| Author |
Message |
Michael Edelson
|
 Posted: Fri 24 Apr, 2009 6:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| David Sutton wrote: | | Another reason is that the early Samurai was primarily a mounted archer, shields never became a part of their equipment and so were not adopted, even later when the Samurai moved away from this battlefield role. |
Yes, that is certainly a part of it.
Another interesting tidbit that many people are not aware of is that the Japanese did in fact use shields...though the ones I've seen were more like pavises.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
   |
 |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Apr, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes but while they fought on horses, there were still foot soldiers supporting them. Those foot soldiers who are often put aside in history, actually carried shields up to the Heian period, at which time the Japanese began to change their equipment and strategies, who were until then mostly inspired by the Chinese. What happened then is two things: armor became much better in terms of protection, and two handed weapons were preferred. Here is an illustration of emperor Jinmu accompanied with a foot soldier carrying a shield http://horse.shrine.net/samurai/image/jinmu_samurai.jpg
They met with plenty of shields during the Korean peninsula invasion, and it seems it never occurred to them that it was a useful item to have.
Like Michael said, the Japanese kept the tate, a type of pavise, and it seems the kabuto or the jingasa (equivalent of a kettle hat) would be used as a buckler when one was left with a short sword or dagger, Yagyu shingan ryu still practices those techniques. I suppose on the battlefield, one would take the one of a fallen soldier instead of his own though.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Apr, 2009 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Max,
Great stuff, thanks for sharing!
I've never seen that picture before...can you tell me where you got it?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Sullivan
|
| Posted: Sat 25 Apr, 2009 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Got this from a reliable source.....The opener for the next season will be a three way match featuring Richard Simmons, the Dalai Lama, and Dick Cheney. The second show will be Michael Jackson using a Muramasa blade against a Cat D8 Bulldozer.
My apologies to Nathan and others.......just can't control myself when it comes to stuff like this!
.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Apr, 2009 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bennison N wrote: | | And one-on-one a Spartan hoplite can't use a sword, and a ninja can. Unless the Spartan's rich, in which case he could afford a Hoplomachoi (sp?)and even then he'd rather be in a phalanx. |
Why not? The Spartans were as famous for their swords as for their spears or shields or whatever. Accounts of their swordsmanship emphasize the shortness of their swords and the aggressive attitude they used to compensate for this lack in reach--or rather, to exploit their weapon's effectiveness in a close-quarters scrum ("If you think your sword is too short, then add a step to it").
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Apr, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Another interesting tidbit that many people are not aware of is that the Japanese did in fact use shields...though the ones I've seen were more like pavises. |
The tate pavises? One thing that constantly amazes me is the fact that so many of my friends who had watched The Last Samurai didn't notice that part of the final battle scene even though it was perhaps the single most historically-accurate thing in a generally not-so-impressive movie....
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Apr, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Fuller wrote: | Jeff Arbogast wrote:
"Regarding your last comment- You are right, who cares about these silly matchups? I think it would be waaay more interesting and informative if they matched up period-contemporary rivals, such as a Viking/Norman duel or a Norman/Saxon Housecarl Hastings/style deathmatch. Or a Viking/ Housecarl match, like at Stamford Bridge.These would be very close matches with no clear winner. There would be countless others too, like a Mongol vs. a Hungarian knight. Or a Roman vs. a Greek. On and on. This would not only make far more sense but would be much more educational than the Pirate/Knight nonsense, and would provide some accurate historical content that would actually be useful. There are plenty of cool matches that would be historically correct if they wanted to do it right. But this stuff is utter nonsense."
Jeff -
If it was done properly, a show like that would be fantastic! What might be even more interesting would be combat situations of a more non-traditional sense, i.e., two HYW knights fighting on the deck of a ship, or combat in closed quarters such as a sappers tunnel or on castle stairs. Something that adds to the difficulty and really tests the skill of the combatants... |
Hi Peter-
Yes, that would add some flavor to the stew, wouldn't it? Like a scenario when the Romans stormed across a "Raven" boarding platform to storm a Carthaginian ship, turning a sea battle (which favored the Carthaginians) to a land battle favoring the Romans. What an off-balance mess that would be. Or a viking sea battle. Or Greek warriors storming a Mycenaen fortress, with everything that entailed. Yeah, right. Dream on. Ah well, there's always the imagination.
I wish that these shows had a little respect for history instead of turning it into some kind of lightweight entertainment for the masses. Why must they always feel that they must hype it up with this sort of silliness? To me at least, something like Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants is just too weird. But it actually happened. I couldn't MAKE that up. Or 10,000 Greeks holding off 300,000 Persian forces for 3 days, slaughtering them by the thousands until they were outflanked. And even then most of them got away except for about 1,400. History doesn't need to be cheapened to make it fascinating. But it's always reduced to a game-show quality, and it makes me wince just to watch most of the time.H
One show on The History Channel lately isn't too bad, however. It's called "Warriors," and it's narrated by an ex-Green Beret. He's rather likeable and he's not a bad narrator either. He seems to enjoy learning from others instead of acting like a know-it-all. I missed the "Sparta's revenge-Plataea" episode because of a Union/Management negotiation. Grrr. It's on a Thursday night at 10pm. Very inconvenient. Take a look if you are able. While not perfect, it's a whole lot better than "Deadliest Warrior." I know that's a pretty low bar though.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin King
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Apr, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
One show on The History Channel lately isn't too bad, however. It's called "Warriors," and it's narrated by an ex-Green Beret. He's rather likeable and he's not a bad narrator either. He seems to enjoy learning from others instead of acting like a know-it-all. I missed the "Sparta's revenge-Plataea" episode because of a Union/Management negotiation. Grrr. It's on a Thursday night at 10pm. Very inconvenient. Take a look if you are able. While not perfect, it's a whole lot better than "Deadliest Warrior." I know that's a pretty low bar though. |
I have been trying to catch most of the episodes of "Warriors", it is one of the better shows of this type to come from THC in recent memory. The host is not so ego driven that the show becomes about his own dramatics, and he seems to be genuinely interested in learning about different weapons and techniques. The episodes usually revolve around a particular period or event which gives it some historical context without focusing too much on a history lesson, half of which they would get wrong anyway.
IMO, "Deadliest Warrior" is not really even worthy of comment unless you are into semi-historical weapons, psuedo-history and poorly thought-out fight sequences. I won't add to the ratings by watching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fuller
Industry Professional
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Apr, 2009 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeff -
I couldn't agree with you more. What these hollywood idiots don't realize is that history, real history, is far more fascinating and entertaining than anything they could conjure up with their CGI. I'm so sick of hollywood and it's self-obsorbed mentality of "people will watch what we produce, because we produced it." I've stopped going to movies, and I refuse to watch television programs that insult my intelligence. And I especially refuse to watch television programs that are nothing more than fantasy, but present themselves as historical fact.
Reality is always better than fantasy, in my opinion. Wouldn't it be amazing to produce one of your scenarios, and then get REAL academics and REAL WMA experts to analyze the results? Now that would be worth watching. I participated in the Hastings battle re-eactment back in 2000. Wow, what an eye-opener that was! Fighting in a shield-wall is a completely different dynamic to fighting one-on-one. I've wanted to go back, and mount a tiny spy camera right beside my eye under my coif and helmet, to get a "my eye" point of veiw of the fighting. I couldn't afford to go in 2006, but hopefully I can be a part of the next one. Something like that would make a great episode for a program like this, and it could keep the experts talking for hours.
With regards to the program you mentioned called "Warriors", we don't get the History Channel in Canada. Instead, we get a limp-wristed wanna-be channel called "History Television", whose idea of historical programming is re-runs of JAG and NCIS. I could never figure that out; they have virtually no Canadian content. I guess they figure that Canada has no history...
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
|
 |
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Apr, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Fuller wrote: | Jeff -
I couldn't agree with you more. What these hollywood idiots don't realize is that history, real history, is far more fascinating and entertaining than anything they could conjure up with their CGI. I'm so sick of hollywood and it's self-obsorbed mentality of "people will watch what we produce, because we produced it." I've stopped going to movies, and I refuse to watch television programs that insult my intelligence. And I especially refuse to watch television programs that are nothing more than fantasy, but present themselves as historical fact.
Reality is always better than fantasy, in my opinion. Wouldn't it be amazing to produce one of your scenarios, and then get REAL academics and REAL WMA experts to analyze the results? Now that would be worth watching. I participated in the Hastings battle re-eactment back in 2000. Wow, what an eye-opener that was! Fighting in a shield-wall is a completely different dynamic to fighting one-on-one. I've wanted to go back, and mount a tiny spy camera right beside my eye under my coif and helmet, to get a "my eye" point of veiw of the fighting. I couldn't afford to go in 2006, but hopefully I can be a part of the next one. Something like that would make a great episode for a program like this, and it could keep the experts talking for hours.
With regards to the program you mentioned called "Warriors", we don't get the History Channel in Canada. Instead, we get a limp-wristed wanna-be channel called "History Television", whose idea of historical programming is re-runs of JAG and NCIS. I could never figure that out; they have virtually no Canadian content. I guess they figure that Canada has no history... |
So you don't get The History Channel, eh? Well, don't feel bad, you aren't missing much. It's only rarely that they show anything I find remotely interesting. A lot of us call it "The Hitler Channel," given their apparent obsession with Nazis. Then they'll play some Western and have some "expert" analyze the film as if it was some documentary. Bleh.
Then you've been to the Hastings battlefield? I was in England many years ago but never made it outside London. I was too little then anyway. Supposedly I had an ancestor at Hastings with the Bretons in 1066, a Baron Hugh de Rennes. So I'm told anyway. But when is something like that kind of fighting shown in depth? Almost never. Instead, we get "Apache vs. Gladiator." Urp...
Is a shield wall fight sort of like a sloppy Greek phalanx? Pushing and poking? It must be neat to be involved in that, as long as you don't think that you'll die. If I had that custom "Beowulf" helm on your site I would be tempted to try it too. But maybe not. I wouldn't want to scratch it, let alone get it caved in.
Well, I guess we may not see a show that measures up to our wishes anytime soon, huh? I'm a big J.R.R. Tolkien fan as well as a history buff, and as much as I love the movies, there are lots of spots that I feel could have been done even better, although I think they did about as good a job as I'll ever see and have a right to expect. I didn't think that an attempt that good would EVER be made, so maybe somebody someday will realize that history doesn't have to be hyped up if they just do a compelling story justice. THC has a series called "Battles B.C." that sounded interesting, but they ruined it with a heaping pile of inaccuracies, stupid fight scenes right out of "300," blood spray and all, and idiotic looking commanders in loincloths and little else (Hannibal, supposedly  ). Hannibal is one of my favorite generals and an enigmatic personality in his own right, and I didn't appreciate them making him look like a bulked-up "Ultimate Fight" contestant. He deserves better.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Apr, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey guys guess what? I just watched the pirate vs. knight one on the SpikeTV website.
Well long story short, I like pirates, I like knights; but this caused be to shoot boiling blood out of my eyes in rage... Ok it wasn't that bad, but still 
http://www.spike.com/full-episode/pirate-vs-knight/31860 there's the link for all those who dare to watch.
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
JE Sarge
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was seriously the worst episode to date. I won't comment further lest I lose even more brain cells.
J.E. Sarge
Crusader Monk Sword Scabbards and Customizations
www.crusadermonk.com
"But lack of documentation, especially for such early times, is not to be considered as evidence of non-existance." - Ewart Oakeshott
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | A lot of us call it "The Hitler Channel," given their apparent obsession with Nazis. |
I've heard the same label thrown around. We always attributed it to production costs; it's got to be a lot cheaper and easier to chop up the seemingly endless archival footage of WWII and make comentary voiceovers than to get reenactors for another period, travel to the locales, pay for props, pay an animator, etc.
That said you're not the only one sick to death of WWII documentaries, so (heavily qualifier laden) props to Spike for at least producing something rather than rehashing the same stock footage for the umpteenth time.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
 |
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JE Sarge wrote: | | That was seriously the worst episode to date. I won't comment further lest I lose even more brain cells. |
Wow... you weren't wrong mate...
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Taylor Ellis wrote: | | JE Sarge wrote: | | That was seriously the worst episode to date. I won't comment further lest I lose even more brain cells. |
Wow... you weren't wrong mate... |
Could sign under it any moment. Crossbow and halbeard - most knightly weapons ever 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Wolfe
Location: Orlando, FL Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Every time I heard halbeard during the show, I found myself involuntarily saying "poleaxe".
|
|
|
|
|
Artis Aboltins
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Was also kind of funny to see the armour those "knights" wore - seemed like they gathered up every last miss-matching armourpart they could and tossed em together. And, well, the term "Broadsword" is worth something...
|
|
|
|
|
Felix R.
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Apr, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the French Knight now getting the same reputation as the Samurai? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic