Modern Marvel

[Mannie 21]

You mean this? OUCH!

 

 

absolutely

[Gr.Viper 131]

I think this is way funnier

http://www.coldsteel.com/88scm.html

Got a shop in Moscow that sells one with stiletto... The also got a foldable 180lb croosbow.

 

Funny, but according to Russian law neither are considered weapons. The crossbow lacks 2kg of power to be one, and our law for melee weapons is quite strict on knives but larger stuff including axes is free to go provided you have the papers for it. Spring or rubber band sea hunting guns aren't weapons too

 

Update: browsed through our shop's catalogue once more. Found a small foldable crossbow capable of shooting bolts, darts, steel balls and harpoons. Weight 0.5kg, 30cm long and no, not a weapon as its composite block arms are 1kg short of 20kg required. Steel lock and string, handle of light alloy, made in Russia. Beauty Laser and all other kind of sights installable.

[Buzzard 72 0]

Gonna +1 Caesar on the sword debate. The katana certainly is an excellent weapon(when made properly) but it by no means is the be all and end all of swords. Sadly european swords are viewed as being 5 lb sharpend bars of steel by the general public(and who can blame them...they are swords after all). Fortunately European swords have not gotten wrapped up in esoteric nonsense that unfortunatley tends to drown the facts concerning just what performs how well. Hollywood certainly hasn't been a help. Two words....HIGH lander. Concrete pillar and a "2000" year old katana(mind you the katana probably didn't exist until about 1400 in the form that we know it today and it really didn't hit it's stride until about 1600 or so). Not to mention the numerous horrible "Ninja" movies starring thr honorable Sho Kosugi.

 

Anyhow, european swords, by comparison are every bit as good...wait for it...if not better than old katana. Why? More homogenous steel of better over all quality. A longer tradition of sword making. Numerous types, both focused and multi capable. The katana was a stangnant design that reached absolute design perfection...for the type of sword that it was. The basic design was layed down about 700 AD. Frankly it really didn't change much until the 1600's when the nature of it's use became more of a duelling weapon and less a battlefield weapon(the tachi and the katana though similiar are in many respects different).

 

Aesthetically the katana has a subtlety that attracts the eye. It's both colorful, extreme, sedate and mutlifaceted. That makes sense for a weapon that was considred "the Soul" of the samurai. European history and development was certainly way more pragmatic about weapon development than Japan. There was an aesthetic, but by and large the primary consideration was not intangibles. That was how well it could be used to kill your enemy(bloodthirsty isn't it). The rapier gained popularity over the typical cut and thrust sword because it was able to kill more efficiently by the thrust that the cut (try 3 feet of steel through the brainpan sometime...) when used in "civilian" quarrels. It was not a battlefield weapon. It was Europe's version of the katana. Americas katana was the duelling pistol.

 

Anyhow, the katana is great(not really my thing, but great nonetheless). It isn't any better or worse than most swords types given to us by our predecessors.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Buzzard 72

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I'm with six gun on this only because there is something to the aesthetics of a Katana, particularly the Wakizashi, that captures my interest.

 

But isn't weight a big factor when comparing Japanese swords with European swords. True there's a whole bunch of both and hard to compare them given the different situations the were developed for. Kinda like comparing an AK-47 against a civil war era Springfield rifle. Sure the AK fires faster and repeatedly, but in close combat, the length and weight on the Springfield (not to mention the big ass bayonet on the tip would have been assets in themselves.

 

Kinda gets me thinking though... ...I'd be interested to see how Ghostdog or Kill Bill would have played out with European swords replacing the Katanas. Would that fight scene at the end on KB1 been ten minutes of us watching Lucy Liu and Uma grunting and kicking at each other whilst they dragged their super heavy swords around...

[JediMaster 451]

How come no one has mentioned those ginsu knives? You can even cut a can open with it! It's the only knife you'll ever need!

And if you order now, you get a complete set of knives, despite the fact that we just told you the ginsu will be the only one you'll ever need!

[Caesar 305]

@ Say What!?

 

Weight really isn't a factor, and it's one of the most common misconceptions about medieval and rennaissance European blades, thanks much to the rise of the smallsword in the late 1600's. By that time, because the sword had lost favor on the battle field and had largely started its career as a dueling weapon, thinner, feather-weight, single-role blades began to rise as the so-called "perfect" swords (called thus around the 1800's) and older weapons, designed both for the cut, and thrust, and designed to face off against men with pikes, pole axes, arquebuses and wearing armor, were considered heavy and barbaric.

 

How much did a European medieval or rennaissance sword weigh really? It depends on the sword model, but here's some figures:

 

Single-handed viking or anglo-saxon swords: 2-3.5lbs at 35-43" length

Long-Swords and later Bastard Swords esp. German ca. 1450's: 2.5-3.5lbs at 40-48" length

Great swords ca. 1350s: 3-4lbs at 44-53" length

True Two-hand swords (Zweihander) ca. 1500: 3.5-5lbs at 60-72" length

(From "Medieval Swordsmanship" by John Clements)

 

Or you could try to find some of said weapons and actually handle them. Also note that this is a pretty basic outline, there's weapons that are longer, smaller, weigh more or less. Later model two-handers were usually around 6lbs, with more elaborate hilts and parrying hooks. Going much over that and you find ceremonial swords never intended for combat known as paratschwert (parade sword) or bearing-swords, usually carried in (you guessed it) parades, much as ornamental parade armor was never intended for combat.

 

A katana falls in the range of a Long-sword or bastard sword, closer to the 3.x pound range, though I'm sure Sixgun could get more in-depth with variances. Meanwhile, those smallswords I was talking about earlier could weigh less than one pound...yeah, so of course a weapon that weighs in the area of 3 pounds is going to feel slow in comparison. Good luck with a smallsword on a battlefield though...

[+Zurawski 33]

I've always been intrigued by the development of swords relevant to their use in battle... (Forgive me at this point because I'm about to prattle on in general terms with little intrinsic knowledge)

 

Examples:

 

-Roman Short Sword - Ideally designed for short thrusts behind a heavy shield against an opponent who at best wore layered leather armor.

 

-Medieval hand-and-a-half and two hand sword - Designed to be used to batter as well as penetrate an opponents plate and chain armor.

 

-Renaissance era Swords - Light thin sword ideal for fencing duels.

 

- Japanese swords seem to in inherit the best balance between the Roman and Medieval designs, in that they are equally good at thrusting and slinging attacks.

 

- Then there are the obvious single use swords like the Scimitar, Buccaneer and the like...

 

What I find interesting really is the evolution based on region, battle tactics and symbology... quite fascinating stuff IMHO.

[Caesar 305]

Not a bad grasp on it, Zur, but balance between cut and thrust capacities was had by many swords, European, Japanese, Middle Eastern or otherwise, that is, to an extent. A blade that cuts well usually doesn't thrust as well, and vice-versa. A sword like a hand-and-a-half (bastard) was a good blade for cutting or thrusting and is commonly seen in German manuscripts for both blossfetchen (unarmored/clothes fighting) and harnischfetchen (armored fighting). The biggest difference is that in unarmored fighting, a whole range of cuts are part of the mix with the trusts, and the whole body is a viable target. In armored combat, rarely is a cut thrown, instead the envelope is limited to thrusts and hilt-attacks, especially aimed at the head, arm pit, or even the hands at parts not covered by the metal of the gauntlet.

 

The katana could be seen as the Japanese cut-and-thrust sword, in my own opinion, because although more aimed at the cut by the beveled edge and wedge cross section, it can thrust well also. The bastard, on the other hand, has a tapered blade (gets thin at the top) and usually a diamond or hex cross-section, so it is more designed for the thrust, but can cut well also.

 

True two-handers are generally cutting weapons, with long, straight, flat blades, but come to a sharp tip, making them well suited for thrusting, but not as much so as the tapered bastard sword. Kind of see what I mean?