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

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 20 KB, 300x451, Legolas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
31428437 No.31428437 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What's the deal with two-swords fighing technique?

As much as it is overused in all kinds of movies and shows, it was barely used in real life through history.

What's the main reason that makes it such ineffective against sword&shield, or two handed sword? My guess is

a) Inability to pass the block of shield
b) Long training required to become fluent in this technique

Am I correct?

>> No.31428451

Correct me if I am wrong but a sword / parrying dagger is pretty popular back in the day

>> No.31428492

It's comparatively rare because it require an extreme amount of training in order to use effectively.

Most sword schools would not permit someone to begin learning a two-sword style until they had shown master-level proficiency with a sword IN EITHER HAND.

>> No.31428497

>b) Long training required to become fluent in this technique
This one. Lots of weapons have trouble getting past shields.

Nito-ryuu was a thing as well

>> No.31428502

>sword / parrying dagger is pretty popular back in the day

True, but as far as I know, only in duels, not in the battles/real combat.

And as you said, these were usually short daggers. I was talking about two blades of the same length.

>> No.31428504

Yes, rapier and dagger was a very popular combination, but it was civilian self defense thing. You wouldn't use those two together in a battlefield.

>> No.31428514

Main weapon back in the days was sword + shield, many reason being the most practical. In reality sword fights werent like in movies, you practically didnt saw edge on edge combat, since it was destroying blades. Shields were better than off hand weapon for blocking and were in all more practical and easier to use. Two handed weapons were most often used to disrupt pike formations, which was job of "doppel solders" (correct my typing, please), who were paid twice as much, because of high mortality rates.

>> No.31428515


You're wrong. Shields as offensive and defensive weapons were by far the most effective and popular form of combat. Swords were rarely used to attack because of how vulnerable they make you. Not saying they weren't taken into battle in some form or another just that pushing with your shield and bashing a piece of steel was far more effective than lunging.

>> No.31428526

There's no point whatsoever in having two blades of an identical size. You'd have to train both hands equally and the benefits would be negligible.

To make it practical and avoid smashing them into each other you'd have to use two shorter weapons as well so you'd lose out once again.

>> No.31428531

Also in Japan main user and "inventor" of style using two swords was Miyamoto Musashi and even he recommend it only for fighting bigger groups of enemies.

>> No.31428535

>I was talking about two blades of the same length.
In Europe, this was known as "a case of swords" from what I've read, and as you said, it was something only very skilled fencers used and only in duels and sparring.

>> No.31428555

So, do you think that person fluent in two swords combat would actually stand a chance against the person wielding sword and shield?

In my opinion, as >>31428514 said, it would be rather inpractical as passing the defence of shield would be extremly difficult, and even average sword&shield warrior would easily beat the double blades master. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>> No.31428586
File: 788 KB, 1019x1487, thorin-alone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Sword or axe /tg/?

>> No.31428594

>So, do you think that person fluent in two swords combat would actually stand a chance against the person wielding sword and shield?
You'd have a better chance with one sword and some wrestling techniques.

As for an average warrior beating a master, it all depends on how fast he can move. If his reactions are a bit slow or he doesn't correctly counter a technique, he's dead whatever weapon he has.

>> No.31428595

The basic formation back in the day was the shield wall. It goes without saying that two-swords fighting won't work well. now there was a minority of warrirors who used great weapons instead of shields and hand weapons. here you trade a good deal of protection from the shield for:
1: Long(er) reach
2: Armour/bone/shield smashing force of impact.
3: Compensation for a small dick.

You get none of these three things with two weapons.

>> No.31428596

I don't see how using 2 blades would be useful in a warfare situation

at best there's simply no room to properly use 2 swords, at worst you're a walking gap in a shieldwall

>> No.31428598

Carry both

>> No.31428612

Using two swords also means that you'll have to be pretty fast. Which means that the swords in question will have to be light and short. So no superior reach and so useful additional force on your blows. And yeah, one has to be a fucking Legolas to effectively pull his off, since if your opponent wears any armor at all - your only chance is to aim for the weak spots (you swords weight a bit more than plungers, remember?), looking for them on a possibly unknown to you suit, while staying really close.

>> No.31428615

Unless you are ambidextrous, it's a very awkward way of fighting.

In comparison to a sword+shield combo, training time is excessive, and each sword is much more expensive to make compared to a shield.

So training time and cost-efficiency.

Sword and dagger wasn't uncommon, but it's still easier to defend yourself with a shield in the daggers place.

>> No.31428626

Since the question was answered, I think we can derail this thread a little.
I would chose axe for three reasons:
1. General badassery
2. Vikings
3. Most swords dont have sharp edge on entire blade, but only on striking point (some at far end, other have edge on entire 2/3 of blade), with remainder used for blocking, parrying and the like. With axe (as long as you have shield) you get sturdier handle and you can make mightier attacks, because all mass is at the point.

>> No.31428627

just wondering, was there a gladiator type that used 2 swords?

A lot of other highly impractical combat styles originate there after all and using 2 swords would have a pretty decent entertainment value

>> No.31428641

weren't daggers only used in duels because using shields was considered to be uncivilized or something?

>> No.31428647

If there are two unarmored masters fighting in controled envirovement, no matter the weapon, one of them will be dead, injured or fleeing in matter of three seconds.

>> No.31428659

Gallowglass > axeman

You don't carry a shield around unless you're planning on starting shit and the mayor of the town really doesn't want you to start shit

>> No.31428671


>> No.31428684

Axe still has better centre of weight, but gallowglass is nice too.

>> No.31428691

>>A lot of other highly impractical combat styles originate
Yeah, that's why the gladiators were named after the region they took their equipment from

>> No.31428701

If %somthing% existed in those times and you could kill a man with %something% - you can surely say that there was at least one event where gladiator were armed with %something%. 2 swords are not an exception. Nobody gived a rat's ass about actual effectiveness on arena - only entertainment. We're talking about guys who made show of mules raping bitches to death.

>> No.31428706

first of all: wielding 2 weapons will not make you swing twice the attack, a warrior makes an attack with his whole bodyweight and balance not just the arm.
dual wield was used but mainly in duels and with a long and short blade so that if the enemy was too close you still had an effectrive weapon ( sword + dagger was ok).
sword and shield is much better in any battle situation when you get arrows, or attack from all sorts of directions.

>> No.31428715

However, result of course changes with modifiers. You may get lots of combinations with changing area to battlefield, with new dangers approaching constantly, with giving them armour or having unexperienced duel instead of masters.

>> No.31428716

they were loosely based on the regional styles but made impractical on purpose to make fights more interesting

like providing someone with a helmet that restricted vision

>> No.31428720


Academic rules?

>> No.31428726

There are cases where two swords have been used. e.g. a case of rapiers

The main problem is that it is very difficult and very unwieldy. Typically when fighting with two weapons, you use one as your primary and the other as a defense, trying to focus on using both offensively at the same time is immensely hard and you often find yourself just using the one and the other as a defensive aid. In which case you might as well just bring a dagger/buckler/shield/rotella/cloak/etc.

Fighting with two full sized swords is tremendously difficult and of not much use.

Source: I'm an historical fencer.

>> No.31428754

>you practically didnt saw edge on edge combat, since it was destroying blades.
This is complete bullshit. Swords are disposable items.

>> No.31428755

Would you like to explain, please? I don't have this term in my memory.

>> No.31428805

They are mainly in stories weapons of heroes because they weren't so widely used. Their main primary users were nobility and wealthy, for swords were costly, especially in areas with little or no metals. Main weapon of most units, particularly peasantry were spears and pikes, which were cheap and very effective against charging units and cavalry. However, zweihanders and other two handed swords were used to disrupt their formations.

>> No.31428810

Swords were 12p or so in 1300. That was a weekly wage for a laborer.

You'd rather break a sword and live than not do it and die.

>> No.31428812

blocking arrows or pikes is hard without a shield

>> No.31428822


I fucked up the name slightly.

>> No.31428823

*primar users, as in, first owners, not those that looted them.

>> No.31428837

My information wasnt directly connected to them, but maybe this sort of duels was its source.

>> No.31428846


Look at the Assize of arms, everyone had a sword.

>> No.31428887

Great Britain isnt entire Europe, you know.
And even if it was, Assize of arms wasnt about swords, it was mainly about armour and lances.

>> No.31428914

it could potentially give you the advantage of switching the defensive hand and attacking from either side, right?

someone with a shield could be worn down by that kind of tactics since shield bash isn't really comparable.

>> No.31429006

The 1181 one was. The assize of arms in 1252 was a lot keener on swords, because they were cheaper then, and everyone who could get a bow was supposed to have one, unless you were a forester in which case you could have a crossbow.

>> No.31429044

You'd need to be ambidextrous for that and in which case you might as well go lefty rapier and dagger, since fighting left handers is a mind fuck for the inexperienced.

>> No.31429140


Daggers (also cloaks) were mainly used in the early days of street duels, when the other guy might pull out Grandad's heavy ass longsword or something, and you couldn't block that with your rapier.
After a while of being mocked (and then summarily killed) people stopped bringing the heavy swords, and the offhand dagger became redundant, and disappeared.

>> No.31429167

>Daggers (also cloaks) were mainly used in the early days of street duels, when the other guy might pull out Grandad's heavy ass longsword or something, and you couldn't block that with your rapier.
This is completely false, a good rapier will quite easily parry a longsword in the strong, a dagger might not, a cloak would just be full retard.

>> No.31429169


How was the cloak actually used?

>> No.31429173


Err early days of modern fencing, I meant to say.

>> No.31429197


You'd dodge aside and swing it, and wrap it around your opponent's blade, tangling it.

>> No.31429223

>dual wield was used but mainly in duels and with a long and short blade so that if the enemy was too close you still had an effectrive weapon
This. The advantage of having a rapier and a dagger is that you're armed at fencing distance, and if they get inside your guard or even into grappling range you've got a backup weapon. People underestimate the importance of range in sword fights- if the guy with a knife gets past the tip of your sword, you're kinda fucked unless you have another weapon.

>> No.31429230

because unlike in video games where more weapons = more dps, in real life a single good hit was all you needed to kill a person or at the very least incapacitate him which means the role of the second weapon is defensive
and for obvious reasons a blade is inferior defensively to a shield or a weapon with more reach

>> No.31429231

Further more, the dagger as fencing tool was the evolution of the knife. It only started to disappear later on when streets became safer and weapons started to develop along the lines of fashion where swords became shorter lighter more decorative, transitioning through side swords and eventually culminating in the elegant but actually pretty useless court sword.

>> No.31429243

More like you use it to catch the blade in the fabric or pass it off with your hand.

>> No.31429253

Answered well by;
You wouldn't be able to justify carrying a shield around most of the time.

>> No.31429254

To conceal your knife. Then you stab someone in the throat.

There's a reason that cloak and dagger is used as a term for espionage, not for duelling.

>> No.31429284

It's really hard, so using two weapons was more the mark of someone who is a master of swordfighting. It's like the difference between being a competitive runner and being Usain Bolt.

>> No.31429301


Sword of course, do you mistake me to some poor commoner?

Of course I will have my servant carry my pole-axe around, just in case.

>> No.31429317


>> No.31429370
File: 554 KB, 2336x2336, parrying_dagger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The idea of having two identical swords is silly unless you are perfectly ambidextrous.
Using a sword with a parrying dagger on the other hand is a great idea.

>> No.31429374

Didn't a lot of of knights actually wield both sword and axe, having one of them as a backup weapon?

>> No.31429439

Shields were actually stupidly rare after the early middle ages outside of tournaments. By the 15th century that's all they were good for.

>> No.31429468

Now, that's a bullshit.

Shields disappeared from the battlefields in the half of XVIth century, when the useful firearms were developed.

>> No.31429477

Knights used swords as side arms. Their primary weapons were lances when on horseback, and mainly pollaxes when they fought on foot.

>> No.31429483

An unskilled laborer also doesn't go around having sword duels.

>> No.31429514

Yeah, because using a shield as extra protection against bullets would clearly be a bad idea.

Face it, it's because the tactical paradigm of the time didn't fit shields.

>> No.31429538

OUtside of specialist use (pavises in crossbowman companies) and tiny bucklers (which were also more often than not a specialist item) the shield was almost entirely gone from western european battlefields by the 15th century.

Also what the fuck is going on with this thread and the low literacy/high rate of bullshit involved?

Daggers and cloaks weren't used because they were more civilized, they were used because they were actually useful.

>> No.31429545

>Their primary weapons were lances when on horseback
The medieval lances were breaking in the first charge, if i remember correctly. Then you had to use the sword as your primary weapon.

Having one handed axe as your secondary weapon would be a good idea, especially if you sword would be broken in fight.

>> No.31429546


More important question is who would've won in a fight betwixt legolas and Aragorn. Legolas has much more experience and is inhumanly fast but Aragorn is from the kings of old.

>> No.31429548

Duelling experts in this thread;

Are there guys who are so good they can reliably beat ten regular swordsmen in a row?

Does it make a huge difference if you start learning at eight, as opposed to eighteen, or twenty-eight?

How much does general fitness help?

>> No.31429555
File: 21 KB, 744x455, Rodela shield and rapier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not really. They lost their omnipresence in the battlefield, but they continued being used up until the late 16th century by rodeleros. In fact, IIRC, the majority of Cortez's men that went with him into to the new world were rodeleros.

>> No.31429571

>Daggers and cloaks weren't used because they were more civilized, they were used because they were actually useful.
More like they were used because everyone had a dagger and you'd wear a cloak if it was cold or raining or you wanted to look fashionable.

>> No.31429582

What weapon and technique are you interested in?

>> No.31429588

>>Does it make a huge difference if you start learning at eight, as opposed to eighteen, or twenty-eight?
For starters you'll be able to get 20 more years training in. You'll be a master at 40 instead of 60.

>> No.31429606


They both have plot armor. This is just a low-power version of the Superman vs Goku debate.

>> No.31429614

Rodeleros are one of the few spanish military ideas nobody ever bothered to copy during the era. They lasted all of 20 years and mostly came from italian generals in the spanish armies fawning too hard over the roman legion.

>> No.31429615

No, only tournament lances were designed to break. A war lance might break or get stuck inside the unlucky person getting hit by it, but lancers practiced techniques to prevent that.
You're right that if you lost your lance you would draw your sword, but that's the purpose of sidearms.
Also, maces, hammers and axes were popular as tertiary weapons with knights, mainly used against other horsemen IIRC.

>> No.31429617


I have no idea. General information on armed combat, I guess.

>> No.31429625

>Not squire
>Handing knightly weapons to a commoner
Be thou a lollard?

>> No.31429635

No, they have knife fights out the back of pubs. At least, they do here in scotland.

>> No.31429653

Go suck victorian antiquarian dick.

>> No.31429673

>Are there guys who are so good they can reliably beat ten regular swordsmen in a row?
In a row, that is one after the other? Most likely. At the same time, incredibly unlikely bordering on the impossible.

>Does it make a huge difference if you start learning at eight, as opposed to eighteen, or twenty-eight?
As with any martial art and sport, yes.

>How much does general fitness help?
A good deal, but skill is always the most important factor.

>> No.31429684

More likely a filthy Cathar.

I hear they arm their women as well.

>> No.31429704

Still, lance was pretty useless weapon in close combat. Didn't the knights just throw them away and wield swords immediately after the charge?

>> No.31429706

>At the same time, incredibly unlikely bordering on the impossible.
It's actually pretty difficult for 10 people to attack one man at once. They get in each others way.

>> No.31429718


But it was scientifically shown that superman would destroy goku so don't dodge the question


>> No.31429755

>i better look the other way in case my plasma sword expodes from the impact

>> No.31429760

Parrying Dagger is a Rapier or Case of Rapier technique, popular from the the late late middle ages and ahead. During the early middle ages, two short swords didn't saw the much use because it made it hard to parry heavier blades compared to a longsword.

>> No.31429776


Yes, the cloak is a convenient substitute for a dagger as an offhand defense. Tangling your enemy's sword in your cloak could work, but you might get stabbed anyway. A solid piece of steel with a nice big guard on it is much better.

>> No.31429785

Yeah I like axes too because of a stronger and more focused attack, axes are better against shields compared to swords.

>> No.31429788


>Duels aren't real combat

And then there's this tosser. If a man comes at you with a knife in a dark alley, is that not real combat? Do you need X amount of people participating before you get real combat?

Duels with sharp weapons were as much real combat as any other form of combat where your life is at the line.

As for two swords, they weren't in use because it wasn't a very practical style. But two weapon combat at large was very common. Only a handful of schools have you completely neglecting the use of your offhand, and then its usually done out of balance reasons (for instance with a rapier you want to face your side towards your opponent to maintain balance, create optimal range and present a smaller target. Even then your left hand will be used as a counterweight when you lounge though)

>> No.31429799

Depends on it's length and circumstance you're in. If you're dismounted and it's on the shorter side, it can be used as any other spear or pike. If it's on the longer side, knights were known to break of parts of their lances and use them as pikes.
If you're still on horseback, again it depends on the tactics being used. Are you doing hit and runs? Then you're gonna try to keep on to your lance. If on the other hand an opponent, mounted or dismounted, gets close or you're stuck in the melee, you're going to draw your secondary or tertiary weapon.

>> No.31429817


That would depend on if they get entangled in melee after the charge I guess.

>> No.31429840

It's something we totally can buy with Legolas, the guy is a purely individual fighter who, in his homeland, is jumping from branch to branch to branch. He could pull out one of his swords with his right hand, whilst holding onto a branch, swing it, put it back, swing to another branch and perform the same motion in opposite because he's a thousand year old elf to whom individual fighting is not just second nature, its probably a form of instinctive magic to him.

There's a reason that later on the Mirkwood army and royal guards are shown in heavy armor with tower shields and polearms/longswords. Because those are the guys who will stand on the floor, in a block, and receive the foe. They aren't going to be fighting as individuals, picking their foes, so they're armed like sensible group fighters.

For the same reason, the dual wielding thing is just not going to get the same traction in our history. You don't have people that dextrous, with that much time, who are also individuals picking their own targets on their home ground.

It's just not feasible for war.

>> No.31429847

No, because the aim is to ride straight through the enemy, wheel and charge again.

>> No.31429888

>/tg still doesn't get the evolution of warfare through-out the ages.
It is almost like you wouldn't be surprised.

>> No.31429891
File: 20 KB, 355x269, Photos_23-escrima72.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Well Philippinos have escrima, a martial art that involves two short swords, knives.The purpose of the second one is largely for parrying though. It was also used in warfare too.

This is the nth thread on dual wielding.

>> No.31429907

>Are there guys who are so good they can reliably beat ten regular swordsmen in a row?
Depends on how well the ten regulars work together.
>Does it make a huge difference if you start learning at eight, as opposed to eighteen, or twenty-eight?
Of course. All world class fighters started young.
>How much does general fitness help?
A lot, but there are diminishing returns. Someone who is out of shape can't use excellent techniques, and someone with great conditioning can still make a rookie mistake, see Lesnar vs. Valesquez.

It depends on what you're fighting against. Samurai were the only professional force that I know of who used two swords, and they were essentially light cavelry who would either be fighting other light cavelry (shield doesn't help much if your opponent is on the wrong side of your horse) or peasent pikemen (two swords = double the slaughter if you manage to break their formation). In a tight formation, I'd put high odds on a sword/shield combo, as it is possible to get protection from a shield on both sides. One on one, I'd bet slightly in favour of sword/shield, all else being equal. But, if a single fighter is outnumbered, I'd put much higher odds on the one with two offensive weapons. I'm thinking that's the real reason we see them so much in film - we love to see an outnumbered hero slaughtering mooks, and dual wielding would indeed be the best for that.


>> No.31429941

Plus, the group of heavy cavalry that doesn't break the enemy in a single go is probably going to get bogged down and cut down.

But that's also a fairly tall order for any except the most massive blocks of pike infantry to stand and receive a charge of heavy cavalry without breaking.

The largest cavalry charge in history was 20,000 Holy League cavalry from all over Europe at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. You imagine standing up to that and holding your ground. No way are you stopping it, no way are you weathering that storm.

That's the terrifying aspect of heavy shock cavalry, you're not going to stop it. You're going to die.

>> No.31429952


>Depends on how well the ten regulars work together.

The question was about fighting them each individually. I'm trying to get a feel for how important skill is to this whole thing. If a truly skilled fighter can beat the average fighter more often than not, that's one thing; if they'll virtually always win, excluding complicating factors, that's another.

>> No.31430006
File: 729 KB, 1436x2521, iron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>and they were essentially light cavelry who would either be fighting other light cavelry
In the heian period, sure.

They'd be using the yari or naginata more often than not, or a bow or gun.

>> No.31430019

I was born in the wrong era

>> No.31430053

The thing with two swords is it's at least twice as difficult to do and probably slightly worse than using one sword and a shield/buckler/dagger. It's all drawback and no benefit. The only reason anyone ever did it was to show off their mad duelling skillz.

>> No.31430062

In most hema competitions, what you see is that when one fencer is more skilled than the other, he ends up wining the first bout the vast majority of the time, but as the match goes on, the other fencer's chance of wining a bout increases as he gets a better idea of the fighting style of his opponent.

>> No.31430086

Actually heavy cavalry didn't so much get bogged down as reform and charge until they were done. Agincourt was the exception. By the end of the HYW the typical french gendarme was so heavily armored he could survive charging through a swiss pike block and have good expectations of winning.

>> No.31430090

Swords were expensive at fuck to make.

>> No.31430109


Of course, in a real fight, the less skilled guy won't get a second chance. Unless he'd studied the more skilled guy before they fought, and...

And suddenly I understand why everybody was obsessed with tournaments and duelling for a few centuries.

>> No.31430120

Outright beginners also lack a lot of preconceptions of masters, while this is mostly bad this also means they can rarely pull off something the master would know is wrong through sheer dumb luck.

And of course, exhaustion sets in.

>> No.31430130

Wrong. Any idiot can make a sword outside of the bronze age.

>> No.31430136

Depends on time and place. Viking era swords were very expensive. Late medieval and renaissance swords were reasonably priced enough that any freeman could afford to own one.

>> No.31430142


Not what you're asking about, but I remember reading an account of an incident in France back in the day. A trio of young hooligans made some remarks about a notorious young woman (they probably used the old French slang for "raging bull dyke" or something. I gathered she was known for seducing anything on two legs) and she called them out and fought the three of them outside. I don't have my citations handy as my books are in storage, but I seem to recall she killed one or two of them, and was later released from custody when the cops decided that, even if it was more of a street brawl than a proper duel, that part wasn't really her fault.

>> No.31430161

yes a skilled melee fighter will virtually always win one on one against a less skilled opponent with no complicating factors.

modernisation of warefare is all about inventing weapons and tactics that minimise the difference of skill, range weapons being the biggest one and change warfare into a matter of economics of who can produce superior equipment en masse

in melee, superior skill allows for more hits and more blocks, but with guns, being skilled means you hit more often, but bullets travel faster than human reactions so if someone shoots you, then you get hit

as an example
2600 cavalry defeats an army 3 times its size in less than half an hour, in one charge

>> No.31430172

The problem is that the human body isn't well adapted for swordplay. A lot of natural responses to threats make you very bad at swordfighting.

>> No.31430185

Yes, IIRC, some masters warn that for an above average swordsman, not master level but not beginner either, one of the most dangerous opponents he could face would be an untrained opponent due to the unpredictability of their moves.

>> No.31430186

Even english longbowmen got wrecked regularly by smaller cavalry forces when they didn't get to pick the field and spend the night digging in.

>> No.31430193

Tak cos czułem że mamy Polaka w tym fredzie po tym jak wspomniałes Bitwę Wiedeńską

>> No.31430202

>The question was about fighting them each individually. I'm trying to get a feel for how important skill is to this whole thing. If a truly skilled fighter can beat the average fighter more often than not, that's one thing; if they'll virtually always win, excluding complicating factors, that's another.

You're thinking about this wrong. Skill isn't discrete, it's a gradient. There isn't some magical point that you reach when you become "truly skilled" at which point you can stop training/improving.

If someone trains for ten years, they're going to win >90% (maybe even >99%) of the time against someone with less than one year of practice. But someone with 20 years of practice will still probably beat that "master" more often than not.

Of course, you do get diminishing returns as time goes on, and you start to run into physical limitations where your working against your own age as you keep going.

>> No.31430208


I would argue that it's become more about 'skill' again. Most soldiers in the second world war didn't shoot to kill, but most soldiers today DO shoot to kill. This is a difference in skill, of sorts. A difference in the kind of training you give a soldier can make them ten times more likely to go for a kill shot, and so also more likely (probably NOT ten times more likely, but something significant) to get a kill shot.

>> No.31430242

>but most soldiers today DO shoot to kill.

That's utter bullshit. Soldiers today shoot to suppress.

>> No.31430273

Suppression is only a side of effect of the enemy knowing that a bunch of guys is ready to shoot off their dicks the moment they pop out of cover.

>> No.31430288

Except it's really not. Shooting to kill isn't what you get out of automatic and burst fire. I'm sure a few tough guys like to act as if, but the truth is that soldiers still don't shoot to kill unless they're psychos.

>> No.31430300
File: 5 KB, 118x125, what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31430304

They did break, but knights would charge at the enemy, not into them. In other words, they'd charge, peel off and return to their lines for a new lance.

>> No.31430308


They have always shot to suppress. It's that soldiers today are more likely to go for kill shots that present themselves that is the difference. In the second world war, I've seen figures that suggest only about a quarter of combat troops would shoot close enough to count as suppression, and only a few percent would go for kill shots directly.

And yes, in modern war most killing is done by not-rifles, mainly mortars and air-strikes.

>> No.31430320

Any shield of the time that could stop a bullet would be too impractical to carry.

>> No.31430332

But you don't suppress with automatic fire. What kind of idiot would just waste a whole clip just so the enemy knows that there is some guy shooting over there. You pump bullets at a slow but steady rate and with a decent accuracy.

>> No.31430336

It doesn't have to stop it. If the bullet penetrates the shield, its velocity will dramatically decrease and you can stop it with lighter armor than you'd usually need.

>> No.31430339

It really depends on circumstances. If the knights are flanking an infantry block for example, they're just going to charge right through and rout them.

>> No.31430355

Except the shield was already obsolete on the battlefield before the arrival of guns on the scene. Heavy infantry just increased how much armour they wore (and before we go "but it's only nobles", no, over half of the french gendarmes were from the same wealthy peasants England raised its yeomanry from) and we know the best a longbow or even a crossbow that wasn't a siege arbalest could do with that was turning them into angry pincushions.

The example given above, the Rodelero, was brief fad nobody gave a fuck about at a time when Spain was the leading country to learn from.

>> No.31430357

Whoops, too much /k/ trolling.

>> No.31430359

the us has raised its kill rate to like 90% of infantry willing to shoot to kill. It helps they got rid of the draft.

full auto is generally for suppression with an assault rifle

>> No.31430362

what was the point of this post?

>> No.31430373

>But you don't suppress with automatic fire.

Full retard

>> No.31430378

Rodelas/rotellas were reportedly bulletproof shields. That was one of their main appeals.
Of course bullet resistance also depends on what kind of gun was used and the distance from which it was fired.

>> No.31430403

Mass Combat.

With very few exceptions, every style of swordsmanship through history was designed with Mass Combat in mind. Those that weren't were developed by people who had fought in mass combat or been prepared for mass combat their entire life.

Two swords are impractical in mass combat.

Sword&Shield; this has the benefit of basically providing a second suit of armor that you carry around on your arm, which is hella useful against arrows and thrown weapons. Hence, ideal for mass combat, but also useful for duels.

Two Handed sword; this was used primarily when personal armor was so good that a shield was pointless, or when a shield was not used for reasons of tradition/honour/something else stupid. It was primarily a way to make the most of the situation (good shields were heavy), and could be used in both duels and mass combat (with training).

Two swords is effectively useless in mass combat; it does not have the punch provided by a large sword necessary to deal with high quality armor, while requiring the same amount of excessive space to use efficiently. However, it is fairly good for duels where one can move around a lot, especially in comparison to a single sword user.

As such, two sword styles are designed exclusively with duel combat in mind, making them fall out of favour with any nation that goes to war more than once every two generations.

Good for bodyguards of non-combat nobility, however.

>> No.31430421

>the Rodelero, was brief fad nobody gave a fuck about at a time when Spain was the leading country to learn from.
That's not really true, Italians and the English were reported to have made use of them, although they weren't particularly common in English warfare.

>> No.31430423

>Rodelas/rotellas were reportedly bulletproof shields.

The claim crops up every now and then but there's no indication it was ever that useful on the field at all. Nassau also tried it and was underwhelmed.

Apparently getting rid of the draft didn't help the literacy rate.

>> No.31430444

/tg/ seems to forget about non european/japanese martial arts in these threads.

>> No.31430453

> Italians

Most of Italy was ruled by Spain and the rodelero was originally an italian thing. The fact that the english used a handful of them in the 16th century as a minor troop type is utterly meaningless since the english army barely did anything of note besides losing Calais during the 16th century in the first place.

>> No.31430470


My guess is it's a nerd who doesn't know squat about the subject at hand, but likes to act superior to other people anyway. So he posts a "You're all dumb" image macro, since that's all he's got.
I mean, some of those quotes are debatable, a few are outre theories, but many of them are solid historical facts.

None of that stops good old King Faggot from looking down his nose at all the regular faggots, of course.

>> No.31430492

>but many of them are solid historical facts.

Very few of them are solid historical facts.

>> No.31430493

But that's you. You optimally want to use up some serious amount of ammunition only with the first magazine, and then slow down. Accuracy is much scarier that just going with loads of bullets when it comes to suppressing. You better be sure the bullets hit just around the corner the enemy is hiding behind, and you can't do that while just holding down the trigger and raining bullets.

>> No.31430516

>Suppressive fire poses a problem. It is understandable to want to hose the target in lead but a rifle lacks both the weight and the ammo capacity to do this as effectively as a machine gun.
>The USMC Rifle manual suggests that each rifleman laying down suppressive fire should only expend 12-15 rds per minute. The current US Army manual suggests one round every 3-10 seconds.

>> No.31430523
File: 41 KB, 383x505, shield knight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't dispute that rodeleros weren't common, but it's worth mentioning their use despite the limited time frame they were used in.
You're also forgetting the sword and buckler men used in warfare throughout Europe and the hand pavises used in eastern Europe.
As well as this shield in the image that I know nothing about that occasionally shows up in illustrations.

>> No.31430527

>But that's you
I'm not the one claiming automatic fire isn't for suppression when it's the only reason it was ever adopted as a tactic, fucking moron.

>> No.31430536


Okay, maybe I was being generous.
I could provide a citation for the one quote there that belongs to me, if I had my books handy.

>> No.31430554

if two swords was good 'nough for drizzit then two swords is good 'nough for me

>> No.31430565

Automatic fire is mainly for close quarters or various types of machine guns since they are deadly accurate even with it.

>> No.31430586

This is correct, beginners have a habit of panicking and thrashing around wildly, the above average guys then try to use their regular techniques on them and more often than not both get hit. The master however just goes defensive and waits for the noob to tire themselves out.

>> No.31430599

> the sword and buckler men

>What are Rodeleros

As I said earlier, Oman notes it too, the idea that a buckler would be useful against muskets crops up for almost two centuries in military manuals but the actual troop type for it barely shows up for more than a decade at a time on the battlefield, always to be discarded as borderline useless in practice.

Cavalry wrecked them worse than musketeers, they had none of the advantages of Zweihander equipped landknechte against pike blocks and the shield was only tangentially useful against musket balls.

>> No.31430607

You realize a guy with a Shield can attack from either side too, right?

Open guards are a thing, and they let you attack however the fuck you want.

>> No.31430610

Holy fuckballs, the amount of retard in here is high. Are all of you autistic? You don't use two swords because it's a dumb as fuck, impractical technique that is less useful in every imaginable way than using a two-handed long weapon or a sword and shield.

Here, see for yourself: Go pick up a sword. Anywhere, as long as it's some relatively heavy, half-decently weighted thing. Does it feel heavy? Yeah, that's because it's a giant fucking block of metal. Now pick up two swords, one in either hand, and then go try and do ANYTHING with them.

Jesus fuck, you're all a bunch of middle-school tryhards.

>> No.31430626

>Yeah, that's because it's a giant fucking block of metal.
No, that's because it's a shitty reproduction. It only starts feeling heavy further in.

>> No.31430637

>Except the shield was already obsolete on the battlefield before the arrival of guns on the scene.
I know, but the guy was implying that shields would have some use against guns, that's what I was addressing.

>> No.31430645

>Automatic fire is mainly for close quarters or various types of machine guns since they are deadly accurate even with it.

>automatic fire
>close quarters
nigga are you an idiot
>>31430527 is right, automatic fire is only useful for suppression tactics. this includes vehicle-mounted machine guns, which are used entirely to suppress enemy movement and pin down targets for ground troops to move in on.

>> No.31430674

No, I mean buckler. As in the fist sized center-grip shield.
I know it's arma, but it's a good, well sourced article: http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm#.U0cJcPldVqU

>> No.31430689

Yeah, once guns enter the picture it's a whole different story. Europeans also stopped using shields and heavy armor when muskets made their first appearance, I was assuming OP was talking about a pre-gunpowder setting.

>> No.31430703

>Does it feel heavy?
Mostly because I don't think a 2-4 pound object is heavy.

>> No.31430716 [DELETED] 
File: 28 KB, 286x255, Case_of_Rapiers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah bro, I'm sure you know more about swords than the people who actually fought with them.

>> No.31430726

>Does it feel heavy
No, actually. A one handed Sword is fairly light, and a bastard sword is quite reasonable for its size.

Most swords that people recommend using for two sword styles are designed to be used with one hand, or have an oversized handle to permit two hands should you lose your shield, but are still the weight of a regular one handed sword (note; this is rare. If you lose your shield, most swords are intended to be used one handed with your off hand for balance).

Regardless, its still pretty light when first picked up, even for someone who doesn't practice. For someone who does practice, its a perfectly reasonable weight to use for a long time.

>> No.31430729

>m-my glorious nippon steel!
see >>31430716

>> No.31430738

Europeans were still wearing armor long after the musket showed up.
Go away.

>> No.31430742

A rapier is still only two pounds you dumb fuck. Your conclusion is sound (2W fighting was rare) but your argument is complete shit.

Okay what's with the short bus bullshit

>> No.31430743

Source on your claims? Because mine fucking says it right there that rifles (who often have automatic fire option) should suppress at a rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, which makes the whole automatic fire gimmick a total SHIT for suppression.

Vehicle mounted machine guns and the like are an entirely different case since they are just so good that automatic fire still remains accurate enough, letting you go pretty wild with and still frag charlies.

>> No.31430755

>Implying I meant Katanas

Just how retarded are you

>> No.31430760
File: 35 KB, 539x400, armor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Europeans also stopped using shields and heavy armor when muskets made their first appearance
Actually armor got a lot heavier in response to firearms. Where do you think the term bulletproof comes from?

Observe the dents in this armor.

>> No.31430761
File: 28 KB, 286x255, Case_of_Rapiers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I quoted the wrong person, post was ment for this dumbfuck >>31430610

>> No.31430771

Because nobody cares about some islands.

>> No.31430790

[ ]Not told
[ ]Told

>> No.31430798

I like Islands.

Crete is a nice island.

>> No.31430799

erm... you won't find a consensus on that. I actually think that D&D is fairly realistic in that, with its "once in a while critical hits" and a master being more able to recover from them. It's a weird combination of mental preparedness, technique, and lady luck's mood.

>> No.31430802

That's because there's more than one of you and there's low magazines.

But automatic fire isn't for CQC either and was originally for suppression. Machine guns aren't "deadly accurate"

>frag Charlies
Okay who let /v/ out of the kiddie pen

>> No.31430805


>> No.31430809

Also about weight: most two handers weighted 7 - 12 kilos, and those at 12 were already called impractical. One of heaviest swords was ceremonial two hander, which weighted 14 kilos.

>> No.31430821

>7 - 12 kilos
Try pounds, mongoloid.

>> No.31430837

Two weapons styles were used in duesl but not in formation. Movie heroes don't fight in formation. It isn2t completely nonsensical for them to sue two swords.

There are more resons for a traveling adventurer to use two weapons. Shields are hard to carry. Shields break and you probably can't carry more than one or two. Shields are hard to put on in a moments notice when orcs jump on you. Swords may get dull and having two in your hands is not a bad idea.

>> No.31430840

Admittedly, I don't know of anyone outside of anime who thinks dual wielding Zweihanders would actually work.

>> No.31430859

They were uselles in most cases, for they were specialised weapons. They mainly used them to disrupt pike formations.

>> No.31430863

I think you're confusing pounds with kilos. Anything above 4 kilos will be incredibly unwieldy. These swords were pretty much for parades only.

>> No.31430864

Ever had your weapon pinned to your own chest by an opponents shield or weapon?

It sucks. It's also FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to get out of if you don't have your own shield to push back with. Two swords give you NOTHING.

You can't attack the left side of the shieldman-
Even in a open guard, his left will be completely closed off.
You can't take both weapons to his head and right side at once, because you'll tangle yourself up, and he can just close his guard on you and kill you when you're out of position.
Meaning you have to keep one weapon back ot try to parry (probably unsuccessfully).

In the meantime, aside for sitting with his shield like a retard, the other guy can bait yo into attacking false openings, bash with it, strike with the edge, use it to take control of your weapon or arm, pin you, fuck with your perception of how close he is, and can vary how he stands behind it you make certain attacks impossible without you knowing.
The shield is a fucking versatile weapon and you'd be an idiot to give it up for another sword.

THAT is why it wasn't common.

>> No.31430881

>That's because there's more than one of you and there's low magazines.
And because full auto has low accuracy. And because accuracy is far more important for scary than pure rate of fire.

>But automatic fire isn't for CQC either and was originally for suppression. Machine guns aren't "deadly accurate"
Automatic fire beats single round at CQC surely, not every rifle has a burst fire mode. Deadly accurate was an exaggeration, the point is that they are way more stable when firing.

>Okay who let /v/ out of the kiddie pen
I am a glorious multiboarder /a/, /v/, /tg/, /k/ master race.

>> No.31430887

I don't think you've ever lifted anything heavier than a pen in your life bro.

>> No.31430899

They were also used by bodyguards, both on the battlefield to protect the banner bearers, and in civilian life. They were reportedly very good at dealing with multiple opponents.
The real reason you don't see them much outside of the battlefield is because you can't carry them with you in your day to day life (unless you're being paid to do so, of course).

>> No.31430902

>7-12 kilos
This bullshit is why I hate Saturdays. Go do your homework timmy, the adults are talking.

>Shields are hard to put on in a moments notice.
No. No they are not. Hand? Meet handle. Handle? This is hand.
>Swords may get dull
If you're fighting so many fucking people that your sword gets dull, you're dead anyway.

Along with defending the decks of ships and killing people in steetfights, sure.

They're good for any situation where a few men have to fight off many attackers.

>> No.31430936

>Swords may get dull and having two in your hands is not a bad idea.

>> No.31430956

> /v/
> Even qualifying as a race

>> No.31430961

>And because accuracy is far more important for scary than pure rate of fire.
this is so retarded i don't even understand how-
oh, now i understand

>Automatic fire beats single round at CQC
let's conduct a test for this:
1. take a 12-gauge shotgun
2. go out into a small, enclosed space
3. fire it
4. go see a doctor to cure your week-long deafness
5. now try to do all of that while in a combat area

>> No.31430985

>even qualifying as living
>not virus tier

>> No.31431001
File: 42 KB, 277x276, 1393107022370.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I bet you could. I bet you could.

God, you're transparent.

>> No.31431007

An average sword weighs about a kilogram. A hand and a half sword might be two kilos, but not much more. You'd have to be a god to swing a 3 kilogram sword more than a couple of times. Physics is a bitch that way.

>> No.31431016
File: 2 KB, 125x125, thisguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>every one of these posts

>> No.31431022

Weight is not everything. Lifting a 5-pound rock is easier than taking a 5-pound stick, holding it at ready for three hours, and then swing it for six hours, while wearing 40-60 pounds of armor, in the sun.

>> No.31431033

>oh, now i understand
What's so retarded about it? I mean there are thousands of car incidents happening in your country. Now imagine if one just happened before your eyes while driving a car. That's way more scary, isn't it? Generally having a bullet hit under your feet is worse than a machine gun ripping through some building 5 meters away.
Wait, how did we even get to shotguns in the first place?
/v/ has loads of shitposters, but I like video games and can always find a decent thread, if I need to.

>> No.31431036


It's not like there wasn't a Japanese two-sword style specifically for fighting multiple opponents. Are you seriously this retarded?

>> No.31431043

Pretty sure that 4kg was the upper limit of battlefield two handers.

>> No.31431051

>It's not like there wasn't a Japanese two-sword style specifically for fighting multiple opponents. Are you seriously this retarded?
>my glorious Nippon steel!

>> No.31431060

And that's what you'd use if you want to decapitate a horse or break down a door or some other absurd shit

>> No.31431065

And guess how fucking popular it was?

It wasn't. It also specifically was not for battlefield usage.

>> No.31431067

listen: when you happen to be in the middle of a firefight, then you can feel free to tell me exactly what made you piss your pants more. until then, you have NO idea what it's like, and absolutely NO basis from which to speak on the matter.
>Wait, how did we even get to shotguns in the first place?

>> No.31431070

>Shields are hard to put on in a moments notice when orcs jump on you
Its even harder to block an arrow with a sword.

>> No.31431087

Probably, to be honest I don't remember which unit was used in source, but I automatically though about kilos, since I am eurofag.

>> No.31431094
File: 1.89 MB, 300x169, waifu material.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>my glorious Nippon steel!
>a valid martial art style is shit because I hate the country it came from
You're cute

>> No.31431104

>Implying it's hard to block an arrow with a plate harness
>Implying there aren't also gambesons and other shit that will make it even more useless against heavy infantry

>> No.31431106

> a valid martial art style

Top lel.

>> No.31431110
File: 17 KB, 226x225, 1396235617803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>yes I seriously am this retarded hdurr hurrf help me please, I can only shit autism all over my room for my mom to clean up



>> No.31431120

> japanese martial arts
> valid

>> No.31431124

>valid martial art style
>posts something that isn't
Come on now.


>> No.31431132

>a valid martial art style
Prove it, without quoting an anime.
>implying it's easy
Define to me what kind of arrow you think they would be using. Protip: It's not going to have a pointed head. You're an idiot.

>> No.31431133

Well, then you have no idea about that too. You are talking as much shit as me then. But sure, it's easier to just say that I can't be right and be done with it.
You mean it's gonna be loud? That's not something you would worry about when in a fucking gunfight.

>> No.31431140

Why would you eblieve that a soldier would hold a sword at the ready for hours at a time? Or that it would be swung for six hours? That's asinine.

The Romans had a general rule: a man can fight effectively for no more than five to ten minutes. This is why, for instance, Hannibal's delay of his flanking manoeuvre at Cannae won the Carthaginians such a convincing victory. (It's also why boxing round are 3 minutes, UFC rounds are 5 minutes, and so on.)

Certainly weight is not everything. Torque is the major factor, and there's an inverse mathematical relationship between mass and torque, which is why swords had to be light. (It's also why there are different fighting styles for different weapons.)

>> No.31431147

>traveling with your harness on
You realize people didn't do this, right?

>> No.31431157

>Against gambeson

Yeah no.

Read actual period accounts from the 15th century of how much damage arrows can actually do on a heavy infantryman of the period (the answer is "not fucking much")

>> No.31431159

>That's not something you would worry about when in a fucking gunfight.
Yes it is, you fucking idiot. Because it's more than loud, it will literally deafen you, destroy your vision, and make you little more than a dull, senseless blob crying on the floor because you've ruptured your eardrums.
>romans define the fighting techniques of every country

>> No.31431164

His post was specifically about travelling adventurers, not soldiers on a battlefield.

Besides, if we're going "Good armour", why not just use a two hander? That's what they were for.

>> No.31431176

Not who you're responding to, but I was under the impression that bodkin arrows were kinda crap. Am I wrong?

>> No.31431180

People also didn't use bows in private duels or travel around with more than a dozen arrows.

>> No.31431212

Well that's easy.

The idea of traveling adventurers is early modern for the most part. And they won't be facing engrish rongbowmen with bows made from yew folded a thousand times.

>> No.31431220

>Yes it is, you fucking idiot. Because it's more than loud, it will literally deafen you, destroy your vision, and make you little more than a dull, senseless blob crying on the floor because you've ruptured your eardrums.
Sure, show me your source claiming that it will be loud enough to make your eardrums explode. Also it's funny how people can deal with gunshots in those situations but eardrums are a certain deal breaker for them.

It's also funny how you assume that any kind of close range combat takes place with both sides inside buildings.

>> No.31431222

Yeah, broadhead arrows totally suck. That's why the French military dominated the early years of the Hundred Year's War by using a crossbow-heavy military doctrine that decimated English knights. Totally.
They are, but they're also not made for penetrating armor, since they don't have hardened tips.

>> No.31431240
File: 804 KB, 300x300, 1386543316232.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I find these threads interesting, but I take them with a huge, heaping handful of salt.

>> No.31431251

Well "adventurers" might be modern, but people traveled extensively all the time. Merchants, mercenaries, journeymen, pilgrims and nobles traveled all over the known world.

>> No.31431260

Broadheads actually do suck and the reason the english dominated the field has more to do with the fact that the french were dealing with a couple of civil wars at the same time.

And the fact that the english archer was heavy infantry whose main weapon was already becoming obsolete halfway through the period.

>> No.31431276

Bandits are the issue for a traveler.

>The idea of traveling adventurers is early modern for the most part

Unless you're hadradda, or a non-landed fighting me, in which case you may well go on some impressive adventures.

And yet, people still fight in buildings, despite the sound
>destroying your vision, and making you little more than a dull, senseless blob crying on the floor because you've ruptured your eardrums.

>> No.31431337

It's more eye-catching. These are movies and the warriors are supposed to be elite, so you just go with it.

>> No.31431341

>yfw despite everything, people could and did use inefficient weapons and armor on the battlefield and in duels/skirmishes successfully

Sometimes I wonder if our hobby conditions us to forget that a soldier's training and morale makes up about 99% of his success rate, not whether his training is with X weapon or Y weapon.

>> No.31431353

I've yet to be convinced that there are any remaining Japanese sword martial arts that are historically or even physically relevant to real combat.

>> No.31431393

There are, they're just less practiced.

Non-sportified jiu-jitsu, for example, is great way to kill an armored man bare-handed.

There's also surviving schools teaching armored swordplay, though I forget the name.

Lots of cutting at gaps.

Tell that to the spartans.

>> No.31431410

I would but they're all dead.

>> No.31431425

That's because you were buttflustered by weeaboos at a young and edgy period in your life, and never recovered.

A quick Google would probably correct your ignorance.

>> No.31431459

you're fucking retarded. Just stop

>> No.31431464

Yeah. And they lost plenty of battles in spite of being better trained and having better morale than the opposition.

They weren't equipped to deal with peltasts, and the thebans ran them the fuck over despite being part time soldiers.

The Theban sacred band, in turn, couldn't do anything to stop Phillip despite being career soldiers, and elite ones at that, because LOL PIKES.

More thna one perfectly capable warrior has dies because he had inferior equipment. This is even more true in the past than it is today, because unlike modern firearms, which are are roughly comparable, there's a fucking WORLD of difference between a man with a bill and a man with an arming sword.

>> No.31431481

> >romans define the fighting techniques of every country
You've completely missed the point. Fighting is fucking exhausting. Ten minutes of continuous physical combat frequently leaves even highly trained modern athletes puking. Six hours is ridiculous in the extreme. Maybe you could get into a few skirmishes over six hours... but your weapon would be put away for five hours and thirty minutes of that.

>> No.31431511

>Ten minutes of continuous physical combat frequently leaves even highly trained modern athletes puking.
That's largely because their training isn't really helpful for the kind of activity that come with combat. That, and people overheat very easily when fighting.

>> No.31431533

> jiu-jitsu
> sword martial art

>> No.31431560

>break or lose sword
Japs got some stuff right. Deal with it.

>> No.31431564

> their training isn't really helpful for the kind of activity that come with combat
I'm talking about athletes who are training specifically for that combat.

> and people overheat very easily when fighting.
Which is why... and get ready for this... they can't realistically fight for more than five or ten minutes.

>> No.31431590

>I'm talking about athletes who are training specifically for that combat.
Please, show me the many trained swordsmen puking.

>> No.31431615

>That, and people overheat very easily when fighting.
Yeah, and that's people wearing little clothing. Now imagine fighting in your ordinary clothes + a thick padded linen coat + 50 pounds of steel + about 7 pounds of weapons.

>> No.31431624

Doesn't change the fact that it's not a sword martial art, in which that anon expressed scepticism. I didn't see anything in that post about grappling martial arts (at which I compete at a fairly high level and would defend... though to be honest Japanese jujitsu isn't that great because you can't practice many of the techniques at full power, which is why e.g. judo is so successful).

>> No.31431648

I can't decide if you're being obtuse deliberately or not.

>> No.31431724

Care to correct, or are you just going to go HURR YOU KNOW NOTHING at everyone and hope at least some people are wrong?

>> No.31431745

Koryu budo schools like Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu are what you're looking for. There aren't very many of this sort left, but they exist.

>> No.31431768

>implying a sword martial art wouldn't be heavily dependent on grappling techniques
>implying european longswords schools aren't heavily dependent on grappling techniques
>implying kendo didn't have tonnes of grappling techniques before the americans told them to pussify it

>> No.31431786

>implying I need to "hope"
>implying "some people" doesn't include you

It's not my fault you're a moron. I know your autism makes it seem that way, but it's really not. Blame your parents for not beating you enough, edgelord.

>> No.31431796

It looks cool.

>> No.31431811

>projecting this hard

>> No.31431871

I was projecting and it was really me saying the retardedly wrong things in the quotes?

I'm not one of your pony tulpas, anon. I also exist in real life, outside of your basement.

>> No.31431908

>implying test cutting is the same as real fighting
>implying that second strike was as slow as the first
>implying you'd use that cut in a fight, instead of stabbing them in the throat, cutting their head open or taking a hand off
Wrong on all counts you total retard

>> No.31431909
File: 16 KB, 300x390, m-night-shyamalan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Whatever you need to believe, anon. Whatever you need to believe.

>> No.31432532

Death Battle is fucking retarded and they got their math wrong. Feel free to enjoy your show that had a Pony beat an Decepticon, but don't pretend it's an intelligent show nor push it on other people.

>> No.31433540

Have you ever swung something OP? You may have noticed that your other hand acts as a counterweight for your swinging hand. Putting a sword in that hand offsets the balance, and slows the hand. It would only work if both swords were extremely light. That is why we can see the italians made one knife-one sword fencing but no double sword fencing.

Also, there just isn't a point in using two swords. Swinging both swords won't increase power, it'll just be two weaker blows. If you swing normally, you'll really just be hitting with one blade, except your alternating. While this increases your attack speed, it'll also tire you out, and make your attacks weaker.

Double swords don'ts
leaves you vulnerable to projectiles
impairs normal swinging
SEVERELY impairs stabbing
Expenses of two swords
Shield and long swords so much better.

>> No.31433579

I don't know how to use a sword, so axe. I figure it'd be easier to use.

>> No.31433630

all I can say is miyamoto musashi advocated the two sword technique above and beyond the two handed sword technique

not sure how he would feel about shields

>> No.31433703

I think they were considered cowardly in ancient japan. And useless against flintlocks.

>> No.31433846


inb4 dual shielding

>> No.31434127

Making that my new dwarf character weapon proficiency.
>"Give it a Right Bashing"= +6 large shield (crushing dmg)

>> No.31434517

Shields are purpose built for defense.
Robust enough to withstand ample abuse from conventional arms of its time.
As light as the former will allow so as to be easier to move to intercept attacks that would otherwise bypass it.
Its great range of cover means that in order to defend oneself from attacks at different angles requires minimal adjustment.
This all translates to being very easy to just pick up and use, demanding little training, minimal coordination, and criminally little concentration with especially large shields. A modest shield can allow somebody to effectively minimize harm from somebody who has greater speed and/or strength, as well as experience.
And another thing...
How do you fend off harm to your head and torso naturally? By placing your arms (especially forearms) in the way and pressing outward to repulse an attacker. A shield is much the same affair, just augmented. It's very, very intuitive.
The only real downsides to a shield are weight and how damn difficult it is to translate the same implement into a weapon.

Meanwhile using any weapon defensively requires considerable coordination and speed to provide a meaningful response. A good deal of training and experience can make most of it reflexive, but it is not so easy a tool to use for defense that a person of apparently lesser capacity can expect to defend his or her self from a superior attacker. And that's just single combat. Your brain will have to work very quickly to determine angles of deflection, how to move to achieve them with ample force in quick succession, and within the small window of time that each blow CAN be deflected or dodged. Keep in mind, a weapon is made to do harm first, so it won't likely have the most desirable material properties for repulsing harm or withstanding the abuse that will put it through.
Already, we have an inferior tool for the job of "Keep me alive." We haven't even gotten to dual-wielding yet...

>> No.31435109

Presumably because Sword+Shield+Dirk would be a lot more efficient.

Shame really, dual swords is dank.

>> No.31436042

Not his problem. He liked guns though. He thought guns won wars, but to win duels you should use his style.

>> No.31436161
File: 148 KB, 348x413, [HenriIV].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>rapier and dagger
>rapier and main gauche
>rapier and dirk
>rapier and rapier
>not rapier and cloak

All of you uncouth maggot-pies truly nauseate me.

>> No.31436256

viking raiders were said to have been equal distribution between sword'n'board + sword + X (axe or hammer)

>> No.31436496

"Only the skills of the master can hope to beat the skills of the novice."

>> No.31437109
File: 255 KB, 813x1179, musashi wielding two bokken.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Historically speaking, it was more useful most of the time to use either a shield or two handed weapon.
While two weapon styles existed, they were often situational and not necessarily practical for every situation. For example, Miyamoto Musashi developed a style that used the katana and wakizashi simultaneously, because he found that sometimes he just needed an extra shank, sometimes to fend off a second guy, or to use as a makeshift shield. But the katana itself is normally a two-handed weapon, and he noted that it should be used as such. The two-swords thing was to teach warriors flexibility in combat, because you learned one-handed strikes, freeing your left hand if you're already holding a bow or spear.
In the West, I understand that it was common to use daggers with your sword in some fencing styles.

In the context of a game or something, you can do whatever. Rule of cool.

>> No.31437200

What's the deal with not dying horribly of whatever plague happens to be in the neighborhood because you don't wash yourself?

As much as it is overused in all kinds of movies and shows, it was barely used in real life through history.

What's the main reason that makes it such infeasible in a primitive society? My guess is

a) Inability to understand the basics of disease spread and control
b) Long research required to become knowledgeable on the matter

Am I correct?

>> No.31437240

Yeah if you look at the actual syllabus of Niten Ichi-ryu you'll see that it has plenty of techniques involving the use of the katana by itself, perhaps moreso than the dual-sword techniques.

>> No.31437276

Yeah, Niten was more about building ambidexterity by teaching both arms how to wield a sword, so that you would be more flexible. You'd still usually use a katana by itself, but you were less limited in terms of striking angles since you would be equally strong on both sides.

>> No.31437308


Two swords was probably uncommon enough that Musashi considered including it a good speciality technique. Something that could catch an opponent off guard and confuse them. Having an unorthodox technique that has been designed to be used against techniques that don't know how to deal with it would probably be quite effective.

>> No.31437340


I wonder if he was influenced by Portugeuese and Dutch sailors, who reportedly had success using rapier+main gauche in duels against Samurai.

>> No.31437407

The way I heard it, he first used a second sword out of desperation, then realized "man it was good I had a second sword on me". Then he just built on it from there.

>> No.31437410

>Having an unorthodox technique that has been designed to be used against techniques that don't know how to deal with it would probably be quite effective.
For example: that one time Musashi got rek't by some guy with a stick.

>> No.31437411


This has been mentioned often, at least anecdotally. Those sailors probably had a lot of success for the same reason. While the Japanese samurai practiced a separate sword discipline, there's only so many ways to use a sword, and thus knowing how to deal with one European sword would transfer over at least partially.

Musashi always stressed flexibility and utilizing whatever means you have to defeat your opponent, not to be shackled by preconceptions. It would probably have been quite characteristic of him to study a foreign sword technique if he saw potential in it.

>> No.31437432


It's entirely possible it was both. Experiences can reinforce another. Maybe he'd seen sailors doing it, and in desperation went for the same. Or maybe not, but it's possible.

>> No.31437490


And later on he did the same thing. Hell, he's been attributed having done that many times. Hell, he won his first duel at the age of thirteen by brazenly challenging a much older samurai, and then when they were supposed to duel just charged without any real warning, threw the man down and bashed his head in with a long staff.

It should be noted that Musashi was probably more than a bit of a sociopath.

>> No.31437510

I just wish there were more hard evidence. All I know is that there was one fight in Macau that might well have not even been a melee, but rather a shooting exchange.

>> No.31437583


Whether any of the stories are true or not, it's great for trolling weebs.

If you want a veneer of veracity, just say that the accounts are in the Portuguese national archive.

>> No.31437614


And if you need to troll anti-weebs there's a few stories of Japanse samurai used as mercenaries by the VOC doing really well against the English in Batavia and the Banda Islands.

>> No.31437631


The fuck there are.

>> No.31437643


There's ALWAYS stories, anon.

>> No.31437662

they were very-much dragoons
they carried their matchlocks as their main weapon, using the horse as transport, then if shit got fucking bad they would use their swords from horseback

>> No.31437681

On the other hand, there ARE reports of samurai under Masamune Date arriving in the Vatican to great applause, delivering his letters to the Pope. The Italians went full weeb. Hell, one of them has a portrait. Hasakura, I think?

>> No.31437701

>"Although few Red Seal Ships are recorded for the areas of modern Indonesia (Java, Spice Islands), possibly because of the remoteness and because of the direct Dutch involvement there, Japanese samurai were recruited by the Dutch in the area. They distinguished themselves in the capture of the Banda Islands from the English and the defense of Batavia, until the practice of hiring Japanese mercenaries was prohibited by the Shogun in 1621."

They weren't used in large numbers--there was a ninety-man reinforcement of Batavia's garrison (doesn't say how many there were initially, probably only a couple hundred at most--we're talking the VOC here) in 1618, for example.

>> No.31437722

Yeah, Hasekura Tsunenaga. He wasn't the only samurai to lead a retinue to Europe, just the most famous.

>> No.31437770
File: 103 KB, 332x350, 1397354654891.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>my glorious Nippon steel!
>Post says nothing about katanas or any actual metal whatsoever and is only talking about a specific style

This is the part where you call me autistic for pointing this out. Also you'll call me a retard for not agreeing with you. Later on in this thread you'll say something that infers that you were just trolling because /tg/ always gets fired up over sword talk.

>> No.31437804

sword and hammer makes sense for a very aggressive attack

>lol got a shield
>get fucked nerd *hammer*

>> No.31437826


Shared water sources-BATHING IS BAD DURING PLAGUEs.

They were actually right.

>> No.31437842


Someone told me that axe and sword was actually something that was sometimes seen on battlefields. Vikings, for example.

See, you could use the axe to hook on a shield's rim, and pull it open to deliver a sword strike. This would have been useful.

>> No.31437876
File: 187 KB, 853x480, 1397355026745.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Later on in this thread you'll say something that infers that you were just trolling because /tg/ always gets fired up over sword talk.

You're not sure if he's trolling or not, and said that to give yourself an 'out'.

Now you're thinking you'll make a reasonable reply to me so as not to lose the moral high ground.

>> No.31437895


No. The chronicles mention it, but for raids, ambushes, and duels, NOT battles.

Mostly because trying that shit against a sheild wall would be suicide, even IF you didn't eat a javelin on the way in.

>> No.31437913
File: 122 KB, 792x1228, 1397355134972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Daily Reminder that weeabs, American kung fu practicioners, and cold steel are using butterfly swords the wrong way.

>> No.31438074

Cry more. They state clearly in the end that the numbers don't matter.

Their decision was based on the traits of the characters themselves. Superman has to scale his power down to fight his enemies, Goku has to power up.

>> No.31438076
File: 75 KB, 800x533, teppo08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'd guess they were used to do the same thing samurai infantry tended to do at home; run as flank support for pike formations, chewing into the flanks of locked-down enemy pikes or keeping the enemy from doing the same. Probably also installed a few teppo guys in the middle of the Dutch pikes.

>> No.31438082
File: 34 KB, 500x453, Limahong Captain Sioco.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Actually, there are a large numbers of ronin exiles who served as mercenaries overseas.

Some served the Europeans, others local Southeast Asians, but the majority rode with Chinese pirates due to being of the same culture.

And before you get your panties twisted, dear weeaboo friends, what I meant by that, is that Samurai are classically educated in the East Asian sense: meaning they can speak Chinese and are familiar with many aspects of Chinese culture.

A good example of this is "Captain Sioco" the Japanese second-in-command and butt buddy of the dreaded 1600's Chinese pirate lord, Lin Hong a.k.a Limahong

>> No.31438162

They weren't all ronin, really. Some were, particularly the ones who chose to go wako, but others maintained their at-home holdings and returned to them when their tours were over.

>> No.31438225

>>They weren't all ronin, really. Some were, particularly the ones who chose to go wako, but others maintained their at-home holdings and returned to them when their tours were over.

Doesn't matter as they all became ronin come the 1600's and the Tokugawa Shogunate. Every Japanese outside Japan weren't allowed to return home.

>> No.31438270

Sakoku didn't start up until 1633 and the hiring of mercenaries stopped in 1621, so I'd assume that everybody who wanted to get back probably had done so in those twelve years.

>> No.31438307


This is why anon

>> No.31438402

Might've even had more time; the shogunate introduced sakoku fairly slowly, over about a six-year period. At first it was mainly just restricting external trade to designated locations with designated parties (the Japanese favored the Dutch because, unlike the Portuguese, the Dutch were just there for business and didn't try to shove Christianity down their throats).

>> No.31438514

Chinese pirate raids on the Philippines continued up to the late 1600's and huge numbers of Japanese exiles were reported among them.

Since the 1570's there's already a large number of overseas Japanese living in exile for various reasons: fled the warring states, samurai who lost their lands and are trying their fortunes elsewhere, Jap pirates, Jap merchants who were disgusted with the Sakoku, and persecuted Christians.

My point is most of those who were outside did not get the memo and probably had ties that bound them to where they were. Jap ronin-pirates btw brought their families with them, since Chinese pirate fleets are pretty much floating towns.

>> No.31438568

Those were probably people who WANTED to stay, who were already ronin, and as you said, guys who didn't agree with sakoku and went rogue. Most of the ones who went and had a place to return to, did return there. Again, this wasn't a sudden bomb, they would've had years to make this decision and if they had decided to stay it probably wasn't sakoku that made the decision for them but just the ties they'd forged overseas years before that.

>> No.31438668

Not to mention the ones who were ronin probably didn't give one shit about what the Shogun wanted anyway when it came to service outside Japan. So they may well have not even been inclined to leave even if they hadn't settled down. Naturally this wouldn't have applied for samurai still affiliated, who probably treated it like a campaign and returned home promptly after their contracts were up.

>> No.31438810

While Miyamoto Musashi is commonly credited as "inventing" two sword techniques in Japan, this is not at all true. Certainly he revolutionized the use of two sword techniques and his Nito Ryu brought the style to new heights, but two sword techniques have been around in Japan for centuries prior.
Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu Heiho, dated about 1447, and Tatsumi Ryu, created around 1504, both taught the use of two swords simultaneously. These oldschool two sword techniques were usually referred to as “ryoto.”
Also, a number of schools, most famously Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, taught defenses against and how to deal with opponents using two swords long before Musashi.

>> No.31438954
File: 45 KB, 640x480, This_sword.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31439207

The issue I have with the "historical" argument is that most PCs in fantasy games aren't engaging in open battle; they're the pre-industrial equivalent of spec-ops. They don't use shield wall or massed infantry tactics.

Historically, there was minimal need for rag-tag bands of murderhobos from various backgrounda usibg maximum snowflake weapons and tactics.

>> No.31439313

Pcs are usually engaged in ambushes and duels, though.

>> No.31440068
File: 1.12 MB, 2191x1672, mushashi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Mushashi fucking founded a whole school of two-weapon combat, as well as a metric fuckton of other shit. He was a crazy son of a bitch who used wooden swords instead of blades because he was fucking awesome.

>> No.31440104


This is true. Heroic fiction very seldom recognizes massed combat as more or less the mainstay. I guess they feel it makes the PCs feel less important or something.

>> No.31440106

He used wooden swords instead of metal blades because at least twice he killed one opponent only to have everyone who liked that guy try to murder his shit. So he started holding non-lethal duels. And lethal ones, but in much more controlled circumstances.

Besides which, we already established that Niten was not only or even primarily a two-sword style.

>> No.31440144

Yeah, this is true too. Though I do think that Niten Ichi-ryu was perhaps the first school to go really in-depth with two-sword combat. There are only a handful of ryoto kata in TSKSR, at least. In fact I think there actually might be more kata for using the wakizashi by itself. Could be wrong though.

>> No.31440343
File: 134 KB, 800x428, Jitte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Actually, a common weapon used in his styles in the off-hand is this, the jitte. It's less of a weapon, but I suppose you could bash a head in with it.

>> No.31440389

I thought he used wooden swords because he could bash in skulls and stuff. He did kill a dude with a sword made from an oar once.

>> No.31440590

>He did kill a dude with a sword made from an oar once.
There's actually very little historical evidence of this actually happening.

Hell, there's actually very little historical evidence of Sasaki Kojiro actually even existing.

>> No.31440664

As I said he did bring the idea to new heights, but was far from the first to use two swords.

Another funfact: Until Eiji Yoshikawa's novel, Musashi was not that famous of a historical figure, and was relatively obscure, his legend only grew to what it is today because of the popularity of the book. Before the "Musashi Boom" he was actually better known as a painter than a swordsman.

>> No.31440675

Huh. The more you know.

>> No.31440722

Another fun fact, Musashi says flat out in the Go Rin No Sho that while swordsmanship is important on the battlefield, the weapons that really rule the battlefield are polearms and firearms.

>> No.31440760

I think people like it because it implies great skill and training. And that's realistic enough, it DID take a lot of skill, training and talent.

The problem is that every film/book/comic wants its own legolas or Musashi. As a result, it seems like the genre is full of them, when in fact most stories only have a small number of dual-wielders, if any.

Parrying daggers are, of course, another story entirely. Thoses may have been more common than shields in the later age of swords. Who the hell carried a shield around in Europe in the 18th century?

>> No.31440846

I remember the section. He said he didn't like the pike because of prisoners, or saomething? But that the halberd was all-around the best weapon.
Or was it the halberd? I guess it was all translation choices, he was probably talking about different kinds of Yari.

>> No.31440909

Probably. Maybe also the naginata, though those weren't terribly common on the battlefield by Musashi's time. (Yes, I realize that a naginata is a glaive, but a lot of people translated it back in the day as "halberd".)

>> No.31440984

He was talking about the Naginata. For some fucking reason, a long time ago, some fucking moron who didn't know anything about weaponry decided to translate "naginata" as "halberd" instead of any European weapon that it has any kind of resemblance to at all (like, I dunno, a fucking glaive).

That translation unfortunately sticks to this day, you'll even find museums IN JAPAN that label naginata blades on display as "Japanese Halberds."

>> No.31441034

If anything, the real Japanese halberd is the bishamon-yari.

>> No.31441447

Probably not. Generally, a master of anything is going to kick the shit out of the average of anything. A master with a quarterstaff, as the English are so proud of repeating, can defeat any number of average swordsmen, and a master with the sword would never lose to an average spearmen, no matter if the weapons themselves contain some inherent advantage.

>> No.31441534

Riddle of Steel (and probably Song of Swords, a RoS successor fairly popular on /tg/ as the devs are really active here) was really good on that. The difference in weapon reach was a dice pool penalty, and how skilled you were determined your dice pool. So when the skill difference is smaller the weapon reach can make a big difference, but when there is a huge gap in skill, it doesn't matter as much, but still can play a factor.

>> No.31442260

Yeah. An average spearman has a fighting chance against a master swordsman, but he has to be mindful to put his advantages to good use or he'll get fucked harder than a Borgia sibling.

>> No.31442920

Is there a difference between various polearms? As far as I can tell they're all spikes on the end of a stick, sometimes with a cutting edge if you feel fancy.

>> No.31442946

>Is there a difference between various polearms?
This is a joke, right?

>> No.31442977

No, it's ignorance. Please tell me, because I wish to know.

>> No.31443111
File: 1.10 MB, 3648x2281, bigdifference.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Left, halberd, notice how they are all axe blades with a top spike and a hook or spike opposite of the axe head.
Right, naginata, single edged, curved, note lack of spikes and hooks.

COMPLETELY different shapes, thus completely different uses and techniques involved.

>> No.31443206
File: 10 KB, 771x399, glaive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And now, a glaive.
Single edge, curved, but with a spiky bit on the back of the blade that may have been more decorative than useful.

While its not a 1:1 match, clearly the glaive has MUCH more in common with the naginata than the halberd, which is not even remotely similar to the naginata in any way other than that they are both polearms.

>> No.31443272

Thanks! Were they used for different things? I'm affraid my google fu is weak.

>> No.31443374

Not to be snarky, but, it should be pretty obvious from looking at them they were used for different things. Its like the difference between a chisel and a saw.

IIRC Halberds tended to be popular with heavily armored soldiers against other heavily armored soldiers, it was one of the polearms of choice for knights on foot. The glaive and naginata were better against medium and lightly armored troops (compared to a full-plate harness if that's our baseline for "heavy armor").

>> No.31443440
File: 876 KB, 355x264, 1355872455535.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's not a glaive. That's my halberd. Give it back, human.

>> No.31443504

Don't confuse the poor arms noobie!

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