Originally posted by inimalistSamurai swords do represent a high point in the [b]art
or ritual of swordmaking. They would be far less effective against a knight in combat than would traditional Western weapons.[/B]
Originally posted by inimalist
The main reason is, afaik at least, is stuff like chainmail and plate armor that the light Katana blade would neither pierce through effectively or crush.
Originally posted by inimalist
The reason heavy swords, axes, maces etc were effective in European combat was because it would crush and destroy the armor along with the knight within it
Heavy swords were not more effective then katana at all. In fact they were made of inferior metal which is why they were so havey because then made out of iron rather then steel. They lacked the sharpness to damage the armor effectively. In fact armor was much more superior then the swords of the erra. This is not true of samurai swords which were made of steel and designed with razor sharp edges.
(take it or leave it, but I am a middle ages history major. I might be wrong about samurai and so forth, but Knights and they weapondry and armory is something I have lots of knowledge on and you are wrong.)
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
This is wrong. In fact they can pierce chain mail, and much more effectively then western swords.
rly? I had heard the exact opposite. I don't study history though
EDIT: Plate too? I mean, its not like making smaller and sharper swords wasn't available to Westerners, why wouldn't they have done it if it was more effective than bludgeoning one's way through the armor?
😑 Rapier is that french for:
http://thesynopsis.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/quagmire-3865.jpg
so any cool sword weapons that you guys would prefer to see in comics?
Originally posted by Tazer
Yo.dont think Ive ever seen the shoto, but wouldnt the tanto be TOO small to do much defense against a regular-sized blade?
Tazer
Originally posted by Mindset
Tanto is a knife, so pretty much.
Originally posted by inimalistI think they showed it on Deadliest Warrior that a katana couldn't pierce chainmail.
rly? I had heard the exact opposite. I don't study history thoughEDIT: Plate too? I mean, its not like making smaller and sharper swords wasn't available to Westerners, why wouldn't they have done it if it was more effective than bludgeoning one's way through the armor?
Originally posted by inimalist
rly? I had heard the exact opposite. I don't study history thoughEDIT: Plate too? I mean, its not like making smaller and sharper swords wasn't available to Westerners, why wouldn't they have done it if it was more effective than bludgeoning one's way through the armor?
I not sure about plate, but I believe so. Becuase it was not available. They really had no idea what steel was. This is something they would not really understand untill much later. Most all of there weapons were iron base. Back in ancient times and so forth european nations were behind in advancements like many eastern culture such as in medicine, philosophy, gun powder, steel ect.
Originally posted by Mindset
I think they showed it on Deadliest Warrior that a katana couldn't pierce chainmail.
not conclusive or anything, but you know
Originally posted by Mindset
I think they showed it on Deadliest Warrior that a katana couldn't pierce chainmail.
also I believe it did go through, and slashed several of the chain links.
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
Not surprised, many people likely believe that due to the fact Samurai armor was made of like wood and so forth. Many ways they went the opposit route of the Europeans and made more advanced weapondry then there armor while europeans were for many years vice versa.I not sure about plate, but I believe so. Becuase it was not available. They really had no idea what steel was. This is something they would not really understand untill much later. Most all of there weapons were iron base. Back in ancient times and so forth european nations were behind in advancements like many eastern culture such as in medicine, philosophy, gun powder, steel ect.
but the west moved from light to heavy weapons as better and better armor was introduced. If the actual way to beat it was with small, sharp swords, they had those. Why would they ever go big?
I have a hard time believing that it is simply the lack of steel that would produce this. While heavy, bronze weapons didn't rely on smashing through armor afaik
or like, this stuff that doesn't really show a huge penetrative power for the Katana
argh, but I will stop being off topic
EDIT:
again, not conclusive, but I tend to think a huge and heavy 2handed sword would crush most of these objects
Originally posted by Dum Dum DuganYouTube video
I dont fallow that show much becuase frankly it pretty stupid. They have a ripped trained fighter slashing a weapon to see how much damage it does, and then they have this 120 pound historian opposite them using different weapons/ what a shocker that 120 guy weapon does less damage......lol, but yet they believe this is caused by the weapons ability to do damage and has nothing to do with the wielders.........also I believe it did go through, and slashed several of the chain links.
Originally posted by inimalist
but the west moved from light to heavy weapons as better and better armor was introduced. If the actual way to beat it was with small, sharp swords, they had those. Why would they ever go big?I have a hard time believing that it is simply the lack of steel that would produce this. While heavy, bronze weapons didn't rely on smashing through armor afaik
You do realize when they wore bronze armor and so forth it was only in small parts of there body. There be no reason to rely on something to break through it, when most of there body was vulnerable.
