Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>665854893 no. its for cutting down unarmored peasants. in reality its just a very very very long straight razor. flanged mace master race. caves in or rips off armor, can break or bend other faggot weapons, requires very little faggy ass training. only sucks if youre a skinny weeb. go ahead and complain.
>>665856174 depends on what you mean by sword ( I am literally obsessed with this stuff irl ). Do you mean a cutting edge like the western shortsword or long dagger or a katana or a heavy western broadsword? The western broadsword is basically just an improved mace though. The principle is the weight of a mace applied along an edge rather than a head. It's designed to smash through tissue and flesh and armour and not to actually cut anything. Polearms and spears were quite good in formation. But for individual combat the sword or the flail were really the best options in western medieval melee's. That said the light katana is very effective as a cutting weapon due to the lack of metal for well made armour in that region. Even the heavy samurai armour is using techniques that are poorly refined for armour specifically, and the smaller build made such armour even more cumbersome. Hence the armour had large gaps, covering only the main areas threatened by ranged weapons and were definitely not as comprehensive or effective as western armours. But for lightly armoured foes the katana is very very effective. Western broadswords and basically any of the heavier swords weren't for cutting. They had dull edges and were basically just refined bashing along a thin edge. Which actually does a shit tonne of damage to light-medium or un-armoured foes.
>>665857317 Japan had very little metal so emphasis was on quality of the sword. It was less a mass produced weapon and more of a statement. Hence the way the katana was a samurai's pride and soul. All said and done though as much as their forging techniques were vastly superiour for swords. Heavy armour was much a mystery to them and medieval western knights would have been overwhelmingly more powerful on a battlefield due to stronger and larger bodies, their horses (increase armour weight and offensive momentum without losing mobility) and the fact that there was no armour or japanese shield designed to take a blow from the extremely heavy weapons that were proliferent through medieval Europe. It would hardly be a fair fight. But these are vastly different situations for the development of combat and samurai were better at refined swordfighting wheras the west had more of a focus on power, strength and bashing the opponent to death with brute force over technique.
>>665857894 I'm not but I'm trying to summarise for the ignorant /b/. These weapons were designed to bash through heavy armour denting it and crushing bones. Often knights would need alot of help removing their armour after a battle.
>>665858139 hahaha you read about it in tales but sharpening the blade was pointless and actually counter intuitive. If you've ever tried to learn medieval swordplay, you often grab the edge for leverage, and the blade actually wears out a whole lot faster if you sharpen it. The dullness actually makes the blade more durable and less likely to warp or snap. As they were mass produced this happens more often than you'd think. That's why knights also carried flails and the long dagger.
>>665858324 it would be indeed difficult but not actually impossible unless the horse trapped you down when it dies. If you simply fall off it's not actually very hard if you have a decent physique. That's why footsoldiers targeted the horse. Kill the horse with a spear and trap the knight beneath his horse. Then capture him and hold him for ransom. Knights weren't killed more often ransomed.
>>665857913 Almost all of what you said is a series of myths. A "broadsword" is a bullshit term. If you knew what you were talking about you'd use Oaekshott classification, or at least historical terms, like arming sword, longsword, two handed sword and so on.
No sword is designed like a mace unless it isn't historically accurate. For individual combat a spear is superior to a sword unless you consider confined spaces.
The samurai had good quality armours that the katana couldn't cut. Such designs weren't so scarce. It is true that katanas didn't need to evolve to fulfill better needs, unlike later western blades.
Again, bullshit myths. A longsword typically was slightly heavier than a katana, but also much longer in general, with a much better weight distribution. No western swords were used as "hammers".
>>665858605 western swords were generally not designed to cut anything. They were dull okay, they were hammers with an edge. It's been a while since I've seen the term oaekshott but I doubt you even know the origin of the term. Japanese swords have excellent weight distribution generally too. I'm not spouting myths and western swords were used like edge hammers and the swordplay was rough and minimalist and not like your netflix tv dramas.
>>665858675 haha yeah crossbows were bad but your armour could probably handle them at a large enough range. The welth yew longbow would have been the bane of your life though. Bodkin arrows that can go through shield, armour and horse and light tip arrows that just loved to find the weaker points in your armour between the plates.
>>665859270 So just cause a blade is dull means it can't cut? Harder to cut with,but still doable.Remember these are edged weapons with heavy weight.A well placed hit could rip through flesh and shatter bone easily
>>665859270 >>665859224 there were sharp swords, but the heavier ones benefited more from using the leverage their superior weight and length to give more power. Long knives were well made, heavy two handed swords not so much. An edge also makes it eaisier to deflect off plate armour and would impart less force if it was deflected off a shield (which was also used for bashing, the first thing squires would be taught as part of swordplay to create an opening in their opponents defence and to shift their opponents shield away). You have to be kidding me if you think that heavy swords were in any way designed to cut more than bash. It's not just historically wrong, but if you've ever tried thinking about it from a combat perspective it's practically dumb.
>>665859655 I never said they didn't cut, they just bashed alot more. They weren't designed so much for cutting as armour, especially the most basic undercoat chainmail would make it very hard to cut someone. A dull blade also is much more durable and less likely to break. But sure a thin edge with enough force behind it could lop someone to pieces.
>>665859752 >You have to be kidding me if you think that heavy swords were in any way designed to cut more than bash. >It's not just historically wrong, but if you've ever tried thinking about it from a combat perspective it's practically dumb
Then why design heavy swords in the first place, instead of issuing heavy maces, poleaxes, or warhamers?
>>665860364 because hitting with alot of force along a small edge ( a small surface area) is much more likely to break through armour than hitting with alot of force over a large area (a large area). Idiot. Also poleaxes whilst powerful are much easier to block (but you have to move quickly inside the swing or else). Warhammers were rare and generally not that effective but certainly easier to make, heavy maces similarly. Also bishops fought with maces as edged weapons weren't allowed by the church during the many many holywars.
>>665860647 >much more likely to break through armour than hitting with alot of force over a large area (a large area) Most heads of poleaxes and maces were pretty small, especially accounting for flanges.
>whilst powerful are much easier to block (but you have to move quickly inside the swing or else) Pretty sure the functional mechanics of a Zweihander were little different.
>>665860887 why do swords make a poor design for a bashing weapon? The weighting is good for a faster strike and balancing power whilst still usable for a parry stike. And the edge alignment is perfect to gain momentum with a swing and hit with alot of force over a thin edge. A bashing weapon doesn't have to be round. Flails are superior to maces and a mace is a short range bashing weapon, wheras a heavy sword is a longer ranged bashing weapon. The longer range improves the shearing power much like an axe. I know my history and the myths and I know that I'm right but even more so, these weapons were refined for killing. Hence the physics would have to match up. A smaller surface area with a force applied will do more damage.
> I am literally obsessed with this stuff irl >The western broadsword is basically just an improved mace though. The principle is the weight of a mace applied along an edge rather than a head. It's designed to smash through tissue and flesh and armour and not to actually cut anything. >for individual combat the sword or the flail were really the best options in western medieval melee's. >the fucking flail >Western broadswords and basically any of the heavier swords weren't for cutting. They had dull edges and were basically just refined bashing along a thin edge. Which actually does a shit tonne of damage to light-medium or un-armoured foes.
>>665861277 look at the range. Yes a mace works due to the sharp flanges but against a shield or heavy armour this chance falls and the damage you do is much less than a successful heavy sword strike. The striking edge section of a 1.2m sword both has greater range and sheer power than your short mace. The mace was a weapon designed for much closer combat and interchangable with the long knife which could be slipped between the gaps in a knights armour.
sure it worked great for the romans but when you pit it against any swords, or actually any weaponry at, all from the medieval period, it has way too little reach to be usable in most combat scenarios. sure it would make for a decent backup weapon and someone skilled enough would be able to make do with it in a pinch but in generally in melee combat, more reach=victory.
>>665861525 you can say I'm full of shit all you want but even without bringing in references, if you have any understanding of applied forces and logic of combat you'd see I'm right. A sharp edge would be less effective for a number of reasons, the fact that they are more easily deflected and less durable the formost. If you know what you are doing a flail is much much more powerful than you'd expect due to the small high density tip being small and somewhat sharp flanges and the speed at which it can reach. You can use memes all you like, facts are facts.
>>665861603 >due to the sharp flanges but against a shield or heavy armour this chance falls That's the whole point of the flanges.
>and the damage you do is much less than a successful heavy sword strike [citation need] Plate armor was developed with swords in mind , as well as arrows and various other weapons. If you can show proof of a blunt heavy sword doing anything to plate, be my guest.
> 1.2m sword both has greater range Sure. As do poleaxes.
> sheer power than your short mace [citation need]
Fuckit; I don't give a fuck anymore. Heavy swords were fucking blunt because it worked better like that despite what the common media and fantast drams on netflix perpetuates. A blunt sword lasts longer, isn't as easily deflected and honestly doesn't need to be razor sharp to cut anything because it has a shit tonne of momentum. If you look up real history, pay attention to archaeology and not stories, go check out a museum and relics or have actually practised with a heavy sword you'd understand. But I guess I can't argue with cutty weeb fanatics who idolise game of thrones and lord of the rings. A SHARP CUTTY HEAVY SWORD JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!!
Anyway's you guys are dumb and stick to your fantasies too strongly so I'm out.
>>665862243 any matter in any thickness can compromise its structure if hit with enough speed,so the skinny dude should be able trying to hit it as fast as possiblr rather than trying to use the speed to look for an opening.
>>665859752 2H swords WERE designed to cut you dumb fuck. They are an evolution of the roman spata, which was basically a slashing double edged 1h sword. Most of the death by blade were not on the battlefield but a few days after from an infected wound. So you'd better make sure your edge is sharp and dirty (Just smear some poo along the edge). http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VQkqSeEggz0
Katana are just bad at everything except slicing cause shit tier Iron, heavier than any western counterpart, useless against any kind of armor that is not made from fucking PLANTS.
>>665862166 okay one last thing. You do get the physics of pendulums, distance and forces right. You increase the distance and speed you have more momentum which over the same stopping time equals more force. If you have 2x as much or more speed, having a little less weight isn't a big issue. You get that don't you? Or did you not do physics?
>Heavy swords were fucking blunt because it worked better like that > A blunt sword isn't as easily deflected and honestly doesn't need to be razor sharp to cut anything because it has a shit tonne of momentum. > If you look up real history, pay attention to archaeology and not stories, go check out a museum and relics or have actually practised with a heavy sword you'd understand. >implying you've done any of those > A SHARP CUTTY HEAVY SWORD JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!! > you guys are dumb and stick to your fantasies too strongly so I'm out. >fantasies >I'm out.
>>665862656 >You get that don't you? Or did you not do physics? I do. You still haven't explained why the tip of the sword, with a whole lot less weight applied, would have done so much better than a poleaxe or mace.
>>665863089 the momentum once a stopping force is applied gets applied rapidly from the length of the blade to the point of impact. Even a heavy sword can be swung quite alot faster than a mace can due to the length difference. So much so that the net force you end up applying is a bit bigger. Also you have greater reach with a sword but you also can't swing as rapidly as a mace. Each weapon has it's pros and cons.
>>665863352 You are seriously kidding me? right? You do get why the romans didn't use the gladius as their main weapon right? Throughout history the spear has been a popular formation weapon DUE to it's range.
>>665863538 every roman soldier carried a gladius, but their spear was their principal weapon. The gladius was good for single combat or against sparse foes but the spear is better for formation fighting.
>>665863803 You don't realise that the replicas you buy nowadays are alot lighter than they were back then. Replicas are made from lighter meal, are thinner and heavy swords are swung fast. I know that they're not as heavy as a gaming laptop but you hold it at full length and swing it repeatedly at top speed and at the very least your shoulder and joints will hurt like hell. You do get that the "weight" of a heavy sword also considers the leverage distance right? Archimedes principles right?
>>665864282 all things aside, cutty or bashy aside. you understand that leverage is real right? I'm less worried now about trying to convince you of the nature of swords and more curious about your knowledge of basic principles now.
>>665864447 given that the heaviest 'battle' replica in my small collection is 1.2m and weighs just shy of 2kg, I'd say about 2.2kg. Which is very very heavy if you consider the length and leverage. To be honest if I swing my hardest and fastest it's hard not to overbalance if I don't carefully place my stance.
>>665865128 I have 10kg dumbbells but I don't reckon I'm that weak (though I weigh only 70kg at 1.8m, so I'm a bit light). There is alot of momentum behind that 2kg if you swing at top speed. Try it sometime. With a good stance I'm fine and I practiced alot so I can swing very fast. This requires some specific muscle groups. Buy a sword and try it. You'll understand quickly.
>>665865285 I get that a fullblown swing is dumb. That said if you can be sure you hit them. Swinging with all your weight behind it to get a powerful swing can decide a fight. But you don't make every swing like that god no.
>>665865347 oh yes halberds are very scary. Especially if someone is strong enough to use it effectively. Great against peasants, designed to deal with cavalry and smashes/slides into heavily armoured foes through basically any of it's specialised blades.
>>665866011 haha you do use a fullblown swing but it's rare. It was more to express that it's not actually that easy to swing a heavy sword quickly due to the distance from the body and weight. You need a surprising amount of strength and controlled application of force to wield one.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.