2007-11-13, 00:25 | Link #81 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Quote:
We'll see if it cuts or not. Seriously, I've nary heard such a stupid thing in my entire life. Baka! Why would knights use a sword that couldn't cut? Kind of defeats the purpose of a sword, doesn't it? That's what flails, maces, and axes were for. And they are EXTREMELY SHARP. I OWN one of these, and I ran my finger down it one time to see how sharp it was. Damn that was a stupid idea. I cut my thumb quite badly, and I wasn't applying very much pressure at all. Again, Tri-ring, you're just biased. Yes they are heavy, but so are many katanas. I think many things made of solid steel would be heavy. The idea that european swords=clubs with edges? REJECTED. And again, you can't cut anything without some kind of downward or pulling motion anyway. It's kind of how blades work. As Yellow Flash once said, "Bullshit. You just telling your stupid theory here with no consideration of facts." Edit: If anything, its weight would augment its cutting ability with (usually) a downward force, using gravity to increase one's speed and power. That's not the same as saying the weapon was not sharp in the first place.
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 01:12 | Link #84 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Besides, the point being made by Tri-ring (though overstated) is that the edge of a battlesword of that type generally isn't razor sharp -- otherwise it'd be a mess after a battle. Such swords were generally "sharpened" to wider angles so they wouldn't be nicked into oblivion.
The velocity of the swing drives the cut rather than a razor thin edge in that type of blade. The japanese swords (katana) do run a lot *sharper* but their blades are made with a stiffer spine and a razor-edged softer iron. Cutting force worked just fine until advanced chain and plate became common -- remember the whole sword/mace/spear vs leather/scale/chain/plate was a thousand+ year arms race, not a static picture. Besides even in partial plate or advanced chain, many vulnerable points remained.
__________________
|
2007-11-13, 01:38 | Link #85 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Well, they WERE razor sharp, but they'd just get notched as battle progressed and eventually become useless.
And yes, I did mention the types of sword that are specifically designed for thrusting attacks in an earlier post, if anyone actually bothered to read it (only the relevent parts are quoted): Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 02:24 | Link #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
A straight bladed sword when swung down in a right angle will contact the surface in a line therefore the strength of the blow will disapate through out the contact line making a cleaving wound. A blade with a curvature like a Katana when swung down in a right angle will have a contact surface of more or less a point where the strength of the blow will be concentrated and when pulled the contact point will remain concentrated thus a slashing wound. Same principle used in a scalpel, it's curved blade is for a purpose. Of course there are pros and cons for both weapons and can not be proven which is better and I have never implyed that either did. A Katana has a narrow sweet spot where you can render a fatal blow where as a straight sword's has a much wider sweet spot because of it's shape. I did read your link and it says much the same as I have elaborated, as he did wrote it cleaved the opponent. Cleaving cut is a forced cut with the weight of a blade not a slashing cut like a scalpel. One more thing the composition of the spine of a katana is a softer steel and the blade is the hardened steel not the other way around. |
|
2007-11-13, 07:08 | Link #88 |
A fuckin' genius!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here, there ... EVERYWHERE!
Age: 36
|
About that, Europe vs Asia thing. I always thought that Europeans had a much better experience regarding swords, than Asia. Mainly because of the numerous wars and battles that have crossed the continent.
Also, there is the focus on weapon development. In Asia, it seems that the focus was on swords, rather than armor. While in Europe, the main focus was on developing better armor. Like Gothic armor. A knight wearing this armor was nigh invincible, to any sword out there. Only firearms packed punch, strong enough to pierce the armor.
__________________
|
2007-11-13, 10:02 | Link #90 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 11:59 | Link #92 | |
幻想郷
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 幻想郷
|
Quote:
btw, no body mentioned about sakabatou?
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 12:00 | Link #93 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese had as much experience with swords as their European counterparts. Quote:
And then, there's the Japanese summer to deal with. Summer was the prime season for warfare, and while they were probably a tough breed of people, I doubt that even samurai would take kindly to being broiled alive under a hot sun. Soldiers are, by and large, a pragmatic lot. It probably wouldn't take a lot of brains to realise that metal armour is tougher than, say, bamboo armour. So, when Asian warriors chose to fight in lighter armour than European men-at-arms, I daresay it was not just simply because of cultural preferences. There were probably more prosaic reasons for such tactical choices. |
||
2007-11-13, 14:22 | Link #95 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Aye, if you don't use a katana quite precisely you can actually shatter the thing (unless its *extremely* well made) by missing the sweet spot. Also, a european sword is normally sharpened to a 30 degree angle - by definition that isn't "razor edge" though it cuts quite nicely either slicing or with pressure. I can generally mildly whack a properly sharpened sword on the palm of my hand without damage (as long as I don't slice) -- whereas my wife's ancestral family katana..... well I'm always cutting the crap out of myself just touching it. The thing I want to emphasize in this thread is that sword technology was never really static (especially in Europe). You can make almost any comment about a sword and it'll be true for a particular time period and place and not for others. The Chinese and Japanese sword technology histories are interesting because they focused on refinement of a few good models for the styles of combat they engaged in - rather than discontinuous technology jumps that European theatres engaged in. And, on both sides of the world, swordsmen were somewhat the exception rather than the rule for combat: axe, pike, spear, mace, hammer, bow were likely to be what one saw on the combat field. sidenote: yeah, my MMO characters tend to favor axes (though they're usually trolls if that's an option ).
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 16:33 | Link #97 | |
A fuckin' genius!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here, there ... EVERYWHERE!
Age: 36
|
@ TinyRedLeaf
I admit that I have limited knowledge about the amount of battles in Asia, since I'm a European. But, until I expand my knowledge in that area I'll hold on to my opinion about the Medieval warfare in Europe. Regarding the development of crossbows. Didn't they originated from ancient Greece in about 5 BC? I think it was called a gastraphete or something. Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-11-13, 18:32 | Link #98 | ||
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, arrows. East Asia already had armor piercing arrows in the 500's (mainly used by Goguryeo, a Manchurian kingdom that is one of the major ancestors of Korea). Given that armor wouldn't protect you much from a hailstorm of arrows, it was better to get lighter ones so that you could move fast, thus avoiding being hit. Mainly, in Japan, iron wasn't as abundant as the mainland, so they had to conserve it, meaning they couldn't produce massive, thick iron armor. |
||
2007-11-14, 00:56 | Link #100 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Never mind that whole "longbow" thing at Hastings My chainmail (12/14 gauge iron) shirt weighs in at around 30lbs. Add a chainmail coif, leggings (20lbs) ... and then a reasonable amount of leather (10lbs), a gambeson, (5lbs), assorted gear and weaponry (10-20lbs), and THEN put on the plate exterior. Of course, I'm 6' and 220lbs -- a veritable giant by most pre-15th C. standards. Its distributed over the entire body and you can be quite nimble but don't be fooled into thinking you can sing and dance for several days straight without some serious fatigue. Its why I distinctly prefer recreating pre-1200AD garb.
__________________
|
|
Tags |
sword, swordplay |
|
|