A rant on Denigration of Europe.

[Rivington]

No, referring to fictious studies or facts do not expose you as a fraud.

Proof the studies were fictitious? Since they weren't named—not at all unusual in a popular (not scholarly) texts like Secrets of the Samurai: The Martial Arts of Feudal Japan by amateur historians—the studies may well have been fictitious, but pointing to another amateur historian (Moynihan) simply insisting that they must have been fictitious is not evidence that they were.

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.

I wasn't referring to Turnbull when I mentioned amateur historians. However, given that Moynihan's letter to Turnbull involves references to childrens' primers (Oakeshott's A Knight and his Armor), dubious comparisons between medieval figures and twenty-first century soldiers (as though there are no differences in nutrition, training, strength, etc.), and then tried to summarize hundreds of years of development in response to a few sentences about the thirteenth century in particular...well, it's no surprise that Turnbull didn't spend more than a sentence dealing with Moynihan's almost obsessive-compulsive correspondence. Nor is fraud proven in that instance. Again, what you and your pals don't seem to like is that people disagree with your assertions and evidence. Guess what, that happens, and sometimes the problem is that your assertions are overbroad and evidence weak.

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.

Considered the best by whom? Professional historians, who put all the work through peer review? Some of Oakeshott's material was published in scholarly journals, sure, but a lot of it is basically amateur (in the best sense of the word!) stuff. So who says he's the best? And even if he is the best, does that mean that ONLY frauds can possibly disagree or have another interpretation?

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.

[Bneterasedmynam]

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.

[Rivington]

Without the benefit of a time machine all history is just speculation based on incomplete evidence.

That doesn't make history pointless. That makes actual historical methods important. This is true both for those who might get the history of Western weapons wrong, and for those who cherry-pick a number of disconnected quotes and claims in popular literature on TV shows in order to create some conspiracy theory of racial anxiety.

[Bneterasedmynam]

That doesn't make history pointless. That makes actual historical methods important. This is true both for those who might get the history of Western weapons wrong, and for those who cherry-pick a number of disconnected quotes and claims in popular literature on TV shows in order to create some conspiracy theory of racial anxiety.

Sure use logic lol. Actually though I think your 100% correct on that one, guess I owe pushups now.

[kenning]

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:
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...ewFile/218/222
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/50/51
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...wnload/141/141
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/...47/7/1050/_pdf
Armor: http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/88/89
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:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...t/serpent.html

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.

And why the anger??

That's why.

[Bneterasedmynam]

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:
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...ewFile/218/222
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/50/51
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...wnload/141/141
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/...47/7/1050/_pdf
Armor: http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/88/89
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:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...t/serpent.html

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.


That's why.

But again I will say it this time in caps NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WAS DEBATING THAT POINT. You have now went well beyond with beating the dead horse it's now a skeleton. We all agreed that European swords were strong and sharp again WE ALREADY AGREED TO THAT POINT. For fucks sake dude even I'm bored of this now and do you have any idea how bad a thread has to get before I get bored of it??!!

[DCS]

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.

All knowledge is provisional, conjectural and hypothetical, but with critical thinking and appropiate methodologies you obtain better results.

@Kenning

Nicolaes Petter: Klare Onderrichtinge der Voortreffelijke Worstel-Konst. © 1674 is a fucking wrestling manual.

Stop being a parrot and investigate things properly.

[Homernoid]

OK, we try it one last time.

another last one?

to separate this

Put aside all the author credibility discussion

from that

and let's see directly what scientific research tells us.

is not exactly historical methods. and frankly not scientific when dealing with historical sources like those you mentioned here:

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

Let's stick to primary sources!

you call those primary sources?

Blade construction and hardness:
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...ewFile/218/222
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/50/51
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...wnload/141/141
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/...47/7/1050/_pdf
Armor: http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...download/88/89
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.

epistemology is clearly not your friend.

No one can give more "evidence" than primary sources and research papers, sorry.

lunatic.

[Homernoid]

dear ****-Kenning, notice please:

But again I will say it this time in caps NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WAS DEBATING THAT POINT. You have now went well beyond with beating the dead horse it's now a skeleton. We all agreed that European swords were strong and sharp again WE ALREADY AGREED TO THAT POINT. For fucks sake dude even I'm bored of this now and do you have any idea how bad a thread has to get before I get bored of it??!!

(my bold)

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.

[Rivington]

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:
*sources clipped*

Interesting scholarly sources! It's worth noting however, that none of them, in my admittedly brief reading of the material (sorry, I didn't have the chance to read a 1000-page book) cover any of the issues you list (swords breaking, dullness, clumsiness, absence of martial arts). At all. The one non-scholarly fellow who discusses sharpness wisely states, "My observations should be taken with a grain of salt, I'm not an expert." So, not a scholarly article by a scholar, but a web piece by an amateur (and again, I mean amateur in the best possible sense—an educated and careful enthusiast). The post on folding bloomery steel has a number of responses saying, in essence, that this isn't news—to get to anything from bloom steel involves drawing, stacking and rewelding. And it's not news. Steel mills produce blooms (and slabs, and billets) today, by the way.

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.