The Last Samurai *possible spoilers*

[chroot]

Have any of you seen the movie The Last Samurai? What did you think of it?

I really know nothing of the Samurai, or how they existed, or how well the movie portrayed them. Does anyone have any historical knowledge of them? Did they really get wiped out? (I assume a white dude did not end up being their only survivor. ) Is the story completely ficticious?

I have to say I was stunned when I thought about the way the Samurai chose to fight with primitive weapons, because it allowed them to see and know their enemy. They chose to fight with primitive weapons out of respect for the humanity of their enemies. It's far too easy to use a gatling gun (or, by extension, a missile or nuclear warhead) to wipe out people you never even see. That's very cowardly...

What are your thoughts? Did you like the movie?

- Warren

 

[PrudensOptimus]

Samurais are noble knights or warriors of Japan, whom are descendants of the Chinese. They escaped mainland of China and moved to a tiny island about 3000 years ago, adoping the same writing system, but a different prenounciation.

Japan is famous for 2 legendary swords:

Katana - Used most often in movies, well known, "CUTS STEEL LIKE LEAVES", as you saw in Matrix 2, Morpheous cut the car of Cadalac with it.

Masamune - "CUTS PEOPLE TO 2 PIECES Without blood", yes it's that fast. Usually very long, famous illusion: Final Fantasy 7, Sephiroth owned a very long one.

 

[einsteinian77]

They really put hundreds and hundreds of hours into making just one samuri sword. I think they fold it thousands of times. I don't really know what that physically does to the steel to make it more strong. It does, however, make it amazingly sharp.

 

[PrudensOptimus]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
They really put hundreds and hundreds of hours into making just one samuri sword. I think they fold it thousands of times. I don't really know what that physically does to the steel to make it more strong. It does, however, make it amazingly sharp.

I heard the lengend goes that the blade itself is cursed with blood, whoever touches it needs to pay a "blood fee."

and that's why most people when holding it always wear a glove:

#1. To prevent bleeding.

#2. To prevent moisture from hand from destroying the blade.


BTW, they don't use steel to make those swords, because will become stain very quickly.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by PrudensOptimus
Samurais are noble knights or warriors of Japan, whom are descendants of the Chinese. They escaped mainland of China and moved to a tiny island about 3000 years ago, adoping the same writing system, but a different prenounciation.

why can't some Chinese or Japanese poster step in here and provide correct facts?

Japanese is linguistically distinct from Mandarin. As distinct as Turkish. The grammar verb-forms etc are radically different. The people look more like northern manchurian or mongolian people than they do the south china people. I do not know the facts. But it is a very bad mistake to think that Japanese descend from the Han Chinese (the main Chinese population)

china has many ethnic minorities quite different from the Han majority. but no presentday minority is enough like Japanese to suggest an origin.

there was a primitive white (European like) population called Ainu who lived in Japan before the now-dominant Japanese-speaking tribes took over the islands. There has been intermarriage with the Ainu which can explain why some Japanese look somewhat more European. The invading tribes (probably nomadic from north central Asia, where the Turks also came from originally) had already mastered horseback riding and archery----they were technologically superior to the Ainu.

The Japanese are genetically and culturally rather distinct, almost unique. But for many centuries they recognized the Han Chinese as their cultural teachers. Chinese culture has always been highly respected. They have adopted the Chinese writing even though it is not particularly well-suited to writing Japanese.

There is a curious similarity between Hawaiian and Japanese language---both are formed from a comparatively small number of syllables of a simple type---typically single consonant-single vowell---strung together. I bet Japanese is more like Inuit (Eskimo) or like Polynesian than it is like Classical Mandarin. But I am not a linguist. The Britannica would give a clue about who they originally were and where they came from.

The Japanese Middle Ages is an intensely interesting history. There is much recorded fact. Also there is a lot of misleading mythology, often commercialized.

In the capital Kyoto in the 14th Century there were, IIRC, six main clans. Each clan had their castles round about the various islands and their palace(s) in Kyoto.

The job of being Shogun sort of rotated from clan to clan. Each clan had its own Headman and the Shogun was the top. Each clan needed a lot of professional warriors.

The job of Emperor was religiously and ceremonially important but was not political or military. It was more a figurehead at that time.
The Meiji Restoration in the 1800s restored power to the Emperor and broke the power of the Shogun and the main Clans. This was bad for the professional warrior class, which became impoverished and suffered unemployment because of lack of wars and insufficient clan rivalry.

Between 1400 and 1800 very roughly IIRC, the Shogun system with the Figurehead Emperor and the large Samurai class of warriors flourished. The warrior class developed aesthetic refinement and various strict codes of behavior and ideals. Many of them had very refined taste in art/poetry/music/tea/women and whatever else mattered besides fighting. They appear also to have exploited the tradesmen and farmers of the time without much scruple.

The samurai sword involved different steel alloys. There was a high-carbon edge surrounding a low-carbon core. The core was tough and the edge was hard----in steels these two properties of hardness and resiliance are difficult to combine. Photographs of cross-sections of samurai swords show two regions and the way fingers of one alloy interpenetrate and mesh with fingers of the other alloy to make a strong bond. It was a high technology (it had some features we associate with high tech, but just in a different historical context)

The Meiji Restoration, which destroyed the old system and the support system of the Samurai class, may actually have been brought about by a conspiracy of Samurai who patriotically wished to modernize their country so it could rival European military-industrial power. I do not know for sure, but I suspect that the Meiji Restoration is a very interesting historical event.

The famous Samurai Movies tend to be about pre-Meiji---that is, Medival, Japan. And there is a lot of nostalgic fairytale stuff in what I've seen too.

I remember enjoying Seven Samurai, which is about unemployed (even hungry) Samurai who find a worthy cause of fighting Bandits and defending a village. This restores their self-respect because it gives a purpose to being a professional warrior. This would probably be a post-Restoration time Movie.

The best Japanese Movie ever made is called Tampopo and it is about food, specifically Ramen noodle soup.

 

[The_Professional]

For a more in-depth history:
http://people.myplace.net.au/~aikido/samurai.htm

 

[PrudensOptimus]

Originally posted by marcus
why can't some Chinese or Japanese poster step in here and provide correct facts?

i am chinese, my facts are straight. And stop being lame and copying pasting off of websites.

 

[einsteinian77]

what do they use?

 

[Anthony Shore]

Physics and the Katana

Ok boys and girls, I had to laugh at some of the posts regarding the Katana on this site.

A few things of note. Masamune was a "swordsmith" not a weapon type

The Katana is considered the epitome of sword design...for the type of fighting it was designed to do. it is not the be all and end all of sword perfection, there are dozens of types of swords and each has it's own particular style of use in combat

The Katana is most definitely made of steel, The method of construction of folding the steel was adopted by the Japanese around the 8th century AD. The blade is NOT folded thousands of times but a mere 10-15...a physics student who understands the binary system will note that a single sheet of anything folded once creates 2 layers, again = 4 layers, again = 8 layers, follow the pattern up to 15 times and you get approximately 32000 layers of steel. This method was designed to create an even carbon content throughout the length of the blade. On the final fold, it was folded over a softer iron or low grade steel core which would give the blade a rigid outer shell and a softer core for resiliency. From there, a high carbon edge was welded to the main body of the blade. The blade is then coated with clay in varying thicknesses in the cooling/tempering process. a basic blade can be forged in a couple days.

Once the basic blade has been forged, it is then sharpened and polished. This process takes up to 120 hours. This is done using stones of varying coarsness. The blade is polished by burnishing and buffing to a mirror finish, this also aids in preventing rust.

as for the physics of what the blade was capable of. Any physics student will know that a wedge shape will displace more mass and meet with greater resistance in the process than a flat blade with a beveled edge. The Katana was not designed to cut through anything much harder than laquered leather armor which was common in Fuedal Japan for centuries. The curved blade is best suited to slashing draw cuts not hacking and cleaving. There is nothing magic about the japanese blades, they are steel and will behave as such and if you try to cut through anything harder than the blade itself, the blade will be irrepairably damaged.

I have included some links regarding construction methods of Japanese blades and some useful information on dispelling the hype that the likes of Tom Cruise and Quentin Tarantino have given us about what the Japanese sword.

http://www.galatia.com/~fer/sword/mishina/lecture.html

http://www.ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2003/jwmaart_amberger_0403.htm

 

[Anthony Shore]

Japanese swordsmith Masamune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masamune

 

[Anthony Shore]

Again on the Historical "Masamune"

http://www.filmswords.com/highlander/masamuneart.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

I haven't watched the movie (though I fully intend to), but some months ago I came across a fantastic article about Samurai in the National Geographic Magazine.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0312/feature5/

Before that, my miniscule knowledge of the Samurai came from little tidbits picked up here and there (most of it from Kurosawa).

 

[Adam]

Have any of you seen the movie The Last Samurai? What did you think of it?

I really know nothing of the Samurai, or how they existed, or how well the movie portrayed them. Does anyone have any historical knowledge of them? Did they really get wiped out? (I assume a white dude did not end up being their only survivor. ) Is the story completely ficticious?

I have to say I was stunned when I thought about the way the Samurai chose to fight with primitive weapons, because it allowed them to see and know their enemy. They chose to fight with primitive weapons out of respect for the humanity of their enemies. It's far too easy to use a gatling gun (or, by extension, a missile or nuclear warhead) to wipe out people you never even see. That's very cowardly...

What are your thoughts? Did you like the movie?

- Warren

The samurai were the aristocratic ruling class in Japan for centuries. Some few practiced the sword. Some few of them actually fought now and then. Most were simply members of the ruling class. "Samurai" included women, children, old cripples, anyone who was a member of that class. For most of those who studied combat, they fought only in their training sessions. In battle, a samurai could usually be found commanding troops from the rear, using signalmen equipped with coloured fans and such. Some few actually were professional warriors, such as Musashi, who fought as a soldier in an army. However, Musashi was not the ideal samurai as portrayed in romanticised fiction; he was quite the brute. He beat one guy to death with a club to the back of the head, after the guy was down on the ground. Several of his duels were against children. Most duels were against people who trained as weekend warriors in harmless clubs/dojos, and this is one thing he actually complains about in his book - that there were so few genuine warriors among the samurai.

The samurai class was removed from power during the Meiji Reconstruction. It all came to a close when 30,000 samurai faced the Peoples' Army. The samurai stood at one end of the field with their swords and the privelages of being the ruling class. The army stood at the other end with guns. The guns won.

I very much enjoyed the movie. By far the best work from Tom Cruise. Beautiful scenery, great music, nicely choreographed fight scenes. Lots of groovy stuff.

 

[Adam]

Samurais are noble knights or warriors of Japan, whom are descendants of the Chinese. They escaped mainland of China and moved to a tiny island about 3000 years ago, adoping the same writing system, but a different prenounciation.

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#History

Katana - Used most often in movies, well known, "CUTS STEEL LIKE LEAVES", as you saw in Matrix 2, Morpheous cut the car of Cadalac with it.

It's only a movie.

Cutting an ancient myth down to size

By HIROAKI SATO

NEW YORK -- The myth of the Japanese sword, which Quentin Tarantino plays to the hilt in the film "Kill Bill," has several origins: There was a religious connection. The manufacture of the blade was linked to Shugendo, a form of nature-worship that held that rough physical training is essential to enlightenment.

There was the Japanese propensity to pursue anything, even sword-brandishing, as a means of attaining "the way."

There was Bushido, which, in equating honor with death, found the very means of death in the sword. Edward Zwick deploys this ideal in "The Last Samurai."

One might even add the ancient notion, which is probably universal, that the sword has magical powers. Legends of Excalibur exemplify it.

I don't know when I started believing in the myth. But if there was one thing that helped to congeal the amorphous sense I had developed while watching samurai movies during the 1950s and 1960s, it was Noel Perrin's 1979 book, "Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879."

Perrin's short treatise was timely and important. In the days when horrible notions such as mutual assured destruction still had intellectual currency, it argued cogently that military technologies did not have to advance unchecked. For a prime precedent, look at Japan. The Japanese accidentally gained knowledge of the gun in the mid-15th century, but after perfecting its manufacture and use, they essentially abandoned it in favor of an inferior weapon, the sword.

Perrin made this point in a way that tickled a Japanese -- yes, me -- still suffering from the century-old sense of inferiority to the West. The prevailing view was that Japan was a backward country when the U.S. naval officer Matthew Perry forced it open in the mid-19th century. Perrin said that was not wholly the case. During the isolationist period, Japan had made progress that matched or was ahead of the West in such fields as waterworks, agriculture, mathematics, medicine, retail-merchandising and sanitary engineering. My favorite among his examples was Kleenex. The Japanese had invented its equivalent three centuries before the Americans!

Oh, yes, Perrin did not neglect to mention the superior quality of the Japanese sword. He quoted a Dutchman who observed that Japanese swords were "so well wrought, and excellently temper'd, that they will cut our European blades asunder, like Flags or Rushes."

The 20th-century arms collector George Cameron Stone took part in a test to check the Dutchman's word and saw a newly made Japanese sword "cut a modern European sword in two." It was the quality Walter Ames Compton called "a fantastic order of high efficiency in doing the work for which [it was] designed," when his collection of Japanese swords was shown at Japan House Gallery in 1976.

So tickled, I joined the credulous horde. Those who actually used the sword and those who had to deal with its consequences knew better.

During World War II, officers of the Japanese Imperial Army, both commissioned and noncommissioned, wore "military swords" (gunto). The sword expert Sekitsugu Naruse toured the Chinese front at the army's request to repair damaged swords. His detailed report, "Tatakau Nihonto" (The Fighting Japanese Sword), published in 1940, was devastating. Not that Naruse, a modern-day swordsman, did not know the virtual uselessness of the Japanese sword as a weapon in a modern war before he was sent to the continent. Rather, he was disgusted, even amused, by the ignorance of those who carried the sword.

Of the 2,000 specimens he examined and repaired during the nine months of his tour in Northern China, 70 percent were those damaged as a result of mishandling. Naruse wrote of a major who inadvertently dropped his sword, scabbard and all, while on horseback. His horse stepped on it, creating a sword bent at two places for him. What? A Japanese sword bent by a mere horse's hoof? Yes, and that particular sword was one made by the swordsmith Kanehira, no less. (Most army blades were newly minted with a sizable portion of them made, it was said, from scrapped automobile springs imported from the United States. Many were also "real swords," some even made by fabled craftsmen like Kanehira.)

Bending, indeed, was one great flaw of the Japanese sword, as latter-day samurai quickly found out. The sword in most cases bent at the first strike, effectively becoming a nonweapon, like a gun that has run out of bullets. But, whereas a spent gun could be kept for further use without difficulty, a bent sword couldn't.

Another flaw lay in the hilt. The hilt (tsuka) of the Japanese sword is in effect a scabbard made for the part of the blade called "tang" (nakago). It is fastened to the tang with one or more removable rivets. The fact that the tang receives scant attention in forging, in stark contrast to the blade itself, doesn't help. And since the hilt is an attachment that plays a pivotal role in brandishing a weighty blade, it easily comes undone, even breaks. In this, the Japanese sword was decisively inferior to the Western saber or the Chinese "blue dragon sword." In both, the hilt is a solid extension of the blade. A fully 60 percent of the damages Naruse inspected occurred at the hilt.

Some Japanese soldiers nonetheless believed in the invincibility of the Japanese sword, as actual samurai did not. Naruse tells of a soldier who possessed "a real and true Tadamitsu." The engravings on the sword said it was crafted by Tadamitsu, of Osafune, during the Bunmei era (1469-86), and it surely was made excellently.

Evidently having heard stories such as the one Noel Perrin tells of a Japanese sword slicing a machine gun, the soldier "suddenly cut at an iron plate two inches thick. Of course he created large chips in the blade and brought it to me. What he had to say then was, 'They say the Tadamitsu is a superb sword, but this one was no good. It merely cut an iron plate by one inch, and chipped like this. It also bent. Do you think this is a fake?' "

Naruse, an admirer of the swords of his country, could only sigh: "A master's work died a dog's death." His simple word on the instrument is so common-sensical as to put all of us blind believers to shame: "After all, a sword is neither devised nor designed to cut iron."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20031229hs.htm

 

[Adam]

They really put hundreds and hundreds of hours into making just one samuri sword. I think they fold it thousands of times. I don't really know what that physically does to the steel to make it more strong. It does, however, make it amazingly sharp.

No. Generally a day, perhaps two if they go slow. No sword was ever folded more than 20 times. Usually around 12. The folding process was used to spread impurities out along the length and breadth of the blade, thus removing any points where impurities would otherwise be built up and cause weak points.

Fold/Layers
1 - 2
2 - 4
3 - 8
4 - 16
5 - 32
6 - 64
7 - 128
8 - 256
9 - 512
10 - 1024
11 - 2048
12 - 4096

Doh! Which silly duffer put 5096?!

 

[Adam]

Quite some time ago, I posted a rather length essay at another message board. Religion Of The Samurai, by Kaiten Nukariya. It's very long, so I won't post it here. However, here is the link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16016

BTW, the romantic image of the stoic, noble samurai created by the movie industry is nothing like the real thing. They were the elite in a feudal system. They were quite often complete bastiches to the people they ruled.

Other links I provided back then:
http://cyberatlantis.com/library/e-books/Yamamoto_Tsunetomo/Hagakure.pdf

http://www.thehaca.com/
http://www.thehaca.com/HEMA.htm
http://www.aemma.org/
http://www.newyorkcarver.com/martialarts.htm
http://fowler.winterstorm.org/texts/Budoshoshinshu/

 

[Anthony Shore]

No. Generally a day, perhaps two if they go slow. No sword was ever folded more than 20 times. Usually around 12. The folding process was used to spread impurities out along the length and breadth of the blade, thus removing any points where impurities would otherwise be built up and cause weak points.

Fold/Layers
1 - 2
2 - 4
3 - 8
4 - 16
5 - 32
6 - 64
7 - 128
8 - 256
9 - 512
10 - 1024
11 - 2048
12 - 4096

Doh! Which silly duffer put 5096?!

I could find no posting where someone put 5096 however, to comment on the "impurities" in the blade...essentially, steel is Iron and Carbon...Carbon "is" the primary impurity. In the forge process, the carbon content is regulated by pounding out the blade and how hot the blade is. In Japanese forge, it is usually in the gold/orange range (temperature in degrees not know...sorry) or was described as "the color of the moon during harvest". The carbon content determines the rigidity of the steel...more carbon = harder steel, less = softer. The problem was always getting the content correct as to not make a blade so hard it becomes brittle or so soft it will bend easily...like many western smiths, the japanese found a method that created an excellent "happy medium" that accommodated both issues very well.

The basic blade shape could be wrought in a day, this is true but there were a number of methods of quenching and reheating which could last over a couple days...tempering a sword was a tricky business and you could screw it up very easily.

the numbering method you describe above is Binary math or Base 2 which was mentioned in a previous post...a graphic example of this can be seen in one of the links I provided.

There is no denying that for what the Katana was designed to do, it is an excellent weapon if used appropriately. it is not a majic blade and will not do things that defy the laws of physics or common sense. misunderstanding of the weapon and over glorification of it's abilities and superiority have been common since the western world discovered Japan and I doubt they will go away anytime soon...the best defense is to study the subject for yourself and not simply rely on the likes of Kill Bill and The Matrix as a source of any semblence of reality of what it was capable of...Morpheus cut a car up with his Katana in the Matrix...yeah yeah yeah...Neo dodged bullets and flew too, should I believe that as well?

 

[Adam]

I could find no posting where someone put 5096 however

I did. I just hit the wrong key earlier.

There is no denying that for what the Katana was designed to do, it is an excellent weapon if used appropriately.

Heck yes. The well-made ones are beautiful!

 

[Anthony Shore]

forge folding

They really put hundreds and hundreds of hours into making just one samuri sword. I think they fold it thousands of times. I don't really know what that physically does to the steel to make it more strong. It does, however, make it amazingly sharp.

Please my see other posts for more information but, in brief, the forge folding process was a method of evenly distributing the impurities (i.e. carbon) throughout the blade, the folding process is not what made the blade sharp...the high carbon, differentially tempered edge and a very intricate sharpening/polishing process is what made the blade very sharp. The blade was generally not folded more than 15 times (I have heard as high as 20 but not fewer than 10). This folding creates thousands of layers of steel and as I said, distributes the impurities evenly and creates a rigid outer jacket which is then folded over a softer iron or lowgrade steel to give the blade resiliency and the edge is welded on afterward.

 

[Gokul43201]

..however, to comment on the "impurities" in the blade...essentially, steel is Iron and Carbon...Carbon "is" the primary impurity. In the forge process, the carbon content is regulated by pounding out the blade and how hot the blade is. In Japanese forge, it is usually in the gold/orange range (temperature in degrees not know...sorry) or was described as "the color of the moon during harvest". The carbon content determines the rigidity of the steel...more carbon = harder steel, less = softer. The problem was always getting the content correct as to not make a blade so hard it becomes brittle or so soft it will bend easily...like many western smiths, the japanese found a method that created an excellent "happy medium" that accommodated both issues very well.

Carbon is definitely NOT considered an impurity in steel - in fact, it is a primary alloying element (at least in low allow steels) and is what makes steel harder than iron. And, the carbon content of a steel (or any other metal, for that matter) can not be controlled by heat-treatment. What the heat-treatment does is determine the microstructure of the steel, and this is what primarily determines the hardness (yes, the total carbon content is also important, but that is not affected by heating/cooling). The hardness is usually a nealy linear function of the amount of a phase known as martensite, that is stabilized by the heat-treatment. It is also a function of the particle size, which too is dependent on the cooling rate.

Slow cooling, or annealing, generally results in a tougher but softer steel, while rapid quenching results in a harder but more brittle steel. There are more factors that go into determining the properties of the steel, and they would take up a good chapter to describe.

 

[Anthony Shore]

Thanks

I did. I just hit the wrong key earlier.


Heck yes. The well-made ones are beautiful!

I am glad to see that someone else here does their homework and does not rely on movie hype or make statements like "I heard...the legend says..." to back up falacious claims.

Top of the morning to you Sir...oh, wait...it's damn near evening where you are huh?

go to this site and look for a board called "students of the sword". I posted an article there on Two Handed Great Swords if anyone is interested.

Http//www.tribe.net

 

[Adam]

Gokul, the carbon content creatures zones of impurity because the iron smelting processes were kinda crappy compared to ours today. There would be lumps of dirty crap in the metal bar. If left there, they'd cause the blade to snap upon impact. These lumps in the bar needed to be spread out. So yes, the carbon is supposed to be in there, but not all lumped in one place.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just to clarify my intent Anthony, I don't mean to argue. I'm sure you're trying to give us the layman's version, and your description of the sword forging process is very instructive (at least to me - I know nothing of swords). I just wanted to make sure there would be no misunderstanding of your content...especially by someone who will later try to argue the finer points of steel-making based on knowledge gained from a single post found on the internet. This happens too often.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, the carbon content creatures zones of impurity because the iron smelting processes were kinda crappy compared to ours today. There would be lumps of dirty crap in the metal bar. If left there, they'd cause the blade to snap upon impact. These lumps in the bar needed to be spread out. So yes, the carbon is supposed to be in there, but not all lumped in one place.

Oh I don't disagree at all that the folding process distributes the carbon content throughout the material.

In fact, in a seminar on non-linear/chaotic systems, I attended some time ago, I saw a very neat simulation of the distribution of an inhomogeneity, by the dough-moulding process, which is essentially the same as the blade-folding process.

 

[Adam]

Pretty much, yes.

 

[Anthony Shore]

Carbon is definitely NOT considered an impurity in steel - in fact, it is a primary alloying element (at least in low allow steels) and is what makes steel harder than iron. And, the carbon content of a steel (or any other metal, for that matter) can not be controlled by heat-treatment. What the heat-treatment does is determine the microstructure of the steel, and this is what primarily determines the hardness (yes, the total carbon content is also important, but that is not affected by heating/cooling). The hardness is usually a nealy linear function of the amount of a phase known as martensite, that is stabilized by the heat-treatment. It is also a function of the particle size, which too is dependent on the cooling rate.

Slow cooling, or annealing, generally results in a tougher but softer steel, while rapid quenching results in a harder but more brittle steel. There are more factors that go into determining the properties of the steel, and they would take up a good chapter to describe.

You are absolutely correct sir...carbon is not an impurity in steel, it is however in "iron" and it is that particular impurity that produces steel. A case in point though...too little carbon makes for a soft blade, none at all is simply iron, too much carbon resultes into rigid a metal and is called "cast iron".

 

[Anthony Shore]

Just to clarify my intent Anthony, I don't mean to argue. I'm sure you're trying to give us the layman's version, and your description of the sword forging process is very instructive (at least to me - I know nothing of swords). I just wanted to make sure there would be no misunderstanding of your content...especially by someone who will later try to argue the finer points of steel-making based on knowledge gained from a single post found on the internet. This happens too often.

Goku...I do hope you are referring to yourself regarding knowledge gained by a single post on the internet...I have actually been studying this subject for some time and I am continually learning the finer points of the process for forging of swords, the physics and metallurgy aspects involved and it is my intent to inform based on good solid knowledge instead of internet hearsay and misimpressions based on what was seen in a movie or heard through the grapevine.

I am a firm believer in "study and know your subject"...I am certainly no expert on sword forging or the metallurgical aspects involved however, from the fair amount of consultations I have done from those who are very knowledgeable (i.e. bladesmiths, metallurgists and physics instructors), I think I can put forth with some sureity a decent argument on the subject.

even distribution of carbon is a key factor in the forge process to prevent weak spots in the blade...folding the metal numerous times was a way of acheiving that goal. The carbon content can be regulated by the heat of the blade as well as the working of the metal to drive the impurities to a desired level from the blade. Carbon can also be burned out or allowed in by regulating the temperature...how far you hold the metal from the forge is also another way of gaining an even distribution of carbon on the surface as the forge itself (the coals) is the source of the carbon.

as for the wonders of the Katana and its ability to cut through other metals such as automobiles and machine gun barrels, the point of my original posts was to educate those who would believe these things possible by examining the methods of construction and materials used in the process as well as a brief examination of some basic laws of physics and what is and is not possible given the design of the weapon and the materials used.

the big question is...have I done this satisfactorily?

You were also right in stating that getting into the dynamics of the metallurgy alone is worthy of several chapters of text let alone a few paragraphs in a BBS post and I currently don't have enough data nor the interest in creating a post that size to cover it so, this will have to do.

 

[Gokul43201]

True. I've conceded that. The first step in the metallurgy (at the steel making stage - in modern times that is just a matter of choice. You want a certain type of steel, you buy it.) is getting the correct composition.

<And please don't call me 'sir'. I'm just a regular grad student. You are the expert here.>

 

[Anthony Shore]

The Last Samurai

Have any of you seen the movie The Last Samurai? What did you think of it?

I really know nothing of the Samurai, or how they existed, or how well the movie portrayed them. Does anyone have any historical knowledge of them? Did they really get wiped out? (I assume a white dude did not end up being their only survivor. ) Is the story completely ficticious?

I have to say I was stunned when I thought about the way the Samurai chose to fight with primitive weapons, because it allowed them to see and know their enemy. They chose to fight with primitive weapons out of respect for the humanity of their enemies. It's far too easy to use a gatling gun (or, by extension, a missile or nuclear warhead) to wipe out people you never even see. That's very cowardly...

What are your thoughts? Did you like the movie?

- Warren

Well, I would have to say as entertainment, it was a pretty damn good movie...I sat through the whole thing and when it was over, I sat for a moment and thought, wow! that was really good. I was satisfied that I had seen a very well done movie.

I will totally buy Tom Cruise as an alcoholic Civil War vet with a death wish...I had a hard time with the implied romantic interest between his character and the wife of the deceased Samurai...who by the way was depicted as not a very nice or noble guy...killing an unarmed man who has been beaten is just bad form.

A bit (a small bit mind you) of research on the subject I have found suggests that the Samurai did not all live by the same code...it tended to vary from household to household. To kill ones self in the event of a failure was considered honorable but, it need not be a physical death...if one were to "give up" the way of the Samurai, the life, his family, name, fortune, etc...and pursue a "new" life, this would generally satisfy the condition of "self imosed" death to regain ones honor.

Not all Samurai were "elite" or aristocracy...some were warriors who had done very well in battle and had "earned" a respected position within the house of the lord who employed them. It has also been suggested when I had written to an instructor of Ninjutsu (the way of the ninja) that the Samurai and Ninja tended to overlap and were not always entirely separate entities. ( I can see the posts coming on that thread already)

Back to the movie however...It was full of what we "know" of japanese culture and a lot of what has been romanticized for centuries. This was a very good portrayal of the Meiji restoration period...Emporer Meiji favored western influence and had all but abandoned his patronage of the Samurai class...those who once commanded great respect and fear and had the authority to take life at will, were in turn treated like vermin and eventually lost their lives for what they believed in.

a post regarding "primitive" weapons on this subject needs a little addressing...primitive? were they using clubs and stone daggers? these were not primitive but, were however no match for the gattling guns, pistols and breach loaders that the opposing side was using. These were elegant and very deadly weapons and although inneffective against heavy artillary, were far from "primitive"...I am not sure as to the accuracy of mounted samurai making swift assaults in the fog and striking fear into the hearts of the "new" japanese army but, it looked really kewl didn't it?

 

[Anthony Shore]

Thanks...

True. I've conceded that. The first step in the metallurgy (at the steel making stage - in modern times that is just a matter of choice. You want a certain type of steel, you buy it.) is getting the correct composition.

<And please don't call me 'sir'. I'm just a regular grad student. You are the expert here.>

Not an expert Gokul...just well informed...not as much as some, a bit more than others. one thing I hate is misinformation...I wrote an article some time back that I am still in the process of getting published, the subject was the Two Handed Great Swords of Europe. The purpose was to argue against those who insisted that the Great Swords were unsually heavy weapons designed to hack through plate armor. My mission was to dig up as much data as I could to counter that supposition and I did a very good job of it too.

I like to research things, especially things concerning swords...or more the point things that dispell the common myths and misconceptions concerning swords. The great swords for example were not the unusually heavy things the media portrays them to be...generally not exceeding 5 - 8 lbs for combat weapons and 10 lbs for "ceremonial" weapons...this includes the big German Zwei-handers, the Flamberge and the Scottish Cleidghmhor. My information was based on email communcations with The Royal Armories at Leeds in England, as well as the Wallace Collection, The Royal Armories at Stockholm and the National Museum of Denmark as well as several texts and on line articles on the subject.

A copy of my article is posted at Http://www.tribe.net in the Students of the sword tribe.

I'm no expert...just a PC tech with a passion for good information and a love of stomping "myths" into the ground.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ummm I too thought the greatswords were really heavy, and in my opinion, an 8 lb anything is quite heavy. I just tried swinging about a bag with two phone books in it, total 5-6 lbs - wasn't especially in control. I mean, I could swing it about and such, but not like I would, say a baseball bat.

 

[Anthony Shore]

Ummm I too thought the greatswords were really heavy, and in my opinion, an 8 lb anything is quite heavy. I just tried swinging about a bag with two phone books in it, total 5-6 lbs - wasn't especially in control. I mean, I could swing it about and such, but not like I would, say a baseball bat.

and a baseball bat is not how you would use this weapon either my friend. yes, for a sword, 5-8 lbs is heavy but, consider that the common misconception is in the 15 - 20 lb range and some have even bragged of 30+ pound weapons.

The Great Swords were not simply a bludgeon with a point...they were not "smashing" weapons weapons for beating up on fully armored knightes, the were trusting weapons with extended reach and blades that were designed to get between the unprotected spots in the armor...like the joints.

This weapon had a balance point along the blade in an area called the "ricasso". This was an unsharpend area above the quillons which could be held by a combatant to enable the weapon to be used like a staff for close quarter fighting. The term "pummeling" comes from the use of the "Pommel" on the end of a sword hilt which could be used for "smashing" at an opponents face or body. The quillons them selves could be used for hooking an opponent or his weapon. in general, the weapon was held one hand at the pommel and one hand at the quillons and was then wielded on a pivot like motion...this made the blade seem much lighter and easier to handle.

 

[Anthony Shore]

minor correction...that was supposed to read "thrusting" weapons

try this link to the article...if it does not get you there...I can forward the article itself.

http://www.tribe.net/tribe/servlet/...&tribeid=48e7887d-af8c-4c65-a2ae-b8e52d77f378

 

[Anthony Shore]

sword weight

Ummm I too thought the greatswords were really heavy, and in my opinion, an 8 lb anything is quite heavy. I just tried swinging about a bag with two phone books in it, total 5-6 lbs - wasn't especially in control. I mean, I could swing it about and such, but not like I would, say a baseball bat.

Well, to be honest, your experiment would not be truly representative of how it would feel to wield an 8 pound great sword. first, the way you were holding the bag of books would not be the same as holding the great sword. when swinging the books, you are just swinging dead weight. A sword, especially the great sword is handled differently! The grip is held with one hand at the pommel and one at the quillons. This provides you with the ability to move the weapon on a "pivot" which in turn makes the weapon easier to control and seemingly lighter because you are working from the balance point and not simply swinging a sharpened pointed dumbbell.

nor was the weapon held like a baseball bat and swung wildly in effort of hoping for a conneting blow. it was a controlled strike in which one had to "jockey" for a good position to make an appropriate strike. If one missed a blade strike, the weapon could be used in an inverted fashion to punch with the pommel and then follow through by using the weapon much like you would a quarter staff and then a finishing blow as if using a spear. This weapon required skill more than strength to use although it was certainly an advantage to be physically fit.

Try this link to the article regarding the great sword which was recently posted on the Electronic Journal of Martial Arts and Sciences.

http://www.ejmas.com/jwma/jwmaframe.htm