Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)
- Thread starter Kniggit
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
If we're talking ~16th century, Japanese armour was as heavy, and more often signifigantly heavier, than European plate. Especially considering that a lot of that weight was in the form of free hanging skirts rather than tightly bound plates. The same goes for Chinese/Korean armour of the same period, if we're comparing the nobilities armour rather than general use.
Which is somewhat beside the point, seeing as implying that the Samurai were somehow less dedicated to horseback combat than their European counterparts is more than a little silly, and there's no evidence whatsoever of the "Chisa Katana" ever being used as a military weapon, if it was used at all it was a cheaply produced shortened katana carried by civilians due to the legal restrictions placed on non-military sword length.
Which is somewhat beside the point, seeing as implying that the Samurai were somehow less dedicated to horseback combat than their European counterparts is more than a little silly, and there's no evidence whatsoever of the "Chisa Katana" ever being used as a military weapon, if it was used at all it was a cheaply produced shortened katana carried by civilians due to the legal restrictions placed on non-military sword length.
Rynuusuke
Recruit
Coy said:
LOL, so, you are trying to claim the 50+ specialists in London England that spent their whole professional lives working at the Tower of London Armory and Museum are wrong and you are right. Congrats, you should win an award for that comment.
Moss said:
Japanese armor was also more varied in materials used than European. Mysteriously you forgot to mention that, or more likely didn't know/care.
Correction, Feudal Japanese law BANNED all non-Samurai or their retainers from carrying Katana. Sabers or straight-swords of Chinese or Korean origin are remotely possible, to give you benefit of the doubt. There are over a dozen different and regional variations of the "Katana". Add to that the small variations over time. The Chisa was shortened variant from mountainous northern Japan. Where the people that lived there tended to be shorter in stature. Therefore, made their blades slightly shorter. For example the Segoku Katana (Segoku Period, contributed to TLA, by the Shizu group) could be used with one hand but two were needed for full power.
Since, a few of you are being hard-headed on certain aspects of historical accuracy. Take a look in the Items_list1 of the NE expansion. Search for Jian. Look at the mesh for that weapon. Someone, put it as a curved sword. WRONG!! So fing wrong that if that it is not even funny. Jian is only a straight-bladed double-edged sword. The Dao that is listed right above it is marginally correct. That would depend on the exact variant of Chinese Saber (Dao).
Who else noticed that error on their own? If you didn't this is your cue to shut up with respect to making any more comments to me on your perceptions. Since, I have spent a lot more time than you at studying weapons and armor. If you think you are really smart, what is the design intent of Gothic Armor? Maximilian Armor? Hint: It is not the same!
They used cloth for padding (like Europeans) and leather for lining (like Europeans) and steel plates for armour (like Europeans). Not sure what you're referring to in this sentence, but regardless it has nothing to do with the fact that armour of Japanese nobility was just as heavy as that of Europeans and less ergonomic due to it's hanging skirts and straight plates.Rynuusuke said:
The peasentry were only banned from owning swords after Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Great Sword Hunt at the end of the 16th century. Before then they were allowed to carry arms for defense or decoration, but in most regions there were limitations on what kind of swords they could own, mostly restricting them to swords smaller than the standard Katana.Rynuusuke said:
Care to give me a reference? I can't find any sources that back the use of 'chisa katana' as military weapons, let alone any sources that they were commonly produced at all. Is there a more accurate name, as 'small sword' doesn't seem like an accurate translation. Not sure about your point about the "Sengoku katana" is, the same can be said about nearly every standard Japanese sword for the last thousand years.Rynuusuke said:
You found an error in a historically innacurate mod? Well that sure beats the years of study and history degrees and martial arts training most people posting here have.Rynuusuke said:
Coy
Knight
Rynuusuke said:
Yes. That is what I'm saying. Anyone that has spent 10 minutes looking at actual manuscripts regarding combat (Flower of Battle for instance) will back my statement.
So either you are misinterpretating what the "specialists" are saying. Or they need to reevaluate their entire careers. Furthermore I should win an award for my comment. it was straight and to the point and expressed my views completely.
Edit: **** off.
Fecking weeaboos.
Rynuusuke said:
This is utter bull****. The "chisa katana" is a fallacious name for the kodachi; regional variations in Katana length would still fall under normal katana. Also, only katana were restricted (and if there were any surviving Uchigatana, they probably were as well) to the samurai class. Most forms of Tachi could be carried freely--the kodachi in particular was favored among merchants. Ashigaru also used wakizashi and kodachi as secondary weapons.
Rynuusuke said:
Ugh, I don't know why people are so quick to cite the SCA considering they are about as historically accurate as a Ford Cortina in a Norman Conroi. There's a reason why they have the name 'Society for Creative Anachronism' and thats because they pick & choose what they want and effectively do what the Victorians did with the c14-c15 period - romanticise it. If you look at a re-enactment group who do use kit forged by a smith using similar techniques, where possible, to those originally used in their work you will still find that those depicting European knights of the c14-c15 period are still -very- nimble on feet. Admittedly I do have beef with the SCA in that I've never been impressed by a single group I've ever come into contact with and sometimes the way they treat their kit just hurts! I was at Salute! this year in London, the miniatures faire, and there was an SCA group there. On their table they had, and this made me wince inside, a decent rapier hilt married to a thick foam blade on full display! But the worst part was how heavily covered in rust the hilt was. I couldn't see more than 1/3 of the original steel for rust. The entire hilt looked red/brown from a distance. How could they do that to a rapier? One of my friends had to physically drag me away.
Anyway I'm sure there are people in the SCA who are dedicated to being completely authentic but I wouldn't ever cite them as a source especially, as you kindly point out, they use modern forged kit instead of 'historically' forged kit.
Sushiman said:
Quite so. I've never understood the obsession people have with Japan. Europe's history is wonderfully extensive and covers such a vast range of differing people & cultures that it is endlessly fascinating.
Also a quote from a chap on another forum on the Samurai's & duel wielding, just an interesting footnote I think;
KillerMongoose
Sergeant Knight
I have a friend who's very big on old school blacksmithing, he's even going to teach me over the summer and he does everything the way blacksmiths in the middle ages would have done it. He doesn't use any modern power tools or anything and I've worn a full suit that he made, everything from the plate, the gambesons and right down to the leather harness that cover your armpits with chainmail. Now this is a pretty full suit, not every knight could afford this much gear but even still I had no issues, I could swing, parry, jump, tumble I even did a backflip. My point is that armor was lighter and more mobile than you are suggesting. Knights were said to vault onto their horses, climb on the underside of siege ladders and do cartwheels to show off. Lets not forget that around the 1300-1400s a lot of knights wore plate armor on their limbs and head but chainmail and a surcoat on their chests or a coat of plates or boiled leather over chainmail. This is mainly because of the increase in two handed weaponry so now knights could block with their arms and not need a cumbersome shield. Now that would be even more lightweight. And it's a plain fact that knights used a great deal of footwork, honestly have you read medieval fighting manuscripts?
P.S- Japanese armor is top-heavy and cumbersome, take it from a guy who's worn a full suit. Even the one made from modern grade steel was top-heavy. The helmet is a ***** with all that dead weight on it and there are a million-and-one open joints that a person can just stab you in so it does't protect you well and it's top heavy.
P.S- Japanese armor is top-heavy and cumbersome, take it from a guy who's worn a full suit. Even the one made from modern grade steel was top-heavy. The helmet is a ***** with all that dead weight on it and there are a million-and-one open joints that a person can just stab you in so it does't protect you well and it's top heavy.
Rynuusuke
Recruit
Coy said:
That is not beyond the realm of possibility that I misunderstand their exact meaning. As I am not a professional scholar by trade. However, you are far from that; being a 17 year old. That is if your profile is even accurate.
PS. If you are referring to the World Medical Association (WMA), that would have what to do with this?
MadocComadrin said:
Thank you for the clarification. As to my previous comment on the law part, I was referring to only the full length Katana. Not the odachi or kodachi variants. I used the more modern "street" term, my mistake.
Tostig said:
Can you please at least look up the source book? As it sounds to be an interesting read and I am more than willing to admit that I don't know everything. Also, you wouldn't happen to remember if that was full-body plate or transitional? Thanks!
@Rapier17:
I was not trying to insinuate that all SCA members are so inclined. However, at least from the hundred or so groups that I have seen, there has been maybe 2-5 that actually kept their equipment to historical standards. So, before anyone twists my words, I am not saying SCA is completely worthless as a source. Yet, should be used rarely and carefully.
KillerMongoose said:
With respect you and your friend, is the ore processed or not? If he is acquiring processed ore than it no longer holds. If he is doing the whole process himself by hand then yes it does hold. Simple fact, if he is using modernly processed ores (higher efficiency, more precision and accuracy in the process) he is using a material that is no longer accurate.
To answer your question, yes, I have read a few. In my opinion there is still a lack of precision. On the other side of the coin, do you practice any traditional and Non-westernized JuJitsu or Karate (Okinawan) or Kendo? European techniques that remember reading were point heavy. Western broadswords, bastard-swords etc (exceptions being the falchion and Grosse-Messer aka Kriegmesser) are indisputably some of the worst cutting swords ever devised. Now, to clarify before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am referring to the cutting efficiency of the swords. Their thrusting capabilities on the other-hand were much more efficient. Therefore, the techniques that developed favored the point over the edge.
Katanas, Dao, Talwar and Shamshir (other curved blades) are extremely efficient cutting blades. Now, to clarify here thrusts with these are not impossible. Anyone besides me who has practiced Saber, Kendo etc would quickly learn that cuts are not your only attack vector. Hooking, rising and descending thrusts are all common to Dao, Talwar and Shamshir like blades. Katana, Katana variants and some variations of Dao have a point that comes up to be inline with the top of your thumb (thumb resting on the top of the hilt, review the variations of holding if you don't follow). This allowed a powerful and direct thrust in combination with its curved cutting edge. All in all, one of the most well rounded and devised bladed weapons that the world has ever seen.
As to techniques, the Katana would be used for cutting on lightly-armored or unarmored opponents. Against heavily armored the point was used more often than the edge. Ironically, not that different conceptually to that of the knight's blade. With the big difference of being a far more efficient at the slicing (cut) strokes.
As to Japanese armors, was the armor you were wearing a replica? Of what time period?
Japanese armors ranged in materials from paper-composites, bamboo, silk, metal, leather, cotton, felt etc. Take a look at the concept behind the engineering. The weight is engineered to be transmitted through the shoulders, down the backbone to the hips. Which then distribute the weight across both of the legs, evenly, and down to the ground. Same concept as the European plate armor. There is a difference, Japanese armors protected the thigh (upper legs) with a split skirt (simple termed). These were always tied to the leg. You have equivalent coverage, less mass and material to do the same job. Less mass is less weight of the suit of armor. If put on correctly, you have an overall lighter system of protection. It also helps if you know how to move from your Lower Dantien. FYI, there are three dantiens in Chinese and Japanese alchemy/philosophy thus the specification. In terms of martial arts, movement etc the one referred to is the lower dantien located in the abdomen where your center of gravity is. It is also commonly referred to as the Hara in traditional Japanese martial arts.
European plate armor on the other hand may be free and not overly constricting but it was always made of steel plate. Furthermore, the added weight to your legs actually slows you down. Lastly, the larger complexity of the armor to achieve that level of protection also caused it to have more mass for its coverage. More mass, more weight, and therefore more of an encumbrance to be overcome.
I have a friend that trains at the same Dojo (Shorin-Ryu Karate, Traditional Okinawan) that is a big western armor and weapons enthusiast. He wore plate armor and I was wearing a Hotoko-do cuirass Samurai armor (one of the heaviest forms of cuirass). I am 5'9" and ~150 lbs. He is 5'10" and plays linebacker for our university's football team, I know he is around 200 lbs. Also, I know he has more muscle-mass than me by a long shot.
During the friendly sparring match, he had more brute power than me and could move surprisingly quick. However, as I found out my legs had less weight, and as long as I moved from my center-of-gravity (hips) I could move faster and get and keep the advantage. Now, to make it clear both he and I are green-belts of the same degree and I have less training and experience than him in footwork.
There are to be fair; advantages and disadvantages to both systems. In the European Knights, you have a much closer fitted coverage. In a Samurai Armor, you have most of your armor protecting your vital organs and less on your legs and other non-vital areas. Knights full-plate armor is highly protective, has more mass and to be honest less visibility (I know from experience). Japanese "Do" have less mass but concentrate the heaviest protection where it is needed most. Not to mention, even a masked helmet had better visibility than most western closed helms. As each mask is made to the wear's face-structure and then cosmetically embellished to look more frightening.
It all boils down to two different philosophies of fighting and how it affected development. Some people naturally have a predisposition for the European thinking. Others for a more Asian form of thinking. Neither is inherently better than the other no more than the individual is inherently better. I think that we can all agree to respect and value each others' point of view. So as to at least make an effort to try to learn from each other.
EDIT (forgot to type the source so here you go): Armor: From Ancient to Modern Times -Klucina, Petr and illustrated by Pevny, Pavol | Original Copyright: 1992 Slovart Publishing Ltd., Bratislava | Translated (English) by Sach, Jan and Vesela, Hana and published via Barnes & Noble Inc -1997 Slovart Publishing Ltd., Bratislava
Rynuusuke
Recruit
rapier17 said:
1) True! However, in the real-world age is not a requirement but it definitely helps. Anyone who has held a job that requires more than a high-school diploma knows that.
2) Oh yea, that one... In case Coy needs a reminder, I didn't say lack of. I was referring to the overall emphasis. Take a look at your weapons and armor and how they are designed and the trade-offs. Oh, if you claim there are none, you would be wrong. You never ever get something for free!
As said in the long post I did earlier this afternoon, it comes down to your personal philosophy and how you choose to pursue it. I personally favor a more Oriental outlook. You might prefer a more European one. For the record, neither is inherently better than the other.
Also, to Coy, unless you like to give an impression of being an insulting hostile and confrontational person you might want to watch the tone of the words you type. It would be to your credit not to act like the 98% of teenagers that I have to deal with during my secondary job. Learn to be respectful even if you don't like someone's POV or they made a mistake. To act all rude and obnoxious will never ever help your case; even more so if you curse the person out. The faster you learn that the easier life will be for you.
Rynuusuke
Recruit
Coy said:
Agreed, I will have to keep that point in mind. I will make more of an effort to not sound so pretentious or patronizing.
I admit that was not very well worded or stated. For that I apologize. Perhaps, the sarcasm I was attempting to convey didn't quite make it across. For future reference, if I make that sort of remark it is sarcastic and will note it in future. My point that I was trying to make was it is extremely arrogant of you to have made that remark as to those professional researchers. No offense, they have been in the field studying for at least twice your age. As a result have a lot more basis for their findings than do you or me.
With respect for WMA and its members, as organizations go you are by far the youngest on the block. As admitted by even the WMAC, a large chunk of your discipline's information was handed down orally and/or completely forgotten as firearms took precedence. As a result, many of your disciplines are having to re-invent the wheel, figuratively speaking. Whereas many practitioners such as myself (Traditional Okinawan Shorin-Ryu Karate and Traditional JuJitsu) don't have that same issue. If anything, most of our materials and information are well documented and passed down with careful and excruciatingly precise care even with the rising use of firearms. For example, since guns introduction many oriental military-branches and populations retained and continued to keep their traditional arts alive and well. Even with political entities such as Mao's Communist Party (China) and various laws post-1945 (Japan) their martial art traditions are still going strong and growing back.
Personally, I would like to see more from WMA in the future. To be honest, as an organization goes there needs to be some work done with regards to regaining the (original) information that was lost. As from my point of view, it would add a lot more credence to what is published and taught by WMA instructors. That said, unless I have a solid reason otherwise, I tend to believe that what is taught is correct. As my Sensei says, 'better to give benefit of the doubt than always suspicious.'
It's after two in the morning, but respectfully, there are an awful lot of 'respected' martial arts institutions out there that don't pressure test, are more interested in ranks and belts, practice dead drilling etc. Historical European Martial Arts, by essentially being an explorative enterprise, has had to face up to the same issues as other martial arts without being able to hide behind arguments from authority.
Now, the flip side of the coin is that many eastern Martial Arts have had hundreds of years of not being tested, or firmly rooted in martial practice, within which to become sportified, filled with bullshido, become forms of meditation, or what have you - for example I have a reference somewhere to a Judo master in the 1910s saying 'We really need to crosstrain with striking arts to avoid becoming a sport', much in the same way that, for example, Olympic fencing did. By returning to the documentary evidence, and examining it critically, Historical European Martial Arts are forced to grapple with lots of questions that could otherwise be swept under the rug of 'That's how it's always been done.'
As someone running a research group into HEMA, I'm afraid that I hold the opposite position to you. 'Think critically, rather than passively accepting' would be how I would phrase it, but essentially I believe that so long as you're not being disruptive to other people's ability to train, then you should be asking as many questions as occur to you in order to develop as a martial artist.
tl;dr, screw the Confucian approach to learning systematic approaches to inter-personal violence.
Edit for an added troll: Shōrin-ryū is a mixed martial art from the 30s. Bartitsu pre-dates it, which in turn is only narrowly pre-dated by modern Jujitsu. Equally, I can turn around and point out that last year I participated in a Cornish Wrestling competition, a recognised living tradition which dates back to at least the C16th, when it emerged as a regional style in existing European wrestling styles. Hell, therefore it has a living tradition back to time immemorial.
EDIT for an added talking-past-eachother:
Don't insult an audience that you don't know.
Now, the flip side of the coin is that many eastern Martial Arts have had hundreds of years of not being tested, or firmly rooted in martial practice, within which to become sportified, filled with bullshido, become forms of meditation, or what have you - for example I have a reference somewhere to a Judo master in the 1910s saying 'We really need to crosstrain with striking arts to avoid becoming a sport', much in the same way that, for example, Olympic fencing did. By returning to the documentary evidence, and examining it critically, Historical European Martial Arts are forced to grapple with lots of questions that could otherwise be swept under the rug of 'That's how it's always been done.'
As someone running a research group into HEMA, I'm afraid that I hold the opposite position to you. 'Think critically, rather than passively accepting' would be how I would phrase it, but essentially I believe that so long as you're not being disruptive to other people's ability to train, then you should be asking as many questions as occur to you in order to develop as a martial artist.
tl;dr, screw the Confucian approach to learning systematic approaches to inter-personal violence.
Edit for an added troll: Shōrin-ryū is a mixed martial art from the 30s. Bartitsu pre-dates it, which in turn is only narrowly pre-dated by modern Jujitsu. Equally, I can turn around and point out that last year I participated in a Cornish Wrestling competition, a recognised living tradition which dates back to at least the C16th, when it emerged as a regional style in existing European wrestling styles. Hell, therefore it has a living tradition back to time immemorial.
EDIT for an added talking-past-eachother:
I'll send you my thesis on historicizing the early documentary evidence of systematic approaches to violence from Western Europe, if it helps. Or the paper that I wrote on HEMA as a research endeavour and experimental archaeology - comparing the Towton massacre records to Shackley's look at 14th Century Japanese Swordsmanship (illustrated by the archaeological records from Zaimokuza).
Don't insult an audience that you don't know.
Don't know if Rynuusuke will take you up on that offer but I would rather enjoy perusing them if I may - you write in a very engaging manner so I would be interested to read through both the thesis & your paper for HEMA, if its not too much trouble.
I think, from my more limited knowledge compared to Tostig, that the problem with European Martial Arts is that they were forever changing, constantly evolving as the nature of warfare, the weapons & armour mostly, evolved quickly over time. What might have been ideal one decade is not the next. Best comparison I can think of would be Giacomo di Grassi & Ridolfo Capo Ferro. When di Grassi's 'The True Arte of Defence' was published, the emphasis with rapiers was on using the blade to cut - it was generally very close in fighting, with the guards being close in to the body and a large emphasis on circling & taking yourself 'offline' with a sidestep. If you scoot forward a couple of decades you have Capo Ferro saying to use the tip, not edge, to deliver the blow, as the swords had evolved to become almost pure thrusting weapons and di Grassi's treatise, from when the weapons were heavier with shorter, thicker blades & 'chunkier' guards, was now outdated - but not useless. Having trained in both I was, and rather fluidly too, able to switch between them as the situation demanded, even when using a 44" blade rapier instead of the 36" or so that would be more suitable to di Grassi's teachings.
Both were very popular in their day & original copies do still exist - when we trained at the Sussex Rapier Society (now called the Sussex Sword Academy - they're going up in the world it seems since I was last a member!) everything we learnt came directly from translations of the original documents. They were very well worded & easy to follow to perform the correct movement - the diagrams & illustrations also helped, giving an excellent insight into how to follow di Grassi's style.
I think, from my more limited knowledge compared to Tostig, that the problem with European Martial Arts is that they were forever changing, constantly evolving as the nature of warfare, the weapons & armour mostly, evolved quickly over time. What might have been ideal one decade is not the next. Best comparison I can think of would be Giacomo di Grassi & Ridolfo Capo Ferro. When di Grassi's 'The True Arte of Defence' was published, the emphasis with rapiers was on using the blade to cut - it was generally very close in fighting, with the guards being close in to the body and a large emphasis on circling & taking yourself 'offline' with a sidestep. If you scoot forward a couple of decades you have Capo Ferro saying to use the tip, not edge, to deliver the blow, as the swords had evolved to become almost pure thrusting weapons and di Grassi's treatise, from when the weapons were heavier with shorter, thicker blades & 'chunkier' guards, was now outdated - but not useless. Having trained in both I was, and rather fluidly too, able to switch between them as the situation demanded, even when using a 44" blade rapier instead of the 36" or so that would be more suitable to di Grassi's teachings.
Both were very popular in their day & original copies do still exist - when we trained at the Sussex Rapier Society (now called the Sussex Sword Academy - they're going up in the world it seems since I was last a member!) everything we learnt came directly from translations of the original documents. They were very well worded & easy to follow to perform the correct movement - the diagrams & illustrations also helped, giving an excellent insight into how to follow di Grassi's style.
KillerMongoose
Sergeant Knight
1. European broadswords are most definitely not the worst cutting blades, in fact by saying that you've proven to me that you are just another "Katana fanboy" as a friend of mine calls them. European swords cover a large spectrum of needs making them much more versatile than a weapon like the katana. Lets look at a simple European bastard sword or "hand-and-a-half" sword, this is a weapon that can comfortably be wielded in one or two hands (don't argue with me on this one because I own a hand-crafted bastard sword) not only that but they are perfect for half-swording, which allows the user to much more effectively deliver accurate thrusts. But the balanced blade of the sword is extremely effective at cutting. Lets not forget that a tempered blade is far superior to a blade of folded steel as folded steel is brittle.
2. I in fact do practice Eastern martial arts, I did take a few lessons of Karate but it didn't teach me anything I didn't know really. I've been learning Muay Thai for a good deal of time now and it's a really nice style, it's great especially for controlling your opponent in grappling but it doesn't apply much to a sword fight. Only the ground techniques would apply as knights were known to engage in close quarters grappling with daggers. The only real reason I've practiced these techniques is because I'm big on the whole UFC thing and I do a lot of sparring with friends and acquaintances from school.
3. WMA is much more developed than Eastern Martial arts, as Rapier17 says, it has always been changing with the evolution of warfare. But the core values of WMA remain the same even to this day, these values are improvise, adapt and overcome. Sound familiar?
2. I in fact do practice Eastern martial arts, I did take a few lessons of Karate but it didn't teach me anything I didn't know really. I've been learning Muay Thai for a good deal of time now and it's a really nice style, it's great especially for controlling your opponent in grappling but it doesn't apply much to a sword fight. Only the ground techniques would apply as knights were known to engage in close quarters grappling with daggers. The only real reason I've practiced these techniques is because I'm big on the whole UFC thing and I do a lot of sparring with friends and acquaintances from school.
3. WMA is much more developed than Eastern Martial arts, as Rapier17 says, it has always been changing with the evolution of warfare. But the core values of WMA remain the same even to this day, these values are improvise, adapt and overcome. Sound familiar?
...the ****? You just went full out retarded. From the D&D-ist language to the 'core values' projection onto the past. Hell, Talhoffer has striking, while the rest of the Lichtenauer tradition is full of jujitsu-esque body throws, even when wielding swords.
I mean, I'm a raging, trolling weeaboo hater, but from the way that you're speaking, you've never really done much research into weapons or HEMA have you? Hell, folded steel isn't brittle - that's the point of pattern welding. Kenjutsi has half-swording-esque movements for dealing with armoured combat too. Now, if you started talking about different ways of executing a cut, or about blade harmonics and things, then I might be able to take you srsly.
I mean, I'm a raging, trolling weeaboo hater, but from the way that you're speaking, you've never really done much research into weapons or HEMA have you? Hell, folded steel isn't brittle - that's the point of pattern welding. Kenjutsi has half-swording-esque movements for dealing with armoured combat too. Now, if you started talking about different ways of executing a cut, or about blade harmonics and things, then I might be able to take you srsly.
