|
Sounds like a nice present! And as for my post, I kind of agree with everyone here/admit ignorance? I even tried throwing a hyperbole in there. But it doesn't matter. I am myself sometimes suspicious when someone claims they meant something the opposite way it was taken. Although it does happen to me. It's no biggie if I take the loss. However, my point in general is that the duel in Potop gets talked about and the criticism actually seems to be mostly a mirror imagine of that levelled at the one in The King. Potop: Something something... never parry... you want to deny space to your opponent and if you're trying to do that there is no reason to make a move that can be realistically parried... if you're having space denied you you won't gain the initiative back to parrying... swords cost a million dollars... they're the symbol of your family's martial history and pride. The King: Something something... why don't they use their swords more defensively?... you want to use yours to control theirs... yeah the Star Wars duels and swashbuckler flicks are bs but you lose ground if you just step back. I never said that anyone in either camp, including me, knew an iota on the subject. Although there is a reasonable sub-debate in both fandoms of the practical value of doing the helicopter with your phallic symbol at the start or middle of combat, as the Colonel demonstrates here and Robert Pattison does at the end of The King.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
zoux posted:Tod from his eponymous workshop has a few videos talking about the build quality of medieval swords, even those owned by some of the wealthiest lords of the era, and how inconsistent and shoddy they are compared with modern forging. With access to modern, standardized steel stock, modern measurement, metallurgy, and other methods, he says he can make a "perfect" replica, but wrestles with how many of the imperfections to include in a replica, since they are a part of the piece. Disclaimer: I am not a metallurgist. Modern sport fencing swords are required to be made with a process called "maraging." As I understand it this makes the blade less susceptible to cracking into a jagged edge if it breaks. This is because in 1982 a Russian Olympian named Vladimir Smirnov was killed when a blade broke, went through his mask, his eye, and his brain at a World Championship. Also masks are a LOT stronger and protective gear is made with rip-stop fabrics. I've seen the old foils made before this change. They're even more solid and heavy; the joke in fencing is that they're made from melted down T-34s. (They aren't, it's just a joke.) They're really solid and less likely to break - the problem is that if they do, they break into a sharp point, which is bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
Bright Bart posted:I never said that anyone in either camp, including me, knew an iota on the subject. Although there is a reasonable sub-debate in both fandoms of the practical value of doing the helicopter with your phallic symbol at the start or middle of combat, as the Colonel demonstrates here and Robert Pattison does at the end of The King. My dude, no poo poo, I did that exact move ina sabre tournament about a year ago. I knew the other guy was a LOT better than me and was way down in the points. I stepped back and flipped my sabre around like that. He laughed, I got in a lunge and a point. He then kicked my rear end 15-8. Cessna fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
Bright Bart posted:Sounds like a nice present! So a few points. First - both duels are the climax of a piece of cinema, rather than "just" two people fighting. Therefore in both fights, stupid and realistic things happen to ensure the audience gets the right message. Second - they are both simulating vastly different types of swordfighting. The King is displaying a duel between two knights in full plate armour in the 15th century, both using what we'd call "longswords" that can be used in one or two hands and also rondal daggers. The Deluge is representing more of a "formal duel" of the 18th to 19th century. Both fighters are unarmoured, and using one-handed sabres. This leads to entirely different ways of fighting. In the King, when you are both in full plate, then you mostly win by getting a strong strike in a vital area and pushing through the chainmail. If you can't do this in open swordplay, then control their sword and grapple them to gain control enough to stab through the chain with a dagger, which is how the fight ends. Hanging out at distance does nothing, because to wound your opponent you need to close - even if its just advancing to thrust at the chainmail at the neck, as Henry does at the start. You're not really afraid of getting stabbed as you advance or taking glancing blows to the arms or hands. The actual fight has the loser do a bunch of overly-wild swinging which would be useless, but he does also have a sword that is more suitable to use with one hand and a stronger chop than Henry (look at the pommels, Henry's have comfortable space for two hands, the other guys barely fits). If you're retreating the other guy is just gonna advance because he's not afraid of getting stabbed or cut in the arms either, but doesn't mean they can't open up a vulnerability to close play as they do so. In the Deluge, neither side is wearing armour, and both have one-handed swords. This means that if you try and fight like they were fighting in The King, you get skewered because your bent arm has less reach that their extended arm, and you have to step towards them to try and hit anything other than their arm. Furthermore, one of them isn't even trying to kill the other guy. He has multiple opportunities to murder the aggressive fighter and doesn't take them, until the very end where he's so humiliated he just begs to be killed. It's not a "real" fight in the sense both aren't trying to kill the other guy at their full abilities. Two good fights in a cimema can both be "good" fencing, and also be completely different. That's because fighting a duel was completely different in different eras with different weapons and different dueling cultures. And in a film, the fight is "good" if it suits as a emotional climax to a section of the story, not if the fencing is technically perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
They put guards on swords so when the opponent's blade hits yours it doesn't go down and cut your hand. Your weapon is intended to make contact. While damage to blades do happen, it's usually minor. And if your sword is that fragile that it can be significantly damaged in normal use, it probably sucks. Or it's a ceremonial sword that isn't meant to be used at all.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
what's up with those revolving grenade launchers? Other than looking cool. Seems like you'd need a dedicated grenadier but maybe they're really light idk
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:what's up with those revolving grenade launchers? Other than looking cool. Seems like you'd need a dedicated grenadier but maybe they're really light idk Supposedly great (read: war crimey) for clearing buildings in urban fighting in Chechnya rounds 1 & 2, according to a memoir I read. More repetitive booms than say a US Grenadier with their single shot underbarrel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:what's up with those revolving grenade launchers? Other than looking cool. Seems like you'd need a dedicated grenadier but maybe they're really light idk Pretty sure they're not allowed in dueling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
Since dueling itself is no longer allowed, I say it's combatant beware, if you can find someone to meet you on the field of honor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:what's up with those revolving grenade launchers? Other than looking cool. Seems like you'd need a dedicated grenadier but maybe they're really light idk seems more useful as a tear gas projector or w/e wack chemical agent a cop or paramilitary would choose than something for tossing HE rounds
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:Pretty sure they're not allowed in dueling. Pretty sure the challenged party gets to pick the weapons so next time someone calls you out, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Turn at one thousand paces!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:seems more useful as a tear gas projector or w/e wack chemical agent a cop or paramilitary would choose than something for tossing HE rounds There's not a soldier in the world who turns down the ability to bring more firepower with him. Soldiers love having more firepower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
sullat posted:Pretty sure the challenged party gets to pick the weapons so next time someone calls you out, go for it. Blunderbusses and hot air balloons!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
US been having revolver style grenade launchers for like almost ten years, at least for the marines. Most the dudes I’ve asked seem to like it. M32 I believe is the designation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:There's not a soldier in the world who turns down the ability to bring more firepower with him. Soldiers love having more firepower. thats true tbh. if the infantryman had his way, his fireteam would be 3 lmgs and a grenade launcher i guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Cessna posted:How long does it take to stab someone who hosed your mom and brags about it? Because I can impale you with a smallsword.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:thats true tbh. if the infantryman had his way, his fireteam would be 3 lmgs and a grenade launcher i guess Oh no, they wouldn't be light mg. And they would have at least one vehicle
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:what's up with those revolving grenade launchers? Other than looking cool. Seems like you'd need a dedicated grenadier but maybe they're really light idk rapid fire grenade launchers were first prototyped by the special ops types in Vietnam, the intention was a lot of firepower in a handheld package, for Ambush and counter-ambush. and yes the guy who carried them was typically a dedicated, practiced grenadier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:From my experience of HEMA (both participating and watching those much better) it depends on the weapon. With a longsword, even fights between good fencers tend to be over very fast as soon as one person commits - disengaging safely once someone commits to a strike or stab is hard, and won't happen more than once or twice before someone makes a mistake. However, that is using the paradigm of unarmed longsword duelling, which is not very common historically - there's evidence it happened in 15th Italy despite being illegal (a duel to the death can only be legal if you have a sovereign judging it in the legal tradition of the time, and if you have pull to organise that you're rich enough you're doing it in armour.) Yeah I suppose I'm also assuming that that higher-skilled people in higher-stakes (i.e. life or death at a stroke) combat are going to be more cautious. Gold medal judo tends to be much more cautious than world championship boxing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They put guards on swords so when the opponent's blade hits yours it doesn't go down and cut your hand. Your weapon is intended to make contact. While damage to blades do happen, it's usually minor. And if your sword is that fragile that it can be significantly damaged in normal use, it probably sucks. Or it's a ceremonial sword that isn't meant to be used at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Aren't old-fashioned Japanese swords unusually fragile, or at least really optimized for particular cutting strokes? I was never sure how much of that was mythology/counter-mythology. My understanding is that they vary the hardness of the blade to optimize its strength and flexibility. The edge is hard, so that it can hold its edge properly, while the rest of the blade is softer and tougher, so it can stand up to abuse better. I gather that this is not even remotely something special about Japanese swordsmiths; smiths throughout the world were using surprisingly precise techniques to get the best material properties they could out of their pieces. Steel is very sensitive to exact procedures; things like slightly changing the peak temperature, cooling rate, and proportion and type of impurities can drastically change the properties of the resulting material. It took until the modern era to really nail down the best procedures, but there was plenty of room to optimize from the basic "heat metal, hit metal with hammer, quench" process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Didn't Japan have generally terrible iron which is why they had to resort to layering their swords like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Didn't Japan have generally terrible iron which is why they had to resort to layering their swords like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
i'm not drawing from any source more reliable than my own biases but i reckon the same (Victorian-era? i think?) historians who derided medieval swords as heavy blunt objects are responsible for the classic weaboo perception of Japanese swordsmithing as superior to the west, when it looks like it was all pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
You fold and hammer and fold again when you're working with any bloomery metal. It's part of what you have to do to get a solid and homogeneous billet to work with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Stabbed with what? That's what I told your mom  But anyway, people weirdly often gloss over the circumstances of the fight. The stereotypical duel is fought over male honour, which is a polite way of saying someone is hopping mad and would like to stab someone about it. And because male honour is a social construct, there’s also a social expectation as to how vigorously you should defend it. Which is to say that in 17th century France a duel with your political opponent might look like you and three of your mates jumping your enemies on the street after a pub crawl, and in 19th century France it means asking the editor to please put in the newspaper you got mad. Depending on the time and the place, people would consider "proper conduct" literally worth dying for, and would expect their kids to do so. A comparison to an Olympic medal match works on the level that the pressure to perform might be immense, but it also fails because the pressure isn’t to survive or win, it's to perform a manliness in a way that’s really stupid from our point of view. Edit: and because I forget to answer the original question: How much time you're going to spend doing the violence part has less to do with what kind of sword you have, and way more with what you're expected to do with it. Siivola fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 08:33
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:i'm not drawing from any source more reliable than my own biases but i reckon the same (Victorian-era? i think?) historians who derided medieval swords as heavy blunt objects are responsible for the classic weaboo perception of Japanese swordsmithing as superior to the west, when it looks like it was all pretty similar. You also have to give some blame to early 20th-century Japanese nationalists, who were big on the idea that Japanese swords were the finest in the world, while guns were clumsy foreign things. Of course, the historical samurai were happy to use guns whenever they were the best weapon to use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
Siivola posted:That's what I told your mom Yea, as much as real weapons would make you fight more cautiously, in a real duel you actually want to kill (or just harm, depending on period and circumstances) the other guy and the duel is about society putting a controlled environmental around it so you can prove you were right. If you want you can find footage of HEMA people sparring in the modern day with sharp blades, but that doesn't tell you what a "real" fight was like because neither of those people actually want to kill the other person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 09:20
|
|
|
Chamale posted:You also have to give some blame to early 20th-century Japanese nationalists, who were big on the idea that Japanese swords were the finest in the world, while guns were clumsy foreign things. Of course, the historical samurai were happy to use guns whenever they were the best weapon to use. Of course there is what people say about swordsmanship not being the main samurai skill; that this was archery instead. This would have them different from the European knights they're compared with. Another difference would be that there was no Japanese version of the aristocrat's poleaxe* in common use. For some reason all such polearm weapons were considered fit only for peasants. Not sure if those last two statements are true. *One thing I'm curious about is whether things like mass-produced halberds evolved from poleaxes, poleaxes as a premium version of more common polearms, or whether they developed seperately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 10:09
|
|
|
sullat posted:Pretty sure the challenged party gets to pick the weapons so next time someone calls you out, go for it. Monopoly - the house rules edition where there are no auctions and you get money if you land on Free Parking. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
Bright Bart posted:Not sure if those last two statements are true. While I’m not an expert that sounds off. I seem to recall for instance that the naginata was specifically considered an appropriate weapon for women of the samurai class, while pike and shot tactics were ubiquitous throughout the Sengoku era and I’m fairly sure that samurai were fully involved with the pikes. I admit I’m not really sure what you mean by “aristocrat’s poleaxe,” though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 10:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I admit I’m not really sure what you mean by “aristocrat’s poleaxe,” though. I don't mean a special variant of the poleaxe. I just mean that the poleaxe was considered fit for a knight or other man-at-arms. Should have been aristocrats' poleaxe. e: Speaking, again, of aristocrats and again of The King... The meetings between Timothy and Robert on the battlefield didn't happen, but it's really cool what they imply in the film. That is, that while it's not egregiously ignoble to slaughter whole population centres, the enemy's crown prince can ride up in the very middle of the night and be taken by sentries to the center of your camp where they can do their taxes (i.e. read their letters and go through gifts) while they wake you, the king, up to meet with them. Honour and the rules prevent you from hindering them, let alone taking them prisoner. The most shocking part of this is that there almost never are any sentries in movies. Bright Bart fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
the 3/4 or full plate poleaxe fighting knight era was easily the most badass (thinking late 100yw, wotr, burgundian wars, early italian, etc)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
The bec de corbin deserves more love generally
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Siivola posted:That's what I told your mom Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, as much as real weapons would make you fight more cautiously, in a real duel you actually want to kill (or just harm, depending on period and circumstances) the other guy and the duel is about society putting a controlled environmental around it so you can prove you were right. If you want you can find footage of HEMA people sparring in the modern day with sharp blades, but that doesn't tell you what a "real" fight was like because neither of those people actually want to kill the other person. I generally agree, but it's also well worth remembering that as dueling was such a social construct that a high proportion of them, especially later on, weren't even intended to be lethal at all. Neither side went in looking to kill the other guy or die in the process; just getting "first blood" was enough to satisfy everyone involved. In fact, actually killing an opponent in this sort of duel was a disaster no one wanted. This is why those duels between politicians and newspaper editors in the 1910s we see on the YouTube channel I linked to go on for so long. It's all about proving that yes, you're a man of honor who isn't afraid to fight, even if the fight will probably only result in a cut on your arm. But since no one wants to get cut first and lose, both participants sit back and go defensive in what must have been the most tedious epee matches ever. I don't exaggerate one bit when I say that there are accounts of that sort of duel lasting for entire afternoons, with hours spent with the duelists just staring each other down. Bright Bart posted:This would have them different from the European knights they're compared with. Another difference would be that there was no Japanese version of the aristocrat's poleaxe* in common use. For some reason all such polearm weapons were considered fit only for peasants. Not sure if those last two statements are true. This is, indeed, completely untrue; the yari and the naginata were used extensively by aristocrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Which is to say that in 17th century France a duel with your political opponent might look like you and three of your mates jumping your enemies on the street after a pub crawl, and in 19th century France it means asking the editor to please put in the newspaper you got mad. Depending on the time and the place, people would consider "proper conduct" literally worth dying for, and would expect their kids to do so. It also depends on social class - in the 18th and 19th century upper-class dueling in the US tended towards 'show up on the field and fire a shot that won't hit, then consider honor satisfied' before it died out, similar disputes in poorer areas would be settled in 'rough and tumble fighting' where "The emphasis on maximum disfigurement, on severing bodily parts, made this fighting style unique. Amid the general mayhem, however, gouging out an opponent's eye became the sine qua non of rough-and-tumble fighting, much like the knockout punch in modern boxing. The best gougers, of course, were adept at other fighting skills. Some allegedly filed their teeth to bite off an enemy's appendages more efficiently. Still, liberating an eyeball quickly became a fighter's surest route to victory and his most prestigious accomplishment." The amount of social pressure needed to get someone to be willing to engage in an eye-gouging match in an era before modern medicine or disability payments had to be immense. I don't think two guys grappling until one gouges the other's eyes out or bites off his ear films quite as nicely as two guys sparring with rapiers until one lands a fatal blow with a little bit of blood around the wound, so I can see why rough and tumble doesn't get as much film as more refined dueling 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Cessna posted:. But since no one wants to get cut first and lose, both participants sit back and go defensive in what must have been the most tedious epee matches ever. I don't exaggerate one bit when I say that there are accounts of that sort of duel lasting for entire afternoons, with hours spent with the duelists just staring each other down. This gets at what Ive been doing a bad job of getting at with my own analogies. When a combat sport is high stakes, contains a pathway to an instant loss, and importantly has no real time limit imposed by the needs of competition rules, things can get extremely drawn out when people get cautious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:When a combat sport is high stakes, contains a pathway to an instant loss, and importantly has no real time limit imposed by the needs of competition rules, things can get extremely drawn out when people get cautious. This is very much a thing in competitive epee, to the point that they're constantly tinkering with the rules to speed it up. Even with these rules it is extremely common to see a match where the first minute sees no action at all - both sides just watch each other for mistakes. Then they both get a yellow-card penalty for "Unwillingness to Fight" / "Passivity." Then another minute goes by, followed by another penalty for the same thing. Then the match sorta starts and maybe a point is scored, then they take a rest break at the three minute mark. Then at around the 8:30 (out of 9:00) mark it suddenly Gets Real and turns into an actual match, maybe. The coaches at my fencing school keep trying to get me to fence epee - I'm relatively tall and have good endurance - but it's just so monotonous, I can't do it. So Instead I fence sabre where I get slaughtered by 14 year olds with video-game trained twitch reflexes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Cessna posted:This is very much a thing in competitive epee, to the point that they're constantly tinkering with the rules to speed it up. Yeah I know relatively little about the rules of competitive fencing but all of this tracks with what I see in other fight sports. One of my little personal fascinations is how adjustments to the rules and parameters of a contest can reshape the ways that a competition unfolds by influencing strategy and tactics. You can have one art (grappling) that ends up producing judo, wrestling, Greco, and BJJ because of what are realistically tiny differences in scoring and parameters. Epee as you describe it sounds a lot like heavyweight judo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 18:23
|
|