why do you suppose...

[Maxime Chouinard]

Here's a good article on lamination techniques used: http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/laminate.htm

I haven't read Mr. Johnson book but from the excerpt, he would seem to have a basic knowledge of japanese forging techniques, or at least what they are today, and doesn't go into much detail. I would not boast to know more than him on the subject of metallurgy and forging. As for saying which technique was used the most in the Sengoku period, I have no idea, different regions had different techniques and I'm not aware of any document that examines the numbers.

At any rate, I would ask again for references on the Rockwell statement that you made, Mr. Chouinard. And I would also ask that you reference a bit more so that the debate may continue in a scholarly manner.

Actually the article I linked did mentionned that the edge was of a higher RC in general. Everything else if from personnal experience and those of other people. If you need a source, I might not be able to give you what you need, but I do remember a mention of a study of historical european swords based on their hardness, it was mentionned a couple of times on myarmoury. I'll try to find it but I'm in a bit of a hurry right now.

And to this you have said that the Edo period brought advancements in metallurgy. I would like to see some citations, please. I do not know when the Edo period was, so that does not help to prove anything.

Actually it was not really an advancement, practically speaking. Here's an article about it (badly translated though): http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_145.htm

As for the Edo period, it is a period between 1603 and 1868, of relative overall peace (some invasions, rebellions etc, but sporadically). The shogunate authority assumed near complete authority and Japan was for the most part closed to the outside. Most common myths and beliefs about the samurai come from this period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period

The period before is sometimes referred as sengoku era . It is the warring states period during which the various feudal lords battled with no interruption for control of the archipel, and later for Korea-China. It started around 1467 and lasted roughly 200 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sengoku

And let us not move into the fine artistic examples that are possible, let us stick to the grade of weaponry that could be found on the battlefield, that was made for it. Pieces in peacetime, from both countries will have beautiful pieces that will only serve to drag this discussion away from a possible outcome.

Not sure what you are referring to, where was I discussing the merits of aesthetics? I have no interest either into discussing it here.

Final question: At which part of the blade are you saying the Rockwell is higher? Overall, Spine, edge, middle? That might help here.

Again depending on the method of construction, but most of the time the edge and the point area would be.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

A quick reply (I am working on a final project for this semester - which ends tomorrow- and the assigment was due, hmmmmm a week ago )

Thank you for letting me know the time periods. There would seem to be a bit of an incompatibility with the longsword and the katana of the Edo period, as the longsword was a bit on the way out in the 17th century (still there, just not as normal a carrying weapon as say the 15th century)

I did miss the discussion about the RC in the previous article, I will look over it again.

As for the aesthetic/artistic pieces that I mentioned, what I was trying to get at is that there are exceptions to the norm of making a sword. There are many different ways to do it. But there is a, shall we say, "normal" way of doing it. I suggest that we limit our discussion to the "normal" practices. If we get caught up in the "well, that is ONE way of doing it, but doing it THIS way gives a different result." We will debate until we both can no longer USE the swords.

As for the edge and point being higher RC, Mr. Johnsson's comments spoke to that. Yes, the edge was historically a higher RC than a longsword. That is an entirely different statement than saying that the katanas were higher RC than longswords. That is a specific area against the entirety of the blade, and it seems to me the point that I am contending is the spine - being of a semisoft steel/iron.

I will look through your references and give a better post later, Thanks.

-Jeremiah (SA)

[Stacy Clifford]

I agree that there must have been some general "average" way of making a sword in both cultures. The sword carried by the king of England or the shogun of Japan was probably the pinnacle of sword-making technology for its day, but it was probably not the same quality of sword carried by the thousands of troops that marched under their command. Comparing the state of the art pieces is interesting academically, but if you want to determine martial utility then I think it's more useful to compare the quality of the weapons issued to the vast majority of people who did the actual fighting. If you were judging the overall quality of automotive technology today, would you base your assessment on Ferrari or Ford?

[Chris Ouellet]

I Bottomley and A P Hopson by Saturn Books ands its ISBN is 1-86222-002-6. Don't know the page number, sorry about that.

I've dropped off the radar for a bit, end of term is always bad for me. Anyhow, to regress some, I have the book but I can't find any reference to wood in japanese armor. Maybe I am just blind, but it certainly wasn't common if there were any cases of it.

[Francisco Urbano García]

I Bottomley and A P Hopson by Saturn Books ands its ISBN is 1-86222-002-6. Don't know the page number, sorry about that.

I've dropped off the radar for a bit, end of term is always bad for me. Anyhow, to regress some, I have the book but I can't find any reference to wood in japanese armor. Maybe I am just blind, but it certainly wasn't common if there were any cases of it.

OK, how about this:

...The oldest cuirasses were probably made from hardwood or rawhide. The elements were laced with leather strips, and the cuirass itself was covered with reddish-brown, red or black lacquer. Even though only fragments of similar armour are preserved (dating approximately to the end of the first/beginning of the 2nd century A.D.), it is believed that this type was widespread...

I found this info here: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

[Maxime Chouinard]

Good article but some errors and omissions. I'd like to know where he got that hardwood part, never heard it before : http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html

Anyway were talking 100-200 AD, a little bit out of range.

[Francisco Urbano García]

...Anyway were talking 100-200 AD, a little bit out of range.

Well, 100-200 is the time framework for those remaining, the article also states that "The first iron armour appeared in the 4th century and was called tanko." Which would mean that till then they would use the previous hardwood ones.

About not having many remaining of hardwood, well, time does not treat well wood, specially if use in combat. I guess that might be one of the reasons why there are not may examples to show nowadays.

Nonetheless, I can only refer to what I have read, I haven't touch them or seen them myself.

[Maxime Chouinard]

A quote from the website I mentionned.

One thing that needs to be addressed first is probably my biggest button: Japanese armour was never made of wood or bamboo. It was either leather, steel, or a combination of the two. Don’t even ask me.

[Francisco Urbano García]

A quote from the website I mentionned.

One thing that needs to be addressed first is probably my biggest button: Japanese armour was never made of wood or bamboo. It was either leather, steel, or a combination of the two. Don’t even ask me.

I don't see any sources in that article... in the one I posted they give as sources:

Arms and Armor of the Samurai, by Ian Bottomley
Early Samurai: 200-1500 AD (Elite Series, Vol. 35), by Anthony J. Bryant
The Samurai Armoury, by Nosov K.
The Samurai: A Military History, by Stephe Turnbull
Secrets of the Samurai: A Survey of the Martial Arts of Feudal Japan, by Oscar Ratti, Adele Westbrook
Sengoku Daimyo, by Anthony J. Bryant

[Maxime Chouinard]

You'll notice he cites the author of the website two times, including the website itself right at the end . A.J. Bryant is surely one of the most knowledgeable person about Japanese armor in the west. Other than that check his bibliography: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/kat ... raphy.html

[Francisco Urbano García]

You'll notice he cites the author of the website two times, including the website itself right at the end . A.J. Bryant is surely one of the most knowledgeable person about Japanese armor in the west. Other than that check his bibliography: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/kat ... raphy.html

Right, what I mean is that the guy saying about the hardwood armor also says about the evidences to sustain that, the guy saying a big huge NO to hardwood in armors... well, he just says that.

Being knowledgeable? that's cool... but a big "NO, believe me! I know what I am talking about!" is not enough for me. Let me put it the issue on hold till someone shows hard evidences pro or against it.

Something is sure anyway, someone is veeeery wrong hahaha

[Jonathan Newhall]

This is a post from a while ago, but I actually found this point interesting -

I agree that there must have been some general "average" way of making a sword in both cultures. The sword carried by the king of England or the shogun of Japan was probably the pinnacle of sword-making technology for its day, but it was probably not the same quality of sword carried by the thousands of troops that marched under their command. Comparing the state of the art pieces is interesting academically, but if you want to determine martial utility then I think it's more useful to compare the quality of the weapons issued to the vast majority of people who did the actual fighting. If you were judging the overall quality of automotive technology today, would you base your assessment on Ferrari or Ford?

The thing is, though, that the kings may very well not have had the most powerful, functional weaponry. They weren't expected to fight and kill as though that set a good example, that put the most important individual in the entire state at risk for death or capture by the enemy. Most especially their weaponry worn in peacetime or while staying at home was certainly not of the highest quality, but the highest value - they weren't expected to fight people with that sword full of jewels, after all!

The soldiers on the other hand, probably each had varying levels of weapon quality - however the higher ranking soldiers with a lot of money probably just as often opted for ornamental but slightly less effective swords as the best, most functional swords money could buy, regardless of appearance.

[Chris Ouellet]

I found this info here: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

That's a good find. I have an account at myarmory and I'll ask them if they know the exact source. It's the first I hear of it but I'm not adverse to being proven wrong.

Chris

[Maxime Chouinard]

I actualy found a mention of a wooden armor in the journal of east asian archaeology : Iron armor and weapon in protohistoric Japan by Yoshimura Kazuaki. I couldn't access the whole article but it says it is to date the first armor found in Japan. No date or source in particular but it mentions the yayoi period which goes from 500 BC to 300 AD, and also seems to point it was hastily discarded for bronze then iron. Doesn't suprise me that much since nearly all prehistoric cultures used wood or bone as an armor material at some point. But passed the introduction of metallic weapons, it would have been suicide to rely on it.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Wooden Japanese armor is also the subject of a recent discussion in another forum:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15253

The discussion there highlights one very important point: while there are examples of wooden/bamboo armor in Japanese archaeology, all of these examples come from the time before the rise of the samurai warrior class, and therefore the SengokuDaimyo.com website's assertion actually holds water if we remember the contextual fact that it discusses only samurai armor in the sense of the armors worn by the Japanese warrior elite between the 9th and the 17th centuries.

It's also worth noting that the Anthony J. Bryant who wrote the Osprey samurai book ( Early Samurai: 200-1500 AD (Elite Series, Vol. 35), by Anthony J. Bryant ) is the same person who made the website, just in case anybody hasn't noticed it--and the myArmoury discussion thread actually mentions that Bryant talks a little bit about the early pre-samurai wooden armors in his book. I wager it's just a matter of the book being more up-to-date than the website and Bryant being too busy handling new research to update the old pages on the site.