(Source: , via theotterchrist)
- Dated: circa 1820
- Place of Origin: Nepal
- Measurements: overall length: 20.5in (520mm). Blade length: 15in (380mm)
Wonderfully balanced and made to be used as a fighting Kukri as well as for use in animal decapitation, the weapon has a long walnut wooden grip for two handed use making it perfect for these applications. The forward leaning blade has two spine fullers and a shallow cho notch at the base of the blade.
And here comes the fun part…
According to “Spiral” of [ JRS ] this type of kukri, the “hanshee”, is a mispronounced version of the “hansiya” term, the ladies sickle used for cutting crops. When the term was introduced to the west it also entered the kukri folklore and it was started to be used by all the main western collectors.
The so called Hanshee is referred to in Nepal as a hand-and-a-half sirupate or double-hand sirupate, depending on the length of handle. In Nepali these are called “Hatrayadha Sirupate” and “Doharohat Sirupate”. Further qualifying of these kukries are given by the angled, straight, crescent or curved blade. The Nepalis normally say “Lamebendh Sirupate” (long handle sirupate) just to keep it simple.
The many divisions and names used in the west such as Budhume (big belly) and long leaf are unknown in Nepal other than when they have learnt it from westerners. “Bigbelly” in Nepali is actually ”thulebhunri” and “long leaf” would be “lamepate” not “langopate” although either of those names are not terms they use. Furthermore, a broad bladed kukri is a “Chaura Dhar” or “Chaurapat” (broad leaf) kukri.
So sadly, the many divisions used in the west are mere fantasies as far as any historical accuracy goes. The so called “Hanshee” is taken by many collector to be a very early, meaning pre-1820 model, but this weapon was still being made in 1920 featuring ivory handles. Horn handled “kothimara hanshee” were given and used by leading members of the ruling jats of Nepal, kings, premiers, etc.
Diane Ravitch on The Daily Show.
Ravitch is the queen. If only the government would listen…
We would also address poverty directly. We would increase the minimum wage and make post-secondary education cheap or free, and we’d improve improve unemployment benefits and offer free job-training to the unemployed.
Poverty is one of the few social ills where throwing money at the problem really does seem to work.
These are not radical, liberal ideas. In fact, in Europe most of them are associated with the more conservative parties, and many of them were associated with the American Republican party in the 80s. But the United States’s political climate is so different from anywhere else in the industrialized world that I fear we will just continue to get farther behind in education (and in % of people living in poverty) until we decide to make some big domestic investments.
Hm. I needed this right about now.
One day it just gets better. There’s no explanation or reason why . You just wake up and you’re not angry anymore.
And this is what happens when a masterfully crafted katana collides with a masterfully crafted longsword.
Suck it, katana
And that is what happens when a masterfully crafted scalpel collides with a masterfully crafted guillotine.
Does nobody understand that longswords and katanas are two different kinds of tool?Longswords are essentially sharpened fucksticks designed to destroy the shit out of anything resembling armor that comes their way. They shatter bone, jelly flesh, and essentially fuck people up by sheer inexorable force of being a goddamn sharp steel bar.
Katanas don’t do that.They’re not meant to withstand collision with armor or a brick wall or a charging fully outfitted warhorsebecause the circumstances of its development didn’t call for that. It’s a precision instrument. It’s designed to be lightweight, outmaneuver, and find weak spots, not go barreling into people hack-n-slashing your way to victory. It’s a specialized tool.
In a sense this reflects a core difference between cultures; katanas are a shitton of work and preparation to make the execution as efficient and streamlined as possible, while longswords are more durably and simply made in response to a climate that would require a soldier to be a one-man battering ram in battle.
The vaunted differences between the katana and the longsword are largely myth.
First off: longswords are nowhere near as heavy as everyone thinks they are, the weight difference between an average longsword and an average katana is very slight.
Second: Longswords are not just random hack and slash weapons. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS JUST RANDOM HACK AND SLASH WEAPONS EVERY WEAPON IN THE WORLD REQUIRES SKILL AND FINESSE! To use a longsword requires precision and training and skill. If you think the longsword requires no skill I suggest you try fighting a master, or go read The Flower of Battle by Fiore dei Liberi.
Third: The structural differences between a katana and a longsword make little to no functional difference.
The reason the katana is so narrow and has a slight curve has nothing to do with functionality and EVERYTHING to do with iron being very rare in Japan.
The curve on a katana is only enough to help increase the cutting length while using the minimum of material.
The differences between Katana technique and longsword technique are about as large as the differences between Italian longsword technique and German longsword technique.
Because there’s only so much you can do with a long sharp piece of metal.
Fourth: The Katana did not evolve. They came up with one design and never changed it for thousands of years, not once. The design process of the longsword is well documented, it went through thousands of permutations and redesigns to make it more efficient, more useful and more adaptable.
Fifth: Longsowrds took a fuckton of work and preparation. Ok, I’m about to burst your bubble here, but bear with me because you’re going to learn something.
When the Japanese developed their folded steel technique it was in response to the fact that their iron ore was not only rare, it was also so full of impurities it was brittle and pretty awful at being a weapon.
All the Japanese folded steel technique really did was bring their steel up to the quality that was standard in most European steel.
Why do I say Japanese folded steel?
BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD HAD ALREADY GOTTEN THERE ABOUT A THOUSAND YEARS BEFOREHAND!
Japanese Folded Steel is primitive compared to some of the shit we were producing for weapons at the same time in Europe.
And do you want to know who the masters of that were? THE FUCKING VIKINGS!
Japanese folded steel involves hammering one piece of steel into a fucking sandwhich over and over and over again.
Viking folded steel involves taking separate rods of Iron (For a flexible core) and Steel (for a hard edge) AND FUCKING BRAIDING THEM TOGETHER! LITERALLY BRAIDING TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF METAL IN THREE OR MORE PIECES TOGETHER AND THEN HAMMERING THAT INTO A SWORD! JUST TRY AND TELL ME THAT’S NOT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING YOU’VE EVER HEARD!
Sixth: The Katana was a backup weapon. It was literally the last resort. It got a lot of reverence in bushido because of how pretty it was and for no other reason. But the chief weapon of the samurai was actually their Kyu (longbow) followed by their Naginata (A spear, which was essentially like a katana on a stick and WAY more effective) or their Tetsu bo (A big conical wooden club covered in iron studs) and then if none of that worked then they would use the katana.
Seventh: The function of a longsword depends on the historical period you’re thinking of. In the 15th century and onward they were for dealing with plate armour and their design changed to reflect that.
But they existed long before then and had many different functions, people of each period tailoring them for their specific needs.
Eighth: Swords are expensive. Doesn’t matter what period or country you’re in a sword is a LOT of metal and metal is ALWAYS expensive.
In almost every culture spears and axes were FAR more common than swords.
This caused a widespread phenomenon that historians/archaeologists/folklorists refer to as “the cult of the sword” where the rarity and beauty of swords causes them to become an object of reverence.
Almost every culture that developed swords also developed a weird spiritual reverence for them. The cult of the sword died off FAR later in Japan than it did in Europe which is why katanas have so much reverence and mythology attached to them even into the modern age.
Ninth: Stop idealising other cultures because they’re over there.
Adding to that (regarding the vikings):
That braiding technique described earlier on had the same reasons for its development as that of folded steel; bog iron was the most common available ore in Scandinavia and not very pure either.
Furthermore, that made metal indeed very expensive. Most warriors in viking culture wore boiled leather helmets and body armour if they wore armour at all. The most common form of defence was the wooden shield we all know from depictions (actually one thing out of very few that pictures get right).
The weapons that found most employment were spears (cheap because they largely consisted of wood plus practical as they allowed you to engage your enemy from a distance whilst you held your shieldwall intact). Axes were predominantly wood, too, and could be used when your spear breaks, falls or became lodged in a dead or dying body.
Swords and metal armour were the equipment of the wealthy (chieftains).
i rarely reblog things for commentary, but here it is.
(did i mention my hardon for longswords?)
Freaking Vikings knew what they where doing
Hey kids, look: Education!
Also as a reminder: Nearly all Japanese swords (and weapons in general) were based on weapons they imported from the Chinese. Why more Chinese people don’t get upset about people attributing Chinese achievements and weapons to the Japanese, I’ll never know.
Reblogging because swords AND awesome historical facts is pretty much the mental equivalent of a peanut butter cup. YUM.
There are more women in this screenshot than there are in the entire reboot
This scene right here in many ways encapsulates many of the frustrations I have with the Star Trek reboot, and most reboots in general. When you reboot a “groundbreaking” show, you should reboot the ideals of the show and the mission of the franchise, not just play on the nostalgia of old fans. Star Trek in the 60s comes in the middle of the Cold War and in the midst of the Civil Rights Era, so including different nationalities, a female black lieutenant, and an alien was a huge deal. Now? The same characters look dated in a reboot because Star Trek completed its original mission. Moreover, the reboot movies just don’t make any sense.
Too often, Star Trek traditionalists rage over J. J. Abrams “destroying” Star Trek by rewriting its history. That isn’t my biggest issue. Gene Roddenberry himself said that one day Star Trek would continue without him for a new generation and he would be okay with that, because he believed Star Trek belonged to the people. My issue is not a reboot itself, nor is it a fresh timeline. My problem is that this reboot makes Star Trek look so out of touch. The Cold War is over. The Civil Rights Movement has passed, and we have Star Trek as a reference piece of culture now. It’s time to “boldly go where no one has gone before” again.
It starts with the crew. The original Enterprise crew are heroes for sure, but their time has passed. They are the people we look back to for guidance now. Since Kirk, we’ve had a much more diplomatic and reserved captain in Picard, a more spiritual and combat-ready captain in Sisko (who also happened to be black and from New Orleans woot!), and we had probably our toughest captain ever in a woman with Captain Janeway. We’ve seen people of color and women take on larger roles within the shows for decades, so why must we now go back to play on nostalgia from the 60s. I would have hoped to see a more gender-balanced crew, and with all of the tensions in American politics between the US and the Islamic world, I think it would have been a Star Trek move to include a Muslim character on the crew just like the original Enterprise had a Russian flying the ship. Americans continue to debate whether gay people should be able to live their lives, so I think it would be a Star Trek move to have a gay character featured and have them be as competent and professional as Uhura and Chekov. Hell, we’ve represented various groups in Harry Kim, Nyota Uhura, Julian Bashir Chakotay, Chekov, Scotty, Sulu, O’Brien, Travis Mayweather, Hoshi Sato, and more. We’ve touched briefly on genderqueerness with Dax. Star Trek has gone there before. Why not go there again? In “playing it safe,” they’ve made Star Trek look dull and out of touch.
Next we have the plotlines themselves. Kirk and Spock’s friendship is legendary, obviously, but that friendship built over three seasons of television, and five movies, all of which hit the screen over the course of thirty years. What has boggled me by the last two Star Trek movies is the overwhelming focus on Kirk and Spock to the detriment of everything else going on. The last two movies have had the same arc: Kirk needs to learn to cool his jets, and Spock needs to learn that it’s okay to have feelings sometimes. Why? We already covered that. You established a crew, now go do something. I could pick apart the plot of Into Darkness for about four paragraphs here, but most of it comes down to too many references to Wrath of Kahn and other Star Trek media without any context to make it blend into a cohesive story. Fandom inside jokes can be great for a franchise so long as they don’t compromise the story for the uninitiated. If a good portion of your audience has no idea why we’re tossing around names and places, they’re not going to care and disconnect from the movie.
All of this leaves Star Trek as something uninspiring, and to be fair I think we’ve been here for a long time. Star Trek has always been a cult show, but we’ve been trapped in a movie franchise that you are only invested in because your parent(s) raised you on Star Trek since Star Trek: First Contact. Star Trek has just been a series of action movies set in space since the Picard movie era, and it has never pulled itself out of it. I want my competence Star Trek back. I want to see people from all sorts of backgrounds coming together to do their jobs as they explore new frontiers. I want to see outlets for conversations about the social, political, and economic issues we face in our society. That’s the Star Trek I want back. The characters and set pieces themselves do not make Star Trek what is it. It’s the stories that it tells with those characters.
Please, make Star Trek relevant again. Empower people. ALL PEOPLE. Women, men, people of all color, orientation, etc. We have too much apocalyptic fiction out there, where the only hero worth noting is the tough average joe. Give me a future where we continue to learn and grow by embracing our differences and working together.
HELL yes give me a black trans lesbian captain I MEAN IT. Why even call it Star Trek if you’re going to make it about white cis men who look at the women officers in underwear, I mean come onnnnnn that’s not what Star Trek is about. and then JJ Abrams had the nerve to fucking WHITEWASH khan noonien singh *flips a thousand tables*
thank you so much this is the best commentary on the reboot—by supposedly trying to remain true to the series by pulling plotlines and characters from the first incarnation, abrams and his writers are, conversely, betraying the entire spirit and point of star trek. it’s not about lensflares or hypersexualized women or big explosions; it’s about creating a world that’s better than ours and showing how possible, plausible, and progressive that kind of world would be. i love the tos characters as much as everyone else but please, please, please, we don’t need to go through the same three white guys over and over and over. it’s time to bring something new, it’s time to follow in the footsteps of the original creators and make something relevant to OUR point of time and OUR place in society.
media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. what was astounding and groundbreaking in the sixties is not astounding and groundbreaking now. we need something better than just a shinier ship and more sparkly transporter pads; we need to go in the opposite direction of where the franchise is heading, with its refusal to have gender equality and its whitewashing and its sexualization and fridging of women.
we need a franchise that stands for and represents the issues of our time and our society. as it stands, the reboot doesn’t even come close.
I bet none of them died either.