Print

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

[Kagus]

Well, I draw most of my knowledge from Age of Empires.  A source which I learned (years after I stopped playing)  had been mispronouncing Genghis Khan's name, and so probably shouldn't be taken as an entirely trustworthy font of information.

[umiman]

How else would you pronounce it?

Gengis Can?

[Makrond]

It's actually the 'j'-sound of the 'g' in Genghis. Jenghis Khan.

And Kusgnos has it entirely correct, although sometimes conflicts would be resolved without pointy things, and instead just bashing the crap out of each other until one of you bleeds to death.

Japanese swordsmanship was about achieving the enemy's death in one blow, completely without regard to one's life. The worst they'd aim for was a mutual kill. Compared to European swordsmanship, the difference in blades could not be more pronounced, as the typical westerner thought his life actually meant something, so they actually incorporated some manouvering into the equation.

I'm not sure if it's limited entirely to modern kendo, but the criteria for 'winning' a kendo match is to attack, stamp and shout at the same time, whilst also being ready for any attacks your opponent may try in the interim. That equates to some level of self-preservation, at least in my book.

And sorry if I appear a bit too vehement about this, I just emerged from the fires of an argument with someone whose sum knowledge came entirely from Dead Rising.

Yeah, I've been there, don't worry. I may seem defensive of the katana, but I've dispelled my share of myths too.

And by "axe", I wasn't referring to the actual motion on behalf of the wielder, but rather the physics of the damage itself. It is not entirely dependant upon its RAZOR SHARP EDGE FORGED IN THE FIRES OF SATAN'S ASS AFTER BURRITO NIGHT AND COOLED IN THE GULLET OF THE GREAT OLD ONE WHO LIES DEAD AND DREAMING as many people seem to think.

This is true. The curved blade does, in fact, lend somewhat more power into a chopping blow, but still not as much as the European swords have (or an axe...). But samurai did believe in caring for their weapons to some extent, and a sharper blade would have been more useful in Japan at that time than a blunt(ish), armor-crushing one.

ANYWAYS! A claymore weighs in at around five and a half pounds (two to three kilos). Compare that to the two to four pounds of a katana and you can see exactly where I'm coming from; western swords, in fact, typically have VERY thinly forged blades when compared to eastern models, which becomes compounded when you consider that a genuine japanese blade, the type forged by those 'living national treasures', has been worked to the point of acquiring a crystalline structure. I probably don't even need to elaborate on what that means as far as density is concerned.

Are you sure you're not confusing East with West here? Europe (and also America now) is Western, whereas China and Japan (the Far East) are Eastern. If you're not, you may need to clarify.

Also:

Just goes to show you that the hammer is the best possible weapon.  For all purposes.  At all times.

QFT (not really, but a hammer is still useful most of the time)

[Cthulhu]

If I was in a fight to the death against a heavily armored opponent, I'd probably want a long dagger or something, I'm not strong enough to use anything big, and I could just go for the armpit or neck.  In all likelihood, I'd die.

And I'm sick of katanas, people seem to think they're metal lightsabers or something.

[Specialist290]

Just to add my two cents:

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but really, to argue about which is the better sword is actually rather pointless (sorry about the bad pun ). Every sword has its strengths and weaknesses; that's a given. The real question isn't "Who has the better sword?", but rather "Who is the better swordfighter?"

Any weapon can become lethal in the hands of someone who knows how to use it; conversely, a weapon-user who doesn't know how to wield his weapon is more dangerous to himself and / or innocent bystanders than to any potential opponent. Whether that weapon is a katana, a claymore, a submachine gun, or a nuclear weapon only has bearing on how it is used.

In a swordfight -- as in any conflict -- the better fighter will know (or be able to figure out) the strengths and weaknesses of both party's weapons, then try to emphasize his own strengths while trying to play off the enemy's weaknesses.

That being said, being something of a Japanophile, I have a sort of soft spot for katanas However, I certainly don't think that they're necessarily capable of, say, taking apart a 300-foot combat robot or deflecting bullets (even if the weapon itself is (not saying it is, per se, just hypothesizing), in order to do so the wielder would have to have insane reflexes).

[Cthulhu]

Something tells me even if you managed to get a katana in the way of a bullet, it would probably just snap the katana in half and kill you.

[LumenPlacidum]

Something tells me even if you managed to get a katana in the way of a bullet, it would probably just snap the katana in half and kill you.

Tested.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHTJAKN-5k
The katana shears through several bullets before being torn.  Mind you, the edge of the katana is almost completely destroyed when it cuts the rounds, but the rounds are still from a .50 caliber machine gun.  In an earlier trial against a 9 millimeter handgun, the blade suffers essentially no damage and cuts the round.

[Omega2]

I'm still wondering if it'd do that well if the shot didn't strike it at such an exact perpendicular angle. An oblique hit would both bounce off (possibly injuring the wielder) and make it vibrate a lot.

But hey, what do they say about bringing knives to a gunfight again? 

[Cthulhu]

That was the blade, I meant the side of the sword.  Regardless, the chances of a person, no matter how skilled, putting a sword in the path of a bullet going upwards of 20,000 feet per second are abysmal, and even if you pulled it off, it's not like they'd go, "Oh man, you got me" and stop shooting.

The Hierarchy of Weapons

Psychokinetic Fleshrending>Razor-Sharp Boneclaws>Guns>Chainsaws>Zweihanders>Katanas>Cricket Bats>Baseball Bats

[mutant mell]

Besides, if a bullet hit the katana like that, than you'd suddenly have two flying pieces of metal screaming for your blood and organs.

[Cthulhu]

The moral of the story:  If someone is shooting at you, there are more important things to do than flail a katana around like a ninny.


Interesting, Firefox doesn't recognized dwarves as a word, but does recognize ninny.

[mutant mell]

The only time swords are acceptable in modern times is when fighting undead, but only because its hard to slow down a zombie by shooting its legs off, or shooting all the vitals off of a skeleton.  Or if your opponent is wearing armor felt.  Or has synthetic skin made of armor felt.

[Cthulhu]

Even then, there are much more effective weapons.  If fighting zombies, I'd go for a chainsaw, unless their blood was the agent of transmission, then I'd use a gun.  If fighting skeletons, I'd use some kind of heavy blunt object, or throw bricks.

[mutant mell]

The problem with a chainsaw is that, if it ever runs out of gas, you've suddenly got a very awkward mace.

Lets assume that there are four kinds of zombies:

Still alive but contaminated with virus.
Still alive but brainwashed.
Dead (or barely alive), animated with machines.
Dead, animated with magic.

For the first two, a gun is fine, because you can't live without a brain.  However, with the last two, generally you have to take their head completely off, as there should be redundant systems with machines or magic doesn't care about the brain, so a gun is worthless, unless you have a fully-automatic and enough bullets (and aim) to sever off their head.

For skeletons, I agree, best method is "apply brick to skeleton forehead."

[Cthulhu]

If they're nanite zombies, removing the head isn't going to do anything.  Best choice there is a flamethrower(I believe they use them in the south to remove thorns from grazing plants, so obtaining one isn't out of the question)

I really prefer the idea of self-replicating nanites scouring the earth of all carbon though, a bit more inescapable