>find out people grabbed the sword by the blade and used

>>1396

>that samurai rarely used katanas

Wait, what?

What did they actually use most of the time?

>>1497
waifu pillows

>>1497
Polearms

>>1396
>>that calvary charges didn't exist
Enough with this fucking bullshit. You can name literally hundreds of times when cavalry charged infantry lines

>b-b-b-but horses wont' do it

YES THEY FUCKING WILL GO FUCKING LOOK UP MARIGNANO HORSES WILL CHARGES FUCKING PIKES 10 TIMES IF NEEDED

>>1396
>hollywood
>games
Underage children should leave /his/.

>>1497
>>1572
Didn't they use bows?

>>1497
they were more of a status thing

>>1497

They were mainly archers often on horseback. They'd use pole arms when necessary but usually had peasant militia for that.

Katanas were rarely used and if you did it was often because you fucked up.

>>1396
>>that calvary charges didn't exist
Cavalry charges do exist, will a horse jump to its certain death into a phalanx of spears? No of course a horse won't do that.

>>1702

just like now for weebs

>>1702

How the fuck is a katana a status symbol? Some dweeb pulls out a 2 foot sword and then I pull out a 10 foot spear he's going to look rather inadequate.

>>1497
Spears and other polearms of course. Why the fuck would you swing a sword in a battle where thousands of dirt eating peasants could poke you to death before you even got close?

Swords were status symbols.

>>1396
a board was just made man its time for memes

>>1777
except weebs are dumb enough to think they are usable because anime is poison

>>1396
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-fFZKunzE

>long weapons are heavy and slow
video games fuck off

>>1572
Naginatas were weapons for females

>>1497
Depends on the era really. I listened to a podcast on the Samurai yesterday actually, the In Our Time one, and apparently they started off, in the early periods (Heian up to Kamakura) by having basically 1v1s, where you declare your rank and lineage, and horseback combat etc. But eventually in the later eras, after the attempted Mongol invasions and during the Warring States period (with the introduction of guns), samurai became more like regular footsoldiers using sharpened bamboo spears, bows or other sorts of polearms like >>1572 said.

>>1789
It didn't work like that at all. I get that you were trying to be funny, but you just come off as an idiot.

File: ashigaru teppo.jpg (1MB, 1968x2822px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1968x2822px

>>1497
Spears called yari.

During sengoku jidai most fighting was done by ashigaru anyway.

>>1789
A katana is absurdly expensive and not very effective on top of being brittle as fuck. It is a prime example of a status symbol, you only wore one to show everyone that you are a samurai. In real battles they used bows, spears, naginatas and later matchlock rifles

>>1396
Hollywood is retarded. They also do the same shit with firearms. They have people with fucking pistols taking out droves of AR wielding grunts

>>1793
You want to win a duel? Use a sword.
You want to win a war? Pikes and arrows.

File: youarewrong.jpg (91KB, 745x963px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 745x963px

>>2018
No, they weren't. They were just the iconic weapon of the onna bugeisha.

>>1916
>>1941
Don't worry anon, I managed to learn something because of your mispost

File: sowrong.jpg (938KB, 1172x3551px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 1172x3551px

>>2173

Didn't some European traders get shipwrecked in Japan in the 16th century and showed them how to make hand rifles or whatever they were called and the Japs started mass producing it?

>>1396
NO FUN ALLOWED: THE POST

>>1396
>that spears were better than swords
this is some dumb shit
no one would have use swords if that was the case

File: i don't think that's how that works.webm (3MB, 626x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 626x352px

>>find out people grabbed the sword by the blade and used it as a club

That was so cool

>>2289
Spears weren't "better" than swords, his post is an oversimplification. Spears are better in a variety of different situations, including combat engagements. However, swords, depending on the type, are generally better for close combat and dueling.

ALARM ALARM YOUR CAMP IS UNDER ATTACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT

You can pick one weapon from 5,000 BC - 1600 AD to fight the attackers with.

What do you choose?

>>2255
The Portugese made first contact and fucked up so badly the japs became even more xenophobic than before. Imagine, there are people worse than chinese and koreans out there in the world!

But bad people who give you matchlock technology? Now those are some seriously cool dudes

>>2360
my wand of fire

>>2445
Holy fuck. Stop.

>>2328
that's so retarded I don't believe it

>>2336
Yes I heard that shit before
>spears were used way more often than swords
that was because it was peasant weapon

>>2255
I think I've read somewhere that nips mass produced matchlocks on such a scale they actually had more guns than the average european great power.

>>1497
Samurai preferred spears/lances and the bow, the latter often used on horseback.

European knights preferred the lance for mounted combat, and on foot often used axes or maces.

For both warriors, the sword was a side-arm: the back-up sharp stick you used to beat peasants over the head when a lance, club or bow doesn't do the trick.

The thing about swords is, while they aren't great weapons, scabbards make them really fucking convenient to carry around. This is why they survived into the age of gunpowder while axes, spears and clubs did not. Even a rifleman can carry a sword around and barely even notice it. Carrying an axe around will be detrimental as you can always cut yourself on it by accident or something.

File: 2028926_b9e953ced0.jpg (10KB, 301x400px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 301x400px

>>2360

Glaive of course

>>2289
Swords were a sidearm for close combat melee. Once ranks were broken and the fighting became close, personal and brutal you needed speed and manouverability. Most knights were killed with knives and daggers through the eye slits or other gaps in the armor after losing their balance than by swords and pikes.

>>2500

Hypothetically speaking: if you had 2 equally sized and skilled warriors dueling with no interference on an open flat arena but one has a sword and the other has a spear, who would win most of the time?

>>1396
>that samurai rarely used katanas
That depends entirely on the era you're talking about and what you mean by "use". Samurai "used" katanas all the time in the sense that wearing them was a privilege exclusive to samurai during the Tokugawa era, one that they exercised constantly, and also took great pride in their swordsmanship and many of them opened kendo dojos for want of any actual battles to use their skills in.

Prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate though, samurai weren't a privileged noble caste and were just warriors, and like all warriors they used the weapons that gave them most advantage in battle. Most of the time that meant polearms or bows. Swords were used in duels sometimes, but katanas are very brittle and don't stand up to being banged against metal very well. Also most katana were made out of inferior quality iron ore since that's all Japan had available.

>that calvary charges didn't exist
The fuck? Of course they existed. Cavalry charges were in fact a viable military tactic up through the 19th century, but generally ended in disaster in the first world war (though I'm sure some meme historian will be able to site like 10 examples where it actually worked, to no real consequence).

>that chain mail can often stopped arrows
No shit. Why do you think people wore it? Because it was fashionable and/or comfortable? It's armor.

>that spears were better than swords
Better at what?

File: halberd cows.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>1396
anyone with a brain knows halberds are the goat historical weapon

>>2360
Shield and gladius. Come at me bro.

>>1516
I snorted

>>2527
Was I talking to you Swede filth?

>>2609
>but katanas are very brittle and don't stand up to being banged against metal very well. Also most katana were made out of inferior quality iron ore since that's all Japan had available.
git metallurgy

>>2759
>>2527
FIGHT

FIGHT

FIGHT

File: dgg.jpg (375KB, 1650x1017px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1650x1017px

>>2511
>This is why they survived into the age of gunpowder while axes, spears and clubs did not.
>spears did not

m8

>>2360
Kite shield + war pick.

>>2609
>Better at what?
Not OP, but generally better melee weapons. If you pair up a swordsman and a spearman of equal skill, the spearman will almost always win. The spear has better reach, can be shortened by moving your hands closer to the tip if the enemy somehow manages to close in, you can use the haft as a weapon to push or trip etc. etc. Range is one hell of an advantage.

It also helps that the spear is the most instinctive weapon of them all. There's nothing more familliar to humans than "stick pointy end into baddy". No wonder that literally every culture on the planet used spears at some point, and that spear users almost universally became the backbone of the world's pre-gunpowder armies (and even post-gunpowder in pike and shot form. Hell, even the bayonet technically transforms a musket into a half-spear).

Like I said earlier, the advantage of a sword (other than status) is its convenience. It's an easy to carry around side-arm, so you always have something on you in case things go tits-up with your main weapon.

>>2792
Pikes =/= spears.

>>2837
Pikes are literally long spears you fucking yank.

>>2792
Well, you got me there. The bayonet did make the pike obsolete though, while the sword remained until WW1 or so. Today the sword has been replaced by an even less effective but even more convenient melee weapon: the knife.

>>2759
>>2785
I choose a pollaxe

>>2609
>No shit. Why do you think people wore it? Because it was fashionable and/or comfortable? It's armor.
They're probably referring to the pop-culture assumption that armor wasn't effective against arrows, only against hand-to-hand weapons.

>>2880
No they fucking aren't, you Yugoslavian goatfucker. Spears qualify as pole weapons that can be carried in one hand, whilst Pikes are classified as weapons that are generally carried in two,

>>2785
>>2899
A black dildo should do nicely against a Swede

>>2952
So? The only reason you need two hands is because it's longer.

Why aren't there more Western martial forms being taught? It's probably purely economic right, you'd be competing with McDojos for a populace that's ignorant of anything aside from karate.

>>2948
Arrows were a far more terrifying danger to the average soldier than somebody hand to hand. Arrows rain down out of the sky and can kill you before you even know what's happening. At least with the guy in front of you can have a chance to fight him off or run away. How do you run from death that comes suddenly from the sky? If I were going into battle pre-gunpowder infantry, I know what I'd armor against.

>>2952

Christ it's like arguing over how many episodes of TNG there are

>>2880
Pikes are fucking worthless unless you are in a formation, and were designed specifically to be used in the pike square formation to stop cavalry charges. Meanwhile, a spear is something you can actually kill a person with.

>>2328
If everyone used swords like an autist then why weren't weapons designed to be more autist friendly?

>>3017
And heavier. And that's one of the reasons why it was effective in pike and shot formations.

>>3062
Swedes are literally the worst posters on this board.

>>3062
Why are spears more deadly? Is it just that pikes are too heavy/awkward to use effectively?

>>2824
I know what spears are good for. I was low on character count and didn't have much room to write out a more thorough explanation like I did for samurai and katana. His statement was just as riddled with begged questions and assumptions that I couldn't do anything except ask a snarky clarification.

>>2952
Spears are shafts of wood with pointed head attached at the end.

Pikes also fall under that definition.

What's next, you gonna be telling me pilums aren't spears either because they're thrown?

>>3117
>Swedes are literally the worst posters on this board
try whole 4chan

>>3117
>And heavier. And that's one of the reasons why it was effective in pike and shot formations.
Why would weight specifically make it more effective?

Question guys:

The Roman cohort formations mostly usurped and made the Greek phalanxes obsolete.

Why didn't they really come up with a counter formation for Swiss and German pikemen until the more widespread use and availability of artillery and guns?

>>3143
Pilums aren't spears either because they're thrown.

File: organ_gun.jpg (56KB, 672x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 672x500px

>>2360

>>3022
>Why aren't there more Western martial forms being taught?
Boxing (Roman) and Savate (French) are still taught. Such a shame Pankration is no longer around, that shit was fierce. I think there was this semi-legendary Pankration fighter that won all of his fights because his opening move was always breaking the fingers of his enemies.

>>3143
You just described a pole weapon. A spear is a type of pole weapon typically wielded with one hand.

Pilums aren't spears because they're thrown.

>>3175
Because when you want to stop a fucking horse you don't want the shaft of your weapon to snap.

>>3211
Meme weapon for a meme country

>>3127
A pike is between 10 to 25 feet long, you try poking someone with the tip with that. They were defensive weapons like I mentioned unless you were in a tight formation many ranks deep where a unit could easily murder anything in front. When you have a few dozen speartips all you have to do is thrust forward and at least some of them will hit someone

>>3127
Pikes are, at a minimum, 10 feet long. Most were considerably longer. Try using a 10 foot pole as a melee weapon and see where that gets you.

>>3178
Because the types of weapons that were in use at the time didn't really allow them to. You were able to combat pike formations by flanking them, usually with horses, but troops in those times usually weren't highly mobile enough to out-maneuver a pike formation.

>>3212
The nearest place that teaches savate is two states away. I'm planning on finding a decent boxing program where I live. I wish there was more variety.

>>3178
>Why didn't they really come up with a counter formation for Swiss and German pikemen until the more widespread use and availability of artillery and guns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder
Zweihanders would sometimes cut off the heads of enemy pikes, rendering them useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon)#Medieval_revival
Then there's also this
>These formations were essentially immune to the attacks of mounted men-at-arms as long as the knights obligingly threw themselves on the spear wall and the foot soldiers remained steady under the morale challenge of facing a cavalry charge, but the closely packed nature of pike formations rendered them vulnerable to enemy archers and crossbowmen who could shoot them down with impunity, especially when the pikemen did not have adequate armor. Many defeats, such as at Roosebeke and Halidon Hill, were suffered by the militia pike armies when faced by cunning foes who employed their archers and crossbowmen to thin the ranks of the pike blocks before charging in with their (often dismounted) men-at-arms.

The Battle of the Golden Spurs was a fluke that relied on the French cavalry willingly charging into a wall of pikes. The French quickly learned their lesson though and discovered numerous ways to defeat pikes, such as
>Thinning their ranks with (cross)bow fire
>Charging with dismounted infantry
>A cavalry charge from ANYWHERE EXCEPT THE FRONT

>>3232
>you just described a pole weapon

No I didn't. Pikes are a type of spears.

>pilums aren't spears because they're thrown

Jesus.

>>3393
>that relied on the French cavalry willingly charging into a wall of pikes
Those wacky French knights.

>>3454
lmao
m
a
o

>>3454

oh god, is pikes are/aren't types of spears going to be /his/' skub and anti-skub?

>>3603

>axes beat spears

How when the guy with the axe gets stabbed in the face from 8 feet away?

>>1396
>that calvary charges didn't exist
Get the hell out of here
>that spears were better than swords
Physical manifestation of memes
>that chain mail can often stopped arrows
Actually true, but it was mail and a coat

>>3523
There's nothing ambiguous about this, a spear is a generic term which encompasses everything from a 5 meter pike to a small javelin.

>>3639
He chops the head off the spear with his action movie reflexes.

>>3735
>using generic terms in weapons classifications
Plebe detected.

>>3523
It could be worse. I'd rather have spear vs not-spear over Naziboos vs anti-Naziboos

>>2592
Sword, you can literally chop at his fingers and force him back, then grapple. Grappling isn't all that hard

>>3774
So you finally concede that a pike is in fact a type of spear?

>>3904
No, a spear is a type of pole weapon.

>>1941
>>2178
>>1941
Yes anon for spreading your knowledge

>>3762
not entirely out of the question. With how big the heads are on axes and the axe's weight. It would have a much better time against a lance than a sword. Would be easier to block the blow with too.
Of course, lances would still have an advantage against axes by far because of the reasons already discussed in this thread.

>>4455
>It would have a much better time against a lance than a sword.
No it fucking wouldn't, it would be even worse because it's shorter and more cumbersome.

File: 6_Sigurd.jpg (444KB, 632x558px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 632x558px

>>1396
>Why does Hollywood and games tell us lies?
Because culture lies. The glorification of the Katana (and the sword in general) starts millenia before hollywood.

There go the flags and IDs.

>>1396
>that calvary charges didn't exist
You what now?

So glad we are graced with long sword vs. katana autism, truly /his/ was made for great things.

>>4661
Flags being gone is perfect, IDs might have been useful but weren't all that important anyways.

>>4455
>axe better than sword vs a weapon whose primary advantage is reach
Yeah no. Axe has shorter reach and a more limited effective range of movement. Also, the only way you'd really have a good shot at the spear is if it were being held steady in front of you, almost obligingly. Trying to hack off the head of a spear as its being thrust right at you is like playing a much more difficult and dangerous game of baseball where instead of strikes you end up with holes in your torso/face.

Personally I'd rather use a crossbow on the spear guy from a comfortable 20 meters.

>>1916
so what you're saying is the emperor could still be alive

>>4352

And pike is a type of spear.

What's so difficult to comprehend here?

>>4831
Nah, a pike is a type of pole weapon.

>>2059

>samurai became more like regular footsoldiers

No. They were still cavelry, but mostly armed with spears, instead of bows.

>>4706
If only there was a board for weapons discussion
Not only of weapons of old, but modern day weapons as well
We can only imagine, huh

File: h.jpg (38KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 660x495px

>>4865
Are you taking the piss out of me?

>>1396
This video was made in the last 25 years. Pls delete this thread

>>1396
>Why does Hollywood and games tell us lies? Why do we rarely see how historical combat really was?
Because real historical combat, though bloody and violent is considered incredibly boring.
No flashy sword moves, no epic QTE, no nothing. Just you whailing away with your weapon on peasants and knights until either of you died.

And that's assuming you actually are a knight.
Otherwise you'd be a boring peasant playing nothing more than cannon fodder.

Shit must be cool if it wants to sell.
Sure you can make a game/movie with realistic warfare but you'll need some serious good shit to pull that off.

>>5225
>medieval combat was just guys hammering at each other until one of them dropped dead guise!1!1
> poorly trained peasant levy was the mainline infantry through the entire middle ages!1

pls go

>>2498
>>3092

They didn't use swords like clubs. They used them like picks. Swords are useless against armored opponents so you have to half-sword and try to stick in in where there is no armor or you use your crossguard as the weapon.

>>1396
A Swiss uni made a video about how knights really fought. Also they could swim, roll or fist fight with their armour on. Tok bad I cant find the video nos

>>1497
Horseback archery and the Naginata because they were objectively the most effective weapons available to them at the time. Katanas were mainly status symbols and used ceremoniously during peace time.

>>5815
The idea of two dudes in full plate having a fist-fight is amusing.

>>5971
Given that most techniques for fighting armoured opponents while wearing armour involved a lot of wrestling this isn't all that far fetched.

>>6120
A fist fight? It's entirely bullshit, wresting and brawling aren't unanimous. No one would waste the time or energy to punch someone when a strike from a sword barely has enough force to do any work. Wrestling was to get the opponent on the ground so you can stab him with your dagger

>>1396
This is a bait copypasta /his/. Time for you to leave.

I've seen this posted multiple times on /v/ to aggravate people with its utter stupidity.

>>5426
>Calling out on points not mentioned

>>1710
>Katanas were rarely used and if you did it was often because you fucked up.
I don't know much, but I thought it's the wakizashi that was rarely used? And using it meant that they lost their main weapon and therefore fucked up?

>>6248
>stab him with your dagger
>not ransoming him
>actually spilling noble blood

edgy

>>2328

These are the sorts of bellends who need to be told to not run with scissors.

File: 1407191942478.jpg (495KB, 1062x1062px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1062x1062px

>>1396
>spears were better than swords
delete this

>>2592

If theyre armoured sword. If not spear.

>>3022

We turned them into sports and boiled them down to what works. Boxing, fencing, wrestling etc. Mystic east needs chi and shit because they dont work.

>>6508
fuck off todd I'm not preordering your shit game

Please stop replying to this copypasta thread.

And to be honest given the rules, this thread should be removed.

>>6662
10 days anon.

>>6376
The katana was a backup weapon in "real" combat, whereas the wakizashi was a backup weapon (And really just a status symbol) in day-to-day life in an era when there hadn't been any real warfare for quite a while. A lot of them didn't carry any weapons at all, but if they did, it was usually matched pair of katana and wakizashi at that point in history. It's a backup to a backup, like carrying a full-sized pistol and a derringer at the same time.

>>>1

>Any more common misconceptions on ancient warfare?


Yes, medieval warriors din't had an plate armors and iron helmets, this was only limited to the nobles and elite guards, all the remaining soldiers fought with spears and leather armors or with simple cloths.

>>6744
You're just as dumb as op.

>>6774

fug off

>>2498
Good. People need to stop taking the old German Fechtbuch combat manuals so seriously.

Assuming that those books accurately depict common medieval fighting styles would be like if people in the future watched The Matrix and assumed that dual-wielding pistols was the main way guns were used in the 21st century.

>>6774
What

File: EoE Asuka vs MP Evas.jpg (190KB, 778x598px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 778x598px

>>6508

Spears were the most common weapon in ancient and medieval times and just now it occured to you they were better?

>>6744
That's wrong, faggot.

>>3393
>Zweihanders would sometimes cut off the heads of enemy pikes, rendering them useless.

The two handed sword was not a counter formation to a pike square. It was a weapon of prestige that marked a master swordsman eligible for higher pay based on his talent, and functioned little differently from any other side arm or pole arm in pike formations.

>>2498
That's because they're doing it wrong.
Halfswording is only supposed to be used to get extra leverage when you've already got the blade into an armored joint and need to shove it in, and mordhau is basically "I need a warhammer and only have a sword" and was basically a finisher that you used to leave a dent in a fallen enemy's face.

File: c592209c0b5db90f537154ab1fe77c27.png (19KB, 553x161px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 553x161px

>>5815
>Knights could swim
No

>>2122
Don't forget using two pistols at the same time and shotguns having such a massive spread they can blast half of the room with one shot.

>>7011
upvoted, mate

>>7011
You are literally posting information about specialized, extra heavy and restrictive jousting armor.
That's not what anyone wore in any actual combat situation. That's like saying modern soldiers can't run because bomb-suits are heavy and restrictive.

>>7011
Are you baiting or is your reading comprehension literally that bad?

>>7096
citation needed

>>7096
>A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds). The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.
You telling me you can swim with 35 pounds of clothes on, at a minimum?

>>7096
I'm pretty sure the regular 20-30 kg suit of armour didn't actually permit you to swim.

Steel isn't really well known for it's buoyancy.

>The thing about swords is, while they aren't great weapons
This meme is getting out of hand. Against armoured opponents this is true but it is much easier to wound an unarmoured opponent with a sword than it is an axe or mace. Not to mention that swords are superior for defending. You also have to remember that a very large portion of the time that swords were used armour wasn't that protective.

>>7156
It says it right there in the picture.

>>7156
>Specialized jousting armor
>Was heavier... as it was not intended for free combat, it did not need to permit free movement
Literally says it right there in the pic. That's the kind of armor that led to the misconception that knights needed cranes to get onto their horses and couldn't stand up if they fell down.

>>7237
See
>>7157
>>7174

>>7237
"When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts."

>>7195
Swords were always secondary weapons at best.

Even chain mail made most sword blows glance off.

I mean this isn't even considering that armor wasn't (as far as I'm aware) waterproof and any water that leaked into your suit would make it even harder to swim.

>>6920
From what I've heard greatswords/two-handed swords/zweihanders/bidenhanders/spadones/montantes were used more like pollarms than they were swords. I'm not sure why people use the German word, and the anachronistic one at that.
>>6744
By the fifteenth and sixteenth century this is completely untrue
>leather armour meme

>>7290
A google image search is not a credible source, so it doesn't get credible sources in response. Or if you think it is, then I'm using the same exact source as you, but with more reading comprehension.

>>7290
You need to cite a source to tell someone what their own picture says?

I'm tying a 35 pound weight to everyone who disagrees with me and shoving them in the ocean.
>Oh now its not fun anymore

>>1591
The misconception is that cavalry charges were used as major offensive plays when they were mainly used to chase down routing enemies. Horses were expensive to breed and train for war, it's wasteful to send them headlong into a line of spearmen when you have hundreds of infantry you can use to charge instead

>>2395
Wasn't the first foreign Samurai an Englishman on that ship?

>>7373
A 35 pound weight tied to you is not evenly distributed across the entire body. It is tied to one spot, which if you know anything about carrying heavy stuff, makes it way, waaaaay harder to carry.

>>7304
Not him, but he has some valid points. Saying the sword was a secondary weapon was only true of a proper battlefield with professional soldiers where, yes, a sword has less application on a grand tactical level than a pike or bow.

But there's a lot more to life than the battlefield, and the sword was pretty much king off of it for all the reasons stated above.

>>7425
do you know how much 35 pounds is? thats 35 1 pound weights, or more than 17 2 pound weights

File: my katana.jpg (351KB, 1963x605px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1963x605px

r8 my katana

File: IMG_0525.jpg (915KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2000x1500px

>>7526
2/2

>>7304
Many cavalry types during the Napoleonic era used swords as primary weapons, some landshneckts used swords as primary weapons, But the notion that they were poor weapons is bull shit. If your opponent is unarmoured the sword is the ideal sidearm.

>>1497
Spears (yari and naginata), bows (yumi), clubs (tetsubo), dagger (tanto which is also how they committed sudoku) and muskets

Katana were mostly used as a badge of office, duelling implements or for executing unarmored peasants

>>1497
Depends on the situation, but mostly polearms or bows. And later, guns.

>>7521
Yes, and if you distribute it evenly around the body, it's not so big of a deal that you couldn't potentially swim your way out of a river. I wouldn't expect someone with that to be able to survive a trip down the river, but if they focus on swimming and don't hit any rapids, they could escape it.

>>7526
>>7548
shitty hamon
0/10

>>2395
The Portuguese had peaceful relationship with the Japanese throughout and shared technology with them. The Japanese even integrated some portuguese words into their vocabulary.

>>1

>>7521
35 pounds? that’s almost as much as a suit of armor!

>>7521
>Yes, but if you have one 35 pound weight tied to your leg, you need to be able to lift 35 pounds with your arm/leg, which impacts how well you can swim. If you have 5 pounds on each limb and the rest on your torso, a well-trained person could at least ford a river.

>>7632
They also integrated Portugese tech into their military. There's a kind of armor that was fairly popular (Nanban-do, I think) which is literally surplus European plate armor that has been prettied up to look Japanese.

File: IMG_0529.jpg (916KB, 1500x2000px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1500x2000px

>>7624
The hamon is fine, I just suck at making it stand out in pictures.

>>7391
>wasteful to send them headlong into a line of spearmen when you have hundreds of infantry you can use to charge instead

Not entirely the case for most of the middle ages. Most battles were decided by cavalry charges, and while it's true that they couldn't just smash in a line of infantrymen that really didn't matter because the infantrymen in question would disperse and break formation upon being charged by horsemen.

>>7407
In the book Shogun, at least. I actually don't know how accurate Tom Cruise is.

>>1396
>Why does Hollywood tell us lies?
Because they tell themselves it's fine and that if people don't know the truth no one will care
With their disregard for quality they ruined an entire generation's knowledge of any subject they presented while looking to the other side where their piles of money rested

File: NanbanDo.jpg (85KB, 278x541px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 278x541px

>>7742

>>7521
do you understand why you strap heavy equipment to your body and not just hang it over your shoulders?

>>7615
Highly doubt it, the reason why the human body floats isn't because of its weight, but buoyancy.

People can sink from having wet clothes on them, I'm pretty sure being encased in fucking metal would make you sink to the bottom pretty fast.

>>3639
The guy can throw the axe, use a shield against the spear, use some form of curved or bearded axe to disarm his opponent, or just use two axes.

>>7918
>People can sink from having wet clothes on them
I'm pretty sure that would only happen if they're bad swimmers to begin with, or the water is unusually rough.

>>7918
Oh, I'm sure that it's a hindrance, and again, I don't think they'll be swimming around freely, but wearing that much armor and falling into a river is not an instant death sentence unless there are other factors involved, such as being exhausted or injured already or not being able to swim in the first place.

>>7772
>>7407
William Adams. Really interesting guy.
>He was so smart, the Samurai kept him to make boats for their Navy.
>Had to abandon his family and almost all English customs to start a new life. Still remained Christian.
>Became friends with the Emperor.
>Married a Japanese woman out of love, and not just for status.
>Had an entire town named after him. They have a holiday every summer.

>You will never be as based as him.

>>7979
Do you actually know how much fully drenched clothes weigh?

I'm not talking about summer clothing here, anon.

File: 4f5.png (80KB, 455x455px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 455x455px

>>1396
>that calvary charges didn't exist

This meme needs to stop. Yes, yes they did. No, no what they said on one forum and got spread out since there's about 3 big history forum on the internet, is bullshit. Knights did not dismount everytime they needed to fight.

People with low IQs and little research ethics confuse every eras, confuse the Celtic pony skirmishers, with gothic knights, with renaissance ritters, with Hussars... You can't make a theory of everything when you deal with cavalry.

>>1000
>>10000

>>7391
>The misconception is that cavalry charges were used as major offensive plays when they were mainly used to chase down routing enemies.

No, in that case heavy Calvary would have been entirely useless and the emphasis would have been put on lightly equipped cavalry. Which was the opposite in Europe.

Not everyone fought with the same tactics, not everyone used cavalry in the same way. There were frontal cavalry charges, and these resulted in colossal victories in the early and high middle ages. Things changed only when infantries became organized enough to sustain direct charges without breaking.

Cavalry charges still won the day at modern battles like Rocroi. Against tercios, of all soldiers.

>>7589
>tanto which is also how they committed sudoku

Don't you use a pencil for that?

>>7979
Wet clothes are very hard to move around in. If you tied 10 pound weights around your limbs tightly, you would probably still swim better.

https://vimeo.com/13634653

>>8327
>is unable to keep his head above the water for more than one second

Nothing surprising, really.

>>8314
>joke


>your head

>>3030

Same reason why flak vests are more often used than heavier bulletproof vests by soldiers, it's the most common injury reason even with so much bullets flying through the air.

>>7764
>Pockmarked finish, looks like wood painted silver instead of an intentional damascus
idk much about your sword but from first impressions....

>there were people who thought you could swim in plate
Really? I thought this debate was about mail or padded cloth

>>8327
>>8512
lmao told you guys so

>>8308
This is true. Any unfamiliar military technology is an advantage.

Egypt developing chariots was what won them many of their military victories. They were essentially highly mobile weapons platforms, but at least by the time of Alexander the Great some varieties had blades on the wheels (probably more as a space keeper than as an intentional weapon, but still).

>>8308
Pretty much this. Germans rarely used cavarly, while Poles loved them.

The French and Poles had horses that could only be matched by the Mongolians.

>>10621
>Mail
dubious, stuff weighs about the same as plate in my experience
>padded cloth
/maybe/

>>10658
And those chariots were stolen from the Hyksos, who destroyed the Egyptians when they invaded.

>>10621
Plate is lighter than mail in a lot of cases and the weight is distributed better in pretty much every case.

>>10770
Then your mail is shit, you're supposed to wear a large belt that helps support the weight

>>1396

>that calvary charges didn't exist

At certain points in history they did.

In the high medieval and again in the mid 1800s

But they were mostly used for flanking and cutting down routed enemy

>>10944
>Implying I own a full set of chain mail

>>10563
>idk much about your sword(s)
I could tell that when you said "damascus".

>>11364
>Not having damascus
>2015

>>11445
"damascus" steel is a meme. it's not a real thing.

>>11602
Holy shit
Are you serious?
I literally cannot tell if you're joking or not.

>>1516
Kek, probably their enemy's waifu too to add insult.

>>11691
Folded steel is a construction method. Only neckbeards call it "damascus". Saying that a Katana should be "damascus" steel is especially retarded.

>>2018
Naginatas aren't the only type of japaneses polearms dipshit

>>2360
A torch and some pocket sand.

>>3117
Varför?

>>2018
this is a very late culture development in Japan, stemming from the Edo period

during the 12-13th century naginata were very popular as pole arms.

during the 16th century, spears became the favoured polearm of samuari, as it was more maneuverable and easier to use in the large, dense infantry formations that were becoming popular

>>2097
W E E A B O O
E
E
A
B
O
O

>>2360
My filth.

>>1497
Bows (from horseback often) were very much the go to weapon for samurai for a while.

>>12475
Not him, but I played TW Shogun 2 and I learned all of that.

>>12635
>playing video games
come back when you're not 12

>>12782
>video games are for children
How about you get your law license back first, Jack?

There's a reason polearms are the final form melee footsoldier in strat games.

In close melee, the moment armour appears go for 1 or 2 hand blunt. In fact, go for it anyway, blades get stuck in bones.

in very close melee, daggers over knifes.

>>1497
They used swords a great deal, they were just never the main weapon on the battlefield. most casualties were caused by bows and later guns, with pole arms coming in second.