/his/ - History

>>15664

that dont look like no jap ive ever seen. I think its the fat making his eyes looks squinty

>>15699

I've heard that the japanese matchlock were often covered with some kind of anti-rust painting

That's maybe why so many lasted to this day

>>14855

>naginata

What are you a GIRL

>mfw most people won't get the joke

>>19801

Naginata were a popular weapon among most people.

>>14836

>>14931

>>14943

The armor is real, but onnabushi wouldn't tie up their hair like that. they usually just used a string to keep it away from their faces.

>>15641

War maidens everywhere had the most fun in every army.

Like, not only they fought every day alongside warriors, but the also had the duty of fucking a lot of soldiers to keep their morale up.

>>14840

>nanban rifles

>ikki sashimono

Double shamerfur

>>14943

>>14836

>Tfw you'll never marry a woman of a noble warrior class and father adorable warrior children

Only the dead can escape from this hell…

Man Jap Armour may have been inefficient as hell but man does it look good.

>>14834

>dat Dharma wheel

sheeiit

>>28691

Not a huge amount of detail, but maybe the sources included will be a good starting point:

>firearms

http://www.samurai-archives.com/ste.html

>kabuto

http://www.samurai-archives.com/KabArt.html

>>28691

I know that in the early 1700s the Japanese discovered how to pattern-weld nonferrous metals they called the process Mokume Gane. It was used extensively in kabutos

Personally, I'd contact ABANA as they have many members who have gone to Japan and have learned traditional japanese techniques

https://www.abana.org/

>>30600

How would you guys compare European Castles with Jap Castles? I asked /k/ this, but I couldn't get a good answer.

>>30602

Japan has daily earthquakes, so the castles needed to be built with low, sloped, thick walls, not the thin, tall walls of European castles.

The trace italiane style forts being built in Europe in the 16th century also had low, thick, sloping walls, but to resist cannon rather than earthquake. The trace italiane forts were also better designed to provide overlapping fields of fire against attackers from any angle.

>>30609

What I meant was, which is harder to besiege? (Medieval) European Castles at their peak or Japanese Castles also at their peak?

>>30614

Against who? People designed their castles against the threats they thought they would face, although I would think that it would also depend on the castle being besieged although I would think Japanese soldiers would have trouble against European walls considering their military doctrines probably had never accounted for such a design.

>>30616

Some faggot in /twg/ plsnobully once claimed that european castles were designed to keep invaders out, while japanese castles were designed to kill as many of the invaders as possible. That might play a part too then.

>>30616

Well, let me put it this way. Let's say an average sized Jap army sieges a European Castle and an average sized European army sieges a Jap castle (minimal gunpowder weapons). Ceteris Paribus.

Who would have an easier time?

>>30640

>average sized

For what period?

>>30641

Let say early 15th century for Europe and early Sengoku era for Japs.

>>30645

Nothing?

>>19589

Firearms were never dishonorable. That whole notion is nothing more than a modern invention.

>>31073

Debatable. Considering how much of a stigma was put on crossbows because they allowed mere peasants to take out fully armored knights, firearms should sit on a similar branch

>>31105

This is Japan not Europe, crossbows never took off in the islands. And regarding the weapon despite the fact that the Pope bitched and moaned about the weapon none of the kings and lords gave two fucks and still fielded them as much as their resources could permit.

>>31105

Japan had an archer centric culture unlike most of Europe, and crossbows would have been imported from China far sooner than they'd reach Europe.

>>14870

>Oh, neat, you really don't see people with shields very often in Japanese stuff

>>14912

> got a culture whose warrior nobility emphasize both archery and two-handed weapons so there's not a lot of room for that to flourish on a social level. Hand shields were probably hardly a consideration.

I always wondered why Japanese knights did not use shields at all. Especially if we consider the Katana a two handed only weapon it seems rather pathetic, compared to a German Zweihänder or literally any European Greatsword.

Does anyone here have a well informed opinion on this matter or an explanation?

>>14940

Very cool! Anyone additional Christian Samurai pics?

>>15641

>All in all, women are not that physically distinct from men once you throw thick enough layers over them.

But these thick layers tend to be very heavy. A woman is unable to deal with this hard ship over a long time, ie a battle, sufficently.

>as most armors will fit pretty much anyone of the right height with some slight adjusting. So really, most accounts of a suit of specifically female armor are probably bogus.

And her breasts?

>>30617

>that european castles were designed to keep invaders out, while japanese castles were designed to kill as many of the invaders as possible. That might play a part too then.

>

Some European castles had more than one wall. The idea behind this was that the enemy should be "allowed" to overcome the first wall and then be crushed when he is trapped in the inner court. So it depends I guess, most likely the same for Japan.

>>31381

>Japan had an archer centric culture unlike most of Europe

More details on that pls? Why is that so?

>>14840

>Nagoya Castle Bon Odori Festival! 盆踊り (名古屋城宵まつり)

3:00

>>28691

Stop Motion Kokujin, are you still alive?

>>33818

>And her breasts?

1) breasts are squishy

2) usually armour isn't skin fitting, you always wear some padding below armour

3) I'd also expect male warriors to have developed pecs anyway so the armour wouldn't be designed to fit a skeleton-mode flat chest

>>14940

>tfw the Shogunate didn't convert to Christianity

>tfw the Christian Japanese didn't force Koreans to convert

>tfw Japan didn't have an Inquisition where they would burn all the Shinto temples and fuck with Buddhists monks

I would give up my testicles to make this to have been a reality

>>14835

what is the purpose of that long ass loop that comes from behind the hammer?

>>33919

Isn't that the cord?

>>33971

To be more precise, both crossbows and regular bows were declared forbidden at the pain of excommunication when used against Christians by the Second Council of Lateran in 1139.

>We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

Source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum10.htm

The use of missile weapons against heathens (and Muslims in particular) still was fair game though, and this canon in particular was ignored by virtually all military forces due to the weapon's tactical usefulness.

>>33995

The Canon was intented to affect all uses of the bow or crossbow against other Christians - it's just that no military commander really gave two fucks about the said canon, which it why it was later revoked.

It probably was an attempt to preserve public order, given how even armored knights could now be assassinated by what could effectively be a farmer with only a few hours of training with the crossbow. Keep in mind knights weren't just warriors but also served as public administrators, most of which had their own fiefs. Imagine said fief suddenly falling into chaos just because some random farmer had a bad day and decided to shoot his (proverbial) land lord with a crossbow for shit and giggles.

>>33999

>when, exactly

Poor phrasing in my part here. I don't know whether it formally was revoked, but I don't recall anyone ever being excommunicated either. If the church pulled through with that canon, they'd have had to put anathema on virtually all Christian armies.

>But 1) it's not like knights had ever been invulnerable from angry peasants 2) the Pope didn't specifically ban crossbows, depleted uranium and white phosphorus, but also bows, not exactly a novelty and supposedly less lethal 3) crossbows were costly and crossbowmen often élite troops.

1) Fair enough, but you will have to admit that shooting some heavily armored knight from afar is quit a bit easier (and less dangerous) than trying to dismount him in melee, even if you attack him in a group.

2) As mentioned above, I think the church's main gripe was that knights, being of higher standing than simple peasants, only were supposed to be killed by other knights, not by some silly old yeoman who so happened to get his hands on a potentially armor-piercing weapon (i.e., crossbows or longbows).

And while crossbows of course were a lot more expensive than bows, you have to consider that training also had its costs - which is why the crossbow eventually replaced most bows.

>What if that random farmer instead decided to stab his seneschal with a kitchen knife? Dude this is Obama-tier reasoning. I can't believe they were that stupid. Not saying it wasn't the reason or part of the reason of that canon, just that I don't see it, and that I'd rather have more evidence.

I don't think the chances of some random farmer against a fully armored knight would be particularly high if he attacked him with a kitchen knife, Again, you have to keep in mind that this ban was not so much supposed get rid of stealthy assassins that stab the local lord in the back while he's sitting on the shitter, but because they allowed fighters of low social standing and with only a fracture of the knight's combat experience to kill said knight in open warfare.

This could potentially turn the entire feudal society on its head, because why spend a considerable amount of resources on the training and equipment of a knight when you could just get some random peasant with a longbow (which admittedly still requires a lot of training to use effectively) or a crossbow (which is costly but not as costly as a full suit of heavy armor or a longsword) to get rid of said knights?

I'm tempted to say they also had the Farmer Uprisings in mind, but these only came around about 200 years and later after the Council had taken place.

>>33995

tbh, that ban reminds me a lot of the "ban assault rifles" thing going in US.

>>34007

I know right? let loose the OC-makers

Bump for posterity

>>36319

>katana is overrated

Astounding contribution, katanas are overrated! No fucking shit!

Sorry mate, but the katana wanking vs katana hate meme is pretty old