Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Magnus]

"That depends on the situation. Even with enough room to swing, a swing needs to have force applied to it, as that is its only advantage over thrusting."

So a thrust doesn't need to have force applied to it either? Again, I totally disagree with this statement. Even a light amount of force in a swing which creates a cutting action (not a chop..i'll get to that later) would be enough to split the skin and create a deep wound. Deep wound = pretty big trouble for the person cut. Blood loss is a pretty serious factor in combat.

Consider a lack of circular motion in a swing intent on creating a slash, and rather it's more of a choping motion. On bare skin it's still going to break the skin and bite pretty deep, assuming the edge is sharp. Chopping action on armoured areas is rather pointless.

"Such a short sword is not suited for this occasion(short=less swinging force) against a similar army armed with gladius-like weapons. Can the soldier cut? Of course, if his opponent gives an opening that requires it. But like what I previously stated, a thrust is much more efficient for the gladius rather than a cut, as it is easier to target important organs/weak spots in the armor. "

So the Han were armoured in a similar fashion as the romans? With gladius-like weapons? I thought they had longer slashing weapons? Also, short does NOT equal less power in this case. The dimensions of the gladius allow the user an amazing amount of power and kinetic energy which makes your argument irrelevant.

If the opponent is unarmoured....then targeting weak points or organs becomes pretty easy regardless of attack type.


And i'd love to see how well a gladius can penetrate segmented armour on a moving opponent. But this is a digression from the main topic of Han vs Roman...we're getting into civil wars here and that's a whole other topic on it's own. [/i]