EMFCRACKSHOT said:
solidstatemind said:
EMFCRACKSHOT said:
As for the forging process, it is indeed different, due to the poor quality and scarcity of metal ores in japan.
Okay, I have to ask what is your source for this statement? Nothing I read in my studies, nor anything I have seen on the Internet has suggested that the ore in Japan was either terribly scarce or of lesser quality-- quite the opposite in fact: the Japanese pioneered several forging techniques which are still in use today.
The japanese forging techniques were incredibly advanced, but japan is incredibly lacking in most forms of natural resources, especially coal and iron. I thought this was well known, and its detailed in a number of texts dealing with the japanese empire.
The lengthy forging process and numerous foldings of the blade were designed to remove the impurities from the metal, producing steel that was comparable in quality to european steel.
lack of coal, iron ore etc was a key factor in the japanese expansion into china.
Since we're wandering pretty far Off-Topic, I'll keep this short:
From what I learned in school:
1) limited supply of iron and coal was not a problem in medieval times. Yes, in the industrial era and WWII, when they needed to produce planes, tanks, ships and other war materials it was an issue, but in the era we're referring to, that wasn't a problem. This is evidenced by the fact that the Japanese weren't overly reliant on weapons that minimized the amount of metal used, such as arrows and spears. (In fact, iron was plentiful enough to be used in farm implements such as the
kama).
2) As to 'inferior' iron, perhaps it's a personal quirk, but I dislike the use of the word in this context: it implies that the raw materials were of lesser quality than what was available in the West. The inference is that the end product is also going to be inferior. Actually, 'inferior iron' just has more impurities, which simply requires a longer, more difficult forging process to remove the impurities. In the end, Fe is Fe-- elements don't vary.
So I guess what I'm saying is that your statements in regards to the forging process are somewhat misleading. From what I learned in my classes, the two martial styles and accompanying weapons are not necessarily better or worse than one another, just different- highly evolved to suit the cultural, political, and even geographical environments they were developed in. While I could be mistaken, sure, but I'm not just going to 'take your word' (or Patshiv's) for it over university-level textbooks: you're going to have to provide support for your statement.
EDIT: on a side note, this is exactly why I hate shows like the 'Deadliest Warrior'-- the whole 'what if a samurai fought a spartan?' stuff is total pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals with very little if any basis in reality.
