Why the big swords anyway?

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
fanklok said:
Because when a massive sword gets dull it's still a highly effective weapon. A dull small sword will just crack a few ribs at best a big one will crush your skull.

Exhibit A:

In all fairness this guy at least looks like he can actually wield the thing.

By the way they made a Beserk Mod for the game Mount & Blade which kicks ass.

http://www.taleworlds.com/main.aspx

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,81326.0.html

http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=1513

It doesn't work with War-Bands yet though.

But yeah like someone said I think those swords were actually designed to kill horses.
 

LarenzoAOG

New member
Apr 28, 2010
1,683
0
0
Or maybe they are all JRPG nerds (which makes sense because they are usually found in JRPG's) Western RPG's dont need giant swords, we just beat things to death with our massive erect penises.
 

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
Because "big" = "better" in the minds of most gamers when it comes to weaponry. However, give me a knife in RL and I can probably do more damage than the massive swords from games. Then again, I'm the stealthy, stealthy type of guy and massive chunks of iron and steel tend to get in the way
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
The most iconic sword in JRPGs is the Nodachi (meaning either Field Sword, or Great Sword), the sword that Sephiroth carries. The sword was used as a massive anti-cavalry tool, cutting up the riders as they passed. While it had a scabbard, the scabbard was not brought to the battle, and the blade was carried over the shoulder, because of the difficulty of drawing such a long blade. It could also be used as a kind of javelin if need be.

A Buster Sword (the sword that Cloud carries) would weigh almost 20 lbs, and could concievably cut down a horse in one swing, if enough momentum for a full swing was obtained. A wielder of this kind of weapon would spin in place once to increase the speed, then cut through the target. If one full spin could be achieved before swinging, the formula for net power (Power = Mass x Acceleration) would ensure that any flesh target hit would be killed outright.
Sephiroth's sword is a full 3 feet longer than a real Nodachi, and it should be noted that even the Japanese saw it for the unwieldy hunk of metal it was. Its use was limited and it was largely outclassed by several easier to produce weapons.

As for Cloud's sword... where do you get those numbers? It has at least a four foot blade, with an approximate one inch thickness in the back, and is twelve inches wide from front to back. 20 pounds? Whats it made of, aluminum alloy? All the steel calculator, once fudging the numbers to make it as light as possible, list the lowest conceivable weight at around 90-105 pounds.

Where did you get your math from? I'm curious now.

In any case, anyone whos trained in weapon combat will tell you: any weapon that requires full body motion to swing is a weapon you WILL die with.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
The Madman said:
Meet the Zweihander, or Greatsword!
Literally Two-Hander, but, close enough.

Actually, "hander" in German is "händer", gotta love cognates.
 

Steppin Razor

New member
Dec 15, 2009
6,868
0
0
RagnorakTres said:
The nodachi was approximately half-again as long as a traditional katana, but did not have an exceptionally sharp edge. Instead, it's weight was used as a fulcrum, folding an armored enemy around the blade, usually causing massive internal damage. It had enough of an edge, however, that unarmored enemies could be cut, and its weight would carry the weapon through the swing.
They also supposedly threw them. I can imagine having a length of steel with a 4 foot long blade being a rather scary object to have thrown at you.
 

Sporky111

Digital Wizard
Dec 17, 2008
4,009
0
0
HarmanSmith said:
*thread jack ahoy!*
What really confuses me is the impractical clothing. What the hell is Cloud wearing in that picture? It's like half of a skirt with only one sleeve held together by two belts. How do you fight in that?
The way I see it, it's kinda like half a pair of chaps. But it comes down to trying to make a unique character and going way over the top in the process.

In that same vein, I think the giant sword thing is also about originality. The larger the sword, the stronger the person appears, and you can fit a lot more detail onto a giant sword without having to worry about it being lost in the flurry of activity as it's being used.

EDIT: I just thought of another thing. It may also be an attempt to merge the symbolic strength of large western swords (like the Claymore, or Excalibur) with the Japanese grace of motion and relative ease of swinging a katana or masamune.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
There is also the issue of ammo, which sword wielders generally don't have to worry about. And in general with guns there are more factors to consider that can greatly effect the results of using a gun. In this sense a sword would be at least somewhat more reliable. It's probably also worth noting that Obi Wan Kenobi dismissed blasters as clumsy and random.
Swords aren't very reliable when you're shot before getting close enough to use it on someone.
As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
I suspect the big swords first came around because of the dreadful graphics capabilities of early consoles. Any detail smaller than a human hand would not show up, so only oversized weapons could be discernable. Because these massive weapons become popular icons of the early games, they stayed in the later, more graphically advanced games.

 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
A1 said:
As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks. Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.
Your standard assault rifle produces more damage than almost any melee weapon, can bust through any reasonable personal body armor in 1-3 shots, and can be used at over 150 times the range of melee weapons.

And honestly, when ammo is smaller than your pinky, its not a big deal.

Firearms > Melee in all but the most slanted circumstances.

Just saying.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
Guns run out of ammo. Large swords not only would be intimidating to the enemy but (I'm assuming) would be very damaging in battle.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
My math still comes no were NEAR yours, and I'm consulting several sites.

Were are you getting this 20 ibs from? Consider this: four two handed claymores, with a length of 42' weight 22 pounds. Considering the buster sword is longer, fatter, and wider than four claymores stacked back to back...

Seriously, just give me the math. I want to check it, because it makes no sense.
 

Lady Nilstria

New member
Aug 11, 2009
161
0
0
Magnatek said:
To my knowledge, giant swords like that were once used to potentially break down the cavalry of enemy troops. The sheer force it took to swing those things could allegedly take down a horse. Would a small sword have a similar effect? That's not likely. Granted, in reality, it would be very hard to swing a giant sword like that, and would most likely require two hands. Either way, this is only to my current knowledge. If it helps explain things, then you're welcome.
Actually, the very large swords like the Zweihander were used to break apart pike lines, not cavalry.

The zweihander is just about as big as you're going to get. It's a two-handed sword, like the zhanmadao and claymore. Swinging something like that with one hand and actually be able to make use of it is almost physically impossible, since speed usually wins in battle.

A sword can decapitate a horse, but not at the barrel. The only plausible places would be the neck closest to the pole and the legs. I have horses and I can say that if a horse is running at you, chances are, brute strength isn't going to win unless you happen to be Lu Bu from The Ravages of Time.

In my opinion, if you're going to take down a horse, something like a wakizashi would serve you more. Cut the tendons and the horse will fall. So, yeah, in many ways, something you can use faster is often more useful then something large.

An arrow can take down a horse faster then a guy on the ground if the archer aims right.

OT: Why big swords? They just look cool, and in fantasy, do you really need a reason? I mean, look at their costumes. There's not much reason for a lot of JRPG costumes either. It's the cosmetic appeal, in my opinion.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
The Japanese give their characters huge swords for the same reason they give them huge eyes. Overcompensation.

Seriously though, it's probably just so they can make their characters seem really "extremely powerful" and junk. If you look at the steritypical jrpg/anime character they generally stack up to a destructive level between half an army and a hydrogen bomb, and in some cases they even exceed that. It's probably just the spiritual successor to superheroes.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Jfswift said:
Guns run out of ammo. Large swords not only would be intimidating to the enemy but (I'm assuming) would be very damaging in battle.
Actually, if the guy with a rifle has time to actually register his enemy is carrying a sword, he's not going to be scared: he's going to laugh and kill him.

In the age of single shot, melee weapons have a place. Today? Well, I'll share this story...

Two soldiers are in Iraq, doing street patrols. They are jumped by an Iraqi with a long knife. The first soldier takes the bow to the forearm. The second soldier grabs the first, throws him to the ground, and rides his M249's recoil from foot to head, putting over 60 rounds into the Iraqi's body. One leg shredded, genitals blown off, both lungs and heart ruptured, spine snapped, throat gone, and brain no longer in the pan.

Okay, that has little relevance. Its just a gory story I like (Because it wasn't my damn forearm).

Lady Nilstria said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudao

Already found out what he was talking about.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Jfswift said:
Guns run out of ammo. Large swords not only would be intimidating to the enemy but (I'm assuming) would be very damaging in battle.
That'll explain why every army in the World favours and equips their men with swords. [/sarcasm]