Isekai ni Teni Shitara Yama no Naka datta. Handou de Tsuyosa yori mo Kaitekisa o Erabimashita - Vol. 4 Ch. 17

[Hiibiki]

glad the manga is back from hiatus

Well, the only problem is that, unlike comic-walker that tell you when the next chaptet gonna be released, comic-earthstar did not do such thing, so you will not know if its going to be hiatus again

 

[popinloopy]

Yay, I really like this one so I'm glad it's back. Thank you for the translation!

 

[AnonymousWeeaboo]

Maybe? IIRC Tachi is a bit longer than a katana, but worn like a saber (blade side down) due to it being a cavalry sword, while odachi is usually reserved for the VERY BIG tachis? If it’s just a bit longer than an average katana, i think it’s still ok to call it a katana.

Tho I’d appreciate it if someone can remind me if there are other diffs between a tachi & katana 😘

Okatana and odachi are not the same thing. An okatana is kind of a middle point, longer than the standard katana size but not long enough to be an odachi. The tachi and okatana, as I recall, are from different periods. The okatana was from a later period, and was similar to the tachi in that it was a longer sword made for war, but differed slightly in shape and hilt length, although the shape is probably vague enough that a tachi and an okatana could possibly be considered as having the same shape in many circumstances.

This difference is due to the usage of the "standard katana" as a moslty self defense or dueling weapon, or perhaps as a side arm during battle. It's simply too short, and reach is the largest force multiplier in any combat encounter. Put up against longer swords, or against spears, most of the time it's going to lose.

Regardless, these are all "katana," as "katana" simply means "sword." These are specific kinds of katana for specific purposes. Even if we were to accept the modern interpretation of a katama as a Japanese curved sword, these are still special forms of katana, and it's inaccurate to call them "improper" katanas, they're just longer.

 

[MrGrinns]

He literally said he thinks it's better because he's more familiar with it not because "KATANA IS THE BEST" bs

Thats literally just the shitty excuse the author fed you so that he could shoehorn in a katana lol.

Your average person might be more familiar with a nerf gun than a AR-15 but im sure as hell not gonna bring a nerf gun to a fire fight just because its more familiar. What stupid logic lol

 

[Intrigbagarn]

The okatana was from a later period, and was similar to the tachi in that it was a longer sword made for war, but differed slightly in shape and hilt length, although the shape is probably vague enough that a tachi and an okatana could possibly be considered as having the same shape in many circumstances.

I am not gonna argue your main point here as you are correct. Only that the Japanese had swords made with the specific purpose/intent of a battlefield weapon.
Japanese swords were never meant for war. All shapes and forms of them were in the end were developed for individual self-defence. Doesnt mean swords werent used in some battles, but thats all negligible. Here some fun stastistics:

"According to data from the Warring States period in Japan, the majority of damage on the battlefield was caused by arrows, accounting for 38.6% of all injuries. Following this was damage caused by firearms, at 22.2%. Close combat weapons like the long spear or yari accounted for 20.8%. Intriguingly, after the yari, the next weapon causing the most injuries wasn't the Japanese sword, but rather stones, accounting for 11.3% of total injuries. Damage caused by the Japanese sword, or uchigatana, was a mere 4.5%. It's worth noting that these statistics predominantly concern foot soldiers, whose armor was considerably superior to the average infantry."

In all cultures arocss the world throught history that made swords with the first intent of its application being used in warfare on a battlefield, said swords were always shaped for stabbing not slashing and intended to be used in tamdem with a shield (excluding some swords for cavalry). Japanese swords were neither made for stabbing or with a shield use in mind.

Fun fact, the most use the "katana" ever saw in a war was between 1941-1945.

 

[AnonymousWeeaboo]

I am not gonna argue your main point here as you are correct. Only that the Japanese had swords made with the specific purpose/intent of a battlefield weapon.
Japanese swords were never meant for war. All shapes and forms of them were in the end were developed for individual self-defence. Doesnt mean swords werent used in some battles, but thats all negligible. Here some fun stastistics:

"According to data from the Warring States period in Japan, the majority of damage on the battlefield was caused by arrows, accounting for 38.6% of all injuries. Following this was damage caused by firearms, at 22.2%. Close combat weapons like the long spear or yari accounted for 20.8%. Intriguingly, after the yari, the next weapon causing the most injuries wasn't the Japanese sword, but rather stones, accounting for 11.3% of total injuries. Damage caused by the Japanese sword, or uchigatana, was a mere 4.5%. It's worth noting that these statistics predominantly concern foot soldiers, whose armor was considerably superior to the average infantry."

In all cultures arocss the world throught history that made swords with the first intent of its application being used in warfare on a battlefield, said swords were always shaped for stabbing not slashing and intended to be used in tamdem with a shield (excluding some swords for cavalry). Japanese swords were neither made for stabbing or with a shield use in mind.

Fun fact, the most use the "katana" ever saw in a war was between 1941-1945.

It's not strictly true that Japanese swords were never made for war, even if they would only be used as a backup weapon, a tachi, okatana, odachi, and nodachi were all specifically made for warfare. They would be rare or only used on specific circumstances, the same as European swords would have been, but it is generally accepted that longer swords were too cumbersome to carry around for self defense and would have been difficult to swing indoors. Some swords, like the nodachi, were almost certainly cavalry weapons, similar to the zweihander, where the benefit would be the long reach and large offending range, with the weapon being roughly similar in size to a standard length spear. While they could be used unmounted, being mounted makes the weapon significantly easier to use. It still would not be used commonly over simple spears, though, if only for simple cost.

In summary, there were some that were made explicitly for warfare, they just were uncommon compared to spears, which have the advantage of reach and being cheap.

 

[Hikineet]

Thanks for the chapter.

 

[Namelessmoreless]

I wonder if MC Will become a king spirit at this rate lmao

 

[Grikath]

Some swords, like the nodachi, were almost certainly cavalry weapons, similar to the zweihander, where the benefit would be the long reach and large offending range, with the weapon being roughly similar in size to a standard length spear.

The Zweihänder and later Bidenhänder were never, ever deployed, nor designed, as a cavalry weapon.
They were infantry weapons specifically meant to deal with pike blocks.

 

[pataponnaako]

Thats literally just the shitty excuse the author fed you so that he could shoehorn in a katana lol.

Your average person might be more familiar with a nerf gun than a AR-15 but im sure as hell not gonna bring a nerf gun to a fire fight just because its more familiar. What stupid logic lol

Only if your average person is US-born, raised and educated, and lived all their life without leaving the country. The author is clearly not that. They're Japanese. So, sure, it's an indication that the author isn't well-versed in things that a US-based reader would be more familiar with, like guns.

The author, much like the ordinary Japanese isekai protagonist, has the mindset and knowledge of an ordinary Japanese person. They're going to be more familiar with katanas rather than automatic rifles.

As an aside, it might be an interesting to have an Isekai MC to be a "future school-shooter but got isekai'ed instead."

 

[MrGrinns]

Only if your average person is US-born, raised and educated, and lived all their life without leaving the country. The author is clearly not that. They're Japanese. So, sure, it's an indication that the author isn't well-versed in things that a US-based reader would be more familiar with, like guns.

The author, much like the ordinary Japanese isekai protagonist, has the mindset and knowledge of an ordinary Japanese person. They're going to be more familiar with katanas rather than automatic rifles.

As an aside, it might be an interesting to have an Isekai MC to be a "future school-shooter but got isekai'ed instead."

Dude...the gun comment was an analogy. I was making a point that the character purposely downgraded his weapon just to feel more "familiar" with it. Comeon now

 

[pataponnaako]

Dude...the gun comment was an analogy. I was making a point that the character purposely downgraded his weapon just to feel more "familiar" with it. Comeon now

I get it. But the point I was making is that the author and by extension, the MC, is familiar with the katana (or at least the Japanese mass-media rendition of it). In-story, the MC's bodily movements suffered because he's using a fancier, though less familiar sword, and even though the new weapon is a "downgrade," the more effective movements could be worth it. However, I doubt that it's indeed a downgrade, it seems to me that the sword just changed form, but still retains its powers.

On a meta level, I am guessing that the author is having difficulty imagining how the movements with the sword would go, perhaps not being familiar with how the sword is supposed to be used in the first place. So, in a way, I do agree with you that this is a cop-out. But I am more willing to give the author a pass here. The other discussion happening in this thread about the specifics of katanas is perhaps an indication that the author has reached the limits of their knowledge even on Japanese swords.

The author can do more research, of course. The author can improve on their worldbuilding, making the magic system more consistent, for example, but I'd rather that the author spend their energy more on what makes this story tick.

 

[bearybrown]

These spirits are degenerates. I love it!

 

[Dwarfy2k]

Ok so this lore we are now being introduced to makes no sense, if black spirits can inhabite humans too then how come we haven't seen any until now? Also if they can then the humans would be all dead by now. This really breaks the world building and also really seems to be reinforcing that MC's sister is going to become the demon king.

 

[Kaarme]

He literally said he thinks it's better because he's more familiar with it not because "KATANA IS THE BEST" bs

That familiarity is from watching TV. His familiarity with the local (fantasy) style sword was from fighting numerous monsters already. Which is more important? Well, don't ask a Japanese person because in Japan, you can't even own a sword without a license. You won't get the license if the sword is not of historical/cultural significance. I'd assume Japan also has registered collectors, but don't take my word for it. All I know is that a guest of a friend of mine, a Japanese person, held a katana in her hands for the first time when I happened to mention I have one and brought it over. She had photos taken of herself holding it, maybe to send back to Japan, haha. That's the average Japanese experience with a katana due to their draconian laws.

This manga has so much of the "hairy barbarian needs to be educated" stuff going on that the katana detail hardly stands out. I mean, the poor locals didn't even know what a backpack is. In RL, it's a stone age invention.

 

[ShinduPK4]

Please don't tell me this is going to make people mistake him for someone like a demon lord…

 

[Nixeu]

Thats literally just the shitty excuse the author fed you so that he could shoehorn in a katana lol.

Your average person might be more familiar with a nerf gun than a AR-15 but im sure as hell not gonna bring a nerf gun to a fire fight just because its more familiar. What stupid logic lol

No. But if they're more used to nerf pistols than nerf rifles, they might prefer a M1911 over an AR-15. Or, if they're more used to revolvers than automatics (and live in fear of the very notion of a weapon that could maybe jam), they might pick a Colt over the M1911. Or, if they prefer stopping power to reliability or functioning wrists, they might pick a Desert Eagle. Or, going back to the rifle side, they might pick an AK-47 (more rugged), or even a frigging Finnish M/28-30 (local Mosin-Nagant variant) with iron sights, if they're a huge fan of Simo "White Death" Häyhä and/or are worried about gleam off a scope giving them away.

All of those weapons handle differently, and are preferred by different users for different reasons. Same is true of swords. The moves you can do with a single-edged blade with a small guard differ from those of a double-edged sword with a cross-guard. Which is, quite frankly, kind of a bad design. There's a reason basket hilts came into vogue. That guard doesn't actually protect the fingers well, and it's wide enough to get in the way of swinging it at times.

And, as drawn, it's a fairly odd weapon, with the weight concentrated in the tip, tapering down to the hilt, inverse of most designs. It's a common mistake artists make, and a bad one. That design puts stress on the blade near the guard, which could cause it to snap, and also strains the user's wrists, because you have a heavy weight at the end of a long lever. Hence, I'm not aware of any real swords with that design, at least not with that sort of length (the xiphos is a much shorter design, and the blade is more curved), though I'm no expert on the matter.

Regardless, even setting aside weight distribution, you're not going to use a weapon like that the same as a katana. If you tried, you'd probably hurt yourself with the back edge. The length of the guard also changes how you can swing it, which might limit how much you cut yourself with the back, but will still be very different from a katana. That has advantages and disadvantages, but someone more familiar with one type instead of the other should probably use the type of sword they're most familiar with.

TL;DR Weapon design does matter.

 

[MrGrinns]

No. But if they're more used to nerf pistols than nerf rifles, they might prefer a M1911 over an AR-15. Or, if they're more used to revolvers than automatics (and live in fear of the very notion of a weapon that could maybe jam), they might pick a Colt over the M1911. Or, if they prefer stopping power to reliability or functioning wrists, they might pick a Desert Eagle. Or, going back to the rifle side, they might pick an AK-47 (more rugged), or even a frigging Finnish M/28-30 (local Mosin-Nagant variant) with iron sights, if they're a huge fan of Simo "White Death" Häyhä and/or are worried about gleam off a scope giving them away.

All of those weapons handle differently, and are preferred by different users for different reasons. Same is true of swords. The moves you can do with a single-edged blade with a small guard differ from those of a double-edged sword with a cross-guard. Which is, quite frankly, kind of a bad design. There's a reason basket hilts came into vogue. That guard doesn't actually protect the fingers well, and it's wide enough to get in the way of swinging it at times.

And, as drawn, it's a fairly odd weapon, with the weight concentrated in the tip, tapering down to the hilt, inverse of most designs. It's a common mistake artists make, and a bad one. That design puts stress on the blade near the guard, which could cause it to snap, and also strains the user's wrists, because you have a heavy weight at the end of a long lever. Hence, I'm not aware of any real swords with that design, at least not with that sort of length (the xiphos is a much shorter design, and the blade is more curved), though I'm no expert on the matter.

Regardless, even setting aside weight distribution, you're not going to use a weapon like that the same as a katana. If you tried, you'd probably hurt yourself with the back edge. The length of the guard also changes how you can swing it, which might limit how much you cut yourself with the back, but will still be very different from a katana. That has advantages and disadvantages, but someone more familiar with one type instead of the other should probably use the type of sword they're most familiar with.

TL;DR Weapon design does matter.

Dumb analogy, if your standards for picking a weapon is familiarity and not application then you're a retard and will probably die. If i bring a 1911 against 12 dudes with M4s im stupid and am going to die. This isint the movies. If i pick a dagger because im more familiar with it and my opponents are a group of archers then im stupid and am going to die.

If MC is going to be fighting European style swords and armor and picks a katana then he is stupid and is going to die.

 

[Nixeu]

Dumb analogy, if your standards for picking a weapon is familiarity and not application then you're a retard and will probably die. If i bring a 1911 against 12 dudes with M4s im stupid and am going to die. This isint the movies. If i pick a dagger because im more familiar with it and my opponents are a group of archers then im stupid and am going to die.

If MC is going to be fighting European style swords and armor and picks a katana then he is stupid and is going to die.

Again, tell that to the White Death. Dude went iron sights, and racked up 500 kills in the course of about 4 months (30th of November 1939 to 13th of March 1940). As a sniper. Granted, he was helped by the fact that he was fighting in the snow, which makes scopes a dicey proposition. Heck, tracking the glare from enemy scopes was how he got so many kills on enemy marksmen. But still, he's probably the most successful sniper in military history, and he didn't get there by going with the fanciest new toys.

Also, way to cherry-pick my weakest example. They might not pick the 1911, but they sure might pick an AK. That said, there are definitely a number of people who would prefer a pistol to a rifle in some scenarios, where the greater range doesn't really matter. Especially if the pistol is silenced.

"European style swords" is a meaningless term, covering everything from the estoc (no edge, just point), to the falchion (a light, single bladed, curved infantry sword that's actually not too unlike a katana), to a basket-hilted claymore. In this particular case, we're talking about what look to be pretty primitive Viking swords, or maybe something in the Oakeshott types. Or maybe an elongated gladius. Whatever they are, they aren't amazing weapons. And no one here wears armor. Even if they did, we're talking about a magical weapon that, IIRC, can cut through anything. I don't think he's going to run into problems, lol.

 

[MrGrinns]

Again, tell that to the White Death. Dude went iron sights, and racked up 500 kills in the course of about 4 months (30th of November 1939 to 13th of March 1940). As a sniper. Granted, he was helped by the fact that he was fighting in the snow, which makes scopes a dicey proposition. Heck, tracking the glare from enemy scopes was how he got so many kills on enemy marksmen. But still, he's probably the most successful sniper in military history, and he didn't get there by going with the fanciest new toys.

Also, way to cherry-pick my weakest example. They might not pick the 1911, but they sure might pick an AK. That said, there are definitely a number of people who would prefer a pistol to a rifle in some scenarios, where the greater range doesn't really matter. Especially if the pistol is silenced.

"European style swords" is a meaningless term, covering everything from the estoc (no edge, just point), to the falchion (a light, single bladed, curved infantry sword that's actually not too unlike a katana), to a basket-hilted claymore. In this particular case, we're talking about what look to be pretty primitive Viking swords, or maybe something in the Oakeshott types. Or maybe an elongated gladius. Whatever they are, they aren't amazing weapons. And no one here wears armor. Even if they did, we're talking about a magical weapon that, IIRC, can cut through anything. I don't think he's going to run into problems, lol.

Special pleading fallacy. The exception is not the standard. You are not Simo Häyhä. You will die.

You choose a pistol but the guys you're fighting have level 4 plates and body armor that you now cannot penetrate. But yeah you keep picking guns based on familiarity. Do you honestly think you're john wick? Lmao

🤦‍♂️no, you simple simple idiot. A falchion is nothing like a katana. I said "European style swords" with the assumption that you would understand i was talking about period appropriate weapons not shit from the Renaissance era. The whole point of the discussion is that magic isint a part of it. If you bring magic into the discussion then its all meaningless, i could pick up a giant rubber dildo and bash your skull into a soup because i say its a magical +99 dildo and you cant argue with me because its a reductio ad absurdum