Why the big swords anyway?

[nightwolf667]

Why thank you.

You're very welcome. Often times on forums such as these, I feel like the Europeans get short changed out of their very real and awesome bad assery by Japanese anime. I have nothing against Anime, it's just got nothing on reality.

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.

Very true. As a third degree black belt in a mixed martial art (mostly Americanized but that's beside the point) and part of a large organization, I know just how little having a black belt means in a modern context. I don't say it to be impressive, just that I've been practicing since the age of five and even with the spectacular muscle control I've achieved, I'm very aware of the style's impracticality in a real life context. My little brother (who is one belt level higher than me) is one of those who's been blind sided by Anime (ironically). He thought that a katana could cut through a car because he saw that stupid youtube video and missed the part where they'd dipped it in liquid nitrogen first. Well, yes the sword could cut through a car engine but if you dipped a European long sword in nitrogen the effect would be the same. It was also a modern day sword made with better steel not the crap ore that the Japanese didn't have enough of. Honestly, the Chinese have better weapons.

I've seen Guy Windsor fight and I even fought him. Got my arse kicked back into line in 10 seconds or less.

You're just trying to make me jealous aren't you?

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.

Well, no duh. Fencing is also the category I tend to stick the katana into, from what I've seen and the martial arts surrounding it, the sword is mostly intended for one on one duels, not group fighting. The same is mostly true for the rapier, which ends up being more of a gentleman's sword. Both were used for dueling. I admit I'm not too familiar with Japanese history outside of Anime and reading shogun, mostly because I find Europe's more intriguing. (Scotland especially)

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!)

Yes, but those bastards are fast, speed was the rapier's advantage (as I'm fairly certain the duels were fought in normal clothing). I guess it depends on whether they were using an actual rapier with blade or the swords they use now. Still, as a girl I know better than most that when speed is your only advantage... you better hope you're opponent doesn't get a hand on you. When they catch you, you're done.

Also, bastard sword! Way cool!

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.

Medieval weapons are awesome and I don't really understand public fixation with the Japanese weapons as being superior to the European ones. Sometimes it feels like people apply what they see in anime, even the historically based anime like Rurouni Kenshin and think it's fact. Which is not a statement meant to offend anyone and I'm sorry if it does. The Europeans and their weapons beat the Japanese any day.

Also European guns did beat both the Chinese and the Japanese. The British basically took Beijing with something like 1,000 men with limited casualties during one of the opium wars. I can't remember the exact statistics right now, but it's impressive.

And it also wins the East versus West argument and the guns versus martial arts. If people think the Japanese are cool, they should take a look at the Vikings. Only culture to conquer Russia and hold onto it, then conquer it (and themselves) again because they forgot they already had. I love the Vikings.

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

*drools

Now, you're reminding me of how much I want to go back to the Tower of London for it's arsenal or Scotland and stare at William Wallace's beautiful sword. It's taller than me. The thought of a man who could be deadly with that in battle is rather intoxicating...

Oops, lost myself for a second there. XD I like you even more now! Thanks for the fun history lesson.

 

[Sleepingzombie]

It all started with final fantasy 7 cloud strife, if I remember correctly he started the trend.
oh and I belieave they look cool and ridiculus at the same time. . . . .they are fun, thats the reason

 

[rekabdarb]

It all started with final fantasy 7 cloud strife, if I remember correctly he started the trend.
oh and I belieave they look cool and ridiculus at the same time. . . . .they are fun, thats the reason

HEY HEY
Mr. Guts was before Mr Strife, 1990 chief, 7 years before FF7

Because of the amount of detail you can add to it

Plus swords of this size are more iconic

 

[Starke]

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.

Guns first saw combat 700-800 years ago...

One frequent anachronism in fantasy RPGs like D&D is you will see heavy armor that was specifically developed in response to firearms technology, while actual firearms do not appear.

 

[Starke]

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.

By that definition you are succeding at trolling me, and I really do mean that. By posting, repeatedly, logically flawed arguments, and then attempting to defend them, not through a reevaluation of their flaws, but simply by saying "it can be done," you have effectively trolled my instinct to provide well reasoned arguments and my aversion to the propagation of arguments with no factual basis. I would dispute the application of that definition, I don't think you are a troll, though your underlying theory about how to define a troll is sound...ish.

I have attempted, in this thread to provide reasonable, logical and accurate arguments against both, your position and Pete's. I have injected a degree of humor into this because, honestly, who wants to come in here and read a dry wall of text on your own time. But, that humor was never intended to come across as condescending towards you, or Pete, if it did, then that is unfortunate.

Splicing posts like this is also not intended to troll, though I certainly have seen it used to do so. It cuts down on potential room for misunderstanding. If I am addressing a specific sentence of your post directly, you cannot say that "I didn't understand what you were talking about" three lines down. It's not what I'm responding to.

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.

In one case, you are correct, the post where you argued that you could use clothing to stop a bullet, and we'll get there in a minute, did blow my fucking mind. While I can respect Pete's position on evading gunfire, even while I know the idea is flawed, it is because he has taken steps to attempt to defend it that are, quite honestly, reasonable. You on the other hand, have not. You've simply kept bringing up the same discredited claims over and over again.

On the other hand, no, I have had no personal commitment to this thread, and no vendetta against you. Accusing me of trolling certainly provides some fuel for the former, but at the end of the day, you're making poor arguments repeatedly in the hope that frequent repetition will blind us to whatever argument you're trying to make.

This repetition technique works in propaganda for a number of reasons, unfortunately for you, you do not have the resources to avail yourself of those reasons.

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.

Lapsing into intellectual assry for a moment, there has been no fight. There may have been some condescending language, but, I believe I have refrained from direct insults. I have challenged your arguments, on their own merits, and have not launched a personal attack. I did not accuse you of being a troll, I accused your argument of being flawed. One of these is a personal attack, the other, is not.

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

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.

Yeah, I'm sorry. You already brought up armor. You said you meant "ballistic vests and body armor", both are, in all honesty, types of armor. They differ from historical armor in their construction, but at a fundamental level, what distinguishes a modern kevlar vest from a 15th century breast plate is the technology involved in its construction. Both are armor. Neither are clothes. Clothes do not stop bullets.

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.

A1, there is one thing everyone in this thread agrees on, except you. You cannot dodge a bullet, no matter how much you would like to. It isn't physically possible. As an intellectual exercise, it is not possible. As a theoretical concept it is, at extreme ranges, beyond 300m or so, it is theoretically possible, but not as a planned action. As a practical tactic it is flat out impossible.

Everyone except you understands this.
Everyone except you who has weighed in on this has used considerable historical data to support their other positions.
Everyone except you who has examined this thought process of you has approached it within the confines of the physics the universe operates under.
Slow Shootin' Pete did attempt to provide a similar argument along these lines and actually acquitted himself quite well. He has responded to other users, who've criticized his argument and evaluated the evidence they provided, and weighed it against his argument, and while, I think, he's abandoned it by now, he actually had a much stronger argument for it. Yelling "People can dodge bullets in teh real world!" every time a user reminds you that it is not possible isn't making an argument, its making you appear petulant, thick headed, or both.

 

[Starke]

My little brother (who is one belt level higher than me) is one of those who's been blind sided by Anime (ironically). He thought that a katana could cut through a car because he saw that stupid youtube video and missed the part where they'd dipped it in liquid nitrogen first.

Liquid Nitrogen tempering, when you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucking Buick in the room, accept no substitutions.

 

[A1]

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.

By that definition you are succeding at trolling me, and I really do mean that. By posting, repeatedly, logically flawed arguments, and then attempting to defend them, not through a reevaluation of their flaws, but simply by saying "it can be done," you have effectively trolled my instinct to provide well reasoned arguments and my aversion to the propagation of arguments with no factual basis. I would dispute the application of that definition, I don't think you are a troll, though your underlying theory about how to define a troll is sound...ish.

I have attempted, in this thread to provide reasonable, logical and accurate arguments against both, your position and Pete's. I have injected a degree of humor into this because, honestly, who wants to come in here and read a dry wall of text on your own time. But, that humor was never intended to come across as condescending towards you, or Pete, if it did, then that is unfortunate.

Splicing posts like this is also not intended to troll, though I certainly have seen it used to do so. It cuts down on potential room for misunderstanding. If I am addressing a specific sentence of your post directly, you cannot say that "I didn't understand what you were talking about" three lines down. It's not what I'm responding to.

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.

In one case, you are correct, the post where you argued that you could use clothing to stop a bullet, and we'll get there in a minute, did blow my fucking mind. While I can respect Pete's position on evading gunfire, even while I know the idea is flawed, it is because he has taken steps to attempt to defend it that are, quite honestly, reasonable. You on the other hand, have not. You've simply kept bringing up the same discredited claims over and over again.

On the other hand, no, I have had no personal commitment to this thread, and no vendetta against you. Accusing me of trolling certainly provides some fuel for the former, but at the end of the day, you're making poor arguments repeatedly in the hope that frequent repetition will blind us to whatever argument you're trying to make.

This repetition technique works in propaganda for a number of reasons, unfortunately for you, you do not have the resources to avail yourself of those reasons.

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.

Lapsing into intellectual assry for a moment, there has been no fight. There may have been some condescending language, but, I believe I have refrained from direct insults. I have challenged your arguments, on their own merits, and have not launched a personal attack. I did not accuse you of being a troll, I accused your argument of being flawed. One of these is a personal attack, the other, is not.

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

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.

Yeah, I'm sorry. You already brought up armor. You said you meant "ballistic vests and body armor", both are, in all honesty, types of armor. They differ from historical armor in their construction, but at a fundamental level, what distinguishes a modern kevlar vest from a 15th century breast plate is the technology involved in its construction. Both are armor. Neither are clothes. Clothes do not stop bullets.

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.

A1, there is one thing everyone in this thread agrees on, except you. You cannot dodge a bullet, no matter how much you would like to. It isn't physically possible. As an intellectual exercise, it is not possible. As a theoretical concept it is, at extreme ranges, beyond 300m or so, it is theoretically possible, but not as a planned action. As a practical tactic it is flat out impossible.

Everyone except you understands this.
Everyone except you who has weighed in on this has used considerable historical data to support their other positions.
Everyone except you who has examined this thought process of you has approached it within the confines of the physics the universe operates under.
Slow Shootin' Pete did attempt to provide a similar argument along these lines and actually acquitted himself quite well. He has responded to other users, who've criticized his argument and evaluated the evidence they provided, and weighed it against his argument, and while, I think, he's abandoned it by now, he actually had a much stronger argument for it. Yelling "People can dodge bullets in teh real world!" every time a user reminds you that it is not possible isn't making an argument, its making you appear petulant, thick headed, or both.

Oh give me a break. Sorry to say this but I'm really tired of dealing with you. I'm sorry if that comes off as harsh but it's the truth. I could deal of course but I'm not going to because I've got better things to do with my time than play verbal tug-o-war for who knows how long with some prick. I'm not even gonna read your post. I don't care what it says. This altercation is over.

You can mock me, make fun of me, and/or try to belittle me all your want and in any way you want but I don't care. It makes no difference. I am officially moving on. I would also suggest that you not even bother writing a response to this (although if your past behavior is any indication you probably will). You'd just be wasting your time because I'm not even going to read any more of anything you write. This altercation is now officially over. Goodbye.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

gimmi. A. burger: or wrapped in shit. (sorry, ps3 won't let me quote your last post)

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

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

It simply boils down to literary laziness, the consumer assumes things immediately from a sword and thus saves the author from creating complex introductions or explanations.

When one thinks sword, one thinks warrior. The link is immediately drawn that this individual is skilled in combat, and thus shouldn't be trifled.

Even though it isn't its origin, swords have a link with chivalric times and consequently thoughts of honur and heroism are brought forth thanks to tales like King Arthur.

Swords allow the opportunity for duels, mano-a-mano encounters - with the scope for "dramatic" deadlocks and heavy speeches. Something guns typically don't allow for (unleash they shoot energy beams at which point they can lock and have they same effect).

The size? I assume its a "bigger is better" train of thought. If he has a big sword he must be stronger and braver than the others. It also instils fear - generally people will fear six foot spiders more than they will fear six inch ones. The author hopes for the same logic to be applied with larger weapons.

Or simply because it looks awesome.

 

[Starke]

I hope you don't mind me doing a little parsed chewing here.

It simply boils down to literary laziness, the consumer assumes things immediately from a sword and thus saves the author from creating complex introductions or explanations.

When one thinks sword, one thinks warrior. The link is immediately drawn that this individual is skilled in combat, and thus shouldn't be trifled.

I'm not sure its literary, but visually this is almost certainly the case. I seem to recall a number of fantasy novels that would set up some dramatic swordsman and then in irritating detail explain how badass they really are. It can be used as visual shorthand, but I'm not sure that accounts for big swords (to be fair, I don't think that's what you were arguing here.)

Even though it isn't its origin, swords have a link with chivalric times and consequently thoughts of honur and heroism are brought forth thanks to tales like King Arthur.

On the guns thing, there have actually been some westerns that play with the whole concept of a knight errant. You're right it's not a natural extension, but it does allow for some interesting material to work with. (Transferring that honor system to gunmen, I mean.)

Swords allow the opportunity for duels, mano-a-mano encounters - with the scope for "dramatic" deadlocks and heavy speeches. Something guns typically don't allow for (unleash they shoot energy beams at which point they can lock and have they same effect).

You do still have the option with standard issue guns. The climactic gunfight in almost any western is a pretty good example of this, its simply a different format.

The size? I assume its a "bigger is better" train of thought. If he has a big sword he must be stronger and braver than the others. It also instils fear - generally people will fear six foot spiders more than they will fear six inch ones. The author hopes for the same logic to be applied with larger weapons.

Maybe. I'll need to think about this a bit. You're definitely on to something, it just needs a little more refinement. (No offense.)

Or simply because it looks awesome.

Much like your avatar. (Which I've been meaning to compliment you on since I first saw it.)

EDIT: Your Username too, for that matter. Kudos to you for both.

 

[real life potato]

Bigger stick allows more over-compensation for the... less favored male people. For females, they just want to kick ass and take names.

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

I hope you don't mind me doing a little parsed chewing here.

By all means, discussion is what we're here for.

I'm not sure its literary, but visually this is almost certainly the case. I seem to recall a number of fantasy novels that would set up some dramatic swordsman and then in irritating detail explain how badass they really are. It can be used as visual shorthand, but I'm not sure that accounts for big swords (to be fair, I don't think that's what you were arguing here.)

I was treating the concept from a screenwriting point of view, sort of "hero with massive sword arrives" type description is what I envisoned.

Taking the OPs example of Cloud - a badass - is met with Sephiroth - more of a badass - who has a bigger sword.

On its own it may not bear enough weight to prove the point, but it certainly can cut out a lot of foreshadowing.

Plus a big sword is not open to interpretation, whereas the written word would always be. A description of an intended act of bravery could be read as stupidity.

Everyone sees a big sword.

On the guns thing, there have actually been some westerns that play with the whole concept of a knight errant. You're right it's not a natural extension, but it does allow for some interesting material to work with. (Transferring that honor system to gunmen, I mean.)

I don't disagree, but in the JRPG medium guns don't offer the same tension a hero and enemy locked in a bout of strength can.

Tension from sustained gunfire wanes the longer it goes on, typically why westerns have very little shooting and more stand offing. English took a vacation there.

Physical exertion can be displayed when two forces are applied upon one another (somewhat obviously) and freedoms such as one presenting more power suddenly to gain an upper hand open.

Along the same veins of two relatively even matched arm wrestlers, and as JRPGs typically seem to rely on flashiness rather than subtlety, the idea of two people stood stock still sizing one another wouldn't sit well.

You do still have the option with standard issue guns. The climactic gunfight in almost any western is a pretty good example of this, its simply a different format.

As above, in westerns yes, but JRPGs not so much.

Maybe. I'll need to think about this a bit. You're definitely on to something, it just needs a little more refinement. (No offense.)

None taken, I merely presented an outline of my thoughts, rather than concrete statement. I lack the inclination to apply my usual written standard in forums in favour of speed I admit.

Much like your avatar. (Which I've been meaning to compliment you on since I first saw it.)

Thanks. If it provokes a smile - as well as my name hopefully - my job is done.

 

[A1]

Oh give me a break. Sorry to say this but I'm really tired of dealing with you. I'm sorry if that comes off as harsh but it's the truth. I could deal of course but I'm not going to because I've got better things to do with my time than play verbal tug-o-war for who knows how long with some prick. I'm not even gonna read your post. I don't care what it says. This altercation is over.

You can mock me, make fun of me, and/or try to belittle me all your want and in any way you want but I don't care. It makes no difference. I am officially moving on. I would also suggest that you not even bother writing a response to this (although if your past behavior is any indication you probably will). You'd just be wasting your time because I'm not even going to read any more of anything you write. This altercation is now officially over. Goodbye.

Now you really aren't helping your side of the argument here, he never mocked you or made fun of you in that entire post. Your lack of desire to back up and defend your points essentially makes what you say worthless, please actually take the time to read the post.

He has mocked me before in general, and for that and a number of other reasons I'm done with him. I don't care what he thinks. I don't care what you think. He's ultimately not worth the effort and I'm done with him. And since you intervened I'm now also done with this thread. Maybe even this entire web site. Take the time and read the post? I think it would be a better idea for you to mind your own business. I suggest you don't bother responding to this because now I have no intention of reading the writing of, listening to, or responding to, you or anyone else with regard to this matter. Why is this you may wonder. It's because I just do not care. For me this matter is over. Goodbye.

 

[nightwolf667]

He has mocked me before in general, and for that and a number of other reasons I'm done with him. I don't care what he thinks. I don't care what you think. He's ultimately not worth the effort and I'm done with him. And since you intervened I'm now also done with this thread. Maybe even this entire web site. Take the time and read the post? I think it would be a better idea for you to mind your own business. I suggest you don't bother responding to this because now I have no intention of reading the writing of, listening to, or responding to, you or anyone else with regard to this matter. Why is this you may wonder. It's because I just do not care. For me this matter is over. Goodbye.

Orly? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you care quite a bit. Or else you wouldn't keep saying goodbye and keep coming back. Come off it, you've been saying you're done with the debate and saying that you're going to leave for days now. Still, you don't. Why?

Because as hard as you want us to believe you don't care, the simple fact that you return tells us you do. You care a lot. Besides, you're not angry at Starke because he's mocking you (I've been following the conversation this whole time and neither he nor Pete has ever mocked you) you're angry because he's not kissing your ass or setting your opinions on some pedestal, instead he and Pete have taken them apart and asked you to back them up. Which by the way, you haven't. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but if that's how you want to take it then fine. But you are behaving like a petulant child, and every time you try to disprove that you only sink further into that hole you're digging. At this point you're whining. Stand up, throw away that shovel and just let it go.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Why do people equate swords with penises, Spear are far more phalic

Longer, cylindrical, with a head bigger than the shaft, and require two hands

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Because they double as snowboards.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Because they look cool. This is a video game, not real life. It doesn't have to mae logical sense, as if it did it would take all the fun out of it. Swords look cool. Giant swords look even cooler. Simple as that.

 

[ward.]

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.

The only effective ones are, as all weapons designed to harm rather than kill are. It's not a problem of finding a gun that fits with its balance, its finding a country that violates the Geneva conventions which doesn't use the ak47 range.

That said, even the straight blade variety should be standard kit.

 

[Souplex]

I never quite understood swords. Throughout history spears have been more effective, larger, and more phallic.
These were actually used, and were apparently quite effective: