TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Swords vs guns

Go To

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#151: Oct 31st 2013 at 6:45:21 PM

Well they only did those as a last resort when they were all going to die or be captured anyway. Banzai charges weren't a "first option". I more mentioned the Chinese theatre (and other countries in the area) specifically because they lacked equipment and resources but had people. So the Chinese (and other groups) used what they had; people.

No one really thinks about swords vs guns in the military. They think about "what do I have and how much of it can I throw at the enemy?". For instance, Iraqi militias aren't going to go "Gee I really wish I had AC-130s" and then poof they have one.

If I were writing a fiction in which one side had vastly inferior weapons, logistics and personnel numbers would this thread call it stupid and unrealistic? Because that's pretty much how many wars today are like.

edited 31st Oct '13 6:45:46 PM by breadloaf

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#152: Oct 31st 2013 at 8:20:29 PM

If you have your guys bum rushing people with melee weapons yes I would call it stupid chiefly because even the insurgents make their own guns, buy them on the black market, or kludge up any number of clever weapon systems including home made rocket launchers, and thermal detection trip mines firing off home made EFP projectiles. They also are known to steal weapons whenever and wherever they can. They also are smart enough to avoid doing what the Japanese did and instead largely use ambushes, bombs, and other quick attacks before disappearing. Not always effective but it is what they have and it works better then melee weapons. Also the suicide bomber is not their chief tactic and is more used as a tactic of pyschological effect and even then bombs left in cars and detonated by timer or remote are preferred.

Contrary to popular belief the insurgents are clever and resourceful bastards.

The Chinese also suffered horrifying casualties and the Japanese were not using Banzai charges if they were all going to die, they were using them to secure victory or death. The thorough cultural manipulation and brainwashing of the Japanese people and the Japanese military meant death was prefrable to facing defeat, capture, or surrender. While the civilians were at as heavily affected by wars end the military adhered to it more strictly.

The banzai charge wasn't because they thought they were going to die, it was to try and seize victory or die trying rather then face defeat, capture, or surrender.

It also wasn't uncommon for soldiers to kill themselves and/or their comrades rather then face defeat or surrender either that or force the Americans to fight them to the last man.

For gods sakes some of the military were so fanatical they found some still living in the mountains long after the war was over and had trouble coaxing them down because of how fanatical they were.

The battle of Saipain had a massive Banzai charge that only killed 650 Americans. Despite the battle featuring the most intense and heavy hand to hand combat of the entire war nearly every man of the 4300 man Japanese force was dead and the Americans shortly after had no problem in taking the rest of the island. The Japanese had machineguns, SMG's, grenades, auto cannons, sniper rifles, landmines, and other modern weapons instead they used an extremely reckless and frankly stupid tactic that just got them killed instead of any number of more effective tactics open to them like scattering the force over the island and using guerilla tactics or night raids instead.

edited 31st Oct '13 8:24:14 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#153: Nov 1st 2013 at 11:35:38 PM

What is your point?

I think you just found your example of using swords vs guns in real life.

edited 1st Nov '13 11:35:47 PM by breadloaf

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#154: Nov 2nd 2013 at 6:10:57 AM

The point should be pretty obvious. Melee doesn't work for shit against modern weapons. The only thing I found was what a massive failure melee vs modern guns was. The side relying most heavily on melee was nearly wiped out to a man.

4,300 man army stomped flat. That is about a full quarter of the Japanese casualties for the entire fight over Saipan in one go.

edited 2nd Nov '13 6:11:32 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#155: Nov 2nd 2013 at 8:51:34 AM

I think your point is not obvious because China won the war while you show case battles in which Japan lost banzai charges at a point in the war where the vast majority of their army was already dead.

In the spirit of the thread, I'm showcasing real world examples in which either

  • Swords were used versus guns, no matter the reason
  • Swords won against guns, no matter the reason

In your very own example, you showed how Japan was willing to eschew the use of guns and opt for a bayonet charge. And then you balk at "killed down to a man" in the move. I don't know what country you're from but that's hardly unusual. It's war. Entente countries regularly suffered 99% losses in the First World War while using guns. Retreat was not an option. Withdrawal from combat was punished by death by hanging.

In an effort to be less confrontational, I think what I should describe is generic patriotism. You talk about the Japanese being brainwashed because they wanted to defend their country in a "victory or death" mode. I am not finding that unusual at all and am actually readily confused by your stance on the subject. If I had the choice to surrender or defend Canada with a kitchen knife against invading tanks, I would choose the kitchen knife. If you are trying to say that most Americans would just surrender then I'm genuinely surprised. War is about options and if you don't have guns then you have to choose swords.

I think what you are overlooking about these "awesome" American victories is

  • Japan had already lost most of its army in China and various other countries (Vietnam, Korea etc) and so they had no backup or reinforcements
  • They knew they had lost the war and the only hope now was to inflict so many casualties on American forces and convince them that an attack of the Japanese mainland was a bad idea and thus allow Japan to keep most of its Imperial colonies (such as Okinawa/Ryukyu or the Ainu areas in the north)

And for China's horrific losses it was something like 10-30 million versus around 2 million Japanese military losses (1 million Imperial soldiers and a million traitors that joined Japan). That's between 5x to 15x. That's pretty bad but remember those losses are mostly civilians that died from Japan's city razing, scorched earth and bio/chemical weapons deployments.

Japan's choices were to do nothing and surrender or fight to the death to keep as much land as possible. And hey look, it worked. America never invaded their mainland and they kept most of their Imperial captures and colonies. In fact, Japan was able to negotiate away Ryukyu land to Americans for the US naval and airbases instead of prime "real" Japanese land.

Or look at Poland during the Second World War. They never stopped fighting until everyone was dead. Nearly 18% of the population wiped out in a span of 5 years. Did they care that they run out of guns or bullets to fight Nazis and Soviets? You don't need to be brainwashed to fight to the death. You should not overlook the power of defending one's land.

And if it were Canada being invaded and the main military was defeated and we were down to melee weapons? Then I use melee weapons. What do I care about loss ratio or effectiveness? I don't have a choice. Surrender isn't an option.

edited 2nd Nov '13 9:09:14 AM by breadloaf

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#156: Nov 2nd 2013 at 7:44:14 PM

There is so much wrong both factually and semantically with what you just posted I am not sure where to begin and where to stop without creating a massive derail.

So I will keep it short as I can.

Lets start with the total fallacy of "only option". The sword has never been an only option. Even in its hey day it has existed alongside a multitude of other weapons. In many instances where a gun is not readily available guns are stolen, picked up from the dead, captured from the enemy, or acquired from black markets.

The only way someone will choose a sword over a gun is if they need something right now and the sword is the only thing at hand. Otherwise they tend to seek out weapons like guns.

Since the adoption of the gun as the primary battlefield weapon there has never been a strictly melee weapon oriented army that has defeated a army wielding guns at large. Especially considering said groups also have projectile weapons and will use them against other projectile weapon wielding people. They also have a notable habit of capturing or stealing guns as often as possible to use them.

No 99% total casualties for a single battle out of 20-30k men is not normal. Now something to note. The Japanese have 99% KILLED not casualty which includes wounded. Even some of the worst battles of WWI like Verdun and the battle of Somme didn't even come close. Not even the absolute worst of the Eastern front in WWII reached 99% Killed. So it is not normal. Especially when this sort of behavior is seen as early as 1942 and many many many miles from the home islands.

You keep swapping your terminology around here. When killed is used it is describing Killed that means killed nothing else not casualties, but killed. It is not normal even in the worst battles of WWI or WWII outside of the Pacific theater. Even the highest casualties of Eastern Front in WWII side lost 99% Killed.

Next is casualties. Courtesy of Merriam Webster.

Casualty:A person who is hurt or killed during an accident, war, etc
This includes both dead and wounded. If you will notice a rather disturbing trend the Japanese casualties are almost entirely killed. Even the worst battles of the Eastern front the wounded far outnumber the dead. In the Pacific it is the other way around.

Then there is total losses. Losses include many extras including total dead and wounded as well as numerous pieces of equipment.

The Polish were not wiped out to a man. I have no clue where you got that bogus info. Over 2/3rds of the Polish military survived to become POW's. The high death rate of civilians was from direct and specific efforts by first the Germans and then Soviets to kill them. This is well documented. Oh and the Polish resistance used a lot of guns often stolen from the Germans.

You seem to be mistaking patriotism for fanaticism. There is quite a bit of difference. It is one thing to love your country and owe basic loyalty. It is another commit suicide in the name of the country and its grand leader.

Now on to Banzai.

Banzai charge is considered to be one method of Gyokusai, "jade shards"; honorable suicide. Whats that? It was not about stopping the enemy but dying? That's right. A Banzai charge is committing suicide deliberately and often attempting to take another with you in the process. It had nothing to do with convincing the Americans to stop fighting as neither side believed they would until Japan surrendered or was invaded and pacified by force of arms.

As for being because their army was almost destroyed. You would be quite wrong. One of the earliest incidents happened in 1942 during the Makin Island raid. The Japanese were roughly even in number to the Americans plus had vehicles they could use to leave or retreat, and even fight back. Instead they chose to use Banzai charges three times only to be repulsed by the marines each time. Ultimately the entire garrison was destroyed. That wasn't even near the home islands. Same for the battle of Attu on Aleutian Islands.

When not trying to commit suicide by charging the enemy, other methods like clutching grenades to their chests and pulling the pins were used. Or seppuku, jumping off of cliffs, etc. It is all very well and frighteningly documented.

To drive the point home that battles with the Japanese were largely abnormal even for the worst of the war in Europe. For the battle of Saipan. Of the estimated 30,000 troops. By the time the fighting was done 24,000 had been killed outright in the fighting. Not killed and wounded but killed. 5,000 are estimated to have committed suicide. The rest are either missing, captured, or unknown. That for the record is not patriotism that is fanaticism. Over 1,000 civilians are also believed to have committed suicide with whole families jumping off of cliffs, blowing themselves up, or drowning themselves in the water at the shore. That is not patriotism or normal.

Before I forget. China did not win the war. The Japanese army was not destroyed in China by any stretch of the imagination. The Allies beat the Japanese forcing the Army in China to surrender. And the Chinese widely used guns I took a little bit to look it up. They like guns just as much as everyone else and used them extensively to fight the Japanese. Oh hey look at that. The bulk of the Japanese military might, the rest of the Army, the Navy, and the air force were taken out by the allies not the Chinese. Oh and the allies made the Japanese surrender for fear of invasion and getting their cities flattened. Even then the nuke had to be dropped twice even after massive fire bombing campaigns against the homeland.

The Japanese did not get to keep their recent holdings and even lost some of the older colonial holdings like Saipan. They lost all the turf they had taken in WWII. They lost Korea after they were beaten. The Ryuku islands have been part of Japan for a long time ,though the Okinawans would debate that, the islands were never taken away to begin with.

The surrender of the Japanese was unconditional in WWII. Everything that happened afterwards happened under the occupation forces America placed there. If they wanted a base they "negotiated" it.

And now that I am done pointing out the gross errors we come back to full circle.

Swords vs guns. Even the Japanese officers carrying swords also widely used their pistols. The melee heavy approach even if backed by some gun fire is ultimately ineffective against modern fire arms and modern tactics which at best melee is incidental and weapons fire is primary. As born out by the biggest suicide charge in the pacific and many other failed attempts with that tactic as early as 1942.

In that final charge an estimated 4,300 Japanese died nearly to a man. Which as I already pointed out is not normal at all for modern warfare and they only managed to kill 650 Americans meaning ultimately my point still stands. Melee or even melee heavy with some guns can not match outright firepower of all gun militaries. The Americans tactics and means of using their weapons beat the banzai charge hands down.

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#157: Nov 2nd 2013 at 8:27:26 PM

In all fairness, patriotism and fanaticism are politically charged, subjective terms with a great deal of cultural and philosophical overlap. This is similar to the case with jingoism and revanchism Just throwing that out there, off-topic as it may be.

For what it's worth, I think breadloaf's general point is that one's affiliation to a nation can seduce them into engaging in irrational forms of groupthink up to and including using swords to defend against a technologically superior force. I don't find that unrealistic or without psychological plausibility. Humans do some pretty capricious, illogical things due to internalization of very powerful forms of social reinforcement.

edited 2nd Nov '13 8:39:12 PM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#158: Nov 2nd 2013 at 9:50:50 PM

Aprilla: Problem is that is not what he said at all. He was jabbering on about only option which in all of these cases was simply not true. The swords and bayonets in a suicide charge were quite clearly not the only option. Neither was mass suicide or almost never surrendering.

And there is a quite obvious difference between merely being patriotic and being fanatical.

The French were patriotic even under German occupation yet we don't see them doing what the Japanese did. The Nazis were patriotic and even when the enemy was on the door step of their capital they didn't behave the same way. You didn't see the French legion screaming Viva LA France and charging German mechanized infantry with bayonets on their rifles or rushing headlong at fortified machine gun positions crawling over piles of the dead. Same for the Germans and even the Russians, many surrendered and did not fight to the bitter death in nearly every battle. There were certainly some knock down drag out fights but very few if any of those fights were carried out in the same way the Japanese were fighting. There were no mass suicides of French or Russian civilians and defeated troops when the enemy rolled over the hill after effectively beating the other guy. Germans weren't leaping off of tall buildings or the roof the Reichstag to their deaths en masse. No one else in the entire war did that. The entire situation in the pacific was unique and rather disturbing right down to highly ineffective banzai charges.

I am sorry but that is simply not an even remotely accurate comparison between patriots and fanatics. There is vast difference from fighting hard possibly dying in the process trying to protect your home vs deliberately fighting in such a way that you will likely die for the purpose of getting killed hoping to take someone with you and barring that committing suicide. And like I pointed out they started doing this well outside the reach of the Japanese home lands well before they were losing. The difference is pretty obvious.

Even though the Japanese had modern weapons they switched to a very melee heavy tactic and it failed pretty much every single time. Yeah sure they could hurt the enemy but no where nearly as much when they fought like a modern army. When they fought like a modern army they held out and inflicted serious casualties on numerically superior enemies.

For Saipan it took them three weeks of fighting like a modern military to lose a large number of men and they exacted a high toll on the enemy in return. Then they flip the stupid fanatic switch and in less then a day take more dead at once then they did the entire three weeks of fighting barely denting the entirety of the American force on the island. To say the exchange was lopsided is an understatement.

We see the same thing throughout the entire Pacific campaign. When they fight like an army armed with modern weapons they cause more damage and casualties. They switch to vastly ineffective banzai attack and they got stacked like cord wood.

edited 2nd Nov '13 9:56:17 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#159: Nov 2nd 2013 at 9:54:39 PM

one thing that is not making sense to me, how is "honorable suicide" in anyway showing that swords are better than guns?

edited 2nd Nov '13 9:54:50 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#160: Nov 2nd 2013 at 9:57:08 PM

It's not. Melee weapons were a bad choice against guns especially when used by an entrenched enemy waiting for them to come screaming headlong into those defenses.

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#161: Nov 2nd 2013 at 10:26:04 PM

Maybe it wasn't breadloaf's interpretation. Maybe it was. That's ultimately for him to decide.

I am sorry but that is simply not an even remotely accurate comparison between patriots and fanatics. There is vast difference from fighting hard possibly dying in the process trying to protect your home vs deliberately fighting in such a way that you will likely die for the purpose of getting killed hoping to take someone with you and barring that committing suicide. And like I pointed out they started doing this well outside the reach of the Japanese home lands well before they were losing. The difference is pretty obvious.

You're missing my point. Sociology, psychology and other social sciences are not as precise as physics, chemistry and mathematics. We can bicker all day long about lexical differences between fanaticism and patriotism, but the conceptual understanding of each cultural and political phenomena retains a sense of intrinsic familiarity. Some social critics have argued that fanaticism is a type of patriotism and that both ideologies are enveloped in nationalism. The difference you are establishing is a matter of opinion and war-based context. I was speaking in broad terms, and you're speaking with a specific historical and military-based context. It's a matter of interpretation, not obvious fact. My assertion isn't absolutely right or wrong.

As a side note, I think you're getting a little too heated up and abrasive in this discussion. Try not to be so harsh in your disagreements.

To be more pertinent, the issue here seems to be what role melee weapons and firearms have had on humans' collective will to fight and how that technology reflects ideological concerns. It's probably worth noting here that the cultural view of the Japanese sword is considerably different from the cultural view of the American gun. The katana reflects a certain hierarchical distinction among the Japanese such that its use, ceremonial or otherwise, evokes exclusivity and prestige. The American firearm, on the other hand, has been ingrained into the American consciousness as the everyman's weapon; an instrument of destabilization against powerful, oppressive forces. To an American, the firearm is David's weapon against Goliath. Basically what I'm saying is that we tend to have a national sense of ownership over the weapons we use in war. I don't think they're just objects for killing. They have patriotic meaning.

edited 2nd Nov '13 10:32:48 PM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#162: Nov 2nd 2013 at 10:36:42 PM

Oh please that was hardly harsh at all.

Ill give you the statement in general on patriotism vs fanaticism. However it is widely held that fanaticism is more a form of extremism. Even then it is still ignoring the extreme set of behaviors seen throughout a global war. Even the Nazis and the Soviets who engaged in some hard core knock down drag out fights didn't even come close to behaving the same way as the Japanese consistently.

And only the officers in the modern Japanese military carried swords. They also carried pistols. Everyone else had other weapons. That kind of drastically limits the value of the sword. And again the point that swords are not an effective main stream weapon still stands. It has nothing to do with cultural relevance or importance. To a point the sword in the west has the same connotations of authority and exclusivity. Look who carries them officers and NCO's and those in positions of responsibility, station, and authority.

The cold hard fact is that the gun is hands down more effective in battle then any melee weapon we have ever used. So much so that it relegated melee weapons to the role of back up weapon or side piece for officers and those with some sort of station.

edited 2nd Nov '13 10:46:12 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#163: Nov 2nd 2013 at 10:50:40 PM

...That..wasn't what I meant, Tuefel.

I was referring to how the Japanese military leadership once viewed the katana as a representation of their natural birthright as Japanese to do things like kill Chinese civilians and sexually assault Korean women. The katana still has a great deal of cultural reverence among the Japanese despite many of them descending from peasants who weren't allowed to carry one. Similarly, you'll notice that many pro-gun Americans who vehemently oppose gun control don't even own firearms themselves.

Fanatic ideology often has its basis in patriotism, therefore they share a common conceptual identity. If we're talking about conceptually dissimilar terms, consider humor as it is contrasted with...I don't know...corporate fidelity? When we're talking about weapons and ideology, we see things such as the idyllic American town that contributes to the steel industry or is the site of construction and distribution for a next-generation fighter jet. Likewise, we can see the sense community that comes out of a Sierra Leonean death squad that revels in carrying machetes as a symbolic gesture of intimidation against those who attempt to vote.

And when you preface many of your arguments on the threads with variations of "that's bullshit", that doesn't strike me as a non-abrasive disagreement.

The cold hard fact is that the gun is hands down more effective in battle then any melee weapon we have ever used. So much so that it relegated melee weapons to the role of back up weapon or side piece for officers and those with some sort of station.

Yep.

It has nothing to do with cultural relevance or importance.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. I don't mind your discussing the weapons from a purely technological standpoint, but their impact on a nation's thinking is certainly worth discussing.

edited 3rd Nov '13 9:39:35 AM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#164: Nov 2nd 2013 at 11:18:23 PM

The sword comment makes more sense but the nature of the sword as a symbol doesn't change anything we covered. Yes both the gun and the sword can be symbols. But unlike the sword the gun is still a truly effective weapon on the battlefield. While yes some guns would not fit on a modern battle field there ample variations of the fire arm that work on the battlefield.

You can't say the same about the sword. Longsword, short sword, katana, Gladius, Xiphos, Back sword, Small sword, their symbolic importance is ultimately irrelevant. The sword has been dead as an effective weapon on the battle field for more then a few centuries.

If I want to say something is bullshit I will just say it is bullshit. Everything else is more along the lines of where he hell did you dredge that up or what hell you trying to say.

The cultural relevance of just a sword does not make men run up slopes to their death or slap a live grenade to their chest and pull the pin. There is a lot more at play then just mere symbolic meaning of singular weapon there is a lot more to culture that affected Japanese thinking in WWII and you of all people should very well know that. You are missing the forest for the trees.

edited 2nd Nov '13 11:23:04 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#165: Nov 2nd 2013 at 11:21:05 PM

You're arguing against something I never said. I've been in full 100% agreement with the idea that guns are more effective than swords. I never suggested otherwise.

I'm also not talking about the effectiveness of either weapon in my previous posts, but rather the impact they have had on our societal psyches. We're having two different discussions.

There is a lot more at play then just mere symbolic meaning of singular weapon there is a lot more to culture that affected Japanese thinking in WWII and you of all people should very well know that.

When did I ever state or imply that the symbolism behind a weapon totally impacts its effectiveness? I'm not talkling about World War II. You and breadloaf were. I was making a broad statement as a general comment to the entire thread about how we as a society view weapons that have sentimental value to us. I'm frankly not all that invested in the discussion about what did or didn't happen during some skirmish in the Pacific theatre. That's between you and breadloaf.

edited 2nd Nov '13 11:26:42 PM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#166: Nov 2nd 2013 at 11:23:37 PM

Their impact on societal psyches is moot. They have nothing to do with the thread. Even then in case of both weapons there is significantly more going on behind the scenes then just over simplified commentary on how we view weapons.

edited 2nd Nov '13 11:24:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#167: Nov 2nd 2013 at 11:29:48 PM

Again, psychological and cultural implications of weapon designs and implementations are only one factor of what the weapon means. I'm being pretty clear about that. While it is relevent, I'm not proposing that it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion about swords and guns. I was forming an ancillary note, not a primary thesis.

edited 2nd Nov '13 11:30:03 PM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#168: Nov 2nd 2013 at 11:59:23 PM

While design aspects of a sword are a lot more straight forward and easier to point at a cultural line of thought and practice like the difference in European and Japanese swords and who wielded them.

Your going to have to explain the bit about guns and their design in that regard. Both peasants and nobility used guns early on though weapons like wheel lock pistols could only afforded by the wealthy knights the wheel lock was chosen out of a more practical reason then using the clunkier matchlocks, namely safer and easier to fire from horse back and easier to load after it is fired. That only lasted until the flint lock became the mechanism of choice for fire arms.

edited 3rd Nov '13 12:00:11 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#169: Nov 3rd 2013 at 12:18:29 AM

Eh. I don't know about all of that. You're the armorer, not me. I'll have to research that later.

I'll put it to you this way. Think about the Colt 1911. John Browning revolutionized modular firearm designs by developing a manageable automatic self-loading pistol. Sure, he did it to contribute to the success of the United States, but the functionality of the weapon was his priority. The Colt 1911's functional identity came first, and its cultural identity - it's iteration as an American icon - soon followed after its effectiveness was verified in combat. Owning a 1911 is still considered a very patriotic thing to do in some gun circles around here.

In reference specifically to American firearms, we often think of revolutionary colonial figures defending themselves against the British, or frontiersmen traveling westward and fighting off mountain lions. Davy Crockett and stuff like that. Many conservative pro-gun Americans view the firearm as a symbol of defense against government tyranny, and we seem to be one of the few first-world nations that holds firearms in that regard with such intensity and beloved fervor.

Likewise, the katana was constructed as a highly specialized weapon for specific activities. Iron ore deposits are less abundant in Japan than they are in Europe, so it's no surprise that the slender, highly meticulous nature of the weapon incidentally lent itself to cultural notions of elite status among the Japanese feudal upper class. I notice that many people get it backwards; that the katana was designed as a specialized weapon for cultural reasons related to bushido and such when it was actually the other way around.

Similarly, you'll hear stories that the Scottish claymore was designed to represent the strength of Christ or something related when it was really given its physical characteristics so swordsmen wielding it could cleave people more easily.

But...I'm talking about swords and firearms, not swords versus firearms, so I admit that's a little off-topic.

edited 3rd Nov '13 12:23:25 AM by Aprilla

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#170: Nov 3rd 2013 at 12:46:03 AM

Fair enough point on weapons like the Browning being Iconic. Before that we have the Colt cartridge revolvers. How did that line go? "God didn't make men equal, Samuel Colt did!" Or something like that.

I can see the Frontier Rifle as a symbol or the Musket you know like with the Minute Man.

Ok so we can say with some direction that weapons obviously have symbolic importance now how does that tie in with the rest of this?

Who watches the watchmen?
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#171: Nov 3rd 2013 at 12:55:39 AM

Well, my idea was really just a side note, but to bring it into the forefront of the discussion, we're experiencing a situation where both the cultural and technological functions of firearms have superseded that of swords. The AK-47 is probably the most prolific example in recent memory. Many Americans know what a Bowie knife is, but many more can actually use an AR-15 with success, whatever the occasion and objective may be.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#172: Nov 3rd 2013 at 1:20:38 AM

But...I'm talking about swords and firearms, not swords versus firearms, so I admit that's a little off-topic.

Just a note, when I say "X vs Y" I always mean a comparison between the two in all aspects, not just "if you put X against Y who win".

I even started with a comparison in training and talk mainly about the features of swords in the OP.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#173: Nov 3rd 2013 at 4:20:50 AM

And I think I come back to what I said before: that the only way swords are coming back is if they become culturally relevant, as in a dueling weapon.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#174: Nov 3rd 2013 at 4:42:12 AM

Before I forget; you can't compare the high casualties of Allied attacks in WWI with Japanese banzai charges.

The Allies didn't charge over No Man's Land and into the German guns because they thought it was an honourable way of fighting or to commit noble suicide in the name of King George or Clemenceau. They did it because they thought it would work. They were wrong. They devised strategies to limit the casualties of trans-No Man's Land assaults; the creeping bombardment at the Somme (sadly botched and ineffective), the huge mines at the Messines Ridge, night actions, or, eventually, the combined assaults of tanks and infantry which took their baby steps at Cambrai and eventually became supreme feats of combined arms that broke the Hindenburg Line.

The Japanese were often under no illusions that banzai charges would succeed; on the contrary as Teufel said, it was a means of suicide - an "honourable" end against overwhelming force.

Re: China

China did succeed in holding down the Kwantung Army and keeping the Japanese from conquering the whole nation. The Japanese only managed to gain the coastal cities, Manchuria, and Korea. One shouldn't underestimate the Chinese contribution, especially the vast human cost; only the USSR lost more people killed in the conflict.

edited 3rd Nov '13 4:51:15 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#175: Nov 3rd 2013 at 8:59:54 AM

Achae: They did indeed fight the good fight but they didn't win the war. It was the War in China that drove them to take extra turf to fuel the war.

Aprilla: Being prolific as hell also likely helps with the AK and the M-16 the infamous black rifle is the gun our troops have been carrying for about 30 years. I know why Bowie knives are famous though.

Who watches the watchmen?

Total posts: 177
Top