Japan is underpowered in EUIV

[Promanco]

Harder blades shatter more easily. Katanas were superior because they were more flexible that western swords (which were quite hard and broke often) but harder than the flexible chinese swords (which weren't as sharp).

I still prefer the good ol' two-handed great sword. It could rip people in half in one swing and has superior reach. Because of it's awesome swing power it doesn't even need to be sharpened.

It's quite common in language classes around the world to pick a name in that foreign language especially if the foreign and native languages are completely unrelated to each other.

"Katanas were superior" debatable, the Katana was design to cut not to clash with other swords while a Broad Sword was design to clash with other swords and to be a blunt weapon.
So really if they were to crash against each other the Katana would be ruin after one or two crashes with the massive Broad Sword, but without armor using a Katana would be significantly easier because of its lighter weight.
So its a matter of preference, they both will kill you in one strike, however the Katana was more maneuverable but with 0 defensive capabilities, while the Broad Sword could easily be use as an outstanding defensive weapon but because of its weight it was harder to move around effectively.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

Katanas are pretty much lightsabers. And the jedi are based on samurai(kinda).

Thus proving Japan=star wars.

Japan will turn the moon into the deathstar and we will become apart of the first galatic empire

 

[*Aqua*]

"Katanas were superior" debatable, the Katana was design to cut not to clash with other swords while a Broad Sword was design to clash with other swords and to be a blunt weapon.

I mean "superior" in the sense that it places itself between western and chinese swords to in an attempt to combine the best of both worlds (hardness and sharpness vs. flexible material).

Btw no sword is designed to directly clash with other ones. If two swords collide head on using full force at least one of them _will_ shatter. The other one will probably be seriously damaged to a point it becomes unusable. European swords are usually designed to thrust the tip between the armor plates or other weak points. Katanas were used for duels and against unarmored enemies.

This is what Hollywood calls a sword fight:

This is how a real sword fight looks like:

As you can see sword techniques focus on deviating the opponent's sword movement and thrusting the tip into him.

however the Katana was more maneuverable but with 0 defensive capabilities, while the Broad Sword could easily be use as an outstanding defensive weapon but because of its weight it was harder to move around effectively.

I'm not so sure about that. Katanas weight about the same as most western swords (~0.8 - 1.2 kg). And they are thicker (about 8 mm along the whole blade vs. 8 mm at hilt/2 mm near the tip).

 

[Promanco]

I am no expert in Sword fighting but I did collect swords at one point and in my personal experience(hardly a reliable source) Katanas generally feel lighter(perhaps is just the shape or bias) than Broad Swords.
No sword is design with the sole purpose of colliding with another one but some swords are made with that in mind, that is why western swords are generally thicker, specially with the nature of warfare in Europe and the popularity of Shields and Armor you NEEDED a sword that could take some punishment.
Also if any of your swords shatter after one or two full force strikes you did not bought very good swords, even Katanas just bend(or the hilt broke) lol

 

[Witty Name Here]

Only after you've applied jet fuel to the blade though, right?
To be honest, I found this whole post rather cringy, even though it's an joke, but to each his own, I guess.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. See my original post.

 

[Olligarchy]

I can dig it!

 

[justin6477]

So really if they were to crash against each other the Katana would be ruin after one or two crashes with the massive Broad Sword, but without armor using a Katana would be significantly easier because of its lighter weight.

Uh, no. The Katana is, actually, an incredibly heavy blade when you account for the length of the blade. It's actually quite amazing how far this D&D bullshit (where the idea of weapons having all these different "speeds" seems to have originated) has permeated into popular culture. I recommend not watching just this video, but the 13 video section in its entirety.

 

[Promanco]

Uh, no. The Katana is, actually, an incredibly heavy blade when you account for the length of the blade. It's actually quite amazing how far this D&D bullshit (where the idea of weapons having all these different "speeds" seems to have originated) has permeated into popular culture. I recommend not watching just this video, but the 13 video section in its entirety.

"About the same weight as a ONE HANDED sword" Yeah except the Katana was a two handed sword and is more akin to a Broad Sword than a Rapier.
"About the same weight as a LIGHT Longsword" yeah I rest my case, I am not saying is inferior because its lighter I am saying they had different functions, also in Europe Clubs and Axes were much more popular than Swords on the battlefield and Spears(but that was EVERYWHERE) in Japan were much more useful when armies clash but that is not here or there.

 

[Pellucid]

I'm not clear on how katana fighting gives +chance of new heir. Is it:

1. Katanas attract all the ladies?
2. Katana fighting technique can also be applied in the bedroom?
3. The katana is so sharp that you can cut your heir in half and both halves can keep walking around like nothing happened, thus producing another heir?
4. Because eff yeah?
5. SCRUBDOWN?!?!?

Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[justin6477]

"About the same weight as a ONE HANDED sword" Yeah except the Katana was a two handed sword and is more akin to a Broad Sword than a Rapier.
"About the same weight as a LIGHT Longsword" yeah I rest my case, I am not saying is inferior because its lighter I am saying they had different functions, also in Europe Clubs and Axes were much more popular than Swords on the battlefield and Spears(but that was EVERYWHERE) in Japan were much more useful when armies clash but that is not here or there.

This doesn't really address anything that I said; I made the point that Katanas are heavy and that they're short. While the use of two-hands offsets the weight issue, not that the Katana is heavy enough to be problematic with one handed use, it further reduces your range by several crucial inches/cm. Even if one accepts the premise that the Katana is a quicker and more maneuverable blade, for whatever reason, the disadvantage in striking distance is a pretty big obstacle to overcome.

Do note that I never went into the "better or worse" side of the argument, just noting some facts and blaming D&D for some pervasive ignorance.

 

[outis]

Wait, this was a joke thread?

On a serious note, does a unified Japan stand a chance against Ming?

Not really. In Imjin War (Japanese invasion of Korea), Japanese forces actually outnumbered Chinese by 3 to 1, and Korean land forces were not very useful. Yet Japanese feared open battle with Chinese -- they would rather sit the fortress and wait for Chinese attack.

Chinese forces at the time is heavily firearm equipped. Chinese cavalry was superior, and armed with 3 shot (short) firearm. While Japanese arquebus was superior, Chinese was heavily armed with field arty which Japanese did not have. Northern Chinese infantry were equipped with same 3 shot firearm, Southern Chinese infantry are equipped with arquebus -- which are more or less the same with Japanese. Whatever advantage Japanese superior morale, etc, had, they were out firepowered by the Chinese.

 

[Guardian54]

Idea 1: Bushido Discipline: all Japanese units get +20.00% discipline and +10.00% Morale along with 8 base shock
Idea 2: Shogunate: Nippom gets +30.00% Manpower Recovery Speed and -2.00 War Exhaustion Monthly
Idea 3: Zaibutsu: Japan gets +25.07% Global Trade Power
Idea 4: Shintu Syncretism: Japan gets +6.00 Tolerance of Heretics and Heathens and Shinto provinces can't be converted
Idea 5: Zen: Japan gets -45.00% stability cost and westernization is cut in half.

Now that seems much more representative of the "Prussia of The East" don't you think? :3

The following is from assumption of infinitude of human stupidity:

The Prussia of the East got REKT in the invasion of Korea.

20% Discipline is cancerously obscene
-2 WE monthly... lmao
+25% global trade is tolerable, if only because Ming will still eat it before 1750.
+6 tolerance... WOLOLOL (spot the reference )
-45% stability cost and half westernization... you should consider cutting your brain in half, it might boost the functionality.

Ming horde would swarm your samurai in seconds, and Chinese armour and weapons annihilates Japanese in quality too until the Qing barbarians took over.

Now, let's assume no infinitude of stupidity and reply with Ming buffs:

Traditions: Legacy of Zheng He--He taught us that a vast fleet can sail forth into the unknown and return safety. Why then can a colony overseas not be supplied and sustained with a smaller number of such expeditions? +200 colonization range, +400 naval supply range, +50 colony growth, +1 Colonist

Idea 1: Shen Ji Ying--Known to Westerners as the Divine Engine Division, the Shen Ji Ying is dedicated to the use of firearms and their integration into combined-arms combat. +1 fire pip on all units, +1 shock pip on artillery, +2 fire pips on all generals

Idea 2: Cultural Momentum--By flooding a region with our settlers we can easily change the culture of the local populace to whatever we wish, and via our enormous numbers we can resist foreign attempts to assimilate us. -60% culture change cost on owned lands, +100% cost and time for other nations to try to convert Chinese cultural union to any other culture.

Idea 3: Standardized Firearms--Via mass production of our guns, we have managed to standardize our weapons so that each soldier knows he can pick up another's gun and continue fighting with the same performance. +10% Land Morale, +5% Discipline, +10% Fire damage for all units.

Idea 4: Institutionalized Officer Schools--Our officers are many, but to raise new ones for the lower ranks often ends up being arbitrary. Promoting official schools for the art of war will allow us to have more field marshals at any one time as well as improving the discipline and morale of our soldiers. +10% Land and Naval Morale, +10% Discipline, +2 Leader Limit

Idea 5: Reformed National Draft System--Since time immemorial Chinese drafting practice has been one man per household in provinces close to the conflict zones. No longer! We shall now keep records of potential draftees within our nation and have each household's draftees registered in order of priority. This will allow us to muster, equip and train forces much easier during peacetime before deploying them to wherever trouble may brew. Manpower +15%, Manpower Recovery +5%, Recruitment Time -10%, Regiment Cost -5%.

Idea 6: Re-institution of Paper Banking--In the Song Dynasty the establishment of banking systems known now as Qian Zhuang and the widespread use of paper money led to a great deal of investment and trading, not to be seen again for centuries until the likes of letters of credit. It is time to bring it back to bring even greater glory to the Middle Kingdom. +20% Production, +20% Trade Power, +10% Tax Income.

Idea 7: This Land Is MING!--Due to the momentum of resettlement of our people, any territory we take that neighbors a province with a Chinese cultural union will be much easier to claim as part of our ancestral lands. -30% coring cost for any province neighbouring a Chinese cultural union, by land border or by shared sea zone. +500 colony growth when neighbouring a controlled (or subject-controlled) core territory of the Chinese cultural union.

Ambitions: The Shores of Tomorrow--Many millions of young men and women, seeking to own a plot of land of their own and get jobs of their own, to start their own families, have now been incorporated into our efforts to expand into new, unclaimed territory. Our training of colonization leadership has been similarly fruitful, and now may the world tremble as the Chinese people cover the Earth and subdue it! +500 colony growth, +5 colonists.

 

[IIWW]

"About the same weight as a ONE HANDED sword" Yeah except the Katana was a two handed sword and is more akin to a Broad Sword than a Rapier.
"About the same weight as a LIGHT Longsword" yeah I rest my case, I am not saying is inferior because its lighter I am saying they had different functions, also in Europe Clubs and Axes were much more popular than Swords on the battlefield and Spears(but that was EVERYWHERE) in Japan were much more useful when armies clash but that is not here or there.

Yuo do know there is absolutelly no logic in Your post? Two handed sword should be lighter than one handed.
Ehhh, I know it is a troll thread, and I'm falling for that, but Katana was really, really bad sword.
The reason for that: Japan lacks good iron ores. Their ore is very contaminated with phosphorus, which makes the steel brittle in cold. Basicly it dissolves in ferrite, and it tends to gather in few "pockets". Lets not go too far into details. But due to this they had to make heavier swords, so they won't break so easily.
Of course it does not affect modern katanas (if they are heavier it's because the traditional methods of production accounted for steel with higher P level), because modern technology can take the phosphorous out of the steel. But this is really modern technology, from last 50-60 years, so even katanas from world war two are heavy or brittle.

 

[Had a dad]

Using the term "Rape" other than the context of a legal conversation will cause a person to receive an unkind message from a moderator

 

[*Aqua*]

Katanas generally feel lighter(perhaps is just the shape or bias) than Broad Swords.

I guess the one you had hold in your hands had a good balance.

that is why western swords are generally thicker, specially with the nature of warfare in Europe and the popularity of Shields and Armor you NEEDED a sword that could take some punishment.
Also if any of your swords shatter after one or two full force strikes you did not bought very good swords, even Katanas just bend(or the hilt broke) lol

It seems I couldn't express myself good enough. The blade of a Katanas has a thickness of about 8 mm from hilt to the tip (except the tip itself). European swords are usually thinner than Katanas. They have a thickness of about 8 mm at the hilt and about 2 mm near the tip. To compensate the weakness of thin blade it was made harder. This is also the reason why European swords broke more often.

Also in the middle ages soldiers didn't want to bend their sword or break the hilt. This made the sword useless. Not a very good thing in a life-threatening situation.

 

[IIWW]

I guess the one you had hold in your hands had a good balance.


It seems I couldn't express myself good enough. The blade of a Katanas has a thickness of about 8 mm from hilt to the tip (except the tip itself). European swords are usually thinner than Katanas. They have a thickness of about 8 mm at the hilt and about 2 mm near the tip. To compensate the fragility of such a thin blade it was made harder. This is also the reason why European swords broke more often.

Also in the middle ages soldiers didn't want to bend their sword or break the hilt. This made the sword useless. Not a very good thing in a life-threatening situation.

They didn't. The japanease compensated fragility of their swords (compared to european ones) by making them bigger. So they were just as brittle.

 

[*Aqua*]

Why did they made them thicker then? Afaik iron was very expensive in Japan at that time.

 

[IIWW]

Why did they made them thicker then? Afaik iron was very expensive in Japan at that time.

I explained it a few post above.
Short answer: they had really bad iron ore.
"There never was a good knife made of bad steel."
–Benjamin Franklin

 

[Sernista]

I think the differences in function between the Katana and equivalent European hand-and-half swords are really overstated. The techniques used to fight with them were similar, the design of the weapons was broadly similar, the niche they filled was roughly the same (a combination of civilian weapon and worthy battlefield sidearm). Indeed, I suspect the main point of difference in the techniques that I'm aware of (we know of quite a bit more anti-armor techniques for the Longsword AFAIK) is likely a consequence of the Katana's usage having lasted so long in a purely civilian context where armored fighting was largely non-extant. They're two-handed swords. Both are agile, effective weapons; neither is desirable as the primary battlefield armament if you can avoid it (on account of relative deficiencies in reach and penetrating power).

 

[richelieu1628]

I like the gratuitous 9/11 reference there...