Wield Or Excersise One

Ernest W. Adams said that George III was the last one to wield real power. What about Queen Victoria?

It depends on what you mean by “real power.” While it’s largely true that George III was the last king to exercise a high level of control over foreign affairs (I wonder why), Queen Victoria certainly exercised a lot of control over domestic affairs, although this was largely unknown to the public. In fact, whenever there was a change of government, ministers were often horrified by just how much power Queen Victoria and Prince Albert exercised over the country, and vowed to keep the public quiet. She did not have an autocratic degree of control like Elizabeth I or Henry VIII, but she did have a lot of approval and veto power over certain decisions.For example, Prince Albert saw the letter that the UK was going to send to Lincoln over the sinking of that ship, and realized that it was so offensive the UK was going to get embroiled in a bitter civil war with a friendly and distant power. He sent it back with edits, which Lord Palmerston thanked him for. Queen Victoria later refused to accept the resignation of a prime minister several times during the Boer War, which certainly is a vast amount of veto power for any one person. She also was firmly against Irish Home Rule, and was not above feuding with prime ministers over it. Queen Victoria never conceded that her role was merely that of approving details. She expected her views and advice to be heeded, and they almost always were.Mark my words, we may find out Queen Elizabeth II was extraordinarily influential and active behind the scenes after her death. Those who think that British monarchs have no power under the Constitution are laboring under a large misapprehension.

What is a proper way to dual wield swords?

The proper way is to put one of them away and either use a sword and shield or a two handed weapon!Almost everyone who looks to dual wield actually has weapons of different lengths and uses one to parry and the other to strike (this might change as the fight goes on).  It is very difficult to use two swords independantly at the same time.If you are therefore using one defensively and the other offensively what you have is a sword and badly shaped shield.  You are vulnerable to thrusts and your hand, wrist and forearm are easy to attack.  Put it down and get a shield instead.If your opponent is wearing too much armour for a single sword and shield to damage then two single swords will not help you either.  Get a two handed pole axe or something that can cause some real damage through their armour.If you are in a group melee then ditch your dual swords and pick up a pole arm.  Long range, lots of power and it allows you to close ranks with your group in a way swords do not.Dual wielding swords gets you killed on a battle field.  There was briefly a fashion for dual wielding rapier duals.  This fighting style fell out of fashion as the usual result was mutual death.

Would you consider the desire to wield, exercise and exert power and authority over others one of the base aspects of human nature?

I do not see any way to separate innate behavior from societal training on this issue.Ever since Darwin published his “On the origin of the species.” An odd thought pattern emerged that justified domination of others through what was called “Social Darwinism”. Before social Darwinism there were still groups that were taught to dominate others it was just not justified as anything more than an attempt to maintain power and control for the good of the group. The justification was practicality if any justification was even attempted.Since social Darwinism has gained popularity it has been used to justify anything from cheating at school to waging war.Counter examples of groups opposing the domination of others can be found. The Amish are one example that comes to mind. Those upholding natural human rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of defense oppose domination of others. Both the ACLU and the NRA are examples of such groups I am aware of. The USA declaration of independence has words such as “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” Equality is the antithesis of domination.The way your qestion is worded leaves its meaning open to interpretation. When you used the word words “base aspects of human nature” did you mean base to equate with fundamental or with low or vile?Anyway, how can we examine human nature outside of societal influences? I fear your question has already been answered by those who have accepted dominance of others as a natural thing.I do not accept dominance over others as a natural or fundamental part of humanity.

If I could wield and swing the sword like a normal one, how deadly would a forty pound sword be?

Very deadly. For you.Ever lifted a filled 5 gallons water bottle for water machines?That would be the weight of your sword.Now image having to lift that weight over your head a while getting attacked.You don’t have a choice, you can’t rely on speed, so you have to use gravity as much as you can if you want to use give that weight some potential energy.Even if you were strong enough to swing it, there’s no stoping that thing. Consider this, a sword weighting 40 lbs is 2.5 times heavier than what’s thrown in the olympic hammer throw.And this is a 265 lbs dude [1].Sure, you wouldn’t swing it the same way, but it still goes to show that strenght is not the only factor here. To counter the weight of that sword you would have to be made of metal yourself.Everything else comparable, speed is always preferable to mass. Sharpness has nothing to do with mass, and if you can hit your opponent before he can even begin to parry, you win, simple as that.There’s a reason why golf clubs are so much lighter than they used to be :[2]Footnotes[1] European Athletics - Athlete: Yury Shayunou[2] Driver Length and Weight (1)

How would you wield an extendable baton as CQC weapon?

I’ve been carrying one for about 20 years. They are pretty much standard issue for police officers these days. For we police…..We are generally taught to strike nerve-plexus areas in large muscle-mass locations.For instance, the nerve plexus on the outside of the upper thigh, the calf, the upper forearm, etc. We are taught NOT to strike joints, the head, the neck, etc.These weapons are capable of delivering deadly force and can easily fracture bones, fracture the skull, etc.The idea for us is to deliver disabling blows without causing permanent damage.In many locations, these weapons are prohibited for civilian use for this purpose, as it’s understood that the civilian user would likely not have experienced the training we do or exercise such restraint.If it’s legal for you to have one of these and to carry it, the legal restrictions are fairly simple. Use such as I described above… Strikes to areas that might cause death or serious injury are only justified if you are justified in using deadly force…. And you had better be able to articulate why you felt that was the case.

What is the heaviest sword that can be wielded proficiently with one hand?

It's not the weight, it's the moment of inertia.“Swinging” involves both concepts of translation (= linear motion) and rotation (going around), and the main issue here is not weight but inertia. And now the main variable is Moment of inertia.Everything now boils down to balancing the sword. If the pommel is large enough or the moment arm of the pommel is long enough, the sword can have a surprisingly small moment of inertia. It will feel “light” on hand while its mass (weight divided by gravity acceleration) may be quite large.I know this from history re-enactment. When we began to practise swordplay, we did it with home-made boffers. I as an engineer knew what was the real function of the pommel. It was not there to prevent your grip from slipping but to act as counterweight to the blade and to balance it. So when I made mine, I put tyre weights around the end of the grip and covered it with close-cell foam to make a credible-looking pommel. I won almost all matches against the boys who had made light boffers but forgotten the pommel. They had awkward balancing and were blade heavy.When I let them then try my boffer, they all said “Whoa, how light!”. I then asked them to compare the weights - mine was heavier. “How did you make it so light feeling?” I answered on Queen song line: “It’s a kind of ma-gic!” I then asked if they had forgotten what was taught in high school physics and about inertia…It is perfectly possible to wield swords weighing several kilos with one hand - if they are well balanced. They will feel unnatural, though, and are better suited for thrusting or pommel strikes rather than bladework. They will also kill your wrists and elbows.The knightly longsword was designed to be handled with either one or two hands, and it weighed usually 0.9 to 1.5 kg. It usually had the center of gravity roughly one palm’s width on the blade from crossguard. But people are known to have wielded well-balanced greatswords weighing 3 kg or more single-handedly. They have often used the Italian grip to do so.Balancing of the sword is the most important property of the sword. If the balancing has been done improperly, the moment of inertia is large and the sword feels blade-heavy and is slow and clumsy to wield. Or it may feel unnaturally light and feel hilt-heavy; when hitting with it, it will cause little harm to the target, and is better suited for thrusting.