• Katanas, Plate armor, and European armies. Myths Dispelled and explained.
    947 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33387182]Even the fighting has been so ridiculously romanticized. Armored longsword combat is ugly, ugly, ugly. It generally consists of two guys in plate wrestling until one is on the ground, then the one on top either pokes at exposed joints or just stabs as hard as he can with one hand on the hilt and the other on the blade until he gets through, like trying to open a tin can with a butter knife. Other times it might involve a Mordhau, which is German for "hit that motherfucker in the head with the hilt." [IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/1zogb5z.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Generally knights or anyone wealthy enough a own a suit of armor, were preferred to be captured and ransomed. Knight combat usually lasted until one is knocked unconscious or passes out from exhaustion, not to the death.
Knights and Samurai aren't that comparable. Japanese swords were made of shittier metals than European ones but they served a different purpose, it wasn't anticipated that a Katana would have to cut through plate armor or mail but rather something like lacquered leather or light banded armor, and those occurrences would be rare seeing as most footmen were virtually unarmored. If European knights had invaded Japan they would've had a huge problem dealing with Japanese archers rather than Samurai.
[QUOTE=No_0ne;33388149]Generally knights or anyone wealthy enough a own a suit of armor, were preferred to be captured and ransomed. Knight combat usually lasted until one is knocked unconscious or passes out from exhaustion, not to the death.[/QUOTE]Given they weren't hit hard enough to cause a cerebral edema or other hemorrhaging, which was the most likely cause of death for most combatants who were wearing plate armor.
or just getting a heat stroke, not to mention everyone's favorite: getting stuck in mud and drowning after getting trampled upon
[QUOTE=No_0ne;33388149]Generally knights or anyone wealthy enough a own a suit of armor, were preferred to be captured and ransomed. Knight combat usually lasted until one is knocked unconscious or passes out from exhaustion, not to the death.[/QUOTE] No, not really. Preferred yes, but it sure as shit isn't going to stop you from killing someone on the battlefield when he's trying to kill you back. Particularly later on e.g. the Italian Wars, where there were a shit ton of people in full plate on the battlefield.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;33373470]i suppose on horseback at least it would be great, but Mongolians would fuck you in the ass either way. But what i'm trying to say is the katana may not function well against a suit of armor, it wasn't designed to, it is still a great sword[/QUOTE] Mongolians got raped by European knights. They fought against an Arab army with European knights as mercenaries and got utterly demolished.
Mongolians were absolutely fucking amazing as a horde, and when skirmishing, but were only really great when fighting on steppes and the like - their fighting style was all about maneuvering as a large, cohesive group whilst firing arrows. Basically, they were very good at dealing with infantry formations, but had very little "force" when it comes to actually attacking anything walled and well defended. Light calvelry archers are really incomparable to anything else. I'd sooner back the European knights against a Mongol horde in a straight on fight.
Well, when your entire tactic is a zerg-rush esque mob towards the enemy whist covering them in arrows of course you'll have problems with a castle. It has wall which are vulnerable to neither arrows nor humans running into it (unless its a shit castle).
Well that's why the Mongols used captured prisoners to run up the siege equipment. That and there's always the good 'ol siege.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Nerf swords deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Nerf sword in the US for $20.00 (that's about $20.00) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Nerf Sword. Chinese sweatshop workers spend years working on a single Nerf Sword and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind. NErf Swords are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a Nerf Sword can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a Nerf Sword could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash. Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering China? That's right, they were too scared to fight the un-disciplined 12yr olds and their Nerf Swords of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the Nerf Swords first because their killing power was feared and respected. So what am I saying? NErf Swords are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Nerf Swords: (One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork (Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Nerf Swords in real life, don't you think?
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33388737]Mongolians were absolutely fucking amazing as a horde, and when skirmishing, but were only really great when fighting on steppes and the like - their fighting style was all about maneuvering as a large, cohesive group whilst firing arrows. Basically, they were very good at dealing with infantry formations, but had very little "force" when it comes to actually attacking anything walled and well defended. Light calvelry archers are really incomparable to anything else. I'd sooner back the European knights against a Mongol horde in a straight on fight.[/QUOTE] Well that's mostly due to the difference in horses. European Warhorses were massive beasts that were aggressive, hard to manage and very very fast. There's a reason they weren't usually ridden outside of combat. Mongolian horses on the other hand were pretty small things with great stamina but low top speed. Their cavalry is great against unarmoured foot. ANd is amazing for pillaging villages and the like. It suffers to armoured infantry though and is run down heavy cavalry. As far as I know the only notable exchanges between mongols and larger heavy cavalry units was in their Arab wars. And from that they hardly won anything. And what they did, was mostly due to their Christian allies. [QUOTE=Droogie;33388238]Knights and Samurai aren't that comparable. Japanese swords were made of shittier metals than European ones but they served a different purpose, it wasn't anticipated that a Katana would have to cut through plate armor or mail but rather something like lacquered leather or light banded armor, and those occurrences would be rare seeing as most footmen were virtually unarmored. If European knights had invaded Japan they would've had a huge problem dealing with Japanese archers rather than Samurai.[/QUOTE] Except those japanese archers would have done nothing to the knights either. Keep in mind as warfare goes, everything in Japan was present in Europe in some way at one time or another. The same doesn't go for the Japanese. They never really got to face anything even similar to italian crossbow lines, standard cavalry or well trained infantry.
[QUOTE=Vasili;33388641]Mongolians got raped by European knights. They fought against an Arab army with European knights as mercenaries and got utterly demolished.[/QUOTE] Mongolians got completely raped by Russians, that's why it's [I]hueg[/I], we took everything. [editline]23rd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;33392123] The same doesn't go for the Japanese. They never really got to face anything even similar to italian crossbow lines, standard cavalry or well trained infantry.[/QUOTE] Who did Japan even fight against at that time? I don't think I've heard about any large asian conflicts back then.
These arguments are always idiotic because they take place between internet users who most likely have never engaged in a fist fight, much less a medieval battle. The only option is clearly to equip hundreds of the most hardened proponents of each side with their arguments equipment and have them fight to the death en mass. Survivors win the argument.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;33392856]These arguments are always idiotic because they take place between internet users who most likely have never engaged in a fist fight, much less a medieval battle. The only option is clearly to equip hundreds of the most hardened proponents of each side with their arguments equipment and have them fight to the death en mass. Survivors win the argument.[/QUOTE] I was in a rapier tournament this past Saturday and I practice German longsword technique at rapier practice just about every week. I may not know everything there is to know about medieval combat but I do know my German longsword.
[QUOTE=No_0ne;33388149]Generally knights or anyone wealthy enough a own a suit of armor, were preferred to be captured and ransomed. Knight combat usually lasted until one is knocked unconscious or passes out from exhaustion, not to the death.[/QUOTE] Just knights. Men at arms were worthless. [editline]23rd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=scratch (nl);33387493]Than they could as well just use hammers or something instead of swords.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqlIcT9Ps8w[/media]
do what this man did ;) [img]http://thewhelk.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rangernomore.jpg[/img] and then the knight killed the samurai with a gun.
[QUOTE=oakman26;33385993]Actually a "modern infantryman" doesnt carry 80 pounds into combat [img]http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.com/wp-content/uploads/US-Army-Afghanistan.jpg[/img] 33 pound interceptor vest with SAPI insert, 6.9lb M4+3lb M203 ,8 0.6lb STANAG magazines and at most 10lb of grenades. So more like 50lb at most (actually it was 40lb but i dont know what other shit they have with them)[/QUOTE] They said they had 180 pounds in that video, however Aussie soldiers carry 28 kilograms.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33386439]Oh this thread again! I find it funny how a katana can made near useless by wearing a full chain mail, which actually doesn't wear NEARLY as much as full plate.[/QUOTE] It's because Katanas aren't even meant to be used for hitting things, not even for blocking.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;33399150]It's because Katanas aren't even meant to be used for hitting things, not even for blocking.[/QUOTE] That's why it's funny, ecause essentially Katana vs. Knight discussion is retarded. It's like comparing Machinegun vs. Tank, MG won't any damage at all but when it comes to killing squishy people, MG is much better at it than slow bulky tank.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33399422]That's why it's funny, ecause essentially Katana vs. Knight discussion is retarded. It's like comparing Machinegun vs. Tank, MG won't any damage at all but when it comes to killing squishy people, MG is much better at it than slow bulky tank.[/QUOTE] More like apples and oranges really, and as said, European weapons and Katanas were desgined for entirely different things, based on what was around them when they were made, plus medieval knights and Samurai never actually met, so its mostly just speculation.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;33398363]They said they had 180 pounds in that video, however Aussie soldiers carry 28 kilograms.[/QUOTE] so you mean to say that carry about 20 kilos of beer?
Don't forget the 4 kilo's of snags.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;33399457]More like apples and oranges really, and as said, European weapons and Katanas were desgined for entirely different things, based on what was around them when they were made, plus medieval knights and Samurai never actually met, so its mostly just speculation.[/QUOTE] Well you can easily find a number of swords that are similar to function to a katana in Europe. The core different will though often be a far more complex guard, a cross at minimum. Plus considering katanas were originally straight blades (I think) this makes it even easier.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;33421516]Well you can easily find a number of swords that are similar to function to a katana in Europe. The core different will though often be a far more complex guard, a cross at minimum. Plus considering katanas were originally straight blades (I think) this makes it even easier.[/QUOTE] There may have not been single bladed swords as thick as the katana in ancient yurop.
They didn't need to make them as thick because they were of superior quality steel. [editline]24th November 2011[/editline] And katanas tended to be used two-handed IIRC
Now someone needs to make a pirate vs. ninja thread.
I kept reading this in Professor Farnsworth's voice for some reason.
[img]http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201005/20100513024700_2.jpg[/img] Sup. [editline]24th November 2011[/editline] Y'all niggas don't got shit on the Sikhs. [img]http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/reu/d/2011%5C79%5C2011-03-20T172747Z_01_MUM20_RTRIDSP_0_INDIA.jpg[/img] Look at these guys. [img]http://www.djvicny.com/images/deep4.jpg[/img] They don't even give one fuck.
Talwars are fucking awesome. And I didn't know the Indian regions used straight swords.
Ah, I remember this thread. Really good read. I remember posting some retarded thing back then, ages ago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.