[Seguleh 1st]

The Tyrant Lizard, on Dec 29 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Also fighting in formation with two weapons is far more risky to yourown side than fighting with sword and shield. I think it a general rule that unless the weapon requires two hands (battle axe or pike or something similar) the free hand should always be used or it's just wasted. Dirks were often used in close combat to finish an opponents whose sword had become trapped. And didn't the spartans use the shields themselves as weapons? If not, they should have. Sort of like a big round knuckle duster.

I wouldnt have thought two swords of the same length would be practical. The samurai had one long and one shorter, probably one for the primary hand being the long sword. Boxers favour a hand, and fight "sided", so maybe ancient warriors did too.

samurai never never never used two swords at a time!!! the short sword was reserved for suicide or self-defense in critical moments (when no katana/longsword was available). and, though it is displayed with ease in many fantasy novels or games, fighting with two swords at a time, much less two bastard sword or long swords, is quite unpracticable.

anyway, i place rake over everyone else in this books as a swordsman.

[Beren]

The samurai Miyamoto Musashi actually established a two-sword school of swordsmanship.

[Tapper]

Samurai fought with the longer sword only, two hands on the hilt. Miyamoto Musashi developed a theory about the use of both swords at once, but even he didn't fight with two weapons in any of his duels - while he felt confident to exchange his sword for a wooden pole and batter people to death with that, he didn't use two swords. I think that's a tell-tale sign

EDIT: didn't see Beren posted the above. It's a theory only, not a real school.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 30 December 2008 - 12:11 AM

[BeLeG]

I think Onos's power has grown.If Kilava is an ascendant then Onos can become one very soon

[Dragnipurake]

I don't know much about the real story, but in the toshiro mifune movie (2nd or 3rd part), the character uses both weapons at the same time. he uses a wooden stick in the final duel but actually kills with the short sword/knife.

Tapper, on Dec 29 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

Samurai fought with the longer sword only, two hands on the hilt. Miyamoto Musashi developed a theory about the use of both swords at once, but even he didn't fight with two weapons in any of his duels - while he felt confident to exchange his sword for a wooden pole and batter people to death with that, he didn't use two swords. I think that's a tell-tale sign

EDIT: didn't see Beren posted the above. It's a theory only, not a real school.

This post has been edited by Dragnipurake: 30 December 2008 - 07:36 PM

[Onos]

Tapper, on Dec 29 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Not entirely. Japanese medieval combat is very much shieldless (at the least, I haven't seen any picture of it in art), despite featuring a lot of expert archers. Same for the Tercio & Swiss pike regiments that dominated the battlefields of Italy and France for a time when the gun wasn't yet fully dominant.

Unarmoured or light armoured soldiers did fine in melee even during the Napoleontic times, when shooting routines weren't as dominant as one would think they were and a lot of fighting was done with the bayonet. True, casualties were staggering at times, but I think they were still lower than what SE regularly throws at us

Good find on the Swiss pikemen. From what i can find they dominated for around 40 years. They were used to take down heavy cavalry and to push through infantry. Having units to protect their flanks helped greatly. They were also relatively easy to equip, even though better training did significantly improve their usefulness. At that time armies were starting to increase in size, and my impression is archers were starting to fade as it was expensive to train them. Much better to give 10+ peasants a pike and simply overrun a single archer. Anyway, during the dominance of the pike, gunpowder took over and that did finish off shields. To tie in the Seguleh... not sure they would fair too well against a pike wall.

I agree light armoured soldiers still did well after that, though i will clarify that i meant my comments to be about the period before gunpowder, which is more like the Malaz world. Still need to look at Japanese field combat... will leave that til tomorrow.

[Chance]

Onos, on Dec 31 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

Good find on the Swiss pikemen. From what i can find they dominated for around 40 years. They were used to take down heavy cavalry and to push through infantry. Having units to protect their flanks helped greatly. They were also relatively easy to equip, even though better training did significantly improve their usefulness. At that time armies were starting to increase in size, and my impression is archers were starting to fade as it was expensive to train them. Much better to give 10+ peasants a pike and simply overrun a single archer. Anyway, during the dominance of the pike, gunpowder took over and that did finish off shields. To tie in the Seguleh... not sure they would fair too well against a pike wall.

I agree light armoured soldiers still did well after that, though i will clarify that i meant my comments to be about the period before gunpowder, which is more like the Malaz world. Still need to look at Japanese field combat... will leave that til tomorrow.

The reason why certain styles dominate real-world combat is not because they are the most efficient...a thousand swordmasters would be pretty nice a unit on a medival battlefield. Problem is its alot easier to find a few thousand peasants to carry a spear/pike or a bow/crossbow/handgun...ease of use/training is king on the battlefield.

About the Seguleh...they seem to be perfect ambidextrous a trait nearly unknown of amongst humans which is one of the reasons we usually do better with one dominante weapon...

The Japanese used a lot of archery and while the Samurai rarely used shields it is not uncommon amongst the rank-n-file peasantry with large shields...while medival japanese combat tend to focus on samurai its pretty important to realize they where just like the nobility in europe severly outnumbered on most larger battlefields by peasants carrying spears, bows and other less fancy weapons and fighting styles...

This post has been edited by Chance: 01 January 2009 - 06:16 PM

[Seguleh 1st]

i think whiskeyjack is very much underestimated here. some reasoning:
1. Dassem can attack faster than Karsa can see
2. Whiskeyjack used to spar with Dassem
3. It took Dassem a while to get past WJ's guard
=> WJ can parry faster than Karsa can see
=> WJ is better than Karsa

[Aptorian]

Seguleh 1st, on Jan 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

i think whiskeyjack is very much underestimated here. some reasoning:
1. Dassem can attack faster than Karsa can see
2. Whiskeyjack used to spar with Dassem
3. It took Dassem a while to get past WJ's guard
=> WJ can parry faster than Karsa can see
=> WJ is better than Karsa

But could WJ beat Wolverine?

[Bauchelain the Evil]

Seguleh 1st, on Jan 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

i think whiskeyjack is very much underestimated here. some reasoning:
1. Dassem can attack faster than Karsa can see
2. Whiskeyjack used to spar with Dassem
3. It took Dassem a while to get past WJ's guard
=> WJ can parry faster than Karsa can see
=> WJ is better than Karsa

I really doubt that when he sparred Dasssem Utor used the same velocity that he used against Rake

[celdiruen]

Bauchelain the Evil, on Jan 4 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

Seguleh 1st, on Jan 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

i think whiskeyjack is very much underestimated here. some reasoning:
1. Dassem can attack faster than Karsa can see
2. Whiskeyjack used to spar with Dassem
3. It took Dassem a while to get past WJ's guard
=> WJ can parry faster than Karsa can see
=> WJ is better than Karsa

I really doubt that when he sparred Dasssem Utor used the same velocity that he used against Rake

Yes but what is the point of sparring if not for practice? Meaning Dassem had to be trying, at least. Which puts Whiskeyjack as a formidable swordsman, in my eyes.

I hate Kallor. He should die in a fire.

[Illuyankas]

Assuming you guys are serious, explain how WJ or his sword is going to survive one swing from Karsa.

Also Kallor is awesome.

[Dancer+]

By the logic displayed in this thread, anyone who witnessed the Dassem/Rake battle is inferior to Skinner/Kallor/Whiskeyjack etc. as none of them could register the first blows...I love this type of logic.

[Grief]

Yes but consider the people watching the fight.
As far as I remember. Karsa was probably the best there, no?

Therefore, all you're really saying is WJ/Skinner/Kallor are better than Karsa.

Also Illy, thats silly reasoning.

Thats like saying you get someone like Killy, or whatever, who is strong, and can therefore beat any human swordsman such as dassem, no matter his skill...

WJ could parry Karsa same as Mok can parry Tool, etc. Uneven strength battles aren't exactly uncommon, and the strongest doesnt always win...

[Dancer+]

Grief, on Jan 4 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes but consider the people watching the fight.
As far as I remember. Karsa was probably the best there, no?

Therefore, all you're really saying is WJ/Skinner/Kallor are better than Karsa.

Also Illy, thats silly reasoning.

Thats like saying you get someone like Killy, or whatever, who is strong, and can therefore beat any human swordsman such as dassem, no matter his skill...

WJ could parry Karsa same as Mok can parry Tool, etc. Uneven strength battles aren't exactly uncommon, and the strongest doesnt always win...

You miss the point, I wasn't just referring to sword fighting ability I was talking about perception which is the skill which is being tested.

The Great Ravens etc. etc. thus by the logic should have worst perception than WJ/Skinner/Kallor...I don't think this is true.

[Illuyankas]

Grief. Karsa is going to attack with his eight foot long sword first, since he vastly outranges Whiskeyjack. His sword is going to cut right through both WJ's sword and WJ, no matter if he parries or not.

It's like saying that if you get someone who is fast, like WJ, against someone who is fast and strong and tough and has immense reach and a sword that breaks through Elder Warrens, like Karsa, then Karsa is going to win - because he is. There are more factors than just speed or strength, and Karsa has a lot of them. Also Tool is nowhere near as strong as Karsa is.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 04 January 2009 - 04:52 PM

[Aptorian]

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

Also Tool is nowhere near as strong as Karsa is.

I'm not sure about this one if we were talking the T'lan Imass Tool. Isn't there some suggestion of them being stronger than mortals?

[Illuyankas]

Yes, T'lan Imass are stronger than mortals. I said Karsa.

[Aptorian]

Oh please. Karsa looks like an american basketball player who's eaten steroids all his life, that plus his dense bodymass and bonestructure makes him what? 3-4 times as strong as an average human being, maybe more since people probably don't have a great diet in this midleage setting.

I don't think he's stronger than the T'lan Imass.

[Illuyankas]

Sorry, are we talking about the same Karsa here? Ascendant, nine foot tall, carries an eight foot tall sword made of stone and wields it faster than guys with shortswords, beat an intelligent adolescent T-Rex-with-arms to death with his bare hands? And you think a five foot tall skeleton is stronger than him?