Archers are weak, Swordsman are strong... Not.
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ Guy teaches HEMA. And is fairly knowledgeable in the field. Explains it better than I do. So I will let it speak in place of my sloppy explanation.
63 Comments
RogueWill5 votesThe effective weight of the sword is not 3 lbs thou because of the centripetal forces and the torque applied when you swing it, is probably a tad more but I feel too lazy to do the math
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesThe effective weight of the sword is not 3 lbs thou because of the centripetal forces and the torque applied when you swing it, is probably a tad more but I feel too lazy to do the math
True. But as pointed out by an expert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ swords are still fairly easy to use. I use them myself, they strength required is mostly for reflexes and dexterity. Not muscling it.
RogueWill2 votes[{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=uJkdT5ro,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2016-08-25T07:40:17.957+0000)
True. But as pointed out by an expert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ swords are still fairly easy to use. I use them myself, they strength required is mostly for reflexes and dexterity. Not muscling it.
Also a few more things....the greatsword and two-handed swords weight was not 3lbs but 3kg, so around 8 lbs. The only big sword with such little weight are either practice swords or warswords that were designed for different purposes.
The second thing i want to mention is swing force. There is a difference between being able to swing a sword and being able to do damage with your swing. Bows have such a high draw weight . The 50-100 lbs draw is assuming a full draw to reach the maximum piecing potential. to make the comparison viable you should do adjustments to said swing force to achieve same potential with your sword. meaning that you need faster and bigger muscles. Anyone can throw a punch but is not going to be the same your punch than a professional boxer punch.
Third is the gear and positioning of the troops, usually archers positions are stationary, they use more hit-and-run tactics so they are best suited with light armors (usually leather). Swordsman on the other hand are on the front lines (great-swordsman are usually line by the pikerman to deal with the calvary) Hence they use Heavy Armor, so rigid plates of steel (usually 3mm) that were padded on the inside. So by comparison the swordsman looked bigger, beefier and bulkier than you averager archer.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesAlso a few more things....the greatsword and two-handed swords weight was not 3lbs but 3kg, so around 8 lbs. The only big sword with such little weight are either practice swords or warswords that were designed for different purposes.
The second thing i want to mention is swing force. There is a difference between being able to swing a sword and being able to do damage with your swing. Bows have such a high draw weight . The 50-100 lbs draw is assuming a full draw to reach the maximum piecing potential. to make the comparison viable you should do adjustments to said swing force to achieve same potential with your sword. meaning that you need faster and bigger muscles. Anyone can throw a punch but is not going to be the same your punch than a professional boxer punch.
Third is the gear and positioning of the troops, usually archers positions are stationary, they use more hit-and-run tactics so they are best suited with light armors (usually leather). Swordsman on the other hand are on the front lines (great-swordsman are usually line by the pikerman to deal with the calvary) Hence they use Heavy Armor, so rigid plates of steel (usually 3mm) that were padded on the inside. So by comparison the swordsman looked bigger, beefier and bulkier than you averager archer.
"Two-handed sword, Scottish, mid 16th century, (IX.926). Weight: 5 lb 10oz. One of the most outrageous (and wildly incorrect) statements made about Medieval swords is that they were heavy and weighed as much as 40 pounds."
And no, with the longer handle and two handed grip make it just about as easy to swing. Again, watch the video. That guy has been teaching hema for over 12 years now. The trope is incorrect.
WoonStruck2 votesOP doesn't seem to think momentum isn't a thing, and strength is a large factor in that.
Someone swinging with 100 lbs of force will far outclass someone capable of only 50 lbs of force, given equal skill and similar weapon.
But OP is a master of arms, apparently, so logic doesn't apply :^)
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesOP doesn't seem to think momentum is a thing, and strength is a large factor in that.
Someone swinging with 100 lbs of force will far outclass someone capable of only 50 lbs of force, given equal skill.
But OP is a master of arms, apparently, so logic doesn't apply :^)
Watch video, that guy is an expert, well beyond you .You are wrong period, get out.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesOP doesn't seem to think momentum isn't a thing, and strength is a large factor in that.
Someone swinging with 100 lbs of force will far outclass someone capable of only 50 lbs of force, given equal skill and similar weapon.
But OP is a master of arms, apparently, so logic doesn't apply :^)
And I can link videos from many other experts, who actually use these weapons every day. Showing that bows take massive strength training over years to reach battle bow draw weights. While swords the momentum of the swing does most of the work, and the blade slices. Real experts, not your factually incorrect opinion.
WoonStruck2 votesThat's not opinion. Someone with superior strength will simply defeat someone with lesser strength, given equal skill and same weapons, the vast majority of the time when it comes to melee arms.
For some reason you deny that fact.
No, it doesn't take much to make a laceration with a sword, just like it doesn't take much to puncture with an arrow.
The amount of strength required to wield various swords and bows varies greatly, and you seem to deny that fact for swords exclusively.
You're so insanely biased its impossible to argue any point with you. You are denying facts by simply trying to state that bowmen are universally superior to swordsmen when its comes to strength for some reason by some unfathomable logic.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesThat's not opinion. Someone with superior strength will simply defeat someone with lesser strength, given equal skill and same weapons, the vast majority of the time when it comes to melee arms.
For some reason you deny that fact.
No, it doesn't take much to make a laceration with a sword, just like it doesn't take much to puncture with a bow.
The amount of strength required to wield various swords and bows varies greatly, and you seem to deny that fact for swords exclusively.
You're so insanely biased its impossible to argue. You are denying facts by simply trying to state that bowmen are superior to swordsmen when its comes to strength for some unfathomable reason.
The argument of the post is that Bows do require a minimum amount of muscle to use. Swords do not. You denied this, the experts say otherwise. Stop creating other, unrelated side arguments. Just say you were wrong.
I never said swordsman were weak or bowman were stronger. I spoke of the minimum requirements, and why the trope is false. Specifically because I read and watch materials made by experts on the matter, and use the weapons myself.
Now... the magic words "I was wrong."? Eh ehh?
WoonStruck1 votesAgain, you're making unfair comparisons between the two.
If you want to be a good swordsman, with the stereotypical broadsword, claymore, or bastard sword, etc you have a minimum strength requirement as well. Many other swords have a drastically lower 'minimum', however, as they focus on slashing/finesse.
Any swordsman that's alive in its relevant fighting period and has been in multiple battles is going to outclass the majority of other swordsman by either skill or strength, usually both.
Just like anyone could pick up a bow and fire it with lethal force. Its the accuracy and potential distance that would suffer greatly in this case, and that would not make you a good bowman.
If you want to be a good bowman, with the stereotypical longbow, yes, there is a pretty significant strength requirement.
How about you argue how much the strength differs between a realistic bowman and the trope swordsman rather than implying that swords require no strength to be successful.
Maybe that wouldn't get you downvoted.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesAgain, you're making unfair comparisons between the two.
If you want to be a good swordsman, with the stereotypical broadsword, claymore, or bastard sword, etc you have a minimum strength requirement as well. Many other swords have a drastically lower 'minimum', however, as they focus on slashing/finesse.
Any swordsman that's alive in its relevant fighting period and has been in multiple battles is going to outclass the majority of other swordsman by either skill or strength, usually both.
Just like anyone could pick up a bow and fire it with lethal force. Its the accuracy and distance that would suffer greatly in this case, and that would not make you a good bowman.
If you want to be a good bowman, with the stereotypical longbow, yes, there is a pretty significant strength requirement.
You can swing a sword with lethal force with almost no muscle. It's just the speed the cutting surface is moving at on impact and the blade alignment that makes the cut. Not the muscle.
You cannot shoot a bow of effective strength to kill somebody without some muscle training. And the second you start adding clothes, padding and effective ranges it has to be an impressive amount.
The reason a front line warrior needs strength is because of almost everything OTHER than using his sword. Taking blows, running in armor, endurance, climbing, running, wrestling, pulling and pushing heavy things. With a SWORD the work is done by the speed of the impact point, which can be achieved by flailing your arm like a moron. The skill in a sword comes from the aim, tactics and alignment in use. Not from your ability to muscle the blade.
While a bow must have a certain amount of muscle to even draw it so it will fire. As in, the weapon cannot physically do it's job without you having enough muscle.
So no, like the expert you are ignoring explained in the video, who knows a lot more than you do. A bow has a much higher minimum strength requirement to use than sword. So... again with the not making a valid point. At this point you are playing the pride game, where you try to find some manner in which you were right, just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
WoonStruck1 votesLethality of a sword is not what's being argued, just like lethality of the arrow is not what's significant.
Its the use of a sword, which involves getting through someone's block/armor. Its just like firing an arrow; you aren't doing jack shit if you don't hit them/don't have enough force.
Strength means almost everything when it comes to actually landing a blow on someone with a sword.
Finesse of a sword has a lot to do with muscle so you can change the direction of the swing quickly without tiring out, just like powering through someone's guard AND armor has a lot to do with strength, all of which are included in fighting with a sword with the intent to kill.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesLethality of a sword is not what's being argued, just like lethality of the arrow is not what's significant.
Its the use of a sword, which involves getting through someone's block/armor. Its just like firing an arrow. You aren't doing jack shit if you don't hit them/don't have enough force.
Strength means almost everything when it comes to actually landing a blow on someone with a sword.
Finesse of a sword has a lot to do with muscle so you can change the direction of the swing quickly without tiring out, just like powering through someone's guard AND armor has a lot to do with strength, all of which are included in fighting with a sword with the intent to kill.
I sure hope you are not trying to go through armor with a sword. Against an armored foe muscle still doesn't help, a sword doesn't cut through plates or riveted mail. At that point you need even more finesse to hit weak points.
Love that you are still arguing anything other than the purpose of the post, which the expert in the video already addressed. Which is the minimum strength to effectively use a bow is much higher than that of using a sword.
WoonStruck1 votesExcept that your argument is essentially that the ability to fight with a sword has nothing to do with strength, which is incorrect.
A stronger swordsman is a better swordsman. You still fail to discredit that statement. If you can over-power your opponent's grip/balance, you can likely disarm him and win that way.
Being a good swordsman requires more strength because its largely dependent on the strength of your opponent, not your weapon, which means you always need to be prepared for someone that has the strength advantage, unlike with bows, which have a pretty static draw-weight.
Being weaker than your opponent is a significant disadvantage when it comes to swordfighting with most English swords. It takes a lot of skill or a different weapon to overcome that disadvantage, barring foolish mistakes/luck.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesExcept that your argument is essentially that the ability to fight with a sword has nothing to do with strength, which is incorrect.
A stronger swordsman is a better swordsman. You still fail to discredit that statement. If you can over-power your opponent's grip/balance, you can likely disarm him and win that way.
Being a good swordsman requires more strength because its largely dependent on the strength of your opponent, not your weapon, which means you always need to be prepared for someone that has the strength advantage, unlike with bows, which have a pretty static draw-weight.
Being weaker than your opponent is a significant disadvantage when it comes to swordfighting with most English swords. It takes a lot of skill or a different weapon to overcome that disadvantage, barring foolish mistakes/luck.
Except I never argued that once. I said that a swordsman or knight SHOULD be strong like any other soldier. For things like "Grappling, running, ENDURANCE..." And a few other things I mentioned more than once. so no, I do know that. Wrong again.
Is said, using a SWORD has a lower minimum strength requirement than shooting a bow. As using a sword, the power of a strike and how deep it cuts is based on how fast the point of impact is moving, the muscles you need are for endurance and reflex. As I already stated. so no, I know that, wrong again.
However, the minimum amount of strength needed to swing the sword so it will cut and be effective. Is not very high, almost non-existent. As the guy who trained thousands of people already stated in the video.
While shooting a bow, means even for a weak hunting bow you MUST be able to span 30-45lbs. But for any real medieval bow more like 60-70 or even up to 150lbs.
Meaning again, yes. I was correct. The minimum strength required to use a bow is much much greater. Which is why the trope falls short. And while knights had to be strong enough to ride horses and joust. Archers also had to carry tons of extra supplies on the campaign trail and had no servants to aid them. If you really want to get into practical applications of muscle. Footman had to do more than knights in combat. As knights were Riders, it is literally what Knight means. they also had servants and aids to help them from doing any extra work on the march and in setting camp or moving out. Foorman had to carry their own shit, be the front line and use weapons. They also had to walk everywhere, while Knights rode.
Archers were like footman, except instead of having to hold shields and swing swords they had to span 70-150 over and over and over and over as fast as possible. While moving their battle lines and barriers all over and still resorting to melee if they needed to. Which is why they carried cleavers, picks and hammers.
But in the sense that matters to my post, the only thing that matters is the minimum strength required to use each weapon. Which is all I ever argued.
RogueWill2 votes[{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=uJkdT5ro,comment-id=000500010001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-08-25T08:16:18.070+0000)
I sure hope you are not trying to go through armor with a sword. Against an armored foe muscle still doesn't help, a sword doesn't cut through plates or riveted mail. At that point you need even more finesse to hit weak points.
Love that you are still arguing anything other than the purpose of the post, which the expert in the video already addressed. Which is the minimum strength to effectively use a bow is much higher than that of using a sword.
You really don't understand the pint of a greatsword. To say it simply a greatsword is a blunt weapon, is not really made to cut but to sweep. Is made to make groups of enemies lose their balance where they can be taken easily once they are in the ground. The reason they have an edge is for the cavalry, as I mention to you earlier they were next to the pikerman to take out the cavalry since cavalry represented a huge threat to the infantry. The guy on the video is holding a longsword, which was designed to go though plates and pierce opponents, hence they were ligther since they were not meant for slashing but thrusting. Garen uses a greatsword, Kayle uses a longsword and Master yi uses a Zanbato (a single edge japanese longs sword). As you can see their physiques are quite different since the swords they use are for different purposes.
You are comparing stuff according of your bias, that is almost as I were to compare training bows with greatswords and deduce my conclusions from there.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesYou really don't understand the pint of a greatsword. To say it simply a greatsword is a blunt weapon, is not really made to cut but to sweep. Is made to make groups of enemies lose their balance where they can be taken easily once they are in the ground. The reason they have an edge is for the cavalry, as I mention to you earlier they were next to the pikerman to take out the cavalry since cavalry represented a huge threat to the infantry. The guy on the video is holding a longsword, which was designed to go though plates and pierce opponents, hence they were ligther since they were not meant for slashing but thrusting. Garen uses a greatsword, Kayle uses a longsword and Master yi uses a Zanbato (a single edge japanese longs sword). As you can see their physiques are quite different since the swords they use are for different purposes.
You are comparing stuff according of your bias, that is almost as I were to compare training bows with greatswords and deduce my conclusions from there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGHYdgWNQQU Greatswords were rarely used. But more importantly, the idea of any medieval sword being blunt is a huge historical fallacy that was spread around. We have dug up aged swords that are still sharp 200-400 years later.
WoonStruck2 votesI think his point was more that it was not the typical fine-edged blade. Yes, it can cut, but it was built more for weight/momentum than easy cuts in the way that a typical sword was.
If the sword were instead a weighted metal pike, it would fulfill the same general purpose, just as less of a stand-alone lethal threat cough cavalry cough when being swung about.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesI think his point was more that it was not the typical fine-edged blade. Yes, it can cut, but it was built more for weight/momentum than easy cuts in the way that a typical sword was.
If the sword were instead a metal lance, it would fulfill the same general purpose, just as less of a stand-alone lethal threat.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, the experts would agree here. This is why a greatsword is considered a pole arm, not a 'true' sword, a sword is about cutting. And they were rarely used, because polearms typically filled the greatsword's job better.
WoonStruck2 votesI imagine greatswords were easier to put into the hands of a trained swordsman than training them how to use a polearm, especially where familiarity with the 'minimum range' is concerned. Probably more significant with non-organized infantries.
Roles that soldiers filled were generally extremely specialized, so there was often little use for greatswords with how battles were organized. I imagine its more of a mercenary weapon than 'kingdom soldier'.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesI imagine greatswords were easier to put into the hands of a trained swordsman than training them how to use a polearm, especially where familiarity with the 'minimum range' is concerned.
Believe it or not, there is hardly such a thing as a pure swordsman. Swords were secondary weapons for almost everyone. Because longer weapons like polearms, spears, bows, crossbows, pikes and the like. Are more effective in formation. And maces, axes and hammers are better against armor.
But Greatswords were more of a polearm used by people who were wealthy and wanted something more versatile than a spear.
Minimum range isn't a problem with pole arms, they are easy to drop when the enemy closes.
WoonStruck2 votesAgain, with more organized militias, pole-arms were optimal because the process of a battle was relatively simple.
In non-organized militias, where there wasn't the infantry->cavalry->archers fire->clash->drop mid-range weapons in favor of close-arms, greatswords were probably a lot more useful, since there's the benefit of not having to draw your secondary arm.
That's my assumption at least. If that's not it, probably just a case of a weapon that filled a purpose, got kinda popular, but was better filled by another, so it quickly fell out of favor, but not for everyone.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesAgain, with more organized militias, pole-arms were optimal because the process of a battle was relatively simple.
In non-organized militias, where there wasn't the infantry->cavalry->archers fire->clash->drop mid-range weapons in favor of close-arms, greatswords were probably a lot more useful, since there's the benefit of not having to draw your secondary arm.
Yes and no. Some long weapons such as spears are still considered some of the best 1v1 weapons there are, took minimum training to use to a basic level, and a skilled spearman wouldn't let a greatsword into his range very easily at all. Greatswords were very rare. Their most common use was breaking through pikelines and used by guards for intimidation effect. Usually the longest swords used on a battlefield were longswords. Which are two handed but can be used in one hand, just not as well. Greatswords were not bad, but were very niche. And like most middle ground weapons, lacked being strong in either area.
Weapon switching is also very fast. Watch some videos of HEMA reinactments where the spearman loses his range advantage or is flanked. It happens in the blink of an eye.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesAgain, with more organized militias, pole-arms were optimal because the process of a battle was relatively simple.
In non-organized militias, where there wasn't the infantry->cavalry->archers fire->clash->drop mid-range weapons in favor of close-arms, greatswords were probably a lot more useful, since there's the benefit of not having to draw your secondary arm.
That's my assumption at least. If that's not it, probably just a case of a weapon that filled a purpose, got kinda popular, but was better filled by another, so it quickly fell out of favor, but not for everyone.
RogueWill1 votes[{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=uJkdT5ro,comment-id=00050001000100000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2016-08-25T08:35:38.037+0000)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGHYdgWNQQU Greatswords were rarely used. But more importantly, the idea of any medieval sword being blunt is a huge historical fallacy that was spread around. We have dug up aged swords that are still sharp 200-400 years later.
Yeah, Halberts and Pikerman were better at stopping Calvary alone but render quite ineffective once they had to go against infantry since they become weird, heavy short lances. I explained you that they were indeed sharp to deal with the horses, but once they were with the armored foot soldier they behaved more (they did damaged more similarly to) like blunt weapons, swung around stomach/chest level breaking ribs that would end up breaking ribs that woudl end up puncturing your organs or swung from above hitting your shoulder and dislocating them rendering useless to wield your weapon, the cut you got from the slash was just icing on the cake.
Like you said greatswords were rarely used in battle, they niched was better filled but plain pikerman. The only real advantage you woudl get from a greatsword was the physiological effect of fear of this huge weapon being swung and knock 3 or 4 foot soldiers that would intimidate the enemies foot soldier. In reality they were inefficient against infantry and woudl require support troops armed with regular swords lo last with this weapons since they were slower and less efficient at blocking, then again medival battles were 3 swings at most before one or other were dead.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesYeah, Halberts and Pikerman were better at stopping Calvary alone but render quite ineffective once they had to go against infantry since they become weird, heavy short lances. I explained you that they were indeed sharp to deal with the horses, but once they were with the armored foot soldier they behaved more (they did damaged more similarly to) like blunt weapons, swung around stomach/chest level breaking ribs that would end up breaking ribs that woudl end up puncturing your organs or swung from above hitting your shoulder and dislocating them rendering useless to wield your weapon, the cut you got from the slash was just icing on the cake.
Like you said greatswords were rarely used in battle, they niched was better filled but plain pikerman. The only real advantage you woudl get from a greatsword was the physiological effect of fear of this huge weapon being swung and knock 3 or 4 foot soldiers that would intimidate the enemies foot soldier. In reality they were inefficient against infantry and woudl require support troops armed with regular swords lo last with this weapons since they were slower and less efficient at blocking, then again medival battles were 3 swings at most before one or other were dead.
Pike and pole weapons are not weird once close. If a footman gets inside your range with it you drop it. Soldiers carried secondary weapons. In face, swords were secondary weapons for the most part period.
Dynikus3 votesnormal long/recurve bows aren't anywhere close to 70-150 lbs. warbows weren't even 150 lbs.
and you're using most of the muscles in your upper body to draw the weight of a bow, so it doesn't really require that much muscle to do. your argument is very confusing anyway, who cares if a toddler could lift a sword?
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesnormal long/recurve bows aren't anywhere close to 70-150 lbs. warbows weren't even 150 lbs.
and you're using most of the muscles in your upper body to draw the weight of a bow, so it doesn't really require that much muscle to do. your argument is very confusing anyway, who cares if a toddler could lift a sword?
Actually in the wreck of the Mary Rose some of the only existing examples of English Warbows were found. Their draw weights were between 90-150 pounds across the examples they found.
Hun archers have existing examples that average 50-90 pounds.
The only bows that are low draw weights are childrens bows, target bows and small game bows.
Current archers shooting in traditional methods in England use bows of 80-150 lbs. One guy even built and uses one that is 180. Try looking up people like BigBowBrum and Kevin Hicks for more information. Or reading some books on English Archery.
The point is, moving and using a sword does not require large muscles. Large muscles are good for being a knight or soldier, but are not mandatory for a sword. People in RPGs and games always assume sword=strong because you have to be 'mighty' to swing a sword.
Using a bow DOES have certain strength requirements. Unlike a sword. And English archers they have dug up, have deformations in their arms, shoulders and backs from using them. That doesn't happen when it 'doesn't require that much muscle to do'
Again, try doing research before you post.
Dynikus3 votesthere are plenty of agile swordsman in video games and other works of fantasy. It's generally only the knights and warriors that get the stereotype of being big hulking brutes. the archers that you see in games that are weak are never using war bows, you can expect around 50 lbs or so, so I really don't understand why you keep using the example of english war bows.
using a bow DOES have certain strength requirements. Unlike a sword.
lol. yeah, not even responding past this. I never said bows didn't require some strength, just that it doesn't require that much, since you're using the muscles in basically your entire upper body to do so. and been into traditional archery for 6 years now, so...
G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TR3 votesYou're forgetting that any moderately long sword is going to have a center of mass way out from the body of whoever's swinging it, so it's going to have a large moment of inertia and really want to throw around whoever's trying to operate it. This problem is only exacerbated for longer weapons like J4's spear or a halberd. Certainly using a bow requires notable strength, but add onto the mass and length of a sword the heavy armor a melee combatant's going to have and you need some serious muscle to be running about a battlefield without just collapsing 30 seconds into a fight.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesYou're forgetting that any moderately long sword is going to have a center of mass way out from the body of whoever's swinging it, so it's going to have a large moment of inertia and really want to throw around whoever's trying to operate it. This problem is only exacerbated for longer weapons like J4's spear or a halberd. Certainly using a bow requires notable strength, but add onto the mass and length of a sword the heavy armor a melee combatant's going to have and you need some serious muscle to be running about a battlefield without just collapsing 30 seconds into a fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q Armor is lighter than what modern soldiers carry in their packs. and well distributed across the body. It is some pieces of metal strapped to their padding, it gains no mystical weight from nowhere. I also own several swords. I am not forgetting anything. The balance point is usually 2-3 inches from the quillons, it's not an axe. It's a long piece of metal with a handle. I am not talking about J4's lance, a lance is not a sword. I'm talking about the general opinion among us 'nerds' that swords are massive strength weapons, while bows are dainty weapons.
G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TR3 votesArmor may be lighter than what soldiers today carry, but you'll also notice that soldiers today are ripped as hell, so that doesn't necessarily prove anything. I said you were forgetting about length because it wasn't mentioned in your post, and you seemed to be implying that a toddler could swing a sword with your comment that they could pick one up. I wasn't even trying to argue with your conclusion so much as correct something you seemed to be leaving out in the OP.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesArmor may be lighter than what soldiers today carry, but you'll also notice that soldiers today are ripped as hell, so that doesn't necessarily prove anything. I said you were forgetting about length because it wasn't mentioned in your post, and you seemed to be implying that a toddler could swing a sword with your comment that they could pick one up. I wasn't even trying to argue with your conclusion so much as correct something you seemed to be leaving out in the OP.
Correction. I said a toddler can lift 3lbs. I never said one could swing a sword. However, I am out of shape, and can swing my a longsword for hours with minimal wear. On the contrary, I get sore and tired from 20-30 shots from my 50lbs bow. Historical finds show that recurves used by Huns were 70+ lbs and longbows used by English were 80-150lbs.
My cousin is a soldier and my step father a police officer. Neither are 'ripped as hell' nor are most of their friends in the same field. They have a moderate amount of muscle, they just aren't overweight nerds on computers like I am.
G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TR4 votesI may have exaggerated a bit about the muscle, I tend to do that when I'm tired. Still, the several marines in my family are notably stronger than an average person. I said you seemed to imply a toddler could swing one, not that you said they could. And again, I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just commenting that you left out the idea of a sword requiring more effort to swing than a 3 pound gym weight would for example.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesI may have exaggerated a bit about the muscle, I tend to do that when I'm tired. Still, the several marines in my family are notably stronger than an average person. I said you seemed to imply a toddler could swing one, not that you said they could. And again, I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just commenting that you left out the idea of a sword requiring more effort to swing than a 3 pound gym weight would for example.
I apologize that I gave that implication. However, even if you tie a 3 pound gym weight halfway up a meter long poll and wield it with two hands. It would be easier than drawing a warbow. Soldiers should always been strong, it is a specific note on the whole... Archers are dainty and Swords are heavy trope. English Archers had to train every day from youth, so they would be strong enough to quickly loose arrow after arrow from extremely powerful bows.
G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TR3 votesLike I said a couple times before, I agree with your stance on the trope, I was just trying to correct what I saw as a possible miscommunication or omission of information.
WoonStruck3 votesComparing sword weight with draw weight is an entirely faulty argument.
Its the force you put behind the swing; not the weight of the sword. The weight of the sword just adds momentum and increases the strength and minimum force required to use it efficiently.
That's why swordsmen are generally shown as stronger than bowmen.
Being more muscular does very little for a bowman who could already efficiently use his weapon, especially if his strength is capable of more than what his draw weight allows.
Being more muscular for a melee weapons specialist of any kind drastically improves their combat ability, even if its just a hulking brute swinging a mass of iron/wood around.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesComparing sword weight with draw weight is an entirely faulty argument.
Its the force you put behind the swing; not the weight of the sword. The weight of the sword just adds momentum and increases the strength and minimum force required to use it efficiently.
That's why swordsmen are generally shown as stronger than bowmen.
Being more muscular does very little for a bowman who could already efficiently use his weapon, especially if his strength is capable of more than what his draw weight allows.
Being more muscular for a melee weapons specialist of any kind drastically improves their combat ability, even if its just a hulking brute swinging a mass of iron/wood around.
You do not muscle a sword into your target. You let it cut through the speed of its movement. Please look up some HEMA youtubers at least. The reason a knight has muscle is because he is a soldier, same reason a bow man has muscle. Melee weapons are never 'muscled' into strikes. The differences is you do not need to be very muscular to make deep, cleaving cuts with a sword. You do need to be muscular to draw a heavy draw weight bow. The point was never that a soldier of any kind doesn't need muscle, it is that a sword is not a strength weapon, and a bow is. One literally requires you to draw a certain poundage. The other is about three pounds and has to be swung fast with good aim and edge alignment. Muscle for a melee fighter is more important for grappling than anything to do with a sword. But guess what? When the enemies got close, archers also became melee fighters, dropping their bows in exchange for melee weapons.
Archers are the ones noted for deformed muscles and bones from the weights they had to draw hundreds of times. Not anyone else. these are real historical finds from real historians. Not your assumptions based on a lack of understanding how medieval weapons work. And is exactly the purpose of this post.
WoonStruck2 votesDepending on the sword, you DO muscle a sword into a target.
Sabers are the only blade solely about letting it "cut through the speed of movement".
Many of the straight and double-edged blades benefit a lot solely from muscle. They also benefit from finesse. That's why they were so versatile.
More muscle means more momentum, and any 'slash' benefits from that, so I beg to differ.
You can't say that swords don't require muscle. SOME swords don't. I don't get why you reference so many draw weights for bows, yet you seem to deny the existence of more force-oriented melee weapons.
By your definition, it doesn't take much strength to use a low draw-weight hunting bow, so that means no bows require much strength, since that bow can still make an arrow pierce flesh.
There are many, many different swords throughout history, as well as many different techniques to using them. They are not as binary as bows.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesDepending on the sword, you DO muscle a sword into a target.
Sabers are the only blade solely about letting it "cut through the speed of movement".
Many of the straight and double-edged blades benefit a lot solely from muscle. They also benefit from finesse. That's why they were so versatile.
More muscle means more momentum, and any 'slash' benefits from that, so I beg to differ.
You can't say that swords don't require muscle. SOME swords don't. I don't get why you reference so many draw weights for bows, yet you seem to deny the existence of more force-oriented melee weapons.
By your definition, it doesn't take much strength to use a low draw-weight hunting bow, so that means no bows require much strength, since that bow can still make an arrow pierce flesh.
There are many, many different swords throughout history, as well as many different techniques to using them. They are not as binary as bows.
"They are not as binary as bows."
You know nothing about archery. The difference between Hun archery, English archery, Japanese archery are massive. Please... just get out.
WoonStruck2 votesI never said that bows are one-dimensional. I said that melee arms are not as binary as bows. Big difference.
Missile weapons are definitely more binary than melee. That's a fact. You can't disprove it.
You seem to deny that there are more fighting styles among sword techniques, btw. Why are bows special in this case?
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesI never said that bows are one-dimensional. I said that melee arms are not as binary as bows. Big difference.
Missile weapons are definitely more binary than melee. That's a fact. You can't disprove it.
You seem to deny that there are more fighting styles among sword techniques, btw. Why are bows special in this case?
There are a few different manners to use bladed military weapons. But almost all styles share the same basic swings, postures, guards and movements. So no.
Please confess your factually incorrect information now after you finish reviewing material by people who actually know the subject. And have already called out your opinion as nothing but an incorrect fact. Instead of changing the subject to avoid the shame of being wrong.
VivaLaKitten3 votesBecause in video games, why would you pick someone who has to get close to deal damage when you could pick someone who can stay far away and deal it Melee needs more defense to make up for the lack of range, so they don't die before they can even get to someone who shoots, backs, shoots, backs and so on
SexySoapTurtle2 votesOP is pretty biased. I strongly doubt OP has ever lifted a sword before. I've played around a lot with all types of bows, and they weren't heavy to fire with. I dunno what type of sword you have, maybe a plastic sword.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesOP is pretty biased. I strongly doubt OP has ever lifted a sword before. I've played around a lot with all types of bows, and they weren't heavy to fire with. I dunno what type of sword you have, maybe a plastic sword.
"OP is pretty bias" Is the non-archer, expert swordsman, who runs a HEMA school in london. Also heavily bias in the perfectly logical video I posted?
SexySoapTurtle1 votes[{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=uJkdT5ro,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2016-08-25T08:11:29.405+0000)
"OP is pretty bias" Is the non-archer, expert swordsman, who runs a HEMA school in london. Also heavily bias in the perfectly logical video I posted?
Gotta admit though, you got me real good. Swords weigh feathers, and bows weigh tons. totally
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesGotta admit though, you got me real good. Swords weigh feathers, and bows weigh tons. totally
If you don't even know what a draw weight is, please do not comment.
P.s. It's the force required to pull the string back and push the bow forward. On English longbows 80-150lbs. A sword does weigh 3lbs. Look it up on any HEMA sight.
SexySoapTurtle1 votes[{quoted}](name=Mira Arya Enthe,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=uJkdT5ro,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2016-08-25T20:22:28.794+0000)
If you don't even know what a draw weight is, please do not comment.
P.s. It's the force required to pull the string back and push the bow forward. On English longbows 80-150lbs. A sword does weigh 3lbs. Look it up on any HEMA sight.
I'll comment however i please thanks. Also its Site .Try taking a swing from the so called 3lb sword. Tell me when your heads off.
Mira Arya Enthe1 votesI'll comment however i please thanks. Also its Site .Try taking a swing from the so called 3lb sword. Tell me when your heads off.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.V79VE5grLIU I also own 2 different swords, a Longsword and a chinese sword. Both are fairly easy to use.
More from [ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous
Open Letter to Parents of League of Legends Players
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous860 comments
2,611
votes
Rewards for positive play
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous19,712 comments
1,337
votes
I don't like Boards
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous324 comments
809
votes
STOP ALLOWING LEVEL 1 ACCOUNTS TO SEND FRIEND REQUESTS!!!
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous291 comments
679
votes
Wanting to do something special for an awesome friend. Riot, please help? <3
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous220 comments
614
votes
People that are telling others to kill themselves has to stop! Please help me get this noticed!
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous605 comments
600
votes
More by Mira Arya Enthe
People who think Voice Coms will improve League
Gameplay354 comments
329
votes
Why Jhin should be gutted
Memes & Games73 comments
305
votes
Has anybody else just, ceased getting excited for new champions?
Gameplay435 comments
244
votes
"Counterplay"
Gameplay218 comments
232
votes
Some people actually enjoy simple kits...
Gameplay289 comments
229
votes
I genuinely feel bad for any nice people who main...
Gameplay414 comments
188
votes