Wow. All this.......knowledge, in one place.
Marines use swords? I assumed US were more technologically advanced :Dwell you can't have cruise missiles at a wedding, now can you.Why not D: ?
More seriously, I guess they don't use them in combat.
Eh, talk to any cop. If a cop has his gun in his holster, and somebody is running at him with a knife in his hand and is within 30 feet of the cop, guess what happens? The cop is going to be stabbed, before he can pull his pistol.
In most street fights even during the old west, it was knife fight, not a gunfight that was most prevalent.
In modern battle, the best weapon for close in fighting is the bayonet, not any firearm of any sort - you'll run of out of bullets eventually.
Blades are not as archaic and useless as you think, this is why US Marines still train in sword and knife use.
The current ruling is bastard sword.
It's stupid and wrong, but whatever.
back to back. we can fight them all....
|
I'm saying you use the 1d8, 18-20/x2 stats for damage, but it's otherwise identical to a Bastard Sword as far as prerequisites for use are concerned (two-handed martial, 1-handed exotic).I could roll with that if the gang really asked for it, I guess. The thing is, why should I dig Sandstorm for reference if the bastard sword is already staring at me from the core book? It's still a pretty decent statline.
@ Kthulhu - I think the poor quality of Japanese metal might be overstated at times. It might not have been the best there was, is, and will be, but I'd say their good quality swords didn't break like some half-baked crap. Now, as far as I know, in the warring states era they did produce a lot of said crap as well (as did many European forges when they needed to produce swords en masse for less discriminating customers), but overall I'd reserve judgement on overall quality just yet. /shrug.
Japanese steel may have a range of quality...but their iron source was CRAP. No if and or buts about it. Iron in japan was so full of impurities it isn't even funny. I remember a japanophile showing me a picture of how "pure" the japanese iron sources was to make their "perfect" swords and the bloomery iron piece (i.e. had a lot of the impurities already removed) had a large chunk of cobalt and copper incursion in the piece...like visable in a thumbnail large.
Japanese steel may have a range of quality...but their iron source was CRAP. No if and or buts about it. Iron in japan was so full of impurities it isn't even funny. I remember a japanophile showing me a picture of how "pure" the japanese iron sources was to make their "perfect" swords and the bloomery iron piece (i.e. had a lot of the impurities already removed) had a large chunk of cobalt and copper incursion in the piece...like visable in a thumbnail large.I'm saying you use the 1d8, 18-20/x2 stats for damage, but it's otherwise identical to a Bastard Sword as far as prerequisites for use are concerned (two-handed martial, 1-handed exotic).I could roll with that if the gang really asked for it, I guess. The thing is, why should I dig Sandstorm for reference if the bastard sword is already staring at me from the core book? It's still a pretty decent statline.
@ Kthulhu - I think the poor quality of Japanese metal might be overstated at times. It might not have been the best there was, is, and will be, but I'd say their good quality swords didn't break like some half-baked crap. Now, as far as I know, in the warring states era they did produce a lot of said crap as well (as did many European forges when they needed to produce swords en masse for less discriminating customers), but overall I'd reserve judgement on overall quality just yet. /shrug.
IIRC the pure "Japanese" iron was imported from Sweden. :)
This screams PhD dissertation.
|
|
True, i trained two-handed sword fighting...four and a half feet of weapon. We had a match against a kendo school. We kicked their asses. Perfect score. 20:0 in victories? Why, well, reach and the fact they expected us to be much slower...two handed fighter is not slow. NONO.I had a sparring match with a friend who used a practice medieval longsword (aka a D&D bastard sword) - and I won, every time and using a cut-down boken to represent a ninjato, rather than a katana.
We did agree, though, that armoured combat would give him the advantage, the katana or ninjato would have more problems penetrating European armour than the longsword would have penetrating contemporary period Japanese armour.
The katana was a very fine weapon, and IMHO better overall than the European contemporary blades against an un-armoured opponent - but European armour was better than Japanese, and a European sword was more likely to penetrate European armour.
Is being finesseable an advantage to a weapon? Not really, if you consider the loss in damage the wielder will suffer without Strength as their main stat.
You haven't seen the upper level of the euro swords. Spain produced some AMAZING swords that rival anything the japanese made. Damascus/wootz blades, some of which were made in the western european style are also quite a bit of a marvel. Vikings had twist cored swords before the japanese even knew how to make a sword and were importing them from china.
As for the sparring results...sorry but somebody who can't captiolize on reach to get you even once is so far below your skill as a fighter that it is a worthless comparison. Same for the kendoka who could not once figure out how to negate reach...not once?!? Yeah those are disparity is skills...not technique and weapon. When I spar people of my skill level (me using either the katana or euro longsword), reach matters...quite a bit. Reach is such a large advantage that people of around my skill level will win 80% of the time if they have the reach advantage. And it doesn't have to be big...3 inches is all you need.
I'd say 1d12, crit 19-20/x4.No, please stop it. Katana's are not super weapons that can cut tanks in half. Just because you see it in anime does not mean it has to do that in game. It is just a fancy bastard sword which is still pretty good. And for the record, in-game weapons do not have to reflect their historical counter part. It's a fantasy game, where weapons are in theory statted for balance. Druids,wizards, and monks are not historically accurate, so why do people insist on weapons being accurate?
Besides if you need a sword to cut a tank in half, you are doing it wrong.
Maybe x3. Unless you have a "sword expert" feat. Then it's x4.
Maybe x3. Unless you have a "sword expert" feat. Then it's x4.But you shouldn't be able to wield a katana with out that feat!
*sigh* I know.....Marine Corps Drill Instructors need to know this though.....
|
That's because they do not understand how to use one of those weapons in war (and this is why katanas are type "P or S" when I run games) -- the deadliest samurai attack style is a two-handed lunge, the intent of which is to "Power Attack" ram the point of his sword right through his kozane (scale-mail) armored opponent. Due to the square hilt-guard of the katana, a samurai could throw all of his weight into the lunge.Not that it means a lot (the above post is an oldie but a goodie) but I did like the Samurai vs. Viking ep of Deadliest Warrior.
Team Samurai were bragging on their weaponry when team viking insisted using their Katana vs. their viking style chainmail.
A section of mail was drapped over some pork and the 'Samurai' squared up... swing and...
Nada.
Hit as hard as you'd expect but absolutely failed to penetrate.
The katana was a very fine weaponA masterwork katana was a very fine weapon. An average katana was a just as much a piece of crap as anything littering a medieval European battlefield. (Swords were not common weapons in either historical settings as it took a lot of work to fashion anything decent when axes, flails, spears and other polearms were easier to make and more effective in real (especially outdoor) combat, particularly in massed-combat.
It is just a fancy bastard sword which is still pretty good.
Katanas of average length are not equivalent to bastard swords. (They're actually easier for an untrained person to use than a European longsword -- because their design permits a real-world two-handed grip whereas most European swords do not. If your samurai ethos is to destroy your opponent regardless of personal risk, a katana is a frighteningly effective weapon: you run up to your opponent, take a spear or one-hand sword-point through the gizzard on the approach, then slaughter them before you limp away to maybe die or maybe not.)
Silly katana romanticizers. Bokken are the superior swords.
And ninjas use them. NINJAS!
|
|
Now, the katana? Definitely counts as "curvy" by the standards applied to the other weapons. It should have an 18-20 x2 threat range.A katana is hardly curvy at all compared to an Arab "Damascus steel" scimitar (which was designed to produce a "drawing cut" (i.e., the sword is dragged along the wound), especially on a pass-along attack from horseback. Against "soft" (no metal) armored opponents, the slashes it made were horrific; against metal a scimitar was junk since it could not pierce and did not have enough heft to otherwise stand in as a bashing weapon. In a katana, most of the apparent "curve" is an optical illusion as result of a slight angling in the crossguard region, and the 40-degree angle on the cutting face near the tip of the sword -- the spine of the sword was otherwise fairly straight in order to permit powerful piercing lunge attacks (Japanese swords because less curved with the passage of time for this reason).
It can also be wielded in two hands, or one hand (in the latter case, historically as part of the long-and-short which had the wakizashi). "Dual wield" wasn't common historically, but it did occur, and Musashi Miyamoto made it famous.
Miyamoto was strong enough to pull it off.
Samurai invariably fought with katana in both hands.
So, where should it fit? Just as the bastard sword fits between the 7 damage greatsword and the 4.5...
There is no justifiable reason for making a katana a d10 weapon given that the average katana was both shorter and weighed less than a European longsword.
Vikings had twist cored swords before the japanese even knew how to make a sword and were importing them from china.
The first Japanese swords weren't imported from China, they were copies of swords used by Emishi tribal peoples of northern and western Japan (locals, not Chinese). The Japanese were fighting the Emishi with Emishi designed swords long before any official visit from Diplomats in China. These wars began in the 4th century, shortly after the consolidation of the Yamato state. The first Chinese to appear in Japan officially didn't happen until the 7th century (300 years later).
Thanks on the clarity on the Musashi love - everyone is so enamored with the guy that the fanboi's think it was the common way for Samurai to do combat... he was very strong and very tough and trained himself to do this. It was not the common way to sword fight/duel in Japan... indeed in his most famous duels he used just a single weapon.
Musashi was a ronin and a nobody, with little recognition in Japan for his exploits or sword techniques which were indeed self taught. It wasn't until his 90's that he wrote the Book of Five Rings, which was not a sword training guide, rather using the way of the warrior to find Buddhist enlightenment. It was this book that made Musashi famous. His fighting exploits identified his unique style, but did not create a new method of fighting as 2-handed katana training was still the norm, before and long after.
Nobody in Japan considers Musashi the epitome of samurai, he was masterless, he fought without distinction during two battles in the Sengoku Period, and otherwise was more of wanderer. It was only his book written in his twilight years that gives him any distinction at all.
And this is why there is the orientphobia...yeah what you suggest is not big deal (using the aldori dueling sword)...but all the rest...umm no thanks.Personally, when Jade Regent and ultimate combat hit, I will probably use the weapon statistics for an Aldori Duelling sword, because it behaves at Katana's do in fiction, be it old ronin movies, anima, modern comics or films. Also, the description and art for these weapons is pretty to a katana like.
The behaviour of the real world weapon, and real world arms really are a secondary concern. But if it were, we certainly wouldn't be using bastard sword stats(similar yes, but not identical)
Giving a Katana different stats from a bastard sword is worth while because a Katana is not a bastard sword. They might be very similar, but not identical, just as a scimitar and a longsword are very similar but not identical weapons. Having separate stats allows a choice about weapon use to have meaning. Forget which weapons better, leave your gaming related orientaphobia at the door, and just accept that sometimes, a long, beautifully crafted and gently curving sword is just what the doctor ordered to provide a dollop of awesome ...
Atleast, thats my 2 pence.
Almost every weapon has mythology that surrounds it. Katana's are especially beautiful weapons, so they carry just a slither more myth with them.
Another weapon that carries a fair old chunk, is the Kukuri(which every british kid 'knowns' is the most awesome weapon in all the world able).
Should Kukuri's just be short swords? Given that they are about the same length and weight it could probably work.
One of my long term gripes is a lack of design space for weapons. For instance, assume, for the moment, that a curvy blade means +50% crit rate, but average 1 less damage per hand used to wield the weapon.
So you have some benchmarks:
1- The Greatsword deals 2d6 and has a threat range of 19-20 x2. This is supposed to stand in for all straight bladed weapons that must be wielded in two hands. This gives it 7 average damage on a hit.
2- The "Falchion", which is named for a one handed weapon, is in the game as a two handed weapon. It has a threat range of 18-20 x2. This gives it 5 average damage a hit from the weapon.
3- The "Longsword", which is likely intended to be an arming sword, is 1d8 and has a threat range of 19-20 x2. This is a one-handed weapon. It has 4.5 average damage.
4- The Scimitar is in the game with 1d6 base damage and 18-20 x2. It has 3.5 average damage.
5- The bastard sword deals 1d10 and has a threat range of 19-20 x2. This is a two handed weapon, but unlike the greatsword it deals less damage, but a feat can be purchased that allows the use of this sword in one hand. It deals 5.5 average damage, 1.5 less than the two-handed weapon, but 1 better than the longsword. So wielded two-handed, it is strictly worse than the greatsword (a historical blemish: a bastard sword does indeed have advantages over a zweihander). Wielded one handed, it is better than the longsword if the feat is spent: the feat is worth 1 average damage, a bit subpar for a feat- but it is a feat with no prerequisites.
Now, the katana? Definitely counts as "curvy" by the standards applied to the other weapons. It should have an 18-20 x2 threat range. It can also be wielded in two hands, or one hand (in the latter case, historically as part of the long-and-short which had the wakizashi). "Dual wield" wasn't common historically, but it did occur, and Musashi Miyamoto made it famous.
So, where should it fit? Just as the bastard sword fits between the 7 damage greatsword and the 4.5...
This is why in my games I dumped the falchion in favor of the nodachi (1d10 18-20 two-handed martial). I then put the katana in the exotic one-handed/martial two-handed category with the 1d8 18-20 stats.
*Note the stats I used for the nodachi and katana are not official, just what I use.
...These wars began in the 4th century, shortly after the consolidation of the Yamato state. The first Chinese to appear in Japan officially didn't happen until the 7th century (300 years later).
LOL
I don't get it. The only technology that gets exchanged is done officially? And you know that Japanese diplomats were traveling to China in the first century... speaking from my Chinese lit background... and probably earlier... right?
Everybody thinks Musashi was the epitome of Samurai? Who the hell is everybody? Where do you find these morons who make you feel so frackin smart?
And what's with the katana boners?
It's a bloody sword, right? You know it doesn't do anything if you don't practice, right?
Okay. Okay. I get it. Where are you hiding the bong, kiddies? Come on. Old uncle Kruely knows whats goin on here.
Unoffically offically, it's a bastard sword. That is to say it was offically rulled a bastard sword in 3.5. Since pathfinder unoffically supports anything in 3.5 they don't over-ride, it is unoffically offically a bastard sword.If I am not mistaken they will have stats for a katana in UC, so the developers might have a fair idea of katana stats
Jason is a master of the katana--you're damn right he has a fair idea. And don't talk back, neither, or he'll chop you in half.
.... mother
Everybody thinks Musashi was the epitome of Samurai? Who the hell is everybody? Where do you find these morons who make you feel so frackin smart?
And what's with the katana boners?
It's a bloody sword, right? You know it doesn't do anything if you don't practice, right?
Dude, no! I like totally saw this where a girl in a sailer suit picked up one of these swords and was instantly super badass with it. It was on the flickering box of truth.
;)
But seriously, yes, they are not super weapons. People don't cut tanks in half with them, or any of that stuff. Ofcause, at the same time they are not identical weapons to bastard swords. They are made differently, have different range of weights, different range of lengths, different cross section, different shape, different grip and guard, and used differently in both battle and duelling. They also have different mythologies.
Just seems reasonable to give both weapoms different and interestimg mechamics.
There is no chin under Chuck Norris' beard, only another Katana....
|
To several above posters, nobody insisted that the katana needed a d10 damage dice. Also, nobody insisted that using the katana was commonly used one-handed. It's pretty well known that it wasn't.
However, obviously, with special training it COULD be used one-handed. This has been done. So why not just make it a weapon property like the Bastard sword?
The proposition is simply 1d8 slashing, 18-20/x2. This makes sense to everyone shouting that it NEEDS to be more realistic (damage is less than a bastard sword), and makes sense mechanically, where the Curvy Blade = higher crit range.
Honestly, I can't really see what people are arguing about..
...These wars began in the 4th century, shortly after the consolidation of the Yamato state. The first Chinese to appear in Japan officially didn't happen until the 7th century (300 years later).LOL
I don't get it. The only technology that gets exchanged is done officially? And you know that Japanese diplomats were traveling to China in the first century... speaking from my Chinese lit background... and probably earlier... right?
Didn't say that, but there is no historical evidence that the Chinese visited to Japan (even unofficially as traders) until the 7th century. To claim that the Japanese were first copying Chinese swords, one has to prove that the Chinese were even there, then. There is no proof.
Speaking from my Japanese history background.
And you're not reading my posts, regarding Musashi. I said, "Musashi is NOT the epitome of samurai, as he was a ronin..."
GP
...These wars began in the 4th century, shortly after the consolidation of the Yamato state. The first Chinese to appear in Japan officially didn't happen until the 7th century (300 years later).LOL
I don't get it. The only technology that gets exchanged is done officially? And you know that Japanese diplomats were traveling to China in the first century... speaking from my Chinese lit background... and probably earlier... right?
Didn't say that, but there is no historical evidence that the Chinese visited to Japan (even unofficially as traders) until the 7th century. To claim that the Japanese were first copying Chinese swords, one has to prove that the Chinese were even there, then. There is no proof.
Speaking from my Japanese history background.
And you're not reading my posts, regarding Musashi. I said, "Musashi is NOT the epitome of samurai, as he was a ronin..."
GP
I don't anything about what is being argued here (and don't really care), but couldn't a Japanese person visit China and get a sword, bring it back and copy it? Or alternatively a third group (like Koreans for example) could have visited both and the sword could have spread indirectly. It isn't absolutely necessary that Chinese visit Japan is it?
<nukes thread from orbit>
...
<then hits it with the Death Star and the Star Trek "red matter", just to be sure there are no survivors.>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
<nukes thread from orbit>
...
<then hits it with the Death Star and the Star Trek "red matter", just to be sure there are no survivors.>
<deflects it all back with my katana>
Bastard swords don't have bottle openers, clearly an idiot can see that the katana is superior for this reason alone. It's so frustrating after a battle having to chase down a bottle opener... If you have a katana they are right there on the handle, awesome.
I'm not sure if the stat blocks above reflect this properly, there should be a +1 morale bonus on attacks and damage when using a katana because you know that when the battle is over you'll be able to pop open a nice cold beer to celebrate. If it's a hot day it should be a +2 morale bonus because that beer is extra refreshing.
Well, that is because your friend used a bastard sword...or hand-and-a-half sword. Bastard sword is around 3 and a half feet long...a whole foot shorter then a real two hander. Trust me, unless you have friekishly long arms, you can't reach me with a katana if i stab you in the chest, unless you do it lurz style.I had a sparring match with a friend who used a practice medieval longsword (aka a D&D bastard sword) - and I won, every time and using a cut-down boken to represent a ninjato, rather than a katana.
No, it was 4 1/2 feet longsword, trust me on this - I measured it.
Eh, talk to any cop. If a cop has his gun in his holster, and somebody is running at him with a knife in his hand and is within 30 feet of the cop, guess what happens? The cop is going to be stabbed, before he can pull his pistol.
In most street fights even during the old west, it was knife fight, not a gunfight that was most prevalent.
I think you are referring to the 21 foot rule there.
You haven't seen the upper level of the euro swords. Spain produced some AMAZING swords that rival anything the japanese made. Damascus/wootz blades, some of which were made in the western european style are also quite a bit of a marvel. Vikings had twist cored swords before the japanese even knew how to make a sword and were importing them from china.True, i trained two-handed sword fighting...four and a half feet of weapon. We had a match against a kendo school. We kicked their asses. Perfect score. 20:0 in victories? Why, well, reach and the fact they expected us to be much slower...two handed fighter is not slow. NONO.I had a sparring match with a friend who used a practice medieval longsword (aka a D&D bastard sword) - and I won, every time and using a cut-down boken to represent a ninjato, rather than a katana.
We did agree, though, that armoured combat would give him the advantage, the katana or ninjato would have more problems penetrating European armour than the longsword would have penetrating contemporary period Japanese armour.
The katana was a very fine weapon, and IMHO better overall than the European contemporary blades against an un-armoured opponent - but European armour was better than Japanese, and a European sword was more likely to penetrate European armour.
Is being finesseable an advantage to a weapon? Not really, if you consider the loss in damage the wielder will suffer without Strength as their main stat.
Actually I have - and I agree, they are very much compatible in quality. This stuff about the Katana being 'masterwork' is just not so. The best European swords were equal to the best Japanese swords which were equal to the best Arabic swords in terms of quality.
As for the sparring results...sorry but somebody who can't captiolize on reach to get you even once is so far below your skill as a fighter that it is a worthless comparison. Same for the kendoka who could not once figure out how to negate reach...not once?!? Yeah those are disparity is skills...not technique and weapon. When I spar people of my skill level (me using either the katana or euro longsword), reach matters...quite a bit. Reach is such a large advantage that people of around my skill level...
Sorry, but I disagree - but then my training (and it's not huge) wasn't kendo but bujinkan nimpo kenjutsu, and the style is ideally suited to getting inside the guard of a foe with greater reach. He always got the first blow, but knowing he would get the first blow meant I was always in a position to deflect it and then counter - and that's when the speed of the smaller blade comes into play.
Reach is an advantage, yes, but it's not the only advantage. If you are just trying to tap your opponent and call it a 'kill' it's a huge advantage, but if you are trying to actually score a killing blow the larger weapon takes longer to recover than the smaller one.
As has been stated, it's a bastard sword. Not a good treatment for the weapon, I'd rather see it treated as a Falcata, personally.
You could argue that the weapon isn't being treated appropriately, but then again niether is any other weapon in the rules. It's a game, deal.
|
@ dabbler
Then your friend is not a good swordsman. I fought kendo and other katana wielding fighters, and i counted every victory and every loss. Mainly because most people who train with katanas are asshats who think they are so cool and that they follow bushido and other crap. My tally until today is 46:3. I lost three times, and then to people head and shoulders taller than me. If you know how to use a greatsword, or a two-hander as it is called, you will very rarely loose in one-on-one fights, unless you go up against an opponent with a shield or a rapier...
P.S. I think bushido was cool, but if i meet a friend who is white as cheese and he says that he is a bushido following samurai and goes around with a bokken on his back non stop...please, give me a break.
Regarding Bushido. Back in the day when samurai were true warriors, fighting wars and protecting the provinces/empire there was no such thing as Bushido. A few noble houses maintained 'house codes' that were similar, but this was not universal. Many samurai fought for one lord one day, and switched sides when their cause was losing.
It was not until the Edo Period 1520 - 1868, that the Shogun enforced Bushido onto all samurai. But then samurai during the Edo Period was hardly more than a bureaucrat and adminstrator. Samurai of the Edo Period were no longer true warriors.
So if those 'white guy' katana wielders wanted to feel more like Samurai, especially the katana wielding kind and want to be authentic, then they need to drop the whole Bushido idea.
Samurai before 1520 and those that followed are nothing like the same thing. Post 1520 samurai were more a political position than a warrior. Edo Period samurai wore swords as a sign of office, not as a weapon of war.
I find it kinda hilarious that people keep talking about how katanas were wielded. Samurai used katanas like this. No they used it like this. One handed, two handed, two wielded, etc, etc.
Here's the thing.
Samurai didn't wield katanas.
Samurai were horseback archers first, spearmen second, and the katana was at best a side-arm to be used when you had no horse, bow, and your spear broke. It was your last resort weapon if you ever used it at all. Most of the time the "dreaded katana" was entirely ceremonial.
That's why it can't penetrate armor. It's not meant to. It's meant to a) look pretty and b) be good at killing lightly armored if armored at all rebelling peasantry.
This is frustrating, the katana love, because it seems nerds have to defaults: YOUROPE IS BEST and NO GLORRIOUS NIPPON. Man screw that. The best European swordmakers are not equal to the best Arabic swordmakers are not equal to the best Japanese swordmakers etc etc etc. It was pretty much "Arabic / Indian weaponsmiths reigned supreme, everyone else played catchup (Spain did best because lolMoors, doesn't really count as YOUROPE)"
Screw Japan. Let's get some Arabic / Indian fanboyism all up ins.
Just seems reasonable to give both weapoms different and interestimg mechamics.
In all seriousness....
First off. I don't use swords. Much.
But I do know a little bit about blunt weapons. Okay quite a bit.
My experience in 25 years of karate, kung fu, and tai qi... from Japan to Canada to the US to CHina... is that the difference in the amount of damage done by weapons of a certain class, and withing a range of weight, is pretty well zero.
So while a bastard sword and a falchion are probably going to come out 'the same' in damage as long as it is good steel and sharpened properly, a pick and a katana certainly are not. They different, they are handled differently and they have different effects on armor... and going back to the user--the way you train with them is totally different. And the training and technique used is the thing that really makes a difference in damage... and I MEAN A HUGE DIFFERENCE beyond a few pips of HPs.
Sometimes even the weight of a weapon does not matter. A short, light rattan stick (70 cm long and weight in ounces) in the hands of my mother can do almost no damage. In the hands of a good arnis fighter, it can shatter your bones as well as a bo staff. Unless you're in plate armor.
But because this is a game, and because game designers cannot possibly research the nuances of this crap, they have to oversimplify this. And this really distorts the way certain gamers view the nature of a weapon.
I don't anything about what is being argued here (and don't really care), but couldn't a Japanese person visit China and get a sword, bring it back and copy it? Or alternatively a third group (like Koreans for example) could have visited both and the sword could have spread indirectly. It isn't absolutely necessary that Chinese visit Japan is it?...These wars began in the 4th century, shortly after the consolidation of the Yamato state. The first Chinese to appear in Japan officially didn't happen until the 7th century (300 years later).LOL
I don't get it. The only technology that gets exchanged is done officially? And you know that Japanese diplomats were traveling to China in the first century... speaking from my Chinese lit background... and probably earlier... right?
Didn't say that, but there is no historical evidence that the Chinese visited to Japan (even unofficially as traders) until the 7th century. To claim that the Japanese were first copying Chinese swords, one has to prove that the Chinese were even there, then. There is no proof.
Speaking from my Japanese history background.
And you're not reading my posts, regarding Musashi. I said, "Musashi is NOT the epitome of samurai, as he was a ronin..."
GP
You are correct pres man. In fact there is a clear historical record in Chinese that this did in fact happen. I don't think there is any need for speculate whether or not the Japanese sent diplomats out to their neighbors. They did.
As for you gamer-printer, you're reasoning is total wankery--did you enjoy it? As if the Japanese didn't go anywhere. As if diplomacy is the only interchange between cultures. Wow. My sack of hammers is laughing at you.
Samurai were horseback archers first, spearmen second, and the katana was at best a side-arm to be used when you had no horse, bow, and your spear broke. It was your last resort weapon if you ever used it at all. Most of the time the "dreaded katana" was entirely ceremonial.
+1
<nukes thread from orbit>
...
<then hits it with the Death Star and the Star Trek "red matter", just to be sure there are no survivors.>
No. DOn't destroy my Cr@cK! cR@ck! I LOVE YOU. WHERe @re YOU!!??!?!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Just... wow. It's amazing how quickly this topic got sidetracked.
I'll put it this way. Nobody cares about real world training, if you're a black belt, studied under master whatever of the whatever school of killstown, or have a masters degree in the study of historical European warfare, or are the greatest blacksmith in the world and have personally made the best swords of all types in existence.
Because, when it comes down to brass tacks, these experiences have nothing to do with the way the game is designed. When we look at the sword in-game, we have to look at it from a mechanical standpoint within the system. If you don't like it, that's too bad. We don't need to make a big argument about the katana because people have the need to show off how much they know on the internet.
tl;dr: Mechanics trump Real Life Experience when talking about mechanics.