Most likely propaganda.

Dipping ammunition in blood or viscous fluids or any kind (especially with those lousy M-16/M4s) could cause the weapon to jam.

The best phsycological weapon in my opinion is the MOAB. Wasnt even used on Iraqi forces but it had the effect of ending the Gulf War after the test.

EDIT: I have found that aiming for the throat and knees in hand to hand combat has worked quite well for me. Keeping mobile and your opponent off balance makes victory that much easier.

A tought about the usfeulness of anatomy for swordwielding and martial arts : I'd thin you would rather need more knowledge when doing martial arts than swordplay/ A sword hurts more than fist or kick. which means you don't have the same need to hit where it hurts to get damage. The heavier the weapon the less you'll ned to worry about where you hit.

To makea fierearm-related comparison, if you want to kill someone with one shot, you'll be more concerned with hitting the right spot with a .22 pistol than with a shotgun loaded for bear.

Indeed, unless the other person had the same shotgun. With fists I would say we are more focused on general areas: face, back, groin, etc., while my lacking knowledge of swordplay tells me that they would know better where specific organs are. Especially lungs, certain tendons, and so on. Although, I am fairly certain most sword users would know unarmed combat, but with recreational learning I can see how this would decline.

I was thinking more of the inner anatomy; sure fist fighters would know target areas, but I would think pointy things that go into the body would need to know what it is they're stabbing. :shrug: But that's just from my uninformed opinion.

I'd think it also depends on what scale of combat you are talking about, and whether or not the victim is wearing armor. In a normal fight- the likes you would see in a dojo or school- you rarely see serious injury, and thus wouldn't be as bothered by organs. On the other hand, if you were in a war- perhaps from medieval times- it would be necessary to know how to kill more efficiently. I guess that since fists aren't used in war it would lead one to that line of thinking.

I'm interested in hearing what D.Foxy thinks though :goodjob: Thanks.

I disagree. I swordsman must know about anatomy. An example, I know four areas in the chest cavity alone that you can cut or even stab into without causing death. Not to mention the 6 inch difference between a large wound that doest bleed out and cutting through the main artery in the thigh (which causes someone to bleed to death in less then 2 minutes).


I agree with the firearm part :flamethrower:

Well, I'm back.

Was down with the 24 hour flu. Still feeling a bit weak...but thankfully the fever has passed.

There is a LOT to reply to, even in this thread alone, not to mention the PMs that many kind friends have sent me to get well soon...some with little gifts attached!

But I shall post and reply to all. For now, thanks for the interest shown in this thread, and thanks to all who have wished me a speedy recovery!!!

I'm sorry to hear that, D.Foxy. At least it was a short one. It's a bit late to say this but have a quick recovery.

I'm on par with this. Great writing and I hope to see more-Excellent ideas and given me some advice too...

I'm more a fan of the Three Musketeer's method where they hit the enemy where they can to take them down, then stab them several times on the ground to be sure.

I will reply to the antatomical points raised by the previous posters.

But a point on the warrior psychology, first.

Just like in Star Wars, there is a dark and bright side to every Force.

The spirit of the Warrior is no different.

The basis of the warrior spirit is anger, for no Gandhi can ever become a warrior, in particular a warrior of olden times who had to get up close and personal with his opponent. It takes more than just an intellectual argument in the mind that "unless I kill this person, death will come to many, including those I love" to enable anyone to actually ram a sword two feet and more into an enemy's guts, and twist it even as the dying enemy screams in a howl only those who have killed at close range know.

It takes primitive emotions. Fear. And Rage. Particularly Rage.

But from this foundation of Rage and Fear, some completely different psychological edifices can be built up.

The warrior consumed by total rage is the 'psychotic warrior' we see in movies and read about in literature, and whom a few of us have actually met in real life. (I suspect, Acadian, that you must have met or at least heard about quite a few in your thirty jarhead years.) Such men are drunk on danger: they feel alive only when they are near the opportunity to kill, for they value their own life little. Such men were the 'baresarkers' of Nordic Legend, who wanted to kill so much that they would strip off their armour and charge straight at the enemy, for the lessened weight of the armour would increase the speed of their attack. As they did not value their life the protection given by armour was of no consequence to them. This is the 'heedless of death' warrior that most, including you, MalX1, think of as the 'perfect warrior' - and indeed it would seem that Musashi too agrees in 'Go rin no sho' where he expresses the same sentiments...

But, in my opinion, such a warrior is not the perfect warrior. Far from it. Formidable, but far, far from perfect.

For a warrior consumed utterly by rage has three of the four things needed by a warrior. He has speed, strength, and stamina.

But he does NOT have the fourth - which is intelligence.

And without that, if the opponent has cool nerves and tactical skill, he will fall headlong into the first trap the opponent sets. The baresarker type warrior will win only over opponents who are already psychologically shaken by his frenzied rage even before the fight begins: thus the baresarker will slaughter hundreds of battlefiedl noobies easily, but against a real veteran he wouldn't last two minutes.

A subvariant of the baresarker is the true sociopath, or the even rarer psychopath. This is usually a baresarker of slightly higher intelligence and a psychological malfunction that makes him at war with not just 'the enemy' but with human society at large. Savak is a good example. Such men do not last long in any group, because by nature they are antisocial and hate humanity...it is a good thing that the US Armed Forces, especially the USMC, now have psychological profiles that can identify these men early on and move them out. These are the predators who in modern society become serial killers. In medieval times they would become lone bandits.

Then there is another type of warrior driven...not by anger...but by FEAR.

This warrior is the LOUDMOUTH BULLY.

You see them a lot in militaries all over the world. To hear them talk, there are none braver and tougher than them. And against weak enemies, they are truly and spectacularly brave. They are also sickeningly cruel to captured enemies and any powerless civilians they get their hands on.

Many - not all - but many young soldiers go through this phase. (Again, this is probably something you know a lot of, Acadian!) This is why all armies have officers, to control these soldiers from committing atrocities.

You can tell if a soldier is actually driven by fear or not when he is put into a life threatening situation. He begins to whine, to [censored], and in a real extremity will probably even shoot you in the back if he has to do that to escape and save his own life. In medieval situations, this type of soldier will be the first to run when he sees the battle begin to sway against his side.

And finally, there is that which makes a perfect soldier.

It is a soldier who makes anger and fear his SERVANTS, not his MASTERS.

There is only one way to do that, and it is through a philosophy. This philosophy may be through the form of a religion, or it may be through the form of a creed drilled into you by a master you respect, or it may be through a creed you yourself have created. Whatever the structure of your tower of philosophy may be, it has to be tall enough to see through the fog of fear and hate and strong enough to withstand the buffeting winds of tempation to either cruelty or cowardice.

It is such men who truly do not fear death, not in the way of blind hatred of the rage-drunk warrior, but in the way of one who sees death, yet calmly walks foward to meet it in the serene knowledge that life will bloom fresh from the slowly widening pool of your own blood ... it is such men who can truly claim to have found 'the way of the warrior'.

D.Foxy, I didn't know you had a philosopher within you.

I'm not ridiculing you, far from it. I love what I just read. All those books on military philosophy and you just summed them all up.

What I find interesting is that many, if not most, characters people make in RPs and fan fics on this forum belong in the loudmouth bully category. Sure, we make the details that make them different but the bulk of them are proud and invincible. Meaning people who create such characters naturally believe they would personify them in a real life situation. People who had no experience of war and therefore assume that war is a grand adventure, where one can proove his courage, even if he/she has none of it.

It is easy to be brave sitting by your computer, killing animated villains/monsters. The funny thing about TES4 is that bandits belong into the 'not so dangerous' category. Yet in real life, a common bandit was the most dangerous thing a person could imagine.

Well said my friend. You get it! :goodjob:

:whisper: Are you sure you have not walked through the shadows of the valley of death yourself? Your level of understanding would so suggest.

Acadian...

I will not reveal who I am, or what I do, but yes, I have seen death. The first time I heard the snap-crack of bullets whistling past my ears was when I was seventeen.

Nearly forty years have passed since then, and each year I have understood life a little better through understanding death: though, of course, none can fully say they understand death, even yea those who die...

For if you would understand
What it is to die
For if you would understand
How a child cries
For if you would understand
The mystery of birth
For if you would understand
The patience of the earth -

Yea, if you would understand
All these and more:
If you would understand
Why love cures all:
If you would undertand how
The blooming of a rose
From the corpse drenched ground
Shall ever silence those
Who cry that there be no meaning
In Life or in Love -

Then turn your eyes from blood and mire:
turn your eyes, to that which be higher:
Not to the sky but to your soul:
Not to a book but to the Word:
And you will learn what you would know...

That truth is stonger than despair,
That honour is stronger than fear,
And that Love is stronger than death.


(not very good as I did that extempore, but that is how I feel.)

Have you been reading D.Foxy's "Fountain of Youth?" He can paint a scene so clearly you feel as if you have stepped into another world of his creation! We just barely tap the surface of the talents he has within; (which is why I am really hoping he will get feeling better and write a chapter on psychological warfare - not the brutal, but the subtle - hint, hint, hint.) Sorry D.Foxy, I know you have been sick and hope you are feeling much better by now.

Just sat down and read the whole thread. Most of the stuff is true. Over all this is a very good basic over view of certain things many people over look concerning the combat aspect of writing, or combat in general. The internet is full of "i'd be a hero" complexes from bored kids. My biggest criticism of this would be that the over look of it all is superficial. And this isn't an insult to the writer but simply said, you can read books and books upon the topic but until you learn and feel for yourself how to do it, you don't actually know how to do it regardless of how well it is explained. I'd like to make some comments of my own that also (as any written work) falls under this criticism.

Concerning blocking, you never want to use your force to be an equal and opposite counter to your enemy's force. Deflecting is always best and is attained by proper structure which allows proper and efficient body rotation. Sticking your sword or shield out to just hold it will get you a broken arm since all the force is pushed into you. If the enemy has enough time and room to make a powerful blow you should have enough time easily to gain your proper structure.

Concerning the sword and dagger, in the balkans and caucus mountains it was very popular to fight with a long saber/sword and a shorter saber. The interesting aspect (most noted in my studies from the Serbs of Montenegro) was that you could use the shorter blade by itself as a normal saber but when using the longer sister blade you would use the shorter one as a hook. As for using a dagger and sword being something more skilled swordmen would used compared to a shield and sword, i'd have to disagree. In a 1v1 setting this may be true, but on a battle field the shield is extremely important were the fighting is much more compact.

I really liked the part concerning the plate armor. I can't tell you how many times I see people writing about armies where everyone is armed and armored in heavy plated armor. The "low quality troops have iron and steel armor" because their armor value is based on TES where iron is the lowest of the heavy armors and chain mail is light armor. At the same time I must disagree that the hardest armors were always worn by the richest. Maybe this is true in western europe but in eastern europe and the middle east, lammelar and scale armors were very popular. The east Roman armor (Byzantine, what an ahistorical term) was known to be just as good and more versatile than the western plate armor because it blended deflection and absorption. But in any case i still have to agree that most troops would not have plate armor. Most would have padded cloth, some leather, and maybe an iron helmet if they were good. I'd also like to add that plate suits of armor did NOT turn the warrior into a clumsy stumbling mass of metal. I've seen writers who talk about the lone skilled warrior of the katana dispatching of the clumsy slow plate armored knight due to this and it's non sense.

About shields, I wouldn't say that large shields are only good against spears and get in the way of anything else. Again I think your statement is based on perhaps focusing slightly too much on a micro aspect of battle rather than a macro aspect. If large shields were a hindrance they wouldn't have been used for such a long time by the Romans. And I am speaking of the Romans during the whole span of the Roman Empire not just until 467. The skoutati for example were armed with spear, spatha and saber depending on what they needed to use and still maintained a large oval shield. I would however like to add that regardless of what people have seen in OB and MW...there is no such thing as a "steel shield." In that shields of that mass made of solid metal are impossible. The only shields like that were usually much smaller and held close to the body. Most shields were composed of wood, wrapped in leather and maybe had a coat of metal on the surface. Another interesting aspect of the shield is that it would sometimes be given soft edges on purpose in order to get the enemy weapon stuck in the shield.

Concerning slings...while accuracy is important to an extent you don't really need to be all that accurate when fighting in an army v army situation. You just need to make sure your stone hits the mass of men in front of you. You don't need to take time to aim individually at the target. This goes also for archery. If you play the lone assassin, yes you need accuracy. But against a clump of men not so much. What is more important is rate of fire, endurance and positioning.

Concerning fighting a spear, this is where a shield comes in handy. In massed groups you can push through the spears and get so close to the enemy that they can't do much of anything against you.

Now about the mind of the warrior I have to say that we can not make so many assumptions as the mind is a very varied thing. I would like to point out however that the good fighters mostly weren't the "scholar warriors" that people read about in books and what not, but thugs who had to learn how to fight in order to survive. Wuxia is highly guilty of such a non sense stereo type of the serene mind as clear as a motionless lake types which is furthered by popular movies. None the less it must be understood that a certain 'killing instinct' must be maintained in order to be effective. This is something most people, even those on the battlefield often don't have. It isn't rage or fury or anything like that but something else explosive. Rage and fury have their uses to a extent however.

As for the best warriors being those who don't think they will come out alive as claimed by someone else here that can be the case sometimes. Other times it is especially those who do want to live that fight better. Just depends.

Foxy have you ever read the Strategikon of Emperor Maurice? I liken it to Sun Tzu's art of war but much more practical and with a soul. Sun Tzu comes off more vague and basic, things like don't pee in the wind, don't crap were you eat etc. Where as Maurice goes into much greater detail in not making the unit sizes uniform confusing the enemy, on the field tactical maneuvering, methods of training and discipline and so on.




One only need to look as far back as the 1400s Voivode of Wallachia Vlad Dracula to see that this isn't true or even Stefan Cel Mare or Mihai Viteazul.

I admitted psychological warfare was used around those times. gengis Khan and Vlad the Impaler are both two fine example, however, propaganda wasn't popularized until the Napoleonic Era.

To this i have just this to say:

"...friends, Romans, countrymen..."

Propaganda was popular in Ancient Greece and Egypt.

Where there is war, there is propaganda.

Soldiers don't fight if you don't give them a reason to.

First I want to mention, like so many others have, how helpful this topic has been, particularly the section on throwing knives - I've never been able to find much info on their use in combat. I do have a question that I'm not sure has been answered:
Roughly how long might someone have to train with the sword before they were competent enough to defend themselves long enough to escape from...whatever? And in a world where so many have swords and axes and whatnot, would taking up the sword be a reasonable measure to take for defensive purposes? (All right, I guess that's two questions.) I have a character starting from the ground up, so it would be helpful to know whether it would even be a good idea in the first place, or if he should just stick to his throwing knives.

Throwing knives are fun, but it would be foolish to actually use them in combat. A sneak attack where you are able to get the correct distance away from the target gives you a better chance at a hit, but unless they're facing you, you can't really hit the throat so they would call out as soon as they were hit.

Throwing stars are easier to hit them with, but the damage they inflict is no more than an annoyance usually. Poison them if you plan to use them.

For the second part, it's hard to tell. Medieval sword fighting didn't involve much in the way of defense, it was usually kill quick or be killed. Kind of like a crossbow, the only way it really defends you is when you can inflict some pain with it and the enemy knows it.

Let me put it this way, it take a lot longer to learn how to use throwing knives correctly, and like shades said they are not a combat weapon. Let's see as for length, you could learn to be competent in sword play in a few years. Throwing knives would take four to five times longer.

Depends upon how good both you and your master is. And how hard you train.

I knew a student who was well on the way to becoming a master of both the saber and the longsword in just over a year. But his parents were Polish and Czech, he trained two to three hours a day four to five days a week, his teacher had trained under the 'Legend' Captain (Polish Army) Jerzy Pawlowski himself, and his other duelling partners were very, very good too...

So, as in all the martial arts, it depends on your teacher, and the dojo.

I shall now post about the importance of anatomy in weapons fighting, but before I do I would like to make an observation.

When I started this thread I had envisaged that all that I wanted to explain, and a reasonable amount of replies and queries to what I had to talk about, would take place in well under the 200 post limit. Indeed, I did not expect this thread to reach the numbers it has now...an average of 100 + views per day and already 133 replies. And I have still yet posted a little under half of what I had intented to post... and new questions, and opportunities for explanation, are already appearing in my mind.

It is my fault, actually. I should have known better.

Virgil *editied under the eagle eye of Dux Malleus!* said it best. "Of arms and the man I sing" begins his great Poem, and four thousand years later here I am explaining the relations between arms, the men who bear them, and we who write about them. This subject is one that branches and sub-branches into a vast network of themes potentially touching all the aspects of human life, and as I write and readers comment on my writings, and each others' responses, this thematic network I mentioned above grows and grows into a life of its own, expanding to post after post...

Thus I already forsee having to make a continuation thread for this. Ah well. C'est la vie. It goes t'show you never can't tell.

Now about anatomy in fighting.

A warrior MUST know about at least the basics of human anatomy, especially a warrior who will be fighting more or less alone, a warrior who will be fighting more battles than duels.

I once read a novel on the Roman Army where the grizzled old centurion was teaching the fresh legionnares that "You have to know how and where to use the sword boys, because if you do, just six inches of sword in the right place and the Barbarian will go down nice and easy, but if you don't, you can stick the whole bloody two feet into that Barbarian and he'll STILL have the strength and the time left to take you with him to Hell before he goes down!" ( I am also reminded of the notorious Miami FBI shootout of 1986 and the die hard robber Platt.).

Thus, to be an efficient wielder of the sword you must learn not only the places in the human body which will cause a man to stop fighting effectively, but also the places which can be reached by a shallow cut and the places which need a deep thrust to breach. This is important. In a duel you can afford to get your weapon stuck in your enemy if by doing so you deliver a lethal blow. In a battle you cannot. For while the enemy may be dying from your brilliant thrust, another enemy may be charging at you to kill you - and you can't do a thing as your sword is stuck in the first enemy's body!

So what are the VITAL areas of the body that can be reached by a slash? Here again we have another problem. It's called body armour. Armour defends against slashes far better than against thrusts. And in a battle with moving targets, much of the energy in your strike may also be absorbed by the defensive recoil of your enemy.

So: find unarmoured, vital points to slash!

THE FACE Unless the opponent is wearing a full steel plate suit, complete with VISORED helmet, the face and the eyes in it are open to attack. Yes, they are also the most heavily guarded part of the human body, but the eyes are the prize target most sought by the swords man.

THE NECK Again, unless the opponent is wearing expensive armour with neckguards, the neck MUST remain free of armour if the head is to move freely. Some Chainmail, though, has a full head and neck covering. This is, however, almost as rare as full plate armour. The neck is home to the two carotid arteries and the thorax. Go for them with a quick slash, and that will be one less enemy to worry about.

THE SWORD ARM Not an instant kill, but disabling the sword arm by either slashing at the arm, elbows, wrists, or even breaking the bones of that arm through the armour by a heavy blow (even protected by bracers, the fragile wrist bones can be fractured or broken by a heavy blow) can bring about the enemy's retirement from the battle. One less enemy to worry about.

THE ARM PITS A much neglected area! But it is nearly always unarmoured. and the axillary artery is very, very close under the skin.

THE GROIN AREA Again, frequently found unarmoured. The grand prize, the FEMORAL ARTERIES, live there! Slice one open and it's the jackpot, you can run away after that and just let the enemy die by himslelf. Death in under three minutes.

THE BACK OF THE KNEES Perfect for a kneeling backhand slash attack. Nearly always unarmoured.

I would have never known about the arm pits! Did you write these in order of their potency?

Rather from top to bottom in a purely physical sense (with the sword arm between throat and femoral artery, it's not sorted by damage potential.)