This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed this bit...
Because it's worded misleadingly and partially contradicts/partially reiterates the later Construction section.
My apologies if this text is not in the correct section. I noticed when reading this article, that there is a contradiction. Section 4.0 contains the statement " Contrary to popular belief, this does not result in super-strength of a blade. The process of repeatedly folding the blade is performed in order to purify the metal". This says that folding DOES NOT increase the katana's strength. However in section 4.2, it suggest that "Lastly, it (folding of the metal) strengthened the metal (perhaps by more evenly distributing the imperfections)." I am not sure which version of this is true, can anyone comment on this?
Mushin 21:01, 22 May 2005 (GMT)
Does anyone know the average number of times a blade would be folded? What are the typical ranges of folds? --
TOertel
See what above? Theres no reference to magical proerties anywhere in the article. DryGrain 09:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
the article states:
<<Though seeming to be an indestructable blade, if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting of nearly any material (soaked reeds for example) resulting in lower effectiveness as a weapon.>>
such fable-like statement seems questionable to me. It should be taken out. Or perhaps added such as "practioners belives that ..." Xah P0lyglut 18:39, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Its a shame that while the WW2 composition table of metals is given, its not mentioned anywhere what (outside of ceremonial functions) the major use of the katana was during WW2; namely, the beheading of Allied POWs. But I can't see anywhere neat to add this info.
Kudz75
04:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Should This Katana topic have added to it something about the Bokken or Bokuto? the wooden sword that the Samurai trained with?
Someone rather bizzarely replaced the
Myths section with a translation in
French. Reverted to the
English language version as this is the English wikipedia --
kudz75 07:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<<if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting>>
My understanding is that the ha is prone to chipping rather than rolling due to it hardness (hence the use of niku to alleviate this).
While I am aware of Japanese policy concerning World War II era or prior family blades, but does this extend to contemporarily manufactured ones? Such as, if one were to purchase a sword from a master in Kamakura, would they be able to take it out of the country? Another factor to this question is that the edge is sharpened (dulled is obviously alright to transport from the country). -S.G.
It says that "Carrying a non-sealed katana is illegal in present-day Japan" in the article. This is just plain incorrect, or at least very poor wording.
Of course, people in Japan can own nihonto. They can also transport them. They can use them for martial arts practice, and that means taking them to the dojo. Now, of course, wearing a sword around is going to have people calling the police (especially if you are a gaijin like me), and they may even be able to arrest you (the law in Japan is rather grey, at least for practical purposes), but so long as you have the license with the sword at all times, you can definitely carry your sword around(in a sword-bag, at least).
You can transport blades into and out of Japan, but doing so is a bureaucratic nightmare. I haven't had to do that yet, so I haven't looked into the details 100%. If you are transporting one into Japan (for polishing, etc.), you have to make sure it isn't a showa-to (mass-produced swords from WWII). If you try bring one of those in, they will give you (as I understand it), the option of having it sent back, or having it melted down(they are seen as being symbolic of Japan's aggression in WWII, and since they were mass-produced, are seen to have no artistic merit).
You can generally transport blades(even sharpened) out of the country, so long as it isn't a national treasure. Some other conditions may apply. But keep in mind that you can pay, even for a gendaito from a mediocre swordsmith, around 20,000 USD. New gendaito start at about 6,000 USD minimum. -JD
I have an idea which I belive would help to improve the accessibility and also the efficiency of the information on the various Japanese swords (and other weapons forged by a similar technique).
My suggestion is to have one page, perhaps "Japanese Swords", which contains the bulk of the history and detailed information regarding the subject. The latter part of the page would go into detail describing the individual differences between the weapons. The various specific pages "Katana", "Wakizashi", "Tachi", "no-dachi", "tanto", etc, would all be redirects to "Japanese Swords".
I wouldn't know about executing POWs. But here's a much more fun use for your Katana: apparently they were used to put the lines on a goban ( Go board).
The best reference I can offer is the Go Wiki: http://senseis.xmp.net/?path=MakingYourOwnEquipment&page=SurfaceFinish -- can anybody else confirm this?
(Makes sense to me, since Go was a samurai pastime.)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I was part of a team which wrote an extensive dissertation on Japanese arms and armor, and it would be relatively easy for me to expand upon this page (and any Japenese armor page, or Japanese tactics/strategy page). For example, I could add a significant amount of information as to the history and legends of Japanese swords, explanations (and diagrams) and the various parts of the blade, explanations of the grains of the blades, types of 'ha' (polished edge), some of the advanced construction techniques utilizing multiple metals in single blades, the markings on the tang, sheath and hilt construction, etc, etc. Plus an solid bibliography, and pictures if they are advisable.
As you see, there is a lot of information I could add. But I read the Wiki posting policies, and they state to keep the articles short. I certainly can't do that if I want to add this. Plus, I don't have a firm grasp of what is and isn't wikiquette-permitted. So - please, somebody tell me: should I add to this article? Or should I make new articles (for example, one for grains and edges, one for tangs and hilts, etc) and then just post links on this article?
-Craig
Sep 4 '04
Okay, now it's really long. Let me know if and how you cut it down, would you? I'd like to be able to know what the procedure is in the future.
Wow, I didn't realize how much STUFF I had. I've got even more on other, similar topics, too. Japanese armor is actually more interesting than this stuff.
Craigp 17:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Snipped from Katana on Sept 7th to keep it on-focus; I recommend looking at the appropriate pages to see whether this should be incorporated into those. Please delete material from this page once it's found a good home, or is deemed redundant. -- Calair 01:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Suggest moving to
samurai:
The samurai class in Japan is unique throughout the world, and although more detailed and accurate information can be found under the entry for them, for our purposes is it enough to think of them as roughly equivalent to a European medieval lord, except for the small fact that samurai spent much of their time practicing combat. A huge percentage, relatively speaking, of the Japanese were bushi (warrior nobles, what the samurai are often called). At times, this reached as high as ten percent! In comparison, in Europe less than 1% of the population were warrior nobles.
To Asuka period: In the sixth century CE one clan conquered the core island chain, bringing about a time of relative peace - wars between daimyo (generals) rather than emperors were common.
To whichever eras are most appropriate (may also want to add something in Dark Ages here): Unlike the dark ages of Europe, which consisted of a decline in arts and sciences, Japan did not fall into barbarism, but instead continued to study art and culture.
To Muromachi Period and/or Ashikaga Shogunate:
During this time, the Mongols attacked. During their attacks the young emperor (a thirteen year old boy at the beginning of the Mongol attacks) gave a huge amount of power to a 'Seii-tai Shogun', which means 'barbarian-subduing generalissimo'. Assisted by a timely and extremely famous hurricane, they fended the Mongols off. However, the shogun kept his power, arranged for it to be hereditary, and claimed much of the real power. The shogunates, as the progression of shogun were called, were much of the driving force central to the dark ages. This was called the Muromachi period, and lasted until 1573, when guns destroyed the samurai power base. ... So it was the musket that brought the downfall of the Ashikaga Shogunate. Smaller factions could equip their men with muskets and do impressive damage, more than an equivalent number of samurai. This caused a number of previously insignificant factions to gain power in a situation of rising chaos.
To Edo Period and/or Tokugawa Shogunate:
Three of Japan’s greatest men arose from this period of chaos. Oda Nobunaga, who brought central Japan to heel (mid to late sixteenth century); his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who finished uniting Japan (late sixteenth century); and, lastly, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who consolidated everything under the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603, creating a government which lasted hundreds of years. This time was known as the Edo period, and it was a period of radical policy changes in the Japanese government. One such policy change was in how Japan dealt with foreigners, another with how it dealt with weapons.
Until now, foreigners had been tolerated, but no longer! Until now, guns had been watched warily, but no longer!
It is impossible to get perfect details from this era, as Japan had cut off virtually all contact with the outside world, and the Japanese records are not quite clear on the subject. However, what is certain is that the Tokugawa Shogunate ordered that gunpowder could only be made in the capital city of Nagahama, and then steadily enforced this rule until very few gunpowder manufacturers existed outside of the government’s own employ. They continued placing restrictions on guns and steadily ordering fewer and fewer themselves, until by the beginning of the eighteenth century they had all but ceased ordering them. To make this disarmament reach further, they collected weapons from the citizens of Japan to melt down and use for nails in the construction of a great statue and shrine to Buddha. This was never constructed, but the swords and muskets were melted down...
It took over a century, but the last battle in Japan in which guns were a significant factor (before their reintroduction in the nineteenth century) was in 1637, and even then, they were used by foreigners, not Japanese. The only guns produced in Japan after this time until the late eighteen hundreds were the few dozen that the government ordered each year, and they were never used in battle.
...the Japanese culture in general advanced. The literacy rate was about 40% among all men (far higher than any European country), and Confucianism and intellectualism became important aspects of Japanese culture. Haiku came into existence.
This is the first time I've ever heard the terms "buke-zukuri" and "jindachi-zukuri" used to refer to the physical sheath and not just the style of wear.
Can anyone cite a reference for the assertion that ronin did not carry a daisho but only katana? I find it hard to believe that this was the case given the fact that there were several ryu which taught kenjutsu techniques involving two swords (either as a basic form or in special circumstances). The assertion that wakazashi were only worn by retainers seems a bit odd, as does the assertion that only retainers would commit seppuku. It's a poor example, but the 47 Ronin comitted seppuku and in a legal sense they had no master, even if they were avenging his death. Also for purely practical reasons I have a bit of trouble with this? What did a samurai do if he lost his lord? Put is wakazashi in safe deposit at HSBC? Destroy it and buy a new one if he got a new master?
My understanding is that it was actually the wakazashi, not the katana that was the true privilege of the samurai, at least in the sense that it was always carried even when the katana was stored or left at the door in a formal setting. Even samurai who were not trained in kenjutsu carried wakazashi as a symbol of their rank as I understand it.
Can anybody clear this up? Inquiring minds want to know. Gabe 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
== ^^ Answering that question. As I have heard, but am not entirely sure, Ronin did carry only one sword which is the katana. And yes, some ryu were taught to use techniques that involved two swords. A brilliant mind, of which i believe entirely, informed me that they were taught to use two swords in the case that they could achieve a second sword in battle, like a fallen sword or by taking their enemy's sword in combat. I cannot verify this for sure, but here you go...
--Inquiring mind
Would someone be interested in applying for a peer review of this article and making another attempt to have it reach a Featured Article status ? Rama 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
>> Chisa-katana were not common weapons since usually a katana was made for a shorter person or a wakizashi for a larger person. <<
The above quote from the Katana entry seems to be illogical. Perhaps it should be the other way around.
It seems fine to me. Taking off the tag now. Karmafist 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
this article is highly inacurate... please do more research into nihonto. sorry... lets start with the comment that the wakazashi was the privilage of the samurai... in the time of the samurai proscriptions where made about how long of a blade could be carried, not how short... you will find that even merchant class was permitted a wakazashi.
The imported Chinese swords were not "double edged", they were single-edged straight swords.
Does anyone have a source for this?
TomTheHand 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can one of our German(?) speaking wikipedians translate the diagram depicting the katana's components? Would be nice if you could also find a source for it (the de:wiki link is broken). Thanks. Tronno ( talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As this is an article for a Japanese curved single-edged katana sword, I don't understand why the influence of the Chinese straight swords has to be emphasized and required so much description as below, which was written in the former article. I don't see people boasting their ancestors' influence (nothing to do with people living today!) in articles such as Economy of Japan or Manufacturing industries of Japan, although it is apparent that Japan has learned from the west (but also creating unique products and modern culture).
Because of this reason and by compairing the volume of other periods, I prefer the older article which only says,
This does include the Chinese influence.-- Nobu Sho 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying that lightsabers and Jordan's 'Callandor' are similar to katanas was unclear to me. I think this assertion is based on an earlier paragraph stating that katanas are believed in popular myth to possess magical powers. However, there are other instances of so called magical swords in myths and legends. Also, while I have never seen Callandor, I have seen lightsabers (on film of course) and they don't look anything like a katana - for one they are straight and can cut from any direction.
I have taken the sections on katana fiction and moved them to a new article. JHP 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The section on National Treasures bothers me. I understood the designation of National Treasure was invented (?) by McArthur when he discovered many of the traditional Japanese arts had practically died during the war. Bonsai, tea pot making, sword making, and others received this designation. But, as I understand it, this designation is POST WWII. 24.10.102.46 07:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The artile now reades: "The long blade was used for open combat, while the shorter blade was considered a side arm, and also more suited for stabbing, close combat (such as indoors), and seppuku, a form of ritual suicide." But I think it's not the short sword (wakizashi), but the TANTO that was used for seppuku (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku).
I would think that the wakizashi would be used for seppeku. The tanto was always carried, inside or in battle, and the wakizashi was also carried at all times unless in a house of a friend or at home. The katana was not worn around town, though was the most useful in battle. The wakizashi was used for close combat, and also could be a substitute if the katana was broken, dropped, or bent.
I think it should be added that the katana was not a primary weapon but rather a secondary weapon used either as a last resort,to finish off a foe, or for a warrior to kill himself. Also while the katana was a great cutting weapon it was useless against armor and so it may be better than European swords for cutting the European swords are more practical given the requirements of the time (swords which would damage armor).
I'm curious if there have been any studies about possible correlations between the European sword/Japanese sword size ratio and the European person/Japanese person size ratio.
- Regarding "glorified clubs": to my knowledge, no considerable quantity of swords meant for *clubbing* armoured opponents was ever produced, regardless of what some misinformed Victorian historians may have thought. Striking attacks against armoured opponents with the edge of the sword certainly aren't common in the surviving fighting treatises of the time.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed this bit...
Because it's worded misleadingly and partially contradicts/partially reiterates the later Construction section.
My apologies if this text is not in the correct section. I noticed when reading this article, that there is a contradiction. Section 4.0 contains the statement " Contrary to popular belief, this does not result in super-strength of a blade. The process of repeatedly folding the blade is performed in order to purify the metal". This says that folding DOES NOT increase the katana's strength. However in section 4.2, it suggest that "Lastly, it (folding of the metal) strengthened the metal (perhaps by more evenly distributing the imperfections)." I am not sure which version of this is true, can anyone comment on this?
Mushin 21:01, 22 May 2005 (GMT)
Does anyone know the average number of times a blade would be folded? What are the typical ranges of folds? --
TOertel
See what above? Theres no reference to magical proerties anywhere in the article. DryGrain 09:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
the article states:
<<Though seeming to be an indestructable blade, if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting of nearly any material (soaked reeds for example) resulting in lower effectiveness as a weapon.>>
such fable-like statement seems questionable to me. It should be taken out. Or perhaps added such as "practioners belives that ..." Xah P0lyglut 18:39, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Its a shame that while the WW2 composition table of metals is given, its not mentioned anywhere what (outside of ceremonial functions) the major use of the katana was during WW2; namely, the beheading of Allied POWs. But I can't see anywhere neat to add this info.
Kudz75
04:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Should This Katana topic have added to it something about the Bokken or Bokuto? the wooden sword that the Samurai trained with?
Someone rather bizzarely replaced the
Myths section with a translation in
French. Reverted to the
English language version as this is the English wikipedia --
kudz75 07:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<<if the sword is not wielded with proper technique, the edge can be easily warped or rolled from the cutting>>
My understanding is that the ha is prone to chipping rather than rolling due to it hardness (hence the use of niku to alleviate this).
While I am aware of Japanese policy concerning World War II era or prior family blades, but does this extend to contemporarily manufactured ones? Such as, if one were to purchase a sword from a master in Kamakura, would they be able to take it out of the country? Another factor to this question is that the edge is sharpened (dulled is obviously alright to transport from the country). -S.G.
It says that "Carrying a non-sealed katana is illegal in present-day Japan" in the article. This is just plain incorrect, or at least very poor wording.
Of course, people in Japan can own nihonto. They can also transport them. They can use them for martial arts practice, and that means taking them to the dojo. Now, of course, wearing a sword around is going to have people calling the police (especially if you are a gaijin like me), and they may even be able to arrest you (the law in Japan is rather grey, at least for practical purposes), but so long as you have the license with the sword at all times, you can definitely carry your sword around(in a sword-bag, at least).
You can transport blades into and out of Japan, but doing so is a bureaucratic nightmare. I haven't had to do that yet, so I haven't looked into the details 100%. If you are transporting one into Japan (for polishing, etc.), you have to make sure it isn't a showa-to (mass-produced swords from WWII). If you try bring one of those in, they will give you (as I understand it), the option of having it sent back, or having it melted down(they are seen as being symbolic of Japan's aggression in WWII, and since they were mass-produced, are seen to have no artistic merit).
You can generally transport blades(even sharpened) out of the country, so long as it isn't a national treasure. Some other conditions may apply. But keep in mind that you can pay, even for a gendaito from a mediocre swordsmith, around 20,000 USD. New gendaito start at about 6,000 USD minimum. -JD
I have an idea which I belive would help to improve the accessibility and also the efficiency of the information on the various Japanese swords (and other weapons forged by a similar technique).
My suggestion is to have one page, perhaps "Japanese Swords", which contains the bulk of the history and detailed information regarding the subject. The latter part of the page would go into detail describing the individual differences between the weapons. The various specific pages "Katana", "Wakizashi", "Tachi", "no-dachi", "tanto", etc, would all be redirects to "Japanese Swords".
I wouldn't know about executing POWs. But here's a much more fun use for your Katana: apparently they were used to put the lines on a goban ( Go board).
The best reference I can offer is the Go Wiki: http://senseis.xmp.net/?path=MakingYourOwnEquipment&page=SurfaceFinish -- can anybody else confirm this?
(Makes sense to me, since Go was a samurai pastime.)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I was part of a team which wrote an extensive dissertation on Japanese arms and armor, and it would be relatively easy for me to expand upon this page (and any Japenese armor page, or Japanese tactics/strategy page). For example, I could add a significant amount of information as to the history and legends of Japanese swords, explanations (and diagrams) and the various parts of the blade, explanations of the grains of the blades, types of 'ha' (polished edge), some of the advanced construction techniques utilizing multiple metals in single blades, the markings on the tang, sheath and hilt construction, etc, etc. Plus an solid bibliography, and pictures if they are advisable.
As you see, there is a lot of information I could add. But I read the Wiki posting policies, and they state to keep the articles short. I certainly can't do that if I want to add this. Plus, I don't have a firm grasp of what is and isn't wikiquette-permitted. So - please, somebody tell me: should I add to this article? Or should I make new articles (for example, one for grains and edges, one for tangs and hilts, etc) and then just post links on this article?
-Craig
Sep 4 '04
Okay, now it's really long. Let me know if and how you cut it down, would you? I'd like to be able to know what the procedure is in the future.
Wow, I didn't realize how much STUFF I had. I've got even more on other, similar topics, too. Japanese armor is actually more interesting than this stuff.
Craigp 17:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Snipped from Katana on Sept 7th to keep it on-focus; I recommend looking at the appropriate pages to see whether this should be incorporated into those. Please delete material from this page once it's found a good home, or is deemed redundant. -- Calair 01:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Suggest moving to
samurai:
The samurai class in Japan is unique throughout the world, and although more detailed and accurate information can be found under the entry for them, for our purposes is it enough to think of them as roughly equivalent to a European medieval lord, except for the small fact that samurai spent much of their time practicing combat. A huge percentage, relatively speaking, of the Japanese were bushi (warrior nobles, what the samurai are often called). At times, this reached as high as ten percent! In comparison, in Europe less than 1% of the population were warrior nobles.
To Asuka period: In the sixth century CE one clan conquered the core island chain, bringing about a time of relative peace - wars between daimyo (generals) rather than emperors were common.
To whichever eras are most appropriate (may also want to add something in Dark Ages here): Unlike the dark ages of Europe, which consisted of a decline in arts and sciences, Japan did not fall into barbarism, but instead continued to study art and culture.
To Muromachi Period and/or Ashikaga Shogunate:
During this time, the Mongols attacked. During their attacks the young emperor (a thirteen year old boy at the beginning of the Mongol attacks) gave a huge amount of power to a 'Seii-tai Shogun', which means 'barbarian-subduing generalissimo'. Assisted by a timely and extremely famous hurricane, they fended the Mongols off. However, the shogun kept his power, arranged for it to be hereditary, and claimed much of the real power. The shogunates, as the progression of shogun were called, were much of the driving force central to the dark ages. This was called the Muromachi period, and lasted until 1573, when guns destroyed the samurai power base. ... So it was the musket that brought the downfall of the Ashikaga Shogunate. Smaller factions could equip their men with muskets and do impressive damage, more than an equivalent number of samurai. This caused a number of previously insignificant factions to gain power in a situation of rising chaos.
To Edo Period and/or Tokugawa Shogunate:
Three of Japan’s greatest men arose from this period of chaos. Oda Nobunaga, who brought central Japan to heel (mid to late sixteenth century); his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who finished uniting Japan (late sixteenth century); and, lastly, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who consolidated everything under the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603, creating a government which lasted hundreds of years. This time was known as the Edo period, and it was a period of radical policy changes in the Japanese government. One such policy change was in how Japan dealt with foreigners, another with how it dealt with weapons.
Until now, foreigners had been tolerated, but no longer! Until now, guns had been watched warily, but no longer!
It is impossible to get perfect details from this era, as Japan had cut off virtually all contact with the outside world, and the Japanese records are not quite clear on the subject. However, what is certain is that the Tokugawa Shogunate ordered that gunpowder could only be made in the capital city of Nagahama, and then steadily enforced this rule until very few gunpowder manufacturers existed outside of the government’s own employ. They continued placing restrictions on guns and steadily ordering fewer and fewer themselves, until by the beginning of the eighteenth century they had all but ceased ordering them. To make this disarmament reach further, they collected weapons from the citizens of Japan to melt down and use for nails in the construction of a great statue and shrine to Buddha. This was never constructed, but the swords and muskets were melted down...
It took over a century, but the last battle in Japan in which guns were a significant factor (before their reintroduction in the nineteenth century) was in 1637, and even then, they were used by foreigners, not Japanese. The only guns produced in Japan after this time until the late eighteen hundreds were the few dozen that the government ordered each year, and they were never used in battle.
...the Japanese culture in general advanced. The literacy rate was about 40% among all men (far higher than any European country), and Confucianism and intellectualism became important aspects of Japanese culture. Haiku came into existence.
This is the first time I've ever heard the terms "buke-zukuri" and "jindachi-zukuri" used to refer to the physical sheath and not just the style of wear.
Can anyone cite a reference for the assertion that ronin did not carry a daisho but only katana? I find it hard to believe that this was the case given the fact that there were several ryu which taught kenjutsu techniques involving two swords (either as a basic form or in special circumstances). The assertion that wakazashi were only worn by retainers seems a bit odd, as does the assertion that only retainers would commit seppuku. It's a poor example, but the 47 Ronin comitted seppuku and in a legal sense they had no master, even if they were avenging his death. Also for purely practical reasons I have a bit of trouble with this? What did a samurai do if he lost his lord? Put is wakazashi in safe deposit at HSBC? Destroy it and buy a new one if he got a new master?
My understanding is that it was actually the wakazashi, not the katana that was the true privilege of the samurai, at least in the sense that it was always carried even when the katana was stored or left at the door in a formal setting. Even samurai who were not trained in kenjutsu carried wakazashi as a symbol of their rank as I understand it.
Can anybody clear this up? Inquiring minds want to know. Gabe 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
== ^^ Answering that question. As I have heard, but am not entirely sure, Ronin did carry only one sword which is the katana. And yes, some ryu were taught to use techniques that involved two swords. A brilliant mind, of which i believe entirely, informed me that they were taught to use two swords in the case that they could achieve a second sword in battle, like a fallen sword or by taking their enemy's sword in combat. I cannot verify this for sure, but here you go...
--Inquiring mind
Would someone be interested in applying for a peer review of this article and making another attempt to have it reach a Featured Article status ? Rama 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
>> Chisa-katana were not common weapons since usually a katana was made for a shorter person or a wakizashi for a larger person. <<
The above quote from the Katana entry seems to be illogical. Perhaps it should be the other way around.
It seems fine to me. Taking off the tag now. Karmafist 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
this article is highly inacurate... please do more research into nihonto. sorry... lets start with the comment that the wakazashi was the privilage of the samurai... in the time of the samurai proscriptions where made about how long of a blade could be carried, not how short... you will find that even merchant class was permitted a wakazashi.
The imported Chinese swords were not "double edged", they were single-edged straight swords.
Does anyone have a source for this?
TomTheHand 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can one of our German(?) speaking wikipedians translate the diagram depicting the katana's components? Would be nice if you could also find a source for it (the de:wiki link is broken). Thanks. Tronno ( talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As this is an article for a Japanese curved single-edged katana sword, I don't understand why the influence of the Chinese straight swords has to be emphasized and required so much description as below, which was written in the former article. I don't see people boasting their ancestors' influence (nothing to do with people living today!) in articles such as Economy of Japan or Manufacturing industries of Japan, although it is apparent that Japan has learned from the west (but also creating unique products and modern culture).
Because of this reason and by compairing the volume of other periods, I prefer the older article which only says,
This does include the Chinese influence.-- Nobu Sho 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Saying that lightsabers and Jordan's 'Callandor' are similar to katanas was unclear to me. I think this assertion is based on an earlier paragraph stating that katanas are believed in popular myth to possess magical powers. However, there are other instances of so called magical swords in myths and legends. Also, while I have never seen Callandor, I have seen lightsabers (on film of course) and they don't look anything like a katana - for one they are straight and can cut from any direction.
I have taken the sections on katana fiction and moved them to a new article. JHP 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The section on National Treasures bothers me. I understood the designation of National Treasure was invented (?) by McArthur when he discovered many of the traditional Japanese arts had practically died during the war. Bonsai, tea pot making, sword making, and others received this designation. But, as I understand it, this designation is POST WWII. 24.10.102.46 07:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The artile now reades: "The long blade was used for open combat, while the shorter blade was considered a side arm, and also more suited for stabbing, close combat (such as indoors), and seppuku, a form of ritual suicide." But I think it's not the short sword (wakizashi), but the TANTO that was used for seppuku (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku).
I would think that the wakizashi would be used for seppeku. The tanto was always carried, inside or in battle, and the wakizashi was also carried at all times unless in a house of a friend or at home. The katana was not worn around town, though was the most useful in battle. The wakizashi was used for close combat, and also could be a substitute if the katana was broken, dropped, or bent.
I think it should be added that the katana was not a primary weapon but rather a secondary weapon used either as a last resort,to finish off a foe, or for a warrior to kill himself. Also while the katana was a great cutting weapon it was useless against armor and so it may be better than European swords for cutting the European swords are more practical given the requirements of the time (swords which would damage armor).
I'm curious if there have been any studies about possible correlations between the European sword/Japanese sword size ratio and the European person/Japanese person size ratio.
- Regarding "glorified clubs": to my knowledge, no considerable quantity of swords meant for *clubbing* armoured opponents was ever produced, regardless of what some misinformed Victorian historians may have thought. Striking attacks against armoured opponents with the edge of the sword certainly aren't common in the surviving fighting treatises of the time.