Why did the Japanese base duels around cutting weapons, while the Europeans based them around piercing weapons? What did other cultures do?
I have no clue but I think a fair guess would be related to the different kinds of materials in each of the continents, in such a way that they developed different weapons and armor because of the local geographic resources.
>>865343
by the traditional rules you could agree to duel with almost any weapon in japan, even a bow. The sword was popular because it was the side arm of choice, and and when warfare ended they just carried a lighter and shorter version of the same sword rather than changing the core morphology.
>>865343
Because then, as now, the Japanese were a homogenous society of weirdos. Thrusting is simply more efficient in unarmoured duels. The Japanese, however, don't give a fuck about efficiency; hence the tea ceremony. Yumi are also profoundly shit bows, their swords are too ridiculously short to be useful, their polearms are universally inferior to European designs, and their armour was immensely badly designed before the sengoku jidai. These things were allowed to continue because nobody bothered to invade Japan because it has nothing you'd worth taking, and so they had no one else to contend with apart from themselves.
>>865343
Well in the Arthurian days they're bashing each other with relatively blunt cutting blades. A pointy blade has advantages from horseback, it can stab a man in an artery at a short distance. Bladed weapons take a lot of space and momentum to be truly effective. It also functions as a status symbol. The reasoning is one part practicality, and one part fashion.
>>865374
I heard the quality of their steel was damascene.
>>865374
>These things were allowed to continue because nobody bothered to invade Japan because it has nothing you'd worth taking, and so they had no one else to contend with apart from themselves.
Actual retard.
>>865394
It isn't. Very few Japanese swords were even constructed entirely out of steel, because they lacked the capacity to produce high quality steel in large quantities, or to temper it without it shattering. Their swords are usually an iron back with an attached edge of hardened steel. Given how mild their iron was, this makes them immensely unwieldy and heavy. This, in turn, makes it necessary to make them immensely short. A katana is closer to a gladius than it is a long sword.
>>865430
Point out where it's wrong, weeb.
>>865434
Well, for one the Mongols tried to conquer Japan twice.
Also, Japan was somewhat famous among European explorers as a land rich in silver and gold, since the era of Marco Polo. Columbus wanted to reach Japan, for example, and there were many Europeans that went there to trade before the Tokugawa shogunate. Hell, Japan only opened later in parts because the Europeans wanted to trade with them.
The Japanese soldiers had a good reputation in Asia, and IIRC, some Europeans wanted to convert them to start some kind of Crusade in the East.
>>865343
>Why did the Japanese base duels around cutting weapons, while the Europeans based them around piercing weapons?
This is a huge topic since Europe is composed of many different cultures and At different periods in time, different weapons were used.
In the early middle ages, for the Germanic Holmgang traditions, the swords would have likely been Spatha-equivalents. Later during the High Middle Ages, the knightly arming sword would have been predominant. These were still primarily cutting weapons. Spears would have been common duelling weapons too, especially in the form of lances.
Later as armour became more protective, thrusting weapons became more important as they had to circumvent the plate armour; in an Early Modern German text by Hans Sachs, we find:
>Zu fuß man auch der zeyt noch kempffet.
>Gerüst eyner den andren dempffet
>Inn drey wehren, schwerd, dolch und spieß,
>Wo einer auff den andern stieß,
>Verwundet oder gar umb-bracht.
>On foot we still fight
>Armoured one opposes the other
>Using three weapons, sword, dagger and spear,
>Where one thrusts for the other,
>To wound or to kill
These armoured judicial duels are well documented in multiple sources (pic).
In the modern period however, sabres became quite popular, and they were common weapons of duelling. In fact, cutting weapons were often preferred since they were more easy to "control". This can be seen in German academic fencing for example, where duelling with sharp weapons was common among students, but not always a deadly outcome was intended (in fact, in most duels throughout history it wasn't always to the death, but often until first blood or until one of the others yielded, etc.). As smallswords were introduced such as the Pariser (Parisien) with its fast parade-riposte type fencing, lots of people died from accidentally perforated lungs. With a cutting weapons you may receive horrible wounds, but they're relatively easy to stitch up. Internal wounds not so much.
It is interesting how Japan was so overrated before by ignorant people and how it is so underrated now by equally ignorant people like
>>865374
>>865433
I wonder if France, that was underrated at least in the last few years will eventually be overrated. Or if eventually the Mongols will get underrated as well.
>>865343
Because the bushi (warrior) class in Japan were predominately mounted warriors in the beginning and cutting swords were better when used during mounted combat for charges. This never changed much as the bushi transitioned to foot combat, although the Japanese swords became relatively straighter than from before.
European weapons were not based on piercing at all. It can cut as well as thrust, and only during the late renaissance and after were there specialty thrusting weapons designed around unarmored duels like thrusting rapiers and smallswords.
>>865485
Here a pic of the aforementioned Pariser. A foil like weapon with a flat guard that led to so many accidental deaths that it was banned at several universities.
>>865374
>Yumi are also profoundly shit bows,
The yumi was the best compound bow they could make given the climate and material in japan. Last I saw it has similar power to a long bow
>their swords are too ridiculously short to be useful,
http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/
there sword length was set by law in the edo period, blades for warfare were longer.
">heir polearms are universally inferior to European designs
Not really. There polearms had long shafts, hooks,crossbars etc
>>865482
>Mongols
The Mongols would and did invade everything. They were hardly discriminating.
>Japan was somewhat famous among European explorers as a land rich in silver and gold, since the era of Marco Polo.
And he was factually wrong to believe so; Japanese doesn't have a large amount of any metal of any value, let alone gold and silver (and hence the shitty swords). Why do the incorrect beliefs of explorers have any importance here?
>Europeans wanted to trade with them.
They wanted new markets. Europeans sold TO Japan primarily. Their only desired good was silk, and, compared to their neighbours, they had fuck all of that too.
They were, however, very eager to buy guns.
>The Japanese soldiers had a good reputation
This plays into my main point far more than it does yours. Why would so many of the military class of Japanese leave to serve as mercenaries if there were opportunities for real action at home? There was no such serious military activity in Japan, and so there was no pressure to develop a genuinely effective class of weapons and armour.
That THE JAPANESE were known as great warriors does not imply that JAPANESE WEAPONS were effective, just as the Iroquois were known as great and fearless warriors, but they performed better with muskets and European-made tomahawks than with their native stone axes.
>>865541
Ive never read any European account with them saying Japanese weapons were inferior to their own. quite the contrary, every account Ive read from the period praises them
>>865541
>The Mongols would and did invade everything. They were hardly discriminating.
Some retard (in this case, you) said "These things were allowed to continue because nobody bothered to invade Japan"
The Mongols bothered to invade Japan.
>And he was factually wrong to believe so; Japanese doesn't have a large amount of any metal of any value, let alone gold and silver (and hence the shitty swords). Why do the incorrect beliefs of explorers have any importance here?
Japan did have a lot of silver.
A country doesn't need to be rich to be invaded. Just having the reputation to be rich is good enough.
>They wanted new markets. Europeans sold TO Japan primarily. Their only desired good was silk, and, compared to their neighbours, they had fuck all of that too.
Europeans worked mostly by selling Chinese goods in Japan.
>This plays into my main point far more than it does yours. Why would so many of the military class of Japanese leave to serve as mercenaries if there were opportunities for real action at home? There was no such serious military activity in Japan, and so there was no pressure to develop a genuinely effective class of weapons and armour.
Japan had over a century of constant warfare at that period. They had a lot of experienced soldiers.
>>865541
>Japanese doesn't have a large amount of any metal of any value, let alone gold and silver
Japan at a point in time exported 1/3 of the world's silver production.
>>865657
Is that a cute way of admitting your wrong?
how much armor was available
>>865626
>citation
>context
>>865626
i'd like to get a source on that...
>>865343
uhm... europeans based duels around every weapon available (and even bare knuckle fighting)
>>865394
P good joke m8. Why do you think they folded their steel so many times?
>>865598
His point with the mongols was to affirm that there was nothing of value. Besides, it's really hard to siege a whole island the size of Japan.
>>865741
Ive heard that Europeans at that time were using spring steel but can anyone confirm that?
>>865751
His point was that
>These things were allowed to continue because nobody bothered to invade Japan"
The Mongolians did bother to invade Japan. It makes no difference why they invaded Japan.
>>865762
No, I'm saying in the second point, he said "The Mongols would and did invade everything. They were hardly discriminating." to show that Japan didn't need resources for the Mongols to invade. Intellectual dishonesty isn't a good look bro.
>>865773
Are you clinically retarded?
His point was that the Japanese didn't care about efficiency because no one invaded it. As it turns out, someone did invade it.
This pretty much makes his entire shitty post null.
It doesn't make any difference if the Mongols invaded Japan because they wanted their rice/silver/silk or if they did it for the heck of it or because they were bored. The Mongols did invade Japan.
I find talking about a subject with his arrogance about something he certainly doesn't know shit about intellectually dishonest.
>>865786
>I find talking about a subject with his arrogance about something he certainly doesn't know shit about intellectually dishonest.
Then you don't understand what the term means, lemme help:
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
You know what he meant, but you used it to further your own argument. It's true they were invaded, but how and why are valid parts of this equation. Sieging (how does the auto-correct not have this word?) an island the size of Japan is no small feat. Why did they bother? I'm curious.
>>865797
>You know what he meant, but you used it to further your own argument. It's true they were invaded, but how and why are valid parts of this equation.
It isn't.
He said "These things were allowed to continue because nobody bothered to invade Japan because it has nothing you'd worth taking, and so they had no one else to contend with apart from themselves."
If someone bothered to invade Japan, his second point is totally irrelevant.
"No one scored a goal against Barcelona because teams are too afraid of playing against Messi so they spent all their time defending".
Villarreal scored twice against Barcelona, so the second part is irrelevant.
>>865811
Thanks for not sperging out and answering my question. Really proves how rational weebs are. 10/10 level discussion.
ps have a seizure or kys senpai
>>865821
Here is what you should be saying instead "Sorry, I was wrong. I don't know enough about history other than what I have read on 4chan. I was factually wrong about their lack of silver, about their lack of serious military activity and about Japan not being invaded. I also don't know shit about how European traders worked in Asia at the time and I will avoid talking about subjects that I don't know shit about in the future".
>>865834
Nah. I'm good.
>>865555
the europeans only started trading with them by the time swords were well out of fashion here... a "dress" saber is nothing compared to an actual weapon of war
>>865883
>swords were out of fashion in Europe during the 16th century
maybe long swords, but there were rapiers which were very practical weapons. and people were still very familiar with pikes, armor and other tools of melee combat.
By the 19th century when they made contact again European sword use had declined but there were still functional systems of military saber around
>>865811
Your entire argument has missed the point of their post. The principle reason for the failure of the mongol's invasions were weather, not the supremacy of the Japanese. His point was that isolation reduced the need to innovate and refine their weapons. If an invasion's failure is attributed to divine wind by a people, why would they bother to change anything?
>>865956
>The principle reason for the failure of the mongol's invasions were weather, not the supremacy of the Japanese
http://deremilitari.org/2014/02/in-little-need-of-divine-intervention-takesaki-suenagas-scrolls-of-the-mongol-invasions-of-japan/
>>865972
Again, missing the point. The issue is not whether the Japanese could have won a direct, large-scale conflict, but rather that no such conflict took place. You're missing the forest for the trees throughout this thread to quite a worrying degree.
>>865988
First, I'm not the same guy. Second, Conlan's thesis is that in both the first and especially the second invasion, Japanese forces managed to beat back the mongols on multiple occasions. And that the previous historiography had been unduly influenced by religious and latter accounts.
third to answer a question that was asked above, its unclear whether the mongols wanted Japan's rumored gold, or simply wanted complete control of the region.
>>865956
>number of posters is still the same
You are the same guy, aren't you?
The reason why Japan defeated Mongols is also irrelevant.
>>865988
Such a conflict did take place. The second Mongol invasion was enormous.
Anyway, your entire point is bullshit. They could have their faults, but the Samurai were very pragmatic. The Sengoku period (you probably never heard of it, but it is a very long period in Japanese history, with a lot of warfare) has plenty of examples of this.
The use of ashigaru, the use of firearms, the tactics used, etc.
>>865343
>while the Europeans based them around piercing weapons?
But they didn't. the Europeans used a lot of cutting weapons, especially at the time dueling was still legal.
