Samurai sword documentary

A documentary about the samurai sword from discovery channel.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• samurai
• sword
• katana

[RWBn00b]

Wow. This documentary is just so off.

Can cut through Iron plate- They show us it cutting bamboo.

It's the ultimate!- Hell no. The Claymore crushed it in damage done. It lacked range, and finally, Claymores weighed only 1 pound more. And the claymore is beaten by other swords in other areas.

Capable of cutting through other blades- not european blades they ain't. Ever seen mythbusters? A katana gets damaged while the european sword suffers almost nothing at all.

Lol, biased "experts"

[darkus13]

both japanese swords and european swords have their pros and cons, japanese swords are made from a poor quality ore that is transformed by the smiths into good quality steel. European weapons have the advantage of being massive, they could cut down a small tree, but not a pillow, japanese swords have the advantage of being flexible and sharp so they could cut a pillow but not a tree.

[E2F83]

The Jews weild the greatest weapon, the Federal Reserve and the World Bank with the ability to print money and enlave all hahaha :D

[SuperNinja2000]

oh yeah thats right everyone on youtube is an expert i forgot the real experts know nothing silly me.

[walatalalaw]

@RWBn00b They were all very common, and people in those times didn't go for weapons that weren't reliable. If there truly was one weapon that was significantly better than the others, everybody would have adopted it. And besides, most fights ended on the ground, hands free or with knives, as much in europe (where we created elaborate wrestling and takedowns) as in japan (famous for ju jitsu).

[walatalalaw]

@RWBn00b It's stupid and futile to compare two swords who have nothing in common. A european double edged sword isn't made to be used in the same way as a katana or a scimitar. A scimitar isn't made to be used in the same way as a katana, even though both are curved. They're all weapons, but it's like comparing an axe, a spear and a knife. They've got almost nothing in common. The strength of a weapon comes from the user, so none is effectively better than the other.

[Protherium]

@elgostine

I've read Turnbulls "The Samurai Sourcebook" and his "Book of the Medieval Knight", he seems to know historical data about Europe pretty well. Sadly, it does not apply to his knowledge of arms. All he knows is about japanese swords and armor, and he unfortunately fell into the trap of comparing european swords with japanese ones in his "Sourcebook", swords he doesnt know a thing about. That's how he ended up repeating outdated Victorian era stereotypes.

[IMNOTCRAZY1]

@anigopa Tensile strength has nothing to do with getting cut. That has to do with hardness.

[anigopal]

@RWBn00b

Bamboo has greater tensile strength (or resistance to being pulled apart) than steel

(look up 'stronger than steel newsweek' on google - I can't post the url for some reason)

[anigopal]

Bamboo has greater tensile strength (or resistance to being pulled apart) than steel

[misterkami2]

.. such a limited view to european sword fighting technique.. 0.o

[RWBn00b]

@RWBn00b

Heck, even CROSSBOWS had trouble with armor. European plate armor was nuts.

[RWBn00b]

@darkus13

All swords have pros and cons:

Long, straight, doubleedged: Great for range and impaling(which was far more deadly than slashing). Hand guard was great for locking your opponents weapon, while you punched his nose in.

Curved(scimitar): Made far deeper gashes as the sword would curve into the wound. As a cutting sword, very scary.

Katana: Straighter than the scimitar, but more suited for impalement. It was a sword that was good at both, worse than each in specifics.

[RWBn00b]

@darkus13

You'd need an axe to cut through a small tree, and you certainly wouldn't do so in one blow. (unless it was a twiglike tree.)

European swords didn't even have the weight to seriously injure a man wearing 2 mm thick armor plates. And neither did the katana have edge to do that.