Print

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

[kerlc]

Katana vs Zweihänder? Assuming both wielders are professional duellists. (two-hand styles/techniques)
Katana vs Rapier? Same historical period and similar "noble" purpose. (one-hand stiles/techniques)

Any decent sword can cut low grade iron. The question is will it cut through, past padding and deal some damage? If plate armor is cut open but partially deflected the blow (and a trained armor wearer will make it very difficult for his opponent to execute perfect strike with full force) - it served its purpose. European arming sword was adapted to the fact that enemies frequently had iron armor and stabbing through it is easier than cutting.

E:"28 new replies". Sometimes I am slow to post.

My dual-wield katanas can pretty much own anyone.

Speaking of battles, it's not braveheart. The melee gets pretty tight without discipline. There's a youtube vid of opposing russian football gangs with about a hundred supporters each going at each other. That is a real battle. Not this fake shit where people are spread out to look pretty for the cameras.

Footwork goes by the wayside in real battles, and big scary weapons lose much of the weight behind their cuts and thrusts. That's why the roman short sword, the gladius, was so effective in pitched battles.

Yes, but that was replaced by the Spatha, which had a bit longer reach (70 centimeters). 

Also, katanas were anything but nimble. There is a reason why they're called Masterwork Bastard Swords (and only MW because any katana that isn't MW is only a glorified beating stick).

When compared to the Zweihänder, they are. 

[RedKing]

*sees a thread about 'arms and armor'*
"Huh, wonder if they're silly enough to rehash the usual bosh about katanas."
*opens thread*
"Yup."
*closes thread*

[Darvi]

When compared to the Zweihänder, they are. 

Fair point.

[Another]

Without their shields Roman swords would be of not much use.

Also the classical "throw a pilum at that dual wielding barbarian at point blank".

[kerlc]

*sees a thread about 'arms and armor'*
"Huh, wonder if they're silly enough to rehash the usual bosh about katanas."
*opens thread*
"Yup."
*closes thread*

The thing is that there's so much myths surrounding Katanas that it elevates them beyond a mere weapon that was perfectly suited for the given battle tactics and enviromental scenarios into Mythical Überweapons that are capable of leveling entire buildings just by being drawn out of their sheaths. Now, some people think that leaving that particular image untouched is harmful for the general understanding of History in the most objective way possible. Thus, they explore historic backgrounds of the Katana and come up with reasons why they totally did suck, but instead of bringing enlightenment to the myth-consuming masses like they wanted to, they start zealous arguments that are kinda pointless and silly with neither side giving way, creating a stalemate that is doomed to last forever.

Without their shields Roman swords would be of not much use.

Also the classical "throw a pilum at that dual wielding barbarian at point blank".

Yep, that's what the entire Roman Strategy was built as. the Shield Wall technique, with the pilum being used to thin out the charging enemy armies, then intercepting the mass of the people invading with your mighty shields and chopping your opponents up with your Gladius. The only bad thing about this strategy is its weakness to flanking attacks, but that was countered by using either Auxilia or more legionarries, and in later stages of the combat, if the situation was favourable, the legionarries stationed at the sides would move towards the mass of enemies in the middle, trapping them in a pincer movement.

Chopped bits of the Germanic Tribes, anyone?

[MonkeyHead]

A Sarissa, IIRC.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Since this seems to be an appropriate thread, what was the name of that long spear that hoplites used?

The Dory, according to Wikipedia. Or the Sarissa, but I think that's what the Macedonians used, not the ancient Greeks.

[kerlc]

After the Macedons basically steamrolled over Ancient Greece (With the exception of Sparta), I believe most ancient Greece would use the Sarissa.

[MonkeyHead]

Since this seems to be an appropriate thread, what was the name of that long spear that hoplites used?

The Dory, according to Wikipedia. Or the Sarissa, but I think that's what the Macedonians used, not the ancient Greeks.

It was the Macedonian Kings (Phillip, Alexander) that introduced the longest spears/pikes/sarissa and the largest phalanx formations (during the Persian wars), so I suspect thats the ones being quesitoned.

[Zrk2]

Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.

[kerlc]

Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.

*facepalm*

The Hoplites were what made up a phalanx...

[MonkeyHead]

Again, IIRC, Phalanx was the formation, Hoplite was the soldier. Regardless, fortified in a fort on a mountain, they can even defeat a stealth bomber.

[kerlc]

Again, IIRC, Phalanx was the formation, Hoplite was the soldier. Regardless, fortified in a fort on a mountain, they can even defeat a stealth bomber.

But they can't defeat hunger. 

[MonkeyHead]

Civ 2 didnt model feeding your units...   

[kerlc]

Neither did Rome:TW. Well, at least not during the battles themselves