Sword - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 705 revisions imported

2023-06-23T13:24:50Z

705 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:24, 23 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T04:04:13Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:04, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

2A02:1810:4E2C:A900:B1DB:DD21:1188:2216 at 17:18, 7 June 2023

2023-06-07T17:18:31Z

Show changes

63.193.173.28: /* Folded a thousand times */

2023-06-02T08:31:35Z

Folded a thousand times

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:31, 2 June 2023
Line 258:		Line 258:
	One a sidenote: none of the swords the IJA used during WW2 were Katanas, they were actually similar-looking Guntō; mass-produced with modern means. The ones made for NCOs were produced from train tracks while the officers got hand made units, and due to a shortage of the steel traditionally used for making swords they were often made from steel that wasn't layered at all. While effective when compared to mass produced bayonets, this was the age of automatic weapons where bringing a blade to a gun fight was pretty much suicide in most instances- as a matter of fact, since they were made with the same mass production process that led to the decline of sword quality in the West, these swords were actually ''worse'' overall than the old Katanas. Anybody who claims that they got a genuine Katana from killing a Japanese soldier in WW2 or that their grandfather picked one off the body of a dead officer are full of shit, since construction of traditional-style katanas didn't restart until 1953. While modern katanas are of much better quality, this is due more to the extensive quality control standards placed on swordsmiths by the Japanese government rather than the quality of the steel itself. That said, you can always buy mall ninja grade trash that looks like a katana but is actually stamped stainless steel less deadly than a heavy stick.		One a sidenote: none of the swords the IJA used during WW2 were Katanas, they were actually similar-looking Guntō; mass-produced with modern means. The ones made for NCOs were produced from train tracks while the officers got hand made units, and due to a shortage of the steel traditionally used for making swords they were often made from steel that wasn't layered at all. While effective when compared to mass produced bayonets, this was the age of automatic weapons where bringing a blade to a gun fight was pretty much suicide in most instances- as a matter of fact, since they were made with the same mass production process that led to the decline of sword quality in the West, these swords were actually ''worse'' overall than the old Katanas. Anybody who claims that they got a genuine Katana from killing a Japanese soldier in WW2 or that their grandfather picked one off the body of a dead officer are full of shit, since construction of traditional-style katanas didn't restart until 1953. While modern katanas are of much better quality, this is due more to the extensive quality control standards placed on swordsmiths by the Japanese government rather than the quality of the steel itself. That said, you can always buy mall ninja grade trash that looks like a katana but is actually stamped stainless steel less deadly than a heavy stick.

	Odds are if your buddies claim to own a genuine katana at all they're either mistaken or lying; genuine katanas cost $3,000 at the very least, and that's before factoring in the cost for a licence to own them due to their legal status as art objects. It's much more likely they own a replica made with modern machine production techniques and composed of ordinary stainless steel. While stainless steel may not get rusty and works fine for kitchen knives, it's much too brittle to be used for any sword that isn't purely ornamental.		Odds are if your buddies claim to own a genuine katana at all they're either mistaken or lying; genuine katanas cost $3,000 at the very least, and that's before factoring in the cost for a licence to own them due to their legal status as art objects. That if they can make it on to the waiting list, as only a few thousand are produced a year. It's much more likely they own a replica made with modern machine production techniques and composed of ordinary stainless steel. While stainless steel may not get rusty and works fine for kitchen knives, it's much too brittle to be used for any sword that isn't purely ornamental.

	== Swords in Fantasy & Science Fiction ==		== Swords in Fantasy & Science Fiction ==

71.12.55.22: /* Sword-related stupidity */

2023-06-01T23:01:37Z

Sword-related stupidity

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 1 June 2023
Line 156:		Line 156:

	== Sword-related stupidity ==		== Sword-related stupidity ==
	~~{{DERP}}~~

	Oh there is so much of it...		Oh there is so much of it...

71.12.55.22: /* Sword-related stupidity */

2023-06-01T23:01:21Z

Sword-related stupidity

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 1 June 2023
Line 156:		Line 156:

	== Sword-related stupidity ==		== Sword-related stupidity ==
	{{~~Derp~~}}		{{DERP}}

	Oh there is so much of it...		Oh there is so much of it...

71.12.55.22: /* Sword-related stupidity */

2023-06-01T23:01:04Z

Sword-related stupidity

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 1 June 2023
Line 156:		Line 156:

	== Sword-related stupidity ==		== Sword-related stupidity ==
			{{Derp}}

	Oh there is so much of it...		Oh there is so much of it...

1d4chan>Rocko1345: /* The Ancient Days */

2023-05-07T01:58:25Z

The Ancient Days

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 7 May 2023
Line 65:		Line 65:
	===The Ancient Days===		===The Ancient Days===

	A fair number of early bronze age swords look like big knives, because that was basically what they were. Societies figured out bronze working or learned it from someone else, found out that they could make serviceable bronze knives like their older rock ones, then began enlarging the shape. They also were composed of just a blade with a handle (or hilt) bolted on, rather than having a tang, Others were simply a single piece of bronze with maybe some leather or cloth tied around the handle to make it easier to hold. While bronze is quite easy to forge and shape, it's relative rarity compared to iron and ~~it's~~ softness means that bronze wasn't an ideal cutting material; swords made of bronze can't be too large or they'll bend after a strike, and they can't hold an edge as well. Later societies moved to iron, and then steel, once they mastered the smelting techniques necessary, which made swords more available.		A fair number of early bronze-age swords look like big knives because that was basically what they were. Societies figured out bronze working or learned it from someone else, found out that they could make serviceable bronze knives like their older rock ones, then began enlarging the shape. They also were composed of just a blade with a handle (or hilt) bolted on, rather than having a tang, Others were simply a single piece of bronze with maybe some leather or cloth tied around the handle to make it easier to hold. While bronze is quite easy to forge and shape, it's a relative rarity compared to iron and its softness means that bronze wasn't an ideal cutting material; swords made of bronze can't be too large or they'll bend after a strike, and they can't hold an edge as well. Later societies moved to iron, and then steel, once they mastered the smelting techniques necessary, which made swords more available.

	[[image:Khopesh.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|An Egyptian Khopesh, a serviceable first draft that would be overshadowed by latter models]]		[[image:Khopesh.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|An Egyptian Khopesh, a serviceable first draft that would be overshadowed by latter models]]

	*'''Khopesh''': One of the oldest varieties ~~of sword~~ with a distinct sickle shape. Originally of Egyptian design, this weapon's distinctive blade allowed it to cut, hook shields, and even thrust. It was fairly good for its day in the bronze age, but in that day armor better than leather or padded cloth was a rarity. Its time was done once [[mail\|chainmail]] and scale armor became common in the iron age. Despite most fantasy depictions of khopeshes having them as long as longswords, these blades were fairly small at 50-60 cm, since anything bigger made out of bronze tended to get bent easily. A related blade, the shotel, was also used among the Ethiopian people while other similar blades were adopted in the Middle East during the Bronze Age.		*'''Khopesh''': One of the oldest sword varieties with a distinct sickle shape. Originally of Egyptian design, this weapon's distinctive blade allowed it to cut, hook shields, and even thrust. It was fairly good for its day in the bronze age, but in that day armor better than leather or padded cloth was a rarity. Its time was done once [[mail\|chainmail]] and scale armor became common in the iron age. Despite most fantasy depictions of khopeshes having them as long as longswords, these blades were fairly small at 50-60 cm, since anything bigger made out of bronze tended to get bent easily. A related blade, the shotel, was also used among the Ethiopian people while other similar blades were adopted in the Middle East during the Bronze Age.
	*'''Kopis''': An ancient Greek short sword from the age of Hoplites, about 50-70 centimeters long. It curved inward and was a single bladed weapon on the inward curve. This did limit flexibility in slashing attacks somewhat when compared with swords with blades on both sides, but meant that a sharper edge could be put on the edged side, which was important since at this point the Greeks only had bronze to make weapons, which does not hold an edge very well. A similar sword, the Falcata, was used by the ~~Spanish~~, which also featured a knuckle guard.		*'''Kopis''': An ancient Greek short sword from the age of Hoplites, about 50-70 centimeters long. It curved inward and was a single-bladed weapon on the inward curve. This did limit flexibility in slashing attacks somewhat when compared with swords with blades on both sides, but meant that a sharper edge could be put on the edged side, which was important since at this point the Greeks only had bronze to make weapons, which does not hold an edge very well. A similar sword, the Falcata, was used by the Iberians, which also featured a knuckle guard and was double-edged.
	*'''Xiphos''': Another Greek short sword, this one was double-edged and the blade resembled more of a leaf shape, giving it some extra heft toward the point. A secondary, cut-and-thrust weapon.		*'''Xiphos''': Another Greek short sword, this one was double-edged and the blade resembled more of a leaf shape, giving it some extra heft toward the point. A secondary, cut-and-thrust weapon.
	*'''Gladius''': The standard sword of the Roman Legions, a short sword about 60 to 80 centimeters long. This sword was the (main?) weapon for the average Roman legionary. As one of the smallest one handed swords of its time, the gladius was decent at chopping and slashing, but excelled at stabbing; combined with Roman shield formations and the bash-step-stab-block move, this gave it a deceptively large effective range surpassed only by [[polearm]]s. The fact that Roman legionnaire maniples ~~were able to~~ crush Macedonian phalanxes in melee should tell you a lot about their effectiveness (though outflanking the formation helped). It was later phased out in favor of the longer spatha (a cavalry weapon adapted by the infantry, mainly as a reaction to increasingly mounted adversaries), which was itself a precursor to the viking sword, and by extension arming swords and longswords. (Historians are actually still divided on whether the pilum, a cross between a javelin and a spear, or the gladius was the legionnaire's main weapon. What is ~~know~~ is that each legionnaire carried two pilii and a gladius, but whether they were supposed to throw both and engage with their swords or keep one to engage in melee and only draw their sword later is unclear, with surviving evidence hinting at both tactics being used.)		*'''Gladius''': The standard sword of the Roman Legions, a short sword about 60 to 80 centimeters long. This sword was the (main?) weapon for the average Roman legionary. As one of the smallest one-handed swords of its time, the gladius was decent at chopping and slashing, but excelled at stabbing; combined with Roman shield formations and the bash-step-stab-block move, this gave it a deceptively large effective range surpassed only by [[polearm]]s. The fact that Roman legionnaire maniples could crush Macedonian phalanxes in melee should tell you a lot about their effectiveness (though outflanking the formation helped). It was later phased out in favor of the longer spatha (a cavalry weapon adapted by the infantry, mainly as a reaction to increasingly mounted adversaries), which was itself a precursor to the viking sword, and by extension arming swords and longswords. (Historians are actually still divided on whether the pilum, a cross between a javelin and a spear, or the gladius was the legionnaire's main weapon. What is known is that each legionnaire carried two pilii and a gladius, but whether they were supposed to throw both and engage with their swords or keep one to engage in melee and only draw their sword later is unclear, with surviving evidence hinting at both tactics being used.)
	*'''Macuahuitl''': Also called the Macana or just "obsidian sword", these were Mesoamerican swords, made without the use of any metalworking. They consisted of a sturdy wooden paddle whose edge was beset with rows of sharpened obsidian. This made the sword ridiculously sharp, but also ridiculously prone to chipping.		*'''Macuahuitl''': Also called the Macana or just "obsidian sword", these were Mesoamerican swords, made without the use of any metalworking. They consisted of a sturdy wooden paddle whose edge was beset with rows of sharpened obsidian. This made the sword ridiculously sharp, but also ridiculously prone to chipping.
	*'''Leiomano''': The Polynesian version of the macuahuitl, usually made of hardwood clubs strung with "blades" of shark teeth. Some versions were made with marlin/swordfish bills as piercing weapons, or were given spiked wooden pommels so you could cut and stab with opposite ends of the weapon.		*'''Leiomano''': The Polynesian version of the macuahuitl, usually made of hardwood clubs strung with "blades" of shark teeth. Some versions were made with marlin/swordfish bills as piercing weapons or were given spiked wooden pommels so you could cut and stab with opposite ends of the weapon.

	===Medieval Times===		===Medieval Times===

1d4chan>Mezmerro: /* Cutting arrows and bullets */

2023-03-08T09:18:02Z

Cutting arrows and bullets

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 8 March 2023
Line 203:		Line 203:
	=== Cutting arrows and bullets ===		=== Cutting arrows and bullets ===

	Actually, this is possible: if hit straight-on, a sword will cut a bullet in half in mid-flight. Sometimes you'll see this as evidence by the Katana-cultists ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPQ1W3qobys The glorious bastards actually tried it!]) that the Katana is a uniquely sharp/strong weapon, but ''any'' blade will cut through a fast-moving block of lead, even a butter knife. The problem with this is that you are standing right behind where the bullet is going~~, meaning that unless your sword is shaped in such a way that it causes the bullet to split in a wide angle (This is usually done by shaping the sword's blade like long, flat diamond/parallelogram.)~~, you are now shot twice. If you're not standing right behind where the bullet is going... why are you bothering cutting it in half? The same goes for arrows, but there is likely more batting aside involved (sort of like it goes in [[Star Wars]] with lightsabers and blaster bolts). Also the arrow won't split in half like a bullet, for various reasons related to wood grain, arrow wobble, etc. and unrelated to swords. The thing is, if you can move so fast that you can deflect incoming projectiles (the projectile from a decent [[Bows and Arrows\|bow]] can easily go faster than your car does at close range) you should be able to just dodge them instead of bothering with looking fancy. But no human being is capable of dodging a battlefield's worth of arrows/bullets because those thing are just too fast and you do not (or even cannot) see them coming. So unless you're precognitive or have some kind of [[Weeaboo Fightan Magic]] you're not going to do well stopping projectiles with your sword. Oh, and this damages your sword of course. As you can see in the test video above the blade only broke on the seventh impact, but each bullet being cut chipped away at the blade... and would all other things have been equal, forging a blade costs one hell of a lot more money and time than casting and loading a cartridge. Just get the hell out of the way!		Actually, this is possible: if hit straight-on, a sword will cut a bullet in half in mid-flight. Sometimes you'll see this as evidence by the Katana-cultists ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPQ1W3qobys The glorious bastards actually tried it!]) that the Katana is a uniquely sharp/strong weapon, but ''any'' blade will cut through a fast-moving block of lead, even a butter knife. The problem with this is that you are standing right behind where the bullet is going, you are now shot twice. If you're not standing right behind where the bullet is going... why are you bothering cutting it in half? The same goes for arrows, but there is likely more batting aside involved (sort of like it goes in [[Star Wars]] with lightsabers and blaster bolts). Also the arrow won't split in half like a bullet, for various reasons related to wood grain, arrow wobble, etc. and unrelated to swords. The thing is, if you can move so fast that you can deflect incoming projectiles (the projectile from a decent [[Bows and Arrows\|bow]] can easily go faster than your car does at close range) you should be able to just dodge them instead of bothering with looking fancy. But no human being is capable of dodging a battlefield's worth of arrows/bullets because those thing are just too fast and you do not (or even cannot) see them coming. So unless you're precognitive or have some kind of [[Weeaboo Fightan Magic]] you're not going to do well stopping projectiles with your sword. Oh, and this damages your sword of course. As you can see in the test video above the blade only broke on the seventh impact, but each bullet being cut chipped away at the blade... and would all other things have been equal, forging a blade costs one hell of a lot more money and time than casting and loading a cartridge. Just get the hell out of the way!

	=== Pistol and Sword ===		=== Pistol and Sword ===

104.152.204.90: /* Sword-related stupidity */

2023-03-08T03:53:04Z

Sword-related stupidity

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 8 March 2023
Line 163:		Line 163:
	For some reason, everyone in fiction carries their sword on either the left hip or on the back, from the right shoulder to the left hip. The latter we will come to in a moment, first we will discuss the hip-holstered sword.		For some reason, everyone in fiction carries their sword on either the left hip or on the back, from the right shoulder to the left hip. The latter we will come to in a moment, first we will discuss the hip-holstered sword.

	While it is certainly true that carrying a sword on the hip opposed to one's sword arm, one has plenty of room to dramatically unsheathe their sword. In the Middle Ages and earlier though, this was not always done like that for a few practical reasons. First up is the shield: when one is in formation and wants to draw their swords having a raised shield in one hand means that one has to keep their shield hand out of the way when drawing their sword, compromising their defense. If one is mounted on a [[horse]] (like a [[knight]]) however, the sword is not carried on the opposing hip for a different reason: drawing one's sword form the opposing hip would mean either pulling the sword past the reins or the horse's neck, which might very well result in cutting the reins or the animal's neck. These two problems for both mounted and pedestrian soldiers was solved in a very simple way: the sword was carried on the same hip as one's sword arm. This limits one's drawing distance, but unless one is a [[C.S.Goto\|deformed munchkin]] you should be perfectly fine drawing a one-handed sword from the same hip as the sword arm. Romans for instance always carried their swords on the right for this reason. The katana on the other hand were always carried on the opposite hip, but this was because the Katana was a slashing weapon as such you could turn your draw motion into a cut.		While it is certainly true that carrying a sword on the hip opposed to one's sword arm, one has plenty of room to dramatically unsheathe their sword. In the Middle Ages and earlier though, this was not always done like that for a few practical reasons. First up is the shield: when one is in formation and wants to draw their swords having a raised shield in one hand means that one has to keep their shield hand out of the way when drawing their sword, compromising their defense, or by turning it so the tip is pointed to the side, and drawing it to one's sword arm side, though this could risk hitting someone else's leg with the scabbard, or in the face with the pommel if in formation. If one is mounted on a [[horse]] (like a [[knight]]) however, the sword is not carried on the opposing hip for a different reason: drawing one's sword form the opposing hip would mean either pulling the sword past the reins or the horse's neck, which might very well result in cutting the reins or the animal's neck. These two problems for both mounted and pedestrian soldiers was solved in a very simple way: the sword was carried on the same hip as one's sword arm. This limits one's drawing distance, but unless one is a [[C.S.Goto\|deformed munchkin]] you should be perfectly fine drawing a one-handed sword from the same hip as the sword arm. Romans for instance always carried their swords on the right for this reason. The katana on the other hand were always carried on the opposite hip, but this was because the Katana was a slashing weapon as such you could turn your draw motion into a cut.

	The second point is back-mounted sheaths. Useful for carrying, not combat. Unless you are Dhalsim from Street Fighter or are armed with knives you are not going to be able to draw a single-handed sword from your back. Doing so would involve over-stretching, pulling the sheath down with your shield arm (giving up your defence, a big no-no) and a short sword. Go watch a movie featuring someone with back-mounted swords: you never see them draw their weapons on-screen. And two-handed weapons are right out. Carrying a sword on your back is for hiking across open country, NOT marching to the battlefield. Soldiers armed with large two-handed swords carried them into battle much like their [[spear]]-wielding colleagues: [[Dwarf\|held over the shoulders as the soldiers sung songs of war and victory.]]		The second point is back-mounted sheaths. Useful for carrying, not combat. Unless you are Dhalsim from Street Fighter or are armed with knives you are not going to be able to draw a single-handed sword from your back. Doing so would involve over-stretching, pulling the sheath down with your shield arm (giving up your defence, a big no-no) and a short sword. Go watch a movie featuring someone with back-mounted swords: you never see them draw their weapons on-screen. And two-handed weapons are right out. Carrying a sword on your back is for hiking across open country, NOT marching to the battlefield. Soldiers armed with large two-handed swords carried them into battle much like their [[spear]]-wielding colleagues: [[Dwarf\|held over the shoulders as the soldiers sung songs of war and victory.]] Though that doesn't mean that fantasy or sci fi settings can't have any back-carry, period. A commong way of addressing this in sci fi is to have essentially have some form of magnet on the back which engages when the sword makes contact (this is oftentimes also used to carry long guns), though the precise practicality of this method is questionable. In fantasy then this may be achieved through specialized back scabbards; the Middle Earth games, for example, feature a type of scabbard where part of the flat is exposed; and then there's the finned scabbard design as popularized by the content creator and fantasy novelist Shad Brooks. Another feasible means of doing a ''type'' of back-carried, back-drawn sword is to carry the sword on the side of a backpack, and then draw the sword in the same motion as one is removing the backpack.

	===Sharpness===		===Sharpness===