Pretty sure the samurai were so much into the idea of beating their neighbors that they immediately jumped onto guns almost immediately after the first few got shipped from Europe.
They did, people who opposed firearms were usually of the "nutcase extremist" kind. Nothing like "the mainstream of the traditional society" or something.
Also the funny part about Japanese traditions is that they don't see Christianity as alien. It was quite popular, albeit prosecuted, in the "authentic" past.
Also Firearms were around in Japan since the 1500s.
I thought that all that pride in their Katanas was invented and revisionistic after gunpowder came to Japan and they actually took way more pride in their skills with a bow.
If you bragged about your skills with a Katana in feudal Japan, you kind of admitted that your archery skills are shit.
Bows and spears get the work done, swords are mostly for show.
Swords were mainly for the generals and other higher up officers, since they require way more metal and thus were way more expensive.
So yes, mostly for show because those higher ups rarely went into battle themselves.
It's rather that trained skills in general (with a bow, a sword, a musical instrument) were important.
Can't help thinking that with my particular set of disorders growing up in such a society (not as a peasant, God forbid) could be advantageous.
And shooting an arrow from a composite bow is much more of a "moment of art" thing than waving a big knife around, so.
Just to nit-pick, the Japanese never really figured out how to produce composite bows, the Yumi was just laminated bamboo. It was one of the reasons they couldn't successfully invade Korea until they were given western tech.
It's kinda ironic nowadays, but prior to the meiji restoration Japan was considered a cultural and technological backwater.
Pride in katana was during the Edo period when the samurai were relegated to being government officials and they used swords for duelling.
What about their martial arts skills?
Oof
Samurai fucking loved guns practically as soon as they were introduced in the 16th century to Japan, and before that they would have been more proud of archery and horsemanship than swordsmanship anyway.
I wouldn't go that far. The whole Way of the Sword and all that really kicked off when Miyamoto Musashi was around and that was the 16th century. He was a famed dualist with a sword and wrote The Book of the Five Rings, which is all about swordplay and techniques/styles/skills.
Did they use shields? I've wondered since playing a mod for warband that turns the game into Feudal Period Japan, but it's also hard as fuck to not die because archers abound but the modder didn't include shields because "samurai didn't have shields."
They didn't. Samurai were primarily mounted cavalry. They used bows and spears that required both hands. That modded should've made them armoured horse archers.
I was under the impression that long arms were the main weapon of choice, at least for the infantryman, which is usually the bulk of armies.
Paradigm shift is a bitch
The katana and related swords were the best they could manage given the technology and raw materials available at the time in Japan... but on the whole, they were pretty mid.
Maybe but the fake as fuck katana my stepdad got from Japan looks cool as shit, you can't beat that.
Fair, valid, and based.
Intimidation is a valid tactic as well.
I didn't watch it all the way through, but having seen the video it's criticising I must link this here
Damn... I wish I had that talent to speak for minutes on end without actually saying anything; awkward silences would be a thing of the past!
I think (having no actual direct knowledge of kendo or any sword martial art, so take with a grain of salt) that the reputation of the katana came more from the skill of the samurai using them than from the blade itself.
It's a light, curved blade, so using it effectively would involve slicing with it, rather than chopping, which is more suitable for heavy blades combined with heavy force. A slice would involve both sliding the edge along the target cut and moving it forward at the same time. It would make sense to me that a slicing motion would generally lead to cleaner and more complete cuts than chopping. It would also hold its sharpness better, since the edge is being interacted with a parallel motion rather than a perpendicular one. The same is true for the full blade.
It's difficult to do that kind of slicing motion combined with a full swing, but perhaps the mediocre iron they had access to is the reason why they went to the effort of developing that technique. Those who were better at cutting things wouldn't break their swords as often, so they put effort into honing that technique and eventually got to the point where katanas would survive long enough to be antiques or family heirlooms.
But that's just my guess, based on observing samurai characters in various media being impressed with the quality of cuts they observe. Like, "based on this cut, I know that it was done by a skilled swordsman". That says there's some kind of technique involved, rather than just swinging the sharp side at it.
Permanently Deleted
I always thought it would suck to be the guy that practiced his entire life. Gets sick on his first campaign and is just lucid enough to see their side lose the fight and the enemy come to execute them.
Only just a little ironic that the Israeli Flag anon writes a short fiction of an arrogant upper class getting their comeuppance.
Katanas are not actually that sharp. I mean, it’ll kill you just fine, but it’s almost more like a big machete than a sword.
Yeah there is so much disinformation about katanas from basement kids in the 90s/00s.
They are really impressive cause shit steel ended making a pretty good sword but most of the trick is the curve and the sawing action it makes you do if you swing correctly to cut through stuff like a chefs knife. But you do want it sharp, and free of burs so that it doesn't get stuck part way in.
But you'd be up against a big stick with metal bolts in it that would win the fight mostly anyways.
Nah, they are sharp, but flimsy.
They were designed to cut-off unprotected limbs. Since iron was very scarce in feudal Japan. So metal armours weren't really a thing for the majority.
Put them up against an European sword, where they did have more pure iron ore and they will break.
I'm gonna take a pass on step 1, thanks.
What does it teach you of some people, especially managers? So concentrated in working hard and excelling at what they do (often being rude to others) that they don't see the technological advances that will make them fail in the end.
