.

>>34739419
i thought that thing was a poland ball

But jians are substantially thinner and made to flex

File: s906859124786108195_p3_i1_w2560.jpg (1MB, 9326x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 9326x2560px

This might sound wimpy but I like fencing swords better

>>34739419
Straight double edged swords are superior in almost every way.

>Fellow radical Tahir Aziz, 38, bought a samurai sword from a sex shop for the terror cell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/02/three-musketeers-convicted-lee-rigby-style-terror-plot/

that's where you buy weapon in england nowadays, lads

>>34739796
/thread

>>34739796
aren't curved swords faster to draw from a sheath

The only sword design I don't like are those wavy, Kris blades. Absolutely disgusting look to them.

>>34739851
Why would they be faster? If the blade is the same length and weight, why would being curved help get it out?

afaik a curved blade makes slashing cuts easier but is worse when you want to cleave through the armor. that's why sabers were curved

>>34739775

you're just wimpy
saber>foil

File: AH-6955.png (47KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 850x850px

Deus fucking vult boys.

>>34739863
They're knives used as sidearms. The Malay fighting style, Silat, uses grappling and locks which favours the pistol grip and relatively short length of the keris. We used parangs (machetes) and Chinese style swords too for war.

>>34740078
But why though? You're using more material in a heavier sheath to fit an ultimately wider blade. What's the point?

>>34739796
except they are more likely to get stuck in something and harder to slash.

File: I knew you were my nigger.jpg (168KB, 1033x679px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1033x679px

>>34739878
Straight swords don't draw on a curve and consequently can't draw in a cutting motion: you have to draw the whole sword before you can start swinging.

>>34739901
Pic related.

>>34739775
>but I like fencing swords better

So, you mean you like every sword ever?

>>34739775
Quick thrusts and technical footwork are the most effective

>>34740610
in a duel
on the battlefield it doesn't work the same way

>>34739863
Longswords are lame as fuck

>>34740610
I tried that last night, she didn't like it much

What do the "Dirty knees, look at these" swords look like?

>>34739775
Rapiers are the rapiest!

>>34739775
They are also hundreds of years newer in tech.

>>34739851
No it has nothing to do with the curve but with the length. Even the japanese masters simply say that you should just get a shorter sword if you want to draw faster (or just you know, practice more).
Besides, the difference between the japanese and everyone else really is that they extensively practice those drawing techniques, hence why its associated with them, but it has nothing to do, per se, with their weapons and more if not entirely with their fighting culture.

>>34739898
>cleave through the armor
You wot m8?
If you can cleave through armor with a sword, then your armor is literally shit.

File: 189467546189.jpg (171KB, 832x1064px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 832x1064px

>>34739419
>swords

fucking weeaboo manchildren ITT

>>34740624
>on the battlefield it doesn't work the same way
It does tho, I agree that fighting on a battlefield is different than fighting in a duel, however, thrusting has been proven to be the most effective, that's the reason why most armies used pole weapons, spears, pikes and javelines proved to be the most effective, swords were mainly side weapons on the battlefield.
You have to also consider that while cuts give the ugliest wounds, stabbing usually ends with someone dead.
Take the romans for example, their fighting style were mostly thrusts.

>>34741535
I didn't think this was a secret to anyone who actually looked into historical combat. Swords were never considered all that great on a battlefield. They are well known because it's what people who were guards and 'adventurers' wore, so it's what faggy writers and poets saw. It's literally the safety and hammer on a Glock of their day. Polearms and hammers and volley archers won the day

>>34741535
Thrusts give the deadliest wounds but not the most incapacitating ones on the moment. They also tend to immobilize your weapon
There are accounts of people getting run through and then just advancing and killing their enemy before expiring themselves
Cuts on the other hand then to render enemies unable to fight back for a moment
Also Romans used thrusts because of the shields

>mall ninja web shit only good against unarmoured peasants and suicide

>utilitarian battlefield tested and proven weapon which given China's population probably killed the most people in battle for the time period

>>34740018
/thread/

>>34741567
>They are well known because it's what people who were guards and 'adventurers' wore
not really
Everyone who could afford a sword usually had one as a backup weapon
Also people that might use polearms on the battlefield would only carry swords in civilian life, and most people got to meet soldiers in civilian contexts not on the battlefield
No, everyone wore swords if they could afford them.
They were like the handguns of the modern day

>>34741572
>Romans used thrusts because of the shields
Why would you even use a sword on the battlefield if you don't have a shield or proper armor?
If you're using only a sword on the battlefield (and you don't have a shield or proper armor) then you are in some pretty deep shit.

>>34741572
I've only researched 16th through 17th century combat, but it wasn't the type of wound, it was overcoming armor first, and other defenses second (reach, bucklers, dirks, shields)

>>34741602
The backup weapon was usually a dirk or buckler. If someone was in a caravan or something, they had other better weapons they could easily grab, but sword+dirk/bucker, sword alone was the standard.

>>34741604
The type of wound was also important, you have to consider that at that time there wasn't much they could do to stop internal bleeding.

>>34741608
>dirk
>weapon only used in a very small region in europe
>universal backup weapon
kys

>>34741611
Just because it will be a lethal wound doesn't always lower combat effectiveness though. Piercing weapons were king on the battlefield because armor was mostly designed to stop piercing weapons. This is only applicable 16th century on, but swords I'm sure there are examples of things otherwise, but most accounts and treatises suggest that swords were not very effective on a battlefield.

>>34741535
You don't exactly "tactical footwork" in a battlefield though. Same thing: you fence differently in a salle than in a street than in a field than in barriers (Yes Senese I'm talking about you). You don't use the same strategies and the same weapons, it's obvious of course but still.

On a battlefield, a combination of cuts and thrusts are quite important, even though you might focus on one rather than the other, that's why broadswords, sabres and backswords were mostly used for officers inthe 18th c.+ even though those same people would use smallsword in their civilian lives.
It also entirely depends on what you're gonna face, battlefields of the 1350's aren't the ones of the 1450's aren't the ones of the 1630's. The level of armor is different, the amount of guns is different, the sword you're going to use is different, the protection you have are different.

Thrusts also can't defend yourself, while cuts do, which is quite important when you have no shield to protect yourself.
And then, the romans main weapon was the scutum, not the gladius, their fighting style was dictated by their large shield, not by their short sword (which could and was used to cut).

>>34741624
Lets reference the literature from all the other parts of the world that were combat heavy. Oh wait, they couldn't write.

>>34741630
Most 'fencing' isn't tailored to a battlefield though. It's primary for nobles that had to honor duel, and laws had that at 'first blood'. That's why it's such a fast and reflex heavy art. It's not meant to win a fight to the death.

>>34741641
fencing means fighting with bladed weapons

>>34741604
Huh what, many masters of the 1550+ justify that thrusts were better than cuts because they were geometrically superior and because they were offending more of the opponent's body, because the wounds were graver and less superficial. Viggiani in particular but then as soon as Fiore (see "here are the cruel thrusts"). Thrusts were always seen as the most lethal attacks but also the most potent attack (because of reach and unease of parry), as soon as I:33 you have this realisation (that is as soon as the older treatise we have). It's different in the field of course, but for civilian fencing it was clearly the type of wounds and then the geometrical advantage that made thrusts the favored attack.
Problem is of course you can't defend yourself with thrusts...

>>34741647
Fencing has a pretty defined characteristic. You don't see two guys using zwihanders or arming swords dueling referred to as fencing. It's usually rapiers, foils, epees, and the like.

>>34741656
I mean slashing vs thrust in sword vs spear. Duel/ street use vs battlefield are totally different.

>>34741658
>You don't see two guys using zwihanders or arming swords dueling referred to as fencing.
that's exactly what it's called

>>34741665
slashing is better only on an unstable surface hence cavalry and naval sabers vs army swords

>>34741631
>Lets reference the literature from all the other parts of the world that were combat heavy. Oh wait, they couldn't write.
>only scots knew how to write
kys respectfully

>>34741673
Do you have any sources to suggest that? Outside of something like HEMA, I've never seen fencing to refer to much other than a dueling sword.

>>34741641
I'm indeed using fencing as the general term for swordsmanship with any bladed weapons. Also,
>It's primary for nobles that had to honor duel, and laws had that at 'first blood'. That's why it's such a fast and reflex heavy art. It's not meant to win a fight to the death.
Pim Terminiello did a nice piece about nobles and bourgeois regarding fencing (it's a middle-class and bourgeois's activity, rather than a noble one, those thought that fencing came mostly from the blood while fencing is all about hard work, which is a bourgeois value).

Maybe in your country, fights in the Renaissance were to the first blood, but not in mine (France). It certaily modifies my vision of the whole thing, but in certain cultures, early fencing was a ruthless practice for a good century and more rather than a couple of decades. It got pacified later but still, thanks to the religious war, all duels were to the bitter end and everyone in Europe agreed that French were batshit crazy when it came to fencing seriously.

>>34741682
England, France, Italy, and probably others didn't use sword + dirk/buckler.

>>34741687
I am generalizing, and I'm certainly no expert, but by the 18th century, most western European countries had laws against duels and especially fights to the death. My country is the US, so I have no horse in the race, I only researched this as a hobby.

>>34739863
>not wanting wanting to terrorize serfs with your flamberge zweihander

>>34741674
French cuirassiers largely favored thrusting swords, Polish ones had some as well, just for counter-examples.

>>34741630
>You don't exactly "tactical footwork" in a battlefield though
I agree

>On a battlefield, a combination of cuts and thrusts are quite important
Of course, you have to be retarded to focus just on one kind of attack
>It also entirely depends on what you're gonna face, battlefields of the 1350's aren't the ones of the 1450's aren't the ones of the 1630's.
I also agree with you on that.
>Thrusts also can't defend yourself, while cuts do, which is quite important when you have no shield to protect yourself.
If you don't have a shield/armor and you only have a sword on the battlefield, then yeah, you have to do whatever it takes to stay alive. Thrusts are good with pole weapons becase is easy to do and you also have the reach advantage, but with swords is not always the best option.
>And then, the romans main weapon was the scutum, not the gladius, their fighting style was dictated by their large shield
I agree that roman tactics depended a lot on their scutum, but come on dude, roman tactics and weaponry evolved together, just look at how many times they changed their gladius. I agree with what you're trying to say, but saying that their fighting style was dictated by their weapon is something i can't agree with, i mean, sure, you have to make plans based on what weapons you have, but if you can produce better weapons to go with your tactics, then it would be just retarded to keep the same weapons and just change your strategy (i'm looking at you, japan)
>not by their short sword (which could and was used to cut).
I never said that the gladius couldn't cut, but it was mostly used for thrust, and of course that if you can't stab your enemy but you can cut him, you obviously do it.

>>34741696
as i had said earlier a straight sword is better for cleaving armor, makes sense for heavy cavalry

>>34741688
Are you kidding me...? Marozzo (one of the most important fencing author of the Renaissance) and all of the early Bolognese school is all about sword and buckler. France and Italy are later pretty much all about sword and dagger.
In the Renaissance europe EVERYONE used sword and buckler and then sword and dagger.

>>34741710
>cleaving armor
>i learned about fighting from video games and movies

>>34741710
swords aren't going through anything other than a cheap gambeson.

>>34741719
Sorry, sarcasm doesn't work in type.

>>34741695
>Serfs
>Zweihander
Where are you in Russia or something...?

>>34741726
Sorry sarcasm detection doesn't work early in the morning.

>>34741710
Nigga you can stab through (the gaps of) armor with a sword, but unless you're motherfucking Guts with his dragonslayer i don't think that you can cleave through armor.

>>34741726
>Sorry, sarcasm doesn't work in type.
The point is that dirks are a kind of Scottish dagger you autistic manatee. They were used in SCOTLAND

>>34741740
Well, the vernacular now happens to apply to any defensive dagger such as a main gauche, stop being such a faggot.

>>34739775
I agree, but I'm also a fruit so I'm not sure how that reflects that.
at the end of the day though, thrusting>slashing/choping

>>34741710

>armor
FOY

also that sword is only going to go through chainmail, which is in the gaps, and is sort of hard to angle for from a moving horse.
Even with a lot of force and faced with a shit piece of plate you are only going to go through a minimal amount, likely not even enough to prick the skin, and against most plate its just going to slide off.


Although of course you could be talking about 17th/18th/19th cuirassiers. In which case you are still off. They went into contact with the points, especially against other cavalry, but after that its mostly slashing.

>>34741779
>They went into contact with the points, especially against other cavalry, but after that its mostly slashing.
>after that its mostly slashing
>he doesn't kill his opponent in the first charge
Do you even heavy cavalry?

>>34741720
it's fairly well known that the straight heavy cavalry sword from 18th-19th centuries was designed for delivering strong cutting (not piercing) blows, stronger than the light cavalry saber could, so i dunno what you don't like in that idea

>>34741819
In your island maybe but French heavy cavalry swords of the late 18th and early 19th century were very much thrust centric swords.

>>34741805

Sometimes there are more people behind or next to those people

>>34741840
>He doesn't charge with people behind and next to him
>He doesn't rout the whole enemy section by murdering their entire front rank in one-go and proceed to trample the rest
I ask again, do you even heavy cavalry?

>>34741854

>he wants everyone to autistically refuse to use the edge of the blade after charging into enemy lines and instead awkwardly try to angle properly to thrust as he moves in the pursuit of true "heavy cavalry"

>>34741879
Hey, if Grouchy had shown instead of Blücher, we would have won 'kay!

File: 1484691575665.png (611KB, 699x699px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 699x699px

>le cleave through armor meme
NO SWORD COULD GO THROUGH ANY ARMOR
NO HUMAN FORCE CAN PIERCE HARDENED STEEL
HELL, IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO PIERCE BOILED LEATHER, LET ALONE FUCKING SLICE THROUGH IT
GODDAMMIT, LATE MEDIEVAL ARMOR HAD GOT SO GOOD, ARQUEBUSES WEREN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH TO PIERCE THEM AND THAT'S WHY 10 KILOS MUSKETS THAT SHOOT 23MM BALLS WERE INVENTED

>>34741929
To be fair, at least in Europe, cloth armor was the standard for most front line combatants. Arquebuses only were popular because they required much less training than a bowman,

File: Warpick.jpg (23KB, 800x716px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x716px

>>34741929
>NO HUMAN FORCE CAN PIERCE HARDENED STEEL
Hi there!

>>34741535
>spears, pikes and javelines proved to be the most effective,
>what is range

>>34741947
>so much wrong the post

>>34741673
>>34741673
https://youtu.be/UNIBJsxTIxM

Lol

File: GRORIOUS NIPPONESE HERITAGE.gif (3MB, 300x171px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x171px

>>34739419

>>34739878

There is an entire martial art dedicated to drawing/cutting in a single motion.
Iaido.

Being able to draw and cut in a single motion is the primary purpose of the curved sword, although it does typically mean greater cutting edge length and superior "slashing" ability compared to straight swords.

Of course other forms of Kenjutsu are often considered more practical than Iaido, but in a battle of swords typically the first to strike is the victor, which is also the basic premise of kendo.

>>34742350
That's ridiculous...
>Being able to draw and cut in a single motion is the primary purpose of the curved sword
Oh then why did the japanese wait almost 500 years to produce iaijutsu curriculums after they've developped the nihonto? The curve is a result of the forging process, not something that is thought to develop a particular technique.
Some masters (like Otake for instance) specifically said that the main mechanical component of speed in the blade is its length not the curve. The curve has pretty much zero effect on the draw. Why would the turks who used a lot of curved sword apparently never developped cutting from the scabbard if curved swords are for this practice?

Also
>but in a battle of swords typically the first to strike is the victor
There are some schools (like HNIR or the Dardi tradition in Europe) that are largely about sen no sen that is reacting to an attack and where the whole point is to make the enemy attack in a predictible way so that you can counter or defend from it easily. In a battle of swords, the person who thought about a second and a third blow is the one with a greater chance of winning. Fencing while only thinking about gaining the initiative is a peasant's way of fighting, it can work, but it's not an art.

>>34742350
completely wrong. Might be true if the sheath was set in stone and unable to move, but then again, the shitana wouldnt be able to draw then either.

File: I seriously hope you guys don't do this.jpg (42KB, 300x267px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x267px

>>34741967
By all means, show me a plate of armor on top of a gambeson being pierced with enough depth to wound.

>>34741947
On the contrary, I find arquebuses harder to maintain and load than crossbows.

>>34742478
>On the contrary, I find arquebuses harder to maintain and load than crossbows.
No shit, >>34741947 is talking out of his ass. This isn't a modern gun with cartridges it's not easy to use. The main reason they were used was increased effectiveness; more lethal and more distance.

>>34742418
Fun fact. You can do iaijutsu type shit with basically any sword, as this sack of lard demonstrates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCIZmLNNS08

File: buzdovan.jpg (60KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x480px

>>34739419
blunt weapons > swords
>less maintenance
>better durability
>lmao nice armor idiot

>>34741455
I dare you to try to sheath a spear.

>>34743048
First HEMA text I've been reading was Viggiani's so yeah, I know all about this.
And obviously, you can practice those draws with anything, though some swords will logically be more suitable for this.
The fact that japanese were the only ones with a long and dedicated curriculum for this exercise, but it made people think they were the only ones to do it or to have thought about it or that there swords have something special that enables it, it's all wrong of course.

>>34743174
>sheath a spear.
spears, like walking sticks, remain passively equipped while not in combat.

>>34743048
So it chubby, actually pretty good or is he being buffed for the demonstration purposes of the video?

File: Yarisaya.jpg (211KB, 3564x1259px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 3564x1259px

>>34743174
Not the same anon but 'kay...
Here's a japanese spear point and its sheath.
Nothing really unusual.