Tensei Saki ga Zannen Ouji Datta Ken ~Ima wa Fukkin 1-kai mo Dekinai kedo Yasete Isekai Sukuimasu~ - Vol. 6 Ch. 28

[HelioCesar]

NGL, while I'm sure the execution was different, that looks rather similar to to dinner last night xD

Bro, invite me to dinner pls

 

[finalm]

NGL, I'm starting to wonder if you're not intentionally being obtuse and a bit of a troll. No one is saying that cast bronze or iron made weapons were better then steel, only that they were made and existed.

Hence why the practices were retired and new processes were developed and used.

Please re-read the comment before assuming ill will. He did say that a bronze sword would perform better than an iron one, so it's not about merely existing. If you mean that he said "iron" and I interpreted it as "steel" then it's my bad, but to be honest, many of the points about steel apply to early iron age swords as well. They were harder, held an edge better and allowed for longer weapons. The differences were not as dramatic as for steel and it's true that the prevailing of iron was also due to it's abundence, while tin got scarce, but my point still stands.

 

[Miserys_End]

All right, but how many examples to the contrary can you think of?

Many and varied. I have nearly a thousand manga bookmarked with just as many western webnovels and eastern translations on different sites. And that doesnt even mention the physical library down the hall. All of which means shit to the conversation at hand. Authors of any media are trash if they don't research the material they are writing about.

I do, but you responded to my comment about steel swords, why bring up iron now? Also, iron swords were not cast. The problems I mentioned with steel apply to any ferrous metal when casting.

Because the only cast weapons that saw any real use were of iron and some verity of bronze? Sure some attempts at cast steel were made as well, but they were inferior to worked steel. Still doesn't mean they didn't exist.

I meant it as a counter point to what you said about well-monetized works being more sensible.

No one has a monopoly on ignorance.

 

[Miserys_End]

Bro, invite me to dinner pls

Sure, but it's BYOB.

 

[finalm]

Many and varied. I have nearly a thousand manga bookmarked with just as many western webnovels and eastern translations on different sites. And that doesnt even mention the physical library down the hall. All of which means shit to the conversation at hand. Authors of any media are trash if they don't research the material they are writing about.

I'm not sure I follow. You can name over a thousand titles that do not suffer from the discussed problem, but still claim the majority of contemporary works do?

Because the only cast weapons that saw any real use were of iron and some verity of bronze? Sure some attempts at cast steel were made as well, but they were inferior to worked steel. Still doesn't mean they didn't exist.

If you mean that attempts at making iron swords through casting existed, then you're udoubtedly correct, how else would anyone know that this method is flawed? The actually useful ones were however made by a similar process as forging steel. As far as we know, only bronze and it's variations was ever used to cast swords that were practical.

 

[Miserys_End]

I'm not sure I follow. You can name over a thousand titles that do not suffer from the discussed problem, but still claim the majority of contemporary works do?

Sigh, you really are just an obtuse troll. And I quote.

Authors of any media are trash if they don't research the material they are writing about.

Agree or disagree, I no longer care.

If you mean that attempts at making iron swords through casting existed, then you're udoubtedly correct, how else would anyone know that this method is flawed? The actually useful ones were however made by a similar process as forging steel. As far as we know, only bronze and it's variations was ever used to cast swords that were practical.

It's more a matter how weapons evolved. You are honestly skipping a literally thousand of years of weapon manufacturer if you think cast weapons were never used.

 

[finalm]

Sigh, you really are just an obtuse troll. And I quote.

I'm the one who should be sighing, trying to make sense of this. I suppose you take offense at being shown to lack consistency in your reasoning, but that's not my problem, so kindly don't take it out on me.

It's more a matter how weapons evolved. You are honestly skipping a literally thousand of years of weapon manufacturer if you think cast weapons were never used.

Oh, NOW it's that? And you have the gall to call people trolls with that kind of topic changing whenever it's not going your way? Also, I already said they were used, but that applies to bronze, not iron and certainly not steel. But all right then, what makes you think that this is not the case? I'm pretty sure that whatever historical source you check, that will be the conclusion. You can also ask contemporary enthusiasts of historical blacksmithing, since many have tested this in practice. I have. So do tell, what do you base that confidence on?

 

[Thor]

Man, I hope that the text versions of this story are better, because the manga version is so very flat. Here, let me sum up the story so far:

1) Bad start for MC. He gets chucked out of his home country. Oh noes!
2) Upon arriving at the other country, infinite good things happen both to the MC and because of the MC.
3) That's it. There is no #3.

Any possible difficulty happening either to or adjacent to the MC is instantly solved and quashed. MC is exactly as OP as he needs to be at any given point, and all the waifus love him.

And the art doesn't help. It's all lazy generic talking anime torsos with the occasional 3D-rendered environment tossed in. The whole thing looks like a low-effort 4-koma omake. I'm not sure which waifu is which anymore, and I'm not given any motivation to find out.

I'm dropping this. Not because it is bad, but because the author and artist have obviously not made any effort to make it, so why should I make any effort to read it?

 

[AnotherDuck]

No, it's not quite normal.

You're factually wrong. Look at what you're actually responding to, and not what you want to respond to.

Looking at the rest, I'll stick to what I know.

 

[finalm]

You're factually wrong. Look at what you're actually responding to, and not what you want to respond to.

Looking at the rest, I'll stick to what I know.

Then let me re-iterate: I'm responding to your claim that a prince having a landed title like duke is normal i.e. it happened all the time. Are you saying this is not what you meant? Because telling someone they're "factually" wrong at least calls for stating the facts as you see them.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Then let me re-iterate: I'm responding to your claim that a prince having a landed title like duke is normal i.e. it happened all the time. Are you saying this is not what you meant? Because telling someone they're "factually" wrong at least calls for stating the facts as you see them.

You missed the part where I was explicitly talking from my point of view.

 

[finalm]

You missed the part where I was explicitly talking from my point of view.

So you meant it not as a comment on how things really were back in the day, but in the sense "I feel it's the right title to give to a prince"? All right.

 

[AnotherDuck]

So you meant it not as a comment on how things really were back in the day, but in the sense "I feel it's the right title to give to a prince"? All right.

Not about feeling. About how things actually are.

 

[finalm]

Not about feeling. About how things actually are.

Okay, I'm confused now so I'll ask super specifically: do you not agree with my summary of how these things worked historically? If so, why and what are you basing on?

 

[AnotherDuck]

Okay, I'm confused now so I'll ask super specifically: do you not agree with my summary of how these things worked historically? If so, why and what are you basing on?

That has nothing to do with it. That's just a response to what you want to respond to, not what I actually wrote. I've already given you an example of exactly what I was talking about, and you still go in a different direction.

 

[finalm]

That has nothing to do with it. That's just a response to what you want to respond to, not what I actually wrote. I've already given you an example of exactly what I was talking about, and you still go in a different direction.

You mean with Sweden's royal family? Look, I'm not trying to find faults here, but have you considered that this can also be interpreted as you giving a counter-example (which would be a fair point, so I felt obligated to address it) to what I said about it being a rare situation in the past? It certainly seemed that way to me. It's fine to correct me, but you speak as if you were being impeccably clear and straightforward, while I just go offtopic for no reason and that is simply not the case. It's not the first time either - I often see you in the comments (seems we read similar stuff) and several times you've protested that someone else interpreted your meaning wrong. Have a bit of self awareness before assuming someone's being intentionally difficult.

 

[AnotherDuck]

You mean with Sweden's royal family? Look, I'm not trying to find faults here, but have you considered that this can also be interpreted as you giving a counter-example (which would be a fair point, so I felt obligated to address it) to what I said about it being a rare situation in the past?

And you couldn't give that example without ignoring that I said it was from my own perspective. But the main point is you said I was wrong, which is false. It's fine if you want to add some other perspective, but then you can't start by saying I'm wrong, as if your perspective is the only right one.

but you speak as if you were being impeccably clear and straightforward,

I do? Wasn't my intention.

I often see you in the comments (seems we read similar stuff) and several times you've protested that someone else interpreted your meaning wrong.

It's common on these forums. I see lots and lots of discussions between people where neither understand each other. The difference is that I actually bring the misunderstanding up, rather than just get dragged along some argument I didn't make.

Have a bit of self awareness before assuming someone's being intentionally difficult.

And just in this thread people complained about something similar concerning yourself. Except worse. And no, I'm not assuming you're intentionally difficult. I'm assuming you have a problem understanding the difference between the actual text you're reading and what you want to discuss. And that's based on more than just our discussion here, but also the other one where you were called a troll.

 

[finalm]

And you couldn't give that example without ignoring that I said it was from my own perspective. But the main point is you said I was wrong, which is false. It's fine if you want to add some other perspective, but then you can't start by saying I'm wrong, as if your perspective is the only right one.

This isn't about "perspectives", not when you claim there's any wrong or right to it. An opinion can be considered your perspective and I wouldn't have brought it up if you were clear that is what it was. Facts, especially historical ones are not a matter of what either you or I think. Having that in mind, as well as my explanation of why I interpreted your words the way I did, it should be clear why I said you were incorrect.

And just in this thread people complained about something similar concerning yourself. Except worse.

Not quite similar, since I don't recall having to claim someone fundamentally misunderstood me here, but let's roll with it. You refer to the people who hide their head in the sand when pressed to explain what makes them think their extraordinary takes about history hold water? Well, that's nothing yet, wait until you see them react to being asked to provide some basis for their claims (and I'm not even expecting equally extraordinary sources, as I should...). It turns out some simply want to be able to spew whatever bull they like and never be challenged about it. I consider that a very trumpist mindset so you'll have to forgive me for not seeing their name calling as a mark against me.

And no, I'm not assuming you're intentionally difficult. I'm assuming you have a problem understanding the difference between the actual text you're reading and what you want to discuss. And that's based on more than just our discussion here, but also the other one where you were called a troll.

So I can't read with comprehension? Well now, thats pretty condescending and you just said it wasn't your intention a few lines above. Though at least you wrote what's on your mind much more clearly this time. I guess I should follow my detractor's example and call you a troll now, since seeing that kind of rethoric seems to get you to take the time to express yourself a lot more feasibly for someone as disadvantaged as me. I'm sure all the other easily confused guys would benefit as well, I mean they obviously have the same problem...

 

[AnotherDuck]

Facts, especially historical ones are not a matter of what either you or I think.

Okay, so you're just wrong. Glad we cleared that up. My original point still stands: Duke is a perfectly normal title for a prince from my perspective. And that's what I mean by perspective. You chose the perspective of a different time and place than I was talking about, so your result is different. However, that also means that your claim that I was wrong is false, and you can't use your argument against mine, despite trying.

it should be clear why I said you were incorrect.

It was always clear that you were responding to what you wanted to respond to, and not what I actually wrote. That was never the issue.

So I can't read with comprehension? Well now, thats pretty condescending

I've seen as much, and I don't think it's condescending for calling that out. You're still showing that you don't understand. And considering your description of others, you have no grounds to stand on calling someone out for being condescending. It's hypocritical if anything.

I guess I should follow my detractor's example and call you a troll now, since seeing that kind of rethoric seems to get you to take the time to express yourself a lot more feasibly for someone as disadvantaged as me.

Calling me a troll does nothing to that end. Not sure what gave you that idea. But then you argue what you want, without reading what I write. Nothing's changed since you started. So no point in continuing.

 

[ankiwi]

Oh wow they're continuing this? Thought for sure they ended it. Well I'm not complaining I actually enjoyed it.