Swords in Randland

[RobertAlexWillis]

Yeah, when Jon Snow asks Arya if she knows how to use Needle, she says that, then it becomes kind of a catch-phrase/black humor thing for her.

 

I like Arya.

 

Not THAT way, sickos! Although in Westeros, you never know, do you?

 

And this steel banded oak, how big was it? Like a shield.

 

It actually was a shield, the wood was maybe 2 inches thick (I'm just going on memory I don't have the measurements) with a fairly thin steel rim. I didn't split it half or anything, I just lopped off a corner. My point is, having a shield hardly makes you impregnable, and if any sword can cut through it, a katana can.

 

I used boiled linceed oil. I think it was the name of it anyway. Before I used this at practice I could feel it bend at a hit. Now after I have treated it I cant feel a Bela's Droppings in a Bag!. Nothing. It's hard as hell.

 

Well, as they say, what you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. Treating it with linseed oil will make it harder, but it also makes it more brittle. It probably won't break, but it could split or chip. Actually, though, that is somewhat like a real katana's cutting edge. One weakness og the blade is that it was so hard that it could be brittle. Linseed oil is used for wood preservation, and, oddly, hardening cricket bats. I'm not sure how that's relevant, but I thought it was interesting.

[aznprince001]

ludde:

 

You do not need to punch any metal out of you face. Punching you do when attacking with a fist. When a sword comes towards you, you move and direct the sword out of your centre.

Then when his centre is not focus on your centre you have the advantage.

 

 

I think you misinterpreted what i meant. I meant that as an aggressive parry.

 

 

Kinda like a "What the hell?! You dare put this close to me?! Get this crap outta my face"

 

Thus what i meant by "punching"

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not the greatest at formal english.

[ludde]

Thanks Robert, it bugged me I could not remember the name of the oil. The only point was that wood can be treated to a harder consistent then of what it normally is. Not only with oil but a number of other methods. But I am sure you knew about that. And steel that you can bend around corners is of meek steel. And as you say, the shield does not make you impregnable, but hell it sure helps, if you know how to use it that is. And yes, if there is a sword that could cut through it, it would be the katana. That's the geniality of the design. But what I even like more about the katana is how fast you can draw the thing. The curve gives it a special gift, that you can draw and attack in the same movement. Just like in old western movies, draw, shot and die. Draw, cut and die.

 

 

I actually did not think you meant like a punch, but yeah, a quick parry then. Like defence in the last moment? If you have a sword against a lets say axe, you change tactics. You don't parry a blow from an axe directly anyway. So in the reality, you don't need a heavy piece to defend yourself or win. And a spear is not that heavy at all, not like the axe, but deadly as hell. As is the naginata.

 

 

I do love the katana. I would pick that up as a sword. I would use it rather than any other

sword. If the environment allowed me. Inside I would maybe use a dagger. In a tight narrow environment I would maybe use a knife.

But even if I do love the katana and practice it, I am not that blind that I think that a samurai is the uber warrior. Because we don't know.

[aznprince001]

Well u did say something about "punching using a fist"

[aznprince001]

ludde:

And a spear is not that heavy at all, not like the axe, but deadly as hell. As is the naginata.

 

Just adding why the spear is deadly:

 

-Longer range keeps sword away (duh)

-The length gives leverage beign able to hit an enemy harder without exerting more stregnth

[strider1276]

ludde -

 

That and the Japanese cooled there steel much slower then eurpeans. Cooling it so fast, made there swords really hard, but brittle. The japanese steel swords, being cooled slower, allowed them to be more flexiable.. Infact, there swords even the edge as cooled faster then the middle part of the blade. Allowing the edge to keep its edge, and the main part of the blade to be flexible.. Both crucial in combat.. I'd rather have a blade that flexes a bit, over one that shatters on a heavy blow!

 

Honest question here - do you believe that European smiths were idiots? That there was no feedback from the men who lived and died by the quality of their weapons and armour?

 

I ask because if a smith (of *any* nationality) that would produce a weapon that would shatter on a heavy blow won't last long in his profession. Now, I'm no expert on blacksmithing or metallurgy, but I know just enough to be dangerous...and I can't think of any time I've ever been told that cooling slowly is a good thing (or done) - at least with weapons. From my understanding, as one heats and hammers metal, there is carbon transfer - the metal loses carbon atoms. When a smith plunges the metal into water to cool it, those carbon atoms are trapped in a matrix of other molecules inside the steel - almost a crystal shape, from what I recall. If this fails to happen (i.e. the metal is cooled slowly) the final product doesn't have the rigidity that is required, and will be far more prone to become misshapen, or break.

 

Sure, flexibility is needed, but so is a degree of rigidity as well. From my experience, there are more katana that are overly rigid than there are European blades (although I certainly haven't held every sword there is).

 

RobertAlexWillis -

 

"-sigh- I've personally cut through steel banded oak with one of my own katanas. I guarantee you a professional samurai would be much better than I am. Besides, I was talking more about the encumbrance. A buckler leaves you free to move, but provides almost no protection against a katana. A tower shield is the only thing that would be an effective defense, and they are BIG and HEAVY. You slip once, and while your shield is protecting your front, I'm behind you hamstringing you with my katana."

 

About that shield - under what circumstances did you cut through it? Was it under battlefield conditions? (And, if so, I hope every reasonable measure of safety was observed.) If not - how does that apply to a battlefield condition, where any warrior worth their salt will not be using their shield in a static manner (and thus, the shield will be *much* more difficult to cut)?

 

I'm honestly curious, as unless the person you were fighting had no idea what they were doing with the shield, it seems unlikely to me that could occur.

 

strider

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm honestly curious, as unless the person you were fighting had no idea what they were doing with the shield, it seems unlikely to me that could occur.

 

Which is, of course, why no one who ever used a shield on the field of battle was ever harmed, because used correctly, a shield is impenetrable.

 

Seriously, people.

 

Different shields are made for different things. A tower shield, the only shield likely to withstand a proper cut from a well made katana, was never designed to be worn in a duel, unless you are fighting someone similarly encumbered. The best way to defend yourself against a katana is this: don't be there when the blade arrives. Mobility. Against other weapons, shields of various types are variously effective.

 

Oh, and if you're referring to my specific experience, I wasn't "fighting" anyone, it was a test of the blade's cutting power. I don't swing sharpened swords at people. If we're sparring, I don't want to hurt you, and if we're REALLY fighting, I'm going to shoot you.

[strider1276]

I'm honestly curious' date=' as unless the person you were fighting had no idea what they were doing with the shield, it seems unlikely to me that could occur. [/quote']

 

Which is, of course, why no one who ever used a shield on the field of battle was ever harmed, because used correctly, a shield is impenetrable.

 

Seriously, people.

 

Different shields are made for different things. A tower shield, the only shield likely to withstand a proper cut from a well made katana, was never designed to be worn in a duel, unless you are fighting someone similarly encumbered. The best way to defend yourself against a katana is this: don't be there when the blade arrives. Mobility. Against other weapons, shields of various types are variously effective.

 

Oh, and if you're referring to my specific experience, I wasn't "fighting" anyone, it was a test of the blade's cutting power. I don't swing sharpened swords at people. If we're sparring, I don't want to hurt you, and if we're REALLY fighting, I'm going to shoot you.

 

Wow.

 

I ask you a question that is pertinent, and that has a point, and you respond with baseless hyperbole.

 

*golf clap*

 

Now, if you can possibly persuade yourself into acting like an adult - here's the reason I asked you that question.

 

A shield (or any object) sitting, unattended and unused, should be relatively easy to damage with a weapon of most any kind. However, a shield that is actively being used properly doesn't just sit there - it is being moved. Proper use for a shield isn't to sit there and let people hit it - with weapons out there like battle axes and maces, this would be silly. No, to properly use a shield, one uses it akin to a parrying object - it is interposed, used to *deflect* weapons, put them off-line. In that vein, it is rather difficult (although not impossible, I suppose) for a weapon to cut part of a shield off. Certainly much more difficult than cutting the same shield while it is braced against something and stationary, say. I'm obviously not privy to the exact specifications of your alleged cutting test, but I'm sure the shield was a lot easier to hit squarely than it would have been had someone been using it. And, as the discussion from before was in regards to swords getting through armour *in battle*, trying to claim a weapon's superiority through non-combat means is dubious, at best.

 

That said - rimless shields (that is, shields that did *not* have a metal rim) seemed to be more popular than rimmed shields. The reason being so that opponents' blades *would* cut into the shield, and get stuck - even for just a moment.

 

I get that you like the katana. I really do. I'm partial to the rapier, myself - and likely for the same reason you dig the katana (it's what you've trained with). However, I don't go around claiming that a rapier can do things that it can't, nor do I make claims that a rapier is better than anything else. It's a sword. So, too, is the katana. A sharped piece of metal can only do so much, regardless of the man (or woman) wielding it. I very, *very* rarely, if ever, see a WMA talk down about Eastern weapons, but I very often see the reverse. I apologize if I've come across as rude at any point in this thread, but I'm more than sick and tired of the "popular" notion of European fighting men waddling around in super-heavy armour with junk for weapons and little to no skill. It's baseless, it's uninformed, and to be honest with you, it's more than a little silly. To think that the men who literally lived and died by what they used and wore in combat survived by either shared incompetence or the equivalent of dumb luck is absurd.

 

I'm not saying that *you* have necessarily done this (although several of your posts do seem to have a "tone" of superiority for the katana and/or Japanese combat styles), but it's just asinine, in my opinion.

 

strider

[aznprince001]

Finaly a guy that knows what he is talking about.

 

I serve in the military, (army) and i get two knives to play with

 

-my Ka-Bar

-and my bayonet which i really don't like.

 

I understand however, that a person swinging an m16 is more likely to kill a person with an m4 carbine with a bayonet. Its longer, heaver, and depending upon the person hits harder.

 

Now, mostly we Pfc's try to keep to firing our weapons. After our ammo is out, we are advised to use our side arms, mine is the M9.

 

 

Kinda ranting a little, but all this post was meant to say is:

 

"POWER TO STRIDER...DOWN WITH RobertAlexWillis"

 

geez what a name...

[RobertAlexWillis]

If I responded with "baseless hyperbole", it was because I considered the answer to your questions obvious. You asked if I cut through the shield under "battle conditions". Thats simply ridiculous, because people don't fight real battles with swords and shields anymore, so of COURSE it wasn't under "battle conditions". Have you tried a shield against a katana under "battle conditions"?

 

European shields were not developed or designed to stop swords with the specific type of cutting power that katanas have, because European fighters did not face katanas in battle. I never said "a shield is useless under all circumstances". And I didn't say "anyone with a katana automatically kicks the crap out of anyone with a shield". I said "a shield is not the best defense against a katana, because the protection offered does not compensate for the encumbrance in that situation." A katana is designed for cutting power, in ways that most european swords are not. European swords of various designs are more effective than katanas in various situations. But if I were trying to defend myself from someone wielding a katana, I would rid myself of a shield. Thats ALL I was saying.

 

However, if you would like to use the shield, I might consider making an exception to my "not swinging sharpened swords at people" rule. :roll:

[aznprince001]

The scimitar is simialiar to the katana, curved, light, and good steel.

 

Europeans lost the Crusades overall: But my point: They have some experience with sharp, curved, fast swords.

[strider1276]

Finaly a guy that knows what he is talking about.

 

I serve in the military' date=' (army) and i get two knives to play with

 

-my Ka-Bar

-and my bayonet which i really don't like.

 

I understand however, that a person swinging an m16 is more likely to kill a person with an m4 carbine with a bayonet. Its longer, heaver, and depending upon the person hits harder.

 

Now, mostly we Pfc's try to keep to firing our weapons. After our ammo is out, we are advised to use our side arms, mine is the M9.

 

 

Kinda ranting a little, but all this post was meant to say is:

 

"POWER TO STRIDER...DOWN WITH RobertAlexWillis"

 

geez what a name...[/quote']

 

I dunno...I liked RBT in Basic, myself. But then, I prefer hand weapons to guns (a bit archaic, perhaps, but what are you going to do, eh?).

 

Otherwise...thanks. *takes a bow*

 

strider

[RobertAlexWillis]

POWER TO STRIDER...DOWN WITH RobertAlexWillis

 

:D In the "eighth grade recess" vein of that statement, I'd be plenty happy to spar with both of you at once. You can have your spear, your highness, and strider can have his shield. I'll take my chances. :lol:

[strider1276]

If I responded with "baseless hyperbole"' date=' it was because I considered the answer to your questions obvious. You asked if I cut through the shield under "battle conditions". Thats simply ridiculous, because people don't fight real battles with swords and shields anymore, so of COURSE it wasn't under "battle conditions". Have you tried a shield against a katana under "battle conditions"?

 

European shields were not developed or designed to stop swords with the specific type of cutting power that katanas have, because European fighters did not face katanas in battle. I never said "a shield is useless under all circumstances". And I didn't say "anyone with a katana automatically kicks the crap out of anyone with a shield". I said "a shield is not the best defense against a katana, because the protection offered does not compensate for the encumbrance [i']in that situation[/i]." A katana is designed for cutting power, in ways that most european swords are not. European swords of various designs are more effective than katanas in various situations. But if I were trying to defend myself from someone wielding a katana, I would rid myself of a shield. Thats ALL I was saying.

 

However, if you would like to use the shield, I might consider making an exception to my "not swinging sharpened swords at people" rule. :roll:

 

And, as I said - my question was not to be taken literally, rather as an analogy to the fact that we *don't* have "battle condition" data to examine, so we *cannot* come to a reasonable conclusion about the cutting power of a katana in regards to a shield.

 

To put it another way: I simply don't believe the katana is as good as you claim. Yes, this also means that I disagree with the article from the ARMA that you've apparently pulled out now at least once more after talking to me (you're welcome that I pointed you in the direction of people who know what they're doing). And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Scholars (even, or perhaps especially, amateur ones) disagree all the time. Mostly this is due to conflicting and/or incomplete reference material or data - such as in this particular case. We simply don't have the appropriate data to base a conclusion on - meaning that we don't actually fight each other with these weapons anymore.

 

So...yes, the answer to my question *was* obvious. I knew the answer to it when I asked - as I know that it's might damn hard to do what you claimed while in combat, with a man who knows how to use a shield. So what I'm getting at is that your basis for your opinion on the cutting power of a katana, and the usefulness of shields against it, is baseless.

 

As for swinging sharpened steel at people...maybe I'll have to make a shield sometime. As I've said, I use a rapier, myself. But I have done live steel sparring, and so long as the two combatants know what they're doing, and trust one another, no significant injuries occur. I know I've not gotten hurt at all.

 

strider

[strider1276]

The scimitar is simialiar to the katana, curved, light, and good steel.

 

Europeans lost the Crusades overall: But my point: They have some experience with sharp, curved, fast swords.

 

Agreed. Perhaps by extrapolating any data from there, we may be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

Not that "katana fanbois" will accept such data, but that's life, I suppose.

 

In the "eighth grade recess" vein of that statement, I'd be plenty happy to spar with both of you at once. You can have your spear, your highness, and strider can have his shield. I'll take my chances.

 

First off - let me say again. I don't prefer a shield. I'm a rapier man - specifically, either a rapier with a main-gauche en suite (what the Spanish call the espada y daga), or the "case of rapier" (that's two rapiers, if you didn't know).

 

Let me tell you from personal experience - fighting two-on-one is difficult (although obviously not as difficult as three- or four-on-one, both of which I've done as well) - *especially* if one has a spear. I this hypothetical scenario, I imagine you would be "dead" quite quickly, unless we were in a large area, and you decided to be *incredibly* mobile, which really amounts to "running away", which means we would win by default.

 

So...sure, I'm up for it. :)

 

strider

[RobertAlexWillis]

Let me tell you from personal experience - fighting two-on-one is difficult (although obviously not as difficult as three- or four-on-one, both of which I've done as well) - *especially* if one has a spear.

 

I know. I've done it, and won. Actually, I've trained against as many as four. But since this is nothing but empty hot air on the internet, there's really no point in taking it further.

 

Agreed. Perhaps by extrapolating any data from there, we may be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

Not that "katana fanbois" will accept such data, but that's life, I suppose.

 

Interestingly, I wonder how you would propose obtaining such data, without risking chopping someone's arm off? I did the closest thing I could think of, which was test my own cutting power in a non-battle situation. The result was a clean cut through the shield.

 

First off - let me say again. I don't prefer a shield. I'm a rapier man - specifically, either a rapier with a main-gauche en suite (what the Spanish call the espada y daga), or the "case of rapier" (that's two rapiers, if you didn't know).

 

I did, and you're welcome to use either of those set-ups, I've practiced against both.

[aznprince001]

I would use my weapon of expertise:

 

 

 

 

M16A2 semiauto fire.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Well if you get a gun, I get one too. In which case I'll still take my chances; blades aren't the only things I'm trained with. I'll go with the M16A3 though ... if there are two of you I'd like the fully automatic option. It also makes this entire discussion moot.

 

:lol: Man, we really are just bathing in the testosterone here.

[strider1276]

I know. I've done it, and won. Actually, I've trained against as many as four. But since this is nothing but empty hot air on the internet, there's really no point in taking it further.

 

Agreed. The proof would be in the pudding, as they say.

 

Interestingly, I wonder how you would propose obtaining such data, without risking chopping someone's arm off? I did the closest thing I could think of, which was test my own cutting power in a non-battle situation. The result was a clean cut through the shield.

 

You're aware that my quote was in response to a mention of the use of scimitars against Crusader armour, yes? As in, *NOT* contemporary data collection. While sparring is fun, and I love doing it, it does *not* particularly give us a good "feel" for the cutting or piercing power of any weapon, as we're (likely) not using real weapons, or actually cutting one another.

 

So...what I suggest(ed), is to use the data that is already in existance - there are a number of manuals that touch on the lethality and usage of various weapons. There are texts (historical, not contemporary!) that discuss weapons, armour and tactics. Why, exactly, should we re-do any tests on weapons and armour when A) we don't have to, and B) the gear we have to work with are poor copies of what was used back in the day. That's due to having no actual battlefield feedback to the smiths and so forth. We have this distinction of blowing people up from miles away these days, for some reason. *shrug*

 

So when you can understand what I'm proposing, or even what I'm saying...I'll continue to discuss with you. Until then...I just don't know, dude.

 

I did, and you're welcome to use either of those set-ups, I've practiced against both.

 

Fair enough.

 

I would use my weapon of expertise:

 

 

 

 

M16A2 semiauto fire.

 

In that case, I humbly request to use an M203, or perhaps an HK MP5 SD2. ;)

 

strider

[aznprince001]

Quote:

 

 

Well if you get a gun, I get one too. In which case I'll still take my chances; blades aren't the only things I'm trained with. I'll go with the M16A3 though ... if there are two of you I'd like the fully automatic option. It also makes this entire discussion moot.

 

 

 

Do you have that weapon? I have an M16A2,(because of my faithful service to the U.S Army though, they will probably want it back sooner or later :cry: )

 

 

just saying what i had to work with, I dont own a sword...Strider has his rapiers and You, Willis have your katanas...

 

Off subject kinda...Is Willis even asian?

[aznprince001]

OK just thought about the topic...We need to get back to Swords in Randland...But just for a moment look at this picture:

 

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mo/thelastsamuraibig2.jpg

 

I STILL CANNOT GET OVER THE FACT THAT THE LAST SAMURAI IS WHITE!!!!! IT JUST DOES NOT FIT!!!

[RobertAlexWillis]

Off subject kinda...Is Willis even asian?

 

No, I'm American, of mixed European descent. In other words, as white as white can be (well, not really, I have a smidge of Spanish and a touch of Cherokee). I have lived and studied in Asia for a period of time though.

 

Do you have that weapon? I have an M16A2,(because of my faithful service to the U.S Army though, they will probably want it back sooner or later )

 

LOL. No, I don't have an M16A3. I don't even have an AR-15. So I guess I have to make do with a 30-aught-6 and a .10 guage. Which definitely gives you the advantage, assuming you're willing to take your M16 loaded off base.

[TheDiceAgain...]

Completely off topic, but since we're talking guns, the coolest weapon I've ever fired was a model 1898 3040 Kraig bolt-action. Smoothest bolt-action I've ever seen but the steel butt-plate nearly took my arm off because I didn't have it set against my shoulder right on the first shot. Never made that mistake again...

[Bob T Dwarf]

Bought a surplus 1903 Springfield once. Took it out to testfire and the butt was a little short for me with the scope I put on it, so I didn't have it properly seated.

 

Fired a half dozen groupings and got it zeroed in. Took it home, cleaned it and put it away.

 

Got up the next morning, and my whole right side was one huge bruise.

 

Bought a butt extender for it that day. :lol:

[TheDiceAgain...]

Been there, Bob :D. The following morning, I couldn't lift my right arm above my shoulder and it stayed that way for almost a week.