Eric Chisler wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENfiUlbtlDc&feature=related
-Eric
Thanks for sharing Eric; however, most of us have seen this already. I don't think there's much that needs to be said about it that hasn't been discussed elsewhere (such as on the You Tube page).
My only personal comment is that I feel the narrator distorts things more than the historian (though some of my fellow ARMA members disagree). The only comments that the historian makes are about test cutting swords on human bodies, which certainly was something that happened in feudal Japan, though I'm not sure it happened in Europe. If it didn't, one could argue that his lack of distinction between the two regions distorts things. The only other comment he makes is that the Japanese recognized that European swords were forged differently than their own and therefore regarded them as being inferior. I think some people interpret this as the historian implying that European swords
are inferior, but that's not what he actually said.
Regardless, it's the narrator who makes stupid comments like "The broad sword was an ideal cutting sword; the katana an ideal slashing sword". (So what's the difference between cutting and slashing? For that matter, why are you calling it a "broad sword"?) Likewise, it's the narrator, and not the historian, who states that the broad sword relies on brute strength, whereas the samurai sword relies on speed and fighting finesse.
