SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I have been reading The Japanese Sword Column and thought it may be of niche interest to other Soylentils. It is written by Paul Martin, a noted British expert of Japanese swords. From the introduction:
Along with cherry blossoms and Mount Fuji, the Japanese sword has become one of the enduring symbols of Japan. It has experienced centuries of warfare, evolved through Mongol invasions, survived the introduction of the musket, the end of the samurai era, modernization, and confiscation and destruction by the Allied forces following World War II. They are an anachronism in modern society, yet they continue to be made. They are an integral part of Japanese culture.
Today, I feel very fortunate that we have access to Japanese swords and can observe the artistry of blades that were previously only accessible by Japan's ancient military and social elites.
I particularly enjoyed the July 25th article, The Changes in the Shape of the Japanese Sword. The articles are short, update infrequently and have plenty of pictures of museum-quality swords. A good fit for those with a casual interest in the subject.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 10 2017, @04:40AM (2 children)
The crossbow was decried for a long time for the same reason as the gun is.
You need to take the sword to your enemy, and defeat him. With a gun or a crossbow, any weakling can kill an experienced trained warrior or 59 innocents.
There is little honour in the kill, when you just pull a trigger from a distance. There is no fun in the battle, and too many die.
Ancient battles didn't systematically kill thousands. Play chess with a few humans. Lose as many as the bad harvest requires or the other side will bear. Claim victory and resume next year.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 10 2017, @05:58AM (1 child)
That's a really whitewashed view of history. Attila wasn't the only example to prove you wrong. Of course, his troops also went through the armored Christian knights like grass through a goose, so that's more about tactics than about weaponry, but it sure wasn't "only a couple of thousand got killed".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 10 2017, @04:17PM
There were orders of magnitude more battles between counts, dukes and other locals chiefs, than major invasions on the Alexander/Rome/Attila scale. The fact that you could list the big campaigns demonstrates that.
And a lot of the really big conquests' battles turned into either sieges or quick shows of overwhelming force by one of the sides.
Yes there were plenty of battles with thousands of dead or dead-soon to process afterwards. But that wasn't anywhere near the majority, because losing thousands of soldiers is a desperate and consequential move (Pyrrhic victory).