Stopping power of swords.

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 3:45pm

Originally Posted by Tameshiwhaty?

As I said it's broad and simple just my opion but the Romans didn't rely on the gladius, like all good armies their main focus was the spear, now I admit yes my reasoning is very simple and more then likely not the whole story but when I think of "stopping power" I think of range, ya know how far away is the opponent, I appreciate your criticism and agree my points were very broad and over simplified. With the gladius one key thing to remember is that it was rarely a lone weapon and usually used with a shield giving it an edge, the Celts screwed up on many levels no armor, most were "weekend Warriors" in a way and the Romans were a professional army with fine armor and great training.

I'll go back to my original statement and say you're using words with definitions you don't actually understand and applying them to concepts that you also don't actually understand.

**mike321** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 4:13pm

Going back to the classic stopping power discussion but in reverse: would you trust a long knife or thin sword to stop a soldier with a .38 in his hand with one blow?

Nope. Now if you have an expanding sword the answer might be different...

**Permalost** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 4:23pm

Originally Posted by mike321

Going back to the classic stopping power discussion but in reverse: would you trust a long knife or thin sword to stop a soldier with a .38 in his hand with one blow?

Not really, but the issue there is that I have to swing a sword while all he has to do is squeeze a trigger, so his attack will land first. Stopping power doesn't really factor in there. But if I was faster somehow? I think it'd stop his attack, cause I'd aim at his wrist.

Wait, what were we talking about?

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 4:28pm

Originally Posted by mike321

Going back to the classic stopping power discussion but in reverse: would you trust a long knife or thin sword to stop a soldier with a .38 in his hand with one blow?

Yep, if the guy with the sword was standing behind the guy with the gun.

**mike321** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 4:29pm

So you would attack a special target (likely a lower percentage hit) because your sword lacks.........wait for it.....stopping power!

**ChenPengFi** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 4:30pm

Originally Posted by mike321

Going back to the classic stopping power discussion but in reverse: would you trust a long knife or thin sword to stop a soldier with a .38 in his hand with one blow?

Nope. Now if you have an expanding sword the answer might be different...

In his hand, no probably not.
With the weapon holstered it could be a different story.

**Mordschlag** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 5:34pm

Originally Posted by Tameshiwhaty?

As I said it's broad and simple just my opion but the Romans didn't rely on the gladius, like all good armies their main focus was the spear, now I admit yes my reasoning is very simple and more then likely not the whole story but when I think of "stopping power" I think of range, ya know how far away is the opponent, I appreciate your criticism and agree my points were very broad and over simplified. With the gladius one key thing to remember is that it was rarely a lone weapon and usually used with a shield giving it an edge, the Celts screwed up on many levels no armor, most were "weekend Warriors" in a way and the Romans were a professional army with fine armor and great training.

So you're admitting that your grade-based critique of swords is shitty but that your critique is still valid enough to claim that the gladius is not a good sword? And a good sword is still a good sword, regardless of whether or not a shield is often used with it. My point about beating the Celts is that the Roman military machine was well-rounded and professional, as you agree with, and as such the gladius was their professional weapon of choice after their spears were expended. They did well because they used solid weapon designs in sound ways and this includes the gladius.

Originally Posted by mike321

So you would attack a special target (likely a lower percentage hit) because your sword lacks.........wait for it.....stopping power!

So wait did you say you were a troll or that you actually don't know the meanings of things? I forget.

**Permalost** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 6:34pm

Originally Posted by mike321

So you would attack a special target (likely a lower percentage hit) because your sword lacks.........wait for it.....stopping power!

The wrist is not a special target, and if they're pointing a gun its the closest one too. An outstretched arm is practically a tameshigiri target. And this whole scenario is ridiculous.

To a weapon fighter, the wrist/weapon arm is not a special target at all. If anything, its one of the most common of targets, all over the world. Western swordplay, kenjutsu, Filipino martial arts etc.

**mike321** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 8:54pm

It is a ridiculous scenario but I would never depend on a sword to "stop" anyone In the manner this thread is about. For that manner I don't think any weapon works that way except in video games.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/29/2012 9:20pm

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

Yep, if the guy with the sword was standing behind the guy with the gun.

We aren't playing ninja scenarios in this thread.

So wait did you say you were a troll or that you actually don't know the meanings of things? I forget.

Oh do stop. Wrist attacks are low percentage in unarmed MAs. People tend to think that way, erroneously, when you start talking about weapons. They take their empty hand knowledge and misapply it to weapons.