Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. #41
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    With respect, I disagree. There's a reason khopesh were left behind. I've seen trained martial artists use katana properly - they're quite effective at cutting through tough material. But you have to be trained to use them. They're worthless if you can't use them properly. At the same demo, a student couldn't cut through the rolled up reeds - he just kept hitting and bouncing off over and over until they pulled him away. The masters - woosh! one shot, three thick rolled up reeds cut. Each was about 6 in radius, maybe 7.

    If you look at later khopesh and real claymores, their cutting edge approaches that of the katana - the curved side cuts, near the end of the blade. Katana are better b/c of the materials and folding, but the other two weapons are similar in the cutting motion required.
    A katana is not made to cut steel, since the armors at the time were not heavy. Khopeshes were used in ancient egypt, and were quite effective at the time. A claymore can crush its way through armor, not just cut, which is why it is better against a heavily armored foe.

    Basically, every weapon is designed for a certain age, and a certain use. It isnt likely to be much good in a time where the requirements are different.

    To use the example of the bunch of reeds: A katana will cut it in half, but put it inside a steel pipe and it wont do much harm. An axe wont cut the reeds, unless its exceeding sharp, and youre very lucky, but it will hack through and crush the steel pipe.

    The main reason katanas are so famous is that they are among the last main weapon swords made. Most of the world had moved to swords as a last resort type of weapon (well, not last, but you know what i mean, i hope), which means that they were rather crappy. The katana outshone those with ease, since it was also effective against the armors used at that time (which in most of the world were rather ineffective by that time thanks to firearms)
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  2. #42
    Community Member Ausdoerrt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    If you look at later khopesh and real claymores, their cutting edge approaches that of the katana - the curved side cuts, near the end of the blade. Katana are better b/c of the materials and folding, but the other two weapons are similar in the cutting motion required.
    Claymores are definitely more of a bludgeoning weapon. And in general, most European swords, unlike Japanese swords, were designed to damage by weight rather than speed, especially due to heavy armor popularity.

    Katana is NOT better because of materials; in fact, the folding had to be used to compensate for INFERIOR materials - it's a well-known fact that the Japanese did not have access to good steel for weapon cores. Katanas are also much thinner, so they'd be likely to just chip or shatter when confronted with a steel breastplate or even a Western sword.

  3. #43
    Community Member Singular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartharok View Post
    A katana is not made to cut steel, since the armors at the time were not heavy. Khopeshes were used in ancient egypt, and were quite effective at the time. A claymore can crush its way through armor, not just cut, which is why it is better against a heavily armored foe.
    You must have held different claymores than I have held.

    Basically, every weapon is designed for a certain age, and a certain use. It isnt likely to be much good in a time where the requirements are different.
    True. Khopesh were used prior to serious armor, so katana would beat them in their age, the same way a gun would beat most previous armor and weapons.

    To use the example of the bunch of reeds: A katana will cut it in half, but put it inside a steel pipe and it wont do much harm. An axe wont cut the reeds, unless its exceeding sharp, and youre very lucky, but it will hack through and crush the steel pipe.
    The katana, in the hands of a master, would cut through the pipe, too.

    The main reason katanas are so famous is that they are among the last main weapon swords made. Most of the world had moved to swords as a last resort type of weapon (well, not last, but you know what i mean, i hope), which means that they were rather crappy. The katana outshone those with ease, since it was also effective against the armors used at that time (which in most of the world were rather ineffective by that time thanks to firearms)
    That's one of the reasons, sure. They were also the best made, using the best techniques.

  4. #44
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    You must have held different claymores than I have held.



    True. Khopesh were used prior to serious armor, so katana would beat them in their age, the same way a gun would beat most previous armor and weapons.



    The katana, in the hands of a master, would cut through the pipe, too.



    That's one of the reasons, sure. They were also the best made, using the best techniques.
    In the age of the khopesh, a katana would have been pretty useless, since the fighting (on foot) was done with spears and shields. The khopesh was heavy enough to penetrate the defence afforded by the shield, which was its function. A katana wouldnt have done the same. Though i must say that the khopesh that exists in ddo LOOKS like a khopesh, but seems to be designed around a falcata, the khopesh wasnt all that powerful.

    Katanas would have been utterly uselesss against heavy armor, since they are made to be sharp and flexible, but not usable against heavy armor. They didnt need to be, since the armors used were light to medium. In the hands of anybody they wouldnt cut through heavy medieaval armor, they just werent designed to do so.

    A curved and comaparatively light blade such as the katana had is excellent for cutiing, but it transferred the force to a too large area to be able to penetrate plate, in addition the lack of wieght would have stopped the blade too easily.

    Have you ever held a genuine claymore, or just a replica, by the way? They may look the same but are completely different.

    As another example of function, i have used a falchion (which is nothing like the one in DDO, btw) for the reed test, it didnt cut through any reeds, but snapped the whole thing off. Stabbing with it penetrated the whole bundle of reeds, though. Again , a matter of designing for a certain function.
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  5. #45
    Community Member Singular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ausdoerrt View Post
    Claymores are definitely more of a bludgeoning weapon. And in general, most European swords, unlike Japanese swords, were designed to damage by weight rather than speed, especially due to heavy armor popularity.

    Katana is NOT better because of materials; in fact, the folding had to be used to compensate for INFERIOR materials - it's a well-known fact that the Japanese did not have access to good steel for weapon cores. Katanas are also much thinner, so they'd be likely to just chip or shatter when confronted with a steel breastplate or even a Western sword.
    Very sorry, I have troubles believing that. I've held both katana and claymores in my hand, and seen katana in action. You are claiming that, in Europe, their thinking was "well, we have the best steel, so we'll make bludgeoning weapons" and in Japan "we have the worst steel, so we'll make the best cutting swords we can."

    Nope. Doesn't make sense.

  6. #46
    Community Member Singular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartharok View Post
    In the age of the khopesh, a katana would have been pretty useless, since the fighting (on foot) was done with spears and shields. The khopesh was heavy enough to penetrate the defence afforded by the shield, which was its function. A katana wouldnt have done the same. Though i must say that the khopesh that exists in ddo LOOKS like a khopesh, but seems to be designed around a falcata, the khopesh wasnt all that powerful.

    Katanas would have been utterly uselesss against heavy armor, since they are made to be sharp and flexible, but not usable against heavy armor. They didnt need to be, since the armors used were light to medium. In the hands of anybody they wouldnt cut through heavy medieaval armor, they just werent designed to do so.

    A curved and comaparatively light blade such as the katana had is excellent for cutiing, but it transferred the force to a too large area to be able to penetrate plate, in addition the lack of wieght would have stopped the blade too easily.

    Have you ever held a genuine claymore, or just a replica, by the way? They may look the same but are completely different.

    As another example of function, i have used a falchion (which is nothing like the one in DDO, btw) for the reed test, it didnt cut through any reeds, but snapped the whole thing off. Stabbing with it penetrated the whole bundle of reeds, though. Again , a matter of designing for a certain function.
    I'd recommend not attacking the shield of the person you're fighting, but the person.

    Katana aren't that flexible. You're thinking of Chinese swords.

    I've held one genuine claymore - admittedly, one isn't representative - and one replica. The replica was smaller and better balanced, and had a better cutting edge. The genuine one was large and required a lot of room to use effectively. If people of equal skill were using them, a katana would beat it simply by approaching in close range.

    The ones I've seen in museums were, frankly, huge. I doubt I could wield them.

    That's pretty cool that you've actually used one. Hands off to you! I would imagine any sword with a point, used properly, would penetrate the reeds, though. Cutting through them is pretty tough. If you managed to snap the whole thing off, you must generate a lot of force. Given the chance, I'd run away from you

    This is totally an aside - In my 2nd degree bb test, I had to fight a trained kendo-ist and iaido-ist using an aluminim katana. Now, a kendo person doesn't use a sword properly - I was able to beat him 30% of the time, dying 70% of the time. If he was a real swordsman, I'd have died every time. Not a chance for poor me.

    I have a question for you: how do you block with with the khopesh?

  7. #47
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    Very sorry, I have troubles believing that. I've held both katana and claymores in my hand, and seen katana in action. You are claiming that, in Europe, their thinking was "well, we have the best steel, so we'll make bludgeoning weapons" and in Japan "we have the worst steel, so we'll make the best cutting swords we can."

    Nope. Doesn't make sense.
    You have it wrong. Japan didnt have all that great steel, so they made weapons, not armor of it. Europe had lots of iron, so both sides got improved. Armor and weapons.

    Actually they did make layered weapons in europe quite a while longer ago than katanas were made in japan, the reason was that the good steel was hard to come by, so they layered it with softer and more flexible metals. Claymore werent made from the best metal available usually, and neither were all the other blades. Instead they were made to overcome armor by other means. In the case of claymores by making a weapon that broke armor by force. Not by bludgeoning but by increasing the amount of frode excerted on the armor by increasing the weight and force (by making it 2handed). A more accurate term woul be hacking.

    No wepon exists that is superior to the other when removed from the context they existed in. A bastard sword for instance was meant to be used against heavily armored foes, it would beat the katana against those. On the other hand, a katana would be better against lightly armored foes, for the same reason that the bastard sword was against heavier armors. It was designed for it.

    Claiming that the katana was superior period, shows that either you have been watching too many movies, or are otherwise ignorant of the issue.
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  8. #48
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    I'd recommend not attacking the shield of the person you're fighting, but the person.

    Katana aren't that flexible. You're thinking of Chinese swords.

    I've held one genuine claymore - admittedly, one isn't representative - and one replica. The replica was smaller and better balanced, and had a better cutting edge. The genuine one was large and required a lot of room to use effectively. If people of equal skill were using them, a katana would beat it simply by approaching in close range.

    The ones I've seen in museums were, frankly, huge. I doubt I could wield them.

    That's pretty cool that you've actually used one. Hands off to you! I would imagine any sword with a point, used properly, would penetrate the reeds, though. Cutting through them is pretty tough. If you managed to snap the whole thing off, you must generate a lot of force. Given the chance, I'd run away from you

    This is totally an aside - In my 2nd degree bb test, I had to fight a trained kendo-ist and iaido-ist using an aluminim katana. Now, a kendo person doesn't use a sword properly - I was able to beat him 30% of the time, dying 70% of the time. If he was a real swordsman, I'd have died every time. Not a chance for poor me.

    I have a question for you: how do you block with with the khopesh?
    The shield is meant to block the atttack against you, not be attacked.

    Few swords of the older era (khopeshes included) were designed to block with, especially the heavier blades. They were rather expensive to make, and you wouldnt want them to break. The katana you could parry with since it was comparatively flexible (i dont mean like the chinese blades were, but having flex), and what you parried was another katana. Beside that the khopesh would be rather clumsy to block with, just wasnt designed for it.

    Snapping the whole thing wasnt an effect of my strength, but of th eblade i used. A falchion can be considered the clusmy offspring of an axe and a rapier. It has a heavy chopping edge that tapers convexely to a needle point. Its only design was to penetrate armor. And its horribly clumsy to wield. Against a katana i think it would run second, unless A) i was very heavily armored (which i probably would be) or B) you were foolish enough to parry it.

    The same goes for the claymores, as long as i wasnt heavily armored or you didnt try to parry it, the katanas speed would probably beat it.

    The whole point is that in their time and era most weapons were excellent, but taken out of context they would lose most of what made them powerful.
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  9. #49
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Oh, penetratinmg the reeds isnt the hard bit, its going straight through the bundle, including the stick to stiffen it (lucky shot, as said its horribly clumsy)
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  10. #50
    Community Member Ausdoerrt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    Very sorry, I have troubles believing that. I've held both katana and claymores in my hand, and seen katana in action. You are claiming that, in Europe, their thinking was "well, we have the best steel, so we'll make bludgeoning weapons" and in Japan "we have the worst steel, so we'll make the best cutting swords we can."

    Nope. Doesn't make sense.
    Congrats, you just won the "most ridiculous misrepresentation of what was written of the month" award.

    You can read up on it - katanas were typically made with poor quality cores and coated in high-grade steel. But that was enough for the existing armor. Against heavy armor it's be pretty useless.

    Khopeshes, IIRC, were designed for easy beheadings.

  11. #51
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singular View Post
    If you look at later khopesh and real claymores, their cutting edge approaches that of the katana - the curved side cuts, near the end of the blade. Katana are better b/c of the materials and folding, but the other two weapons are similar in the cutting motion required.
    Claymore's are straight bladed weapons, they don't have a curved side.

    http://www.swordhq.com/item--Cold-Steel-Authentic--26

    http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/a...ore-sword.html

    Just saying.

    However, just to toss out some hate in my direction, the historical Khopesh was a piece of **** all things said and done, it was a top heavy weapon like a maul or axe, so it could not be used like an saber or balanced sword and at the same time it lacked the heft to be used as an actual axe in combat. It was not the weapon of a skilled swordsman, but a rudimentary weapon with very simple tactic of trip your opponent with hooked side and then hacked at them while they were down, it was a very crude and not very skillful weapon at all.

    Ok flame on.
    Last edited by Ungood; 09-19-2013 at 10:00 AM.

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartharok View Post
    A katana is not made to cut steel, since the armors at the time were not heavy. Khopeshes were used in ancient egypt, and were quite effective at the time. A claymore can crush its way through armor, not just cut, which is why it is better against a heavily armored foe.

    Basically, every weapon is designed for a certain age, and a certain use. It isnt likely to be much good in a time where the requirements are different.

    To use the example of the bunch of reeds: A katana will cut it in half, but put it inside a steel pipe and it wont do much harm. An axe wont cut the reeds, unless its exceeding sharp, and youre very lucky, but it will hack through and crush the steel pipe.

    The main reason katanas are so famous is that they are among the last main weapon swords made. Most of the world had moved to swords as a last resort type of weapon (well, not last, but you know what i mean, i hope), which means that they were rather crappy. The katana outshone those with ease, since it was also effective against the armors used at that time (which in most of the world were rather ineffective by that time thanks to firearms)
    Katanas are not the last swords made - maybe used, but not made. Rapiers and sabers were among the last 'sword' inventions where the process went from slashing weapons to piercing since most of the armor technique went from plate type armor to ring mail type armor in order to stop incoming slash damage.

    Plus with the introduction of firearms obsoleted in many ways the use of heavy armor.

    Swords (sabers) were used all the way up to world war 1. By world war 2 Japan were the only ones using 'swords' and only for officers. That has a lot to do with bayonets taking over the role of melee weapons (a change that happened well before that during the Napoleonic era) and where pikes to stop cavalry was replaced by different forms of infantry bayonet tactics.

  13. #53
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patang01 View Post
    Swords (sabers) were used all the way up to world war 1. By world war 2 Japan were the only ones using 'swords' and only for officers.
    This is true, and for America, WWI marked the end of the cavalry units, and thus the sabers that went with them, I do believe that the marines however still have a saber as part of their blues.

  14. #54
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patang01 View Post
    Katanas are not the last swords made - maybe used, but not made. Rapiers and sabers were among the last 'sword' inventions where the process went from slashing weapons to piercing since most of the armor technique went from plate type armor to ring mail type armor in order to stop incoming slash damage.

    Plus with the introduction of firearms obsoleted in many ways the use of heavy armor.

    Swords (sabers) were used all the way up to world war 1. By world war 2 Japan were the only ones using 'swords' and only for officers. That has a lot to do with bayonets taking over the role of melee weapons (a change that happened well before that during the Napoleonic era) and where pikes to stop cavalry was replaced by different forms of infantry bayonet tactics.
    Both rapiers and sabers are rather old inventions that got taken back into use because the climate favored them. And i said katanas were the last main swords, by which i mean swords used as the main weapon, not something you used when you ran out of bullets, or got too close.

    Rapiers didnt get taken back into use to penetrate ring/chain mail, but rather to fight unarmored/lightly armored opponents. Sabers on the other hand were used on horseback through the ages, because they were an optimum design for slashing in motion. (or rather the easiest optimum).

    It is true that the invention of firearms removed the use of heavy armor, but the last armored troops were used as late as WWI. Rather unsuccesfully, though.
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

  15. #55
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    252

    Default

    If memory serves, in 3.5, weren't katanas just masterwork bastard swords? I believe the DMG had an entry for making a different world, and included an Asian weapon set and a Renaissance weapon set. Think it was 1d10, 19-20/x2 crit, could be one-handed with special training or used two-handed...

    And here's another thought for weapons to be included - mancatcher!
    Anything can be explained by drunken wizards.

    "Hey! I got a piece of the +1 Butter Knife of Victory! Ah-oh, wait, wait. It's just a crummy, normal +1 dagger of ghostbane..."

  16. #56
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartharok View Post
    It is true that the invention of firearms removed the use of heavy armor, but the last armored troops were used as late as WWI. Rather unsuccesfully, though.
    Um. WWII, to fix your typo...?

    Now, this discussion is becoming fairly ridiculous anyway.

    It is true that the best katanas are very good weapons and do have a superb cutting edge, often being able to cut lesser steel. It is NOT true that such blades were only made in Japan - Toledo and Damascus were once centers of folded steel blademaking too, and then there's the stuff they made in India or thereabouts and...

    It is "somewhat" true that the "secrets" of the blade metallurgy were/are usually kept very secret, and supposedly lost a number of times. No one mentions the rediscovery much, to protect their own trade secrets.

    It just happens that the best blades were and are miles ahead of the average-quality blade in the same region and age, in both quality and price. Japan is actually known as a place where there was a particularly wide range of quality around for a long time, with some blades just plain poor quality, so cutting through an inferior blade was comparatively likely to happen.

    No one really wants to see an authentic/typical ninja-to in DDO, do they? (Shortsword, slashing because they were disposable and made of so cheap steel that it couldn't hold a point...)
    Last edited by mna; 09-19-2013 at 02:55 PM.
    No longer completely f2p as of November 2014. Father of 3 more DDO players so far (I do have more children than that).
    Away from the game most of 2015.

  17. #57
    Community Member DynaTheCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Narnia
    Posts
    735

    Default

    If we're talking about sword history, all I remember (from history channel? LOL) is the Roman gladius vs. long(er) swords.

    Long swords were made for slicing. Gladius were made for thrusting.

    And even though the gladius is a shorter than the long sword (less range).

    The shorter length made the thrusts more powerful and quicker... usually enabling the gladius wielder to overcome a longsword user much more easily. The thrusts also made it easier to hit chinks / open slots in an armor. If you do a long slice, you'd have to slice through armor.

    Weight probably had something to do with it as well....

    Can't swing a heavy sword for a long time.




    The thing with katanas is... katanas were made with a lot more care than mass produced army weapon fodder.....

    Folded and folded with hard, medium, and soft metals.

    Katanas are deadly artworks. Meh
    Last edited by DynaTheCat; 09-19-2013 at 03:45 PM.

  18. #58
    The Mad Multiclasser Failedlegend's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada,Ontario, GTA
    Posts
    6,864

    Default

    Any 2-Handed Piercing Weapon

    Throwing weapons that have a decent damage die
    Quote Originally Posted by Cordovan
    There is little value in getting into an edition debate; as with anything, we create what we believe works best for DDO.

  19. #59
    Community Member Daitengu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DynaTheCat View Post
    The thing with katanas is... katanas were made with a lot more care than mass produced army weapon fodder.....
    For some time Katana were mass produced.

  20. #60
    Community Member Ausdoerrt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DynaTheCat View Post
    The shorter length made the thrusts more powerful and quicker... usually enabling the gladius wielder to overcome a longsword user much more easily. The thrusts also made it easier to hit chinks / open slots in an armor. If you do a long slice, you'd have to slice through armor.

    Weight probably had something to do with it as well....
    I'm pretty sure Roman tactics and shield use came into it as well.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload