Swords

[SpaceYeti]

To anybody who understand how swords are used, it's obvious that neither katana nor broadsword is innately better than the other (except, perhaps, at specific sorts of blows, and comparison is still difficult due to the fact that no two swords of the same type are even equal, as all swords were made for their kind of warrior, in that warrior's environment of battle), yet there's a huge fan-boyishness out there for katanas. I'm curious what happened that people assume katanas are just plain better than their European counterparts. Is it just weaboo fan-boys, or is there something that happened?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

 

[Chad]

Personally I am a fan of both European or Asian weapons. I like the katana especially the master crafted ones. They are very impressive swords. Than again the bastard sword is sweet too. I actually own a Bastard Sword and its the prize of my small collection. I don't own any katanas yet.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

 

[joal0503]

To anybody who understand how swords are used, it's obvious that neither katana nor broadsword is innately better than the other (except, perhaps, at specific sorts of blows, and comparison is still difficult due to the fact that no two swords of the same type are even equal, as all swords were made for their kind of warrior, in that warrior's environment of battle), yet there's a huge fan-boyishness out there for katanas. I'm curious what happened that people assume katanas are just plain better than their European counterparts. Is it just weaboo fan-boys, or is there something that happened?

keep in mind, i know nothing about swords! just my impressions...

id say its just the culture and folklore that has been popularized over the years that gives these sort of mystiques over katanas. i think if there were a LEGIT reason for it, it would be considering the japanese culture, and the way they sort of glamorized the sword as an artform/craft.


but after watching that video...there actually MIGHT be a legit technological (the curved blade), as well as build quality/durability advantage with the katana. And afterall that WOULD make sense, given the aforementioned cultural importance that japanese had with their swords.

plus from an aesthetic side, the katana just looks beautiful compared to a normal plain broadsword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing

 

[SpaceYeti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

Hey, I have an idea, let's figure out which weapon is better based entirely on a single factor; How much damage they can do!

Also, why they make the bold claim that broadswords were instruments of pure brute strength and katana were based on speed... well, it's simply not true. Or, rather, both factors could be applied to either weapon.

There are so many problems with the first video it's almost funny. For starters, why are the weapons being used to attempt to penetrate armor instead of aim for the weak points in it? Why would the length of the blade not be a factor in an actual fight, etc? To say one of the two blades is better because that one was specifically designed to be used that way (one, decisive, slashing stroke) and the other was not (guarding, slashing, stabbing, etc) is ignoring what the other blade was designed for (not a single, decisive stroke). Enemies don't just stand around waiting to get attacked, and the environment battle takes place in is very much a factor in effectiveness of a weapon.

Then there was the "bastard swords are only used with brute swings" fallacy of the second video. Really?! That's all bastard swords were good for? I mean, even just picking one up, does it seem like the only thing it could possibly be used for were brutish swings, ignoring the pointed tip, the hand-guards, and basically every aspect of it which isn't the blade? Even those who don't know anything about swords should be able to intuit the claim is just plain wrong.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Hey, I have an idea, let's figure out which weapon is better based entirely on a single factor; How much damage they can do!

Also, why they make the bold claim that broadswords were instruments of pure brute strength and katana were based on speed... well, it's simply not true. Or, rather, both factors could be applied to either weapon.

There are so many problems with the first video it's almost funny. For starters, why are the weapons being used to attempt to penetrate armor instead of aim for the weak points in it? Why would the length of the blade not be a factor in an actual fight, etc? To say one of the two blades is better because that one was specifically designed to be used that way (one, decisive, slashing stroke) and the other was not (guarding, slashing, stabbing, etc) is ignoring what the other blade was designed for (not a single, decisive stroke). Enemies don't just stand around waiting to get attacked, and the environment battle takes place in is very much a factor in effectiveness of a weapon.

Then there was the "bastard swords are only used with brute swings" fallacy of the second video. Really?! That's all bastard swords were good for? I mean, even just picking one up, does it seem like the only thing it could possibly be used for were brutish swings, ignoring the pointed tip, the hand-guards, and basically every aspect of it which isn't the blade? Even those who don't know anything about swords should be able to intuit the claim is just plain wrong.

Yes, you're justified in your criticism of the videos.

 

[SpaceYeti]

but after watching that video...there actually MIGHT be a legit technological (the curved blade), as well as build quality/durability advantage with the katana. And afterall that WOULD make sense, given the aforementioned cultural importance that japanese had with their swords.

That cultural importance didn't really happen until the general peace of the 17th century. Before then, they used bows and spears more often than the sword. Further, yes, katanas are better at single, decisive, slashing cuts. That's what they were designed for, so of course they'd be better at it. Just like a hammer makes a bad screwdriver and a screwdriver makes a bad hammer, the two weapons had different purposes, and different properties with which to fulfill them. In a slash-off, of course the katana's going to win. You don't compare screwdrivers and hammers by seeing how well they both hammer in nails, though. Which one was better at guarding and deflecting enemy thrusts? Which one had better reach? Which one was better at targeting weak points in an enemy's armor? which one was more durable? Etc. Because a katana can slash better, it's a better weapon all-around? I don't buy it.

plus from an aesthetic side, the katana just looks beautiful compared to a normal plain broadsword.

I can certainly get behind this. The katana does have a certain aesthetic appeal.

 

[joal0503]

Hey, I have an idea, let's figure out which weapon is better based entirely on a single factor; How much damage they can do!

Also, why they make the bold claim that broadswords were instruments of pure brute strength and katana were based on speed... well, it's simply not true. Or, rather, both factors could be applied to either weapon.

There are so many problems with the first video it's almost funny. For starters, why are the weapons being used to attempt to penetrate armor instead of aim for the weak points in it? Why would the length of the blade not be a factor in an actual fight, etc? To say one of the two blades is better because that one was specifically designed to be used that way (one, decisive, slashing stroke) and the other was not (guarding, slashing, stabbing, etc) is ignoring what the other blade was designed for (not a single, decisive stroke). Enemies don't just stand around waiting to get attacked, and the environment battle takes place in is very much a factor in effectiveness of a weapon.

Then there was the "bastard swords are only used with brute swings" fallacy of the second video. Really?! That's all bastard swords were good for? I mean, even just picking one up, does it seem like the only thing it could possibly be used for were brutish swings, ignoring the pointed tip, the hand-guards, and basically every aspect of it which isn't the blade? Even those who don't know anything about swords should be able to intuit the claim is just plain wrong.

...for the sake of the argument you bring forth, put all of that aside (even though the points you make, MAKE a ton of sense...http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html)

if two ancient warriors, lets say both are at MAX XP, Samurai w/katana vs Knight w/longsword

who wins that battle?

 

[joal0503]

That cultural importance didn't really happen until the general peace of the 17th century. Before then, they used bows and spears more often than the sword. Further, yes, katanas are better at single, decisive, slashing cuts.

what are you saying katanas and swords didnt show up in asia until the 17th century? again, i am no sword history buff...i meant the cultural importance of the way they crafted their weapons...which was certainly around,just like the katana, well before teh 17th century. And on top of this, the katana seems to have been reserved for a special elite sort of warrior...of COURSE there was cultural importance...check out that wiki page about japanese swordsmithing...its far more labor intensive, an artform, than what I have read about european swordsmithing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana


That's what they were designed for, so of course they'd be better at it. Just like a hammer makes a bad screwdriver and a screwdriver makes a bad hammer, the two weapons had different purposes, and different properties with which to fulfill them. In a slash-off, of course the katana's going to win. You don't compare screwdrivers and hammers by seeing how well they both hammer in nails, though. Which one was better at guarding and deflecting enemy thrusts? Which one had better reach? Which one was better at targeting weak points in an enemy's armor? which one was more durable? Etc. Because a katana can slash better, it's a better weapon all-around? I don't buy it.

you acknowledge there cant be really an overall 'winner' but it appears as if you are clearly attempting to try to find one...sneaky sneaky...

Im not claiming the katana is a better all around weapon, because it can slash better...I was jsut pointing out that there might have been a chance that japanese swordsmiths were superior with their craft (using materials, design, technology, and techniques europeans did not) and thus produced a higher quality sword. Not necessarily better at killing, but just higher quality (it WAS art, so think of it like that) .

I can certainly get behind this. The katana does have a certain aesthetic appeal.

I think this is the root of fanboyism towards the katana. allure provided by legends and folklore. You could make the argument there is more culutral importance and history with katanas than any other sword. besides, It has too look badass...just look at the current stage, gun fetishism...its essentially the same discussion...guns are all functional at killing shit...its the quality/durability + aesthetics > firepower.

reddddd

 

[SpaceYeti]

...for the sake of the argument you bring forth, put all of that aside (even though the points you make, MAKE a ton of sense...http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html)

if two ancient warriors, lets say both are at MAX XP, Samurai w/katana vs Knight w/longsword

who wins that battle?

Assuming equal experience, I'd say the winner is the lucky one.

 

[Turniphead]

I blame movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc

 

[Hadoblado]

Visual appeal, and a somewhat naive preference style that with a little imagination could conceivably 'go infinite'.

If you think about an unarmoured samurai (as they are commonly depicted), they rely entirely on not being touched at all. In sensationalist media, this type of fighting is glorified, and the mechanics of it are easy to understand for the casual fan.

A hero in a movie who accepts the probability of being hit, and increases the chance of this happening by putting on armour to negate the inevitable blow, is more akin to a foot soldier than an indomitable force of combat.

In reality they are probably equally effective soldiers, but it is harder to sensationalise a foot-soldier than a supernatural speed machine.

 

[walfin]

It's the curves...

 

[SpaceYeti]

what are you saying katanas and swords didnt show up in asia until the 17th century? again, i am no sword history buff...i meant the cultural importance of the way they crafted their weapons...which was certainly around,just like the katana, well before teh 17th century. And on top of this, the katana seems to have been reserved for a special elite sort of warrior...of COURSE there was cultural importance...check out that wiki page about japanese swordsmithing...its far more labor intensive, an artform, than what I have read about european swordsmithing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

Please don't do this red thing again.

No, they did show up. They were even used. Also, Bayonets were actually used, too. Generally, though, you try to shoot your enemy before you needed to use it! Sure, their katanas were super important as far as status symbols go, but actual use? Last line of offense.

you acknowledge there cant be really an overall 'winner' but it appears as if you are clearly attempting to try to find one...sneaky sneaky...

Im not claiming the katana is a better all around weapon, because it can slash better...I was jsut pointing out that there might have been a chance that japanese swordsmiths were superior with their craft (using materials, design, technology, and techniques europeans did not) and thus produced a higher quality sword. Not necessarily better at killing, but just higher quality (it WAS art, so think of it like that) .

Not a chance. European swordsmiths had just as much skill (they did it for a living all the same as the Japanese), used the same and different techniques, and more varied materials, just as you'd expect from a large cluster of different cultures instead of a bunch of dudes stuck on their islands.

I sincerely do believe that it's impossible to say that one or the other is a superior weapon. However, I have done some playing around and have discovered I'm a huge fan of the sword and shield style you'd find in European history. Specifically, a broadsword and a buckler. Longswords are also good. I find the katana's lack of reach a very real disadvantage, but I won't say it's not a good weapon just because I dislike using it, personally.

I think this is the root of fanboyism towards the katana. allure provided by legends and folklore. You could make the argument there is more culutral importance and history with katanas than any other sword. besides, It has too look badass...just look at the current stage, gun fetishism...its essentially the same discussion...guns are all functional at killing shit...its the quality/durability + aesthetics > firepower.

When it comes to modern weaponry, I'm a huge fan of the M2 .50 cal, and the M240B. Not only am I better with them, but their use strategically is more appealing to me. I also found out just yesterday that I also shoot Expert with the M249, which is basically just a smaller 240 with more parts to clean. Either way, automatic weaponry is simply more appealing to me than anything that's supposed to fire fewer rounds and be more precise.

The fact of the matter is that modern automatic weapons are just as precise as your average rifle (if not more), but they also fire more rounds and thus allow for faster corrections and more death, though they're also more prone to jamming and getting too hot. My plan isn't to be in a firefight long enough for how hot my weapon is to pose a serious problem, though. Besides, even if I am in a firefight that long, I can simply slow down the rate I'm firing to help dissipate the heat between shots, maybe toss some water on the barrel, I dunno, something. I just don't want to be the operator of a Ma Deuce that starts cooking off!

 

[Nezaros]

Is it just weaboo fan-boys

Probably. Although, Japanese swords are constructed differently from Western swords and the whole process was / is much more, uh, "sacred". Beyond that though, and especially from a practical standpoint, there really isn't much difference. Sure, they look cool, but that doesn't make them "better". And I'd say Damascus steel blades win in the coolness department anyway.

 

[Chad]

Visual appeal, and a somewhat naive preference style that with a little imagination could conceivably 'go infinite'.

If you think about an unarmoured samurai (as they are commonly depicted), they rely entirely on not being touched at all. In sensationalist media, this type of fighting is glorified, and the mechanics of it are easy to understand for the casual fan.

A hero in a movie who accepts the probability of being hit, and increases the chance of this happening by putting on armour to negate the inevitable blow, is more akin to a foot soldier than an indomitable force of combat.

In reality they are probably equally effective soldiers, but it is harder to sensationalise a foot-soldier than a supernatural speed machine.

Historically samurai are heavily armored, I think you are thinking of a ninja that doesn't wear armor and doesn't traditionally use the katana either. (even they thy did use them if they could manage to steal it form a samurai.) The katana was made specifically for the samurai warriors.

 

[Duxwing]

Please don't do this red thing again.

No, they did show up. They were even used. Also, Bayonets were actually used, too. Generally, though, you try to shoot your enemy before you needed to use it! Sure, their katanas were super important as far as status symbols go, but actual use? Last line of offense.

Not a chance. European swordsmiths had just as much skill (they did it for a living all the same as the Japanese), used the same and different techniques, and more varied materials, just as you'd expect from a large cluster of different cultures instead of a bunch of dudes stuck on their islands.

I sincerely do believe that it's impossible to say that one or the other is a superior weapon. However, I have done some playing around and have discovered I'm a huge fan of the sword and shield style you'd find in European history. Specifically, a broadsword and a buckler. Longswords are also good. I find the katana's lack of reach a very real disadvantage, but I won't say it's not a good weapon just because I dislike using it, personally.

When it comes to modern weaponry, I'm a huge fan of the M2 .50 cal, and the M240B. Not only am I better with them, but their use strategically is more appealing to me. I also found out just yesterday that I also shoot Expert with the M249, which is basically just a smaller 240 with more parts to clean. Either way, automatic weaponry is simply more appealing to me than anything that's supposed to fire fewer rounds and be more precise.

The fact of the matter is that modern automatic weapons are just as precise as your average rifle (if not more), but they also fire more rounds and thus allow for faster corrections and more death, though they're also more prone to jamming and getting too hot. My plan isn't to be in a firefight long enough for how hot my weapon is to pose a serious problem, though. Besides, even if I am in a firefight that long, I can simply slow down the rate I'm firing to help dissipate the heat between shots, maybe toss some water on the barrel, I dunno, something. I just don't want to be the operator of a Ma Deuce that starts cooking off!

Does the M2's action cycle even if the trigger isn't squeezed? If so, then a one-off cook-off could turn the M2 into a bullet hose with a mind of its own.

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

An interesting point is that were Japan only has a small arsenal of swords and the katana being the most prized sword.
The Europeans were much more diverse as a group and made many more different kinds of swords used for make specific types of wounds and fit specific fighting styles.
The Eastern Europeans weapons are quite fascinating.
I also find Indian and middle eastern weapons very artistic and fun to play with.
The Mongrels have some of the most interesting sword type of the all the Asian area.
China seems to fascinated with black powered at during this time worry as much about find crafting there swords.

This is just a simple overview. But I think if all you are focusing on is the Western European Longsword/shortsword/basturdsword vs. the Japanese Katana you are missing a world of interesting medieval era weaponry. designed to do more than just slash and hack.
Here is a list of other fascinating medieval swords.
Western
Celtic Sword (long and short swords)
Germanic Sword(Migration Period sword evolved Roman Spatha)
Viking Sword (an evolved Germanic Sword)
Khmali Sword
Arming Sword (an evolved Viking sword)
Longsword (Bustardswod, Hand and a Half Sword)
-Estoc
-Claymore
Greatsword
Shortsword
Sabina
Espanda ropera
Zwihander
-Flamberge
Basket-hiled swords
-Broadsword
-Schiavona
-Mortuary sword
-Basket-hilted Claymore
Backsword
Katzbalger
Cinquedea/Anelance
Executioner's Sword
Rapier
Swiss Sword
Smallsword
-Colichemarde
Bilbo
Spadroon
Sabre
-Karabela
-Szable
-Shashka
Pistol Sword
Hunting Sword
Fencing
-Epee
-Foil
bayonet
Roman (Western Subtype)
-Gladius
-Spatha
Greek (Western Subtype)
-Xiphos
-Makhaira
-Falcata/kopis
-Harpe

Near East (Persian, Indian, Egyptian, African and Arabic)
Khopesh (Egyptian)
Acinaces (Persian shortsword)
Scimitar
-Pulwar (Afghanistan)
-Shamshir (Persia)
-Talwar (North India)
-Kalij (Turkish)
-Memeluke Sword (Egyptian)
-Flyssa (Algeria)
-Kaskara (Sudan)
-Nimcha (Morocco)
-Shotel (Ethiopian)
-Takoba (Tuarag sword)
Khanda (Indian)
-Pata (Gauntlet-Sword)
-Kastane (Sri Lankan)

Far Eastern Swords
China (far eastern subtype)
Jian
-Baguajian
Dao
-Baguadao
-Butterfly Sword
-Changdoa
-Dadoa
-Errendua
-Hudieshunagdao
-Kaishandao
-Liuyedao
-Mazhadao
-Pindao
-Taijidao
-Taijijian
-Miao dao
-Nandao
-Wodoa
-Xuehuadoa
-Yanmaodoa
-Yutoudoa
-Zhanmodao
Hook Sword
Japanese Swords (Far Eastern Subtype)
Nihonto
-Bokken
-Chisakatana
-Chokuto
-Hachiwara
-Laito
-Jintachi
-Katana
-Kodachi
-Nagamaki
-Nodachi
-Odachi
-Shinai
-Shinken
-Shikomizue
-Tachi
-Tsuragi
-Wakizashi (another fan favorite)
Dotanuki
Uchigatana
Korean (Far Eastern Subtype)
Hwadudaod
Saingeom
Jedokgum
Yedo
Ssengeom

South and Southeastern Asia
Balisword
Bolo (Filipino)
Buntot Pagi (Filipino)
Dahong Palay (Filipino)
Dha (Thai)
Kalis (Filipino)
Klewang (Filipino)
Krabi
Pinuti (Filipino)

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I think it's because most katana are superior in the way they are made. Some have steel folded a few hundred times improving strength and flexibility.

And they are such beautiful weapons.

 

[Duxwing]

An interesting point is that were Japan only has a small arsenal of swords and the katana being the most prized sword.
The Europeans were much more diverse as a group and made many more different kinds of swords used for make specific types of wounds and fit specific fighting styles.
The Eastern Europeans weapons are quite fascinating.
I also find Indian and middle eastern weapons very artistic and fun to play with.
The Mongrels have some of the most interesting sword type of the all the Asian area.
China seems to fascinated with black powered at during this time worry as much about find crafting there swords.

This is just a simple overview. But I think if all you are focusing on is the Western European Longsword/shortsword/basturdsword vs. the Japanese Katana you are missing a world of interesting medieval era weaponry. designed to do more than just slash and hack.
Here is a list of other fascinating medieval swords.
Western
Celtic Sword (long and short swords)
Germanic Sword(Migration Period sword evolved Roman Spatha)
Viking Sword (an evolved Germanic Sword)
Khmali Sword
Arming Sword (an evolved Viking sword)
Longsword (Bustardswod, Hand and a Half Sword)
-Estoc
-Claymore
Greatsword
Shortsword
Sabina
Espanda ropera
Zwihander
-Flamberge
Basket-hiled swords
-Broadsword
-Schiavona
-Mortuary sword
-Basket-hilted Claymore
Backsword
Katzbalger
Cinquedea/Anelance
Executioner's Sword
Rapier
Swiss Sword
Smallsword
-Colichemarde
Bilbo
Spadroon
Sabre
-Karabela
-Szable
-Shashka
Pistol Sword
Hunting Sword
Fencing
-Epee
-Foil
bayonet
Roman (Western Subtype)
-Gladius
-Spatha
Greek (Western Subtype)
-Xiphos
-Makhaira
-Falcata/kopis
-Harpe

Near East (Persian, Indian, Egyptian, African and Arabic)
Khopesh (Egyptian)
Acinaces (Persian shortsword)
Scimitar
-Pulwar (Afghanistan)
-Shamshir (Persia)
-Talwar (North India)
-Kalij (Turkish)
-Memeluke Sword (Egyptian)
-Flyssa (Algeria)
-Kaskara (Sudan)
-Nimcha (Morocco)
-Shotel (Ethiopian)
-Takoba (Tuarag sword)
Khanda (Indian)
-Pata (Gauntlet-Sword)
-Kastane (Sri Lankan)

Far Eastern Swords
China (far eastern subtype)
Jian
-Baguajian
Dao
-Baguadao
-Butterfly Sword
-Changdoa
-Dadoa
-Errendua
-Hudieshunagdao
-Kaishandao
-Liuyedao
-Mazhadao
-Pindao
-Taijidao
-Taijijian
-Miao dao
-Nandao
-Wodoa
-Xuehuadoa
-Yanmaodoa
-Yutoudoa
-Zhanmodao
Hook Sword
Japanese Swords (Far Eastern Subtype)
Nihonto
-Bokken
-Chisakatana
-Chokuto
-Hachiwara
-Laito
-Jintachi
-Katana
-Kodachi
-Nagamaki
-Nodachi
-Odachi
-Shinai
-Shinken
-Shikomizue
-Tachi
-Tsuragi
-Wakizashi (another fan favorite)
Dotanuki
Uchigatana
Korean (Far Eastern Subtype)
Hwadudaod
Saingeom
Jedokgum
Yedo
Ssengeom

South and Southeastern Asia
Balisword
Bolo (Filipino)
Buntot Pagi (Filipino)
Dahong Palay (Filipino)
Dha (Thai)
Kalis (Filipino)
Klewang (Filipino)
Krabi
Pinuti (Filipino)

O.O From whence have you produced such a terrifying list?

-Duxwing

 

[joal0503]

O.O From whence have you produced such a terrifying list?

-Duxwing

either way, its fascinating how creative we can be when it comes to shit that we use to kill eachother with.

Please don't do this red thing again.

okay, if you have a color preference just lemme know.

No, they did show up. They were even used. Also, Bayonets were actually used, too. Generally, though, you try to shoot your enemy before you needed to use it! Sure, their katanas were super important as far as status symbols go, but actual use? Last line of offense.

alriiiiight, i think this is where we get mixed up. I see it more of a cultural importance thing, you are thinking more of which was a more effective swordsman's sword, that saw more usage or something?

Not a chance. European swordsmiths had just as much skill (they did it for a living all the same as the Japanese), used the same and different techniques, and more varied materials, just as you'd expect from a large cluster of different cultures instead of a bunch of dudes stuck on their islands.

See, i KNOW that swordsmiths were a big deal back in those times, not denying it..From a brief google adventure, I just couldnt find much information about the actual process (materials, technique, etc) out there. But there WAS an abundance of japanese swordsmithing information, and to me that stands out, once again as the sort of historical/cultural importance they had, and still have to this day. But I would be absolutely willing to concede this, chances are the best swordsmith (any region) of the period would be able to produce a bad ass sword.

I sincerely do believe that it's impossible to say that one or the other is a superior weapon. However, I have done some playing around and have discovered I'm a huge fan of the sword and shield style you'd find in European history. Specifically, a broadsword and a buckler. Longswords are also good. I find the katana's lack of reach a very real disadvantage, but I won't say it's not a good weapon just because I dislike using it, personally.

I would say if I had to engage in an acneint medieval battle, Id just go with an elephant and some sort of crossbow.

When it comes to modern weaponry, I'm a huge fan of the M2 .50 cal, and the M240B. Not only am I better with them, but their use strategically is more appealing to me. I also found out just yesterday that I also shoot Expert with the M249, which is basically just a smaller 240 with more parts to clean. Either way, automatic weaponry is simply more appealing to me than anything that's supposed to fire fewer rounds and be more precise.

Its the boom, and the kick aint it? either way, would you agree that most gun fetish mirrors the sword fetish? I would argue, its generally a matter of what looks badass (attachments/style), the history and sort of pedigree associated with teh specific model (something like the colt 1911), rather than strategic military application.

bluuuue

 

[Felan]

Rapiers (or maybe it is more the foil) are possibly better weapons at killing then katanas or long swords. With rapiers it is more than just sticking your opponent. It is the ease with which you can send a wave down the blade, even through a tiny hole in metal armor, and have the tip shred the insides of your opponent like an out of control jig saw. It's also lighter, faster, less exhausting to use, less likely to get stuck in your opponent, and harder to defend against.

 

[Chad]

O.O From whence have you produced such a terrifying list?

-Duxwing

Those are just some of the swords I could find after doing a quick internet search.
I am sure its no were nearly a complete list.

This is also just swords and doesn't include many of all the types of dagger, Axes, maces, Flails, projectile weapons, spears, pole-arms, siege weapons and other blunt tools.

 

[Hadoblado]

Historically samurai are heavily armored, I think you are thinking of a ninja that doesn't wear armor and doesn't traditionally use the katana either. (even they thy did use them if they could manage to steal it form a samurai.) The katana was made specifically for the samurai warriors.

I'm not. Katanas are seen in popular media a LOT more than samurai armor. The common modern depiction is of someone with supernatural martial skills wielding a katana and not wearing armor. Watch almost any anime, or Kill Bill.

 

[Chad]

I'm not. Katanas are seen in popular media a LOT more than samurai armor. The common modern depiction is of someone with supernatural martial skills wielding a katana and not wearing armor. Watch almost any anime, or Kill Bill.

I don't really watch anime but Kill Bill is not a samurai movie. Its a martial arts movie were the main characters like using Katana swords. They aren't even Japanese. The bride and bill were taught to use the katana by a Japanese monk not a samurai.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes it's a katana movie. That is my point. The popularity of the katana has nothing to do with samurais.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Does the M2's action cycle even if the trigger isn't squeezed? If so, then a one-off cook-off could turn the M2 into a bullet hose with a mind of its own.

-Duxwing

Yes it cycles even without the trigger being squeezed, because if it didn't finish the cycle you'd have to charge it again each time prior to firing. It'd be a waste of time and over-expose a soldier in the middle of a firefight, plus also potentially waste a round depending on where the cycle got cut off. Also, I imagine it'd be difficult to design an automatic weapon which doesn't complete it's cycle depending on whether or not the trigger is currently being squeezed. Seems like it'd cause too much stress to the weapon (like firing it on single round mode could do) and involve unnecessary internal structuring.

But, yeah, a weapon cooking off isn't so bad normally. With the M240B or M249, you can just grab the chain of rounds and break it, and it stops firing when it's out of rounds. The Ma Deuce, though, has links too strong for that. You gotta find something to jam in there real quick, and stuff may break.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I think it's because most katana are superior in the way they are made. Some have steel folded a few hundred times improving strength and flexibility.

And they are such beautiful weapons.

Some European swords were made the same way, the number of folds depending on exactly what the smith was trying to get out of it. Other times, the blade was made from twisting bars together (the lines in the blade being a sign of their quality). The most common was sandwiching harder metal onto softer metal, to get a good flexibility with a hard edge and tip. To suppose the folding technique used in the making of katanas is an overall better technique ignores that katanas are thick and brittle, as far as sword blades go. They were still very good in quality, don't get me wrong, but that they were easier to chip is a sign of their usage. They weren't meant for fencing, they were meant for those single, decisive blows.

 

[SpaceYeti]

bluuuue

Um... I believe you mean "greeeeen".

okay, if you have a color preference just lemme know.

I prefer the default color.

alriiiiight, i think this is where we get mixed up. I see it more of a cultural importance thing, you are thinking more of which was a more effective swordsman's sword, that saw more usage or something?

Sure, they were symbols of the samurai's status. Super important. That doesn't make them better than any other weapon, though, just like lotus flowers aren't innately better than other flowers, just more wrapped up in Asian mythology.

See, i KNOW that swordsmiths were a big deal back in those times, not denying it..From a brief google adventure, I just couldnt find much information about the actual process (materials, technique, etc) out there. But there WAS an abundance of japanese swordsmithing information, and to me that stands out, once again as the sort of historical/cultural importance they had, and still have to this day. But I would be absolutely willing to concede this, chances are the best swordsmith (any region) of the period would be able to produce a bad ass sword.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

The more I read about swords, the more I'd like to try to make them myself, but I'm also not sure I'd have the patience, plus I have a bunch of other hobbies it'd get in the way of.

I would say if I had to engage in an acneint medieval battle, Id just go with an elephant and some sort of crossbow.

An actual medieval battle would scare the fuck out of me! Most of the people to die in them didn't do so from bleeding out, which is relatively quick. They were more likely to die from infection or something else that took it's time and made life hell... slow, painful, horrible deaths, amid a battlefield of moaning, dying people, enemy and friend alike. Fuck that, I'll be the engineer they need to run the siege weaponry, who will see some action, but it's more important to stick by my giant crossbow.

Its the boom, and the kick aint it? either way, would you agree that most gun fetish mirrors the sword fetish? I would argue, its generally a matter of what looks badass (attachments/style), the history and sort of pedigree associated with teh specific model (something like the colt 1911), rather than strategic military application.

The power is certainly part of the appeal, but mostly it's the immediate down-range feedback. If I'm off, I know about how much and which way, almost immediately, and I can adjust right away, and squeeze off more rounds from my 200 round belt. My 30 round magazine in my assault rifle just doesn't have the same kind of fluid play. Miss with one round, and that's a wasted round. Miss with one round in a machine gun, adjust your aim, you're fine. You're expected to miss more often than hit in actual combat either way, but the fluidity of machine guns ultimately means faster and better correction and targeting. It's a lot like in Black Ops. The weapons aren't used quite the same as in real life in that video game, obviously, but how firing a single shot compares to firing automatic weapons, allowing for immediate corrections in aiming, is essentially correct.

 

[The Gopher]

Rapiers (or maybe it is more the foil) are possibly better weapons at killing then katanas or long swords. With rapiers it is more than just sticking your opponent. It is the ease with which you can send a wave down the blade, even through a tiny hole in metal armor, and have the tip shred the insides of your opponent like an out of control jig saw. It's also lighter, faster, less exhausting to use, less likely to get stuck in your opponent, and harder to defend against.

Rapier, the foil was the training version. (epee would be the close equivalent) Also the plus side to rapiers is you could drag them through sewers before fighting so you only need to cut them to kill them with disease.

They top long swords for sure there is a reason they were replaced a such. As for katanas it really comes down to the skill of the fighter but the rapier might have an edge. (although there is a whole list of different advantages and such for either so..)

 

[Cognisant]

Speaking from my experiences playing Dark Souls which has a wide variety of weapons and surprisingly deep combat mechanics, I personally tended to use a claymore, with inhuman strength my character could wield both it and a shield, for both powerful sideways slashes and far reaching thrusts, all in all a solid combo for fighting opponents bigger and tougher than myself.

However if I were playing PVP I wouldn't use a claymore, it's powerful and far reaching but it requires too much stamina per swing, especially one handed, which isn't a problem against AI opponents that attack at a steady pace but a human opponent will wear out my stamina then press the advantage and I won't even be able to run away.

In PVP faster weapons are much preferred, short-swords and spears (commonly switched mid-battle) although katanas aren't uncommon either, the advantage with a katana being it can have the speed of a short-sword and nearly the penetrating power of the other two handed swords, plus the slash causes more bleeding than a regular two handed sword normally would, making it a very formidable weapon, especially considering it's comparatively small stamina usage. However all these advantages are offset by huge disadvantages, blocking slashes with a katana is awkward, and blocking thrusts is impractically difficult and since it's a two handed weapon that means you've got almost no defence (you could wield it with a shield but then it's just a terriblely unwieldy short sword, also uses a lot of stamina like that) so in effect you either overpower you opponent immediately or they'll stab the fuck out of you.

In a one-on-one duel a katana is a good choice mainly because it's exotic, if you can use it well and your opponent hasn't faced a skilled katana user before they're in for a shock, however against a knight in full armour wielding a long-sword and a shield my money's on the knight. In the first minute the knight may seem to be at a disadvantage against the faster, more ergonomic weapon, but the samurai's stamina will wear out long before a metal shield breaks and then the knight will fight back in earnest, preventing the samurai from recovering and with such a poor defence he's screwed.

Then again the context of the fight is important, with five samurai against five knights on open ground I'd bet on the samurai, unless the knights are smart enough to stand in a circle to protect each other's backs and still that's an awkward way to fight and the samurai will disengage when their stamina gets low so the knights will have a difficult decision to make, break formation to pursue or hold formation in case the samurai are being coy.

In an ambush samurai fare much better, regardless whether they're the ones ambushing or not, knights on the other hand (though harder to kill) are slower which is a critical factor when responding to a surprise attack.

 

[Cognisant]

Rapiers were one of the last types of sword ever made and similar cavalry swords were even used in World War One, due to their thin profiles they required a grade of steel that made them previously impossible to make, so naturally enough as swords go a rapier is generally the best you could have, however due to the small if deep wounds they inflict you'd have to be mindful of the fact that a rapier lacks immediate stopping power, so as perfect as it would be for a duel in the mosh-pit crush of a battlefield a short sword would be far better.

In that way swords are a lot like guns, you may have the best sniper rifle in the world but close quarters urban combat a farmer's shotgun or an AK47 made in the 60s would probably be better.

 

[The Gopher]

Rapiers were one of the last types of sword ever made and similar cavalry swords were even used in World War One, due to their thin profiles they required a grade of steel that made them previously impossible to make, so naturally enough as swords go a rapier is generally the best you could have, however due to the small if deep wounds they inflict you'd have to be mindful of the fact that a rapier lacks immediate stopping power, so as perfect as it would be for a duel in the mosh-pit crush of a battlefield a short sword would be far better.

In that way swords are a lot like guns, you may have the best sniper rifle in the world but close quarters urban combat a farmer's shotgun or an AK47 made in the 60s would probably be better.

Exactly in that case it is incomparable because of the different times. I mean you can achieve stopping power if you hit the right places which a skilled user always would (trust me when you get hit in the exact same spot every time you realise this) its not quite the same.

Popularity and effectiveness are not always equal. While most swords are used for different purposes/times it doesn't mean the theoretically better one would be more popular. Take the music industry for example.

 

[Cognisant]

Short swords are pretty much the jack of all trades, even against a rapier there's a fair chance of breaking the opponent's sword and a short sword can block effectively too, even against a full armoured knight if you can knock him over or get up really close he's in trouble, hence why the Romans and most every other professional military force in history used them, even the samurai wore a tantō for felling armoured opponents, fighting in small spaces or just to catch the enemy off guard, e.g. blocking high with the katana then sneakily slashing the opponent's gut.

 

[SpaceYeti]

A fair chance of breaking the sword? What swords are there where it's more effective to break the sword than kill the guy wielding it?

 

[Cognisant]

True. I just figured that would happen if someone tried to block anything with a rapier but come to think of it for precisely that reason nobody would even try, not unless they're already really desperate.

Although imagine it, a wooden shield or maybe there's a door or wooden supporting beam in the way, the rapier gets momentarily stuck, it's not enough of an opening to hit the other guy but shortening his sword by half will make it harder for him to keep you back, which is vital for someone using a rapier since they can't really block with it.

In Dark Souls I never really got the hang of using a rapier, apparently they're good for parrying and other fancy fencing stuff, but most enemies were beastial or wielding heavy weaponry that couldn't be deflected like that so more brutish weapons like maces and the claymore tended to work better for me.

I found a scythe once, that was interesting, it was somewhat like fighting with a quarter-staff but with the option to attack the enemy from the back and sides, I never really got the hang of it but I've heard once fully upgraded it's one of the best weapons in the game because it's far reaching, has a huge swipe area, and causes massive bleeding.

 

[The Gopher]

Well as long as you parry near the hilt of the rapier it actually isn't a problem against heavier swords. (and if you try to break the sword by hitting it not the person they would just kill you by moving the sword around followed by a lunge) When it comes to beams it probably would break if you hit them.

In other words it would be hard to break in on purpose due to dodging the blows (and then killing you if you had a much slower weapon like a mace)

Also you wouldn't need to parry with the sword its self most of the time. You would use the sturdier dagger or buckler in your left hand for that.

 

[Lot]

To anybody who understand how swords are used, it's obvious that neither katana nor broadsword is innately better than the other (except, perhaps, at specific sorts of blows, and comparison is still difficult due to the fact that no two swords of the same type are even equal, as all swords were made for their kind of warrior, in that warrior's environment of battle), yet there's a huge fan-boyishness out there for katanas. I'm curious what happened that people assume katanas are just plain better than their European counterparts. Is it just weaboo fan-boys, or is there something that happened?

I totally get what you are saying. Different swords for different uses. I think it's funny because there are similar debates about guns. The 1911 being the katana of the gun world. People like it's beauty and it's history and all the legend behind the gun. The fan boys sit there and circle jerk over it. Same with katanas. (Although after typing this, I realize Glock fan boys, or glock suckers as I call them, are just as bad.)

The media has done a good job at making the katana seem like the greatest sword. It's also the same with eastern martial arts. People assume they are the best. In reality there is a whole shit tone of western martial arts from the Medieval and Renaissance that are just as thought out and effective. Hell there are even some ancient African and modern middle eastern martial arts that kick ass.

I personally I like the kukri. The way I prefer to use a bladed weapon, is best utilized with it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

True. I just figured that would happen if someone tried to block anything with a rapier but come to think of it for precisely that reason nobody would even try, not unless they're already really desperate.

Although imagine it, a wooden shield or maybe there's a door or wooden supporting beam in the way, the rapier gets momentarily stuck, it's not enough of an opening to hit the other guy but shortening his sword by half will make it harder for him to keep you back, which is vital for someone using a rapier since they can't really block with it.

In Dark Souls I never really got the hang of using a rapier, apparently they're good for parrying and other fancy fencing stuff, but most enemies were beastial or wielding heavy weaponry that couldn't be deflected like that so more brutish weapons like maces and the claymore tended to work better for me.

I found a scythe once, that was interesting, it was somewhat like fighting with a quarter-staff but with the option to attack the enemy from the back and sides, I never really got the hang of it but I've heard once fully upgraded it's one of the best weapons in the game because it's far reaching, has a huge swipe area, and causes massive bleeding.

Also, breaking somebody's sword would be very difficult to actually do.

 

[Thoughtful]

It's a mixture of Hollywood and the fascination with trophy katanas sold to American GI's during the occupation of Japan right after WWII. If I'm going to sell you a souvenir from "the mystical east" that I know you're never going to actually test I'm going to hype the hell out of it. Hell, this blade right here was forged over the course of 2 generations of blacksmiths who's life work was to create the purest of blades.

And thus the legend was born.

 

[joal0503]

Also, breaking somebody's sword would be very difficult to actually do.

refuted directly by video evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU

more katana goodness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQRFuBeRAi4
(featuring that dude from the old ninja turtles movie)

 

[SpaceYeti]

refuted directly by video evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU

more katana goodness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQRFuBeRAi4
(featuring that dude from the old ninja turtles movie)

OMG, he broke a showpiece, molded sword, not a battle ready one! Therefore, all swords, even ones forged for actual use, are easily broken!

 

[joal0503]

OMG, he broke a showpiece, molded sword, not a battle ready one! Therefore, all swords, even ones forged for actual use, are easily broken!

i was sort of just being lighthearted with that...its an interwebz classic

but the 2nd video...i thought it brought up some decent points.

 

[SpaceYeti]

"It's ideal for attacking or blocking" - I would have to disagree. If you're concerned with blocking, you use something with a wide hand-guard to protect the hand. The katana can be used to block, and should be if you're actually in a fight and need to, but to claim it's "ideal" for blocking is way off. I'd go with a rapier for parry or a broadsword (a broader edge (surprise surprise!)) to outright block with. A katana, as I've said many times now, is ideal for swift, decisive blows.

"...slashing, or piercing" - Again no. Ideal for slashing, sure, but piercing? Again, it can pierce, and you may want to try it if it's either that or die in a sword fight, but it's not "ideal". That goes, hands down, to rapiers. I still prefer a heavier blade, though, and one that's wider, so I could argue that longswords are better for piercing than katanas, but that's really more a division based on taste.

As an aside, the martial artist guy who's doing all those fancy maneuvers seems like a total douche to me. Not just because he loves the katana, as I understanding loving the katana (so long as you understand it's not the best weapon in any objective sense... I mean, I like it a lot, just not as much as the broadsword), but he seems to be overcompensating, showing off too much. I mean... why would you ever do a full body flip over your enemy's blade instead of, say, taking a step back and then attacking them in return? He seems to like things that appear impressive more than appreciate their actual use. You can easily see it in how he spins the katana around with no regard to the fact doing so in a sword-fight gets you disarmed and dead real quick. I mean, he's never going to realistically get into an actual sword-fight, so the point's kind of moot, but it's still grounds for my disliking him.

And a strong blow could shatter lighter weapons? I mean, sure, depending on the lighter weapon, but not other swords being held in someone's hand. Put another sword in a vice to hold it steady and then swing at it really hard, maybe it'll break... but "shatter"? I smell sensationalism.

It is pretty awesome watching the dude rip into that dummy, though!

 

[joal0503]

"It's ideal for attacking or blocking" - I would have to disagree. If you're concerned with blocking, you use something with a wide hand-guard to protect the hand. The katana can be used to block, and should be if you're actually in a fight and need to, but to claim it's "ideal" for blocking is way off. I'd go with a rapier for parry or a broadsword (a broader edge (surprise surprise!)) to outright block with. A katana, as I've said many times now, is ideal for swift, decisive blows.

But doesnt the argument go, 'in the hands of a trained samurai warrior'...im sure with the proper training and technique, you MIGHT change your mind...

"...slashing, or piercing" - Again no. Ideal for slashing, sure, but piercing? Again, it can pierce, and you may want to try it if it's either that or die in a sword fight, but it's not "ideal". That goes, hands down, to rapiers. I still prefer a heavier blade, though, and one that's wider, so I could argue that longswords are better for piercing than katanas, but that's really more a division based on taste.

I agree here...doesnt seem like the optimal piercing weapon...especially compared to spears and halberds.

As an aside, the martial artist guy who's doing all those fancy maneuvers seems like a total douche to me. Not just because he loves the katana, as I understanding loving the katana (so long as you understand it's not the best weapon in any objective sense... I mean, I like it a lot, just not as much as the broadsword), but he seems to be overcompensating, showing off too much. I mean... why would you ever do a full body flip over your enemy's blade instead of, say, taking a step back and then attacking them in return? He seems to like things that appear impressive more than appreciate their actual use. You can easily see it in how he spins the katana around with no regard to the fact doing so in a sword-fight gets you disarmed and dead real quick. I mean, he's never going to realistically get into an actual sword-fight, so the point's kind of moot, but it's still grounds for my disliking him.

lololol, i totally got the same impression...whats this douchey australian dude with no shirt doing with a katana?! But that old japanese dude from the TMNT movie? I wouldnt fuck with him. ever. Because hes not going to be that flashy westernized version of a warrior. hes going to just cut you down like a tree in a realistic, brutal, fashion.

And a strong blow could shatter lighter weapons? I mean, sure, depending on the lighter weapon, but not other swords being held in someone's hand. Put another sword in a vice to hold it steady and then swing at it really hard, maybe it'll break... but "shatter"? I smell sensationalism.

same here...somehow the notion of shattering an opponent's blad doesnt seem too realistic in the heat of a battle. its like the quickscoping of sword fighting.

It is pretty awesome watching the dude rip into that dummy, though!

as stupid as he looked, i would agree. although that dude seriously needed to put on a shirt, or some armor.

whiiiiiiiiiteeeee plaaaaain teeeexttt

 

[SpaceYeti]

But doesnt the argument go, 'in the hands of a trained samurai warrior'...im sure with the proper training and technique, you MIGHT change your mind...

Maybe. I don't really have any way of knowing, though. Further, why would a katana be better for blocking than a wider blade that doesn't as easily chip and bends to absorb the blow, plus has a wider hand guard? That's just going with a weapon. If we're going for full-on defense, I'll take a shield over a katana for that purpose any day, and pair it with that broad sword I was talking for when I need to murder in return.

But that old japanese dude from the TMNT movie? I wouldnt fuck with him. ever.

Man, that guy would kick my ass so hard!

that dude seriously needed to put on a shirt

Fer rilly!

 

[The Gopher]

OMG, he broke a showpiece, molded sword, not a battle ready one! Therefore, all swords, even ones forged for actual use, are easily broken!

Yeah and even back then there were civilian/soldier rapiers and then the showpieces (which while less sturdy were still usable) Most people immediately think of the modern swords (which would actually be almost impossible to break due to the bending) and assume flimsy. Not saying they didn't break but a proper one shouldn't.