is the katana native to china or is it only japanese?
what about Thailand, did they use a katana?
did Koreans use katana?
it's just because I can't tell the difference between these people
Did Chinese use katanas?
is the katana native to china or is it only japanese?
what about Thailand, did they use a katana?
did Koreans use katana?
it's just because I can't tell the difference between these people
Every nation across eurasia and most of the americas has used dominantly single handed slashing swords with one edge. Hacking is the most natural and instinctive motion to do with an tool after all.
Yup. European knights used them too according to my researchings. It's literally the sharpest, resilientest, sexiest weapon known to man so other countries would have been stupid not to use them.
They break pretty easily compared to a european broadsword
That's the flexibility. Even the best edge can chip but in my experience European swords roll the edge before they chip. I guess either one is equally as bad depending on the kind of armor your enemies have
Japan eventually developed a sword tradition different from the surrounding countries but was eavily influenced by chinese swords
The katana was based on the dao, and most of the uniqueness of it comes from having to make it within Japan and for the Japanese lords that required it. We had sabers in the west, and even today the machete is an effective weapon for its use case.
So what did China use primarily? Also sabers?
Yeah, sword wise they used sabers after the Three Kingdoms period, or just a frick ton of spears because you can't beat spears other than guns (both of which were a thing with the Japanese too). You really don't need a double edged sword if you're a normal person; the upkeep makes it something only aristocrats or mercenaries tend to use. Hell, the Marines are still allowed to have sabers as dress uniform regulation.
Thanks for the info anon, I love IQfy posters, learn something new all the time
>because you can't beat spears other than guns
When will this meme die?
you can't beat spears in close range without pistols and shotguns
Lies
What's your argument?
That the romans regularly beat spears
Not him and not trying to argue with you but just asking out of curiosity, maybe you or someone else here knows. How much of Rome's military power do you think came from their other equipment like their siege engines and things? Almost certainly the average legionary had far superior gear than the enemies that they were fighting, do you think that's why they preferred the gladius over the spear? I just bought a historically accurate gladius recently and I have to say, I like the feel of it a lot. The weight and balance just feels all right and plus, I found out that they wore them on their right side so they could draw it while holding a shield. I'm used to European longswords and own a few of them and it really is a long draw across the waist from your left side, with the gladius you can really get it out fast drawing from your right hip that way. Sorry for the rant I have autism.
>do you think that's why they preferred the gladius over the spear?
Heh I wouldn't think so; it's not like siege engines changed the dynamics of field battles; also from what I gathered it's not really clear when they moved from using mainly spears to swords
(there is a lot of speculation on what the army during the kingdom and very early republic was like and how it evolved and the hoplitic model is not really accepted anymore)
possibly when fighting the samnites where the manipular system also may have developed; thought at this point they would have used greek style swords and some gallic swords.
>I found out that they wore them on their right side so they could draw it while holding a shield. I'm used to European longswords and own a few of them and it really is a long draw across the waist from your left side, with the gladius you can really get it out fast drawing from your right hip that way.
The position of the gladius has a lot of speculation around it; what I can tell you is that some gauls carried their londer swords on the right side as the gladius and that later on when the spatha was adopted as the main sword of the army it was worn on the left side.
Also it's important to note that the gladius itself is a "la tene" sword, so "related" to celtic and gallic swords that were themselves known and used by the romans (gladius is itself derived as a word from celtic) and was quite long originally, but then we see it becoming shorter untill we have the "pompei" type before the adoption of the longer spatha.
So in conclusion: it's complicated and there isn't much to go off of. It could be they preferred a more closed quarters fight or that the sword and shield combo made the legions more adaptable to different situations.
Pic rel is a la tene type sword with the first recorded reference to rome
First of all, thank you for the reply. It's always cool to learn things from you guys that normalgay net wouldn't have readily available to chop up and feed to you so concisely. Could you please tell me more about the spatha? I thought that it was made longer due to the use of cavalry but you say that originally it was an older design. I can see from the gladius that I own it's advantages in close quarters and drawing it faster, do you think that the Romans' heavier armor and shields made it so that they had the luxury of shorter blades? The thing is so light in your hand but when you actually chop down with it, you can feel that the weight is mostly in the tip of the blade and I heard that they were primarily for thrusting. Basically I'm asking if the superior armor and shield formation compensated for not having to have a larger weapon. Again, I only know how to use European longswords so I'm sorry if this is a stupid question.
>I thought that it was made longer due to the use of cavalry
It was definetly intended as a cavalry sword initially; its origin *might* be in the swords used by gallic horsemen but that is also debatable; it makes it even weirder the fact that spatha is a greek word that was intially used for some king of shovel and it means to cut/break
> but you say that originally it was an older design
Im not sure where I said that in the previous post
>I can see from the gladius that I own it's advantages in close quarters
That is probably the intended way to use it
>and drawing it faster
Which can make sense coupled with the roman custom of throwing javelins before impact; though it was also practiced with the earlier longer versions of the gladius, thought as I said it does become significantly shorter as time goes on so it might be interpreted as a streamlining of that practice
do you think that the Romans' heavier armor and shields made it so that they had the luxury of shorter blades?
It's a possibility though it is interesting to note that earlier shields were actually heavier and a bit larger than the later rectangular ones and that the earlier gladii were longer (also the helmets become more protective, particularly the massive increase of the nek protection, pic rel) so it's not that simple of a conlusion to make; it becomes even more confusing in the later empire when the shield completely changes design and the spear+ longer sword become common.
The thing is so light in your hand but when you actually chop down with it, you can feel that the weight is mostly in the tip of the blade and I heard that they were primarily for thrusting.
It seems like it especially in the later models
Also do you know what kind of gladius you have?
Cont
Basically I'm asking if the superior armor and shield formation compensated for not having to have a larger weapon.
That I think is definetly a factor though again it's not so clear cut; as mentioned the later roman army (still well armoured and with large shields) opts for longer weaponds. So the armour definetly helped to get in close but if that is how they decided to use shorter swords is up to speculation for now
Pic rel is an hastatus from a manipular legion; not that much armour on them though the large shield must have helped
sorry if I can't give you a definitive answer but the more I looked into things myself the more I found that there are a lot of uknowns on why the romans did what they did regarding their military
Forgot pic
It is native to Japan but it was used across East and Southeast Asia, in 1483 alone 67,000 blades were sold to China, picrel is a Javanese
Anyone knows some books or papers that have metallurgical analysis of katanas?
is the longsword native to germany or is it only japanese?
what about France, did they use a longsword?
did English use longsword?
it's just because I can't tell the difference between these people
The french are gay, the english are brown, the japanese squint all the time and commit war crimes.
Curved style blades like that were extensively used in China and SE Asia. The Burmese dha could give a katana a run for its money.
The Ming imported a lot of Japanese swords (which was one of Japan's biggest exports) and used them to good effect against the wokou.
I mean, the basic idea and design predates katanas so you could say they used katana-like things but there is also literally nothing wrong with the traditional chinese straight bladed cruciform sword and that design was also widely used the world over. Katanas are the way that they are because of the low quality of Japanese iron as a sort of work around. I've done HEMA and shit and obviously I have a bias to the European longsword because it's a weapon that I actually know how to use but for their part, I like katanas a lot. They are shorter and a little stockier with a different weight dispersion but something about it really just "feels good" in your hands. The wrap of the hilt feels really good too, like you'd have a nice firm grip even if it got wet from rain or blood ect. Plus they look cool.
>low quality of Japanese iron
Unironically source? I hear this all the time
Here just read this shit I'm lazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana
Can you at least tell me where it mentions poor quality iron?
Hmm. I can't find anything in there now. I could have sworn when I read that article like 16 years ago it mentioned it. Now you have me second guessing the shit because I couldn't find any mention of it on google either. I wonder where that idea came from.
It think it might have been an explaination of why they folded the steel so much; though doing that isn't really unusual if you start from what basically is an iron bloom that you need to consolidate, homogenize and expell the slag from (that is the only impurity that could be axpelled mechanically)
Okay I actually don't know shit about this topic so I can't speak on it but I remember watching a documentary a while ago about the Ulfbehrt sword where they used sand and glass to get rid of impurities in a crucible and the quality of the steel was very impressive for the time. Do you think that same method could be used to improve the quality of any iron generally or is it just that the iron in that area at the time specifically was so good that it made the process possible? Again, I don't know shit about this topic so I'm sorry if it's a stupid question.
>Ulfbehrt sword where they used sand and glass to get rid of impurities in a crucible
I actually read an interesting paper about those swords and their imitations; what you are describing is a form of crucible steel where the metal is fully (or at least partially) melted letting all of the slag float on its surface so you end up with an omogeneus high carbon steel (usually) and yes the slag iself does help to draw out things like phosphorous and sulphur that can mess with the steel
Here is the link to the paper
https://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/download/218/222/226
Thanks man! I'm gonna read that right now. Appreciate you.
You're welcome
Japan didn't have iron ores like Europe or China they had titanoferrous sands which are notoriously hard to mine and work even with modern technology
The Chinese had the tang dao which was a proto version of the katana and later on when they had contact with the Japanese they adopted and added elements from them and made domestic copies and clone swords such as the Chang dao an okatana sword for crossbowmen ,the wo yao dao and later the miao dao
: pic related is a reproduction you can actually buy
That thing looks cool I wonder where the center of balance on it is. Looks two handed so it could potentially be pretty far along the blade and make for a nice heavy slash