Most of this is wrong, same as claims of 6kg swords. A longsword is sharp, it carries an edge and is also higher quality steel than a pattern welded katana.
The blade shape of the katana makes cutting marginally easier to pull off, but a drawn cut with a longsword is just as capable of cutting through non metallic armours, and flesh and bone beneath..
The longsword shape is how it is, to permit thrusting, to penetrate weak spots of metallic armour - fighting techniques included half-swording to bring the tip into joints, visor slits etc.
Ceremonial swords and training swords are dulled &/or thicker sections to reduce injury risk and to be cheaper. Quality military weapons are as sharp as any other sword, will hold an edge well and are nothing like the crap "tested" on History Channel and other "which sword is best" TV shows.
(Which also usually have butted maille when looking at maille effectiveness, and so many other inaccuracies and errors it is a shame the money to make them is wasted. They don't add to people's knowledge, but rather actively make people less informed.)
Last edited:
Not realistic?
I can promise you that the reality of real-life violence in the medieval period in Europe would make you throw up if you could go back and re-live it. Beheadings, dismemberment, people desperatly trying to push their own entrails back into their bodies. If you think the violence in W3 is over the top - think again. When humans waged war in the real world in the times of greatswords, polearms, flails etc - injuries like the ones in W3 would pale in comparison.
I can promise you that the reality of real-life violence in the medieval period in Europe would make you throw up if you could go back and re-live it. Beheadings, dismemberment, people desperatly trying to push their own entrails back into their bodies. If you think the violence in W3 is over the top - think again. When humans waged war in the real world in the times of greatswords, polearms, flails etc - injuries like the ones in W3 would pale in comparison.
So why doesn't archaeological evidence support the cut in two sword wound? limbs yeah there is LOTS of archaeological evidence for the swords being able to cut of a limb there is even evidence for showing the lower part (aka below the knee) of both legs being severed in one blow. But where is the archaeological evidence of all these torso cut in two deaths? Where are these swords so sharp that they cut a man in two at the torso wounds? Very rarely do you find a battle field beheading vs a execution beheading. It is not easy to cut off a head. most bodies with head wounds from swords are NOT decapitations. yes swords cut bone they are not light sabres that server limbs.
In the book Armour of the battle of Wisby, by Thordeman, we get a good picture of the wounds suffered and the skeletal remains are well documented. 400 of just over 1000 fighters in the part of exevation suffered serious leg wounds, Bones were severed through or cracked and shattered. Other wounds cut through muscle and tissue of the leg and several victims lost both legs. I don't know of a documented case of a cut in two torso. Swords just aren't sharp enough to do this. Please show me archaeological evidence that this is the case. If you can find more than one such case i will admit whole heartily that I was wrong but I have never come across a single case. (Why two and not just one? because a single data point isn't proof.)
I think it's perfect. More blood is more fun. 
The Witcher 3 features som bloody execution moves, as you can see below (From IGN first / Neogaf)
Does anything else feel that's a bit much? I get that it's dramatic and all that, but it's not something I enjoy seeing every fight.
Have a nice day,
Matt