Quote:
With all due respect, that point amounts to a hill of beans.
|
my point was that it was translated by proffessional translators, and leaves many of the japanese characters in the book for reference.
Quote:
Once again, are we talking about the same time period? I'm talking about the approx. fifteenth century. You?
|
likewise.
Quote:
I never said that it was; Wikipedia seems to disagree with you, though. There are those who would wield a daisho in tandem, however.
|
interestingly enough; for most of the 13-16 hundreds dual-weilding swords was almost unheard of, and even afterwards not a type of combat that ever became largely popular.
i should mention i initially misread this; i thought you were referring to using both swords equipped simentaneously; which was a rather rare type of combat, though very often samurai would have a daisho (pair of swords), one for the more traditional and widely used doubble-handed combat, and the other, shorter sword, for more defensive combat.
Quote:
In Europe, the longsword of fame was in between approx 90 cm (3') and 140 cm (5 1/2 feet). However, these longer versions were anti-cavalry and anti-polearm weapons.
|
this is true.
but keep in mind the name of the "longsword" was in comparison with the other, more widely accepted type of sword used in the european continent; the gladius. the germanic and gallic tribes used them; as this is where the name comes from to begin with. the type of sword used most during the medieval period was actually not a true
longsword, but rather a
bastard sword meanwhile the term "longsword" is more accuratly reserved for the swords used by the germanic tribes themselves; often dual wielding swords 3-4 feet in length against the roman soldiers.
a bastard sword itself was designed as a more versatile weapon; used by medieval men-at-arms. it was a blade appx 3-3.5 feet long, 3.5-4.5 in total length, and the main distinction that made it so widely used was that while it was an average sized blade, its hilt was large enough to be used with either 1 or two hands, meaning it could be used in conjunction with a shield, for combat more qell suited towards defense, or with two hands, for combat more well-suited for for powerful blows against less armored foes.
as for anti-cavalry swords, many are still on display at the imperial war museum at vienna, and medieval armory museums all throuought central and south central europe. one of the most well-known types of anti-cavalry sword is the flameberge, generally about 5.5-6.5 feet long and used to take down the cavalryman (when possible the horse would be spared, as horses were a valuable commodity) himself, or to cut the lances if the cavalry were to be grounded in mid-charge (usually via pikemen).
Quote:
The katana were not the sword of Japanese soldiers; they were the main swords of the Japanese samurai. And I agree, that kind of combat is unrealistic; singlehanded wielding, however, is not.
|
true, the sword was a status symbol, but a samurai is a class of soldiery.
and i never have and never will say single handed combat was unrealistic, its just a COMPLETLY different type of fight. on the field of battle a doubble handed sword would be superior (since the japanese largely refrained from using shields), but inside of a building a katana or tanto or wakasashi would be better.
Quote:
I respectfully disagree; would you say a 90 cm blade would be easy to conceal? Ninjas were not super-assasins. Ninja, as either assasins or spies, the latter of which has the most evidence, would need weapons easily concealed. You try concealing a 3' blade on your body.
|
this is true. which si why, contrary to common belief and pop-culture, ninja would
rarely act alone; this is the single largest destinction between a ninja and the assassins of the middle east. the other major destinction is that the ninja, while you are correct that they were used more as spies, would kill their target if they had one. the fedayeen, however, would often just injure or scare the target, as culturally it was more important to scare an official, rather than kill them. meanwhile, as im sure you're aware, the japanese would often kill for even looking at them (quite literally).