Messer Fuddlore

I've seen the take in pic related a few times now. It basically boils down to
>a certain kind of German sword was called a Messer ("knife") to get around legal open carry frickery

It's complete non-sense, as a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime.
A likelier explanation is a conflict around guilds. There were knife-maker and sword-maker guilds and all guilds were heavily steeped in tradition and protectionist of their craft, techniques and wares. So to get around that clever knifemakers made oversized knives for people who wanted swords which eventually just became a recognized type of sword so swordmakers ended up making it too.

Also unrelated but the katana is an inherently garbage sword design due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So a little bit of fact that everyone with half a clue has been shouting form the rooftops for years now, and some unabashed trolling. Because apparently you don't give a frick about swords or weapons, you just have a pathological need to shitpost.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No trolling included, the entire post is factual.
      Cry about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and it’s a fact everyone interested in swords has known about for years now.
        Why are digits always wasted on this god forsaken board.

        This is a shit thread, but it killed a israelitekraine thread so it's ok.

        Should’ve gotten quads ;-;

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >anon knows more than me so he must be trolling
      have a nice day immediately.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a shit thread, but it killed a israelitekraine thread so it's ok.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a certain kind of German sword
    Central European sword, not German. While it was popular in Germany, you find them in the Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Romania, even as far as Ukraine, and as far as Iceland in the other direction. Effectively, if you draw a diagonal line through the Alps, up into the North sea, and down into the Adriatic sea, everywhere right / northeast of that line is messer territory, and everything left/ south-west of it preferred more sword-like arms is a good simple summary.

    >It's complete non-sense, as a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime.

    More accurately, citizenship of the city-state was prerequisite on civic duty in the militia. To be a burgher, you had to be able to turn up in event of war. this wasn't exclusive to Germany, You had the scots cities have a "wapenshawing", (literally, a weapon show, to show you were equipped) English musters, etc. You, or someone hired to serve in your place, were expected to have full equipment or face fines or even to be thrown out of the city. This wasnt just a sword, you needed a spear, armour, crossbow or bow, and the likes too.

    one piece of evidence against the "but its not a Sword!" myth is that we have the surviving measures which shows the maximum size of weapon allowed into the city-states...
    and some of the are forged to look like blades, instead of just a measuring rod. And what do they look like? well, here's one:

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Central European sword, not German.
      >Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Romania, even as far as Ukraine,
      If you're gonna be nitpicky at least do it properly
      >Netherlands
      German
      >Poland
      Popular in German Ostsiedlungen there.
      >Czechia
      See above.
      >Romania
      Don't know about that one but sure.
      >Ukraine
      See Romania.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lol you are so fricking moronic it's unreal
        do you really believe that ONLY ethnic germans used messers?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody even implied that, sperg. Anon just named multiple countries where they were popular that were either German or where their popularity was centered around German settlements.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung
          Now apologize for failing basic reading comprehension, not knowing basic European history and questioning the intelligence of your superior.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >multiple countries where they were popular that were either German or where their popularity was centered around German settlements.

            yeah, those well-known german settlements in Romania, Ukraine, and Iceland....

            you could just about get away with saying a lot of west Poland shared similar cultures with German states, or eastern Netherlands. but Croatia? Hungary? Sweden? Bulgaria? no. that's when you just make yourself sound fricking stupid.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I don't think you know what multiple means compared to "all" and yes, there were Germans in both Romania and Ukraine in their own settlements. Less, but that style of swords was also a lot less popular there.
              >you could just about get away with saying a lot of west Poland shared similar cultures with German states, or eastern Netherlands. but Croatia? Hungary? Sweden? Bulgaria? no. that's when you just make yourself sound fricking stupid.
              Again, you're not just unable to pass a basic reading comprehension test, you're also fricking wrong lmao

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >yeah, those well-known german settlements in Romania, Ukraine, and Iceland....
              You'd only have a point with Iceland or you would have if it would've been mentioned in the rebuttal you complained about, but it wasn't. Also vikings and their descendants got weapons and israeliteelry from basically anywhere in their considerable range. You sound like that moronic c**t who tried to argue vikings were muslims because one grave had a ring that said "allah."

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >More accurately, citizenship of the city-state was prerequisite on civic duty in the militia.
      I kept that vague because it's not more accurate, laws and rights varied widely throughout the HRE and it wasn't just restricted to cities/city-states.
      Though it's interesting trivia.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Also unrelated but the katana is an inherently garbage sword design due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.
    There was actually a "European Katana" from Switzerland. AKA a two-handed sabre in the 16th century. It was in fashion for a very brief time because people quickly realized that reducing the reach of a sabre and making it slower by making it fat, large and two-handed is inherently contradictory to the way sabres are used.
    For pictures just google Schweizersäbel and you'll see plenty, some more and some less like a katana. Though they basically looked like one but with a better continental style handguard.

    The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.
      This is absolutely not true as it was used and developed at the birth of the samurai in the 10th century and it's development heyday was the nabokucho and onin war period, with the best blades from that era. Even the national treasures are mostly from the kamakura and nanbokucho period, with the most famous japanese smiths there as well.
      The japanese sword was a weapon designed for war, it absolutely evolved into a symbol during the peaceful edo era but that changes nothing about it's beginnings.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This is absolutely not true
        It is absolutely true, the main weapons of Samurai in actual warfare were the spear and the bow.
        Swords were there to look pretty.
        >The japanese sword was a weapon designed for war,
        The design sucks and hasn't notably evolved for about a thousand years.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It is absolutely true, the main weapons of samurai in actual warfare were the spear and the bow.Swords were there to look pretty.
          Yet they always had some during battles, but yeah, to look pretty. Same as in Europe, to look pretty... Having main weapons doesn't mean that secondary weapons are useless.

          >The design sucks and hasn't notably evolved for about a thousand years.
          Yet again, this is demonstrably not true, many things evolved, both in shape and forging methods. There were many different smithing styles as soon as the Heian-era, the Yamashiro, Bizen and Shoshu style all evolved as well. Just look at the modification of the kissaki for starters. Even in a single era like the Kamakura period, you can see many very different blades, with different length, fullers or not, many curvature attempts, transformation of the tang, etc.

          I know this is a troll post and that /k/ is utterly stupid when it comes to japanese sword but still, do better please.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet they always had some during battles, but yeah, to look pretty.
            It's called a side-arm anon, stop taking everything literally you fricking autist.
            >Same as in Europe, to look pretty... Having main weapons doesn't mean that secondary weapons are useless.
            It means the secondary weapons get focused on much less and nearly the entirety of European sword development was not due to warfare but as private arms of citizens which Nips never had a culture of.
            Swords gained status in Japan during their long era of peace and were absolutely mostly there to look pretty for Samurai during, before and after that.
            >Yet again, this is demonstrably not true, many things evolved, both in shape and forging methods.
            It is demonstrably true because the japanese sword barely changed.
            >There were many different smithing styles as soon as the Heian-era, the Yamashiro, Bizen and Shoshu style all evolved as well.
            Now compare that to Europe where real changes happened.
            You're such a gigaweeb you looka at tiny differences and think they're huge because you have no other context.
            > Even in a single era like the Kamakura period, you can see many very different blades, with different length, fullers or not, many curvature attempts, transformation of the tang, etc.
            And they are still extremely similar compared to European swords.
            >know this is a troll post and that /k/ is utterly stupid when it comes to japanese sword but still, do better please.
            Stop pretending you know anything, you clearly don't.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              frick off spearhomosexual NOBODY EVER USED A SWORD

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This is absolutely not true
        It is absolutely true, the main weapons of Samurai in actual warfare were the spear and the bow.
        Swords were there to look pretty.
        >The japanese sword was a weapon designed for war,
        The design sucks and hasn't notably evolved for about a thousand years.

        Funfact: If Nips ever would've intensively used swords for warfare they probably would have figured out at some point that a shitty sword and a shield beat a shitty sword.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A shield made of what? They could hardly scrape together the iron to make a sword in the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Black person the real world isn't dark souls. Most shields in history weren't made out of iron. Wood does just fine as a material for shields.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They could hardly scrape together the iron to make a sword in the first place.
            What do you think they made their armor of exactly...?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Japanese swords were battlefield weapons from their inception. They saw use in clan wars from ~1000AD, saw use against the Mongols, through the kamakura period, and Japan was embroiled in various civil wars all the way up to the Edo period.

      Furthermore, there are Japanese swords with one handed nakago that are longer than wakizashi and explicitly meant for one handed dismounted use. The katate-uchigatana.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Japanese swords were battlefield weapons from their inception. They saw use in clan wars from ~1000AD, saw use against the Mongols, through the kamakura period, and Japan was embroiled in various civil wars all the way up to the Edo period.
        Sure, but this remains true anyway, weeb

        https://i.imgur.com/NAHmxLn.jpg

        >Also unrelated but the katana is an inherently garbage sword design due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.
        There was actually a "European Katana" from Switzerland. AKA a two-handed sabre in the 16th century. It was in fashion for a very brief time because people quickly realized that reducing the reach of a sabre and making it slower by making it fat, large and two-handed is inherently contradictory to the way sabres are used.
        For pictures just google Schweizersäbel and you'll see plenty, some more and some less like a katana. Though they basically looked like one but with a better continental style handguard.

        The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.

        >The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.

        It was a side-arm and so not used much compared to bows and spears and remained an afterthought. The same is true in Europe for a lot of periods when it comes to swords. No idea why you're so confused by that.

        How does making a sword longer reduce its reach? Or is the some oddball definition of saber or katana im missing?

        Holding any sword one-handed gives you significantly larger reach than handling it twohanded, particularly with footwork added to the mix which is more constrained if your body needs to connect to the sword through both of your arms and hands.
        >but you can even use a Zweihander one-handed for particular movements!
        Yes, rarely but it's risky and it opens you up completely and isn't practical in most situations.

        If you want to test it yourself, go grab a broom, use it with two hands and then one and extend it as far away from you as possible in both stances.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How does making a sword longer reduce its reach? Or is the some oddball definition of saber or katana im missing?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A likelier explanation is a conflict around guilds. There were knife-maker and sword-maker guilds and all guilds were heavily steeped in tradition and protectionist of their craft, techniques and wares. So to get around that clever knifemakers made oversized knives for people who wanted swords which eventually just became a recognized type of sword so swordmakers ended up making it too.

    Probably not in some ways. We have messers with the same maker's marks as Passau swords. It seems clear that certainly by the 2nd half of the 15th C, swordmakers were also making messer blades.

    But while there may well have been conflict in jurisdiction of cutlers assembling from blank blades, no-one has done the research to look into the litigations of guilds in the city-states for this. so its still quite conjectural.

    the bigger point is that German guild structures were highly structured in what they could or couldn't make - for example an Italian armourer would make the breast, the back, the helmets, the pauldrons. in Innsbruck or Landshut, specific ateliers made specific parts - so you had one workshop that just made spaulders, one made breastplates, and one made helmets - and some even ended up with that as their surnames - the Helmschmid dynasty of Augsburg, for example. So it might well be that the cutlers assembling sword-blades found themselves in conflict with the knife-making cutlers who were making larger knives, as those knives became longer and longer.

    the big problem is, to verify this, you're going to need to find someone mad enough to speak and read middle high German dialects and go through tens of thousands of archive rolls in the places those archives weren't bombed to ash 80 years ago, looking for the needle in a haystack of a record of such conflict.

    as such, its very much a hypothetical.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Probably not in some ways. We have messers with the same maker's marks as Passau swords. It seems clear that certainly by the 2nd half of the 15th C, swordmakers were also making messer blades.
      >which eventually just became a recognized type of sword so swordmakers ended up making it too.
      You need to finish reading before replying, anon.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Probably not in some ways.

        You need to finish reading before replying, anon.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You need to finish reading before replying, anon.
          ESL?
          That makes no sense.
          >knife makers started the design, sword makes eventually picked it up too.
          >we have messers with the same maker's marks as Passau swords. It seems clear that certainly by the 2nd half of the 15th C, swordmakers were also making messer blades.
          >probably not in some ways
          Where exactly do you see the contradiction there?
          You're just rephrasing the OP.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.

    Two handed sabres, including two handed messers, even, were around in Europe as well as Japan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah and how did they fare, anon?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Europe had all kinds of swords, but some dominated while others were quickly discarded, never seriously used in a military context or only picked up based on fashion in the first place.
      While how "good" a sword design is heavily depends on context, a two-handed saber sucks dick in any period and any context compared to other options.
      It doesn't allow for a shield and doesn't do well against armor. If you do the whole "cut, don't hack" thing with your two-handed saber that the nips are so proud of when it comes to their katana then that's neat. But if you're gonna cut anyway you don't need all that weight and a faster blade (meaning any one-handed saber) is gonna do a better job.
      It's just a bad concept.
      Nips kept their swords pretty much exactly the way they were unlike the extreme flexibility of sword designs from Europe for 3 reasons.
      A lack of foreign influence.
      A lack of fundamental internal changes of their warfare.
      And better options to wage their actual wars with than swords. I.e. bows and spears.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >A lack of foreign influence.
        Bro do you even sit next to China... This is absurd.

        >A lack of fundamental internal changes of their warfare.
        What a ridiculous statement, no change of warfare between the Gempei war, Kenmu restoration and Onin war, really? Now this is just stupid and ignorant. They went from heroic mounted archery to massive pike blocks and combined arms with "no internal changes of their warfare"?

        You just don't know shit, which is fine, but then you keep talking.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Bro do you even sit next to China... This is absurd.
          Japanese warfare wasn't changed much by china hence why nips did their own thing which didn't change much for a very long time.
          Doesn't mean China wasn't influential in other ways but that's not what we're talking about, is it moron?
          >What a ridiculous statement, no change of warfare
          Learn to read.
          >>A lack of fundamental internal changes of their warfare.
          >fundamental internal changes
          >fundamental
          Though frankly I did expect you to understand that I excluded the earliest period.
          They found a style and sticked to it. And no matter how much you cope and seethe because you're a pathetic weeb, those morons were stuck in stupidly primitive warfare and nobody ever realized that a spear with a shield beats a spear alone.
          And a fricklong pike beats both.
          also
          >massive pike blocks and combined arms
          Stop using terms you don't understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They found a style and sticked to it.
            Warfare of the gempei war and the sengoku-jidai have very little in common.
            You're talking about things as if they were obviously the way you say they are when just a casual browsing at the military history of Japan would prove it wrong.
            The only thing you have to say is "weeb" when you yourself just don't know anything, which is fine...

            >was not due to warfare but as private arms of citizens
            Yeah sure, the development of the type XV wasn't due to warfare and armor... Damn you don't even know about european swords do you? You know saying "sidearm" as if it makes it somehow less relevant doesn't make you intelligent or knowledgeable.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Bro do you even sit next to China... This is absurd.
              Japanese warfare wasn't changed much by china hence why nips did their own thing which didn't change much for a very long time.
              Doesn't mean China wasn't influential in other ways but that's not what we're talking about, is it moron?
              >What a ridiculous statement, no change of warfare
              Learn to read.
              >>A lack of fundamental internal changes of their warfare.
              >fundamental internal changes
              >fundamental
              Though frankly I did expect you to understand that I excluded the earliest period.
              They found a style and sticked to it. And no matter how much you cope and seethe because you're a pathetic weeb, those morons were stuck in stupidly primitive warfare and nobody ever realized that a spear with a shield beats a spear alone.
              And a fricklong pike beats both.
              also
              >massive pike blocks and combined arms
              Stop using terms you don't understand.

              >Though frankly I did expect you to understand that I excluded the earliest period.
              See above, how is reading so difficult for you?
              >Yeah sure, the development of the type XV wasn't due to warfare and armor... Damn you don't even know about european swords do you? You know saying "sidearm" as if it makes it somehow less relevant doesn't make you intelligent or knowledgeable.
              Anon, you stupid ignorant moronic little moron lmao
              This is what I wrote, read it properly:
              >nearly the entirety of European sword development was not due to warfare but as private arms of citizens
              That is absolutely and objectively true.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Yeah sure, the development of the type XV wasn't due to warfare and armor...
              I mean I'm sure both played a part, but armor isn't warfare and more importantly, the type XV isn't representative of the majority of European sword development.
              The vast majority of swords in Europe were actually not forged for war and the great diversity Europe had was not due to war. See

              https://i.imgur.com/Bsfat0Q.jpg

              I've seen the take in pic related a few times now. It basically boils down to
              >a certain kind of German sword was called a Messer ("knife") to get around legal open carry frickery

              It's complete non-sense, as a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime.
              A likelier explanation is a conflict around guilds. There were knife-maker and sword-maker guilds and all guilds were heavily steeped in tradition and protectionist of their craft, techniques and wares. So to get around that clever knifemakers made oversized knives for people who wanted swords which eventually just became a recognized type of sword so swordmakers ended up making it too.

              Also unrelated but the katana is an inherently garbage sword design due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.

              >a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime.
              If you're gonna carry around a sword all the time that'll change how it's made, especially once different styles, schools and types of blades become a thing. Nobody's gonna carry around a Zweihänder for fun, but a sword made to be carried around all day and used in duels might not be suitable for warfare at all despite being extremely widespread.
              Swords exist in their context and tend to be specialized to some degree to that context and most of the actual usage of swords (in the sense of people putting it on, not necessarily stabbing others with it) was based on civilian life moreso than organized warfare.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They went from heroic mounted archery to massive pike blocks
          Pike blocks have literally never existed in Japan. What the frick are you talking about?
          You realize that a spear formation and a pike block are extremely different things, right?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon)
          The spears the Japanese used were much shorter and even when they eventually adopted longer spears at the end of the 16th century they continued utilizing line-formations.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yari
          >You just don't know shit, which is fine, but then you keep talking.
          Why are you so fricking arrogant when you can't tell apart a pike block from a spear line lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you so fricking arrogant when you can't tell apart a pike block from a spear line lmao
            stop taking everything literally you fricking autist.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There's a difference between exaggerating and saying "swords were there to look pretty" when the obvious meaning is "swords were mostly there to look pretty" and using completely wrong terminology.
              One of these can be understood by anybody who isn't autistic, but talking specifically about the development of warfare and then using pike block which has a very specific meaning in the history of warfare while you talk about some massive changes that never occurred is just wrong. There's no positive interpretation of this no matter how charitable I am here, you really are just wrong.
              Stop being a petty pussy because others made you look dumb.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At least by now I'm convinced that the reason why he got so butthurt when I said that there were no fundamental changes is that he literally only knows weeb history and doesn't understand how much the rest of the world changed from the year 1000 to the time nips got the great dick of the US of A shoved into their harbors.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >combined arms
          Funfact: Since their last real conflict was WWII and they hadn't mastered combined arms by then Japan has literally never properly utilized combined arms outside of its most primitive forms. Though I feel like their knee-mortar in WWII was underrated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some of the first guided anti tank weapons as well. Also heard they had some very sophisticated guided anti ship weaponry

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did it really trigger you that much when I wrote it in another thread?

    Also at least try to provide some sources for your garbage post. Because it's wrong.

    In between 1100 and 1300 there were many restrictions in Bavaria for example about carrying and not carrying your swords and spears. Farmers were supposed to wear their full weapons on Sunday on the way to church but not at any other day of the weak only their knifes and other tools. In another one villagers were supposed to get noy wear their weapons outside of town inside only knifes. In other Landpeace treatises farmers are completely forbidden from owning weapons (sword, spear, crossbows) and in Switzerland only travelling merchants were supposed to carry and own swords.

    Look up Siegfried Epperlein or Alfred Doreen for scientific examinations of this shit bait thread.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > It's complete non-sense, as a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime. A likelier explanation is a conflict around guilds. There were knife-maker and sword-maker guilds
    Not only are you 100% correct but guild frickery is way more interesting then “nanana I’m not touching you” carry laws so I don’t know why people keep repeating that gay pop history nonsense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Any source on that? There were laws that forbid people from carrying swords and other arms around and only allowed knifes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There were laws that forbid people from carrying swords and other arms around and only allowed knifes
        Luckily Britain wasn't part of the HRE.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No moron I’m saying the opposite. There were no laws that forbid carrying of swords but allowed grosses messers. Messers were originally produced as “knives” so cutlery makers could undercut sword makers guilds. If anything the laws of specific areas would forbid carrying “arms” in general, within town. However, we know these laws were frequently broken because they were ordered over and over and over again.

        Medieval life was not like today where people have rights (kind of) and the letter of the law is followed. No local lord is going to allow you to say “ackshually this is a big knife not a sword” that shit will get you thrown in the stocks and caned.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Messer literally means knife the difference between a sword and a knife is if it has one or two sharp sides.

          And there were literally laws that forbid carrying of swords but not knifes. So you could be walking around with a two handed knife but not a sword.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Messer literally means knife the difference between a sword and a knife is if it has one or two sharp sides
            Black person that’s not what the difference is. Sabers, scimitars, backswords are all swords and only have one edge. What makes a grosses messer a “messer” is the construction of the handle. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
            > And there were literally laws that forbid carrying of swords but not knifes
            Abs you weren’t going to get around that in the places that had those laws by carrying a grosses messer. Feudal society was not beholden to pilpul the way that modern society is.
            > So you could be walking around with a two handed knife but not a sword
            Name a single place where this was true. You can’t because it’s made up and you’re a moron.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the reality is never quite that simple.

              As an example, this is a baselard. its got a full-width tang, exactly like a messer. Its got holes for pins, exactly like a messer.
              its also got a two-edged fullered blade...

              it probably predates the widespread use of messers by 30-40 years. but the construction is absolutely the same.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                here's three messers. now the larger, middle one is absolutely a classic messer - slab tang, which the hilt would've covered like bread in a sandwich.

                the other two are less clear. the one with a remnant indicates that the grips would've surrounded the tang, and the one with no organic parts would've clearly been the same. So now, you have exposed tang edge messers, and messers with tangs that are enclosed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                take that one step further, and look at the two in the previous pic, and you'll see they have a side ring, instead of a nagel going through the side. from there, you get things like this one on the right of this pic - and now, they have a fully enclosed tang, with leather covering, a cross, no nagel, complex finger-rings and siderings, and a peined pommel cap.

                This one (in st Annen museum, Lubeck) is categorised as a Messer.

                there's another one in the Wallace collection in London. They categorise it as a longsword.

                Which one is right? Both? Neither?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lets go the opposite direction entirely. A falchion - met museum collection. Well, that's obviously a sword-like construction, right?

                Well... no.
                lets look closely at that hilt. what's in the middle of it? A rivet. that hilt is attached in the same way a messer is.

                Is it a messer or a falchion? Yes.
                Probably easier to say its a storta, and avoid trying to give an answer to that one.

                but what this illustrates is that all these weapons are part of a spectrum which ranges from very knife-like, to very sword-like and everything in-between. and while most tend to lump into one or the other category, there's an awful lot, especially among later messers, where the borders are very blurry, and its really difficult to put them into nice, simple binary groups. The reality is never that simple, and while its tempting to try to push the square pegs into round holes, often we need to recognise that these were being made by a thousand different people in different workshops over half a continent, and very often that meant that things are being done in local fashions which dont fit neatly in boxes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/UPxEhDR.jpg

                here's three messers. now the larger, middle one is absolutely a classic messer - slab tang, which the hilt would've covered like bread in a sandwich.

                the other two are less clear. the one with a remnant indicates that the grips would've surrounded the tang, and the one with no organic parts would've clearly been the same. So now, you have exposed tang edge messers, and messers with tangs that are enclosed.

                Why is it that the only old swords in Europe that don't look like total shit today are the ones that were owned by kings or heroes?
                Whereas there's tons of Japanese swords that weren't owned by anyone special and are still in decent condition despite being hundreds of years old. Pic related is from circa 1100 AD, and its original owner was likely just an ordinary warrior of middling means--not Charlemagne, El Cid, or the like.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A lot of preserved swords come from the temples where it was donated to as a sign of devotion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >> And there were literally laws that forbid carrying of swords but not knifes

            There are multiple examples of sumptuary laws which restrict the carry of weapons, all over Europe. and as shown in

            https://i.imgur.com/jLehdz3.jpg

            >a certain kind of German sword
            Central European sword, not German. While it was popular in Germany, you find them in the Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Romania, even as far as Ukraine, and as far as Iceland in the other direction. Effectively, if you draw a diagonal line through the Alps, up into the North sea, and down into the Adriatic sea, everywhere right / northeast of that line is messer territory, and everything left/ south-west of it preferred more sword-like arms is a good simple summary.

            >It's complete non-sense, as a lot of cities and regions in the HRE actually required free German men to be armed when outside as it was seen as every man's duty to uphold the law and stop crime.

            More accurately, citizenship of the city-state was prerequisite on civic duty in the militia. To be a burgher, you had to be able to turn up in event of war. this wasn't exclusive to Germany, You had the scots cities have a "wapenshawing", (literally, a weapon show, to show you were equipped) English musters, etc. You, or someone hired to serve in your place, were expected to have full equipment or face fines or even to be thrown out of the city. This wasnt just a sword, you needed a spear, armour, crossbow or bow, and the likes too.

            one piece of evidence against the "but its not a Sword!" myth is that we have the surviving measures which shows the maximum size of weapon allowed into the city-states...
            and some of the are forged to look like blades, instead of just a measuring rod. And what do they look like? well, here's one:

            , the limitations of these sometimes specifically depict a knife, not a sword. Swords are expressly listed, so are daggers, so are halberds, and so on.

            While its appealing to think of someone getting to stick it to the man because the letter of the law says X, the reality is, the interpretation of the law was no-where near as rigid - any bladed weapon would be sized up at the city gate, and if you were a visitor, you would be instructed to get to your place of residence and store the weapon - and the penalty for not doing so could be draconian.
            If anything, the idea of the "oh, that's not a sword officer" is not an accurate portrayal of medieval and early modern society in central Europe, but a reflection of our modern society, and our desires to get one over our governments and regulated lives.

            Now conversely, knives WERE carried - but they weren't langes messer, let alone grosse messer or the likes. They were Bauernwehr, Hauswehr, and the likes. Bowie-knife sized arms which were as much for travel and camp use, as fighting. Its important to make that sort of distinction for these sorts of discussions.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              werent pesants forbidden from owning weapons (and that of course includes swords but not large utility knives)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The rights of peasants (and their entire existence) varied massively throughout Europe. In general eastern Europe tended to be a couple centuries behind in that regard though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Caned
          Spanking is so kinky

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the katana is an inherently garbage sword design due to being a two-handed sabre, a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres

    What's your basis for this claim?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See the bottom of

      >Japanese swords were battlefield weapons from their inception. They saw use in clan wars from ~1000AD, saw use against the Mongols, through the kamakura period, and Japan was embroiled in various civil wars all the way up to the Edo period.
      Sure, but this remains true anyway, weeb
      [...]
      >The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.

      It was a side-arm and so not used much compared to bows and spears and remained an afterthought. The same is true in Europe for a lot of periods when it comes to swords. No idea why you're so confused by that.
      [...]
      Holding any sword one-handed gives you significantly larger reach than handling it twohanded, particularly with footwork added to the mix which is more constrained if your body needs to connect to the sword through both of your arms and hands.
      >but you can even use a Zweihander one-handed for particular movements!
      Yes, rarely but it's risky and it opens you up completely and isn't practical in most situations.

      If you want to test it yourself, go grab a broom, use it with two hands and then one and extend it as far away from you as possible in both stances.

      among many other reasons.

      Did it really trigger you that much when I wrote it in another thread?

      Also at least try to provide some sources for your garbage post. Because it's wrong.

      In between 1100 and 1300 there were many restrictions in Bavaria for example about carrying and not carrying your swords and spears. Farmers were supposed to wear their full weapons on Sunday on the way to church but not at any other day of the weak only their knifes and other tools. In another one villagers were supposed to get noy wear their weapons outside of town inside only knifes. In other Landpeace treatises farmers are completely forbidden from owning weapons (sword, spear, crossbows) and in Switzerland only travelling merchants were supposed to carry and own swords.

      Look up Siegfried Epperlein or Alfred Doreen for scientific examinations of this shit bait thread.

      >Did it really trigger you that much when I wrote it in another thread?
      No, but I thought I'd use you embarrassing post for a PSA.
      Rest is tldnr you're not informed enough to be worth talking to.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are spreading Fudd misinfo my guy with no sources at all the prime definition of fuddlore

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Easton-senpai would not lie to us.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.
    How? Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See the bottom of

      >Japanese swords were battlefield weapons from their inception. They saw use in clan wars from ~1000AD, saw use against the Mongols, through the kamakura period, and Japan was embroiled in various civil wars all the way up to the Edo period.
      Sure, but this remains true anyway, weeb
      [...]
      >The only reason katana survived in Japan was because it wasn't used much on the battlefield and only really became a thing nips focused once they had a long period of peace.

      It was a side-arm and so not used much compared to bows and spears and remained an afterthought. The same is true in Europe for a lot of periods when it comes to swords. No idea why you're so confused by that.
      [...]
      Holding any sword one-handed gives you significantly larger reach than handling it twohanded, particularly with footwork added to the mix which is more constrained if your body needs to connect to the sword through both of your arms and hands.
      >but you can even use a Zweihander one-handed for particular movements!
      Yes, rarely but it's risky and it opens you up completely and isn't practical in most situations.

      If you want to test it yourself, go grab a broom, use it with two hands and then one and extend it as far away from you as possible in both stances.

      among many other reasons.
      >Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example
      That's a moronic thing to say for a variety of reasons, but the principle's been addressed already in the post linked above.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nooo you can't use this sword one handed

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You can use any sword one-handed, that doesn't change its fundamental nature as a two-handed sword.
          Hence why a Zweihänder/Bidenhänder/Bidhänder, Zweihandschwert has a variety of names referring to using it with 2 hands despite the fact that just like every other sword ever made for actual use you can theoretically only use one in certain situations.
          Usually you don't because it's stupid, dangerous and not effective. Just like you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Having a two handed grip doesn't mean it will be particularly hard to use in one; also a katana isn't a zwaihander. If you look at old illustrations of battle scenes from japan you'll see some people using them one handed

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              90cm blade sabre would typically weight around 600g
              80cm blade long katana would weigh at least twice that - you can wield it in one hand no problem it will just be slow as hell compared to sabre.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >80cm blade long katana would weigh at least twice that - you can wield it in one hand no problem it will just be slow as hell compared to sabre.
                The one handed spatha type swords used by the romans were often that long if not longer so I don't see the problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but a katana is thicc as frick, spathae weren't.

                https://i.imgur.com/RRtZxtK.jpg

                [...]
                Why is it that the only old swords in Europe that don't look like total shit today are the ones that were owned by kings or heroes?
                Whereas there's tons of Japanese swords that weren't owned by anyone special and are still in decent condition despite being hundreds of years old. Pic related is from circa 1100 AD, and its original owner was likely just an ordinary warrior of middling means--not Charlemagne, El Cid, or the like.

                Because you're wrong in the degree of your statement as it's not so clear-cut and because swords were far cheaper and further spread in Europe than in Japan.
                An English man-at-arms serving during the 100 years war could theoretically afford to buy multiple swords a month with his pay.
                ScholaGladiatoria has a video about it somewhere.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >spathae weren't.
                They seem pretry hefty to me and in the same weight range as katanas
                Spatha 0.7÷1.5kg
                Katana 1.1÷1.5kg

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Romans mostly used it for riders, which made the weight a lot less bad. Though the difference is bigger than it seems as the katan's at nearly 50% more weight.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Romans mostly used it for riders, which made the weight a lot less bad.
                Before the 3rd century AD? Sure,but then it became common amongst the infantry though the argument was about swinging from horseback so that is not really important.
                the katan's at nearly 50% more weight.
                That is not how ranges work anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That is not how ranges work anon
                Anon, I know you're likely autistic so more than one-step thinking is difficult for you when you see fancy numbers, but chances are the heavier ones were used by riders while the lighter ones were used by infantry.
                If you think about how they were used in each case you'll figure out why.
                Now you can say
                >but infantry COULD use heavier ones in MY imagination!
                Yeah but why wouldn't the cavalry use even heavier ones then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, not really relevant though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely relevant, anon.
                The intended main use-case of a sword determines its design, that's why different swords do well in different roles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see how this is relevant to katanas being in the range of a one handed sword that was used on horseback; which that other anon believed it would be too unwieldy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't see how this is relevant to katanas being in the range of a one handed sword that was used on horseback;
                Weapons used on horseback one-handed can be more unwieldy than weapons used on foot one-handed. Is that new to you? Have you ever looked at a knight with a lance?
                > which that other anon believed it would be too unwieldy
                You made that up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Weapons used on horseback one-handed can be more unwieldy than weapons used on foot one-handed. Is that new to you? Have you ever looked at a knight with a lance?
                Which was basically my argument; that a katana cam be used one handed on horseback.

                >You made that up.
                No; you just can't read

                >a combination which removes a lot of the advantages of both two-handed swords and sabres.
                How? Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example

                See the bottom of [...] among many other reasons.
                >Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example
                That's a moronic thing to say for a variety of reasons, but the principle's been addressed already in the post linked above.

                Etc

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Which was basically my argument; that a katana cam be used one handed on horseback.
                Your argument for what, anon?

                >Etc
                That post doesn't say what you think it does.
                You said
                >How? Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example
                Where is that disputed?
                It's just not a fricking argument for anything because heavier swords can be used one handed from horse-back, that's no secret. But that's not what katana were made for.
                You can use a Zweihander one-handed from horseback as well as a makeshift spear, doesn't mean it's not a fundamentally two-handed weapon just like a katana.
                You're such a moronic fricking autist lmao
                You genuinely don't understand how an exception to an intended use doesn't change the intended use and basic nature of a sword, do you?
                Here's something that might help you:
                Most daggers were fundamentally designed, intended and used as one-handed weapons.
                BUT you can use literally every dagger as a two-handed weapon by simply putting one hand over the other.
                That does not make a parrying dagger traditionally paired with something like a rapier a two-handed weapon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Where is that disputed?
                In the posts I put in my previous reply but it seems you can't read

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But that's not the case you fricking liar.
                How about you quote the part to prove your point how people have done on PrepHole for over 2 decades now?
                Show me where anybody disputes that.
                All I can see is you being called a low IQ Black person for thinking "but heavier sword CAN be used on horse one-handedly :)" is an argument for anything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                These are weight ranges are interesting. If katanas are much thicker and heavier than comparable Euro swords, how does this interface with what /k/ always says about how they're very weak blades that are easily bent or broken? Sure, there might be a difference in steel quality, but you're telling me that a blade that can weigh twice as much is still that much weaker?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shit steel, lack of expertise to change that and mediocre smithing that tried to make the best out of it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Shit steel
                I've heard this often but where doesn this claim come from? From what I read the steel produced by the tatara process (basically a bloomery furnace but long) was low in phosphorous with ranging carbon content

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Probably based on how thicc they had to make their blades.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the claim comes from the sort of neckbeard anti-katana backswing - it went to "teh gretest weapun evar" fanwank, to working out they were talking nonsense, to immediately swinging the pendulum the other direction. and katanas are now "teh wurst sowrd evar!" in thier pea-like minds.

                the bloomery steel is entirely on par with anything produced in other parts of the world - the technology lags behind European steel production by about 1550-1600, but its entirely adequate.
                the shitty steel is of course, mostly ignorance, if anything the shitty part was that japanese steel ores were poor in volume, resulting in limited iron extraction rates.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Katana aren't bad because of their steel, Satan.
                They're bad because it's a fundamentally bad design that only survived due to a lack of emphasis on its practical used and fossilized tradition.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a fundamentally bad design that only survived due to a lack of emphasis on its practical used and fossilized tradition
                This is a meaningless statement because all swords are fundamentally bad as battlefield weapons. There is nothing that a sword can do on a battlefield that a pike, pollaxe, or lance can't do better.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This is a meaningless statement because all swords are fundamentally bad as battlefield weapons.
                I didn't write "battlefield weapon" and if I would have I'd say that's a moronic thing to write or think.
                I wrote "design."
                It's a two-handed saber, which inherently fricks up the advantages of both sabers and two-handed swords by its very nature.

                That's why the design is bad, not Nip smiths, steel or technique.
                It's bad because it's a two-handed saber when a lighter saber would do saber-things better.
                >but I want a two-handed sword
                So use a basic longsword, and forget about that saber nonsense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Where did you get this idea that katanas are two-handed sabers? It was extremely common for them to be made specifically for one-handed use. Look at the one in my pic for an example. It's a literal mass-production sword (kazuuchi mono) from 1520 that was made by the tens of thousands.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Swords have no purpose, these other weapons that fill completely different roles should fill its role
                >hot snow falls up
                Kys spearBlack person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >swords were far cheaper and further spread in Europe than in Japan
                >An English man-at-arms serving during the 100 years war could theoretically afford to buy multiple swords a month with his pay

                Okay. Can you link to or post some pics of European swords in good condition that were made before the year 1500 and belonged to ordinary warriors rather than kings or heroes?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >good condition
                Just look at any of the threads of museumanon in the archive, he's made a lot. Though in general you'll probably find less because Europeans actually used them as tools and treated them accordingly. Meaning they used them until they broke and then moved on. Once you go far enough back that you get to heathen times where they were buried with warriors you'll find more.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I've been in many of KM's threads. The nice stuff from the collections he's photographed are in most cases the output of famous royal workshops else the property of dukes, princes, and kings. Meanwhile, the stuff that has a more ordinary provenance tends to look like pic related unless it's from a much later period

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The answer is in the post you're replying to.

                >good condition
                Just look at any of the threads of museumanon in the archive, he's made a lot. Though in general you'll probably find less because Europeans actually used them as tools and treated them accordingly. Meaning they used them until they broke and then moved on. Once you go far enough back that you get to heathen times where they were buried with warriors you'll find more.

                >Though in general you'll probably find less because Europeans actually used them as tools and treated them accordingly. Meaning they used them until they broke and then moved on. Once you go far enough back that you get to heathen times where they were buried with warriors you'll find more.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >"show me where anybody says what you say they do"
    >I don't lnow what to twll you"
    kek moron
    I'm telling you to prove this:
    >which that other anon believed it would be too unwieldy
    In regards to katana being too unwieldy for one-handed usage on horses as mentioned here

    I don't see how this is relevant to katanas being in the range of a one handed sword that was used on horseback; which that other anon believed it would be too unwieldy

    Nobody said that, anon.
    Learn fricking English before you shit up my board.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know what to tell you because you insist I was making another argument; I wasn't and now you are mad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit, you lied when you said somebody said katana are too unwieldy to use from horse-back.
        You were called out and now you try to shift the goalpost. What kind of shithole are you from that basic English is too hard for you?

        You haven't made any argument, you said something nobody disagreed with and everybody thought was dumb to say. The literal equivalent of
        >but you CAN use a rifle one-handed!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon I don't understand what the frick you are on about; I just said that katanas could be used one handed from a horse for example; and you seem to agree with me on that so I'm just confused now

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            Stop deleting your post to unfrick small grammar mistakes, I can accept that you're some kind of subhuman from a shithole that doesn't teach its kids simple English, if you're that ashamed for it take classes. And stop using semicolons so much for no reason.

            I already showed you the post; so I've no clue what you want

            Quote the line, redditor. The post does not say what you pretend it does.
            If you disagree, quote the line where it says what you pretend it does.
            It is that easy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I find it amusing that you are getting so angry for something you imagined

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >anon figured out he can't find the line so he just pretends he was trolling all along
                Is that your endgame?
                And for the record:
                >a one handed sword that was used on horseback; which that other anon believed it would be too unwieldy
                That's what you said, back up the other half with a simple quote or admit you're too dumb to read.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I just said that katanas could be used one handed from a horse for example;
    You also said that others said a katana would be too unwieldy to be used one-handed from horseback.
    Then you insisted on it repeatedly.
    Yet, despite being pressed several times you still can't admit that you're just wrong and cannot admit it like a moronic child.
    Here's a simple little challenge: If you want me to look like an idiot, just quote the line of any post here that says a katana is too unwieldy to be used one-handed on horseback.
    Or admit you were wrong, admit you can't read basic English and apologize.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I already showed you the post; so I've no clue what you want

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Apparently it is moronic to suggest the mounted use of the katana as a one handed,
    As an argument for it being a one-handed weapon, yes, since any two-handed sword can be used one-handed from horse-back, making it a non-argument.
    >And then here is the implied unwiediness of the katana for it to be used from horseback
    It's not my post, but as somebody who actually understands English contrary to you I can tell you that it isn't implied there at all and that it wouldn't be very relevant from horseback.
    He also doesn't mention horses and neither does the post he replies to or the post THAT replies to, which is my post and explains to you that just because you can use a sword one-handed in some situations (for example from a horse) doesn't mean it's a one-handed sword.
    It's also the exact same point explained to you linked in the post here

    See the bottom of [...] among many other reasons.
    >Also it could be used one handed; from horseback for example
    That's a moronic thing to say for a variety of reasons, but the principle's been addressed already in the post linked above.

    which is an even earlier one in that chain.
    You're just fricking wrong, anon.
    Your English reading comprehension fricking sucks and you're so autistic and absorbed in your own thoughts that you created an entire conversation that never happened in your mind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My argument was never that it was a one handed sword; just that it could be used effectively as one. And seeing as it was the dide weapon of a mouted force it's use from horseback seems relevant; you just got angry at nothing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >My argument was never that it was a one handed sword; just that it could be used effectively as one.
        That's no argument, anon.
        And as several people in several posts have tried to explain to you by now, it's a moronic thing to say because it's always true.

        And most katana weren't used from horseback.

        All of that aside, don't think I haven't noticed you trying to shift the goalpost after getting destroyed again.
        Have you finally realized nobody said it was too unwieldy for usage on horseback, one-handed or not, now?
        How are you this fricking stubborn when your English is that limited?
        Are you French?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I only see you imagining things that never happened; if you think that the katana could be used effectively as a one handed weapon then ok we agree

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I only see you imagining things that never happened
            So point out with a simple quote where anybody said it's too unwieldy to be used one-handed from horseback.
            If you can't, you're the one imagining things.

            https://i.imgur.com/748VM3F.jpg

            Where did you get this idea that katanas are two-handed sabers? It was extremely common for them to be made specifically for one-handed use. Look at the one in my pic for an example. It's a literal mass-production sword (kazuuchi mono) from 1520 that was made by the tens of thousands.

            The plural of katana is katana, anon. It literally just means sword which means you can use it for any japanese sword, but that's not what people generally do and it's not what we're talking about here.
            What people talk about is
            >A katana (刀, かたな) is a Japanese sword characterized by a curved, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
            So yes, you are absolutely correct in saying many japanese swords were explicitly made for one-handed use, e.g.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakizashi
            But that's not what the conversation is about.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The uchigatana started out as a one-handed sword anon. See again Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Sword. Then there's the katate-uchi katana which in another sort of katana of the early Muromachi era which is explicitely one-handed in use.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ->

                >I only see you imagining things that never happened
                So point out with a simple quote where anybody said it's too unwieldy to be used one-handed from horseback.
                If you can't, you're the one imagining things.
                [...]
                The plural of katana is katana, anon. It literally just means sword which means you can use it for any japanese sword, but that's not what people generally do and it's not what we're talking about here.
                What people talk about is
                >A katana (刀, かたな) is a Japanese sword characterized by a curved, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
                So yes, you are absolutely correct in saying many japanese swords were explicitly made for one-handed use, e.g.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakizashi
                But that's not what the conversation is about.

                >you are absolutely correct in saying many japanese swords were explicitly made for one-handed use
                >But that's not what the conversation is about.
                Katana in western usage refers to a Daito unless specified otherwise. I.e. the shit you see in kendo, all media and what caused people to say Katana in the first place because katana itself isn't used the way it is in the West in Japan itself.
                Are you moronic?

                The sword in my picture is not a wakizashi. The same Wikipedia article from which you got your definition of a katana also says
                >The katana belongs to the nihontō family of swords, and is distinguished by a blade length (nagasa) of more than 2 shaku, approximately 60 cm (24 in).
                The sword in the picture I posted has a blade length of 66.9 cm. It is a katana made for one-handed use, and it is not an outlier among katanas. They were made by the tens of thousands and literally sold by the bundle during the Sengoku Jidai.

                >The sword in my picture is not a wakizashi.

                >I only see you imagining things that never happened
                So point out with a simple quote where anybody said it's too unwieldy to be used one-handed from horseback.
                If you can't, you're the one imagining things.
                [...]
                The plural of katana is katana, anon. It literally just means sword which means you can use it for any japanese sword, but that's not what people generally do and it's not what we're talking about here.
                What people talk about is
                >A katana (刀, かたな) is a Japanese sword characterized by a curved, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
                So yes, you are absolutely correct in saying many japanese swords were explicitly made for one-handed use, e.g.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakizashi
                But that's not what the conversation is about.

                >e.g.
                Can you tell me what these two letters mean, anon?
                What the frick is this today? ESL story hour?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The sword in my picture is not a wakizashi. The same Wikipedia article from which you got your definition of a katana also says
                >The katana belongs to the nihontō family of swords, and is distinguished by a blade length (nagasa) of more than 2 shaku, approximately 60 cm (24 in).
                The sword in the picture I posted has a blade length of 66.9 cm. It is a katana made for one-handed use, and it is not an outlier among katanas. They were made by the tens of thousands and literally sold by the bundle during the Sengoku Jidai.

                The uchigatana started out as a one-handed sword anon. See again Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Sword. Then there's the katate-uchi katana which in another sort of katana of the early Muromachi era which is explicitely one-handed in use.

                Oh and at least one of you Black folk, unless you're samegayging, is French.
                Where's the other brainlet from?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Katana in western usage refers to a Daito unless specified otherwise.
                Yes, and can you point to a definition that says a daito is necessarily for two-handed use? Because Wikipedia, your favorite source, says otherwise:
                >A blade longer than two shaku is considered a daitō, or long sword. To qualify as a daitō the sword must have a blade longer than 2 shaku (approximately 24 inches or 60 centimeters) in a straight line.
                According to this definition,

                https://i.imgur.com/748VM3F.jpg

                Where did you get this idea that katanas are two-handed sabers? It was extremely common for them to be made specifically for one-handed use. Look at the one in my pic for an example. It's a literal mass-production sword (kazuuchi mono) from 1520 that was made by the tens of thousands.

                is a daito. It is not a shoto, and it is not a wakizashi.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A katana (刀, かたな) is a Japanese sword characterized by a curved, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
                >long grip to accommodate two hands.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Katana in western usage refers to a Daito unless specified otherwise.
                Yes, and can you point to a definition that says a daito is necessarily for two-handed use? Because Wikipedia, your favorite source, says otherwise:
                >A blade longer than two shaku is considered a daitō, or long sword. To qualify as a daitō the sword must have a blade longer than 2 shaku (approximately 24 inches or 60 centimeters) in a straight line.
                According to this definition, [...] is a daito. It is not a shoto, and it is not a wakizashi.

                Important reminder for autistic people with issues when it comes to simple logic: Just because a Daito must be at least that long doesn't mean that every sword that is that long is a Daito

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Katana in western usage refers to a Daito unless specified otherwise.
                Yes, and can you point to a definition that says a daito is necessarily for two-handed use? Because Wikipedia, your favorite source, says otherwise:
                >A blade longer than two shaku is considered a daitō, or long sword. To qualify as a daitō the sword must have a blade longer than 2 shaku (approximately 24 inches or 60 centimeters) in a straight line.
                According to this definition, [...] is a daito. It is not a shoto, and it is not a wakizashi.

                [...]
                Important reminder for autistic people with issues when it comes to simple logic: Just because a Daito must be at least that long doesn't mean that every sword that is that long is a Daito

                Any mentions of nip longswords tend to include flexibility on the lower limit, how much of that is just based on them being gigamanlets who were like 1.40m in size and even today only reach like 1.60m on average?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Where does it say daito in there? Point to a definition that says a daito is necessarily for two-handed use.

                Also, do you know what a katate-uchi is?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Where does it say daito in there?
                It says Katana which is what we're talking about.
                The generally understood usage of it in the western world is a nip longsword used in all media, kendo and so on related to them, which largely boils down to a Daito or:
                >a Japanese sword characterized by a curved, single-edged blade with a circular or squared guard and long grip to accommodate two hands.
                >Also, do you know what a katate-uchi is?
                You're genuinely autistic, aren't you?
                I don't mean that as an insult, I mean the clinical condition.
                I don't judge you for it either, it might actually improve my opinion of you, because it would explain how you're literally unable to understand how people use the term in the west and what it refers to.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The sword in my picture is not a wakizashi. The same Wikipedia article from which you got your definition of a katana also says
              >The katana belongs to the nihontō family of swords, and is distinguished by a blade length (nagasa) of more than 2 shaku, approximately 60 cm (24 in).
              The sword in the picture I posted has a blade length of 66.9 cm. It is a katana made for one-handed use, and it is not an outlier among katanas. They were made by the tens of thousands and literally sold by the bundle during the Sengoku Jidai.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *