![]() Japan had to make due with the land they lived upon. But also as a matter of uses European say Longswords were pretty functional and sturdy where as a Katana was only designed for warfare against an opponent not thickly armored which Japan didn't produce lots of exceptionally thick armor suites as you'd find in Europe both because of the overall rarity of iron for producing such things, and because of the low quality of the iron available.īut this is a bit like comparing Japanese Castles to European Castles, which assuming we are talking about Castles that make extensive use of stone, most European Stone Castles were in theory better but in Japan would be useless as earthquakes would level them quickly where as the Japanese Castles that used stone mainly for foundations and defensive ramparts, but otherwise used specialize and treated wood (Most European Castles were also wooden but did not leave ruins behind for obvious reasons) did well in the seismically active Japanese Islands. Generally European swords more broadly because that is a lot of different kinds of swords. Because again, we're equipping armies, not individuals. ![]() And that doesn't take into account the economics of weapon production either. Just what is more suitable for the type of combat employed. In other words, there is no "better" overall. Pikes came to dominate the battlefield in Europe until the spread of gunpowder. The later development of heavy calvary also made slashing attacks ineffective and infantry countered them with pikes. Which meant shields and trying to pierce enemy armor. Also archery was very prevalent (more so than in Europe until later), which disincentivized large infantry formations and incentivized mounted calvary charges to break the line.īy contrast Europe is much smaller and while calvary played a significant role in European military history, most of its great armies were infantry. This is also what they often fought against. Because of the vast distances in Asia that were best covered by horses, you see a lot of civilizations with curved sword traditions. Their evolution is tightly tied to the development of calvary (particularly light Calvary). ![]() In fact the sword Kusanagi, part of the Japanese Imperial Regalia that hasn't been photographed or drawn or seen by eyes other than the Emperor and priests (aside from its supposed storage box), is almost certainly a straight sword.Ĭurved swords are lighter than straight swords and better at slashing. There were plenty of straight Asian swords too. You say "Katana", but what you probably mean is East-Asian swords. At countering plate armor versus chain mail. A different type of sword with different edges are ideal at slashing versus piercing. They were designed to with regards the prevailing combat trends (especially countering defenses) at the time. Which is better?I mean swords didn't change designs over thousands of years into the "classic" shapes you're familiar with on their own. But Japan was hamstrung with poor natural resources, and that shaped the way their arms technology developed, for better or worse. The craft that went into Japanese bladecrafting is insane and complex, and there's a reason a whole mythology sprung up around it. Because the katana's pretty much ineffective against steel plate armor, while the broadsword won't have any problems dealing with the Samurai's laquered armor.Įdit: And this isn't some cultural "haw haw, Japan sucks" nonsense. In the whole "European Knight vs Samurai" hypothetical, the Knight generally kicks the piss out of the Samurai. The lighter blade construction also means it's less resilient, however, and a lot easier to snap or break with a blow from the side.Įurope had much higher-quality iron deposits to work from, and while their weapons were thus a lot easier to produce, they were as functional, and more flexible. ![]() As a consequence, katana and the like were built to handle only those lighter armors, and mostly serve as slicing tools (rather than cleaving, you run the edge along the surface rather than chop), which worked well because you also need less steel for that kind of blade. This is also why they favoured laquer armors and the like rather than steel there just wasn't enough steel to make it feasible. ![]() The mythologized "steel folded a bajillion times" thing with Japanese blades came about because Japan is incredibly poor in iron resources, and what iron they have is filled with impurities, so you needed to work it that hard to make it worth anything. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |