| Author |
Message |
|
Jojo Zerach
|
 Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Jojo Zerach wrote: | | Yes, I was making this on the assumption that all tools and raw materials were already avaliable. It's a given any culture that made armour would have to procure materials and make tools, so I sort of viewed it as a nullified factor. |
That seems reasonable to me!
| Quote: | | I be more clear, when I said complex, I was refering to actual forming with a hammer, as that is what I personally appreciate to be most challenging and skill intensive. |
That also seems reasonable. However, I'm not sure everyone would come to the same conclusion. A master of plate armor might cringe at the thought of making mail, while a brilliant mail-maker might be clueless with a raising hammer. Or just the opposite--a maker of plate armor might scorn mail-makers ("Oh, any trained ape can knit!"), while a mail-maker might believe his art to be the highest ("Any untrained ape can pound metal with hammers!"). It might just depend a lot on what someone has been trained to do.
| Quote: | I think this viewpoint is in line with historical armouers viewpoints. Roman armouers, for example, obviously had the ability to make very skillfully formed armour, as evidenced by the Lorica Musculata.
However, for the average soldier, this was seen as impractical due to the difficulty involved. They instead settled on other forms of armour that were deemed easier to construct, even though took much longer. (such as scale and mail.) |
Ah, here's where your thesis falls down: Soldiers and warriors typically did not make their own armor! Wealthier warriors would not even have repaired or maintained their own armor. It's *possible* that the Romans might have been an occasional exception, with some soldiers working in their units' armories, but it really isn't clear that they were actually making armor from scratch. More likely they were only doing repairs, or possibly assembling some items from manufactured parts. We just don't know enough. In other cultures, though, armorers made armor, whatever the type, and soldiers and warriors wore it. So complexity didn't matter, though certainly cost could be a factor in the lower classes. But even there, in many cultures even the simplest metal armor was way out of their price range!
| Quote: | | In 1370 England, a knight or man-at-arms would often have full plate armour, though the basic soldier probably had mail and a coat-of-plates....This is all because some types of armour are simpiler to make than others. Again, i'm not suggesting they were made by random labourers, though they didn't require intensive training to make. |
Yes, but by that point, there was a much larger production of less expensive armor, due to a number of technical and socio-economic reasons. Making cheap armor still required highly trained skill and a growing amount of specialized equipment (power hammers, e.g.). Your average soldier isn't going to have ready access to wire-drawing equipment or water-powered trip hammers, he just buys what he can afford from the folks who do. |
I meant that it was seen as impractical by the state, to produce such armour on a large scale. I realize soldiers probably had nothing to do with the production of armour.
|
|
  |
 |
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2011 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | Many of the developments that happened in the katana itself can not be seen as they are in the manipulation of the composition of the internal structure of the metal used to forge the sword. Various methods were discovered and used by different sword smiths to make their particular style of sword different than another sword smith. Over time certain schools of sword making in Japan gained the reputation of being of a much better quality than other similar looking swords. Here is a chart showing some of the different forging methods used by Japanese sword smiths. On a well polished sword it is possible to see the different laminations of steel used to construct the sword.
 |
theres also another factor that im surprised no-one has mentioned,and its that like the european "broadsword" the japanese sword has changed in form, like ineurope japanese swords changed in length , width, thickness, different shapedtips and fullers, aswll for japanese swords having massive differences on sori which refers to the location of the curve in the blade, tach generally described as curved from the hilt, whereas the uchigatana/ katana curving near the tip.
ill be honest i dont know what that actually LOOKS LIKE on a sword, but thats what ive read. to exemplify this ive found this image on the japanese sword from here
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel/japaneseintroduction.htm
and to contrast ive got this line drawn image showcasing the basic oakeshott typology from oakeshott.org which is also shown and elaborated on on this website
 Attachment: 47.22 KB
Attachment: 41.58 KB
|
|
 |
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2011 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please don't call them broadswords, the only broadswords are 18-20th century weapons.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | Please don't call them broadswords, the only broadswords are 18-20th century weapons. |
That must be as annoying as someone assuming that Japanese swords and armor didn't change much over the centuries. 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
 |
|
Eric G.
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2011 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Eric S. and William P. for your responses. I am encouraged by this.
Now, to further my question. What were the cause of these changes to the katana? I mean, from what I read it seems like the changes to the European sword came because of the evolution of armor which forced the sword to either adapt of go out of business. I see these changes to the katana, but why did it change? Was it fashion or function or both?
Someone (here's lookin' at you Eric S) should really write a spotlight article about this stuff... just sayin'
Eric Gregersen
www.EricGregersen.com
Knowledge applied is power.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Gregersen wrote: |
Now, to further my question. What were the cause of these changes to the katana? I mean, from what I read it seems like the changes to the European sword came because of the evolution of armor which forced the sword to either adapt of go out of business. I see these changes to the katana, but why did it change? Was it fashion or function or both?
|
I don't know the specifics of too many changes, someone smarter will chime in about that, but all of the changes I'm familiar with were functional. The popularity of o-kissaki, for example, which had to be part fashion because they are just so gorgeous, came about from an increase in kissaki breakages. The longer kissaki could be reground and still maintain the martensitic edge all the way to the tip.
The mongol invasion also triggered a change in sword design to deal with their armor (or rather, deal with it better), but I don't remember the specific change. Maybe the swords became wider and thinner. Dunno.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Gregersen wrote: | Thank you Eric S. and William P. for your responses. I am encouraged by this.
Now, to further my question. What were the cause of these changes to the katana? I mean, from what I read it seems like the changes to the European sword came because of the evolution of armor which forced the sword to either adapt of go out of business. I see these changes to the katana, but why did it change? Was it fashion or function or both?
Someone (here's lookin' at you Eric S) should really write a spotlight article about this stuff... just sayin' |
well also, i realise the picture isnt very clear.
ill note which swords say what. but i cant add the biggest attatchment, its TOO big.
1st on the right is shape of the ancient sword before the middle of the heian period (before 980) , jokoto times (chokuto)
2nd shape from late hein to early kamakura
(kamakura period 1181-1330 (koto times)
3rd, shape from middle of the kamakura period
4th shape from late kamakura period
it doesnt say what the 5th is, which is strange, but its shown as being in the nanbokucho period 1330-1389
(muromachi is1390-1570 (koto times)
6th is the last of the swords facing right, assuming those might mean theyre tachi. says shape of the early muromachi period,
7th is the first facing left, it says its shape of the late muromachi period, assuming that since muromachi period also contains the sengoku jidai, i assume it represents the uchigatana.
(momoyama period 1571-1647 keicho shinto blade times) battle of segikihara was in the year 1600
8th shape of the momoyama period (keicho era 1596-1614)
edo period 1648-1852 shinshinto times starts 1804
9th shape of the moddle of the edo period (kanbun era 1661-1672)
10th shape of the moddle of the edo period (jokyo and genroku eras (1684-1703)
11th, shape of the late edo period(bakamatsu being 1853-1876)
(gendai to 1877-present year
12th, shape of modern times
now its worth noting that the sword to the end of the edo had i think the longest kissaki and one of the straightest spines of the examples of swordsnot surprising considering the emphasis on urban duels . where a nice slicing and stabbing tip wouldbe goodamongs people like musashi and unarmoured peoples on the street
i think your BEST way of looking at it, for changes is also to look at what was going on at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Forster
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Jun, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know this isn't the main line here, but there were a few historical questions that could be addressed more fully:
Eric Gregersen:
| Quote: | | it seems to me that European weapons changed much more than that of other cultures. |
This is a good question, Eric, but it contains a fundamental error, I think. It makes the assumption that there is, in fact, a single "European" culture at any historical point. There are certainly many European cultures, particularly regarding weapons and armor, but the notion of a European culture is not a good point of comparison for a small, isolated island like Japan. One might expect the continent to be more diverse in its material artifacts.
There are, of course, all kinds of reasons changes occur in the manner they do, but a swords-versus-armor comparison, or a direct comparison of a continent to an island, probably won't get you the answer you need. Consider, for example, why the Japanese gave up using their highly-effective firearms after 1610: because it was a peasant's, not a samurai's weapon, and giving peasants that much power was deemed unwise. Firearms were highly effective; therefore the Japanese discontinued their use. That may not be what you would expect, if you only consider the technology out of context.
Scott Woodruff:
| Quote: | | I find it interesting that plate armor reached such a high level of sophistication during the Bronze Age only to almost entirely disappear for nearly 2 millenia. During those 2 millenia armor consisted almost entirely of either scale, lamellar or mail. |
It is interesting, but I think you'll find that, like many other areas of knowledge the Romans possessed, from the production of concrete to the casting of bronze statuary to the philosophy of Aristotle to the painting of portraits, the events of the fifth through the seventh centuries put a real damper on the sort of stable and sophisticated economy necessary for individuals to bother with such things as plate armor, at least in Europe.
Cheers,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Jun, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
another facet id like to introduce is the changes in chiese swords over time, particularly the jian, reason being that its quite similar at least in basic design, to the european swords. then theres als the evolution of dao which might drawparralells to the evolution of the falchion and later, the saber and cutlass.
unlike japan and like europe they also had an ENORMOUS variety of polearms,
japan is a considerable oddity in the realm of weapons and armour development as a result of their islan like nature, i mean for example, when the black ships arrived in the mid 19thcentury, the japanese were living the same way they had for the last 2-300 years.
fore example, no other nation as far as i know, developed the 2 handed, curved sword as their main sidearm, during that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Forster wrote: | | Consider, for example, why the Japanese gave up using their highly-effective firearms after 1610: because it was a peasant's, not a samurai's weapon, and giving peasants that much power was deemed unwise. Firearms were highly effective; therefore the Japanese discontinued their use. That may not be what you would expect, if you only consider the technology out of context. |
That's a myth. The Japanese never discontinued the use of firearms; while the development of firearm design and technology practically stagnated during the Tokugawa shogunate, the firearms themselves weren't so much taken out of action as severely restricted to the ruling party and their most trusted clients. In other words, the Tokugawa only banned firearms for the other clans, keeping the weapons solely for their own use so that they'd have an edge over anyone trying to rebel against their rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Eric Forster wrote: | | Consider, for example, why the Japanese gave up using their highly-effective firearms after 1610: because it was a peasant's, not a samurai's weapon, and giving peasants that much power was deemed unwise. Firearms were highly effective; therefore the Japanese discontinued their use. That may not be what you would expect, if you only consider the technology out of context. |
That's a myth. The Japanese never discontinued the use of firearms; while the development of firearm design and technology practically stagnated during the Tokugawa shogunate, the firearms themselves weren't so much taken out of action as severely restricted to the ruling party and their most trusted clients. |
... and peasants. Plenty of guns in peasant hands. And hunters. Easier for a peasant to own a gun than a sword.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
In other words, the Tokugawa only banned firearms for the other clans, keeping the weapons solely for their own use so that they'd have an edge over anyone trying to rebel against their rule. |
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Eric Forster wrote: | | Consider, for example, why the Japanese gave up using their highly-effective firearms after 1610: because it was a peasant's, not a samurai's weapon, and giving peasants that much power was deemed unwise. Firearms were highly effective; therefore the Japanese discontinued their use. That may not be what you would expect, if you only consider the technology out of context. |
That's a myth. The Japanese never discontinued the use of firearms; while the development of firearm design and technology practically stagnated during the Tokugawa shogunate, the firearms themselves weren't so much taken out of action as severely restricted to the ruling party and their most trusted clients. In other words, the Tokugawa only banned firearms for the other clans, keeping the weapons solely for their own use so that they'd have an edge over anyone trying to rebel against their rule. |
this brings back memories of lone wolf and cub, where a 'silent shirobe' talks about what makes a good gun, saying that the ability to kill as many people as possible is the key aspect of a gun, his grand invention being essentially a 20 barrelled 'ribault' like matchlock fired using a single match, him even givng ogami plans for what he calls a repeater.
and he talks about how 'the gunsmiths of sakai' stopped trying to innovate functionally so instead offset this by making them aesthetically pleasing.
curiously he doesnt go beyond working with the matchlock design. just new barrel and reloading arrangements.
that and once in response to ogami's presence a local captain says 'call the local bow and rifle companies (by rifle i think he refers to the normal muskets) showing them being used in unison.
i realise though that beng the manga of lone wolf and cub, the actual histrical accuracy might be a fair way off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Forster
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette Curtiss wrote
| Quote: | | That's a myth. The Japanese never discontinued the use of firearms; while the development of firearm design and technology practically stagnated during the Tokugawa shogunate, the firearms themselves weren't so much taken out of action as severely restricted to the ruling party and their most trusted clients. In other words, the Tokugawa only banned firearms for the other clans, keeping the weapons solely for their own use so that they'd have an edge over anyone trying to rebel against their rule. |
Yeah, I think (returning to Sansom) I overcooked that a bit: you are correct. I conflated use and development.
Although your point actually strengthens my position, insofar as weapons development is again not a simple case of "X beats Y; therefore use X." Here, political factors not only restrict development, but even restrict the need for development.
Cheers,
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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