|
|
Post by Soju on Jun 24, 2003 20:25:38 GMT -5
I have wondered, for a long time, what Suh In Suk (Li Ui-bang/ King of Bekjae) looks like without the beard. Monday night, I found out via flashback, and set the VCR to tape the repeat Tues afternoon. Look like much of General Che's beard is actually Kim Myung Kook's
Speaking of Gen. Che, what's with the rings on the back side of his sword? All these warriors' armor has so much metal stuff dangling off it, I don't see how they could sneak up on anyone. They might as well be carrying tambourines!
|
|
|
|
Post by JP Paulus on Jun 25, 2003 6:34:14 GMT -5
Gen. Che doesn't strike me as the kind of person to sneak up on a person--- He & Yi Ko would want a person to know that they're gonna kill them!
Speaking of the good General--it seems that these past few episodes, he's become a bit more thoughtful!
The flashbacks explains why he's so torn between Yi Ko & Ui-Bang, but i was surprised that after the "betrayal" by Yi Ko, that Gen. Che is still such a strong supporter.
On a ttotal different note -- wow, that's weird if that's the actor's real beard & mustache!...It would be interesting to see his "real" face!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jun 26, 2003 10:22:54 GMT -5
I also always wondered about the rings along the backside of these swords. They look like they would interfere with the cutting action (compare these swords to a slender Japanese “katana,” which reportedly could sever a man in two – yuck!).
Well, according to “Kungfu” magazine (December 2000) here’s the scoop:
“Nine Ring Broadsword (Jin Huan Dao). A common variation on the broadsword, this weapon has nine metal rings along the back spine. Rings are common accouterments to kungfu weapons . . . For bladed weapons such as this one, the rings can cause greater damage by making the cut ‘dirtier’.”
Guess these warriors were pretty ferocious dudes!
“Kungfu” magazine also adds that “Nine is an auspicious number for Chinese, [and, presumably, Koreans] symbolizing completeness and eternity, so it appears often in weapon design.”
Hope this helps – Mikey
|
|
|
|
Post by HumbleStudent on Jun 28, 2003 5:30:02 GMT -5
Mikey: I find that explanation hard to swallow. If the rings are on the back of the broadsword, they won't make contact with the victim unless you chop someone's arm or leg or head off or make a four-inch-deep gash in him! At that point what difference is it going to make how dirty the wound is!  Meanwhile someone else on some scholarly weapons list said that the rings were to make a sound that would distract the victim. Maybe they're all guessing and it was just a fashion statement.. hs |
|
joy
New Addict
Posts: 1
|
Post by joy on Jul 28, 2003 15:35:43 GMT -5
HumbleStudent: I know what you mean, but they were warriors and good for chopping off body parts in those days. And especially for thrusting the blade through the midsection of the opponent. Those rings would definitely cause death if the opponent had a chance of surviving the blade (yeah right)  . From what little I know about weapon styles, it sounds accurate. It seems ridiculous, but I read the same thing about weapon designs that Mikey read. But like you said, it could also be a fashion statement.  I'm thinking along the lines of the higher the position a warrior is in they are entitled/ and have earned the right to have certain weapons of their choice.  But that is my guess. |
|
. From what little I know about weapon styles, it sounds accurate. It seems ridiculous, but I read the same thing about weapon designs that Mikey read. 
I'm thinking along the lines of the higher the position a warrior is in they are entitled/ and have earned the right to have certain weapons of their choice. 
But that is my guess.