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.

Excellent. Plus points for you sir.

History is one of the most bad a** things there is!:)

Originally posted by Vrakor

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

It wasn't really that simple either. Knights were actually used pretty long after guns appeared on the battlefield, and noone used them longer or more effective than the polish. I can't remember the exact year right now when they got beaten for the final turn (1680 something I think) but the Hussars lasted a long time.

Tests showed that a heavy crossbow and a musket from around 1600 were rather similar in penetration. But the musket were actually even easier to use and slightly faster to load.

Canons on the other hand did kill tons of knights early on.

A longbow do indeed have problem penetrating a late period maximilian armor but even a musket have that problem. But eventually did the technology of rifles together with new battlefield tactics phase out the knights. I personally think a lot of the reasons were that knights were expensive, you get plenty of musketmen for the same price as a single knights armor, weapons and warhorse. In 1 Vs 1 a musketman would be really hardly pressed against a knight but when we are talking 25 to 1 things get really different.

History is interesting. :)

on the topic of transmutation stones, has anyone looked at the wiki? I didn't know the details for the stones, and I'm wondering if it works as how it is laid out.  after level 30 equipment, you have to start buying the stones via gemstore in order to transmute higher level equipment?

Originally posted by Vrakor

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

Its not so much a myth as often overstated.  Just because a longbow could punch through a plate of steel.  Doesn't it often got the chance to do so.  Occasionally it did get that chance.

On related note.  The word bullet-proof comes from the practice of an armor maker showing the dent in the armor from having shot the peice of armor (often a breastplate) with a gun.

Basically they proved it could take a bullet.  This was in the early phase of guns.  The phase that the iconic picture of a conquestidor wearing a breastplate came from.  By the 1700s guns were powerful enough that nothing was bullet-proof anymore.

And now, in modern times, we are back to bullet-proof chest armor.  A word that is actually about 500 years old.  And had a serious and real application (such that no one would buy a breastplate that had not been "proved").

Yet with arrrows and charges even if an could punch through a breastplate.  It still had to hit in the right way, be fired from a certain distance.  And even more importantly it had to hit.  When your target is someone on a horse, with a shield, who is moving at 30+ mph and is going to kill you in about 10 seconds.  Actually hitting them much less hitting them exactly the correct way is not always something you want to bet your life on.  Most especially if they are far enough away that you have to do an arcing shot to hit them.

Whereas a gun shoots almost direct.  And certainly a rifle.  A volley of arrows is nowhere near the same as a volley of rifles or even muskets.  Even if they hadthe same penetration power they would still not be analogous.

The ability for longbows to hurt knights is not really a myth.  Agincourt proved its possible.  But in general I think most historians would tell you it took a fairly significant confluence of events to have longbows truly dominate a battlefield. 

Even guns did not obviate armor.  Not until 100s of years after their inventions.  Longbows did not obviate armor.  And now in the modern age; even high-powered rifles are not obviating armor.

Simple blanket rules are rarely much use in warfare, of course especially in warfare people cling to them for comfort because you need something to think you have some kind of control over something so deadly.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

I don't have any screenshots, unfortunately, but there are some normal greatswords out there.  I had a claymore-style greatsword on my Guardian, and from Wikipedia's average measurement of 47-55" in length, I'd say it was pretty well in-scale too.

It was just a low-level bronze greatsword, as I recall, nothing fancy or anything.

Most weapons are just skins though aren't they?

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Vrakor

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

It wasn't really that simple either. Knights were actually used pretty long after guns appeared on the battlefield, and noone used them longer or more effective than the polish. I can't remember the exact year right now when they got beaten for the final turn (1680 something I think) but the Hussars lasted a long time.

Tests showed that a heavy crossbow and a musket from around 1600 were rather similar in penetration. But the musket were actually even easier to use and slightly faster to load.

Canons on the other hand did kill tons of knights early on.

A longbow do indeed have problem penetrating a late period maximilian armor but even a musket have that problem. But eventually did the technology of rifles together with new battlefield tactics phase out the knights. I personally think a lot of the reasons were that knights were expensive, you get plenty of musketmen for the same price as a single knights armor, weapons and warhorse. In 1 Vs 1 a musketman would be really hardly pressed against a knight but when we are talking 25 to 1 things get really different.

History is interesting. :)

I believe your thinking of the Battle of Vienna in 1683. King Jan Sobieski III of Poland led a cavalry charge of about 20,000 men including his personal contingent of 3,000 Winged Hussars, breaking through Ottoman lines into their encampments and shattering the seige of Vienna. Remember though that the Ottoman cannon were positioned to seige the city and not engage enemy relief forces. Had those cannon been in play it could have been a quite different result.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

I don't have any screenshots, unfortunately, but there are some normal greatswords out there.  I had a claymore-style greatsword on my Guardian, and from Wikipedia's average measurement of 47-55" in length, I'd say it was pretty well in-scale too.

It was just a low-level bronze greatsword, as I recall, nothing fancy or anything.

Most weapons are just skins though aren't they?

No all weapons you get as drops are items with stats etc.  You can use a transmuation stone to make use of any item for its skin.

However I think, but can't confirm, the skins may change for your race.  I.e  I don't think an Asura ever uses the same model as a Norn for a greatsword.  A Norn GS is probably twice the height of an asura.  And I suspect the large cleaver like GS may not exist for humans/charr.  They could but i think its models per race.  Not just  a collection of models with no resitrctions.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Its not so much a myth as often overstated.  Just because a longbow could punch through a plate of steel.  Doesn't it often got the chance to do so.  Occasionally it did get that chance.

 

On related note.  The word bullet-proof comes from the practice of an armor maker showing the dent in the armor from having shot the peice of armor (often a breastplate) with a gun.

Basically they proved it could take a bullet.  This was in the early phase of guns.  The phase that the iconic picture of a conquestidor wearing a breastplate came from.  By the 1700s guns were powerful enough that nothing was bullet-proof anymore.

 

And now, in modern times, we are back to bullet-proof chest armor.  A word that is actually about 500 years old.  And had a serious and real application (such that no one would buy a breastplate that had not been "proved").

 

Yet with arrrows and charges even if an could punch through a breastplate.  It still had to hit in the right way, be fired from a certain distance.  And even more importantly it had to hit.  When your target is someone on a horse, with a shield, who is moving at 30+ mph and is going to kill you in about 10 seconds.  Actually hitting them much less hitting them exactly the correct way is not always something you want to bet your life on.  Most especially if they are far enough away that you have to do an arcing shot to hit them.

 

Whereas a gun shoots almost direct.  And certainly a rifle.  A volley of arrows is nowhere near the same as a volley of rifles or even muskets.  Even if they hadthe same penetration power they would still not be analogous.

 

The ability for longbows to hurt knights is not really a myth.  Agincourt proved its possible.  But in general I think most historians would tell you it took a fairly significant confluence of events to have longbows truly dominate a battlefield. 

 

Even guns did not obviate armor.  Not until 100s of years after their inventions.  Longbows did not obviate armor.  And now in the modern age; even high-powered rifles are not obviating armor.

 

Simple blanket rules are rarely much use in warfare, of course especially in warfare people cling to them for comfort because you need something to think you have some kind of control over something so deadly.

pretty much agree with everything you have said earlier and now ....  the plate chest armor i recall was still in use by elite cavalry units in late 1800's while its effectivness against the rifles could be questioned.

really should have pointed out more pressingly that rather than kill a certain branch of warfare the events destroyed the general consensus and views of Mounted Knights as the above all units they were before Crecy and Agincourt

edit: cavalry itself wasnt really phased out off warfare until world war I and the arrival of Machine Guns .. they just stopped stuffing ppl in steel cans hehe

edit2: ... steel cans and on top of horses ... the stuffing changed again in 1916 .. ref: A Tank :P

hey OP at least its not as OTT as Tera.

Originally posted by Vrakor

Originally posted by gestalt11

Its not so much a myth as often overstated.  Just because a longbow could punch through a plate of steel.  Doesn't it often got the chance to do so.  Occasionally it did get that chance.

 

On related note.  The word bullet-proof comes from the practice of an armor maker showing the dent in the armor from having shot the peice of armor (often a breastplate) with a gun.

Basically they proved it could take a bullet.  This was in the early phase of guns.  The phase that the iconic picture of a conquestidor wearing a breastplate came from.  By the 1700s guns were powerful enough that nothing was bullet-proof anymore.

 

And now, in modern times, we are back to bullet-proof chest armor.  A word that is actually about 500 years old.  And had a serious and real application (such that no one would buy a breastplate that had not been "proved").

 

Yet with arrrows and charges even if an could punch through a breastplate.  It still had to hit in the right way, be fired from a certain distance.  And even more importantly it had to hit.  When your target is someone on a horse, with a shield, who is moving at 30+ mph and is going to kill you in about 10 seconds.  Actually hitting them much less hitting them exactly the correct way is not always something you want to bet your life on.  Most especially if they are far enough away that you have to do an arcing shot to hit them.

 

Whereas a gun shoots almost direct.  And certainly a rifle.  A volley of arrows is nowhere near the same as a volley of rifles or even muskets.  Even if they hadthe same penetration power they would still not be analogous.

 

The ability for longbows to hurt knights is not really a myth.  Agincourt proved its possible.  But in general I think most historians would tell you it took a fairly significant confluence of events to have longbows truly dominate a battlefield. 

 

Even guns did not obviate armor.  Not until 100s of years after their inventions.  Longbows did not obviate armor.  And now in the modern age; even high-powered rifles are not obviating armor.

 

Simple blanket rules are rarely much use in warfare, of course especially in warfare people cling to them for comfort because you need something to think you have some kind of control over something so deadly.

pretty much agree with everything you have said earlier and now ....  the plate chest armor i recall was still in use by elite cavalry units in late 1800's while its effectivness against the rifles could be questioned.

really should have pointed out more pressingly that rather than kill a certain branch of warfare the events destroyed the general consensus and views of Mounted Knights as the above all units they were before Crecy and Agincourt

 

I am not a military expert by any means, but by the 1800's most cavalry I know of basically ran with a sabre and some sort of firearm (pistol or rifle). 

By this time cavalry was still considered extremely important but more for is mobility and maneuvers.  Using armor would seriously impair that.  Also having steel armor wouldn't help against cavalries biggest problem; cannons.

I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases where the conflict was mostly against infantry some units did use some plates.  But by and large the later 1800s wearing steel would almost be more dangerous than not.  Cavalry of the time were extremely conscious of the weight they took for their packs too.

This would of course heavily depend on the theatre as well.  I suspect such elite units would be in certain areas of europe whereas on the American Frontier they would look at you like you had mushrooms growing out of your ears if you suggested such a thing since they had such large distances to cover and in conflicts like the Civil War flanking the cannon using speed was one of their important uses.

Originally posted by gestalt11

snip

I am not a military expert by any means, but by the 1800's most cavalry I know of basically ran with a sabre and some sort of firearm (pistol or rifle). 

By this time cavalry was still considered extremely important but more for is mobility and maneuvers.  Using armor would seriously impair that.  Also having steel armor wouldn't help against cavalries biggest problem; cannons.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases where the conflict was mostly against infantry some units did use some plates.  But by and large the later 1800s wearing steel would almost be more dangerous than not.  Cavalry of the time were extremely conscious of the weight they took for their packs too.

 

This would of course heavily depend on the theatre as well.  I suspect such elite units would be in certain areas of europe whereas on the American Frontier they would look at you like you had mushrooms growing out of your ears if you suggested such a thing since they had such large distances to cover and in conflicts like the Civil War flanking the cannon using speed was one of their important uses.

I dont expect it to have had any notable amount of use after Napoleonic Wars atleast ... just that its more of a conservatist influence that often have been holding certain advances in tactics back.

Afterall in 1944 single infantryman equipped with Anti-tank weapons was allready a deadly opponent for armoured vehicles but it hasnt  really made a Tank obsolete ... just changed its role in battlefield.

I could imagine cavalry going after calvalry opting for extra protection in mid 1800's ... mostly what comes to mind are  French cuirassiers.

edit: yeah it seems French used chest armor as late as early weeks of World War I

edit2: didnt find a picture of wwI era .... this was the latest i found and its from 1854 French Cuirassier armor

omg, after watching several of these videos...I just want to play!

I'm kind of mad how the big swords are over the top and not the...

Dragons!

There are very realistic looking Two Handed Swords and there are also some very oversized ones as well. With Transmutation stones, you can pick the look you want. Options are great and people should be able to wield the look they prefer.

This is one of the most over-sized 2H Swords I could find and I would actually get a kick out of having my character wield one:

What I see here is a lot of incredibly pedantic discussion of medieval weapon that's rife with misconceptions. The one thing I havent seen is the idea that of course norn are likely to use larger weapons. I mean, look at them. What looks ridiculous on a human could make perfect sense on a norn.

Originally posted by Leodious

What I see here is a lot of incredibly pedantic discussion of medieval weapon that's rife with misconceptions. The one thing I havent seen is the idea that of course norn are likely to use larger weapons. I mean, look at them. What looks ridiculous on a human could make perfect sense on a norn.

First problem with that is weapons scale. While you're right, the claymore a Norn weirls is MUCH bigger than the one a human does. And both a proportionately ridiculous. Second is no one is going to reliably swing a sword in regular, repetitive combat when the blade is3/4ths the length of their body and wider than their waist. It's just physics. If inertia didn't screw you over, you'd just plain tire out after swinging the thing  for a couple minutes. Just cause a man can bench press 150 lbs doesn't mean he can swing a 150lb sword to and fro. Not for long anyway. I don't care HOW strong the Norns are.

In fact, true scottish claymores were among the heaviest bladed weapons used in combat, and weighed ~6lbs. Now look at that screenshot someone jsut posted of a "big" sword and tell me that thing doesn't weight an ounce less than 20lbs.

Mind you the entire argument is countered by the fact it's a fantasy game. Just saying.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Nevulus
 

*snip*

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.

It is said that the sword of D. Afonso Henriques, 1st king of Portugal, weighted aprox. 15 kg...i dont even want to think about the armor...and the poor horses omg...

Originally posted by Clerigo

It is said that the sword of D. Afonso Henriques, 1st king of Portugal, weighted aprox. 15 kg...

I think that would be more accurately described as a "sword-shaped bludgeon."

If it is true, it was definitely decorative.

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

How tall did you set your character to be? Greatswords averaged about 4.5' in length, I believe... So if that was a short chick, that could be exactly right. Even if she is a bit bigger it isn't that much over the top, and we would need a really precise ruler to compare. Also, the hilt is too long, IMO.

Originally posted by terrant

Originally posted by Leodious

What I see here is a lot of incredibly pedantic discussion of medieval weapon that's rife with misconceptions. The one thing I havent seen is the idea that of course norn are likely to use larger weapons. I mean, look at them. What looks ridiculous on a human could make perfect sense on a norn.

First problem with that is weapons scale. While you're right, the claymore a Norn weirls is MUCH bigger than the one a human does. And both a proportionately ridiculous. Second is no one is going to reliably swing a sword in regular, repetitive combat when the blade is3/4ths the length of their body and wider than their waist. It's just physics. If inertia didn't screw you over, you'd just plain tire out after swinging the thing  for a couple minutes. Just cause a man can bench press 150 lbs doesn't mean he can swing a 150lb sword to and fro. Not for long anyway. I don't care HOW strong the Norns are.

 

In fact, true scottish claymores were among the heaviest bladed weapons used in combat, and weighed ~6lbs. Now look at that screenshot someone jsut posted of a "big" sword and tell me that thing doesn't weight an ounce less than 20lbs.

 

Mind you the entire argument is countered by the fact it's a fantasy game. Just saying.

 

 

I don't know... I know someone who can swing a 15lb sledge for a good hour... I also know someone with a good amount of property who cuts wood with an axe that probably weights around 10 lbs(it is NOT a little hatchet, heh) and he can go for a very long time....