Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Comrade
About that, Europe vs Asia thing. I always thought that Europeans had a much better experience regarding swords, than Asia. Mainly because of the numerous wars and battles that have crossed the continent.
|
Well, if the focus is on China alone, I'd say that I wouldn't be so confident about your opinion. China experienced its fair share of contemporary wars and extended periods of civilian strife. At least two important types of weapons were developed during such times -- crossbows and firearms. Make no mistake, the arms race was every bit as deadly in China as it had ever been in Europe. We just don't know very much about it because precious little research has been done in the West regarding this part of world history.
As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese had as much experience with swords as their European counterparts.
Quote:
|
Also, there is the focus on weapon development. In Asia, it seems that the focus was on swords, rather than armor. While in Europe, the main focus was on developing better armor. Like Gothic armor. A knight wearing this armor was nigh invincible, to any sword out there. Only firearms packed punch, strong enough to pierce the armor.
|
There were important differences in climate and geography that influenced this trend. Meaning to say, it wasn't just based on cultural factors alone. If we're talking about Japan alone, there was simply never enough iron to go around. Devoting what's available to the manufacture of swords and other weapons was probably already quite extravagant, let alone articulated full-plate armour.
And then, there's the Japanese summer to deal with. Summer was the prime season for warfare, and while they were probably a tough breed of people, I doubt that even samurai would take kindly to being broiled alive under a hot sun.
Soldiers are, by and large, a pragmatic lot. It probably wouldn't take a lot of brains to realise that metal armour is tougher than, say, bamboo armour. So, when Asian warriors chose to fight in lighter armour than European men-at-arms, I daresay it was not just simply because of cultural preferences. There were probably more prosaic reasons for such tactical choices.
