Sorry for the derail but the ridiculous fake mythos surrounding the katana is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
The wealthiest samurai wore steel segmented armour. Katanas were made to cut through this.
False, you don't cut through steel plates, because thats stupid, you stab, katana's where used to cut between the plates.
I think you'd better answer this.
thats stupid
Hardened high-carbon steel, hammered to a fine point, versus regular steel.
Now, my knowledge on the moh scale might be a bit rough after a while, but I do seem to remember the fact that hard things cut softer things, no?
And the amount of psi on the plates, would it not be, I don't know, quite high? Now are you suggesting that knowing that, a few centimeters of steel can disobey the laws of physics and the testaments of history?
And I don't think you needed to point out that last bit. It's heavily redundant. Pretty much every style of fighting against armoured oponents focuses on hitting exposed areas - the people who argued about agincourt can testify to this.
We're not arguing on the people wielding the sword, we're arguing about the actual sword. Stick to that if you really want to continue these quarrels.
For the best swords, prisoners would be lined up, and a katana would be passed through their necks, the best sword being called a three-head sword, for reasons obvious.
Its easy to cut through unarmored people, especially the neck, any thin, I repeat thin, not sharp, fast moving metal object can do that.
>But not against centimeters of steel
>Romans say otherwise
>These were the best swords they made, in retrospect it was probably unfair to judge the whole by the extreme. But apparently you don't mind, being an expert on debunking Katana and all.
Shows you don't know anything about forging, good work. There are a million different hardening/forging techniques, not related to making steel, katana's primarily use folding to help remove impurites, a technique used basically around the world.
Also "tough" means doesn't bend, which means brittle, in the real world you don't get a benefit without a cost 99% of the time.
We're talking about Katanas. There were flaws.
There were ways around the flaws.
You just repeated them.
Without adding anything.
At all.
Or talking about Katanas.
Also that last sentence has little cohesion.
Do I have to repeat it?
Front - brittle, hard
Back - soft, heavy and more flexible
Cuts out the dilemmas highlighted.
It's what makes the katana so specialized.
tough
Adjective:
(of a substance or object) Strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough or careless handling.
Don't even go into an argument about the definitions of adjectives. It is the second lowest form of arguing - arguing without addressing the points about Katanas.
I have done several research projects in ancient weapons, also me and my friends discuss them occasionally, engineers tend to like technology even if its primitive. Ya that myth busters episode had me face palming the entire way through for how horribly bad it was, it's hard to watch shows aimed at the masses when you actually know the bulk of the science behind things.
>"Engineer"
>Steel doesn't cut steel
ENOUGH WITH THE RHETORIC ALREADY.
This is not how you argue. If you're basing your argument on debasing the character of your opponent,
damn have you stooped to the lowest of the lows. For all you know, I could be God. Infallible e.t.c e.t.c, everyone on the internet can make their own image as they like - this should never affect the strength of an argument any more than celebrity endorsement. Nought.
And up until around the age of enlightenment, the East was far more advanced in fields of warfare, a feudal country tends to do that.
East (China/India/Most of Asia) and Japan are 2 entirely different things until recently in history, even so you are still wrong. Europe was not isolated so even with the loss of information during things such as the dark ages, most of that knowledge was actually preserved in adjacent regions like the middle east.
I was talking about China. And solely China. I never talked about Europe beyond saying longswords were not meant to be used for cutting.
You quite literally ignored all of my points.
And do you know what's the worst thing about it?
I'm not even arguing to say Katanas are some kind of godly-all slaying stick meant to cause the end of the world.
I'm arguing about Katanas being specialized for cutting.
That's it.
That's all there ever was.
Good job getting zealousness in the mix ullrich.
Author
Topic: Derailed into Sabers vs katanas vs rapiers (Read 45580 times)