Welcome to Gaia! ::

The reason why the Katana's were perfected so long (which i HIGHLY doubt) would bebecause of how shitty the materials are in japan. Why the hell do you think in world war 2 they needed the other asian countires supplies? I mean really, they don't have s**t for resources. Their metal is so horrible which is WHY they had to fold it so much, to remove the impurities.

Also, about the romans comment. The pikes weren't their primary weapons. It was the Gladius, they'd form in the phalanx and stick the gladius out, not the pike, their pikes (had a special name, philus or something) was used as a projectile. And entire known world? Whatever happened to eastern europe? Or Germany? ESPECIALLY Germany.

Anyway, everyone knows Halberd > Lochaber

I would have to argue - the Halberd is primarily a thrusting weapon, as its cutting axe edge is much smaller then that of the Lochaber.

The Halberd was also primarlily used for footman support against calvery as well a formation fighting, whist the scots showed BRTUAL effecncy in use of the Lochaber during the British occupation of the dark ages, its heavy blaed was effective for both a deadly thrust, as well as a chop that could shuck a mans head from his armor like a clam from the shell.

In fact - the only reason the scots lost was simple.

Less men, less disipline, poor equipment qulaity.

If they had these, they would have walked up and DOWN the british a** all over the highlands.

The reason I bring this up, is since I have SEVERAL defciens in my fighting styles, I tend notto bhlock low and I cant kick for s**t, I utilize plenty of tactics during combat, ways to work around my issues by using my envoroment and soemtimes my opponents body against him.

I LOVE using those fancy spinning kicks as leverage. whee

I read the entire thing before I posted, so shut your a** up.



This is the only time you MENTION the b*****d sword. You never "Emphasized" or explained. You MENTIONED it ONCE. And then you went on to talk about armor. Everything else was long sword.

Also, I'm not a fanboy. And maybe, maybe if you perchance listened to me, I never said "katana is the best blade WOO!" I didn't mention anything but you comparing katanas to European blades.

And if you had read my entire post, you would've seen that I said if you took a modern samurai and a modern knight, the KNIGHT WOULD WIN.

READ CLOSER, IDIOT.

Mirko: It doesn't matter why they perfected it; the whole point was that the katanas were perfected, meaning they would last longer and work better and with more quality than the crappily, mass-produced European blades.

Crap. Ignore my failure at BBCode.

A modern knight can be Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger(yes they were both knighted) and a few others.

Christ this topics gotten right out of hand......

What I meant by modern knight and samurai were people who trained in those respective arts with modernized weapons... (A swords created any time in 1900s or later) and armor, from the same time, with styles, from any time really, since those would kind of have to be modernized.

Not... actual people who were knighted and some crazy person who thinks he's a samurai sweatdrop

Right good topic but there are quite a few points that need clearing up.
You're right on the most part, there is a mythlike thing with the katana that is competely unjustified, a friend of mine is convinced despite several arguements against it on my part that a katana can cut through anything, that it can slice straight through three people or any western sword... stressed I tried telling him its physically impossible but he just wont have it.
Right points to note:

First. Form fits function. Comparing the katana to the b*****d sword or any other sword is like comparing a gardening spade to a shovel. Different tools for different jobs.
Second. A katana can chop a standard 9mm bullet in half, the only problems is getting it in front of the bullet in the first place and the fact you'll then have two or more bits of bullet flying towards you instead of one...
Third. Yes the katana can get damaged as easily if not more easily than any other metal implement. The hardened steel core actually chips very very easily. If its not used a katana could keep a good edge for a long long time.

About the romans... sorry but that is totally wrong, many other people have pointed it out but I'm gonna expand on it. The early republican army did use the phalanx method but it was abandoned in the post-marian era for being too inflexible. The phlanx worked great for the greeks as they had great huge plains to wheel and manuever in, the roman legion needed to be far more flexible. It was the gladius which enabled the romans to conquer most of the known world, far from being a backup weapon it was the mainstay of the roman army. The typical legionaire carried two pilum which were hurled at the enemy before contact and then they used the gladius. Its simple when you think about it, in your typical barbarian army with great huge long swords, they needed room to swing, so they would mostly be standing at least four foot apart to be effective. But your roman legionaire with his tiny pig sticker and scutum (bloody enormous square shield) could stand shoulder to shoulder with his companions. So basically in battle there would be two to three legionaires to every barbarian. The roman attack method was simple and drilled relentlessly. Step and push with shield then stab, over and over like a machine. It was extremely effective, very hard to block and to your average barbarian very psychologically weakening. Put yourself in his place, battle is joined and your face to face with a legionaire (ignoring the two/three on one thing). You've got your long sword but due to the press of battle you have it over your shoulder and the only thing you can do with it is a big downward swing. The roman scutum, helm and armour are specifically designed to stop and deflect exactly that type of attack. So thump, your best and only attack has been and not worked. Next thing you know there's a wickedly sharp tongue of metal thrusting towards your abdomen, not nice, if you survive this you get a large shield boss in the face and then the stab again. Its not long before you've got a five inch gaping hole in your guts and you're bleeding all over the place. Not only was it evilly effective but it took less energy so your roman legionaire could keep up the same step poke step poke all day. To sum up it was the gladius and along with their organisation and disapline which enabled the romans to conquer most of the known world, not spears or pikes. This method was at the fore front of military prowess for the best part of five hundred years, not many other weapons/methods could say the same. And it wasn't actually a failure of the gladius that brought down the empire, it was a failure of the disapline and organisation required to effectively use it.
Phew rant over... sorry about that, its a topic I have lots of interest in and know quite a lot about.