The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
2/2/2014
Posts:
52
Location:
Old Town, ME
Minecraft:
Sh4d0wR34p3r
PSN:
shadow_phantom36
Member Details
I'd like to see maybe a catapult. All you'd need to craft one of those is maybe some wood, some string from spiders, and some cobblestone for ammo. It'll be great when playing multiplayer or maybe upgrading my little rowboat into an fifteen gun sailing ship all I'd need to craft one of those. Is several batches of wooden planks, and several batches of iron for the cannons and ammo. But what would be really convenient would be one of those horse drawn wagons like in the old west to hook up to my horse so I can move more items to my shelter faster. You could easily make one with some wooden planks and some wool and of course you'll need a horse to pull the wagon and they can make horse drawn mine carts part of the horse drawn wagon add-on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Death will always be chained by the light. Forced to do its bidding.
But oh when those chains are broken the Reaper will rule.
I'd like to see maybe a catapult. All you'd need to craft one of those is maybe some wood, some string from spiders, and some cobblestone for ammo. It'll be great when playing multiplayer or maybe upgrading my little rowboat into an fifteen gun sailing ship all I'd need to craft one of those. Is several batches of wooden planks, and several batches of iron for the cannons and ammo. But what would be really convenient would be one of those horse drawn wagons like in the old west to hook up to my horse so I can move more items to my shelter faster. You could easily make one with some wooden planks and some wool and of course you'll need a horse to pull the wagon and they can make horse drawn mine carts part of the horse drawn wagon add-on.
Part of me hopes the wagon has squarenwheels and bobs up & down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
I have to agree with CeejTank on his assessment of long swords, having been around medieval weaponry myself for quite a number of years and even studying the application and usage of them.
Cutting/Slashing weapons are pretty well useless against metal armor, which is why the greater majority of medieval weaponry to combat a fully armored knight became mostly piercing and cleaving, with some emphasis on bludgeoning to a lesser degree.
The blade of the sword is divided into 2 parts, the forte (the lower 2/3 near the hilt) and the foible (the end 1/3 at the tip). The foible or tip part of the blade is designed for offensive maneuvers and attacks, it isn't forcefully strong, but it is very fast, while the forte is much slower than the foible but is much stronger and is used for blocking and defensive maneuvers.
Just because a sword has an 'edge', the word itself does not indicate sharpness, in fact broadswords also have 2 edges, but neither edge would be considered sharp tot he touch. By design, the broadsword is a cleaving weapon, not a slashing weapon. Would it hack through a side of beef? Yes, it would... Can you cut a tomato with it, or slice bread with it? Nope, it would be squashed mush if you tried.
Going back to the long sword design, it makes no sense at all to sharpen your forte to a razor edge. That would prevent you from being able to effectively grab your own blade during combat to deliverer fortified attacks and blocks, or even reverse grip your sword to use the quillions (crossguard) as a makeshift warhammer. Further, since you are expecting to receive a number of blows along the forte through blocking maneuvers, this would very quickly dull and ruin any sharpened edge very quickly.
It is common fiction that the whole of the blade was ever sharpened since the advent of metal armor, until after metal armor was made obsolete by the crossbow and made more-so after that by handheld firearms. It is also common fiction that the Japanese Katana was superior to European blades in every way due to being thousand (or more) folded steel honed to a razor edge along one side of the blade. True, they were much sharper in general, but they were never designed for metal to metal contact. Japanese armor at the time was predominantly lacquered bamboo, boiled leather, silk and linen... all of which cut fairly well to a sharpened blade. The Katana does not fare quite so well against metal armor, despite what the fanboys say about it.
I only bring this up to illustrate more why the sharpness of the blade was not the driving force behind a medieval European design such as was typically used in making the long sword or the broad sword.
I have to agree with CeejTank on his assessment of long swords, having been around medieval weaponry myself for quite a number of years and even studying the application and usage of them.
Cutting/Slashing weapons are pretty well useless against metal armor, which is why the greater majority of medieval weaponry to combat a fully armored night became mostly piercing and cleaving, with some emphasis on bludgeoning to a lesser degree.
The blade of the sword is divided into 2 parts, the forte (the lower 2/3 near the hilt) and the foible (the end 1/3 at the tip). The foible or tip part of the blade is designed for offensive maneuvers and attacks, it isn't forcefully strong, but it is very fast, while the forte is much slower than the foible but is much stronger and is used for blocking and defensive maneuvers.
Just because a sword has an 'edge', the word itself does not indicate sharpness, in fact broadswords also have 2 edges, but neither edge would be considered sharp tot he touch. By design, the broadsword is a cleaving weapon, not a slashing weapon. Would it hack through a side of beef? Yes, it would... Can you cut a tomato with it, or slice bread with it? Nope, it would be squashed mush if you tried.
Going back to the long sword design, it makes no sense at all to sharpen your forte to a razor edge. That would prevent you from being able to effectively grab your own blade during combat to deliverer fortified attacks and blocks, or even reverse grip your sword to use the quillions (crossguard) as a makeshift warhammer. Further, since you are expecting to receive a number of blows along the forte through blocking maneuvers, this would very quickly dull and ruin any sharpened edge very quickly.
It is common fiction that the whole of the blade was ever sharpened since the advent of metal armor, until after metal armor was made obsolete by the crossbow and made more-so after that by handheld firearms. It is also common fiction that the Japanese Katana was superior to European blades in every way due to being thousand (or more) folded steel honed to a razor edge along one side of the blade. True, they were much sharper in general, but they were never designed for metal to metal contact. Japanese armor at the time was predominantly lacquered bamboo, boiled leather, silk and linen... all of which cut fairly well to a sharpened blade. The Katana does not fare quite so well against metal armor, despite what the fanboys say about it.
I only bring this up to illustrate more why the sharpness of the blade was not the driving force behind a medieval European design such as was typically used in making the long sword or the broad sword.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
But, I was assuming blunt at the edges meant more of a sharpened rod.
Or even a fencing sword sort of thing.
Didn't know it was EVER common practice to leave the blade blunt to reinforce blocks and use the hilt as a war hammer.
But, one thing remains wouldn't this make the guys longsword terrible in efficient at killing unarmored folk.
He will have to stab every single one of them, or hack at them multiple times with a dulled blade.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
But, one thing remains wouldn't this make the guys longsword terrible in efficient at killing unarmored folk.
He will have to stab every single one of them, or hack at them multiple times with a dulled blade.
Swords, especially sturdy, long bladed swords with a little weight behind them are terribly efficient at killing, and especially at dispatching unarmored folk.
What people don't understand is that a blade like that doesn't need to be that sharp at all to cut a person in half.
I used to do crowd demonstrations about the cleaving potential of an Irish 1 handed basket hilted broadsword, I would invite people to come up and feel the edge of my sword just to show them how dull it was... if fact I would take that same blade and press hard in the palm of my hand and saw it back and forth, just to show that it doesn't cut... it isn't sharp.
The demonstration would have been better with a side of beef, but we were doing this volunteer and had a low budget to work with. So enter the simple watermelon and set on the ground. Now keep in mind that I'm not swinging the sword, no additional force is being applied other than gravity alone... I hold the sword above it at waist height and just let my arm go limp. It cuts clean through the hide of the watermelon doesn't even noticeably slow it down.
Were I to use that blade and follow it through with the force of my arm swinging it and much more rapid than simply letting it fall as in this simple demonstration, the unarmored opponent would be in a very sorry shape indeed.
This isn't a rapier or a foil where the blade is very thin and light, this is a weapon designed to cleave through meat and shatter bones.
i think that we should scythes and they should deal a good amount of damage and have a pretty long range, and you should be able to make a stone, iron, gold, and diamond, and obsidian version of it. They should look really cool and deathly
Not to mention used for cutting grass. Also, Insane_Asylum124, you should become more popular before getting a dragon egg considering that yours expired with only 200 views. The way the egg looks will have no effect on who looks at it.
Anyway, a watermelon is much easier to cut than a piece of meat.
Not to mention the watermelon is against the solid ground.
A torso, suspended in space, quite possibly moving away from the sword.
Seems very far fetched that a blunt longsword could split somebody in two.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
i never said that there would be sharpness IV on it, just have the sword by default do the amount of damage that the current sword would do with sharpness IV.
That's saying the same thing, long swong by no means equates to more damage. Both are very damaging, but simply using a longsword wouldn't necessarily be any more damaging than using a different sword type.
Every sword out has its +'s and -'s. I would argue the only benefit to the longsword should be a slight range increase.
I have to agree with CeejTank on his assessment of long swords, having been around medieval weaponry myself for quite a number of years and even studying the application and usage of them.
Cutting/Slashing weapons are pretty well useless against metal armor, which is why the greater majority of medieval weaponry to combat a fully armored knight became mostly piercing and cleaving, with some emphasis on bludgeoning to a lesser degree.
The blade of the sword is divided into 2 parts, the forte (the lower 2/3 near the hilt) and the foible (the end 1/3 at the tip). The foible or tip part of the blade is designed for offensive maneuvers and attacks, it isn't forcefully strong, but it is very fast, while the forte is much slower than the foible but is much stronger and is used for blocking and defensive maneuvers.
Just because a sword has an 'edge', the word itself does not indicate sharpness, in fact broadswords also have 2 edges, but neither edge would be considered sharp tot he touch. By design, the broadsword is a cleaving weapon, not a slashing weapon. Would it hack through a side of beef? Yes, it would... Can you cut a tomato with it, or slice bread with it? Nope, it would be squashed mush if you tried.
Going back to the long sword design, it makes no sense at all to sharpen your forte to a razor edge. That would prevent you from being able to effectively grab your own blade during combat to deliverer fortified attacks and blocks, or even reverse grip your sword to use the quillions (crossguard) as a makeshift warhammer. Further, since you are expecting to receive a number of blows along the forte through blocking maneuvers, this would very quickly dull and ruin any sharpened edge very quickly.
It is common fiction that the whole of the blade was ever sharpened since the advent of metal armor, until after metal armor was made obsolete by the crossbow and made more-so after that by handheld firearms. It is also common fiction that the Japanese Katana was superior to European blades in every way due to being thousand (or more) folded steel honed to a razor edge along one side of the blade. True, they were much sharper in general, but they were never designed for metal to metal contact. Japanese armor at the time was predominantly lacquered bamboo, boiled leather, silk and linen... all of which cut fairly well to a sharpened blade. The Katana does not fare quite so well against metal armor, despite what the fanboys say about it.
I only bring this up to illustrate more why the sharpness of the blade was not the driving force behind a medieval European design such as was typically used in making the long sword or the broad sword.
This is exactly what I was saying. Just dont a lot more eloquently. I havent studied the books in years, so I didn't remember all the terminology, but this guy nails it.
A little below 2kg for a long sword, a bit above 2kg for a broad sword. Swords are not overtly heavy, but then again, neither is an aluminum baseball bat (less than 1 kg).... I wouldn't want to be hit by that either.... and the sword isn't nearly as blunt....
Anyway, a watermelon is much easier to cut than a piece of meat.
True, but as I said, we were demoing volunteer and didn't have a high budget for a side of beef. Anyway, as I sad above, there was absolutely no force to my swing at all and the sword did not drop from a very high height but still did it's job with ease. However, there are plenty of youtube videos demonstrating the use of a sword on a side of beef if you are so inclined to look.
Not to mention the watermelon is against the solid ground.
A torso, suspended in space, quite possibly moving away from the sword.
Seems very far fetched that a blunt longsword could split somebody in two.
Technically, I don't have to cleave a body in two in order to do sufficient damage to take them clear out of the fight anyway, so were arguing semantics at this point. Besides, I didn't say that it would cleave a body in two anyway... I said that a weapon like this is designed to cleave through meat (in general) and shatter bones, I didn't say cut a body in two specifically.... but give me a two handed great sword and a side of beef, and I'm sure I could oblige you...
You are assuming the target is moving away also, where in a real fight, your opponent could be moving in any direction... away, towards, side stepping, falling down, prone on the ground, rolling, etc.... they may just as well add force to your blow if they misstep into the path of your weapon as they could in moving away from the blade.
The torso could also be in steel armor as well. Has anyone wondered how we kept this topic going forever?Four more days and we celebrate the one year anniversary of this topic.
The torso could also be in steel armor as well. Has anyone wondered how we kept this topic going forever?
Four more days and we celebrate the one year anniversary of this topic.
Yes... and the knight's long sword is not the ideal weapon to use against a well armored opponent... it can be used, and it can be used effectively, but there are much more efficient weapons to use on an armored opponent, namely the: mace, flail (including morning star), war hammer, war maul, arrows, crossbow bolts, blackpowder shot, lances, pikes, etc.
The knight's long sword was more for putting down or keeping the local unarmored riff-raff in line and that could be used in armored combat if necessary. It is fairy difficult to get a cleaving weapon to go through plate armor, virtually impossible to get a slashing/cutting weapon through plate armor. Puncturing is the best form of attack versus plate armor, less so, but still effective is bludgeoning.
Thick enough armor and it would even reject crossbow bolts, but you would barely be able to walk in that case. I'll bet that some kind of futuristic titanium alloy metal armor would reject them quite effectively, that weights half as much as steel, but just as strong.
Thick enough armor and it would even reject crossbow bolts, but you would barely be able to walk in that case. I'll bet that some kind of futuristic titanium alloy metal armor would reject them quite effectively, that weights half as much as steel, but just as strong.
Armor has to be built for the wearer to be able to move in it, otherwise it is useless to the wearer (I had a friend who used to demo the flexibility and range of motion of actual full plate armor by doing cartwheels in it...I asked her if I could do cart wheels too if I put on full plate armor, she said "sure"... I said "Cool, 'cause I never was able to do cartwheels before").
But I digress.. thick enough anything will stop most attacks... and having some futuristic alloys only means that you are vulnerable to futuristic weapons... if you get a titanium steel alloy armor, then I suppose it is only fair that I get high powered and high caliber armor piercing rounds applied via a fully automatic weapon.
A little below 2kg for a long sword, a bit above 2kg for a broad sword. Swords are not overtly heavy, but then again, neither is an aluminum baseball bat (less than 1 kg).... I wouldn't want to be hit by that either.... and the sword isn't nearly as blunt....
True, but as I said, we were demoing volunteer and didn't have a high budget for a side of beef. Anyway, as I sad above, there was absolutely no force to my swing at all and the sword did not drop from a very high height but still did it's job with ease. However, there are plenty of youtube videos demonstrating the use of a sword on a side of beef if you are so inclined to look.
Technically, I don't have to cleave a body in two in order to do sufficient damage to take them clear out of the fight anyway, so were arguing semantics at this point. Besides, I didn't say that it would cleave a body in two anyway... I said that a weapon like this is designed to cleave through meat (in general) and shatter bones, I didn't say cut a body in two specifically.... but give me a two handed great sword and a side of beef, and I'm sure I could oblige you...
You are assuming the target is moving away also, where in a real fight, your opponent could be moving in any direction... away, towards, side stepping, falling down, prone on the ground, rolling, etc.... they may just as well add force to your blow if they misstep into the path of your weapon as they could in moving away from the blade.
K I'll stop.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
Plate armor is nearly impossible to cut through with a sword, it is compromised by a sharp narrow blow into the interior of the armor.
And yet... somehow... you said pretty much what I just said... glad we are pretty much in agreement on that point... but again, just to reiterate, the long sword and the broad sword are not "cutting" weapons, they are "cleaving" weapons.
It is a cleaving weapon? I thought it was a thrusting weapon.
They can be used for thrusting, and occasionally are used in such a manner depending on the maneuver at the time, but they are not used in the same manner as a spear or a rapier would be used. Their primary design is to hack at an opponent while providing a modicum of defense. They are actually much more versatile than most people tend to think.
One of us has to make a There Shall Be War! 1 Year Anniversary banner. I am totally surprised. One full year and still going strong. Still bloody phoenix refuses to post here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click on it. You know you want to.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But oh when those chains are broken the Reaper will rule.
Part of me hopes the wagon has squarenwheels and bobs up & down.
Cutting/Slashing weapons are pretty well useless against metal armor, which is why the greater majority of medieval weaponry to combat a fully armored knight became mostly piercing and cleaving, with some emphasis on bludgeoning to a lesser degree.
The blade of the sword is divided into 2 parts, the forte (the lower 2/3 near the hilt) and the foible (the end 1/3 at the tip). The foible or tip part of the blade is designed for offensive maneuvers and attacks, it isn't forcefully strong, but it is very fast, while the forte is much slower than the foible but is much stronger and is used for blocking and defensive maneuvers.
Just because a sword has an 'edge', the word itself does not indicate sharpness, in fact broadswords also have 2 edges, but neither edge would be considered sharp tot he touch. By design, the broadsword is a cleaving weapon, not a slashing weapon. Would it hack through a side of beef? Yes, it would... Can you cut a tomato with it, or slice bread with it? Nope, it would be squashed mush if you tried.
Going back to the long sword design, it makes no sense at all to sharpen your forte to a razor edge. That would prevent you from being able to effectively grab your own blade during combat to deliverer fortified attacks and blocks, or even reverse grip your sword to use the quillions (crossguard) as a makeshift warhammer. Further, since you are expecting to receive a number of blows along the forte through blocking maneuvers, this would very quickly dull and ruin any sharpened edge very quickly.
It is common fiction that the whole of the blade was ever sharpened since the advent of metal armor, until after metal armor was made obsolete by the crossbow and made more-so after that by handheld firearms. It is also common fiction that the Japanese Katana was superior to European blades in every way due to being thousand (or more) folded steel honed to a razor edge along one side of the blade. True, they were much sharper in general, but they were never designed for metal to metal contact. Japanese armor at the time was predominantly lacquered bamboo, boiled leather, silk and linen... all of which cut fairly well to a sharpened blade. The Katana does not fare quite so well against metal armor, despite what the fanboys say about it.
I only bring this up to illustrate more why the sharpness of the blade was not the driving force behind a medieval European design such as was typically used in making the long sword or the broad sword.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
But, I was assuming blunt at the edges meant more of a sharpened rod.
Or even a fencing sword sort of thing.
Didn't know it was EVER common practice to leave the blade blunt to reinforce blocks and use the hilt as a war hammer.
But, one thing remains wouldn't this make the guys longsword terrible in efficient at killing unarmored folk.
He will have to stab every single one of them, or hack at them multiple times with a dulled blade.
Swords, especially sturdy, long bladed swords with a little weight behind them are terribly efficient at killing, and especially at dispatching unarmored folk.
What people don't understand is that a blade like that doesn't need to be that sharp at all to cut a person in half.
I used to do crowd demonstrations about the cleaving potential of an Irish 1 handed basket hilted broadsword, I would invite people to come up and feel the edge of my sword just to show them how dull it was... if fact I would take that same blade and press hard in the palm of my hand and saw it back and forth, just to show that it doesn't cut... it isn't sharp.
The demonstration would have been better with a side of beef, but we were doing this volunteer and had a low budget to work with. So enter the simple watermelon and set on the ground. Now keep in mind that I'm not swinging the sword, no additional force is being applied other than gravity alone... I hold the sword above it at waist height and just let my arm go limp. It cuts clean through the hide of the watermelon doesn't even noticeably slow it down.
Were I to use that blade and follow it through with the force of my arm swinging it and much more rapid than simply letting it fall as in this simple demonstration, the unarmored opponent would be in a very sorry shape indeed.
This isn't a rapier or a foil where the blade is very thin and light, this is a weapon designed to cleave through meat and shatter bones.
Anyway, a watermelon is much easier to cut than a piece of meat.
Not to mention the watermelon is against the solid ground.
A torso, suspended in space, quite possibly moving away from the sword.
Seems very far fetched that a blunt longsword could split somebody in two.
That's saying the same thing, long swong by no means equates to more damage. Both are very damaging, but simply using a longsword wouldn't necessarily be any more damaging than using a different sword type.
Every sword out has its +'s and -'s. I would argue the only benefit to the longsword should be a slight range increase.
This is exactly what I was saying. Just dont a lot more eloquently. I havent studied the books in years, so I didn't remember all the terminology, but this guy nails it.
A little below 2kg for a long sword, a bit above 2kg for a broad sword. Swords are not overtly heavy, but then again, neither is an aluminum baseball bat (less than 1 kg).... I wouldn't want to be hit by that either.... and the sword isn't nearly as blunt....
True, but as I said, we were demoing volunteer and didn't have a high budget for a side of beef. Anyway, as I sad above, there was absolutely no force to my swing at all and the sword did not drop from a very high height but still did it's job with ease. However, there are plenty of youtube videos demonstrating the use of a sword on a side of beef if you are so inclined to look.
Technically, I don't have to cleave a body in two in order to do sufficient damage to take them clear out of the fight anyway, so were arguing semantics at this point. Besides, I didn't say that it would cleave a body in two anyway... I said that a weapon like this is designed to cleave through meat (in general) and shatter bones, I didn't say cut a body in two specifically.... but give me a two handed great sword and a side of beef, and I'm sure I could oblige you...
You are assuming the target is moving away also, where in a real fight, your opponent could be moving in any direction... away, towards, side stepping, falling down, prone on the ground, rolling, etc.... they may just as well add force to your blow if they misstep into the path of your weapon as they could in moving away from the blade.
Yes... and the knight's long sword is not the ideal weapon to use against a well armored opponent... it can be used, and it can be used effectively, but there are much more efficient weapons to use on an armored opponent, namely the: mace, flail (including morning star), war hammer, war maul, arrows, crossbow bolts, blackpowder shot, lances, pikes, etc.
The knight's long sword was more for putting down or keeping the local unarmored riff-raff in line and that could be used in armored combat if necessary. It is fairy difficult to get a cleaving weapon to go through plate armor, virtually impossible to get a slashing/cutting weapon through plate armor. Puncturing is the best form of attack versus plate armor, less so, but still effective is bludgeoning.
Armor has to be built for the wearer to be able to move in it, otherwise it is useless to the wearer (I had a friend who used to demo the flexibility and range of motion of actual full plate armor by doing cartwheels in it...I asked her if I could do cart wheels too if I put on full plate armor, she said "sure"... I said "Cool, 'cause I never was able to do cartwheels before").
But I digress.. thick enough anything will stop most attacks... and having some futuristic alloys only means that you are vulnerable to futuristic weapons... if you get a titanium steel alloy armor, then I suppose it is only fair that I get high powered and high caliber armor piercing rounds applied via a fully automatic weapon.
K I'll stop.
And yet... somehow... you said pretty much what I just said... glad we are pretty much in agreement on that point... but again, just to reiterate, the long sword and the broad sword are not "cutting" weapons, they are "cleaving" weapons.
They can be used for thrusting, and occasionally are used in such a manner depending on the maneuver at the time, but they are not used in the same manner as a spear or a rapier would be used. Their primary design is to hack at an opponent while providing a modicum of defense. They are actually much more versatile than most people tend to think.