Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

No sword can cut steel, because it's god damned steel. Unless it's a candy sword I guess, but those don't exist. What you do is hack steel, which is a whole different thing and depends more on raw force than sharpness. Then again, denting it inwards is easier still than hacking it, which is why maces and war hammers were used in the first place.

hack/hak/
Verb:   
Cut with rough or heavy blows.

Cut and hack are the same thing, with an emphasis on force.
Have you seen a steel sword cut through steel mail?

And hammers were only used when alternatives like swords or spears were not available - because they could already deal with armour.

[Talvieno]

Hmm... Actually, while they both mean "to make a cut in something", "hack" implies force was used, while "cut" does not. Therefore, while you can cut something without hacking it, you can't hack something without cutting it. Therefore, I was wrong. DJ - you were right. lol  Sorry about that. There's no real way to cut steel armor with a steel sword without applying a pretty good deal of force. Or without having an incredible edge - but it would take a lot more than a blacksmith was capable of.

[DJ]

Well I guess I just don't speak English then. To me cutting would be cleanly splitting the material without deforming it, while hacking would be deforming it to the point where it breaks apart.

And lol, how would hammers be more easily available than spears? Spears were by far the most common weapon throughout history.

*edit* No sharpness of the edge will help you if the edge isn't significantly harder than the material being cut. There's a reason why special steel alloys are used for drill bits and bolt cutters. And these alloys mostly rely on stuff like vanadium which was unknown to medieval smiths.

[FrisianDude]

Hmm... Actually, while they both mean "to make a cut in something", "hack" implies force was used, while "cut" does not. Therefore, while you can cut something without hacking it, you can't hack something without cutting it. Therefore, I was wrong. DJ - you were right. lol  Sorry about that. There's no real way to cut steel armor with a steel sword without applying a pretty good deal of force. Or without having an incredible edge - but it would take a lot more than a blacksmith was capable of.

Exactly, you can cut a piece of cheese by calmly dragging a knife along. Hacking more implies that you're using an axe.

[Hotaru]

Japanese swords, and I would imagine European ones too, are works of art and are to be appreciated as such.

Ah, that's better. Slightly over-romanticized, but better than what I originally thought you were saying.

If it was over-romanticizing, why would there be museums of famous swords, hmm?

Since they're talking about cutting steel I feel obliged to post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyO46RQhYkQ . But it should not be taken to contribute as a statement about any sword type's superiority, you can very likely do that with a strong European sword too.

[Talvieno]

Well I guess I just don't speak English then. To me cutting would be cleanly splitting the material without deforming it, while hacking would be deforming it to the point where it breaks apart.

Well, this is what confused me. The cut I saw was clean - no jagged or bent edges.  Also, steel armor wasn't actually that thick.

[Gukag]

Hammers and maces were specifically designed to deal blunt trauma THROUGH armor using kinetic force, afaik. Some heavier straight swords or axes were used for the same reason, but they couldn't have been nearly as effective against thick well crafted armor.
In any case from what I've read the best way to kill a heavily armored foe was to bypass the armor using a loing pointy dagger (poignard) and attack the weaknesses in the design, i.e under the armpits, openings at the joints, visors, etc.

[FrisianDude]

Japanese swords, and I would imagine European ones too, are works of art and are to be appreciated as such.

Ah, that's better. Slightly over-romanticized, but better than what I originally thought you were saying.

If it was over-romanticizing, why would there be museums of famous swords, hmm?

Heh, nah, some swords are certainly works of art, but I'm fairly sure that a good amount of swords were not put all that much effort in. A family heirloom or swords specially commissioned would certainly often have been awesome, but take for example the side-sword a seventeenth century musketeer might be equipped with. Not a work of art, munitions-quality. And it seemed as if you meant that ALL swords are works of art.

[Talvieno]

Hammers and maces were specifically designed to deal blunt trauma THROUGH armor using kinetic force, afaik. Some heavier straight swords or axes were used for the same reason, but they couldn't have been nearly as effective against thick well crafted armor.
In any case from what I've read the best way to kill a heavily armored foe was to bypass the armor using a loing pointy dagger (poignard) and attack the weaknesses in the design, i.e under the armpits, openings at the joints, visors, etc.

All true. Maces were actually very, very good at piercing armor, despite being considered a blunt weapon in just about every game. As they're more or less a very heavy chunk of metal (generally in the shape of a sphere or cylinder) that menaces with spikes of the same material, the weight of the mace would enable the spikes to pierce through the armor deeply enough to cause the opponent to at once suffer broken bones, heavy bruising, and profuse bleeding. It might've been slightly more difficult to remove the mace from the armor, however, I don't know.

[Loud Whispers]

Well I guess I just don't speak English then. To me cutting would be cleanly splitting the material without deforming it, while hacking would be deforming it to the point where it breaks apart.

Well you wouldn't expect it to slice through steel without any resistance?

...

And this is why the hell we don't argue with definitions, people get the wrong ideas :|

And lol, how would hammers be more easily available than spears? Spears were by far the most common weapon throughout history.

The very first weapon designed to kill solely humans was a hammer. Second was spear.

[DJ]

Well, if the steel was thin enough and the force was strong enough, the hack may have looked very similar to a cut on superficial examination. I think the armour still bent inward a bit at the moment of impact and popped back after.

The importance of the distinction is that hacking relies on having *some* bending, which is where the padding comes into play. Steel armour without padding isn't all that good, nor is padding without the armour. They work similarly to modern motorcycle helmets - the hard plastic bit would shatter on it's own, and the foamy bit wouldn't do much to protect, but combined they can turn a guaranteed death into a minor concussion.

[Talvieno]

And lol, how would hammers be more easily available than spears? Spears were by far the most common weapon throughout history.

The very first weapon designed to kill solely humans was a hammer. Second was spear.

Club, really, according to popular theory, but still the same idea. Spears didn't come until later. As to being the most common throughout history... not really... unless you want to consider bardiches, poleaxes and halberds spears - or really, just anything that utilizes a long pole with a sharp object at the end. Halberds were most definitely not spears, though they could serve as them in a pinch.

[Loud Whispers]

So now we're talking about armour now?



Reactive armour. Explosives have never been more healthy.

[AWdeV]

All true. Maces were actually very, very good at piercing armor, despite being considered a blunt weapon in just about every game. As they're more or less a very heavy chunk of metal (generally in the shape of a sphere or cylinder) that menaces with spikes of the same material, the weight of the mace would enable the spikes to pierce through the armor deeply enough to cause the opponent to at once suffer broken bones, heavy bruising, and profuse bleeding. It might've been slightly more difficult to remove the mace from the armor, however, I don't know.

Well, they are blunt. And they don't pierce. They just whallop and although your +steel breastplate+ may be fine (slightly dented), your bones are powder and your organs mush. (hyperbole. One blow would probably not do that, unless if you hit really hard and then only where you hit)

Oh, ah, I tend to refer to maces with spikes as morningstars instead of maces. There's enough variety of mace already that I feel safe in giving those a seperate category.

edit: FUCKING LET ME POST.

[Hotaru]

Not a work of art, munitions-quality. And it seemed as if you meant that ALL swords are works of art.

Okay, munitions-quality European swords aren't. As for period uchigatana blades, they're different in shape, steel quality, folding and composition, polish and sharpening, depending on who made them and where, so saying something about them collectively isn't right.