That's not a glaive, this is a glaive:duwenbasden said:Warglaives [http://static-2.nexusmods.com/15/mods/110/images/8258-1-1328872430.jpg]. Ridiculously impractical, infinitely awesome.
I don't see why I'd do that. It seems doing the opposite would be in my best interest. ;0Fijiman said:Remind me to never challenge you to a fair fight then.
You mean the sharpness against anything but an enemy in any sort of armor but a paper one? Katana hype is way overexaggerrated. It's not a good sword at all, but thanks to Hollywood, many people think it's the best sword in the world, able to cut through armor, tanks and the Sun itself.Callate said:I love the renowned sharpness and elegance of the katana
It's become popular to rag on katanas, but well-made ones do have a reputation for remarkable sharpness, even to some accounts cutting through metal armor and weapons like rapiers. Ironically, by similar accounts their sometimes brittle steel had more difficulty with thirteenth century Mongol armor, becoming trapped in thick layers of hide and breaking when their wielders attempted to wrench them free.ninja666 said:You mean the sharpness against anything but an enemy in any sort of armor but a paper one? Katana hype is way overexaggerrated. It's not a good sword at all, but thanks to Hollywood, many people think it's the best sword in the world, able to cut through armor, tanks and the Sun itself.Callate said:I love the renowned sharpness and elegance of the katana
EDIT: And yes, I get the irony of my avatar vs that statement.
Not exactly, real world war hammers tended to be one handed weapons, essentially an evolution of earlier maces, and had handles of a similar size, though larger weapons did exist. The picture you posted though looks more like a bec de corbin.ninja666 said:Unless you're talking about oversized power fantasy warhammers, you're not really gonna be able do any of this stuff. A real warhammer is basically a mace with a ridiculously long handle.
![]()
There were two variants of warhammers - a short, mace-like one for close quarters, and a long one for dispatching cavalry. The one I posted might be a bec de corbin, but I think it doesn't really matter that much, since the only difference between the two is the pointy, spear-like thrusting end. I focused only on showing how tiny the head of the hammer was to show that you can't really break bones and shake the ground with itMegalodon said:Not exactly, real world war hammers tended to be one handed weapons, essentially an evolution of earlier maces, and had handles of a similar size, though larger weapons did exist. The picture you posted though looks more like a bec de corbin.