European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

ElKarlo said:
Lose of material and lack of will. The military in no way lost those fights. The govt and politicans did.

My point again is that the Romans were beaten in Tuetenberg (sp) forest in an irregular battle, and not by guerillas. The Romans were poorly led, and many knew they were walking into an ambush. Read about it a long time ago. It was pretty stupid, and yes they had no hope of relief.
Click to expand...

do you like living in japan?
 
tlear said:
Romans got betrayed in that battle. German commander was roman trained, I think he even been to Rome himself. Basically what happened is all of the regional Roman allies turned on them.. also Germans were far from some random dirty barbarians, they were well organized and very well lead, romans did not expect battle and got caught on the march basically.

If you talk about French in vietnam then they got schooled. Dien Bien Phu is a good example.
Click to expand...

Semantics, I'm afraid. No one who watched the final bug-out from the US Embassy in Saigon will be in any doubt as to who won the Vietnam War.

The Romans were betrayed? So what? "All warfare is based on deception". When do you stop qualifying your enemies' victory? It would be like the Nazi's saying, "Yeah, the Allies won the war but only because we betrayed Stalin!"

One more time: if you force other guy has to leave your country before he's ready, you have won. It does'nt matter if you prefer to slit his throat in the night rather than slug it out face to face on the battlefield. It does'nt matter if the soldiers are willing to stay and fight for as long as it takes to finally crush you, if you're sending enough of them home in body-bags to force the politicans to give the order to withdraw. It does'nt matter if your enemy kicks your ass in every major engagement if he can't stop you killing his men in small groups.

"Moral victories" are what losers claim.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for all those serving in Afghanistan, but I'm afraid we are going to lose. As soon as British and more importantly American troops withdraw, the Taliban will simply walk back in and take over the country. The ANA will not be able to stop them. And British and American politicians don't have the stomach - or the money - for God knows how many more decades of war.
 
esotamoc said:
do you like living in japan?
Click to expand...

Yes, do I like working here? No.

I got to see a lot of cool historical stuff. In Chiba I saw the defenses that they set up for the eventual US invasion. There's even a lobster farm that is a converted mini sub base.

It's worth visiting. If you want to ESL it up hit China, Vietnam or even Taiwan. If I could do it all over again I'd do to Taiwan.
 
KnightTemplar said:
Semantics, I'm afraid. No one who watched the final bug-out from the US Embassy in Saigon will be in any doubt as to who won the Vietnam War.

The Romans were betrayed? So what? "All warfare is based on deception". When do you stop qualifying your enemies' victory? It would be like the Nazi's saying, "Yeah, the Allies won the war but only because we betrayed Stalin!"

One more time: if you force other guy has to leave your country before he's ready, you have won. It does'nt matter if you prefer to slit his throat in the night rather than slug it out face to face on the battlefield. It does'nt matter if the soldiers are willing to stay and fight for as long as it takes to finally crush you, if you're sending enough of them home in body-bags to force the politicans to give the order to withdraw. It does'nt matter if your enemy kicks your ass in every major engagement if he can't stop you killing his men in small groups.

"Moral victories" are what losers claim.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for all those serving in Afghanistan, but I'm afraid we are going to lose. As soon as British and more importantly American troops withdraw, the Taliban will simply walk back in and take over the country. The ANA will not be able to stop them. And British and American politicians don't have the stomach - or the money - for God knows how many more decades of war.
Click to expand...

Oh I am not saying that it does not count or whatever.. point was that it was not some sort of guerrilla war that Romans lost. In fact Romans or Ancients in general never lost those.. why because they had methods of pacifying the locals that would make Taliban seem like a bunch of retarded hipsters, reading Caesar's description of sieges in Gaul would explain that quite well. They got beat in a pitched battle by well organized an trained opponent that that was trained in their own tactics. It is a modern myth that guerrillas can not be defeated, historically guerrillas just made great decoration along the Roman military roads (on crosses).

In Vietnam Vietcong actually tried on few occasion replicate the success they had vs French, with truly disastrous consequences for themselves. By the end of it it was North regulars that had to do all the fighting because Vietcong was bled pretty much dry.
 
Oh yeah reading about the XLegion right now, they had a brief part about the aftermath of the Tuetenburg Forest. Basically the Germans got wrecked, real hard after that by Emperor Tibernious.

Anyhow my point is that look at what the First Crusade did. They did it without any real supply line, or reenforcements at all.
 
I would say a fencer would beat an unarmored samurai handily.

Can't compare tho. One has body plate and other doesn't.

Better comparison would be knight vs samurai. Tough call, I have to go with samurai in that case.
 
No single billet blade could match the characteristics of a folded blade, no matter how it is heat treated. Folding manipulates the grain of the steel to be in the direction desired for purpose. Imagine snapping a piece of wood with the grain or against the grain? Same principle. The Japanese metallurgy may well have been inferior but through folding will have clawed much of that disadvantage back & even gained in certain crucial areas of performance.
 
No single billet blade could match the characteristics of a folded blade, no matter how it is heat treated. Folding manipulates the grain of the steel to be in the direction desired for purpose. Imagine snapping a piece of wood with the grain or against the grain? Same principle. The Japanese metallurgy may well have been inferior but through folding will have clawed much of that disadvantage back & even gained in certain crucial areas of performance.
Click to expand...

This is untrue. The degree of precision required to do this is simply impossible, and there is no actual evidence to show any possible realignment of the grain provides any advantage. In fact, there is no evidence that forging a blade gives any performance advantage over simply grinding a good steel billet into shape and heat treating it.

The only reason the japanese employed the process was to compensate for the impurities in their steel. Folding steel always creates microscopic inclusions and imperfections between the weld points, creating weaknesses. You can see this after a sword has been polished by a togishi. The water used during the polishing process will be trapped between the layers of the blade, and gradually bleed out over a course of a few weeks.

Folding steel was a well known process amongst many cultures, from china to Europe. It was not used when good steel was available, and if the Japanese had access to plentiful good steel, they would have abandoned it as well.
 
KnightTemplar said:
Semantics, I'm afraid. No one who watched the final bug-out from the US Embassy in Saigon will be in any doubt as to who won the Vietnam War.

The Romans were betrayed? So what? "All warfare is based on deception". When do you stop qualifying your enemies' victory? It would be like the Nazi's saying, "Yeah, the Allies won the war but only because we betrayed Stalin!"

One more time: if you force other guy has to leave your country before he's ready, you have won. It does'nt matter if you prefer to slit his throat in the night rather than slug it out face to face on the battlefield. It does'nt matter if the soldiers are willing to stay and fight for as long as it takes to finally crush you, if you're sending enough of them home in body-bags to force the politicans to give the order to withdraw. It does'nt matter if your enemy kicks your ass in every major engagement if he can't stop you killing his men in small groups.

"Moral victories" are what losers claim.
Click to expand...

no one forced the American military to leave Vietnam. They left after signing the Paris peace accords which the North sued for after the vietcong was completely crushed. The south was not overrun until two years later after Ford promised the world the US would never intervene there again, and kept his promise.

Yes it is semantics but misleading semantics. Suppose in another ten years the communist govt falls, perhaps with complete denouncement of communism and criminal trials for the leadership from vietnam. shall we then argue that subsequent events prove the US won the vietnam war again? When you use words like defeat they mean things. If you have to argue with people for a roundabout definition contrary to how they understand the term, then maybe there's other language that would describe the situation better.
 
Depends on the age you're talking about. Probably eastern technique though.
 
SweetDaddySiki said:
This is untrue. The degree of precision required to do this is simply impossible, and there is no actual evidence to show any possible realignment of the grain provides any advantage. In fact, there is no evidence that forging a blade gives any performance advantage over simply grinding a good steel billet into shape and heat treating it.
Click to expand...

I haven't had the opportunity to compare a forged blade Vs one machined from a single billet, so I don't really know how they would compare. But there is plenty of proof in the automotive world that proves a forged component is better suited to high-stress usage. Parts which come to mind straight away are pistons, connecting rods, even good quality spanners are drop-forged because they are so much stronger.

Based on that 'evidence', I would greatly favor a blade that has been forged.
 
Last edited:
tlear said:
Oh I am not saying that it does not count or whatever.. point was that it was not some sort of guerrilla war that Romans lost. In fact Romans or Ancients in general never lost those.. why because they had methods of pacifying the locals that would make Taliban seem like a bunch of retarded hipsters, reading Caesar's description of sieges in Gaul would explain that quite well. They got beat in a pitched battle by well organized an trained opponent that that was trained in their own tactics. It is a modern myth that guerrillas can not be defeated, historically guerrillas just made great decoration along the Roman military roads (on crosses).

In Vietnam Vietcong actually tried on few occasion replicate the success they had vs French, with truly disastrous consequences for themselves. By the end of it it was North regulars that had to do all the fighting because Vietcong was bled pretty much dry.
Click to expand...

The last Roman attempt to completely conquer Scotland involved 40,000 Roman soldiers, including their equivelent to Special Forces. It lasted 4 years, cost God knows how much money and the lives of over 4,000 Roman soldiers. Do the maths: that is one tenth of the invasion force. Which was one of the largest Roman forces ever assembled to attack a single country

Not one of these 4,000 soldiers died in a pitched battle. They were all killed in hit and run, guerilla warfare. The Romans did'nt fight a single "battle" as they understood the term, in four years.

Eventually, sick of losing men and gold for no gain whatsoever, the Roman Emperor managed to broker a peace settlement with some Pictish Chiefs. He paid them a great deal of gold and in return they submitted to him.

Unfortunately, the Chiefs could only command their own tribes, not the whole of Scotland. Barely had the Emperor finished minting coins in honour of his "victory" than Picts started raiding and killing across the Border again. Sick and dying by this time, he ordered his son to take the Legions north again on a punative raid. Unfortunately, his son had no intention of returning to a freezing cold land filled with howling, half-naked, hairy, blue-painted savages(and that was just the women:eek:)and no Roman Army ever again attempted to conquer Scotland.

The Roman Legions? We shit 'em!:icon_chee
 
t is a simple test really, put a straight blade and a curved into scabbard.. now pull either out while striking in same motion. If anything Katana is optimized for that purpose, actual lack of crossguard even makes sense for this. Japanese used crossguards on their spears and polearms but not swords, why? Probably so that the guard does not get caught in the clothing (pure guess here).
Click to expand...

I kinda missed this, oops!

Anyways..you can draw and cut with a western style straight blade just fine

YouTube - AT1557CuttingFromScabbardMusic.mpg
 
Last edited:
Can you show me proof of this? Keep in mind that Iaijutsu evolved *after* the Samurai actually stopped fighting in wars.
 
SweetDaddySiki said:
This should shed some light

myArmoury.com: Ground or Pound? Forging vs. Stock Removal
Click to expand...


Advantages and disadvantages

Forging can produce a piece that is stronger than an equivalent cast or machined part. As the metal is shaped during the forging process, its internal grain deforms to follow the general shape of the part. As a result, the grain is continuous throughout the part, giving rise to a piece with improved strength characteristics.[3]

Some metals may be forged cold, however iron and steel are almost always hot forged. Hot forging prevents the work hardening that would result from cold forming, which would increase the difficulty of performing secondary machining operations on the piece. Also, while work hardening may be desirable in some circumstances, other methods of hardening the piece, such as heat treating, are generally more economical and more controllable. Alloys that are amenable to precipitation hardening, such as most aluminium alloys and titanium, can be hot forged, followed by hardening.

Production forging involves significant capital expenditure for machinery, tooling, facilities and personnel. In the case of hot forging, a high temperature furnace (sometimes referred to as the forge) will be required to heat ingots or billets. Owing to the massiveness of large forging hammers and presses and the parts they can produce, as well as the dangers inherent in working with hot metal, a special building is frequently required to house the operation. In the case of drop forging operations, provisions must be made to absorb the shock and vibration generated by the hammer. Most forging operations will require the use of metal-forming dies, which must be precisely machined and carefully heat treated to correctly shape the workpiece, as well as to withstand the tremendous forces involved.

Source : Wikipedia
 
SweetDaddySiki said:
I kinda missed this, oops!

Anyways..you can draw and cut with a western style straight blade just fine

YouTube - AT1557CuttingFromScabbardMusic.mpg
Click to expand...

Notice how at the 0.21-0.22 mark he has to extend his right arm quite a bit to get the sword out of the scabbard (the jerky transition between draw and strike can be seen much clearer in slo-mo), a curved blade like a saber would facilitate that same movement and would result in a much smoother draw and strike for a sword of the same length (maybe one of the reasons the cavalry favored them over a straight blade?!?).

EDIT :

Looking at videos related to the one you suggested, came across this.

YouTube - Japanese Katana Vs European Broadsword

Have a look at the 0.55-0.56 mark. You'll notice that the transition between draw and strike is much smoother.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,458,845
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top