Sweet, I can add Italian Rapier to the list of things I am an expert at after watching youtube!

Your video, Italian Rapier in Two Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Almost looks like SCA but according to their wiki they only started doing this in 09 and SCA has been around since 1966.

SCA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Creative_Anachronism

BOTN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nations_%28Medieval_Tournament%29

I used to be really in to the SCA. They have two types of fighting . Heavy like what you see in the video and rapier combat. (light combat)
It can be a hell of a lot of fun. If you don't mind the occasional broken bone or wound.
The Drunken tourny is the most common cause for an ER visit.

It can get expensive but they do have loaner gear that you can use if you want to try it.

I agree. Normal/medium sized two handers seem to pretty much all be designed to allow you greater control rather than to add power (an axe or mace is always going to be better for that).

Wieldyness is much more important for them than power. As Lindy himself mentions in another vid swords like the Katana and longsword are backups and personal protection weapons not primary weapons of war. Convenient to carry around, and handy for parrying blows & grappling but second fiddle to almost any dedicated battlefield weapon (Spears, Naginata, maces etc.).

The most notable exception that springs to mind is the Roman Gladius, but it could be described as a glorified short spear with bonus cutting abilities rather than what most people think of as a sword. Rapiers and scimitars could also be thought of as more like spears and axes respectively in this sense.

And then there's the huge specialised warswords like claymores and Zweihanders but as lindy suggests in yet another vid they are a specialised tool for berserker charges and maybe advancing through a pikewall. Certainly not something you'd want to have a duel with or carry around at your waist.

Longswords and Katanas are like modern pistols. Good side-arms, but almost never a primary weapon of war. (Hollywood fails again)


Also.....Longsword totally > Katana. A well made longsword can hold just as sharp an edge as a Katana, has quillons to hook and lever an opponent and a straight focused point that can puncture steel plate. Katanas can maybe dismember someone easier, but that's about it.(all IMHO obviously)

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

@SDGundamX

WARNING: pretty harsh words ahead.

First, I'm not going to take up the "to toast or not to toast" subject, only point out that if you choose to ignore my "sarcasm" label, you can't go on to blame me from straying off topic (also: Hitchens is not an alcoholic, which is why I posted the citation from him about his drinking. What with all the dolts he's debated though, it's little wonder he felt like taking the edge off).

Sifters up/down-vote a comment based on their (dis-)agreement with it's content/sentiment, as do you, so no need to get self-righteous about it. Some comments are sarcastic, some funny, some serious arguments; that's communication for you (you'll note the highest rated comments on VS are not necessarily the most snarky (see here, or my top comment for example).

Saying that we don't pay attention to what other comments say is ridiculous in this context: it is because attention has been paid that snarky witticisms can be writ (and so spot on, may I add). Seriously though, saying that the religion/atheism discussion has been "O'Reillyfied" is incredibly insulting and downright false (unless you're talking about shiny's comments... but since he's pretty much the only one to stand up for his absurd convictions on VS I can see why you'd get that impression, from that side of the argument in any case). You point to my response as an example, but it only shows that I'm making two points: correcting your false statement about what Hitchens does in his debates in the briefest possible manner, and arguing that there is nothing sinister or wrong in drinking to a sick man in homage of what he's accomplished, no matter if alcohol is responsible for his sickness.

It seems to me that, as @ChaosEngine points out, you simply don't like being called out on your false assumptions and accusations. I find it telling that you took the time to answer my comment here, whining about how it's impossible to have a debate, but you chose not to answer to my comment here, in which I call you out on your false assumptions without sarcasm, but with evidence (more on that here). So coming here on your high horse to look down on those of us who sprinkle our arguments with both evidence and sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy when you choose to ignore all the actual debate going on. No wonder you can't understand why sifters no longer respond to shiny's bs, or if they do, with nothing but scorn and derision. Not all of us have the patience of a Christopher Hitchens with people who repeatedly spout the same nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted. If all you can do is resort to complaining about tone then by all means, go somewhere where people do not rustle your feathers or question your assumptions, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that is a more rational debate than the ones here.

Yes, the above is harsh, but sometimes one need be to get a point across. If I didn't think you were capable of rational debate I would simply ignore you (as I do shiny).

Well being a cat you better know them all

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Never played the game, but I know my internet memes.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A wild JOEDIRT appeared!

Dft uses pokemon reference.

It's super effective.
>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A wild JOEDIRT appeared!

Dft uses pokemon reference.

Never played the game, but I know my internet memes.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A wild JOEDIRT appeared!

Dft uses pokemon reference.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A wild JOEDIRT appeared!

Dft uses pokemon reference.

>> ^joedirt:

>> ^blankfist:
She's advertising. He's buying. Problem?
Wow, some contest. More time and intellect was put into writing the contest description then actual winning comments. It's sad state to see that anal snogging and cartman clown cliques still garner the most votes in a display of circlejerkism.


*than

It's all starting to make sense now. >> ^blankfist:

BWAHAHAHA! The capitalist wins again! Gather around my dearest children and let uncle blankfist tell you of the time he promoted a shitty comment into infamy!
I realized early on that my comment here wouldn't be enough to win this contest on its own. Maybe it would get 15 votes, maybe a bit more, but I knew I wasn't smart enough nor witty enough to win this without promoting that video a lot. And by a lot I mean 13 times.
See? I invested my capital to increase my comment's visibility. In this instance, the power points were my capital. Think of how marketers manipulate you into buying their shitty products by plastering billboards of it everywhere. It's called brand reinforcement. You see it enough, you want it. And you all must've really wanted my comment to win. So I thank each and every one of you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, tie for 5th. @DerHasisttot gets a tee too! >> ^JiggaJonson:

tie for 5th?