2013-02-21, 16:45 | Link #21 | ||
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Basically it was effective for duels - 1v1 And skirmishes / skirmishers - Small groups As for general melee and mass formation battle? I think this redditor says it best: Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-02-21, 17:06 | Link #24 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Oh, oh, I missed a comment from OP about "concealed weapons" like that from Assassin's Creed. I have a direct response to that (which is awesome) and here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_knife The hilarious show "Deadliest Warrior" did a Spetsnaz vs. Green Beret comparison and actually performed "fire tests" of it. It is awesome
__________________
|
2013-02-21, 18:06 | Link #25 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
Unless you somehow have Captain America type skills with throwing a shield, but then it be difficult to carry two bulky shields into combat. Two small arm shields maybe, but they don't cover much area of your person.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-21, 18:12 | Link #26 |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
For some reason, I am more impressed by the 3-Section Staff:
The impression is summed in one word: Versatility. Short range. Long range. Speed. Power. Single hand. Two hand. This weapon has it all, except any sharp edges.
__________________
|
2013-02-21, 18:57 | Link #27 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-21, 21:01 | Link #30 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
I'd rather have a large shield than another sword. If you're physically strong/powerful, you can also use a large shield to rush and pressure your enemy in a one on one situation, or bash them to the ground. In a primitive-arms style of combat, as well, nothing beats spear and shield; powerful and versatile combination.
|
2013-02-21, 22:14 | Link #32 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
Edit: Or are you just jealous America may be the only country in the world without a martial weapon tradition? :P |
|
2013-02-22, 01:04 | Link #36 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Historically speaking, it's no surprise that there's not really any traditional martial arts for the US, the country is simply too new, and having been founded after the advent of firearms, no reason to ever develop one. AFAIK the native tribes stuck with your usual spear/bow etc, basically the practical stuff. |
|
2013-02-22, 05:30 | Link #37 |
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Middle Way
|
Dual-wielding, when compared to other styles such as one handed, or two-handed, more so emphasises reaction, spacial awareness, dexterity, and some would even say strength.
Using two hands to hold a sword decreases the number of angles you can swing, however two-handed swords are longer and heavier. One handed can go a couple ways, a shield will emphasise turtling, a buckler does mostly the same except it relies more on speed, while only a sword in hand (ex. Fencing) would make the most use of one's speed. Ofcourse, compared to a shield or buckler, dual-wielding pales in defense, one can argue that even two-handed, despite the absence of a shield, would fare better as far as blocking/parrying is concerned. However, dual-wielding fares better in defense compared to just a sword in one hand. To illustrate that, Anakin broke through Ventress' dual-wielding simply by wailing on her repeatedly with power-attacks. Since less strength is applied to each sword, Ventress was unable to defend herself against Anakin's two-handed strikes. As for offence, the most obvious thing is the psychological impact of seeing your enemy holding two swords. Many would be shaken by the imposing countenance of dual-wielding. We have already said that less strength is applied to each sword and thus dual-wielding is unable to deliver power-attacks like two-handed. A shield can also be used offensively but its offensive power cannot be compared to a sword, otherwise why not just run into battle with two shields. Compared to simply a sword in one hand, dual-wielding allows one to attack from multiple angles in rapid succession. To conclude this, here are my final rankings, generally speaking. offense: - two-handed - dual wielding - one-handed (buckler) - one-handed (shield) - one handed (just) defense: - one-handed (shield) - two-handed - one-handed (buckler) - dual-wielding - one-handed (just) Keep in mind that these are qualitative rankings, while qualitative rankings can tell you what is above or below what, only quantitative rankings can tell you how much above or below something is. Last edited by HasuMasu; 2013-02-23 at 09:07. |
2013-02-22, 12:01 | Link #39 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
US culture didn't suddenly come into existence out of nowhere in 1776. It has as ancient a martial tradition as any European country (in some ways, more ancient, because the US armed forced have existed in some form since ~1776, while most European armies have only been more recently constituted (EG, the German army of today is a separate body from the German army of WW2). |
|
2013-02-22, 12:06 | Link #40 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|