-
For our US members, be sure to check on your voter registration status and if you are not registered it will only take a second to do so!
Swords!
- Thread starter Jag
- Start date
The association with neckbeard types has definitely had an effect on the perception of the katana in pop culture over the past few years. It's hard to think of these blades in the west without an image of a condescending, badly groomed guy wearing a fedora also being there.
That's not true. Longswords are ever so slightly longer, but it makes all the difference. You need two hands to wield a longsword, while you can choose between one or two hands while wielding a bastard sword comfortably. There's probably some overlap between the two categories in some cultures and parts of history (even the existence of longswords in history is debatable), but you can typically separate them by looking at how many hands you need to wield one.
In my opinion, the slight difference in reach between the two is hardly worth the loss of flexibility.
It's all about reach. Between two equally skilled combatants, the one with the longest reach has a considerable advantage. A short sword or gladius is something you'd use as a backup weapon for when your spear becomes impractical, not as your main weapon of choice. Pick as long a sword (or preferably, spear) as you can comfortably wield.
Katanas are sexy.
I thought of buying one as deco years ago, later ocassionally thought of getting Yamato. But in the end I'm too stingy to buy stuff like that. :O
I thought of buying one as deco years ago, later ocassionally thought of getting Yamato. But in the end I'm too stingy to buy stuff like that. :O
A Longsword easily breaks a katana: https://youtu.be/w_3W1zg683A?t=356 (subtitle available)
I mainly like Western swords. The flamberge have a lot of style...
This is really a test of steel. Japanese steel was nowhere near as good as the best European (and Damascene) steel - with Spain being up there - at a metallurgical level. They were behind on the science - and Katanas and other Japanese sword arts relied heavily on asymmetrical encounters where speed and sharpness decided a victory. To be fair I doubt there were a lot of parries in any swordfights though. So equally armored German and Japanese "knights" of the same height - fight might be decided by reach or the ability to quickly get inside of that reach.
Obviously a Scotsman would simply behead both of them at the same time with a single stroke and steal their quickening.
The GOAT. Real sword wise would be a nice Claymore.
Axes are cooler tho
I did a bit of googling because I was curious what benefits a flamberge had in combat.
Now, i'm no expert, but I don't think this is correct:
A lot of Western swords were fairly blunt near the hilt and could be grabbed and used for certain moves.
Rapiers look really nice. They're really elegant looking while still being really cool.
You'd be surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword
Half-swording is the way you actually use swords against armored opponents since simple slashes won't really cut it once folk start wearing more mail and plate.
I did a bit of googling because I was curious what benefits a flamberge had in combat.
Now, i'm no expert, but I don't think this is correct:
You'd be surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword
Half-swording is the way you actually use swords against armored opponents since simple slashes won't really cut it once folk start wearing more mail and plate.
How did this thread go beyond the first post.Plowshares!
This was a one and done. Lock it up!
Real sword fights would have had a lot more grappling and slamming into each other. Like tackling a person and stabbing them at the same time.
Think less like this:
And more like this:
Against someone covered in metal a Katana would be pretty difficult to swing hard enough to be effective in combat unless the target were standing still.
OP
OP
Real sword fights would have had a lot more grappling and slamming into each other. Like tackling a person and stabbing them at the same time.
Think less like this:
That's Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He would never tackle someone.
Real sword fights would have had a lot more grappling and slamming into each other. Like tackling a person and stabbing them at the same time.
Think less like this:
And more like this:
Against someone covered in metal a Katana would be pretty difficult to swing hard enough to be effective in combat unless the target were standing still.
That's the reason I like the claymore because even if you don't cut anything your opponent just got hit by a car.
Spear is what I always think I'd want for bears and wolves and other swordsmen I might encounter in Washington state. Especially for a bear. Jesus. It's gonna get me but at least there's a chance it might run onto the pointy end in a rage.
I'd prefer a nice, sharp, pointy dagger or two. But if I have to choose a sword I guess I'll go with a rapier.
I understand and appreciate this reference.
I know a thing or two about swords.
Just about everything beats a Katana.
Last edited:
It depends on the time period chosen. To imagine for a moment a samurai and a knight (medieval period, of the Hundred Years' War for example) fighting each other is not a possibility (and not fairplay for Japanese). There is a video from a French museum that did tests to show how knights of that time really fought, well, it's very different what we imagine: https://youtu.be/5hlIUrd7d1Q?t=36
Now, if we move forward a little bit in time, the speed of execution and the control of the posture effectively take precedence over the few parries. But here again, the steel used is not the same, the strength of the katana would surely prevail if the hussar is not fast enough: https://youtu.be/l2KWTEhyVX8?t=106
And the rapier is indeed very aesthetic (and very deadly).
You know what rarely beats a katana? A Japanese peasant walking home from work minding his own business.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsujigiri
Careful who you pick on though...
OP
OP
Sharpened Helicopter Blade
Soldier (movie)
that's literally the end fight solution for Kurt Russell's more experienced but less capable supersoldier
Also one day you might see this thing or something like it deployed in combat. Not a Halo Infinite tease I should clarify.
Real sword fights would have had a lot more grappling and slamming into each other. Like tackling a person and stabbing them at the same time.
Think less like this:
And more like this:
Against someone covered in metal a Katana would be pretty difficult to swing hard enough to be effective in combat unless the target were standing still.
The comparison is difficult, as you are comparing a one-on-one fencing duel (second gif, first one if obvisously BS) using longswords with large scale battles using one handed sword + shield combination.
In the first case, the second gif is not that far off. As far as i know (please correct me if I´m wrong) "real" swordfights between two combatants using fancy longswords as we imagine them today did typically not occur between two fully armor-clad knights on the open battlefield but on specially scheduled occasions or duels. Mainly because the typical soldier was equipped with a spear or a bow and longswords were expensive as hell and basically reserved for nobles/knights. As far as we know from authentic medieval manuals for longsword-fencing, this kind of fencing (if done properly) was far removed from the mindless bashing we see in the 3 last gifs. In he second gif, the guy standing closer to the camera is actually performing two historically sound techniques from the german school of longsword fencing called "Nachreissen" and "Absetzen" respectively.
Concerning the big melee battles with many basically untrained soldiers, i think the blunt bashing is a rather good representation, even if they should not be wearing full helmets and plate armor but something cheaper and more lightwight. there sould also be more spears involved in general.
This is all without really talking about the timeframe certain swords and armors were in use, but this is beyond what i can recall on the spot.
As said before, please correct me if i got something wrong here, i am just recalling stuff i caught up while reading on that stuff.
Last edited:
Soldier (movie)that's literally the end fight solution for Kurt Russell's more experienced but less capable supersoldier
Also one day you might see this thing or something like it deployed in combat. Not a Halo Infinite tease I should clarify.
What is happening in the gif? I don't follow it.
I couldn't find one of the prior few seconds. Caution Kurt Russell SOLDIER spoilers :
Kurt is easily outmatched by the "new model" sent to kill him after the attempt to recycle him failed. The final fight happens in a wreckage strewn warzone and Kurt, more experienced and smarter as a result, seems to be losing to Brandon Lee but actually rope a dopes him - Kurt glances at a hook shaped tool on the ground as the new model Soldier smashes him up against a crashed helicopter. New soldier glances at it wryly and Kurt reaches up and spins the helicopter blade down, slicing his guts open - the gif is the immediate aftermath and eventual execution of new guy. The director - admirably refuses the temptation to show the audience a glinting helicopter blade shot , so when it happens it's a cool surprise - and yet you've had all the shots set up so it's not a deus ex machina. Kurt also quickly and efficiently and I guess mercifully then breaks his opponents neck calmly to be sure it's done.
I'm just making a general point that the first two are how it's supposed to be fought, the following 3 bashing GIFs are how it would have actually gone down in an actual fight. Fatigue sets in quickly. People are fighting for their lives and heavy soldiers throwing their weight around is a far better way to kill someone.
I know what you mean, but you can not compare the situations a longsword duel would occur in with situations that common soldiers use a short sword + shield combination. Both have occurred historically but probably looked completely different.
If we assume that a few hundred years of longsword fencing manuals and schools have not been written for fun, the second gif is somewhere close to how a longsword duel would have gone down if one of the fencers had no idea what he was doing (the one trying to grab the sword) . It's like assuming highly trained soldiers run around shooting from the hip because we can't imagine them using stuff they have learned in stressful situations. The techniques taught in these manuals are not fancy, but effective and therefore practicable if the fencer is trained in them. If you are fighting for your life in a one-on-one situation, using correct techniques is way safer than hacking away and hoping for the best. It may not look like that, but from the fencers´ perspective and with knowledge of what the other fencer realistically can and can not do and reach, you are "safe" from enemy attacks far more than it looks from the outside.
The problem with modern interpretations of longsword-fencing (like HEMA) is that many techniques look unsafe or impractical from the outside, because they rely on you killing the opponent (or closing the distance after a stab, simultaniously incapacitating them and guarding yourself from a final counter-attack), which is not luckily not possible in a controlled setting.
Again, these types of swords were not used in large scale battles or the common folk but by people who have actually been trained in using them.
Last edited:
It's not even a question, long sword. Best sword ever. I mean, not necessarily but the aesthetics and it's versatility and I just love it. Though I'm pretty certain the Claymore would be considered a type of long sword, like a bastard sword would be as well.
Longswords in general can be wielded one handed, certainly bastard swords are a shorter longsword that can be wielded in one hand more easily but either way a Bastard Sword is a type of longsword that is intended to be wielded with two hands just as other longswords are. The term longsword is a more recent invention but the most common thing that ties them together is that they are a two handed sword and generally can be worn as a sidearm/sheathed at your side whereas say a greatsword cannot be.
Longswords in general can be wielded one handed, certainly bastard swords are a shorter longsword that can be wielded in one hand more easily but either way a Bastard Sword is a type of longsword that is intended to be wielded with two hands just as other longswords are. The term longsword is a more recent invention but the most common thing that ties them together is that they are a two handed sword and generally can be worn as a sidearm/sheathed at your side whereas say a greatsword cannot be.
Last edited:
Totally get what you're trying to say; but Flousn is kinda right in that you're comparing apples to oranges. The longsword was an expensive, aristocratic weapon that you probably wouldn't find in a melee scrum, which explains why they're behaving differently. Even in those cool gifs, the "realistic" fighters are using actual footsoldier weapons like short swords, hatchets, and clubs.
Neither of you are wrong. :P
Interesting, seems really inefficient though? I'm not sure what a killing blow with this would look like without hitting the neck or similar, just alot of maiming.
How effective would this be vs leather armor? And could it be defeated with a spear or stick used to block and cause it to wrap around?