3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[FatR]

Actually, doing some kendo myself, I can assure you that the two are remarkably similar.

The Katana is a two handed, curved sword made with the idea that you would not be carrying a shield (or peasant) in the other hand, and so focuses on killing another Katana-wielding (and most likely samurai) opponent in an elegant fashion. It is built to defeat unarmored opponents, as there was next to no armor in feudal Japan and what there was was not of high quality. It was not meant to be used on horseback, that's the dai-katana.

Uh, what a pile of wrong.

1)Various swords we collectively call katanas (not unlike like rapiers when the latter displaced swords) were mostly last chance weapons on the actual battlefield, used for personal defense, and in edge cases, such as when assaulting fortifications and cutting down routed enemies. They also were weapons one carried for self-defense in everyday life. In real war, samurai were, above all, horse archers (later horse lancers appeared too).
2)There were shittons of armor in feudal Japan. As in most places in those times, if you can't allow armor you might as well not show up on the battlefield at all. Quality at certain periods was lower than that of European armor, but then they got some of the latter from Europeans traders and quickly invented they own variations.
3)Dai-katanas were footmen's weapons. You cannot use a two-handed sword from horseback.

The rapier, from what I have gathered, is a one-handed, straight blade made with the same thought in mind, and focuses on much the same target, in the same frame of mind (killing a guy trying to kill you, while being as efficient and pretty as possible). It was built to defeat unarmored opponents, as the rapier saw use mainly as a dueling weapon,

Early rapiers were built to defeat heavily armored opponents, who were extremely hard to kill with slashing strikes, actually. With armor falling out of use, rapiers became progressively lighter and slimmer.

[Username17]

You cannot use a two-handed sword from horseback.

You lose the argument.

That is a historical fighting style. From all over the fucking planet (except, obviously, the New World). It isn't just in art:


It's also historical. Also: fuck you. If you're going to make blanket claims like that which are easily shown to be historically false, you don't know shit.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Frank, could you perhaps provide evidence that isn't a painting of a religious allegory? Perhaps the name of an historical force that fought in such a way?

[mean_liar]

Yeah, most two-handed weapons were used by footmen against cavalry.

I won't say all because I'm not that confident, but I can't think of any.

The "early rapier" that FatR is referencing is, I believe, the aforementioned estoc.

[Username17]

Frank, could you perhaps provide evidence that isn't a painting of a religious allegory? Perhaps the name of an historical force that fought in such a way?

Sure.

We got two handed sword users on horse in the Battle of Hastings:



We got diagrams from the Middle East on how to configure the reigns over your elbow to use two swords and two shield while riding a horse:



And of course, we got Chinese depictions of using two handed bows from Horseback galore:



There really isn't a fighting style that I can think of that people haven't put on a horse. Successfully even.

-Username17

[IGTN]

There really isn't a fighting style that I can think of that people haven't put on a horse. Successfully even.

-Username17

Boxing?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, the discussion was about two-handed swords. I'll totally cede bow style (lots of support for that), and even give two-sword style the benefit of any doubt.

But I can tell you that that picture of the Battle of Hastings is total crap. Two-handed swords simply were not in significant use in that time and place, and the Norman knightly sword was used one-handed. Hell, the knights are depicted in hilariously anachronistic armor and the Norman's signature kite shields are nowhere to be seen.

So, I'm not even close to convinced about two-handed swords on horseback.

[Username17]

There really isn't a fighting style that I can think of that people haven't put on a horse. Successfully even.

-Username17

Boxing?

That's a tough one. Mongol rape gangs would regularly send horsemen out to grab people. They had a special cavalry grappling technique that let them use the horse's muscles to restrict their opponents' mobility and even rape them while on the run. And the Missouri State Guard used unarmed cavalry to flank and harry opposing forces during the Civil War.

I don't know if that counts as "boxing" in either case. I can't think of any group that literally punched people from horseback. But wrestling from horseback and kicking from horseback are both pretty common.

Oooh! Can we count the Katar as a form of boxing? India went through a whole period of getting crazy punch daggers and putting them on horsemen. I saw one in the British Museum that was so degenerate that it was practically a lance that come right out of the gauntlet.

-Username17

[Quantumboost]

I saw one in the British Museum that was so degenerate that it was practically a lance that come right out of the gauntlet.

...punch lances? HELL YES.

[ETortoise]

It was fairly common for medieval artists depicting historical battles to portray the combatants wielding the armor and weapons of their own period rather than the period they were depicting. Take for example the Maciejowski Bible which portrays the battles of the Old Testament in the style of 13th Century knights and men at arms.

I'm not really qualified to comment on two-handed swords from horseback though. I do know the ancient Sarmatians used two-handed lances however.

[mean_liar]

Two one-handed weapons is not a two-handed weapon.

Power Attack taught us that.

Two-handed MELEE weapons are, to my knowledge - again, limited though it is but not non-existent - an unmounted thing.

[Username17]

Well, the discussion was about two-handed swords. I'll totally cede bow style (lots of support for that), and even give two-sword style the benefit of any doubt.

But I can tell you that that picture of the Battle of Hastings is total crap. Two-handed swords simply were not in significant use in that time and place, and the Norman knightly sword was used one-handed. Hell, the knights are depicted in hilariously anachronistic armor and the Norman's signature kite shields are nowhere to be seen.

So, I'm not even close to convinced about two-handed swords on horseback.

You could always Buy a replica Norman Greatsword inspired by the Bayeux Tapestry. I hear it comes with a giant mug of shut the fuck up.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

You could always Buy a replica Norman Greatsword inspired by the Bayeux Tapestry. I hear it comes with a giant mug of shut the fuck up.

-Username17

There's no need to be hostile. I'm genuinely curious and willing to be convinced. Nevertheless, I don't consider the unsourced assertions of a replica sales site to be worth anything, especially not in comparison to actual scholars who say that the available evidence, literary, documentary, pictorial and material, is not abundant but at least it seems to agree that swords which we can call two-handers were first used in the period between 1250 and 1350.

I can believe that two-handed swords were used from horseback (though I'm doubtful), but not nearly two centuries before they were first used.

[FatR]

It's also historical. Also: fuck you. If you're going to make blanket claims like that which are easily shown to be historically false, you don't know shit.

-Username17

You're a supremely intellectualy dishonest asshole (though that's not exactly hot news on either "intellectually dishonest" or "asshole" count), who uses pictures of a)mythic characters - and not even on a medieval painting b)swords used in one hand (on a picture that has jack-shit in common with the event it supposedly depicts, except that in both medieval guys kill each other) and c)bows to prove the assertion that two-handed swords were used from horseback. I don't even need to argue with your point, because you've did a fine job defeating it by not able to pull your head out of your ass far enough to see that swords and bows are, like, totally different weapons.

[Username17]

The guys you're quoting there have a very precise definition of "two handed sword" that does not include all "swords used in two hands" and is instead a very specific and rather degenerate sword with a length of over 100 cm. For reference, a Katana stops even being a Katana at a length over 73 cm. The typical Viking sword (from which the Norman swords descended), was 78 cm.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Is this conversation going to devolve into another 'fighters can't have nice things' bullshit?

I don't really give a fuck if people didn't fight with two-handed melee weapons atop of horseback throughout history. The fact of the matter is that it's plausible and cool-looking.

So put it in the game and let's not talk about it again.

[Username17]

It's also historical. Also: fuck you. If you're going to make blanket claims like that which are easily shown to be historically false, you don't know shit.

-Username17

You're a supremely intellectualy dishonest asshole (though that's not exactly hot news on either "intellectually dishonest" or "asshole" count), who uses pictures of a)mythic characters - and not even on a medieval painting b)swords used in one hand (on a picture that has jack-shit in common with the event it supposedly depicts, except that in both medieval guys kill each other) and c)bows to prove the assertion that two-handed swords were used from horseback. I don't even need to argue with your point, because you've did a fine job defeating it by not able to pull your head out of your ass far enough to see that swords and bows are, like, totally different weapons.

Uh huh. So I am intellectually dishonest in this discussion. If I provide contemporary renditions or descriptions of two handed swordsused from horseback, you claim that they don't count because they weren't there. And when I provide archaic renditions or descriptions they don't count either because they aren't photo-realistic. Do I have that right?

What evidence would you consider accepting as proof that people used swords in two hands from horse back in real battles? Before I fucking bother dredging any of it up, I want you to own up to your biases and wiggle room: what evidence would persuade you?

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

The guys you're quoting there have a very precise definition of "two handed sword" that does not include all "swords used in two hands" and is instead a very specific and rather degenerate sword with a length of over 100 cm.

That's fair. What about this: The main weapon of a Norman knight in 1066 was his sword. Unlike the broadswords of the later Middle Ages that were little more than metal clubs, the sword of the Norman knight was double bladed and razor-sharp. It was designed for slicing through flesh and light armor and possessed a sharp point for stabbing. Swords were usually about 30 to 31 inches in length but could be longer. They were swung one-handed and used in conjunction with a shield.

edit: In answer to your above question, I would accept any scholarly source that mentions two-handed sword use on horseback, at Hastings or otherwise.

[Maxus]

I've heard that practical swords tended to cap out at eight or ten pounds, even for the biggest ones meant to actually be used. Some ceremonial weapons were larger because they were meant to *look* impressive.

I mean, hell, google around for the whole 'forty-pound sword' deal. I remember seeing someone cite the descriptions of museum catalogues which listed the actual swords in their collections as five or seven or eight pounds. Except for some which were as high as '12 pounds' but were listed as ceremonial things.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sounds fair. Does the Korean Cavalry work?

Source for the cavalry.

Picture of said flail: http://www.swordsofkorea.com/weapons3.htm

More info: http://www.parandeul.co.kr/gyong_pkgtours.htm

[angelfromanotherpin]

Sounds fair. Does the Korean Cavalry work?

Well, I'm sold on horseback great flails, and that's... really pretty crazy. It makes me more inclined to believe in the swords, since it's a swinging weapon; but it's also a long-hafted one, so it's not a great match.

But thanks, Lago, that's good crazy awesome stuff. Cavalry great flails? My mind is kind of blown, really.

[mean_liar]

I figured there was some kind of hafted chopper - a lance with an edge or something - but the flail is surprising. Would they really meet so many shield-wielding infantry? Spears were not a problem? I mean, you start using that thing and you have no shield yourself... and without reach, too. What an odd choice of weapon.

EDIT - The source text is from an account of a battle in the 16th century, against Japanese. How bizarre - I didn't believe that the Japanese were commonly shield-users, especially once they started fielding matchlocks.

I have no idea what to make of it other than a 'huh'.


...

And when I provide archaic renditions or descriptions they don't count either because they aren't photo-realistic. Do I have that right?

I believe his complaint was that the depiction of Hastings you put up was made far after Hastings and showed ahistorical equipment.

I also believe you knew that, which is pretty poor sportsmanship for an OT pissing match on intellectual honesty.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I figured there was some kind of hafted chopper - a lance with an edge or something -

You mean masang woldo?

[mean_liar]

Indeed. I just came back to post the link to...

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

Two-handed lances, two-handed polearms, two-handed flail. My limited knowledge of Chinese weapons is that the two-handed swords were for cutting out horse's legs...

[Maxus]

I'll have to go with Lago's earlier statement (it sounds cool, sounds like there's no reason it shouldn't be around, let's roll with it) here.

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

That sounds very cool, but any evidence they were ever around is sketchy.

So while the idea of someone trying to fight, wielding a two-handed sword with a horse's neck and head in the way is defying all my effort to imagine how that'd work, it still sounds cool enough I don't have a problem with it in a game.

Edit: ..boy, it tastes funny to even *think* of saying "Don't think about it too hard"...