Why the big swords anyway?

[Auric]

Imo bigger looks better

Though, when it gets excessive...

 

[Lexodus]

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...

Generic sex-based commentary!

 

[Starke]

He was talking to someone else?

Unless you're also Billion Backs, yes.

I've double checked this and I think that you are mistaken on that point.

Stranger things have happened.

And even if he was it was a genuine mistake on my part, as opposed to it being intentional. Which brings me to my next point.

Now you're being rude.

My god, I think you may be right.

I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark.

Yeah, see the "that kind of thing" remark? Yeah, I wasn't chewing on you, or even being rude, I'm so sorry you mistook editorial criticism of your writing style and an offer of how to improve it for an insult. I can see how the two are very similar... no... actually I can't. But, anyway.

Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

I'd think about it, but, you know, no offense, no. This is a discussion board. You know, multiple participants, all contributing. Have you received a disproportionate amount of criticism? Yes. But, only in relation to the number of logical and or factual errors in your posts.

Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

Aw. But, the drones need you, they look up to you.

I guess I can assume that to mean that you've essentially given up on being taken seriously.

Well, you can assume whatever you want. It doesn't make it fact. If you can't take a quote from Alpha Centauri, well, there you go. If you didn't recognize it as a quote, well, now you know.

But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.

 

[A1]

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

It's not polite to butt in to other peoples discussions, which he did. It doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was. It still doesn't excuse him.

Why isn't he allowed to get involved? Debate is an open process.

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

He wasn't being rude, he was saying that you didn't define your terms to his satisfaction.

And who ever said there had to be reason? That kind of thing is perfectly realistic...

It's not polite to butt in to other peoples discussions, which he did. It doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was. It still doesn't excuse him.

Why isn't he allowed to get involved? Debate is an open process.

I never said that he wasn't allowed. Of course he's allowed to be rude (within certain limits) if he feels like it. But at the same time he would be unwise to expect any given person to appreciate it.

 

[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...

Generic sex-based commentary!

Strange innuendo. Respond?

 

[A1]

He was talking to someone else? I've double checked this and I think that you are mistaken on that point. And even if he was it was a genuine mistake on my part, as opposed to it being intentional. Which brings me to my next point.

Now you're being rude. I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark. Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

Okay, now I feel like butting in.

A1 you realize you're on a forum board right? You're putting out your conversation in front of the whole world to see and to judge... I'm pretty sure that when you want a private conversation you go to the messages, otherwise you have no reason to complain.

Also, I know from first hand experience how easy it is to use a gun. My boyfriend took me to a shooting range a few months ago, first time really working with one and I hit the bulls eye, more than once. Swords are big, they are shiny and metal and in some cases very heavy, from a practical standpoint it's a lot harder to launch a sneak attack with one, which ends up being what you need against someone with a fire arm. You're right that's it's not just a point and click but the learning curve is incredibly fast. Would I be good using a gun in a combat situation? Probably not, but I only practiced for an hour.

Now, I'm a third degree black belt in a mixed martial art and have been practicing since I was five and am fairly (but not completely confident) in my hand to hand combat skills. I can tell you with certainty that I would MUCH rather have a gun in hand when facing an opponent than any other weapon. Why? Because it's versatile and it's easy to use. That's why it wins.

I'm not complaining. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.

The thing is, Equilibrium presents the maximum support that reading an opponent's body language produces the maximum effect when dodging, thus ensuring maximum survivability, and as such the film lends maximum persuasiveness to the maximum advantages of swords over firearms.

I'm not complaining. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

It's very unfortunate that you feel that way.

 

[Starke]

I'm not complaining. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

Then you may need to see the optometrist again.

 

[nightwolf667]

I'm not complaining. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

It sure sounds like you're complaining and now you're just making yourself an easy target.

EDIT: As clearly shown by the above. >.>

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

Because of the amount of detail you can add to it

Plus swords of this size are more iconic

Funny p[art is that when you put Guts in that picture, he's really the only anime guy that can make sense out of big swords. Mostly it shows raw power from the guy who wields it. For Cloud, it means power despite the fact that he's tiny. THough rather unrealistic in my opinion >.>

Guts was built to carry a sword like that. He trained to wield something of that power. Plus it doesn't help that every time you see him do things, you can tell he's unnatural, even from the day he's born >.>

 

[Yokai]

Japanese anime ain't got nothing on reality.

Spoiler

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

ZVAIHANDAAAAH!
I'm sorry, when ever I see a zweihander I must scream its name in a heavy German accent. They are, without doubt, one of the most awesome tools of destruction history has provided us with. It is only appropriate that their wielders dressed in medieval pimp suits [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg] and had epic mustaches.

 

[e2density]

Wimpy evil guy = Wimpy evil sword

Brave hero guy = Brave hero sword

Get it?

 

[Smookyolo]

Because these swords are used in fantasy worlds.

Have you /seen/ how fast characters swing around swords of this seemingly unrealistic size? these are not normal humans, they jump great distances and block bullets with swords.

...

Fantasy worlds have different physics than our world.

 

[Starke]

But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.

The thing is, Equilibrium presents the maximum support that reading an opponent's body language produces the maximum effect when dodging, thus ensuring maximum survivability, and thus lends maximum persuasiveness to the maximum advantages of swords of firearms.

The rest of this post comes with one major caveat, I've never watched Equilibrium all the way through. It's always been either starting when I needed to leave to do something, or just ending when I turned on the TV.

The problem is, Equilibrium actually exceeds human limits. Snarfing off of TV Tropes for a moment, the Gun Kata parrying scene would leave both combatants with shattered eardrums and permanently deaf. On top of it only works so long as neither combatant executes a snapshot. By the nature of the skill, snapshots are something I would expect people with this kind of proficiency to be quite skilled at.

There's some other serious issues, but basically, it comes down to this, bullets are inherently chaotic. Bullets do all sorts of weird shit that no one can figure out. In something like the evasion techniques (well, the ones I've seen) from Equilibrium, they just aren't possible, or offer no real advantage without some kind of superpower that allows you to precisely predict the bullet's flight paths.

Its brilliant visual art (again, what I've seen), but its relationship to reality is minimal.

 

[A1]

That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous. I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

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. I guess I forgot that. It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

... What the hell even started this. Hang on.

Spoiler

There is also the issue of ammo, which sword wielders generally don't have to worry about. And in general with guns there are more factors to consider that can greatly effect the results of using a gun. In this sense a sword would be at least somewhat more reliable. It's probably also worth noting that Obi Wan Kenobi dismissed blasters as clumsy and random.

Swords aren't very reliable when you're shot before getting close enough to use it on someone.

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.

This began purely as a discussion of the advantages of guns and swords.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it. Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

I have made my mind up, yes, but I come into discussions willing to be persuaded. Your arguments aren't very convincing.

Yes I guess the discussion did start out that way. But at one point it occurred to me that the most important factor in any battle is the human factor. Or in other words it's not the weapon, it's the person using it. But I guess this in turn largely derailed the original discussion largely by rendering it moot. Or at the very least going a long way toward that effect. When that happened it would seem that we essentially started to speak in different languages. I guess this is yet another reason to discontinue the discussion.

And so you say that you come into discussions willing to be persuaded. Sorry, but I don't think I believe you, at least not with regard to this particular discussion. It could just be my imagination but I've been getting a certain stubborn vibe from you. No offensive intended of course. But anyway if you haven't been convinced then it's possible that it's because, as I mentioned before, we at one point essentially stopped speaking the same language.

 

[A1]

He was talking to someone else?

Unless you're also Billion Backs, yes.

I've double checked this and I think that you are mistaken on that point.

Stranger things have happened.

And even if he was it was a genuine mistake on my part, as opposed to it being intentional. Which brings me to my next point.

Now you're being rude.

My god, I think you may be right.

I wasn't talking to you with that "that kind of thing" remark.

Yeah, see the "that kind of thing" remark? Yeah, I wasn't chewing on you, or even being rude, I'm so sorry you mistook editorial criticism of your writing style and an offer of how to improve it for an insult. I can see how the two are very similar... no... actually I can't. But, anyway.

Could you please stick to your own conversations instead of butting into those of others?

I'd think about it, but, you know, no offense, no. This is a discussion board. You know, multiple participants, all contributing. Have you received a disproportionate amount of criticism? Yes. But, only in relation to the number of logical and or factual errors in your posts.

Therefore there's really no point in continuing.

Aw. But, the drones need you, they look up to you.

I guess I can assume that to mean that you've essentially given up on being taken seriously.

Well, you can assume whatever you want. It doesn't make it fact. If you can't take a quote from Alpha Centauri, well, there you go. If you didn't recognize it as a quote, well, now you know.

But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.

I'm not dictating anything. But apology accepted nevertheless.

 

[mangus]

It's easier to follow the movements of a larger object in fancy sequences.

Also science has proven it's easier to install magic on swords.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think it has something to do with making the character look both badass and less unruly, as opposed to their gun-toting counterparts.

Its sets the precedent that they don't need the use of crude weapons to get stuff done.

A very large sword IS a crude weapon.

If we ignore for a moment the difficulty of wielding an oversized blade, consider for a moment why a particular blade design occurs.

When a weapon is designed for a thrust, you generally find the blade itself is built with a bit of flexibility in the design and generally the result often resembles a triangle or a square on a cross section (versus a rectangle). The reason is simple - the narrower the blade the easier it is to maneuver precisely. Since you rely on pressure applied to a point to do damage the inherent mass is less important than flexiblity of the blade itself (you do not want it to snap if it makes contact with something that doesn't readily give way to the point).

When a weapon is designed for a cut, you quickly run into a cycle. The heavier the blade the more energy there is in a swing at a given speed. Once a blade goes beyond a certain mass, swing speed is reduced and thus you enter a battle of depreciating returns where adding mass confers less and less of an advantage. Against a man without the benefit of heavy armor, simple mass applied along a narrow line is sufficient to cause grievous injury - indeed it takes little of either to part flesh and bone. Thus you quickly find another oddity - the less one relies on armor for protection, the less mass a sword ought to have. It is the presence of heavy armor that requires a heavy blade. Once cannot hope to cut quality steel and simply battering away at such a surface requires a tremendous amount of material to withstand repeated impacts. You find that this results in a conundrum - as armor quality increases, the mass of an effective weapon that uses brute force to bypass the defense increases and you quickly run into the diminishing return problem. Eventually you arrive at a level of armor where simple chopping actions are inefficient and a better application of much lower amounts of force are required. The arrow that pierces plate armor for example does not penetrate by virtue of having fantastic energy at it's disposal - it does so by virtue of applying a (relatively) small amount of energy to a very small space.

If you remove armor from the equation for any reason, the mass of the sword rapidly becomes a liability. Moving a few pounds of steel about in an attempt to slice open another man is more physically demanding than it looks, and without armor one is forced to use some other implement for protection. If this is an item held in the unarmed hand, the unfortuante result is one must commit to either an offensive action or a defensive one, and even weapons that people consider "light" (say a rapier) falls into this category. Rapid transitions of blade point to very specific locations are difficult as linear and rotational inertia increase. While a rapier is fairly light (about 5 lbs for an accurate representation), it's overall length (in excess of 50") means that maneuvers at the point take awhile (that rotational inertia thing). Since it is movement at the point (and sometimes the point with respect to the grip - i.e. rotation) is important for defense as well as offense the result is a weapon that demands commitment to offense or defense as it can only do one at a time. Moreover, it requires the combatant to correctly predict the best action to take at the moment because once one commits, altering the course will take an inordinate amount of time. In the real world, weapons overcame this by becoming ever shorter and lighter, eventually resulting in weapons with blade lengths well under 40" and total mass less than 3 lbs.

So, what of a weapon that is so massive that it requires two hands to hold? Assuming the user has sufficient strength to effectively maneuver such a weapon the same problems will arise - they must commit to a fully offensive or fully defensive action because the weapon will ultimately inhibit one's ability to transition between the two. By sheer size alone you dictate a preference for offense and the principle of inertia ensures you will not deliver complex attacks designed to confuse and misdirect and instead rely on pure force to smash through a defense. In short, the result is a weapon that relies on brute force because all pretense of sublety is lost by virtue of design.

That said, the oversized sword does imply quite a bit about a character. If it used in a world where firearms are common the sword implies a the character is concerned with the concepts of honor and fair play. It implies the user has an inordinate amount of skill as centuries of conflict have proven the inferiority of the sword in virtually all common combat scenarios. It demonstrates strength because simply properly holding a weapon that could easily weigh in excess of 100lbs in a proper fighting stance would be all but impossible for the strongest man. The size of the weapon implies it is incredibly powerful when it lands. The totality of these improbabilites results in a scenario where people can do something that is logically impossible (say cleanly slicing through an object of much greater depth than the sword's length) and it can be seen as plausible.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

It seems that the larger swords are more attractive to all the wierdos who follw JRPG's religiously. My two cents.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

Yes I guess the discussion did start out that way. But at one point it occurred to me that the most important factor in any battle is the human factor.

The point where you realized your argument was going to lose.

But I guess this in turn largely derailed the original discussion largely by rendering it moot.

No, it did not. The original discussion was not settled, you tried to use a completely different argument to achieve the same purpose.

If the most important factor is skill, why are you so determined to prove that a sword-fighter can dodge bullets point-blank? They could also be a completely uncoordinated buffoon, while the gun user could be an SAS operator. Or they might both be equally terrible fighters. Saying that skill is the deciding factor proves nothing.

I guess this is yet another reason to discontinue the discussion.

Sound the retreat!

And so you say that you come into discussions willing to be persuaded. Sorry, but I don't think I believe you, at least not with regard to this particular discussion.

I am okay with this.

It could just be my imagination but I've been getting a certain stubborn vibe from you. No offensive intended of course. But anyway if you haven't been convinced then it's possible that it's because, as I mentioned before, we at one point essentially stopped speaking the same language.

Of course I'm being stubborn. Otherwise what's the point of arguing.