10-20-2003, 01:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2003, 08:33 PM by Rhydderch Hael.)
I think that this might very well be the reason you don't see my point. I'm afraid you are wrong and that the making of blades in the West was every bit as much of an art as it was in the Orient. The West just didn't make as big a deal of it.
Aye. The Japanese had to make a big deal out of the swordmaking process due to the inferior material they had to start out with. Japan, as you may no doubt know, isn't known for her abundant high-quality mineral resources. They do make fine swords, but back in the day, the swordsmith had to make them out of some pretty craptacular iron ore. The process of refining and smithing a blade from this steel drew more attention and 'traditions', because they needed that much more exacting effort to attain any decent results.
Another thing about it may have to do with the cultural perception of their elite warrior class, in comparison to the Europeans. The Japanese sword was incorporated into the Shinto faith to a much more seated degree than a sword of European ownership would be observed by its warriors. The European sword was seen most often as an item, an implement of battle that is just the extension of the warrior's own vital will. An antique Japanese sword is often an altar piece, thought to possess a soul and essence beyond that of the men who wield it. It is a fusion of earth, air, fire and water. A European sword is a tool by which faith is carried out. A Japanese sword more often has a faith described to the weapon itself.
This tends to ramp up the PR hype on the katana a bit... ;)
...Often blades survived generations and the fittings (hilt. etc.) were replaced as they wore out or as better ideas came along. That is how many of the transition weapons came about -- new guard of some type re-mounted (or perhaps first mounted) on an older blade.
My reproduction reitschwert (in theme, of course) fits this example. A cut-and-thrust war sword fitted into what was then one of those new-fangled rapier hilts.
...However, some aficionados have become historians in their own right and there was one guy (whose name I cannot remember) who traveled around Europe, going to museums and getting permission to photograph, weight, and measure their collections. His book, which I saw about thirty years ago, is one of the best there is on European weapons.
Something keeps whispering to me the name "Ewart Oakeshott". Bah. Must just be the wind. ;)
I find it amusing that the name escapes you. Oakeshott is very well known, if only his fame is rather esoteric. Let us just say that if medieval and gothic European swords were common household items today, Ewart Oakeshott would then be a household name.
When perusing such swords in a catalog, online, or in modern documentation, you'll chance upon terms like "...a Type X blade..." or "Type XIIIa sword" and "XVIIIb". If you ever come to wonder just how these blade-and-hilt types are determined, and whomever did the cataloging in the first place, wellâ you already now know the name of the man who did it. The late Ewart Oakeshott himself would be the first to admit that his typology of European blades (ranging from medieval times to the Renaissance) is not a perfect system, but it has enough lights for us to use as a good guide.
...I fear that you've been taken in by the mystique of the Japanese sword (which, BTW, is pretty much a lie -- all but a small number of the Japanese swords presently in existence were poorly made and mass produced for the officer corps of WW II)
It would all depend if all parties concerned knew the difference between gunto and nihonto. I sure hope I spelled those puppies correctly.
Aye. The Japanese had to make a big deal out of the swordmaking process due to the inferior material they had to start out with. Japan, as you may no doubt know, isn't known for her abundant high-quality mineral resources. They do make fine swords, but back in the day, the swordsmith had to make them out of some pretty craptacular iron ore. The process of refining and smithing a blade from this steel drew more attention and 'traditions', because they needed that much more exacting effort to attain any decent results.
Another thing about it may have to do with the cultural perception of their elite warrior class, in comparison to the Europeans. The Japanese sword was incorporated into the Shinto faith to a much more seated degree than a sword of European ownership would be observed by its warriors. The European sword was seen most often as an item, an implement of battle that is just the extension of the warrior's own vital will. An antique Japanese sword is often an altar piece, thought to possess a soul and essence beyond that of the men who wield it. It is a fusion of earth, air, fire and water. A European sword is a tool by which faith is carried out. A Japanese sword more often has a faith described to the weapon itself.
This tends to ramp up the PR hype on the katana a bit... ;)
...Often blades survived generations and the fittings (hilt. etc.) were replaced as they wore out or as better ideas came along. That is how many of the transition weapons came about -- new guard of some type re-mounted (or perhaps first mounted) on an older blade.
My reproduction reitschwert (in theme, of course) fits this example. A cut-and-thrust war sword fitted into what was then one of those new-fangled rapier hilts.
...However, some aficionados have become historians in their own right and there was one guy (whose name I cannot remember) who traveled around Europe, going to museums and getting permission to photograph, weight, and measure their collections. His book, which I saw about thirty years ago, is one of the best there is on European weapons.
Something keeps whispering to me the name "Ewart Oakeshott". Bah. Must just be the wind. ;)
I find it amusing that the name escapes you. Oakeshott is very well known, if only his fame is rather esoteric. Let us just say that if medieval and gothic European swords were common household items today, Ewart Oakeshott would then be a household name.
When perusing such swords in a catalog, online, or in modern documentation, you'll chance upon terms like "...a Type X blade..." or "Type XIIIa sword" and "XVIIIb". If you ever come to wonder just how these blade-and-hilt types are determined, and whomever did the cataloging in the first place, wellâ you already now know the name of the man who did it. The late Ewart Oakeshott himself would be the first to admit that his typology of European blades (ranging from medieval times to the Renaissance) is not a perfect system, but it has enough lights for us to use as a good guide.
...I fear that you've been taken in by the mystique of the Japanese sword (which, BTW, is pretty much a lie -- all but a small number of the Japanese swords presently in existence were poorly made and mass produced for the officer corps of WW II)
It would all depend if all parties concerned knew the difference between gunto and nihonto. I sure hope I spelled those puppies correctly.
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.