[Kestrel Daystar]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: quote: Originally posted by Link: quote: Originally posted by Sir Degrader: quote: Originally posted by Zuvio: quote: Originally posted by Sythe: Jeez whats up with all the Eastern weapons? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Slick, elegant blades that can gently and swiftly take a man down without condemning the wielder to the low ranks of a barbarian for usage of one requires a skilled approach.

Instead of the stiff, log, heavy-metal swords the westerners used to maim the opponent. When those huge field-battles occured, western fighters used their swords to deal as much damage as they could to the other so he wouldn't be able to participate in the battle anymore. This resulted in thousands of warriors lying on the ground with gruesome wide-open wounds and eventually after some time die from infection, getting trampled over, gangreen or simply bleeding to death.

// I do tend to look at english battles here, not sure how the continent related to this... [/QUOTE]To Answer Sythe: Because Eastern Weapons are typically highly overrated.
To Zuvio: Saying that Western Weapons were "Stiff, Log, Heavy metal swords" is not just an asinine statement, its racist and shows no respect or knowledge of western swordplay. [/QUOTE]It has nothing to do with being racist. It has everything to do with opinions. If you disagree with Zuvio's opinion concerning European/Western swords, then that's it. No more arguments, you just disagree. [/QUOTE]How is it not racist? It lumps all swords produced by the west (read: White Europe) as being "Stiff, Log, Heavy metal", while all blades from the east as requiring a "Skilled touch". [/QUOTE]Therefore implying that westerners are bumbling brutes that hack and slash anything that moves with their "Stiff, Log, Heavy metal" what any old person could use without the need for skill, and Easterners are skillful with their weapons and not bumbling brutes.

--Kestrel--