Explanation of Sword Chucks

[The Dark Mage]

Someone mentioned that weaponsmithing isn't a school thing... well if I really wanted.. I could make some in woodshop.. but meh I'll wait till im in college to learn metalworking.

[R2Keen2]

The design of a european blade capitalized more upon thrust than slashing. Using a chain you add reach but sacrifice the constant high amount of pressure it would take to pierce armour. From a slashing point of view you lack control over what part of the blade hits (granted you can control to some extent because air might pose enough resistance to right the blade). The idea of a blade the looks more like a cross from point down comes with the draw back of air resistance because its no longer aerodinamic(advantage of the regular blade) and instead of 2 blunt sides you've got voids of air inbetween the blades, if the hit lands so two blades hit you a lot of power is lost awhen distributed across two egdes decreasing damage output.

Nunchuck - Blunt Weapon
Sword - Peircing, Slashing Weapon

While it is indeed posible to use a sword as a blunt weapon or a nunchuck as a slashing or piercing weapon your sacrificing many of its advantages for a secondary style. Combining the two all together is just detrimental to their purpose and on any level it would remain secondary in skill to a trained person in a regular weapon.

[Skyshot]

R2Keen2, I've studied the English martial arts, which, unless I'm mistaken, are European. One thing I've kind of picked of on is that swords are slashing weapons.

Anyways, how many of you who have posted theories on this have studied broadswords (which, by the way, are typically 3 feet long, not 5 feet long) or nunchucks? Neither one works quite the way you think it would.

How would sword-chucks work, then? Well, that sprite of Fighter when he attacks Kary actually looks kind of workable. However, when one fights with nunchucks, they generally use one of the things, not two. It allows for more control. The same goes for broadswords; generally if those are accompanied by another weapon, it's a dagger of some sort. However, Fighter can pick a cow and balance it on a fence post (you try it!), so he can probably handle two broadswords.

One question about sword-chucks is, how do you enter the fight? There are four basic opening stances in the English style; I wouldn't use any of them with nunchucks.

I suppose the only way to do is is to watch how Brian does it, and if anything makes no sense to more experienced martial artists, just say "A cartoonist did it."

[R2Keen2]

I've done a little research in both European and Oriental fighting technique. I would definitly not go so far as to say i've studied either. First i'd like to call you on the bastard sword comment.. to my understanding a bastard sword is usually used 2 handed however with practice can be used one handed. Following that logic one can eventually become able to duel wield the weapons, though you say its not possible. For the purpose of sword-chucks i assumed we were talking long/short swords, adding a chain and a second blade would make one sword-chuck let alone two overly challanging to perform with if using a bastard blade.

In the realm of fighting style i agree that nun-chucks would be largly useless in European combat, Fencing(dueling) is largly thrust based. I'm now sure how european would play out on an actual battlefield though the heavy armour would reduce many of a swords slashing to blunt damage upon collision. While the swords are capable of such combat that seems more of a fight while you wear the person down. The final blow would generally be dealt by standing over the fallen and with a quick downward thrust through the armour and into the heart. I do believe slashing could lead to blood loss and perhaps the occasional burst of an artery but armour would generally have to be bypassed with some type of thrust.. unless your Zoro.

Oriential style i believe is much more slashing based. I also don't think they used quite as much plate armour, more leather for freedom of movement so slashing had better odds of reaching the skin.

A Blunt weapon like a mace would be used to wear a target down and possibly with a good hit break the neck of a target where as nun-chucks seems like something you wear someone down with and finish with a second weapon. ultimatly you are combining two different style of combat and two different types of weapons into some mix that doesn't entirly seem feesible. Maxi's weapon in SCII is probably the closest you can get to sword-chucks(and like a dagger would be used for a final piercing blow rather than slashing).

[Skyshot]

Bastard swords are designed for usage with one or both hands. Longswords are two-handed weapons. Broadswords are one-handed. I haven't done much with shortswords.

I assume Fighter's swords are broadswords, as I've never seen him use one in both hands, and they're about the right length for it.

Incidentally, the English weren't part of the "hack 'em and slash 'em brigade," there was some sophistication to their fighting style,even in actual battle (as opposed to dueling). Dueling was the main thing I've studied, however, and most of my swordplay comments on this forum reflect that. You don't generally wear armor when you're dueling, so slashing is still effective.

Additionally, nunchucks can get pretty freaking heavy, so that second weapon probably isn't needed so much. Speaking of weight, broadswords tend to weigh around maybe three pounds. Combine that with the fact that it's three feet long, and you gradually begin to realize that a dagger (perhaps a poiniard, a dagger with tines like a sai) would be significantly more graceful in your other hand than another three-foot weapon.

No argument regarding the armor statements, I think you got that right.

[dementedmongoose]

They're simple to make: Instead of looking at the nunchuck in the traditional manner, instead look at the three staves on hinges thingy. Hinge your swords together with an equal length piece of bamboo, and SHAZAM! Swordchucks. Used similarly to the basic two blade arrangement, but with a defense piece in the center.

[Phoenixphire]

If you do that, they wouldn't be sword chucks. If we could just change the basic concept behind swordchucks to make them work, I could just say "lets take off the chain and one of the 2 swords, and then swordchucks would work very well!"

I do, however have a guess on how sword-chucks could work. It would be very expensive, but it just might work. Basically take regular nunchucks, add pomels to the end, and then add an extremely thin rapier blade to each pomel. It would work similarly to how you can cut things with a tightly strung very thin metal wire. It could strike equally effective from all angles, and it would be very light and aerodynamic (and it would make a neat-o sound when you swing it). There is one big, obvious problem, though. A single light strike with it would bend the blades and make them completely useless. The only way around this is to make them out of an incredibly durable material, and I doubt any material would be strong enough but diamond. And making a 2 or 3 foot wire-type blade with pure diamond would cost a fortune.

[Roland]

NOTE: This is coming from a guy who really has no idea how to properly wield a sword, and if he was given one, he's probably use it like he was still practicing the little knowledge of Tae Kwon Do that he has.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply use two shortswords, and instead of using the Sword Chucks as a pair of nunchucks with swords, wouldn't you use them as two swords, that happened to be chained together? As in, you're simply fighting with two swords, one in each hand, and the chain is just a bond between them, so that if you happened to drop one of the swords, it'd be easy to get it back in your hand, while maintaining you offensive or defensive strategy?

[Thanatos]

The ultimate problem with sword-chucks is not whether you would hack yourself to bits, but whether you would even be able to hack your opponent to bits.

While it is possible to control the sword-chucks well enough to keep from hitting yourself, unless you are extremely lucky, the best you would do to your opponent is bludgeon him/her to death. Making them no better than a heavy set of nunchucks.

You see it would be impossible to control what part of the sword hits the opponent, and odds are that it would be the flat of the blade, not the cutting edge or the point.

The ultimate solution to this problem would be to either a.) give the sword four cutting edges (picture the tip of a phillips head screwdriver) or b.) place spikes along the flat of the blade to maximize it's damage.

[Skyshot]

Originally Posted by Roland

Wouldn't it be easier to simply use two shortswords, and instead of using the Sword Chucks as a pair of nunchucks with swords, wouldn't you use them as two swords, that happened to be chained together? As in, you're simply fighting with two swords, one in each hand, and the chain is just a bond between them, so that if you happened to drop one of the swords, it'd be easy to get it back in your hand, while maintaining you [sic] offensive or defensive strategy?

Sorry, but I don't think it would work. You have to have total freedom of movement in both swords. It's bad enough that you have to worry about them smacking into each other(another reason to use a poiniard or dagger in your other hand rather than another sword); I'd rather not worry about getting a chain tangled up too. If you tried to slash with one sword, you'd pull the other one with it, taking it out of position. The only way to get around this would be to make the chain so long it wouldn't be very helpful in picking up your weapon.