Why the big swords anyway?

[SlowShootinPete]

Armor does tend to slow one down but guns also run out of bullets.

I would take a lot of comfort in the fact that I forced my opponent to reload while I'm lying in the dirt bleeding.

And it may not matter all that much if the person wearing it is exceptionally strong.

The added mass will increase your inertia, which will always slow you down and make maneuvering more difficult.

Who's to say that a guy who's a decent marksman and has experience with moving targets would still be able to outmaneuver a guy who's fast and agile, especially if the gun in question is a handgun.

The shooter would be stationary, perhaps down on one knee for better stability, because you don't need to outmaneuver someone who will never reach you. But what makes a sword-wielder inherently more agile than a gun-user, anyway?

But I guess that's all beside the point. We're both bringing up all kinds of hypothetical circumstances. But it would seem that from all of this there is an overarching conclusion. That the result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals. The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants. This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

There's no reason for one of the fighters to just be better than the other one. For the purpose of hypothesis, both possess the same degree of skill at using their weapons. So if they're facing off in a situation where neither has any special advantages over the other, it does come down to which weapon and the tactics in using it gives an inherent advantage. Imagine a Mexican standoff, and one cowboy has just a knife.

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

Unarmed fighting and armed fighting are very different things, though.

 

[Fidelias]

I think it's very hard to imagine big swords ever being widely used in combat by some army for obvious reasons of their considerably larger reach then smaller swords and lack of shield.

And with super human strength, one would be pretty good with any melee weapon as long as it can actually survive the impact of attacking with it with super human strength.

Some kind of super-durable piercing weapon similar to a lance or a spear or a rapier would help focus said super strength into an incredibly powerful blow targeting a tiny area. And said attack would be more controllable because no swings that could potentially hit allies would be required.

Okay...yes, there are better weapons, but that's not the point. It's a FANTASY game. They need to make it seem like these Soldiers are incredibly powerful. Using guns or smaller swords would be more practical, but the soldiers wouldn't seem quite so epic to the audience. Thus, they give them humongous swords that ninety-five percent of the world couldn't even pick up, then show them doing incredible acrobatics with them and slicing them at the speed of light.

I really don't see why everyone makes a big deal out of this.

 

[ward.]

{Search Bar Approved!}

{First actual thread!}

Well I've always wondered and I've decided to ask. What is so attractive about swinging around an excessively and unrealistically large sword?

JRPG's are the staple of the extremely large sword, but I ask, why? Why a large sword, when a small one would probably be less unruly? Why a sword, when guns are available, even revolvers or western guns that seem to be popular in anime.

Not only why the gigantic sword, but why the sword at all?

{This is a bit short, I realize, but I don't really know how to post those nice long ones; I don't really do the forum thing.}

Serious answer to a joke thread incoming.

It's because;
-when many jrpgs were first being made they were done with 2D top down graphics, the only way you could tell the sprite was carrying a sword was if you could see the grey of the blade, due to pixel size this meant the sword was often very large (artists at the time would render the box art after having seen the size of the sprites themselves and go from there).

-practicallity, JRPG heros like cloud don't fight other humans as a rule of thumb, most enemy creatures will be larger, multiple limbed and with a far greater reach then the average sized sword would allow a person to have or "armor" that you'd need a powerful swing to damage.

-many japanese people will have the katana as a reference for swords, as the katana is a hacking weapon that does more damage if it's larger (because of the way it's swung the weight of the blade plays a pivotal role in its effectiveness). Obviously the best sword would have to be a large one.


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.

 

[A1]

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.

Pistols are very good weapons for close-range self-defense. They're small and light, which makes them easier to bring to bear than a long gun, and at melee range all you have to do is point and fire. If you've got your pistol out in a ready position, it may even be faster than a blade.

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat. Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen. In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

Unless of course the sword fighter would be able to read the gunfighter's body language and accurately anticipate the trajectory of the trajectory of the bullets, which is of course perfectly possible. And no matter how you look at it. Limited ammunition will always be a concern.

But of course as I indicated earlier this all would seem to be beside the point. I'm going to repeat myself. As I mention in my previous post:

We're both bringing up all kinds of hypothetical circumstances. But it would seem that from all of this there is an overarching conclusion. That the result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals. The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants. This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

You can start comparing weapons directly only after the equality of the individual combatants has already been established. And even then I'd say it still depends more on the individuals.

 

[Redemption003]

Because, as we all know, manliness is in direct proportion to largliness.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Spoiler

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.

Pistols are very good weapons for close-range self-defense. They're small and light, which makes them easier to bring to bear than a long gun, and at melee range all you have to do is point and fire. If you've got your pistol out in a ready position, it may even be faster than a blade.

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat. Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen. In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

Unless of course the sword fighter would be able to read the gunfighter's body language and accurately anticipate the trajectory of the trajectory of the bullets, which is of course perfectly possible.

Perhaps for Christian Bale. You may be able to get a general idea of where the person with the gun will aim and try to move so their aim is thrown off, but they can do the same when you swing at them, and pointing a small object that weighs maybe a pound is much easier than swinging a large object that weighs upwards of four. You don't have to wind up with a pistol to put force behind the attack.

And no matter how you look at it. Limited ammunition will always be a concern.

Surviving long enough for the ammo to run out is the more important concern.

You can start comparing weapons directly only after the equality of the individual combatants has already been established. And even then I'd say it still depends more on the individuals.

Which is why, because this is a discussion of sword vs. gun effectiveness, the variables of combatant skill are equal, so that the only factor is the weapon itself.

 

[Double A]

I'm guessing crowd-control would be the practical reason, but "bigger is better" being the actual reason.

Because if you have a big sword, make the character have ridiculous spiked hair, and give them and amazing outfit you KNOW its gonna be cool./sarcasm

Actually, Trunks' sword is a pretty realistic size. Not like you need a sword when you can shoot energy out of your hands, but my point still stands.

 

[A1]

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

Your standard assault rifle produces more damage than almost any melee weapon, can bust through any reasonable personal body armor in 1-3 shots, and can be used at over 150 times the range of melee weapons.

And honestly, when ammo is smaller than your pinky, its not a big deal.

Firearms > Melee in all but the most slanted circumstances.

Just saying.

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 hate to bust into someone else's argument, but all of your examples of disadvantages regarding firearms also apply to melee weapons in a very similar way. Dodging melee attacks is always a possibility, and it's obviously easier then dodging a bullet - even the fastest swing, with a sword or not, will be much slower then a bullet. Dodging bullets is not the same as dodging a blow. One can reasonably dodge an overhead sword slash or some similar attack, but in similar circumstances the bullet will almost always hit unless you're in some kind of Hollywood movie. Using cover or trying to move in confusing ways so the shooter's aim can't keep up are the only realistic ways to "dodge" a bullet.

Riot shields can also be used against a sword. Even an average shield. Hell, even one's hands - there are plenty of martial arts techniques that could block certain swings rather easily.

And vision impairment obviously enough would affect melee combat as well, if not in the same degree. Especially if you consider that people probably wouldn't be fighting toe to toe and try to use said advantage of low visibility.

And yes, blowing a hole in something is generally deadly enough. Cutting someone in half would require a lot more effort then it might seem, and it will only be truly lethal if it hits the body - limbs might only hamper the opponent, although then again, without any medical help someone's gonna bleed out from a lost limb pretty quickly.

Piercing the body, with projectile or melee weapon, generally has a good chance of hitting some important organ. And that if we ignore obvious things like headshots. Just shots to the body or limbs would do considerable damage and can cause mortal wounds if not treated even if it doesn't hit any vital organs. And if you consider explosive ammunition and other special types of ammo created for various effects, I'd say blowing a hole in someone is just about as deadly as slicing them in half.

And in that sense, a gun could be used to simply incapacitate the target for capture, while a sword would be pretty ineffective for that, unless used as a diplomatic aid. But so can be guns...

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

A bullet will almost always hit? That sounds an awful lot like Hollywood to me. I believe I've already pointed out that marksmanship, particularly with handguns, is nowhere near as easy as Entertainment media may lead one to believe. But needless to say that dodging a bullet in real life is totally different from dodging a melee attack. One would have to make the move before the combatant pulls the trigger and one would have to anticipate the trajectory of the bullet judging from the position, body language, and/or general behavior of the shooter. Not particularly easy by any means but perfectly within the realm of possibility. But enough about that.

It would seem that most, if not all, of what we have been saying is primarily theoretically and/or hypothetical in nature. But as it has more recently occurred to me all of it seems to be largely beside the point. I'll repeat something I said in one of my previous posts.


The result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals. The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants. This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

You can start comparing weapons directly only after the equality of the individual combatants has already been established. And even then I'd say it still depends more on the individuals.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

A bullet will almost always hit?

If it's pointed at you, yes. I believe that's what he meant by similar circumstances: without dodging, the sword will hit; without dodging, the bullet will hit. You can dodge the sword, but it's unlikely you can dodge the bullet.

 

[Spitfire175]

I believe the logic is that big swords do more damage, and look a lot more retarded.

Fixed that for you.

The big swords are ridiculous and serve no purpose. Other than making anime fans wet their pants.

 

[Starke]

I'm not saying that firearms aren't advantageous.

History bears you out here. The first military usage of firearms recorded involved a force of three hundred in a forced march across a desert, at the end of which they assaulted and successfully conquered an entrenched fortress with a garrison of several thousand.

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.

As someone who has quite a bit of hand to hand training, and has had a handgun shoved in their ear, I believe I can authoritatively state: HAH!

Pistols are very good weapons for close-range self-defense. They're small and light, which makes them easier to bring to bear than a long gun, and at melee range all you have to do is point and fire.

A handgun is the dagger to a rifle's sword. In that context the more agile weapon will always have an advantage. Putting a bullet where you want it however involves quite a bit more than simply point and click.

If you've got your pistol out in a ready position, it may even be faster than a blade.

I have yet to see a blade break the sound barrier.

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat.

You seem to be failing to grasp a fundamental concept here. Using a blade requires a certain degree of proficiency. While using a handgun, really to an extent does not. You can train someone to operate a handgun effectively in about a half hour. To learn how to use a sword effectively, regardless what Eragon may have taught you, takes at least three weeks of intense training. To master either takes years, but the pistol, as a weapon, is easier to train on, and easier to employ.

For a witty snip "if the sword-fighter isn't skilled enough to be a serious threat then why am I worrying at all?"

Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen.

As an editorial critique, "champion" may be a poor word choice here. What kind of champion? Champion implies some kind of competition, for swordsmanship, in the modern era, flash and style are more important than efficacy in competition. "Master" is probably the word you should have used. "Swordmaster" is even sometimes accepted as a legitimate compound word, though, not by my spellchecker. Not a dig, just a suggestion for the future.

In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

The number you're looking for is two meters (with some play). Inside of that range and the gunslinger is pretty well fucked.

Unless of course the sword fighter would be able to read the gunfighter's body language and accurately anticipate the trajectory of the trajectory of the bullets, which is of course perfectly possible.

In the Matrix. (...and films directed by Kurt Wimmer.)

And no matter how you look at it. Limited ammunition will always be a concern.

Though, surprisingly frequently, irrelevant in one on one combat.

But of course as I indicated earlier this all would seem to be beside the point. I'm going to repeat myself. As I mention in my previous post:

We're both bringing up all kinds of hypothetical circumstances.

Yay hypothetical situations.

But it would seem that from all of this there is an overarching conclusion. That the result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals.

And if the swordsman had a gun.

The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants.

Which are rendered basically irrelevant by the introduction of a firearm.

This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

Because, as we all know, swords have an effective range of 50 meters and can easily break the sound barrier... wait...

You can start comparing weapons directly only after the equality of the individual combatants has already been established. And even then I'd say it still depends more on the individuals.

The one kind caveat I will give you (and I gave Pete) is this. If an individual armed with a firearm, who does not have it ready is ambushed by ...well, anyone with melee training of any kind (weapon or no), within two meters, the chances of him being able to bring his weapon to bear in time is exceedingly slim. And in the case of modern combat training, attempting to draw at this range is discouraged.

 

[A1]

Spoiler

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.

Pistols are very good weapons for close-range self-defense. They're small and light, which makes them easier to bring to bear than a long gun, and at melee range all you have to do is point and fire. If you've got your pistol out in a ready position, it may even be faster than a blade.

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat. Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen. In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

Unless of course the sword fighter would be able to read the gunfighter's body language and accurately anticipate the trajectory of the trajectory of the bullets, which is of course perfectly possible.

Perhaps for Christian Bale. You may be able to get a general idea of where the person with the gun will aim and try to move so their aim is thrown off, but they can do the same when you swing at them, and pointing a small object that weighs maybe a pound is much easier than swinging a large object that weighs upwards of four. You don't have to wind up with a pistol to put force behind the attack.

And no matter how you look at it. Limited ammunition will always be a concern.

Surviving long enough for the ammo to run out is the more important concern.

You can start comparing weapons directly only after the equality of the individual combatants has already been established. And even then I'd say it still depends more on the individuals.

Which is why, because this is a discussion of sword vs. gun effectiveness, the variables of combatant skill are equal, so that the only factor is the weapon itself.

There is such thing as body language and there is such a thing as people who can read it. One would also be able to anticipate the trajectory of a bullet by taking additional factors into account such as the position and general behavior of the shooter. And now you seem to be starting to venture into hypothetical territory again. I am becoming convinced that this is pointless but it's too easy to get deadlocked and it's still largely beside the point.

And I'm not so sure if there really is much of a point to this debate because even if the variables of combat skill are equal that wouldn't make them any less relevant. It would seem that all that would mean is that the outcome of the fight would be that much harder to predict. This is of course assuming that the one doing the prediction is unbiased.

 

[Spitfire175]

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?

 

[WhoaItsBrett]

Why a big sword?
So you feel badass, and look cool.
Best explanation I've got.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat.

You seem to be failing to grasp a fundamental concept here. Using a blade requires a certain degree of proficiency. While using a handgun, really to an extent does not. You can train someone to operate a handgun effectively in about a half hour. To learn how to use a sword effectively, regardless what Eragon may have taught you, takes at least three weeks of intense training. To master either takes years, but the pistol, as a weapon, is easier to train on, and easier to employ.

For a witty snip "if the sword-fighter isn't skilled enough to be a serious threat then why am I worrying at all?"

Essentially, the person who trains years with the sword is as effective in using their weapon as a person who trains for weeks with a pistol is at using theirs.

Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen.

As an editorial critique, "champion" may be a poor word choice here. What kind of champion? Champion implies some kind of competition, for swordsmanship, in the modern era, flash and style are more important than efficacy in competition. "Master" is probably the word you should have used. "Swordmaster" is even sometimes accepted as a legitimate compound word, though, not by my spellchecker. Not a dig, just a suggestion for the future.

True. I was going for "really awesome" basically.

In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

The number you're looking for is two meters (with some play). Inside of that range and the gunslinger is pretty well fucked.

Yes.

The one kind caveat I will give you (and I gave Pete) is this. If an individual armed with a firearm, who does not have it ready is ambushed by ...well, anyone with melee training of any kind (weapon or no), within two meters, the chances of him being able to bring his weapon to bare in time is exceedingly slim. And in the case of modern combat training, attempting to draw at this range is discouraged.

This. The ambusher will win. The thing is that the swordfighter will need to ambush to win.

 

[Fightgarr]

There are two reasons, I believe, for the prevalence of the giant sword in Japanese RPGs and anime and they are heavily interlinked.
Reason number one is that art direction is incredibly important to the Japanese. Characters need to have an appearance where every piece of clothing and equipment goes towards a single effect. Would Cloud's character design be as interesting with a normal-sized two-handed sword? Much less so. The sword works to create the single effect of Cloud. To go into it further, what does it do specifically? Well firstly it tells is that the character is larger than life, powerful beyond human limits to wield a blade of such proportions. The sword also functions as a massive burden to him, representative of the emotional baggage he carries around. You may think I'm pulling this out of my ass, but a lot of this stuff goes into character design.

Reason number two, which is incredibly closely tied with reason number one is that Japanese video games and anime are very over-the-top. Be that in their dialogue, or their physics-defying action sequences, they're done to be purposefully ridiculous as a part of their art direction. The massive swords are an extension of this.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

There is such thing as body language and there is such a thing as people who can read it. One would also be able to anticipate the trajectory of a bullet by taking additional factors into account such as the position and general behavior of the shooter.

You're talking about Equilibrium again. Guessing where a gun will be pointed, yes, but calculating bullet trajectory would require a graphing calculator.

And now you seem to be starting to venture into hypothetical territory again.

Well, yeah. This is all hypothetical.

And I'm not so sure if there really is much of a point to this debate because even if the variables of combat skill are equal that wouldn't make them any less relevant. It would seem that all that would mean is that the outcome of the fight would be that much harder to predict. This is of course assuming that the one doing the prediction is unbiased.

Actually, no, it would make predicting very easy, because the outcome of the fight would be determined by the one thing that the test is meant to show: which weapon is better. That is the only relevant variable.

 

[Starke]

There is such thing as body language and there is such a thing as people who can read it.

There is also such a thing as a gun. And a gunman, and the body language of a gunman isn't something that provides useful information to the person receiving a bullet.

One would also be able to anticipate the trajectory of a bullet by taking additional factors into account such as the position and general behavior of the shooter.

Because as we all know, applying two pounds of pressure with your index finger is every bit as visible as someone swinging a sword... wait...

And now you seem to be starting to venture into hypothetical territory again. I am becoming convinced that this is pointless but it's too easy to get deadlocked and it's still largely beside the point.

Pete, for the most part isn't... well... you both are, you're luring the conversation into territory where, you believe the situation provides an equal footing. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

And I'm not so sure if there really is much of a point to this debate because even if the variables of combat skill are equal that wouldn't make them any less relevant.

Debate implies a range of opinions and the ability to move the other participants based on logic. While Pete has made some errors, particularly in following your rabbit tracks. He's offering you some reasonable information.

It would seem that all that would mean is that the outcome of the fight would be that much harder to predict. This is of course assuming that the one doing the prediction is unbiased.

Again, unless there are very specific situational criteria, the advantage will go to the gunman every time.

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?

FOR SCIENCE!?

Yeah, that's all I've got. Still, you're making good points, and it doesn't sit well with me just snarking you and running.

 

[nightwolf667]

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.

 

[A1]

Armor does tend to slow one down but guns also run out of bullets.

I would take a lot of comfort in the fact that I forced my opponent to reload while I'm lying in the dirt bleeding.

And it may not matter all that much if the person wearing it is exceptionally strong.

The added mass will increase your inertia, which will always slow you down and make maneuvering more difficult.

Who's to say that a guy who's a decent marksman and has experience with moving targets would still be able to outmaneuver a guy who's fast and agile, especially if the gun in question is a handgun.

The shooter would be stationary, perhaps down on one knee for better stability, because you don't need to outmaneuver someone who will never reach you. But what makes a sword-wielder inherently more agile than a gun-user, anyway?

But I guess that's all beside the point. We're both bringing up all kinds of hypothetical circumstances. But it would seem that from all of this there is an overarching conclusion. That the result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals. The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants. This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

There's no reason for one of the fighters to just be better than the other one. For the purpose of hypothesis, both possess the same degree of skill at using their weapons. So if they're facing off in a situation where neither has any special advantages over the other, it does come down to which weapon and the tactics in using it gives an inherent advantage. Imagine a Mexican standoff, and one cowboy has just a knife.

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

Unarmed fighting and armed fighting are very different things, though.

I never said anything about a sword fighter being inherently more agile than a gunfighter. But by that same token why would a gunfighter be inherently more agile than a sword fighter? That wouldn't be true either.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic. And no matter what the situation there is always the factor of human ingenuity and creativity, which would always provide an X-factor that could determine the outcome of a fight regardless of what weapons are in play.