That's it lads, the samurai are no loger the "Fast" ones

Some reconstructions are more accurate than others. Many of these works are left intentionally vague so as to require a teacher, and interpretations differ. Sometimes some strange interpretations appear.

Maybe my grammar was bad, English is my first language so I'm not very good at this yet.

>Consider not calling longswords "arming swords" and bastard swords "longswords".
>If you do this, your acceptance of popular fantasy terms will lower the number of people who see you as relentlessly autistic

While we're at it, stop this bullshit about swords being light. Saying "they're only 2kg" ignores the reality that a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else.

I usually just ignore the DnD outside of DnD, but naming weapons is actually a pain in the ass even in real life, since people confuse one with the other. No two swords are the same and their styles can overlap, even worse with polearms... yeah, naming then is a bitch

Well, there are good and bad in every profession/hobby

True, who knows how it actually looked like

Isnt weight distribution that's more important than the weight itself?

>Saying "they're only 2kg" ignores the reality that a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else.

Can't pass up the opportunity to post this (wish we could do webms with sound, but meh): youtube.com/watch?v=0ris5lVssz8

Well, since this thread is up and going, might as well post more shit
youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek

youtube.com/watch?v=2ddQ2cmtCFM

youtube.com/watch?v=7Ijy8Ky_vrI

You assume people aren't obstinate dumbasses, which is a common mistake, and something you may not know is how poorly written and obtuse some manuals are
Those blades are steel and going way, way, way too fast. It's like the dumbasses you see playing around with guns on youtube videos - sure they know what they are going to do but they are being careless with a deadly weapon, it's just not safe.
Isnt weight distribution that's more important than the weight itself?

the guy is just baiting, see >a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else.

But balance is far more important than weight in swords at least.

And as for the weight of swords, my experience is limited to backsword/basket hilted broadsword as far as swords go, which is a one handed weapon, fairly light to swing around for a bit but after a while the heavy basket and high impact tires you the fuck out.

>Saying "they're only 2kg" ignores the reality that a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else.
I think you're talking about density.
I'd still say that calling swords light makes sense because the actual weapons are way lighter than what the common perception is and what many designs suggests.

And frankly, not using the the technical language appropriate to your field because the words have slightly different meanings in a different context when used by the general public is stupid.

Well, isnt the point of swords to be dangerous?

Allso, for some swords its good to have more weight at the blade than at the handle,
it's force of impact is increased, and some swords like a falcata
actually work on the princible to hit hard with them to cleave trough flesh and wooden shields

Fuck off. Sword terminology (outside of Oakeshott) is wholly arbitrary. There are no single, historically correct definitions for any of them, so you're just being a cunt.

Yes, the point of swords is absolutely to be dangerous.

Much like a gun.

That's exactly why you need to be careful with them.

As for the second point, we are in agreement - balance isn't always in the same point for every sword - as you say, for some it is better to be closer to the hilt or for other the other way around.

That gun explanation makes sense now that i think about it

i notice the difference is mostly in the fact if the sword design is for one on one duels or to be used in war,
duels being more easy to manouver than war swords (who are decently manoverable on their own behalf)

Why do the guys in the opening shots LITERALLY look so gay?

because you touch yourself at night

While I'm here and shitposting anyway: does anybody else remember a 17th century reenactment demo that popped up a few years back; it was done between a Spanish man and woman, and they cycle between a few weapons before she eventually "shoots" him with a flintlock she grabs from the ringside. I haven't been able to find the damn thing for a while, I think I originally saw it on HROARR.

In exchange, a brief pike experiment that got posted a couple weeks back:

youtube.com/watch?v=LuXmmByrE2I

>a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else
simply ebin

You surely meant knives of war there lad. Otherwise I, the german tax guy, would have to tax your SWORDS.

>Fuck off. Sword terminology (outside of Oakeshott) is wholly arbitrary.

Except for the other typologies by Sandars, Catling, Peterson, Wheeler, Geibig, Elmslie, & Norman, which span fully 3000 years of sword types in europe alone.....

> for some swords its good to have more weight at the blade than at the handle,
it's force of impact is increased, and some swords like a falcata

... except falcata aren't actually like that. they're very thin cross-sections, with less mass in them.

Oakeshott is the definitive classification today because he focused on physical form rather than simply cataloguing by origin or decorative elements. Yes, his work is a continuation of Petersen's but it's by far more extensive.

He handled the swords and his classifications are based on what the sword looks like, whereas classification that mostly concerns itself with ethnic or cultural origin often becomes useless for taxonomical purposes when regional classifications include examples of highly varying designs.

As an example, geibig's classifications of viking age swords are very focused on how the sword hilts look, which is not guaranteed to have any useful correlation with usage and design of the blade.

>Saying "they're only 2kg" ignores the reality that a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else.
Wot's hevier? A kilogrem of steel, or a kilogrem of fethers?
IT'S LITRE OR CUBIC DECIMETRE YOU TROLLING UNEDUCATED FUCK. LITRE IS A UNIT OF VOLUME. KILOGRAM IS A UNIT OF MASS. A LITRE OF STEEL IS HEAVIER THAN A LITRE OF FEATHERS.

>bullshit about swords being light
Okay, first off, a lot of swords that are classified as longswords, or arming swords, don't even break 1.5 kilo. Many are barely above 1, with 1.1 kilos for a sword with a 90cm blade being pretty common.

That's not even 200 grams heavier than an all-steel carpenters hammer. The kind 14 year olds nail things together with in shop class.

That's not heavy in any useful sense of the word.

>the reality that a kilogram of steel is heavier than a kilogram of something else

This has to be bait? Right? Haha?

That's the face of someone that's questioning everything they know to be correct

the falcata, by its shape has extra material to compensate the forward curve of the blade,
that extra mass gives it more weight, and the thin
cross-section is to compensate a little for the weight to make it still wieldy while being a weapon with a heavy head

I think you are seriously overestimating both the weight, and the extra volume of material in a falcata.... that forward curve adds about 100g of material, at most.

just like falchions, there is a myth of them being heavy "cleavers" that belies the reality, that they are lightweight - most are under 750g, despite having very solid hilts.

In all honesty what are the chances ANYONE was pulling off all these complex fancy moves in the middle of a dirty battlefield with tons of people seething together, horses stomping and screaming around in blind chaos, stifling armor with poor visibility and uneven footing on shitty churned up terrain?

these move are for dueling..
they are other manual for battlefield trainning

Dueling swords aren't intended to be more maneuverable in terms of combat, they're just made to be easier to carry around. They don't have to be optimized for killing because duels are done with equivalent weapons. You don't have to worry about showing up to a duel with a rapier and then have the other guy walk up with a montante. In battle you do have to worry about those things, so weapons are optimized for killing, not carrying.

Most of them are pretty damn simple. The sword techniques are just twists of the wrists or single steps at the right time and varying the angle. Nothing too complicated and the really fancy stuff doesn't start until you've fixed your opponent's blade. No big leaps, no telegraphed swings, no lowering the guard, no spins, none of that amateur mistakes that will get you killed.

Not surprising since the entire idea is reverse engineering medieval fight manuals.

I think he means that the forwards curve shifts the balance bladewards. This moves the center of mass closer to the point of impact so the falcata hits harder than, say, a gladius.

It's just dudes with metal strips, since when have Samurai been especially "fast" at swinging things around as apposed to any other ancient warrior doing it?

You took the words right out of my mouth

weeaboo fappage mostly

...

...

Oh wow, choreography, how impressive.

Rest in peace lemmy, my sweet prince

Looks like a pretty good way to accidentally have someone cut your head off.

Wrapping people up in cotton wool
Fucking retards

>Not ending everyone rightly
Fucking retards

>litre
No, it's cubic metre. Only faggots like that guy measure volume in litres.

Leave this meme where you came from. It stopped being any funny after 10th repetition already.

The majority of sword manuals are intended for dueling or self-defense. Some are battlefield appropriate (the majority of armoured fighting manuals at least, as well as some interpretations of 1.33) but most are more in the context of a fight breaking out in your day-to-day life.

Not every battle was dense masses of people on a muddy hill. Many battles were small skirmishes with combatants spread out.

When they rode horses.

Newsflash: all battles actually had people moving pretty damn fast. The reason the samurai were seen as lightning-quick was due to the speed they could ready their weapon and strike, while Europeans had few such quivalents

What, you think everyone swung swords like they were made of stone or something?

No you don't understand samurai were the greatest swordsmen to ever exist despite the fact that they were manlets using poorly designed swords made of garbage steel forged with technique that was centuries obsolete.

Not that guy, but...

>greatest swordsmen to ever exist
No-one said they were; just that they were supremely well trained (much like European knights) and held a strict martial philosophy that was later elevated above what it probably really was (much like European chivalry).

>manlets
Are you imagining 5ft5 perhaps? Even if you're short, years of combat practice and strength training is still going to make you formidable. As formidable as a 6ft10 giant? Probably not. Quicker? Possibly, but not necessarily. However a) not many people have THAT overwhelming of an advantage, b) as the ruling class, samurai were afforded a better diet than the peasantry, making them slightly taller on average and c) most of those they were fighting were of the same ethnic group. And for god's sake, speaking as someone who's fought those shorter and smaller than me, size is NOT the advantage you think...

>poorly designed swords made of garbage steel
Katana were fit for purpose. Would you scorn a gladius for not being as long as a zweihandr? Would you disparage a claymore for not being lightweight and good for fencing? A katana was a good backup weapon that could cut well and suited the Japanese style of swordplay. And yes, Japanese sand iron is pretty piss-poor, but once they were put through their refining and smelting process and forged to take advantage of the differing qualities of iron, it was again, fit for purpose! All iron is 'crap' if you use it in the wrong way!

>forged with technique that was centuries obsolete
Okay, run that past me? Because tempering, folding, laminating and pattern-forging are STILL good techniques. Just because the Japanese smithing techniques were different, or were developed in other parts of the world (and then LOST, looking at you, Damascus steel), doesn't make them inferior purely due to age. A bow and arrow's principals are ancient, for example and they remained fine weapons for thousands of years!