07-28-2006, 08:12 PM
Quote:Some of the Viking swords are considered big and bulky compared to the samurai sleek sword but if you’re fighting for hours on end against Roman metal helmets, not laminated wood or wicker like the Japanese, then the Viking sword has its advantages. The larger bulky sword can take a lot of punishment, meaning that after you’ve hacked away for hours and the blade isn’t that sharp anymore you can still kill or maim with a good swing, the momentum of the heavy sword packs more of a punch.
....
Two points:
1) Japanese armour was never made out of wood, and as far as I know, not made of wicker either. The predominant armour form in Japan was lamellar, and the lamellae could be made of metal or of rawhide, then lacquered. Plates were used, especially after the Europeans showed up with plate armour and guns; mail was used in small quantities, usually to link metal plates together.
2) The cross section of Japanese swords have been studied and documented (for a few pics, see here: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... osssection ) They are not thinner than the cross sections of gladii or Viking swords. For the gladii, see pictures in Bishop and Coulston. Viking swords have fullers, and are even thinner overall than most spathae or gladii.
Felix Wang
