Katana sucks dick I'm tired of hearing how great the samurai were swords like these and the longsword along with the claymore r better. What's a samurai going to do when some one swings a 6 foot long sword at him try to deflect that
by time u hit target /target woud have hit u to or three times with armer kickd ova and stabed in eyes not 2 menchin u cn can kill with a banana in rite hands
The presenter here is responding to certain myths about the borderline magical cutting power of the katana. To be fair, these myths aren't really propagated by honest practitioners of Japanese swordsmanship - but the presenter has nothing but respect for earnest practitioners, as far as I can tell. (Also to be fair, I wouldn't blame anime in particular for such myths, as it tends to make superheroes and magic weapons out of everyone and everything imaginable).
battle of visby in 1361 shows damaged caused by razor sharp medieval bastard swords slicing through helmets and slicing through skulls so empty the brain cavity into the dirt, single swings slicing through armored limbs, and even one guy having both plate armoed legs sliced right off with one swing... and people are going to try telling me european swords werent sharp and couldnt cut?... fucking nipponophiles so obsessed with their anime that they disreguard FACT that proves their ideas wrong
I have to disagree with you on some things. I would not say that european swords was better balanced, they where different balanced. The katana is more cutting oriented so it's not a bad thing to have it more blade heavy. Just as some falchions are more blade heavy. It's not before you want a sword to be long and thrusting oriented that the hilt balance is great.
As for battle of Visby. I haven't seen the helm cutting. But remember that the people in Visby was more of a militia than a standing army. So the limb cutting wasn't that hard, they didn't have any specific protection for the limbs. So yes the european swords where sharp and could cut, but I'm sceptic about the metal armor cutting.
Yeah, I remember reading about that. There were next to no torso cuts detected on the bodies, which is where the armor found would have covered, nearly all the wounds were to the limbs, whereas the head injuries usually came from some type of warhammer or pick, or were combined with limb injuries, suggesting that they were first disabled, then their helm removed and executed.
I don't recall reading of any Helmet they discovered that was Actually Cut through.
I think swordsman are rolling in their graves at the arguments taking place. Every different sword had a different purpose. Comparing them is pointless and like comparing hungry hippos, to actually eating.
'WMA' may have only 'organized' recently but the fighting traditions they draw on are centuries old, and it isn't about 'battling' EMA as much as reviving a part of our cultural history and heritage once thought lost to the ages, thought they do seem to frequently clash with ignorant EMA 'students' seeking to demean and belittle their efforts(like children). I've already explained the meaning of the performance, did you not see? The only prejudice i've seen so far is from you.
your video is pointless. The katana is what it is not because it can cut though bamboo, but because it slashes and cut faster and more efficiently in combat environment and plus it is lighter. You don't need to be strong or to rest for 3 hours after swinging it (like you after this video). It is a SLASHING and not A CUTTING or CHOPPING weapon like its European counterparts. The self absorbed racist ignorance of people out there...
You should watch the video again, and your ignorance of European swords is showing. His objective was to show that cutting bamboo is not a big deal. Why is he doing this? Because there are a lot of people out there who are incredibly impressed with bamboo cutting, thinking it is equivalent to cutting human bodies in half. So, he took a sword that was /completely blunt/ and cut bamboo in half with it.
2; How do you know that his objective was to show superiority or inferiority? All he said is that someone shouldn't be impressed by someone cutting bamboo with a katana. How do you know mine is the same? Could you show me where I've ever said one sword type was superior to another?
If you can use a sword that is completely blunt and cut bamboo in half with it, how can it be equivalent to cutting human bodies apart?
Furthermore, the katana doesn't slash and cut faster. While the sword is certainly more designed to cut, it is a person who determines weapon speed with well made examples. Nor is it lighter, even. Katana are usually anywhere from 2.5, to 4 pounds. European longswords are usually anywhere from 2.5, to 5 pounds as well.
@HereTheArtBegins Nobody said that bastard swords cannot cut bamboo. "it is a person who determines weapon speed" No. The art , the sword , the skill and the strength of the person does that.
Lots of people are very impressed with bamboo and relate it to cutting bodies in half; obviously this is not true.
The art is a component of the person who practices the art.
The skill and strength of the person is a part of the person.
And the qualities of the weapon is contained within the second half of that sentence which you ignored; "with well made examples". That is to say, if a sword is made well, its speed will be determined by the practitioner.
Forgive me i'm not seeing anything racist here. As said, he's showing blunt swords can cut bamboo, so don't be so impressed if you see swords cutting it. The 'guy' is John Clements, a leading authority and practitioner of WMA for over 2 decades, and a far more skilled and learned man then you . I think your imagining racism where none exists(and showing your own), and by the sound of it you've got lots of 'stuff' to prove as well.
@WitheringintheDark 1) nobody said that bastard swords (European straight swords in general) cannot "cut" through targets.They are blunt because that's how they work, them being unable (mainly due to weight and shape) to maintain an edge. They cut by smashing through fiber-tissue-bone and in this case, bamboo. 2)I don't care if you and the 'guy' are the Pope of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the video-the point of it-and the arguments used are bereft of both logic and historical accuracy
"They are blunt because that's how they work, them being unable to maintain an edge."
This is ridiculously false. They only weigh about 3lbs and can hold a razor sharp edge as well as any katana. True it will dull a bit faster(intentional metallurgical differences), but that is what two edges are for. If you prefer the katana, go ahead, it's a great sword too, I don't particularly give a shit. Just stop talking about EU swords like you actually know anything about them.
you contrdicted yourself "This is ridiculously false. They only weigh about 3lbs and can hold a razor sharp edge as well as any katana. True it will dull a bit faster"
If it dulls a bit faster then it can't hold an edge as well as a katana.
I have a favoring for the Katana but also like medieval swords of most cultures-preferably cutting styles.
most average European(and english) swords were alot blunter than asian swords because of the intended targets-mostly armoured,lightly or heavily
If you doubt me, the same man in this video did a test with a sharp norman sword on a gambeson and piece of leather, and cutting at the material was largely ineffective. I posted them on my channel. Swords in general were very ineffective against armor unless you had a very thin tip to pierce through links in mail or cut at unarmored portions of the persons body.
@devoidchess No they were not. Swords are meant to cut flesh, not steel. Euro swords that were intended for cutting cut just as well as a Katana. You do not use a sword to cut armour, period.
@temmy9 I left my account logged in in a net cafe and some shithead decided to use it to start a bunch of arguments about swords on youtube. I don't know anything about swords. I don't care about swords.
sharper blades that hold an edge well require greater hardness but greater hardness means more brittle and more brittle means more frequent blade breakages.
A broken blade is not to effective as a sword but a bent sword can still be straightened by stepping on it and it is still the same as before being bent.
You also only need a "certian level of sharpness" to cut a great range of armour and people-this is around 1/2mm thick which is really quite blunt-able to run hand on edge without cutting
In regards to the earlier post, I was in a hurry to get back to work and didn't watch the typing as much as I should. Should have read 'and can have as razor sharp an edge as any katana. True, it will dull a bit faster.'
That thick edge would be largely unable to slice through leather or even a gambeson. It would still have an effective thrust, but the cut wouldn't work well at all. Samurai went up against plenty of armored targets, fyi.
So, why did you think European swords "chop/plowed" their way through flesh and bone. If that were the case there would only be "zwei wunder", not "drei wunder".
@HereTheArtBegins all swords cut,thrust and slash but some do some of those jobs better than others. As for those wma German and other schools you keep referring to, well they are the result of INDEPENDENT "scholars" making their own interpretations/adaptations. "Historical" is only used conveniently and arbitrarily here.
Those schools base their studies off of manuals written in the Medieval Period (Which is where Liechtenauer's Drei Wunder come from), the study of antique swords and armor, archaeological analysis (Ie; analysis of battlefield mass graves), and other forms of historical analysis.
HEMA in general is an extremely academic, and authoritative source; none of this is 'made up'.
You should do a quick look for "Fechtbuch" on google. The Wiktenauer has a large number of Medieval and Renaissance fight manuals stored. I'd be pleased if you could explain how Liechtenauer's "Abschneiden" could exist without sharp swords being commonly employed.
@HereTheArtBegins I cannot do much more for you. If you do not understand how pointless this video is, you will definitely not understand what I am saying about swords. You sure as hell don't understand that I never said that European swords were always dull. Not that this point holds any direct relevance whatsoever.
Your interpretation of the video is rather pointless; but that's not the objective of the video. When you consider the main thrust of Clements' work, he is not about denegrating the Japanese school of martial arts. He is about attacking myths, which unfortunately there are lots of in regards to Japanese and European swords.
Essentially your argument goes; "John Clements is denegrating the Katana. The vast majority of his work is about showing that there is no such thing as a "Best" sword, and katana are definitely equal to European swords and vice versa. Oh, except for this video. Here he's denigrating the katana."
That...makes no sense. He would have to transform into a completely different person.
He is attacking myths. He is not attacking Japanese martial arts.
Additionally, your original argument is that European swords are generally speaking more on the "blunt" side than not. It is not the case that even most European swords were "blunt-ish" as you say, but rather that most European swords are rather sharp; it depends upon the individual sword and what it was designed to do. If it is an anti-armor sword, it is not as likely to be sharp, but these were /thrusting/ swords, not cutting.
The fact is though, that European swords were not designed to "chop/plow"; they, like the katana, were designed to cut using the sharpness of the sword. The katana is simply more oriented towards cutting than European swords.
@HereTheArtBegins this is party true. 1) European swords, being straight, met the target flat on, with more of the edge making contact, thus relying more on their balance and less on their sharpness. 2) The katana met the target with only a few millimeters of the cutting edge making initial contact and with the rest of the CURVED blade, following smoothly through, SLASHING rather than cutting, thus relying more on their sharpness and their narrow, almost non existent bevel.
The surface area argument would only be true if people fought firm, spherical objects. Human bodies are not like this, and once a curved blade cuts into a target /more/ of the cutting edge is meeting the target than the straight edged blade. The initial contact would not matter so much as what happens /after/ the initial contact.
The balance of a European sword is typically focused around the hand; proportionately more than a katana.
@HereTheArtBegins Human bodies are not objects of standard geometrical shapes to begin with, do not twist my argument. Whats more, the funny dude in this video cuts a cone-bamboo, not a human body. Stick to the given facts and do not stretch your points.
I wasn't twisting your argument; I've seen the claim that curved shorten the cutting edge, but the counter-argument to that is precisely /that/ human bodies are not objects of standard geometrical shapes. The argument only holds true if people were fighting firm, spherical shapes. We do not.
The dude in this cuts a /cylindrical/ bamboo, because he's addressing the myth that cutting bamboo is a miraculous task only capable of katana.
@HereTheArtBegins 1) he is addressing a myth that he sets in his own fixed scenario in order to deliver a pre-designed, yet historically unfounded and over simplified propaganda. But lets not get into that yet again. 2) What you write about human bodies as targets would be true if a sword would cut the human body as a whole, but as I hope you understand, swords cut the torso or/and limbs of bodies which (standalone) bare a resemblance to geometrical shapes.
1; How is it propaganda? He's simply saying not to be impressed by cutting bamboo. Once again, you're pre-supposing that he has racist objectives and/or is trying to denigrate Japanese martial arts. How is it propaganda if he's addressing people who believe in myths?
2; The point was that the claim only holds true if we're fighting purely spherical, hard objects. We do not. Human bodies are soft, squishy objects. We deform before we get cut.
@HereTheArtBegins 1) your view - my view. Both respected yet different. Let it rest. 2) No. The claim holds true for squishy and deformable objects too, such as straw-tatami and of course, livestock and prisoners.
A squishy object will deform around the shape of the thing pressing against it, making it so that it does /not/ have less of the cutting area contacting the target. This is doubly so when the cutting edge is cutting through the target itself; then, /more/ of the curved sword will be making contact with the target.
@HereTheArtBegins you are forgeting about HOW the "thing" will come to press against it. "then, /more/ of the curved sword will be making contact with the target." No, more will be running THROUGH A F T E R the initial contact.
The initial contact would have about the same amount of material meeting the cutting edge, as the material would deform around the cutting surface before being cut.
More will be running through after? You're simply rephrasing what I originally said in different words.
The fact is, the extra cutting benefit from curved swords comes from the extra-slicing motion due to the elongated cutting edge.
So it's settled then, straight European swords do not "chop/plow", do not "smash" through fiber/tissue/bone are not "bluntish", but simply do not have the elongated cutting surface. I'm glad we came to some agreement here.
and before you object about tatami- let me tell you that targets such as these were traditional soaked in water to imitate the density and composition of human limbs.
The dynamic you're describing is incorrect. Both swords rely upon their sharpness to an equal degree.
What the katana has /in addition/ to the sharpness is that the cutting surface is elongated, so it adds an extra slicing component to any cut. It is not that katana 'relied' upon sharpness more; they just had an extra slicing component. There were other medieval European swords with the same exact mechanism like the falchion, messer, or Kriegsmesser.
Additionally, European swords also had incredibly narrow edges. Towards the cutting surface a typical European sword is going to be almost leaf-like; far thinner than katana typically will be.
@HereTheArtBegins not always, and not to all swords-warriors-scenarios. This is NOT the katana vs ALL the European weapons ever invented, although it seems this is what some people aim at.
I'm simply using the terms you were using originally. Your original claim was; "European swords were not meant to be razor sharp...Those swords chopped/plowed their way through flesh, bone and tissue, rather than slashing/cutting."
YOU said "European swords" originally; if you want to isolate your claims more, be my guest, but I wasn't about to assume which European sword you were referring to.
@HereTheArtBegins I am sure that you are able to understand, that it was this Europe vs Japan argument that this retarded video introduces, that dragged/forced me into generalizations. The fact though still remains that European swords have a great variety from pointy and thin to flat and blunt, to sharp etc. The guy here, conveniently uses a "bastard sword", which by default is a weapon of much controversy and questionable origins.
So, don't try and correct me on comparing "every european sword" against the katana when you yourself are the one who started to speak in generalities.
The sword is not of much controversy and questionable origins. The term is, a little bit, but it's a fine, acceptable term to use for Longsword-type swords.
@HereTheArtBegins yes I will try to correct you and everyone else who bulks up every European weapon and launches unfounded and convenient comparisons. Also, yeaaah.... "Longsword-type swords" - I rest my case.
Bulk up every European weapon? Where have i ever done that? All I've said is that European swords are just as effective and sophisticated as Japanese swords. Unless you're trying to say we don't have the right to say our swords are just as good as swords from Japan.
Longsword-type swords? How do you rest your case? A longsword is a specific type of two handed sword.
@HereTheArtBegins 1) No, a long sword in not specific to anything. It the the most widely used and broad term in the semantics of swordsmanship. Longswords vary GREATLY. 2)"our swords"? That is the problem with us Europeans. We live under the crude misconception that we have an absolutely unified and common culture.
1; A longsword is a specific /type/ of two handed sword. This is a category of reference, like there are "types" of animals, with variation within.
2; When did I say we have an absolutely unified and common culture? I said that we Europeans have a shared tool-set in the medieval period; we do. The differences in swords from Germany to Spain, and from England to Italy, especially in the Medieval Period, are mostly cosmetic differences or regional sword-types.
To demonstrate what I mean by the Longsword being a specific /type/ of two handed sword, look at the following terms.
"Working Dog"
"Herding Dog"
These two terms refer to a specific /type/ of dog; ones which do a variety of work-type activities, such as guarding property or livestock, or pulling carts. The other which is primarily tasked with herding-type activities.
However, within each category there is a lot of variation, though not so much that the term becomes meaningless.
I don't find it vague, but that could just be with my familiarity with the term. It's broad, but I have a good grasp as to where the type begins and ends. It's only as vague as "herding dog" or "working dog". Completely usable.
If we want to get specific, there's always the Oakeshott typology.
But then, not many people would know what I mean if I were to say;
"Oakeshott type XVIa, with a type 2 guard, and a type J pommel."
@HereTheArtBegins Given the variety of European swords and the length of the centuries in which they were created it is a vague term to use in most Academic contexts. The Oakeshott typology covers blades from nearly a dozen centuries, with HUGE differences among them. Just saying : "a Bastard sword" - or "a long sword" is just too broad, especially when comparing/describing technique. The dog analogy does not deliver the complexity.
The Oakeshott Typology only covers about five centuries; not nearly a dozen. You're confusing the Petersen typology which describes swords from roughly the 6th century up to the 11th century with the Oakeshott Typology which describes swords from roughly the 11th century to the 16th century.
The term "longsword" is broad, but not vague. The Oakeshott Typology is perfect for getting down to the specifics. If you don't want to get specific, the term "Longsword" is fine.
@HereTheArtBegins but as I said, this is not really a point to linger on since "Katana" is a broad term also. There is a huge variety of Japanese longswords as well.
For example, when i say "Longsword" people who know what the term longsword is will already get a good grasp as to what I'm talking about. A European sword, designed to be used in two hands but capable of being wielded one handed, with two parallel cutting edges, ranging from 36 to 50 inches long. The largest differences afterwards will be whether the blade is cutting oriented or thrusting oriented, with a heavy blade or a light blade.
@HereTheArtBegins I am not confusing anything. The Oakenshott typology is incomplete and made only for approximating the time a blade was made. It starts with viking blades and that right there, covers an era of 3 hundred years, and ends at the late 15 hundreds - mid 16. As for the "longsword-bastard sword", I think that we can agree to disagree on the semantics under which it is used.
The Oakeshott Typology actually says nothing about /when/ a sword was made. It is precisely designed to /describe/ the /form/ of swords. From the /form/ we can infer a /rough/ chronology, but it is not made to approximate the time when a blade was made.
The Oakeshott Typology starts with the sword called Oakeshott Type X; which is a sword form which appears around the 11th century. Oakeshott's typology basically says nothing about swords before, say, the 9th or 10th centuries.
@HereTheArtBegins due to a SUPERIOR method for balancing a blade, even european swords as long as a claymore has better balance than the average katana... in fact, though overall heavier than a bastard sword, the balance of a claymore allows one handed techniques to be used as well... much better than japans idea of packing a HEAVY cast iron guard between the grip and blade, europes idea of using leverage was so much better, making bigger, more powerful swords that are easier to handle
@WitheringintheDark only reason theyll dull faster is from hitting shields and armor, as far as metalurgy goes, japan has always had access to only inferior steels, the reason they had to fold the metal.. essentially "polishing a turd"... vikings folded their steel too when faced with poor metalurgy, but during the later medieval period when bastard swords were being used the steel was a hell of a lot better, and folding would only weaken it
2; How is it bereft of logic and historical accuracy? His only claim was that cutting through bamboo is not an impressive act; you can even do it with a blunt sword. He did just that. How is it bereft of logic and historical accuracy?
@HereTheArtBegins And since you indeed need some insight, here it is. I am a collector of swords in general. Both European and Japanese. I love them all. European swords were not meant to be razor sharp. They were meant to be blunt-ish since their battlefield use and their shape, rendered ultra sharpness useless. Those swords chopped/plowed their way through flesh, bone and tissue, rather than slashing/cutting.
Actually, your claim here shows that you don't know that much about European swords at least.
European swords come in a wide variety of sharpnesses; some are extremely sharp, others are not as sharp. Some, like the Estoc and rapier, are relatively bluntish in comparison to more cutting oriented swords which typically have high sharpness.
European swords did not "chop/plow" their way through flesh; in fact, many techniques in the school of Historical Swordsmanship /require/ a high degree of sharpness in order to work. For example, one of Meister Liechtenauer's "Drei wunders" is "Abschneiden", which is a technique which sets the blade against an opponent and then has the swordsman push or pull the blade, using the sharpness to cut past the wool and linen clothing and into the opponent's flesh.
@WitheringintheDark 3)I have nothing to prove apart from facts, which is something rather necessary it seems, when people like these run around making videos. 4)Western Martial Arts? Something invented and systematized 20 years before in order to lead an autonomous existence or to battle EMA like the 'guy' displays here with his meaningless performance and hooligan mannerisms? {racist "cough"}
@GhostXDog 4; "Western Martial Arts" has a rich history going back over two thousand years. It's just the Clements is a part of one branch (Others being boxing, classical fencing, Catch-Wrestling, and Greco-Roman wrestling) which is using medieval manuals to reconstruct a martial art that is centuries old.
It is not designed to "battle" EMA; it's about rediscovering a lost part of European heritage. In fact, HEMA guys fight old Western Academics more often than EMA.
Here are the words of the same guy from this video in regards to European and japanese swords;
"Each evolved to answer specific challenges in their own particular martial environments. Each was tested and improved upon over time through the unforgiving trial of war and duel. Each proved itself in expert hands."
"In the end, perhaps the firmest conclusion that can be reached is that, historically, both the longsword and the katana served its intended purpose with equal success."
No they don't, because you chose to become offended by something that's not even addressing Japanese martial arts as a whole.
This video is intended to address people who have very ignorant viewpoints of swords and swordsmanship, and in particular those who think cutting through bamboo is some miraculous task.
Someone who declares cutting through bamboo to be a miraculous task only capable of super sharp katana has an ignorant viewpoint.
Contrary to modern pop-culture, many things can clearly be labeled as ignorant; these are statements which are based around fact-type observations; things which can be verified as true or false. In a case where someone believes something to be true, when it is actually false, they are ignorant.
"unable (mainly due to weight and shape) to maintain an edge"
You show quite clearly here that you don't have a clue about blade geometry, sword hardness, metallurgy and the effects they have on the properties of swords.
@WitheringintheDark And a last note. If people choose to like the aesthetics of the katana or of any other oriental weapon more than the European ones, it is their right and privilege to do so and there aint nothing anyone can do about it. Engaging into faulty proofing methods to make an invalid (to start with) point, only proves one thing. Inferiority - Superiority complex.
Repeated broken-record re-assertions that someone else is a racist is typical of racists themselves(akin to adulterers in this) If anything you have shown that you yourself have some sort of complex, as evidenced by running in here calling the man a beer drunk 'hooligan', shouting 'racism' left and right, personal attacks on him and others.
@WitheringintheDark the "right back atcha - mirror - you are what you call other people " 2nd grade argument? please...
Do you see any Japanese masters or even anyone practicing Japanese martial arts making comparison videos and behaving like apes trying to prove how the arts and weapons they use are vastly superior to the European ones? No. Then shut up and think again.
No one in HEMA is trying to prove that European swords are vastly superior to Asian swords.
The Japanese martial artists benefit from a cultural presupposition that their martial arts are superior to those of the West. HEMA /has/ to make comparisons in order to make headway; these comparisons always wind up with the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "best" sword. Because there is a cultural pre-supposition that their martial arts are inferior.
No one is arguing against liking the aesthetics of one sword over another; you're in fact the first person in several years to even use the word "Aesthetic" in this discussion.
@HereTheArtBegins not really. It is completely relevant. It is what people obsessed with comparisons and conflict (like the guy in this vid) forget. All swords are made to deliver a purpose. Kill. Therefore they are different. Whoever uses whatever sword is a matter of military tradition and preference.
You're missing the point of this video. The point of the video is to address people who think that cutting through bamboo is some incredibly difficult task that only super-razor sharp swords can do, and/or that only katana can cut through bamboo.
Clements does not miss the point of swords at all. In fact, the ultimate purpose of swords is often stated to directly be killing by Clements himself.
@GhostXDog fact is.. its not the aesthetics, katana actually is not as good of a cutter as a bastard sword, they weight the same, bastard sword being much larger, and the point of balance is much closer to the grip on the bastard sword because it uses leverage to counterbalance the weight of the blade... the idiots that make katanas just put a heavy chunk of cast iron between the grip and blade which doesnt do nearly enough for balance, just makes it heavier
@GhostXDog in fact... i can hold a scottish claymore, and swing it with one hand without much difficulty because of the fact that it uses leverage than a heavy as hell weight to counterbalance it.. people think two handed european swords are slow and clumsy, but theyll swing faster than a katana with greater ease, a hell of a lot more reach, and even a moderate length bastard sword will slice a steel helmet in half (proven at the battle of visby in 1361, gotland, sweden)
My god there is so much idiocracy in this comment section it makes my head hurt. Swords are swords. All types of swords have their pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. Comparing a Katana to a Bastard sword is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
Yes Katana fanboys and worshippers annoy me as much as the next guy, but you people who bash the Katana and worship European swords are no better.
@ZarlanTheGreen Yeah bro. What, you thought it was one-sided? Nope, I've seen people making comments like "fuck katana!" and the like on many Euro sword videos.
Too bad a samurai would see that extremely heavy and slow strike coming and cut down the wielder before the lumbering oaf knew what dismembered him. The Katana is light weight and still cuts cleaner, faster, and more efficiently than the bigger heavier two handed swords. European swords weigh about 3-4.5 pounds where Katanas are 2.5 pounds. A better cut at nearly half the weight and twice the speed. Oh and if you have a video of a European sword cutting chain mail enlighten me.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX To be fair, a knight would win in a fight because of that shield of his, his intense training, the use of thrown weapons and the use of shield bashing. They had good footwork with a sword and a shield, and as an added note, the katana can cut through plate armor, which does mean a lot, but both are over rated IMO. Neither culture used JUST a Katana/Hand and a half sword, as they had weapons for different situations and different battlefields.
@ZarlanTheGreen A suit of plate armor wasn't a suit of invulnerability. It wasn't weak, but it wasn't a suit of invulnerability and I'd imagine it would be tough as nails to cut through but it was done plenty of times. It is not an inch thick suit of 120 lb. :P.
@Caldera510 Plate armour was certainly not invulnerable, but they were/are incapable of being cut.
Swords were hardly the best weapon against plate armour (a mace or warhammer would be ideal), but they could be used against it, sure.
Just not using cuts.
You would use thrusts, preferably at the more vulnerable parts, using half-swording techniques (i.e. you hold the sword with one hand on the hilt and one on the blade, for greater accuracy and force in the thrust).
No it's not a 1" thick 120 lb suit. More like 3-4mm of steel encasing the body, weighing as little as 40 lbs. Quality suits were proof vs flintlocks, war bows, swords, lances... the list goes on. Blunt force trauma still kills, but that shit was Tough. Really only heavy 2-h weapons could do much to it. Or stab them through the eyeslits or something. Remember, this was high carbon steel not sheet metal or aluminum.
@Cheesenstuph If you believe Katanas were brittle you truly are a waste of my time. But I'll go ahead and enlighten you for shits and giggles. The way japanese katanas were forged was by folding metal. A harder metal, with a softer metal. The harder metal made the outside edge which produced a very sharp cutting edge, while the inner consisted of a softer metal which absorbed impacts which helped the out edge chip less. I beleive the katanas you're talking about are the cheap "made in india"kind
@Cheesenstuph When you post a link to a source that states the Samurai preferred to use damn near anything but their magnificent slashing weapon i'll go ahead and take what you have to say into account. And I don't mean a wiki link you added :] oh and try to relax lil guy. It's just a discussion.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX The Samurai: a miiltary history - by Stephen R Turnbull covers samurai weaponry page 20 onwards, and that the sword was one among many weapons. Bows, spears were the major weapons in medieval Japan - and nearly everywhere else, being able to kill your opponent before he is close enough to kill you is a major advantage. No godlike sword will help if you're shot dead before you get close enough to use it.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX Another thing is the O-yoroi armour or great armour is too boxy for easy swordsmanship and heavier than Western armour, it was designed for mounted archery mainly.
Samurai warfare was far more than just having a magic sword and magic speed and magic powers, there was a whole range of tactical changes throughout the samurai period. I *think* (heard from someone else who seems to know more than me) samurai used integrated pike and bow formations after the Mongol invasion.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 1 - folded steel, while effective at making good swords, was nothing new to Europe when the Japanese picked it up. Celts had been using laminated steel for 1600 years before Japan.
2 - European knights were not lumbering oafs, the myth of super-fast samurai and turtle-like knights is based only on Hollywood.
Only the European war swords (hand and a half sword) weigh that much, and have longer reach for it, arming swords would be 2-3 lbs.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX ^ Source changed, I can't find the one saying 700 BC anymore (first recorded instance of pattern welding), but I found Ian G. Peirce, Ewart Oakeshott. Swords of the Viking Age saying pattern-welded swords were common by 2nd-3rd century AD. Also Jstore .jstor.org/pss/1505063. Also srg.northwestern.edu /Publications Librar y/Journals/2000_ DesigningNewMaterial World_Science_small pdf refers to pattern welded swords 500 AD. Different parts of Europe found it different times.
@Railstarfish Patter welding ceases before the year 1000, IIRC, which is just slightly after the japanese imported it's use from China, where they had used the method of for a long time.
The idea of using different metals for different parts (which was also used in Europe) was used in China as early as the bronze age.
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX "The harder metal made the outside edge which produced a very sharp cutting edge"
...and thus was brittle, even taking into account the soft spine.
In Europe, they had developed better ways of smelting steel, by the early Viking Age, so they didn't bother with all the folding and using different steels for different areas (which they had used before).
Those are methods used to get the most out of bad metal.
With good metal, it would only decrease the quality.
"Oh and if you have a video of a European sword cutting chain mail enlighten me. " I wish I could. I've seen tons of attempts, none managed to do so. Thrusts were also nearly completely ineffective against good mail. On the other hand, a katana couldn't do it either, so. And actually, European arming swords were about the same length as katana, and weighed about 2.5lbs, same as a katana. Even the longsword, with 8 inches more length, only weighed about 3lbs.
I believe European weapon designs were informed by the fact that chain mail was a standard armament since around 1000 AD,
and likewise plate did not make things any easier for the sword in general.
Certainly the thrust is superior to the slash on any battlefield in which contemporary foot soldiers would be wearing something that defeats a common slashing weapon,
and the hilts to large swords took on a secondary function in the half sword vs plate.
@Redfingers "I believe European weapon designs were informed by the fact that chain mail was a standard armament since around 1000 AD,"
...and the Japanese had no armour?
Also, most swords in Europe were made for cutting, until plate armour became more common.
So all through the Dark Ages, Viking Age and early Middle Ages (when they used maille), they had swords made primarily for cutting, often with fairly round tips.
In any case, certainly the design of a thrusting weapon with a hilt capable of being used in the half sword technique would be more useful than a weapon designed primarily for slashing in an environment in which a common foot soldier would be wearing at least chain mail.
From what I understand, the Japanese more commonly used the Yari or the bow over the katana anyway, both of which rely on thrust and penetration rather than slashing techniques.
lol a katana can do that effortlessly, you dont need to wind up like derek jeter then swing and basically almost scrape the ceiling to cut. not to mention how clean is the cut you didnt bother to show it. is a katana better than a european sword? i cant say ive never used a euro sword but does it matter? no? u cant kill anyone anymore with a sword and in war if you carried a sword instead of a gun youd prolly kill ur enemy from laughter.
If he had used a sharp sword he wouldn't need that much force. But by showing that you /can/ cut bamboo with a blunted sword, he shows that it's not a big deal if you manage to cut bamboo with a sharp one.
You see in some documentaries a man cutting bamboo and a narrator saying "look at this sword, it's sharp enough to even cut bamboo". And i think you can agree that after seeing this video that kind of statement is a bit stupid.
i dont know ive never had a blunt katana lol, the wind up and the distance he covered and the force he put in, if it didnt cut then something is wrong lol
A european longsword can cut through bamboo or tatami (or an animal carcass) with the same ease as a katana, or pretty much any other sword.
This sword was blunt, just to shut up people who claim that the katana being able to cut bamboo or tatami, is a sign of how incredibly sharp it is and that no other sword could do the same.
...and yes there are people out there who make such claims and hold such positions.
katanas are ironically some of the junkiest, most primitive weapons in the world, from a country with (then) notoriously low quality metals and crude clumsy armor.
its funny how movies and cartoons can totally turn history upside down (at least in the eyes of teenagers). Nobody cares about the amazing arms and armor of say, Byzantium and Persia, but every 15 year old owns a katana and thinks it can cut down redwoods.
@KintarosTiger Also. Katana are probably only 'better' at cutting because they are 'backswords', AKA they are swords with more weight in the back of the blade which adds more weight and thus more cutting power. However, I had heard one good strike to the edge of a katana will ruin the blade.
If that's the case, it's why people go to battle nowadays wearing steel trauma plates rather than ceramics ones; though ceramics can stop stronger calibur bullets, they shatter easily when hit. Steel is
@KintarosTiger ...more durable. No matter what way you slice it though, it's skill that wins the day, as well as possibly how armed (i.e. better quality weapons and more of them) and surely how armored a person is, with honorable mentions going to weapon range (just my opinion with range).
Personally, fuck the katana AND the longsword; the rapier or the basket-hilt broadsword are the blades for me.
Katana, sabers and curved single-edged blades in general were much slower than single-handed or even bastard European swords because the balance point on the double edged sword is much closer to the hilt, due to the fact that its blade profile tapers so much more and that the hilt was generally a lot heavier. Not to say that one type of sword is superior though, they all had their design features and preferred functions.
@avatarion REALLY? how about a closeup of the cut.it would show fractured cellulose-same as any sword style of the same level of bluntness.
I can cut cardboard with a standard plastic ruler but I would rather use a knife and even better a sharp knife.
Anyone that can cut properly could do the same as this video with most styles of sword(cutting sword that is) but this guy seams to have a barrow to push.
Katana were made to a higher standard than most other types of the same era
Love those guys who still claim longsword is heavy and slow...
Clements performed an excellent "Zornhau" in the video above, very clean footwork and body control. The speed and force of this strike, without using "brute strength" is self-evident, as well as this clean cut even with a blunt weapon. Finesse killz brute force ;)
Cutting bamboo is NOT EASY. A brutal crude strike without finesse would just shatter, even with a sharp blade.
That's the purpose of the video - proper cutting technique.
if katana were oh so awesome you would expect them to show its cutting strength on a piece of metal. but no, they always cut a fucking bamboo. pathetic.
Katana sucks dick I'm tired of hearing how great the samurai were swords like these and the longsword along with the claymore r better. What's a samurai going to do when some one swings a 6 foot long sword at him try to deflect that
hansvonslither 1 month ago
thoe i do like cutting random thing with basted but katanas speed
41iou 1 month ago
@41iou
katanas have good speed, but bastard swords are faster
IronCoredKnight 2 weeks ago
by time u hit target /target woud have hit u to or three times with armer kickd ova and stabed in eyes not 2 menchin u cn can kill with a banana in rite hands
41iou 1 month ago
The presenter here is responding to certain myths about the borderline magical cutting power of the katana. To be fair, these myths aren't really propagated by honest practitioners of Japanese swordsmanship - but the presenter has nothing but respect for earnest practitioners, as far as I can tell. (Also to be fair, I wouldn't blame anime in particular for such myths, as it tends to make superheroes and magic weapons out of everyone and everything imaginable).
fakejohnwilkesbooth 6 months ago 6
battle of visby in 1361 shows damaged caused by razor sharp medieval bastard swords slicing through helmets and slicing through skulls so empty the brain cavity into the dirt, single swings slicing through armored limbs, and even one guy having both plate armoed legs sliced right off with one swing... and people are going to try telling me european swords werent sharp and couldnt cut?... fucking nipponophiles so obsessed with their anime that they disreguard FACT that proves their ideas wrong
megadeth22885 6 months ago 2
@megadeth22885
I have to disagree with you on some things. I would not say that european swords was better balanced, they where different balanced. The katana is more cutting oriented so it's not a bad thing to have it more blade heavy. Just as some falchions are more blade heavy. It's not before you want a sword to be long and thrusting oriented that the hilt balance is great.
gurkfisk89 5 months ago
@megadeth22885
As for battle of Visby. I haven't seen the helm cutting. But remember that the people in Visby was more of a militia than a standing army. So the limb cutting wasn't that hard, they didn't have any specific protection for the limbs. So yes the european swords where sharp and could cut, but I'm sceptic about the metal armor cutting.
gurkfisk89 5 months ago
@gurkfisk89
Yeah, I remember reading about that. There were next to no torso cuts detected on the bodies, which is where the armor found would have covered, nearly all the wounds were to the limbs, whereas the head injuries usually came from some type of warhammer or pick, or were combined with limb injuries, suggesting that they were first disabled, then their helm removed and executed.
I don't recall reading of any Helmet they discovered that was Actually Cut through.
WitheringintheDark 5 months ago
I found this vid extremely fascinating when I first saw it. good stuff JC
FoolingWithFuhlen 6 months ago in playlist All ARMA Vids
Katana is best sword ever.
pyrosish 7 months ago
I think swordsman are rolling in their graves at the arguments taking place. Every different sword had a different purpose. Comparing them is pointless and like comparing hungry hippos, to actually eating.
YoshiKun9708 7 months ago 6
@YoshiKun9708 exactly. The obsessed gentleman in this video missed that point.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
'WMA' may have only 'organized' recently but the fighting traditions they draw on are centuries old, and it isn't about 'battling' EMA as much as reviving a part of our cultural history and heritage once thought lost to the ages, thought they do seem to frequently clash with ignorant EMA 'students' seeking to demean and belittle their efforts(like children). I've already explained the meaning of the performance, did you not see? The only prejudice i've seen so far is from you.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
your video is pointless. The katana is what it is not because it can cut though bamboo, but because it slashes and cut faster and more efficiently in combat environment and plus it is lighter. You don't need to be strong or to rest for 3 hours after swinging it (like you after this video). It is a SLASHING and not A CUTTING or CHOPPING weapon like its European counterparts. The self absorbed racist ignorance of people out there...
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
You should watch the video again, and your ignorance of European swords is showing. His objective was to show that cutting bamboo is not a big deal. Why is he doing this? Because there are a lot of people out there who are incredibly impressed with bamboo cutting, thinking it is equivalent to cutting human bodies in half. So, he took a sword that was /completely blunt/ and cut bamboo in half with it.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins 1) The only one ignorant and biased here is you 2) His objective was to display superiority / inferiority complexes, as is yours.
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
1; Could you show me why I'm ignorant and biased?
2; How do you know that his objective was to show superiority or inferiority? All he said is that someone shouldn't be impressed by someone cutting bamboo with a katana. How do you know mine is the same? Could you show me where I've ever said one sword type was superior to another?
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
If you can use a sword that is completely blunt and cut bamboo in half with it, how can it be equivalent to cutting human bodies apart?
Furthermore, the katana doesn't slash and cut faster. While the sword is certainly more designed to cut, it is a person who determines weapon speed with well made examples. Nor is it lighter, even. Katana are usually anywhere from 2.5, to 4 pounds. European longswords are usually anywhere from 2.5, to 5 pounds as well.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins Nobody said that bastard swords cannot cut bamboo. "it is a person who determines weapon speed" No. The art , the sword , the skill and the strength of the person does that.
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog not to mention sweated vs effortless cuts...
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
Did you miss the part where the sword was blunt? Swords are normally sharp. A 12 year old girl can cut adequately with a European sword.
watch?v=T3-wN5m7IiA
Some additional videos;
watch?v=C9FxOatYP0s
watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk
Looks pretty effortless to me.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
Lots of people are very impressed with bamboo and relate it to cutting bodies in half; obviously this is not true.
The art is a component of the person who practices the art.
The skill and strength of the person is a part of the person.
And the qualities of the weapon is contained within the second half of that sentence which you ignored; "with well made examples". That is to say, if a sword is made well, its speed will be determined by the practitioner.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
why are you cheering like a beer drunk hooligan? Got some sort of racist complex and tons of stuff to prove? pathetic
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
Forgive me i'm not seeing anything racist here. As said, he's showing blunt swords can cut bamboo, so don't be so impressed if you see swords cutting it. The 'guy' is John Clements, a leading authority and practitioner of WMA for over 2 decades, and a far more skilled and learned man then you . I think your imagining racism where none exists(and showing your own), and by the sound of it you've got lots of 'stuff' to prove as well.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark 1) nobody said that bastard swords (European straight swords in general) cannot "cut" through targets.They are blunt because that's how they work, them being unable (mainly due to weight and shape) to maintain an edge. They cut by smashing through fiber-tissue-bone and in this case, bamboo. 2)I don't care if you and the 'guy' are the Pope of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the video-the point of it-and the arguments used are bereft of both logic and historical accuracy
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
"They are blunt because that's how they work, them being unable to maintain an edge."
This is ridiculously false. They only weigh about 3lbs and can hold a razor sharp edge as well as any katana. True it will dull a bit faster(intentional metallurgical differences), but that is what two edges are for. If you prefer the katana, go ahead, it's a great sword too, I don't particularly give a shit. Just stop talking about EU swords like you actually know anything about them.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
you contrdicted yourself "This is ridiculously false. They only weigh about 3lbs and can hold a razor sharp edge as well as any katana. True it will dull a bit faster"
If it dulls a bit faster then it can't hold an edge as well as a katana.
I have a favoring for the Katana but also like medieval swords of most cultures-preferably cutting styles.
most average European(and english) swords were alot blunter than asian swords because of the intended targets-mostly armoured,lightly or heavily
devoidchess 8 months ago
@devoidchess
If you doubt me, the same man in this video did a test with a sharp norman sword on a gambeson and piece of leather, and cutting at the material was largely ineffective. I posted them on my channel. Swords in general were very ineffective against armor unless you had a very thin tip to pierce through links in mail or cut at unarmored portions of the persons body.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@devoidchess No they were not. Swords are meant to cut flesh, not steel. Euro swords that were intended for cutting cut just as well as a Katana. You do not use a sword to cut armour, period.
temmy9 5 months ago
@temmy9 I left my account logged in in a net cafe and some shithead decided to use it to start a bunch of arguments about swords on youtube. I don't know anything about swords. I don't care about swords.
devoidchess 5 months ago
sharper blades that hold an edge well require greater hardness but greater hardness means more brittle and more brittle means more frequent blade breakages.
A broken blade is not to effective as a sword but a bent sword can still be straightened by stepping on it and it is still the same as before being bent.
You also only need a "certian level of sharpness" to cut a great range of armour and people-this is around 1/2mm thick which is really quite blunt-able to run hand on edge without cutting
devoidchess 8 months ago
@devoidchess
I already know this =P
In regards to the earlier post, I was in a hurry to get back to work and didn't watch the typing as much as I should. Should have read 'and can have as razor sharp an edge as any katana. True, it will dull a bit faster.'
That thick edge would be largely unable to slice through leather or even a gambeson. It would still have an effective thrust, but the cut wouldn't work well at all. Samurai went up against plenty of armored targets, fyi.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark I know more about swords in general than you can self-hypnotize and dream of.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
So, why did you think European swords "chop/plowed" their way through flesh and bone. If that were the case there would only be "zwei wunder", not "drei wunder".
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins all swords cut,thrust and slash but some do some of those jobs better than others. As for those wma German and other schools you keep referring to, well they are the result of INDEPENDENT "scholars" making their own interpretations/adaptations. "Historical" is only used conveniently and arbitrarily here.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Those schools base their studies off of manuals written in the Medieval Period (Which is where Liechtenauer's Drei Wunder come from), the study of antique swords and armor, archaeological analysis (Ie; analysis of battlefield mass graves), and other forms of historical analysis.
HEMA in general is an extremely academic, and authoritative source; none of this is 'made up'.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
You should do a quick look for "Fechtbuch" on google. The Wiktenauer has a large number of Medieval and Renaissance fight manuals stored. I'd be pleased if you could explain how Liechtenauer's "Abschneiden" could exist without sharp swords being commonly employed.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I cannot do much more for you. If you do not understand how pointless this video is, you will definitely not understand what I am saying about swords. You sure as hell don't understand that I never said that European swords were always dull. Not that this point holds any direct relevance whatsoever.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Your interpretation of the video is rather pointless; but that's not the objective of the video. When you consider the main thrust of Clements' work, he is not about denegrating the Japanese school of martial arts. He is about attacking myths, which unfortunately there are lots of in regards to Japanese and European swords.
Open your mind, stop being so narrow minded.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Essentially your argument goes; "John Clements is denegrating the Katana. The vast majority of his work is about showing that there is no such thing as a "Best" sword, and katana are definitely equal to European swords and vice versa. Oh, except for this video. Here he's denigrating the katana."
That...makes no sense. He would have to transform into a completely different person.
He is attacking myths. He is not attacking Japanese martial arts.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Additionally, your original argument is that European swords are generally speaking more on the "blunt" side than not. It is not the case that even most European swords were "blunt-ish" as you say, but rather that most European swords are rather sharp; it depends upon the individual sword and what it was designed to do. If it is an anti-armor sword, it is not as likely to be sharp, but these were /thrusting/ swords, not cutting.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The fact is though, that European swords were not designed to "chop/plow"; they, like the katana, were designed to cut using the sharpness of the sword. The katana is simply more oriented towards cutting than European swords.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins this is party true. 1) European swords, being straight, met the target flat on, with more of the edge making contact, thus relying more on their balance and less on their sharpness. 2) The katana met the target with only a few millimeters of the cutting edge making initial contact and with the rest of the CURVED blade, following smoothly through, SLASHING rather than cutting, thus relying more on their sharpness and their narrow, almost non existent bevel.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The surface area argument would only be true if people fought firm, spherical objects. Human bodies are not like this, and once a curved blade cuts into a target /more/ of the cutting edge is meeting the target than the straight edged blade. The initial contact would not matter so much as what happens /after/ the initial contact.
The balance of a European sword is typically focused around the hand; proportionately more than a katana.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins Human bodies are not objects of standard geometrical shapes to begin with, do not twist my argument. Whats more, the funny dude in this video cuts a cone-bamboo, not a human body. Stick to the given facts and do not stretch your points.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
I wasn't twisting your argument; I've seen the claim that curved shorten the cutting edge, but the counter-argument to that is precisely /that/ human bodies are not objects of standard geometrical shapes. The argument only holds true if people were fighting firm, spherical shapes. We do not.
The dude in this cuts a /cylindrical/ bamboo, because he's addressing the myth that cutting bamboo is a miraculous task only capable of katana.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins 1) he is addressing a myth that he sets in his own fixed scenario in order to deliver a pre-designed, yet historically unfounded and over simplified propaganda. But lets not get into that yet again. 2) What you write about human bodies as targets would be true if a sword would cut the human body as a whole, but as I hope you understand, swords cut the torso or/and limbs of bodies which (standalone) bare a resemblance to geometrical shapes.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
1; How is it propaganda? He's simply saying not to be impressed by cutting bamboo. Once again, you're pre-supposing that he has racist objectives and/or is trying to denigrate Japanese martial arts. How is it propaganda if he's addressing people who believe in myths?
2; The point was that the claim only holds true if we're fighting purely spherical, hard objects. We do not. Human bodies are soft, squishy objects. We deform before we get cut.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins 1) your view - my view. Both respected yet different. Let it rest. 2) No. The claim holds true for squishy and deformable objects too, such as straw-tatami and of course, livestock and prisoners.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
A squishy object will deform around the shape of the thing pressing against it, making it so that it does /not/ have less of the cutting area contacting the target. This is doubly so when the cutting edge is cutting through the target itself; then, /more/ of the curved sword will be making contact with the target.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins you are forgeting about HOW the "thing" will come to press against it. "then, /more/ of the curved sword will be making contact with the target." No, more will be running THROUGH A F T E R the initial contact.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The initial contact would have about the same amount of material meeting the cutting edge, as the material would deform around the cutting surface before being cut.
More will be running through after? You're simply rephrasing what I originally said in different words.
The fact is, the extra cutting benefit from curved swords comes from the extra-slicing motion due to the elongated cutting edge.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins yes that is what I initially said, and that is what differentiates a cutting weapon from a slashing and cutting one.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
So it's settled then, straight European swords do not "chop/plow", do not "smash" through fiber/tissue/bone are not "bluntish", but simply do not have the elongated cutting surface. I'm glad we came to some agreement here.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins "some" agreement indeed.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
and before you object about tatami- let me tell you that targets such as these were traditional soaked in water to imitate the density and composition of human limbs.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The dynamic you're describing is incorrect. Both swords rely upon their sharpness to an equal degree.
What the katana has /in addition/ to the sharpness is that the cutting surface is elongated, so it adds an extra slicing component to any cut. It is not that katana 'relied' upon sharpness more; they just had an extra slicing component. There were other medieval European swords with the same exact mechanism like the falchion, messer, or Kriegsmesser.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins So you are comparing the katana against every European sword. Hmmmmm.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
No, I was saying that medieval European knew about the advantages of curved blades as well. It wasn't anything new to them.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins who said anything about what is new or old to Europeans? LOL man...seriously, learn to contain your argumentative reasoning.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Where did I introduce that evidence contrary to your own? I was simply offering the information.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Additionally, European swords also had incredibly narrow edges. Towards the cutting surface a typical European sword is going to be almost leaf-like; far thinner than katana typically will be.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins not always, and not to all swords-warriors-scenarios. This is NOT the katana vs ALL the European weapons ever invented, although it seems this is what some people aim at.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
I'm simply using the terms you were using originally. Your original claim was; "European swords were not meant to be razor sharp...Those swords chopped/plowed their way through flesh, bone and tissue, rather than slashing/cutting."
YOU said "European swords" originally; if you want to isolate your claims more, be my guest, but I wasn't about to assume which European sword you were referring to.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I am sure that you are able to understand, that it was this Europe vs Japan argument that this retarded video introduces, that dragged/forced me into generalizations. The fact though still remains that European swords have a great variety from pointy and thin to flat and blunt, to sharp etc. The guy here, conveniently uses a "bastard sword", which by default is a weapon of much controversy and questionable origins.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
So, don't try and correct me on comparing "every european sword" against the katana when you yourself are the one who started to speak in generalities.
The sword is not of much controversy and questionable origins. The term is, a little bit, but it's a fine, acceptable term to use for Longsword-type swords.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins yes I will try to correct you and everyone else who bulks up every European weapon and launches unfounded and convenient comparisons. Also, yeaaah.... "Longsword-type swords" - I rest my case.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Bulk up every European weapon? Where have i ever done that? All I've said is that European swords are just as effective and sophisticated as Japanese swords. Unless you're trying to say we don't have the right to say our swords are just as good as swords from Japan.
Longsword-type swords? How do you rest your case? A longsword is a specific type of two handed sword.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins 1) No, a long sword in not specific to anything. It the the most widely used and broad term in the semantics of swordsmanship. Longswords vary GREATLY. 2)"our swords"? That is the problem with us Europeans. We live under the crude misconception that we have an absolutely unified and common culture.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
1; A longsword is a specific /type/ of two handed sword. This is a category of reference, like there are "types" of animals, with variation within.
2; When did I say we have an absolutely unified and common culture? I said that we Europeans have a shared tool-set in the medieval period; we do. The differences in swords from Germany to Spain, and from England to Italy, especially in the Medieval Period, are mostly cosmetic differences or regional sword-types.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
To demonstrate what I mean by the Longsword being a specific /type/ of two handed sword, look at the following terms.
"Working Dog"
"Herding Dog"
These two terms refer to a specific /type/ of dog; ones which do a variety of work-type activities, such as guarding property or livestock, or pulling carts. The other which is primarily tasked with herding-type activities.
However, within each category there is a lot of variation, though not so much that the term becomes meaningless.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I never said it was meaningless, I said it was vague.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
I don't find it vague, but that could just be with my familiarity with the term. It's broad, but I have a good grasp as to where the type begins and ends. It's only as vague as "herding dog" or "working dog". Completely usable.
If we want to get specific, there's always the Oakeshott typology.
But then, not many people would know what I mean if I were to say;
"Oakeshott type XVIa, with a type 2 guard, and a type J pommel."
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins Given the variety of European swords and the length of the centuries in which they were created it is a vague term to use in most Academic contexts. The Oakeshott typology covers blades from nearly a dozen centuries, with HUGE differences among them. Just saying : "a Bastard sword" - or "a long sword" is just too broad, especially when comparing/describing technique. The dog analogy does not deliver the complexity.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The Oakeshott Typology only covers about five centuries; not nearly a dozen. You're confusing the Petersen typology which describes swords from roughly the 6th century up to the 11th century with the Oakeshott Typology which describes swords from roughly the 11th century to the 16th century.
The term "longsword" is broad, but not vague. The Oakeshott Typology is perfect for getting down to the specifics. If you don't want to get specific, the term "Longsword" is fine.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins but as I said, this is not really a point to linger on since "Katana" is a broad term also. There is a huge variety of Japanese longswords as well.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
For example, when i say "Longsword" people who know what the term longsword is will already get a good grasp as to what I'm talking about. A European sword, designed to be used in two hands but capable of being wielded one handed, with two parallel cutting edges, ranging from 36 to 50 inches long. The largest differences afterwards will be whether the blade is cutting oriented or thrusting oriented, with a heavy blade or a light blade.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins I am not confusing anything. The Oakenshott typology is incomplete and made only for approximating the time a blade was made. It starts with viking blades and that right there, covers an era of 3 hundred years, and ends at the late 15 hundreds - mid 16. As for the "longsword-bastard sword", I think that we can agree to disagree on the semantics under which it is used.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The Oakeshott Typology actually says nothing about /when/ a sword was made. It is precisely designed to /describe/ the /form/ of swords. From the /form/ we can infer a /rough/ chronology, but it is not made to approximate the time when a blade was made.
The Oakeshott Typology starts with the sword called Oakeshott Type X; which is a sword form which appears around the 11th century. Oakeshott's typology basically says nothing about swords before, say, the 9th or 10th centuries.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
The Oakeshott Typology ends in the early years of the 1500s, not the 1600s.
The Petersen Typology covers the Viking period; the Oakeshott Typology only briefly touches on the final years of the Viking period at most.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins due to a SUPERIOR method for balancing a blade, even european swords as long as a claymore has better balance than the average katana... in fact, though overall heavier than a bastard sword, the balance of a claymore allows one handed techniques to be used as well... much better than japans idea of packing a HEAVY cast iron guard between the grip and blade, europes idea of using leverage was so much better, making bigger, more powerful swords that are easier to handle
megadeth22885 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins but to be entirely fair, the term "katana" is vague too.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@WitheringintheDark only reason theyll dull faster is from hitting shields and armor, as far as metalurgy goes, japan has always had access to only inferior steels, the reason they had to fold the metal.. essentially "polishing a turd"... vikings folded their steel too when faced with poor metalurgy, but during the later medieval period when bastard swords were being used the steel was a hell of a lot better, and folding would only weaken it
megadeth22885 6 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
1; Actually lots of people say exactly that.
2; How is it bereft of logic and historical accuracy? His only claim was that cutting through bamboo is not an impressive act; you can even do it with a blunt sword. He did just that. How is it bereft of logic and historical accuracy?
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins And since you indeed need some insight, here it is. I am a collector of swords in general. Both European and Japanese. I love them all. European swords were not meant to be razor sharp. They were meant to be blunt-ish since their battlefield use and their shape, rendered ultra sharpness useless. Those swords chopped/plowed their way through flesh, bone and tissue, rather than slashing/cutting.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Actually, your claim here shows that you don't know that much about European swords at least.
European swords come in a wide variety of sharpnesses; some are extremely sharp, others are not as sharp. Some, like the Estoc and rapier, are relatively bluntish in comparison to more cutting oriented swords which typically have high sharpness.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
European swords did not "chop/plow" their way through flesh; in fact, many techniques in the school of Historical Swordsmanship /require/ a high degree of sharpness in order to work. For example, one of Meister Liechtenauer's "Drei wunders" is "Abschneiden", which is a technique which sets the blade against an opponent and then has the swordsman push or pull the blade, using the sharpness to cut past the wool and linen clothing and into the opponent's flesh.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins "the school of Historical Swordsmanship"
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
...?
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@WitheringintheDark 3)I have nothing to prove apart from facts, which is something rather necessary it seems, when people like these run around making videos. 4)Western Martial Arts? Something invented and systematized 20 years before in order to lead an autonomous existence or to battle EMA like the 'guy' displays here with his meaningless performance and hooligan mannerisms? {racist "cough"}
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog 4; "Western Martial Arts" has a rich history going back over two thousand years. It's just the Clements is a part of one branch (Others being boxing, classical fencing, Catch-Wrestling, and Greco-Roman wrestling) which is using medieval manuals to reconstruct a martial art that is centuries old.
It is not designed to "battle" EMA; it's about rediscovering a lost part of European heritage. In fact, HEMA guys fight old Western Academics more often than EMA.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins they way this person behaves and carries himself in this video(and surely in others too) proves otherwise.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Here are the words of the same guy from this video in regards to European and japanese swords;
"Each evolved to answer specific challenges in their own particular martial environments. Each was tested and improved upon over time through the unforgiving trial of war and duel. Each proved itself in expert hands."
"In the end, perhaps the firmest conclusion that can be reached is that, historically, both the longsword and the katana served its intended purpose with equal success."
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins well, his words and his actions/conduct indicate different things.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
No they don't, because you chose to become offended by something that's not even addressing Japanese martial arts as a whole.
This video is intended to address people who have very ignorant viewpoints of swords and swordsmanship, and in particular those who think cutting through bamboo is some miraculous task.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins ignorant viewpoints... Such a relative affliction isn't it?
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
Someone who declares cutting through bamboo to be a miraculous task only capable of super sharp katana has an ignorant viewpoint.
Contrary to modern pop-culture, many things can clearly be labeled as ignorant; these are statements which are based around fact-type observations; things which can be verified as true or false. In a case where someone believes something to be true, when it is actually false, they are ignorant.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@WitheringintheDark 4) watch?v=fFQ4aanmupU
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
"unable (mainly due to weight and shape) to maintain an edge"
You show quite clearly here that you don't have a clue about blade geometry, sword hardness, metallurgy and the effects they have on the properties of swords.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark And a last note. If people choose to like the aesthetics of the katana or of any other oriental weapon more than the European ones, it is their right and privilege to do so and there aint nothing anyone can do about it. Engaging into faulty proofing methods to make an invalid (to start with) point, only proves one thing. Inferiority - Superiority complex.
GhostXDog 8 months ago
@GhostXDog
"Inferiority - Superiority complex"
Repeated broken-record re-assertions that someone else is a racist is typical of racists themselves(akin to adulterers in this) If anything you have shown that you yourself have some sort of complex, as evidenced by running in here calling the man a beer drunk 'hooligan', shouting 'racism' left and right, personal attacks on him and others.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark the "right back atcha - mirror - you are what you call other people " 2nd grade argument? please...
Do you see any Japanese masters or even anyone practicing Japanese martial arts making comparison videos and behaving like apes trying to prove how the arts and weapons they use are vastly superior to the European ones? No. Then shut up and think again.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
No one in HEMA is trying to prove that European swords are vastly superior to Asian swords.
The Japanese martial artists benefit from a cultural presupposition that their martial arts are superior to those of the West. HEMA /has/ to make comparisons in order to make headway; these comparisons always wind up with the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "best" sword. Because there is a cultural pre-supposition that their martial arts are inferior.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
No one is arguing against liking the aesthetics of one sword over another; you're in fact the first person in several years to even use the word "Aesthetic" in this discussion.
You're addressing something completely irrelevent.
HereTheArtBegins 8 months ago
@HereTheArtBegins not really. It is completely relevant. It is what people obsessed with comparisons and conflict (like the guy in this vid) forget. All swords are made to deliver a purpose. Kill. Therefore they are different. Whoever uses whatever sword is a matter of military tradition and preference.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog
You're missing the point of this video. The point of the video is to address people who think that cutting through bamboo is some incredibly difficult task that only super-razor sharp swords can do, and/or that only katana can cut through bamboo.
Clements does not miss the point of swords at all. In fact, the ultimate purpose of swords is often stated to directly be killing by Clements himself.
HereTheArtBegins 6 months ago
@GhostXDog fact is.. its not the aesthetics, katana actually is not as good of a cutter as a bastard sword, they weight the same, bastard sword being much larger, and the point of balance is much closer to the grip on the bastard sword because it uses leverage to counterbalance the weight of the blade... the idiots that make katanas just put a heavy chunk of cast iron between the grip and blade which doesnt do nearly enough for balance, just makes it heavier
megadeth22885 8 months ago
@megadeth22885 this is just your uneducated opinion.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
@GhostXDog in fact... i can hold a scottish claymore, and swing it with one hand without much difficulty because of the fact that it uses leverage than a heavy as hell weight to counterbalance it.. people think two handed european swords are slow and clumsy, but theyll swing faster than a katana with greater ease, a hell of a lot more reach, and even a moderate length bastard sword will slice a steel helmet in half (proven at the battle of visby in 1361, gotland, sweden)
megadeth22885 8 months ago
@megadeth22885 circumstantial.
GhostXDog 6 months ago
why have one edge when you can have two for the same price?
why have no crossguard when you can have one for 20 Silver more?
and why have a handle without a pommel when you can have a handle with a "smashing" brand new pommel for the astonishing price of 120 Silver!
darkfiete 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkfiete "why have one edge when you can have two for the same price?"
Actually, it's simpler to make one edge and simpler to learn to wield.
Also, it gives a certain advantage in cutting ...at the expense of versatility.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
My god there is so much idiocracy in this comment section it makes my head hurt. Swords are swords. All types of swords have their pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. Comparing a Katana to a Bastard sword is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
Yes Katana fanboys and worshippers annoy me as much as the next guy, but you people who bash the Katana and worship European swords are no better.
MastaDamascus 9 months ago
@MastaDamascus "but you people who bash the Katana and worship European swords are no better."
There are people who do that?
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen Yeah bro. What, you thought it was one-sided? Nope, I've seen people making comments like "fuck katana!" and the like on many Euro sword videos.
MastaDamascus 8 months ago
@MastaDamascus That's sad...
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
Weaboos are asshurt at how their precious kawaii uguu~ sword gets it's ass handed to it.
FortressManagment 9 months ago
now show how bent the sword is after that
FatGuyWithAKatana 9 months ago
Too bad a samurai would see that extremely heavy and slow strike coming and cut down the wielder before the lumbering oaf knew what dismembered him. The Katana is light weight and still cuts cleaner, faster, and more efficiently than the bigger heavier two handed swords. European swords weigh about 3-4.5 pounds where Katanas are 2.5 pounds. A better cut at nearly half the weight and twice the speed. Oh and if you have a video of a European sword cutting chain mail enlighten me.
XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX To be fair, a knight would win in a fight because of that shield of his, his intense training, the use of thrown weapons and the use of shield bashing. They had good footwork with a sword and a shield, and as an added note, the katana can cut through plate armor, which does mean a lot, but both are over rated IMO. Neither culture used JUST a Katana/Hand and a half sword, as they had weapons for different situations and different battlefields.
Caldera510 9 months ago
@Caldera510 "the katana can cut through plate armor"
No sword ever made, could cut through plate armour.
That is pure and utter nonsense.
"Neither culture used JUST a Katana/Hand and a half sword, as they had weapons for different situations and different battlefields."
Indeed. No culture ever used swords as their main weapon on the battlefield.
That was spears and bows.
Swords were used when you got in close, and not always then either.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen A suit of plate armor wasn't a suit of invulnerability. It wasn't weak, but it wasn't a suit of invulnerability and I'd imagine it would be tough as nails to cut through but it was done plenty of times. It is not an inch thick suit of 120 lb. :P.
Caldera510 8 months ago
@Caldera510 Plate armour was certainly not invulnerable, but they were/are incapable of being cut.
Swords were hardly the best weapon against plate armour (a mace or warhammer would be ideal), but they could be used against it, sure.
Just not using cuts.
You would use thrusts, preferably at the more vulnerable parts, using half-swording techniques (i.e. you hold the sword with one hand on the hilt and one on the blade, for greater accuracy and force in the thrust).
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@Caldera510
No it's not a 1" thick 120 lb suit. More like 3-4mm of steel encasing the body, weighing as little as 40 lbs. Quality suits were proof vs flintlocks, war bows, swords, lances... the list goes on. Blunt force trauma still kills, but that shit was Tough. Really only heavy 2-h weapons could do much to it. Or stab them through the eyeslits or something. Remember, this was high carbon steel not sheet metal or aluminum.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen Whoops! Typo'd! *1 inch thick suit of 120 lb. Metal.
Caldera510 8 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX how bout no.
Samurai actually didnt even prefer to fight in close combat, they used bows or a different weapon more then they used the katana.
Katana were literally just a symbol of status. That, and the metal they used to make a katana was brittle and delicate.
Japanese armies were pathetic way back when. Their idea of an army was one that could cut down a peasant in a single slice.
Cheesenstuph 9 months ago
@Cheesenstuph If you believe Katanas were brittle you truly are a waste of my time. But I'll go ahead and enlighten you for shits and giggles. The way japanese katanas were forged was by folding metal. A harder metal, with a softer metal. The harder metal made the outside edge which produced a very sharp cutting edge, while the inner consisted of a softer metal which absorbed impacts which helped the out edge chip less. I beleive the katanas you're talking about are the cheap "made in india"kind
XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX
Then why didnt the samurai use them?
Why did they prefer bows or other weapons over katanas?
Please, enlighten me, dipshit.
Cheesenstuph 9 months ago
@Cheesenstuph When you post a link to a source that states the Samurai preferred to use damn near anything but their magnificent slashing weapon i'll go ahead and take what you have to say into account. And I don't mean a wiki link you added :] oh and try to relax lil guy. It's just a discussion.
XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX The Samurai: a miiltary history - by Stephen R Turnbull covers samurai weaponry page 20 onwards, and that the sword was one among many weapons. Bows, spears were the major weapons in medieval Japan - and nearly everywhere else, being able to kill your opponent before he is close enough to kill you is a major advantage. No godlike sword will help if you're shot dead before you get close enough to use it.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX Another thing is the O-yoroi armour or great armour is too boxy for easy swordsmanship and heavier than Western armour, it was designed for mounted archery mainly.
Samurai warfare was far more than just having a magic sword and magic speed and magic powers, there was a whole range of tactical changes throughout the samurai period. I *think* (heard from someone else who seems to know more than me) samurai used integrated pike and bow formations after the Mongol invasion.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 1 - folded steel, while effective at making good swords, was nothing new to Europe when the Japanese picked it up. Celts had been using laminated steel for 1600 years before Japan.
2 - European knights were not lumbering oafs, the myth of super-fast samurai and turtle-like knights is based only on Hollywood.
Only the European war swords (hand and a half sword) weigh that much, and have longer reach for it, arming swords would be 2-3 lbs.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish 1- Proof?
XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX ^ Source changed, I can't find the one saying 700 BC anymore (first recorded instance of pattern welding), but I found Ian G. Peirce, Ewart Oakeshott. Swords of the Viking Age saying pattern-welded swords were common by 2nd-3rd century AD. Also Jstore .jstor.org/pss/1505063. Also srg.northwestern.edu /Publications Librar y/Journals/2000_ DesigningNewMaterial World_Science_small pdf refers to pattern welded swords 500 AD. Different parts of Europe found it different times.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish Patter welding ceases before the year 1000, IIRC, which is just slightly after the japanese imported it's use from China, where they had used the method of for a long time.
The idea of using different metals for different parts (which was also used in Europe) was used in China as early as the bronze age.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX I know the dates vary, but all at least 400 years before Japan was using it.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX "The harder metal made the outside edge which produced a very sharp cutting edge"
...and thus was brittle, even taking into account the soft spine.
In Europe, they had developed better ways of smelting steel, by the early Viking Age, so they didn't bother with all the folding and using different steels for different areas (which they had used before).
Those are methods used to get the most out of bad metal.
With good metal, it would only decrease the quality.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX "European swords weigh about 3-4.5 pounds"
A single hander would be about 2 pounds, and a longsword would be 2-4 pounds (usually around 3)
"where Katanas are 2.5 pounds"
"twice the speed"
Heck no. They're about the same, in terms of agility.
No, they're pretty much the same weight as a European longsword ...despite being quite shorter.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@XGaaraXLovesXTechnoX
"Oh and if you have a video of a European sword cutting chain mail enlighten me. " I wish I could. I've seen tons of attempts, none managed to do so. Thrusts were also nearly completely ineffective against good mail. On the other hand, a katana couldn't do it either, so. And actually, European arming swords were about the same length as katana, and weighed about 2.5lbs, same as a katana. Even the longsword, with 8 inches more length, only weighed about 3lbs.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
I believe European weapon designs were informed by the fact that chain mail was a standard armament since around 1000 AD,
and likewise plate did not make things any easier for the sword in general.
Certainly the thrust is superior to the slash on any battlefield in which contemporary foot soldiers would be wearing something that defeats a common slashing weapon,
and the hilts to large swords took on a secondary function in the half sword vs plate.
Certainly not inferior in any case.
Redfingers 10 months ago
@Redfingers "I believe European weapon designs were informed by the fact that chain mail was a standard armament since around 1000 AD,"
...and the Japanese had no armour?
Also, most swords in Europe were made for cutting, until plate armour became more common.
So all through the Dark Ages, Viking Age and early Middle Ages (when they used maille), they had swords made primarily for cutting, often with fairly round tips.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
In any case, certainly the design of a thrusting weapon with a hilt capable of being used in the half sword technique would be more useful than a weapon designed primarily for slashing in an environment in which a common foot soldier would be wearing at least chain mail.
From what I understand, the Japanese more commonly used the Yari or the bow over the katana anyway, both of which rely on thrust and penetration rather than slashing techniques.
Redfingers 8 months ago
@Redfingers The cutting swords of the Dark Ages, Viking Age and early Middle Ages were all made with the fact that many would wear maille, in mind.
Throughout those periods, they made sword that were primarily meant for cutting, not thrusting (though they were capable of that too).
This was not because they couldn't make thrusting swords.
"the Japanese more commonly used the Yari or the bow over the katana anyway"
As did the Europeans ...and everyone else.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
"As did the Europeans ...and everyone else."
I think there is one exception that proves the rule. Roman legions. But I think that's the only army that prefered swords rather than spears.
gurkfisk89 8 months ago
lol a katana can do that effortlessly, you dont need to wind up like derek jeter then swing and basically almost scrape the ceiling to cut. not to mention how clean is the cut you didnt bother to show it. is a katana better than a european sword? i cant say ive never used a euro sword but does it matter? no? u cant kill anyone anymore with a sword and in war if you carried a sword instead of a gun youd prolly kill ur enemy from laughter.
Karmitsu072 10 months ago
@Karmitsu072
If he had used a sharp sword he wouldn't need that much force. But by showing that you /can/ cut bamboo with a blunted sword, he shows that it's not a big deal if you manage to cut bamboo with a sharp one.
You see in some documentaries a man cutting bamboo and a narrator saying "look at this sword, it's sharp enough to even cut bamboo". And i think you can agree that after seeing this video that kind of statement is a bit stupid.
gurkfisk89 10 months ago
@Karmitsu072 "lol a katana can do that effortlessly"
Can a BLUNT katana do that effortlessly?
This video was made to show how sharp a sword needs to be, to cut bamboo and nothing else.
The guy in the video is a dick, but he's making a valid point in this clip.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
i dont know ive never had a blunt katana lol, the wind up and the distance he covered and the force he put in, if it didnt cut then something is wrong lol
Karmitsu072 8 months ago
@Karmitsu072 Exactly.
A european longsword can cut through bamboo or tatami (or an animal carcass) with the same ease as a katana, or pretty much any other sword.
This sword was blunt, just to shut up people who claim that the katana being able to cut bamboo or tatami, is a sign of how incredibly sharp it is and that no other sword could do the same.
...and yes there are people out there who make such claims and hold such positions.
A lot of them.
Some even claiming to be experts on swords.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen
lmao! cut through solid building grade concrete with a katana, and i'll be impressed, actually with any sword and i'll be impressed
Karmitsu072 8 months ago
Screw katanas, Bruce Lee fought with a Jian. Chinese people don't use Japanese weapons (although the katana DID originate from China, and not Japan).
ZomBLord 11 months ago
katanas are ironically some of the junkiest, most primitive weapons in the world, from a country with (then) notoriously low quality metals and crude clumsy armor.
its funny how movies and cartoons can totally turn history upside down (at least in the eyes of teenagers). Nobody cares about the amazing arms and armor of say, Byzantium and Persia, but every 15 year old owns a katana and thinks it can cut down redwoods.
Novantii 1 year ago
39 katana plonkers are insecure about their faith in 'the best weapon EVAR'. *rolls eyes at the remark in quotations*
KintarosTiger 1 year ago
@KintarosTiger Also. Katana are probably only 'better' at cutting because they are 'backswords', AKA they are swords with more weight in the back of the blade which adds more weight and thus more cutting power. However, I had heard one good strike to the edge of a katana will ruin the blade.
If that's the case, it's why people go to battle nowadays wearing steel trauma plates rather than ceramics ones; though ceramics can stop stronger calibur bullets, they shatter easily when hit. Steel is
KintarosTiger 1 year ago
@KintarosTiger ...more durable. No matter what way you slice it though, it's skill that wins the day, as well as possibly how armed (i.e. better quality weapons and more of them) and surely how armored a person is, with honorable mentions going to weapon range (just my opinion with range).
Personally, fuck the katana AND the longsword; the rapier or the basket-hilt broadsword are the blades for me.
KintarosTiger 1 year ago
Katana, sabers and curved single-edged blades in general were much slower than single-handed or even bastard European swords because the balance point on the double edged sword is much closer to the hilt, due to the fact that its blade profile tapers so much more and that the hilt was generally a lot heavier. Not to say that one type of sword is superior though, they all had their design features and preferred functions.
TempestDust 1 year ago
katana is the most overrated sword in history.
avatarion 1 year ago 19
@avatarion thats not a katana
diablohorer 8 months ago
@avatarion REALLY? how about a closeup of the cut.it would show fractured cellulose-same as any sword style of the same level of bluntness.
I can cut cardboard with a standard plastic ruler but I would rather use a knife and even better a sharp knife.
Anyone that can cut properly could do the same as this video with most styles of sword(cutting sword that is) but this guy seams to have a barrow to push.
Katana were made to a higher standard than most other types of the same era
devoidchess 8 months ago
Love those guys who still claim longsword is heavy and slow...
Clements performed an excellent "Zornhau" in the video above, very clean footwork and body control. The speed and force of this strike, without using "brute strength" is self-evident, as well as this clean cut even with a blunt weapon. Finesse killz brute force ;)
Cutting bamboo is NOT EASY. A brutal crude strike without finesse would just shatter, even with a sharp blade.
That's the purpose of the video - proper cutting technique.
Protherium 1 year ago
if katana were oh so awesome you would expect them to show its cutting strength on a piece of metal. but no, they always cut a fucking bamboo. pathetic.
Del249 1 year ago 2
*laugh* this is such a stupid video
foroparapente 1 year ago
@foroparapente Why? Because it makes fun of the katana?
dontcommentmehoe 1 year ago
@dontcommentmehoe Does it? Why would you need to make fun of a sword? Envy? Patriotism? Nationalism?
I think it just speaks very poorly on the author, the culture and of everyone who backs this kind of stupidity. That is actually funny.
foroparapente 1 year ago