Classes, classes, classes

Balgin Stondraeg said:
My point was comparitive, not extreme. Historical straight swords tend (on the whole) to be heavier and blunter than curved swords which tend to be lighter and sharper. The exact degree of the difference varies greatly.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
"Straight swords" is in itself a gross oversimplication. You have broad bladed type X swords from the viking ages, to sharpy tapering type XV arming swords from the 15th century. These swords handle so differently from each other that lumping them together to compare them to something else is rediculous. I can give examples of rapiers with razor sharp edges, but they aren't superior cutters to broad bladed swords. There is more to it than edge sharpness!

Looking through Records of the Medieval Sword written by the late Ewart Oakeshott, the 20th centuries' foremost authority on the medieval sword, you can quite clearly see the average weight of a single handed medieval European sword is 2lbs. Two pounds, with a centre of balance near the hand. To put that in context, the modern sidearm of the Australian infantry, the Austeyer, weighs double that. And believe it or not, most katana are actually heavier than that.

Strangely enough there's an Italian long dagger that was originaly a norse broadsword that had broke down and shattered over the years and had seen about four or five centuries of use as it made it's gradual change from sword to dagger.
This wasn't uncommon in any culture. And the norse didn't use broadswords. The term broadsword dates back to the 17th century and usually denotes a broad bladed baskethilted sword, often describing, but not exclusively so, a baskethilt claymore.

Not automaticaly. Generaly. With all generalisations there are exeptions as no generalisation can be considered to be true in all circumstances.
But this generalisation isn't true whatsoever. Give me examples of heavy European antiques that live up to your generalisations. There are plenty of online museums showcasing antiques, so you shouldn't have a problem finding examples...

It's a comparitive generalisation. Any good replica proves that statement to be false but for comparitive purposes it's the simplest way of saying something in a few words rather than wasting a lot of webspace saying what's already been said before.
Sort of like saying black people are dumber than white people because general stereotypes often consider them to be so?
 
twellis said:
Sort of like saying black people are dumber than white people because general stereotypes often consider them to be so?

I don't think bringing racism into a discussion about swords is relevent, necessary, or appropriate. I also think you're getting a tad overdefensive about this.

-GB
 
Ghost Bear said:
I don't think bringing racism into a discussion about swords is relevent, necessary, or appropriate. I also think you're getting a tad overdefensive about this.

-GB

Yeah righto mate. That last bit was said tongue in cheek. I guess I should have put one of them little smiley things there, huh? :roll: :lol: 8) :wink:
 
twellis said:
Ghost Bear said:
I don't think bringing racism into a discussion about swords is relevent, necessary, or appropriate. I also think you're getting a tad overdefensive about this.

-GB

Yeah righto mate. That last bit was said tongue in cheek. I guess I should have put one of them little smiley things there, huh? :roll: :lol: 8) :wink:

It's okay, I think most of us got your point, but racial allegories are generally frowned upon. Not your fault; I'm more thick-skinned than most, and understood your point, but these days people tend to have hair triggers, right?

I do have to say that I'm with you on the discussion, though. I think the real point that Balgin is trying to make is that there is a perception of katanas being superior, and it really isn't incorrect. You have to compare the Eastern obsession with swordcraft with the Western need for utility. In Europe, where the "iron bar" swords come from, you had Crusades and infighting and all that to contend with, and so blacksmiths at times had to crank out unlimited numbers of utility swords that really were just sharp crowbars. They served their purpose well enough, because they were can openers--they existed to get through the tin can and into the deviled ham in order to kill the "bad guy." Katanas, however, were a point of pride, and so there was some extra care taken in forging the best of them (but by no means the lot of them) so that the samurai could win the fashion contests necessary to bolster their position. It's just a different kind of sword, is all.

When it comes down to it, the technical aspects of blades are incomparable to any general degree. As a fencer, I have beheld Italian rapiers that have made my mouth water, and seen katanas that have left me cold. I'm no expert, but I know a good blade when I see one, and not every blacksmith in the world (Occidental or Oriental) can make a good blade. On the whole, however, it seems like more care went into the forging of a katana than the forging of your average Western sword (though I admit that there truly isn't even such a thing, when you get down to it).

I won't say that katanas tended to be sharper or harder or uber or whatever, but I will admit that if you're looking for the odds on a particular blade being of Masterwork quality, you're playing the odds by shopping for a katana rather than a gladius or claymore. The West had many long martial periods of cranking out meat cleavers, and the East (or Japan, rather, since China has the same basic blade history as any country in Europe) made more of an art form out of it. Still, there are many (innumerable) examples of chop-shop katanas, and there are voluble numbers of brilliantly-made Western blades from any era. In the end, I think we need to remember that we're looking at a larger volume of swords from Europe, with a larger variety, and in the end it's simply a matter of taste.

Then again, maybe I'm just known for talking out my ass.
 
It's okay, I think most of us got your point, but racial allegories are generally frowned upon. Not your fault; I'm more thick-skinned than most, and understood your point, but these days people tend to have hair triggers, right?
Fair enough, it wasn't a serious comment though.

I do have to say that I'm with you on the discussion, though. I think the real point that Balgin is trying to make is that there is a perception of katanas being superior, and it really isn't incorrect.
But that's my point, it is absolutely incorrect!

You have to compare the Eastern obsession with swordcraft with the Western need for utility.
This assumes the Japanese have no need for utility and the west no sense of aesthetics or performance. Both are wrong. The katana is a very functional sword, especially considering the limitations to Japanese had to work with. And do I really need to defend Europe's aesthetic achievements? :D

In Europe, where the "iron bar" swords come from, you had Crusades and infighting and all that to contend with, and so blacksmiths at times had to crank out unlimited numbers of utility swords that really were just sharp crowbars. They served their purpose well enough, because they were can openers--they existed to get through the tin can and into the deviled ham in order to kill the "bad guy."
When people mention to crusades, they may think of knights in shining armour, but the 3rd crusade was in the late 12th century, slap bang in the middle of the age of mail. There was no tin cans then, so there was no need for swords that could "open" them (more on this point in a bit). Wide bladed slashing swords that tapered to a serviceable thrusting point were the norm.

Here are some examples of these type of swords taken albionarmorers.com, probably the best productions replicas around:

The Knight
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-knight-xii.htm

The Templar
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-templar-xa.htm

The Baron
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-baron-xiia.htm

They are munitions grade, made in bunches, but individually finished, just like munitions grade swords in the 12th century. They may not be ornamented as much as many katana, but there is definately an understated elegance and subtlety about them, IMO.

Now, can opener swords did make a brief appearance in Europe, but they were never crude weapons, and were pretty much abandoned when people realised swords just weren't effective against plate armour compared to warhammers et al.

Here is an example of one (not the skinny blade is also quite thick, so it isn't a ragile sword whatsoever):
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-landgraf-xvii.htm

Katanas, however, were a point of pride, and so there was some extra care taken in forging the best of them (but by no means the lot of them) so that the samurai could win the fashion contests necessary to bolster their position. It's just a different kind of sword, is all.
The Europeans had just as many fops as the Japanese!

When it comes down to it, the technical aspects of blades are incomparable to any general degree. As a fencer, I have beheld Italian rapiers that have made my mouth water, and seen katanas that have left me cold. I'm no expert, but I know a good blade when I see one, and not every blacksmith in the world (Occidental or Oriental) can make a good blade.
You are of course correct, and to a large extent, that is my point. To blindly accept and then talk about the superiority of one form over another is unfortunate. There are reasons for every single aspect of a sword's design, and more often than not, they are solutions to the same problems that both worked. Europe had more forms and designs because it was a more cosmopolitan culture and had more solutions to find problems for!

On the whole, however, it seems like more care went into the forging of a katana than the forging of your average Western sword (though I admit that there truly isn't even such a thing, when you get down to it).
How sophisticated the steel refining techniques are isn't always indicative of the effectiveness o the finished product. The japanese used iron sand that they refined by continuous folding (amongst other techniques). The Turks used wootz (also called damascus today). The pre 11th century Europeans and the Chinese used pattern welding (also called damascus today). All these techniques are attempts to homogenise steel (ie, to get everything else out of it). All worked, and all, in the best examples, would result in a blade that was effectively homogenised, albeit with a unique appearance.

Some time in the 11th century, European smiths refined their forging processes to the point where pattern welding was no longer needed. They could get the desired result (ie homogenised steel) without the need for complex forging methods. That's why a crusade era sword looks like plain steel.

None of these methods are better than the others. You could argue for the superiority of the European method based on the fact it was homogenised, but the other results were just as good if done right, albeit with a much higher labour cost.

I won't say that katanas tended to be sharper or harder or uber or whatever, but I will admit that if you're looking for the odds on a particular blade being of Masterwork quality, you're playing the odds by shopping for a katana rather than a gladius or claymore. The West had many long martial periods of cranking out meat cleavers, and the East (or Japan, rather, since China has the same basic blade history as any country in Europe) made more of an art form out of it.
You say this, but follow it up with:

Still, there are many (innumerable) examples of chop-shop katanas, and there are voluble numbers of brilliantly-made Western blades from any era. In the end, I think we need to remember that we're looking at a larger volume of swords from Europe, with a larger variety, and in the end it's simply a matter of taste.
This is exactly right. Rich people demand aesthetics in any culture. Soldiers demand effectiveness and reliability in any culture. Good smiths make good swords, indifferent ones make indifferent swords. Don't matter what colour their skin is! :shock: :shock: :shock:

Then again, maybe I'm just known for talking out my ass.
Your post doesn't back that up.
 
Why do I get an impression someone's trying to pick a fight with me? It wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the underlying feeling that this person is merely doing so in order to put someone down and feel superior about it (as opposed to simply giving some useful information).

I can give examples of rapiers with razor sharp edges, but they aren't superior cutters to broad bladed swords.

Historicaly speaking the rapier was a very slim bladed sword with two or four edges. Most people commonly mistake a foil for a rapier, assuming the blades to be bladeless. I say this not to disagree, in fact it's agreement.

The pre 11th century Europeans and the Chinese used pattern welding (also called damascus today).

That's right. There are many examples of Norse and Saxon pattern welded swords.

Now let's get one thing sorted out a bit: the Lone Wolf game goes for simplicity as far as rules regarding equipment are concerned. When such long conversations as this take place regarding the various merits of different items (and how different things are used differently: you could not easily use a Cinqueda the same way as you would German hand and a half sword) it detracts from gameplay and fun so they kept the equipment rules simple. Now since there was no katana included in the Lone Wolf core rules I merely stated my opinion that I would rather give it a wider threat range than the "just a +1 bastard sword" described in the standard d20 DMG under Oriental Equipment. It's different and seems (to me) to match the common conception regarding the weapon. I would, of course, allow for a great degree of variety in the quality of the katana just as I would for any other piece of equipment. But the Altered threat range makes it suitably different from the bastard sword (and as the Darkland Supplement states: if it's almost identical to a piece of existing equipment then it's the same piece of equipment).
 
Why do I get an impression someone's trying to pick a fight with me? It wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the underlying feeling that this person is merely doing so in order to put someone down and feel superior about it (as opposed to simply giving some useful information).
Pick a fight? Mate, it's not like I've insulted you. I've disagreed with several of the points you presented as fact, put forth sources to back my claims up and tried to be friendly about it. I admit it gets a little frustrating seeing the same old myths regurgitated as fact, but it certainly doesn't bother me enough on a personal level to get personal about it. Or feel superior about it. I'm sure you know many things I don't. 8)

Historicaly speaking the rapier was a very slim bladed sword with two or four edges. Most people commonly mistake a foil for a rapier, assuming the blades to be bladeless. I say this not to disagree, in fact it's agreement.
They were slim bladed in profile, but often had minimal distal taper, meaning they were thicker than many broad bladed swords. They were still widely considered civilian weapons, particularly in the United Kingdom. The foil, sabre and epee of modern olympic fencing are derived from the smallsword, itself a derivative of the rapier.

As for your last bit, we are in total agreement. I personally don't think the katana is different enough from the normal d8 sword to warrant different rules (but then I don't consider the scimitar to be either, so...). At the end of the day it's up to the GM. If they want uber katana's and iron bars in their game, whatever. But I was simply challenging the assumption that it was like that in history. :)
 
Back
Top