Myself, I'm more interested in getting the job done than looking "badass".
Allow me to introduce to you my little friend.
The Box Cutter. AKA the "Stanley knife" to our friends across the water in England. Cheap (about $2 in my neck of the woods), easily disposable, dependable, durable, found in almost any retail store, easily concealable, and normally overlooked by authorities if they pull you over and search your car. Try that with a Katana.
And it's absolutely devastating when brought out of concealment against an unaware target. That little 1-1/4" blade don't look like much? LOL. Nope. It's literally razor sharp and it both can and will totally fuck your shit up when used in kissing distance. Proof? Here ya go.
That bastard have a hold on you? Rake his back.
They have a hold on your wallet/purse/self? Not anymore.
He grabbed you around the neck at the ATM? Well, he just let the fuck go.
When it comes to weapons, I'm interested in results. Period.
With the whole getting the job done, one has to value function and simplicity over form and ornate looks. And the fact that the box cutter can do all of that, I shudder to be on the receiving end of one.
Doesn't the box cutter blade snap easily because it is so thin? They even have those purpose-made fracture lines on them.
Kalashnikov is trash, it can only ever function as assault rifle. Mosin can be rifle, stabbing spear, and beating stick simultaneously without compromising its structural integrity
Mosin>SKS and on top of that SKS' are cheaper than Mosins now and you don't have a 50/50 chance of it being a spear with a bolt on it instead of a gun.
Doesn't the box cutter blade snap easily because it is so thin? They even have those purpose-made fracture lines on them.
Kalashnikov is trash, it can only ever function as assault rifle. Mosin can be rifle, stabbing spear, and beating stick simultaneously without compromising its structural integrity
There are some kinds of box cutters that have that kind of design. They're usually the flimsier kind. The fracture lines only work when sideways stress is applied to the blade, so if you keep the movements in line with the main axis of the blade, it's okay. In itself, the blade being breakable is not a really bad thing. Rake your target once or twice, and on the final pass, snap the blade off in the wound. Even with the blade extended halfway (as most people do when using one) you should have enough blade left to slash their carotid artery or wrist open.
That'll take the fight out of anyone really quickly.
As much as how nice some swords are, they really do serve as nothing more than just a decorative piece. The whole appeal in swinging a sword would have to tie in with watching romanticized and/or ignorant fiction that paints the sword as some ultimate weapon. As some mentioned earlier in the thread, they aren't the best when considering things like reach. Beyond that though, sword spergs wouldn't have that awareness when they think a million folded katana or fantasy shaped flea market sword makes them think the "coolness" of their sword would be testament to its usefulness.
(to elaborate on my earlier post) Most swords the sperg lords jerk off over (usually the Katana and longsword) are usually secondary weapons, used in combination with another piece of kit or highly context dependent. A long sword is fuck all use if it's not backed up by a shield and least chain mail with some plating and even then it's roughly than a mace or battleaxe. and those weapons have advantages vs plate armor.
The Katana is designed for quick kills at very close range where you want the blade out before your opponent has draws his, in a way it's similar to a modern pistol vs rifle. In heavy melee combat A greatsword or naganita is going to fuck you up if you show up with katana and that is assuming some Ashiguru peasent doesnt just shoot you.
If you're looking for melee combat swords you want to go with either a fucking huge weapon such as a Zweirhander or Claymore which has range and crushing power. Or you want to go for a combo such as the legionare/commitanes shield, javelin, all your mates in lockstep.
Then again pretty much all these items are swung by someone built like a brick shit house who can kill with ease not a fat nerd in his fedora. What the fat nerd wants on the pre-modern battlefield is a crossbow since it's simple to use and doesnt need you to be in peak health. Alternatively give him a spear a wicker shield and a few days training-he's mostly there to stop the actual soldiers getting flanked anyway.
Because the spear is a peasant weapon that doesn't get any cool design like that of a sword in the eyes of these spergs despite the fact that the spear does have a range advantage along with being easy to make and easy to train with. Even then, it has more designs than the sword, at least with spearheads.
Because the spear is a peasant weapon that doesn't get any cool design like that of a sword in the eyes of these spergs despite the fact that the spear does have a range advantage along with being easy to make and easy to train with. Even then, it has more designs than the sword, at least with spearheads.
They're hard to store, hard to move- seriously, try stowing a 16' SCA spear or 12' polearm anywhere in your vehicle or maneuvering through a crowd without bonking someone, and only really of use when you & your twenty other mates have them.
(BTW c-no thanks for that chart. Left-click, save)
Hey all, it's the OP of the original Sword Enthusiasts thread. A common character within that thread is this guy named Will Keith (https://www.youtube.com/user/bbillyk), he gets made fun of a lot for his kinda silly videos (like how to defend your house with a Katana) and morbid obesity, but from what I understand he's actually rather well trained with a Katana. Just for curiosities sake, can any of you interested in swords confirm or debunk this?
Because the spear is a peasant weapon that doesn't get any cool design like that of a sword in the eyes of these spergs despite the fact that the spear does have a range advantage along with being easy to make and easy to train with. Even then, it has more designs than the sword, at least with spearheads.
The intesting thing is they evolved on the same axis as pole arms, but there are two or three types of spears, there is the stabbing spear and throwing spear, and both take skill to use. A stabbing spear is about 6ft long and throwing spear was normally shorter about 4 - 5ft and used a throwing stick to increase the range, and where mostly used by cultures with poor archery skill's. Longer stabbing spears where used as a supplement by organised armys of the classical word to reach over an between shield walls, the Romans really perfected this as they chose a design that they could throw or jab with, if they threw it the thin iron kneck bent under the impact weight of the heavy pole an couldn't be thrown back, but the 2nd rank in a shield wall could stab over the top and cause serious damage.
That's a bit on the extreme side of length, dedicated pole arms can be that length and if I'm recalling my Nepolionic war standards right Pike Men of the British army (it was a secondary duty) was 8ft sharpened poles mostly aimed towards the horse rather than the rider, Historically speaking as I said depending on the type of spear they ranged from 4 - 6ft in length, some chard wood point neolithic spears have been found longer than that but the current theiory was they where for now extinct large game animals.
Interestingly there has been recently found a lithic age battlefield in norther Germany, with lots of wooden artifacts very well preserved, and it backs up this long held assumption, last detailed excervation I read there was a body of a man with a slung bow with a arrow in his chest and they have previously found some one with a quiver of arrows flighted an knochched and a thowring stick, and given the average size of person in that age it would make sense that they where a thrower than a archer.
Hey all, it's the OP of the original Sword Enthusiasts thread. A common character within that thread is this guy named Will Keith (https://www.youtube.com/user/bbillyk), he gets made fun of a lot for his kinda silly videos (like how to defend your house with a Katana) and morbid obesity, but from what I understand he's actually rather well trained with a Katana. Just for curiosities sake, can any of you interested in swords confirm or debunk this?
he's clearly been trained with a much lighter weapon- id guess kendo. In his earlier videos especially he has very little control and way over swings. he also uses the wrong parts of his body to move and power the strokes. that said his more recent stuff show a marked improvement. Ultimately though someone that large cannot be very good- he is too large to be nimble and too weak to be powerful enough to compensate for his clumsiness with speed. swords (especially cutting swords) are balanced and harmonised to make swinging them easier- they make for very inefficient training weights so he isn't going to develop muscles suited to the movements he needs without thousands of hours of practice. Contrast him with the coldsteel guy lynne thompson- for all that he is a tremendous faggot he is also obviously well trained and strong enough to begin to compensate for his bulk when using certain sword styles.
those are just general observations- im regimental broadsword trained so i can't comment on the detail of his techniques beyond the basics common to all styles.
I've never been in any conflict more violent than a schoolyard scuffle in my life but I have strong opinions about large-scale warfare and am very confident that they are correct.
I've never been in any conflict more violent than a schoolyard scuffle in my life but I have strong opinions about large-scale warfare and am very confident that they are correct.
Yeah man, Ian is GOAT. He just announced that his Patreon reached its goal for him to travel to collections and museums around the United States and do videos there. I'm super excited for what he'll make videos on.
he's clearly been trained with a much lighter weapon- id guess kendo. In his earlier videos especially he has very little control and way over swings. he also uses the wrong parts of his body to move and power the strokes. that said his more recent stuff show a marked improvement. Ultimately though someone that large cannot be very good- he is too large to be nimble and too weak to be powerful enough to compensate for his clumsiness with speed. swords (especially cutting swords) are balanced and harmonised to make swinging them easier- they make for very inefficient training weights so he isn't going to develop muscles suited to the movements he needs without thousands of hours of practice. Contrast him with the coldsteel guy lynne thompson- for all that he is a tremendous faggot he is also obviously well trained and strong enough to begin to compensate for his bulk when using certain sword styles.
Interestingly enough I read something about this subject recently, apart from resource constraints necessitating thiner lighter blades in the far east compared to Europe at any rate, was that we have always tended towards the larger size bracket of human physical development, and tended to live shorter more brutal lives.
In Europe we where built larger and also had a comparative abundance of steel so we didn't have to develop thiner lighter swords, we could comfortable wield something far larger in a shorter time frame of training.
But aside from that our fighting styles where markedly different especially when it come to terms of scale, and importantly in armour technology, Far Eastern weapons would have had trouble dealing with most european armour and European swords wouldn't have the same problem with Far Eastern armour because they also had the mass to bruit force there way into causing damage.
That's not to say it was useless because it wasn't it worked for them and that's what matters, a Weapon is just like anything else it's a product of the time and people who developed it in the first place, and they made it to suit there needs, their ability to use and technical understanding to produce constrained by the resources at hand.
The lack of armor development outside of Europe also heavily influenced their weaponry. Nobody really matched the Europeans in terms of heavy armor development, so there was never really a need to build weapons to defeat such armor.
Interestingly enough I read something about this subject recently, apart from resource constraints necessitating thiner lighter blades in the far east compared to Europe at any rate, was that we have always tended towards the larger size bracket of human physical development, and tended to live shorter more brutal lives.
In Europe we where built larger and also had a comparative abundance of steel so we didn't have to develop thiner lighter swords, we could comfortable wield something far larger in a shorter time frame of training.
But aside from that our fighting styles where markedly different especially when it come to terms of scale, and importantly in armour technology, Far Eastern weapons would have had trouble dealing with most european armour and European swords wouldn't have the same problem with Far Eastern armour because they also had the mass to bruit force there way into causing damage.
That's not to say it was useless because it wasn't it worked for them and that's what matters, a Weapon is just like anything else it's a product of the time and people who developed it in the first place, and they made it to suit there needs, their ability to use and technical understanding to produce constrained by the resources at hand.
I'd be extremely cautious of whatever source you read that in. Western weapons are not, as a rule, significantly heavier or more heavily built than their eastern equivalents. While they do tend to be thicker edge-edge they are normally thinner flat to flat resulting in weapons that generally way roughly the same.
It is true that dedicated two handed weapons like longswords were more popular in the west, but their equivalents in the east tend to be similarly weighted.
In single handed swords especially the difference is negligible medieval jian weigh roughly the same as a broadsword, dao's roughly the same as a hanger etc etc.
Similarly with training- western europeans were every bit as trained as their eastern counterparts.
where one sees a big difference in metal is in the armour, although the indians had european amounts of resources they had a climate that discourages their use..
The lack of armor development outside of Europe also heavily influenced their weaponry. Nobody really matched the Europeans in terms of heavy armor development, so there was never really a need to build weapons to defeat such armor.
That's what I was getting at, but there was also resource constrains hindering it's development in other parts of the world as well.
Europe traditionally has been quite resource rich in comparison to other parts of the world or been able to access resources faster / easier than other parts of the world, I'll give you a good example of how this even became part of the vernacular, The term "Bog Standard" to us it just means commonly seen or of common quality but it's descended from the Term "Bog Iron" that was the most easily accessed and most commonly used metal for common every day weapons in swathes of
I'd be extremely cautious of whatever source you read that in. Western weapons are not, as a rule, significantly heavier or more heavily built than their eastern equivalents. While they do tend to be thicker edge-edge they are normally thinner flat to flat resulting in weapons that generally way roughly the same.
It is true that dedicated two handed weapons like longswords were more popular in the west, but their equivalents in the east tend to be similarly weighted.
In single handed swords especially the difference is negligible medieval jian weigh roughly the same as a broadsword, dao's roughly the same as a hanger etc etc.
Similarly with training- western europeans were every bit as trained as their eastern counterparts.
where one sees a big difference in metal is in the armour, although the indians had european amounts of resources they had a climate that discourages their use..
I'll dig it out and post it, I was doing research on Norse Seax's for something I want to have in my office (I want a historically accurate display of a helmet, shield an sword from various points in antiquity, but I want it historically accurate). In the article the author said the weight was a bit of a bone of contention traditionally, but he was going off a average and worked for the royal armourys so had real period examples to work with to make his case.
The training issue is also a bone of contention, in japan they codified the training sooner and stuck to it in Europe while we had a awful lot of training it was quite variable but our advantage in armour and well physical stature negated a lot of the more specialised training but i suppose that was more of a cultural mind set difference than anything else.
.
