[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.15152502 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

well at least she wears more protective gear than conan the barbarian, right?

>> No.15152509

Conan is a barbarian, he has an excuse.

>> No.15152518

Also, serving time on the Wheel of Pain will definitely give you DR.

>> No.15152523

With the amount of straps involved in her harnesses, I'm pretty sure she must have a squire to help her dress.
Oddly appropriate.

>> No.15152524

She's a duelist, she also has an excuse. The style of fighting allows for arms and shoulders to be armored for defensive purposes while leaving the rest of the body exposed for scoring.

The more you know....

>> No.15152525

Perhaps she hasn't finished putting her armor on yet. Or maybe she's a medieval stripper. Like modern strippers dressing up as policewomen?

Did they have strippers in the 11th century?

>> No.15152526

What gets me isn't the naked bits.

No, what gets me is the armor.

"Hey guys! Guuuuuys! You know what I fucking hate? Being able to move my arms!"

>> No.15152534

When the hell did Conan get a chance to stop and get gear?

He runs away, finds a sword, fucks bitches, steals treasure, fucks another bitch and is off chasing the kings daughter.

Besides armor would interfere with his Flex Magic.

>> No.15152536

Shes does have lovely eyes .

>> No.15152538

10 fights later (if she survives) she'll have one breast cut off, a missing eye and disgusting scarring all over her body

>> No.15152540

>implying that a duelist would somehow benefit from non-moving arms.

>> No.15152542

We're talking about real fighting here, not two faggots prancing around.

>> No.15152547

Armored in the fear-saturated blood of his enemies.

>> No.15152552

she looks like she can move her arms

>> No.15152559

>wear impractical spiky shoulderpads that make it impossible to cast some of your spells
>compensate by having a lethal laugh

OOOH HO HO HO HO HO HO! You are a hundred years early to compete with Naga the Serpent, poor girl!

>> No.15152566

Yeah, but even as a lightly-armored fighter Conan has his floppy bits strapped down. He can do a kippup without knocking himself unconscious. Jugs MacKnockersboobs here is gonna get two black eyes just hopping in place.

>> No.15152591

glammered armor motherfuckers, do you wear it!?!

>> No.15152601

In the words of the immortal Duke: "Hell, I'd still hit it."

>> No.15152611

Annon posts boobs. /tg discusses armor and fighting techniques.

God I love it here.

>> No.15152617

Do artists really think this stuff looks cool or sexy and not just stupid?

>> No.15152620

Only twelve more days brother, ARE YOU READY TO BET ON DUKE!?

>> No.15152632

Conan is a tough ass manly motherfucker though, he doesn't need armour. His skin is hard as iron.

Also, he usually cuts his enemies in half before they can even swing their weapons.

>> No.15152637

It's a trap!

>> No.15152641

Glamored armor is an excuse to look like a plain-clothes civilian before you smite-good and cleave with your bard/blackguard, not to look like a fool who can't put their armor on right and so walked out the door without it while pretending to make a fashion statement.

The stuff you're thinking of is Gloryborn armor.

>> No.15152644

Nope. In books (and even first movie) conan used armor when he wasnt on stealth missions. Chainmails, helmets. And that was ancient times, when chainmail was heaviest stuff around.

>> No.15152649

More like gloryhole armor, amirite?

>> No.15152652

>And this was ancient times

And this was fictional times.

>> No.15152656

Yeah, I remember thinking the first time I saw it, 'Man, you know this is gonna be a serious throw-down when *that* guy puts on armor.'

>> No.15152661


>> No.15152666

>>15152644 books (and even first movie) conan used armor

Yeah, I was about to point that out. In the books, both Conan and Red Sonja wear heavy armor.

>> No.15152676

Chain mail used to be heavy armour back in Roman days.
Steel plating was invented hundrets of years later in the middle ages (just to turn out to be rather inefficient).

>> No.15152678


That's kinda-true but not a general rule. REH loved his steroid beefy men, so in plenty of the books Conan runs around in just a loincloth, or naked. Any female characters in his books usually start out skimpily dressed and end up naked.

It's a thing.

>> No.15152685


>> No.15152690

and what do you call this?

>> No.15152697

Good times. They had a certain charm.

>> No.15152701

Conan has Crom on his side.
Besides, Conan wears armor.
He's usually donning a chainmail shirt or lamellar armor..

>> No.15152702

Lorica Segmentum? >>15152676 is a fag?

>> No.15152707

That ain't full plate though.

>> No.15152708

Lorica segmentata, actually.
But yes.

>> No.15152710

Well - barabrism. Celts, germans, dacians, britons and other wild guys actualy loved to fight almost naked ( or totaly naked) if they had not enough money to buy armor.

>> No.15152712

Chainmail was for the poor.

>> No.15152713

>>15152676 Steel plating was invented hundrets of years later in the middle ages (just to turn out to be rather inefficient).

Wrong on both counts.

>> No.15152717

the guy i was quoting never said anything about full plate just steel plating

>> No.15152722

It wasn't inefficient so much as it was prohibitively expensive for anyone other than nobility.

>> No.15152725

Conan wore heavy armor when he could afford it. She apparently can afford some form of armor, since she has pauldrons and gauntlets and whatever you call those forearm plates, but she chooses to armor parts of her body that are not the most susceptible to unhealable damage.

>> No.15152729

yeah but they still had it earlier than >>15152676 was talking about

>> No.15152734

It's gonna suck.

>> No.15152739

I call it Lorica Segmentata.

>> No.15152762

Where do you get your facts from? I'm being 100% serious here, I am actually curious. Did you get this from a book, a website with citations, or are you just quoting somebody who sounded like what they were saying was smart so you'd repeat it?

>> No.15152764

>>15152676 Steel plating was invented hundrets of years later in the middle ages (just to turn out to be rather inefficient).

...I'm gonna assume this is trolling.

>>15152722 It wasn't inefficient so much as it was prohibitively expensive for anyone other than nobility.

Plate armor was cheap enough that entire armies could be outfitted with the stuff. By the 1500s it was actually cheaper to produce than mail (google "munition plate armor").

Why is it that armor/weapons threads attract so many uninformed posters? is it because people think reading the fluff in the weapons section of a DnD guide somehow makes them an expert or something?

>> No.15152786


People do tend to imagine plate the wrong way. For footsoldiers it was usually something like a Wisby coat. And even nobles who could afford single plates over their chests often covered them with a bright coloured velvet or other fabric.

History was gaudy.

>> No.15152800

>Why is it that armor/weapons threads attract so many uninformed posters? is it because people think reading the fluff in the weapons section of a DnD guide somehow makes them an expert or something?

I would say that's a fair assumption.

>> No.15152812

Ow. Guilty as charged, alas.

Well, kinda. I'm pretty sure I know nothing about it, but I do take what I do think I know from the above mentioned shameful source.

>> No.15152821

>Plate armor was cheap enough that entire armies could be outfitted with the stuff. By the 1500s it was actually cheaper to produce than mail (google "munition plate armor").

To be fair, with munitions grade stuff you generally weren't getting the same level of protection as the full-on suits of plate that really DID cost an arm and a leg by comparison. And sometimes you still had to make due with a buff coat.

>> No.15152827

Well, I'll let you know now: A lot of the info in D&D is wrong.

>> No.15152838

"Munition armour was mass-produced, cheaply made armour produced in very large quantities...(that) had much less hardness than the type of plate armour worn by knights".

What you said is partially true, undoubtedly. As the Wikipedia says, it wasn't the same quality as knightly plate, which was better, and naturally, more expensive.

I know you didn't mean to suggest otherwise, but it's important to remember the difference. Although, if you basically just focused on the torso, it wouldn't be a bad way to equip a large force if you could afford it, and it would probably be marginally better than mail, and a lot better than padded armor.

It wouldn't stop a decent ball or bullet for shit, and it might not reliably save you from a really nasty two handed weapon hit, but a glancing hit, or some pissy sword blow? for sure. (Well, if you didn't get stuck in the arm instead.)

>> No.15152842

It sure is. They don't even list studded leather any more, and it's the best armor there is! Why lug around a chain shirt when a few solid studs in the right positioning make leather just as strong? All it takes is science; they're aligned in the perfect spacing that there's no angle a blade can hit it without being stopped by a stud.

>> No.15152848

That's generally how it went. As long as your noggin and your trunk was protected, you could feel reasonably safe.

>> No.15152861

Friendly tip #1: /tg/ knows their shit when it comes to anything historical and /tg/-related. If you're not 95% sure that what you're contributing is correct, it's generally considered a good idea to keep your mouth shit on the subject.

Friendly tip #2: D&D is totally full of shit when it comes to arms and armor. NEVER use a D&D source for a historical discussion unless it is directly pertinent - like if you're making a stat block for a weapon.


>> No.15152865

It's plate. That's not partially true, it's a fucking binary positive.

>> No.15152869

Keep in mind, all of the Boris Vallejo Paintings of Conan, usually take place after he's had his sorry ass robbed.

This is how Conan would typically like to be equipped.

>> No.15152872

>History was awesome


>> No.15152875

>(Well, if you didn't get stuck in the arm instead.)

Hooray for polearms - Keep that fucker with the sword 10' away!

>> No.15152878

Do the two have to be at odds?

>> No.15152880

>no pants or sleeves
If you say so

>> No.15152881


Hold on one FUCKING minute

Studs in leather don't do shit. Studded leather armor is one of the worst misnomers in RPG jargon. The piece of apparel D&D describes as "Studded leather" is in fact platemail. It's a wisby coat of plates. It's a series of flat metal plates affixed to the inside of a leather or cloth garment by evenly spaced rivets.

The studs do not improve the leather. the leather does nothing. The studs hold the metal plates in place.

>> No.15152882

So THAT'S why barbarians are proficient with medium armor.

>> No.15152883

I don't know about the fucking lego stud on his helmet.

>> No.15152894

What? Like half his Charisma is in those limbs....

If I recall correctly he also tended to use a shield whenever he could get one, it's just that he could never get one that would last long enough, damned things kept breaking. Either way, it's still a hell of a lot closer than his usual "Fuck me, a two-hander, and a loin-cloth....again. Seriously, can't anyone leave me with at least a pair of goddamn pants?!"

>> No.15152900

Yay! A historical discussion thread!
Carry on fa/tg/uys

>> No.15152907

Preach it, comrade!

That post sounds like a more credulous version of myself when I was a wee nipper. I always wondered how the hell studded leather was supposed to work, then I found out that it's utter bullshit.

While someone knowledgeable is sounding off, is there a difference between a wisby and a brigandine, or are they different names for the same piece of armor?

>> No.15152908

>damned things kept breaking
Yes, that's how shields work. That's why it's normal to bring three.

>> No.15152914

>>15152821 you generally weren't getting the same level of protection
>>15152838 it wasn't the same quality as knightly plate

It's still plate armor, though.

The incredibly fancy suits of fully articulated plate that you see in museums were very, very rare. We have more examples of it than of the plainer stuff because it was so expensive the owners took very good care of it, but it really isn't representative of the vast majority of armor that was actually worn.

Pic is of a particularly nice suit of articulated plate, so well-made you don't need to wear mail over the joints or more padding than a thin arming doublet.

>> No.15152916


Wait... shit, only now do I realize that my dry humor detector has failed. I'm sorry >>15152842 I see now that you spoke in clever jest.

>> No.15152919

The limb I keep MY charisma in is protected by wearing an extra long chain shirt.

>> No.15152923

I think that post wasn't serious.

>> No.15152930

Well....yeah, but this is Conan, he'd need a modern APC designed for twenty guys to contain his properly.

>> No.15152931

You see, friend. /tg/ breeds some of the best trolls. This was a cunning specimen. Not a masterpiece but certainly a cut above some of it's peers.

>> No.15152934

Nah, no worries. I admit that there's a fine line between dry humor and trolling. While perhaps a less prolific myth, I think I'd call 'studded leather' the western answer to the katana when it comes to misinformed fanboyism.

>> No.15152945

Plate armor it is, and it'll still turn a blade that hits there most certainly. However much like how a modern ballistic vest does no good if you get shot in the face, you can't quite boast the same amount of protection with a set of munitions plate as you can with a full plate set like your pic there.

>> No.15152949

If this was intended to be a troll rather than sarcasm (which is what I perceived it as) I'll give you a 6/10. It's a decent subject and an opinion someone could have, since D&D has that opinion. You should have left the last line off though, and used it as a rebuttal to someone who was trolled by the first post. Including that makes it too obvious, as it's reminiscent of famous old trolls like the katana thing.

>> No.15152951

You know, it's strange. Personally, it's been a really long time since I've seen anybody make up bullshit about the katana with a completely straight face.

>> No.15152956

I don't know about that; there are a lot of uninformed teenagers bleating about how full plate is the best armor EVAR

>> No.15152958

/tg/ - where we quietly applaud intelligent trolls

>> No.15152959

>>15152934 the western answer to the katana

Gotta be the English longbow. The amount of wankery around it is comparable, and its inflated status is just as frustrating to archery nerds as the katanas' is to sword nerds.

>> No.15152960

To comment on OP, not reading the rest of the thread but supporting anyone who also said...

Wearing enough to weigh you down without protecting you is worse than wearing nothing.

>> No.15152964

That's backed up by actual historical fact though. If you disregard cost and guns it legitimately is the best armor ever.

>> No.15152970

You want to get an English Longbow fanboy supremely riled up? Mention the American Flatbow.

>> No.15152973

>the western answer to the katana
I humbly submit the revolver. Note how it is perceived as cooler than other guns, and is assumed to do more damage just by virtue of being a revolver.

>> No.15152992

I don't know, at least the english longbow was an exceptionally good bow. Fanboys thinking it was far and above the best ever are silly of course, but at least it's not like the katana where fans think it's the best ever and it was actually hundreds of years less advanced than the majority of european swords.

>> No.15152993

I'm not familiar with this, do go on.

>> No.15152999

I actually recognized that when posting, knowing that it was coming on too strong for a proper trolling, that it should be saved as a counter-argument, but I was aiming for a one-shot rather than a drawn-out thing, so. Thanks for the review, though.
Fair enough; all strong contenders. Studded leather is the only one I ever heard debated IRL, so my perspective is skewed.

>> No.15153013

It's pretty much exactly the same thing. The katana is *not* a shitty sword or less advanced or anything like that. Both the katana and English longbow do their tasks quite well, both of them were effective weapons. Both of them however tend to recieve massive inflation of their potential by idiot fanboys who read about the battle of Agincourt or catch Rurouni Kenshin one too many times.

>> No.15153020

Here's the rub, thanks to Wikipedia:

The American Flatbow (AFB), also known as the American longbow, was developed in the 1930s. It resulted from scientific investigation into the best cross-sectional shape for a bow limb. This research was expected to explain why the English longbow's D-section was superior to all other extant designs. Instead, it showed that the best cross-section was a simple rectangle.[2] The AFB was developed by applying these research findings to the English longbow. The result was a more efficient and stable bow which can be made from commoner woods. Because of its coincidental resemblance to some native North American bows, the AFB is also known as the "semi-Indian" bow.

The AFB was popularised by Howard Hill and quickly displaced the English longbow as the preferred bow for target shooting. The modern Olympic-style recurve bow is a development of the AFB, usually made mainly of fiberglass rather than wood, with a built-up handle section and recurved limbs.

>> No.15153024


Uh, but isn't actually fairly well documented? I mean it had an absolutely absurd throw weight to it if you could pull it right.


If you got it wrong though you stood a good chance of slicing your ears off though. I mean, they're not magically able to penetrate armour like people think Katana's can, it's basically just laws of physics, plus if they're fired in an arc they lose a lot of that in a trade off for range.

But fired straight, at a french knight who thinks these british pig-dogs are going to run at the first sight of a bit of shiny plate armour and fluer-de-lys? Well, firstly you aim at the horse since it's a bigger target, but you've got enough kinetic discharge to stop that Horse he's on dead. Now, there are no seatbelts in the middle ages so he's coming off that horse, full plate armour and all, and maybe he didn't actually need help getting into it and onto his horse like some historical hacks like to claim but he's still wearing a fear bit of weight so he's going to land heavy and hard. Most knights broke their necks in the fall, the rest drowned in the mud or had the archers come out and finish them off.

Agincourt was a perfect storm scenario though, nobody was ever stupid enough after that to just charge at dug in missile troops expecting everything to go fine, and nobody ever seems to remember it was victory that came at the end of a crushing campaign defeat and the english were in full retreat back to england at the time, but it was still to the Longbow in Europe what Oda's total defeat of the Takada with peasents armed with guns was to Firearms in Japan.

>> No.15153025

The main difference is that katana is melee whereas English longbow is ranged, and nobody* cares about ranged weapons** anywhere near as much as they do about melee weapons.

*No significant portion, by the 5% rule of significance
**excluding gunpowder weaponry

>> No.15153029

Nice. Every time science trumps tradition I feel my dick move.

>> No.15153031

Conan doesn't wear protective gear.

>> No.15153034


For something completely outdated even for it's time I don't think there's a western equivalent that has fanboys. Sadly, I just don't know enough about history and weapons to think of anything silly that would help. Every sword guy I've met is either OMG KATANAS or SWORDS WEIGH 20 POUNDS. Every archery conversation eventually includes ENGLISH LONGBOW KILLING FRENCHMAN FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CHANNEL. Also the never ending FURR PRATE MAEK IMPOSSIBRU TO MOVE.

And this is why I never join these discussion irl. Only with you /tg/. Only with you.

>> No.15153036

Bodkins pierced armor pretty well too, though.

>> No.15153039

To be fair, that's somewhat substantiated. The parts of the revolver that are subject to the most stress when being fired are much less likely to break than those of an automatic. Hence revolvers are often chambered for more powerful cartridges than automatics. Besides, revolvers are a product of a time when the prevailing philosophy behind forearms design was "make it bigger". .455 Webley, anyone?

>> No.15153040

The tradition came from science in the first place. It wasn't as ritualized as modern science, but that's the only real difference.

>> No.15153042

>However much like how a modern ballistic vest does no good if you get shot in the face, you can't quite boast the same amount of protection with a set of munitions plate as you can with a full plate set like your pic there.
That's a good comparison. Type I and Type IIIa body armor offer different degrees of protection, but they're still both body armor made using the same principles and technology. Just like a tailored coat of plates and munition plate use the same principles and technology, but offer different degrees of protection.

>> No.15153043


Revolvers are pretty fucking cool, though.

>> No.15153044

Not plate armor. Been tested. Chain's screwed, but plate deflects a bodkin just fine.

>> No.15153045

Do you have a link to these tests?

>> No.15153047

Postan because it needs to.

>> No.15153050

Yep. However, good luck explaining this to the English Longbow fans, who go into apoplexy trying to process the idea that a flatbow might be superior in any way to a true longbow.

>> No.15153061

I do not, sadly, it wasn't on the internet but rather was a television show. Bodkin arrow shot full force at a breastplate. Result was a bent bodkin tip. While I know there's serious skepticism involved in TV there didn't appear to be much room for smoke and mirrors.

>> No.15153065

Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to suggest that the people who used longbows back in the day were dumbfucks or slaves to tradition; I've no doubt that if they tried one of their bows and tried a flatbow and found the latter to be superior they'd trade immediately. I scoff only at those who value the longbow just because they have a hard-on for and mythologize what was simply the best available at the time as TEH BESTEST EVAAAAAR.

>> No.15153066

I don't know about the longbow. It's English(Welsh) and everyone on the internet seems to hate everything English.
This is of course just the internet. Outside it the Longbow fanwankery is commonplace. Not quite as overblown as katanafaggotry, i.e. longbows rarely gain magical attributes such as slicing machine gun barrels.
Well, there are those. But full plate armour is the some of the best personal body armour ever made, in its respective time and setting. Those claims have historical proof.

>> No.15153071


Are you talking about "Weapons That Made Britain"?

If so, I know at least the armour episode is on YouTube.

>> No.15153076

It might have been. Though if so I sort of find it slightly ironic that a test that showed bodkin arrowheads to be ineffective against plate armor would end up on a show called that.

>> No.15153081

As far as revolvers go, that one's not that good looking.

>> No.15153082

>The parts of the revolver that are subject to the most stress when being fired are much less likely to break than those of an automatic.
Balderdash. Revolvers are insanely complicated, and while the chamber itself is unlikely to get damaged, you can suffer from chamber misalignment or many other problems, and each requires taking the gun to a certified gunsmith.

>Hence revolvers are often chambered for more powerful cartridges than automatics.
that's due to the construction - you'd need huge gorilla palms to properly hold a pistol with a double stack mag of .44 magnum, but it's not an issue with the revolver. Heavy frame pistols can handle larger loads just as well as heavy frame revolvers.

>Besides, revolvers are a product of a time when the prevailing philosophy behind forearms design was "make it bigger". .455 Webley, anyone?
.455? Man, look at the pic. Yes, that's a pistol chambered in .303 British. No, i don't know how the hell are you supposed to shoot it more than once and not harm yourself and/or set everything on fire.

>forearms design
it's a shame i already posted a pic, cause that shit deserves some Popeye

>> No.15153086

It should be on youtube. What's the show name?

>> No.15153087

Try Weapons That Made Britain.

>> No.15153092

>and everyone on the internet seems to hate everything English.
Not just on the internet. Everyone hates the English.

>> No.15153095

I'd have to say the western equivalent of the katana is the sword in general.

We all make a big deal about them when actual battles were mostly won with spears, and a little bit of maces, picks, and axes to try to kill the guys with spears.

>> No.15153097


I personally find it to be one of the most nice looking. Though I also really like the look of home built weapons. So different strokes for different folks.

Webleys are my favourite, though.

>> No.15153099

Even the English?

>> No.15153104

Especially the English.

>> No.15153105

This, more or less. And it was true pretty much everywhere, Japan included.

>> No.15153106


Even the English hate the English. And the English hate everyone else.

For a nation that has a history of such globe trotting (and admittedly killing lots of the people we found), we are really quite xenophobic.

>> No.15153119

Love Webleys, only wish they were still made, maybe in .45 ACP or something.

I know people convert the old .455 to .45 ACP, but the .45ACP actually has a higher barrel pressure, to the point of going over the recommended maximum.

>> No.15153122

I'm going to post a couple of particularly good looking revolvers, if you folks don't mind.

>> No.15153124

God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal

>> No.15153129

Pretty sure there's at least one company out there that makes repros of them.

>> No.15153131

And these days, his company makes the best looking guns.

>> No.15153132

>Outside it the Longbow fanwankery is commonplace. Not quite as overblown as katanafaggotry, i.e. longbows rarely gain magical attributes such as slicing machine gun barrels.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Longbow" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Welsh Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Welsh Longbow in Wales for 15 000 Pound Sterling (that's about $24,450) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce slabs of solid steel with my Welsh Longbow.
Welsh bowyers spend years working on a single Longbow and bend it up to a million times to produce the finest bows known to mankind.
Welsh Longbows are thrice as accurate as regular longbows and thrice as strong for that matter too. Anything a crossbow can pierce, a Welsh Longbow can pierce better. I'm pretty sure a Welsh Longbow could easily impale a knight wearing full plate with a simple bodkin.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Wales? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Welsh Longbowmen and their Longbow of destruction. Even in World War II, Nazi soldiers targeted the men with the Welsh Longbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Welsh Longbows are simply the best bows that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(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 piercing power of Welsh Longbows in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Welsh Longbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

>> No.15153136

>> No.15153139

I have far fewer revolvers than I thought I did.

>> No.15153144

>> No.15153146


Not to say that automatic pistols can't be nice looking, too.

>> No.15153147

Longbow fag here. I agree about the performance of a flatbow.
However Longbows are easier and faster to produce than flatbows, especially for the technology of their time.

>> No.15153148

>> No.15153153

>>I'd have to say the western equivalent of the katana is the sword in general.
Nope. Western swords are mostly described as blunt, heavy slabs of piss-poor iron that barely cut hot butter.
Anyone with half a brain knows that's not entirely accurate, but we're talking about katanafaggots here so no surprise there.

I would say there is no equivalent to a katana in the west in terms of fanwankery and foamy mouthed anime-powered retards praising it. Longbows are cool to hate, for western swords see above, western armour is mostly disregarded by saying "but a katana would cut through it anyway desu". If anything gets too much praise it's not antique/medieval/renaissance stuff, the reaction most similar to katanawankery is the worship modern .50 calibre sniper rifles get.

>> No.15153156

>> No.15153163

Keep in mind though that with a flatbow, you can use a larger variety of woods that don't work for a proper longbow stave (hazel, ash, osage orange, etc...) and get the same performance.

>> No.15153164

Im on internet, but i dont hate English. Actualy im russiam reenactor, reenacting man-at-arms from Richard III household.
Its just Hollywood made English to be popular bad guys in historical movies.

>> No.15153166

>> No.15153168


I find that people just like to be part of a group, and then berate anybody outside of the group. I'm not exactly sure why.

Not being able to appreciate the skill of one blacksmith just because was born in a different continent (or country) to the one you're in love with seems incredibly strange.

>> No.15153175

Well, maybe not now, but I'd say a few decades ago (when westerns were bigger) revolvers were worse than katanas are now.

What the fuck am I looking at here?

>> No.15153179

I guess it was only a matter of time.
Would lol again.

>> No.15153180

i prefer the M1911

>> No.15153181

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.