| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: Strange lightsaber thoughts.. |
 |
|
Over on classic battletech forums we are discussing lightsabers and which was your favorite fight scene from the films... Well a few people have brought up the interesting fact that so far, Maul, vader and the emperor are theonly ones who when fighting tried to use the tip of their saber (other than when luke went all darkside on vaders butt in ROTJ).. One of those guys was wondering if this is cause of teaching, eg did the sith teach to use the point while the jedi did not???
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting point; I hadn't actually realized that.
I want to say that it's because a thrust is a manoeuvre that is pretty much intended to kill, while a slash is less fatal... but... well, slashes are pretty darn fatal too. But perhaps a slash is more capable of maiming rather than killing outright. This would infer the philosophical difference in the siths jedi respect for life...
But I do recognize the inherent flaws in that thought 
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golbez
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Fort McMurray Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Add Mace Windu to that list. He held the Emperor at bay in ep III with the tip of his saber when Anakin walked in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ankhanu wrote: | Interesting point; I hadn't actually realized that.
I want to say that it's because a thrust is a manoeuvre that is pretty much intended to kill, while a slash is less fatal... but... well, slashes are pretty darn fatal too. But perhaps a slash is more capable of maiming rather than killing outright. This would infer the philosophical difference in the siths jedi respect for life...
But I do recognize the inherent flaws in that thought |
To me a thrust with the tip is more controlable than a slash as to what you hit though.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reyus Graven
Ensign
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Anacortes, Wa
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Golbez wrote: | | Add Mace Windu to that list. He held the Emperor at bay in ep III with the tip of his saber when Anakin walked in. |
That part of the movie always bothered me. When you have a lethal weapon that can be shoved through a blast door. you don't have to swing with any real force to kill someone with it. It just seemed to set up Anakin wouldn't have been able to "save" palpatine if he had just thrust his saber forward rather then a slow raised sword attack. of course mace channels the dark side when hes in combat right? So maybe he was having an arrogant moment but it never made much sense to me, not very efficient.
It might be a difference in there ways of fighting. Don't see sith trying to disable people very often. A thrust is a deliberate lethal strike. In a lot of the cases though thrust or no the Jedi and the Sith are swinging for each others bodies anyhow. So if anything it's probably just the combat style that they both use. Thrust is kind of dangerous for the user in some ways. Its easy to overextend yourself on a thrust and you run to risk of leaving yourself open to attack if you miss.
_________________
Nothing smells worse then burnt Wookie hair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4849
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to vote for just cinematics. Contrary to your group's thought, tips are not more fatal. I do a fair amount of historical swordsmanship, and one of the biggest critiques of Georg Silver to the introduction of the rapier (an almost purely thrusting weapon) into the English swordplay was the fact that an opponent could be run through a number of times without dying. Indeed he said that there were numerous instances where people received what looked like fatal blows, but then not only killed there opponent, but also recovered some three months later. If you get someone directly in the aorta, brachial artery, or femeral artery, then it will be an instant kill. Other than that, historical accounts indicate that it may take a few pierces to do someone in.
The Maul pierce was most certainly for this exact reason. Qui-Gon had to live long enough to give his final word to Obi-Wan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Expendable Hero
Ensign
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think that its just a coincidence. The fight choreographer's would try to give every personality a different style of fighting so it makes sense that some fight more with the point while some slash. However they might have had thrusts with those characters because it is seen to be more aggressive which is a dark side quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reyus Graven
Ensign
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Anacortes, Wa
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | I'm going to vote for just cinematics. Contrary to your group's thought, tips are not more fatal. I do a fair amount of historical swordsmanship, and one of the biggest critiques of Georg Silver to the introduction of the rapier (an almost purely thrusting weapon) into the English swordplay was the fact that an opponent could be run through a number of times without dying. Indeed he said that there were numerous instances where people received what looked like fatal blows, but then not only killed there opponent, but also recovered some three months later. If you get someone directly in the aorta, brachial artery, or femeral artery, then it will be an instant kill. Other than that, historical accounts indicate that it may take a few pierces to do someone in.
The Maul pierce was most certainly for this exact reason. Qui-Gon had to live long enough to give his final word to Obi-Wan. |
Rapiers are indeed not very efficient in some cases cause it takes a while for a person to bleed out when you have tiny holes punctured into you. A light saber is a different animal all together. A thrust attack from a rapier just pierces flesh and organs. Blood will rush to fix the damage a person will bleed out eventually but unless you hit something thats vital for short time functions that persons not going to die all that quick. A thrust attack from a light saber is going to go into the body melting and disintegrating anything it touches. The wound and pain alone could kill someone short of a Jedi from shock alone. Though a light saber really wouldn't do more damage swung then thrust really.
I believe darth maul hit him with a strike straight through the stomach. He did so so that Obi-wan could watch Qui-Gon to slowly die. He could have stabbed him and drug the saber up down or any direction he wanted to. Aside from that chances are that stab went through his stomach and spine. Qui-gon didn't stand a very good chance of survival at all.
_________________
Nothing smells worse then burnt Wookie hair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Expendable Hero
Ensign
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While lightsabers do have a larger area that they cut than a rapier they also cauterize the wound a bit as they injure like a blaster. This could extend time you live just in its self. Trying to compare a rapier with a lightsaber leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. There is so much difference when you think about it that what works for one can very well get you killed on the other. So I try not to compare the two that much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
For a great example of the basic ineffectiveness of a rapier, watch Rob Roy, particularly the final fight between Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) and Cunningham(Tim Roth). Roy takes a number of vicious cuts from Cunningham's rapier, but the fight ends when Roy uses a good old basket hilt claymore to open up Cunningham from neck to about mid-chest. There's no substitute for grievous bodily harm, particularly with Scottish weapons,  . Rob Roy, despite having about half a dozen wounds, survives the fight. The rapier may be quick and fast, but give me a broadsword any day.
-masque, wearing his kilt.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golbez
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Fort McMurray Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
With Darth Maul, I think it was just an opening he saw and took it. The fact that Qui-Gon did not die is part of the attack.
You disable an opponent, and prove that you are stronger then them before you kill them, so that they know they have been conquered.
This would produce hate and/or fear, which the sith would feed off of.
I am surprised that we haven't seen more battles that maim, humiliate, and torture rather then kill. It would be a very sith like thing to do I think. Play with your prey before you end their misery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Golbez wrote: | With Darth Maul, I think it was just an opening he saw and took it. The fact that Qui-Gon did not die is part of the attack.
You disable an opponent, and prove that you are stronger then them before you kill them, so that they know they have been conquered.
This would produce hate and/or fear, which the sith would feed off of.
I am surprised that we haven't seen more battles that maim, humiliate, and torture rather then kill. It would be a very sith like thing to do I think. Play with your prey before you end their misery. |
True Sith would seek to simply triumph, anything beyond that is possible weakness to be exploited by an underestimated foe.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4849
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reyus Graven wrote: |
Rapiers are indeed not very efficient in some cases cause it takes a while for a person to bleed out when you have tiny holes punctured into you. A light saber is a different animal all together. A thrust attack from a rapier just pierces flesh and organs. Blood will rush to fix the damage a person will bleed out eventually but unless you hit something thats vital for short time functions that persons not going to die all that quick. A thrust attack from a light saber is going to go into the body melting and disintegrating anything it touches. The wound and pain alone could kill someone short of a Jedi from shock alone. Though a light saber really wouldn't do more damage swung then thrust really.
|
Of course, at this point we're debating the effectiveness of a hypothetical weapon. I don't think it leaves us in a very good place to talk about actual effect, given that we have no case studies. But if what we see in film is any indication, I would have to respectfully disagree. I would say that being cloven in twain by Obi-Wan is a bit more damaging than being pierced through the gut by Maul. 
Of course, I'm also a bit biased, given that I have certain opinions originating from my experience in historical swordsmanship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golbez
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Fort McMurray Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ankhanu wrote: | | Golbez wrote: | With Darth Maul, I think it was just an opening he saw and took it. The fact that Qui-Gon did not die is part of the attack.
You disable an opponent, and prove that you are stronger then them before you kill them, so that they know they have been conquered.
This would produce hate and/or fear, which the sith would feed off of.
I am surprised that we haven't seen more battles that maim, humiliate, and torture rather then kill. It would be a very sith like thing to do I think. Play with your prey before you end their misery. |
True Sith would seek to simply triumph, anything beyond that is possible weakness to be exploited by an underestimated foe. |
I point I concidered before posting, but I still disagree. You read Path of Distruction: Darth Bane, right?
*SPOILER, SCROLL OVER TO READ*
In the challenges Bane made against the Zabrak, both victors humiliated their opponents for prestige and did not take the quick route.
*END SPOILER*
From that, I gather that when total victory is assured, dominating ones opponent was the way to prove your power. I could be wrong though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthias777
Commodore
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 1835
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't he later regret that though, after more understanding of the ways of the True Sith?
_________________
Arek | Kage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
