New weapons that you would like

[spectre:]

How can you say so, we all know, from japanese animated documentary, that katanas slice through - people, rock, concrete blocks, small cars, big cars, tanks, big freaking robots.

And seriously, y'all, get off the guy. Unless he manages to say something distinctly retarded (and he didn't... yet), it begins to look like this:

Only this time the horse is not even there.

 

[Alorn]

I'm pretty sure this has more cutting power than a katana:

Well, dude. This looks pretty much like a light chivalry sabre. Which supposed to be used as slashing weapon. While katanas supposed to be used for cutting strikes. Check the Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, i remember he mentioned it stright there.

 

[Night Ninja]

That's either a scimitar or a tulwar (can't really tell the difference between the two, but I'd favour the former). It's a vicious cutting weapon, and probably can match or exceed the katana in terms of cutting power.

This or this can probably outperform the katana as well.

 

[spectre:]

Nope, that's not a scimitar. Nor it is a tulwar. It's a cavalry saber for sure (not to be confused with chivalry.. awright, I'll stop being anal right there).

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_hussars.php?print

Not exactly the same thing, but there were many, many saber designs out there throughout the centuries.

 

[Night Ninja]

Heh, the blade is a shamshir. I should learn to check the source before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir

 

[Collain]

Heh, the blade is a shamshir. I should learn to check the source before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir

Yes, it's a shamshir. You can tell (if anyone cares) because it has the curved pommel and the edge is greater than uh...I think it's 18 degrees (I only had to care for one semester, sue me). Although scimitar is not technically incorrect, since it's now a catch-all for Turkic-Arab sabres.

It's a very, very nasty weapon employed to great effect by Arab cavalry when they kicked the Crusaders out of the Holy Land. It's been around since Alexander's time, however, and has probably been employed to great effect by Arab cavalry pretty much forever.

It's not a very effective weapon dismounted, however, which is why you see weapons like the scimitar and kilij, which can be used for the normal thrust, slash, parry of dismounted combat.

As far as the katana goes: it's very difficult to use one mounted (they have a tendency to get caught and drag, which when mounted will pull the weapon free of your hand), which is why the samurai's weapon of choice was (wait for it) the daikyu (great bow). Mounted samurai who found themselves without a daikyu would often rely on a spear.

Incidentally, cavalry weapons aren't traditionally single-edged for no reason. A single-edged blade is favored by cavalry for one simple reason: momentum. What happens when your two-edged sword gets swung back against your horse by the force of the blow? Laming your own horse is poor form. The curved blade is similarly functional, allowing the rider to more easily pull the blade free of the body.

Katanas don't benefit from that aspect of design, though, since they're cutting blades and not chopping blades (which rely more on impact than a slicing motion). They naturally want to bite in on its edge, whereas a sabre wants to pull free on its edge.

Personally, however, I'd like to see the real Scottish backsword, even if they were more an evolution of the 17th century and on forward.

 

[LordMutaz]

Weren't Katanas so sharp they could cut the cannons used by americans in a single strike.
But that blade looks like it can slash fairly well but it seems really delicate with thrusts , thrust it into something or someone the wrong way and it seems like your screwed.

 

[Constantinus]

As far as the katana goes: it's very difficult to use one mounted (they have a tendency to get caught and drag, which when mounted will pull the weapon free of your hand), which is why the samurai's weapon of choice was (wait for it) the daikyu (great bow). Mounted samurai who found themselves without a daikyu would often rely on a spear.

Katanas are not "mounted" weapons and they weren't intended as such. Here... take a look at the pre-katana cavalry katana version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachi
Katanas appeared as there were no large scale wars for a long time, only minor clan bloodsheds. As those clan-wars did happen in any situation (not on a battlefield) there would be no medium-heavy armor (you can't wear those all the time) - so averagely long sharp cutting weapon would be ideal. Here you go - katanas.

Earlier, while there still were big wars - samurai would use tachi.

About other cutting weapons - they certanly exist and do cut well. Though I doubt you will find any weapon that actually cuts better then japanese sword made with the equal goal in mind (be it cavalry or chivalry).  yep....

Though you dont have to use any weapon to kick people around... 

 

[skald]

Weren't Katanas so sharp they could cut the cannons used by americans in a single strike.
But that blade looks like it can slash fairly well but it seems really delicate with thrusts , thrust it into something or someone the wrong way and it seems like your screwed.

Nope. No weapon can do that. An artillery piece's barrel is several inches thick. Ain't gonna happen. Not even sure it could do it to Ma Deuce fifty caliber let alone a medium machine gun like the M1913 .30 caliber.

I prefer my 1796 Light Cavalry Saber and my 1860 United States Heavy Cavalry Saber. Pretty good blades.

 

[Savage]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

 

[spectre:]

Mhm. That's the shtick. Add to this the subpar iron deposits Japanese have, andyou really do not want to stress that katana of yours much.

 

[skald]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

Of course, Japan didn't have European style armor. At best, the face mask was iron. The rest of the armor was leather, bone, and plant materials like straw, reed wood and paper. Which Japanese swords could deal with with relative ease. But against heavy armor like chain and plate, and you run into problems.

Give me 200 well armed and armored knights and 10,000 men on foot from the army that won at Agincourt and Crecy and I could destroy any Japanese army. I don't even think the Japanese longbow can penetrate chain. Just imagine what English Longbowmen could do against Samurai...

 

[MeestYk]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

Of course, Japan didn't have European style armor. At best, the face mask was iron. The rest of the armor was leather, bone, and plant materials like straw, reed wood and paper. Which Japanese swords could deal with with relative ease. But against heavy armor like chain and plate, and you run into problems.

Give me 200 well armed and armored knights and 10,000 men on foot from the army that won at Agincourt and Crecy and I could destroy any Japanese army. I don't even think the Japanese longbow can penetrate chain. Just imagine what English Longbowmen could do against Samurai...

Which entails what? Nothing.  There is nothing to prove as there are no collection of fighting occurences between a european armored unit vs a japanese katana style warrior to support any popular beliefs and myths or popular games for that matter.

Fact remains is that indeed, china had swords made for them from japan.  As they were mass produced to satisfy the raging wars going on in china, their quality were less than desired.  Some would break in the midst of battle.

The highest quality of a katana could only come from a good swordmaker who made them individually with the finest ores they'd find,  and advanced techniques they'd used to create them, not mass production, for those who saw the importance of having a fine blade for survival during the times.  The rare ones were passed down in generations, and even today some still seek to obtain such a blade in their collection. 

 

[The Mercenary]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

Of course, Japan didn't have European style armor. At best, the face mask was iron. The rest of the armor was leather, bone, and plant materials like straw, reed wood and paper. Which Japanese swords could deal with with relative ease. But against heavy armor like chain and plate, and you run into problems.

Give me 200 well armed and armored knights and 10,000 men on foot from the army that won at Agincourt and Crecy and I could destroy any Japanese army. I don't even think the Japanese longbow can penetrate chain. Just imagine what English Longbowmen could do against Samurai...

(Just because I haven't done anything in the Corrupt a Wish)
Granted. You have 200 well armed and armoured knights and 10,000 men on foot. Against an army of Japanese tanks and bombers.

The Samurai longbow was longer than the English longbow.

 

[skald]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

Of course, Japan didn't have European style armor. At best, the face mask was iron. The rest of the armor was leather, bone, and plant materials like straw, reed wood and paper. Which Japanese swords could deal with with relative ease. But against heavy armor like chain and plate, and you run into problems.

Give me 200 well armed and armored knights and 10,000 men on foot from the army that won at Agincourt and Crecy and I could destroy any Japanese army. I don't even think the Japanese longbow can penetrate chain. Just imagine what English Longbowmen could do against Samurai...

(Just because I haven't done anything in the Corrupt a Wish)
Granted. You have 200 well armed and armoured knights and 10,000 men on foot. Against an army of Japanese tanks and bombers.

The Samurai longbow was longer than the English longbow.

The Longbow was superior. And I argue that the Longbowmen were as proficient if not more proficient with its use than Samurai were with their use.

 

[The Mercenary]

A katana, from what I've heard, is either made for nor good versus armor.

Of course, Japan didn't have European style armor. At best, the face mask was iron. The rest of the armor was leather, bone, and plant materials like straw, reed wood and paper. Which Japanese swords could deal with with relative ease. But against heavy armor like chain and plate, and you run into problems.

Give me 200 well armed and armored knights and 10,000 men on foot from the army that won at Agincourt and Crecy and I could destroy any Japanese army. I don't even think the Japanese longbow can penetrate chain. Just imagine what English Longbowmen could do against Samurai...

(Just because I haven't done anything in the Corrupt a Wish)
Granted. You have 200 well armed and armoured knights and 10,000 men on foot. Against an army of Japanese tanks and bombers.

The Samurai longbow was longer than the English longbow.

The Longbow was superior. And I argue that the Longbowmen were as proficient if not more proficient with its use than Samurai were with their use.

I argue that the Samurai were more used to combat on mountains and heavily forested areas. And it does not matter. Japan and England didn't fight during the Middle Ages. We're not getting into a Samurai vs. Knights argument.

 

[skald]

I was just pointing out that European armor and weaponry was superior to pretty much everything in existance.

 

[The Mercenary]

I was just pointing out that European armor and weaponry was superior to pretty much everything in existance.

Then how did they get their asses handed to them by the Turks and the Saracens?

 

[skald]

I was just pointing out that European armor and weaponry was superior to pretty much everything in existance.

Then how did they get their asses handed to them by the Turks and the Saracens?

Examples?

 

[MeestYk]

I was just pointing out that European armor and weaponry was superior to pretty much everything in existance.

I'd like to see you bring sources to back that up instead of reading your ignorance.