Printable View
http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Funct...or_2006_92.jpg
That lovely piece of work, featured in countless cartoons, Aladdin and even the flag of a Waffen SS Muslim unit, its always seen right under the scimitar as the standard Saracen sword. But I've never once seen anything like it in my extensive studies of historical swords, never seen museum pictures and only once seen it in a serious movie, Kingdom of Heaven.
What is the story behind this thing? Whats it called and who used it, and when?
I have seen the sword a lot, but cannot understand why anyone would use it in combat, if they ever did. If the sword was used, it would more likely be the weapon of an executioner. Like an axe, but easier to clean... I looked for history on such swords, but have not found anything historical, just fantasy stuff and this thread.
Instead of calling it sword, I will call it a big knife. I guess a big knife is much easier to use than a sword...
HASSAN CHOP! Heh, good times, gooood times.
Good times indeed... :thumbsup2 Didnt see that toon in ages...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
BTW if im not mistaken, hashishans in TW Medieval had those swords (not very logical but CA isnt always very logical :shifty: ). Maybe some eunuch guards from harems had such weapons :hmmm: ?
I happen to have a sword similar to that. It's of course a real not, not all disproportuned like that one.
Have any pictures?
my brother has a bunch of swords, all historical replicas, and made by hand by a smith. Starting from the viking sword (2) to the german bastard sword , to a scotish claymore and to an original (non replica) japanese police "mini katana" with snakeskin handle from 200 years ago. he also brought some military knifes (they are huge), from Iraq, used by the saddam-era military.
I'll post some pics later..
Its a scimitar, why is it so hard to picture its use in battle? Its designed entirely for chopping as opposed to thrusting. The chinese Dao has a similar design. The katana, the best and most famous sword of all time, incorporated a similar taper curve into the blade. Also with the intent to improve slashing/cutting power.
Middle eastern swords frequently looked like that, didnt they? I remember in Robin Hood, the one with Kevin Costner...Morgan Freeman has the same cliche saracen sword.
Why not use it in battle? It has a curved blade which should cut in better than a straight one (atleast feels like that in my mind... haven't really chopped people with different kinds of swords to find out). Also it's weight is quite near the tip which also means that once you get it moving it hits with force. All things considered it seems a reasonable sword to me.
Katana was not the best. Became the most famous simply because of weeaboos. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by RZZZA
Most famous might be based on culture, but I tend to think it'd be the Cross-guard straight longsword. :yes:
And Middle eastern swords usually look like that in media, but it seems that prior to the Turks and the takeover of the scimitar in the 11th-13th century, the norm was straight swords, with some exceptions (khopesh, persian curved sword, and falcata).
Actually katana was pretty much the best, the curve is perfectly balanced enough for the perfect cut/slice, yet not so extreme so that it can be used for a good thruster. The steel is pretty much the best in the world, the balance is perfectand the martial art to accompany it it is near impossible to beat once perfected. Thats not to say it's invincible, of course not, but if a sword HAD to be considered the best, it would probably be the katana. The only thing I see really giving it trouble is a rapier, but thats because of the difference of use between the two.
Sorry, I'm not about to let the katana get denied it's proper right just because of a few Wapanese or "Otakus".
A sword alone, perhaps the katana. But with sufficient armour and shielding, I'd go with the gladius for its devastating thrusting abilities in close orders. The Samurai were never tested against an opponent of sufficient calibre, so its very hard to judge - they can hardly be lauded as sensational warriors when it comes to fighting foreign opponents. The Roman legionaires fought a wide array of opponents and dominated much of Europe for centuries on the back of the gladius. From an individual standpoint I could understand the argument behind the katana's revered status, which is how the Japanese fought, but in tactical bodies.. well, I just don't see anything to convince me that this blade could cut through a maniple. Its more of a cultural phenomenon, until I see convincing evidence to the contrary.
Its weighted at the top which makes it easier to swing with. This feature preety much makes it a 1 shot weapon. Once you swing its hard to pull back up and the enmy will have seconds to stab you with his more battle wise armament.
anyone watched that show recently on discovery channel, or history channel about trying to find the perfect close combat weapon? They were using computers to analyze each weapons advantages and disadvantages. They tested several historical swords, kanes, nunchakus.
The winner of the most efficient and most versatile and strongest weapon is the japanese katana. Scientifically proven.
:thumbsup2
Well... was it best for 1 vs 1 melee combat or large units conflict? If it's man against man katana prolly would pwn if used correctly. On the other hand I really don't see it having any advantage in unitcombat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Yup, Fight Science? I love that kinda stuff. They had a guy who mastered ninjitsu on there showcasing his superior balance...neat stuff. For weapons, I will always favor greater reach over anything else. swords like the gladius and this scimitar, to me, always seem to be disfavorable when matched against...longswords, katanas, even staffs and spears, which allow for much greater reach and speed. That seems like everything important to me. And as someone said before me, the katana balances every aspect perfectly, speed, power, reach...
So I dunno why someone would choose to use some of these weapons, like the scimitar in actual battle. Seems cumbersome and unweildy to me. The gladius is accurate and reliable but its too short, you cant seriously expect to deflect powerful strikes by the longswords/broadswords/katanas with a dinky gladius. The thing is basically a bowie knife.
edit: a rapier could probably beat a katana...as long a youe faster.
ugh..no. this blade's piercing tip might not be suitable for heavy armor, but if it does pierce, the triangular and enlarging head will prove to be fatal, and probabbly one thurst and the guy wouldnt have a chance of surviving. it is used primarily for cuting, however its piercing capability is also very deadly. but overall, although this is a scimitar, its more of a fantasy version. and these pictures below show what real scimitars looked like. the katanas are a popular weapon and good for cuting up meat, but it lacks penetration power aginest even lether armor. and the ones which were especially made to penetrate suffered a problem of breaking. if you really got a fetish for slashing weapons, id advise for glaves and axes(more like hacking thou :laughter:). but the bottom line on melee weapons is that, if your expert on a weapon, it wouldnt really matter that much. although spears and daggers/knives, pitchforks, or hell, a sharp twig suffers from melee penalties(note, this is refering to merge/duels, in formation combat, its quite different).Quote:
Originally Posted by RZZZA
http://www.excaliburbrothers.com/mem...d/20-7060L.jpg
http://www.bladehut.com/osc/images/scimitar3.jpg
edit: oh yea, crossbows > melee.
edit2x: forgot to point out that, although spears have melee penalties, the halberdiers, or atlest trained halberdiers do not have a disadvantage in melee.