Friendly reminder that even contemporary Westerners considered katanas superior to their own swords.
According to C. Thunberg, Physician of the Dutch Factory in Japan, 1786:
>"The blades are of an incomparable goodness, and the old ones are in very high esteem. They are far superior to the Spanish blades, so celebrated in Europe. A tolerably thick nail is easily cut in two, without any damage to the edge; and a man, according to the account of the Japanese, may be in cleft in two."
Other urls found in this thread:
They were certainly respected, especially by European swordsman who mourned the lack of proper martial training and unsharpened swords carried by many officers at the time. But to say they were considered better is just bait.
I almost feel like calling this out as bait is taking the bait.
Sorry, I'm just a bored memester and I thought the quote was kind of interesting. It's a complex topic with no simple answer really.
The only reason they were considered good was because the sword had been replaced in every way in the European arsenal, except for officers and cavaliers. The officer swords were just for show and when on horseback sharpness hardly matters so the blades maintenance was practically none-existent.
Yes, Japanese swords (expensive ones) were of very high quality and excellently made. Hand crafted by men with decades of experience built on centuries of knowledge and tradition, they will obviously be better swords than a western officers factory made sabre with an added decoration to look fancy.
No one disputes this, you don't have to be a weaboo to believe it.
Not exactly, the the European sword was on the decline by that point but there were still people making good swords and martial artists who knew how to use them.
What swords apart from the various fencing sabres were produced in Europe in 1786 pray tell that weren't either ceremonial or used by the cavalry.
>Physician
> Physician
> Physician
Do you also listen to comments about modern tank warfare from your florist?
Well yes fencing and cavalry sabres were a big thing during the period,
their were still some small swords and backswords in use.
But the point was many of these swords were quite lethal and practical weapons, and there were still men who could use them in duels or pitched battle.
Not him but many gentlemen (including doctors) in the period would have had a basic familiarity with swords.
Whether this man did I do not know.
We also look for an excuse to mock the Spaniards, and we also had exclusive trade rights with the Japs giving them a very positive image before world war 2.
T. Dutchman
> Not him but many gentlemen (including doctors) in the period would have had a basic familiarity with swords.
Do you have any idea how many people then and still talk out of their ass?
Listen to this line;
> A tolerably thick nail is easily cut in two, without any damage to the edge
Any Japanese swordsmaker would cringe at this, this is 18th century weabooism by some fucktard orientalist.
Katanas were very excellent swords but they were definitely not designed to hit such hard targets, especially not fucking thick 18th century building nails.
The very high edge hardness of the katana would surely result in at least a chip or even an edge fracture, because what he is describing is idiotic to do with a katana, or any sword for that matter.
Any sword, even with modern steel, would have its edge fucked by that.
This is fake news.
>The officer swords were just for show and when on horseback sharpness hardly matters so the blades maintenance was practically none-existent.
That's not true exactly. Lots of people - officers in particular - still cared about their swords. However, weapons were commonly not issued sharpened and were only given a combat ready sharpening before battle, which gave people a wrong impression about western weapons. Another issue is the metallurgy involved in making Japanese swords, which is technically more primitive, but tends to look more impressive, with those patterns and hardening lines, etc. thus giving people a false impression of their technical quality (albeit the craftsmanship that went into them was most definitely at a high level).
I also have problems with such claims, I wonder if he made it up or just saw a demonstration of some sort.
A sword could certainly take off the head of an iron nail but not without taking damage.
Yes, they did have high quality swords. They were famed in Asia.
First, there was this meme of mystical swords that exaggerated their quality.
Which generated a counter meme where people went too far in the other direction and started thinking they were crap.
The truth is, they had high quality, but not mystical swords.
I'm Also, the same is true for samurai. They went from overrated to underrated.
They were not mystical warriors that can fly.
But they were good enough to defeat the Mongols twice and they did decently in the invasion of Korea (but then, by the time, they were using firearms).
>But they were good enough to defeat the Mongols twice
It should be considered that the Japanese warriors from the high middle ages fought quite differently from the Early Modern warrior that people have commonly in mind when they hear the term "Samurai" though.
Exactly. This has way more to do with shitting on Spaniards than it does praising the Jap
>defeat the Mongols twice
Can you really call that a victory
The role of the storms are exaggerated. With the exception of the early engagements during the 1st invasion the Japanese managed a victory on a draw from major engagements and by the second invasion the Mongols had trouble even making beachhead.
>The role of the storms are exaggerated.