well, ran my first real game of TROS last night, i wont bore you with details of the game itself, but fr the most part i avoided combat last night... not that i didnt do it, it was done enough to be fun, but i was holding back from the the D&D thing of "ok 20 guys are running at you"... there was like 2 real melee combats last night, the rest of the night it was a combination of sorcery, and missile combat..

my only real problem with the combat system as is, is that its kinda hard for me to grasp, still... i understand sorcery, that oine was fairly easy..

missile... well i need to read that section, and the melee section... i know the concepts, and i know how things are done, its just getting there with the dice, that tends to be the problem..

oh and for the guy who mentioned about rapiers a while back.... last night we all got to see how useless they were, as the knight of the group in platemail, got attacked by a guy with a rapier... it wasnt funny at all.. the npc did 12 on damage... unfortunately the knight was as i said wearing platemail, and had a high toughness... so he took a level 0 wound out of it... where as the npc took a level 4 wound to the face when the knight brought down his arming sword...

i will grant jake one thing, combat is pretty damn quick... and im glad, because right now i dont feel as confidant in my abilities to run combat...

like i said, im cool with all the manuevars, and how you determine initiative, and im even fine with damage and how to score damage... my problem comes from knowing how many dice to use, how much i get from bonuses...yada yada.. a cheat sheet would be nice for that..... its probably on the master screen. so i'll take a look at it today

prophet118 wrote:

oh and for the guy who mentioned about rapiers a while back.... last night we all got to see how useless they were, as the knight of the group in platemail, got attacked by a guy with a rapier... it wasnt funny at all.. the npc did 12 on damage... unfortunately the knight was as i said wearing platemail, and had a high toughness... so he took a level 0 wound out of it... where as the npc took a level 4 wound to the face when the knight brought down his arming sword...

uhhh... yeh, unfortunately i cant exactly justify changing weapons of the enemy during midgame, granted half of the guys they were marching against had arming swords, but they got taken out by the pcs sides archers..


basically i was running a seige... the pcs found a way in from underneath the castle, but the king of the keep knew about that back entrance, so he had his own men there... mainly archers, and their back up weapons were rapiers..oh well though, no real biggie..lol

prophet118 wrote: uhhh... yeh, unfortunately i cant exactly justify changing weapons of the enemy during midgame, granted half of the guys they were marching against had arming swords, but they got taken out by the pcs sides archers..


basically i was running a seige... the pcs found a way in from underneath the castle, but the king of the keep knew about that back entrance, so he had his own men there... mainly archers, and their back up weapons were rapiers..oh well though, no real biggie..lol

I found that declaring some locations to be 'unarmoured' on the thrusting tables worked - joints and the like wouldn't be as protected.

yeh i was going for the location thing... but as for the weapon they used as a side arm being a rapier...ummm so.. thats just what i happened to chose..

Jabberwocky wrote: I found that declaring some locations to be 'unarmoured' on the thrusting tables worked - joints and the like wouldn't be as protected.

Something else about declaring areas to be unarmored... Part of the AV of the armor, in my opinion, is the difficulty of hitting unarmored areas like joints. If you score a hit through the armor with a rapier, the in-game effect isn't likely to be that of the rapier punching through a plate.. This is fairly unrealistic, I think. On the other hand, the rapier piercing straight through the gap at the joint is pretty realistic.

Wolfen's got it right. The AV of armor isn't to say how hard it is to penetrate, but how hard it is to get past and do damage to the person inside. Most weapons don't really have a prayer at actually piercing plate armor, and have to go for the weak points. Some, like the pick, can do exactly that (and gain +1 vs. armors, because it's easier to get through), while others, like the hammer side of a warhammer, can hurt the person inside with a mere dent to the armor.

Irmo wrote:

prophet118 wrote:

oh and for the guy who mentioned about rapiers a while back.... last night we all got to see how useless they were, as the knight of the group in platemail, got attacked by a guy with a rapier... it wasnt funny at all.. the npc did 12 on damage... unfortunately the knight was as i said wearing platemail, and had a high toughness... so he took a level 0 wound out of it... where as the npc took a level 4 wound to the face when the knight brought down his arming sword...

Which goes to show that there might have been a reason why rapiers came more and more into use as all-covering plate more and more went OUT of use.... and aside from that, were mainly used by civilians, for whom it was less likely to face armor. Unless, of course, you get into trouble with the guard or the army. Against a guy with plate, take a hammer, a mattock, or if you are a big, mean killing machine, take a maul. As soon as the space inside the plate suit is smaller than the volume of his body, he will consider ceasing hostile actions. If it's a lot smaller, he won't have to do any considering anymore :)

Those pictures...That's how I figured a cut&thrust sword looks like.

Hello,

Perhaps the threads TROS weapon statistics and More prep help requested will be helpful.

Best,
Ron

A C&T looks a lot like a rapier, but has a wider blade. In many museums and catologs, however, the difference isn't acknowledged, because curators tend to group swords by hilt, whereas fighters and historians group them by blade type (hilts being a secondary feature of the blade, which is what betrays the weapon's true function).

What's more is that while yes, the rapier is much more substantial than most folks realize, I've never heard even one example of a guy with a rapier piercing plate armor. This may partially be due to the fact that rapiers and "full plate" didn't really co-exist, either chronologically or--more importantly--geographically (meaning that the rapier was on the street and plate armor was on the battlefield, so that they never would have really even met each other, even if they did happen to overlap chronologically for a bit). I personally think also that a rapier doesn't have enough mass to punch through plate, perhaps even with half-sword techniques (although it could find the chinks, of course). I believe this is reasonable based on the fact that the Itallians used to wear light chainmail shirts under their doublets when dueling (to cheat, of course), because the rapier generally couldn't puncture the chain.

Contrary to film, literature, RPGs, and many internet web-groups, swords did not cut plate armor, and punturing it with a sword was *very* difficult. That's why all anti-armor sword techniques focus on grappling and half-swording into the "chinks" of the armor. Picks, axes, and polearms are another story.

Jake

I have a rapier-type blade, I think, which I suspect is the 1895 british infantry officerts blade. It looks a lot like this, which is the 1897 version.

http://www.antiquegunroom.com/agr/auction_house/photo.php?photo=154_154.jpg&site_name=AntiqueArmsandMilitariaAuction

This is a fullered, inch-wide-at-the-base steel wedge, basically. It's still not going to be much good against plate, but highly dangerous against people.

I think the problem is that the angles are all wrong. All that force on a tiny point... a very small deflection would send the whole thing skittering away. Plus, your grip is at the far end, with the maximum amount of shiver being amplified through the lever.

Edit: I could photograph it if anyone wanted.

contracycle wrote:
I think the problem is that the angles are all wrong. All that force on a tiny point... a very small deflection would send the whole thing skittering away. Plus, your grip is at the far end, with the maximum amount of shiver being amplified through the lever.

imagine, this whole rapier section spawned out of bob once again trying to show his opinion as superior (my opinion on that of course)...

simply because i chose at random to have the archers using a rapier as a side arm...lol

I was wondering when I took a closer look; it has a "nominal" blade at about the last quarter. But even blunt, the tip is probably dangerous as is. You're right in that it's too heavy, but is still essentially thrusting.

contracycle wrote: I was wondering when I took a closer look; it has a "nominal" blade at about the last quarter. But even blunt, the tip is probably dangerous as is. You're right in that it's too heavy, but is still essentially thrusting.

prophet118 wrote: imagine, this whole rapier section spawned out of bob once again trying to show his opinion as superior (my opinion on that of course)...

i suppose presenting doesnt prove a problem, we all present something, we usually preface it with "well this is my opinion", not "Rapiers are an unlikely backup weapon for an archer. The Rapier is strictly a duelist's sword. An Archer is more likely to be carrying a Short Sword or an Arming Sword."

im generally easy going, but that line came out like "well you made a poor choice, and furthermore this is how you have to do it"

the problem with opinions is that they are open for alot of interpreation, including, but not limited to how the reader is feeling at the time...

tis the problem with no actual speech, but text.

Jake Norwood wrote: it's a cutting/chopping blade, not a draw-cut/slicing blade

Accident, culture, the vicissitudes of metallurgy. As I understand it, the katana should only be used with the draw cut; its specialised for that usage. This, IMO, goes a long way to explaining the "mystique" of the katana - its not just the ophysical object, its the technique associated with it as well which makes it what it is.

Weeeelll...

This is a hot topic. THere's a book coming out that will detail just about every sword wound recorded in history later this year that would answer this with facts. Overall I'd say that sven's "guesses" are pretty good, and not worth debating over from my knowledge.

As far as primary sword functions go, it's like this:
Curved and sharp blade (eg. Katana): draw cuts
Curved and not as sharp blade (saber): draw cuts and chops
Straight blade, very rigid, no real edge (rapier, estoc): thrusting
Straight blade, rigid, very pointy, with a servicable edge (bastard sword, C&T): thrusting and cutting/chopping
Straight blade, not so rigid, servicable edge, not so pointy (longsword, arming sword): Cutting/Chopping, then thrusting, then slicing (= draw cut).

The cut and the point have always been used. The draw cut less so in European designs, mostly because it's not very good against any armors at all, requires intentional, careful edge-placement to really do damage, and won't disable a guy as quickly as losing an arm or puncturing a lung would. Notice that those swords good at draw-cuts are curved, which allows a fast mostion (like a chop) to be converted into a draw-cut with the curvature of the blade (this makes the Katana very effective at this kind of attack, AFAIK). Straight swords are capable of draw-cuts, but as a third option (behind cutting and thrusting).

Hope that helps.

jake

Jake Norwood wrote: There's a book coming out that will detail just about every sword wound recorded in history later this year that would answer this with facts.

jake

prophet118 wrote: imagine, this whole rapier section spawned out of bob once again trying to show his opinion as superior (my opinion on that of course)...

prophet118 wrote: i suppose presenting doesnt prove a problem, we all present something, we usually preface it with "well this is my opinion", not "Rapiers are an unlikely backup weapon for an archer. The Rapier is strictly a duelist's sword. An Archer is more likely to be carrying a Short Sword or an Arming Sword."

Durgil wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote: There's a book coming out that will detail just about every sword wound recorded in history later this year that would answer this with facts.

jake

Would this be TFoB or are you referring to an actual reference book that you've heard of that will be coming out this year?

And hey prophet, what's this all about?

prophet118 wrote: imagine, this whole rapier section spawned out of bob once again trying to show his opinion as superior (my opinion on that of course)...

I'm just reading this post for the first time today, and I don't see anything in here that warrents your comment. Am I missing something here?

Otherwise, This is an excellant subject.

Bob Richter wrote:

prophet118 wrote: i suppose presenting doesnt prove a problem, we all present something, we usually preface it with "well this is my opinion", not "Rapiers are an unlikely backup weapon for an archer. The Rapier is strictly a duelist's sword. An Archer is more likely to be carrying a Short Sword or an Arming Sword."

One doesn't preface an opinion by saying "My opinion is" or "I think" or anything else so wasteful and self-referential. The reader can ASSUME that anything written is the opinion of the author, and nothing more.

I haven't noticed anyone contesting my opinion either. My point was that I haven't tried to prove my opinion, I've merely stated it. Not that it doesn't have hard and solid backing.

What'ya trying to say, eh!?

Heh heh...

The book I'm referring to is a rescource book coming out later this year. I know the author really well, so I've got an "inside track." I'm not sure when it'll be available.

Like everything in the publishing industry, it's late.

Jake

yeh... publishing is kinda funky sometimes.... hopefully you guys dont get into the same problem that changeling got into... white wolf felt they werent making as muc money as they should....so they basically dropped the line

prophet118 wrote: yeh... publishing is kinda funky sometimes.... hopefully you guys dont get into the same problem that changeling got into... white wolf felt they werent making as muc money as they should....so they basically dropped the line

Jake Norwood wrote: What'ya trying to say, eh!?

Heh heh...

Jake

Durgil wrote: I'm just reading this post for the first time today,

What is the title and/or author of this book. You're teasing me with your posts.

If draw-cuts are not as good at armor and less likely to cause disabling damage, why would they be so popular in so many parts of the world, especially it would seem with mounted troops, (when not using spear-family weapons)?

Scott

Scott wrote: If draw-cuts are not as good at armor and less likely to cause disabling damage, why would they be so popular in so many parts of the world, especially it would seem with mounted troops, (when not using spear-family weapons)?

So assuming you're mostly facing people with lighter armor why would you choose a curved blade?

I'm basically going to agree with Tony/Durgil. The regions that are famouse for curved (slicing) blades are not famous for quality armors. Note also that some curved blades, such as the falchion/grosse messer are wicked chopping instruments, and do quite well against many heavier armors.

As for the title of "that book"...I don't know it. The author is John Clements of the ARMA, author of Medieval Swordsmanship and Rennaissance Swordsmanship. For the last 2 years he's been researching basically full-time, and he's got 3 books and a video coming out this year. High-quality stuff.

So assuming you're mostly facing people with lighter armor why would you choose a curved blade?

I have no physical experience with any weapons, but I'd think that they would be easier to use. First, they were so sharp, you don't need as much strength behind your attack like you would with a chopping weapon to wound your opponent and therefore you would be less likely to over extend yourself with your attack if you missed. Second, with less strength, I’d think that you could concentrate more on your control and thereby miss less often.

Ah shoot. You got your post in there while I was writing mine Jake. ;-)

That's great news about John Clements. I really do like his material! 2003 is looking like it is going to be a very fine year, at least in the area of RPGs and good medieval weapons books.

One explanation for some curved blades that I've read (sabres and some scimitars) relates to their mounted use. Sabres from horseback would often be used to thrust with the arm extended and relying on the horse's momentum to drive it home, after which the arm would be relaxed and the horses continued momentum would drag the blade out of the body as it passed. It was suggested that a slightly curved blade pulls free of the body much easier and more cleanly, where as a straight blade would be more likely to be jerked from the wielder's grasp.

Jake Norwood wrote: there's the between-ground covered by moderately curved blades (like the saber and katana, both of which can be excellent instuments for cutting, and which do have advantages over straight blade designs...they also have disadvantages in comparison to them).

well they dropped the line because they felt it had no niche in the market, and when they dropped it, all the changeling players got a bit peeved

um, was that post supposed to be in another thread?

I've never seen anything that makes curved blades easier to use. I love my cavalry saber (it's an authentic 1864 piece), and even though dull it cuts beautifully. Despite that, it's tricker to use than a straight blade, and much less versatile.

Here's some pros to straight blades over curved.
Straight blades...
...can cut equally well with both edges, enabling more cuts from more directions withought turning the hands, and wicked winding and binding maneuvers (which is hard to explain in less than a few paragraphs, so I won't).
...generally come equipped with pommels and meaner cross-guards. I'm not sure why this is (some curved swords, like the messer, have mean crosses--but I've probably only very rarely really seen a pommelled and truly curved blade). Both of these items of sword-furniture are very useful in a grat number of actions.
...thrust more efficiently and simply.
...enable more half-swording techniques and transfer the principles of their use into polearms of many lengths (the more curved the sword, the harder this is).

Jake

I don't think that curved blades are easier to use in any particular sense, but probably rather harder becuase the motion is more complex, more specialised. I don't think that you can just pick up the katana and draw-cut with it the way it is meant to be used. It is not the force of the blow but its placement which does the damage.

Also, IMO, I rather disagree about the armour thing. Im not sure how an iron and lamellar clamshell breastplate can be considered light armour. I find it difficulty to see the chinese military developments, with mediaeval cataphracts and experience against central asian armoured cavalry, which is the military milieu for this proposed aesthetic of light military hardware, producing weaponry and techniques based on the absence of heavy armour.

Furthermore, a curved blade requires better metallurgy than a simple straight blade, and IMO the phasing out of straight cutting blades occurs through technical development simply becuase if the blade is intended to cut, a curved surface is always better than a small straight one. We went from blades we used for everything to specialised tools for thrusting and cutting, designed appropriately in each case, IMO.

contracycle - I believe strait blades where the norm in China during most periods.
Jake - so other than when mounted why would one preferr a curved blade?
Jake - when on foot, when would draw-cuts be more atractive to use?
Possibly - cuts are more likely to get lodged in your opponent than draw-cuts so you go with draw-cuts to avoid being cut down by a second opponent?
Other reasons?

Also I definatly have started doing it, but others may not have: my mind has started saying curved=draw-cut strait=thrust or cut, I need to be careful not to over generalize.

while it is the sterotype that curved blades (katana usually) were not designed for thrusts, you would actually be dead wrong

as someone who watches a crap load of the history channel, and more importantly has seen the week long special they did on all sorts of weapons (spears and lances, shields and armor, swords and daggers, castles and sieges) i can tell you, that a katana can thrust, and did, the typical style for thrusting with a katana , was to turn it over, so that the curve was up

now thats not to say im anywhere near expert level, however these shows were made with the royal armory overseas...


also on another show which featured two guys from arma (might have been that john clements guy, id have to go back and watch the tape)

the basic methodology with swords had to do with how much material it had to move out of the way for its "bite", a large sword (claymore) was effectively a large club that could cut.. the more celtic style weaspons were not designed as say a long sword, or even a rapier, they were not as sharp and as such, you had to make a more massive swing....

and in fact listed casualities frrom that show include many people who died of broken collar bones...

but again, i aint an expert, im simply reporting what i have seen

Not to criticisize anything you have specifically said, Prophet, but rather a general caution: the History channel has not always had the best reputation for strict accuracy, especially with such off the beaten track subjects as ancients arms. They have a tendency to (sometimes) parrot the popularly accepted view from some years ago. At least that has been both my impression and a view which I have heard elsewhere.

Okay, you guys, we're starting to get into serious speculation, opinion, and minutia.

I have repeatedly said that the katana could thrust--it's curvature is also relatively shallow, making it share many properties with a straight blade.

Curved blades do not have mystic powers and are not "better" than straight ones--they apply in different (and, IMO, fewer) techniques and situations.

The claymore was not a club, unless you consider any straight lever a club. There is an amazing amount of physics involved in a simple cut.

Draw cuts are attractive against soft targets.

Cataphracti were byzantine, not chinese, ad therefore part of the western empires that receded after the invasion of the turks and the mongols.

I also think that we're looking a little too deep in the "when" issue. The fact is that you draw when the opening presents itself and you cut when the opening presents itself and you thrust when the opening presents itself. Some folks have a personal preference, and some opponents are more susceptible to one or the other--hence different weapon types within even a single culture.

Jake

i have yet to see that, but then again who knows... but in their defense both shows were done with support from either arma (in the case of the last one), or the royal armouries... i cant remember the official name of the last one, but its a friggin huge medieval arms museum in great britian, or england, one of the two places

when i refer to a claymore as a club, and indeed when the show does, they kinda mean it, its not a primary cutting weapon, sure there is some cut action, but its a friggin huge blade, you'd break something before you cut them... theres too much sword there and too much edge to be anything else.....

of course we all know this is partial my opinion though....

most viking and celtic weapons were huge, the point of the weapon was to knock your opponant down, if not kill him, sure there was cutting power, but it didnt matter, if your opponant couldnt get up anyway, it doesnt matter whether you cut an artiery, or just broke something, the fact is it has been documented.

but the problem is this, TROS leaves no room for these kinds of things, its a simple matter of cut, thrust, peirce.....maybe some blunt thrown in as well.... sure TROS's timeline isnt anywhere near the time of viking or celtic weaponry, but yet those weapons are in fact being used in TROS, meaning that you accept that they are there, and in the time period.

Prophet, my friend, if you consider "in the book with a special unique reference" and "in the game" to be the same things, then you're in for a lot of frustration on this forum.

You gotta think a little, and be able to extrapolate one thing to another. You want a little more "whack" going on with the weapons you're referencing? Fine - you have Knockdown and Knockout rules - use them rigorously or even upgrade them to have some more effect.

The rules work. You have the power to tweak their numbers and applications as you see fit. It really isn't about what TROS does or doesn't "allow" because of exactly what is written in exactly what box of which table.

The table exists to serve play. The map is not the terrain.

Best,
Ron

i know i have the ability to tweak things in the game, should i end up getting back to playing it..

however one would think i wouldnt have to...

here jake takes about time lines and such.. well he does cover quite alot of timelines in TROS, just which ones?...well i suppose only he can really tell us..

i wanted a system that could cover alot of ground, and not bring up more rules debates and desputes before i even played my second game.

yes, im going to be adding things to the game, and taking some away, ive already been branded a Rune heretic, i might as well be a TROS one as well

prophet118 wrote:
however one would think i wouldnt have to...

prophet118 wrote: when i refer to a claymore as a club, and indeed when the show does, they kinda mean it, its not a primary cutting weapon, sure there is some cut action, but its a friggin huge blade, you'd break something before you cut them... theres too much sword there and too much edge to be anything else.....

its not that it bothers me, and nor an i looking for changing the system damage..

again though, jake reminds us to "stay in the time period".....what is the time period, i assumed Ren. period... that does seem on par with what is going on in the main areas, but at that time, people certainly werent using heavy armors, nor were they walking around with staves they called swords...

i want an accurate figure of when the time period for the game is.

Okay...

See, just because the ARMA was on that show (and it was JC), doesn't mean that it wrote the script. The claymore is essentially a great sword, which is an elegant weapon. Might it knock a guy down? Hell yeah. On the other hand, I can knock a guy down with two fingers if I stick 'em right.

We need to remember that swords were not heavy, clumsy, or anything like the last 100 years of movies and literature have shown us.

The time period in TROS is roughly the same as the late 1400s in the "real world," depending on location. Heavy armors were in their prime at this time, but elegant street-weapons were also in developmental stages.

Lastly, I don't recall really wiggin' out on timelines here...

Jake

never said you did, however you and some others have mentioned several times that certain things didnt exist with other things....if im not mistaken one you said was a rapier, and heavier armor.....maybe im wrong, and you meant different time zones... instead of eras

How does any of this matter? Man you are getting so caught up in detailed characteristics of weapons that we only understand in the most basic sense compared to their actual masters that you seem to be missing the whole point of the game.

The game is about the quest for the riddle and how your character uses and reacts to what he believes in along the path for that quest. Not about what the odds of knocking someone down with a claymore is. Back up and take a good hard look at the forest before you decide to start chopping down and planting new trees.

I am jumping into this a bit late, but I couldnt help myself..... the stuff about claymores not cutting actually hurt when I heard it.... I guess if you wanna get picky about what "cut" means you can distinguish what the claymore does by using the word "cleave" instead. Its a "Blade" as Prophet astutely noted, and blades are meant to cut, and claymores have a nice bit of distance from cross guard to pommel allowing for MEAN and NASTY cuts due to lots of tork, and even a writs cut from one of these puppies is brutal!

If you want knock down from the weapons you can do what I do and when a character takes a lot of shock from a wound I often declare him knocked off his feet or off balance or whatever and say that the shock is representative of this. Role playing is not all numbers, if you want knockdown from swords in your campaign, use your role as story teller and ruler of your world to just say there is or isnt a knockdown resultant from a blow or series of blows.

Valamir wrote: How does any of this matter? Man you are getting so caught up in detailed characteristics of weapons that we only understand in the most basic sense compared to their actual masters that you seem to be missing the whole point of the game.

The game is about the quest for the riddle and how your character uses and reacts to what he believes in along the path for that quest. Not about what the odds of knocking someone down with a claymore is. Back up and take a good hard look at the forest before you decide to start chopping down and planting new trees.

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: I am jumping into this a bit late, but I couldnt help myself..... the stuff about claymores not cutting actually hurt when I heard it.... I guess if you wanna get picky about what "cut" means you can distinguish what the claymore does by using the word "cleave" instead. Its a "Blade" as Prophet astutely noted, and blades are meant to cut, and claymores have a nice bit of distance from cross guard to pommel allowing for MEAN and NASTY cuts due to lots of tork, and even a writs cut from one of these puppies is brutal!

If you want knock down from the weapons you can do what I do and when a character takes a lot of shock from a wound I often declare him knocked off his feet or off balance or whatever and say that the shock is representative of this. Role playing is not all numbers, if you want knockdown from swords in your campaign, use your role as story teller and ruler of your world to just say there is or isnt a knockdown resultant from a blow or series of blows.

Actually, the primary purpose would be killing. any way you could do it. Pommel 2 inches through forehead or diembowelment,.... death is the "primary" purpose. Not knocking someone over, not cutting, not slicing, each is a means to an end not the end itself of the weapon.
how the weapon is used determines a large part of the details this debate encomapsses Cutting off amans head will definetely knock him down while also cutting end result: dead. very very dead.
The nice thing about TROS is that the rules don't dictate everything, the rules form the basis for a structure around which the player and the seneschal can dictate the means and the results in a fun way. I am glad you are having fun adapting it to fit you and your players.

and I will do some research into your side of the debate prophet, it really does NOT sit well with me so I will look into it further, you mentioned a history channel special... which one? And jake, do any of your books discuss this topic?

And someone mentioned stabbing with a katana with the curve up... wouldn't a lateral thrust ( blade parrelel to the ground) be more effective due to ribs? why would you thrust vertically? Just wondering if I understand this principle right....

i cant recall the show, but it featured two guys from arma, who were showing how swords were used... its come on at least 2 times that i know of, and i taped one of them, unfortunately, my wife may have copied over it, i'll do some checking on the history channels website and see what i can find

well, i found the tape it was on, however i recorded goldeneye over it, never got to see the movie..lol

no luck so far with historychannel.com though, still looking

ok, one of the shows i mentioned was called "History Alive: Arms in Action Volume 3: The Sword"

that was the one i mentioned that had others in its series (castles and seiges ETC)

EDIT, found the name of the show, it was called "Axes, Swords, and Knives"

heres the description from the website

"They have been part of man's weaponry since the Paleolithic age, when the cutting edges were fashioned from flint and other stones. For the thousands of years before the invention of gunpowder, they were the mainstay of every army's arsenal. Today, they are still in constant use, whether for recreation, practical purposes or ceremony.

AXES, SWORDS AND KNIVES is a comprehensive look at the world of edged weapons. Trace their development through the ages by looking at ancient blades recovered at historic sites worldwide. Watch as a craftsman hones swords from scratch using traditional methods. Meet John Clements, whose research into historic combat has shed light on the reasons behind certain designs. Attend an axe-throwing contest in Eagle River, Wisconsin and tour the legendary Victorinox factory where Swiss Army Knives are made.

Whether felling trees or spreading butter, blades remain a vital tool today."

http://www.armanortheast.com/John%20Clements.htm

thats one website for pictures from it.... that show singlehandly changed my approach to sword fighting in RPGs..especially when dealing with bastard swords.....

maybe i misunderstood mr clements in the episode.... who knows.. but the impression he gave me from what he was talking about at the time "mention that "a large sword of that nature (claymore style) had to move too much material out of the way, to be an effective cutting intrument"... something to that effect)

prophet-

I'm getting what you're saying a little better. First off, I know John C. and Paul Champagne both personally, so I get where they're coming from. The claymore does cut, but "chop" might be a better word. Fact is that it wouldn't have had an edge if it wasn't meant to use it. That's self-explanatory. I'm going to see john in 2 weeks and I'll ask him what he meant, which may help. It is not a "cutting" instrument like, say, a katana...but it can still cause the flesh to open up.

Another issue is one of armor. Greatswords (like the claymore) were used to "bash into" an opponent so that you could use different moves against him, and in this matter it is not unlike a club in that you're not even trying to cut the opponent.

Unfortunately, because I don't get TV, I haven't seen the program (but I keep hoping my copy will show up in the mail...even though it's been 8 months...)

Jake

well if i hadnt recored goldeneye over my copy....lol

the tape from history channel is like 24 bucks... right now i have better things i couold buy with 24 bucks

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/greatswordonmeat.mpv

Also, you can't see it that well in the video, but he's executing half-arm cuts...meaning not a full-power swing by any degree.

See also http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm
For more cool stuff like that.

This is John C. cutting with a greatsword (a claymore is a kind of greatsword).

Jake

well i think what he probably meant in the show was that the techniques behind it required alot less finesse than say a long sword or rapier, really in miy mind the claymore and many other great swords are just huge poles that happen to have a semi sharp edge to them, they didnt have to be sharp (thats part of what joihn said in the show, i think)... they didnt have to be sharp, because of the force behind the swing, in essence making it a club... sorta i think

as for the video... man im on dial up 56k (connected right now at 31.2), them videos would take all day to load...lol

Okay...

Understand that I talk with John all the time and that I've handled and cut with these things.

They require plenty of finesse. And almost no european sword has to be sharp. What is true is that a greatsword relies on a number of pole-weapon like maneuvers (the longer the sword, the more true this is). Check out the video...really.

jake

i beleive you...ive seen the history channel show, i know the fun of what you refer to as half sword.... least i think thats what john was doing.....lol

basically using every surface of the bastard sword as a point of attack....quillons, pommel, flat, point, hilt itself......stuff like that.... really enlightening

I saw that show on thehistory channel, The think what JC was sayin was actually contradictory to what you interpreted it to mean. He was talking about why a Claymore cut BETTER than thin swords. The broader the blade the better for cleaving through material due to the whole Bite thing and being able to push aside the material, he compared it to thin bladed weapons and how they are unable to cut as well and are better aimed to pierce armor and thus the mention of the tapered bastard sword and the estoc which had distinct cutting abilities compared to long and great swords.