Rome vs Japan

[tlclark]

An MA in Asian Theatre may not be a very practical degree, but it was a lot of fun and never a dull moment. :wink:

LOL!

I could say the same about a Ph.D. in Art History (except for the part about dullness - writing the diss is killing me! but getting to eat dinner with the Monks at Mt. Sinai is not an everyday event so it evens out.)

Let me add my kudos to everyone elses. I always love reading your posts.

Travis

[Narukami]

I would agree with everything David says except this:

Japanese sword making was amazing and I think superior to all others.

The legend of the katana lives on, and its reputation surpassed the Toledo smiths, even though I think you can make an argument the spanish blade is a better blade.


Now I'm not a metallurgical expert and I'm relying an awful lot on what some colleagues have told me, but I do know that history is based on what survives.

Travis

Points well taken Travis.

Indeed, our view of history is based upon what has survived and what we have found of that which did. (If only the library at Alexandria had...)

Japan is a unique situation, preserving as it did so much from the past. The kabuki theatre is a case in point. Though is has changed and incorporated some new ideas the essence is still deeply rooted in feudal Japanese culture.

Yes, I think you can make a case for the Toledo blades, though I still put weight on Bronowski's comments, realizing of course that we are dealing with some important unknowns in terms of the Spanish sword smiths and their techniques.

Thanks Travis for an insightful post. As I said earlier in this thread, the level of knowledge on this site never ceases to impress me.

And a PhD...soon we will have to call you Dr. TLC.

Your students will have a grand time with that. :lol: :wink:

Narukami

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

I think that the sword-technics are also different. I practice Medieval European Swordfighting with a longsword (125 cm) and it is really a different kind of weapon then a gladius.
I think that a gladius is perfect for close combat fighting while a long sword is more for individual fighting.

[Goffredo]

Hi guys
I know I've behaved like a party pooper very often lately, but I really do think some of these hypothetical "romans-vs-others" threads are a real waste. The Romans vs Han was really interesting because the two Empires were of the same period and it is interesting to see how both used similar technology. I am convinced that cases of parallel evolution are very worth discussing. But roman legionaries against samurai? Come on! Its just too fake. What do we expect next? Romans-vs-Zulus? How about discussing what Romans would be doing against Hezbollah!

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

WARNING:

Big post-modern art history rant ahead!! Turn back now! You have been warned.

LOL

Now I'm not a metal expert, but I have been told that the 16th C. was the era of greatest sword making in Europe.

To compare, a katana is pattern welded from many different varieties of iron in laminations. The edge and core, as well as the spine are all made up of various pattern-welded steels that are best suited to that part of the weapon. The spine is flexible and the edge is harder, right where it needs to be. We know exactly how this is done, and it is very impressive.

When we look at a comparable 16th C. sword from Toledo (NOT Ohio) we see a very different weapon. No pattern welding, one solid piece of steel that somehow, and this is amazing, varies in hardness and carbon content over the length of the blade. The edge is hard high carbon steel, the core, more flexible and lower in carbon. Even the crystalline structure varies across the blade, tight where it needs to be hard and sharp, long where it needs flexibility.

How do you do this?!! Modern smiths have replicated this...somewhat... by varying forge and metal tempature, "cold"-forging, and other techniques.

OK, as Spanish and former estudioso of old XV-XVII two sword (rapier based) Spanish fencing (destreça de las armas) from original books on the subject (which is a fascinating and fortunate fact by itself!) I'll add my little contribution.

Effectively, XVI C. was probably the peak of the sword-making craft on Europe. All Toledo, Sheffield and Soringen are quoted as the most important sword-making sites, and their reputation was probably about right: a Spanish rapier (done either in Toledo or Albacete, or in Solingen (after king Charles I of Spain and V of Germany, father of famous Phillip II, things Spanish and German were pretty intermingled for a century or two) were of superb craftsmanship, able to cut a "sweet" iron bar from a single cut, but also able to sustain the strain of being bended until the tip of the blade touched the pommel without being deformed or broken... Despite this, they had an admirable twisting resistance, so they didn't swirl easily as late, silly dueling sables would do (after a while it's more like a sharp whip instead of a single-edged sword, but I digress)...

The problem about studying further likeable techniques with these swords is that most tests are destructive in nature, and no museum in its own judgement would destroy a sword on purpose! Despite the lack of ritual (when compared to their Japanese counterparts) European swordsmiths also had lots of "magical" formulae and tricks to measure temperature, time, carbon and other materials compositions (by using different temperatures in water, different kinds of woods and carbons for their forges and using different types of clay and mud to tamper with different parts of the blades and control what happened when and where). The guilds structure also favoured oral transmission over written works, and one can honestly wonder how many smiths would have been able to write, anyway... Swordplay was of importance to noblemen, who wrote and did so profusely; sword making was hot, dirty work completely unfit to upper classes... Again we are victims of History.

Another fascinating fact about the swords, anyway, was their endurance: those swords managed to resist heat, humidity and other aggressive factors like hands and leather and whatnot without stain; while we know the katana is really fragile to fingering and other staining features (the blade is basically permanently oiled, surely due to high iron, and relatively low carbon, content of its steel). I've watched lots of swords in museums around Spain, and many of them bear visible marks of heavy use, however the steel is only slightly stained. While I am all too eager to recognize the ability of museum curators and their teams to recover swords and other hoplological devices, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the money or time spent in conservation or weapons, while pendants, armour and other kind of medieval and renaissance gadgets are available: spectacular is spectacular is spectacular... and a poor sword cannot compete with a whole body court armor of infant king (put name in here) or baptism dress of queen (do the same)... sigh

Anyway, romanticism is about close times being lost, and certainly XVI C. swordsmanship is pretty far away... Let's hope the recent/soon to be released movie about Javier Pérez Reverte's Captain Alatriste (centered in XVII C.) will sprout some kind of revival in the interest about all this...

Anyway, nice postmodern entry, Travis... :-) )

thanks!

[tlclark]

What do we expect next? Romans-vs-Zulus?

Romans totally. Romans would not have made the mistake of spacing themselves too far apart in their front lines like the Brits did.

Just a guess...You never did the Hulk vs. Superman thing when you were a kid did you?

I still fight with my friends about that one!!

Travis

[tlclark]

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the money or time spent in conservation or weapons, while pendants, armour and other kind of medieval and renaissance gadgets are available: spectacular is spectacular is spectacular... and a poor sword cannot compete with a whole body court armor of infant king (put name in here) or baptism dress of queen (do the same)... sigh

How true! There are a number of artifacts that I would love to have but they never survive because they aren't flashy.

Anyway, romanticism is about close times being lost, and certainly XVI C. swordsmanship is pretty far away... Let's hope the recent/soon to be released movie about Javier Pérez Reverte's Captain Alatriste (centered in XVII C.) will sprout some kind of revival in the interest about all this...

Let's hope!

Thanks for the info. That fills out a lot of knowledge. David(Narukami) is right. I am perpetually amazed at the depth of knowledge on this site.

Like I said, I don't that much about swords and metallurgy but I feel like I should stand up for European craftsmen when I can.

Thanks for the post!

Travis

[Narukami]

Hi guys
I know I've behaved like a party pooper very often lately, but I really do think some of these hypothetical "romans-vs-others" threads are a real waste. The Romans vs Han was really interesting because the two Empires were of the same period and it is interesting to see how both used similar technology. I am convinced that cases of parallel evolution are very worth discussing. But roman legionaries against samurai? Come on! Its just too fake. What do we expect next? Romans-vs-Zulus? How about discussing what Romans would be doing against Hezbollah!

Of course you are correct, which is why this thread appears in the "Off Topic" section while the Rome vs. Han appears in the Military History area for the very reasons you state.

This is like that old Twilight Zone episode when a modern US Army tank crew is on maneuvers and winds up back in time at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Four guys in a Stuart light tank vs Crazy Horse and the Sioux Nation. Fun Sci-Fi high jinks, pointless history exercise.

However...

I did learn a thing or two about European swords and sword making so, for me at least, this thread was not a waste of time.

On the other hand, Romans vs. Zulus....Would that be against Shaka or post Rorke's Drift Zulus...? )

:wink:

Narukami

[tlclark]

And a PhD...soon we will have to call you Dr. TLC.

Your students will have a grand time with that.

How about the "Doctor of Love" :lol:

Travis

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

You never did the Hulk vs. Superman thing when you were a kid did you

the hulk wins offcourse!

Ramses II vs Alexander the great, (one on one) hmm
or
X men vs the Fantastic four!

[tlclark]

You never did the Hulk vs. Superman thing when you were a kid did you

the hulk wins offcourse!

Ramses II vs Alexander the great, (one on one) hmm
or
X men vs the Fantastic four!

What!?

Unless the Hulk is made of Kryptonite It's gotta be superman. Why? He can fly and evade Hulk. He can attack from a remote location via heat vision and most importantly, he doesn't have a brain the size of a pea.

Now Superman vs. She-Hulk? Now that's epic!

Alexander no contest, and I gotta give it to the X-men. They're are just crazier.

Here's some more I'd like to see:

Batman vs. Spiderman

Hannibal vs. General William Tecumseh Sherman

Patton vs. Crazy Horse

Sargon II vs. King David.

George Washington vs. William Wallace

The US. constitution (the ship, not the paper) against Lord Nelson.

The monitor against the Korean turtle boats!

Gosh this is fun.

And while we are here, this:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/285267
seems appropriate.

Click on the "Watch this movie" link.

Travis

[Goffredo]

How about :
dracula-vs-mummy hock:
ah but better yet
chess-vs-checkers :roll:
This is fun! :lol:

[tlclark]

How about :
dracula-vs-mummy hock:
ah but better yet
chess-vs-checkers :roll:
This is fun! :lol:

Boy you weren't kidding. You ARE a party pooper!

Let's go back to talking about Jesus, first movers and prime causes!

How about this:

Bertrand Russell vs. Carl Sagan.

C.S. Lewis vs. Freud!

Bonhoeffer vs. Sarte!

Albert Camus vs. Hunter S. Thompson!

:wink:

Travis

[Narukami]

You never did the Hulk vs. Superman thing when you were a kid did you

the hulk wins offcourse!

Ramses II vs Alexander the great, (one on one) hmm
or
X men vs the Fantastic four!

What!?

Now Superman vs. She-Hulk? Now that's epic!

Alexander no contest, and I gotta give it to the X-men. They're are just crazier.

Here's some more I'd like to see:

Batman vs. Spiderman

Hannibal vs. General William Tecumseh Sherman

Patton vs. Crazy Horse

Sargon II vs. King David.

George Washington vs. William Wallace

The US. constitution (the ship, not the paper) against Lord Nelson.

The monitor against the Korean turtle boats!

Gosh this is fun.

And while we are here, this:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/285267
seems appropriate.

Click on the "Watch this movie" link.

Travis

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

Too much!

Then again, perhaps not enough...

Pee Wee Herman vs. Herman Goering

Mr. T vs. T-Rex

Brad Pitt vs. William Pitt

Caesar Romero vs. Caesar Augustus

Hulk Hogan vs Colonel Hogan

Colonel Klink vs. Colonel Sanders

The Trojan Horse vs. Trojan Brand Condoms

Wolfgang Petersen vs. Wolfgang Mozart

Say...this is fun.

:roll: :wink:

Narukami

[petrinus]

being a student and instructor of kenjutsu and aikijujutsu and rather well studied on fuedal japan, and the tactics and capabilities of samurai and bushi, i must insist that the samurai would eat a legion alive, their bows were monstrous and powerful, their swords sharper (you really have no idea unless youve cut with one, master nakamura cut through 5 goza, thats the density of 5 human bodies!!!), longer and stronger and their fluidity and skill of movement and fearlessness of death unimaginable, unconceivable even to a western mind. the samurai were trained from about age 7 and by the time most were 12/13 they were facing hardened adult killers successfully on the battle field, not all samurai were of horse rank, so they are not dependent on cavalry tactics, and their work with the yari and naginata (spears and pole arms) is something to behold. ive got mad love for rome and the legion but i think the samuria would out manuever and masacre a what honestly was a rather rigid fighting schism concerning the legion, however there would no doubt be heavy losses fort he samurai