sword can cut through a lot of things :)
As for the quality of "roman steel" - just see the shape, the length, the geometry of the roman age swords and compare it with medieval sword - just see how complex the weapon in Middle age is. You can not make any kind of these swords without knowing the technology of making good steel. Obvious.
It is natural - Europe was in war practically all the time. In such environment the quality of the weapons are critical. Do you know a place, were there were more battles than Europe? :)
"Steel was a new thing in 17th century" - what exactly do you mean 0_o There's big difference between STEEL and IRON.
During the 17th Century and much earlier ages axes, swords, spears are made of steel, which is long known and used, although the true nature of making it was revealed in 19 century or so...
@MotusSwordsmanship Yes, there is a big difference, as I stated in my previous comment. By steel I suppose I mean iron alloys, with carbon content below 2%, which can be rolled or forged.
Yes, globally steel making processes have been known longer ago, but the quality of steel produced hasn't been weapons grade. Also, in Europe, steel manufacturing was developed much later, and was very expensive untill the introduction of the Bessemer process.
Low carbon steel was known since 1200 BC. In the Middle Ages carburization of iron was widely used to produce high carbon steel, if there were no advanced bloomeries or furnaces. Medieval swords contained up to 1,1% carbon and were very hard, as metallographic research tells us.
Once again - you are not right. Better check what Protherium said and other info too. The blades, the axes, the spears and all other weaponry were made of the best quality steel and material because people's life depended on this things. This is logical. More to say, there are A LOT of archeological findings and also good preserved examples in private collections of weapons from the Middle ages, that show the same - good quality steel. No compromises!
@MotusSwordsmanship Iron is only 4 on Mohs scale, while copper is 3 (carbon steel 7-8). Steel was a new thing in 17th century and not especially cheap, so you'd expect to find it mostly in battle weapons. Just a guess, though...
Either way, people tend to forget that it's skill and how well-armored someone is over weapon used. Just saying.
I won't say the katana is garbage because it's a backsword, but you need to use it properly. I also won't deny a falchion is a mighty sword in terms of chopping through things. I mean, come on, the falchion resembles a modern-day machete, for crying out loud. No matter what, you need to be able to pick the right arms for the right adversaries AND have enough skill to use them.
@KintarosTiger Also. When all else fails in terms of non-firearm weapons, always go with a cudgel. The flanged mace is a favorite of mine, for instance. =3
Here I present a couple of european antiques, taken from -- zornhau . d e / source / schwertexkursion / dinkelsbuehl2 . h t m
Just look at following pictures:
-- zornhau . d e / source / schwertexkursion / Zornhau-ZEF-6-gross . j p g
-- (same URL as above) / Zornhau-ZEF-9-gross . j p g
-- Zornhau-ZEF-11-gross . j p g
Here we clearly see the EDGE GEOMETRY of those antiques. No sign of a blunt bevel, egdes 100% made to be sharp and cut. The blade thickness is also self-evident.
@Protherium actually, european swords were sharper, we had the proper carbon steel to make our sabres like a razor.. japanese had to fold their swords to make the best out of second rate metals... im guessing the guy who made this watches way too many japanese cartoons to get his biased, uneducated views
From spatha to Oakeshott Type XIV we have flat wide blades (lenticulat cross section) intended for cutting. Nihonto are usually far more thicker than euroswords (euro = 2-5mm + strong distal taper; Nihonto = 5-9mm very little distal taper) and also relatively narrow (width 2,5-3,5cm; euro = 4-8cm).
Wide flat blades with lenticular CS naturally offer much less resistance to a cutting medium, so even being not insane sharp euroswords were good cutters.
It does not mean however that euroswords were "better cutters" on their own. They had a more durable edge bevel not sacrificing cutting ability, that's why they were the first choice in combat against maille and shields.
Nihonto were intended to draw-slice and just like other sabers in the world they had a stiff thick not very wide blade, most appropriate for their kind of purpose. Wielding a Falchion like a katana will not work technically.
@Protherium all of these little children who believe otherwise are typically made naive by a complete immersion and obsession with japanese culture and a complete and entire abandonment of their own making them biased, and quick to believe the japanese-favoring information out their to their otherwise crappy swords only made better by folding, a technique that is long outdated
@Protherium better steel, better design, better cutters.. japanese swords are nice cutters in poorly drawn cartoons and PS3 video games... truth is, no swords out there will cut as well as a falchion or a grosses messer, not only do they have a better profile, and better steel on a nicely curved blade, both these designs had a bit of weight behind them aiding in the momentum to slice off limbs.. and one the most effective swords in history was a fat, about 2 foot long sword called a gladius
Plato86, I respectfully disagree with you. You've taken a quote out of context and extrapolated that all western swords can't be as sharp as a katana, completely ignoring there are literally several hundred types of swords and yet you think that one country could achieve a specific sharpness? Heck, not even all the katana are created equal. The Katana is an excellent weapon, but it is horrifically overhyped by kendo enthusiasts and people who love everything Japanese to the exclusion of others.
@EvilCleric I know you posted 6 months ago but you do mean Iaidō and not kendo right? Since Iaidō got more in common with the actual weapon known as the katana than the shinai they use in kendo. (Even though the shinais are supposed to be katanas)
Europeans had steel weapons by the early centuries of the Roman Empire. What we can recognise as a 'katana' doesn't appear until the 10th-11th centuries AD; Europeans had steel weapons for centuries before this point.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I could also argue that the longsword is overhyped by western martial art enthusiasts but that is a moot point because people who favor one art over another will always overhype it and that is obvious. I did not say that the katana is sharper than all European swords, I specifically said the Longsword or war sword of the 12th and 13th century may very well have been as sharp as the katana. What I said was that swords of the 17th and 18th century were probably not as sharp as a katana.
A sword losing sharpness doesn't mean it isn't sharp; a sword losing sharpness means it has a lack of edge retention.
Two swords can be equally sharp, but if one is made of a softer steel, it will dull faster.
Your video should be more appropriately labeled "Just how hard were European swords of the late 18th century".
Your video doesn't say much about swords of the 17th century either. I'd be careful even of that conclusion, as executioner swords are a very different animal.
@Plato86 17th century longswords were not used in war often in the west anymore. If anything the katana is a show of japans conservatism. 900+ years same damn sword.
@TheFoundersWereRight Only the ignorant use 'plate mail' in any capacity. It is improper terminology and is akin to referring to a knightly arming sword as a 'broadsword' or a tachi as a 'katana'.
Mail is mail, plate is plate, the two do not mix. Scale armour is something else entirely and should not be referred to as 'plate mail'. D&D is not an authoritative resource on armour.
this guy's an idiot... he's only a historian, not a fucking blacksmith or sword handler, sure the weapons are blunt NOW, after hundreds of years of not being used and laying in the dirt. Back then, axes could be VERY sharp.
""Evidence of European swords not being very sharp also exists in Arabic text from Crusader era... pointed out... swords where used as blunt instrument v.s. very sharp Arabic scimiter.""
Do you refer to the famous fantasy tale of Walter Scott in "Talisman"? Crusades ended in 1270-s but the first Shamshir and Kilidsch (plainly called "Scimitar", a word used since 19th cent.) appeared only in 16th cent!
There is no known source or record which can confirm standard use of euroswords like clubs.
The guillotine was so "human" because it made sure there wasn't the need for a second cut due to human lack of skill. Imagine a beheading where the axe cuts only half of the neck, because the executioner wasn't aiming correctly. Ugly! I don't see how this proves the myth of the "super Japanese sword of mass destruction". It is a fact that European raw ore is superior in purity to Japanese. And the fact that Japanese were on par with European swords was already due to "high tech" blacksmithing.
in fact, if the japanese style of blacksmithing were to be applied to the european steel, it would make it weaker instead of stronger... also, katanas are not lightsabres, they function under the same limitations as european swords.
This is an interesting bit on the guillotine, and though it mentioned a little about the axe, this video has nothing to do with swords, European or any other, let alone about the sharpness of swords.
@coachace123 And axes were not blunt. The way this guys speaks is as is the only true cut is about pressing the blade against slash and dragging it, because all swords cut through impact first and through dragging motion second.
Evidence of European swords not being very sharp also exists in Arabic text from Crusader era, where it is often pointed out that their swords where used as blunt instrument v.s. very sharp Arabic scimiter.
@ovaisreza different ideas about what kind of sharp a sword intended for war should be. some blades have a more acute grind to the edge, and are sharper, but an edge with a less acute angle is going to penetrate armor better and maintain it's effectiveness through harder use. Think of it like a chisel versus a scalpel. A scalpel will cut flesh better, but a chisel will also do the job and it'll go through a whole lot more shit in between.
@Zahnle Penetrate armor? I hope your talking about leather or cloth armor cause there has never been a sword that could penetrate plate. Many swords could penetrate mail by thrusting hard enough to split a ring and bend the surrounding rings, but that's it. All these movies and books with people hacking through armor is inane.
in half swording, when the other knight is on the ground, the sword can be used to penetrate the plate armour by putting all your weight on it, or at least that is what I understand.
@ovaisreza Scimitars weren't used by Islamic armies during the crusading era. They used straight double edged swords quite similar to those which the Crusaders themselves were using. In fact many Muslim swords had 'Frankish' ie European made blades.
Maybe they should have people that know something about a tool and it's uses speak on the subject rather than some Guy who got his erronious info from a text-book.
Axes could be razor sharp same as a knife or a sword.
Executions by axed depended on the skill of the Axeman, and that was the problem.
Define quality. The blade on my katana is superbly designed for draw cuts, and the differential tempering is quite a brilliant idea. But I can bend my rapier blade 90 deg and have it be fine. I wouldn't dare try and do that with the katana.
What's the purpose of the sword? By the 17-18 century, plate armor was the thing to beat, so sharpness would be secondary to force delivered and pointyness. Given the choice between the katana or rapier vs an armored knight, I will take the rapier any day.
OP's assertion is the biggest leap in logic I've seen in this century...
IMO, the only thing it calls into question is the credibility of the people History Channel calls "experts"...
Point is, we HAVE 18th century European swords, intact and functional, and they are sharp and deadly as fuck all!
To assert that the entire tradition of European swordmaking is shit based solely on what amounts to be ancient hearsay is not just unscientific, it's plain retarded, mate.
Zyamaman 12 hours ago
Ladies had Guillotine ear earings "made"? or
were they "hawkered" by the same scum that instigated the Revolution , also the Russian revolution milking the country of it's wealth and murdering it's gentilepopulation !
The same parasites that defragmented Germany ,Britain ,USA with impunity whist claiming victim status ! READ -"51Documents"Brenner"TheHostAndTheParesite"Felton SOON
theoutremerlibrary 2 days ago
Samurai or Knight were both awesome. What I would like to see is that both of them appear in zombie movie.
rimidalvetarak 3 days ago
Obviously its because the swords would beat against the stone under the neck and would et dulled that way.
LughLamhfhada1 2 weeks ago
@wolfdragga And the Celts before them also used pattern welded steel in BCE 300 or so
Lily24711 2 weeks ago
@Lily24711 Beat me to it.
Sorflakne 1 week ago
@wolfdragga Could you not also argue that European pattern-welding predates even the vikings? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't many Germanic cultures use the same, or similiar, technique (Merovingian Franks, Anglo-Saxon, and migration period groups)?
Spideyfan117 3 weeks ago
@Spideyfan117 as far as I've seen yes, but that just further drives the point home that the japanese were late to discover the process....
wolfdragga 3 weeks ago
@wolfdragga Well that's the point I was trying to get across. I just wasn't entirely sure if it was correct. I'm a history major and am currently writing a 15-page term paper over the significance and impact of early Germanic black-smithing techniques in Europe. It takes a lot of research, but damned if it isn't an interesting topic.
Spideyfan117 3 weeks ago
@Spideyfan117 that it is good luck
wolfdragga 3 weeks ago
@Kdanc86 that guy is correct. an axe was semi blunt beacuse it would crushbone through armor. the bread analogy was to prove that coming staright down on it would CRUsH it ( same as it would with a machete btw) you would need to slice to get through the bread. If you try to slice with an axe, you die. also, the wood has a clean "cut" because you are spliting it with the grain, it's weakest point. I do agree however that the ececutioners kept thier axes blunt for show.
Heemiez 3 weeks ago
Stupid video.
IkarusZmedieval 3 weeks ago
This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Anyone who has used a heavy chopping axe knows that it needs not to be more than semi-sharp to cleave a piece of firewood. It's the weight, the delievery of the stroke, and the precison that decides wether you can take a head of or not.
European blades do not have the razor edge of oriental swords, because the edge is useless against heavy armour. It's the thrust that kills an armoured opponent. They have enough edge to cut an unarmoured opponent.
LarS1963 1 month ago
@LarS1963
Depending on the era in question, European swords could very well be sharp as a motherfucker.
But you're right about one thing - treating edge sharpness as the sole deciding factor of the swords quality is sheer folly.
Much more important would be the blade's balance and flexibility - areas in which European blades outdid their Japanese counterparts on a regular basis.
Zyamaman 11 hours ago
What do you mean that European blades " outdid" their Japanese counter parts in balance and flexibility? You make it sound as if in the ancient world knights and samurai compared their swords in an objective test and the European blades were more flexible. There is a video on YT comparing modern remakes of the longsword and katana cutting various armors and blocks of ice. In all test the katana outshined the longsword by a mile. Check it out.
Plato86 11 hours ago
@Plato86
What I mean is that when you take two historical blades, and conduct genuine scientific tests on them (as opposed to the sham that is the video you're referring me to), you will see that tempered European blades have far more tensile strength than their untempered Japanese counterparts.
As for the video - it's bollocks.
The test subjects are of very questionable quality, the longsword appears to be unsharpened and the handler is an amateur - his strikes are very inconsistent.
Zyamaman 11 hours ago
The long sword appears to be dull yet it manages to cut through the cabbage with ease? The man handling the katana is also a amateur so what is your point? How do you know how much tensile strength a genuine katana has if you have never tested it? The fact is that European longswords broke and they broke very often.
Plato86 10 hours ago
@Plato86
My point is that the video is unscientific - you cannot draw an conclusions from it.
Also, in one sentence you say that unless I personally conduct the tests, I cannot attest to the conclusions, yet in the very next sentence you do the exact thing yourself!
Hypocrisy much?
I know of what I speak because European swords, while having the same carbon content as the Japanese ones, were tempered, while their counterparts weren't.
How do YOU know of what you're speaking?
Zyamaman 10 hours ago
I did not mean you personally. Japanese swords were tempered, tempering simply means heating the metal up and then quenching it quickly. Really do you know what you are talking about?
Plato86 10 hours ago
@Plato86
I do, actually - you don't.
What you're talking about is heat treatment.
Tempering is a form of heat treatment, but not all heat treatment is tempering.
Tempering consists of two sets of heating/quenching, whereas Japanese smiths preformed only one.
Additionally, tempering occurs on much lower temperatures than what the Japanese did - when tempered, the steel never gets to the point where it starts to glow.
If it does, the blade is ruined.
Zyamaman 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Plato86
I do, actually - you don't.
What you're talking about is heat treatment.
Tempering is a form of heat treatment, but not all heat treatment is tempering.
Tempering consists of two sets of heating/quenching, whereas Japanese smiths preformed only one.
Additionally, tempering occurs on much lower temperatures than what the Japanese did - when tempered, the steel never gets to the point where it starts to glow.
If it does, the blade is ruined.
Zyamaman 10 hours ago
European smiths used uniformed tempering, where the whole blade is heated up and then quenched. In contrast Japanese smiths used the Chinese method of differentiated tempering, where thick layers of clay are placed on most of the blade while the edge is either not covered in clay or is covered in a thin layer. The "hamon" or white smoke line directly above the edge of the katana is proof of tempering. Really how do you not know this?
Plato86 9 hours ago
@Plato86
This is getting tiresome...
Read what I wrote one more time, specifically the part about the differences between between ordinary heat treatment (differential, or otherwise), and actual tempering.
See how what you said has nothing to do with what I was talking about?
Differential heat treatment is NOT tempering, ergo, "hamon" is not proof tempering.
See this video for a demonstration of what tempering is, and how it differs from regular heat treatment:
watch?v=Uo72dL7uDuc
Zyamaman 9 hours ago
@Plato86
One more thing - the whole point of tempering is that it rendered techniques such as differential heat treatment obsolete.
Tempering made steel very flexible, without compromising on hardness (much), thus negating the need to leave one side of your sword soft, to act as a shock absorbent.
Basically, tempering is a far more advanced method of heat treatment.
Zyamaman 9 hours ago
that guy is a moron. A knife wont cut through bread if you press down. Right. What if you take a machete and chop down powerfully? You can bet that the bread will slice cleanly apart. Plus if he has ever used an axe to chop wood you will note how you can cleanly split log into pieces. It depends on how well you sharpen it. Executioners deliberately kept their blades blunt for a more brutal effect. A clean kill was not considered a proper kill.
Kdanc86 2 months ago 2
@Kdanc86
Wood splits because you bring the axe down with the grain. If you attempt to do this more 'wily' woods, like spruce or pine, you may still end up with a problematic cut. Also, if you put the log sideways, it's not going to split so easily. I would imagine that a mixture of muscle, bone and sinew would be far more like a sideways log than an upright log.
MrGuvnah 2 months ago
@MrGuvnah No. It wouldn't. Flesh and bone is very fragile compared to other types of materials. In the movies whenever you see someone 'cut' you have a little trickle of blood running down from a little cut on their forehead or whatever. The reality is that any blade will cut you open like a side of beef. Even a half hearted cut.
Kdanc86 2 months ago
@Kdanc86
I guess that's why people are able to cut off their own arm when they get it caught under a rock
MrGuvnah 2 months ago
@MrGuvnah Exactly. Plus, I know people who work with wood and their bodies could testify to how frail flesh and bone really is!
Kdanc86 2 months ago
Too many variables to talk about sword sharpness here with any definitive answer. I would imagine that sword makers have learned much since then that would aid to the sharpness of swords since the swords of this particular era were produced. Steel, for one, was not a meticulously regulated commodity and they may very well have been wielding swords that blunted from simple poor steel choices. Tempering could also have been what modern, scientifically backed sword smiths would consider inadequate.
TripAClaymore 3 months ago
You're using a History Channel clip as an "end to the debate"?
Good Grief!
beetm 4 months ago
Cool story bro
georgekorovytsky 4 months ago
the problem with this experts is that they have no experience weilding or handling the weapons they talk about. well, at least most of them. if they did have any experience with surviving examples of historical swords, instead of cheaps reporductions , they will know best than to make such fallacious statements.
mechupanlamonda 5 months ago
@mechupanlamonda
I agree with you, but in this video they didn't talk about any weapon at all, they talked about axes and swords of execution. I would call those tools rather than weapons.
That's not to say that a sword doesn't gets blunt. All swords will be a little blunter after a beheading. But the difference is that knights of the upper class could and would afford better blades to help them survive in battle. An executioner would only afford a less good sword to help him behead criminals.
gurkfisk89 4 months ago
@gurkfisk89 thanks for the clarification.
mechupanlamonda 4 months ago
@mechupanlamonda It's all about if the executioner gave a crap, not if the historian has swung an axe. These experts go off witness accounts and journal entries where the norm was the executioner having to take two or three swings to sever a person's head. It was so gruesome that rich people would pay for professionals to hand out their own executions, just to make sure the person swinging the axe or sword had sharpened it and was a good aim.
Vernonrz 3 months ago
@Vernonrz that's the problem. most of historians have not wielded an historical sword. they call them cumbersome compare to the epee of the modern fencing sword, when, in fact, a 3 pound sword is not heavy at all. by the way, someone just corrected my comment. this are not weapons but tools. so the title of the video is pretty retarded and don't proof anything at all.
mechupanlamonda 3 months ago
0:10
""The axe was... cumbersome awkward semi-blut chopper which smashed its way through""
Sorry but I suspect this old guy never seen or handled any axes by himself. There some axe stuff:
-- watch?v=dbCpDsxUHVc
-- watch?v=BI-lLnzVKS8
-- watch?v=HKjfTX3UDeY
Of course they are REAL axes, properly sharpened, it's not stage props or fantasy crap you see in movies or Renn Fairs.
Protherium 5 months ago
How does this end the debate? It's an off the cuff comment with no primary sources quoted, and taken completely out of context. Why not look at the actual surviving swords? What about the X-rays of ancient euro swords showing pattern welding? What about the bevel angles? Better yet, look at how drastically differently reproduction swords can perform with varying degrees of sharpness. And consider the fact that if you're up against armor you don't want a super sharp, fragile edge?
ryddragyn 5 months ago 4
FOLKS, here I have some really hard proof:
-- ht*tp:*//w*ww.albion-swords.c*om/images/swords/johnsson/Tritonia-original.j*pg
An exact engineering drawing of an antique sword of Type XIIIb done by Peter Johnsson. This is the archetypal broad bladed arming sword commonly associated with Knights. On this drawing we see the actual cross section carefully measured and drawn - anyone who can handle a protractor will find out the bevel angle to be about 24°
And yes, 24° are also found on Katanas! ;)))
Protherium 5 months ago
They need to bring back the guillotine for executions. Much more humane than hanging, the gas chamber, or the electric chair. It's also faster than lethal injection, though much bloodier.
MSK120 5 months ago
2:13 = real footage?!
Looked real to me.
chibraxial 5 months ago
Believe or not, the guillotine was created with efficiency in mind, to avoid dramatic failures (people still alive with half cut necks, head dandling from the torso , this sort of horrors happened too often), to render the execution cleaner and quicker. It was actually a more humane way of executing someone.
chibraxial 5 months ago
(cont.) The katana was super sharp and effective because of how it's used. The arming and longsword was sharp, but not as much, and effective because of how those swordsmen used that to their advantage.
oh and @HereTheArtBegins, the katana has more of a wedge shape cross-section, while the longsword had a lenticular one. or a flattened diamond. or hexagonal. It really depended on the type of sword. And I would know about the shape of the katana, as I do own one
Oz221 6 months ago
@Oz221
A wedge-shape cross section is effectively half a lenticular geometry, stretched, and made thicker on the katana. The two are essentially similar.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
(cont.) Half-swording where you grip on the blade itself to increase the power of a thrust or even using Mordhau (murder blow) to smash an opponent's helm with the pommel by gripping the blade entirely and striking. Any of those techniques done with a katana would leave you without fingers. They were just not needed in the Japanese school of the sword, but that does not mean they were not effective (e.g. Joan of Arc).
Oz221 6 months ago
(cont.) useless, but the European plate made you very much like a walking can. Very good for defense, and thus a razor's edge was not deeded. In fact, the reason the European sword was, at one time, very broad was to help inflict more damage through the armor, rather than cut it. More heft to bash into your opponents. NOT (I can't emphasize this enough) a metal slab though, because the sword could produce devastating cuts. Another helpful technique for attacking armored opponents was
Oz221 6 months ago
Let me put it this way: I have studied a lot about swords and how to use them book-wise. I have a lot to learn, but from what I do know, the Japanese katana was generally sharper than the European arming or longsword.let me emphasize one thing though: just because something is duller, does not make it "inferior." Japanese armor was plated, but to cut down on weight, the armor was not made entirely of interlocking and articulating metal parts like European plate armor. Not to say that it was
Oz221 6 months ago 2
@Oz221
Honestly, I've never seen any actual evidence that katana are sharper. The edge geometries and cross sections of European swords, depending upon the individual sword, promote extremely sharp blades.
Sharpness has more to do with the individual sword and what the user wants to get from it from what I've seen.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
Thats very interesting about the Circassians. I'll need to read about that.
If we look at the principle on an individual level, If I'm a good pugilist and you're a good grappler, you're going to do everything to bring the fight to the ground because you will have victory there. I am going to try to keep the fight on our feet, try to sucker you into fist- to- cuffs where I will have the advantage. Fighter pilots try to draw their opponents into the strengths of their aircrafts
p40ace100 6 months ago
One of the arguments I see the most often as the tamahagane is some special type of steel that when subjected to the folding technique of pattern welding becomes some god-like super metal capable of cutting people, guns, cars, tanks, and buildings in half. When I try to tell them that tamahagane is just iron with lower carbon content that requires pattern welding to even out the carbon content to give it it's strength and flexibility, alot tend to ignore me or even call me a know-it-all.
EvilCleric 6 months ago
ok ok ok people people people japanese steel is nothing better than the wests steel what what different was the geometry of the angle of the of the blade ok? western blades used wet stones to sharpen the sword it was just as sharp as the katana but! with its flat grinned edge made more friction the geometry of the katana edge made the thing it cut push away from the blade making it faster easy to cut ok? everyone understand now? its geometry not the steel.
BandCShow11dy6 6 months ago
@BandCShow11dy6
Actually there were a variety of edge geometries in Western swords going back to the Viking period at least; many of these geometries, like "lenticular" cross sections, are essentially identical to the edge geometry on katana.
What was different was that the katana is curved; this elongates the cutting surface so that more of the target is cut by the body mechanics of the swordsman. There were curved medieval swords as well, like the kriegsmesser.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins no the katana has special geometry the vikiing sword did not have the same ok? dude i love vikings i love knights i think there the best but no they didnt or everyone would be saying how good the viking sword could cut ok
BandCShow11dy6 6 months ago
@BandCShow11dy6
The katana has a "lenticular", or "lens-like" cross-section; you see essentially the same sort of cross-section in European swords. The difference is that the iconic European sword is thinner, and has two edges, whereas the katana has one edge. However, there were single edged, curved European swords as well.
People don't say how well European swords can cut because European swords don't have the hype-factor behind them that Asian swords do. It's ignorance, mostly.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins i agree with you on that Hollywood made the katana seem like it can cut threw anything and there is nothing sharper its just all crap people dont understand
BandCShow11dy6 6 months ago
If the katana was so great and European sabres so horrible, than why did the japanese military adopt them?
TaskForceSixTwoSix 6 months ago
What a lot of people fail to realize is that Europeans had access to a lot more steel than the Japanese. Since they had more steel they could make more swords. It could be afforded to make more lower quality swords than high quality ones and it stands to reason that there were far more lower quality swords than high quality. So, there were more than likely many excellent European swords, just not as many as the lower kind. That's not to say that every katana ever made was a gem either.
toothANDclaw13 7 months ago
(cont) The debate over which is better is silly. if an army of samurai's fought an army of knights...it would be a bloodbath...like any war. The victor would be the one who could bring his opponent to his fight, and who could exploit his opponents weaknesses. Just as it always has been. Of note is the historical reality that Japan has usually struggled with this, and that the west is now ridiculed for doing it. Thoughts?
p40ace100 7 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Japan has struggled with bringing the fight to its enemy and exploiting weakness? I think that may have been true in Japan up until the first Mongol invasion, but after that the Japanese gave up on highly ritualistic combat in favor of practical military tactics. There is a reason why Japan was not conquered until the 1940's that is because Japan has been willing to evolve and adopt new tactics when necessary.
Plato86 7 months ago
@Plato86 well it also helps that they're an island. And also that no one other than the mongols ever tried to invade them. The great majority of innovations the Japanese made in their tactics were for the purpose of defeating other Japanese. Although after the attempted Mongol invasions they were more conscious of the risks of invasion.
insolvancy 6 months ago
@Plato86 no one really tried to conquer japan in the colonial era. when military action was threatened by foreign entities (IE: commodore perry in 1855) the japanese acquiesced to those threats because they knew they wouldn't stand much of a chance i they went to battle against them
agricola 2 months ago
@Plato86 : Actually, the biggest reason is because they lived on an island in the ocean. Only the chinese were any real threat.
Halofreakanoid 1 month ago
@Plato86 That could be why japan was never invaded, or... because it was a) a series of islands surrounded harsh water and a rocky coast, not being conducive to a naval landing b) had only 2 real credible threats, The Koreans and the Chinese, both of whom were far more interested with crushing the constant tirades of rebellions they faced c) Japan has nothing that anyone would actually want to take: small amounts of poor iron, a few horses and poor agricultural land d) all of the above
pritzi101 2 weeks ago 2
@p40ace100 Exactly man both armies r highly trained elites that never would have seen those ranks unless they prove they r worthy of them in the end the human mind is the same any1 who give fighting a lot of thought and practice can come up with almost the same results as some sports and samurai arent that high when they fought the Circassians they said about them:We cant fight these Russian samurai even though Circassians had their own way of fighting
SoulRipper66 6 months ago
@p40ace100 We do seem until recent years to be "immersed "is far eastern warrior ethos.Certainly since World War 2 eastern martial arts have mushroomed beyond belief.
My own theory and it is only a theory would be our warrior ancestors were as good as any other martial artists but we moved on as the science of war moved on.It was warrior evolution where the far east stayed at one point in history.
Our weapons were more than adequate and those that wielded them just as dedicated to the art.
ENGLISHDOGSOLDIER 5 months ago
You tube search welt der wunder and watch the katana vs long sword vid. Its interesting. These are also modern weapons not medieval ones. My own minimally schooled opinion is both were effective tools of war. The European long sword being much more flexible and suited for the fight that evolved in Europe. The katana much sharper and suited for the fight that evolved in Japan.
p40ace100 7 months ago
God dammit, enough already.
The anime subculture wasn't content to just hijack Saturday morning cartoons and video games and the attention spans of middle school students, was it? Now that shit's leaking into world history and discoloring our understanding of technology and warfare and who the hell knows what else.
I blame the history channel for this, too. Flagrant B.S. has become the standard whenever katanas enter a discussion.
VysetheTard 7 months ago
@VysetheTard how about the "European heritage" superiority-inferiority subculture?
GhostXDog 7 months ago
@GhostXDog
I wasn't even aware that subculture existed - it must be keeping a low profile. Are there video games and TV shows that portray Medieval knights as untouchable juggernauts swinging lightsabers?
If you're talking about groups that flog the idea that Europeans are RACIALLY superior, I'd call that a lunatic fringe more than a subculture.
VysetheTard 7 months ago
@VysetheTard 1) "Are there video games and TV shows that portray Medieval knights as untouchable juggernauts swinging lightsabers?" Yes. Comics too.
2)lunatic fringe is a politically incorrect term for what its politically correct cousin (subculture), describes.
GhostXDog 7 months ago
@GhostXDog
"Yes. Comics too."
Neat. Name some, and give me an example of a widespread misconception they've propogated. (Characters who are recognized as having superhuman abilities won't count, for obvious reasons.)
VysetheTard 7 months ago
@GhostXDog
"lunatic fringe is a politically incorrect term for what its politically correct cousin (subculture), describes."
Not necessarily. You can be an enthusiast of some pastime or a proponent of some idea without taking it to unhealthy extremes.
VysetheTard 7 months ago
and what does this have to do with european swords? that guy didn't adress any sword, rather, he was talking about the execution axe, not a battle axe. i seriously miss your point. unless, you wanted to troll. there are several european swords that can match the katana, and several other that can surprass it.
mechupanlamonda 8 months ago
Executioners in that age used a "Sword of Justice" which was not a weapon at all. It was designed to be extremely sharp so as to provide as painless a death as possible. This means a very acute edge angle. Edges such as those do not hold their sharpness well.
Furthermore, Japanese swords did not have to defeat iron armor, since iron was not abundant in Japan. European swords did. This meant they could not be curved and needed strong points and thick blades. It's slashing vs. skewering swords...
Sablestone 9 months ago
cool
GhostXDog 9 months ago
If I can sharpen my every day carry knife well enough to shave my face with, I think I could do the same with any sword with a primary bevel (and I actually have with my machete).
CraftingStars 9 months ago
this is just so much bull shit lol its just made up for tv
wariscomeing 9 months ago
no. no. no
the quote does not mean european swords dulled easily
the quote means that when you slam a sword against whatever the neck was set on it dulled.
also executioner swords are the worst weapon one could use in a sword fight(more like giant meat cleavers in my opinion).
you use a katana to chop someones neck off when the neck is on top of dense wood concrete or metal and see what happens
the katana will dull very quickly.
jinnd319 10 months ago 5
The notion that an axe can only "crush" must seem mildly absurd to anyone who's ever chopped wood in their life.
Mistwraith99 10 months ago 45
@Mistwraith99 Indeed--you may not be able to get an axe as sharp as other cutting instruments, and I have no idea how sharp the axes used in executions actually were, but you can get an axe sharp enough to cleanly cut paper fairly easily.
wcropp1 4 months ago
@Mistwraith99 Exactly. As someone below has said this "Historian" has probably never wielded an axe in his life.
beetm 4 months ago
rifle. it is not the most pwerful or most accurate, or even the one with the highest rate of fire, but it is the best in combat because it can do everything well enough and in a very versatile way.
rudenko54 10 months ago 3
to cut through human fleash easily. You do not need a .50 caliber sniper rifle to shoot a man dead. Europeans are practical people. They wanted a sword that woud get the job done well thats it. They were not looking to impress a bunch of guys online. The european long sword is one of the best designed swords ever made, not because it could cut the best or thrust the best, but because it did it all well and its designed made very versatile in employing combat techniques. Kind of like an assault
rudenko54 10 months ago 3
the problem was not that they could not make a good sharp sword that held its edge, the problem was good quality swords in old times were very expensive, and people were not going to spend that kind of money for an executioner. There were blades in old Europe that to this day swordsmiths can not copy its quality. As far as the katana its just a sword thats it. You guys have never killed with a blade so stop arguing about what you dont know. You dont have to have the sharpest blade in existance
rudenko54 10 months ago
Ridiculous. This video doesn't even say anything about swords, only about axes used for executions - and even the statement about those is highly debatable at best. Simply ridiculous. Thumbs down.
Ameretat010 10 months ago 2
Once again, an another argument "pro bluntness" exists; it is a wide spread myth in mass media which sayseuropean steel was sh*tty and could not be sharpened. This is nonsense!
-- schwertbruecken . de / pdf / staehle . p d f
-- myarmoury . com / feature _ bladehardness . h t m l
-- Alan Williams: The Knight and the Blast Furnace © 2003
-- Alfred Pothmann (Hrsg.): Das Zeremonialschwert der Essener Domschatzkammer. Aschendorff, Münster 1995
Research tells exactly the opposite.
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
-- gladius . revistas . csic . e s /index . p h p /gladius/article/viewFile/218/222
Here we have many swords from 9-11th centuries which are made from homogenous steel with around 1,1% carbon and only very little sulfur and phosphorus. Those steels are suprisingly similar to modern tool steel W1 (or AISI W1) which is used in cutting devices, chisels etc.
A ceremonial sword from Essen (Germany) was carefully examined, including x-ray and spectral analysis, see next comment....
Protherium 11 months ago
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
Carbon distribution:
Edge at hilt - already 0,7% C, consistently increasing towards the tip and having at its peak (the tip area) 1,1% C.
Hardnes range:
Edges near tip 403 HV at the center 305 HV
Edges in the middle 362 HV at the center 227 HV
Edges near hilt 250 HV at the center 224 HV
This sword was polished extensively during it's time as a battlefield weapon so much of the original edge is lost.
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
Now we see that even early medieval blades could match modern tool steel in their properties! There were of course bad blades (as elsewhere) but best of them were by no means "sh*tty".
The myth of "poor quality of european steel" was born in 19th century when cheap mass produced swords in great amounts were available. The loss of the quality was not only caused by the mass production, the end of cold weapons era made good quality swords simply gainless.
be cont...
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
Victorian Era Romantics like Walter Scott then romanticized old swords, and the given contrast between old days and mass produced cheap modern blades has done the rest. Those views were reanimated in 1970-s when "asia hype" sweeped over the West, the myth of "sh*tty heavy clumsy european swords" has risen like a phoenix from the ashes.
Personally I've never seen an analysis of ancient steel as good or even better as the ceremonial german sword below. Hope someone proves me wrong...
Protherium 11 months ago
Again, something interesting:
-- watch?v=icL6sv2sQz8#t=02m55s
Mike Loades showing a original sword in an excellent state of preservation. It's pretty obvious that it does not weigh "20 pounds" and there are many close-ups of the blade itself. The edge is clearly visible, no rounded bevels, no "half inch thick". It's amazing how easily sword myths can be destroyed - just by looking (or even wielding) a real antique sword!
Protherium 11 months ago
Once again, take a glimpse at those antiques and look for "Klingendicke" which means 'blade thickness':
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/ZEF-5 . j p g
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/ZEF-5 . p d f
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/Zornhau-ZEF-11-gross . j p g
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF11 . p d f
Both swords show fairly same blade thickness at 1/3 of the blade and even comparable blade width.
be cont...
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
cont...
This part of the blade is pretty near its Point Of Percussion, the part most important for cutting. Now TRY to get this part of the sword BLUNT!!! First you can try a edge angle of 50-70 degrees, but then your blade will be completely plain with a rounded bevel - you'll have to change the whole blade design, and the result will be a blade not capable of ANY cutting! Stage combat props and wallhangers are such designs.
be cont...
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
cont...
Unfortunately no existing antique sword is known with a plain rounded edge design. If you try to grind away the sharp edge you'll sacrifice width, changing blade shape again.
The answer is - those antique swords ARE DESIGNED TO BE SHARP! 3mm thickness and 40mm blade width are automatically sharp by its 30 degree bevel. The given design found at the swords simply does not allow "bluntness".
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium
The argument of "european swords were blunt" is entirely based on the assumption that euro swords were very thick. Genuine antique swords intended for cutting tell us however that they actually were pretty thin - 5mm at base, 4mm at 1/3, 3mm at 2/3 and only 2mm at the tip - on average! Not more thick than our kitchen knives!
The image of "thick blades" comes exclusively from the wide popularity of stage combat props, fake thick sword-like-objects used for "brute bashing" on stage.
Protherium 11 months ago
@Protherium The whole idea of "euro swords being blunt" is pretty dumb. There are antique swords in the Museum of London and other Euro museums were some of the swords left from the 1400's and 1500's are still extreamly sharp. As for them being very think I hate when people think that. 9 out of 10 times they are thinner than the Japanese Katana making them very good cutters. I have a sword made by Albion and it has a single bevel and its extreamly sharp. A longsword that slices like a katana.
LaCosaNostra132 11 months ago
@Protherium very well put
LaCosaNostra132 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here some data from metallographic research:
-- gladius . revistas . csic . e s /index . p h p /gladius/article/download/50/51--
-- gladius . revistas . csic . e s /index . p h p /gladius/article/viewFile/218/222 --
-- oakeshott . o r g /metal . h t m l --
-- myarmoury . c o m /feature_bladehardness . h t m l --
-- gladius.revistas . csic . e s /index . p h p /gladius/article/download/141/141 --
European swords had on average 0,6% carbon and edge hardness ranging from 450-550HV.
be cont...
Protherium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Protherium
-- yamakawadojo . c o m /Japanese Sword Microstructures Technical Paper 2009 . p d f
-- royalarmouries . o r g /assets-uploaded/images/535x150/blade . j p g
Japanese swords usually have 0,6-0,75% carbon, their hardness is rather low - only 3-5mm at the edge has 750-800HV.
Then you can pretty easily measure the edge angle, katana shown above seem to have 20-25° This means those edges are very thin and sharp.
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium
cont...
Let's compare with european authentic edges!
Here a 12th century antique,
-- jstage . jst . go . j p /article/isijinternational/47/7/1050/_pdf
At page 1052 we see a sample taken from the blade, clearly visible cross section. A simple measure will show everyone that this edge has some 25-30°!
-- templ . n e t /pics-making/blades/cross_section01v . j p g
Replicas based on historical examples, but still same 25-30°
be cont...
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium
An antique dated to 1400 AD:
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/Zornhau-ZEF-7-gross . j p g
-- zornhau . d e /source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF07 . p d f
At 2/3 of the blade; width 2,41cm, thickness 0,573mm. A flat diamond cross section is more simple than a lenticular one, simple calculation gives us some 27-28°.
be continued...
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium
And that's my final point: Katana and euroswords have PRETTY SAME EDGE ANGLES AND GEOMETRY!!
Sharpness of a sword and its tissue resistance depends on the very edge geometry, not curvature or hardness, as often claimed by ignorant.
According to this, there is no reason why arming swords and longswords should be duller than a katana. A chisel bevel would normally have 60 to 90 degrees, a wood axe 45°, which is never seen at european antiques.
Euroswords were very sharp!
Myth busted!
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium You have a good point, and there's something else to add here - as a friend says, there's no need to cut someone in half to kill him - you just have to make 2-3 cm deep crack in his head. So it is something more than just cutting ability - it is the whole design, that shows, that these European weapons were made with clear thought of their use in fencing context. Having a razor-sharp edge is not so good for the blade. Even a completely dull sword can cut through a lot of things :)
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
As for the quality of "roman steel" - just see the shape, the length, the geometry of the roman age swords and compare it with medieval sword - just see how complex the weapon in Middle age is. You can not make any kind of these swords without knowing the technology of making good steel. Obvious.
It is natural - Europe was in war practically all the time. In such environment the quality of the weapons are critical. Do you know a place, were there were more battles than Europe? :)
Take care!
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
"Steel was a new thing in 17th century" - what exactly do you mean 0_o There's big difference between STEEL and IRON.
During the 17th Century and much earlier ages axes, swords, spears are made of steel, which is long known and used, although the true nature of making it was revealed in 19 century or so...
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
@MotusSwordsmanship Yes, there is a big difference, as I stated in my previous comment. By steel I suppose I mean iron alloys, with carbon content below 2%, which can be rolled or forged.
Yes, globally steel making processes have been known longer ago, but the quality of steel produced hasn't been weapons grade. Also, in Europe, steel manufacturing was developed much later, and was very expensive untill the introduction of the Bessemer process.
TheCrazyFinn 1 year ago
@TheCrazyFinn
Low carbon steel was known since 1200 BC. In the Middle Ages carburization of iron was widely used to produce high carbon steel, if there were no advanced bloomeries or furnaces. Medieval swords contained up to 1,1% carbon and were very hard, as metallographic research tells us.
Protherium 1 year ago
@MotusSwordsmanship Ofcourse wootz was known in Roman Empire, but the process was forgotten with the fall of the century.
TheCrazyFinn 1 year ago
@TheCrazyFinn
Once again - you are not right. Better check what Protherium said and other info too. The blades, the axes, the spears and all other weaponry were made of the best quality steel and material because people's life depended on this things. This is logical. More to say, there are A LOT of archeological findings and also good preserved examples in private collections of weapons from the Middle ages, that show the same - good quality steel. No compromises!
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
Methinks the guillotine might prove somewhat unwieldy in a sword fight!
ebutemetube 1 year ago 25
God i fukken hate the history channel
EzKrispy 1 year ago 2
This person speaks as he has never seen, used or hold an axe.
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
@MotusSwordsmanship I'm guessing the axes of the time were made from softer materials, making them harder to sharpen to a fine edge.
TheCrazyFinn 1 year ago
@TheCrazyFinn
this just can not be true. Or you are talking about bronze axes?
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
@MotusSwordsmanship Iron is only 4 on Mohs scale, while copper is 3 (carbon steel 7-8). Steel was a new thing in 17th century and not especially cheap, so you'd expect to find it mostly in battle weapons. Just a guess, though...
TheCrazyFinn 1 year ago
@TheCrazyFinn Sorry for double posting, the comment down is for you. Take care!
MotusSwordsmanship 1 year ago
An interesting clip to be sure, but I saw no swords nor the mention thereof.
54viruses 1 year ago
Either way, people tend to forget that it's skill and how well-armored someone is over weapon used. Just saying.
I won't say the katana is garbage because it's a backsword, but you need to use it properly. I also won't deny a falchion is a mighty sword in terms of chopping through things. I mean, come on, the falchion resembles a modern-day machete, for crying out loud. No matter what, you need to be able to pick the right arms for the right adversaries AND have enough skill to use them.
KintarosTiger 1 year ago
@KintarosTiger Also. When all else fails in terms of non-firearm weapons, always go with a cudgel. The flanged mace is a favorite of mine, for instance. =3
KintarosTiger 1 year ago
What the hell has this got to do with swords?
Domiedave99 1 year ago
@Domiedave99 Not much.
WurledPeas 11 months ago
Here I present some Nohonto edges!
-- nihonto . d e / ForSale / Tadayoshi/Katana_Tadayoshi_004 . j p g
-- nihonto . u s / Munetsugu,%20Tadakuni,%20Masatsgu%20046 . J P G
-- nihontoantiques . c o m / images / Detail%20111(37) . j p g
Pics also show the thickness of the spine, so you see the geomerty of the edge towards the tip.
VERDICT: apparently the same edge geometry!!!
Nihonto and european swords POSSESS THE SAME LENTICULAR CUTTING EDGE GEOMETRY! No one of them ever was a "smashing tool"!
Protherium 1 year ago
Oh dear...
Here I present a couple of european antiques, taken from -- zornhau . d e / source / schwertexkursion / dinkelsbuehl2 . h t m
Just look at following pictures:
-- zornhau . d e / source / schwertexkursion / Zornhau-ZEF-6-gross . j p g
-- (same URL as above) / Zornhau-ZEF-9-gross . j p g
-- Zornhau-ZEF-11-gross . j p g
Here we clearly see the EDGE GEOMETRY of those antiques. No sign of a blunt bevel, egdes 100% made to be sharp and cut. The blade thickness is also self-evident.
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium actually, european swords were sharper, we had the proper carbon steel to make our sabres like a razor.. japanese had to fold their swords to make the best out of second rate metals... im guessing the guy who made this watches way too many japanese cartoons to get his biased, uneducated views
megadeth22885 1 year ago
@megadeth22885
Its a little bit tricky...
From spatha to Oakeshott Type XIV we have flat wide blades (lenticulat cross section) intended for cutting. Nihonto are usually far more thicker than euroswords (euro = 2-5mm + strong distal taper; Nihonto = 5-9mm very little distal taper) and also relatively narrow (width 2,5-3,5cm; euro = 4-8cm).
Wide flat blades with lenticular CS naturally offer much less resistance to a cutting medium, so even being not insane sharp euroswords were good cutters.
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium
It does not mean however that euroswords were "better cutters" on their own. They had a more durable edge bevel not sacrificing cutting ability, that's why they were the first choice in combat against maille and shields.
Nihonto were intended to draw-slice and just like other sabers in the world they had a stiff thick not very wide blade, most appropriate for their kind of purpose. Wielding a Falchion like a katana will not work technically.
So no one is "better".
Just different.
Protherium 1 year ago
@Protherium all of these little children who believe otherwise are typically made naive by a complete immersion and obsession with japanese culture and a complete and entire abandonment of their own making them biased, and quick to believe the japanese-favoring information out their to their otherwise crappy swords only made better by folding, a technique that is long outdated
megadeth22885 1 year ago
@Protherium better steel, better design, better cutters.. japanese swords are nice cutters in poorly drawn cartoons and PS3 video games... truth is, no swords out there will cut as well as a falchion or a grosses messer, not only do they have a better profile, and better steel on a nicely curved blade, both these designs had a bit of weight behind them aiding in the momentum to slice off limbs.. and one the most effective swords in history was a fat, about 2 foot long sword called a gladius
megadeth22885 1 year ago
Plato86, I respectfully disagree with you. You've taken a quote out of context and extrapolated that all western swords can't be as sharp as a katana, completely ignoring there are literally several hundred types of swords and yet you think that one country could achieve a specific sharpness? Heck, not even all the katana are created equal. The Katana is an excellent weapon, but it is horrifically overhyped by kendo enthusiasts and people who love everything Japanese to the exclusion of others.
EvilCleric 1 year ago 49
@EvilCleric I know you posted 6 months ago but you do mean Iaidō and not kendo right? Since Iaidō got more in common with the actual weapon known as the katana than the shinai they use in kendo. (Even though the shinais are supposed to be katanas)
Arachnomen 9 months ago
@Arachnomen I meant kendo, but had I remembered laido at the time of posting I'd probably used that instead.
EvilCleric 9 months ago
@EvilCleric what made the katana so speical is that it was steel in an age of iron.
Hoophy 8 months ago
@Hoophy At the time plenty of European swords were made out of steel as well.
EvilCleric 8 months ago
@Hoophy by the time the katana reached its best form, the sword was outdated to the rest of the world. research the evolution of the Katana.
Indabaz 8 months ago
@Hoophy by the time the katana reached its best form, the sword was outdated to the rest of the world. research the evolution of the Katana.
Indabaz 8 months ago
@Hoophy
Europeans had steel weapons by the early centuries of the Roman Empire. What we can recognise as a 'katana' doesn't appear until the 10th-11th centuries AD; Europeans had steel weapons for centuries before this point.
HereTheArtBegins 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I could also argue that the longsword is overhyped by western martial art enthusiasts but that is a moot point because people who favor one art over another will always overhype it and that is obvious. I did not say that the katana is sharper than all European swords, I specifically said the Longsword or war sword of the 12th and 13th century may very well have been as sharp as the katana. What I said was that swords of the 17th and 18th century were probably not as sharp as a katana.
Plato86 7 months ago
@Plato86 Why use a time when the use of swords are on the decline and the use of guns is climbing due to being simpler to use in the West?
EvilCleric 7 months ago
@Plato86
A sword losing sharpness doesn't mean it isn't sharp; a sword losing sharpness means it has a lack of edge retention.
Two swords can be equally sharp, but if one is made of a softer steel, it will dull faster.
Your video should be more appropriately labeled "Just how hard were European swords of the late 18th century".
Your video doesn't say much about swords of the 17th century either. I'd be careful even of that conclusion, as executioner swords are a very different animal.
HereTheArtBegins 7 months ago
@Plato86 why is it always knight v samurai what about roman army v medieval army or samurai army maybe its cause the roman army would obviously win
fdr100100 6 months ago
@Plato86 17th century longswords were not used in war often in the west anymore. If anything the katana is a show of japans conservatism. 900+ years same damn sword.
jinnd319 6 months ago
@EvilCleric man what u said is just right thats all what I can say its simply right
SoulRipper66 6 months ago
@TheFoundersWereRight Only the ignorant use 'plate mail' in any capacity. It is improper terminology and is akin to referring to a knightly arming sword as a 'broadsword' or a tachi as a 'katana'.
Mail is mail, plate is plate, the two do not mix. Scale armour is something else entirely and should not be referred to as 'plate mail'. D&D is not an authoritative resource on armour.
halfassedfart 1 year ago
Wow. Does any infotainment show even do their goddamn research any more?
halfassedfart 1 year ago
this guy's an idiot... he's only a historian, not a fucking blacksmith or sword handler, sure the weapons are blunt NOW, after hundreds of years of not being used and laying in the dirt. Back then, axes could be VERY sharp.
bud389 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
""Evidence of European swords not being very sharp also exists in Arabic text from Crusader era... pointed out... swords where used as blunt instrument v.s. very sharp Arabic scimiter.""
Do you refer to the famous fantasy tale of Walter Scott in "Talisman"? Crusades ended in 1270-s but the first Shamshir and Kilidsch (plainly called "Scimitar", a word used since 19th cent.) appeared only in 16th cent!
There is no known source or record which can confirm standard use of euroswords like clubs.
Protherium 1 year ago
The guillotine was so "human" because it made sure there wasn't the need for a second cut due to human lack of skill. Imagine a beheading where the axe cuts only half of the neck, because the executioner wasn't aiming correctly. Ugly! I don't see how this proves the myth of the "super Japanese sword of mass destruction". It is a fact that European raw ore is superior in purity to Japanese. And the fact that Japanese were on par with European swords was already due to "high tech" blacksmithing.
defaultpseudonym 1 year ago
@defaultpseudonym
in fact, if the japanese style of blacksmithing were to be applied to the european steel, it would make it weaker instead of stronger... also, katanas are not lightsabres, they function under the same limitations as european swords.
tmsods 1 year ago
This is an interesting bit on the guillotine, and though it mentioned a little about the axe, this video has nothing to do with swords, European or any other, let alone about the sharpness of swords.
coachace123 1 year ago
@coachace123 And axes were not blunt. The way this guys speaks is as is the only true cut is about pressing the blade against slash and dragging it, because all swords cut through impact first and through dragging motion second.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
Evidence of European swords not being very sharp also exists in Arabic text from Crusader era, where it is often pointed out that their swords where used as blunt instrument v.s. very sharp Arabic scimiter.
ovaisreza 1 year ago
@ovaisreza different ideas about what kind of sharp a sword intended for war should be. some blades have a more acute grind to the edge, and are sharper, but an edge with a less acute angle is going to penetrate armor better and maintain it's effectiveness through harder use. Think of it like a chisel versus a scalpel. A scalpel will cut flesh better, but a chisel will also do the job and it'll go through a whole lot more shit in between.
Zahnle 1 year ago
@Zahnle Penetrate armor? I hope your talking about leather or cloth armor cause there has never been a sword that could penetrate plate. Many swords could penetrate mail by thrusting hard enough to split a ring and bend the surrounding rings, but that's it. All these movies and books with people hacking through armor is inane.
Altonahk 1 year ago
@Altonahk
in half swording, when the other knight is on the ground, the sword can be used to penetrate the plate armour by putting all your weight on it, or at least that is what I understand.
tmsods 1 year ago
@ovaisreza Scimitars weren't used by Islamic armies during the crusading era. They used straight double edged swords quite similar to those which the Crusaders themselves were using. In fact many Muslim swords had 'Frankish' ie European made blades.
mrbeast85 1 year ago
Bottom line people: A sharpened piece of metal > human body.
Pottan23 1 year ago
The Guy is dead wrong about the axe.
Maybe they should have people that know something about a tool and it's uses speak on the subject rather than some Guy who got his erronious info from a text-book.
Axes could be razor sharp same as a knife or a sword.
Executions by axed depended on the skill of the Axeman, and that was the problem.
Conan568 1 year ago
Define quality. The blade on my katana is superbly designed for draw cuts, and the differential tempering is quite a brilliant idea. But I can bend my rapier blade 90 deg and have it be fine. I wouldn't dare try and do that with the katana.
What's the purpose of the sword? By the 17-18 century, plate armor was the thing to beat, so sharpness would be secondary to force delivered and pointyness. Given the choice between the katana or rapier vs an armored knight, I will take the rapier any day.
DuffTerrall 1 year ago