34723 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

Maybe that's why Magic finds himself on the verge to F recently?

I dunno, I consider myself a bit close to F even if I'm mainly a T, though it's internal and hidden mostly, and mostly applies to people I care about.

[Siha]

She means sex I think anyway, or I'm just a perv.

 

Though if you consider that stationary, you're doing it wrong, ha.

 

Which is why I didn't mean that and you are just a perv!

 

I dunno, I consider myself a bit close to F even if I'm mainly a T, though it's internal and hidden mostly, and mostly applies to people I care about.

 

I really only made a joke you know... But yeah, I know I ain't funny. Self-awareness is a big strength of mine.

 

Umm.. feel free. I'm lost though... what's funny? 

 

 

So you do want to be a mastermind. Typical.     

 

Maybe nothing and I'm just more dimwitted than the MBTI suggests? But "I love a lot of stationary things too" is just a beautiful sentence.

 

Uh... why "want" to be a mastermind?

[Siha]

One thing that makes me consider ISTJ is they have a F in the 3rd function.. same with INTJs. It's the warm nugget of humanity inside.

 

What does that mean? Is the 3rd function something like the 6th sense or the 11th house of Aquarius?

 

I thought you said you liked the stereotype. I think INTJs are more than that. Much more.

 

I am pleased to be considered a mastermind. You may go on calling me that. But you may also consider me "much more" than only a mastermind, of course. I am generous today.

[Colonelkillabee]

Which is why I didn't mean that and you are just a perv!

And proud of it, lol.

[Siha]

Anyways, the third for ITJs is "Fi". Introverted Feeling. It's complicated, but denotes a lot of personal ethical stances, for one. It's sort of irrational, not reason based.. but they're strong principles founded deep in the psyche nonetheless. Extroverted Feeling is a bit different -- it's how you cater towards social graces and values. Introverted Feeling might still be nice, but it's not necessarily expressed like the extro counterpart. It's more unspoken, guiding general behavior. Not because it's what's expected, but what you expect of yourself.

 

This is a thing of beauty.

[o Ventus]

@Ventus

 

And? The point is moot anyway, a hammer is a blunt object, and blunt damage claimed many lives in medieval combat, including from hammers.

 

The point is that I said "concussions and other head injuries", and Siha replies with "no, I mean other injuries besides concussions", either ignoring or somehow missing the "and other head injuries" part.

[o Ventus]

Even 2handed swords were employed for hammering armored opponents. You could finish them with a thrust, but it was the crush that did them in first. You wouldn't even need to sharpen the edges.

If you thrust at somebody with a 2-handed sword, you're doing it way wrong. It CAN be done, but you really shouldn't, since chances are you wouldn't be trained to do that, and the sword wouldn't be designed for that. Big swords like claymores or zweihänders were made for cutting and chopping.

 

That, and they have pointed and/or weighted pommels, so you can smack someone in the head or face and knock out teeth.

[Colonelkillabee]

If you thrust at somebody with a 2-handed sword, you're doing it way wrong. It CAN be done, but you really shouldn't, since chances are you wouldn't be trained to do that, and the sword wouldn't be designed for that. Big swords like claymores or zweihänders were made for cutting and chopping.

 

That, and they have pointed and/or weighted pommels, so you can smack someone in the head or face and knock out teeth.

They were also for thrusting too, there is nothing wrong with thrusting with something large enough to spear into your enemy, or they wouldn't make ones with points.

 

The point is for the weapon to be versatile, and swords were favored for being the most versatile.

 

 

[o Ventus]

I'm talking about swinging at their shoulder first. Assuming there's armor. That would be my first thought at least. Then stabbing them, if you managed to get that far. I don't know if the first hit would put someone on the ground, but I'd think it'd would.

Would depend on what kind of armor we're talking here. If it's chain mail then yeah, it would just be a matter of being able to get through the other guy trying to parry and stabbing through the chain links. If it's plate armor, then your sword is pretty useless. You'll want a mace or hammer for that.

[Colonelkillabee]

On a sidenote, from what I can tell, swords were a luxury. We'd all be running around with a work axe, conscripted for just one battle.

That'd be fine with me, an axe would be my weapon of choice anyway

[Siha]

The point is that I said "concussions and other head injuries", and Siha replies with "no, I mean other injuries besides concussions", either ignoring or somehow missing the "and other head injuries" part.

 

Nope, I did not. But you ignore that you mentioned it required a helmet. I simply told you a hammer can kill, not only injure, and even without a helmet. And I stated that explicitly before, which you still choose to ignore.

And I don't only speak of war hammers, also of hammers. Or let me put it like this:

 

Spoiler

 

(Disclaimer: I do not wish to discuss killing with a spoon. I simply adore this item and have a sort of humor that is completely unfunny in your eyes... which is probably what 90% of our discrepancies originate from.)

[o Ventus]

They were also for thrusting too, there is nothing wrong with thrusting with something large enough to spear into your enemy, or they wouldn't make ones with points.

 

The point is for the weapon to be versatile, and swords were favored for being the most versatile.

Big swords, like claymores or zweihänders (as I already said) are made for cutting and chopping. Their blades are thicker than a 1-handed shortsword for that exact purpose. That's also why the swords are heavier, so more force can be delivered in a swing.

 

Something like a gladius is versatile. It's wide enough to parry and deflect, it's light enough to easily be swung and maneuvered with 1 hand, and it can be easily thrusted. A large, 6-foot long zweihänder simply isn't designed for thrusting. Again, you CAN do it, but the weapon isn't designed for it. It would be clumsy and you'd be leaving yourself open for a counter attack.

[o Ventus]

Nope, I did not. But you ignore that you mentioned it required a helmet. I simply told you a hammer can kill, not only injure, and even without a helmet. And I stated that explicitly before, which you still choose to ignore.

And I don't only speak of war hammers, also of hammers. Or let me put it like this:

 

I never said anything required a helmet. I said that with the idea that if somebody is in a sword fight, then they would be wearing armor, which almost universally includes a helmet or other form of head protection. How many knights can you think of that didn't wear their armor in a fight?

 

If someone has a head injury, whether or not they have a helmet is irrelevant.

[Colonelkillabee]

Big swords, like claymores or zweihänders (as I already said) are made for cutting and chopping. Their blades are thicker than a 1-handed shortsword for that exact purpose. That's also why the swords are heavier, so more force can be delivered in a swing.

 

Something like a gladius is versatile. It's wide enough to parry and deflect, it's light enough to easily be swung and maneuvered with 1 hand, and it can be easily thrusted. A large, 6-foot long zweihänder simply isn't designed for thrusting. Again, you CAN do it, but the weapon isn't designed for it. It would be clumsy and you'd be leaving yourself open for a counter attack.

 

A sword wasn't meant to be used as a bludgeon by the handle either, but it was done when necessary. Using the point of a large sword to spear into someone is far less extreme. Doesn't matter what the intended method was primarily, you use the tool the way you need to for a situation. Its length is an advantage for a number of reasons, one being you can kill with it like a spear and at a distance. Which is one way they did it. Just swinging and chopping can leave you open as well. That weapon leaves you open in lots of ways.

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying it's as viable as any other method that gets your enemy dead, or people wouldn't use it that way, which they did.

 

I would much prefer a shield and anything one handed though.

[Colonelkillabee]

I forgot where I read this, but I think I heard many of those big swords were just for initial shock attacks... Smash the first opponent, but they often discarded the sword on the battlefield and brought out a smaller axe. 

They'd come running in like berserkers, from atop a hill going down preferably, then come crashing into their foe. From what I read anyway.