|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 14, 2021 16:40:50 GMT
Really? I like Asian weapons. But I was a kid during the 80s ninja craze. Exotic weapons are cool. I doubt TMNT would have been successful if it was all chop socky. I have a history degree, with a concentration in Western Civilization, and a focus on Medieval Time Period. Guess what style of weapons I like . I grew up in the same time period as you but D&D had more of an affect on my style of weapons than TMNT. btw this is how I decorated my living room and part of my library. Waiting on a German Flameberg to go behind the shield and gauntlets. What scent is the air freshener, Medieval body odor, rotting plague death or horse manure? Does the person that breaks in think you're a history enthusiast or a BDSM fanatic? Does he find out the hard way?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 14, 2021 21:10:19 GMT
You can't really pit European Weapons vs Asian ones. Just by shear design (single edged) vs double edged Asian weapons would be superior. Not to mention the quality of the steel. European weapons were made just to be good enough to be battle ready. Asian weapons were made for traditions sake, and more pride was taken into account. (barring a crunch for a civil war here and there when they needed to pump out lots of weapons) I have to strongly disagree with this. Medieval European steel and metallurgy was generally a lot more advanced than their Asian counterparts. Good steel was also more available in Europe, which is why Asia never got around to making full plate armor but had to import them from Europe instead. They simply did not have the metallurgical technology nor the amount of steel available to make plate armor practical. Even if we just compared your average knight's longsword to your average samurai's katana: The longsword is a good deal longer yet only slightly heavier. It's a lot better balanced due to the inclusion of a pommel, it is double edged instead of single edged, its blade was made of a single monosteel whereas katanas needed to combine different kinds of steel in order to make its blade strong enough, and most importantly it could flex to a pretty decent degree and still return to its original shape, whereas katanas would become bent and crooked when put under a decent amount of stress. The Yari, Naginata or the Qiang also pale in comparison to the pure destructive capabilities of a poleaxe or halberd, especially when used against armored opponents. Warhammers are more effective than Kanabos, morning stars are more devastating than nunchuks, and you'll have an extremely difficult time finding a sword in Asia that could match the length and balance of a rapier. I mean, how often did you find Asian swords that were 45-50" long but was still meant to be wielded with one hand?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Sept 14, 2021 21:29:23 GMT
You can't really pit European Weapons vs Asian ones. Just by shear design (single edged) vs double edged Asian weapons would be superior. Not to mention the quality of the steel. European weapons were made just to be good enough to be battle ready. Asian weapons were made for traditions sake, and more pride was taken into account. (barring a crunch for a civil war here and there when they needed to pump out lots of weapons) I have to strongly disagree with this. Medieval European steel and metallurgy was generally a lot more advanced than their Asian counterparts. Good steel was also more available in Europe, which is why Asia never got around to making full plate armor but had to import them from Europe instead. They simply did not have the metallurgical technology nor the amount of steel available to make plate armor practical. Even if we just compared your average knight's longsword to your average samurai's katana: The longsword is quite longer yet only marginally heavier. It's a lot better balanced due to the inclusion of a pommel, its double edged instead of single edged, and most importantly it could flex to a pretty decent degree and still return to its original shape, whereas katanas would become bent and crooked when put under too much stress. The Yari, Naginata or the Qiang also pale in comparison to the pure destructive capabilities of a poleaxe or halberd, especially when used against armored opponents. Warhammers are more effective than Kanabos, morning stars are more devastating than nunchuks, and you'll have an extremely difficult time finding a sword in Asia that could match the length and balance of a rapier. I mean, have you ever heard of an Asian sword that's 45" long but that could still be wielded with one hand? I would have to disagree. Especially in Japanese culture. Iron/Steel there was almost religious in nature. Japan main source of iron was from Ironsand a by product of granite errosion. For it to worked into steel hours upon hours of work had to be done yes, vs the ease of European smelters, but this made Japanese smelters kind of fanatic. Also because of the long time the ironsand had to be heated more charcoal was used. This embued the final steel alloy with lots of carbon. Basically making it high carbon steel. Now it doesn't really compare to the high carbon steel we have today, but back then it was state of the art. Some times called glass harden steel, it was stronger and more durable. To get glass hardened steel to a workable edge it has to be folded many times. This leads to more strength. Then you have the physics of single edged weaponry vs dual edged weaponry. Single edge puts more weight and strength behind the edge vs dual making the single edged sword more durable and stronger.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 14, 2021 21:44:15 GMT
I have to strongly disagree with this. Medieval European steel and metallurgy was generally a lot more advanced than their Asian counterparts. Good steel was also more available in Europe, which is why Asia never got around to making full plate armor but had to import them from Europe instead. They simply did not have the metallurgical technology nor the amount of steel available to make plate armor practical. Even if we just compared your average knight's longsword to your average samurai's katana: The longsword is quite longer yet only marginally heavier. It's a lot better balanced due to the inclusion of a pommel, its double edged instead of single edged, and most importantly it could flex to a pretty decent degree and still return to its original shape, whereas katanas would become bent and crooked when put under too much stress. The Yari, Naginata or the Qiang also pale in comparison to the pure destructive capabilities of a poleaxe or halberd, especially when used against armored opponents. Warhammers are more effective than Kanabos, morning stars are more devastating than nunchuks, and you'll have an extremely difficult time finding a sword in Asia that could match the length and balance of a rapier. I mean, have you ever heard of an Asian sword that's 45" long but that could still be wielded with one hand? I would have to disagree. Especially in Japanese culture. Iron/Steel there was almost religious in nature. Japan main source of iron was from Ironsand a by product of granite errosion. For it to worked into steel hours upon hours of work had to be done yes, vs the ease of European smelters, but this made Japanese smelters kind of fanatic. Also because of the long time the ironsand had to be heated more charcoal was used. This embued the final steel alloy with lots of carbon. Basically making it high carbon steel. Now it doesn't really compare to the high carbon steel we have today, but back then it was state of the art. Some times called glass harden steel, it was stronger and more durable. To get glass hardened steel to a workable edge it has to be folded many times. This leads to more strength. Then you have the physics of single edged weaponry vs dual edged weaponry. Single edge puts more weight and strength behind the edge vs dual making the single edged sword more durable and stronger. Yes, Japanese culture revered swords a lot more and Japanese blacksmiths worked way harder to create their swords... that's because their blacksmithing techniques were less advanced and their steel was crappier. Japan is a volcanic region and this resulted in iron and steel that had a lot of impurities. The reason they needed to fold their sword blades multiple times was so that they can spread out and even out these impurities along the steel. European smiths didn't need to do this because a.) Their steel didn't have as much impurities and b.) their blacksmithing/smelting techniques advanced far enough that they could simply separate the impurities off the steel. This resulted in a far easier process in producing swords which made swords a lot more common in Europe which then made them have a far more casual attitude towards swords. The nearly religious fanaticism of Japan towards their swords was a result of how hard it was to produce one. As a side note, steel folding used to be practiced by the Vikings (called pattern welding in their case). They eventually abandoned this practice once their smithing techniques advanced, and this predates Japanese sword making by centuries. As for double-edged vs. single-edged, yes it's true that single edged swords normally made better cutters and slicers, but they kinda sucked when it came to stabbing. And as armors progressed, stabbing/thrusting attacks became more prevalent because they were more effective against armor. Double-edged swords were far better at piercing attacks but were still fairly capable at slicing. That's why longswords, rapiers, arming swords, sideswords and broadswords were all generally double-edged. But Europe also had single-edged swords meant more for slicing like the falchion, dussack, saber, cutlass, etc. In comparison, how many double-edged swords did Japan have? Japan had a hard time making very tapered, double-edged swords because their steel was not strong enough to handle the profile. The fact that Japan had a very limited variation in their blade types and shapes, as well as the lack in variation in sword guards, should already tell you that they didn't have the same mastery over steel as Europeans did.
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Sept 15, 2021 5:27:12 GMT
Fellow possessor of a history degree here --- I LOVE YOUR ROOM! I'd love to know where you got the one war-hammer, cause I'm in love with it. If I weren't in the middle of moving, I'd go take pictures of my collection on the walls of my home-office (I have a decorative hand and a half sword, a couple of LotR prop replicas, a staff, various archery pieces, a Spanish stiletto, and some other stuff). I think the 80s/TMNT just made us all want to be able to handle ourselves against members of the Foot, if we bumped into them in a dark, NYC alleyway. Plus, we all sought out these weapons of a bygone era, and each found particular ones we liked. I've got a halberd head around here somewhere that I need to mount. lets see the warhammer (horsemen's pick) is from here. which is a little cheaper than I bought it at. Think i bought it there a few years back for like 100. www.medievalcollectibles.com/product/heavy-war-hammer/and here is the axe that I bought to match it. Both have square handles. both are close in color in real life. Both have langets though the hammer's are longer. www.by-the-sword.com/p-840-war-axe-hammer.aspx Thank you!!!! I may have to put that heavy war hammer on my Christmas list.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 16, 2021 19:03:42 GMT
It wasn't bad and Simu is very talented but the magical world was a bit of a surprise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2021 5:24:27 GMT
It wasn't bad and Simu is very talented but the magical world was a bit of a surprise. They should’ve saved the magical world for the sequel. It felt very forced and underdeveloped to me.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 19, 2021 22:18:49 GMT
I would have to disagree. Especially in Japanese culture. Iron/Steel there was almost religious in nature. Japan main source of iron was from Ironsand a by product of granite errosion. For it to worked into steel hours upon hours of work had to be done yes, vs the ease of European smelters, but this made Japanese smelters kind of fanatic. Also because of the long time the ironsand had to be heated more charcoal was used. This embued the final steel alloy with lots of carbon. Basically making it high carbon steel. Now it doesn't really compare to the high carbon steel we have today, but back then it was state of the art. Some times called glass harden steel, it was stronger and more durable. To get glass hardened steel to a workable edge it has to be folded many times. This leads to more strength. Then you have the physics of single edged weaponry vs dual edged weaponry. Single edge puts more weight and strength behind the edge vs dual making the single edged sword more durable and stronger. Yes, Japanese culture revered swords a lot more and Japanese blacksmiths worked way harder to create their swords... that's because their blacksmithing techniques were less advanced and their steel was crappier. Japan is a volcanic region and this resulted in iron and steel that had a lot of impurities. The reason they needed to fold their sword blades multiple times was so that they can spread out and even out these impurities along the steel. European smiths didn't need to do this because a.) Their steel didn't have as much impurities and b.) their blacksmithing/smelting techniques advanced far enough that they could simply separate the impurities off the steel. This resulted in a far easier process in producing swords which made swords a lot more common in Europe which then made them have a far more casual attitude towards swords. The nearly religious fanaticism of Japan towards their swords was a result of how hard it was to produce one. As a side note, steel folding used to be practiced by the Vikings (called pattern welding in their case). They eventually abandoned this practice once their smithing techniques advanced, and this predates Japanese sword making by centuries. As for double-edged vs. single-edged, yes it's true that single edged swords normally made better cutters and slicers, but they kinda sucked when it came to stabbing. And as armors progressed, stabbing/thrusting attacks became more prevalent because they were more effective against armor. Double-edged swords were far better at piercing attacks but were still fairly capable at slicing. That's why longswords, rapiers, arming swords, sideswords and broadswords were all generally double-edged. But Europe also had single-edged swords meant more for slicing like the falchion, dussack, saber, cutlass, etc. In comparison, how many double-edged swords did Japan have? Japan had a hard time making very tapered, double-edged swords because their steel was not strong enough to handle the profile. The fact that Japan had a very limited variation in their blade types and shapes, as well as the lack in variation in sword guards, should already tell you that they didn't have the same mastery over steel as Europeans did. Is weapon making in a single country/culture really even comparable to weapon making on a continent that is made up of several countries/cultures?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 19, 2021 23:10:16 GMT
Yes, Japanese culture revered swords a lot more and Japanese blacksmiths worked way harder to create their swords... that's because their blacksmithing techniques were less advanced and their steel was crappier. Japan is a volcanic region and this resulted in iron and steel that had a lot of impurities. The reason they needed to fold their sword blades multiple times was so that they can spread out and even out these impurities along the steel. European smiths didn't need to do this because a.) Their steel didn't have as much impurities and b.) their blacksmithing/smelting techniques advanced far enough that they could simply separate the impurities off the steel. This resulted in a far easier process in producing swords which made swords a lot more common in Europe which then made them have a far more casual attitude towards swords. The nearly religious fanaticism of Japan towards their swords was a result of how hard it was to produce one. As a side note, steel folding used to be practiced by the Vikings (called pattern welding in their case). They eventually abandoned this practice once their smithing techniques advanced, and this predates Japanese sword making by centuries. As for double-edged vs. single-edged, yes it's true that single edged swords normally made better cutters and slicers, but they kinda sucked when it came to stabbing. And as armors progressed, stabbing/thrusting attacks became more prevalent because they were more effective against armor. Double-edged swords were far better at piercing attacks but were still fairly capable at slicing. That's why longswords, rapiers, arming swords, sideswords and broadswords were all generally double-edged. But Europe also had single-edged swords meant more for slicing like the falchion, dussack, saber, cutlass, etc. In comparison, how many double-edged swords did Japan have? Japan had a hard time making very tapered, double-edged swords because their steel was not strong enough to handle the profile. The fact that Japan had a very limited variation in their blade types and shapes, as well as the lack in variation in sword guards, should already tell you that they didn't have the same mastery over steel as Europeans did. Is weapon making in a single country/culture really even comparable to weapon making on a continent that is made up of several countries/cultures? No it isn't, and that’s a good chunk of what made European weaponry more advanced. There was far more trade and cross-influencing of technology in Europe than there was in Asia. Japan and even China to an extent mostly kept to their own. That's why a German longsword, English longsword and Italian longsword look very similar to each other whereas a Chinese Jian looks very different from a Japanese Katana.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 20, 2021 13:53:47 GMT
Is weapon making in a single country/culture really even comparable to weapon making on a continent that is made up of several countries/cultures? No it isn't, and that’s a good chunk of what made European weaponry more advanced. There was far more trade and cross-influencing of technology in Europe than there was in Asia. Japan and even China to an extent mostly kept to their own. That's why a German longsword, English longsword and Italian longsword look very similar to each other whereas a Chinese Jian looks very different from a Japanese Katana. I’m no history expert, but I would venture to say that the raw quantities of steel available in Japan vs. Europe must have also played a big, if not the biggest, part in the development of weapons in both regions. Europeans had enough steel to make entire suits of armor weighing as much as several dozen Japanese weapons of the same era combined. The Japanese seem far more interested in maintaining tradition and symbolism in weapon making whereas their counterparts saw them more as commodities to be iterated upon to increase lethal efficiency - sort of like iPhones.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 20, 2021 17:43:42 GMT
No it isn't, and that’s a good chunk of what made European weaponry more advanced. There was far more trade and cross-influencing of technology in Europe than there was in Asia. Japan and even China to an extent mostly kept to their own. That's why a German longsword, English longsword and Italian longsword look very similar to each other whereas a Chinese Jian looks very different from a Japanese Katana. I’m no history expert, but I would venture to say that the raw quantities of steel available in Japan vs. Europe must have also played a big, if not the biggest, part in the development of weapons in both regions. Europeans had enough steel to make entire suits of armor weighing as much as several dozen Japanese weapons of the same era combined. The Japanese seem far more interested in maintaining tradition and symbolism in weapon making whereas their counterparts saw them more as commodities to be iterated upon to increase lethal efficiency - sort of like iPhones. Yes, you're correct. From a logistics point of view, Europe as a continent definitely had access to more steel and better quality steel as compared to an isolated country like Japan. Japan was stuck with whatever steel they had, whatever that quality was whereas Europe easily traded with each other giving them far more options. Spanish (Toledo) steel eventually became known as the top end suppliers of steel and so everyone bought their steel from them. From the martial aspect, Asia has always been more traditional than Europe. This generally ends up making Asian martial arts and weaponry a lot more beautiful aesthetically, since they put an almost religious fervor into it, but I do have to admit that it doesn't make them quite as efficient as their European counterparts. And I say this as someone who's half Asian. Europe was all about discarding something once something better was found, which is why you have far more diverse weaponry and armor for them. Japan pretty much stuck to the same kinds of weaponry and armor they had till they started importing equipment from Europe (like breastplates and firearms).
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 20, 2021 18:08:39 GMT
I’m no history expert, but I would venture to say that the raw quantities of steel available in Japan vs. Europe must have also played a big, if not the biggest, part in the development of weapons in both regions. Europeans had enough steel to make entire suits of armor weighing as much as several dozen Japanese weapons of the same era combined. The Japanese seem far more interested in maintaining tradition and symbolism in weapon making whereas their counterparts saw them more as commodities to be iterated upon to increase lethal efficiency - sort of like iPhones. Yes, you're correct. From a logistics point of view, Europe as a continent definitely had access to more steel and better quality steel as compared to an isolated country like Japan. Japan was stuck with whatever steel they had, whatever that quality was whereas Europe easily traded with each other giving them far more options. Spanish (Toledo) steel eventually became known as the top end suppliers of steel and so everyone bought their steel from them. From the martial aspect, Asia has always been more traditional than Europe. This generally ends up making Asian martial arts and weaponry a lot more beautiful aesthetically, since they put an almost religious fervor into it, but I do have to admit that it doesn't make them quite as efficient as their European counterparts. And I say this as someone who's half Asian. Europe was all about discarding something once something better was found, which is why you have far more diverse weaponry and armor for them. Japan pretty much stuck to the same kinds of weaponry and armor they had till they started importing equipment from Europe (like breastplates and firearms). Great summation. Necessity also tends to foster innovation in weapons development. The European continent was in a near-perpetual state of warfare over territory and power. The samurai/shogunate offered relative stability to Japan. There was simply no need for a dynamic and iterative weapons development process. Warring European nations likely needed every advantage they could gain over each other.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 22, 2021 20:50:07 GMT
Yes, you're correct. From a logistics point of view, Europe as a continent definitely had access to more steel and better quality steel as compared to an isolated country like Japan. Japan was stuck with whatever steel they had, whatever that quality was whereas Europe easily traded with each other giving them far more options. Spanish (Toledo) steel eventually became known as the top end suppliers of steel and so everyone bought their steel from them. From the martial aspect, Asia has always been more traditional than Europe. This generally ends up making Asian martial arts and weaponry a lot more beautiful aesthetically, since they put an almost religious fervor into it, but I do have to admit that it doesn't make them quite as efficient as their European counterparts. And I say this as someone who's half Asian. Europe was all about discarding something once something better was found, which is why you have far more diverse weaponry and armor for them. Japan pretty much stuck to the same kinds of weaponry and armor they had till they started importing equipment from Europe (like breastplates and firearms). Great summation. Necessity also tends to foster innovation in weapons development. The European continent was in a near-perpetual state of warfare over territory and power. The samurai/shogunate offered relative stability to Japan. There was simply no need for a dynamic and iterative weapons development process. Warring European nations likely needed every advantage they could gain over each other. True. Japan mostly warred with itself. Not much use to innovate weaponry when everyone was using the same kind of weapons as everyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2021 1:46:09 GMT
Just rewatched this hoping it’d grow on me, but I still think it’s one of the MCU’s worst.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Dec 1, 2021 23:25:06 GMT
I tell you what, I’m struggling with this one. I’m watching it on Disney+.
It looks like it’s bloated AF. An epic fight to show how his mom met his dad? So it’s one of those kind of movies, filled with self importance. That’s fine. But if you want it to be epic then give some dignity to the dialogue. But oh no-
Then we meet our hero with his friends and they all display zero chemistry in their stilted conversations. ‘Oh and get a shot of them taking their shoes off at the door’ says the director ‘because this is all about Asian culture. No, don’t be subtle about it, focus on that for one shot. Then have them sit around the table and say other very Asian things’. The Chinese market won’t miss this. They aren’t an audience who are hungry for validation. If this is trying to be the asian Black Panther then they are making a big mistake.
I’m hoping this gets better. I’m only early in but holy hell is this pretty bad so far.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Dec 2, 2021 0:09:56 GMT
The bus scene wasn’t bad. I’ll stick with this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2021 19:17:54 GMT
The bus scene wasn’t bad. I’ll stick with this. That’s about as good as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 4, 2021 19:23:35 GMT
The Chinese market won’t miss this. They aren’t an audience who are hungry for validation. If this is trying to be the asian Black Panther then they are making a big mistake. This is true for Chinese from Asia. They don't really care that much about validation from Hollywood movies. But ABC's (American born Chinese) and CBC's (Canadian born Chinese) do look for that representation and Shang Chi made quite the impact among these groups.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 16, 2021 17:19:03 GMT
The director wants to cast Jackie Chan for a role in the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 16, 2021 18:22:12 GMT
Yes, Japanese culture revered swords a lot more and Japanese blacksmiths worked way harder to create their swords... that's because their blacksmithing techniques were less advanced and their steel was crappier. Japan is a volcanic region and this resulted in iron and steel that had a lot of impurities. The reason they needed to fold their sword blades multiple times was so that they can spread out and even out these impurities along the steel. European smiths didn't need to do this because a.) Their steel didn't have as much impurities and b.) their blacksmithing/smelting techniques advanced far enough that they could simply separate the impurities off the steel. This resulted in a far easier process in producing swords which made swords a lot more common in Europe which then made them have a far more casual attitude towards swords. The nearly religious fanaticism of Japan towards their swords was a result of how hard it was to produce one. As a side note, steel folding used to be practiced by the Vikings (called pattern welding in their case). They eventually abandoned this practice once their smithing techniques advanced, and this predates Japanese sword making by centuries. As for double-edged vs. single-edged, yes it's true that single edged swords normally made better cutters and slicers, but they kinda sucked when it came to stabbing. And as armors progressed, stabbing/thrusting attacks became more prevalent because they were more effective against armor. Double-edged swords were far better at piercing attacks but were still fairly capable at slicing. That's why longswords, rapiers, arming swords, sideswords and broadswords were all generally double-edged. But Europe also had single-edged swords meant more for slicing like the falchion, dussack, saber, cutlass, etc. In comparison, how many double-edged swords did Japan have? Japan had a hard time making very tapered, double-edged swords because their steel was not strong enough to handle the profile. The fact that Japan had a very limited variation in their blade types and shapes, as well as the lack in variation in sword guards, should already tell you that they didn't have the same mastery over steel as Europeans did. Do you sword aficionados watch Forged in Fire? Sometimes. Usually when they have an interesting project they're making.
|
|