>>28677067 In which field? The field of cutting? The katana is better because geometrically it's a higher balance point and more forward weight design, along with having a thicker body, and edge in a harder state which resists change more easily.
well first of all a katana doesnt weigh as much as jonah hill, and second a katana is much sharper and will cut you harder. the only advantage of a broadsword is that you look like a knight which is cool
>>28677085 Depends on the period. While that's true pre-Sengoku Jidai, it's not really the case during, and afterward under the Shogunate a samurai would typically carry only swords and not wear any armor because his weapons were for personal dueling and a badge of status.
>>28677151 And? None of that has anything to do with what samurai considered as upper or lower class in terms of weaponry. The samurai was the warrior caste, saying samurai consider swordsmen as the worst class of warrior doesn't really mean anything, most carried katana with them as a secondary and when not in combat.
>>28677174 Yes it does,faggot. The amount of training required for a sword user to be on par with a spear man is so fucking long that itf you pride yourself as a master swordsman, you also pride yourself as a bad archer and a bad spearman
>>28677190 You don't carry a sword into battle as a primary weapon you idiot. Nobody did in either Europe or Asia apart from later, exceptionally large swords that basically were polearms in their own right. Rather, you carry a sword as a sidearm in case your primary weapon is lost, damaged, or becomes less useful in the situation you're in. Weapons aren't an all or nothing thing. You train in multiple weapons.
>>28677201 >>28677214 I was talking about the professionality in the martial art. Kendo existed together with the Samurai but no sane man actually took it seriously when you have the Naginata and Yumi to overpower any swordsman
Kendo only started gaining popularity because of the japanese media who has no idea of their own history
just because you carry a weapon and know how to use it doesn't mean that you are "good" at it
>>28677225 You know there are plenty of situations when you don't have a spear, right? Walking around the streets, inside a house, on a battlefield where your spear has been lost and there's no way to recover one. That's when your sidearm is most important, and you can be damn sure they trained with those situations in mind.
>>28677245 What? Do you honestly think that the Japs have never realized how bad their pig-irons are? Most houses in Japan are large, well-spaced, and armed with spears. In fact, it became a necessity for women to learn how to use spears and knives in order to protect their home while the men are away.
They never touch the Katana because they know taht it is impractical as hell
>>28677265 Okay, you don't know how steel is made. The rest of this is pointless if you still think that the steel used in Japanese arms and armor was pig iron by the time it was in a finished and usable form.
Not only is the steel ore of Japan known to be up to 150% more pure than other types of steel (thanks to iron sand deposits within the ore), but master nihontō swordsmiths were renowned for folding the steel literally thousands of time to further strengthen and increase the magnetic properties of the blade.
If you compare this to European swords, where the sword was often a simple cast which is later sharpened (if you can call it that), you will see that the true swordsman will choose a nihontō every time.
>>28677279 Fuck you. I said that no one took it seriously
>>28677282 Yeah, at the date where armed civilians became illegal and only Katana police guards civil order. It was the peak of the Katana but still, at the end, no one took Kendo seriously Gee, I wonder why
>>28677285 You know that you skipped the part that women are trained in spearmanship, right?
Fuck this. I'm going off. My papers are calling See you cunts later or whatever
>>28677067 I like the katana for its handle. While I do feel it's a little more complex in its construction than is necessary, it's a large and fairly grippy handle that makes the sword rather versatile.
That said, my ideal sword is a zweihander or a grosse messer. Broadswords are only good with another or a shield.
>>28677388 >more made up shit Kenjutsu is a blanket term for all the schools of swordsmanship, there's a ton of different brands. It lives on today just as any of the old European arts that are broken up by schools and doctrines.
>>28677376 >>28677376 >was rarely used in battle aside from cavalry. But cavalry was quite a big part of early japanese warfare. In the 14th century, there was a certain fall of the odachi, consecutive to the mongol invasions, but not so before. Besides most styles of fighting of the Sengoku Jidai included the use of the japanese sword, simply because the samurai was both a generalist and a specialist. You could be particularly skilled with one weapon, but you had to be able to use any typical one, so sword, spear, glaive, bow, staff, shuriken, etc.
Anyway, the short katana ain't that bad in close quarter, you can use it both one handed for grappling and two handed for keeping the other at bay, something you can't exactly do with a kodachi / wakizashi.
>>28677388 Oh Really ? Well how come there was dozens of kenjutsu schools then ? Schools that spanned for centuries some even until now ? How come the tokugawa shogun personnaly appointed two kenjutsu masters (of Itto-ryu and Yagyu Shinkage-ryu) for his personnal training then ?
>>28677415 >Sure, and can you tell me a single school that managed to have a position in the military? In which military? What era? You mean modern? What fucking sword school is relevant with modern militaries? You even on about?
>>28677419 I know, that doesn't mean anything though, I blew apart your stupid post and you just said HUUUUR KENJUTSU IS A SWORD ART. What?
>>28677431 No shit, you're moving the goalposts, we were talking about when they were relevant you moron. Yikes I get it, you got nerd wrecked and are damage controlling the discussion on a circle, relax you're anonymous lol, no one cares you're an idiot but you.
>>28677415 >that martial art never really prospered due to obvious reasons You were the one to say this, which is complete bullshit since, well it did prospered in the 15th century up until the 18th century, like... when swords were actually used !
Both the Itto-ryu and the Shinkage-ryu were appointed for training the Shogun court and the officers, so it did "managed to have a position in the military", then again... when swordfighting was a thing.
>>28677461 >single official >the shogun They were appointed to train the entire court, do you thing that back then swordfighting was a hobby ? Besides, basic soldiers weren't trained by master swordsmen, just like in Europe for that matter.
This logic is faulty, and you should have an idea why. You're now putting eveyrthing into frame of being "practical" while ignoring the stratification of society back then. It would be the same with the old Europe - Why would anyone get a sword, obviously if a knife tied to a pole is a better idea?
The warrior caste have other priorities in their lifes, they organise them in a different way, they are treated differently. We cannot compare them to some footsoldiers or peasants because they are not.
The period of tachi/uchigatana usage is not an inherently japanese thing - it's a general manifestation of idea behind a warrior and his sword, which appeared in many cultures. We can argue about it's usage in certain condititons and we all know why it wasn't really a primarly weapon. But calling it useless and impractical is still an err.
Here, have this sword and simply enjoy it. There is no need to be agressive towards each other here.
>>28677500 Well, you can always "compare" two stuff, the nihonto has one edge, the arming sword two, guards are differents because blablabla, comparing two things is easy, determining what's better is not. But anyway... orange masterrace, sorry appleboos.
>>28677513 Why wouldn't they ? We have many accounts of them doing so, losing their lives in the process. Do you think nobles back in Europe never went in combat either ?
I mean, at least try to throw in some good jokes, otherwise it's just boring to read one uninformed person. You make it sound like it's "common knowledge", in fact all you say is "stupid knowledge", if you could call it something worth it. Having an opinion doesn't mean you can't spout complete nonsense.
>But how can you say that a martial art is actually useful when the only ones who adored it are the ones who never face any combat in their life?
Which isn't really true in all situations, is it? While it is true that after tokugawa shogunate we have a period of relative and long peace in japan and it's the thing you are talking about - the samurai are training swordmanship and romanticizing it themselves while not really testing their abilities in combat on daily basis - it's not that we don't have any swordmanship before that.
>No weapon is truly useless nor perfect. But we all know what weapon is most preferred during times of war. Sword is not one of them.
But it still plays an important role. Not only as a weapon of second/third (or even last) resort but as an embodient of the role of the warrior. Oldest swords are around 5300-5000 years old and while it is still speculated how important role they played in the beggining and if they were just ceremonial items at best, it is fact that once they appeared they existed and played their role for a long time.
You're not wrong anon, it is simply that your perspective is a bit warped.
>>28677534 >Why wouldn't they ? Because war is less about combat and more about economics, politics, and other paperworks. The purpose of the nobles is to take care of the paperworks and order soldiers around.
The nobles in both east and west does nothing in terms of combat and instead focuses their entire life commanding people behind.
Just find me records that your teachers was recognized by the common footsoldiers and be done with it.
Personally I would love to own one. I do not know hoever that much about them or their making process in the first place.
The handle is rather unique, I don't know of other style that is so similiar, but that may be only my lack of knowledge. I think that Sudanese Kaskaras are somehow their closest relatives, but they still are made in more "european" fashion. There are even known instances of Kaskaras made with original baldes acquired during crusades and later.
Here we have more traditional Kaskara - not the lack of single fuller but multiple grooves - the same thing we can see in the in Tuareg swords. Still - the handle is rather different and the blade is rather straght and even compared to Takouba. But.
>>28677582 Do you even have the basic gist of the how the political landscape works? This shit can be seen even in today's military. The highest ranking soldiers stay in the most fortified fortresses and just give out orders.
>>28677558 The nobles still participated in direct combat, just look at the hundred years war, nobles were taken prisoners and all precisely because they went into direct combat. And why, because they were the one with enough money to buy a substantial equipment. Not all nobles were fuck rich, many low-status nobles were common soldiers. You are warped in your idea that nobles weren't soldiers, it's completely silly, they were soldiers for centuries, in Europe and Japan.
You're just so wrong it's not even funny. Do you think that the norman nobles had no effect on combat during the crusades for instance ? That cavalry charges were nothing ?
Nobles weren't all commanders and administrators that's idiotic.
>>28677602 Oh and nobles and knights are never ever the same thing ? Like, in the hundreds of prisoners of the first charges of Azincourt many weren't both nobles and knights at all ? And what I (admittedly poorly) meant is that, back in the crusades, many nobles were leading and into charges. The norman nobles were one of those who popularized the cavalry charge as a main battle tactic, those people were both soldiers and part of the local nobility, both high and low.
>>28677633 >>28677641 >Oh and nobles and knights are never ever the same thing ? Well, yeah? Knights are sons of rich family who are bound to serve a lord. The lord is the noble
The knight is all but just a high ranking soldier that the monarch blessed. His authority is controlled by the lord.
>back in the crusades, many nobles were leading and into charges Anon, cavalry charges are faulty as hell. The majority of recorded charges end up into failure primarily because they tend to break formation.
>>28677661 The same thing happened for me and the one called Warfare. I had a bunch of these books as a kid.
There was another. Not an eyewitness book, but also awesome. It was this huge cutaway book of a 18th century British Man-o'-War, describing daily life as a sailor in the Navy, how the ship functioned, how it fought, and a bunch of other cool stuff. I must have read it dozens of times.
>>28677667 Oh ok so you don't know what a knight, noble or lord is... that explains.
Besides, the cavalry charge was still extremely effective in the high middle ages, sure, by the time of the hundred years war, it's effective wasn't as good, but that's why I talked about the crusades. Without the heavy norman cavalry, it's doubtful the crusaders could have opposed the turks in the first place.
>>28677696 Imagine you're having a nice thread about whatever when suddenly there's a guy running around, screaming that pistols are useless, that nobody ever used pistols, why would you ever use a pistol when you have rifles, all these guys using pistols are just fakes, officers are lies, why is everyone calling me stupid, etc.
That's what this thread is like. One retard who managed to ruse his way into pissing everyone off.
This is why we all should just calm down and enjoy posting sword and talking about them. I know where we are and stuff but I still believe that we can have civilised discussions about stuff we like here.
>>28677675 >>28677699 >belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic. Yeah, I fucked up a bit but whatever. Knights are below the lord and that's that.
Actually, cavalry charges lost its effect when longer and stronger spears were put into service. This even got worse with the invention of more powerful bows. Formation battles remained superior than dashing through
>>28677721 No, knights can be a lord, they aren't directly related. One has been, well, knighted, giving him responsibilities mainly in warfare (number of troops to gather and direct). Lords ruled over lands, sometimes in a hereditary manner. Both could be nobles or not for that matter. Sure, knights, lords and nobles are related, but none of them implies the other in any automatic ways. Some nobles paid money not to be knighted because they didn't want to go to war for instance.
There's no below, it's not a hierarchy of titles at all. Non-knights and non-nobles could be lords or more important an officers than a knighted noble for that matter.
>>28677744 Knights, actual knights who hold the title of knight, must be nobility. Usually they own land, but poor landless knights existed. Men-at-arms served knights directly as part of their retinue, and were not necessarily noble or landowners. In combat they fight with their lord in the same manner, leading a lot of people to confuse man-at-arm and knight.
>>28678278 You can't use a shield very well with one ? It's too long in confined space ? It's a compromise of cut and thrust that don't do either as good as specialized ones like rapiers, estocs, falchions and other types of swords ? There is no best sword ?
>>28678278 A "bastard sword" is not a thing.you're thinking of a longsword, whether it be german, English, or italian.
Quite frankly, if you're a trained civilian looking to defend yourself, longsword are fucking god tier in unarmoured combat.
Out of that however, they're sidearms, to the primary and somehow overlooked poleaxe, spear/pike, etc. >>28678315 >can't use a shield very well with one You're supposed to use the sword m8. >MUH confined spaces Italian men had no problems with defending their selves with them in dank alleyways in Verona.
Pommel strikes, crossguard attacks, half-swording, strong edge versus weak edge, this is all stuff that's been taken straight from the original fight books and verified as viable combat techniques by modern practitioners.
I don't know how much more factual you think it can be.
>>28678982 I'll refer you back to the words "piercing attacks."
At no point in time did I say that mordhau wasn't a thing.
Yes, people hit each other with their pommels and such. No, they could not force the hilt of their swords through armor. Mordhau is using your sword like a hammer, not using your guard like a pick.
Some guards were ostensibly made to be used as a pick, but they often come with a hammer as well and I'd imagine that the latter, if anything, was used.
If you're wondering what else I take issue with:
>Historically superior >Despite the weapons never meeting in any meaningful way
>Implying japs didn't make/modify their swords to suit the individual using them >Implying the japs didn't into fullered blades >Implying the japs didn't into striking with the grip >Implying all katanas were works of art >Implying all longswords were utilitarian >Implying the japs didn't have good steel >Not implying that their forging techniques were outdated >Implying that Yurop dropped forge welding
There's a whole lot of BS in that pic alongside the accurate bits. As far as I can tell the pic doesn't even mention distal taper, which is kind of a big damn deal in many Eastern and Western swords.
>>28677602 From Wikipedia, the Battle of Agincourt
Notable casualties French
Notable casualties (most named by Enguerrand de Monstrelet) include:
Charles I d'Albret, Count of Dreux, the Constable of France Jacques de Châtillon, Lord of Dampierre, the Admiral of France David de Rambures, the Grand Master of Crossbowmen Guichard Dauphin, Master of the Royal Household
Antoine of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant and Limburg, and consort Duke of Luxembourg (a brother of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy) John I, Duke of Alençon-Perche, the second-in-command after d'Albret. Edward III, Duke of Bar (along with his brother and nephew)
Seven counts (eight with d'Albret):
Philip of Burgundy, Count of Nevers and Rethel (another brother of John the Fearless) Frederick of Lorraine, Count of Vaudémont (brother of Charles II, Duke of Lorraine) Robert of Bar, Count of Marle and Soissons (nephew of Edward III, Duke of Bar). John VI, Count of Roucy, Waleran III of Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol (called "Count of Fauqemberg" in the chronicles) Edward II, Count of Grandpré Henry II, Count of Blâmont
and some 90 bannerets and others, including:
Jean de Montaigu, Archbishop of Sens John of Bar, Lord of Puisaye (brother of Edward III of Bar) Jean I de Croÿ, Lord of Croÿ-d'Araines and two of his sons, John and Archambaud Jean de Béthune, Lord of Marueil Gallois de Fougières, Provost Marshal, commemorated as the first French gendarme to lose his life in battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Notable_casualties
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.