Why the big swords anyway?

[Spitfire175]

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.

THANK YOU.

A katana isn't a bad weapon. It's just very specialised and fit for a narrow field. Cutting an unarmoured target, by slicing, was easy enough. Against anything wearing metal protection, a samurai would have used another weapon. In battles warriors fight with group formation compatible weapons, for example in Japan, the naginata, or in the west, a billhook or a voulge.

But the qualities of a katana are hyped beyond repair. The reason the Japanese swordsmiths worked for a month forging just one blade was indeed the legendarily crude ore available. In the west, where swordsmiths were just as skilled or even better, an Italian master could forge a longsword technically equal to a katana in a week or so. But the best swords ever forged took indeed a month or more to make. No, they were not made in Okinawa, they were made either in Milan or München. Possibly out of Spanish steel form Toledo, which is about three times as hard and resilient as Japanese steel. The European longsword was forged to be light, sharp, deadly and tough. And indeed they were. The similar technique of forging a flexible iron core and diamond hard steel edges resulted in swords of much greater resilience and cutting power than a katana. Contrary to popular belief, one does not parry with the edge of the balde, but with the flat of it. Otherwise the edge is as good as ruined. The shape of a katana, the curve, can be used against it when parrying.

But in the end it's not the stick that matters, but how you use it. Here anime fans and nipponophiles scream loud and claim Japan is superior and that western fighting is only based on brute force. At this point those with any insight to the matter initiate operation facepalm. I suppose you know what a tameshigiri is. The same trick of slicing a tatami into small bits is easy with a katana, but IMO, easier with a bastard sword. The mechanics of cutting should be familiar to anyone with basic knowledge of physics.

In a fight between a Tokugawa era -samurai and a 15th century knight from Germany, the knight would hold the advantages of a better sword, better armour and deadlier martial arts with a sword. I'd put my money on Fritz.

 

[Sebenko]

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.

Agreed. No-one can dodge bullets. NO-ONE. If they could, all our soldiers would be equipped with knives and t-shirts, not assault rifles and body armour.

Also, as for why they have such big swords: The game developers never held a sword before.

And, as an aside, a katana cannot stop bullets, and in fact wasn't even that good. Japanese iron is shit. The reason they were all master crafted was because that was the only way to get a functional sword out of them. Also made them sodding expensive, so it was a weapon of the rich, to a far greater extend than in Europe.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

In a fight between a Tokugawa era -samurai and a 15th century knight from Germany, the knight would hold the advantages of a better sword, better armour and deadlier martial arts with a sword. I'd put my money on Fritz.

Feudal Japanese armor was usually made of lacquered horn or bone, wasn't it? Terrible.

 

[RivFader86]

Because bosses usually have unessecary large heads....so you need unessecary large swords to lob em off....duuuh

 

[Eat Uranium]

Edit: On that note, swords are very effective on the battle field, specificly bayonets are quite vicious.
The only reason they aren't used now is because they're banned by the geniva (spl?) convention and you can't get one on front of an AK47 without throwing off the weight.

Bayonets are not banned by any conventions (to the best of my knowledge). But their usage is rather limited these days.

However, if you want a gun you can use a boyonet on, try a Mosin - these were zeroed with their spike bayonets fixed, so balance wasn't an issue.

 

[youngj]

Honestly it seems like a marketing ploy. Japanese developers feel big, or outrageous weapons will appeal to European and American audiences more than exceptionally well rendered histroically accurate weapons with realistic stats and effects. It harkens back to the dark ages in Europe where, yes, weapons were larger, but not airplane wing sized. They do the same thing with western themes to appeal to American audiences. Case in point Red Steel 2 or any other game with a token westerner wearing a cowboy hat (bushido blade, onimusha 4) or leisure suit (bushido blade 2, alternate costumes in RE series).

 

[Spitfire175]

In a fight between a Tokugawa era -samurai and a 15th century knight from Germany, the knight would hold the advantages of a better sword, better armour and deadlier martial arts with a sword. I'd put my money on Fritz.

Feudal Japanese armor was usually made of lacquered horn or bone, wasn't it? Terrible.

Quite right, although metal was also used. However the Japanese armour was not a plate mail and quite easily punctured. It did resist slicing to some degree, but doesn't even come close to the protection a Gothic full plate mail offers, which is practically the best personal defence humans have ever created.

 

[Eggsnham]

Because people like big swords. Simple as that.

 

[Dott]

Because the guy with the spikiest and most fucked up hair, wielding the most laughably and unreasonably oversized sword which is least realistic in every way is always the guy who wins.

^ That shit > This shit V in games like Final Fantasy

Owning a ranged weapon is sufficient to kill things that threaten you.

 

[A1]

Because the guy with the spikiest and most fucked up hair, wielding the most laughably and unreasonably oversized sword which is least realistic in every way is always the guy who wins.

^ That shit > This shit V in games like Final Fantasy

Owning a ranged weapon is sufficient to kill things that threaten you.

Leasy

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.

I never said that it didn't make a difference. But history is a big thing and firearms have not been around for very long comparatively speaking.

 

[A1]

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.

Agreed. No-one can dodge bullets. NO-ONE. If they could, all our soldiers would be equipped with knives and t-shirts, not assault rifles and body armour.

Also, as for why they have such big swords: The game developers never held a sword before.

And, as an aside, a katana cannot stop bullets, and in fact wasn't even that good. Japanese iron is shit. The reason they were all master crafted was because that was the only way to get a functional sword out of them. Also made them sodding expensive, so it was a weapon of the rich, to a far greater extend than in Europe.

Dodging a bullet is very different from dodging a melee attack to be sure. But it can be done. The difference is that in order to dodge a bullet the move generally has to be made before the bullet is fired.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Dodging a bullet is very different from dodging a melee attack to be sure. But it can be done. The difference is that in order to dodge a bullet the move generally has to be made before the bullet is fired.

Than your not dodging a bullet, you are predicting enemy attacks, which is something entirely different. And because a person firing a weapon will be firing center mass and leading his target, it will most likely fail.

It only takes a millimeter or two at decent ranges to adjust fire. Guess which is quicker: adjusting aim or anticipating an attack and moving?

 

[SlowShootinPete]

I never said that it didn't make a difference. But history is a big thing and firearms have not been around for very long comparatively speaking.

What does the scope of history have to do with it? When guns came around, everything changed in a very short period. If that's not influential I don't know what is.

 

[chenry]

It's cool?

 

[Reolus]

Oh wait, I was wrong - here comes the weapon nerd rage

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Freud can explain.

/thread.

 

[A1]

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.

Admittedly the practical application of Samurai Swords were limited. Samurai more often used other weapons like spears and longbows in battle. But in any case swords were generally viewed as important symbols. And Japanese Swords were widely considered in Ancient times and still to this day to be works of art.

 

[A1]

Because the guy with the spikiest and most fucked up hair, wielding the most laughably and unreasonably oversized sword which is least realistic in every way is always the guy who wins.

^ That shit > This shit V in games like Final Fantasy

Owning a ranged weapon is sufficient to kill things that threaten you.

Unrealistic? Not quite. There did once exist a special kind of sword that had an exceptionally large blade. It was primarily intended for use against mounted soldiers. It was called Zanbato.

 

[A1]

In a fight between a Tokugawa era -samurai and a 15th century knight from Germany, the knight would hold the advantages of a better sword, better armour and deadlier martial arts with a sword. I'd put my money on Fritz.

Feudal Japanese armor was usually made of lacquered horn or bone, wasn't it? Terrible.

Quite right, although metal was also used. However the Japanese armour was not a plate mail and quite easily punctured. It did resist slicing to some degree, but doesn't even come close to the protection a Gothic full plate mail offers, which is practically the best personal defence humans have ever created.

If I'm not mistaken there were also suits of Samurai Armor that consisted of several layers of thick leather with the helmet being made of metal.

In general it would seem that Japanese armor and weaponry put more emphasis on mobility and maneuverability as opposed to the raw strength of European armor and weaponry.