Euro vs. Japan

[William Savage]

So im in a metalurgy class at my comunity colledge, and the prof. is a really neat old guy.

I talked to him about my medievalist tendencies and the next class he had a bunch of articles for me to read. He even asked if I could sneak my sword into the colledge. Which I did.

But he keeps mentioning how much more advanced the japoniese were than the rest of the medieval world. So I figure I gotta represent my pep's

If anyone could direct me to a credible non-biast sword article that perhaps shows medieval swords in a fair light would be cool.

Of course If Mr. Clements were to address this thread directly I'd walk in with a printed off copy and that would work.

Thanks.

[JeffGentry]

Will

Here is an article from the main site.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

eff

[Jeffrey Hull]

The article by JC is a good one. There are other goodys at the Vikingsword.com -- all sorts under On-Line Library; look especially for

http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/patterns.html

http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html

[Brian Hunt]

Ok, I will chime in with some of my opinions and personal knowledge here. In many ways, the Japanese were working with a cruder form of steel than the Europeans were. If Japanese steel was so great, how come they now use modern western methods to make their steel instead of some modern version of Japanese furnaces? The steel used for Japanese swords is named Tamahagane and it is produced by firing iron ore and charcoal in a high tempurature smelter named a tatara. There is only one fully functional tatara furnace still in production in Japan. The tatara is probably not a japanese invention but appears to have come from Manchura via the korean peninsula to Japan. Much like wrought iron, this form of Japanese steel is not a homogunous product. It includes many inclusions, inconsistencies, varies in carbon content, etc. The smith frequently has to adjust the carbon content of the steel by either increasing it or mixing various carbon contents to try and reach the desired final product. if the carbon content is too high, it cannot be used because it will crumble (think cast iron). The reason for welding and folding the steel is to refine the steel so it is more homogunous. Over time this also became an art in the way you fold the steel creating various types of patterns and controlling the flow of the folds. Viking swords were folded for many of the same reasons as Japanese swords, and the same with chinese swords. Welding and folding also allows one to take many small pieces of steel and fuse them into a billet large enough for a sword. This is another reason why folded and welded swords are found in many different cultures. Japanese swords are one way that a culture can choose to make a sword from their availible technology and materials. They are not superior to European swords, but they are not inferior either. They seved the purpose they were intended for, to kill another human being. If you want to start talking supieror steels for swords, then look at wootz, crucible steel, and the amazing swords that came out of Damascus.

hope this helps.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Jeffrey Hull]

Another cool thing to point out is that the layering / pattern-welding of steel, before later homogenising was perfected, was something that was originated independently and developed by the Celts ranging from the Rhein to the Danube during La Tene Era, and was later developed and perfected in turn by various Teutonic peoples (Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Franks) during the Viking Age. Various books by experts like Radomir Pleiner, Ewart Oakeshott, Hilda Ellis-Davidson and Lee Jones can all be found to support this assertion.

[William Savage]

Thanks for the help guys. I knew there steel wasn't magic or anything its a shame the rest of the world doesnt see that.

I appreciate the post Brian.

Thanks

[Justin Lompado]

Another cool thing to point out is that the layering / pattern-welding of steel, before later homogenising was perfected, was something that was originated independently and developed by the Celts ranging from the Rhein to the Danube during La Tene Era, and was later developed and perfected in turn by various Teutonic peoples (Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Franks) during the Viking Age. Various books by experts like Radomir Pleiner, Ewart Oakeshott, Hilda Ellis-Davidson and Lee Jones can all be found to support this assertion.

Jeff

I totally agree with your statement about the Celts. It is a shame that more people are unaware of their contributions to metallurgy. Essentially, they were making carbon steel in Roman times. This is a phenomenal development. Their swords were longer and more edge-oriented than Roman swords, and I beleive the "Hallstatt" longsword became the model for the Roman Spatha (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg) after the Romans encountered its use in Iberia (feel free to correct any errors). To see the difference the Celtic model made, compare that picture of a Spatha to one of a Gladius http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg. We can assume that because of the contact they had with Roman and Germanic peoples (who later displaced or killed them) the old Celtic metallurgical skills were passed on in the Roman and Germanic metallurgical traditions. If this can be beleived, then we can see how the Celts were instrumental in the development of metallurgy in the Middle Ages and beyond.
I had the great displeasure of reading in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel how "The peoples of northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years" (Diamond 22). Needless to say I adressed this point vehemently in class, educating both my instructor and fellow students on the importance of Celtic metallurgy and how Diamond by overlooking it rendered his pillars of "guns" and "steel" useless. This just underscores the point that not enough attention is paid, in my opinion, to the civilizations of the ancient world in determining what we have today (excluding the Greeks/Romans). We talk about Medieval and Renaissance swords and weaponry all the time, but the fact is that other than the development of firearms and new advances in materials, the way men fought hand to hand on the battlefield did not change much from the time of Herodotus to Columbus. Swords were used, shields were used, pikes and cavalry were used, generals dealt with the same logistical problems of the pre-industrial era. Perhaps this could be a focus for newer topics of discussion. Instead of merely describing the tools of war, we can describe the reasons for their use and existence. In essence, put the "Western" in Western Martial Arts.

[Gene Tausk]

Another cool thing to point out is that the layering / pattern-welding of steel, before later homogenising was perfected, was something that was originated independently and developed by the Celts ranging from the Rhein to the Danube during La Tene Era, and was later developed and perfected in turn by various Teutonic peoples (Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Franks) during the Viking Age. Various books by experts like Radomir Pleiner, Ewart Oakeshott, Hilda Ellis-Davidson and Lee Jones can all be found to support this assertion.

Jeff

I totally agree with your statement about the Celts. It is a shame that more people are unaware of their contributions to metallurgy. Essentially, they were making carbon steel in Roman times. This is a phenomenal development. Their swords were longer and more edge-oriented than Roman swords, and I beleive the "Hallstatt" longsword became the model for the Roman Spatha (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg) after the Romans encountered its use in Iberia (feel free to correct any errors). To see the difference the Celtic model made, compare that picture of a Spatha to one of a Gladius http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg. We can assume that because of the contact they had with Roman and Germanic peoples (who later displaced or killed them) the old Celtic metallurgical skills were passed on in the Roman and Germanic metallurgical traditions. If this can be beleived, then we can see how the Celts were instrumental in the development of metallurgy in the Middle Ages and beyond.
I had the great displeasure of reading in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel how "The peoples of northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years" (Diamond 22). Needless to say I adressed this point vehemently in class, educating both my instructor and fellow students on the importance of Celtic metallurgy and how Diamond by overlooking it rendered his pillars of "guns" and "steel" useless. This just underscores the point that not enough attention is paid, in my opinion, to the civilizations of the ancient world in determining what we have today (excluding the Greeks/Romans). We talk about Medieval and Renaissance swords and weaponry all the time, but the fact is that other than the development of firearms and new advances in materials, the way men fought hand to hand on the battlefield did not change much from the time of Herodotus to Columbus. Swords were used, shields were used, pikes and cavalry were used, generals dealt with the same logistical problems of the pre-industrial era. Perhaps this could be a focus for newer topics of discussion. Instead of merely describing the tools of war, we can describe the reasons for their use and existence. In essence, put the "Western" in Western Martial Arts.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a disgrace of a book. Diamond decries "racism" in his book then goes ahead and states in the same breath that New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans or Americans. He bases this observation, in part, on the fact that New Guineans are smarter than Europeans when it comes to the skills necessary to live in a jungle environment. I can go on all day on how wrong is Diamond's reasoning.

Read "Carnage and Culture" by the great Victor Davis Hanson for a real picture on the development of the West. IMHO, the book should be required reading for all ARMA members.

[Will Adamson]

Well, Diamond's son does go to Duke for programming. I saw him speak there, but I haven't read any of his books. He did strike me as someone who doesn't like the fact that humanity moved away from a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

The talk that I attended focused on his idea that civilizations survive or fall because of how they weigh their values. That idea made perfect sense to me. I have noticed that when folks give presentations in person, they are much less likely to make more controversial statements.

Also note that he is not an anthropologist.

[Allen Johnson]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a disgrace of a book. Diamond decries "racism" in his book then goes ahead and states in the same breath that New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans or Americans. He bases this observation, in part, on the fact that New Guineans are smarter than Europeans when it comes to the skills necessary to live in a jungle environment. I can go on all day on how wrong is Diamond's reasoning.

Read "Carnage and Culture" by the great Victor Davis Hanson for a real picture on the development of the West. IMHO, the book should be required reading for all ARMA members.

That's funny. I just started reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" and was thinking the same thing. It's also plainly obvious that because of his time spent living in New Guinea, he's very biased towards those people and that culture and seeks amplify their cultural development more so than all the Eurasian cultures that ended up dominating them.

[Thomas Jancarik]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a disgrace of a book. Diamond decries "racism" in his book then goes ahead and states in the same breath that New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans or Americans. He bases this observation, in part, on the fact that New Guineans are smarter than Europeans when it comes to the skills necessary to live in a jungle environment. I can go on all day on how wrong is Diamond's reasoning.

Thats not what he says. He claims that New Guineans are more adapted to living in jungle conditions. He uses this example to point out how there are different kinds of intelligence and how one's environment gives rise to diffenrent skills.

[Allen Johnson]

Thats not what he says. He claims that New Guineans are more adapted to living in jungle conditions. He uses this example to point out how there are different kinds of intelligence and how one's environment gives rise to diffenrent skills.

But he does very clearly state that if anything he feels New Guineans and other Polynesians are more "intellegent" than Eurasian (and European imigrants to America) cultures.

[Justin Lompado]

Another cool thing to point out is that the layering / pattern-welding of steel, before later homogenising was perfected, was something that was originated independently and developed by the Celts ranging from the Rhein to the Danube during La Tene Era, and was later developed and perfected in turn by various Teutonic peoples (Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Franks) during the Viking Age. Various books by experts like Radomir Pleiner, Ewart Oakeshott, Hilda Ellis-Davidson and Lee Jones can all be found to support this assertion.

Jeff

I totally agree with your statement about the Celts. It is a shame that more people are unaware of their contributions to metallurgy. Essentially, they were making carbon steel in Roman times. This is a phenomenal development. Their swords were longer and more edge-oriented than Roman swords, and I beleive the "Hallstatt" longsword became the model for the Roman Spatha (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg) after the Romans encountered its use in Iberia (feel free to correct any errors). To see the difference the Celtic model made, compare that picture of a Spatha to one of a Gladius http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Spatha.jpg. We can assume that because of the contact they had with Roman and Germanic peoples (who later displaced or killed them) the old Celtic metallurgical skills were passed on in the Roman and Germanic metallurgical traditions. If this can be beleived, then we can see how the Celts were instrumental in the development of metallurgy in the Middle Ages and beyond.
I had the great displeasure of reading in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel how "The peoples of northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years" (Diamond 22). Needless to say I adressed this point vehemently in class, educating both my instructor and fellow students on the importance of Celtic metallurgy and how Diamond by overlooking it rendered his pillars of "guns" and "steel" useless. This just underscores the point that not enough attention is paid, in my opinion, to the civilizations of the ancient world in determining what we have today (excluding the Greeks/Romans). We talk about Medieval and Renaissance swords and weaponry all the time, but the fact is that other than the development of firearms and new advances in materials, the way men fought hand to hand on the battlefield did not change much from the time of Herodotus to Columbus. Swords were used, shields were used, pikes and cavalry were used, generals dealt with the same logistical problems of the pre-industrial era. Perhaps this could be a focus for newer topics of discussion. Instead of merely describing the tools of war, we can describe the reasons for their use and existence. In essence, put the "Western" in Western Martial Arts.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a disgrace of a book. Diamond decries "racism" in his book then goes ahead and states in the same breath that New Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans or Americans. He bases this observation, in part, on the fact that New Guineans are smarter than Europeans when it comes to the skills necessary to live in a jungle environment. I can go on all day on how wrong is Diamond's reasoning.

Read "Carnage and Culture" by the great Victor Davis Hanson for a real picture on the development of the West. IMHO, the book should be required reading for all ARMA members.

Gene
Thanks for that suggestion. I read Carnage and Culture a year ago, and it is really a phenomenal book. I have mentioned this in more than one topic discussion, I think everyone in the ARMA should read this book. That's the best I can say about it. Just read it, its value will speak for itself. Interestingly, you (the forum in general) should consider reading the primary source documents Hanson frequently references in Carnage and Culture. The Anabasis by Xenephon, Herodotus' The Histories, Caesar's The Conquest of Gaul; its amazing that when you read what the ancients thought and beleived how sensible and thorough Hanson's work is. Again, I cannot reccomend this book highly enough.

[Justin Lompado]

Thats not what he says. He claims that New Guineans are more adapted to living in jungle conditions. He uses this example to point out how there are different kinds of intelligence and how one's environment gives rise to diffenrent skills.

But he does very clearly state that if anything he feels New Guineans and other Polynesians are more "intellegent" than Eurasian (and European imigrants to America) cultures.

He does not so much say their culture is more intelligent as how they have a genetic advantage over whites and are inherently or naturally smarter.

But beyond that, anyone of us who has read his book can clearly point out some of the most innacurate military assumptions and statements. Read Carnage and Culture first, if you have read neither, and then read GGS. I think you will find it interesting to say the least.

[Gene Tausk]

Thats not what he says. He claims that New Guineans are more adapted to living in jungle conditions. He uses this example to point out how there are different kinds of intelligence and how one's environment gives rise to diffenrent skills.[/quote]


I don' know what version you have, but mine, on pp 20-21, states:

"It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct."

The first reason Diamond states is that Westerners survive fatal infections while New Guineans die from them. Westerners are able to pass on their genes no matter if they are stupid or smart. New Guineans, OTOH, do not really die from the same type of diseases because of the lower populaton density. New Guineans mainly die from accidents related to a hunter gatherer society.

Just out of curiosity, does this mean that the genes passed on by these New Guineans allow them for greater intelligence in science, math and language skills?

The second reason given by Diamond is because Westerners watch too much TV and play video games while New Guineans are huntering and scavenging. I agree that kids generally watch too much TV, but to make such a sweeping generalization is beyond stupidity.

Another direct quote from Diamond on p. 21:

"That is, in mental ability, New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners..."

From my point of view, Diamond is stating quite clearly that New Guineans are smarter than us dumb Westerners.