On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:Essentially the length of combat says not how good opponents are, but how equally bad they are.
Melee combat by knights in heavy armor - on those occasions NOT involving a successfully-delivered charge of heavy horse - were essentially contests of endurance rather than of skill.
It would be very rare for a true master swordsman to face a peer outside of a pre-planned contest, because there are so few in societies, and they rarely meet, or have
a desire to do so.I would dispute the "desire to do so." One can hardly build a reputation as a master swordsman unless one routinely goes up against opponents of comparable skill.
Also, I can imagine that there would be a more or less steady supply of "young guns" (convinced of their own high skills and/or immortality) wishing to try themselves against highly-reputed swordsmen.[Someone Who Was Probably NOT Greg Chalik Wrote}:>> The best way to engage a high value target is by using a sniper, not a TU 'ninja'. Historical ninjas only vary rarely performed assassinations, usually NOT using blades. When they were forced to use weapons, the ninja blade was designed for a quicker draw, not superior steel. THIS is the formative idea behind the SW lightsabre. The prolonged samurai-like duel is atypical of samurai combats that were unlikely to be lengthy in reality
The point of using a TU ninja wouldn't be merely killing the person, but killing them in a particular manner, for public consumption. Having a "samurai-like duel" would be part of the point, particularly in the case of Aslan.