I enjoyed that post.
I wasted my 3rd year in university playing SoulCalibre (on Dreamcast). It lacked Raphael, but I focused on Cervantes. That said, I can usually beat anyone in the technical societiess using any character (some are also very good. The best of us all has since graduated).
Not true with SC2, since the controls map differently, but I can still beat most of the people.
However, even though I enjoyed the post, I am going to pick apart your introductory paragraph. Not to be mean, but to educate (I hope).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex  Serious fencers have always wondered exactly how well their favored weapon would stand up against the Most Awesomest Sword History Has Ever Known, aka the katana. It's a legitimate question; we want to feel that our wirey little pokers could hold their own against several feet of a razor so sharp it could cut an atom in half. |
One of the most ignorant things anyone can do is state that one thing is above and beyond all others. It's pure opinion.
Yes, the Katana is a beautiful sword. And the forging of it was (and is) truly an art form. But too many people place too much weight on the folding process and the use of a low-carbon core/high carbon outer.
The folding took place to purify the metal, since they did not have the modern forging technologies we do today.
The use of a softer core was ingenious, I'll grant it that. But again it comes down to how the sword was intended to be used, and the methods of heat-treating available.
The implied comparison that other swords were not as well made is bunk. Differently made, yes. For different styles of use, yes. But there are not simple by comparison. They required just as much testing, tuning, and skill as did the Katanas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex Unfortunately, rapiers (the closest historical approximation of current sport epees and foils) were used far away from traditional samurai terror lands, to say nothing of appropriate time periods. (Don't ask; I can barely remember what happened in my first marriage, much less grasp world history.) |
Actually, smallswords/colichemardes would be the closest. Smallswords developed in the late 17th century, and were double-time weapons. In fact, the shift to double-time from the single-time is part of what led to fencing becoming linear. The advent of double time made rearward retreats a strategic move, causing a more linear style to develop. The foil was originally a training sword for the smallsword.
The epee descended from the duelling epee, and was, to my understanding, unrelated to the foil.
Also, sabres have been is use even more recently.
So the rapier is not the closest historical counterpart we can draw on.
The perception of massive, unwieldy European weapons is the fault of fencing.
In the 18th century, fencing masters gave in to the need to portray their art as the "top of it's form". After all, it's newer, so thy figurd it must be better. Naturally, this was done by making unfavourable comparisons to older techniques. Which is where the knightly swords gained their "heavy and unwieldy" reputation.
In fact, the average weight of those swords is lypically less than 4 pounds.
Even the massive double-handed swords (German, Swiss, and Scottish for the better known ones) normally weighed 6 pounds or less.
Cheers, hope that clears up some misconceptions.
Oh, and I'd pwn you at SoulCalibre if I had Cervantes.
Yeesh.
Didn't you see it there?
Linear Mode
