FA+
Shop
2504
Views
Views
452
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Wolf
Size 1280 x 905
File Size 3.32 MB
Report this content
More from Naira
Listed in Folders
tanrowolfCategory Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Wolf
Size 1280 x 905px
File Size 3.32 MB
Listed in Folders
( Oh great, FA ate my first response... :/ )
So, first of all thanks for taking my comment positively! :) I'm always afraid to criticize stuff because lot of people take it badly.
In short, there are two problems:
1; You never EVER let the blade of ANY sword touch the ground, contrary to Hollywood. The moisture, natural acids in the soil and the tiny mineral fragments that are harder than steel will damage it. This is even more true for such a delicate edge as that of Japanese swords, but even with a western sword, that's much less sharp, and much less delicate, doing that is very wrong. (You also never touch the blade bare handed because the natural grease on the skin is slightly acidic and cause rusting.)
2; Japanese blades have a really delicate, and literally razor sharp edge. It is achieved using gradually smoother whetstones, and the final sharpening is done via very smooth polishing powder made of iron-oxide and smooth clay dust. Sword polishers who do this are a separate artisan craft responsible for this sole task. Maintenance of the blade by the owner is done by polishing it with rice paper and the same polishing agent made of iron-oxide and clay dust, then applying a tiny bit of blade oil with a piece of soft cloth.
http://www.toyamaryu.org/SharpPictu.....cleaning_4.jpg
http://katanaswords.info/wp-content.....enance-Kit.jpg
With a hand-held whetstone like that, he can only ruin the edge.
So, first of all thanks for taking my comment positively! :) I'm always afraid to criticize stuff because lot of people take it badly.
In short, there are two problems:
1; You never EVER let the blade of ANY sword touch the ground, contrary to Hollywood. The moisture, natural acids in the soil and the tiny mineral fragments that are harder than steel will damage it. This is even more true for such a delicate edge as that of Japanese swords, but even with a western sword, that's much less sharp, and much less delicate, doing that is very wrong. (You also never touch the blade bare handed because the natural grease on the skin is slightly acidic and cause rusting.)
2; Japanese blades have a really delicate, and literally razor sharp edge. It is achieved using gradually smoother whetstones, and the final sharpening is done via very smooth polishing powder made of iron-oxide and smooth clay dust. Sword polishers who do this are a separate artisan craft responsible for this sole task. Maintenance of the blade by the owner is done by polishing it with rice paper and the same polishing agent made of iron-oxide and clay dust, then applying a tiny bit of blade oil with a piece of soft cloth.
http://www.toyamaryu.org/SharpPictu.....cleaning_4.jpg
http://katanaswords.info/wp-content.....enance-Kit.jpg
With a hand-held whetstone like that, he can only ruin the edge.
Just a addendum--there is nothing in particular that makes Japanese swords sharper than Western blades, or blades from any number of other global areas, like Indian tulwars or Chinese blades. Each area had it's own "fabled weapons" that were pinnacles of human craftsmanship, from jiagang to Wootz damascus and pattern welding. Historically speaking, the techniques for differential hardening, clay tempering, and layered construction originated from China and artisanship spread through trade during the Tang Dynasty to Korea and Japan. The Chinese court gifted a blade, Kingin Denso no Karatachi, which is now one of the Shosoin Treasures in the Todaiji temple in Nara, Japan; it is a fine example of transitional sword design that shows the evolutionary shift from jokoto to koto nihonto.
Western blades can be made shaving sharp. The Sword of Goujian, a 2,500 year old differential-alloyed bronze sword (bronze age) from China's Spring and Autumn period, was unearthed during the 60's in a discovered flooded tomb. The blade had no tarnish and archaeologists documented that the blade sliced through paper without effort. Humans have been making incredible weapons going back many thousands of years, as long as the need to cut efficiently existed.
The shinogi zukuri cross section commonly used on nihonto is already quite strong despite the high edge hardness, especially if it has a meatier niku profile, which actually trades away cutting ease for edge strength. The necessity for a literal razor's edge isn't required either for cutting applications. I wouldn't necessarily call nihonto delicate, but if you're abusing a blade enough that it becomes damaged, nihonto tend to suffer more irreparable damage from careless handling because edge chipping can be fatal to the life of the blade.
In any case, the romanticism and mythology of these swords is often overshadows much of utilitarian history. Depending on time period, some of these swords would have seen field touch-ups as a practical matter of utilitarian survival, as historic time periods/conflicts fluctuated between the sword being an item of of high art and one of utilitarian need. For example, many high art techniques used during blades forged in the Kamakura period were abandoned during the warring Sengoku period. If you're in the middle of a conflict and need to remove a dangerous chip from the blade edge, or risk the chip propagating into a fatal crack, you'd do something about it yourself if the services of a togishi weren't available, even if it wasn't ideal.
Hollywood is likewise a pop culture force that has created the idea that Western swords were poorly made hefty iron bars carelessly bashed over the heads of other people like clubs, to the point where I've seen bonafide historians erroneously assume 20lb parade swords were actual blades used in combat. I am mentioning this as an antiquities collector who has an Enpo-era wakizashi (mumei, but attributed to Bishu Masayasu with NTHK shinsa) in my current collection (images in my scraps). A lot of modern stereotypes of swordsmanship come from romantic periods in both Western and Eastern culture, written hundreds of years after the periods in which swordsmanship actually flourished.
Western blades can be made shaving sharp. The Sword of Goujian, a 2,500 year old differential-alloyed bronze sword (bronze age) from China's Spring and Autumn period, was unearthed during the 60's in a discovered flooded tomb. The blade had no tarnish and archaeologists documented that the blade sliced through paper without effort. Humans have been making incredible weapons going back many thousands of years, as long as the need to cut efficiently existed.
The shinogi zukuri cross section commonly used on nihonto is already quite strong despite the high edge hardness, especially if it has a meatier niku profile, which actually trades away cutting ease for edge strength. The necessity for a literal razor's edge isn't required either for cutting applications. I wouldn't necessarily call nihonto delicate, but if you're abusing a blade enough that it becomes damaged, nihonto tend to suffer more irreparable damage from careless handling because edge chipping can be fatal to the life of the blade.
In any case, the romanticism and mythology of these swords is often overshadows much of utilitarian history. Depending on time period, some of these swords would have seen field touch-ups as a practical matter of utilitarian survival, as historic time periods/conflicts fluctuated between the sword being an item of of high art and one of utilitarian need. For example, many high art techniques used during blades forged in the Kamakura period were abandoned during the warring Sengoku period. If you're in the middle of a conflict and need to remove a dangerous chip from the blade edge, or risk the chip propagating into a fatal crack, you'd do something about it yourself if the services of a togishi weren't available, even if it wasn't ideal.
Hollywood is likewise a pop culture force that has created the idea that Western swords were poorly made hefty iron bars carelessly bashed over the heads of other people like clubs, to the point where I've seen bonafide historians erroneously assume 20lb parade swords were actual blades used in combat. I am mentioning this as an antiquities collector who has an Enpo-era wakizashi (mumei, but attributed to Bishu Masayasu with NTHK shinsa) in my current collection (images in my scraps). A lot of modern stereotypes of swordsmanship come from romantic periods in both Western and Eastern culture, written hundreds of years after the periods in which swordsmanship actually flourished.
You wrote a loooong reply assuming that I'm romanticizing the katana. I'm not. I can see you know more about eastern blades than I do, but you still completely missed my point.
Most western blades* were intentionally made less sharp than a katana.
Not because they are inferior, but because they never meant to be razor sharp in the first place (exceptions exist of course). There are several reasons for this. But let's just talk about the type of sword that usually appears in artworks: the medieval longsword (the longsword and the katana are the two most common swords we see in fantasy art). I didn't mean to write an essay on sword sharpness, I just wanted to give Naira some basic infos that can help in future artworks.
So, as for the longsword (or zweihander, messer, broadswords etc.), they were intentionally NOT made razor sharp because:
1; It's a cutting weapon, not a slicing weapon. You "hit" with it in oder to cause proper damage, as opposed to pulling as with slicing weapons, thus the momentum and the sword's weight is employed rather than the sharpness. And by "hit" I don't mean Hollywood bullshit, I mean the techniques described in medieval sword fighting codexes that themselves call the attacks "hits" rather than "cuts". It's two different mechanics.
2; Opponents often wore steel armor. Hitting steel armor with a razor sharp edge is much more likely to damage it. There is no point making a sword that is likely to be used against heavily armored opponents razor sharp.
3; Grabbing your own blade is part of various longsword techniques. Even in leather gloves, you don't want your blade to be razor sharp if you are going to grab it. Only the last third was made really sharp, and even then, rarely so sharp that it would cut hair.
Whereas Japanese swords could be made razor sharp because:
1; It's a slicing weapon as opposed to cutting, which means you apply a pull, and for that to work well the blade needs to be sharper.
2; The katana was a peace-time weapon worn with everyday clothes, not designed for battle, so chances that it had to be used against armor ever were very minimal or probably against light armor worn by guards, bandits, or hidden armor worn under clothes but not heavy battle armor. On the pic above we see a katana, not a tachi, so we can assume it has an art-level finish.
Regarding field repair, even then it would have been carried out much more carefully than what we see on this pic. probably sitting cross legged, laying the blade on your lap and carefully working over the areas that needed it, paying close attention to the angle of the whetstone and the edge.
* I'm emphasizing on wide-spread and well known western weapons, and especially on the medieval weapons that we usually see in fantasy art: long swords, zweihanders, messers, etc. To contradict myself, sabres, on the other hand, which are, just like the katana slicing weapons, and were usually used against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, were made sharper than let's say long swords. Again, I didn't mean to write an essay on the subject, just wanted to mention what's relevant.
Still, as far as I know no weapons other than katanas (especially those made for rich samurai) were polished so much and so carefully - but I believe this is rather the result of how Japanese treated swordmaking as an art, and so went to extreme pains to make it as perfect as possible.
And also, there are always exceptional pieces, but they are not always practical. A razor-sharp bronze blade, for example, is clearly not a weapon designed for a battlefield. While hard bronzes are possible using modern technology, the types of bronzes available in those old days were pretty soft compared to iron or steel. Making a soft edge super sharp is pointless.
Most western blades* were intentionally made less sharp than a katana.
Not because they are inferior, but because they never meant to be razor sharp in the first place (exceptions exist of course). There are several reasons for this. But let's just talk about the type of sword that usually appears in artworks: the medieval longsword (the longsword and the katana are the two most common swords we see in fantasy art). I didn't mean to write an essay on sword sharpness, I just wanted to give Naira some basic infos that can help in future artworks.
So, as for the longsword (or zweihander, messer, broadswords etc.), they were intentionally NOT made razor sharp because:
1; It's a cutting weapon, not a slicing weapon. You "hit" with it in oder to cause proper damage, as opposed to pulling as with slicing weapons, thus the momentum and the sword's weight is employed rather than the sharpness. And by "hit" I don't mean Hollywood bullshit, I mean the techniques described in medieval sword fighting codexes that themselves call the attacks "hits" rather than "cuts". It's two different mechanics.
2; Opponents often wore steel armor. Hitting steel armor with a razor sharp edge is much more likely to damage it. There is no point making a sword that is likely to be used against heavily armored opponents razor sharp.
3; Grabbing your own blade is part of various longsword techniques. Even in leather gloves, you don't want your blade to be razor sharp if you are going to grab it. Only the last third was made really sharp, and even then, rarely so sharp that it would cut hair.
Whereas Japanese swords could be made razor sharp because:
1; It's a slicing weapon as opposed to cutting, which means you apply a pull, and for that to work well the blade needs to be sharper.
2; The katana was a peace-time weapon worn with everyday clothes, not designed for battle, so chances that it had to be used against armor ever were very minimal or probably against light armor worn by guards, bandits, or hidden armor worn under clothes but not heavy battle armor. On the pic above we see a katana, not a tachi, so we can assume it has an art-level finish.
Regarding field repair, even then it would have been carried out much more carefully than what we see on this pic. probably sitting cross legged, laying the blade on your lap and carefully working over the areas that needed it, paying close attention to the angle of the whetstone and the edge.
* I'm emphasizing on wide-spread and well known western weapons, and especially on the medieval weapons that we usually see in fantasy art: long swords, zweihanders, messers, etc. To contradict myself, sabres, on the other hand, which are, just like the katana slicing weapons, and were usually used against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, were made sharper than let's say long swords. Again, I didn't mean to write an essay on the subject, just wanted to mention what's relevant.
Still, as far as I know no weapons other than katanas (especially those made for rich samurai) were polished so much and so carefully - but I believe this is rather the result of how Japanese treated swordmaking as an art, and so went to extreme pains to make it as perfect as possible.
And also, there are always exceptional pieces, but they are not always practical. A razor-sharp bronze blade, for example, is clearly not a weapon designed for a battlefield. While hard bronzes are possible using modern technology, the types of bronzes available in those old days were pretty soft compared to iron or steel. Making a soft edge super sharp is pointless.
You and Stripe are both wrong, actually.
He's clearly just polishing his sword here. Battles back then were purely decided by how shiny someone's sword was - it's solely a recent romanticism (perhaps within the past 200 years) that people assume swordfights actually occurred! Any combat was simply a comparison of glossiness, no blows were exchanged.
Of course, if said shininess comparison was indeterminate, then there would be a hug-off to determine the victor.
He's clearly just polishing his sword here. Battles back then were purely decided by how shiny someone's sword was - it's solely a recent romanticism (perhaps within the past 200 years) that people assume swordfights actually occurred! Any combat was simply a comparison of glossiness, no blows were exchanged.
Of course, if said shininess comparison was indeterminate, then there would be a hug-off to determine the victor.
I'll send a PM later to keep from clogging the comments with lots of info. European swords were quite sharp; it is a misconception and/or myth the edges were dull, likely formed from theater props and corroded artifacts. European blades were sharp, with the exception of blades that held a riccasso for the aforementioned techniques you mentioned, and well documented in historic manuals like the Codex Wallerstein or the Fechtbuch.
The techniques used in working bronze swords formed the basis of iron and steel. If bronze blades aren't worthy of admiration because we have superior modern bronze alloys, then the same argument applies to dismissing tamahagane in nihonto because we have superior and much harder steels today.
Everything is relative to it's time period. One wouldn't argue a blunderbuss is useless because we have M2 machine guns. Claiming a bronze sword with a sharp edge is pointless is a personal opinion that contradicts those historical artifacts that survive from antiquity. Clearly, the bladesmiths thought differently.
The techniques used in working bronze swords formed the basis of iron and steel. If bronze blades aren't worthy of admiration because we have superior modern bronze alloys, then the same argument applies to dismissing tamahagane in nihonto because we have superior and much harder steels today.
Everything is relative to it's time period. One wouldn't argue a blunderbuss is useless because we have M2 machine guns. Claiming a bronze sword with a sharp edge is pointless is a personal opinion that contradicts those historical artifacts that survive from antiquity. Clearly, the bladesmiths thought differently.
You still keep misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I say.
1; I did NOT say western swords were DULL! I said that long swords were NOT RAZOR sharp. That does NOT mean dull!
2; I did NEVER say anything like "bronze blades aren't worthy of admiration"! I said historic bronzes are softer than iron, as opposed to some modern hard bronzes, like the ones some coins are made of. (by technological terminology, ANY alloy of copper is a bronze)
3; I did NOT say that a sharp bronze sword is pointless. I said RAZOR sharp bronze sword is pointless. Once again, not-razor sharp does NOT mean dull!
I understand you come across lots of people believing in Hollywood nonsense, and that as someone actually knowledgeable in this area you want to dissipate myths, adn give out some proper infos, which is great, but I believe you made a hasty judgment on me, and giving me the "usual" answers while you don't realize that I never actually stated the "usual" things you argue (see three points above).
Don't get me wrong, I recognize your knowledge and, and I'm happy to discuss this topic with someone who actually knows something about it. :) But I think you misjudged me.
Anyway, waiting for your Note.
1; I did NOT say western swords were DULL! I said that long swords were NOT RAZOR sharp. That does NOT mean dull!
2; I did NEVER say anything like "bronze blades aren't worthy of admiration"! I said historic bronzes are softer than iron, as opposed to some modern hard bronzes, like the ones some coins are made of. (by technological terminology, ANY alloy of copper is a bronze)
3; I did NOT say that a sharp bronze sword is pointless. I said RAZOR sharp bronze sword is pointless. Once again, not-razor sharp does NOT mean dull!
I understand you come across lots of people believing in Hollywood nonsense, and that as someone actually knowledgeable in this area you want to dissipate myths, adn give out some proper infos, which is great, but I believe you made a hasty judgment on me, and giving me the "usual" answers while you don't realize that I never actually stated the "usual" things you argue (see three points above).
Don't get me wrong, I recognize your knowledge and, and I'm happy to discuss this topic with someone who actually knows something about it. :) But I think you misjudged me.
Anyway, waiting for your Note.
Comments