That's my order of preference. I'm nowhere near strong enough to lug a huge freaking sword or lift a mace. Polearms are too situational. A bow for long-distance work (I'm actually a pretty good at archery), a Katana for simplicity and elegance, and a Bo for practicality.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
Uuuuuuuuugh...
Katana reeks of overweight american samurai weeaboos..
Zweihander any day. If you have the full-body strength to wield the blade in the way it was meant for, you can overpower nearly any opponent. That's pretty much why they used two-handed swords in so many societies, and for so long.. long range and superior power at that longer range.
Mace, just so many uses, Against unarmored foe? knock him out in blow without him being able to retaliate. i mean like if you get stabbed by a sword your not 100% paralysed. Smashed with a flanged mace? DEAD.
Against someone in plate? that sword is gotta do jack ish, now bring on the flang. And oh dear the trauma and blow is just gonna have him too dazzled to defend himself while you repeatly beat him to a pulp.
Its just such a sweet weapon, also the perfect cavalry weapon, ride by mace to the head just gotta be sweet.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1606895:date=Feb 15 2007, 09:32 PM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geminosity @ Feb 15 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]1606895[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Katanas are also completely ineffectual against plate... more so than normal western swords were. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Long post ahoy!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Its no use to compare western swords and eastern swords in each other their combat situations. In the west armor was a necessity according to the soldiers hence the need for armor cracking heavy swords, while in the east heavy armor was seldom used...
I'm simply looking at sword design also not "popular culture"
Some basic facts:
katana: - lightweight, perfect balance during a hard hit or slicing action - close to unbreakable with the huge amount of multi layered metals - extremely sharp*
* I think it can be effective against plate, it all depends on the quality of the plate armor vs the outstanding quality of an average katana...
claymore class: - most of the weight is in the blade, the harder you hit the harder it is to control. But does a significant amount of damage if you hit your target. If you miss you are off-balance - quantity > quality - they are pretty sharp, but most of the power lays in the weight for crushing
The very interesting Urumi (the flexible sword from india): - very unpredictable to defend against - due to its flexibility you can't parry effectively and it can be damaged when doring so - easy control due to its weight, but you can't hit things hard, its more of a slicing weapon
Cutlass: - very robust and easy to handle in close range - lacking a longer range then most longer swords, but it is much lighter
Mace: - heavy/slow and kind of a ramming weapon, once you miss you are off-balance - most of the weight is at the end making it hard to control, yet hit extremely hard in a specific area.
Axe: - a big axe can be ineffective against multiple targets, it can get stuck if you hit/kill someone - for slicing its very effective (dual wielding axes while slicing comes to mind)
Dagger: - they are very light and easy to handle, yet have a short range - due to their size parrying can be difficult, especially vs bigger weapons - stabbing will penetrate most things doing a lot of damage
Staff (bo): - very long range, yet can be hard to handle effectively vs faster weapons - parrying is only as effective as the strength of the staff - the bo is bamboo and pretty unpredictable (good for user)
Spear: - same as the bo, yet shorter area of attack - the spearhead is elusive with the threads on it, making it very dangerous
Broken beer bottle: - has all of the characteristics of the dagger except the huge penetration value - not very strong and can break into smaller pieces rather quick <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Not going to list/comment on these since this is a comparison to WoW, Urumi is a cool sword so shush about that one <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> - nunchaku - three sectional staff - sai - arit (kind of a huge hook, captain hook style <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Also why are we comparing ranged weapons vs melee?
Because then I would say Roman tank tactic soldiers (for lack of better word use) > bow <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Seeing as most weapons usually have a downside except the Katana I still say the Katana is best sword ever designed to date
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Yep the lack of sloping armor, perfected on the Königstiger and outclassed with better AP rounds <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
How is a mace a "slow" weapon? how is it slower than a sword? i would say its faster as you can withdraw it much quicker in really tight battle as there is lesser chance of accidently hitting your opponent when withdrawing it.
Also, many katanas wasnt build to last like hitting swords was. A claymore could probaly parry a bigger impact than a katana.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2007
I was talking about a mace wielded with two hands (which is a stupid weapon if ya ask me), but you do have a good point when you are hinting at a smaller mace. That would be something like a small axe, yet a little bit harder to control. You have to keep in mind that these things have 90% of their weight at the end of it. Making them very top heavy and easy to lose control with. Try and swing a construction mallet arround and see what I'm talking about, and those aren't that big even <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Also parrying with a katana would simply dig its blade into the weapon its parrying. They are high quality, very sharp and very strong. Of course parrying a heavy weapon will always be hard to do with any weapon, since you then have to absorb all of the energy in that weapon. Simply dodging it would be better, which is easier to do with light weapon. And retaliate when they miss you.
[edit] Also heavy weapons will make you tired in the long run even if you are Arnold Swarchenegger (Conan). Perhaps another reason why heavier weapons are less usefull imho...
The first thing I'd always look to is defense. If we're talking real world, the objective of any fight is not to score as many frags as possible, but to take as few hits as possible yourself. So if we're just talking about weapons, I'd go for range first of all. I assume we're talking only melee weapons, so I'd go for something as long as possible, generally a polearm. If I have more range than they do, it means that I have the chance to kill them before they can do anything to me. Hopefully.
But if we're talking the full spectrum of Stuff That Somehow is Connected to Your Hands or Arms, I'd go with a sword and shield. I haven't researched this at all, but if you were to ask me for the most popular choice of equipment across european battlefields, I'd place my bet on the sword and shield. The sword's popularity speaks for itself. They can be used for both cutting and stabbing, and they're commonly lighter than axes and maces, so they're easier and faster to swing around. Probably the most common and versatile melee weapon ever. The shield, I feel, needs even less justification. It's magnitudes easier to block an attack with a shield than with a weapon - many times more so if we're talking about any kind of projectile, like an arrow or bolt or even just a rock that your opponent picked up and threw at your head. A shield it's gotta be.
<!--quoteo(post=1606977:date=Feb 16 2007, 01:11 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 16 2007, 01:11 AM) [snapback]1606977[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Also parrying with a katana would simply dig its blade into the weapon its parrying. They are high quality, very sharp and very strong. Of course parrying a heavy weapon will always be hard to do with any weapon, since you then have to absorb all of the energy in that weapon. Simply dodging it would be better, which is easier to do with light weapon. And <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Parrying with katana, especially against a heavier blade, which chip the edge very very quickly. Samurai tended to simply dodge. I'd call that a downside.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Lolfighter I must congratulate you, that combo wins. I was thinking about the "shield", but though of it just being defensive. Which in itself is good, but there were shields that could be used in offence as well as defence. Now it might not be the best offence, but it is by far the best defence. As for offensive capability you have your one handed sword (preferbly sword). Even a Katana wielder would have a lot of trouble vs a shield+1H sword combo
A combination of defence and offence is probably the best fighting strategy. Yet they are underrated in WoW, the shield does not have as many plus factors then a two handed weapon (thinking pvp here)
Aldaris: The day a Katana* would "chip" vs other melee weapons, which are most of the time of lower quality and softer steel is a cold day in hell <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Also why would dodging be considered as bad <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Dodging is part of combat and can create an opener since the opponant is caught off guard and probably off balance opening up his defence for a stab or slice... You also have to keep in mind that heavier weapons do hit very hard, but are slower and easier to anticipate with bigger movements. But if you do get hit you are in a lot of trouble, but this factor goes for any weapon hitting you. Effectively nullifying the positive side of the harder hits...
* I'm not saying there weren't any bad Katanas, but the overall quality of the sword was superior to other swords.
I think what he means when he says that dodging is a downside is that <i>relying</i> on it is. Anyone can potentially dodge in combat, no matter what they're armed with, but having to doesn't necessarily make you better at it. Somebody who can both block/parry and dodge is better off than someone who can only do either.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited February 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1606977:date=Feb 15 2007, 05:11 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 15 2007, 05:11 PM) [snapback]1606977[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also parrying with a katana would simply dig its blade into the weapon its parrying. They are high quality, very sharp and very strong. Of course parrying a heavy weapon will always be hard to do with any weapon, since you then have to absorb all of the energy in that weapon. Simply dodging it would be better, which is easier to do with light weapon. And retaliate when they miss you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sadly incorrect. Due to the katana's light weight and extremely thin cutting edge, the warriors who used it did their best to deflect or redirect incoming blows. If you took a thick, dense gladius or hoplite sword, or god forbid a viking two-handed sword, and brought it down on the blade of a katana, the katana would be finished.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kouji_san+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_san)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying there weren't any bad Katanas, but the overall quality of the sword was superior to other swords.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you figure? The whole reason that the Katana is made with folded steel is that they used the relatively poor and primitive metals they had to the best of their ability, folding to make it stronger. The vastly superior European metallurgy of that time made that unnecessary. <b>edit</b>: this is why I mentioned that KATANA = OVERWEIGHT AMERICAN SAMURAI WEEABOO
<b><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Please before anyone posts anything more about melee weapons without having the slightest idea about them, READ THIS!<a href="http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm" target="_blank">There Is No Best Sword</a></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
So you say its a glorification of japanese culture <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> I couldn't care less if some message board would say this, because its so not true, in fact its trying to run away from truth persuiing it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It is a magnificant sword and basicly has taken sword design to a new level. The main idea was that swords should be heavy and bulky, yet that comes with more flaws then fixes. The Katana is a very easy to handle weapon, strong, sharp and will keep you going. Other lightweight sword are also good in design, but simply lack the quality due to them being mass produced... A katana (or any other lightweight sword) feels like an extension of your limbs while bigger and heavier weapons might sound good with the big payload they have, but are close to uncontrolable and tire you out very fast. And what is a weapon, which has a hard time delivering its payload
Anyway, the big cracking swords might dent a Katana. But also lets get endurance during a battle into acount. Lifting the bigger twohanders would significantly lower the wielder their combat time. Its just not possible to keep up the movement needed during a fight for a long time. While all of the lighter melee weapons keep the fighter going and they also having more control over a weapon. Sure you might land that crushing blow with the bigger ones, but you are slower/get tired pretty fast/off-balance after a miss.
lolfighter's shield/sword combo is the best melee equipment to use imho. Best of both. Superior defence and a good amount of offence. Yet we don't see this in WoW, our chars don't get tired or off balance, so in this game the biggest and heaviest weapon is the best weapon. Gottah love game logics <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
There's a reason there are so many weapons, they all have uses. Swords are just usally special due to the craftsmenship involved (and especially in European designs, the similarity to a crucifix). Swords are particularily interesting, because shape, length, blade angle, blade thickness, blade shape, weight and the metal can drastically effect how you have to use that sword. Many people just think of the 'slashy, slashy' stuff that's usually shown in movies, but many, many swords rely far more on piercing and jabbing than slashing and flailing around.
And a mace is generally a slow weapon, if only because the weighted head is going to need far more torque than a sword, where the weight is spread throughout the length of the blade (if you're swinging it around). All you people with your staves are most likely crazy, since they just didn't generally make that good of weapons in a melee, since they would have to have been made out of wood. Not only do you need a lot of freedom of movement (thus limited armor), but you also have no defensive items (no shield, since it's not really a staff if it's one handed, it's a baton/useless mace) and you need room around you to use the speed of your weapon. Some people still used them (or so my history professor at one point assured someone in one of my classes, though I've never seen a historical record of one in my reading).
You also need to remember that many weapons designed for feudal-era fighting in Europe were actually designed not to kill, but to wound or incapacitate so that you could ransom captured prisoners for 'phat lewts'. Thus, you don't want to stab that guy in the chest with your sword, you just want to ring his helmet like a gong so he falls unconscious. Of course, if you're fighting unarmored peasants with pitchforks, wooden clubs and - most importantly - no money, then by all means hack away.
sorry Kouji but I think you're falling for the legend behind Katanas a bit too much there. When there was conflict between the Japanese and westerners, they brought back reports saying that the Katanas had been utterly ineffectual against plate armour. Unarmoured flesh and bone it cut through no problem, but against steel armour it was pretty useless.
Also, as already mentioned if you tried to actually block a western weapon with a Katana you'd end up with a very broken sword; they're far from indestructible. They don't blunt easily against non-armoured targets compared to the much more malleable western swords, but against metal they tended to chip up and lose their edge very quickly without actually penetrating. That's not to say that western swords didn't get maimed when used against armour as well, but they tended to actually have a fair bit of concussion to them as they were generally 'blunt' by comparison and cutting was achieved more by brute force than a keen edge :p
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1606997:date=Feb 15 2007, 06:50 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 15 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]1606997[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is a magnificant sword and basicly has taken sword design to a new level. The main idea was that swords should be heavy and bulky, yet that comes with more flaws then fixes. The Katana is a very easy to handle weapon, strong, sharp and will keep you going. Other lightweight sword are also good in design, but simply lack the quality due to them being mass produced... A katana (or any other lightweight sword) feels like an extension of your limbs while bigger and heavier weapons might sound good with the big payload they have, but are close to uncontrolable and tire you out very fast. And what is a weapon, which has a hard time delivering its payload
Anyway, the big cracking swords might dent a Katana. But also lets get endurance during a battle into acount. Lifting the bigger twohanders would significantly lower the wielder their combat time. Its just not possible to keep up the movement needed during a fight for a long time. While all of the lighter melee weapons keep the fighter going and they also having more control over a weapon. Sure you might land that crushing blow with the bigger ones, but you are slower/get tired pretty fast/off-balance after a miss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you read the essay I posted? The main point of it is that the equipment and its evolution dictates the nature of combat.
Where did you learn that Europe's medieval smiths mass-produced low-quality and extremely heavy weapons?? Ridiculous. Dating back from the original one-handed Viking swords (forged with Damascus steel until steel became more plentiful) a light weight sword with power derived from its taper and weight placement was the preferred weapon to carry alongside a shield.
<b>The long and heavy cruciform sword carried by knights, barely tapered and with a long and thick cutting edge, was carried ON HORSEBACK! They swung it almost like a golf club to both cut AND smash men on foot!</b> European craftsmen were perfectly aware of the need for balance between weight, length, and shape. You'd be deluded to even suggest they weren't.
Swordsmithing in Japan basically peaked at the katana, and remained stagnant all the way until the advent of gunpowder in warfare. HOWEVER, as steel became more readily available in Europe, the quality of manufacture continuously increased! Indeed, it <i>had to</i>, in order to compete with the relentless arms race vs. armor, <i>an arms race that did not take place on any remotely comparable scale in Japan</i>. Let me say again that steel in Japan back then was not nearly as plentiful or as pure (their metallurgy being incomparable to that of Europe's) and so they resorted to the folding techniques they used with katanas to get the best cutting performance out of the little steel that they did have.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lolfighter's shield/sword combo is the best melee equipment to use imho. Best of both. Superior defence and a good amount of offence. Yet we don't see this in WoW, our chars don't get tired or off balance, so in this game the biggest and heaviest weapon is the best weapon. Gottah love game logics <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Had their samurai or upper-tier warrior class used the same shield tactics as those in Europe, they would have found countless more swords broken by impacts on steel-ringed shields, thick leather or mail armor, and metal helms, god forbid they struck the more modern steel splint or plate armor worn by knights. The reason that viking swords were thick and strong (and yet still light, don't get mixed up here) was that they needed to be able to stand up to beating against these wooden and steel shields, these leather and mail-armored foes. I can't imagine a katana lasting through one battle like that. It likely wouldn't snap and would do fine for killing the enemy, but the edge would be ruined. The point would be ruined. The sword would be altogether ruined. <b>The reason katanas were not commonly broken is that they were not used in battle against heavily armored opponents (not even talking plate mail here) whose equipment would greatly reduce the quality of the blade in each successive battle</b>.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Heh, this hole debate is indeed silly. Comparing centuries of material/sword design/combat types to each other.
Best light weight cutting sword = Katana (can't thrust very well)
Best lightweitgh thrusting sword = straight cavalry sword (can't cut)
Best sword ever if development would have continued, straight thrusting sword with a sharp curved edge...
Remember the thing I said about the ww2 Königstiger and it having perfected sloping armor design for tanks? Same thing happened to that compared to the sword/weapons arms race --> better ways to penetrate that sloping armor rendering it close to useless. Or in sword terms, better armor and ranged weaponry and ways to keep swordsmen at a distance with the polearm (yeah thought I'd mention that one two <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1607006:date=Feb 15 2007, 07:24 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 15 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1607006[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember the thing I said about the ww2 Königstiger and it having perfected sloping armor design for tanks? Same thing happened to that compared to the sword/weapons arms race --> better ways to penetrate that sloping armor rendering it close to useless. Or in sword terms, better armor and ranged weaponry and ways to keep swordsmen at a distance with the polearm (yeah thought I'd mention that one two <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Armor eventually won the arms race against swords, and when fighting against knights, swords were discarded in favor of maces and hammers.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
Gun, woot.
Though I'm no expert in the field, I'd think nice long sword would be best, nothing like a claymore or stupid like a rapier. Katana's are great, but you can't stab the poor fool in the face when you have him down with one.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I did read the whole essay btw and agree wholeheartedly. Also I was not really thinking about the antique katanas, I had no idea steel was that bad in Japan. I was simply comparing currently crafted Katanas and its design with other swords. You have to admit its a well designed sword. But I have to admit it also has its flaws, especially for combat vs armored enemies. Hence my suggestion for the best sword would be the thrust/cut combo.
Sidenote:
Who here has a polearm in WoW and are they... usefull, didn't even know they were ingame (comming from a WoW rogue with a druid alt <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Polearms in wow are just glorified staves. They've usually got about the same damage as any other two-handed weapon worth using and tend to use the same attack animations as staves.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
What about warhammers? Not the WH40k style that have a face bigger than most cars and would require a forklift just to move, actual european warhammers designed to drag knights off horses and shatter their skulls. Or legs. Or arms. Or whatever.
They're essentially a mace with a tiny surface area (so more power in the small area) combined with a halberd (so a serious amount of energy built up in the swing), with a hammer head on one side and a spike on the other. Plus you just look awesome waving a hammer around your head.
So for me, I dunno. A longbow, supposing I was fully trained in it's use (a longbow beats a crossbow in my book, simply for rate of fire, and we are not taking into account training here because we are the heroes of the fantasy world we're going into, we don't need to wait 20 years for full training), a war hammer, and a push-dagger of some sort.
Shoot as they approach, batter with the hammer when they get close, and either run away very fast or use the dagger and speed once they're up very close.
<a href="http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg" target="_blank">http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg</a> I am aware that this isn't exactly an authentic relic, but it gives the idea of size and shape I'm talking about.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1607036:date=Feb 15 2007, 10:00 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Feb 15 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1607036[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What about warhammers? Not the WH40k style that have a face bigger than most cars and would require a forklift just to move, actual european warhammers designed to drag knights off horses and shatter their skulls. Or legs. Or arms. Or whatever.
They're essentially a mace with a tiny surface area (so more power in the small area) combined with a halberd (so a serious amount of energy built up in the swing), with a hammer head on one side and a spike on the other. Plus you just look awesome waving a hammer around your head.
So for me, I dunno. A longbow, supposing I was fully trained in it's use (a longbow beats a crossbow in my book, simply for rate of fire, and we are not taking into account training here because we are the heroes of the fantasy world we're going into, we don't need to wait 20 years for full training), a war hammer, and a push-dagger of some sort.
Shoot as they approach, batter with the hammer when they get close, and either run away very fast or use the dagger and speed once they're up very close.
<a href="http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg" target="_blank">http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg</a> I am aware that this isn't exactly an authentic relic, but it gives the idea of size and shape I'm talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> like I said above, swords were preferred all the way up until (and were still carried during) when gunpowder was used in warfare, unless fighting a man in plate armor, in which case a hammer or mace was used.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1607040:date=Feb 15 2007, 10:26 PM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Feb 15 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]1607040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> like I said above, swords were preferred all the way up until (and were still carried during) when gunpowder was used in warfare, unless fighting a man in plate armor, in which case a hammer or mace was used. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but I imagine that was because Swords required the smallest amount of training- unlike a dagger, which truly required stabbing, or a sabre, which required finesse, the Sword literally was a "if you hit 'em, it hurts 'em" weapon. But the smallest amount of Chainmail made it completely worthless. A mace on the other hand, could shatter your bones without even denting whatever armor you had on. For a trained fighter, I'd imagine it being easily the best.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited February 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1607066:date=Feb 15 2007, 11:44 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Feb 15 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]1607066[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes, but I imagine that was because Swords required the smallest amount of training- unlike a dagger, which truly required stabbing, or a sabre, which required finesse, the Sword literally was a "if you hit 'em, it hurts 'em" weapon. But the smallest amount of Chainmail made it completely worthless. A mace on the other hand, could shatter your bones without even denting whatever armor you had on. For a trained fighter, I'd imagine it being easily the best. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Point 1: Swords were simply the predominant weapon for warfighting at the time, like firearms now. It wasn't because other weapons required super-leet blademaster shadow ninja training, it was because they were inferior in the statistical majority of battles leading up to the advent of gunpowder warfare. Finesse? Give me a break. Just because it was the norm doesn't mean it didn't require a measure of skill. The Art of Fence was extremely popular with civilians then, and swordsmen at all levels (from men-at-arms to knights) were expected to train constantly in their swordsmanship, sometimes several hours daily. If anything, the weapon that people were MOST skilled with then was probably the sword, next to the bow and lance!
Point 2: A mail shirt did not make a sword "completely worthless" by any means. Thrusting swords like the estoc from which the rapier was developed were designed to easily pierce mail. Before these swords came about, the common tactic for fighting a heavy leather or mail-armed foe with a helm and shield was to aim at the neck and extremities to create a disabling wound. It was only when plate mail became more common on the battlefield that hammers and maces found their occupation, and they were (due to their unwieldy nature) used almost solely for the purpose of dispatching heavily armored foes.
<b>edit</b>: it seems most people really think historical european soldier was a know-nothing and a pushover, like a bunch of peasants forced to fight for their lord or something. had that been the case, we'd probably all be speaking Mongolian.
Comments
That's my order of preference. I'm nowhere near strong enough to lug a huge freaking sword or lift a mace. Polearms are too situational. A bow for long-distance work (I'm actually a pretty good at archery), a Katana for simplicity and elegance, and a Bo for practicality.
--Scythe--
Katana reeks of overweight american samurai weeaboos..
Zweihander any day. If you have the full-body strength to wield the blade in the way it was meant for, you can overpower nearly any opponent. That's pretty much why they used two-handed swords in so many societies, and for so long.. long range and superior power at that longer range.
LIGHTNING BOLT!<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
Against someone in plate? that sword is gotta do jack ish, now bring on the flang. And oh dear the trauma and blow is just gonna have him too dazzled to defend himself while you repeatly beat him to a pulp.
Its just such a sweet weapon, also the perfect cavalry weapon, ride by mace to the head just gotta be sweet.
It also can't get stuck.
Katanas are also completely ineffectual against plate... more so than normal western swords were.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Long post ahoy!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Its no use to compare western swords and eastern swords in each other their combat situations. In the west armor was a necessity according to the soldiers hence the need for armor cracking heavy swords, while in the east heavy armor was seldom used...
I'm simply looking at sword design also not "popular culture"
Some basic facts:
katana:
- lightweight, perfect balance during a hard hit or slicing action
- close to unbreakable with the huge amount of multi layered metals
- extremely sharp*
* I think it can be effective against plate, it all depends on the quality of the plate armor vs the outstanding quality of an average katana...
claymore class:
- most of the weight is in the blade, the harder you hit the harder it is to control. But does a significant amount of damage if you hit your target. If you miss you are off-balance
- quantity > quality
- they are pretty sharp, but most of the power lays in the weight for crushing
The very interesting Urumi (the flexible sword from india):
- very unpredictable to defend against
- due to its flexibility you can't parry effectively and it can be damaged when doring so
- easy control due to its weight, but you can't hit things hard, its more of a slicing weapon
Cutlass:
- very robust and easy to handle in close range
- lacking a longer range then most longer swords, but it is much lighter
Mace:
- heavy/slow and kind of a ramming weapon, once you miss you are off-balance
- most of the weight is at the end making it hard to control, yet hit extremely hard in a specific area.
Axe:
- a big axe can be ineffective against multiple targets, it can get stuck if you hit/kill someone
- for slicing its very effective (dual wielding axes while slicing comes to mind)
Dagger:
- they are very light and easy to handle, yet have a short range
- due to their size parrying can be difficult, especially vs bigger weapons
- stabbing will penetrate most things doing a lot of damage
Staff (bo):
- very long range, yet can be hard to handle effectively vs faster weapons
- parrying is only as effective as the strength of the staff
- the bo is bamboo and pretty unpredictable (good for user)
Spear:
- same as the bo, yet shorter area of attack
- the spearhead is elusive with the threads on it, making it very dangerous
Broken beer bottle:
- has all of the characteristics of the dagger except the huge penetration value
- not very strong and can break into smaller pieces rather quick <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Not going to list/comment on these since this is a comparison to WoW, Urumi is a cool sword so shush about that one <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
- nunchaku
- three sectional staff
- sai
- arit (kind of a huge hook, captain hook style <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Also why are we comparing ranged weapons vs melee?
Because then I would say Roman tank tactic soldiers (for lack of better word use) > bow <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Seeing as most weapons usually have a downside except the Katana I still say the Katana is best sword ever designed to date
Also, many katanas wasnt build to last like hitting swords was. A claymore could probaly parry a bigger impact than a katana.
Also parrying with a katana would simply dig its blade into the weapon its parrying. They are high quality, very sharp and very strong. Of course parrying a heavy weapon will always be hard to do with any weapon, since you then have to absorb all of the energy in that weapon. Simply dodging it would be better, which is easier to do with light weapon. And retaliate when they miss you.
[edit]
Also heavy weapons will make you tired in the long run even if you are Arnold Swarchenegger (Conan). Perhaps another reason why heavier weapons are less usefull imho...
But if we're talking the full spectrum of Stuff That Somehow is Connected to Your Hands or Arms, I'd go with a sword and shield. I haven't researched this at all, but if you were to ask me for the most popular choice of equipment across european battlefields, I'd place my bet on the sword and shield. The sword's popularity speaks for itself. They can be used for both cutting and stabbing, and they're commonly lighter than axes and maces, so they're easier and faster to swing around. Probably the most common and versatile melee weapon ever. The shield, I feel, needs even less justification. It's magnitudes easier to block an attack with a shield than with a weapon - many times more so if we're talking about any kind of projectile, like an arrow or bolt or even just a rock that your opponent picked up and threw at your head. A shield it's gotta be.
Also parrying with a katana would simply dig its blade into the weapon its parrying. They are high quality, very sharp and very strong. Of course parrying a heavy weapon will always be hard to do with any weapon, since you then have to absorb all of the energy in that weapon. Simply dodging it would be better, which is easier to do with light weapon. And
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parrying with katana, especially against a heavier blade, which chip the edge very very quickly. Samurai tended to simply dodge. I'd call that a downside.
A combination of defence and offence is probably the best fighting strategy. Yet they are underrated in WoW, the shield does not have as many plus factors then a two handed weapon (thinking pvp here)
Aldaris:
The day a Katana* would "chip" vs other melee weapons, which are most of the time of lower quality and softer steel is a cold day in hell <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Also why would dodging be considered as bad <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Dodging is part of combat and can create an opener since the opponant is caught off guard and probably off balance opening up his defence for a stab or slice... You also have to keep in mind that heavier weapons do hit very hard, but are slower and easier to anticipate with bigger movements. But if you do get hit you are in a lot of trouble, but this factor goes for any weapon hitting you. Effectively nullifying the positive side of the harder hits...
*
I'm not saying there weren't any bad Katanas, but the overall quality of the sword was superior to other swords.
Sadly incorrect. Due to the katana's light weight and extremely thin cutting edge, the warriors who used it did their best to deflect or redirect incoming blows. If you took a thick, dense gladius or hoplite sword, or god forbid a viking two-handed sword, and brought it down on the blade of a katana, the katana would be finished.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kouji_san+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_san)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm not saying there weren't any bad Katanas, but the overall quality of the sword was superior to other swords.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you figure? The whole reason that the Katana is made with folded steel is that they used the relatively poor and primitive metals they had to the best of their ability, folding to make it stronger. The vastly superior European metallurgy of that time made that unnecessary.
<b>edit</b>: this is why I mentioned that KATANA = OVERWEIGHT AMERICAN SAMURAI WEEABOO
<b><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Please before anyone posts anything more about melee weapons without having the slightest idea about them, READ THIS!<a href="http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm" target="_blank">There Is No Best Sword</a></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weeaboo&defid=952612" target="_blank">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...mp;defid=952612</a>
So you say its a glorification of japanese culture <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> I couldn't care less if some message board would say this, because its so not true, in fact its trying to run away from truth persuiing it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
It is a magnificant sword and basicly has taken sword design to a new level. The main idea was that swords should be heavy and bulky, yet that comes with more flaws then fixes. The Katana is a very easy to handle weapon, strong, sharp and will keep you going. Other lightweight sword are also good in design, but simply lack the quality due to them being mass produced... A katana (or any other lightweight sword) feels like an extension of your limbs while bigger and heavier weapons might sound good with the big payload they have, but are close to uncontrolable and tire you out very fast. And what is a weapon, which has a hard time delivering its payload
Anyway, the big cracking swords might dent a Katana. But also lets get endurance during a battle into acount. Lifting the bigger twohanders would significantly lower the wielder their combat time. Its just not possible to keep up the movement needed during a fight for a long time. While all of the lighter melee weapons keep the fighter going and they also having more control over a weapon. Sure you might land that crushing blow with the bigger ones, but you are slower/get tired pretty fast/off-balance after a miss.
lolfighter's shield/sword combo is the best melee equipment to use imho. Best of both. Superior defence and a good amount of offence. Yet we don't see this in WoW, our chars don't get tired or off balance, so in this game the biggest and heaviest weapon is the best weapon. Gottah love game logics <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And a mace is generally a slow weapon, if only because the weighted head is going to need far more torque than a sword, where the weight is spread throughout the length of the blade (if you're swinging it around). All you people with your staves are most likely crazy, since they just didn't generally make that good of weapons in a melee, since they would have to have been made out of wood. Not only do you need a lot of freedom of movement (thus limited armor), but you also have no defensive items (no shield, since it's not really a staff if it's one handed, it's a baton/useless mace) and you need room around you to use the speed of your weapon. Some people still used them (or so my history professor at one point assured someone in one of my classes, though I've never seen a historical record of one in my reading).
You also need to remember that many weapons designed for feudal-era fighting in Europe were actually designed not to kill, but to wound or incapacitate so that you could ransom captured prisoners for 'phat lewts'. Thus, you don't want to stab that guy in the chest with your sword, you just want to ring his helmet like a gong so he falls unconscious. Of course, if you're fighting unarmored peasants with pitchforks, wooden clubs and - most importantly - no money, then by all means hack away.
<a href="http://www.thehaca.com/essays/edgemyth.htm" target="_blank">The Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying</a>
Also, as already mentioned if you tried to actually block a western weapon with a Katana you'd end up with a very broken sword; they're far from indestructible. They don't blunt easily against non-armoured targets compared to the much more malleable western swords, but against metal they tended to chip up and lose their edge very quickly without actually penetrating.
That's not to say that western swords didn't get maimed when used against armour as well, but they tended to actually have a fair bit of concussion to them as they were generally 'blunt' by comparison and cutting was achieved more by brute force than a keen edge :p
Anyway, the big cracking swords might dent a Katana. But also lets get endurance during a battle into acount. Lifting the bigger twohanders would significantly lower the wielder their combat time. Its just not possible to keep up the movement needed during a fight for a long time. While all of the lighter melee weapons keep the fighter going and they also having more control over a weapon. Sure you might land that crushing blow with the bigger ones, but you are slower/get tired pretty fast/off-balance after a miss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you read the essay I posted? The main point of it is that the equipment and its evolution dictates the nature of combat.
Where did you learn that Europe's medieval smiths mass-produced low-quality and extremely heavy weapons?? Ridiculous. Dating back from the original one-handed Viking swords (forged with Damascus steel until steel became more plentiful) a light weight sword with power derived from its taper and weight placement was the preferred weapon to carry alongside a shield.
<b>The long and heavy cruciform sword carried by knights, barely tapered and with a long and thick cutting edge, was carried ON HORSEBACK! They swung it almost like a golf club to both cut AND smash men on foot!</b> European craftsmen were perfectly aware of the need for balance between weight, length, and shape. You'd be deluded to even suggest they weren't.
Swordsmithing in Japan basically peaked at the katana, and remained stagnant all the way until the advent of gunpowder in warfare. HOWEVER, as steel became more readily available in Europe, the quality of manufacture continuously increased! Indeed, it <i>had to</i>, in order to compete with the relentless arms race vs. armor, <i>an arms race that did not take place on any remotely comparable scale in Japan</i>. Let me say again that steel in Japan back then was not nearly as plentiful or as pure (their metallurgy being incomparable to that of Europe's) and so they resorted to the folding techniques they used with katanas to get the best cutting performance out of the little steel that they did have.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lolfighter's shield/sword combo is the best melee equipment to use imho. Best of both. Superior defence and a good amount of offence. Yet we don't see this in WoW, our chars don't get tired or off balance, so in this game the biggest and heaviest weapon is the best weapon. Gottah love game logics <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Had their samurai or upper-tier warrior class used the same shield tactics as those in Europe, they would have found countless more swords broken by impacts on steel-ringed shields, thick leather or mail armor, and metal helms, god forbid they struck the more modern steel splint or plate armor worn by knights. The reason that viking swords were thick and strong (and yet still light, don't get mixed up here) was that they needed to be able to stand up to beating against these wooden and steel shields, these leather and mail-armored foes. I can't imagine a katana lasting through one battle like that. It likely wouldn't snap and would do fine for killing the enemy, but the edge would be ruined. The point would be ruined. The sword would be altogether ruined. <b>The reason katanas were not commonly broken is that they were not used in battle against heavily armored opponents (not even talking plate mail here) whose equipment would greatly reduce the quality of the blade in each successive battle</b>.
Best light weight cutting sword = Katana (can't thrust very well)
Best lightweitgh thrusting sword = straight cavalry sword (can't cut)
Best sword ever if development would have continued, straight thrusting sword with a sharp curved edge...
Remember the thing I said about the ww2 Königstiger and it having perfected sloping armor design for tanks? Same thing happened to that compared to the sword/weapons arms race --> better ways to penetrate that sloping armor rendering it close to useless. Or in sword terms, better armor and ranged weaponry and ways to keep swordsmen at a distance with the polearm (yeah thought I'd mention that one two <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Armor eventually won the arms race against swords, and when fighting against knights, swords were discarded in favor of maces and hammers.
Though I'm no expert in the field, I'd think nice long sword would be best, nothing like a claymore or stupid like a rapier. Katana's are great, but you can't stab the poor fool in the face when you have him down with one.
Sidenote:
Who here has a polearm in WoW and are they... usefull, didn't even know they were ingame (comming from a WoW rogue with a druid alt <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
soooo yeah... polearms = staves++
:p
They're essentially a mace with a tiny surface area (so more power in the small area) combined with a halberd (so a serious amount of energy built up in the swing), with a hammer head on one side and a spike on the other. Plus you just look awesome waving a hammer around your head.
So for me, I dunno. A longbow, supposing I was fully trained in it's use (a longbow beats a crossbow in my book, simply for rate of fire, and we are not taking into account training here because we are the heroes of the fantasy world we're going into, we don't need to wait 20 years for full training), a war hammer, and a push-dagger of some sort.
Shoot as they approach, batter with the hammer when they get close, and either run away very fast or use the dagger and speed once they're up very close.
<a href="http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg" target="_blank">http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg</a> I am aware that this isn't exactly an authentic relic, but it gives the idea of size and shape I'm talking about.
What about warhammers? Not the WH40k style that have a face bigger than most cars and would require a forklift just to move, actual european warhammers designed to drag knights off horses and shatter their skulls. Or legs. Or arms. Or whatever.
They're essentially a mace with a tiny surface area (so more power in the small area) combined with a halberd (so a serious amount of energy built up in the swing), with a hammer head on one side and a spike on the other. Plus you just look awesome waving a hammer around your head.
So for me, I dunno. A longbow, supposing I was fully trained in it's use (a longbow beats a crossbow in my book, simply for rate of fire, and we are not taking into account training here because we are the heroes of the fantasy world we're going into, we don't need to wait 20 years for full training), a war hammer, and a push-dagger of some sort.
Shoot as they approach, batter with the hammer when they get close, and either run away very fast or use the dagger and speed once they're up very close.
<a href="http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg" target="_blank">http://outpostknives.net/pics/xl_WarHammer128_2892.jpg</a> I am aware that this isn't exactly an authentic relic, but it gives the idea of size and shape I'm talking about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
like I said above, swords were preferred all the way up until (and were still carried during) when gunpowder was used in warfare, unless fighting a man in plate armor, in which case a hammer or mace was used.
like I said above, swords were preferred all the way up until (and were still carried during) when gunpowder was used in warfare, unless fighting a man in plate armor, in which case a hammer or mace was used.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but I imagine that was because Swords required the smallest amount of training- unlike a dagger, which truly required stabbing, or a sabre, which required finesse, the Sword literally was a "if you hit 'em, it hurts 'em" weapon. But the smallest amount of Chainmail made it completely worthless. A mace on the other hand, could shatter your bones without even denting whatever armor you had on. For a trained fighter, I'd imagine it being easily the best.
Yes, but I imagine that was because Swords required the smallest amount of training- unlike a dagger, which truly required stabbing, or a sabre, which required finesse, the Sword literally was a "if you hit 'em, it hurts 'em" weapon. But the smallest amount of Chainmail made it completely worthless. A mace on the other hand, could shatter your bones without even denting whatever armor you had on. For a trained fighter, I'd imagine it being easily the best.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point 1: Swords were simply the predominant weapon for warfighting at the time, like firearms now. It wasn't because other weapons required super-leet blademaster shadow ninja training, it was because they were inferior in the statistical majority of battles leading up to the advent of gunpowder warfare. Finesse? Give me a break. Just because it was the norm doesn't mean it didn't require a measure of skill. The Art of Fence was extremely popular with civilians then, and swordsmen at all levels (from men-at-arms to knights) were expected to train constantly in their swordsmanship, sometimes several hours daily. If anything, the weapon that people were MOST skilled with then was probably the sword, next to the bow and lance!
Point 2: A mail shirt did not make a sword "completely worthless" by any means. Thrusting swords like the estoc from which the rapier was developed were designed to easily pierce mail. Before these swords came about, the common tactic for fighting a heavy leather or mail-armed foe with a helm and shield was to aim at the neck and extremities to create a disabling wound. It was only when plate mail became more common on the battlefield that hammers and maces found their occupation, and they were (due to their unwieldy nature) used almost solely for the purpose of dispatching heavily armored foes.
<b>edit</b>: it seems most people really think historical european soldier was a know-nothing and a pushover, like a bunch of peasants forced to fight for their lord or something. had that been the case, we'd probably all be speaking Mongolian.