07-28-2006, 08:34 PM
Quote:Steve Sarak:1w7rhgir Wrote:Some of the Viking swords are considered big and bulky compared to the samurai sleek sword but if you’re fighting for hours on end against Roman metal helmets, not laminated wood or wicker like the Japanese, then the Viking sword has its advantages. The larger bulky sword can take a lot of punishment, meaning that after you’ve hacked away for hours and the blade isn’t that sharp anymore you can still kill or maim with a good swing, the momentum of the heavy sword packs more of a punch.
....
Two points:
1) Japanese armour was never made out of wood, and as far as I know, not made of wicker either. The predominant armour form in Japan was lamellar, and the lamellae could be made of metal or of rawhide, then lacquered. Plates were used, especially after the Europeans showed up with plate armour and guns; mail was used in small quantities, usually to link metal plates together.
2) The cross section of Japanese swords have been studied and documented (for a few pics, see here: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... osssection ) They are not thinner than the cross sections of gladii or Viking swords. For the gladii, see pictures in Bishop and Coulston. Viking swords have fullers, and are even thinner overall than most spathae or gladii.
Comparing the Japanese time frame to that of the Romans, say the Republic, I don’t think that lamellar armor had metal in it back then but my interest doesn’t lie with the Japanese so I really don’t know that much about it, I could be wrong? Did it have metal back then, B.C.?
As far as the cross section of a Japanese sword to that of a Viking, I wasn’t aware of that, I stand corrected, thanks.
What I meant by packs more of a punch is that per ounce, the Viking sword is heavier and there by produces more kinetic energy, a hell of a club.
Steve
