Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. +Lady Potatas What kind of weapons are you using that the core can punch through like that?
    3
  2. +Lady Potatas Ah, so it's the fold-over that makes the sharp point? I suppose it would make sense why that wouldn't be an issue with SCA combat as that's not really going to happen the same with tubes >1" that are used there.
    3
  3. +Cavouku the rhomphaia is a Roman derivation of the ancient falx (particularly the 2-handed variety) that the Byzantines carried over into the middle ages. It wasn't one of their main weapons, so there isn't as much evidence of it compared to their swords and spears, but I haven't seen anything to make me question it's use (at least in the skirmishing units) in the early period. That said, by the high middle ages, I expect it had fallen out of use (though that's speculation on my part).
    3
  4. +hmpeter SCA, while US originated, is international, having groups in many countries (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, and others). The fighting is largely using rattan (basically solid bamboo) though also using fiberglass shafts for spears, though there are steel weapons (blunt of course) used for fencing, and boffer weapons (not unlike many larp groups) used in the youth program. All 3 sections have both weapons and armor inspections (yes, armor is required for safety reasons). As a side note, less than a decade ago, the youth program switched from PVC core weapons to shaved-rattan core weapons over safety concerns (despite no actual injuries I'm aware of). Rattan doesn't break into sharp points like other woods, instead breaking into a bunch of flexible fibers. I'm not involved in the SCA any longer, but other than the slightly increased cost and decreased availability of this material (pvc is cheap and abundant afterall) there has been no issues with this core material what-so-ever. Actually, most weapons I've seen made from it are even lighter than those made with schedule 40 PVC.
    3
  5. Tom Franklin I'm well aware of the weight of rapiers and other swords from first hand experience. They weigh about as much as an arming sword, and many of the stances can be tiring to hold for extended periods of time. It doesn't change the fact that the range of body types that can do well with the weapon is fairly wide. I also acknowledged that women being trained for war wasn't the norm for several reasons, and the one you mention is a big one, but there are people out there saying that an average man should be able to beat a woman of basically any skill level. That is the argument I was refuting as I cautioned not to overstate things. I'm not trying to say that one wouldn't normally put the resources into training large men first, but it did occasionally happen, and the women weren't automatically useless in a fight. Nothing more, nothing less.
    3
  6. In other words, it boosts aggro?
    3
  7. (Not that I disagree at all with any of that but) To me, a sword is the most balanced and flexible weapon. You can use a sword as well in offense or defense, and in war or civilian conflicts. It is great against unarmored targets, as well as being able to be used against armored targets. All other arms have much more limited styles and usages based on their traits, but the sword, through balance and the wide range of things you can do with it, leaves how it's used almost entirely up to the one holding it. At the same time each good sword I've ever held has ways it "wants" to move due to nuances in its balance and inertia in different dirrections. This can even make the idea of a sword having a will seem almost reasonable if one sets aside their sensibilities. To top it off, look at when swords were used. They were used in civilian contexts when violent conflict was not expected. They were also used in military contexts when lines were broken and people had to fall back on sidearms to save the day. Times like those are when heroes are born.
    3
  8. Too broad. Would need to narrow by culture and time period to even do a generalization (& to make it worse, most of Europe didn't have formal written war doctrine) Interesting subject, but would be hard to cover as even a single college course
    3
  9. Agree to disagree there, but it's much more Roman.
    3
  10. Wait, armored rapier duels? Was that even a thing? (Legit question, there were some wierd dueling customs, so I can't rule it out, but that strikes me as very weird at best)
    3
  11. Metatron, I love your analysis but (like many others) you skipped one very important detail: farming. A medieval society is mostly farming supporting a tiny percentage of the population living in cities, and that farming needs to continue to keep the cities fed, so the entire population (even most of the population) can't hold up behind city walls without running out of provisions.
    3
  12. +ColdNapalm42 Honestly, I have trouble believing he has any martial arts training, and idea that he has any weapons-based training just makes my head hurt. He's just too awkward in his movements. This looks more like something he saw a bad tutorial of online the day before filming this and then made a mess of trying to teach made up techniques. I know some "dojo" are utter BS and I might be a bit naive on them, but it's hard to imagine someone coming out of any school THIS bad!
    2
  13. +Riceball01 Exactly, and it's pretty easy to guess which type of tanks more people had more exposure to. Also, within WW2, tanks would likely be being compared to other vehicles, not infantry when calling them slow. Compared to the utility vehicles (trucks, jeeps, and motorcycles) and armored cars (APCs, self-propelled artillery, & self propelled anti-air) which generally could move at 35-75mph(56-121km/h), with most at about 50mph(80km/h), the 8-16mph (13-26km/h) (on road & significantly slower off road, where they spent more time) top speeds of infantry tanks are quite slow. The fact that larger objects moving at a distance appear to be moving slower than they are only amplifies this effect. Combine this with the fact that even the heavier of the "armored" cars were only resistant to mid-caliber machine gun fire, but were basically made of tin-foil when confronted with even a 20mm autocannon (which are the smallest thing that can be called a cannon, were small enough that they functioned basically like a heavy machine gun, and were a small fraction of the size of most small tank cannons) and things start to come into perspective. Put in context (either WW1 or WW2) tanks as slow, but hard to destroy makes total sense, even if it doesn't apply to modern tanks or even the faster tanks of WW2.
    2
  14. +KorKhan89 Well, that and how firearms do make that kind of amassing of power easier and faster since they take less training than the bow.
    2
  15. Charlie Albright Musashi op, needs nerfed
    2
  16. Spring steel is referring to carbon steel of a particular range of carbon content and a heat-treating process that makes it spring back to shape rather than staying bent.
    2
  17. +Drakkar Calethiel That's odd. SCA heavy fighting used fiberglass shafts for spears because they break into fibers rather than sharp points when they break (though unlike broken rattan swords, I haven't personally seen this). They use a simple PVC cap to keep the blunt edge of the pipe from pushing into the foam head, but it's pretty simple construction. Is this kind of thing only an issue with the really narrow fiberglass cores?
    2
  18. Yes, and then they can ride off, get a new one, and do it again.
    2
  19. Perhaps more important than the styles for the novel is the headspace of the characters. While it wouldn't hurt to at least learn what the common Hollywood myths about what swordfights look like, I recommend you watch this too. https://youtu.be/7vqte0QbXnc
    2
  20. Early plate armor still often used a shield, but this period saw the shield shrink from a large kite shield, to a smaller and smaller (& thicker and stronger) heater shield. This was only really needed to help protect from lances and to cover the face (should it be exposed) and weaker parts of the torso from arrow fire. As armor improved, even this was largely phased out to give full use of the left hand. Of course, the shield remained for less well equipped soldiers until the pike and shot era (and if you count the buckler, long after that)
    2
  21. Can we stop fighting each other for 2 seconds to deal with the actual threat. This isn't coming from one "side". Left wing news outlets were some of the first hit, right with the right wing ones. I should know, as I watch both liberal news channels as well as some other channels the regressive "left" would find objectionable. All the PC bs is just a cover. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content. A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals. To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that. Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, YouTube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "YouTube TV" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political. To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching YouTube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows). I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
    2
  22. I hear you, but counterpoint. If you have that kind of money, your preferred weapon choice is probably "army".
    2
  23. Ignoring that it would be likely to be cut through and/or fly off, what would be the point?
    2
  24. Totally a spear guy myself, and they had the best, longest run of any weapon type in history...but... To me, a sword is the most balanced and flexible weapon. You can use a sword as well in offense or defense, and in war or civilian conflicts. It is great against unarmored targets, as well as being able to be used against armored targets. All other arms have much more limited styles and usages based on their traits, but the sword, through balance and the wide range of things you can do with it, leaves how it's used almost entirely up to the one holding it. At the same time each good sword I've ever held has ways it "wants" to move due to nuances in its balance and inertia in different dirrections. This can even make the idea of a sword having a will seem almost reasonable if one sets aside their sensibilities. To top it off, look at when swords were used. They were used in civilian contexts when violent conflict was not expected. They were also used in military contexts when lines were broken and people had to fall back on sidearms to save the day. Times like those are when heroes are born.
    2
  25. TheRyujinLP the thickness achievable with any sane amount or weight for even titanium is not an issue. You need to get into materials like fabric or paper armor before that starts to become an issue.
    2
  26. Gabriel Drake on a battlefield, that can varry WIDELY. Sometimes the goal is to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Other times, it's about buying time while holding your opponent's attention. That said 1v1 isn't the norm on a battlefield.
    2
  27. ....and now I'm just realizing that re-uh-ter-ate makes more sense for "to say again" (with "utter" as a root word), whereas linguistically, re-ih-ter-ate makes more sense as "to go through the process again" or to put it more simply "to do over" (with "iterate" as the root), but we never say "reiterate" to mean anything but respeaking our words. ...English is wierd!
    2
  28.  @franohmsford7548  required precision is determined by the acceptable margin for error. 1 yard being almost equal to 1 meter is acceptable for most situations where you're just doing a quick eyeball measurement of scale. Most people cannot eyeball multiples of 1yard+3inches intuitively, making it, while more accurate, less useful in a not insignificant number of situations. Of course, trade speed for precision in your measurements as the situation calls for.
    2
  29. Marc Grundfest you're either trolling or know very little about history. Either way, please be quiet. You're making us look bad.
    2
  30. I think a lot of people severely underestimate how far you can get with just a basic amount of training in a battle and greatly overestimate how much the kind of skill that helps you win 1v1 fights that takes so long to master matters on a battlefield. You can get people to a respectable proficiency level in probably about a week. After some basic strikes and stances and teamwork drills, it's mostly just combat experience, physical condition, and morale that matters. All else being equal, I'd bet on the force that traines for 7 days and experienced several battles to the one that trained for several years and has seen zero battles. Most of the time in unit-scale combat you're doing very basic atracks with your weapon while trying to maintain situational awareness.
    2
  31. Scholagladitoria on the subject. https://youtu.be/meln41VHxqs
    2
  32. Scholagladitoria on sword costs: https://youtu.be/dy1fcRG0A3g
    2
  33. If you can afford plate armor, a plain but solid and functional sword is not particularly expensive. As for use against armor, once you move away from viking age blade heavy swords, you move into swords suited for half-swording and reversing to use the hilt as a striking & grappling/hooking tool (& once someone's on the ground, they're done, either by a friend with a heavy weapon, or a well placed dagger). If you have enough armor to use it 2-handed, you effectively have a 2(or even 3)-in-1 weapon depending on how you're holding it. ...& who cares if you break your sword by chance? Your life's worth more and so is the gear/ransom of the guy you just brought down, and for the short term, there's bound to be weapons lying around a battlefield (including whatever your opponent was just using) (Side note: contrary to popular belief, falchions were not blade heavy weapons. Shadversity has a great series on them you should check out if you haven't seen it)
    2
  34. Even if you avoid the plates, the weight is still useful at striking mail, and the added thickness makes it good for thrusting too.
    2
  35. Franz Perez I'm just saying that even just in class disparities, the reality is a lot harder to put in simple terms of one being obviously worse than the other. The only things that are really easy to say is that social mobility was terrible and that the middle class was tiny. Even just in terms of wealth, how much merchant or exceptionally well off artisan (such as the leader of a guild, or an exceptionally talented smith) might make may beat out some of the poorer landed knights (which were the absolute lowest rung of landed nobility). All of this though, as with most things in the middle ages, varried across time and location making sweeping generalizations even harder.
    2
  36. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma I tend to agree that its use is more often a good thing than a problem, and people tend to pick one style and stick with it.
    1
  37. Wow, at that point they'd be better off just finding a local larp!
    1
  38. +xxFalconArasxx I never said there weren't fast tanks. I even commented quite early in the discussion about an early-WW2 tank with a 48kph tank in operation at the same time as a <13kph tank by the same country. My point was that the class of tanks the infantry spent more time around (appropriately named "infantry tanks") actually were quite slow (~25kph on road being normal) compared to other vehicles they would be dealing with regularly. Even comparing the 46kph of the heavy tank you mention to the 80kph norm of most other military vehicles makes that a pretty slow combat vehicle. To make things appear even slower, most tanks, when close to infantry, are not usually going to be going at top speed, but rather creeping along at a much slower speed than they're capable of for quite a few reasons (which are interesting, but would make this post too long), and really only opening up their throttle when on open ground (or roads) and away from infantry. This is both why tanks=slow makes sense even with faster tanks in existence (since perception of what a tank is like will be based on exposure) and this entire line of argument other people besides you have been going in circles over about tanks vs infantry speed is entirely irrelevant.
    1
  39. +Afnan Zahran Yes, that is part of what I've been saying. I even specifically mentioned "infantry tanks".
    1
  40. What do you think about using "shaped" or "formed" as a translation instead of "created", "modified", or "organized"?
    1
  41. Yah, much of the heaviest, multi-layer armor from the middle ages was driven by weapons that weren't a concern for the Romans. The advancements in saddle and stirrup design (and even the lance rest) that turned the couched lance charge into the insanely powerful thing it ended up being weren't around. The amount of armor that knights needed to deal with the insane impact forces that late period charges could produce when they met head on is very different that what you'd need in infantry fights (especially before things like poleaxes)
    1
  42. You could use it that way, but spears tend to be longer, lighter, and use the smoother shafts to allow the leading hand to slide along the shaft durring use. The stiff blade of a katana makes for a fairly good thrusting weapon, offsetting the curve in the blade with the main problem in thrusting for the weapon being it's broad tip, but if you're not thrusting into mail, that's not that big a problem. Since the nagamaki uses the same blade as a katana, that should hold true for it as well. It's just that it won't be as easy to use as a thrusting weapon or able to fill the same formation roll as a spear.
    1
  43. Chicago doesn't even count as an example since everyone can just drive a bit out of town, buy one, and drive back. They don't even have to leave the state.
    1
  44. The reason crossbows have a reputation as more powerful and longbows have better range comes down to physics. Specifically ke=mv^2 and air resistance being proportional to velocity. Heavy crossbows can be, and often were, made heavier than any person can physically draw, and so bolts can have a higher kinetic energy off the string than an arrow. However, since they have a light projectile, more of that energy is in velocity and so their bolts will loose that energy much faster than a longbow's arrow. A high arc makes this difference even stronger, obviously, but it's actually the difference in projectile weight that creates it.
    1
  45. Notice that in 2/3rd of the clips it's actually the person with the gun that closes the distance into disarm range for no apparent reason.
    1
  46. Incorrect. Carbon wasn't folded into the iron. Once they smelted the ore, they would smash the bloom and seperate the fragments by carbon content introduced during the smelting process. The folding process (while very good at homogenizing impurities to strengthen the metal by removing fracture points) actually burns off some of the carbon, so swordsmiths would use very high carbon steel to then work down into a less brittle carbon level. I believe the Shadversity channel has a pretty good video on katana metalurgy if you want more detail.
    1
  47. Judging by frequency if historical use: Maces are Far more effective weapons than flails. There are some interesting things about flails, but the control and speed you loose is an immense downside for practical use that's too hard to offset.
    1
  48. +hmpeter liability risk to inspect weapons? Huh? Sorry, but no, you need to do weapon inspections. I'm not a lawyer, but I know the SCA requires them, despite having larger events and there being lawyers going over the rules of the SCA. If you're doing it in a way that creates a liability risk, you're doing it wrong.
    1
  49. -Aegon Targarian
    1
  50. Idk, museums tend to have more artifacts than they have on display. Prioritizing aquiring more things than you can display over information for the things you have on display is really debatable.
    1