In contrast, wearing a stetson and talking like a pirate does pair appropriately with a katana.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
266 points (99.6% liked)
Tumblr
244 readers
178 users here now
Welcome to /c/Tumblr
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
- NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
Fun fact: the British and dutch east India companies really did have katana wielding mercenaries¹ doing a shit ton of their dirty work.
¹former samurai who didnt go home after Tokugawa threw them at Korea, knowing Japan was no longer a place they could live their absolute-24-7-war-fucker lifestyle
Is a Stetson a fedora though? Idts
While you were reading history, I was studying the blade
So what kind of sword would a 19th century French noble fight a duel with and why?
I don't know about 19th century, but if you're a noble, you lack upper body strength, so it'll be a finesse or dextrous weapon of some type, like a fancy epee or rapier. With studs and gems.
I hear in real life, rapiers are pretty fucking heavy and thus need a lot of arm strength. There's smaller swords in a similar shape that need less strength, though.
Also, the strength needed to wield a sword isn't necessarily the same you need to carry bags of grain or something.
But also, if no one is wearing armor or shields, a finesse-focused weapon with sufficient reach will beat a strength-focused weapon every time (assuming a fair fight). Getting stabbed in the torso is really fucking deadly, doesn't matter if it's a rapier, katana or medieval knight's sword.
Rapiers aren't as heavy or clunky as you're probably thinking. I mean, yes it's heavier than modern sport blades, or the small sword which gained popularity in the 18th century, but as a thrusting weapon, it's still lighter than something like a cavalry sabre. I have twigs instead of biceps, and can fence rapier adequately. The force from an attack should come from your legs, not your arm, so the only time you need to hold a rapier straight is for the split second before a lunge.
The point of balance is only slightly forward of the guard. You can control the tip of a rapier quite capably with just an index finger and thumb.
"Distal taper" is when a blade narrows towards the tip, and it accounts for significant weight savings when compared to a blade of uniform thickness.
But by the 19th century most duels were being fought with pistols. You'd maybe have military officers duking it out with sabres, and the surviving French nobility might still have had a soft spot for smallswords, but firearms were considered more "egalitarian" and representative of the "democratic spirit" sweeping Europe.
Definitely an épée or possibly a foil. Both were derived from the small sword, which was already more popular than the rapier for dueling by the 18th century. In the 19th century, sword duels were more likely to be decided by first blood than fought to the death.
Rapier probably?
No.
A rapier, probably.
Wow, fake blade study boy.
But they don’t even wear fedoras. They’re a tribly. They should be in jazz clubs.
But they might see a black person there!
Stop looking like a jazz nerd then!
They're straight cis white men! H9w dare you tell them there's a place not for them! You're worse than Hitler! The fact people like you exists means Hitler is necessary! shaves head, tattoos swastika on own face
If you were rude you would say see here dame. If you were a “nice guy” you would probably say ma’am or miss.
My attempt at an actual answer is that they just generally cannot consolidate details, elements, into a broadly coherent, consistent, larger concept.
They're all bottom up (deductive), but no top down (inferential) thinking, its why they are so often astounding hypocrites, why they are generally dysfunctional at anything other than very specific niches of well-defined tasks, why they are so obsessed with minutiae.
They can't consolidate, harmonize, synergize, prioritize.
And the ability to do those things is essential to the construction of a definable, coherent style.
To them, the sum is simply equal to the sum of its parts, the idea that that sum could actually be more or less, due to complimentary or detrimental relations between ingredients to a recipe... that idea is almost nonsensical to them.
relevant for dbzer0