Print

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

[scriver]

I've edited the khopesh a little so it might seem a little more familiar to you. Since I have no photoshopping tool, paint had to do... Just imagine the black stuff is a shaft.

Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.

Yoinks ya shield and stabs ya face. Goes around shields and weapon guards too, which is rather nice.

It's sharp on the outside. It's designed to pull away shields, but not to stab or reach around weapons.

[Loud Whispers]

Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.

Yoinks ya shield and stabs ya face. Goes around shields and weapon guards too, which is rather nice.

It's sharp on the outside. It's designed to pull away shields, but not to stab or reach around weapons.

That's what I was saying. Minus the incapability to reach around a parrying weapon. Which a Khopesh would do delightfully.

[scriver]

I was agreeing on the shieldpull. But no, it's not supposed to reach around weapons. You can't do that with a khopesh any more than with an ordinary sword. It would leave a giant opening in your defence.

[Loud Whispers]

I was agreeing on the shieldpull. But no, it's not supposed to reach around weapons. You can't do that with a khopesh any more than with an ordinary sword. It would leave a giant opening in your defence.

It is a short sword. It is very hard to parry a short sword. That makes it very effective at getting past parrying weapons.

[scriver]

It's not that kind of short sword. It has more in common with axes (which it evolved from) than other contemporary short swords. Short swords are hard to block because they're easy and quick to stab with. You don't stab with a khopesh, you slash (in fact the main difference between the khopesh and axes is that it slashes instead of cuts).

[Sheb]

Although I remember Napoleon isntructed his cavalry to stab rather than slash. Which to me sound like a perfect way to break your wrist, but I guess the little guy knew more about early 19th century warfare than I do.

[Loud Whispers]

It's not that kind of short sword.

Bah! Not a shortsword, a short sword!

Short swords are hard to block because they're easy and quick to stab with.

Modern fencing swords evolved from dueling swords which evolved from short swords which replaced rapiers. All were characterized for being quick and stabby. They differed on length. More length means more time and room to parry against - as the parry is directed to the top of the sword. As such it becomes near impossible to parry a significantly shorter sword before they stab you.

You don't stab with a khopesh

This was a mis-use of terming from me, I meant in more of a thrusting fashion than a stabbing fashion, because the Khopesh was used to quite literally hit your face and your bones!

you slash (in fact the main difference between the khopesh and axes is that it slashes instead of cuts).

Definition of slash
verb
[with object]
1. Cut with a wide, sweeping movement, typically using a knife or sword.

Semantics >_>

[kerlc]

Were there actually any armies in ye olde days that used swords as the standard weapon? It's something that you seem to find everywhere in the modern media yet the only military I can think of are the Romans, though the gladius is mainly a thrusting sword anyway.

And even then the primary weapons were the Hasta until thrown.

The hasta are thrusting spears. I think the term you're looking for is Pilum.

[Loud Whispers]

Were there actually any armies in ye olde days that used swords as the standard weapon? It's something that you seem to find everywhere in the modern media yet the only military I can think of are the Romans, though the gladius is mainly a thrusting sword anyway.

And even then the primary weapons were the Hasta until thrown.

The hasta are thrusting spears. I think the term you're looking for is Pilum.

Eeyup.

[Delta Foxtrot]

Although I remember Napoleon isntructed his cavalry to stab rather than slash. Which to me sound like a perfect way to break your wrist, but I guess the little guy knew more about early 19th century warfare than I do.

Apparently, in a fight between French and opposing cavalry, French stabs caused more casualties than opposing sides' slashes and cuts.

"Cuts often failed from the blade turning enough to make the blow one with the flat."
"There were numerous cases where cavalryman received many slashes or cuts and continued his fight."

Note that stabbing on horse back did not necessarily come naturally, as Sheb's initial suspicion indicates. That type of attack had other flaws as well.

"The cut was more instinctive blow than the thrust and in melees the men tended to cut even if their sabers were more suited to the thrust."

" - It was difficult to retrieve fast enough the blade from enemy's torso without having the hand twisted or even being thrown off the horse. To avoid these problems the thrust couldn't be too deep. Shallow thrust however was not deadly.
- To deliver an effective thrust one must lean forward. It exposes him to a cut ("he made a thrust at my groin I parried it off and cut him down through the head.") For this reason the heavy cavalryman was protected with helmet. Not every man was determined to allow the enemy to test his helmet"

Hastily googled source.

[scriver]

It's not that kind of short sword.

Bah! Not a shortsword, a short sword!

Short swords are hard to block because they're easy and quick to stab with.

Modern fencing swords evolved from dueling swords which evolved from short swords which replaced rapiers. All were characterized for being quick and stabby. They differed on length. More length means more time and room to parry against - as the parry is directed to the top of the sword. As such it becomes near impossible to parry a significantly shorter sword before they stab you.

...And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Khopesh still arent stabby. They just weren't used that way. It doesn't automatically become a stabbing weapon because it's short.

You don't stab with a khopesh

This was a mis-use of terming from me, I meant in more of a thrusting fashion than a stabbing fashion, because the Khopesh was used to quite literally hit your face and your bones!

I really don't see the difference between thrust and stab, but I don't think it is relevant anyway - neither would be effective with a khopesh, which needs a slashing motion to be effective, just like a curved sword.

you slash (in fact the main difference between the khopesh and axes is that it slashes instead of cuts).

Definition of slash
verb
[with object]
1. Cut with a wide, sweeping movement, typically using a knife or sword.

Semantics >_>

The word I was looking for was "chop". Now, all edged and pointy weapons cut. The difference in how they do it is still relevant.

[Loud Whispers]

...And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Khopesh still arent stabby. They just weren't used that way. It doesn't automatically become a stabbing weapon because it's short.

Scriver, I honestly don't even think we're talking about the same thing anymore. Unless it holds some sort of value as well, don't ascribe certain bits of information to hold allegiance to anyone. This is general discussion, not general argument.

1. I made the statement that Khopeshes "Yoinks ya shields and stabs ya face." I was thinking about the Game of Thrones scene when the Dothraki warrior uses his Khopesh looking sword to do an awesome face stabbing of Jeor Mormont (it doesn't work but it looks awesome).
2. You took this at face value.

• You then assumed I believed that it was used backwards to stab faces.
• You then assumed I believed it was a shortsword.

Despite how I personally believe the futility and uselessness of trying to debunk facts by discrediting the proponent putting it forwards (i.e. scientist said it = true/false!) let alone an intangible person; this goes a step further because that's not what I've been saying either.

One of my statements was that a Khopesh is a short sword. As in a sword, that is short. Every one of those swords I gave is an example of a line of swords that got increasingly harder to parry - which you said was because they were thrusting and quick swords, not because they got shorter.
I did my best to use those examples to demonstrate that the Khopesh was capable as those for its purpose of reaching over guards, weapons and shields to cleave skulls.

I really don't see the difference between thrust and stab, but I don't think it is relevant anyway - neither would be effective with a khopesh, which needs a slashing motion to be effective, just like a curved sword.

WOOSH WOOSH EUHGBLErUHREUH
Though yes, there is a difference between thrusting and stabbing. One results in embedded wounds, the other, not so much.

[scriver]

You know what? I give up. You can believe the khopesh was used like that if you want to. It makes no sense, but sure. A guy on the tele did it.

[Loud Whispers]

You know what? I give up. You can believe the khopesh was used like that if you want to. It makes no sense, but sure. A guy on the tele did it.

Yep. I must've been serious when I said it stabs ya face.

[kerlc]

...but the Arakh isn't a Khupesh... It's just a weapon that looks like a Khupesh.

Comparison pics:

Spoiler: arakh, large image, been to lazy to properly google it (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: khupesh, again, lazyness (click to show/hide)

You see, the arakh does not have the hook-ish bit at the end, and looks a lot more like a sickle that's had both ends sharpened, while the Khupesh just looks like the bastard child of a sickle and a sword.