Poll of the Day > Longsword vs Katana

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Babbit55 02/13/18 6:07:48 PM #51:	mayatola posted... First of all, curved is much better for cutting. You have a larger surface area for the edge of the blade. There's a reason why cavalry swords were always curved. They didn't have to swing so much as simply hold their sword out as the curved edges would draw across flesh and slice through, whereas a long sword would simply get stuck into whatever it hit. So that bullshit about technique or whatever is just that. Curved swords effectively cut better than straight edges. Now, I'm not a big fan of the Japanese, but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world. They each excelled in their respective roles: the gladius as a short, thrusting weapon used in close combat in conjunction with the scutum (the roman shields that basically covered the entire left side of the soldier); and the katana as a two-handed weapon cutting weapon (but yes, it can also thrust, and I did practice Shinkendo for around 2 1/2 years -- I even got to spar with Toshishiro Obata for a couple minutes when he visited our dojo). The longsword is a long, straight, double-edged blade. It didn't cut as well as the katana, and as far as thrusting, yes it was long, but that's what made it unwieldy. For thrusting, you only needed to penetrate three inches into your opponent's midsection or torso. The gladius did that very well while allowing you to fully control your shield (which was the real workhorse). Also, because it's short, it's very easy to retract the blade after you hit your opponent for another thrust (likely at another opponent). In a crowded melee, you'll probably have to drop your longsword and draw your short sword or dagger after you pierce your opponent. As for the katana, you just cut through your opponent and your blade was free to strike at another. Of course, the katana wasn't designed to cut through opponents wearing full plate, so I couldn't really argue about it's effectiveness against a knight, but it definitely cut through conscripted soldiers with ease. As for knight versus samurai, I don't care as it's just Deadliest Warrior crap. You can pretend to think you know who will win, but you really don't. Yeah, shields and shield walls were a huge part of western warfare, and in the east, samurai believed that only cowards hid behind shields and were ready to die for their lords in combat. Now, maybe the samurai were a bit naive about the effectiveness of hoplite shields or scutums, but their fanaticism in combat isn't some easily measured attribute. And anyway, samurai were trained in the use of many weapons (spears, bow, short swords, and hand-to-hand combat). Restricting a samurai to a katana, or even a knight with just a sword and shield for that matter, is like restricting LeBron to lay ups and Curry to dunks. Both fighters were highly trained in many different weapons and could use them effectively in the appropriate situations. Anyway, I'm sorry but longswords versus katana doesn't seem like even a fair comparison. Because both weapons are wielded with two hands? A katana wielder could easily close in on a longsword and disarm the wielder due to the comparatively unwieldy nature of the weapon (when compared to the katana). The stance of the wielder, and the curved blade, which allows you to deflect more easily would make quick work of a longsword. Now if you want to throw a shield into the mix, you might as well ditch the sword altogether and grip the shield with two hands. A scutum versus a katana, now that'd be really interesting. I never got where this unweildly crap comes from. Long swords are not cumbersome, they are agile and half swording was a very effective thing in closer range. Closing in and disarming a skilled sword fighter is not gonna happen easily.... --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896026670] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote>First of all, curved is much better for cutting. You have a larger surface area for the edge of the blade. There's a reason why cavalry swords were always curved. They didn't have to swing so much as simply hold their sword out as the curved edges would draw across flesh and slice through, whereas a long sword would simply get stuck into whatever it hit. So that bullshit about technique or whatever is just that. Curved swords effectively cut better than straight edges. Now, I'm not a big fan of the Japanese, but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world. They each excelled in their respective roles: the gladius as a short, thrusting weapon used in close combat in conjunction with the scutum (the roman shields that basically covered the entire left side of the soldier); and the katana as a two-handed weapon cutting weapon (but yes, it can also thrust, and I did practice Shinkendo for around 2 1/2 years -- I even got to spar with Toshishiro Obata for a couple minutes when he visited our dojo). The longsword is a long, straight, double-edged blade. It didn't cut as well as the katana, and as far as thrusting, yes it was long, but that's what made it unwieldy. For thrusting, you only needed to penetrate three inches into your opponent's midsection or torso. The gladius did that very well while allowing you to fully control your shield (which was the real workhorse). Also, because it's short, it's very easy to retract the blade after you hit your opponent for another thrust (likely at another opponent). In a crowded melee, you'll probably have to drop your longsword and draw your short sword or dagger after you pierce your opponent. As for the katana, you just cut through your opponent and your blade was free to strike at another. Of course, the katana wasn't designed to cut through opponents wearing full plate, so I couldn't really argue about it's effectiveness against a knight, but it definitely cut through conscripted soldiers with ease. As for knight versus samurai, I don't care as it's just Deadliest Warrior crap. You can pretend to think you know who will win, but you really don't. Yeah, shields and shield walls were a huge part of western warfare, and in the east, samurai believed that only cowards hid behind shields and were ready to die for their lords in combat. Now, maybe the samurai were a bit naive about the effectiveness of hoplite shields or scutums, but their fanaticism in combat isn't some easily measured attribute. And anyway, samurai were trained in the use of many weapons (spears, bow, short swords, and hand-to-hand combat). Restricting a samurai to a katana, or even a knight with just a sword and shield for that matter, is like restricting LeBron to lay ups and Curry to dunks. Both fighters were highly trained in many different weapons and could use them effectively in the appropriate situations. Anyway, I'm sorry but longswords versus katana doesn't seem like even a fair comparison. Because both weapons are wielded with two hands? A katana wielder could easily close in on a longsword and disarm the wielder due to the comparatively unwieldy nature of the weapon (when compared to the katana). The stance of the wielder, and the curved blade, which allows you to deflect more easily would make quick work of a longsword. Now if you want to throw a shield into the mix, you might as well ditch the sword altogether and grip the shield with two hands. A scutum versus a katana, now that'd be really interesting.</quote> I never got where this unweildly crap comes from. Long swords are not cumbersome, they are agile and half swording was a very effective thing in closer range. Closing in and disarming a skilled sword fighter is not gonna happen easily....</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lihlih 02/13/18 7:21:17 PM #52:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo --- Not removing this until Pat Benatar is in Super Smash Bros. (Started 12/19/2017) <cite>lihlih posted [p:896030732] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/13/18 7:27:56 PM #53:	lihlih posted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo That video is bad, on so many levels. Anyone with even some knowledge of arms an armour and technique will tell you... I mean stage armour is the same as real armour right? And how he swings the swords into a bloody ice block! Also a modern steel forge katana is not the same as it was originally! I think that video is one of the most debunked videos on YouTube! --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896031083] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>lihlih posted...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo</quote> That video is bad, on so many levels. Anyone with even some knowledge of arms an armour and technique will tell you... I mean stage armour is the same as real armour right? And how he swings the swords into a bloody ice block! Also a modern steel forge katana is not the same as it was originally! I think that video is one of the most debunked videos on YouTube!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/13/18 7:36:20 PM #54:	^ So mad. Like I said katana every time. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896031527] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>^ So mad. Like I said katana every time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
likehelly 02/13/18 7:38:01 PM #55:	Babbit55 posted... I mean stage armour is the same as real armour right? no not even close <cite>likehelly posted [p:896031620] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean stage armour is the same as real armour right?</quote> no not even close</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Susanowo 02/13/18 9:19:39 PM #56:	Nitenryuu + Swords --- Jeanne91NP2, Salter87, Altera86NP3, Lancelot70NP2, Atalante60, Waver57, Jack53, Scathach52, Drake35. <cite>Susanowo posted [p:896037592] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>Nitenryuu + Swords</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/13/18 9:20:30 PM #57:	darkknight109 posted... Katana designs were anything but standardized, unless you're talking about relatively recently. Size and shape were highly variable, from short swords to swords that were longer than the samurai using them was tall. Even the characteristic curve of the modern katana wasn't a universal design and, particularly in its earliest incarnations, straight-edged katana do exist. You're basically describing fringes, though. More importantly, there was far less variation among katana than longswords. mayatola posted... but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world. [Citation needed] They each excelled in their respective roles: the gladius as a short, thrusting weapon used in close combat in conjunction with the scutum (the roman shields that basically covered the entire left side of the soldier) Given the mechanics behind a thrust, a longer weapon adds more power. As a one-handed sword, a gladius wouldn't have nearly as much thrusting power in the first place. mayatola posted... the katana as a two-handed weapon cutting weapon ( A what? mayatola posted... but yes, it can also thrust, and I did practice Shinkendo for around 2 1/2 years So can a scimitar and khopesh, but it's not as practical. mayatola posted... The longsword is a long, straight, double-edged blade. It didn't cut as well as the katana, and as far as thrusting, yes it was long, but that's what made it unwieldy. For thrusting, you only needed to penetrate three inches into your opponent's midsection or torso. The gladius did that very well while allowing you to fully control your shield (which was the real workhorse). Also, because it's short, it's very easy to retract the blade after you hit your opponent for another thrust (likely at another opponent). In a crowded melee, you'll probably have to drop your longsword and draw your short sword or dagger after you pierce your opponent. As for the katana, you just cut through your opponent and your blade was free to strike at another. Of course, the katana wasn't designed to cut through opponents wearing full plate, so I couldn't really argue about it's effectiveness against a knight, but it definitely cut through conscripted soldiers with ease. 1) The longsword isn't any more unwieldy than a katana, especially considering variations within the longsword (doubly so since shorter versions could be used one-handed) 2) The gladius was generally used against less-armored opponents. And shield-heavy tactics were a bigger thing back before people started to wear stronger armor. 3) Given that longsword and katana had similar length, any concerns about "crowded melee" would apply to both. 4) The shorter end of the longsword continuum (39in) isn't much longer than a longer gladius (which ranged 24-33in) --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896037660] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Katana designs were anything but standardized, unless you're talking about relatively recently. Size and shape were highly variable, from short swords to swords that were longer than the samurai using them was tall. Even the characteristic curve of the modern katana wasn't a universal design and, particularly in its earliest incarnations, straight-edged katana do exist. </quote> You're basically describing fringes, though. More importantly, there was far less variation among katana than longswords. <cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote>but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world.</quote> [Citation needed] <quote>They each excelled in their respective roles: the gladius as a short, thrusting weapon used in close combat in conjunction with the scutum (the roman shields that basically covered the entire left side of the soldier)</quote> Given the mechanics behind a thrust, a longer weapon adds more power. As a one-handed sword, a gladius wouldn't have nearly as much thrusting power in the first place. <cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote> the katana as a two-handed weapon cutting weapon (</quote> A what? <cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote>but yes, it can also thrust, and I did practice Shinkendo for around 2 1/2 years</quote> So can a scimitar and khopesh, but it's not as practical. <cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote> The longsword is a long, straight, double-edged blade. It didn't cut as well as the katana, and as far as thrusting, yes it was long, but that's what made it unwieldy. For thrusting, you only needed to penetrate three inches into your opponent's midsection or torso. The gladius did that very well while allowing you to fully control your shield (which was the real workhorse). Also, because it's short, it's very easy to retract the blade after you hit your opponent for another thrust (likely at another opponent). In a crowded melee, you'll probably have to drop your longsword and draw your short sword or dagger after you pierce your opponent. As for the katana, you just cut through your opponent and your blade was free to strike at another. Of course, the katana wasn't designed to cut through opponents wearing full plate, so I couldn't really argue about it's effectiveness against a knight, but it definitely cut through conscripted soldiers with ease.</quote> 1) The longsword isn't any more unwieldy than a katana, especially considering variations within the longsword (doubly so since shorter versions could be used one-handed) 2) The gladius was generally used against less-armored opponents. And shield-heavy tactics were a bigger thing back before people started to wear stronger armor. 3) Given that longsword and katana had similar length, any concerns about "crowded melee" would apply to both. 4) The shorter end of the longsword continuum (39in) isn't much longer than a longer gladius (which ranged 24-33in)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/13/18 9:21:00 PM #58:	mayatola posted... and in the east, samurai believed that only cowards hid behind shields and were ready to die for their lords in combat. Literally none of that is true. The reason samurai didn't use shields is because they were bowmen (and, if you think a shield is "cowardly," what about using a bow?). And, in ground combat, they were more likely to use a polearm than a katana. mayatola posted... A katana wielder could easily close in on a longsword and disarm the wielder due to the comparatively unwieldy nature of the weapon (when compared to the katana). --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896037689] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote>and in the east, samurai believed that only cowards hid behind shields and were ready to die for their lords in combat.</quote> Literally none of that is true. The reason samurai didn't use shields is because they were bowmen (and, if you think a shield is "cowardly," what about using a bow?). And, in ground combat, they were more likely to use a polearm than a katana. <cite>mayatola posted...</cite> <quote>A katana wielder could easily close in on a longsword and disarm the wielder due to the comparatively unwieldy nature of the weapon (when compared to the katana). </quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 02/13/18 9:21:08 PM #59:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfIZA4nmtc --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:896037704] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfIZA4nmtc</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/13/18 11:02:37 PM #60:	Are we really gonna fellate gladii of all things. Romans aren't exactly famed for their weapon and armoursmithing. Even compared to other Empires at the time. --- https://i.imgur.com/ymuEJsp.gif <cite>Blighboy posted [p:896043270] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>Are we really gonna fellate gladii of all things. Romans aren't exactly famed for their weapon and armoursmithing. Even compared to other Empires at the time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mayatola 02/14/18 12:32:02 AM #61:	Zeus posted... mayatola posted... but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world. [Citation needed] LOL, thought you would have stopped there since it and everything else is complete bullshit I made up at work. Yeah, it was a pretty boring day. <cite>mayatola posted [p:896047762] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>mayatola posted... but military historians widely regard both the gladius and the katana as the two best developed swords in the world. [Citation needed] </quote> LOL, thought you would have stopped there since it and everything else is complete bullshit I made up at work. Yeah, it was a pretty boring day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/14/18 12:40:35 AM #62:	In regards to sword combat verses armored foes, one had to be proficient in striking at the seams and unprotected sections. Chainmail made lunging and piercing weapons/strikes more needed. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896048130] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>In regards to sword combat verses armored foes, one had to be proficient in striking at the seams and unprotected sections. Chainmail made lunging and piercing weapons/strikes more needed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 02/14/18 4:19:43 AM #63:	The katana was designed for cutting down peasants who are fleeing... a longsword was designed for cutting down peasants with pitchforks. --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:896054604] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>The katana was designed for cutting down peasants who are fleeing... a longsword was designed for cutting down peasants with pitchforks.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/14/18 7:06:22 AM #64:	Lokarin posted... The katana was designed for cutting down peasants who are fleeing... a longsword was designed for cutting down peasants with pitchforks. Such truth! SunWuKung420 posted... In regards to sword combat verses armored foes, one had to be proficient in striking at the seams and unprotected sections. Chainmail made lunging and piercing weapons/strikes more needed. Not really true on the striking seams and unprotected sections, plate armour had no "unprotected sections" really, even then the joints had plates covering them and chain would often be patched onto the padding beneath to add extra protection (Double stacking Chain and plate was pointless and would have been really tiring too!) When chain armour was the main go to, so to were big shields, as armour got better, shields got smaller till then went in-favour of bigger weapons. By comparison, because the Japanese mainly in fought instead of conquering like the Europeans, they did not change as much over time, and that is why it too almost 200 years for firearms to really take off there --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896058265] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lokarin posted...</cite> <quote>The katana was designed for cutting down peasants who are fleeing... a longsword was designed for cutting down peasants with pitchforks.</quote> Such truth! <cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>In regards to sword combat verses armored foes, one had to be proficient in striking at the seams and unprotected sections. Chainmail made lunging and piercing weapons/strikes more needed.</quote> Not really true on the striking seams and unprotected sections, plate armour had no "unprotected sections" really, even then the joints had plates covering them and chain would often be patched onto the padding beneath to add extra protection (Double stacking Chain and plate was pointless and would have been really tiring too!) When chain armour was the main go to, so to were big shields, as armour got better, shields got smaller till then went in-favour of bigger weapons. By comparison, because the Japanese mainly in fought instead of conquering like the Europeans, they did not change as much over time, and that is why it too almost 200 years for firearms to really take off there</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/15/18 1:14:07 AM #65:	I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896114628] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 02/15/18 1:21:57 AM #66:	You can have a suit of armor with covered joints and still be easily mobile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q --- "I properly understand when a woman wants my dick and I can do whatever I want to them, and then do it." OmegaTomHank <cite>Cacciato posted [p:896114896] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>You can have a suit of armor with covered joints and still be easily mobile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/15/18 1:25:14 AM #67:	SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896115043] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 02/15/18 1:26:43 AM #68:	Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... Have fought in them though? --- "I properly understand when a woman wants my dick and I can do whatever I want to them, and then do it." OmegaTomHank <cite>Cacciato posted [p:896115105] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> Have fought in them though?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/15/18 1:31:55 AM #69:	Cacciato posted... Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... Have fought in them though? Yeah that too! --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896115284] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> Have fought in them though?</quote> Yeah that too!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/15/18 1:38:46 AM #71:	Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896115578] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/15/18 1:43:36 AM #73:	SunWuKung420 posted... Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern. --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896115759] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/15/18 1:50:27 AM #74:	I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896116026] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/15/18 1:56:00 AM #75:	SunWuKung420 posted... I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela. Youre an actual robot?!?!? --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896116201] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela.</quote> Youre an actual robot?!?!?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/15/18 2:01:19 AM #76:	Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela. Youre an actual robot?!?!? Aren't we all? I'm just primarily carbon and self-programming. I got zapped by a light bulb long ago (1st futurama episode reference). --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896116379] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a real life bender bro. He's my favorite futurama character. You're leela.</quote> Youre an actual robot?!?!?</quote> Aren't we all? I'm just primarily carbon and self-programming. I got zapped by a light bulb long ago (1st futurama episode reference).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Troll_Police_ 02/15/18 2:29:37 AM #77:	SunWuKung420 posted... Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern. hahahahahahaha maybe if you use your immortal fat dracula powers, but i thought you werent admitting to having those or to even being a fat dracula --- Is this going to be one of those times when you pretend not to have a plan until the last moment? And then turn out to really not have one? <cite>Troll_Police_ posted [p:896117227] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern.</quote> hahahahahahaha maybe if you use your immortal fat dracula powers, but i thought you werent admitting to having those or to even being a fat dracula</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 02/15/18 2:35:03 AM #78:	@Troll_Police_ I'm the hand. You're not the racket. --- I'm snotty because I prefer freshly cooked food that isn't full of fillers and/or preservatives.ha http://i.imgur.com/m8f7VYf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Lp7Agd.jpg <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:896117400] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>@Troll_Police_ I'm the hand. You're not the racket. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/15/18 9:11:17 AM #79:	@SunWuKung420 posted... Babbit55 posted... SunWuKung420 posted... I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints. No, I have only wore and faught in them.... I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEpY8cIPL4 Not saying I am that good (really I doubt very much I am even close!). Though would you want to fight "naked and bare-fisted" in that? --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896126859] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>@SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't really think you know anything about suits of armor. In order for the knight to even walk, or fight, there were weak spots at the all the joints.</quote> No, I have only wore and faught in them....</quote> I know this is shenti-esque but seriously, you in armor with a sword and me, naked (very sexy image there) and bare-handed, you'd lose the first and every time. You know nothing of actual combat, ancient or modern.</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEpY8cIPL4 Not saying I am that good (really I doubt very much I am even close!). Though would you want to fight "naked and bare-fisted" in that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/16/18 10:32:41 PM #80:	Babbit55 posted... plate armour had no "unprotected sections" really, even then the joints had plates covering them and chain would often be patched onto the padding beneath to add extra protection (Double stacking Chain and plate was pointless and would have been really tiring too!) ...the protection at the joints tended to be far more vulnerable because it wasn't a solid piece of metal and, even then, you'd have some mail at the gaps. Thrusting through mail is far easier than thrusting through plate although, it should be mentioned, even mail provides solid protection and you'd usually have an additional layer of padding (like a gambeson) under the mail. Cacciato posted... You can have a suit of armor with covered joints and still be easily mobile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q You can clearly see mail at the joints (and in even more areas than that), which isn't going to be able to resist penetration nearly as well as solid plate. (After all, if it could, people would have just stuck with wearing mail instead of plate.) And it's worth noting that -- depending on where you strike -- you technically don't need to pierce the mail to seriously injure an opponent. For example, blunt force trauma to the neck can prove fatal. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896232443] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>plate armour had no "unprotected sections" really, even then the joints had plates covering them and chain would often be patched onto the padding beneath to add extra protection (Double stacking Chain and plate was pointless and would have been really tiring too!)</quote> ...the protection at the joints tended to be far more vulnerable because it wasn't a solid piece of metal and, even then, you'd have some mail at the gaps. Thrusting through mail is far easier than thrusting through plate although, it should be mentioned, even mail provides solid protection and you'd usually have an additional layer of padding (like a gambeson) under the mail. <cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote>You can have a suit of armor with covered joints and still be easily mobile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q</quote> You can clearly see mail at the joints (and in even more areas than that), which isn't going to be able to resist penetration nearly as well as solid plate. (After all, if it could, people would have just stuck with wearing mail instead of plate.) And it's worth noting that -- depending on where you strike -- you technically don't need to pierce the mail to seriously injure an opponent. For example, blunt force trauma to the neck can prove fatal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 02/16/18 10:33:54 PM #81:	Just watch some HEMA videos, traditional armour vs armour combat comes down to half-swording until you're able to unscrew the pommel from your sword and then throw it at them --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:896232499] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>Just watch some HEMA videos, traditional armour vs armour combat comes down to half-swording until you're able to unscrew the pommel from your sword and then throw it at them</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/16/18 10:37:32 PM #82:	Lokarin posted... you're able to unscrew the pommel from your sword and then throw it at them Only if you want to end them rightly >_> --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896232650] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lokarin posted...</cite> <quote>you're able to unscrew the pommel from your sword and then throw it at them</quote> Only if you want to end them rightly >_></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/17/18 2:42:12 AM #83:	See I am not the only skallagrim fan! Yes, the joints were a weaker point, though by no means did that mean unprotected, also hitting those bits while face to face wouldnt have been easy at all --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896241534] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>See I am not the only skallagrim fan! Yes, the joints were a weaker point, though by no means did that mean unprotected, also hitting those bits while face to face wouldnt have been easy at all</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 02/17/18 10:11:04 AM #84:	Honestly, the European Knight, at it's 'max potential' WOULD win... But that's got nothing to do with the sword. The Naginata may be effective but it's just got jack on what the halibard, with it's triple-options, could do. The Yumi might be good but it's just not in the same league as the crossbow. However, European knights utilized shields and developed the stirrup which allowed them to engage in mounted combat in manners that the Japanese Samurai simply could not do. Even an 'average' shield would increase the life expectancy of a knight drastically and give them a potent edge in melee combat. Combine that with full-body plate armor with it's multiple layers and so-forth and there simply isn't much comparison. Knight's have edges Samurai simply don't have. It's almost like being stuck in a massive amount of wars with soldiers coming from three continents breeds large militaristic innovations or something. The Katana DOES have a mystique to it but it's important to understand that, at the end of the day, even if they're extremely well-forged swords, they're just swords and only part of a true soldiers kit. I actually find it really annoying that people seem to have this mental image in their heads of the European Knight being little more than a violent thug who can only swing their weapons around clumsily and whose weapons and armor are basically pool noodles and paper while a Japanese Samurai wields a blade that could sever a man in two with ease and is trained since birth to be a master of swordsmanship with no rival even possible along with three other weapon types. It's like sitting down to watch a sports game and saying one team is little more than high-schoolers drafted from the math club while the other team is international champions. Even if one team is clearly better they're both practiced and trained professionals who can hold their own. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:896251376] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>Honestly, the European Knight, at it's 'max potential' WOULD win... But that's got nothing to do with the sword. The Naginata may be effective but it's just got jack on what the halibard, with it's triple-options, could do. The Yumi might be good but it's just not in the same league as the crossbow. However, European knights utilized shields and developed the stirrup which allowed them to engage in mounted combat in manners that the Japanese Samurai simply could not do. Even an 'average' shield would increase the life expectancy of a knight drastically and give them a potent edge in melee combat. Combine that with full-body plate armor with it's multiple layers and so-forth and there simply isn't much comparison. Knight's have edges Samurai simply don't have. It's almost like being stuck in a massive amount of wars with soldiers coming from three continents breeds large militaristic innovations or something. The Katana DOES have a mystique to it but it's important to understand that, at the end of the day, even if they're extremely well-forged swords, they're just swords and only part of a true soldiers kit. I actually find it really annoying that people seem to have this mental image in their heads of the European Knight being little more than a violent thug who can only swing their weapons around clumsily and whose weapons and armor are basically pool noodles and paper while a Japanese Samurai wields a blade that could sever a man in two with ease and is trained since birth to be a master of swordsmanship with no rival even possible along with three other weapon types. It's like sitting down to watch a sports game and saying one team is little more than high-schoolers drafted from the math club while the other team is international champions. Even if one team is clearly better they're both practiced and trained professionals who can hold their own.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/17/18 10:49:58 AM #85:	Unbridled9 posted... Honestly, the European Knight, at it's 'max potential' WOULD win... But that's got nothing to do with the sword. The Naginata may be effective but it's just got jack on what the halibard, with it's triple-options, could do. The Yumi might be good but it's just not in the same league as the crossbow. However, European knights utilized shields and developed the stirrup which allowed them to engage in mounted combat in manners that the Japanese Samurai simply could not do. Even an 'average' shield would increase the life expectancy of a knight drastically and give them a potent edge in melee combat. Combine that with full-body plate armor with it's multiple layers and so-forth and there simply isn't much comparison. Knight's have edges Samurai simply don't have. It's almost like being stuck in a massive amount of wars with soldiers coming from three continents breeds large militaristic innovations or something. The Katana DOES have a mystique to it but it's important to understand that, at the end of the day, even if they're extremely well-forged swords, they're just swords and only part of a true soldiers kit. I actually find it really annoying that people seem to have this mental image in their heads of the European Knight being little more than a violent thug who can only swing their weapons around clumsily and whose weapons and armor are basically pool noodles and paper while a Japanese Samurai wields a blade that could sever a man in two with ease and is trained since birth to be a master of swordsmanship with no rival even possible along with three other weapon types. It's like sitting down to watch a sports game and saying one team is little more than high-schoolers drafted from the math club while the other team is international champions. Even if one team is clearly better they're both practiced and trained professionals who can hold their own. You could argue a knight is better trained than a samurai too, both started learning from masters at about the same age, just knights fought a larger range of enemies, so had to contend with varieties in styles, while samurai mainly fought themselves. I think it is that mysticism around most the samurai that people expect they did so much more --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896252686] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, the European Knight, at it's 'max potential' WOULD win... But that's got nothing to do with the sword. The Naginata may be effective but it's just got jack on what the halibard, with it's triple-options, could do. The Yumi might be good but it's just not in the same league as the crossbow. However, European knights utilized shields and developed the stirrup which allowed them to engage in mounted combat in manners that the Japanese Samurai simply could not do. Even an 'average' shield would increase the life expectancy of a knight drastically and give them a potent edge in melee combat. Combine that with full-body plate armor with it's multiple layers and so-forth and there simply isn't much comparison. Knight's have edges Samurai simply don't have. It's almost like being stuck in a massive amount of wars with soldiers coming from three continents breeds large militaristic innovations or something. The Katana DOES have a mystique to it but it's important to understand that, at the end of the day, even if they're extremely well-forged swords, they're just swords and only part of a true soldiers kit. I actually find it really annoying that people seem to have this mental image in their heads of the European Knight being little more than a violent thug who can only swing their weapons around clumsily and whose weapons and armor are basically pool noodles and paper while a Japanese Samurai wields a blade that could sever a man in two with ease and is trained since birth to be a master of swordsmanship with no rival even possible along with three other weapon types. It's like sitting down to watch a sports game and saying one team is little more than high-schoolers drafted from the math club while the other team is international champions. Even if one team is clearly better they're both practiced and trained professionals who can hold their own.</quote> You could argue a knight is better trained than a samurai too, both started learning from masters at about the same age, just knights fought a larger range of enemies, so had to contend with varieties in styles, while samurai mainly fought themselves. I think it is that mysticism around most the samurai that people expect they did so much more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 02/18/18 2:03:00 AM #86:	I think another big problem is that people tend to compare Sengoku-Era Samurai (appx: 1600 A.D.) to early feudal era knights (appx: 1000 A.D.) 600 years is kind of a huge thing in terms of technology even in those troubled times. Heck, just looking at the variety of swords knights had available to them in comparison to the Samurai should reveal just how different the technology and technological requirements were between the two. That's not to say the samurai weren't extremely deadly and effective. It took a lot of work to become great as either. But they were two different warriors from two different cultures with two very different manners in which to approach war and, unfortunately for the Samurai, European armor was getting so good that they were starting to forgo shields where as Samurai basically lived in a world without them in the first place. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:896295857] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote>I think another big problem is that people tend to compare Sengoku-Era Samurai (appx: 1600 A.D.) to early feudal era knights (appx: 1000 A.D.) 600 years is kind of a huge thing in terms of technology even in those troubled times. Heck, just looking at the variety of swords knights had available to them in comparison to the Samurai should reveal just how different the technology and technological requirements were between the two. That's not to say the samurai weren't extremely deadly and effective. It took a lot of work to become great as either. But they were two different warriors from two different cultures with two very different manners in which to approach war and, unfortunately for the Samurai, European armor was getting so good that they were starting to forgo shields where as Samurai basically lived in a world without them in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 02/18/18 6:21:37 AM #87:	Unbridled9 posted... I think another big problem is that people tend to compare Sengoku-Era Samurai (appx: 1600 A.D.) to early feudal era knights (appx: 1000 A.D.) 600 years is kind of a huge thing in terms of technology even in those troubled times. Heck, just looking at the variety of swords knights had available to them in comparison to the Samurai should reveal just how different the technology and technological requirements were between the two. That's not to say the samurai weren't extremely deadly and effective. It took a lot of work to become great as either. But they were two different warriors from two different cultures with two very different manners in which to approach war and, unfortunately for the Samurai, European armor was getting so good that they were starting to forgo shields where as Samurai basically lived in a world without them in the first place. Yeah, I mean to put a point on what war looked like at the period, the English were fighting the Powhatan in America in 1610, with muskets. But the end of the 15th century, the idea of a knight being the backbone of an army was gone, everyone just had armies with firearms. The knight would of been more 11th to 14th Century really. The Samurai did't really change much from the 11th to the 16th Century though, and only then because Europeans rocked up with good for trade like metal cuirass armour (that started to replace the then centuries old Lemella armour they made) and firearms. The latter changed the way the Japanese did war immensely (Like it did everywhere to be fair) --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:896302010] in Longsword ... [t:76314402]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I think another big problem is that people tend to compare Sengoku-Era Samurai (appx: 1600 A.D.) to early feudal era knights (appx: 1000 A.D.) 600 years is kind of a huge thing in terms of technology even in those troubled times. Heck, just looking at the variety of swords knights had available to them in comparison to the Samurai should reveal just how different the technology and technological requirements were between the two. That's not to say the samurai weren't extremely deadly and effective. It took a lot of work to become great as either. But they were two different warriors from two different cultures with two very different manners in which to approach war and, unfortunately for the Samurai, European armor was getting so good that they were starting to forgo shields where as Samurai basically lived in a world without them in the first place.</quote> Yeah, I mean to put a point on what war looked like at the period, the English were fighting the Powhatan in America in 1610, with muskets. But the end of the 15th century, the idea of a knight being the backbone of an army was gone, everyone just had armies with firearms. The knight would of been more 11th to 14th Century really. The Samurai did't really change much from the 11th to the 16th Century though, and only then because Europeans rocked up with good for trade like metal cuirass armour (that started to replace the then centuries old Lemella armour they made) and firearms. The latter changed the way the Japanese did war immensely (Like it did everywhere to be fair)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Longsword vs Katana (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Longsword vs Katana