Why the big swords anyway?

[LloydEsaka]

They aren't effective in real life anymore.

It's not that they stopped being effective. A weapon's effectiveness depends primarily on what your opponent is fighting with.

Don't try to bare-hand fight someone with a knife. Don't try to knife someone with a knife, either; get a club. If they have a club, get a gun.

Sorry, I should've specified that a bit more. I meant more along the lines of "its not a practical weapon to have this day and age." For example, you can easily carry around a knife and pistol around town, but if you walk around with a great sword strapped to your back...well...

Also I was more in the mindset of your "average" throwdown now a days, where it would be highly influenced by society's "rules" if you will (see above example) as to what you would normally find yourself equipped with. Also, militarily, it would be laughably ineffective unless you found yourself in an exceptionally one sided situation (assuming you had the greatsword of course) for such a weapon.

 

[Starke]

Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.

If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.

I know you probably don't believe me but I really did abandon the original discussion because I came to believe that I was on the wrong track.

Then, I would recommend, acknowledging where your errors are, and articulating how you have revised your opinion. Failing to do so makes you appear passive aggressive.

Your claim that I did so as a way of avoiding the loss of an argument would seem to be little more than something you would like to believe possibly because you wanted to win the argument.

If you don't want to win the argument, then you probably will attempt to avoid it. There are a lot of cues that you can dump into your text that will indicate that, such as weasel words. From an argumentative position they weaken your argument if identified. From a non-confrontational stance, they give you an out.

And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.

As a third party, it really hasn't... well... it is now, because you appear to be whining about how you didn't really loose the argument in spite of having its legs kicked out from under it on (almost literally) every point.

And I am sorry to say but I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to put this altercation to rest and make peace so we could both move on (albeit perhaps I could have done a better job of trying). And what do I get in return? You hit me with accusations.

To be fair, a lot of this is built out of the way you've tried to back out of the conversation. Accurate or not, it has made you come across as petulant as hell. Something which, surprisingly, most people tend to look down upon.

Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?

Not speaking for Pete, but I'm basing my comments not on my secret psychic powers that let me peer into your very soul, but rather, exclusively on your behavior.

This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.

The fact that I was able to persuade Pete on a couple of points should tell you, the willingness was there, it was your ability to capitalize on that, that was lacking.

I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I swear I read that carp... no idea why.

Okay, now you seem to be doing little more than trolling.

Wait. Honestly, if this is your idea of what trolling looks like, you've never seen trolling, nor have you seen a flaming. While I'm not cutting you slack, I gave up on that sometime around the suggestion that people use their clothes to stop bullets. The only post in this chain that could be considered trolling is your response to it.

 

[Tharwen]

Why are you focusing on swords? Why not ask about their eyes, boobs, or anything else that's typically oversized in the same medium?

 

[SlowShootinPete]

They aren't effective in real life anymore.

It's not that they stopped being effective. A weapon's effectiveness depends primarily on what your opponent is fighting with.

Don't try to bare-hand fight someone with a knife. Don't try to knife someone with a knife, either; get a club. If they have a club, get a gun.

Sorry, I should've specified that a bit more. I meant more along the lines of "its not a practical weapon to have this day and age." For example, you can easily carry around a knife and pistol around town, but if you walk around with a great sword strapped to your back...well...

Also I was more in the mindset of your "average" throwdown now a days, where it would be highly influenced by society's "rules" if you will (see above example) as to what you would normally find yourself equipped with. Also, militarily, it would be laughably ineffective unless you found yourself in an exceptionally one sided situation (assuming you had the greatsword of course) for such a weapon.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

One note on the "guns are better than swords" (and vice versa) debate.

The general consensus built upon the bones of the mllions who have died in conflict in the last several centures is that a gun is almost always the better option. Indeed, it is only through misconceptions found in media of all types that people even think the subject is debatable as there are only a handful of circumstances in which one would be able to argue with any merit that a modern firearm is inferior to a sword of any design or quality.

1) One can learn to properly fire a gun at targets of various ranges, positions and movement states in a matter of weeks. Once fundamental skills are learned, further training helps ensure automatic combat response. Once chunks of angry metal start buzzing about at super-sonic speeds, one cannot afford to waste time considering how to perform an action and must instead simply act on automatic response as often as possible. This is true for combat of any sort. When using a sword on the other hand, it takes years of training before the essential mechanical functions are "learned" (i.e. become automatic responses that require no thought on how a maneuver is executed). The advantage is clearly in favor of the firearm - with much less training a man with a gun is more effective in an average combat scenario.

2) A firearm varies in it's maximum effective range (a function of loss of KE over a distance, inherent mechanical deviation on bullet trajectory, sighting apparatus and so forth), but it is not until one closes in on the absolute shortest range (usually disguised small caliber single shot weapons) the advantage goes to the firearm user. For example, I own a sub-compact springfield XD handgun that fires .40 S&W rounds. I can reasonably hit a moving target inside of 25 meters with this weapon. By contrast, as a fencer I can attest that the maximum possible distance over which I can deliver an attack is less than 15 feet (or less than 5m). This inherent range advantage can only be neutralized under certain pyschological circumstances (fear, hesitation and so forth - what training helps minimize) or through favorable battlefield circumstances (e.g. surprise and complex terrain).

3) A firearm can deliver incapacitating injuries with ease. Even when a round does not result in a mortal wound, they still have a nasty habit of tearing apart muscle (makes it a bit hard to move the associated body part), shattering bone (enhances injury, impairs movement), and generally leaving very wide wound channels in which tissue is damaged. Shock quicky sets in thanks to the enormous amount of the body that sustains injury. By contrast, a blade delivers an injry along a very narrow path such that a glancing injury (that may render a limb immobile when the wound is delivered via firearm) may only result in an injury no more serious than a deep papercut (painful but not significantly impairing one's ability to fight). The result is simple - the odds of continuing to fight after being shot are considerably lower than continuing after being hit by a blade. Given similar placement and whatnot, the firearm will generally deliver a far more serious injury.

4) Bullets move really, really fast. At the slower end, you have subsonic rounds that travel many hundreds of feet in the space of a second. At a higher end you have rounds moving several thousand feet in a second. Compared to any speed a man can muster, at ranges of only a few hundred meters this may as well be the speed of light. The result is obvious - you cannot dodge a bullet but you may evade a shot. One's probability of evading a shot increases with distance (it takes more time for a bullet to arrive, meaning that a change in velocity can result in a miss of a perfectly aimed shot). Unfortunately, modern weapons often have very large magazine capacities - evading a single shot does you little good when it has a dozen friends right behind it.

Most media that asserts a sword is generally superior enforces arbitrary combat limitations (i.e. the group opposing the swordsman only occupies a position in very complex terrain), or grants super-huaman abilities to the swordsman (ability to block a bullet with a blade, or being able to shrug off bullet impacts without problem). Yes, there are a limited set of circumstances in which a sword is the better option, but such circumstances are quite rare in modern life. No matter how skilled a swordsman, assaulting an entrenched foe with hundreds of yards of open terrain obviously suicidal. Ammunition limitations are largely irrelevant when one considers all but the most specialized firearms can fire many shots before requiring one to reload. The simple fact that military units operate in groups (as do the police and any other intelligent being engaging in combat) means that even surprising one member leaves others to exact revenge.

 

[ilikepie59]

Here are the facts according to users of big swords:

There is this substance called "sword" and it causes damage.

If you have more "sword", you will cause more damage.

I think that's basically it.

 

[Reolus]

Big swords...

1. Are more visible to the player
2. Have dramatic, sweeping animation that is visually appealing and good for gameplay
3. Usually equal worlds of magic, where people can be raised from the dead, healed of wounds, consume body-enhancing substances with no negative ramifications and have inversely protective armour (less is more) which seems to make more "sense" than the opposite.
4. Have a highly symbolic quality that is associated with heroism and destiny
5. Do have more options for design and art (and for it to be visible), as mentioned above.

Also, I roffled at the notion that a "Claymore" is an impractical weapon and was surprised it didn't turn into a historical nerd rage. As someone who does sword-fighting as a hobby, I can tell you that two-handers are not as impractical as you think!

Basically any piece of metal in the hands of a trained human is formidable, imo.

 

[OmegaCheese]

My brain hurts by trying to read through this thread... so much text....

Anyway anyone who has said "Overcompensating for something" or "It's awesome" ended the thread. Really. Its really not a problem, it's a fantasy setting. You can do just about everything

 

[A1]

Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.

If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.

I know you probably don't believe me but I really did abandon the original discussion because I came to believe that I was on the wrong track.

Then, I would recommend, acknowledging where your errors are, and articulating how you have revised your opinion. Failing to do so makes you appear passive aggressive.

Your claim that I did so as a way of avoiding the loss of an argument would seem to be little more than something you would like to believe possibly because you wanted to win the argument.

If you don't want to win the argument, then you probably will attempt to avoid it. There are a lot of cues that you can dump into your text that will indicate that, such as weasel words. From an argumentative position they weaken your argument if identified. From a non-confrontational stance, they give you an out.

And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.

As a third party, it really hasn't... well... it is now, because you appear to be whining about how you didn't really loose the argument in spite of having its legs kicked out from under it on (almost literally) every point.

And I am sorry to say but I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to put this altercation to rest and make peace so we could both move on (albeit perhaps I could have done a better job of trying). And what do I get in return? You hit me with accusations.

To be fair, a lot of this is built out of the way you've tried to back out of the conversation. Accurate or not, it has made you come across as petulant as hell. Something which, surprisingly, most people tend to look down upon.

Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?

Not speaking for Pete, but I'm basing my comments not on my secret psychic powers that let me peer into your very soul, but rather, exclusively on your behavior.

This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.

The fact that I was able to persuade Pete on a couple of points should tell you, the willingness was there, it was your ability to capitalize on that, that was lacking.

I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I swear I read that carp... no idea why.

Okay, now you seem to be doing little more than trolling.

Wait. Honestly, if this is your idea of what trolling looks like, you've never seen trolling, nor have you seen a flaming. While I'm not cutting you slack, I gave up on that sometime around the suggestion that people use their clothes to stop bullets. The only post in this chain that could be considered trolling is your response to it.

Oh. I am acquainted with trolling and flaming. Trolling actually has numerous definitions. And one of them is to purposely antagonize people on the internet. My previous post was directed specifically at SlowShootinPete and the reason it's on the forum is because it was a response to one of SlowShootinPete's posts, which was already on the forum. But once again you rudely butted in evidently because you just couldn't resist a chance to take a swipe at me. I realize that you are entitled to do that kind of thing because this is a forum but all the same that is not respectable behavior. So you claim that you are not a troll. In that case I strongly urge you to start acting like it.

And before you go accusing me of being a hypocrite let me point out that you are the one who threw the first punch in this case.

And incidentally things like ballistic vests and body armor are technically clothing. That's what I was referring to.

 

[The Lawn]

I personally own 3 swords that would be classified as "Big".

And I find all but 1 of them quite wieldy(is that a word?).

The only one I can't use is a 6 foot long, quite thin, masamune like sword... only because due to its length and flatness... it drags through the air and makes it a pain to have it hit on the edge.

My other 2 large swords I can swing comfortably with 1 hand, I do wear gloves and there's grip tape on the hilt.
It does take a lot of effort... but it's very possible.
Both are about 5.5-6 feet long, haven't measured exactly.
One is a black cleaver like thing with Norse runes inscribed on the blade, the other is a bright silver sword with a very wide blade and a hooked end.
Both are in the 30lb region.

 

[A1]

Nice try. Next time try to make sure you know specifically what it is that you are talking about.

Equilibrium was a film which actually provides your argument with more credence. Pete and I were actually discussing it earlier in this thread.

I misread your comment and assumed you were responding to me saying something to you along those lines, which I had. Pete and I knew what we were talking about, unfortunately you were out of the loop. There've been loads of oblique references to it, including it's star, it's director, and its title several times by both of us.

But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.

With what being subject to interpretation?

Whether or not history agrees with me.

Agrees with you about what?

About the importance of the human factor in combat.

It would appear to, but I don't see why that's relevant here.

It wasn't the importance of the human factor, it was that the human factor is more important than the weapons. That's basically true up to the invention if firearms. Here's the original quote:

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it.

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you.

Anyway, I'm off to bed, g'night everyone.

That's what I was referring to. The human factor being more important than weapons. Maybe weapons did become significantly more important after the invention of firearms but I would still count the human factor as more important. Apparently I didn't make that clear enough in my previous post. But even so whether or not history agrees with me would still seem to be largely subject to interpretation.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.

If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.

I know you probably don't believe me but I really did abandon the original discussion because I came to believe that I was on the wrong track.

Then, I would recommend, acknowledging where your errors are, and articulating how you have revised your opinion. Failing to do so makes you appear passive aggressive.

Your claim that I did so as a way of avoiding the loss of an argument would seem to be little more than something you would like to believe possibly because you wanted to win the argument.

If you don't want to win the argument, then you probably will attempt to avoid it. There are a lot of cues that you can dump into your text that will indicate that, such as weasel words. From an argumentative position they weaken your argument if identified. From a non-confrontational stance, they give you an out.

And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.

As a third party, it really hasn't... well... it is now, because you appear to be whining about how you didn't really loose the argument in spite of having its legs kicked out from under it on (almost literally) every point.

And I am sorry to say but I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to put this altercation to rest and make peace so we could both move on (albeit perhaps I could have done a better job of trying). And what do I get in return? You hit me with accusations.

To be fair, a lot of this is built out of the way you've tried to back out of the conversation. Accurate or not, it has made you come across as petulant as hell. Something which, surprisingly, most people tend to look down upon.

Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?

Not speaking for Pete, but I'm basing my comments not on my secret psychic powers that let me peer into your very soul, but rather, exclusively on your behavior.

This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.

The fact that I was able to persuade Pete on a couple of points should tell you, the willingness was there, it was your ability to capitalize on that, that was lacking.

I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I swear I read that carp... no idea why.

Okay, now you seem to be doing little more than trolling.

Wait. Honestly, if this is your idea of what trolling looks like, you've never seen trolling, nor have you seen a flaming. While I'm not cutting you slack, I gave up on that sometime around the suggestion that people use their clothes to stop bullets. The only post in this chain that could be considered trolling is your response to it.

Oh. I am acquainted with trolling and flaming. Trolling actually has numerous definitions. And one of them is to purposely antagonize people on the internet. My previous post was directed specifically at SlowShootinPete and the reason it's on the forum is because it was a response to one of SlowShootinPete's posts, which was already on the forum. But once again you rudely butted in evidently because you just couldn't resist a chance to take a swipe at me. I realize that you are entitled to do that kind of thing because this is a forum but all the same that is not respectable behavior.

Why not.

That's what I was referring to. The human factor being more important than weapons. Maybe weapons did become significantly more important after the invention of firearms but I would still count the human factor as more important. Apparently I didn't make that clear enough in my previous post. But even so whether or not history agrees with me would still seem to be largely subject to interpretation.

The fact that mass bayonet charges during WWI against trenches fortified with machine guns resulted in horrific casualties on the part of the attacking force is not a matter of interpretation.

Neither is the fact that the crossbow, which is similar in function to a firearm, made it possible for untrained peasants to kill armored knights with ease.

Low-tech versus high-tech makes a very, very big difference.

 

[Nickolai77]

Big Swords- To many people over-sized swords look stylish and quite cool ( Personally i think they look silly) which is think is the simple reason why they appear all over the place in Japanese anime and games and whatnot. As some people have said, yes they are more powerful- the bigger the sword more more weight it has to impact something with. Although, just by looking at many Jap-anime/manga/video game swords- you can tell that they would be hopelessely impractical IRL.

However realisticly, big swords do have more power yes but they are slower and heavier. If your in a tight combat situation, where the enemy is so close you can smell him you won't have enough space to swing your rather large sword, not time to block incoming attacks by shorter-bladed weapons. The Romans used short-sworded weapons such as the gladius because they knew that once the long-sword axe-weilding barbarian horde was pressing against the sheild-wall, all it took was one quick fluid motion and the gladius would be inside the barbarians stomach/armpit/leg. Short-bladed weapons have the advantage in close "tight" combat situations because they are "faster" than big, heavy and long swords. Also a lot lighter, so you don't tire so easily- which gives the short-sword user a big advantage.

On the other hand, long heavy weapons such as axes, long swords and claymores do have a lot of power behind them. Their chopping motion makes them highly effective against un-armoured targets- first stike would usually be fatal. They can also block much more effectlvly than a short-sword user- but the short-sword user can use a shield to compensate for this. It is a lot harder to block a swing from a long sword or axe- chances are the force of impact could make drop your weapon or knock you to the floor. In a more "loose" combat situation, were there is more space to manouver the longer weapon has the advantage due to it's longer reach. So, the effectiveness of the sword is heavily based on what kind of situation your in- rather like firearms today.

 

[Spitfire175]

Japanese anime ain't got nothing on reality.

Meet the Zweihander, or Greatsword! They were used primarily as a weapon to break up pike formations with their massive reach and weight, but found other uses as well. One famous rebel soldier named Pier Gerlofs was renown for the massive sword he wielded, and was said to be capable of beheading multiple enemies in combat with one swing.

Anime 0
History 1

I love looking at this thing. It makes me all happy inside. It makes me all... giggly. I don't know I just like European weapons. I guess there could be a really bad joke to be made here (gender flipping the over compensation jokes) about me being a girl and liking really big swords... But only the real ones.

European weapons = AWESOME!

I just thought of another thing. It may also be an attempt to merge the symbolic strength of large western swords (like the Claymore, or Excalibur) with the Japanese grace of motion and relative ease of swinging a katana or masamune.

Why do you need to combine the two when the western swords+martial arts already do all of it, without the anal ceremonial stuff?

I like you.

Why thank you.

It's usually the people who know absolutely nothing about history, martial arts or weaponry who hype Japanese swords and eastern martial arts. A quick round at The ARMA or HEMAC (I do some of their research) will be an eye opening experience to anyone indoctrinated by anime.

I've seen Guy Windsor fight and I even fought him. Got my arse kicked back into line in 10 seconds or less. Johannes Lichtenauer is an equal, or more to Miyamoto Musashi. Also, the thing called olympic fencing is complete bullcrap and has nothing to do with real swordfighting. I've just received a package from Milan, inside was a 110 cm bastard sword, handcrafted and tested. And I bet even I'd be able to whack any olympic fencers' arse in a real duel with it. (The left hand isn't there for balance! It's there to slap the opponent's blade aside or smack his helmet visor so that he can't see!)

I guess I could write an essay or two explaining just how misguided the public opinion is when it comes to western medieval weapons and fighting, but right now I couldn't be bothered. Ask again later.

Oh, and by the way, that Zweihänder in Dresden? I've held it, swung it and cleaned the blade. Benefits of studying history.

 

[jef91]

without a big sword, Cloud would overbalance and faceplant

 

[Werekettle]

Because of the amount of detail you can add to it

Plus swords of this size are more iconic

Hurrah for Guts!!!!!!

 

[SlowShootinPete]

It's usually the people who know absolutely nothing about history, martial arts or weaponry who hype Japanese swords and eastern martial arts.

I hate the worship that katanas get. They were were fairly crappy swords from what I understand. The craftsmanship was nice, but the iron they had to work with was horribly impure. The blades were folded so many times because the smiths had to even out all the impurities in the metal. They're nothing special.

 

[LitleWaffle]

1.Big swords look nice

2.The few people in JRPGs use them well enough

3.Swords are so much cooler than guns

 

[Infernai]

Because regular swords are for pussies xD

 

[DefunctTheory]

Interesting. But it still doesn't seem to do all that much to counteract the argument that range could still be a gun's only real advantage. It also doesn't address the issue of dodging. And there's always the option of riot shields or some other such form of secondary protection. There's also the possibility of vision impairment via flash bombs, smoke bombs, or some other such means.

I'm not saying that firearms aren't advantageous. Range may only be a single advantage but it does often count for quite a bit. What I'm saying is that they, and handguns in particular, have they're own set of issues that any melee fighter could take full advantage of if they tried. And incidentally it might be just a little bit of a stretch to describe blowing a hole in someone as more damaging than cutting them clean in half.

And your argument seems a bit unbalanced. You may be right on the money concerning the advantages of assault rifles, but to use that alone to speak in more general terms regarding firearms seems to be at least somewhat of a stretch. After all, firearms are not all assault rifles.

I'll use short sentences.

Firearms do more damage. Even decent sized pistol rounds can shatter bones and blow huge holes in people. Many sword get stopped by BONE.

Firearms have increased range.

The slowest 45 ACP travels at 850 feet per second. Stop talking about 'dodging' bullets. You cannot dodge bullets.

Riot shields? You play too much COD. Even the toughest shield will succumb to firearm firepower.

Smoke bombs? Well, the pistol shooter could use HIS smoke bomb to retreat and gain the high ground and more range. Seriously, your giving the melee person in this case smoke bombs, armor, and a riot shield? Why not give him a pistol while your at it.

And what melee weapon IN EXISTENCE can cut a person in half? Please, enlighten me. And I argue that YOUR arguement is biased. You seem to be comparing a pistol to some ninja with smoke bombs, modern armor and a nonexistent body bisector.