Originally posted by Thodra

Just seems some pictures of real great swords, how on earth could they swing a sword like that :-)

Swords aren't as heavy as they appear - even that 55" claymore, which is a rather huge sword, might top out at 6 lbs.  The lack of weight is a large part of why they were so ineffective against plate armor (at least when used directly).

Originally posted by Istavaan

I like the big swords they look awesome on the norn, but im more of a hammer type person, so hopefully they have massive hammers too.

Ya, I'm liking a hammer on the warrior. Backbreaker and Staggering Blow are pretty effective. :)

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

So I am a big fan of everything japanese and anime and manga, and I love this. I don't play female character, but I think that sword is cool, and the size does not take the immersion from me. I am surprised it does for you guys. I could understand an Asura, but it is not that bad at all. Beautiful design as well.

Romero.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Kalfer

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

Yeah, until the advent of the longbow, maces and hammers were about the only weapons powerful enough to damage the metal itself much (though as I understood it, armor strength came from its design, not its thickness of metal).  Reach was important because weapons were largely designed for stabbing into whatever openings presented themselves, like those in the armpits, which were protected by much weaker chain mail.

I've heard that the longbow effectively ended the age of chivalry simply because it made peasants capable of downing a fully-armored knight.

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

It seems to me that being cut down with a sword is more elegant and a better way to die than suffering the trauma of those mace/hammer blows. jebus.

From what I could tell it was very race dependent.

Norns tended to get silly unrealistic cleavers.  Humans and Charr tended to get greatsword that had a blade something on the order of a realistic claymore or zweihander.  One of the Mesmer GS my human got has a semi curved hilt you might see on some zweihanders.  Fairly large hilt/crosspiece or not and a blade that would be maybe 2-4 inches wide and 4-5 feet long maybe some gettng to 6 feet hard to say.

But my Norn guardian got a big ass cleaver that had a blade that was a foot+ wide all along the blade.  Really silly.  Not TERA silly (god I utterly hate and loathe the lancer class) but still silly.  Some people like that though.

Not sure if these skins cross races or its just what you get for your race in the starter areas or what.

Originally posted by Loke666

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Hum, I've never heard that before, but it makes a lot of sense that the length would be useful against calvary.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

The real problem there is not the size of the blade but the lady wielding it. I seen Wallace sword (or at least the sword that the museum in Stirling say he wielded), it was longer than me. Wallace was 210cm and could wield something a normal size person can't.

A sword weight a lot less than most people thing (a normal sword 1,5-2kg, a 2h 2,5-3,5) but for you to use a blade effective you need one of the right size.

Ok, the blade is too wide anyways so it still doesn't look like a real sword but more as a wallhanger. But few MMO devs ever hold a real sword in their hand.

You are correct. I don't mind it though, it doesn't break immersion for me, in the end it's just a game. What I do not like is having certain skills tied to only certain weapons. Small price to pay for an awesome game though.

Sidenote: Loke do you still play an PnP games?

Originally posted by Nevulus

Originally posted by Loke666

The real problem there is not the size of the blade but the lady wielding it. I seen Wallace sword (or at least the sword that the museum in Stirling say he wielded), it was longer than me. Wallace was 210cm and could wield something a normal size person can't.

A sword weight a lot less than most people thing (a normal sword 1,5-2kg, a 2h 2,5-3,5) but for you to use a blade effective you need one of the right size.

Ok, the blade is too wide anyways so it still doesn't look like a real sword but more as a wallhanger. But few MMO devs ever hold a real sword in their hand.

You are correct. I don't mind it though, it doesn't break immersion for me, in the end it's just a game. What I do not like is having certain skills tied to only certain weapons. Small price to pay for an awesome game though.

Sidenote: Loke do you still play an PnP games?

Yeah, I have to agree with you. As long as there is plenty of types to choose from I don't care if you guys use oversized weapons. 

Sure do. :) Mostly Pathfinder nowadays.

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

It's a good thing it's a fantasy game and not real life! Imagine how retarded a necros minion would look in RL :)

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Loke666

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Hum, I've never heard that before, but it makes a lot of sense that the length would be useful against calvary.

The museumguide at Bannockburn told it to me... It also allowed you to use less people since you had a lot longer space between each swordsman.

Originally posted by Amjoco

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

It's a good thing it's a fantasy game and not real life! Imagine how retarded a necros minion would look in RL :)

Have you seent the walking dead season 2 finale...? thats how they would look like.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

As I understand, the longbow's much higher draw weight (something around 100 lbs., versus a modern average of 60 lbs.?) lended the arrow a rather impressive amount of speed.

Factor in also the fact that armor was made to be as lightweight as possible while still affording protection - a full set on display at the Toldeo Museum of Art weighed (as I recall) 82 lbs. in total.  So, with that weight in mind, the thickness of the metal at any single point would probably be rather low.

The arrow probably not only went through the armor, but it probably went through any bones underneath, too.  Well, assuming a good, clean hit, that is.  The design of the armor would probably tend to knock aside any poorly aimed arrows.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Kalfer

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

Yeah, until the advent of the longbow, maces and hammers were about the only weapons powerful enough to damage the metal itself much (though as I understood it, armor strength came from its design, not its thickness of metal).  Reach was important because weapons were largely designed for stabbing into whatever openings presented themselves, like those in the armpits, which were protected by much weaker chain mail.

I've heard that the longbow effectively ended the age of chivalry simply because it made peasants capable of downing a fully-armored knight.

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

 

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

 

It seems to me that being cut down with a sword is more elegant and a better way to die than suffering the trauma of those mace/hammer blows. jebus.

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

Hmm.  When reading about it, I always assumed that the distinction between 'heavy' cavalry and 'normal' cavalry was how armored the horses were.

This topic is a lot of fun. =)

EDIT: Just noticed I was writing "calvary" instead of "cavalry."  Silly me.

Originally posted by colddog04

Here's another one. At 15:15 you get to see some swinging.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83hvsuTd_No

Nice... apparantly theres light, medium and heavy target golems to practice on in the game.

And a "Practice Golem - Dodge Roll Trainer 2000" for dodge training.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Loke666

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Hum, I've never heard that before, but it makes a lot of sense that the length would be useful against calvary.

It is also important to understand that European greatsword were not used the same way as a normal sized sword.  Due to the length and the way leverage works you do not tend to take the same "guard" psotion nor do you tend to parry the same way.

Many European style of greatsword use place the handle above your head with the blade angled down in a high parry as the guard position.   Whereas many normal swords use a middle parry with the blade point up and the blade angle somwaht forward as the guard position.

When you use a greatsword you need to be VERY economical about when you do a ful swing.  For the most part until you are quite certain about the swing you want to do very economical postion shift that do not in fact actually swing the sword but rather rotate it.  A good greatsword stylist needs to be very conscious about the size of the motions they are using and normal swords can acutally use much larger motions without throwing themselves into dangerous positions.

Weapons/styles that do throw you into dangerous postions are completely useless only a fool would use them. 

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Kalfer

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

Yeah, until the advent of the longbow, maces and hammers were about the only weapons powerful enough to damage the metal itself much (though as I understood it, armor strength came from its design, not its thickness of metal).  Reach was important because weapons were largely designed for stabbing into whatever openings presented themselves, like those in the armpits, which were protected by much weaker chain mail.

I've heard that the longbow effectively ended the age of chivalry simply because it made peasants capable of downing a fully-armored knight.

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

 

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

 

It seems to me that being cut down with a sword is more elegant and a better way to die than suffering the trauma of those mace/hammer blows. jebus.

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

 

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

 

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

 

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

 

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

I dont claim to be an expert on medieval history but what i understand was that the effect of longbow against a late medieval  cavalrymen is largely a myth.

The English bodkin arrow while being able to penetrate the earlier armor designs was ineffective against a late medieval plate armor designs and that being the standard at the time that longbowmen had to buy their own arrowheads they were usually made of cheap iron instead of steel, thus further diminishing its effectivness.

The Fall of heavy cavalrymen is therefore largely being credited for the arrival of Gunpowder weapons in masse enabling a simple peasant to take out a knight with expensive armor, have to remember that good armor designs were the high tech of its time and beyond the reach of common man.

Henry V had army consisting largely of longbowmen because he had a lack of funding, they were cheap units that made his force look bigger than it actually was in strenght.

http://www.123dapp.com/123C-3D-Model/Horsemans-Pick-Warhammer/596517 ... and this seems to be the preferred weapon of a Hundred Years War era footman, effective design against a horseman imo.

not really directed for anyone ive quoted just my input ... cheers

i think the greatsword does justice

Its off teh correct length

it feel heavy cumbersome but also effect in attacking from considerable melee range

also the whirl AOE attacks also feels right

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Master10K

This Guardian looks to be wielding a fairly normal-sized Claymore.

That's the one I was running with on my Guardian across the BWE, I thought it was pretty cool.  I didn't see any of the other 'real-life' sword types myself, though... kind of disappointed about that now!

Originally posted by Amjoco

Here is a warrior with a sword...I'm not sure how great it is! I think if you are using it and you don't chop off your own arm it is classified as a Greatsword. :)

First one is a human.  Second one is a Norn.

Every norn GS I used was a big ass anime cleaver.  Every sword on my Human Mesmer was similar to the first one.  Even one I found in the Norn area.

Basically I won't be making a norn for class that use GS unless I have an overriding reason as I prefer realistic looking GS.  Swords aren't axes people.  Doesn't break my immersion.  But a sword that is actually a sword and lethal for the reasons swords are lethal is more fun and cooler when you know what swords actually do.

You can't cut a man in two peices directly down the middle with an execution's axes, but you can with a katana.  The axes is heavier and larger.  Yet the katana cuts better.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

yeah,that started a 150 yeardiscussion about which was the best weapon. 

And the answer is that it really depends, it takes 20 years to train a good longbowshot and just days for a x-bow one.

On the other hand do a longbow have longer range and a great shot can have up to 5 arrows in the air at the same time (or so have I been told, I suck at bows).

You do know your stuff. :) An addition to your story is that most on the Brittish side had dysentery and were doing number 2 while they thought.... Not really one of the greatest battles in history even thought it greatly impacted England and Frances relationship for a long time.