| Dan Howard wrote: | ||||
It was more sensible than most posts on this subject. |
I dunno, i've just been waiting for someone to try and prove their arguement by referencing hit points, armour bonuses and dexterity.
I dunno, i've just been waiting for someone to try and prove their arguement by referencing hit points, armour bonuses and dexterity.
that would be less than classy.
| Bennison N wrote: |
| I don't agree that a Naginata is that much better than European pole-arms... |
Well, there's actually an article ( http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/379176.html ) out there about this subject, which says that simplistic comparisons like "naginata is better than halberd" and the like actually insult the rich martial heritage of both the East and the West....
(Yes, sorry for pulling the discussion back into a rather more serious direction. It's entirely unintentional. ;) )
I need to remind people that if you don't have anything of stubstance to add to the discussion or don't like it, simply stay out of it. Trying to make a farce out of it only draws more attention to it.
Let's stay on topic, please.
Thank you.
Let's stay on topic, please.
Thank you.
| Quote: |
| My point is that the 16th century wako were still an example of both Japanese and non-Japanese kenjutsu exponents.
Does that not count for something, in this discussion? |
Note that I didn't say there were not any bushi in these contingents, but they were rare occasions. Now of course it could reveal something, but can we agree that what is shown is mostly that both groups could have been a match for each other?
| Quote: |
| I already mentioned the strong influence that wako swords and swordsmanship had on the Ming. Thomas Chen, Yang Jwing-Ming, and others have noted that. Given that strong kenjutsu element that was apparently there, Chris Peers' claim above doesn't sound all that surprising. |
That's an hypothesis, but one that is not accepted by all, nor completely understood.
| Allen G. wrote: |
|
Since we cannot compare individual talent and have to go by averages, the average technological edge of european arms&armour would be my pick if i had to bet money. |
Yeah, hand to hand aside, I've heard europeans had access to much better iron ore. I read in an article once that the evolution of european swords and japanese swords was a result of the quality difference in the ore they used; and, that european swords of that period would likely break a japanese sword in half because it was much better quality.
| Quote: |
| that european swords of that period would likely break a japanese sword in half because it was much better quality. |
That's a gross overstatement that really reflects the other extreme weve got through in deconstructing myths about european swords. The Japanese ore wasn't ideal, but keep in mind they weren't necessarily using it, they imported european and Indian ore very frequently. It's only after the country closed itself and then again with the new reglementations on what made a nihonto in recent times, that tamahagane became they only acceptable ore. And according to period source, their iron was actually good compared to others; the English tried to sell some of their in Japan, it was a big failure as the locals considered it inferior to what they could normally obtain. Also, once the folding process was successfully done, the sword was good as any other.
Page 5 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum