In the christmas spirit ( I know Im a day late blah blah blah.....) how bout some hard coal in a stocking?...Aerodyamic said:
Favorite melee weapon in any game (or real life?)
- Thread starter Hussmann54
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unless your opponent had the good sense to bring something more useful than a short stick on a chain. This is the problem with many of the asian martial arts weapons: they're better than nothing and effective considering what they are but they were never a match for an honest to god, designed and constructed solely with the intent to maim and murder, weapons. On an offensive tact, a single blow almost certainly isn't going to be good enough to do the job even against a foe without armor. While they can certainly break bones and are more than capable of being lethal weapons, when compared with even the humble mace you find them lacking. Worse still, the maximum possible range with the weapon isn't significantly further than one can throw a punch - any man with a sword or spear will enjoy a significant advantage on that front. Defensively you aren't doing much better. The short length of the weapon ensures a standard parry will be difficult at best, and while the possibility for a bind in the literal sense exists, one must question just what you'll do when you have your own weapon wrapped around your enemies as you are essentially left in the same boat. That isn't to say that they are without merit however - in the modern age most melee weapons exist as a curiosity, an anachronist diversion to marvel at. A baseball bat is only marginally less useful than the finest sword ever forged in the modern era - so at least the death march of progress has helped ensure a degree of utility for all melee weapons.Sonicron said:
Of course, when it comes to my own favorite weapon, it all depends on the time period in question. In these modern times, I would almost certaily favor the epee or the small sword as I am a fencer and use the sport equivlanent regularly. In ages past I would be hard pressed to not look kindly on the simple spear for it was this simple weapon that provided our ancestors with the means to slaughter one another for millenia. Beyond that, I would look no further than the flanged mace - the simplest answer ever devised to a seemingly impossible problem. How does one kill a man in a suit of steel that no weapon yet crafted can readily pierce? Simple - crush the suit around him. Thus was born a simple stick with a heavy metal head forged into a number of points or flanges to ensure the full force of a blow was transfered to a tiny point on the armor.
Burning Rock in an Asbestos Sock? B.R.A.S O' DOOMY DOOM! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!Hussmann54 said:
A friend of mine has a 4-flange mace with about a 4-5" spread on the flanges, and roughly a 14" haft, made by a mutual friend who happens to be a professional blacksmith and knife-smith. It weighs in at about 8lbs, and if it were used on an UNARMOURED opponent, it would likely kill them, no matter where you struck them. I've seen the damage it can do to an under-ripe pumpkin, and it was a negligent blow; the pumpkin FUCKING EXPLODED.Eclectic Dreck said:
A master crafted katana wielded by an excellent swordsman can indeed cut a man wearing period armor in half. The Katana is a product of a particular time and place like any other weapon. Thanks to strict adherence to tradition and the irrational tendancy to fight with honor, there was little advancement in Japanese technology for hundreds of years. Without new armor designs to combat or bold new tactics to counter, smiths were free to perfect a handful of weapons - among them the katana. Of course, the trouble with comparing across vast distances, with all the differences that result is simply that the weapons and arms used by one group may be terribly suited to use against another. A katana presents little threat to plate armor and even chain provides significant defense against the weapon.Exictednuke said:
Europe on the other hand was a continent in a constant state of warfare for more than a thousand years, where new weapons and strategies were always presented. The very fabric of society dictated that few people could be spared from useful work to train in the art of war and as such the bulk of armies consisted of barely trained men in armor that wouldn't turn a dull dagger armed with weapons only marginally more advanced than a pointy stick. Those that could afford to while away their days with martial training also had the good fortune of being the very people with the most resources and as such were deemed worthy of the tremendous expense required to hand forge metal armors. Such armor may seem crude but it was fantastically effective and for a period a knight was all but immortal on the battlefield. A man in a steel suit is a difficult thing to counter and until people devised more efficient ways of getting through the defenses the weapons most commonly wielded were simply used with all the force a man could put behind it. The enormous two handed swords and axes were all a product of this period - if you can't find a clever way around a problem, just use enough force to go through it.
It wasn't until weapon technology advanced sufficiently that heavy armor was truly countered on the battlefield that Europe saw significant changes in weapon design philosophy. The first example in the realm of swords is the rapier and it was at best a mild success. The sword still possessed a blade nearly five feet in length, but thanks to advances in metalurgy a much narrower blade could be used without the danger of the weapon breaking. Without the need to bludgeon a man in armor, there was no reason to keep the added bulk. The result was a weapon that could be wielded in one hand with at least a degree of success. Unfortunately, the length and weight of the weapon (about five pounds) meant that actions with the blade were quite deliberate and since one no longer relied on armor to provide a defense, the true problem with the experiment was revealed. One could not readily transfer between attack and defense with a single weapon. As such, a rapier was generally paired with a second implement specifically for the task, such as a long dagger, a buckler (a small shield), or even a heavy cloak wrapped around the off-hand. The fighting style in general didn't advance much either, and still largely relied on a circular approach to combat. The spanish style is often the most well known and there are numerous texts written by the masters of the style detailing the complex geometry in play in a duel.
The English were actually the last to give up the slashing style of weapon, and it is odd then that it is the English we have to thank for the next major advancement in european swords. Elizabeth I issued a famous decree after tripping over one too many weapons in court that all rapiers in the nation would be broken off at three feet and resharpened. The resulting weapon was called, naturally, a court sword. Finally the sword was light enough that it no longer needed an accompaniment. After more than a century of nobles dying heroic deaths for things that were utterly stupid, it gradually became apparent that the circular approach to combat was no longer needed and european swordplay became a generally linear affair. Instead of attempting to work angles as had been the ways of the past, the style relied on intentionally opening and closing lines of attack and defense. European swordplay became less a matter of pure skill on display and instead was little more than a highly lethal game of chess where duelists would attempt to use misdirection to create an opening in which to attack.
Coincidentally, it was around this very period that fencing became a non-lethal sport as well as a method for resolving disputes. Weapon technolgy had advanced sufficiently that swords were far less common on the european battlefields, and Asia decided to play one last role in European melee weapons. After centuries of fighing the Arabs, europe finally realized that they were on to something with their curved blades. The European interpretation of the Scimitar eventually became known as the Sabre and it's design made it nearly purpose built for the battlefield. While capable of being an elegant weapon, the Sabre offered the distinct advantage inherent to a cutting weapon rather than a thrusting - namely that the attack is generally easier to deliver in the heat of a moment or on the run.
By the 19th century, the court sword had gradually evolved into a small sword and eventually into the Epee. As a weapon purpose built for dueling, it proved shockingly effective but had no place on the battlefield. The Sabre was the last incarnation of the sword on European battlefields, and it was accompanied by a bayonette. The bayonette itself has an intriguing life cycle. First designed so that riflemen could form their own pike walls against cavalry when europe was still grappling with how to best leverage their resources in battle, the weapon eventually became the assault weapon of choice in an era of single fire weapons. By the end of the first world war, dueling was very nearly extinct, the sword was relegated to ceremonial duties in most european armies but the bayonette lived on. By the end of the second world war, dueling was almost entirely a product of a bygone era and even the bayonette was of limited use. On the modern battlefield, many european armies don't even issue the bayonette to soldiers anymore, and those that do point to heritage more than any pressing need to justify the expense.
I suppose my point is where it seems european weapons lack elegence you'll find they more than make up for it in simple practicality. Europe in general never stuck with a weapon out of tradition for long, because those that did so tended to end up a part of another nation sooner or later. In spite of the pragmaticism on display across two millenia of armed conflict, Eurpoe still delivered two weapons that were supremely suited to the purpose, weapons that required such a degree of skill and mastery that their use is still pursued for sport.
Of interesting note is in spite of the vastly different roads, the use of a sabre is shockingly close to the use of a Katana. They share most of the same parries and cuts and they both use motions designed gain control of the opponent's blade where, in many cases, they are almost identical. Additionally, both weapons are essentially used in a linear fashion.
Most swords require a degree of skill to use properly. Any thug can swing a sword or understands the operating principles of a parry and the like but actually mastering a blade can take more than a lifetime of constant work. The Katana, while a fine sword in it's own right, has a somewhat undeserved reputation attached to it, mostly thanks to the strange fascination with assassins who were apparently granted magic powers and the general modern fascination with Japan.Foggy_Fishburne said:Ehem... The KatanaNo but seriously, the elegance, strenght and technique needed to wield it just fascinates me.
I like the spear. The axe-like weapon attached to a long chain is interesting. I dig axes. Knives. Alright I'll stop now
And, just a quick note - it is not strength that lends a katana it's power, at least not directly. The weapons are light enough that I would wager any person browsing this board who still has use of their arms can probably wield it effectively; instead, speed and proper motion is the key.
Lightsaber from Star Wars.
Heck, unless your on the Star Wars games, it can cut through anything with a single hit!
Heck, unless your on the Star Wars games, it can cut through anything with a single hit!
Crowbars work surprisingly well against anything in both real life and the videogame universe. n_n
This one lightsaber I read about in a starwars novel. It was made out of a speeder bikes handle bars. It starts as a white blade then with a twist of the handle it became a yellow dual bladed saber. Also the dude who used it was awesome.
I generaly use the melee option in most games if there is one. I like the up close and personal approach in most encounters (does shotguns count?).
But a handy one-hand sword is what I prefer. What I fight with in real life is a combo between rapier/dagger and sword/buckler.
Cool! Do you practice HEMA as well? I've heard of The Arma, but I haven't really looked up their site I guess, maybe I should. What kinds of materials do they have there? And what manuals do you guys use when practising?
But a handy one-hand sword is what I prefer. What I fight with in real life is a combo between rapier/dagger and sword/buckler.
Hussmann54 said:
Cool! Do you practice HEMA as well? I've heard of The Arma, but I haven't really looked up their site I guess, maybe I should. What kinds of materials do they have there? And what manuals do you guys use when practising?
One last point that I have to bring up time and again in this sort of thread. If what you beileve to be a rapier has a blade well under five feet in length, you do not have a rapier regardless of what it's called. At three feet it's a court sword. With a triangular blade it's an Epee. In almost any circumstance in which you have seen a "rapier" depicted in movies and video games, what was actually presented is a court sword.
