2012-10-09, 21:36 | Link #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
It shouldn't be surprising that swords are celebrated in anime because swords are sort of celebrated in Japan itself. All the way from katana being the symbol of samurai, to them being banned during the Meiji Restoration, to being made general issue for NCOs and officers during the Showa era, to being banned and destroyed after World War II. I don't think that any other weapon in Japan has such a storied record. The more surprising thing is that the sword is as celebrated in Western literature even though it had nowhere near the impact outside the Roman legions.
Quote:
Outside of that, medieval/feudal Japan is probably most associated with the Sengoku era. And the armies of the daimyo by the end are known for fielding more firearms than any of their European counterparts. Quote:
While the Japanese bows don't have the range or power of Welsh longbows, I'm not sure why you'd think they were useless. They were the primary weapons of samurai for several centuries for a reason.
__________________
|
||
2012-10-09, 21:50 | Link #62 | |
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
The more efficient design of the compound bow greatly increases its lethal range and ease of use when compared with a longbow of similar draw strength. |
|
2012-10-09, 23:05 | Link #63 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
An example of just how weak the Japanese bows were: During the First Mongol Invasion of Japan, the Japanese were basically pushed around the Korean troops whose battle suits could not be penetrated by Japanese bows. That was a major factor in why Kyushu was almost completely conquered before the grave mistake made by the Mongol commanders in retreating to ships with the typhoon coming. The lack of iron is also a reason why katanas were held in high esteem: In order to refine the low quality iron and thus not waste the valuable resource, swordsmiths had to work for a long time, which contributed to the "katana art" legend. Because good quality iron was scarce and thus required much time and costs to manufacture, swords became a status symbol. |
|
2012-10-10, 11:40 | Link #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I'm not sure how any of that makes much difference since Japanese armies almost never used them against foreign enemies. Maybe if the Mongols actually managed to launch a sustained campaign in Japan things would have been different, but that didn't exactly happen.
Interestingly, the one time that katanas would see use in the battlefield would be with yumi-armed samurai. Katanas would be a good backup weapon when the enemy is too close to employ bows. Otherwise, naginatas and yaris would be a lot more effective.
__________________
|
2012-10-12, 14:25 | Link #65 |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Now here is a new thought: How come very few heroes wear heavy armors? (Unless it is a High-Tech Gundam-esque environment)?
In RPG speak, it seem most fantasy anime hero has wear leather or less, the women even less XD, even going into battles. |
2012-10-12, 15:27 | Link #66 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
1. Asia don't have a history of using Metal Armors like Europeans. Closest would be the metal stubs woven into leather armor. 2. The elaborate armor seen in Japan are ceremonial. Practical uses are limited. 3. it is easier to draw regular clothes/leather armor then heavy metal armor.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-12, 16:37 | Link #67 | |
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
I also blame the fact that most artist, indeed most people, have the misconception that people wearing armor move around like they're carrying bags of cement on their shoulders. So maybe they don't have their characters wear armor because they think a master swordsman would fight more effectively without armor and so they depict their opponents without armor. Of course the reality is that a highly trained warrior can move almost as well in full armor as most people can move without it. Therefore, in a duel between trained warriors armor is a HUGE advantage. For example, if you read about the Battle of Stamford bridge, this conflict was mostly won because the Anglo-Saxons caught the vikings when they were raiding and wearing only light leather armor. So to answer your question, armor is more deeply misunderstood than weapons. This is what happens when people who have never actually cut something with a sword right about knights and armor. |
|
2012-10-12, 17:01 | Link #68 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
1. Japan isn't Europe, and it had poor quality iron, so there wasn't very much metal armor. Without that cultural background, there isn't much call for metallic armor unless the idea is to mirror European aesthetics. 2. Face-enveloping helmets on important characters are rare in just about any medium because it dehumanizes them, and it detracts from one of the main draws - attractive character designs. 3. It's hard to depict how much of an advantage armor conveys to the wearer. One rarely ever sees armor giving protection because it's so much easier to either show flashy sword moves or magic. RE: the Imperial stormtrooper effect. It does happen from time to time, and sometimes it's even done so correctly. Keep your eyes out for those! Quote:
Samurai armor was commonly used in the battlefield. Really rich samurai who could obtain plate or other metal armor would wear that instead, but this tends to be very uncommon.
__________________
|
||
2012-10-12, 18:08 | Link #69 |
On a mission
Author
|
Yep, the rulers reap the rewards while they convince the peasants to die for a noble cause. Thus the romanticism. It reached its disgusting heights during World War I and then everyone got a wakeup call that no, there is no honor in war. There are only losers; just depends on who loses less.
For every hero there are at least 20 equally as heroic ones that got thrown in the meat grinder like trash. Occasionaly we have a necessary evil like World War II, but it's just that. It's not glorious. Honor those that fought, not the war itself. But fiction is fiction, I guess.
__________________
|
2012-10-12, 19:40 | Link #70 | ||
Also a Lolicon
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
Quote:
How exactly was Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan's actions in any way justified as "neccessary"? I might be able to see the "We have to become an Imperial power else we get colonized by Europe" for Japan, but even that is stretching it A LOT. Quote:
Also, with sufficient armor, girls tend to lose their sex appeal, and you can't have that happening. |
||
2012-10-12, 19:51 | Link #71 | |
Ass connoisseur
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Hitler was trying to take over the world eventually by committing genocide. He needed to be stopped; you can not have someone trying to take over the world, especially in that manner, and have no one step in to handle it. It wouldn't be a war, if no one was there to combat Hitler, it would have just been a massacre. In that aspect, it was a necessary evil.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-12, 20:51 | Link #72 |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Now here is another interesting question. In anime (NOTE: Non Magic setting), Katana often is draw from the scabbard for a 1 hit instant kill.
Did that actually happen in Japan? In my prospective practicing with swords, I discover a quick draw is actually fairly difficult, and a draw + swing would be even tougher. Wouldn't it be more effective to draw a sword before the duel? Or did the ancient Japanese really did iaj-strikes ? Also, the whole Katana slicing through people....would that actually work during those eras? I remember reading about Western sword fighting one had to to be careful not to jam one's sword into the enemy's bones, cause you might have a hard time pulling your weapon out when the other guy's buddies come for you. So could Japanese blades do those "Clean chops" that cut people in 1/2? |
2012-10-12, 22:13 | Link #73 | |
Vanitas owns you >:3
|
Quote:
Serious answer: Because swords are just more badass! While I like swords....a LOT, I'm actually a tiny bit more partial to SCYTHES. So BADASS, you could cry. ........yes, anime needs moar scythes.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-13, 14:48 | Link #74 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
World War 2 didn't just involve Hitler and Imperial Japan. the war was because the other nations of the world opposed their aggression. It had to be fought because well, millions more would die. Fighting is bad, but they had no choice but to do so. Some wars are ambiguous on which side was the wrongdoer, but the fascist aggressors are the closest to being objectively evil. There was no diplomacy that could be used against Hitler. Appeasing him merely made the problem worse, though some may argue that bought some time. This is why I contrasted World War 2 with World War 1. World War 1 was a multinational pissing context, made worse with leaders using outdated tactics thanks to them embracing the romanticism of war in an extremely reactionary fashion that led to the kind of ultranationalism that sent millions in the meat grinder to furfill the imperialistic needs of the rulers. They could have paid attention to the brutality of the American Civil War that happened half a century ago, but alas... "Charge! Charge! For glory! For the country!" /gets wiped out by artillery and machine fire Once they saw the death and suffering, they realized that war being glorious was just merely a fantasy, and everyone wanted to avoid war at all costs for quite a while. As of recent times, this romanticism is becoming dangerous again. Why was the United States so reluctant to enter World War II? They didn't want to be involved in the imperialistic bloodfests of Europe and the world. I'll just say that it's something to think about today, too, given the US government's actions in the past few decades. It's quite the irony that WW2 lies in the American fantasy as World Police. But people fought the war so that future generations could avoid war. And now certain chickenhawks want war? And ultimately, even a war like World War 2 simply ended with losers with the tens of millions dead and empires bankrupt. The ones that lost the least could be considered the victors. This is what I mean by there being only losers in war. This is why I think romantic fantasies of war are dangerous.
__________________
Last edited by Archon_Wing; 2012-10-13 at 15:00. |
|
2012-10-13, 15:30 | Link #75 | ||
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
It was a necessary war in the sense that the surrender terms of WW1 made it unavoidable. But like any war, it could have been avoided if someone did something differently somewhere along the way. |
||
2012-10-13, 16:50 | Link #76 |
Also a Lolicon
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
If you put it that way, that opens up a huge list of "necessary" wars that really aren't.
Also, I refuse to believe that there is a clear aggressor to most wars, despite what people want you to believe, its multiple responses building up until something breaks. By the time it started, WW2 was inevitable, there had to be a response to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan's latest, disturbing, responses, but not in any way necessary as if decisions had been made different earlier on, it could be avoided. |
2012-10-13, 17:37 | Link #77 | ||
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
Of course, many things could have been prevented, but you can't really alter history and must act accordingly in the present. We could blame the French for over-penalizing Germany and sending their economy into the gutter which resulted in nationalist movements leading to Naziism of which Hitler took advantage of. But one can't predict the future, nor have the power to change it at times. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-10-13, 20:47 | Link #78 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are a number of video clips online showing skilled swordsmen cutting through layers of tatami mats or straw-and-wood dummies. Both material are supposed to be rough equivalents of human flesh and bone. But, yes, you're right in that swords that have been put through such heavy use wouldn't last long. That's one aspect of fiction involving swords that we tend to overlook — just like any other tool or machine, a sword will eventually break after heavy use. That's also why swordsmen were very wary of parrying incoming blows with their weapons (shields were preferred for blocking; you'd otherwise try to dodge rather than parry). Their swords could very well break on impact, leaving them completely defenceless. |
||
2012-10-13, 22:29 | Link #79 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
My experience with Japanese related blades was a Ninja-to type blade a friend of mine had at the time. With the scabbard to the hip, it was very hard to draw it at a fast manner. From the back would be down right impossible. A draw-strike on the battle field would be a bit fatal show off, for me, anyway. |
|
2012-10-14, 00:03 | Link #80 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
It actually isn't hard to simulate. Just grab a straight wooden stick and try to draw it completely from an imaginary sheath. You'll notice that you can't possibly strike with it while a part of the sword is still stuck in its scabbard. The curved katana, on the other hand, will be slightly easier to pull out. It is simply less cumbersome than a straight blade. Now, with cutting edge facing up, I can also imagine how a kenshi would draw and cut at the same time. It's simply a matter of twisting the blade slightly downwards, so that the edge faces the opponent as you draw. Hence, iaido. As for the usefulness of such a technique, I think you've raised a very interesting question. On the battlefield, when all weapons are already bared, I don't see how iaido would help grant you initiative in melee. I suspect that the usefulness of iaido is limited to formal duels, which became common only long after civil wars have become a thing of the past. Combat became more ritualised, and more divorced from practical battlefield tactics. |
|
|
|