Stedfel wrote:I would assume it is primarily cultural, as that seems (to me, at least) to be one of the big things that prevents cultures from moving forward or accepting new ideas.
On the note of the katana, however, the earliest Japanese swords were two-sided and akin to what you would see in China and Europe.
TooMuchBaijiu wrote:I think it makes sense. European men-at-arms walked around with those enormous zweihanders and claymores for a reason-what else was going to penetrate iron plate? The Japanese were more about speed, and the katana was designed for a warrior to draw his weapon quickly and make rapid slashes. The same applies for the scimitar, except the Arabs designed it primarily as a cavalry weapon. The Chinese used both. The Dao is curved, whereas the Jian is straight. However, the Dao was more commonly wielded by the rank-and-file due to the difficulty involved in learning how to wield the Jian, though I understand the latter was a more effective weapon in the hands of a skilled warrior/martial artist.
Here's the thing, though-when the Europeans and Arabs fought each other with their respective weapons, how did either side attempt to adapt?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved