Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roshan
1. The Katana was just as heavy and large as these european swords, but less versatile. For example, the curve of the katana made it less efficient for thrusting then the european swords with their thin points and straight blades. Furthermore, the katanas curve meant that in order to thrust with it you need to use two hands which means decreased range, amongst others. The european swords being double edged were also more adaptable then the katana in combat. All in all, sword wise, the european knights had the upper edge.
2. YES! All the way back to roman times when they used the manuballista which was basically an archaic version of the crossbow. The modern crossbow originated in Italy during the 10th century. During the 12th century due to the devastating power of the crossbow the Lateran council declared that it was illegal to use the crossbow against christians! The crossbow kept evolving to become more deadly. In the 11th century crossbows began to be made of composite materials, and during the 13th they began to make crossbows out of steel. By the 14th century european crossbows could produce draw forces in excess of 1000 pounds.
And of course, there was also the english longbow which was much better in range, speed and accuracy then the crossbow, but less force and requiring much more time to master. The longbow could easily shoot through armor at medium range which was from 150-300 yards, but archers also carried lighter arrows which they could use to shoot upto 500 yards.
3. Where are you getting this information from?
4. Knights did not carry two swords. But your missing the fact that knights could basically wield anything. They had mauls, war hammers, lucern hammers, glaives, halberds, long swords, short swords, cut and thrust swords, bastard swords, two handed swords, battle axes, spears, pikes, javelins, lances and many others. They did not only use the bastard sword. If knights were going to enter a small bulding they would most likely carry what weapons were more practical for the job.
Your comments on this topic make it seem that you have been watching too much anime.
|
1. Go back and read what Snipe said. That Katana's are indeed very good at punching through something when thrusted. It'd more or less depend on how well trained the user is. Back in WW2 the USMC was instucted to use thier rifles to block a Katana wielded by a Japanese Soldier. And was revised after too many cases of the rifles being cut in half.
But since they are known more for slashing than stabbing. You could always go with a Japanese long sword or Tai Chi sword. Which were even better stabbers. Or a Ninja's version of the katana, which was straight.
2. So they'd almost be even at shooting arrows at close range. The Japanese Archers would have better accuracy, and a faster rate of fire than your beloved archaic crossbows. And they were used within a hundred, or even fifty feet. That'd be a nice crash course for European archers at adapt & survive.
3. Ummmmmmm...seeing actual pieces of European Knight and Samurai Armor inside a Museum?! And also being a medieval historian buff? I.e.
research
4. All of which except a few short swords and daggers they could muster from their ranks would be equally useless inside the hyopthetical Japanese fortress or castle. Especially the lances & pikes. Moving them into position would be like moving furniture up or down at least one flight of stairs.
And let's say they had a captured stash of Wakizashi's. Let's see them try to beat the samurai with their own weapons with little or no training.
Still stretching. And now making baseless comments that Anime taught me everything I know.
