Why are swords "better" than guns?

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by Anime_Dude

Im justing going to throw a little Video here, nothing to do with "which is better", enjoy ^^

YouTube - Bullet vs. Samurai Sword

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

I'll go ahead and do the same:

YouTube - Nuclear Cannon (Nuke Cannon)

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

Lets see your knife cut that?

P.S. I'm not quoting, nor spend 3 hours ripping melloguy's argument to shreds... but you're a wanker.

[atomsk]

Originally Posted by mellowguy

Inhumanity. While technically, all human violence is inhumane, I would still go with swords as being more quick and painless.


First. No one uses sword anymore. How could we possibly know what would happen if a modern army trained a division of soldiers in swordfighting? And developed tactics for gunfights?

firstly a sword is a cutting weapon. the cutting weapon has two points. to kill in several seconds by making vital organs bleed to death. most of the time a sword causes the body to shut down making it imobile where it then bleeds to death. secondly in the case that you miss slightly or are killed before the finishing blow or the recipient of a sword wound escapes he should bleed to death. and ive seen bleeding to death. it is not pretty. and yes both the first and second types

secondly they did do that. the result: hundreds shoganate samurai slaughtered with minimal casualties on the other side. and that was with single shot 18th century weapons. thats why they dont use the sword anymore.

[mellowguy]

I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by mellowguy

I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

you should add that not only did gatling guns catch sword wielders off guard, they also caught gunwielders off guard in wars from the 1860's onward. many of which were predominantly gun fought battles with high casualties on the side opposing the gatling gun. the same thing happened with chemical warfare, innovation in war is the best means of victory, until the enemy adapts to it.

[Vakarak]

Originally Posted by analogZero

you should add that not only did gatling guns catch sword wielders off guard, they also caught gunwielders off guard in wars from the 1860's onward. many of which were predominantly gun fought battles with high casualties on the side opposing the gatling gun. the same thing happened with chemical warfare, innovation in war is the best means of victory, until the enemy adapts to it.

Good I thought I was the only one who saw this movie:

YouTube - last samurai final battle part 1/2

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

EDIT:

YouTube - last samurai final battle part 2/2

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

cause youtube sucks a bit >.>

[jyuukai]

You know what?! Swords are better because I say so!

[Blooddrunk]

Gunblades are better, period.

[Silverleon]

Either one can be better, just depends on the situation.

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by analogZero

sorry, had to step in here.
I'd like to refer you to something:

"Testing of swords, called tameshigiri, was practiced on a variety of materials to test the sword's sharpness and practice cutting technique. This included prisoners. Kenjutsu is the use of the Japanese sword in combat. The katana was primarily a cutting weapon, or more specifically, a slicing one.

For cutting, there was a specific technique called 'ten uchi.' Ten uchi refers to an organized motion made by arms and wrist, during a descending strike. As the sword is swung downwards, the elbow joint drastically extends at the last instant, popping the sword into place. This motion causes the swordsman's grip to twist slightly and if done correctly, is said to feel like wringing a towel. This motion itself caused the katana's blade to impact its target with sharp force, and is used to break initial resistance. From there, fluidly continuing along the motion wrought by 'ten uchi,' the arms would follow through with the stroke, dragging the sword through its target. Because the katana slices rather than chops, it is this 'dragging' which allows it to do maximum damage, and is thusly incorporated into the cutting technique. At full speed, the swing will appear to be full stroke, the katana passing through the targeted object. The segments of the swing are hardly visible, if at all. Assuming that the target is, for example, a human torso -- ten uchi will break the initial resistance supplied by shoulder muscles and the clavical. The follow through would continue the slicing motion, through whatever else it would encounter, until the blade inherently exited the body, due a combination of the motion and its curved shape."

the objective of attack with a katana was to cut down from the inside of the shoulder down to the hip on the opposite side. In the very least it would sever major arteries though the objective is to cut your enemy completely in half. Katanas were tested (amongst other means) on prisoners to see how far they would cut a human being in half, and often physically marked in accordance with their performance. a rapier, I'm sure isn't going to cut an arm off, but a katana will go through your arm like it was warm butter, I'm afraid.

I've seen a katana cut through bamboo, but nothing thicker. If I could see something about the same consistency then I would be convinced otherwise. That's quite a bit of bone to cut through considering each rib you have to cut through. Considering the need for the "ten uchi" so many you would lose momentum so I doubt it would seriously cut a human in half unless wielded by some insanely over powered son of a bitch.

Who knows it might really work. If it does I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by mellowguy

I suppose the biggest point that I need to insist on is: we do not know what a modern swordsman would do. We have all sorts of data on modern warriors, but one who trains especially with swords? we do not know.

Before I get to imagining one, I want to address atomsk's comment that they did that in the 18th century. I do not believe that the japanese samurai were very familiar with the gatling gun, which was just getting it's start at the time. And although guns had been known of in Japan for quite some time, they weren't used while Japan was in isolation. This seems to me like quite the jump. Before the isolation (before the 1600's) firearms were flashy but not really tactically that powerful. (with a notable exception) The samurai's techniques were not quite ready for the tactics and techniques of the 1850s, when the isolation ended.

Looking back on your original conclusion, I have to stop now. I could go on and on about how swords are not obsolete, but I can't say that someone could be the best warrior he can be with only a sword. When it comes down to it, a man with a gun and a sword in reserve is more effective in a modern battlefield than a man with a sword with a gun in reserve. In your definition of better, the gun is better than the sword.

I feel bad about it, because I feel that swords are still more epic.

Oh well, I guess we still have bayonets and hidden blades!

If the gun had never been invented the debate wouldn't be here. Now let's say for some reason Japan had been isolated from the rest of the world for the last 500 years and never knew what a gun was. We could then get a "modern" swordsman army assembled and see how the two do. Unfortunately I don't think they would do too well. Sword technology and human conditioning can only go so far. They wouldn't be able to go far enough to be able to solve the problem of fast moving small projectiles. One can dream though right?

Originally Posted by Vakarak

Good I thought I was the only one who saw this movie:

YouTube - last samurai final battle part 1/2

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

EDIT:

YouTube - last samurai final battle part 2/2

Close

2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2

cause youtube sucks a bit >.>

I thought it was a pretty good movie. I tried to avoid referring to it since it is fiction, but all in all still a good movie.

Also: In the American Civil War the gattling gun was actually classified as artillery rather than as a "machine gun". This is obviously for it's size.

Also 2: The early gattling guns actually used "self contained cartridges" made with paper casings rather than metal. Consequently this made for unreliability as the rounds didn't always go off and the casings sometimes jammed.

[i,g]http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/the_more_you_know2.jpg[/img]

[Kirsa]

okay personally I prefer sword, face it to hack your enemy to pieces with your own two hands would be alot more fun then to point a gun ad pull a trigger.
But to face simple facts if you come at me with a sword and I have a 9mm in my hand I'll just shoot you in your legs, and arms, take your sword and cut your throat^^ So in the long run Guns are better then Swords but Swords are way more fun to kill with XD Guns make it to quick, and easy. Q.Q