Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kail" data-source="post: 1005998" data-attributes="member: 8851">No, the opposition quoted a more accurate weight, which you did not believe, based on your "reception" as opposed to actual facts.  Lines in question.  Other poster:"Most weapons that can be compared to the D&D "longsword" didn't break 3 pounds(although hand-and-a-half swords did) and a lot of the lighter ones were just a few ounces over 2 pounds." to which your replied:"You're the one who just lost all credibility thank you very much. Most of the numbers in the D&D books for weight are actually pretty close.Hard time finding a battle-ready greatsword weighing 7 pounds? Damn skippy, considering the lightest would be around 10 pounds."   and "Longswords weighing 2 pounds?! My BOOTS weigh 2 pounds, man. So do D&D books. No way does ANY sword over a foot weigh that little unless it's made out of aluminum or titanium (neither a good option of course). Steel is heavy, man. The katana weighs in at 3-6 pounds standard, and a longsword slightly more (although I so believe the 7 pounds one I have is on the heavy end)."Both from the same post where you inform a poster they have lost credibility because their facts don't measure up to your preceptions.And that you believe the katana to be a "faster" weapon is not much more than a matter of opinion.  Have you seen a European sword weilded with any skill?  I'm looking at a link to an Albion forged long sword, comign in at almost exactally 2.5lbs.  A double edged balde, that does not need to be reversed in order to be put into play can be used on a back swing, thus gaining the advantage in that single thing.  The actual time to exicute a cut, and at what range, would depend more on the skill level and physical strength of the user.  The relative weights and lengths of the weapons would also come into play.  Granted, the European bastard swords are generally balanced more toward the point to deliever a more powerful blow, and this would cause some lows during the recovery phase of a strike, to insist that you could put a katana into play at the same range, with more speed, in one hand is a bit of a laugh.  If your long sword "feels" like it weighs 7bls, you've still either got a baddly made sword, or need to practice with it a bit more.  That aside, what makes you think that the rapier reacts faster?  And why pick the katana and the rapier as the two best swords?  They existed last, not because they were better, but because they suited the invornment they were in, which was heavily influenced by the society which formed that invironment.  The first, xenophobic and closed off from the rest of the world, not evolving militarily for almost 400 years.  Social preasures were very much toward keeping the old ways.  The other, in a constantly changing invornment where a new weapon, the firearm, was changing the way of the battle field and armor had begun to fall by the wayside long since.  It was a civilian weapon, not a military one, used for personal fights, and not the battle field, where larger, more robust weapons were still the norm for anyone "issued" a sword for combat purposes.</blockquote>

Verification