NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a sword.

I like swords :)

I've got a few.

I like swords...personally, I prefer the cruciform European type of swords from an asthetic point of view, but for effectiveness*, it's hard to beat a katana.

* Against an unarmoured target - against an opponent in mail, the heavier European style swords are more effective - and weapons such as maces and hammers, more effective still.

I like swords...personally, I prefer the cruciform European type of swords from an asthetic point of view, but for effectiveness*, it's hard to beat a katana.

* Against an unarmoured target - against an opponent in mail, the heavier European style swords are more effective - and weapons such as maces and hammers, more effective still.

I forget, is mail the proper name for chain mail or plate mail (from fantasy literature/games)?

And the Katana does work against armour - of course the armour it was used on was designed for defending against arrows and made of straw, but that's not the point...

Yes swords of all sorts are great, Im a huge fan of medieval swords myself.

Swords....
I collect swords.
Jhi Narod, Jhi Govan, Jhi Var! (For Glory, For Honor, For Steel!- The motto of Dar-Kavryn, in a language I'm designing.)

I have a broad sword that was made by one of the last working armor smiths in world.

Of course I blank on his name but movie companies call on him to make stuff all the time.

My sister got it for me as she is a costume designer and met him on a production.....

...against an opponent in mail, the heavier European style swords are more effective...

Actually, katanas aren't much lighter than most medieval European single-hand and hand-and-a-half designs. Some are even heavier than the average medieval European sword of similar size. The only "heavy" medieval European swords(i.e., those weighing approximately three pounds) were those designed to be used primarily from horseback.

Actually, katanas aren't much lighter than most medieval European single-hand and hand-and-a-half designs. Some are even heavier than the average medieval European sword of similar size. The only "heavy" medieval European swords(i.e., those weighing approximately three pounds) were those designed to be used primarily from horseback.

They look so much lighter though - I refuse to beleive that without a reference/proof.

swordforums.com
myarmoury.com

a couple of excellent swordsmiths/armorers:
albionarmorers.com
armor.com

The popular concept of the slow-but-powerful medieval European sword is pure myth. Katanas have similar weights to medieval European swords of similar(or even greater) blade lengths for two reasons: 1) katanas are generally curved 2) their blades are generally much thicker than European blades.

You also need to take into account that katanas are slashing types while the majority of medieval european swords are slash and stab types, then coming into the european renassance periods when guns made armour obsolete they become mainly light stabbing types.

a slash on mail generally slides off as the mail flexes and absorbs the majority of the blow, so you bruise but not bleed, but stabbing mail forces the point into the rings or between the plates deforming them and allowing penetration.

but on plate armour a point thrust would slide off or dent the armour so a heavier sword used in a slash could crush and split iron armour, steel armour later on deformed and sprung back, leading to spiked maces becoming more popular as they could defore them steel beyond it's point of recovery/flex.

of course the heavy plate armour beating swords and maces were generally only used by plate armoured knights in any case, common soliders only needed lighter swords to use against other lightly armoured footsoldiers.

all in all a facinating subject :)

swordforums.com
myarmoury.com

a couple of excellent swordsmiths/armorers:
albionarmorers.com
armor.com

The popular concept of the slow-but-powerful medieval European sword is pure myth. Katanas have similar weights to medieval European swords of similar(or even greater) blade lengths for two reasons: 1) katanas are generally curved 2) their blades are generally much thicker than European blades.

this came out as I was typing my earlier reply, another reason is the cross section of the blades, Katanas look like a rectangle with a triangle attached, european ones are elongated diamonds, many with a "blood Groove" which rather than being to allow air in so they don't stick in the wound, is actually there to lighten them, part of the thrusting mentality, a slashing sword needs weight behind it to carry it through obstructions, momentum and inertia 101 in high school physics would be a good class to go to :)

Also: katanas wouldn't have been terribly useful against European plate armor, but not because of any purported lightness of their part. The reason is because the blade constructions of the two regions are markedly different. European blades are made of carbon steel, designed to be highly flexible without creating stress fractures or permanently "setting." Katanas' blades, on the other hand, are completely different; their blades are designed with a "sandwich" construction. The actual edge(and its supporting "spine" is made with a very high carbon content, giving it an extreme hardness -this also makes it brittle, however. Because of this, the rest of the blade(the sides and the back, surrounding the "edge" section, which extends into the blade) is made with a much lower carbon content, making it very soft. This allows the blade to absorb shock without cracking. In other words, a European sword could afford to accidentally smack a hard surface(such as plate armor) because of its flex -katanas are stiff.

Swords are cool. Don't have one myself, though. I especially find European pre-Renaissance stab-and-slash (or whatever the term is) swords or arming swords particularly beautiful.

You also need to take into account that katanas are slashing types while the majority of medieval european swords are slash and stab types, then coming into the european renassance periods when guns made armour obsolete they become mainly light stabbing types.

Aye. I've never taken any kendo classes, or practiced any other such East Asian sword-related martial art, but from what I hear katanas are used in a way that emphasizes the draw cut(ie, "dragging" the blade along teh target instead of simply hacking at it). Middle Eastern swords do this as well, although more due to their extreme curves than to any particular method of use.

The light stabbing swords of the Renaissance(rapiers) were civilian weapons. Many cities disallowed citizens from carrying swords proper, so rapiers were developed from the military tucks as a sort of loophole... The stabbing swords used on battlefields themselves(such as tucks) weren't really any lighter than their predecessors, though. There were also still plenty of cut-and-thrust swords in use since, as during medieval times, MOST soldiers did not use much armor(especially once armor became obsolete due to the deployment of gunpowder).


but on plate armour a point thrust would slide off or dent the armour so a heavier sword used in a slash could crush and split iron armour, steel armour later on deformed and sprung back, leading to spiked maces becoming more popular as they could defore them steel beyond it's point of recovery/flex

This is partially true. Swords themselves, however, were never meant to cut through plate armor. Heavier, horseback-wielded swords were terribly effective against mail and partial-plate armor(which were both far more prevalent throughout the medieval ages than full plate), but using a sword against plate armor would never have been a good idea. Particularly since armor was often constructed harder than swords(and a basic truth of physics is that a metal cannot cut through anotehr metal of equal or greater hardness).

That's not to say that being hit by one of these heavier swords by a man riding on horseback(thus adding over a thousand pounds of brute force) would not take you out. You'd probably be knocked unconscious by the sheer force, but it would not generally pierce plate armor(unless the armor itself was of poor construction). A sword simply doesn't focus the weight behind the point of impact enough to do this. A mace, flail, hammer, or hammer's back-spike could easily pierce/crush even the thickest armor(if you nailed a square-on hit that is), because they concentrate the weight -and thus the force of impact- behind the weapon's contact point.

Swords are cool. Don't have one myself, though. I especially find European pre-Renaissance stab-and-slash (or whatever the term is) swords or arming swords particularly beautiful.

Cut-and-Thrust actually, thought it's pretty much the same thing...

Personally I love the cruciform style sword, but the rapier or hybrids of the european and middle-eastern sword styles are without a doubt my favorite type. Well that or a bloody massive two-hander meant to take on pikes/horses, but that's not exactly something you would wear about the town... unlike any sword as it were.

You know, I begin to suspect that a fair number of you also read Dragon... confirm this if you wish it.

As far as Katanas go, a master smith in Japan uses the look and feel of the weapon when crafting it. The blades is struck out by hand, and the steel folded over 3000 times in it's creation. A work of six months can be destroyed in just a few seconds when the master cools the sword, which is when the blade receives it's curve. If the temperature is not exactly right, the blade is lost in a few moments.

Actually, katanas aren't much lighter than most medieval European single-hand and hand-and-a-half designs. Some are even heavier than the average medieval European sword of similar size. The only "heavy" medieval European swords(i.e., those weighing approximately three pounds) were those designed to be used primarily from horseback.

True - I didn't word that very well - I should have said that European swords were more designed for bashing/chopping than the slashing action of the Katana. The katana could hold a much finer and sharper edge than any European blade, but against heavy armor would lose it's edge much more quickly, and be more prone to serious damage.

One particularly heavy European chopping sword (though not that widely spread) was the falchion:

http://www.deltin.it/5132.jpg

Mail refers to several types of metallic or composite/metallic armour: plate mail and chain mail being the most well known, but also including banded mail, splint mail, scale mail etc.

I love the two-handers... it's amazing how light they feel when you actually hold them. Actually I much prefer most Renaissance swords to medieval swords, they're like a perfect blend between power and beauty. Although I'd have to say that if forced to choose a single "best sword design," I'd go with a wootz Turkish kilic that had a yelman.

Falchions are pretty fearsome, as are their larger cousins the grosse messers. Albion(the site i referenced before) has one that looks especially scary in development... Although if I were going for pure chopping ability, I'd probably stick with a gurka kukhri(even though it's really a knife, not a sword).

I have a sword.

I like swords :)

Welcome to Cornaria!

A claymore from the days of bonnie prince charlie for me :)

would reading dragon refer to the dragonlance tales? or dungeon and dragons?

I used to do Kendo for some months, still have a shianai, and before that I was a regional representitive at the national tournaments for visual Foil for a few years. still have a foil and all the saftey gear, tho much would no longer fit me.

Falchions are pretty fearsome, as are their larger cousins the grosse messers. Albion(the site i referenced before) has one that looks especially scary in development... Although if I were going for pure chopping ability, I'd probably stick with a gurka kukhri(even though it's really a knife, not a sword).
What about an axe? That can have pretty good chopping ability...

Though I do prefer swords, myself. Falchions are beautiful!

Welcome to Cornaria!

does a stainless steel civil war officers saber count? or a genuine 1800's whopping big heavy (7 pound) iron african cheifs beheading scepter/sword count?

What about an axe? That can have pretty good chopping ability...

Hah.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the more traditionally-bladed weapons(such as swords). Unlike swords, some axes could even split some of teh thinner pieces of plate armor(their edge is far, far more robust than a sword's).

Mail refers to several types of metallic or composite/metallic armour: plate mail and chain mail being the most well known, but also including banded mail, splint mail, scale mail etc.

I heard that was a myth.
Supposedly fantasy literature called everythin mail, but back in the middle ages the term was used exclusively to refer to a particular type of armour. I think it was the one we call plate mail, but it could have been chain mail. Anyway I had the impression other types were originally called armour rather than mail, e.g. scale armour - or just scale.

would reading dragon refer to the dragonlance tales? or dungeon and dragons?


I think he meant Dragon Magazine.

it's about Dungeons and Dragons (www.wizards.com), as is dragonlance.

never read it myself, but roleplaying is fun and D&D is a great sourcs of sword stats.

I heard that was a myth.
Supposedly fantasy literature called everythin mail, but back in the middle ages the term was used exclusively to refer to a particular type of armour. I think it was the one we call plate mail, but it could have been chain mail. Anyway I had the impression other types were originally called armour rather than mail, e.g. scale armour - or just scale.

Bar mail was the cheapest, and was just lengths of iron bars sewn to a leather jerkin,
Ring mail was a step up and was rings sewn to a leather jerkin, some as small as an inch in diameter, some the size of horseshoes, depending on the skill of a smith. in the dark ages often the farrier was the poor dumb footsoldiers armouer and it was horseshoes :P
then came chain mail, in two stages, first was the rings were interlocked with 4 others, those to the left, right, above, and below. then came multilinked rings where they could have 10 rings linked to one, mostly it was 6 or 8, much thicker and more protection.

scale mail could be sinple bosses of iron sewn to a jerkin a la bar and ring mail, or true scale where they overlaped and were wired together underneath the overlapped part where a sword stroke couldn't sheer the knots away.

Swords are awesome.
Unfortunately, I am perpetually broke, so I have to make do with a bamboo practice sword, which I guess is more practical anyway. :(

Hah.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the more traditionally-bladed weapons(such as swords). Unlike swords, some axes could even split some of the thinner pieces of plate armor (their edge is far, far more robust than a sword's).

try a halberd? bilhook blade or axe blade on the front, spike on the top and sharp hook on the rear. all on a pike pole.

hack down like an axe with 12 foot of gravity helping the swing to split armour... or jab at a chaimailed man to skewer him, and use the sharpened rear of the hook to hamstring a horse beyond the knights maces/swords range :)

Swords are awesome.
Unfortunately, I am perpetually broke, so I have to make do with a bamboo practice sword, which I guess is more practical anyway. :(

Yes, when I parctice with my Katana I sometimes wish I had a practice sword, cause it's a damn scary sword.

I think he meant Dragon Magazine.

it's about Dungeons and Dragons (www.wizards.com), as is dragonlance.

never read it myself, but roleplaying is fun and D&D is a great sourcs of sword stats.

Correct!

I prefer other, as I enjoy using my...powers.


You know, pyrokinesis, psychoflexing, summoning the minions of the Dark Lord, molotov cocktails....you know....powers.

I prefer other, as I enjoy using my...powers.


You know, pyrokinesis, psychoflexing, summoning the minions of the Dark Lord, molotov cocktails....you know....powers.

What? No metacreativity?

I prefer other, as I enjoy using my...powers.


You know, pyrokinesis, psychoflexing, summoning the minions of the Dark Lord, molotov cocktails....you know....powers.

Now there's an option I should have listed.

"I laugh at your puny mortal weapons, feel my mystic Wrath!!!"

I prefer other, as I enjoy using my...powers.


You know, pyrokinesis, psychoflexing, summoning the minions of the Dark Lord, molotov cocktails....you know....powers.

:gundge: :D
Sw33t! me likez powers....
Um, are there any girls on this thread? Seems kinda boys-&-their-toys to me. & all this technical stuff! :confused: As for me, I'm a girl who likes to engage in swordfights with forks, clothes hangars, curtain rods, umbrellas, random sticks, theatre props, rubber chickens... the usual. :p Although guns ARE cool. :mp5: I just would rather see someone with a sword wound than someone with a bloody hole in their head. :eek: :(

:gundge: :D
Sw33t! me likez powers....
Um, are there any girls on this thread? Seems kinda boys-&-their-toys to me. & all this technical stuff! :confused: As for me, I'm a girl who likes to engage in swordfights with forks, clothes hangars, curtain rods, umbrellas, random sticks, theatre props, rubber chickens... the usual. :p Although guns ARE cool. :mp5: I just would rather see someone with a sword wound than someone with a bloody hole in their head. :eek: :(

well I'm a guy, but my girlfriend loves swordfighting other people with forks. We can't fight each other though cause she would be to afraid of hurting me, and I'm too afraid of what she'd say if I told her I have no qualms about fork-fighting her. She even roleplays though so is kinda an atypical girl.

Guy here too... tho some girls I know can whip my ass with a sword... probably cause I havn't done any compeditive swordfighting for 7 years while they kept right on it :P

I once got slaughtered at foil by a 5'2" girl who couldn't have weighed more than 100 pounds (I'm 6'1" and weigh about 130)... she kept on binding and then sort of ducking unter my blade and stabbing me in the kidneys... EXTREMELY annoying. Then I imidietly faced off aganst a 6'4" fellow who fleched so hard into my solar plexus I got the wind knocked out of me and started bleeding...

I'm not a big fan of swords. Spears are as effective, if not more, and require far less metal. Therefore, it's much cheaper and faster to equip a unit with polearms, and they're far more effective at repelling cavalry. Of course, if the sword and buckler fellows can actually get inside the reach of the spears and pikes, they can chop the spearmen to bits.

1 on 1, this is going to sound a little strange, but I think I would actually prefer a knife or a tomahawk. Sword wounds were actually not ALL that leathal, whereas a knife fight always ends with someone dying. That's one of the reasons swords were adopted by the upperclass in europe and asia... partly because they were generally less lethal (ignoring the fact that a katana can cut someone in half, I know) and because they were so much more expencive than spears or axes. more of a symbol of status than an improvement in killing power.

Frankly, i'm of the opinion that the weapon doesn't really matter, it's training and attitude. Beleive it or not, the quarterstaff is one of the most leathal hand to hand weapons, a single blow can easily pulp someone's head, break an arm or leg, or fracture ribs. Even a thick peice of rope can be used to effectively smash pressure points and crush throats, or break noses. Of course, if you have two people equally skilled, the little differences between a claymore and a katana begin to make a difference (really, the differences are small. Both are long, relatively straight pieces of metal with a cutting edge and a point, and a blunt bit at the bottom to hold onto.) All you really need is the willingness to end the fight any way possible, and the understanding that you're most likely going to get hurt. .

guns really do beat swords at killing and nukes beat guns but nukes arent very practical so gun wins.
Reasons why guns beat swords:
1. Guns beat the reach of all swords.
2. Guns are more dangerous through all armour than swords.
3. Guns are faster than swords.
4. A minor gun injury is more dangerous than a minor sword injury.
5. Pistols are easily more portable than any sword.
6. Less blood on the killers hands.
7. Doesnt take much skill to use effectivly.
of course swords have some cool features too.
1. They do look cool.
2. Cheaper (in general)
3. Much less illegal.
4. Don't run out of ammunition.

Actually in close quarters, I'd prefer a knife to a gun. It's perfectly possible to close the distance before the bullets incapacitate you. The reason the Colt .45 was developed was to knock down charging Filippino insurgents armed with machetes. The 9mm bullets of the americans simply blew small holes in the geurrillas who would close the distance and chop the americans into tiny peices before expiring. And frankly, knife wounds are often instantly fatal, unlike gunshot wounds.

I heard that was a myth.
Supposedly fantasy literature called everythin mail, but back in the middle ages the term was used exclusively to refer to a particular type of armour. I think it was the one we call plate mail, but it could have been chain mail. Anyway I had the impression other types were originally called armour rather than mail, e.g. scale armour - or just scale.

Sounds like you are (at least partially) correct:
maille
(Also 'mail') A flexible material composed of small interlocking metal rings or loops of chain.

plate mail
A misnomer born of mistakien victorian historians and popularized by fantasy role-playing games. Mail is defined as an armor made from metal rings. Plate mail, then, is self-contradictory. The correct historical term is plate or plate armor.
Source: http://www.mailleartisans.org/glossary/index.cgi

Or to be more specific: http://www.mailleartisans.org/whatis.html

Actually in close quarters, I'd prefer a knife to a gun. It's perfectly possible to close the distance before the bullets incapacitate you. The reason the Colt .45 was developed was to knock down charging Filippino insurgents armed with machetes. The 9mm bullets of the americans simply blew small holes in the geurrillas who would close the distance and chop the americans into tiny peices before expiring. And frankly, knife wounds are often instantly fatal, unlike gunshot wounds.
That's why you don't want to get into close quarters combat with a gun. But then, you could always have a bayonet...

And frankly, knife wounds are often instantly fatal, unlike gunshot wounds.

Well, sometimes. How many knife wounds did Julius Caesar sustain? 30? 35?

That's why you don't want to get into close quarters combat with a gun. But then, you could always have a bayonet...

exactly there has to be a pretty good reason why every army in the world phased out close combat weapons in favour of firearms.

exactly there has to be a pretty good reason why every army in the world phased out close combat weapons in favour of firearms.

The Last Samurai comes to mind...

my martal arts licence allows me to have any weapons apart from guns and say their for training purpouses

i have a pair of sai daggers and used to do fencing and my friends have cool stuff too

I also have sais they're pretty cool fun. I also have a bo, a jang bong, a kubotan, a maori fighting club, a fijian handaxe, nuchuku, a bokken, and a katana, wakazashi set. They are all alot of fun and pretty brutal but if i was going to kill someone i'd go with a gun.

I don't have any swords, but I do have a 1 1/2 foot kukri:

http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/kukri.jpg

Swords . . . . the European-style ones are good as long as they aren't so unweildy, and katanas are interesting as well.

BTW I'm taking up martial arts this yr - how many yrs until weapons training for the avg student?

Swords . . . . the European-style ones are good as long as they aren't so unweildy, and katanas are interesting as well.

BTW I'm taking up martial arts this yr - how many yrs until weapons training for the avg student?
it really depends on what school you are training in whether or not you even get to handle weapons

Has anyone picked up a broad sword, those guys must have had muscles like steel.

Swords . . . . the European-style ones are good as long as they aren't so unweildy, and katanas are interesting as well.

BTW I'm taking up martial arts this yr - how many yrs until weapons training for the avg student?

i am 13 and i learnt with weapons when i was 10 when i started

Has anyone picked up a broad sword, those guys must have had muscles like steel.

There's a possibility that you are weak too.

I'd like one but the police would just take it off me ... not legal.

The Eastern style of sword, though unique, is pittiful for one on one combat, as other than the Ji'ite police battons, defense was in no way an idea in crafting them. Give me a good rapier, calvary or small sword anyday. Light, fast and very effective.

-Fury

I'm not a big fan of swords. Spears are as effective, if not more, and require far less metal. Therefore, it's much cheaper and faster to equip a unit with polearms, and they're far more effective at repelling cavalry.

The main advantage of a spear over a sword is that it has a much longer reach. A sword is much easier to use effectively, and also is more likely to score a hit(particularly since it can be wielded at much greater speed). With a spear, you need to hone your precision to a fair extent, and you must always gaurd against the weapon being taken right out of your hands.


1 on 1, this is going to sound a little strange, but I think I would actually prefer a knife or a tomahawk. Sword wounds were actually not ALL that leathal, whereas a knife fight always ends with someone dying.

So does a sword fight... I don't know what makes you think a knife is any more lethal than a similar weapon of greater proportions and power.


That's one of the reasons swords were adopted by the upperclass in europe and asia... partly because they were generally less lethal (ignoring the fact that a katana can cut someone in half, I know) and because they were so much more expencive than spears or axes. more of a symbol of status than an improvement in killing power.

Swords were not uncommon weapons in medieval Europe. To say that they became popular because they were less lethal is ridiculous -until the introduction of civil weaponry(such as rapiers, which came about during the Renaissance), swords were battlefield weapons first and foremost. A battlefield weapon that does not kill is antithetical. Their emergence as status symbols was due to the fact that they were simply THE best all-around weapons at the time, and because they were more costly -not vice versa. A spear is not useful in individual combat, but it is unwieldy in large numbers unless your forces are highly organized(which, in medieval times, they almost never were). An axe, too, requires too much space around its user. Both weapons are slower. Both weapons have only a few ways of being used. Both weapons need more precision, and are not very forgivable(you don't need to make a "good" hit with a sword for it to be effective).

Swords were not only the costliest weapons available, they were also the most sought-after. There's a good reason the sword went through FAR more numerous and varied developments than both the staff/spear and the axe. A weapon is generally less common as it becomes more difficult to use. A gun is a far superior weapon to any bladed weapon, not only because of the extended range, but also because almost no skill is required to use it. A sword is easy to use(compared to axe/hammer and, especially, staff/spear weapons), both in technique and its ability to still accomplish its purpose even when its user makes "mistakes." Both the spear and the axe are more powerful weapons, and the spear has much better range. But neither weapon has nearly the breadth of battlefield applications as the sword -which can be used easily both against armored and unarmored targets, can be used in various fechtbuch styles of grappling, can be used both at range and in-close, can stab, hack, slash, and chop... All of it with an ease and speed that puts spears and axes to shame. Its limitations are virtually nonexistent.

Bring me me Mace! AYE!

Another girl here, as reply to one person's previous post - hi!

I can't say I have much experience w/ swords. Sure, I took a quarter of fencing in gym, and I have a waster (btw, was the guy who sold me that just selling me a load of crap when he told me they were really used for practice in authentic times? Ah well, I like it anyway), but I don't have any real training, and I've only held a metal sword once. Ah well.

As per somebody's question on the weapons in martial arts thing, well, it really depends on the style. I've been in Shotokan for over eight years, and even if I stay another eighteen I'm never going to be using weapons. A little disappointing, but ah well. I would like to give kendo a go, though.

Many of my friends and I are into the ooh, steel, shiny! mentality when it comes to medeival weapons, so we talk about them a lot. They all decided that the weapon which would be best for me would be a light or short straight sword in one hand, with a dagger in the other for the actual blow. I have to say, I kind of agree with them, but I think it makes me a little too much like Bangladesh DuPree, with whom I am compared too much already. (Of course, I was the first to start the comparison, but let's not go there).

Welcome to Cornaria!

[/Obscure Reference to 8Bit]

lol, I was wondering how long it'd take someone to say that.

Anyway, I plan to collect various weaponry eventually. I just think they're very cool. I found this site ages ago that seems to have some really good prices and a huge selection (they even have lord of the rings stuff ^_^)

www.by-the-sword.com

I think one of my first purchases may be a Naginata. I just think it's such a cool looking weapon.

D&D is a great sourcs of sword stats.

he, he he, HAW HAW HAW. (You really weren't serious, were you? That was a joke, right?)

Hah.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the more traditionally-bladed weapons(such as swords). Unlike swords, some axes could even split some of the thinner pieces of plate armor (their edge is far, far more robust than a sword's).[/url]
[QUOTE=Calarca]try a halberd? bilhook blade or axe blade on the front, spike on the top and sharp hook on the rear. all on a pike pole.

hack down like an axe with 12 foot of gravity helping the swing to split armour... or jab at a chaimailed man to skewer him, and use the sharpened rear of the hook to hamstring a horse beyond the knights maces/swords range :)


I've studied naginata (aka the Japanese "halberd" or pole sword), as well as kendo, fencing (both olympic and historical period), a bit of "historical" European heavy fighting (ala SCA), and a couple of Iaido lessons.

Naginata was the best! :D I had the pleasue of seeing my teacher take on a kendo-ka - the kendo guy got his arse handed to him every time, even though he was a full two dan above my teacher. :D

Blades I own (unfortunately they are all back in the US, except the first two):
2 Swiss army knives
1 Fairbairn Sykes Commando knife
1 pretty little custom table knife
2 Large blade hunting/skinning knives
1 Replica Gladius
1 high class replica katana

Practice weapons I own:
1 proper foil
1 "mixed" fencing blade for SCA light - foil blade, epee bell and grip
1 shinai
1 bokuto
1 heavy bokuto

he, he he, HAW HAW HAW. (You really weren't serious, were you? That was a joke, right?)

The core rules mightn't be so hot, but the 2nd Ed "Arms & Equipment Guide" was quite informative on the real world history of many weapon types.

(Dunno about 3rd Ed - I refuse to touch it)

Swords Are cool

This is true. All weapons are cool in my opinion.

The core rules mightn't be so hot, but the 2nd Ed "Arms & Equipment Guide" was quite informative on the real world history of many weapon types.

(Dunno about 3rd Ed - I refuse to touch it)

Well I admit I haven't really looked through that. I was going on the D&D and 1st AD&D, as I moved on to better games before 2nd came out. ;) 1st was notoriously bad.

But I really wouldn't consider any gaming book a good source for weapon stats.

All I know is that I've met many D&D players who determinedly claim that stainless steel is the best kind of metal for a sword(it's virtually useless).

i currently fence, and I want to start some asian sword art like Kendo or Gumdo.

AKA...Swords are awesome!

I once got slaughtered at foil by a 5'2" girl who couldn't have weighed more than 100 pounds (I'm 6'1" and weigh about 130)....
Christ but you're skinny! 130! I'm 6'3" and weigh 230. How can anyone be so thin? I demand you go out right now and eat a bucket of lard. or KFCs. Whichever's less disgusting.

BTW I have a 1850s bayonet that apparently was used during the Boer war. Does this count as a sword. It's approx. 3' long.

Well I admit I haven't really looked through that. I was going on the D&D and 1st AD&D, as I moved on to better games before 2nd came out. ;) 1st was notoriously bad.

But I really wouldn't consider any gaming book a good source for weapon stats.

I only meant that the stats were good for roleplaying purposes, as opposed to some kinda real world relevance.
AD&D 2nd ed was a great source for numbers, but still had the crappy level system so I refuse to play it.
3rd ed improved the level system to something that could actually be fun, but then became stupid when they went to edition 3.5 and started selling crappy miniatures in closed boxes so u couldn't tell what it was. (TSR was bought by 'Wizards of the coast' between 2nd & 3rd ed, and wizards made their money selling CCGs). 3rd edition is open source too, which is a bizzare development for a book.

I only meant that the stats were good for roleplaying purposes, as opposed to some kinda real world relevance.

Ah. I have had idiots try to tell me what ole GG wrote up was historically accurate.

AD&D 2nd ed was a great source for numbers, but still had the crappy level system so I refuse to play it.
3rd ed improved the level system to something that could actually be fun, but then became stupid when they went to edition 3.5 and started selling crappy miniatures in closed boxes so u couldn't tell what it was. (TSR was bought by 'Wizards of the coast' between 2nd & 3rd ed, and wizards made their money selling CCGs). 3rd edition is open source too, which is a bizzare development for a book.

Just about everything I remember TSR putting out was bad. They had a couple of gems - Empire of the Petal throne was awsome and Star Frontiers managed to get classic pulpy SF pretty good.

Ah. I have had idiots try to tell me what ole GG wrote up was historically accurate.



Just about everything I remember TSR putting out was bad. They had a couple of gems - Empire of the Petal throne was awsome and Star Frontiers managed to get classic pulpy SF pretty good.

Yeah, but they get kudos for starting the whole rolpeplaying thing anyway.

Back on topic though - someone mentioned the last samurai. That movie illustrated quite effectively why guns replaced swords and bows. Not because they were better (atleast not at first), but rather because they were easy. A guy with a longbow and a katana was much, much scarier than some schmuck with a flintlock - but he had to devote his life to learning how to use them. Schmucks with flintlocks are cheap and expendable.

Also, they were noisy, which made them more startling. In addition, they lessened the need for a combat-trained (and thus dangerous to the ruler) population.

Precisely... which is why, in Europe, we tend see a movement of battlefield weaponry from spear->bow&arrow(or equivalent)->sword->pike(in formations anyway)->guns
Hm, I wonder what the next generation of weaponry will be... So far, unmanned/remotely-piloted drones seem to be a likely candidate...

SWORDS + COLODIA 43V4R!

This is another "what would be in Colodia's diary if he was a girl

Precisely... which is why, in Europe, we tend see a movement of battlefield weaponry from spear->bow&arrow(or equivalent)->sword->pike(in formations anyway)->guns
Hm, I wonder what the next generation of weaponry will be... So far, unmanned/remotely-piloted drones seem to be a likely candidate...

Death Robots! nothing beats giant walking Death Robots! manned or unmanned.

unmanned has the scary ramifications of Evil Self Aware Psychotic Death Robots though, so should perhaps be avoided. Remote control death robots perhaps?

I've always been of the opinion that the government should invest in some remote control robotic soldiers, controlled with a computer-game style interface. They would instantly have thousands of trained soldiers!

With luck, they'll give the robots swords....

hehe... Giant death robots, with 500k-ton, kilometer-long swords. And beam-nuclear-weapon eyes. and planet smashing feet.

*nods* everything becomes cooler when you give it a sword :D

except power rangers, their robot sucked arse and the sword didn't help.

Now the samurai pizza cats, they knew how to give a robot a sword :D

What if Bush had a sword?

Ok, so there are lots of exceptions.

lets say that cool things become even cooler with a sword.

and dumb things just become dumber.

so a sword is like a personality amplifier.

Ok, so there are lots of exceptions.

lets say that cool things become even cooler with a sword.

and dumb things just become dumber.

so a sword is like a personality amplifier.
*has a sword and blows you away*


so true!

hehe... Giant death robots, with 500k-ton, kilometer-long swords. And beam-nuclear-weapon eyes. and planet smashing feet.
And red glowing eyes, of course.
Or there's these....
http://www.dangerousthings.net/archive/037.shtml

What if Bush had a sword?
That'd make him cooler...
If he dropped it on his foot, anyway.

That question about Bush reminds me of a little quote
"Live by the sword. Trip and fall on your sword. Die by the sword."
Seriosly I do like swords. And katana's are my personal favorites.

There are worse ways to go out then fighting on your feet. Even if the other guy doesn't have the strength to cut you in half cleanly.

Christ but you're skinny! 130! I'm 6'3" and weigh 230. How can anyone be so thin? I demand you go out right now and eat a bucket of lard. or KFCs. Whichever's less disgusting.

BTW I have a 1850s bayonet that apparently was used during the Boer war. Does this count as a sword. It's approx. 3' long.

5'7" and 91 Kg,

and that bayonet if it is 3 foot long it was probably one of the rifle regiments issue, they still used sword bayonets, a remnant from the napleonic wars when rifled guns were so slow to load they needed something a bit more effective for close in work than the normal short spike bayonet.

I have a 1940 Ishapore armoury .303 Lee Enfield Mk III* that with a 4x scope on I can knock over a beer can at 200 metres with :)

Best material for a sword in my opinion is mid carbon steel. stainless shatters. for SCA a sword battered out of a leaf sripng from an old car does the trick so long as you can get the bend out of it :D

I voted Swords Rock, though guns can be just as cool. I likes them both the same, generally, but my mood and interests shift. Somethetimes I like swords more, otherthetimes I like guns more.

The best swords are claymores. I love really long swords-except the flamberge. Those things are freaky. All curvy-like with that weird cover thing on the lower part of the blade.


I want me an Anduril. :D Though I'd settle for Narsil too. Or a Ringwraith sword. Those things are huge.

I forget, is mail the proper name for chain mail or plate mail (from fantasy literature/games)?

And the Katana does work against armour - of course the armour it was used on was designed for defending against arrows and made of straw, but that's not the point...

The proper term is chain.

Yep, love em.

I have owned several, as I fought in the SCA for years. Owned several Viking style swords. These are extremely effective, but fairly heavy. My personal favorite are the katanas, as they are very graceful, light, dealy, and well balanced, but fairly innefective for fighting with a shield.

European swords are more efective in combination with a shield, and are double bladed, allowing one to close with the enemy and giving a "rap shot." This is a move where the blade is swung out wide and then is brought back towards the opponent from behind. Very effective unless the other guy ducks, then WATCH OUT!

Seppuku

Yes, when I parctice with my Katana I sometimes wish I had a practice sword, cause it's a damn scary sword.

Practice katanas are available and aren't all that costly. I advise getting one lol.

There's a possibility that you are weak too.
:)
Being a gym junkie and Rugby league player, not to mention that Im a builders labourer as well, I can assure you that I'm well above average strength, no those swords are heavy and constantly swinging one around in battle and in hours of practice would really give you some well toned and rippling muscles.

I once got slaughtered at foil by a 5'2" girl who couldn't have weighed more than 100 pounds (I'm 6'1" and weigh about 130)... she kept on binding and then sort of ducking unter my blade and stabbing me in the kidneys... EXTREMELY annoying. Then I imidietly faced off aganst a 6'4" fellow who fleched so hard into my solar plexus I got the wind knocked out of me and started bleeding...

I'm not a big fan of swords. Spears are as effective, if not more, and require far less metal. Therefore, it's much cheaper and faster to equip a unit with polearms, and they're far more effective at repelling cavalry. Of course, if the sword and buckler fellows can actually get inside the reach of the spears and pikes, they can chop the spearmen to bits.

1 on 1, this is going to sound a little strange, but I think I would actually prefer a knife or a tomahawk. Sword wounds were actually not ALL that leathal, whereas a knife fight always ends with someone dying. That's one of the reasons swords were adopted by the upperclass in europe and asia... partly because they were generally less lethal (ignoring the fact that a katana can cut someone in half, I know) and because they were so much more expencive than spears or axes. more of a symbol of status than an improvement in killing power.

Frankly, i'm of the opinion that the weapon doesn't really matter, it's training and attitude. Beleive it or not, the quarterstaff is one of the most leathal hand to hand weapons, a single blow can easily pulp someone's head, break an arm or leg, or fracture ribs. Even a thick peice of rope can be used to effectively smash pressure points and crush throats, or break noses. Of course, if you have two people equally skilled, the little differences between a claymore and a katana begin to make a difference (really, the differences are small. Both are long, relatively straight pieces of metal with a cutting edge and a point, and a blunt bit at the bottom to hold onto.) All you really need is the willingness to end the fight any way possible, and the understanding that you're most likely going to get hurt. .


Spears and polearms are nice, but are meant to be used with a shield wall (a group of shielded fighters in front) One on one spear or polearm vs a fighter with shield and sword there is no contest. The sword wins. Its only a matter of closing.

OOC: I didn't read this I'm just giving my opinion

Swords RULE! I mean nukes are stupid. And guns run out of ammo. Swords just keep on working as long as you keep them in good condition. My favorites are Katanas and Claymores. Though I wouldn't be able to use a Claymore 'cause they're bigger then me. ANyway that's how I feel.

OOC: You should check out the Thrope Moon Festival (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6914014&posted=1#post6914014) (click on "Thrope Moon Festival" to be link there)

Nah, Axes are so much better

Swords are great an all and so are guns. However I would prefer to have some sort of a combination weapon. That’s why I created the FADBA’GS A’12 DB BS. It has the stopping power of a fully automatic Shotgun, and the chopping ability of a war axe. Combined with duel bayonets it even makes a handy thrusting weapon.

Swords rule, axes moreso, but for me you can't beat Misuse of Handtools and Kitchen Appliances :D

They look so much lighter though - I refuse to beleive that without a reference/proof.Pick one up :p They're small, but very dense, which one could argue makes them even stronger weapons.

guns really do beat swords at killing and nukes beat guns but nukes arent very practical so gun wins.
Reasons why guns beat swords:
1. Guns beat the reach of all swords.
2. Guns are more dangerous through all armour than swords.
3. Guns are faster than swords.
4. A minor gun injury is more dangerous than a minor sword injury.
5. Pistols are easily more portable than any sword.
6. Less blood on the killers hands.
7. Doesnt take much skill to use effectivly.
of course swords have some cool features too.
1. They do look cool.
2. Cheaper (in general)
3. Much less illegal.
4. Don't run out of ammunition.
#7 is why I perfer swords
A baby with semi-complete motor skills can kill someone with a gun, but it takes skill to kill with a sword. Also, #2 isn't quite true. There are some materials that can stop bullets fairly well, but don't stand a chance against something with a sharp edge. Finally, have you ever heard of someone ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with a sword? They're safer to have in your possession, and more than adequite for self defense. Someone breaks into your house, chances are, best they got is a knife, otherwise they'd be going somewhere with MUCH better stuff. 6" knife versus 3' sword...sword wins. Besides, have you seen the way most idiots use guns?
I have, basically the area around my house seems to be a gang training ground. They walk up within 3 feet of you and point the gun at you. Gun's aren't ment to intimidate, they are ment to kill from long range. Close quarters, sword versus gun, best case scenario (for the gun guy) is that the sword dude dies and the gun dude becomes an amputee.

Well, sometimes. How many knife wounds did Julius Caesar sustain? 30? 35?Thats called overkill

Christ but you're skinny! 130! I'm 6'3" and weigh 230. How can anyone be so thin? I demand you go out right now and eat a bucket of lard. or KFCs. Whichever's less disgusting.

BTW I have a 1850s bayonet that apparently was used during the Boer war. Does this count as a sword. It's approx. 3' long.
Here's the rule. For bladed weapons, place it against your forearm. If the blade itself is longer than your forearm, its a sword. or could readily be turned into one.

Terminalia, if you think swords are unwieldy or require a lot of strength to use, you haven't handled real swords. Single-handed swords maximum weight was about 3 pounds, and those are the ones meant to be used on horseback. Even the six-foot-long, double-handed Renaissance swords(zweihanders et al) never, EVER weighed more than 7 pounds.

Only if you know how to use them.

Jim

Terminalia, if you think swords are unwieldy or require a lot of strength to use, you haven't handled real swords. Single-handed swords maximum weight was about 3 pounds, and those are the ones meant to be used on horseback. Even the six-foot-long, double-handed Renaissance swords(zweihanders et al) never, EVER weighed more than 7 pounds.

I once heard a quote from a semireliable source that the Sword William Wallace used weighed as much as twelve pounds, which is very unwieldy when its six feet away from you.

I have extensive training with Rapier/Main-gouche(think Dune), and its just some of the most artistic fighting you can watch.

I prefer other, as I enjoy using my...powers.


You know, pyrokinesis, psychoflexing, summoning the minions of the Dark Lord, molotov cocktails....you know....powers.


I don't know if this bothers anyone else as much as it bothers me, but the term 'Pyrokinesis' always struck me as incorrect nomenclature, a sort of corruption of the term 'Telekinesis', without any regard to the actual meaning of the word.

I'm sure the correct term should be something like 'Telepyrogenesis'

I once heard a quote from a semireliable source that the Sword William Wallace used weighed as much as twelve pounds, which is very unwieldy when its six feet away from you.

Most likely because Wallace has become a semi-legendary figure. There are also stories of Celtic warriors with gigantic claymores that had a sort of 10-pound weight around the blade, which would move from the base of the blade to the tip when the sword was swung(giving it much greater impact). They're just stories. If you tried to use a 12-pound sword(they do exist, in the form of cheap stainless steel wallhanger replicas), you'd see why such a thing would simply not be true.

Most likely because Wallace has become a semi-legendary figure. There are also stories of Celtic warriors with gigantic claymores that had a sort of 10-pound weight around the blade, which would move from the base of the blade to the tip when the sword was swung(giving it much greater impact). They're just stories. If you tried to use a 12-pound sword(they do exist, in the form of cheap stainless steel wallhanger replicas), you'd see why such a thing would simply not be true.

Something like that existed, but the blade was filled with a half-pound of mercury in a hollow shaft down the blade. A ten pound weight would make the sword fly out of your hand at the apex of the swing

I have extensive training with Rapier/Main-gouche(think Dune), and its just some of the most artistic fighting you can watch.

I agree. :)


Something like that existed, but the blade was filled with a half-pound of mercury in a hollow shaft down the blade.

Yes, some Middle Eastern and Indian swords also have a similar feature, pearls or steel balls called "tears of the afflicted."

I myself dislike the katana only because it is so over-marketed as the ultimate sword, at least where I'm from. I prefer the basket hilted broadsword, the cossack shashka, th claymore, and the falcata. But again, I dislike the whole uber katana fables that go around now-a-days.

But regardless of which sword is cooler, usually when an axe went against a sword, the axe wins...

especially considering(according to me), The rapier is a much better weapon, it just takes gobs of skill to be good with. The fact is, in skilled hands, it really doesn't care how much armor you have on, theres a way to go through your heart without going through your armor, and just going around does the job nicely.


There's a chink in there somewhere

But regardless of which sword is cooler, usually when an axe went against a sword, the axe wins...
except it's easier to get out of the way of an axe, and there's a massive backswing on it, and thats when you kill them. At least while dueling

I like ninja swords..
More uses for them than plain old Samurai weapons.

Swords are heavier then you think. Its not like waving a stick around you know.

Thats also why short swords sometimes beat long swords. You cant move a long sword that fast.

And as for 2 handers. My friend has one I can barly lift. It was meant to go against heavly armound knights and the like. I picture the battles between knights in clunky armour and swords that heavy to be quite sluggish.

I like swords, too.

But what is your position on sword chucks? lol

Using a sword is not like waving a stick, but to say that swords are heavier than you think is most likely incorrect. Most people think swords(particularly European ones) weighed anywhere from 15 to 50 pounds -weights which are several times higher than even teh heaviest swords.

Renaissance two-handers were not designed to take out knights. They were designed to work in conjunction pike formations -the pikemen themselves would lock up the opposing formation's pikes with their own, and then the sword-wielding landschnekts would move in and massacre teh opposing formation. They could use the sword from the traditional hilt position if they had to deal with a few left over pikemen not affected by the lock up, and half-sword their weapon on the hilt for the much deadlier close-range combat. This topic has been dealt with extensively and comprehensively in several topics on the myarmoury.com forums. The weapons used to take out armor-clad knights were more often flails, hammers, and maces -and, later on, rigid thrusting swords such as the English tuck.

Knightly sword combat was not sluggish. Once can read several historical fechtbuch manuals showing some of the most common disciplines in sword combat. The key to taking out knights in this swort of close-in, grappling fighting style was not to simply bash their armor with your blade -which would have been ineffective and damaging to your own sword- but to find and stab the chinks in their armor -armpits being the most common target.

But regardless of which sword is cooler, usually when an axe went against a sword, the axe wins...

Don't get me wrong, I love axes, but I wonder in what context? Is this sword and shield against axe and shield? Bare axe vs. bare sword? What kind of axe do you speak of?

I have used axe and sword in battle, sometimes together. The axe is a powerful weapon, and can be used to shield hook, a useful function, but it has disadvantages:
1. It is awkward to wield compared to a sword, and takes longer to make successive blows with than a sword (all the weight is at the end).
2. It is not double bladed, and presents a severe disadvantage in very close quarters.

All said, the axe in a skilled warriors hands is very dangerous, but its main advantage in war was that the average warrior was already used to wielding one, as it was used in agriculture. The sword had one purpose, and that was military.

I will take sword and shield over axe and shield, but I used an axe regularly, espescially in melee team combat. I would hook pull shields while my comrades struck the opening. Good weapon. But one on one? Sword, any day (for me at least).

Let's not forget the short spear, such as that used by the Zulu. It is a very fast weapon, and can be used with a shield; you can also throw it effectively. I'm not sure, but I think it's fairly effective against the sword.

I like ninja swords..
More uses for them than plain old Samurai weapons.

What's the difference?

Death Robots! nothing beats giant walking Death Robots! manned or unmanned.

unmanned has the scary ramifications of Evil Self Aware Psychotic Death Robots though, so should perhaps be avoided. Remote control death robots perhaps?

Problem is, someone will eventually decide that a Death Robot that can act on its own without a need for remote guidance might be a great idea in the event of enemy jamming signals. Hence back to the problem of Evil Self Aware Psychotic Death Robots.

Hell, it's all ready starting in Kah-li-fornia.

:D

What's the difference?
Usually ninja swords, like the ninjato were a little less curved, and the ninjato could be used as a snorkel, among other things...

Spears and polearms are nice, but are meant to be used with a shield wall (a group of shielded fighters in front) One on one spear or polearm vs a fighter with shield and sword there is no contest. The sword wins. Its only a matter of closing.

Depends on the polearm and the fighting culture. The shield wall is, AFAIK exclusively a western tactic. Polearms are nearly universal. The polearm I studied - the naginata (http://www.scnf.org/history2.html) - was originally designed to cut the legs out from cavalry horses. In this appliocation it was originally used by the ashigaru (foot soldiers). It was later adopted by the sohei - buddhist warrior-monks who served as temple gaurds and soldiers. It was later adopted as a weapon used by women to compensate for their lack of reach when fighting against men. All the forms I studied were tachi* versus naginata, although yari** versus naginata and other forms exist. Modern naginata is very similar to kendo. In fact, the equipment for sparring primarily only differs in the addition of shin gaurds. The rules also allow for strikes to the shins, butt strikes to the shins, and butt thrusts to the throat, not allowed or possible in kendo.

*tachi - the general Japanese word for sword, also read as ken in combinations - eg. kendo "sword way".
** yari - spear or lance.

http://www.iaido-aachen.de/Bilder/Naginata.gif
Sohei armed with naginata

http://www.bajutsu.com/historique/equi-militaire/historique-naginata.jpg
Various naginata

http://www.naginata.org/inf/images/shiai2.gif
Sparring

Oh, if anyone hasn't figured out, yes, I voted other. Swords are cool, but I like naginata better. :D

Swords are indeed very cool, especially Claymores and Flamberges. As far as weapons go, I prefer battle axes and war hammers to swords, though. I want a battle axe. A double bladed one would be nice. All weapons have advantages and disadvantages. An axe has the advantage of being able to break bones like a mace, but also being able cut, like a sword. If wielded well, it can break swords, armor and shields. It has the disadvantage of being inherently unbalanced, and so a much more clumsy weapon than a sword. You can be much more agile even with a large sword. I've always for some reason been more fond of the axe, I guess it just suits me better.

I always liked the two handed viking sword (my vague memory is telling me it was a bastard sword, but that's a one and a half handed sword so it's probably wrong).

It was really big, and when wielded by a big red-haired viking looked really scary. And most impotantly the handle has designed for clubbing and stabbing to compensate for the ludicrously unweildable main blade - that way you could still fight the few people that didn't crap themselves and flee :D

Terminalia, if you think swords are unwieldy or require a lot of strength to use, you haven't handled real swords. Single-handed swords maximum weight was about 3 pounds, and those are the ones meant to be used on horseback. Even the six-foot-long, double-handed Renaissance swords(zweihanders et al) never, EVER weighed more than 7 pounds.

The swords I picked up were medieval ones and pre medieval, and they weighed a bit more than seven pounds, also, swinging it around in practice and battle would have made the sword feel heavier as you tired from the exertion.

The swords you picked up were fakes, I (and any historian versed in the area) can guarantee this without a shadow of a doubt. But you don't need to be well-informed on the topic to figure this out. Think about it: a weapon that you can't use is worthless. Swords, if that heavy, would never have become a recognizable symbol of battle, as they would never have become common, or even desirable.

Exactly. Most battles lasted for more than three swings....

Theres also the matter of practice. I weild a 8Kg (16+ pound) chainsaw for considerable periods of time, but if someone whos never used on tried I give them about 15 to 20 minutes before the vibration gives them cramp. Same idea, a trained knight swinging a sword for an hour a day every day would have the stamina to cut his way through a lot of peasents....

What's the difference?

Ninja swords were meant to be used for survival and be tools, unlike the Samurai katana. Many times ninjato scabbards would have hidden daggers or could be used as a breathing apparatus for hiding in water, and the sword itself was for mainly quick slashes before the opponent could react I believe...and they could adapt it any way they wanted.
The Samurai sword was sacred and the scabbard was only for holding the sword, so they only drew the sword for killing instead of using it like a tool like the Ninjas did. Of course Samurai would kill entire camps of Ninjas at a time, so..yeah.

This is just from what I remember reading at various sources though.

Syndra - thanks :)

The trick with Ninja I beleive was not that they were good fighters (hence samurai slaughtering them), but that you never saw them comming.

Did Samurai have to draw blood before sheathing the sword, or is that just something I've picked up from fiction?

Syndra - thanks :)

The trick with Ninja I beleive was not that they were good fighters (hence samurai slaughtering them), but that you never saw them comming.

Did Samurai have to draw blood before sheathing the sword, or is that just something I've picked up from fiction?

depends on what century you are refering to. earlier on they were pretty practical, later on things became a bit more mystical, and then they got slaughtered by practical guns...

I have always prefered a thrusting sword in my left hand and a cutter in my right.


Jim

The swords you picked up were fakes, I (and any historian versed in the area) can guarantee this without a shadow of a doubt. But you don't need to be well-informed on the topic to figure this out. Think about it: a weapon that you can't use is worthless. Swords, if that heavy, would never have become a recognizable symbol of battle, as they would never have become common, or even desirable.

I didnt sat they weighed a tonne, just heavier than the ones you described that came later, more weight= more damage.
Some of these swords had very long blades as well.

I know. But no sword ever meant for combat(i.e., no "real" sword) ever weighed more than 7 pounds. A heavier weapon will cause more damage, but it would be useless if you could only swing once or twice before dying of a heart attack. The 7-pound weight is a maximum weight for swords that were often in the realm of 6 feet long -longer than many soldiers are tall. Even these weapons are manageable(especially when half-sworded).

What's the difference?
In general the ninja used a ninja-to which was straight, shorter and of poorer craftmanship than a katana. Ninjas would usually not fight a samurai in a typical duel because they would get slaughtered a samurai warrior spends his whole life training in one on one sword duels. The way ninjas could win is easy they broke the samurai tradition and stab him in the back, cut his throat while he was sleeping etc. Ninjas also used lots of weapons which are hard for the samurai to block effectivly like nunchaku, shruiken etc.

I know. But no sword ever meant for combat(i.e., no "real" sword) ever weighed more than 7 pounds. A heavier weapon will cause more damage, but it would be useless if you could only swing once or twice before dying of a heart attack. The 7-pound weight is a maximum weight for swords that were often in the realm of 6 feet long -longer than many soldiers are tall. Even these weapons are manageable(especially when half-sworded).

Well 7 pounds, which is roughly only 4 kgs, particularly being swung by a strong man isnt really that heavy you know, but I'll accept your word for it.

You don't have to take my word for it. I gave links to two very active forums that deal precisely with ancient weaponry, I'll post them again: myarmoury.com, swordforums.com
Like I said, you can also ask any historian or archaelogist who has studied the eras of cultures that used these weapons. They'll corroborate what I'm saying. A sword isn't SUPPOSED to be very heavy. It's supposed to cut, stab, or both, and anything more is either a waste or a design flaw. If you can only cut a few times before getting out of breath, it's not a very practical weapon. If it's not a very practical weapon, it's not going to be used often. If it's not used often, it's not going to become a recognizable symbol.
As for strength, if a man has to be strong or skilled to use a weapon, that weapon is not as practical as one that DOESN'T need strength or skill. Swords overshadowed both spears and axes in battle because they were easier to use. People "back then" weren't any stronger than we are now. It's only been a few thousand years since the oldest swords were made -not nearly enough time for any significant species-wide genetic change. The idea that a sword was an item of uninhibited destruction, that it was heavy, is pure myth -most often propagated by Hollywood and literature(similar to the myth that knights needed to be hoisted into their saddles by a crane).

RE all the ninja stuff, I think everything that's been said so far is accurate, but I may have missed some sillyness. And don't ever believe anyone who tells you they belong to any ninja schools. 99% of the modern "ninja schools" teachings are a mish-mash of modern techniques from various open hand and weapons systems and some stuff people think they did. Some sources say that the last properly trained real ninja was probably Toshitsugu Takamatsu (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/budotaijutsu/MasaakiHatsumi.html), who died in 1972 at age 85. He did pass on some techniques to a student, Masaaki Hatsumi. But Hatsumi should not be considered a traditionally trained ninja, nor should his students. They are, however, the closest thing.
I have seen other sources saying that the last real ninja died in the early years of WWII, without passing on his technique.

Did Samurai have to draw blood before sheathing the sword, or is that just something I've picked up from fiction?

Just a bit of western fiction.

I like the fish

Depends on the polearm and the fighting culture. The shield wall is, AFAIK exclusively a western tactic. Polearms are nearly universal. The polearm I studied - the naginata (http://www.scnf.org/history2.html) - was originally designed to cut the legs out from cavalry horses. In this appliocation it was originally used by the ashigaru (foot soldiers). It was later adopted by the sohei - buddhist warrior-monks who served as temple gaurds and soldiers. It was later adopted as a weapon used by women to compensate for their lack of reach when fighting against men. All the forms I studied were tachi* versus naginata, although yari** versus naginata and other forms exist. Modern naginata is very similar to kendo. In fact, the equipment for sparring primarily only differs in the addition of shin gaurds. The rules also allow for strikes to the shins, butt strikes to the shins, and butt thrusts to the throat, not allowed or possible in kendo.

*tachi - the general Japanese word for sword, also read as ken in combinations - eg. kendo "sword way".
** yari - spear or lance.

http://www.iaido-aachen.de/Bilder/Naginata.gif
Sohei armed with naginata

http://www.bajutsu.com/historique/equi-militaire/historique-naginata.jpg
Various naginata

http://www.naginata.org/inf/images/shiai2.gif
Sparring

Oh, if anyone hasn't figured out, yes, I voted other. Swords are cool, but I like naginata better. :D

THere's also the halbard, which was a vicious weapon that could decapitate horses, bills... In fact, most long poll-arm formations didn't include shields. For example, the only way to effectively deal with a group of Swiss Pikemen was to either shoot them to peices or send in the rondieshiers or dismounted knights. Even then, it wasn't a sure thing without archers. Also, in addition to not carrying sheilds, only the first ranks of swiss were even armored. THis alone to me demonstraites the superiority of pollarms over swords.

For those who claim that a sword is obviously better than a spear one on one, it's simply not true. Of course if you can get inside the reach of the spear you'll win, but the same could be said of a sword, and it's quite a bit harder than you'd think.

Medieval battles between knights weren't fought with the intention of killing enemies. The idea was to demonstraight your superiority over your opponant. Dead knights aren't worth ransom. Swords simply couldn't penetrate the armor easily, which is why fights to the death were usually fought with daggers and grappling. An example of this was Agiencourt, where most of the casualties were inflicted by welsh longbowmen armed with long daggers and mallets.

Rapiers, although my favorite sword, are the least lethal of all. In order to actually kill someone instantly, one must penetrate the brain or heart. The victem might die later from a deflated lung or a perforated bowel, but instant leathal wounds were few and far between. A knife fight between compitent fighters lasts all of seconds. I read of a duel that raged on and off for 7 years.

I have seen some martial-arts schools locally professing to teach "Ninjitsu"...does anyone know what Ninjitsu entails, and if it bears any relation to historical Ninjas?

I have seen some martial-arts schools locally professing to teach "Ninjitsu"...does anyone know what Ninjitsu entails, and if it bears any relation to historical Ninjas?
if you think learning ninjitsu lets you go around being a ninja, star far, far away from any school of martial arts

No, it isn't related to ninjas(not significantly, anyway). It's in the same vein as karate, kung fu, tae kwon do, and (especially) aikido... Mano-a-mano martial artistry.

if you think learning ninjitsu lets you go around being a ninja, star far, far away from any school of martial arts

LOL - I think you may have misundertood my intentions. (I have a visual of me running around in black and jumping out to ambush people screaming "hiiiyah!" :p) I have no personal interest in enrolling, I was just curious as to what they actually teach and how it relates to the Ninja's of history...

Just a bit of western fiction.

More specifically, Frank Herbert's Dune. The Crysknife was to draw blood before being sheathed, and hollywood liked that idea

I have seen some martial-arts schools locally professing to teach "Ninjitsu"...does anyone know what Ninjitsu entails, and if it bears any relation to historical Ninjas?
Difficult question to answer. If you haven't been there to see for yourself what they are teaching.

(I have a visual of me running around in black and jumping out to ambush people screaming "hiiiyah!" :p)
Do you now? :D Ninjas were supposed to kill silently. And screaming "Hiiiyah" would kinda draw unwanted attention.

I like swords. I have an incredibly dull sabre; I probably could sharpen it, but I'm lazy. Katanas are awesome, so are guns; nukes seem kinda boring.

Do you now? :D Ninjas were supposed to kill silently. And screaming "Hiiiyah" would kinda draw unwanted attention.

Hey, I never said I'd make a good Ninja, did I? :p

If I was to become a Ninja, I'd be more like Chris Farley in "Beverly Hills Ninja"...;)

Terminalia, if you think swords are unwieldy or require a lot of strength to use, you haven't handled real swords. Single-handed swords maximum weight was about 3 pounds, and those are the ones meant to be used on horseback. Even the six-foot-long, double-handed Renaissance swords(zweihanders et al) never, EVER weighed more than 7 pounds.
This is about swords being cool , not just practical, right? The coolest sword I know is a medieval Richtschwert on display at the Justice museum in Rothenburg ob der Tauber (they also have an awesome collection of halberds.) As the name would suggest, this is a ceremonial sword, not for actual fighting. It is almost 7' in length, massive and beautiful.
*BTW (just FYI, no offense), it's Landsknecht (servant of the land), not Landschneck (land snail) ;) *
People "back then" weren't any stronger than we are now....
I beg to differ with you. If you look at some authentic suits of armor, which were tailored and did allow quite a bit of movement (the hoisted Hollywood knight is indeed hogwash), you can't help but notice that the wearers were rather hefty and musclebound for their size. It's interesting to see the development in three suits of armor made over time for the same king (on display at the Waffenkammer in Dresden, a noteworthy place to visit.) While not tall, the dude was certainly built like a brick house. And this was a king, who probably did not see a lot of combat outside the practice grounds because he was too valuable.

I have seen some martial-arts schools locally professing to teach "Ninjitsu"...does anyone know what Ninjitsu entails, and if it bears any relation to historical Ninjas?

Yeah, but it's relatively young as it was created for improving the minions of the Japanese counter-culture in response to the already very well established Samurai.

The direct aim of ninjitsu (as I understand it) is the disabling and/or killing of a target in as few movements as possible with whatever happens to be in hand. It's an "anything goes" style...this includes poisons hiddenblades and the like. The only real "right way" is whatever kills your target.

If the teacher emphasizes the inherent good in the art of ninjitsu....the fellow either needs 'is head examined or he's teaching a deformed style of judo.

Unlike say...karate...it is not a defensive martial art. Instead, it's all about breaking a resisting target's leg in two places, placing him writhing in agony on the ground so he'll be an easier kill. Fun stuff like that.

Personally, I rather enjoy "sniper-foo." But I have picked up a couple tricks from a couple martial art guru friends of mine. I hope I'll never need to try them. I'm pathetic :p

People "back then" weren't any stronger than we are now....
I beg to differ with you. If you look at some authentic suits of armor, which were tailored and did allow quite a bit of movement (the hoisted Hollywood knight is indeed hogwash), you can't help but notice that the wearers were rather hefty and musclebound for their size. It's interesting to see the development in three suits of armor made over time for the same king (on display at the Waffenkammer in Dresden, a noteworthy place to visit.) While not tall, the dude was certainly built like a brick house. And this was a king, who probably did not see a lot of combat outside the practice grounds because he was too valuable.
Thing is, not everyone was that strong. Sure, there were plenty of excellent fighters that are uncomparable to today, but those tended to be fairly rare and reserved as bodyguards and for one-on-one fights, the kind you see in movies. These one-on-one fights, despite being unseen in the Dark and Middle ages, were incredibly common during the ages of the Greek and Roman empires; these battles would primarily be focused on taunting of the enemy and a few quick slashes, the majority of the event being a morale booster for the army.

Before the Rapier, while not all suits of armour were restrictive, the only way to make a full plate semi-useful was to have it specifically made for you. Otherwise...
'Course, after the French-style single-point rapier, similar to the Epee, the full plate, being designed against large striking weapons, was fairly useless, as the rapier could simply slide through.

OK this bears repeating (in ever so slightly modified form):
All traditional schools of of shinobi or nin-jitsu are dead. They have been dead for at the very least 30 years. Most have been dead far longer. Ninja died out during the Meiji period. The very last possible real ninja died in 1972, at age 85.

Don't ever believe anyone who tells you they belong to any ninja schools. 99% of the modern "ninja schools" teachings are a mish-mash of modern techniques from various open hand and weapons systems and some stuff people think they did, that ignore the vast majority of what ninjutsu was about.

Some sources say that the last properly trained real ninja was probably Toshitsugu Takamatsu (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/budotaijutsu/MasaakiHatsumi.html), who died in 1972 at age 85. He did pass on some techniques to a student, Masaaki Hatsumi. But Hatsumi should not be considered a traditionally trained ninja, nor should his students. They are, however, the closest thing. But they should not be confused with any complete and living art.
I have seen other sources saying that the last real ninja died in the early years of WWII, without passing on his technique.

If you look at the very few existing traditional bugei schools in Japan, you will see a level of devotion that is simply beyond the vast majority of students, western, Asian, or Japanese. Traditional ninja training was the equivilant of the proper traditional training of the famed (and now very, very rare) Shaolin monks. It is far, far beyond what any student could learn without a serious professional training today. The closest you will come in modern training would be the supra-elite SOF units Delta, SAS, Spetznatz, etc.

Most of the real ninja's training would fall under espionage trade craft today - disguise, surveilance, and that sort of thing.

Here's a quick question you can ask anyone who claims to be teaching real ninjutsu: When will I learn to sing and dance? (Traditionally the performing arts were very important ninja skills. And, they would be today, if there were any real ninja left, equivilant skills such as popular dance and karaoke would be taught.)

LOL - I think you may have misundertood my intentions. (I have a visual of me running around in black and jumping out to ambush people screaming "hiiiyah!" :p) I have no personal interest in enrolling, I was just curious as to what they actually teach and how it relates to the Ninja's of history...

Most of what I have seen being taught is crap - a mix of various open hand schools, poorly adopted and mixed together. Some schools may have a little relation to specific proper techniques. And a very few may teach something more. But no school teaches "real" ninjutsu at all anymore.

The skills of the historical ninja had much more to do with stealth, disguise, and espionage than with combat. Even assassinations were not so much dependent on fighting techniques as on stealth and the like.

A classical ninja assassination:
Conceal ones self in a pit toilet for several days while waiting for your target. Once your target is confirmed, kill him from below with a spear.

Here's a quick question you can ask anyone who claims to be teaching real ninjutsu: When will I learn to sing and dance? (Traditionally the performing arts were very important ninja skills. And, they would be today, if there were any real ninja left, equivilant skills such as popular dance and karaoke would be taught.)
True. Ninjas back then where pretty much what the intelligence community is today. Ninjas weren't just asassins. They were also used as spies to gather information. Which meant they needed to be able to pass as a traveling entertainer or a merchant etc...

I heard that many samurai would(or better, could) have been ninja themselves, which doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me considering how Eastern criminal rings worked in general...


it's Landsknecht (servant of the land), not Landschneck (land snail)

I knew I was going to get that wrong... hehe.


I beg to differ with you. If you look at some authentic suits of armor, which were tailored and did allow quite a bit of movement (the hoisted Hollywood knight is indeed hogwash), you can't help but notice that the wearers were rather hefty and musclebound for their size. It's interesting to see the development in three suits of armor made over time for the same king (on display at the Waffenkammer in Dresden, a noteworthy place to visit.) While not tall, the dude was certainly built like a brick house. And this was a king, who probably did not see a lot of combat outside the practice grounds because he was too valuable.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. In cultures where people used melee weapons, and wore metallic armor designed to counter such weaponry(thus being heavy), of course the average citizen would be stronger than the average citizen of today's advanced cultures. The fact that almost everybody was either a soldier or a peasant(ie farmer, ie backbreaking physical worker, ie excellent physical condition) only adds to this. What I was saying is that people were not any naturally stronger then than they are today -they were generally stronger than today's general populace, but not because they were born that way. It was because they lived a physically demanding life, not because they had more "strength" genes.

So in other words, their strongest people then wouldn't have been stronger than the strongest people now. The myth of the ultra heavy European sword(again propagated by Hollywood and literature), as well as that of Twain's hoisted knight, led to this idea. Even if they HAD been that strong, the fact is that endurance is far more important than strength in the kind of combat used with these weapons. Better to give 50 lethal cuts to 50 people's abdomens than chopping clean through 2 or 3 people...

I heard that many samurai would(or better, could) have been ninja themselves, which doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me considering how Eastern criminal rings worked in general...
Plus Samurai considerd the Ninja to be honorless. While they had a strict code to live up to.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that all samurai were TRUE samurai -I have no doubt "spies" existed, especially with the fact Eastern criminal rings generally weren't/aren't as identifiable and independent as those in the West.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that all samurai were TRUE samurai -I have no doubt "spies" existed, especially with the fact Eastern criminal rings generally weren't/aren't as identifiable and independent as those in the West.
Not all Ninja where true Ninja either. But you kinda lost me with the whole criminal ring thing. Could you fill me in?

Did you watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? (regardless of what you think of the movie itself, it does illustrate what I mean fairly well)

Did you watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? (regardless of what you think of the movie itself, it does illustrate what I mean fairly well)
Yeah. I watched it. But it was a loong time ago. So I don't know what you mean.

In the West, criminals are usually very easy to identify, they generally bear little connection with non-criminals. Gang members aren't CEOs, for example. In the East, criminal rings are inextricable linked with the rest of society. In CT,HD, Michelle Yeoh's character was(or used to be) a member of the Giang Hu underworld. So was Zhang Ziyi's character, and Jade Fox. The various fighters Zhang Ziyi took on in the restaurant were also members of this group -which is why they got mad when she refused to spar with them. Their organization was led by certain customs, and their request for friendly combat should not have been refused. In Japan, there's the yakuza, which bears a similarity to the Western mafia. In both cases of the yakuza and Giang Hu however, the organization spans many different lifestyles and purposes; some members are among the highest-ranking people in their respective societies. These groups are not always seen as true criminals within their own state, as they often act to improve the society in which they live as a whole. It's very complicated, and I don't intend to describe it in anything nearing full comprehension, but the idea is to say that it's not unlikely for some samurai to have been members of the "ninja" organization. Fighting against the system in these kinds of orgs isn't always about bringing down the system itself, but rather reforming it.