外国人对比中国剑和欧洲迅捷剑【上】
正文翻译
图
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：恭 转载请注明出处
Sword Banter: The Chinese Jian and Comparison to the Rapier
老外对比中国剑和欧洲迅捷剑
汉剑和迅捷剑:
老外对比中国剑和欧洲迅捷剑
汉剑和迅捷剑:
图
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：恭 转载请注明出处
BlueTravesty
It''''s not a hand guard.
It''''s a Han guard.
....I''''ll see myself out.
不是手（hand）护手，
是汉（Han）护手，
。。。我得自己出去了（不受欢迎）。
It''''s not a hand guard.
It''''s a Han guard.
....I''''ll see myself out.
不是手（hand）护手，
是汉（Han）护手，
。。。我得自己出去了（不受欢迎）。
Juan Pablo Munoz
THIS is what I find interesting at the moment. Comparisons of different techniques and designs. Not the which was better but the WHY the swords were made the way they were.
这就是我现在觉得有趣的一点。不同技术和设计的比较。不是比哪一个更好，而是为什么他们要这样制作剑的。
THIS is what I find interesting at the moment. Comparisons of different techniques and designs. Not the which was better but the WHY the swords were made the way they were.
这就是我现在觉得有趣的一点。不同技术和设计的比较。不是比哪一个更好，而是为什么他们要这样制作剑的。
Antoine Cloutier
Exactly my thought! No weapon design exists in a vacuum. To understand its design is to understand its techniques and historical context, for efficiency never was out of thought to craftsmen.
我完全就是这么想的！没有武器是与外界隔绝中设计出来的。理解它的设计就是理解它的技术和历史背景，因为效率从来不是工匠们所想的。
Exactly my thought! No weapon design exists in a vacuum. To understand its design is to understand its techniques and historical context, for efficiency never was out of thought to craftsmen.
我完全就是这么想的！没有武器是与外界隔绝中设计出来的。理解它的设计就是理解它的技术和历史背景，因为效率从来不是工匠们所想的。
SuperOtter13
I couldnt agree more
我完全同意。
I couldnt agree more
我完全同意。
이치고
Juan Pablo Munoz yeah and the problem is when you get HEMA elitists who say “oh longsword beats everything”
Juan Pablo Munoz 是的，但问题是当你听到HEMA精英说“哦，长剑胜过一切”
（译注：HEMA ，欧洲历史武术）
Juan Pablo Munoz yeah and the problem is when you get HEMA elitists who say “oh longsword beats everything”
Juan Pablo Munoz 是的，但问题是当你听到HEMA精英说“哦，长剑胜过一切”
（译注：HEMA ，欧洲历史武术）
Juan Pablo Munoz
@이치고 I am curious as to why after the longsword people started gravitating towards rapiers. It makes sense for unarmored dueling but for wartime I would have thought that the longsword would have been the sidearm of choice. Or maybe a mace since armor was so much more prent by this time.
@이치고 我很好奇为什么喜欢长剑的人开始被迅捷剑吸引。在没有装甲的情况下的决斗是有用的，但是在战争时期，我认为长剑是最好的武器，或者是钉头锤，因为盔甲在那个时候更为流行。
@이치고 I am curious as to why after the longsword people started gravitating towards rapiers. It makes sense for unarmored dueling but for wartime I would have thought that the longsword would have been the sidearm of choice. Or maybe a mace since armor was so much more prent by this time.
@이치고 我很好奇为什么喜欢长剑的人开始被迅捷剑吸引。在没有装甲的情况下的决斗是有用的，但是在战争时期，我认为长剑是最好的武器，或者是钉头锤，因为盔甲在那个时候更为流行。
Kyle Simmons
@이치고 does HEMA mean Historical European mid arms?
@이치고 HEMA的意思是历史上欧洲中世纪的武器吗？
@이치고 does HEMA mean Historical European mid arms?
@이치고 HEMA的意思是历史上欧洲中世纪的武器吗？
Classy African
@Kyle Simmons Historical European Martial Art
@Kyle Simmons 欧洲历史武术。
@Kyle Simmons Historical European Martial Art
@Kyle Simmons 欧洲历史武术。
Allen Gordon
@이치고 or the opposite ;)
@이치고 或者相反 ;)
@이치고 or the opposite ;)
@이치고 或者相反 ;)
이치고
@Allen Gordon show me where the opposite of this problem occurs. Most arguments that HEMA practitioners give me is either anecdotal, or purely their bias to only western scholarly works. Most of HEMA manuals are also mainly made towards self defense and dueling of a very specific time period, hence making HEMA only useful towards that context.
@Allen Gordon 告诉我这个问题的反面在哪里。HEMA的实践者给我的大多数观点要么是道听途说，要么纯粹就是他们对西方学术著作的偏见。大部分的HEMA手册也主要是针对自卫和特定时期的决斗，因此使HEMA只对这些情况有用。
@Allen Gordon show me where the opposite of this problem occurs. Most arguments that HEMA practitioners give me is either anecdotal, or purely their bias to only western scholarly works. Most of HEMA manuals are also mainly made towards self defense and dueling of a very specific time period, hence making HEMA only useful towards that context.
@Allen Gordon 告诉我这个问题的反面在哪里。HEMA的实践者给我的大多数观点要么是道听途说，要么纯粹就是他们对西方学术著作的偏见。大部分的HEMA手册也主要是针对自卫和特定时期的决斗，因此使HEMA只对这些情况有用。
Darrian Weathington
ok but...
why is the katana clearly the superior weapon?
好吧，但是。。。
为什么武士刀显然是最好的武器？
ok but...
why is the katana clearly the superior weapon?
好吧，但是。。。
为什么武士刀显然是最好的武器？
Max Covert
due, you need to take some time and learn martial arts, then after 10 years come back and watch this video.
伙计，你需要花一些时间学习武术，然后10年后回来看这个视频。
due, you need to take some time and learn martial arts, then after 10 years come back and watch this video.
伙计，你需要花一些时间学习武术，然后10年后回来看这个视频。
Giorgianni Cartamancini
@Juan Pablo Munoz The longsword was never super popular on the battlefield early on because you can''''t use it with a shield, in rapier times(although the rapier wasn''''t favoured by everyone everywhere) most people on the battlefield were starting keep their two hands occupied with pikes or early firearms, knight on the other hand used lances and polearms
In a civilian context it was probably seen as a more gentle weapon, it can also be used to have first blood duel, quite popular at the time: it''''s far easier to make someone bleed without killing them with a rapier than with a longsword
Of course it''''s important to understand that Europe is a big and different place, not everyone used always the same stuff, so exceptions are bound to occur
@Juan Pablo Munoz 长剑从来没有在早期战场上受到超级欢迎，因为那样你就不能使用盾牌，在迅捷剑时代（尽管迅捷剑并没有受每个人每个地方的青睐）大多数人在战场上让他们的两只手使用长柄枪或其他早期枪，另一方面骑士则用骑枪和其他长柄武器。
在民间，它可能被视为一种更温和的武器，也可以用来进行最先见血的决斗，这在当时很流行:比起长剑，用迅捷剑更容易使某人流血，而不是杀了他。
当然，重要的是要明白欧洲是一个大而不同的地方，没有人会一直使用同样的东西，所以例外情况是必然会发生的。
@Juan Pablo Munoz The longsword was never super popular on the battlefield early on because you can''''t use it with a shield, in rapier times(although the rapier wasn''''t favoured by everyone everywhere) most people on the battlefield were starting keep their two hands occupied with pikes or early firearms, knight on the other hand used lances and polearms
In a civilian context it was probably seen as a more gentle weapon, it can also be used to have first blood duel, quite popular at the time: it''''s far easier to make someone bleed without killing them with a rapier than with a longsword
Of course it''''s important to understand that Europe is a big and different place, not everyone used always the same stuff, so exceptions are bound to occur
@Juan Pablo Munoz 长剑从来没有在早期战场上受到超级欢迎，因为那样你就不能使用盾牌，在迅捷剑时代（尽管迅捷剑并没有受每个人每个地方的青睐）大多数人在战场上让他们的两只手使用长柄枪或其他早期枪，另一方面骑士则用骑枪和其他长柄武器。
在民间，它可能被视为一种更温和的武器，也可以用来进行最先见血的决斗，这在当时很流行:比起长剑，用迅捷剑更容易使某人流血，而不是杀了他。
当然，重要的是要明白欧洲是一个大而不同的地方，没有人会一直使用同样的东西，所以例外情况是必然会发生的。
Tapis T
@Juan Pablo Munoz Rapiers are specialized weapon solely for dueling purposes. Its lengthened blade, backward moved mass center is for the user to reach it out as much as possible. It was never a popular field weapon, as most of the combat personnel in that era had certain amount of armor.
@Juan Pablo Munoz 迅捷剑是专门用来决斗的武器。它加长的刀片，向后移动的重心是为了让使用者尽可能多的掌握它。它从来不是一种流行的战场武器，因为那个时代的大多数作战人员都有一定数量的盔甲。
@Juan Pablo Munoz Rapiers are specialized weapon solely for dueling purposes. Its lengthened blade, backward moved mass center is for the user to reach it out as much as possible. It was never a popular field weapon, as most of the combat personnel in that era had certain amount of armor.
@Juan Pablo Munoz 迅捷剑是专门用来决斗的武器。它加长的刀片，向后移动的重心是为了让使用者尽可能多的掌握它。它从来不是一种流行的战场武器，因为那个时代的大多数作战人员都有一定数量的盔甲。
pancake muffin
Enough of this.
When "Day Dreamers" gets too much Animated with their fantasies. About Chinese Fencing with their so called "Thousands of Years of Drills and Traditional Techniques" and all that Mysticisms.
But in reality after they lost to the Mongols they couldnt match the Doctrines from 15th Century Sword Fighting System "La Verdadera Destreza" of Spain and the knowledge within the "L''''école des Armes" from 17th France.
Edit:
Western Style is Basically the "How" to Directly answer the "If"
Rather than the Aesthetic of Chinese Fencing that is full of "Why" (Routines/Forms) to answer the "If".
够了。
当“白日梦者”的幻想变得过于活跃时。关于中国击剑，他们所谓的“几千年的演练和传统技术”和所有神秘主义的东西。
但事实上，在他们输给蒙古人之后，他们在学说上无法与15世纪西班牙的“达斯提亚”剑术体系相提并论，理论上无法与17世纪法国的“L''''école des Armes”相媲美。
改正：
西方风格基本上是“怎么用”来直接回答“如果”
而不是充满了“为什么”的中国击剑美学（套路/形式）来回答“如果”。
Enough of this.
When "Day Dreamers" gets too much Animated with their fantasies. About Chinese Fencing with their so called "Thousands of Years of Drills and Traditional Techniques" and all that Mysticisms.
But in reality after they lost to the Mongols they couldnt match the Doctrines from 15th Century Sword Fighting System "La Verdadera Destreza" of Spain and the knowledge within the "L''''école des Armes" from 17th France.
Edit:
Western Style is Basically the "How" to Directly answer the "If"
Rather than the Aesthetic of Chinese Fencing that is full of "Why" (Routines/Forms) to answer the "If".
够了。
当“白日梦者”的幻想变得过于活跃时。关于中国击剑，他们所谓的“几千年的演练和传统技术”和所有神秘主义的东西。
但事实上，在他们输给蒙古人之后，他们在学说上无法与15世纪西班牙的“达斯提亚”剑术体系相提并论，理论上无法与17世纪法国的“L''''école des Armes”相媲美。
改正：
西方风格基本上是“怎么用”来直接回答“如果”
而不是充满了“为什么”的中国击剑美学（套路/形式）来回答“如果”。
Derek Bartlett
Or how the techniques developed around using certain blades
或者使用某一刃部的技术是如何发展的。
Or how the techniques developed around using certain blades
或者使用某一刃部的技术是如何发展的。
Ben
The main issue with the Chinese Jian is the lack of pommel, therefore, it''''s impossible to end the opponent rightly.
Case closed.
中国剑的主要问题是没有剑柄头，所以不可能精确地了结对手。
完事。
（译注：End Him Rightly，约1430年的一本德国击剑手册中的一句话，该手册建议拧下一把剑的剑柄头，扔向对手，使其昏迷，以便‘精确地了结’对手，在2014年被该视频作者发扬光大，成为笑话）
The main issue with the Chinese Jian is the lack of pommel, therefore, it''''s impossible to end the opponent rightly.
Case closed.
中国剑的主要问题是没有剑柄头，所以不可能精确地了结对手。
完事。
（译注：End Him Rightly，约1430年的一本德国击剑手册中的一句话，该手册建议拧下一把剑的剑柄头，扔向对手，使其昏迷，以便‘精确地了结’对手，在2014年被该视频作者发扬光大，成为笑话）
I Do What I Want
Glad to know I can still count on Skalls comment section for the pommel references!
很高兴知道我仍然可以指望作者评论部分的剑柄头引用！
Glad to know I can still count on Skalls comment section for the pommel references!
很高兴知道我仍然可以指望作者评论部分的剑柄头引用！
AYO BRUCE
I was waiting for this comment haha!!
我就在等这种评论，哈哈！！
I was waiting for this comment haha!!
我就在等这种评论，哈哈！！
Daniel Darksun
One may still hold the blade upend and strike at the opponent with the base of the hilt.
你还可以把剑颠倒过来，用剑柄的底部攻击对手。
One may still hold the blade upend and strike at the opponent with the base of the hilt.
你还可以把剑颠倒过来，用剑柄的底部攻击对手。
alexsolosm
Holy crap, how many years have this joke survived?!
天哪，这个笑话流传了多少年？!
Holy crap, how many years have this joke survived?!
天哪，这个笑话流传了多少年？!
john son
Only neckbeards still find this funny
只有脖子胡才觉得这很有趣。
（译注：neckbeard，脖子胡，指健谈、自大的30岁以上的书呆子）
Only neckbeards still find this funny
只有脖子胡才觉得这很有趣。
（译注：neckbeard，脖子胡，指健谈、自大的30岁以上的书呆子）
Gary Naccarto
All joking aside the big problem I have with the Jian is the lack of a gaurd.I dont really know much about sword fighting but the lack of a gaurd might not be as big of a problem as some people think but like I said I''''m no expert.
撇开笑话不说，我觉得中国剑的大问题就是缺少护手，我不太懂剑术。但护手的缺乏可也能不像有些人想的那么严重，但就像我说的那样，我不是专家。
All joking aside the big problem I have with the Jian is the lack of a gaurd.I dont really know much about sword fighting but the lack of a gaurd might not be as big of a problem as some people think but like I said I''''m no expert.
撇开笑话不说，我觉得中国剑的大问题就是缺少护手，我不太懂剑术。但护手的缺乏可也能不像有些人想的那么严重，但就像我说的那样，我不是专家。
F K
There are ring pommels but they are technically part of the tang
有环状的剑柄头，但从技术上讲，它们是镡（唐？）的一部分。
There are ring pommels but they are technically part of the tang
有环状的剑柄头，但从技术上讲，它们是镡（唐？）的一部分。
Chris Robato
They typically should have a large ring shaped pommel as per museum pieces for the Han Dynasty period. I wonder how authentic the Jian in the video is.
通常来说应该有一个大的环形剑柄头，按博物馆里汉代时期的藏品来砍。我琢磨这视频中的剑有多真实。
They typically should have a large ring shaped pommel as per museum pieces for the Han Dynasty period. I wonder how authentic the Jian in the video is.
通常来说应该有一个大的环形剑柄头，按博物馆里汉代时期的藏品来砍。我琢磨这视频中的剑有多真实。
Konstellashon
they do have pommels. It''''s just that it''''s overshadowed by the tassel.
它们确实有剑柄头。只是被流苏遮住了。
they do have pommels. It''''s just that it''''s overshadowed by the tassel.
它们确实有剑柄头。只是被流苏遮住了。
moyu man
They do have, you can choose which to buy. With the pommel or without.
他们确实有剑柄头，有没有带剑柄头，你是可以选择买哪个的。
They do have, you can choose which to buy. With the pommel or without.
他们确实有剑柄头，有没有带剑柄头，你是可以选择买哪个的。
Simon Vercoe
Skall: What a tiny guard, don''''t you want to keep your hands?
Skall''''s gladius: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?!
作者：好小的护手，你会不想把手放在这儿的吧？
作者的罗马短剑：我对你来说是个笑话吧？！
Skall: What a tiny guard, don''''t you want to keep your hands?
Skall''''s gladius: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?!
作者：好小的护手，你会不想把手放在这儿的吧？
作者的罗马短剑：我对你来说是个笑话吧？！
Berserker
Not only the gladius, but the other heavily shield-friendly swords that Skall often handles, the viking era swords, they, too, have similar guards. That''''s what I thought at first. And scimitars, again, they were often used with shields, the slashing techniques mostly keep the hand away from danger, so, smaller guards on them. The examples are many.
不仅是罗马短剑，还有作者经常使用的其他配合盾牌使用的重型剑，维京时代的剑，他们也有类似的护手。我一开始就是这么想的。而弯刀，它们经常与盾牌一起使用，砍劈技能大多使手远离危险，所以，他们才使用较小的护手。例子还有很多。
Not only the gladius, but the other heavily shield-friendly swords that Skall often handles, the viking era swords, they, too, have similar guards. That''''s what I thought at first. And scimitars, again, they were often used with shields, the slashing techniques mostly keep the hand away from danger, so, smaller guards on them. The examples are many.
不仅是罗马短剑，还有作者经常使用的其他配合盾牌使用的重型剑，维京时代的剑，他们也有类似的护手。我一开始就是这么想的。而弯刀，它们经常与盾牌一起使用，砍劈技能大多使手远离危险，所以，他们才使用较小的护手。例子还有很多。
satannstuff
I imagine it would be quite inconvenient to have a large hand guard when using a shield, a poorly placed thrust or even a slash can easily cause the guard to strike the shield. As soldiers tend to get tired during a battle and won''''t be at their best most of the time, the odds of that happening and potentially being a fatal mistake would be significant enough that you could even lose a battle because of it.
我想在使用盾牌的时候有一个很大的护手是很不方便的，位置不好的话，一刺一劈都很容易导致护手撞到盾牌。由于士兵在战斗中往往会感到疲劳，而且大多数时候都不会处于最佳状态，因此发生这种情况并可能导致致命错误的几率将会非常大，甚至可能因此而输掉一场战斗。
I imagine it would be quite inconvenient to have a large hand guard when using a shield, a poorly placed thrust or even a slash can easily cause the guard to strike the shield. As soldiers tend to get tired during a battle and won''''t be at their best most of the time, the odds of that happening and potentially being a fatal mistake would be significant enough that you could even lose a battle because of it.
我想在使用盾牌的时候有一个很大的护手是很不方便的，位置不好的话，一刺一劈都很容易导致护手撞到盾牌。由于士兵在战斗中往往会感到疲劳，而且大多数时候都不会处于最佳状态，因此发生这种情况并可能导致致命错误的几率将会非常大，甚至可能因此而输掉一场战斗。
Alex
Thats not a Noife
THIS IS A NOIFE
那不是一把匕首，
这才是一把匕首。
Thats not a Noife
THIS IS A NOIFE
那不是一把匕首，
这才是一把匕首。
Mlai00
The Australian knife (noife). The noife (noife) means knife in English.
澳大利亚匕首（noife），noife在英语里指匕首。
The Australian knife (noife). The noife (noife) means knife in English.
澳大利亚匕首（noife），noife在英语里指匕首。
Made in Brazil
Less than 1 min in hes already making fun of his tiny Guard
不到一分钟他就已经在取笑他的小护手了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Less than 1 min in hes already making fun of his tiny Guard
不到一分钟他就已经在取笑他的小护手了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Nathan Brown
That tiny guard makes me want to compare the jian to a Viking or Frankish sword. The Jian is longer in both the blade and the grip, but the crossguard and pommel look like something was driving convergent evolution. (spoiler: it was almost definitely shields)
那小小的护手让我想把中国剑、维京人或法兰克人的剑来对比一下。中国剑在刀刃和握柄上都更长，但十字型护手和剑柄头看起来像是某种东西在推动趋同进化。（剧透：几乎肯定就是盾牌了）
That tiny guard makes me want to compare the jian to a Viking or Frankish sword. The Jian is longer in both the blade and the grip, but the crossguard and pommel look like something was driving convergent evolution. (spoiler: it was almost definitely shields)
那小小的护手让我想把中国剑、维京人或法兰克人的剑来对比一下。中国剑在刀刃和握柄上都更长，但十字型护手和剑柄头看起来像是某种东西在推动趋同进化。（剧透：几乎肯定就是盾牌了）
Pablo Astini
Im sorry Skall, but those chinese swords looks very awesome...
抱歉，作者，但那些中国剑看起来非常棒。。。
Im sorry Skall, but those chinese swords looks very awesome...
抱歉，作者，但那些中国剑看起来非常棒。。。
rasspliffari
dont be sorry they are awesome
不用感到抱歉，它们是很棒。
Skallagrim（作者）
dont be sorry they are awesome
不用感到抱歉，它们是很棒。
Skallagrim（作者）
Yes, I totally agree. :)
是的，我完全同意。:)
是的，我完全同意。:)
Targaryen Dynasty
Pablo Astini yeah fuck Katanas
Pablo Astini 是的，去他妈的武士刀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Pablo Astini yeah fuck Katanas
Pablo Astini 是的，去他妈的武士刀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Pablo Astini
@Targaryen Dynasty jajajaja... I have nothing against Katanas...But, what the hell... FUCK KATANAS!
@Targaryen Dynasty 哈哈。。。我一点都不反对武士刀。。。但，管他丫的。。。去他妈的武士刀。
@Targaryen Dynasty jajajaja... I have nothing against Katanas...But, what the hell... FUCK KATANAS!
@Targaryen Dynasty 哈哈。。。我一点都不反对武士刀。。。但，管他丫的。。。去他妈的武士刀。
xllab1
@Targaryen Dynasty lol calm down dude, every sword has its charm
@Targaryen Dynasty 冷静点，伙计，每把刀剑都有它的魅力所在。
@Targaryen Dynasty lol calm down dude, every sword has its charm
@Targaryen Dynasty 冷静点，伙计，每把刀剑都有它的魅力所在。
Lord Voldemort
@Targaryen Dynasty Stop it you''''re becoming a virus at this point.
@Targaryen Dynasty 别这样，你现在已经变成病毒了。
@Targaryen Dynasty Stop it you''''re becoming a virus at this point.
@Targaryen Dynasty 别这样，你现在已经变成病毒了。
ZoneofA
That Han dynasty jian is a real beaut.
那把汉代的剑真漂亮。
That Han dynasty jian is a real beaut.
那把汉代的剑真漂亮。
Pablo Astini
@ZoneofA You said it, men!
@ZoneofA 你说的对，伙计们！
@ZoneofA You said it, men!
@ZoneofA 你说的对，伙计们！
Mason Rogers
Japanese katanas is a combo of han dynasty long sword and Tang Dynasty blade. Same technology with more folds when r
Forging.
日本武士刀就是汉代长剑和唐朝刀的结合体。同样的技术，在锻造时折叠更多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Japanese katanas is a combo of han dynasty long sword and Tang Dynasty blade. Same technology with more folds when r
Forging.
日本武士刀就是汉代长剑和唐朝刀的结合体。同样的技术，在锻造时折叠更多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
T T
Han dynasty drive out the Hun 匈奴 with these new swords.
汉朝用这些新剑驱逐Hun匈奴。
Han dynasty drive out the Hun 匈奴 with these new swords.
汉朝用这些新剑驱逐Hun匈奴。
Intranet
@T T No they didn''''t. The Xiongnu are not the same people as the Huns, and these swords were around for over a century before the beginning of Han Wudi''''s major campaigns against the Xiongnu.
@T T 不，他们没有。匈奴人和匈人不是同种人，这些剑在汉武帝对匈奴的大战开始前就已经存在了一个多世纪了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@T T No they didn''''t. The Xiongnu are not the same people as the Huns, and these swords were around for over a century before the beginning of Han Wudi''''s major campaigns against the Xiongnu.
@T T 不，他们没有。匈奴人和匈人不是同种人，这些剑在汉武帝对匈奴的大战开始前就已经存在了一个多世纪了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Mathew Lee
@Intranet does anyone think the ji polearm look badass?
@Intranet 有人觉得那个叫戟的长柄武器很糟糕吗？
@Intranet does anyone think the ji polearm look badass?
@Intranet 有人觉得那个叫戟的长柄武器很糟糕吗？
S123
Chinese people: we need a bigger sword
Blacksmith: say no more fam
*comes out with a scaled up version of the same sword
中国人：我们需要一把更大的剑，
铁匠：别说了，朋友，
*推出了同一种剑的放大版本。
Chinese people: we need a bigger sword
Blacksmith: say no more fam
*comes out with a scaled up version of the same sword
中国人：我们需要一把更大的剑，
铁匠：别说了，朋友，
*推出了同一种剑的放大版本。
Jordan Ting
Wait till you see the Japanese one its all basically just different sizes of course there are such nuances like balance and stuff affecting its purpose but if we talk about appearances...
等到你看到日本的剑，基本上就只是不同的尺寸，当然也有一些细微的差别，比如平衡之类的影响它用途的东西，但如果我们只说外观的话…
Wait till you see the Japanese one its all basically just different sizes of course there are such nuances like balance and stuff affecting its purpose but if we talk about appearances...
等到你看到日本的剑，基本上就只是不同的尺寸，当然也有一些细微的差别，比如平衡之类的影响它用途的东西，但如果我们只说外观的话…
Camren Davis
@Jordan Ting those things are unwieldy as hell
@Jordan Ting 那些东西太笨重了。
@Jordan Ting those things are unwieldy as hell
@Jordan Ting 那些东西太笨重了。
Dimtri Gabriel
chinese swords and polearms are seriously underrated in comparison to stuff like katanas
与武士刀之类的武器相比，中国刀剑和长柄武器被严重低估了。
chinese swords and polearms are seriously underrated in comparison to stuff like katanas
与武士刀之类的武器相比，中国刀剑和长柄武器被严重低估了。
Buskman
Well... that''''s because katanas has been driven into the mud by its fanboys.
好吧。。。那是因为武士刀被它的粉丝们逼到了泥里去了。
Well... that''''s because katanas has been driven into the mud by its fanboys.
好吧。。。那是因为武士刀被它的粉丝们逼到了泥里去了。
Dimtri Gabriel
@Buskman exactly
@Buskman 确实。
@Buskman exactly
@Buskman 确实。
KageNoTenshi
Dimtri Gabriel because historically the Chinese had lots of trouble with Japanese pirates so in general, one would think the Chinese were not able to handle the Japanese
Dimtri Gabriel 因为从历史上看，中国人对付日本海盗有很多麻烦，所以总的来说，人们会认为中国人不能对付的了日本人。
Dimtri Gabriel because historically the Chinese had lots of trouble with Japanese pirates so in general, one would think the Chinese were not able to handle the Japanese
Dimtri Gabriel 因为从历史上看，中国人对付日本海盗有很多麻烦，所以总的来说，人们会认为中国人不能对付的了日本人。
Dimtri Gabriel
@KageNoTenshi ...how does this factor in a discussion about popularity of their respective weapons? What does it have to do with handling Japanese in fights and all that?
@KageNoTenshi ……在讨论他们的武器的受欢迎程度时？这和在战斗中对付日本人有什么关系？
@KageNoTenshi ...how does this factor in a discussion about popularity of their respective weapons? What does it have to do with handling Japanese in fights and all that?
@KageNoTenshi ……在讨论他们的武器的受欢迎程度时？这和在战斗中对付日本人有什么关系？
KageNoTenshi
Dimtri Gabriel if the French always lost to the English, I am not saying they did, then people would think the French weapons are weaker than the English ones, same idea
Dimtri Gabriel 如果法国人总是输给英国人，我不是说他们输过，那么人们会认为法国的武器比英国的弱，同样的道理。
Dimtri Gabriel if the French always lost to the English, I am not saying they did, then people would think the French weapons are weaker than the English ones, same idea
Dimtri Gabriel 如果法国人总是输给英国人，我不是说他们输过，那么人们会认为法国的武器比英国的弱，同样的道理。
KageNoTenshi
Dimtri Gabriel as for popularity, it had to do with Hollywood
Dimtri Gabriel 至于受欢迎程度，这跟好莱坞有关。
Dimtri Gabriel as for popularity, it had to do with Hollywood
Dimtri Gabriel 至于受欢迎程度，这跟好莱坞有关。
Dimtri Gabriel
@KageNoTenshi yes that''''s true
@KageNoTenshi 是的，那是事实。
@KageNoTenshi yes that''''s true
@KageNoTenshi 是的，那是事实。
Ma. Gina Aniñon
Well katanas are blades and not swords.
武士刀是刀而不是剑。
Well katanas are blades and not swords.
武士刀是刀而不是剑。
Konstellashon
Hollywood and anime
好莱坞与动漫。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Hollywood and anime
好莱坞与动漫。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
John Doe
@KageNoTenshi Only during certain period (the Qing I think), in other periods, Japan was enamored by the Chinese they sent gifts and the Chinese dynasties kinda look at them as insignificant.
@KageNoTenshi 只发生某个时期（我想是在清朝），在其他时期，日本被中国人迷住了，他们跑去送礼，而中国王朝则认为他们微不足道。
@KageNoTenshi Only during certain period (the Qing I think), in other periods, Japan was enamored by the Chinese they sent gifts and the Chinese dynasties kinda look at them as insignificant.
@KageNoTenshi 只发生某个时期（我想是在清朝），在其他时期，日本被中国人迷住了，他们跑去送礼，而中国王朝则认为他们微不足道。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe not quite, they did send tributes, but they never lost to the Chinese, they kina wanted to keep the Chinese happy because they needed to trade, the Japanese is on an island rather small too, so much of what they needed was from the mainland by trade, however many emperors tried to conquer or attack japan, non of them worked, because japan is across the damn sea that riddle with storms, even someone as powerful as the Mongolian empire fell short, but soon as China gotten weaker, the Japanese pirates would raid the Chinese shores to get what they want instead of trading for them, and because the Chinese coastline is that damn long, a weak China would not be able to defend them and most of the people they attacked would have been non soldiers , hence all the time Japanese have won against the Chinese
John Doe 不完全正确，他们确实去送了贡品，但他们从来没有输给了中国，他们想让中国高兴，因为他们需要贸易，日本在一个相当小的岛上，他们很多所需都是来自与大陆的贸易，然而许多皇帝试图征服或攻击日本，但都没有成功，因为日本隔着该死的充满着风暴的大海，即使是像蒙古帝国这样强大的国家也未能成功，但很快随着中国越来越弱，日本海盗劫掠中国海岸得到他们想要的东西，而不是去跟他们交易，因为中国海岸线该死的长，弱小的中国无法保护他们，他们的攻击的大多数人都不是士兵，因此一直以来日本人都是战胜中国人的。
John Doe not quite, they did send tributes, but they never lost to the Chinese, they kina wanted to keep the Chinese happy because they needed to trade, the Japanese is on an island rather small too, so much of what they needed was from the mainland by trade, however many emperors tried to conquer or attack japan, non of them worked, because japan is across the damn sea that riddle with storms, even someone as powerful as the Mongolian empire fell short, but soon as China gotten weaker, the Japanese pirates would raid the Chinese shores to get what they want instead of trading for them, and because the Chinese coastline is that damn long, a weak China would not be able to defend them and most of the people they attacked would have been non soldiers , hence all the time Japanese have won against the Chinese
John Doe 不完全正确，他们确实去送了贡品，但他们从来没有输给了中国，他们想让中国高兴，因为他们需要贸易，日本在一个相当小的岛上，他们很多所需都是来自与大陆的贸易，然而许多皇帝试图征服或攻击日本，但都没有成功，因为日本隔着该死的充满着风暴的大海，即使是像蒙古帝国这样强大的国家也未能成功，但很快随着中国越来越弱，日本海盗劫掠中国海岸得到他们想要的东西，而不是去跟他们交易，因为中国海岸线该死的长，弱小的中国无法保护他们，他们的攻击的大多数人都不是士兵，因此一直以来日本人都是战胜中国人的。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe they also raided the Chinese shores during the mings and songs, like i said, whenever China is weak
John Doe 就像我说的，每当中国虚弱的时候，他们会在明朝和宋朝的时候劫掠中国海岸。
John Doe they also raided the Chinese shores during the mings and songs, like i said, whenever China is weak
John Doe 就像我说的，每当中国虚弱的时候，他们会在明朝和宋朝的时候劫掠中国海岸。
Falcon Windblade
@Ma. Gina Aniñon You need to relearn the definition of ''''blade'''' & ''''sword''''.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon 你需要重新学习“blade”和“sword”的定义。
@Ma. Gina Aniñon You need to relearn the definition of ''''blade'''' & ''''sword''''.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon 你需要重新学习“blade”和“sword”的定义。
Ma. Gina Aniñon
@Falcon Windblade swords are two edged. Blades are with 1 edge.
@Falcon Windblade sword是双刃的。blade是单刃的。
@Falcon Windblade swords are two edged. Blades are with 1 edge.
@Falcon Windblade sword是双刃的。blade是单刃的。
1847 ת
@Ma. Gina Aniñon I think you mean a saber (sabre). The blade is any piece of metal to cut something. Sabers have only one sharb edge. Daos and katanas for example are sabers. If not, then prove me wrong.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon 我想你说的是saber (sabre)吧。blade是可以用来切东西的金属片。军刀只有一个刀刃。例如中国刀和武士刀就是saber。如果不是，那就来证明我错了。
（译注：saber，军刀，马刀）
@Ma. Gina Aniñon I think you mean a saber (sabre). The blade is any piece of metal to cut something. Sabers have only one sharb edge. Daos and katanas for example are sabers. If not, then prove me wrong.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon 我想你说的是saber (sabre)吧。blade是可以用来切东西的金属片。军刀只有一个刀刃。例如中国刀和武士刀就是saber。如果不是，那就来证明我错了。
（译注：saber，军刀，马刀）
Falcon Windblade
@Ma. Gina Aniñon A sword means ANY instrument that ain''''t a polearm or axe & is used for cutting, sometimes even with daggers & knives included, WITHOUT any regard how many edges it might have. a blade is the part of a sword that''''s used for striking & cutting people & things. ALL swords have blades, blades are not necessarily swords.
Like i said, relearn your definitions. don''''t take stuff translations & descxtions done mostly for convenience-sake as absolute facts.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon sword是指任何不是长柄武器或斧头，能用来切割的工具，有时甚至包括短剑和短刀，不管它可能有多少刃。blade是sword的一部分，用来攻击和切割人和事物。sword包括blade，而blade不一定是sword。
就像我说的，你得重新学习一下定义。不要把那些为了方便而做的翻译和描述当成绝对的事实。
（译注：dagger指双刃的短剑，knive指单刃的短刀）
@Ma. Gina Aniñon A sword means ANY instrument that ain''''t a polearm or axe & is used for cutting, sometimes even with daggers & knives included, WITHOUT any regard how many edges it might have. a blade is the part of a sword that''''s used for striking & cutting people & things. ALL swords have blades, blades are not necessarily swords.
Like i said, relearn your definitions. don''''t take stuff translations & descxtions done mostly for convenience-sake as absolute facts.
@Ma. Gina Aniñon sword是指任何不是长柄武器或斧头，能用来切割的工具，有时甚至包括短剑和短刀，不管它可能有多少刃。blade是sword的一部分，用来攻击和切割人和事物。sword包括blade，而blade不一定是sword。
就像我说的，你得重新学习一下定义。不要把那些为了方便而做的翻译和描述当成绝对的事实。
（译注：dagger指双刃的短剑，knive指单刃的短刀）
John Doe
@KageNoTenshi Japan never lost to Chinese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang
Japan was crushed and became so afraid of the Chinese, they build ramparts long after the initial war.
Japan is romanticized is many ways, and yes, after the Meiji era they become a far superior power than the Chinese. But saying Japan never lost is just a romance of the modern era. They did lost several times.
also Japan''''s sent tributes cause they were enamored by the superpower of Tang Dynasty, hence they imported so many things from Tang Dynasty
@KageNoTenshi 日本从未输给过中国人？ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang
日本被打垮了，变得很害怕中国人，他们在最初的那场战争后很长一段时间内在修建了城墙。
日本被很多方式传奇化了，明治时代以后他们的确成为了一个比中国强大得多的大国。但说日本一直都没有输过，这只是现代的传奇故事。他们确实输过了好几次。
日本的进贡也是因为他们被唐朝这个超级大国给迷住了，所以他们从唐朝进口了很多东西。
@KageNoTenshi Japan never lost to Chinese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang
Japan was crushed and became so afraid of the Chinese, they build ramparts long after the initial war.
Japan is romanticized is many ways, and yes, after the Meiji era they become a far superior power than the Chinese. But saying Japan never lost is just a romance of the modern era. They did lost several times.
also Japan''''s sent tributes cause they were enamored by the superpower of Tang Dynasty, hence they imported so many things from Tang Dynasty
@KageNoTenshi 日本从未输给过中国人？ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang
日本被打垮了，变得很害怕中国人，他们在最初的那场战争后很长一段时间内在修建了城墙。
日本被很多方式传奇化了，明治时代以后他们的确成为了一个比中国强大得多的大国。但说日本一直都没有输过，这只是现代的传奇故事。他们确实输过了好几次。
日本的进贡也是因为他们被唐朝这个超级大国给迷住了，所以他们从唐朝进口了很多东西。
John Doe
@KageNoTenshi re : pirates raids during weak period... isn''''t that normal pirates behavior? Every kingdom had that problem, even today
@KageNoTenshi 重申：在弱小时期被海盗袭击。。。这不是正常的海盗行为吗？每个王国都有这个问题，即使是在今天。
@KageNoTenshi re : pirates raids during weak period... isn''''t that normal pirates behavior? Every kingdom had that problem, even today
@KageNoTenshi 重申：在弱小时期被海盗袭击。。。这不是正常的海盗行为吗？每个王国都有这个问题，即使是在今天。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe it is, but it is also more or less the only times the “ancient” Chinese and the Japanese really fought each other, like I said, the ocean and the Japanese’s need to not piss off the mainlanders because they need to trade keep them from going into any full scale war, until Japanese forget that wisdom and thought they had enough men power to conquer the whole China because they had guns and planes....
John Doe 是的，但这大概是“古代”中国人和日本人唯一一次真正交战，就像我说的，海洋和日本人需要不去激怒大陆人，因为他们需要贸易，不让他们卷入任何全面战争，直到日本人忘记了这一点，认为他们有足够的人力去征服整个中国，因为他们有枪和飞机。。。。
John Doe it is, but it is also more or less the only times the “ancient” Chinese and the Japanese really fought each other, like I said, the ocean and the Japanese’s need to not piss off the mainlanders because they need to trade keep them from going into any full scale war, until Japanese forget that wisdom and thought they had enough men power to conquer the whole China because they had guns and planes....
John Doe 是的，但这大概是“古代”中国人和日本人唯一一次真正交战，就像我说的，海洋和日本人需要不去激怒大陆人，因为他们需要贸易，不让他们卷入任何全面战争，直到日本人忘记了这一点，认为他们有足够的人力去征服整个中国，因为他们有枪和飞机。。。。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe but regardless, that’s about the only times they would have really fought hostilely, more or less, and since they were more or less “trained” Japanese pirates warriors vs civilians or unprepared small troops most of the conflicts ends with Japanese on top, thus the perception about Japanese usually winning, thus people would perceive Japanese weapon as being better, thus the higher popularity of Japanese weapon over the Chinese ones, we as human likes things that wins, it’s how we evolved, thus Japanese swords is generally perceived as better overall and more popular, and then there is also Hollywood
John Doe 但不管怎样，那是他们唯一一次真正的敌对战斗，大概，而且由于他们或多或少是“训练有素”的日本海盗战士VS平民或者毫无准备的小股部队，大多数冲突都是以日本人占据优势结束的，因此对日本人的看法通常就是胜利，因此人们会认为日本的武器更好，因此日本的武器比中国的武器更受欢迎，我们人类就是喜欢胜利的东西，我们就是这样进化的，因此日本的刀剑一般被认为综合来说是更好的和更受欢迎的，然后还有好莱坞的原因。
John Doe but regardless, that’s about the only times they would have really fought hostilely, more or less, and since they were more or less “trained” Japanese pirates warriors vs civilians or unprepared small troops most of the conflicts ends with Japanese on top, thus the perception about Japanese usually winning, thus people would perceive Japanese weapon as being better, thus the higher popularity of Japanese weapon over the Chinese ones, we as human likes things that wins, it’s how we evolved, thus Japanese swords is generally perceived as better overall and more popular, and then there is also Hollywood
John Doe 但不管怎样，那是他们唯一一次真正的敌对战斗，大概，而且由于他们或多或少是“训练有素”的日本海盗战士VS平民或者毫无准备的小股部队，大多数冲突都是以日本人占据优势结束的，因此对日本人的看法通常就是胜利，因此人们会认为日本的武器更好，因此日本的武器比中国的武器更受欢迎，我们人类就是喜欢胜利的东西，我们就是这样进化的，因此日本的刀剑一般被认为综合来说是更好的和更受欢迎的，然后还有好莱坞的原因。
John Doe
@KageNoTenshi No, pirate events weren''''t the only times Chinese fought the Japanese, I already lix you the battle of Baekgang, where the Tang dynasty totally smashed the Japanese in real battle. And that''''s the start of Japan sending tributes and trade envoys to China.
And you need to know about the part where the large part of these "Japanese" pirates were Chinese...
PS : Japanese weapons are superior? depends on the era.
China had blast furnace steel weapons when Japanese was using wooden armor. Tangdao was the original katana.
@KageNoTenshi 不，海盗事件并不是中国人唯一一次与日本人作战，我已经将白江口之战的链接给你了，这是唐朝在实际战场上彻底击溃日本人。还是日本向中国派遣贡品和贸易使节的开始。
还有你需要知道这些“日本”海盗中有很大一部分是中国人。。。
附：日本的武器更好吗？这取决于时代。
当日本使用木甲时，中国就在用高炉钢制武器了。唐刀就是武士刀的起源。
@KageNoTenshi No, pirate events weren''''t the only times Chinese fought the Japanese, I already lix you the battle of Baekgang, where the Tang dynasty totally smashed the Japanese in real battle. And that''''s the start of Japan sending tributes and trade envoys to China.
And you need to know about the part where the large part of these "Japanese" pirates were Chinese...
PS : Japanese weapons are superior? depends on the era.
China had blast furnace steel weapons when Japanese was using wooden armor. Tangdao was the original katana.
@KageNoTenshi 不，海盗事件并不是中国人唯一一次与日本人作战，我已经将白江口之战的链接给你了，这是唐朝在实际战场上彻底击溃日本人。还是日本向中国派遣贡品和贸易使节的开始。
还有你需要知道这些“日本”海盗中有很大一部分是中国人。。。
附：日本的武器更好吗？这取决于时代。
当日本使用木甲时，中国就在用高炉钢制武器了。唐刀就是武士刀的起源。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe which was fought in Korea
John Doe 那是在朝鲜打的。
John Doe which was fought in Korea
John Doe 那是在朝鲜打的。
KageNoTenshi
John Doe I didn’t say Japanese weapons were superior to Chinese, I said it is perceived that Japanese weapons are superior to the Chinese ones
John Doe 我没说日本的武器比中国的好，我是说大家都认为日本的武器比中国的好 。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
John Doe I didn’t say Japanese weapons were superior to Chinese, I said it is perceived that Japanese weapons are superior to the Chinese ones
John Doe 我没说日本的武器比中国的好，我是说大家都认为日本的武器比中国的好 。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
John Doe
@KageNoTenshi between the Japanese and Tang Dynasty.
@KageNoTenshi 那是日本人和唐朝打的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@KageNoTenshi between the Japanese and Tang Dynasty.
@KageNoTenshi 那是日本人和唐朝打的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
KageNoTenshi
John Doe for most of history, the Japanese dont and won’t invade China, it’s stupid to do so, and China tried a few times to invade Japan, mostly getting fuck by the sea, so the only real conflicts between the two are these little unofficial skirmishes, sending people into a foreign land to aid a foreign army to win a foreign war usually don’t count as your victory unless you are America, look at how much help the Chinese gave Vietnam to beat back the US, no one say the Chinese beat US
John Doe 在大部分的历史里，日本不会入侵中国，这样做是愚蠢的，还有中国几次试图...日本，主要都被大海操了，所以两者之间的唯一真正的冲突是这些非官方的小冲突,派人到外国曲帮助外国军队赢得外国战争通常不算作你的胜利，除非你是美国，看看中国给了越南多少帮助，让他们得以击退美国，而没有人会说中国人打败美国。
John Doe for most of history, the Japanese dont and won’t invade China, it’s stupid to do so, and China tried a few times to invade Japan, mostly getting fuck by the sea, so the only real conflicts between the two are these little unofficial skirmishes, sending people into a foreign land to aid a foreign army to win a foreign war usually don’t count as your victory unless you are America, look at how much help the Chinese gave Vietnam to beat back the US, no one say the Chinese beat US
John Doe 在大部分的历史里，日本不会入侵中国，这样做是愚蠢的，还有中国几次试图...日本，主要都被大海操了，所以两者之间的唯一真正的冲突是这些非官方的小冲突,派人到外国曲帮助外国军队赢得外国战争通常不算作你的胜利，除非你是美国，看看中国给了越南多少帮助，让他们得以击退美国，而没有人会说中国人打败美国。
Alex Y
@KageNoTenshi 40K Yamato Japan forces were obliterated by a mere 7K Tang Dynasty marines at the Battle of Baekgang in Korea in 663 AD during the Tang-Silla /Yamato-Baekje War
@KageNoTenshi 公元663年，在唐-新罗/倭国-百济战争期间，仅仅7千唐朝的海军陆战队在朝鲜白江口之战中就歼灭了4万倭国军队。
@KageNoTenshi 40K Yamato Japan forces were obliterated by a mere 7K Tang Dynasty marines at the Battle of Baekgang in Korea in 663 AD during the Tang-Silla /Yamato-Baekje War
@KageNoTenshi 公元663年，在唐-新罗/倭国-百济战争期间，仅仅7千唐朝的海军陆战队在朝鲜白江口之战中就歼灭了4万倭国军队。
T T
Katana are Japanese improvement and modifications from Tang dynasty sword 唐刀。
武士刀就是日本改进和修改唐刀的。
Katana are Japanese improvement and modifications from Tang dynasty sword 唐刀。
武士刀就是日本改进和修改唐刀的。
Camren Davis
@KageNoTenshi dude what the hell are you talking about? The Chinese had no reason to invade Japan, what did they have that the Chinese didn''''t already have tons more of? If anything, the Japanese had a much better reason to invade China. Resources and trade, like you had mentioned earlier. Now the Mongols did try to invade Japan but got fucked by the sea, if that''''s what you''''re referring to. But even if the ancient Chinese were to invade Japan, they wouldn''''t be fucked by the sea. The ancient Chinese (in almost every dynasty) were Master shipbuilders, navigators, and naval strategists. They made it all the way to Africa for God''''s sake, what''''s a little detour farther east going to do?
@KageNoTenshi 伙计，你在说什么呢?中国人没有理由入侵日本，他们有什么是中国人没有比他们多一大堆的？恰恰相反，日本人有更多的理由去入侵中国。资源和贸易，就像你之前提到的。蒙古人确实试图入侵日本，但却被大海操了，如果你指的是这事的话。但即使古代中国人要入侵日本，他们也不会被大海操的。古代中国人（几乎每个朝代）是造船大师、航海家和海军战略家。看在上帝的份上，他们还一路跑到非洲去了，他们往东绕个小弯又有何难?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@KageNoTenshi dude what the hell are you talking about? The Chinese had no reason to invade Japan, what did they have that the Chinese didn''''t already have tons more of? If anything, the Japanese had a much better reason to invade China. Resources and trade, like you had mentioned earlier. Now the Mongols did try to invade Japan but got fucked by the sea, if that''''s what you''''re referring to. But even if the ancient Chinese were to invade Japan, they wouldn''''t be fucked by the sea. The ancient Chinese (in almost every dynasty) were Master shipbuilders, navigators, and naval strategists. They made it all the way to Africa for God''''s sake, what''''s a little detour farther east going to do?
@KageNoTenshi 伙计，你在说什么呢?中国人没有理由入侵日本，他们有什么是中国人没有比他们多一大堆的？恰恰相反，日本人有更多的理由去入侵中国。资源和贸易，就像你之前提到的。蒙古人确实试图入侵日本，但却被大海操了，如果你指的是这事的话。但即使古代中国人要入侵日本，他们也不会被大海操的。古代中国人（几乎每个朝代）是造船大师、航海家和海军战略家。看在上帝的份上，他们还一路跑到非洲去了，他们往东绕个小弯又有何难?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Brian Lock
What, you saying Chinese actually make legit weapon not just flimsy movie prop? That''''s illegal!!!
什么，你说中国人制造正当的武器而不是脆弱的电影道具？那是违法的！！！
What, you saying Chinese actually make legit weapon not just flimsy movie prop? That''''s illegal!!!
什么，你说中国人制造正当的武器而不是脆弱的电影道具？那是违法的！！！
Hmmm Hmmm
Yea... That''''s what ppl tend to do when you have massive empires and armies to finance
是啊。。。当你有庞大的帝国和军队需要资金时，人们往往会这么做。
Yea... That''''s what ppl tend to do when you have massive empires and armies to finance
是啊。。。当你有庞大的帝国和军队需要资金时，人们往往会这么做。
이치고
Hmmm Hmmm no, the floppy swords is due to the popular wushu culture of chinese swords, when in actuality chinese swords were not like that at all. Most dao were actually straight, and most jians before the qing dynasty had longer blades with shorter handles. That is due to the fact that most jians were used with shields, hence why you don’t see complex guards
Hmmm Hmmm 不，那软趴趴的剑是源于流行的中国刀剑的武术文化，而实际上中国刀剑根本不是那样的。其实大部分的中国刀都是直的，清代之前大部分的中国剑，都是刃部较长、柄部较短的。这是由于在事实上，大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，因此你没有看到复杂的护手。
Hmmm Hmmm no, the floppy swords is due to the popular wushu culture of chinese swords, when in actuality chinese swords were not like that at all. Most dao were actually straight, and most jians before the qing dynasty had longer blades with shorter handles. That is due to the fact that most jians were used with shields, hence why you don’t see complex guards
Hmmm Hmmm 不，那软趴趴的剑是源于流行的中国刀剑的武术文化，而实际上中国刀剑根本不是那样的。其实大部分的中国刀都是直的，清代之前大部分的中国剑，都是刃部较长、柄部较短的。这是由于在事实上，大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，因此你没有看到复杂的护手。
Hmmm Hmmm
@이치고 Thanks
@이치고 谢谢啊。
@이치고 Thanks
@이치고 谢谢啊。
Christian Albert Jahns
@이치고 when you say "most jians were used with shield", sorry but I beg to differ. Most military jian were used with shield, but you must know that Chinese spent most of the time in history favoring dao over jian for military sidearm, and jian becomes exclusively nonmilitary weapon (similar in function to rapier and smallsword), so the argument "most jians were used with shield" is not valid
@이치고 当你说“大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的”时，对不起，我不同意。大多数军事用剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，但你要知道，中国人在历史上大部分时间都偏爱用刀而非用剑作为军事武器，剑变成了完全的非军事用武器（在功能上类似于迅捷剑和欧洲小型剑），所以“大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的”的说法是不成立的。
@이치고 when you say "most jians were used with shield", sorry but I beg to differ. Most military jian were used with shield, but you must know that Chinese spent most of the time in history favoring dao over jian for military sidearm, and jian becomes exclusively nonmilitary weapon (similar in function to rapier and smallsword), so the argument "most jians were used with shield" is not valid
@이치고 当你说“大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的”时，对不起，我不同意。大多数军事用剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，但你要知道，中国人在历史上大部分时间都偏爱用刀而非用剑作为军事武器，剑变成了完全的非军事用武器（在功能上类似于迅捷剑和欧洲小型剑），所以“大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的”的说法是不成立的。
이치고
@Christian Albert Jahns I think you misunderstood what I was saying. i wasn''''t saying "all" jian, i was saying "most" jian. Read carefully please
@Christian Albert Jahns 我想你误解了我的意思。我不是说“全部”的中国剑，我是说“大部分”中国剑。请仔细阅读。
@Christian Albert Jahns I think you misunderstood what I was saying. i wasn''''t saying "all" jian, i was saying "most" jian. Read carefully please
@Christian Albert Jahns 我想你误解了我的意思。我不是说“全部”的中国剑，我是说“大部分”中国剑。请仔细阅读。
Christian Albert Jahns
@이치고 my point still stands. Most jian didn''''t belong in battlefield, since Chinese prefered dao majority of the time in history. Only minority of jians were used in battlefield, and at those times, they were used with shield. I''''m not misreading anything. You said that most jians were used with shield when it''''s not the case
@이치고 我的观点仍然站得住脚。大多数中国剑也不属于战场，因为中国人在历史上大部分时间都喜欢刀。只有少数中国剑在战场上使用，而在那时，他们会搭配盾牌使用。我没有误读什么。你说大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，然而并不是这回事。
@이치고 my point still stands. Most jian didn''''t belong in battlefield, since Chinese prefered dao majority of the time in history. Only minority of jians were used in battlefield, and at those times, they were used with shield. I''''m not misreading anything. You said that most jians were used with shield when it''''s not the case
@이치고 我的观点仍然站得住脚。大多数中国剑也不属于战场，因为中国人在历史上大部分时间都喜欢刀。只有少数中国剑在战场上使用，而在那时，他们会搭配盾牌使用。我没有误读什么。你说大部分中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，然而并不是这回事。
이치고
@Christian Albert Jahns yes, most of them were mr wiseass. there were jians used by chinese military personnel on the battlefield. Where do you get your information oh wise one?
@Christian Albert Jahns 是的，他们中的大多数都是狂妄自大的人。战场上有中国军人使用剑的。你从哪里得到你的情报哦，聪明人的啊？
@Christian Albert Jahns yes, most of them were mr wiseass. there were jians used by chinese military personnel on the battlefield. Where do you get your information oh wise one?
@Christian Albert Jahns 是的，他们中的大多数都是狂妄自大的人。战场上有中国军人使用剑的。你从哪里得到你的情报哦，聪明人的啊？
이치고
@Christian Albert Jahns you also do realize that chinese garrisons used shields as well right? geez mr expert through the roof here
@Christian Albert Jahns
你也知道中国的驻军也使用盾牌，对吧？天哪，这儿到处都是砖家。
@Christian Albert Jahns you also do realize that chinese garrisons used shields as well right? geez mr expert through the roof here
@Christian Albert Jahns
你也知道中国的驻军也使用盾牌，对吧？天哪，这儿到处都是砖家。
Christian Albert Jahns
@이치고 I don''''t think it''''s necessary to include sarcastic insult. "Witty saying proves nothing" as I borrowed it from Voltaire.
Yes, I know that Chinese used shield in the past, I''''m not denying it. I also don''''t deny that they did use jian along with shield when jian is standard military sidearm. I differ from your opinion because jian was not standard military sidearm most of the time, hence it would not make sense to argue that most of them were used along with shield. Dao was much more popular sidearm than jian, hence the Chinese replaced jian with dao as their standard military sidearm. You ask for source? Dao page on wikipedia will suffice for this casual debate. It''''s just much easier to train soldier with dao than with jian.
Okay, you said that jian still used by higher ranked military officer. You still have to show your source, but I digress. They probably just used it for command purpose and when they were forced to fight enemy, I bet they would pick dao for sidearm.
Since dao were used as standard military sidearm, where did jian go? They still made it, but it was for civilian purpose, hence there is no reason to think that they were used along with shield as civilian sidearm, and jian served as civilian sidearm most of the time
Use your insults all you want, you still don''''t counter my argument.
@이치고 我认为没有必要口吐芬芳。我从伏尔泰那里借来一句话“漂亮话什么也证明不了”。
是的，我知道中国人过去用过盾牌，我不是在否认。我也不否认，当剑是标准的军事武器时，他们确实是剑和盾牌搭配使用的。我不同意你的观点，因为剑在大多数时候不是标准的军用武器，所以争论大多数剑和盾牌一起使用是没有意义的。刀是比剑更受欢迎的随身佩带的武器，因此中国人用刀代替剑作为他们的标准军事武器。你要来源?在wikipedia上的Dao页面可以满足这种随便的讨论。用刀训练士兵比用剑容易多了。
好吧，你说剑是高级军官用的。你还是得出示你的信息来源，离题一下，他们可能只是用它来指挥，当他们被迫与敌人作战时，我敢打赌他们会选择刀作为武器的。
自从刀被用作是标准的军事武器，而剑去了哪里了？他们仍然还在制造它，但它是民用的，因此没有理由认为它们会跟盾牌搭配在一起作为民用的武器，而剑大多数时候都是民用的武器。
管你怎么口吐芬芳，你还是反驳不了我的论点。
@이치고 I don''''t think it''''s necessary to include sarcastic insult. "Witty saying proves nothing" as I borrowed it from Voltaire.
Yes, I know that Chinese used shield in the past, I''''m not denying it. I also don''''t deny that they did use jian along with shield when jian is standard military sidearm. I differ from your opinion because jian was not standard military sidearm most of the time, hence it would not make sense to argue that most of them were used along with shield. Dao was much more popular sidearm than jian, hence the Chinese replaced jian with dao as their standard military sidearm. You ask for source? Dao page on wikipedia will suffice for this casual debate. It''''s just much easier to train soldier with dao than with jian.
Okay, you said that jian still used by higher ranked military officer. You still have to show your source, but I digress. They probably just used it for command purpose and when they were forced to fight enemy, I bet they would pick dao for sidearm.
Since dao were used as standard military sidearm, where did jian go? They still made it, but it was for civilian purpose, hence there is no reason to think that they were used along with shield as civilian sidearm, and jian served as civilian sidearm most of the time
Use your insults all you want, you still don''''t counter my argument.
@이치고 我认为没有必要口吐芬芳。我从伏尔泰那里借来一句话“漂亮话什么也证明不了”。
是的，我知道中国人过去用过盾牌，我不是在否认。我也不否认，当剑是标准的军事武器时，他们确实是剑和盾牌搭配使用的。我不同意你的观点，因为剑在大多数时候不是标准的军用武器，所以争论大多数剑和盾牌一起使用是没有意义的。刀是比剑更受欢迎的随身佩带的武器，因此中国人用刀代替剑作为他们的标准军事武器。你要来源?在wikipedia上的Dao页面可以满足这种随便的讨论。用刀训练士兵比用剑容易多了。
好吧，你说剑是高级军官用的。你还是得出示你的信息来源，离题一下，他们可能只是用它来指挥，当他们被迫与敌人作战时，我敢打赌他们会选择刀作为武器的。
自从刀被用作是标准的军事武器，而剑去了哪里了？他们仍然还在制造它，但它是民用的，因此没有理由认为它们会跟盾牌搭配在一起作为民用的武器，而剑大多数时候都是民用的武器。
管你怎么口吐芬芳，你还是反驳不了我的论点。
planescaped
@이치고 Yeah, a lot of people, even native Chinese people don''''t understand that wushu weapons are non-functional martial arts swords and would never be used in a battle.
Actual Chinese weapons were just as strong as the rest of the worlds. When the communist government came into power though, they wanted to ban ownership of even swords and spears. Wushu was the compromise. Weapons made to be purposefully fragile and unsuitable for combat.
Also, to the original post, it is literally illegal still in china for a sword to have a rigid blade AFAIK(though my knowledge of Chinese sword law isn''''t very topical). Non wushu weapons made in China are for export only.
@이치고 是的，很多人，甚至是本土的中国人都不知道那些武术武器就是没用的武术武器，永远都不会在战斗中被使用。
真正的中国武器和世界上其他国家的武器一样强大。.........武术就是一种折中方案。有目的地使武器脆弱让其不适合战斗。
另外，在最初的帖子中，在中国，一把剑拥有坚硬的刀刃就是违法的（尽管我不怎么了解中国对刀剑的法律)。中国制造的非武术武器仅供出口。
@이치고 Yeah, a lot of people, even native Chinese people don''''t understand that wushu weapons are non-functional martial arts swords and would never be used in a battle.
Actual Chinese weapons were just as strong as the rest of the worlds. When the communist government came into power though, they wanted to ban ownership of even swords and spears. Wushu was the compromise. Weapons made to be purposefully fragile and unsuitable for combat.
Also, to the original post, it is literally illegal still in china for a sword to have a rigid blade AFAIK(though my knowledge of Chinese sword law isn''''t very topical). Non wushu weapons made in China are for export only.
@이치고 是的，很多人，甚至是本土的中国人都不知道那些武术武器就是没用的武术武器，永远都不会在战斗中被使用。
真正的中国武器和世界上其他国家的武器一样强大。.........武术就是一种折中方案。有目的地使武器脆弱让其不适合战斗。
另外，在最初的帖子中，在中国，一把剑拥有坚硬的刀刃就是违法的（尽管我不怎么了解中国对刀剑的法律)。中国制造的非武术武器仅供出口。
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns no, i say what I want. You are acting like some kinda authority here, trying to act like “im right at everything”. You were almost completely denying jians weren’t used with shields
Christian Albert Jahns 不，我想说什么就说什么。你在这里表现得像个权威，试图表现得像“我什么都是对的”。你几乎完全否认中国剑没有和盾牌一起使用。
Christian Albert Jahns no, i say what I want. You are acting like some kinda authority here, trying to act like “im right at everything”. You were almost completely denying jians weren’t used with shields
Christian Albert Jahns 不，我想说什么就说什么。你在这里表现得像个权威，试图表现得像“我什么都是对的”。你几乎完全否认中国剑没有和盾牌一起使用。
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns also why are you using wikipedia for your sources my guy
Christian Albert Jahns 还有你为什么要用维基百科当你的信息来源，我的伙计。
Christian Albert Jahns also why are you using wikipedia for your sources my guy
Christian Albert Jahns 还有你为什么要用维基百科当你的信息来源，我的伙计。
이치고
planescaped yeah, this western asshole thinks he knows everything about eastern swords and gets his source from a damn wikipedia page
Planescaped 是啊，这个西方混蛋以为他知道东方刀剑的一切，还从维基百科的一个该死的网页上找到了他的信息来源。
planescaped yeah, this western asshole thinks he knows everything about eastern swords and gets his source from a damn wikipedia page
Planescaped 是啊，这个西方混蛋以为他知道东方刀剑的一切，还从维基百科的一个该死的网页上找到了他的信息来源。
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns i hope you also know about the standard use of jian even during the bronze age of china and the fucking qin dynasty :)
Christian Albert Jahns 我希望你也知道，即使在中国青铜时代和该死的秦朝，剑都是普遍使用的：）
Christian Albert Jahns i hope you also know about the standard use of jian even during the bronze age of china and the fucking qin dynasty :)
Christian Albert Jahns 我希望你也知道，即使在中国青铜时代和该死的秦朝，剑都是普遍使用的：）
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/02/some-thoughts-on-why-chinese-never.html?m=
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns also even swordsage says it in the beginning of the video. Damn, acting like an appeal to authority because you are using “wikipedia” you should maybe have some videos on your channel on it?
Christian Albert Jahns 甚至连swordsage也在视频的开头说。该死的，就因为你用的是“维基百科”，所以表现得像是呼吁权威那样 ，你应该在你的频道上放一些视频？
Christian Albert Jahns
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/02/some-thoughts-on-why-chinese-never.html?m=
이치고
Christian Albert Jahns also even swordsage says it in the beginning of the video. Damn, acting like an appeal to authority because you are using “wikipedia” you should maybe have some videos on your channel on it?
Christian Albert Jahns 甚至连swordsage也在视频的开头说。该死的，就因为你用的是“维基百科”，所以表现得像是呼吁权威那样 ，你应该在你的频道上放一些视频？
Christian Albert Jahns
@이치고 heh, so you say that my source isn''''t valid because it''''s wikipedia? say that to a man that used blogspot for a source. do you can write anything you want in wikipedia? No. the particular premise in that page is cited, so it''''s valid.
@이치고 嘿，你说我的信息来源是维基百科的，所以就不有效了？一个用blogspot作为信息来源的人还这样说。你能在维基百科上写任何你想写的东西吗？不行的，那页面的特定前提就是有引用的，所以它是有效的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@이치고 heh, so you say that my source isn''''t valid because it''''s wikipedia? say that to a man that used blogspot for a source. do you can write anything you want in wikipedia? No. the particular premise in that page is cited, so it''''s valid.
@이치고 嘿，你说我的信息来源是维基百科的，所以就不有效了？一个用blogspot作为信息来源的人还这样说。你能在维基百科上写任何你想写的东西吗？不行的，那页面的特定前提就是有引用的，所以它是有效的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Christian Albert Jahns
@이치고 I will quote it for you, the sentence from the Dao page of wikipedia.
By the end of the Three Kingdoms period, the single-edged dao had almost completely replaced the jian on the battlefield.[4] The jian henceforth became known as a weapon of self-defense for the scholarly aristocratic class, worn as part of court dress.[5]
So, I will tell you why you are invalid.
1. You show me source, but it''''s uncited, while my source from wikipedia is cited. Look at bracket number, it means it''''s cited. My source is more valid than yours.
2. Clearly you don''''t understand my argument. You argue that most jians were used with shield, and I beg to differ, your counterargument is that Sword Sage''''s sentence (I believe he said that jians don''''t have large guard because they are intended to be used along with shield), but his statement doesn''''t contradict my argument (and doesn''''t support your argument). Perhaps jians were made to be used along with shield, but intended purpose of jian was irrelevant since Chinese favored dao more for military sidearm.
3. Okay, you would argue that I forget about bronze age China, Qin, Warring States, Spring and Autumn, etc. but you seems to forget about (Sima) Jin, Former (Liu) Song, Tang, Sui, Jurchen Jin, Later (Zhao) Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing dynasties, and I could probably forget some remaining dynasties. China during those dynasties favored dao more for standardized military sidearm.
4. Okay, you started to use ad hominem by referring me as "western asshole". I''''ll take it as your surrender. Anyway, I''''m not actually western man to begin with.
5. Your "argument" against me, which consists of using wikipedia as source, forgetting about former dynasties of China, and trying to act like "im right of everything" just as you said, those "argument" actually also can be used against you.
5.a. You wonder why I used wikipedia? Because it''''s pretty reliable source, especially for this casual debate. You don''''t want to accept it and you show your source, but the problem is your source (blogspot) is even more dubious than wikipedia, and it''''s uncited, while my source is cited.
5.b. You said that I forget some former dynasties of China, I would say that you forget some latter dynasties of China.
5.c. You said that I''''m trying to act like "im right at everything"? Well, I would say it''''s you who try to act like that. Calling me "western asshole", ignoring my argument, misunderstanding my argument. Yeah, you should have some moment to reflect.
@이치고 我会引用维基百科Dao页面上的句子给你。
到三国末期，单刃刀几乎完全取代了战场上的剑。[4]此后，剑自此便成为文人贵族阶级用来自卫的武器闻名，成为朝廷服装的一部分[5]
所以，我会告诉你为什么你的说法是站不住脚的。
1. 你给我看信息来源，但它没有引用，而我的来源是来自维基百科是有引用的。看括号，它表示它是引用的。我的来源比你的更可靠。
2. 显然你不明白我的论点。你认为大多数中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，恕我不同意，你的反驳就是SwordSage的话（我相信他说，中国剑没有很大的护手，是因为它们得跟盾一起用）,但他的话我的论点并不矛盾（也不支持你的论点）。也许剑是用来搭配盾的，但中国人更喜欢用刀作物军事武器，所以剑的本意就不那么重要了。
3.好吧，你可能会说我忘记了青铜器时代的中国、秦、战国、春秋等等，但你似乎忘记了（马晋、前刘宋、唐、隋、女真金、后赵宋、元、明、清，还有我可能忘记的其他一些朝代。这些朝代的中国更喜欢用刀当做标准化军事武器 。
4. 好吧，你开始用人身攻击了，说我是“西方混蛋”。我就当你投降了。无论如何，我一开始就不是真正的西方人。
5. 你反对我“论据”，包括使用维基百科作为资料来源，忘记之前的中国王朝，还试图表现得像“我什么都是对的”，就像你说的那样，那些“论据”实际上也可以用来反对你。
5.a.你想知道我为什么用维基百科吗？因为这是非常可靠的信息来源，尤其是在这种随意的争论中。你不想接受它，你就来展示了你的来源，但问题是你的来源（blogspot）比维基百科更不可靠，它没有引用，而我的信息来源是有引用的。
5. b.你说我忘记了中国前面的几个的朝代，我要说你忘记了中国的后面几个朝代了。
5.c.你说我想表现得像“我什么都是对的”?好吧，我想说的是你试图这样做。叫我“西方混蛋”，无视我的论点，误解我的论点。是啊，你就应该好好想想。
@이치고 I will quote it for you, the sentence from the Dao page of wikipedia.
By the end of the Three Kingdoms period, the single-edged dao had almost completely replaced the jian on the battlefield.[4] The jian henceforth became known as a weapon of self-defense for the scholarly aristocratic class, worn as part of court dress.[5]
So, I will tell you why you are invalid.
1. You show me source, but it''''s uncited, while my source from wikipedia is cited. Look at bracket number, it means it''''s cited. My source is more valid than yours.
2. Clearly you don''''t understand my argument. You argue that most jians were used with shield, and I beg to differ, your counterargument is that Sword Sage''''s sentence (I believe he said that jians don''''t have large guard because they are intended to be used along with shield), but his statement doesn''''t contradict my argument (and doesn''''t support your argument). Perhaps jians were made to be used along with shield, but intended purpose of jian was irrelevant since Chinese favored dao more for military sidearm.
3. Okay, you would argue that I forget about bronze age China, Qin, Warring States, Spring and Autumn, etc. but you seems to forget about (Sima) Jin, Former (Liu) Song, Tang, Sui, Jurchen Jin, Later (Zhao) Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing dynasties, and I could probably forget some remaining dynasties. China during those dynasties favored dao more for standardized military sidearm.
4. Okay, you started to use ad hominem by referring me as "western asshole". I''''ll take it as your surrender. Anyway, I''''m not actually western man to begin with.
5. Your "argument" against me, which consists of using wikipedia as source, forgetting about former dynasties of China, and trying to act like "im right of everything" just as you said, those "argument" actually also can be used against you.
5.a. You wonder why I used wikipedia? Because it''''s pretty reliable source, especially for this casual debate. You don''''t want to accept it and you show your source, but the problem is your source (blogspot) is even more dubious than wikipedia, and it''''s uncited, while my source is cited.
5.b. You said that I forget some former dynasties of China, I would say that you forget some latter dynasties of China.
5.c. You said that I''''m trying to act like "im right at everything"? Well, I would say it''''s you who try to act like that. Calling me "western asshole", ignoring my argument, misunderstanding my argument. Yeah, you should have some moment to reflect.
@이치고 我会引用维基百科Dao页面上的句子给你。
到三国末期，单刃刀几乎完全取代了战场上的剑。[4]此后，剑自此便成为文人贵族阶级用来自卫的武器闻名，成为朝廷服装的一部分[5]
所以，我会告诉你为什么你的说法是站不住脚的。
1. 你给我看信息来源，但它没有引用，而我的来源是来自维基百科是有引用的。看括号，它表示它是引用的。我的来源比你的更可靠。
2. 显然你不明白我的论点。你认为大多数中国剑都是搭配盾牌使用的，恕我不同意，你的反驳就是SwordSage的话（我相信他说，中国剑没有很大的护手，是因为它们得跟盾一起用）,但他的话我的论点并不矛盾（也不支持你的论点）。也许剑是用来搭配盾的，但中国人更喜欢用刀作物军事武器，所以剑的本意就不那么重要了。
3.好吧，你可能会说我忘记了青铜器时代的中国、秦、战国、春秋等等，但你似乎忘记了（马晋、前刘宋、唐、隋、女真金、后赵宋、元、明、清，还有我可能忘记的其他一些朝代。这些朝代的中国更喜欢用刀当做标准化军事武器 。
4. 好吧，你开始用人身攻击了，说我是“西方混蛋”。我就当你投降了。无论如何，我一开始就不是真正的西方人。
5. 你反对我“论据”，包括使用维基百科作为资料来源，忘记之前的中国王朝，还试图表现得像“我什么都是对的”，就像你说的那样，那些“论据”实际上也可以用来反对你。
5.a.你想知道我为什么用维基百科吗？因为这是非常可靠的信息来源，尤其是在这种随意的争论中。你不想接受它，你就来展示了你的来源，但问题是你的来源（blogspot）比维基百科更不可靠，它没有引用，而我的信息来源是有引用的。
5. b.你说我忘记了中国前面的几个的朝代，我要说你忘记了中国的后面几个朝代了。
5.c.你说我想表现得像“我什么都是对的”?好吧，我想说的是你试图这样做。叫我“西方混蛋”，无视我的论点，误解我的论点。是啊，你就应该好好想想。
很赞 2
收藏