Explanation: Contrary to popular belief, the katana is not the traditional weapon of the warrior class of Japan. Bushi were traditionally more associated with the bow and the spear, and typically in mounted combat at that.
In the period of the Sengoku Jidai, an era of civil war in the 16th century AD, some strange Euro fellows brought a new technology to Japan - the firearm. Rather than disdaining this new weapon as dishonorable or any other such nonsense, the samurai class eagerly embraced this new weapon, both as a method of arming peasants and for gunning down enemies themselves. The famous duelist Miyamoto Musashi even regarded the gun as an unmatched weapon for the defense of castles.
The association of the samurai class with the katana is more an invention of the Edo Period of peace and isolation, around ~1600-1850 AD, wherein the only major task of samurai was reacting to meaningless slights and cutting people down on an impulse - for which a sword, as an easily carried sidearm and status symbol, was much handier than an actual weapon of war like a spear or a bow.
Funny that the two most popular "types" of warrior nobility/elite (european knights and japanese samurai) are both most strongly associated with what effectively was mostly a sidearm, backup or unarmed self defense weapon but most definitely not their main battlefield weapon, and both are actively separated from gunpowder weapons in popular culture while both were among the earliest adopters of gunpowder weapons in their respective environments.
Probably romanticism. I remember Don Quixote calling artillery an evil of their contemporary warfare. A bit understandable because the invention of artillery basically led to more indiscriminate destruction... And I reckon that because you can basically target people from afar, you can just hit people not actively engaged in battle and take them by surprise.
Romanticism of swords, in particular, also goes back an extremely long time. They're harder to make and more expensive to maintain than other weapons so they've been associated with the nobility, the only people that could consistently afford them, for thousands of years.
They would most probably be carrying the handy sidearm instead of the large battlefield weapon, when in city walls, where civilians would be seeing them most.
Firearms of that time were shit compared to today's ones, making then hard to portray as cool to normal people. Also, body movements are not as showy, with firearms, as compared to bows/swords/spears.
Maybe because in times of relative peace, there is more time to focus on literature. Do you end up with more surviving tales of people living in these times. During wars, the would be authors would instead by fodder.
The romantization of sword-wielding knights started in early modern times, at the latest. Knowing about something and focusing on something in popular culture are two different things.
Leather lamellar armor remained in partial use, I believe, but by the period of the Sengoku Jidai, most armor was metal. The older leather-with-metal style was more common ~200-300 years before as O-Yoroi
24 Comments
PugJesus@piefed.social · 39 pts · 312d
Explanation: Contrary to popular belief, the katana is not the traditional weapon of the warrior class of Japan. Bushi were traditionally more associated with the bow and the spear, and typically in mounted combat at that.
In the period of the Sengoku Jidai, an era of civil war in the 16th century AD, some strange Euro fellows brought a new technology to Japan - the firearm. Rather than disdaining this new weapon as dishonorable or any other such nonsense, the samurai class eagerly embraced this new weapon, both as a method of arming peasants and for gunning down enemies themselves. The famous duelist Miyamoto Musashi even regarded the gun as an unmatched weapon for the defense of castles.
The association of the samurai class with the katana is more an invention of the Edo Period of peace and isolation, around ~1600-1850 AD, wherein the only major task of samurai was reacting to meaningless slights and cutting people down on an impulse - for which a sword, as an easily carried sidearm and status symbol, was much handier than an actual weapon of war like a spear or a bow.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 22 pts · 312d
Funny that the two most popular "types" of warrior nobility/elite (european knights and japanese samurai) are both most strongly associated with what effectively was mostly a sidearm, backup or unarmed self defense weapon but most definitely not their main battlefield weapon, and both are actively separated from gunpowder weapons in popular culture while both were among the earliest adopters of gunpowder weapons in their respective environments.
vateso5074@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 312d
XiELEd@piefed.social · 5 pts · 312d
Probably romanticism. I remember Don Quixote calling artillery an evil of their contemporary warfare. A bit understandable because the invention of artillery basically led to more indiscriminate destruction... And I reckon that because you can basically target people from afar, you can just hit people not actively engaged in battle and take them by surprise.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 312d
Romanticism of swords, in particular, also goes back an extremely long time. They're harder to make and more expensive to maintain than other weapons so they've been associated with the nobility, the only people that could consistently afford them, for thousands of years.
Mika@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 312d
Murrican gun-worshippers absolutely mald on the subject of FPVs, calling this unethical weapon of cowards.
ulterno@programming.dev · 3 pts · 312d
Maybe because:
CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 312d
Maybe because in times of relative peace, there is more time to focus on literature. Do you end up with more surviving tales of people living in these times. During wars, the would be authors would instead by fodder.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 312d
No, that's not it. We have tons of material, especially picture sources, about medieval warfare. Pop culture just choses to ignore it.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 4 pts · 312d
The romantization of sword-wielding knights started in early modern times, at the latest. Knowing about something and focusing on something in popular culture are two different things.
yakko@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 312d
Yes, though Miyamoto was a comedy insult murder aficionado, from what I've heard of his dueling record.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 4 pts · 312d
No comment on the contents, but
Ah, yes, the warring states period period.
PugJesus@piefed.social · 7 pts · 312d
Next you'll tell me I can't get a gladius sword!
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 312d
Not with EC cash from the ATM machines!
KuroiKaze@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 312d
I can't believe I'm not the only person that saw this and thought that
Habahnow@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 311d
TIL. how cool.
socsa@piefed.social · 0 pts · 311d
Yes, I've played Civ IV too 🙄
PugJesus@piefed.social · 1 pts · 311d
Funny enough, I never spent much time in Civ IV. I played mostly Civ II and Civ V.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 312d
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 312d
PEW PEW mother fucker!
Triumph@fedia.io · 3 pts · 312d
I thought that samurai had moved to leather armor by the time the guns arrived?
PugJesus@piefed.social · 6 pts · 312d
Leather lamellar armor remained in partial use, I believe, but by the period of the Sengoku Jidai, most armor was metal. The older leather-with-metal style was more common ~200-300 years before as O-Yoroi
Little_Urban_Achiever@piefed.social · 2 pts · 312d
Our men are running from the battlefield!
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 311d
Knowledge to knowledge.
thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
Anyone wanna fact check this very clearly recent photo bomb of a clearly medieval warrior?