Scientist compares Roman and Japanese swords with new method

[Narukami]

Good points all Marcus.

I met the young lady who worked as the dialog coach for Lucy Lu and while Ms. Lu was an earnest student, the coach and her friends laughed through most of the film.

You are correct that there are many good Samurai films besides those by Kurosawa, and I do like many of them, but I still find those by Kurosawa to be the best. The Seven Samurai is one of the best films ever made.

You are also correct about the Samurai and their approach to death, but I do think it is possible to be a Samurai and not carry two swords. Yes, they have changed over time but the spirit still lives.

Remember, the purists among them felt that the very act of writing out a "Warrior Code" meant that the Samurai had lost their way. How many times did the Tokugawa shogunate re-issue rules and regulations to control not only the peasants but more importantly the Samurai. The fact that the kabuki theatre is an all male art form is due in large part to the efforts of the Shogun attempting to prevent the corruption of the Samurai by the female actors (and later the young boys who many Samurai also found quite attractive).

And yet out of that time of corrupting peace rose the 47 Ronin -- are they not fine examples of the true Samurai spirit?

It is reminiscent of many Romans throughout their history complaining about the loss of the old Roman virtues.

Yes, Ghost Dog uses fire arms, but he is not a Jedi Knight, and the Samurai used firearms to great effect -- Nagashino comes to mind. Purists might decry their use, as we might the use of most modern weapons. The Japanese have a term for that: The High Brought Low. (I'll look it up when I get home tonight -- it refers to the Samurai being killed by the common foot soldier.)

I would also submit Yakuza as a Hollywood film that captures the essence of a Samurai film. Yes the main Japanese character, Ken, is not Samurai but Yakuza, but does he not display the spirit of sacrifice so vital to the essence of Bushido?

Forgive me, I am rambling. :oops:

You make good points Marcus and as always you are a passionate advocate.

:wink:

Narukami

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

You do too my friend! indeed Yakuza and even Black rain capture some of the essence of samurai honour. as well as some parts of ghost dog of course.. but not quite.. that is all i am saying..

Indeed in Nagashino the ashigaru had changed into riflemen, and not to the liking of the mounted samurai who even if duelling would still revert to the sword...

Not untill the late 1790s the handguns came into use with the regular bushi.

before that the gun was still seen as a peasants weapon, without honour.

oh by the way... about longsword techniques...

watch this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw

M.VIB.M.

[Wander]

Regarding the flexibility and structure of swords, Marcus Vibius Maurinus states:

its build up is so much different to any bendable and therefore weaker steel that you can hardly compare the two.

I have to take issue with this. Resiliency does NOT equal weakness or inferiority; in fact, any steel that is not tempered to a brittle point (usually above the 60s on the Rockwell scale) will be flexible and resilient, given an appropriate load. The classic Nihonto is usually in the 60s at the edge, and the back of the blade will test in the low 50s -- providing the toughness that makes Japanese blades so famous.

http://www.rsknives.co.uk/review.html

Above is a link to a "test to destruction" of a modern katana -- granted, not made from tamahagane in the classical tradition, but of a modern spring steel. Still, it amply demonstrates that flexibility and toughness are not mutually exclusive (at one point, the blade is clamped in a vise and flexed to 90 degrees before returning to true).

Having done some blacksmithing myself for years, I have the greatest respect both for the master swordsmiths of Japan and their counterparts in Europe. In another thread I noted that one of the leading swordsmiths in America, Dr. (of metallurgy) Jim Hrisoulas, once told me that, in his opinion, the Viking sword of 700-900 AD Scandinavia, is the technical equal of the classic Nihonto. Without taking anything away from the beautiful and deadly artistry of the nihonto, I have to agree with those who say European swords are -- often -- much underrated.

(On the other hand, a lot of the swords produced in the Middle Ages for use by the common soldier really were pretty crappy. Just because certain master smiths in Europe were producing masterpieces does not elevate all of them to the high standard set by the Japanese swords.)

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

You are comparing a spring steel Cheness sword to a true nihon-to...

that is impossible.

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Damn, some one actually responded to my joke :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree about kill bill, but it was entertaing to a point.... :wink: :lol:

[Wander]

Marcus Vibius Marinus writes:

You are comparing a spring steel Cheness sword to a true nihon-to...

that is impossible.

On the contrary, I can compare a nihonto to a banana, if I choose to, but I would agree such a comparison would be absurd. The Cheness sword I referenced is a fine weapon, but I never claimed it was constructed like a nihonto.

But you are falling back on dogma, declaring such a
comparison "impossible," and totally disregarding my point -- which was that resilience and flexibility does not equate to an inferior or "weaker" steel. Metallurgy is metallurgy, whether Japanese, Chinese, European, or American. I'm open if you care to refute my statement, but your declaration hardly constitutes a refutation. If you are a swordsmith or metallurgist, then I'm sure you can provide plenty of real documentation to support your statement.

I'm not looking for an argument here, but your response smacks of an unwillingness to consider anything different -- and that is an intellectually dangerous path.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

no i do take our point about resilience and flexibility, and its a valid one,

however i was talking merely about nihon-to because i consider those the only true samurai swords..

deformation cuz of my being a nihon-to collector.

I would even go so far as to say that any sword made after 1868 is not a Samurai sword, but still may be nihon-to......

M.VIB.M.

[Narukami]

Damn, some one actually responded to my joke :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree about kill bill, but it was entertaining to a point.... :wink: :lol:

I always try to respond to your Jokes Gaius -- in a discussion like this that is the best I can do.

Our fellow members are arguing esoterica far above my level of knowledge concerning sword construction.

However...

When it comes to the aesthetics (or lack there of ) in Hollywood I'm always ready to chime in.

:wink:

Narukami

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Saying that, I believe the quality of blades of Roman swords is actually far higher than a great many care to admit. nd from an early period too.

The view they were just poor quality iron is not doing them justice at all!

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

absolutely true gaius they were very very good...!

but dont forget the test they did a few years back on copper/bronze blades..

also very very good....

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The one on the iron blade, made specially for the documentary....

It was quite interesting true.....but iron was on the go for quite some time before the romans adopted the hispaniensis....plenty of time for iron working skills to have managed to improve over the bronze weapons.....

or they would have reverted back to bronze I would imagine... :?:

[Wander]

Marcus wrote:

however i was talking merely about nihon-to because i consider those the only true samurai swords..

[snipped]

I would even go so far as to say that any sword made after 1868 is not a Samurai sword, but still may be nihon-to......

You will get no argument at all from me on those points, Marcus. The phrase "samurai sword" is tossed around very loosely these days, but I'll agree that to be called a "samurai sword" a sword should have been owned by a genuine samurai.

That said, there are some very good samurai-style swords being made today -- including that Cheness katana (which I would not hesitate at all to take into a real battle -- assuming you could get me to go into a real battle where people will get arms and legs chopped off and probably die!). Some are being made, even in the USA, by makers who hold to the original methods. (An example is Michael Bell of Oregon, who served a five-year apprenticeship under a Japanese master smith before coming back to America and creating his own.)

Finally, about the fact that at least four craftsmen were involved in the manufacture of a traditional katana, I will also point out that, during the Renaissance at least, a fine rapier would have been the product of at least three men (not to mention their apprentices): the swordsmith was a very specialized blacksmith, focused on bladed weapons, and he only made the blade. From that point the blade was sent to the swordcutler, who would create a hilt to the customer's taste (in a custom order). Finally, the scabbards would be made by another specialist, usually a master leather crafter, who would wrap the wooden scabbard halves tightly in the finest leather. The chape and locket would be fitted, and in the case of the best swords, often a jeweler would embellish the scabbard and hilt with gold, silver, or precious stones. So -- to create the very finest of European rapiers, we're back to four craftsmen -- not the same as the Japanese masters, but comparable.

[Sean Manning]

oh by the way... about longsword techniques...

watch this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw

M.VIB.M.

What point ? I see a well-fought fight where both sides score hits, and some exchanges where both sides get what would be a serious wound if they were using sharps. For as far back as our sources go, European martial arts are just as sophisticated as their modern East Asian equivalents (and they are tied into comtemporary philosophy too!)

Most preindustrial cultures made beautiful and effective swords, and had sophisticated and effective martial arts. I've never seen the point of arguing "which is best," especially since the man and the situation matter so much more.

[Magnus]

What point ? I see a well-fought fight where both sides score hits, and some exchanges where both sides get what would be a serious wound if they were using sharps. For as far back as our sources go, European martial arts are just as sophisticated as their modern East Asian equivalents (and they are tied into comtemporary philosophy too!)

Most preindustrial cultures made beautiful and effective swords, and had sophisticated and effective martial arts. I've never seen the point of arguing "which is best," especially since the man and the situation matter so much more.

Actually, they're basically the same...if anyone has read Fiore and read or practiced any japanese sword arts you can see all the principles are identical.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

True Matt, that is why i wanted to show using the video that a well fought battle would leave both men hurt or even dead.

The sword only has true value if the one using it is proficient in the art of wielding it.

People often tend to forget that the so called Two swords, one mind technique of Miyamoto Musashi was actually borrowed from the European rapier and dagger style.

That Musashi writes he never lost a battle is doubtful, because in those days you would not have written down the battles you would have lost. Also since no actual and factual witnessess ever wrote down seeing him fight, even though the book of 5 rings is a very good study book, you must (if scientifically looking at it) have your doubts on at least some of the actual battles he fought.

Also a lot of battles between swordsmen were fought either with Bokken,
or had the rule that when first blood was drawn the battle would be won by the person drawing it from his opponent.

Fights to the death were common, but not as regular as we might be led to believe.

M.VIB.M.