Game of Thrones begins....

[viper37]

Nice quote there.

[grumbler]

I didn't know that. I thought there were electronic sensors and points awarded.

it is supposed to be about touches, just like foil fencing.  The heavier weapons, though, are apparently much harder to control and so accidents much more likely.

[grumbler]

Nice quote there.

Actually, the quote is about cavalry:  "The general use of cavalry in modern warfare is to give tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl!"  Punch, c. 1841

[Viking]

I saw an article once that pointed out that most depictions of sword fighting with actual swords really mess up the fact that you cannot cut meat (including a human) by simply hitting it with a sharp object.

Imagine you are trying to cut a steak with a really, really sharp knife. Will your knife cut throught the steak if you simply swing it at the steak and hit it with the sharp edge? Not really - you have to CUT the steak, running that sharp edge back and forth across the meat, and then it will in fact cut very nicely.

So "hitting" someone with the cutting edge of a sword might be very damaging from a weight/mass standpoint, but you aren't going to slice through someone really in that fashion, you really have to hit them, then draw your weapon across them applying pressure to "cut".

Which is why armor works so well, since it means you cannot "cut".

Part of the problem is that modern humans simply don't really understand actual martial swordfighting, since we don't do it at all anymore. Even live steel fighting is not designed to actually cut people, quite the opposite in fact. The article I read (this was a while back) was trying to make the point that in actual reality, we don't really know HOW people with longswords and such actually fought from a mechanical standpoint, since nobody has done so in earnest for a ridiculously long time.

Most of our "fake" fighting emphasize simply making contact with sweeping hacks, but in reality, that would likely be an incredibly ineffective way to actually seriously injure someone.

I'll second this, swords are not really weapons of war. In almost no cases (perhaps roman legions excepted) are swords the primary weapon of war. Even in the roman case the sword was more of a spear with no handle than what is traditionally considered a sword. Swords are something you have as well.

Sabres and Scimitars for cavalry, along with Katanas, were mostly useless against armoured opponents and only really useful to killing peasants and as a last resort. The status of swords probably stems from their usefulness as secondary weapons and their ability to be worn in most situations. Demonstrating both the ability to defend oneself and the willingness to kill.

[Viking]

Two good channels about weapons and their use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6LcGEzUmdM


On kutting and another channel on weapons use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwbf1_LP8w

[Ed Anger]

http://tosh.cc.com/video-clips/527595/cold-steel-blade

[Razgovory]

I'll second this, swords are not really weapons of war. In almost no cases (perhaps roman legions excepted) are swords the primary weapon of war. Even in the roman case the sword was more of a spear with no handle than what is traditionally considered a sword. Swords are something you have as well.

Sabres and Scimitars for cavalry, along with Katanas, were mostly useless against armoured opponents and only really useful to killing peasants and as a last resort. The status of swords probably stems from their usefulness as secondary weapons and their ability to be worn in most situations. Demonstrating both the ability to defend oneself and the willingness to kill.

I disagree.  Swords were very effective, because of their versatility.  You have more control then with an axe or spear and can chose between slashing and stabbing. In the late middle ages there are plenty of military manuals that discuss and fighting with swords and armor.  The manuals are often richly decorated and depict sword fights between armored men.  How they use the weapons is often unexpected though.  They fought dirty.

Here's an example

[viper37]

Nice quote there.

Actually, the quote is about cavalry:  "The general use of cavalry in modern warfare is to give tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl!"  Punch, c. 1841

I always read it as being from Frederick the Great: Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl"
http://www.military-quotes.com/artillery%20quotes.htm

[Jaron]

That silly knight is holding his sword backward!

[Viking]

That silly knight is holding his sword backward!

As Berkut said, swords weren't super sharp for the most part. Long swords often were used as levers and crow bars rather than cutting blades. There were also not primary weapons. They were last ditch back up weapons that people used when their lance or halberd or axe ceased to be helpful to continued survival.

The use of actual swords in actual war as primary weapons is pretty rare.

[Josquius]

Yep. The main use of swords in high medieval times tended to be as blunt weapons- which is always puzzling in RPGs with damage types and swords doing slashing damage against full plate.

[Tamas]

Could you guys please stop arguing about something none of you have any kind of practical experience in? Or move it to it's own thread. There is a limit to inane childish nerdery even here. Jeesh.

[Norgy]

Could you guys please stop arguing about something none of you have any kind of practical experience in? Or move it to it's own thread. There is a limit to inane childish nerdery even here. Jeesh.

I thought this thread had taken geekery to a whole new level. 

[Ed Anger]

Long sword +5 against Beets

[grumbler]

Could you guys please stop arguing about something none of you have any kind of practical experience in? Or move it to it's own thread. There is a limit to inane childish nerdery even here. Jeesh.

Somebody woke up on the rag this morning! 

Actually, we argue issues on which people don't have any personal experience all the time here, yourself included.  I think that your wits are simply addled by the thinness of the air on top of that high, high horse.