4 ms·
Japan definitely produced some of the most beautiful looking swords, and they are extremely impressive given the quality of iron they are forged out of, but I d
by isk517 5y ago
Japan definitely produced some of the most beautiful looking swords, and they are extremely impressive given the quality of iron they are forged out of, but I don't think any sane person would choose one to take into battle given any other option.
- lowbloodsugar 5y agoI am confused. Are you saying that the quality of the iron makes them shit swords, or that guns are better than swords?
- isk517 5y agoFrom what I've heard and seen the quality of metal makes them prone to breaking, and you need skill to take full advantage of the razor sharp edge. I have seen a great video showing katana students cutting bamboo and struggling and then a master going clean through that I wish I could have found again. For the record I don't think they are shit swords, just they look really cool and that has lead to various media elevating their superiority to other swords beyond reality.
- fancifalmanima 5y agoIt would depend a lot on what time period you're talking about. I'm not an expert, but I do a bit of amateur forging and have learned a couple of things just reading about this craft. By the 14 or 1500s, spring steel had been developed in Europe. This would enable a sword to flex rather than break. Japanese swords from the time weren't flexible and were generally more prone to breaking. This had a lot to do with the raw materials that were available. They also tend to have softer mild steel core to help with this problem, with a very hard and sharp edge. If the entire blade were made of the same material as the edge, it would be extremely inflexible and brittle. They're kind of designed in a way where a part of the every hard and brittle edge can crack, but maybe it won't extend all the way up through the blade leaving it somewhat usable. The European longsword from the time might just flex in the same circumstance. That's not to say that European swords were better than Japanese swords in every way. This is one of many, many factors. And I'm sure there were plenty of crappy longswords at the time (and crappy katans), so you kind of also have to decide if you're comparing the best examples, average examples, or low quality items as well. The skill of the wielder is also important. If you're throwing out a bunch of random soldiers without a ton of training and giving them a sword, you might want to give them something they're less likely to break. My understanding that is there was a period in Japan where only samurai were allowed to carry swords (if my reading is to be believed), who were generally very skilled. They would probably know how to avoid putting their blade in situations where it would be prone to breaking. And Japanese traditional Japanese sword making techniques are extremely impressive and interesting to read about given the materials that were available at the time.
- bostik 5y agoFriend is a hobbyist blacksmith and he said it really well. Japan developed their hugely overdone turned-steel technique because the ore they had to work with was so bad: hammering the garbage out was the only way to get the quality of the steel itself into acceptable levels. As a result, Japanese smiths developed something very close to what we'd now call layered steel. European swordsmiths (think: Toledo) had access to higher-grade ore, and as a result never needed to develop techniques to work around fundamental problems with their source material.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoThis is my point. Constraints sometimes take us to places where we otherwise wouldn't have gone. The world is (imho) a better place because Japan has bad iron ore. If that wasn't our reality, we would never have guessed it.