Explanation of Sword Chucks

Sabelo2000 · 11-12-2004, 10:15 AM

The other problem is that no slashing weapon is effective against heavy armor. If you look at the weapons that were actually used in actual battles against actual armored opponents, it becomes clear that the spear, axe, and mace were the favored weapons. The Roman gladius and Greek short sword (both of which were secondary to the spear) were often not even sharpened on the sides, but presented a very dangerous point that could punch through bronze breastplate. Most large swords were only ceremonial in application, like the German zwiehander. Even this huge sword would only put a dent in full-plate armor (which was, like the zwiehander, never used in actual battle.) Against a typical chain-mailed opponent, the sword could be effective because putting the entire force of a 5-pound blade into a thin plane would at least break whatever bone was under the armor. Again, though, the edges were not sharpened.

It was the lightly-armored Turks and Chinese who used slashing swords such as the scimitar and wakazashi. These swords were rumored to be so finely honed they could slice a silk scarf floating in the air.

Both of these archetypes, however, are impossible to use effectively when swinging one sword on the end of a chain. Its path through the air would tumble and wobble, so even if the desired body part were hit, it would be the wide (and weak) flat of the blade most likely to make contact. And as we all know, applying force to the flat of a blade simply snaps it.

Advantage: guy who's not trying to use sword-chucks.

11-12-2004, 10:15 AM	#28
Sabelo2000 0/1 Trample Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 27	The other problem is that no slashing weapon is effective against heavy armor. If you look at the weapons that were actually used in actual battles against actual armored opponents, it becomes clear that the spear, axe, and mace were the favored weapons. The Roman gladius and Greek short sword (both of which were secondary to the spear) were often not even sharpened on the sides, but presented a very dangerous point that could punch through bronze breastplate. Most large swords were only ceremonial in application, like the German zwiehander. Even this huge sword would only put a dent in full-plate armor (which was, like the zwiehander, never used in actual battle.) Against a typical chain-mailed opponent, the sword could be effective because putting the entire force of a 5-pound blade into a thin plane would at least break whatever bone was under the armor. Again, though, the edges were not sharpened. It was the lightly-armored Turks and Chinese who used slashing swords such as the scimitar and wakazashi. These swords were rumored to be so finely honed they could slice a silk scarf floating in the air. Both of these archetypes, however, are impossible to use effectively when swinging one sword on the end of a chain. Its path through the air would tumble and wobble, so even if the desired body part were hit, it would be the wide (and weak) flat of the blade most likely to make contact. And as we all know, applying force to the flat of a blade simply snaps it. Advantage: guy who's not trying to use sword-chucks. __________________ "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."