Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Anthrophobia]

Absurd? It's proven, and undisputed that the gladius can inflict massive damage in both attack types. What is so absurd about that?

I never said that. I said a gladius is better at thrusting than cutting. I never said a cut from the gladius can't inflict massive damage. Due to that a cut from the gladius can kill, I can't think of any damage greater than that.

Blade characteristics in this case have little bearing on what makes the stab or cut effective. Situation and enemy armour are what dictate the success here. Why can't you see that point? Which was in fact, the original point of contention. You seem to think that it's a rare occurence for the gladius to be used in a cutting action. Which is wrong.

I can't see it because you never discussed it. True, a cut and a thrust differs in effectiveness depending on the armor. However, thrusting weapons are great against most opponents that the Romans faced, including themselves(plate or semi-plate, scale and other whatnot), while cutting weapons are great against opponents the Han faced, including themselves(lamellar).

Good heavens where did that come from? I never contended the gladius was better than the jian at cutting. My point was that it was used for cutting, and it worked pretty darn well at it. The katana is used primarily for cutting, but it can also stab, and stab very well. Also, where are you getting these stats from out of curiousity?

Gabriel's armies of antiquity

"Can a gladius cut through a goats neck? My kitchen knife can cut through a goats neck if enough force is applied to it, no problem."

You have a kitchen knife that will cut through bone? Come on....what are you using for a kitchen knife...hahaha!

Yes, because as I said, given enough force a kitchen knife can cut through bone. I never said that I can cut through bone using a kitchen knife, but if I'm strong enough, I can. It's simple.

Hold on here...people have quoted direct sources in this very thread that say cutting was used as well. Not as much, and of course it probably wasn't...although we'll never really know this. But, common sense should dictate that given the course of a battle, you use what works, be it stab, cut, or a punch to the face with the pommel. In which case cutting as well as stabbing both got the job done. But you can't sit there and say one was better than the other in a given situation when we don't have specific enough references, and the ones we do have say both were used!

Never said they didn't use cuts, what I said is that thrusting would be used more. I think we are arguing the same concept but in such a way that it appears we are arguing for the opposite sides of the spectrum.

"No the Han was not armored in a similar fashion"

What did they wear for armour? Because if it wasn't maille or plate, and they're up against the roman army...they're in some serious bantha poo-doo, especially given the use of combined arms in the form of roman auxiliaries as missile and cavalry troops.

Combined arms wasn't unique to the Roman army for it exists in Han armies as well, and probably all successful armies, at least that I know of. The Han wore lamellar armour, which is resistant to thrusts but not as resistant to cuts. It's the exact opposite with the Roman army, in which armor tended to be more resistant to cuts and not very resistant to thrusts. I'm not saying that a thrust or cut can go THROUGH armor, I'm just saying that a cut or thrust has a bigger chance of touching flesh instead of the armour itself.

"A shorter sword do indeed equal less power as given by the example above."

What's the metalurgical composition of each weapon? What era...? Weight is a contributing factor to power...I'd like to see a comparison.

Obiously I'm talking about two swords that are same in everything but size/length/mass. What do you expect?

Any truth to this? If so...chopping is a far different cry from a slashing type weapon. Chopping uses the sheer weight and downwards pressure to penetrate it's target. Slashing relies on the cutting edge and trajectory to inflict damage. Waaaay different.

Actually, there are many references to chop and slash. They could mean the same thing, and they can mean different things. Usually a chop gives the image of striking downwards more than that of a slash, but according to dictionary.com, there's not much difference between the two words beside that.