I can smell the tears of the weaboos
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
102 comments displayed.
#90
-
mechaemperor (04/03/2014) [+] (14 replies)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles
More fuel for the butthurt. 40 Spaniards face 1000 Japanese, including Samurai. 10-20 casualties, while the Japs lose several hundreds.
I like me some History. I'd still totally own a Katana, though
stickied by trollzoll
More fuel for the butthurt. 40 Spaniards face 1000 Japanese, including Samurai. 10-20 casualties, while the Japs lose several hundreds.
I like me some History. I'd still totally own a Katana, though
#107
-
envinite (04/03/2014) [-] And now the comment section is full with blacksmith/ sword master **** .
#114 to #107
-
kreekydoorS (04/03/2014) [-] Bet it sounds like this. The weeaboo blade of truth is so Kawaii it can Desu over 9000 Bakas with just one thing...much better than any other sword.
#12
-
nemecyst (04/02/2014) [-] Practically any other angle of the shortsword would have caused the katana to deflect rather than bend. If you've ever done swordfighting of any kind, you would know that you never hit blades at a perfect angle like that, no matter what there will be some tilt which will cause sliding. Also the katana remained bent, so its a ******** forged katana, the reason they're folded so many times is to increase flexibility.
That being said, English steel is also stonger than that in Japan on a mineral basis (nothing to do with forging), which is why Japanese forging techniques are so much more intricate than those of the English.
That being said, English steel is also stonger than that in Japan on a mineral basis (nothing to do with forging), which is why Japanese forging techniques are so much more intricate than those of the English.
#14 to #12
-
anon (04/02/2014) [-]
There is but one strike that uses cutting edge to cutting edge contact. However, it is one of the most common strikes. When an opponent strikes at a 45 degree angle, (a common european strike, I'n unfamiliar with eastern) the most basic deflection/block/counter is a 45 degree swing that makes exact contact. This is why so many european swords are build to have a strong edge such as this. I agree that the katana is ******** forged you can ******* SEE the lack of carbon but still, I find the strength of the western sword impressive.
#38 to #14
-
anon (04/02/2014) [-]
Well that's not so much "Poorly forged" as "Using poor metals"
The Blade geometry of the Katana is by far better at slicing through flesh because of it's beveled edge, and the fact that there's a lot less vibration because of it's curved shape and composition of multiple densities of metals...
However keep in mind that Early japanese steel was gathered from SAND.
It's a case of bad iron vs. Great steel, of course the steel is going to win.
Why would you bother comparing a well-carved bone to a mass-produced iron rod?
The Blade geometry of the Katana is by far better at slicing through flesh because of it's beveled edge, and the fact that there's a lot less vibration because of it's curved shape and composition of multiple densities of metals...
However keep in mind that Early japanese steel was gathered from SAND.
It's a case of bad iron vs. Great steel, of course the steel is going to win.
Why would you bother comparing a well-carved bone to a mass-produced iron rod?
#301 to #38
-
anon (04/03/2014) [-]
There were european swords with beveled edges, there were curved european swords, there were curved european swords with beveled edges. People talk about the katana as if it's something europeans couldn't have made. The truth is that Europeans simply didn't prefer curved swords, they preferred heavier, straight swords used for penetrating over slashing. This is simply because penetration gets through the heavier armor used in Europe better than slashing does.
#367 to #301
-
eiaisqzbsesb (04/04/2014) [-] >Heavier.
Longsword weighs the same as the Katana, bruh.
Longsword weighs the same as the Katana, bruh.
#15 to #14
-
nemecyst (04/02/2014) [-] Oh of course, I did a bunch of weapons training over the years (katana, kyoketsu shoge, gladius, general blades, fencing, bo staff, nunchuck) and I love shortswords, but the fighting style difference between katana and shortsword is huge. With gladius and other shortswords everything is done in very defined angles (90, 45, 180) but with katanas you use more slight angles (30, 60, 90, etc.) so even if you did match up a katana versus a shortsword, there wouldn't be many hard contacts like that unless the katan swordsman was poorly skilled (ie. did a 90 degree strike against an 180 degree block).
In summary: the two weapons are used at different angles, so the likelihood of a perpedicular strike between the two is quite low.
In summary: the two weapons are used at different angles, so the likelihood of a perpedicular strike between the two is quite low.
#48 to #12
-
badgerbaiting (04/03/2014) [-] Thanks to the piss of donkeys, Damascan steel is the best for sword blades.
#37 to #12
-
anon (04/02/2014) [-]
Oh man, I love people who mention the entire "folding" BS that makes the katana good. The folding done to improve the metal of the katana was done to remove impurities, that's because the Japanese used a metal that Europe (at the same time that Japan was making katanas) didn't use.... pig iron.
Europe did folding of blades also.... as early as 700BCE, compare that to Japan doing folding in 1000CE.
Here's the truth, there is nothing special about a katana. Nothing. It wasn't even a samurai's primary weapon of choice. They would use bows, lances, and even bludgeoning weapons before they would resort to their katana. Katana's were mostly ceremonial, but, were pretty piss poor when it came to anything that matters.
Europe did folding of blades also.... as early as 700BCE, compare that to Japan doing folding in 1000CE.
Here's the truth, there is nothing special about a katana. Nothing. It wasn't even a samurai's primary weapon of choice. They would use bows, lances, and even bludgeoning weapons before they would resort to their katana. Katana's were mostly ceremonial, but, were pretty piss poor when it came to anything that matters.
#49 to #37
-
enkmaster (04/03/2014) [-] Except that the point of the folding was, as you said, remove impurities. You know what that impurity was? Carbon. Know what carbon does? Makes metal brittle. So if we take the carbon out of the brittle metal, what happens? Put two and two together, and you'll see that it, yes, made the blade flexible. Because it would ******* shatter otherwise.
That said, the WAS something special about the Katana. The carbon was kept high at the blade to allow it to cut **** easily, and softer at the back to allow it to block. Thats why Japanese soldiers always turned the blade toward themselves when parrying, so their opponents edge would strike the back of their sword.
Of course, the two fighting styles were completely different anyway, so comparing blade quality is completely moot.
That said, the WAS something special about the Katana. The carbon was kept high at the blade to allow it to cut **** easily, and softer at the back to allow it to block. Thats why Japanese soldiers always turned the blade toward themselves when parrying, so their opponents edge would strike the back of their sword.
Of course, the two fighting styles were completely different anyway, so comparing blade quality is completely moot.
#130 to #49
-
DarkDragonBlade (04/03/2014) [-] There really was nothing special about the Katana. The same techniques the Japanese were doing, the same things the English were doing, their Iron was just better and they didn't have to spend as much time folding it. Both swords are pretty much equal in their own rights and specialized in others, but the blade of a Katana is not the "OMGSPECIAL" people make it out to be. If you want to talk about special blades; do some research on Damascus metal. Its a shame we can't really make TRUE Damascus metal anymore. It was lost in the late 1700's I believe.
lol, turning the blade? No they didn't dude. Think of it this way. The blade comes down onto the sword with a great amount of force. You can be strong sure, but if they have the angle and leverage on you, you end up hitting your sword on your face. That's just untrue in ever possible manner. No warrior would ever leave the sharpest part of his blade facing towards him. And if he did. Well **** , dumb on him,
lol, turning the blade? No they didn't dude. Think of it this way. The blade comes down onto the sword with a great amount of force. You can be strong sure, but if they have the angle and leverage on you, you end up hitting your sword on your face. That's just untrue in ever possible manner. No warrior would ever leave the sharpest part of his blade facing towards him. And if he did. Well **** , dumb on him,
#368 to #130
-
enkmaster (04/04/2014) [-] I know Damascus metal, as anyone who has a basic knowledge of swords does. I practice 14th-16th century European Martial Arts focusing on the German manuscripts, so there's no need to assume I'm an idiot. The obvious arrogance isn't much appreciated.
And you're right. They held the sword at a side angle, but always tried to ensure their opponents blade would hit the back area of theirs, because a Katana can ******* shatter with an edge on strike, and that was something to try and avoid at all costs for obvious reasons.
And you're right. They held the sword at a side angle, but always tried to ensure their opponents blade would hit the back area of theirs, because a Katana can ******* shatter with an edge on strike, and that was something to try and avoid at all costs for obvious reasons.
#206 to #130
-
anon (04/03/2014) [-]
You always left the sharp end towards you since it would blunt the blade otherwise. Further more parrying is not simply holding your sword in a fixed position. You move it towards the incomming attack aswell. That means that rather than his sword forces your sword into yourself it defleckts the attack and redireckt the attackers force into the ground/air depending on the way of deflekting.
Also katanas was pretty much unique for the japanese making them quite special. True they were no good at blade fighting, but penetrading armor flesh and bone they are far suprior to the western blades.
Also katanas was pretty much unique for the japanese making them quite special. True they were no good at blade fighting, but penetrading armor flesh and bone they are far suprior to the western blades.
#322 to #206
-
DarkDragonBlade (04/03/2014) [-] Man I'm a fencer. I'm quite aware of how to parry a blade. But when it came to Katana's they didn't turn the blade backwards like he said. They shifted it so it was a glancing attack off the SIDE of the blade, where it is NOT sharp. However you don't completely move with the attack; you pivot on a fixed position keeping one foot level and using the other to move.
#225 to #206
-
anon (04/03/2014) [-]
>superior in penetrating armor
Katanas aren't made to penetrate armor but rather cut at the unprotected parts that Japanese armor has because they didn't reinforce the weakpoints with chainmail like europeans did besides Katanas are last defence weapons on a battlefield and are mainly used vs unarmored opponents.
Katanas aren't made to penetrate armor but rather cut at the unprotected parts that Japanese armor has because they didn't reinforce the weakpoints with chainmail like europeans did besides Katanas are last defence weapons on a battlefield and are mainly used vs unarmored opponents.
#22
-
mankey (04/02/2014) [-] In this test I'm going to punch this boxer in the gut to see who's better.
#47 to #13
-
enkmaster (04/03/2014) [-] Assuming its an edge strength test, he isnt using it improperly at all. Of course, actually hitting a Katana edge-on would be very rare because, as you said, that is not how you block with it, but still. Katans arent the god-tier swords people make them out to be, and probably wouldnt exist if Japan had some decent ******* metal to work with back in the day.
#67 to #47
-
citruslord (04/03/2014) [-] I think the katana evolved more because of their set of values and warrior code than anything else. Most samurai felt shield and heavy armor were more of a weakness than anything. An old samurai proverb goes something like "Go into battle determined to die and you will survive, go hoping to live, and you will surely die."
Considering the lack of defense, a katana is an exemplary weapon, the subtle curve and extremely sharp edge is perfect for cutting flesh.
With the evolution of some armor, you see other weaponry like the kanabo and naginata more suited to such tasks. European weaponry like the longsword evolved to be thicker, sturdier, softer, and pointier. All in aid of not breaking when hitting a shield/other sword/armor.
In terms of steel quality, most steel at that age was **** . The European answer was to make a more bludgeoning weapon since it couldn't hold much of an edge. The Japanese was to differentialy harden and fol the steel to solve the issue of too much hardness.
Also the test is just to test the *Glorious Katanaru cut thrugh everthing* myth. If you want a truly remarkable sword, look up the Ulfberht. The Vikings managed to get their hands on steel that was great by today's standards hundreds of years before the rest of Europe even had their crap
Considering the lack of defense, a katana is an exemplary weapon, the subtle curve and extremely sharp edge is perfect for cutting flesh.
With the evolution of some armor, you see other weaponry like the kanabo and naginata more suited to such tasks. European weaponry like the longsword evolved to be thicker, sturdier, softer, and pointier. All in aid of not breaking when hitting a shield/other sword/armor.
In terms of steel quality, most steel at that age was **** . The European answer was to make a more bludgeoning weapon since it couldn't hold much of an edge. The Japanese was to differentialy harden and fol the steel to solve the issue of too much hardness.
Also the test is just to test the *Glorious Katanaru cut thrugh everthing* myth. If you want a truly remarkable sword, look up the Ulfberht. The Vikings managed to get their hands on steel that was great by today's standards hundreds of years before the rest of Europe even had their crap
#76 to #74
-
citruslord (04/03/2014) [-] Good point, I guess with the amount of work they had to put in to get a decent 38" thin blade, plate armor was out of the question.
#157 to #74
-
itsdasp (04/03/2014) [-] Its actually amazing what older civilizations could do in the way of defensive wear. There used to be this show called "Deadliest Warrior" where it would pit two civilizations from different ages in history in battle against one another, and they would actually test out their arsenals before compiling the data. I believe it was the Aztec's Jaguar Warriors that used this special cotton armor that soaked in salt water, essentially, and it was able to block arrows and spears of that episode's opposing team (some African tribe if I remember correctly). Not sure how it'd fare against a katana though. But still, for cloth a few inches thick, that's damn impressive I'd say.
#370 to #67
-
enkmaster (04/04/2014) [-] You're right, but Japanese steel was extra **** compared to almost all of Europe. "Pig Iron".
And I disagree (though don't quote me on this) but, from what I know and my EMA experience, European swords could keep a very keen edge, depending on which "kind" of sword we're talking about. Falchion or Grosse Messer's cared less about the razer-edge, because they used their superb energy retention to just cleave through, but a crusader-style longsword, or really any longsword from the mid 1400s forward, could keep a very keen edge.
Again, this is just from person experience and what I've learned from my instructors. 15th century German style longsword combat (the style I practice most often) uses very few of the large, sweeping movements and chops one would expect of a softer , tougher blade and uses a lot of short jabs, fast swipes and the such.
Unrelated, but just thought I'd bring this up: one time my sparring partner slammed me in the face with the pommel of the Crusader he was using, and put a big ass dent in the face of my basinet. Completely unnecessary information, but just thought I'd share it.
And I disagree (though don't quote me on this) but, from what I know and my EMA experience, European swords could keep a very keen edge, depending on which "kind" of sword we're talking about. Falchion or Grosse Messer's cared less about the razer-edge, because they used their superb energy retention to just cleave through, but a crusader-style longsword, or really any longsword from the mid 1400s forward, could keep a very keen edge.
Again, this is just from person experience and what I've learned from my instructors. 15th century German style longsword combat (the style I practice most often) uses very few of the large, sweeping movements and chops one would expect of a softer , tougher blade and uses a lot of short jabs, fast swipes and the such.
Unrelated, but just thought I'd bring this up: one time my sparring partner slammed me in the face with the pommel of the Crusader he was using, and put a big ass dent in the face of my basinet. Completely unnecessary information, but just thought I'd share it.
#21
-
thunderkrux (04/02/2014) [-] A lot of swords were not made to cross blades like that. So that's a pretty ****** test
#87
-
zekeon (04/03/2014) [-] weaponexplain
Now until he gets here I'll give me piece, witch may be completely wrong. Unless you've been here already, in which case, sorry.
1.) ****** katana, wasn't folded enough times.
2.) Katanas aren't meant to "chop" things like European swords do, they are more like slicing, yes there's a difference. European longswords are for making bigass gashes all at once, or stabbing. Where katanas are more about exposing the enemy to as much of the blade as possible in each strike, dragging the blade across the opponent.
3.) The longsword is sitting on a block, and being bound to it from both ends, ensuring that it does not bend. Even so you can see it wobble and it being chipped.
TL;DR: **** katana being used wrong and the longsword was cheating.
Now until he gets here I'll give me piece, witch may be completely wrong. Unless you've been here already, in which case, sorry.
1.) ****** katana, wasn't folded enough times.
2.) Katanas aren't meant to "chop" things like European swords do, they are more like slicing, yes there's a difference. European longswords are for making bigass gashes all at once, or stabbing. Where katanas are more about exposing the enemy to as much of the blade as possible in each strike, dragging the blade across the opponent.
3.) The longsword is sitting on a block, and being bound to it from both ends, ensuring that it does not bend. Even so you can see it wobble and it being chipped.
TL;DR: **** katana being used wrong and the longsword was cheating.
#93 to #87
-
weaponexplain ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] You got most of it. European style swords in general have a higher impact toughness than katanas do. I'm actually surprised it didn't shatter, which makes me agree with you on it being a **** sword in craftsmanship. I don't know where this clip comes from which means that there could be a whole array of factors that went into what happened. If there is an english version of this someone can link me, I might be able to provide more details. I'm also not an expert on swords compared to some people on this site so I encourage anyone else to help/correct me on this.
#73
-
citruslord (04/03/2014) [-] Everyone compares these two swords in the most brutish was. They were almost completely different tools meant to accomplish different tasks.
If you want a truly awesome sword though, the ulfberht is where it's at.
If you want a truly awesome sword though, the ulfberht is where it's at.
#141
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] >reinforced
>stabalized
>completely balanced
>implying it's even remotely a viable test
i'm not saying the katana would win, and frankly i don't give a **** , but to imply that this is even a slightly representative result, is proposterous.
the way this test was conducted is so bad and unfair, giving the longsword such an advantage that an iron pipe could win against the katana.
>stabalized
>completely balanced
>implying it's even remotely a viable test
i'm not saying the katana would win, and frankly i don't give a **** , but to imply that this is even a slightly representative result, is proposterous.
the way this test was conducted is so bad and unfair, giving the longsword such an advantage that an iron pipe could win against the katana.
#151 to #141
-
ednakrababbal (04/03/2014) [-] don't take this gif to seriously. it's from a german "science" show called "welt der wunder" world of wonders that has gone down the ******* a couple years ago.
#218 to #141
-
arwendar (04/03/2014) [-] Same experiment, same conditions, different sword.
They show the experiment with the katana a little earlier in the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cbv92_ZuJ8#t=384
They show the experiment with the katana a little earlier in the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cbv92_ZuJ8#t=384
#224 to #218
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] proves my point
the longsword is so heavily braced that it'd rather break than bend.
a good sword bends before it breaks.
but even if the longsword was good, the bracing doesn't allow it to bend.
the longsword is so heavily braced that it'd rather break than bend.
a good sword bends before it breaks.
but even if the longsword was good, the bracing doesn't allow it to bend.
#227 to #224
-
arwendar (04/03/2014) [-] We might be looking at the wrong sword here, but whatevs.
The longsword did bend quite a bit as seen around 6:38. And that's why it didn't break.
While, indeed the side-sword braced in the testing stand has no room whatsoever to bend.
But I do agree, this isn't really the best or most professional way to test the strenght and structural integrety of a sword.
The longsword did bend quite a bit as seen around 6:38. And that's why it didn't break.
While, indeed the side-sword braced in the testing stand has no room whatsoever to bend.
But I do agree, this isn't really the best or most professional way to test the strenght and structural integrety of a sword.
#237 to #227
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] i was referring to the gif and the first part of the clip that you showed me. but yes.
they're also only looking at a single variable of a sword's strenght, it's direct chopping power against another sword
which will very obviously heavily favor the thicker, heavier, less bendable swords.
they're also only looking at a single variable of a sword's strenght, it's direct chopping power against another sword
which will very obviously heavily favor the thicker, heavier, less bendable swords.
#428 to #237
-
anon (12/07/2015) [-]
Except, the longsword and katana weigh roughly the same. Interestingly, the weight distribution means the katana likely has the heavier, less flexible blade (take a look at the spine of a katana- those things are chunky, and generally thicker than the spine of a longsword, although that is in part due to the inclusion of a fuller, which would also increase the strength of the longsword blade), while a larger proportion of the longsword's weight is in it's furniture (particularly the crossguard and pommel, which are features the japanese never really embraced. Not sure why- I like my fingers, and a sword that makes it easier to keep them is a good thing).
#356 to #237
-
eiaisqzbsesb (04/03/2014) [-] Only, the longsword and katana are of equal weight... There's this misconception that longswords were heavy, unwieldy, massive blades... They are pretty light, on average weighing between 2 and 3.5 pounds, which is about the same as your average katana.
#323 to #239
-
wrinklynewt 
ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] i just remember you using zaraki for a while
i've only really met one other person on here that used her
ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] 
i've only really met one other person on here that used her
#325 to #323
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] i still use zaraki.
been doing so for over 2 years.
been doing so for over 2 years.
#142 to #141
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] also if you didn't notice, showing off the chip of the katana, the makers are havily influencing the percived result, showing that they are clearly trying to prove the longsword's superiority
because even though you can see that there's a chip in the longsword too (just as deep as in the katana) you never get a clear, second shot of the longsword's chip, because the makers don't want to show you that the longsword too, got chipped.
because even though you can see that there's a chip in the longsword too (just as deep as in the katana) you never get a clear, second shot of the longsword's chip, because the makers don't want to show you that the longsword too, got chipped.
#53 to #36
-
rimjobmcgee (04/03/2014) [-]
Its likely 420 stainless steel, but which sword would win is based on the test. European swords were far more durable, needing to be able to penetrate plate and ring mail, but against lighter armors like leather or no armor, the katana is capable of deeper and more lethal cuts, and is quicker. All weapons have strengths and weaknesses and are designed to fit the scenarios they are to be in, or the foes they are to kill
#283
-
ljxjlos (04/03/2014) [-] And yet again, the Internet learns: Don´t **** with Germans.
On a serious note, tho, both weapons are good, just for different fighting styles.
On a serious note, tho, both weapons are good, just for different fighting styles.
#119
-
Maroon (04/03/2014) [-] It's braced up against some cinderblock looking thing, what the **** is supposed to happen besides the sword breaking? Besides, what kind of swordsman would do that with his sword? That test is retarded. Not even from a weaboo perspective, imo a samurai would get his **** kicked by a European knight because 1, they were smart enough to use shields and 2, katanas are slashing weapons and won't do jack **** against a knights armor.
#145 to #124
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] it's not the thoughness of the cinderblock that is the point
it's the fact that the longsword is braced, the katana isn't.
thus the longsword can't be bent, while the katana takes the full force of both weapons.
the only remotely accurate depiction of what would really happen, is the chipping, and you can clearly see that the longsword got chipped too, even though the creators avoided giving you a clear, second shot of the longsword, like they did the katana.
it's the fact that the longsword is braced, the katana isn't.
thus the longsword can't be bent, while the katana takes the full force of both weapons.
the only remotely accurate depiction of what would really happen, is the chipping, and you can clearly see that the longsword got chipped too, even though the creators avoided giving you a clear, second shot of the longsword, like they did the katana.
#160 to #145
-
Elemental (04/03/2014) [-]
It was common for people to block or strike while grasping their blade. And no, bracing doesn't matter for **** , because katana's will do that if they did anything of mass and don't immediately cut through. I watched my friend swing his at a log against the grain after i had chopped one clean with it. It hit the log and dug in a bit and bent to hell while the log went flying. Whatever is weakest in a system will give. The spine of a katana is thin, while the long sword has a thick spine all the way it's length strengthened by how wide it is.
Keep in mind, a katana is inferior steel in the first place, that's WHY it's folded steel, it doesn't have a very high carbon to iron ratio, and it was never meant for this kind of thing.
Keep in mind, a katana is inferior steel in the first place, that's WHY it's folded steel, it doesn't have a very high carbon to iron ratio, and it was never meant for this kind of thing.
#164 to #160
-
trollmobile ONLINE (04/03/2014) [-] then your friend's katana was utter ****
good katanas are flexible, they bend and bounce back, bad katanas (or bad any kind of sword really) bend and don't bounce back
good swords bend, good axes don't
bad swords break or remain bent.
good katanas are flexible, they bend and bounce back, bad katanas (or bad any kind of sword really) bend and don't bounce back
good swords bend, good axes don't
bad swords break or remain bent.
#170 to #164
-
Elemental (04/03/2014) [-]
They can flex side to side, but the curvature of the blade severely limits the movement from blade to spin. Damn near no swords flex that way and don't stay bent.(except rapiers, but thats a special case) Because european swords tend to be wider and thicker, they transfer energy better than the stiffer katana, which by it's very elemental make up, is less flexible by a large degree.
