Thread: A rant on Denigration of Europe.
11/19/2011 8:39pm, #151
But in Turnbull's case, being a academic historian (not an amateur!), he is obligated to know about the current state of research. He apparently doesn't, instead he writes falsehoods - which are known to be falsehoods a long time! And that makes you a fraud.
Ewart Oakeshott published his works from the 1960's; weight, construction and sharpness, all those things were covered by him. His works are considered as the best research ever done on medieval swords and their methods.
What's buried under all of this is some pretty obvious racial and cultural anxieties. Check out what you named the thread—The Denigration of Europe. Some people thinking that in the thirteenth century some Japanese swords were better than some European and Chinese swords is not a sign that Europe is being denigrated. You and your online buddies need to get out more. You sound like a bunch of idiot trainspotters, belligerent nerds, and semi-professional victims of so-called 'reverse racism.' You're not helping your cause—you're pretty much demonstrating that you lack the interpretive skills professional historians need.
11/20/2011 12:00am, #152
Dont you think arguing historical text is kind of pointless since they are in large part interpretation. Not to mention the fact that all historical texts are reliant on the authors opinion. Without the benefit of a time machine all history is just speculation based on incomplete evidence.
11/20/2011 12:55am, #153
11/20/2011 5:49am, #154
11/20/2011 6:26am, #155
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
OK, we try it one last time. Put aside all the author credibility discussion and let's see directly what scientific research tells us. Let's stick to primary sources!
Blade construction and hardness:
Alan Williams: The Knight and the Blast Furnace. Brill Verlag © 2003
A comprehensive article written by a professional swordsmith using all the sources (and more) I listed above: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html
European swords were forged almost in the same manner as japanese blades, their hardness is also comparable.
Steelmaking: Folded Steel in European Blades
Cutting power: Sharpness. Note that data of original swords is used.
Most important medieval/renaissance fencing manuals:
Royal Armouries Manuskript I.33 © ca. 1300
Nürnberger Handschrift GNM 3227a © 1389
Fiore dei Liberi: Flos Duellatorum © 1410
Sigmund Ringeck: MS Dresd. C 487 © 1440er
Peter von Danzig: Cod. 44 A 8 / MS 1449 © 1452
Hans Talhoffer: 6 Fechtbücher von 1443 bis 1467
Paulus Kal: Cgm 1507, 95 folia © 1460
Filippo Vadi: De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi © zw. 1482-1487
Achille Marozzo: Opera Nova dell'Arte delle Armi. © 1536
Joachim Meyer: Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens. © 1570
Salvator Fabris: De lo schermo overo scienza d’arme. © 1606
Nicolaes Petter: Klare Onderrichtinge der Voortreffelijke Worstel-Konst. © 1674
And finally a good comprehensive article about Ancient and Viking sword making - the literature list is excellent! Anything from this list is highly recommended for people who wanna know about the european sword:
European swords breaking while knocking aside a foe's blade, dullness, clumsyness, absence of martial arts in medieval Europe; Turnbull, Woodward, Chambers, Harris, they all contradict almost every objective evidence!
No one can give more "evidence" than primary sources and research papers, sorry.
11/20/2011 6:47am, #156
11/20/2011 7:06am, #157
Nicolaes Petter: Klare Onderrichtinge der Voortreffelijke Worstel-Konst. © 1674 is a fucking wrestling manual.
Stop being a parrot and investigate things properly.
Last edited by DCS; 11/20/2011 7:10am at .
11/20/2011 10:55am, #158
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
to separate this
11/20/2011 11:08am, #159
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
dear ****-Kenning, notice please:
the information you presented were no news here. my guess is, most if not all here can agree with the fact that medieval european swords were not just iron clubs.
however, your mastermind-****-logic, parroting, drama-cunting and generally your poor discussion-skills are nothing, a majority here is going to support. stopp acting like this, please, and welcome to bullshido.
11/20/2011 12:11pm, #160
It's also worth noting that the sample sizes used in the Gladius and other scholarly articles are small and depend, almost by definition, on surviving swords—i.e., those swords which did not break beyond repair in the battlefield. So yes, the swords that didn't break were a) either hard to break or b) never got used or c) were used in a way which kept them from breaking despite relative weakness—perhaps thanks to even more fragile swords on the other side.
Also, these aren't primary sources. A primary source might be a blacksmith's list of well-made swords, or a bill for repairs of swords or production of new and better ones, or a first-hand account of a battle in which some swords broke and some swords survived.
Finally, save one, none of the scholarly pieces you present do a comparison or contrast between European and Japanese swords (which is what you're so agitated about, remember) or even review the literature on Japanese swordmaking. The one that does, "Microstructural Investigation..." describes qualitatively different methods of forging (Japanese, "Eastern Damascus", and "Western Damascus") but doesn't make a comparison of results—that comparison being beyond the remit of the article.
Given the controversy, it seems like actual comparisons would be a fruitful area for research. However, if one wanted to publish this material in a scholarly forum, one should probably avoid the ranting about how unfair (*sob* *whine*) it is to be a white dude in the article. So I'd recommend to you and your pals to tone down the rhetoric a bit, since you sound like a bunch of—and I'll say it a third time now—hysterical ninnies.