# Ask me about swords.



## Anders Ã„mting

So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia. 

Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway. 

Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.


----------



## Devor

I'll take you up on that one.  I've always wondered how late and modern day swords, like the sabres officers use as late as the 1900s, compare to older weapons like the broadsword and katana or scimitars.  They didn't really see a lot of action so it'd be easy to see how, if they improved on the older swords in any way, it'd often be overlooked.


----------



## Jabrosky

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest.


Another Aspie here, although dinosaurs and Northeast African anthropology are my special interests rather than swords.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm also curious about more ancient weapons of civilizations that were wiped out specifically South American empires, like the Aztecs.  Especially the weapons used that could apparently severe a horse's head (which I think is insane.)  Anyway, bone, wood, and stone weapons are really interesting to me.  Any ideas about some cool weapons made of my primal stuff?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> I'll take you up on that one.  I've always wondered how late and modern day swords, like the sabres officers use as late as the 1900s, compare to older weapons like the broadsword and katana or scimitars.  They didn't really see a lot of action so it'd be easy to see how, if they improved on the older swords in any way, it'd often be overlooked.



First I just want to point out that it's a mistake to think of the katana as an "older" sword. The fact is that the Japanese never actually stopped making them, and they are in fact still made to this day. (For that matter, there are Americans and Europeans making them as well. It's quite amazing.) Which is not to say they never changed over the ages, but the katana itself is not a period specific sword.

But to adress your question: It's true swords eventually took on a ceremonial role, but it bears keeping in mind this was a very gradual change. You sometimes hear that guns made swords obselete, but that is absolutely not true - swords and firearms coexisted for a period of 400-500 years. Early guns weren't really that effective and only gradually improved, and since close combat scenarios still happened the sword remained a serious battlefield weapon throughout the Napoleonic era and right into the late 19th century. What guns actually did was take heavy armor out of the equation, and that was what _really_ changed things because medieval swords were almost exclusively designed to counter whatever armor was used at the time.

But that's just the thing, actually: It's hard to talk about "improvement" because practically all swords were designed to do what was required of them _in their own context_. Were medieval swords better then post-Renaissance swords? Not really; they were just good at different things. What changed wasn't the attitude towards swords so much as the context in which they were used.

But one thing I can say for certain: During the 19th century, the militaries of Europe did _a lot _of experimenting with their swords. Really, the sheer crazy variety of different blades you encounter from ca the Victorian period speaks of people who took their swords _very _seriously, and if they did not manage to improve them, it sure wasn't for lack of trying. These guys tried everything at least once: They tried making straight swords for thrusting, and they tried making curved swords for cutting, and they tried making slightly curved but still kinda straight swords that were equally good for cutting and thrusting. They made swords with broad fullers for flexibility and they made swords with accented pipe-shaped spines for rigidity. They made light swords and they made heavy swords, and they had I think something like four different kinds of sword points. Plus, all the while there was this long and very heated debate about wether the thrust was superior to the cut or vice versa. The thrust side eventually won out, and the last swords to see actual use in the field, as late as World War I, were cavalry sabers with narrow thrusting blades. 

So, I suppose the answer is that the sword was treated as a serious weapon for as long as it was expected to see use in actual combat, but how "good" a particular sword was is always going to be a matter of context.



Jabrosky said:


> Another Aspie here, although dinosaurs and Northeast African anthropology are my special interests rather than swords.



Also useful. 



Phil the Drill said:


> I'm also curious about more ancient weapons of civilizations that were wiped out specifically South American empires, like the Aztecs.  Especially the weapons used that could apparently severe a horse's head (which I think is insane.)  Anyway, bone, wood, and stone weapons are really interesting to me.  Any ideas about some cool weapons made of my primal stuff?



Sorry to say, my obsession mostly only covers metal weapons. 

I can tell you about that horse decapitation thing, though: The weapon in question is the Aztec maquahuitl, and it's pretty much considered the sharpest bladed weapon ever created by any culture, anywhere. It's basically a wooden sword with edges made from shards of obsidian, that is to say volcanic glass. Obsidian shards can form edges that are almost monomolecular in sharpness, and some people have used the material to make surgical scalpels. Not primitive old school scalpels, mind you, I mean "actually used in modern hospitals" scalpels. 

The downside, of course, is that obsidian is still basically glass, so the edges of the maquahuitl were crazy sharp but also extremely fragile. If I'm not mistaken, Aztec warriors would carry extra shards to replace the ones that shattered in battle. 

As for the story about the decapitated horse, I belive it was an account from a conquistador eyewitness. Unfortunately, the last known authentic maquahuitl is said to have been destroyed in 1884, so it's hard to know for sure what they were capable of.


----------



## Jess A

I must keep your username in my mental database!

I am quite interested in swords. I used to fence when I was a teenager, and I regret not keeping up with it - though I do intend to return to it, though it's been a long time. I can visualise fencing with rapier-like swords (in a controlled environment) from experience, but I know very little about fencing with other types of swords (long swords, for example) or in an uncontrolled environment (other than fighting with stick 'swords' with friends when I was a kid).

My mum bought me a great book about swords for Christmas - for my archive - I keep a lot of references for writing. I am sure that even with the book, I will have a lot of questions for you when I come across them. I'd particularly like to know a bit about how blacksmiths worked. For example, how long did it take to make a sword in the 14th century (or thereabouts)? For example, somebody pays a blacksmith/bladesmith to make a sword (specifically for them). They are told to come back in ... how long?

I'd also like a bit of info on the care of swords in those times as well. Other than the basic 'polishing the blade' etc. Something a bit more detailed if you are able.

Thank you - much appreciated!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Little Storm Cloud said:


> I must keep your username in my mental database!
> 
> I am quite interested in swords. I used to fence when I was a teenager, and I regret not keeping up with it - though I do intend to return to it, though it's been a long time. I can visualise fencing with rapier-like swords (in a controlled environment) from experience, but I know very little about fencing with other types of swords (long swords, for example) or in an uncontrolled environment (other than fighting with stick 'swords' with friends when I was a kid).



I just started learning German longsword, actually. (I've had a grand number of one lessons, so you know I know what I'm talking about. ) I've also tried kendo, but quit before I got to actually hit anyone since I couldn't afford the armor at the time. Before that I did some sport fencing, and in retrospect I wish I had kept that up.

Kendo and sport fencing are actually more sports rather then martial arts - they give you quick reflexes and timing, but don't quite give an acurate simulation of using a real sword in a real fight. Still, if you want to learn how to use a sword, they are still better then nothing. 

On the other hand, actual historical fencing styles have been on the rise for a while now, so if you do want to learn how to fence with a rapier the way they did in ye olde times, that's actually achievable. Personally, I would love to learn one of the baskethilt styles, mostly because it kinda looks like the sort of fencing you see in movies.  



> My mum bought me a great book about swords for Christmas - for my archive - I keep a lot of references for writing. I am sure that even with the book, I will have a lot of questions for you when I come across them. I'd particularly like to know a bit about how blacksmiths worked. For example, how long did it take to make a sword in the 14th century (or thereabouts)? For example, somebody pays a blacksmith/bladesmith to make a sword (specifically for them). They are told to come back in ... how long?



Oh dear, I can give an exact answer. I'd say there are a lot of factors involved, like wether or not the smith has other projects to work on as well, wether the required material is ready or has to be ordered in, wether or not the blade is pattern welded and the general quality of the workmanship, or how much of a hurry the customer is in. A funny thing about for example Japanese swords is that the _really _nice, high quality stuff was created during times of peace, because that meant the smiths had more time to put into their art. In wartimes, on the other hand, you needed a lot of swords right away, so the smiths had to churn out inferior blades quickly. I'm sure the same thing applied to European smiths to some degree.

Also, note that "bladesmith" means exactly that: He'd make only the blades, not the entire sword. It was a specialized profession, same way a heart surgeon today won't perform an entire operation by himself. The be more precise, there would be one master smith and two apprentice/assistants doing the heavy hammering. Then there would be another person in charge of grinding and polishing, another guy doing the hilting, another guy making the leatherwork and so on. Most of the time these craftsmen would be in specific guilds, and you could actually get in serious trouble for intruding on their markets.

But anyway, just guestimating here: About a month for a plain but fairly fancy sword with scabbard and everything, assuming no particular delays. More if you wanted luxuries like engraving and jeweled hilts. You probably couldn't get a sword in less then three or four weeks.



> I'd also like a bit of info on the care of swords in those times as well. Other than the basic 'polishing the blade' etc. Something a bit more detailed if you are able.



Well, I know a bit of general sword care, though I'm honestly not sure if there was any particular way to care for your sword in medieval times. There probably wasn't much need for polishing - rather, you want to keep your sword oiled to prevent corrosion and rust, and you'd probably know some basic honing to keep your blade fairly sharp after use.

Come to think of it, I'm not even quite sure how swords were stored while not in use in medieval times - this seems to be one of those gaps in my data bank. I think I'll ask around a bit and get back to you on this.


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> But that's just the thing, actually: It's hard to talk about "improvement" because practically all swords were designed to do what was required of them in their own context. Were medieval swords better then post-Renaissance swords? Not really; they were just good at different things. What changed wasn't the attitude towards swords so much as the context in which they were used.
> 
> But one thing I can say for certain: During the 19th century, the militaries of Europe did a lot of experimenting with their swords. Really, the sheer crazy variety of different blades you encounter from ca the Victorian period speaks of people who took their swords very seriously, and if they did not manage to improve them, it sure wasn't for lack of trying. These guys tried everything at least once: They tried making straight swords for thrusting, and they tried making curved swords for cutting, and they tried making slightly curved but still kinda straight swords that were equally good for cutting and thrusting. They made swords with broad fullers for flexibility and they made swords with accented pipe-shaped spines for rigidity. They made light swords and they made heavy swords, and they had I think something like four different kinds of sword points. Plus, all the while there was this long and very heated debate about wether the thrust was superior to the cut or vice versa. The thrust side eventually won out, and the last swords to see actual use in the field, as late as World War I, were cavalry sabers with narrow thrusting blades.



That's what I keep reading, but I really doubt that's all there is to it.  Swords differed in more ways than how curved or straight the blade was.  The most powerful scimitars, for instance, were in later periods, highly curved, and weighted heavily towards the tip to increase their striking power.

Also, it's relatively unfair to talk about the thrusting swords as having "won out" just because they were used later than other weapons, and even if so, that wouldn't have applications beyond use in cavalry.  The swords used in WWI were used the way other soldiers in history used a lance.  If you carried both a sword and a lance, almost certainly you would want the sword to be curved.  And if your target was armored, you would need the range and weight of a lance over the control of the sword any time.

What I really meant to ask, though, and probably should have specified, was about the later trend towards single-edged weapons.  Post-period swords, for lack of a better word, start to resemble the katana more than the medieval broadsword.  The single-edge helped to increase cutting power with a blade that didn't need to be as wide, which in turn, I would think, increases thrusting abilities.  I can't imagine what advantage the double-edged broadsword would hold over these weapons even against armored opponents.




> As for the story about the decapitated horse, I belive it was an account from a conquistador eyewitness. Unfortunately, the last known authentic maquahuitl is said to have been destroyed in 1884, so it's hard to know for sure what they were capable of.



They made what's supposedly an authentic reproduction of the maquahuitl for Deadliest Warrior, and it successfully cut through the gel-horse's neck.  The Obsidian blades didn't shatter so far as I could tell, but they came off the weapon in droves.  They also used an obsidian knife to cut out a gel torso's "still-beating" heart.  You can watch it on the Netflix instant queue.

For those wondering, the maquahuitl is essentially a flat wooden sword with obsidian shards lining the edge like teeth, as a substitute for the blade.  Native Americans like the Aztecs didn't have metalworking, making this one of the most powerful weapons available to them.

Also, based on Deadliest Warrior episodes, another powerful non-metal item is Jade, which the Maori of New Zealand used to create great effect in making weapons stronger than steel.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello, another swords fanatic here!! I love swords from every culture and history period (even though my favourites are European blades from 12th to 16th centuries) and actually I am a producer of Aluminum swords, maybe I should share pictures of them and start a thread about aluminum swordmaking =)


----------



## Chilari

This thread has me hooked. There's so much here I never knew (about the only thing I did know was about obsidian - and I can add to that, by stating that obsidian objects are used by archaeologists to trace acient trade networks, because there are very few sources of obsidian in the world, and each one is chemically distinct, so finding large numbers of obsidian objects at sites distant from these sources means that site was probably used as a trading hub in valuable objects, not merely obsidian blades and beads).

I also have a question: what do you know about bronze swords? In what ways did their shape and the way they were made differ from iron swords, and were they used differently?


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Chilari: Bronze Age swords were usually short if compared with later swords (50 to 70cm) the classic leaf shape of these blades served the purpose to provide more strength against bending of the blade, and they were made by pouring the liquid bronze into clay moulds that would be broken later =)

Swords from the Iron Age were similar to bronze weapons (not at all like later steel swords) and these swords were used in a different fighting style to later swords: Bronze swords could be slashing weapons, but they were more suited towards stabbing.

Also, bronze swords were far stronger and far more lethal than many people think today!! Neil Burridge from the UK is a producer of replicas of bronze age swords that are almost identical to the originals and he's a great guy, if you are interested you should visit his website at:

Neil Burridge


----------



## sashamerideth

This thread is a varitable gold mine. I come here with a question, and it has already been asked and answered. I want to use nonstandard metals and such in my story, as I am doing a south American style society, the obsidian blades will definitely be getting used.

I had heard rumors about Egyptian swords crafted from a copper alloy that was superior to other weapons of the time. How did the Egyptian sword really compare?

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Sheilawisz

Sashamerideth: There were many types of bronze swords developed during the bronze age, and the quality of these weapons varied according to the skills of the bronzesmiths and the proportions of tin/copper used for bronze production in different parts of the world. For example, something very important was the work-hardening of the edges which was done at the same time as sharpening, a skill that few people in the world can replicate today =)

The Egyptians used bronze swords different to those used in Europe, like the Khopesh. Iron age swords replaced bronze swords not because they were stronger (actually a well-crafted bronze weapon was superior to iron swords) but only because iron was more readily available than the limited supplies of tin and copper needed to manufacture bronze.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Little Storm Cloud said:


> For example, how long did it take to make a sword in the 14th century (or thereabouts)? For example, somebody pays a blacksmith/bladesmith to make a sword (specifically for them). They are told to come back in ... how long?


Well, like Anders said the production of swords involved many different people and took a long time- High quality swords were very expensive, and something that most people do not know, is that the straight and double-edged swords were not the most used swords in Europe during medieval times: The Falchions were cheaper weapons and were far more common (something like a medieval machete) but unlike the straight swords, few original falchions have reached our days.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> That's what I keep reading, but I really doubt that's all there is to it.  Swords differed in more ways than how curved or straight the blade was.  The most powerful scimitars, for instance, were in later periods, highly curved, and weighted heavily towards the tip to increase their striking power.



Oh sure. Probably because they were cavalry weapons - a lot of cavalry swords show tenencies like that.

Mind you, "scimitar" is an umbrella term, covering a much wider family of middle eastern swords: shamshirs, kilijs, saifs, and so on. The word basically means "middle eastern sword", so it's a pretty imprecise term to use. 



> Also, it's relatively unfair to talk about the thrusting swords as having "won out" just because they were used later than other weapons, and even if so, that wouldn't have applications beyond use in cavalry.  The swords used in WWI were used the way other soldiers in history used a lance.  If you carried both a sword and a lance, almost certainly you would want the sword to be curved.  And if your target was armored, you would need the range and weight of a lance over the control of the sword any time.



Well, perhaps I should have said that the debate in question specifically revolved around cavalry tactics - some believed thrusting swords were more benificial during the charge, lancing the opposing force as you say, while others argued curved cutting swords were more beneficial in the melee following the charge. What I meant about the thrust side winning out was that the trend eventually conformed towards the thrust school of thought.



> What I really meant to ask, though, and probably should have specified, was about the later trend towards single-edged weapons.  Post-period swords, for lack of a better word, start to resemble the katana more than the medieval broadsword.



I don't quite like this comparisson, because there is more to sword geometry them just basic profile. The katana blade has a very particular shape that you don't really see much of in western sabers - they are hyper-specialized cutters and tend to be relatively blade-heavy for their size. (Which is not to say they are heavy, just that the standard katana is not a very large sword.)

Most of the 19th century swords I've seen and handled were light weapons. I own an antique infantry saber on which the foible is only about 2mm thick, possibly less. Its absolutely not designed for powerful cutting. The differance between it and my katana are like night and day - they are _completely _different swords.



> The single-edge helped to increase cutting power with a blade that didn't need to be as wide, which in turn, I would think, increases thrusting abilities.



I kinda see what you mean, but I'm afraid you are oversimplying a much more complex issue. What makes a good thruster is stiffness and an acute point, which does not necessarily relate to wether the sword has a back or not. And while single edged swords can be better cutters then double edged swords, they are not so per definition. You can pretty much get this kind of performance out of single edged and double edged swords alike depending on exactly what you want out of your blade.

I've actually wondered about the strong preference for double edged swords in the early medieval period - it puzzles me because I can't see any reason for it. You mentioned scimitars before, but few people know that the curved middle eastern swords only appeared relatively late. In medieval times, middle eastern swords were double edged, just like their European contemporaries:







Picture from Ewart Oakeshott's book _A Knight in Battle._

Still, it's not like people of that age didn't understand single-edged swords. The _vikings_ had single-edged swords, though they weren't very popular and seem to have faded out in favor of the double-edged variety. In medieval times, there was the falchion family - short, single-edged cutting swords that were apparently fairly popular, but never to the point of replacing their double-edged brothers as the standard. There are a few arming swords with single-edged blades, but they are so rare you almost have to consider them anomalies.

I really can't explain it. It seems the mentality of the time was simply: "Why should I settle for one edge when I can have two?"

Now, you mentioned the medieval swords giving way for more saber-shaped weapons, but the trouble is that you are glossing over about two centuries where the medieval sword was out of style but people still used double-edged swords. The saber as we think of it only gained true popularity in Europe around the 18th century. Before that, the standard military swords were wallon-style cut-and-thrust swords and various baskethilts, which could pretty much be either single edged or double edged. As far as I have been able to tell, the difference between the two was mostly a matter of preference - single edged swords just kinda handle somewhat differently then double edged swords, and all other things being equal, some people just liked them one way while others liked them the other. It came down to taste.



> I can't imagine what advantage the double-edged broadsword would hold over these weapons even against armored opponents.



Frankly, if you put a knight is platemail against a 18th-19th century sabrist without armor, the knight is pretty much just going to rush into the poor guy, tackle him and then stab him a lot, while the blows of his opponent bounces harmlessly off his protective steel shell. People wore expensive suits of armor for a reason - because it protected you from harm, and a sword that isn't designed to deal with armor is going to have serious trouble harming an armored opponent. It's really not more complicated then that. 

And if you'll let me turn this around: I don't really see what _disadvantage _a medieval sword would be against a later saber or backsword, even if neither of the fighters wore armor. I do hope you're not one of those people who believe medieval swords were clumsy things weighing 30 pounds and other such nonsense. The medieval sword was a precisely crafted killing tool that excelled at exactly the type of combat it was intended for.

For that matter, there wasn't a single type of medieval sword; what you refer to as a "broadsword." As a matter of fact there are eleven distinct types of swords categorised under the Oakeshott Typology, plus a few subtypes, and most of the variations are designed to take on contemporary armor. Here, let me show you some examples:







Notice how different the top and bottom blades are?

The Type X was one of the earlier styles that grew out of the viking swords. They originated in the viking era and remained a popular weapon until the 13th century. Since the most advanced armor it had to deal with was chainmail, they were primarily cutting swords with broad, flat and flexible blades and wide fullers.

The Type XV, on the other hand, was designed to take on platemail. Now, the thing about plate armor is that it's more or less impervious to edged weapons. You simply aren't cutting through that stuff. Forget about it. The only efficient way to fight someone wearing plate is to stab him through the gaps in the joints of the armor. This required stiff, narrow blades with acute points, sacrificing cutting power. This was a very long-lasting type of sword, seeing use from ca 1290 to ca 1415.

The Types XVI and XVIII are both compromises between cutting ability and thrusting/stabbing ability, trying to create an all-around versatile sword. The XVI was popular in the first half of the 14th century while the XVIII saw use from 1410 to 1510.

Naturally, all of these swords are just as capable of slaying unarmored opponents. 

If you look at the dates you'll notice that this isn't a straight progression from cutty-cutty swords to stabby-stabby swords. Rather, they developed the XV to counter armor, but then went: "This works well, but I wish it was a bit better at cutting." And there is a lot of overlapping with these types because people back then also had different taste and different requirements. Notably, when firearms emerged and made plate armor a lot less invincible, you definitely see a return to more cutting oriented swords.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

In my setting it is set in your typical fantasy setting. I want to get into good detail about the weapons my warriors use so I need to know some things.

What types of metal or minerals would make the best swords? And also how can you know what minerals to mix and what not to?

From what (little) I understand, the harder the metal is, the more damage it can deal, but it will be more fragile or something like that-could you explain?

I want to have one city make very strong metal, in specific, all of their metal I want to be black. What would be the strongest black metal that they could forge to make armor and weapons? (keeping in mind they can use technologically advanced mehods like we can today. And yeah I know I can just invent my own metal but I want your opinion)

I know hardly nothing about swords, I just hav about 14 of them hanging up in my room. Since you are a sword fanatic, I think you'll appreciate this: My Great Grandfather gave to me on his deathbed an asian blade that was used in the Vietnam war. I can't find any good pictures of it on the web but it has a wooden sheath and the blade has a large and fat curved edge. It's still vey sharp and has vietnamesse characters carved into the metal. It's my most prized sword.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Chilari said:


> I also have a question: what do you know about bronze swords? In what ways did their shape and the way they were made differ from iron swords, and were they used differently?



Well, bronze is a hard and somewhat brittle copper alloy. It can keep sharp edges but unlike iron and steel, it can't be easily forged, nor can it be heat treated. Instead, bronze swords were cast and might have had their edges forged for extra hardness. I recall my blacksmithing teacher working on a bronze razor using that technique. Bronze is also heavier then iron.

The main advantage of iron is that it's easy to shape when heated, making it easier to work with. Despite this, early iron swords were actually inferior to bronze swords because of their softness. I recall reading somewhere that in the Roman empire, soldiers were issued iron swords while the officers could carry bronze weapons. It was only with the invention of steel that bronze weapons really became obselete. Steel, in terms of bladesmithing, is an alloy of iron and carbon. With heat treatment, the carbon molecules can be arranged so that the steel becomes hard (for sharp edges) or soft (for flexibility) or something in-between. That makes it the ideal material for blades.

Funny thing is, bronze age people seem to have known about iron, they just couldn't figure out how to produce it. On rare occasions, iron meteorites that fell from space were recovered and turned into tools. It is said that when Tutankhamon's tomb was uncovered, they found the young farao surrounded by riches, but upon his chest rested a single tiny iron knife. In ancient Egypt, that one small knife was considered a treasure fit for a mighty king.



sashamerideth said:


> I had heard rumors about Egyptian swords crafted from a copper alloy that was superior to other weapons of the time. How did the Egyptian sword really compare?



"Copper alloy" pretty much means "bronze." I can't say I've ever heard that the Egyptians posessed a superior alloy, but then again Egypt was never my thing. Given that they were advanced for their time, I suppose it's not unlikely they had the best metalurgy around.

Like Sheilawisz said, the typical Egyptian sword was killed a kopesh. They're funny in that people who've handled them say they behave more like axes then swords, and indeed they are theorized to have developed from a type of axe.


----------



## Neurosis

I think someone should sticky this thread. You sir are a special kind of genius: the interesting kind that doesn't bore everyone.

This is quite a left field question. Being extremely interested in Science (its my area of interest) I discovered an interesting metal for a sword. Its called iridium (Iridium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Its almost impossible to forge normally, it has one of the highest melting points of any metal (2466 Â°C, even higher when as an alloy with platinum or osmium), and is the second hardest know element or compound and is also the second densest. I believe tempered steel is harder than it, however when iridium is tempered and made as an allow with 2% osmium, or something, its actually harder (yes, harder) than diamond--and more expensive, its like super titanium. Its the most corrosive resistant substance in the known universe. Its quite beautiful--it looks like platinum but has a slight golden tint. Small shavings or lone atoms of it explode in air (not just sparks, we're talking fire-crackers), so when fighting, if it hits another sword, it would be a variable fire-work show.

Would this plausibly made a sword? Given its EXTREMELY rare, very dense (and hence heavy, slightly more so than lead) and hard to forge--I think they compress it in powered form in a mold. If so, what would be a practical shape and fighting style? Perhaps just an iridium coated blade? It would make it sharper than obsidian and un-corodable.


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> And if you'll let me turn this around: I don't really see what _disadvantage _a medieval sword would be against a later saber or backsword, even if neither of the fighters wore armor. I do hope you're not one of those people who believe medieval swords were clumsy things weighing 30 pounds and other such nonsense. The medieval sword was a precisely crafted killing tool that excelled at exactly the type of combat it was intended for.



I had to go look it up again because I wanted to be more clear than I think I was, not only to you but to those following this thread.  Your post is filled with a lot of great information, but I only meant to ask about one element of the blade.

A backsword is a single-edged weapon where the "back" of the blade is significantly thicker than the front of the blade, and this increases the weight and cutting power of the blade significantly without overextending the width of the blade.  Because the backsword involves a thinner, stronger blade than a typical two-edged weapon, it seems to me that it would have significant advantages in terms of its thrusting capabilities as well.

Typically a thrusting weapon is needed to pierce the weak points in an opponents armor, while a slashing weapon is used to attack unarmored opponents.  Putting a curve on the blade helps to increase the pressure applied while slashing, while a straight blade pushes all of the momentum forward.  While even a short bronze sword can hold an edge and be quite deadly, it seems to me that a backsword would have the advantage in both these styles of fighting.

Before about the 16th century the backsword was fairly rare and I don't understand why.  It's one of the defining characteristics of the Katana blade and a key reason for its success and reputation, and while the Katana is wider and heavier than, again, what I'll refer to wrongly as post-period weapons, it strikes me almost as the model for many of the officer-style sabers in use later.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Androxine Vortex said:


> In my setting it is set in your typical fantasy setting. I want to get into good detail about the weapons my warriors use so I need to know some things.



Let me just add a quick caveat: You may not want to dig yourself into too much detail. Sometimes you just want a sword to be a sword, you know? Honestly, I don't think I'll ever use even a fraction of all I know in my writing. Anyway, remember that you are writing fantasy. 



> What types of metal or minerals would make the best swords? And also how can you know what minerals to mix and what not to?



Seriously? The best metal for swords is the stuff we have now, like today. Really, modern metalurgy _kicks ass_. You won't believe some of the stuff the steel industry churns out nowadays. 

Still, even then context comes into play. Exactly what properties are you looking for? If your steel has a minimum of carbon, it will be easy to forge but while it will keep an edge, the blades will be somewhat soft. Not perfect swords, but servicable - good if you have a large army to equip. Add some more carbon and you get stronger and sharper swords, but they will be harder to forge. Add even more carbon and you get really sharp swords, yet the steel is somewhat fragile. Eventually, the carbon content makes the steel too hard to forge at all, and too fragile to be turned into good blades.

If you are more high-tech and add chromium, silicon or vanadium you get spring steel, which can be made into incredibly strong yet very sharp swords. But, you know, then we're into industrial type stuff. There is no way you are getting that kind of metal with medieval technology.

Still, that's not even the important part. The _important _part is heat treatment: Hardening (that is, the part in the movies where they plunge the red hot blade into water or oil) and tempering (that is, the part they never show you in movies because it's not as dramatic as the hardening.) You can have the best steel in the world, but you will still end up with a crappy sword if your heat treatment method doesn't suit the material. 



> From what (little) I understand, the harder the metal is, the more damage it can deal, but it will be more fragile or something like that-could you explain?



More or less. Basically, hard steel can be turned into very sharp edges, but it also becomes brittle. Remember earlier in the thread, the part about obsidian being absurdly sharp? Same thing applies to steel. 

So, you want your sword to be hard so you can get a cutting edge but soft so it doesn't break so easily. Overcoming this paradox is pretty much what swordsmithing is all about. Now, in Europe, we ended up focusing on finding a middle ground, making swords that are springy and decently sharp. Today, among sword nerds, we refer to swords like these as _through hardened._ (Or "TH swords.")

The Japanese, on the other hand, built on techniques invented by the Chinese and instead focused on achieving two extremes in the same sword: the edge on a katana is very hard, while the back is rather soft. We refer to this as _differentially hardened _swords. (Or "DF swords".)

Those wooden swords with obsidian edges are really just taking that idea to its logical extreme.



> I want to have one city make very strong metal, in specific, all of their metal I want to be black. What would be the strongest black metal that they could forge to make armor and weapons? (keeping in mind they can use technologically advanced mehods like we can today. And yeah I know I can just invent my own metal but I want your opinion)



There really isn't such a thing as black steel, I'm afraid. Steel can be turned black with oxidation techniques, or by quenching it it oil, but it will just be thin layer on the surface. 

I think you might actually be better off just relying on your imagination here. It's nice that you are willing to learn new things, but like I said before, remember that you're writing fantasy. 

I mean, sure, you _could _have them go: "Fool, our swords are forged from the finest tungsten alloy steel with a 0.9 carbon content, also .35% silicon!"

...Or you could have them go: "Fool! Your iron trinkets are nothing to the black steel of the Black Steel Empire, forged by the deepest secrets of our mystic alchemy!"

Really, _I_ would totally go with Option B, and I made _this thread._



> I know hardly nothing about swords, I just hav about 14 of them hanging up in my room. Since you are a sword fanatic, I think you'll appreciate this: My Great Grandfather gave to me on his deathbed an asian blade that was used in the Vietnam war. I can't find any good pictures of it on the web but it has a wooden sheath and the blade has a large and fat curved edge. It's still vey sharp and has vietnamesse characters carved into the metal. It's my most prized sword.



Nice! Heirloom swords are great stuff.


----------



## Jess A

Sheilawisz said:


> Well, like Anders said the production of swords involved many different people and took a long time- High quality swords were very expensive, and something that most people do not know, is that the straight and double-edged swords were not the most used swords in Europe during medieval times: The Falchions were cheaper weapons and were far more common (something like a medieval machete) but unlike the straight swords, few original falchions have reached our days.



Thanks, I will look that up. I have yet to actually scan over all the amazing information so far available on this page - these sorts of threads are incredibly useful and the very reason why I joined this forum.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Neurosis said:


> I think someone should sticky this thread. You sir are a special kind of genius: the interesting kind that doesn't bore everyone.
> 
> This is quite a left field question. Being extremely interested in Science (its my area of interest) I discovered an interesting metal for a sword. Its called iridium (Iridium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Its almost impossible to forge normally, it has one of the highest melting points of any metal (2466 Â°C, even higher when as an alloy with platinum or osmium), and is the second hardest know element or compound and is also the second densest. I believe tempered steel is harder than it, however when iridium is tempered and made as an allow with 2% osmium, or something, its actually harder (yes, harder) than diamond--and more expensive, its like super titanium. Its the most corrosive resistant substance in the known universe. Its quite beautiful--it looks like platinum but has a slight golden tint. Small shavings or lone atoms of it explode in air (not just sparks, we're talking fire-crackers), so when fighting, if it hits another sword, it would be a variable fire-work show.
> 
> Would this plausibly made a sword? Given its EXTREMELY rare, very dense (and hence heavy, slightly more so than lead) and hard to forge--I think they compress it in powered form in a mold. If so, what would be a practical shape and fighting style? Perhaps just an iridium coated blade? It would make it sharper than obsidian and un-corodable.



Ah, chemistry is not one of my strong points. Though, I suppose you might be able to laminate it into the edge of a sword and make the rest of the blade out of a lighter, less hard metal. I guess it ultimately comes down to how fragile it is. 

That and, you know, using this stuff in a sword to begin with is complete overkill. 



Devor said:


> I had to go look it up again because I wanted to be more clear than I think I was, not only to you but to those following this thread.  Your post is filled with a lot of great information, but I only meant to ask about one element of the blade.
> 
> A backsword is a single-edged weapon where the "back" of the blade is significantly thicker than the front of the blade, and this increases the weight and cutting power of the blade significantly without overextending the width of the blade.



Ah, I see! Your argument relies on these swords having the same _mass_ but not the same _size._

Huh. Tricky. Now we're into cross sections and mass distribution. You're taking the _advanced_ class now.



> Because the backsword involves a thinner, stronger blade than a typical two-edged weapon, it seems to me that it would have significant advantages in terms of its thrusting capabilities as well.
> 
> Typically a thrusting weapon is needed to pierce the weak points in an opponents armor, while a slashing weapon is used to attack unarmored opponents.  Putting a curve on the blade helps to increase the pressure applied while slashing, while a straight blade pushes all of the momentum forward.  While even a short bronze sword can hold an edge and be quite deadly, it seems to me that a backsword would have the advantage in both these styles of fighting.
> 
> Before about the 16th century the backsword was fairly rare and I don't understand why.  It's one of the defining characteristics of the Katana blade and a key reason for its success and reputation, and while the Katana is wider and heavier than, again, what I'll refer to wrongly as post-period weapons, it strikes me almost as the model for many of the officer-style sabers in use later.



Not sure what you mean by the success of the katana, seeing as it was developed in Japan and, due to Japan's isolationist tendencies, was mostly used by the Japanese to fight wars against _other_ Japanese using the same kind of sword. Sure, today it's extremely popular all over the world, but that's because it's the _in vogue_ sword of our modern age. It's not like it beat all other swords in some kind of international sword contest.

(For that matter, a lot of katana don't actually match your definition of a backsword, because they have backs that are more narrow then their central spines. Actually, I'd fairly sure that's the standard. And that's not even getting into stuff like double edged katana.)

But anyway, I'll be straight with you: This kind of discussion almost always ends up a can of worms one way or another. We folk who are into swords can't even agree if there is actually any real benefit for a sword to be curved rather then straight. Some say straight swords thrust better because thrusts come in straight lines, but other argue that the human arm makes a naturaly curved motion in a thrust anyway. Some say that curved swords focus the force of the cut to a smaller point of the target, but then others argue that the physics don't hold up in reality against human-shaped targets. I have literally never seen this debate come to a satisfying conclusion. The most people seem to agree on is that curved swords are more lethal in draw-cuts at close range while straight swords can strike deadly blows from further away.

Me, I tend to sit those discussions out, because I honestly don't like obsessing about tiny details. Voluntarily, I mean. I personally don't think backswords are technically superior to double edge swords, but I don't think I can convince you of that and honestly, I don't think I _want_ to. I only offered to answer basic questions, not debate the exact qualities of various sword types at lenght.

Though, if you'd like, I could _totally _send you links to some other communities shock full of people who will happily discuss this issue with you _all day long_. I'd be honestly interested to see which conclusion you'd arrive at.


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Me, I tend to sit those discussions out, because I honestly don't like obsessing about tiny details. Voluntarily, I mean. I personally don't think backswords are technically superior to double edge swords, but I don't think I can convince you of that and honestly, I don't think I _want_ to. I only offered to answer basic questions, not debate the exact qualities of various sword types at lenght.



I can see how the question might have gotten lost (on reread I'm not even sure I properly asked), but I was just asking if there's a reason the backsword is only seen in later periods.  It seems like they have some arguable advantages, and I don't understand why they aren't seen earlier.  I'm also interested to know if there are other differences between these later weapons and earlier ones.

Even though I'm a bit familiar with most of what you're saying, I really appreciate the highly informative posts, especially because I know that so many people will be reading.




> (For that matter, a lot of katana don't actually match your definition of a backsword, because they have backs that are more narrow then their central spines. Actually, I'd fairly sure that's the standard. And that's not even getting into stuff like double edged katana.)



Wikipedia has failed me at last.  It was bound to happen.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

Wow you really do know your stuff lol Thanks a lot and if I can think of anymore questions I'll know who to ask now!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> I can see how the question might have gotten lost (on reread I'm not even sure I properly asked), but I was just asking if there's a reason the backsword is only seen in later periods.  It seems like they have some arguable advantages, and I don't understand why they aren't seen earlier.



Alright, then to put it as briefly as I can: I honestly don't know. I have been trying to figure that out myself for a while now, but there doesn't appear to be any particular reason other then: "They just weren't fond of them."



> I'm also interested to know if there are other differences between these later weapons and earlier ones.



Well... depends on how you define "differances." Obviously they didn't look the same, had different styles and were designed for different fighting styles. But, well, that's true for nearly all swords, ever.



> Wikipedia has failed me at last.  It was bound to happen.



She's a fickle mistress.


----------



## Ravana

There was at least one good reason to favor double-edged swords in earlier periods: the blades would dull or nick rapidly, especially when used against metal armor. Having two edges would retain its distinction from a skinny club that much longer. 

That having been said: if I expect to go up against someone in heavy armor, I'd favor an edge-and-a-quarter sword myself. (The extra edge makes thrusts slide home better, and I like the flexibility of being able to throw a backhand in desperation.)

Another possible reason is that it simply uses more metal than a flatter shape of the same length, which, in an age of pre-industrial steel production, could be a factor: even marginal differences in weight add up over time.

The relative properties bronze and iron would have varied based on the quality and place of manufacture of either, and the impurities (often desirable ones) in each—I see claims that bronze is more or less brittle than iron, harder or softer; I suspect a lot of that comes from whether the person in question is basing his comparison on cast iron (a poor choice for weapons), wrought pure iron, an accidentally-produced steel, or something forged from a nickel-alloy meteorite. (I'd have to dig through some of my text sources to be sure about this, though.) Importantly for ancient manufacture, the constituents of bronze have far lower melting points, and are easier to extract from their ores, which I suspect are the main reasons for its greater popularity in those periods. And even a softer metal can be advantageous: it's easier to bend back into shape in the middle of a battle when it deforms. 

Iridium would make a lousy sword, I'm fairly certain. For starters, its density isn't just "higher" than iron's, it's nearly _three times_ higher. Which means a sword would have to be very skinny to be wieldable. Unfortunately, it _isn't_ three times harder than a good steel. Nor is hardness everything: something can be amazingly hard and still be brittle (iridium is). And hardness has nothing to do with whether or not something can take an edge: obsidian isn't especially hard, for example… and the relative abundance of industrial diamond, and relative ease of producing synthetic ones, would see it being used for, say, surgical blades if it could be made significantly sharper than other materials (it is sometimes used for this, but not often)—whereas obsidian _is_ used thus, being capable of blades many times sharper than surgical steel (which also makes lousy weapons, by the by)—so there's no special reason to believe an iridium-coated blade would be any sharper than a steel one, possibly considerably less so.

Of course, iridium is also forty times rarer than gold—in fact, the amount of iridium mined annually is comparable to the amount of _gem-quality_ diamond mined annually, which is only about a tenth of all diamond mined—so getting enough of it in one place could be problematic itself. In fact, it's scarcity is so great that a noticeably anomalous concentration of it occurring in a specific layer of rock led to one of the more fruitful theories about why the world is how it is today—ask Jabrosky about the K-T Boundary some time.


----------



## Valiant

About how late did the sword stop seeing combat, to be replaced my the musket and other such gunpowder weapons? My story takes place in an era that would be equivalent to when the Europeans first started experimenting with gunpowder.

Also, what sort of swords were in use at about that time? Would a rapier, or a long sword be the historically accurate weapon of choice?


----------



## Devor

Valiant said:


> About how late did the sword stop seeing combat, to be replaced my the musket and other such gunpowder weapons? My story takes place in an era that would be equivalent to when the Europeans first started experimenting with gunpowder.
> 
> Also, what sort of swords were in use at about that time? Would a rapier, or a long sword be the historically accurate weapon of choice?



Swords last saw real use in WWI with cavalry charges, and those would be different from infantry weapons.  Musketeers still used swords for backup, and the elite squad in France sometimes wore a wedged breastplate capable of stopping a bullet.  Off the top of my head I know they at least used Rapiers, of which there are thousands of varieties.  Most had an edge, but they emphasized thrusting, I'm not sure why.  I'm sure Anders will have more, but that's a quick answer.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Ravana: Accidental steel production did take place during the iron age, but bronze weapons were definitely superior to iron!! The reason that iron replaced bronze was that iron was more abundant, and as soon as they discovered how to easily separate it from its ores they could produce larger numbers of weapons and this was the main advantage over bronze =)

I have to disagree with you on the point about bronze swords being easier to bend back into shape in the middle of a battle... First, it's not easy to bend a bronze sword like Neil Burridge and his friends have discovered in destructive tests (that takes a lot of strength and many savage blows) and when a bronze sword was damaged like that, it took the careful work of a bronzesmith to repair it.

Many people think that bronze weapons were soft and weak, but believe me, they are not!! I could show you disturbing pictures of what a bronze sword slash can do to a pig carcass, but Neil asked me not to share the pictures with anyone else =P


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Valiant said:


> About how late did the sword stop seeing combat, to be replaced my the musket and other such gunpowder weapons?



Like Devor said, swords were still used by cavalry on the battlefield during World War I, and a young Winston Churchill allegedly came very close to crossing swords with an Indian insurgent at one point, but opted against it when enemy reinforcements arrived.

Firearms never actually "replaced" the sword, they just made swords less useful as time went on, due to changing battle tactics. 



> My story takes place in an era that would be equivalent to when the Europeans first started experimenting with gunpowder.
> 
> Also, what sort of swords were in use at about that time? Would a rapier, or a long sword be the historically accurate weapon of choice?



Actually, Europeans started using gunpower as early as the 1300s - they had primitive firearms and even cannons that were used as seige weapons. During the Hundred Year War, you'd see people with early muskets fight alongside knights in plate armor. The swords of the time would mostly have been variations of the late medieval sword styles.

I'm guessing you had more of a Renaissance setting in mind, though. Actually, the 1500s was a pretty interesting time when it came to swords, because people used a bit of everything. The more elegent complex hilted cut-and-thrust swords and baskethilt broadswords had just started to develop, but there were still be people fighting with longswords or bastard swords, while those of lesser income could rely on the huge variety of the messer family, including the large kriegsmessers - these huge two-handed sabers. There were mercenaries weilding katzbalgers and giant zweihanders. The Italians favored short swords inspired by the antique blades of Rome and Greece, meanwhile the Spaniards invented the espada ropera which would soon evolve into the rapier. There was a lot of different blades to pick from.



Devor said:


> Off the top of my head I know they at least used Rapiers, of which there are thousands of varieties.  Most had an edge, but they emphasized thrusting, I'm not sure why.  I'm sure Anders will have more, but that's a quick answer.



The rapier, notably, was specifically a civilian sword. They were used for self-defence and for dueling, but not on the battlefield. Depicting musketeers carrying rapiers while on duty is actually inaccurate - they would have carried more versatile cut-and-thrust swords:








But returning to the rapier: The reason it emphasises the thrust, from what I've managed to find out, has to do with how Renaissance people built their cities. Cities of the time would have a lot of these very narrow allyways, where defending yourself from attackers could be tricky as the cramped space did not allow for much swinging about. In such a situation, a long thrusting sword was the ideal self-defence weapon.

That said, it's true some rapiers were more then capable of cutting, some having almost medieval-style blades. 

(I should also mention that its a myth that rapiers were light swords: Many of them were in fact quite heavy. The main reason modern fencing swords are ill suited for rapier fencing is because they are far too light. In fact, most complex hilted swords are heavier then one might believe, often heavier on average compared to medieval swords.)

The rapier was developed in Spain and then spread to France and Italy and then to England, where the fencing master George Silver famously objected heavily to what he saw as a weapon for foreign weaklings and cowards, claiming that real Englishmen should fight with the baskethilt sword. He didn't managed to convince his peers, however, and soon the rapier had conquered Europe.

The demise of the rapier a few hundred years later is, I think, and interesting example of what factors can determin the popularity of a sword: In the early 18th century, the roads improved which made it fashionable for gentement to travel in coaches. The rapier, however, was too long and cumbersome for this mode of travel. For this reason the much lighter Dutch smallsword gianed popularity - they were light enough that one could do away with the baldrics and belt suspensions one would carry a rapier in, which in turn affected how people dressed. The rapier soon became thought of as a large and boisterous weapon for unrefined braggarts. Only the Spaniards insisted on using the rapier for decades longer then the rest of Europe.


----------



## Chilari

Neurosis said:


> I think someone should sticky this thread.


Good idea. It is done.


----------



## Valiant

Anders Ã„mting said:


> *Words.*



Wow. I am fascinated. Thank you very much.


----------



## Ravana

Sheilawisz said:


> I have to disagree with you on the point about bronze swords being easier to bend back into shape in the middle of a battle... First, it's not easy to bend a bronze sword like Neil Burridge and his friends have discovered in destructive tests (that takes a lot of strength and many savage blows) and when a bronze sword was damaged like that, it took the careful work of a bronzesmith to repair it



Sorry: I was unclear. I meant that the _iron_ ones were easier to bend back in shape… one of the advantages they _did_ have over bronze. Definitely, bronze was harder than plain iron. Even when wide-scale iron production began to become common, bronze was still often favored for other tools (when it was available) for this reason. (For that matter, it still is, in some applications.)

However, as mentioned, hardness is not always a good thing: while iron swords would be more likely to _bend_ than bronze ones, bronze swords would be more likely to break than iron ones–precisely because they _were_ harder. While the relative percentages of breaking was probably not much of a factor in early replacement of bronze by iron, it does start to become significant when you consider that you can make longer weapons, while retaining the same weight, out of a material that's less likely to snap when it's thinned out… and bronze is heavier than iron to begin with. If you're packing a bronze blade that's nice and hard, but a foot, or even half a foot, shorter than what your opponent is carrying, you're going to seriously contemplate the advantages of switching. Roman officers may not have felt any reason to change when everyone in the army was carrying a gladius… but they also eventually replaced the gladius altogether–with a longer iron blade borrowed from the Celts–at which point _nobody_ in the army was carrying a bronze weapon.

Unquestionably, though, the ultimate replacement of bronze had to do with advances in ferrous metallurgy, from extraction, through carburizing and alloying, to tempering and annealing techniques.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Ravana, I had misunderstood your post, sorry!!

Well, I have little knowledge about iron swords but you are right, they were indeed longer weapons and that was another advantage over bronze swords- I am very curious about bronze: it's quite a legendary metal with an aura of magic around it, and I have considered to purchase bronze bars to work with instead of the Aluminum but it's more expensive and it may not be real 88% copper and 12% tin traditional bronze after all.

Everyone, please check out my thread Aluminum Swordmaking in the Chit Chat section =)

Anders, do you own swords??


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ravana said:


> Roman officers may not have felt any reason to change when everyone in the army was carrying a gladius… but they also eventually replaced the gladius altogether—with a longer iron blade borrowed from the Celts—at which point _nobody_ in the army was carrying a bronze weapon.



The sword you are refering to is called a spatha - it's a Roman word but it applies to most longer iron/steel swords of the late Roman and Migration periods.

As I understand it, the spatha was longer because it was a cavalry weapon, whereas the gladius was an infantry sidearm. (Following the Greek model, the primary infantry weapon was still the spear.)



Sheilawisz said:


> Anders, do you own swords??



Indeed, I have a few, though not nearly as many as some of the collectors I've gotten to know online. My economy doesn't allow me to buy swords often, nor does it allow me to spend a lot of money on really expensive high-end pieces. I try to stay in the lower middle range, focusing on affordable yet functional swords.

To date I own:

-A 32" o-katana from Dynasty Forge.
-An antique Dutch infantry saber. (Ca 1850.)
-The Valiant Armory Warder. (A fantasy sword inspired by the Wheel of Time books, designed by John Lundemo.)
-A couple of shorter blades I forged myself back in my blacksmithing days, which I need to grind into shape and hilt when I get the time.
-A lower quality medieval sword that I found rather disappointing (it was the first sword I bought) which I have now begun regrinding into a somewhat lighter backsword.
-A cheaper odachi that I've begun to cut down. (Long story.)
-Various other junk blades and half-finished projects.

Out of these, the katana is by far the best. It's not traditionally made - a plain through-hardened monosteel blade, no folding or hamon - but it's sharp and durable and can perform frighteningly powerful cuts.

Lately I've been thinking about getting a new sword to play with, but I've been a bit indecisive. At first I planned on getting a longsword or hand-and-a-halfer, but I've also found a saber-like falchion I'm rather infatuated by. Meanwhile, the nihontophile part of me is trying to convince me to go for another Japanese-style blade. It's hard to decide because my exact taste tends to fluctuate a lot.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Anders: That's quite a collection, congratulations!! I want to own many swords too, but unfortunately the only swords that I can buy around here are those useless stainless steel wallhangers that you cannot even play with =(

I do own a huge 80cm machete that I play with, cutting targets and so on, but apart from that I have only my Aluminum swords and the neighbors can sometimes see me in my garden playing with them too- I consider that machetes are swords too, just not so romantic but powerful after all!!

Also, I own a Knights of Columbus sword that is carbon steel (I think!!) it was given to me as a birthday present by a friend back in 2010, and even though it's a functional weapon, there is something about that sword that I don't like and now I have no idea what to do with it =P


----------



## Gian Carlo Benedetti

I have a question: I found a sword in my grandma's cellar.  I would like to find out the history of it and determine whether or not its a real piece.  I can describe it very well but its better if I could send you a picture of it.  Do you think you can help me?  Its 54' long, iron,wire bound hilt,no scabbard, the cross-section of blade is diamond shaped.  I have been researching but cant find anything like it out there.??  There are the words ABRICA ARRIDO CLEDO near the bottom of the blade.  There is what looks like an "I" for a symbol on the end of the round hilt.  Also MADE IN SPAIN in the same lettering.  the sword has some rust on it.


----------



## Konjurer

I've seen many examples of knives or daggers made of stone but Is it practical to make swords from very hard minerals-such as diamonds?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Sheilawisz said:


> @Anders: That's quite a collection, congratulations!! I want to own many swords too, but unfortunately the only swords that I can buy around here are those useless stainless steel wallhangers that you cannot even play with =(



Hey, at least you are smart enough to not try to play with stainless wallhangers. 

Lord knows too many people do that already.




Gian Carlo Benedetti said:


> I have a question: I found a sword in my grandma's cellar.  I would like to find out the history of it and determine whether or not its a real piece.  I can describe it very well but its better if I could send you a picture of it.  Do you think you can help me?  Its 54' long, iron,wire bound hilt,no scabbard, the cross-section of blade is diamond shaped.  I have been researching but cant find anything like it out there.??  There are the words ABRICA ARRIDO CLEDO near the bottom of the blade.  There is what looks like an "I" for a symbol on the end of the round hilt.  Also MADE IN SPAIN in the same lettering.  the sword has some rust on it.



"Made in Spain" suggests it's a souvenir sword, probably from Toledo or something like that. Can't say the rest of the discription rings a bell, though, and the diamond cross-section is a bit unusual. 

Oh well. Show me a picture if possible. If I can't identify it, I can direct you to people who can.

Fair warning, though: You shouldn't get your hopes up. Sadly, most old swords people find or get from their relatives are just decorative pieces that aren't worth much.



Konjurer said:


> I've seen many examples of knives or daggers made of stone but Is it practical to make swords from very hard minerals-such as diamonds?



Not really. Like I said before, hardness isn't the same thing as strenght. Also, the denser the material is, the heavier it will be. One has to consider all properties of the material, not just the most advantageous one.

Now, I don't know much about diamonds, but a quick Google search tells me the following:



			
				info-diamond.com said:
			
		

> The mechanical resistance impact is, in general, the opposite to the hardness of the stone. In other words, a stone of high hardness is more fragile to shocks. A diamond will be thus relatively fragile to shocks. Diamond has also a very strong elasticity which makes it rebound as a ball when it strikes a hard surface. A shock which could be insufficient to break a gem can cause dammages if applied repetively. A rock crystal hitting a diamond could often have less dammage than the diamond itself. The heat treatments used to improve the color of the gems weaken them by modifying their internal structure. A gem having a plan of perfect cleavage will be able to break easily according to this direction after the shock of a blade. For example, for diamond, we use this method to separate two pieces of rough diamonds, this operation is called: cleavage.



So basically, while diamonds are relatively durable for their hardness, they are hardly indestructible. (Pun not... Well, okay, pun intended.) Being crystals, they're rigid and will fracture rather then deform.

I imagine that a diamond sword would be very heavy, quite fragile, and probably not superior enough to a steel sword in cutting power to make it worth it. So you end up with an over-all inferior weapon worth roughly the same as a small kingdom, the cost of which you could hire the best weaponsmiths in the world to manufacture a whole armory of top-class weapons for you.

This scenario is similar to the Iridium idea Neurosis posted on the second page, and it's a common falacy based on the assumption that one can improve a sword by maximizing a single aspect of the weapon. Problem is, unless you involve actual magic, you will probably be doing so at the expense of all the _other _aspects.

If you're writing a fantasy story and want there to be an incredibly sharp and strong sword, just say it's enchanted, or that it's a mystic metal forged with secret techniques. Or, if you're writing some kind of space opera, write something about monomolecular polymers and nanotechnology. You know, make something up.

But trust me on this: If there was _any_ material more suited for swords than steel, people would already have tried it a long time ago.


----------



## Gian Carlo Benedetti

*I think i found an ancient sword*

Im not sure if a sword I found is real.  Its made of iron and its 54 inches long(thickness is slightly tapered to point).  The blade is a diamond shape and bears the marks:  ABRICA ARRIDO CLEDO  , MADE IN SPAIN in very small print .  The hilt is round and straight with slight bend toward handle.  One end of the hilt has a symbol looks like an "I"  Handle is wrapped in reddish wire.  The bottom is also round slight downward bend.  Some rust.  Very long and heavy.  It was in my grandmothers cellar and her house still has gas lamps on the wall so its very old.  Local guy said it wasnt more than 100 years old but I think it is much older than that.?  Thank you very much for your time .  ?????


----------



## Ravana

Gian Carlo Benedetti said:


> There are the words ABRICA ARRIDO CLEDO near the bottom of the blade.  There is what looks like an "I" for a symbol on the end of the round hilt.  Also MADE IN SPAIN in the same lettering.  the sword has some rust on it.



At a guess, the words you're transcribing are a poor print of "[F]ABRICA [?]ARRIDO [TO]LEDO"–"Made [something] Toledo." Not sure what the second word would be, since none of the ones I know would fit; see if maybe you don't have a letter wrong somewhere? In any event, if it's _also_ stamped in English, it's most definitely a souvenir sword.


----------



## Kevlar

A great article, I've actually learned a few things. If I can add some of the knowledge I've garnered:

While some will say that pattern welding was unique to the Middle East and differential hardening was unique to Japan, this is completely false. Many of the swords found in Viking excavations were beautifully pattern welded, and many swords from Europe have a very pronounced hamon.

There is some scientific basis to some of the stereotypes about sword typology, though do realize that these don't always transfer perfectly into actual use. The advantage of a straight blade in thrusting is obvious: all the power is focused on the tiny surface area of the tip, and the motion can move only in a linear direction, whereas a curved weapon's shape actually works against itself in a stab. Again, this does not always translate perfectly into real life. A curved weapon, on the other hand, will not necessarily be better at cutting, but it will likely better perform a drawing slice. Think of it as a chef's knife versus a butcher's cleaver. With the cleaver you want a square chop, you want to do deep damage and cut your target in half with a single flick of your wrist. The chef's knife you draw along that same chunk of meat. You won't carve through bone, but by running the blade along the target you will create a clean, possibly quite deep wound. A fiiner cut can actually cause more bleeding and be harder to heal than a rougher one, as most people have experienced with paper cuts.

Next is the "katana's" percieved superiority. We all have to realize that the best weapon is dictated by preference and style. And yet it pervades our culture that the katana is the highest of all blades, that were a period Japanese sword to clash with a period longsword the katana would shear right through the European blade. Sorry. It's actually closer to the opposite.

You see, people think that the folding of steel makes it stronger, and that the Japanese did this hundreds of time for that purpose. The reality is, folding the steel only evens the distribution of flaws and imperfections, and the Japanese did this as many times as they did because the iron and steel that they could mine and produce was actually quite substandard. Europe had beautiful deposits of very clean iron, while Japan didn't, and nor did they have the purifying techniques of the modern world. For this reason, the steel produced in Europe at the time was stronger and harder.

As far as the actual design of the weapon itself, there can be no victor. The katana category of weapons was designed to cut unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents. It performed a devious drawing slice. The swords of Europe were designed to pierce strong steel armour or cut through unarmoured foes, often both. They both performed very well in their respective tasks, but neither was ultimately better (in design). The European double-edged sword was more versatile and capable of greater defense. The katana was typically a purely offensive weapon, and was specialized.


----------



## Ravana

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So basically, while diamonds are relatively durable for their hardness, they are hardly indestructible. (Pun not... Well, okay, pun intended.) Being crystals, they're rigid and will fracture rather then deform.



What he said. In fact, a diamond sword would almost certainly break the first time you hit _anything_ with it. Like most crystals, it has a cleavage plane: prior to the production of diamond saws, the first step in shaping a raw diamond was always whacking it with hammer and chisel. (Still is, for larger specimens: no point wearing out the saw until you're down to a usable crystal.) And lest anybody ask, this doesn't have a thing to do with flaws, apart from the fairly obvious observation that if there is a flaw, the sword will probably preferentially break along that first. But it will still break, flaws or no.

(I'm pretty sure _all_ crystals have cleavage planes… think it's an inevitable consequence of the definition. Hate to risk overgeneralizing, though.)

Think about it: hardness is essentially the _opposite_ of elasticity. (Well, scratch hardness isn't quite the same thing, but since diamond tops the scale either way, it doesn't matter for present purposes.) The reason diamond is "hard" is because it _doesn't_ bend. It can't. 

So, one more time: hardness has _no direct relation_ to a material's desirability for weapon-making. All else being equal, a harder material might be more desirable–but all else is almost never equal. 

Not to mention that you'd need to find a diamond of the right size. While it is not hypothetically impossible for such a diamond to exist, to say that it would be historically unprecedented would be to commit a gross understatement. The largest diamond ever found weighed just over a pound and a third _before_ cutting… not exactly sword material. (And at that, it was three times the size of the second-place contender, as far as I can find.) Of course, you're writing fantasy: you can fantasize a diamond closer to three feet long than three inches if you like.


----------



## Devor

Kevlar said:


> The katana category of weapons was designed to cut unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents. It performed a devious drawing slice. The swords of Europe were designed to pierce strong steel armour or cut through unarmoured foes, often both. They both performed very well in their respective tasks, but neither was ultimately better (in design). The European double-edged sword was more versatile and capable of greater defense. The katana was typically a purely offensive weapon, and was specialized.



I've seen a number of televised tests which attempted to verify weapon strengths, and the katana out performs the typical European blade almost every time.  While I like your statement, I don't think it can be considered complete with mentioning the shield.  The katana was not designed to be wielded with a shield nor to fight against a soldier with a shield.  The typical European longsword was designed to "pop out" from behind a shield, so to speak, and to strike a target wherever the shield was not protecting.  Even two handed weapons like the Claymore were larger and bulkier in order to deliver debilitating force upon an opponent's shield.

Once a reasonable shield comes into the play, the katana becomes nearly worthless.  Without the shield, however, it seems to demonstrate superior versatility even against armor (no, neither a longsword nor a katana can pierce chainmail, but a katana is more effective at striking the legs or head which are likely to be uncovered).  How much of that is the design of the blade or techniques in metallurgy, I wouldn't know.


----------



## Ravana

It's a combination of several things, I suspect–not the least of them being that the katanas being tested were probably more recently made than those produced at the time Euros were still chopping at one another, and thus of more comparable steel. And a folded blade will always have at least the _potential_ of being sharper than a non-folded one, due to the fact that you're ultimately beveling each individual layer, including whichever one ends up making contact with the target… which will tend to vary from one millimeter of blade to the next (which also results in a very subtle serration in the process, another possible factor). (Though in the end, the skill of the person doing the sharpening will, I suspect, be the more decisive consideration.) Also, the techniques used to wield the weapons matters: the katanas were wielded with the intent of cutting, while European swordsmen generally didn't even bother trying, at least not until armor began to fade from the field. They didn't always even bother putting _points_ on their swords, for that matter, which might give some sense of the value they ascribed to the thing's utility as a sharp implement… or at any rate the only reason I can imagine for not doing so would be if I felt it didn't matter: as mentioned before, I'd prefer at least the _option_ to be available.… 

I don't think you'd be able to get a legitimate comparison, however, unless you threw a European pattern-welded blade into the mix. (At least. Possibly several other kinds of blade as well.) If both layered blades performed better than an unlayered one, there's a good probability the layering has something going for it. If the katana outperforms both European ones, it's probably something else. 

And if the person performing the test isn't unbiased, and wields the blades differently in an attempt to "prove" his favored candidate is "best," you can throw the whole thing out.…


----------



## Devor

Ravana said:


> And if the person performing the test isn't unbiased, and wields the blades differently in an attempt to "prove" his favored candidate is "best," you can throw the whole thing out.…



I didn't see any of that, although Deadliest Warrior does let each group test their own blade which isn't very scientific.  But they also tested far more blades, and the only thing that showed comparable strength to the Katana is the Kilij (sp?).  Although not every sword, in my opinion, gets a fair shake since they run such different tests.  But I know there were several of these tests which they didn't run on riveted chainmail, so it wouldn't surprise me if the Katana was often "too new."  The Samurai guy in Deadliest Warrior provided a piece of Japanese armor that was 200 years old and had seen real combat - it survived with the tiniest of scratches, but of course, 200 years is still very new.

(I trust Deadliest Warrior more than the other shows because they run more tests across more episodes, and you start to get a feel for what they're doing right and wrong to judge them more accurately.  There's even a wiki for when you have questions.  I guess I should rather say that I trust _my opinion_ of the Deadliest Warrior tests over the other demonstrations.)

The failure to utilize authentic weapons and armor is a real problem.  According to one article I read, for instance, there's never been a test of an authentic British Longbow against an authentic piece of chainmail to test the actual penetrating power of the bodkin arrow.


----------



## Kevlar

What you have to watch out with in such demonstrations is that often times they will be pitting a hand-forged katana made of spring steel against what many people, particularily in the bladesmithing community, call a Sword Like Object, or SLO. Often this SLO will be a machine-cut piece without the molecular benefits of forging, hardening, or tempering, and will be evenly thick up to the point. Also, the matchup will often be say a 12th century arming sword against a 19th century katana. By the 19th century Japan's technology ball was actually rolling again. And also, I chose the longsword as the representative of the west to avoid the shield, as it is a two-hander, like the katana.

While, Devor, I respect that you prefer the katana, I'm hoping it's not for the cultural reverance we place on the blade. That reverance comes from the multitude of ninja movies in which the ninja acts like a samurai and dresses in completely obvious garb. And Highlander.

In fact, look at the games (and probably manga and anime and stuff too, but I wouldn't know) coming out of Japan and tell me what type of sword the hero is using. Not a ninja, or the hero's sidekick, or the anti-hero, but the actual hero. He will almost without exception wield a European-style sword. And be a he, for that matter.

Take Shadow of the Colossus, Legend of Zelda, and the old Final Fantasies, to name some I've actually played. Sure, many Japanese games feature katanas prominently, and it may be that many that do don't make it over here, but the majority seem to favour the double-edged, straight blade, cruciform design. Though I can't confirm it, it almost seems that the western swords are as revered in the east as eastern swords are in the west.

Much of what's in this post is based on my own observations, and therefore there may be discrepencies.

I also read about the lack of bodkin testing, though I don't doubt its utility. In order to penetrate maille you need a thin point capable of slipping inside a ring and prying it open. Most people don't realize that the rings of most maille were neither welded nor riveted.


----------



## SeverinR

These posts have been most interesting.


Devor said:


> (no, neither a longsword nor a katana can pierce chainmail, but a katana is more effective at striking the legs or head which are likely to be uncovered).  How much of that is the design of the blade or techniques in metallurgy, I wouldn't know.


Chain maille was good at preventing being cut, unfortunately it only turns a blade into a club.  A sword hitting a chain maille protected body might break the bone under the maille, and imho a Chain Coif was the worst thing to protect the head. The head might not have a single scratch on the dead body, as blunt force trauma would kill the wearer.
(This from a person that has made chain maille armor.)
If involved in a knife fight, chain would be excellent. no big metal club hidden behind a blade to worry about.

Modern body armor way of thinking follows the history of armor.  padding=flak jacket of vietnam. chain= kevlar in Iraq they added ceramic tiles=plate armor(more similar to a coat of plates) How will they make a modern full suit of armor?


----------



## Devor

Kevlar said:


> What you have to watch out with in such demonstrations is that often times they will be pitting a hand-forged katana made of spring steel against what many people, particularily in the bladesmithing community, call a Sword Like Object, or SLO. Often this SLO will be a machine-cut piece without the molecular benefits of forging, hardening, or tempering, and will be evenly thick up to the point. Also, the matchup will often be say a 12th century arming sword against a 19th century katana. By the 19th century Japan's technology ball was actually rolling again. And also, I chose the longsword as the representative of the west to avoid the shield, as it is a two-hander, like the katana.
> 
> While, Devor, I respect that you prefer the katana, I'm hoping it's not for the cultural reverance we place on the blade. That reverance comes from the multitude of ninja movies in which the ninja acts like a samurai and dresses in completely obvious garb. And Highlander.



First off, the longsword - though it depends on which longsword you're referring to - may be two handed, but as I mentioned, it was still designed to _fight against_ someone with a shield.  It's a straight blade because you need the precision of a thrust to get past the wall between you and your opponent.  A slashing blade like the katana would be deflected.

However, a well-designed slashing weapon like the katana will deal more force to an opponent through armor, and it will inflict more damage (though still not significant damage) to the armor itself.  A slice is also more effective at striking small moving targets like the legs or the head which the armor may not cover and would certainly not cover as effectively.  Consequently, as I mentioned in my last post, despite the inefficiencies of the testing, the katana _should be expected to_ outperform the typical western European straight double-edged blade in all categories of combat which do not involve a shield.  Insert a shield into the fray for either combatant, and the katana blade becomes useless.

In addition, it is already a false comparison to contrast the katana with such European blades anyways because the katana is a later weapon developed from the 15th century onwards.  A more contemporary Japanese weapon to the European longsword would be the _tachi_, a weapon similar to the katana with distinctly inferior qualities.  A European weapon that is closer contemporary to the katana would be the cutlass.  I'm not sure that the cutlass holds up to the katana, but I also mentioned before, some later scimitars were made with a weighted tip to increase their slashing power (something, by the way, which the Deadliest Warrior tests clearly demonstrated).  But they lack all thrusting power while the katana retains some thrusting capabilities.

As I began my posting by asking about the effectiveness and distinction of late European backswords, I'm not sure why you mistake my popular misconceptions about the katana with some sort of preference for them.  Misconceptions aside, as you yourself stated, they are very effectively designed for the purpose they were intended, which is shieldless warfare, a reason for which they remain popular.

By the way, I frequently mention Deadliest Warrior episodes as a source.  That show pits two distantly-separated warriors from history against each other to see "who is deadliest."  Despite the superior testing of the katana (which as you mention, may be flawed), the Samurai in Deadliest Warrior was bested by a _Bronze-Age Spartan_ whose _shield_ had the most kills of any weapon featured in the episode.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kevlar said:


> Next is the "katana's" percieved superiority. We all have to realize that the best weapon is dictated by preference and style.



I'd rather say the best weapon is dictated by context. Each sword is the best at what it was specifically designed to do.



> And yet it pervades our culture that the katana is the highest of all blades, that were a period Japanese sword to clash with a period longsword the katana would shear right through the European blade. Sorry. It's actually closer to the opposite.



Eh. No sword is going to cut through another sword unless the later is made out of, like, styrofoam or something.

Katana and western swords can both break, they just happen to break is somewhat different ways.



> You see, people think that the folding of steel makes it stronger, and that the Japanese did this hundreds of time for that purpose. The reality is, folding the steel only evens the distribution of flaws and imperfections, and the Japanese did this as many times as they did because the iron and steel that they could mine and produce was actually quite substandard. Europe had beautiful deposits of very clean iron, while Japan didn't, and nor did they have the purifying techniques of the modern world. For this reason, the steel produced in Europe at the time was stronger and harder.



Weeeell, for starters, folding does make for a better sword because it removes impurities from the steel and creates a more even distribution of carbon. As you say, pattern welding was prominent in the viking age as well. It's just that if you already have pretty high quality carbon steel, this process isn't really necessary because you can get a decent or even good sword with less work.

As for Japanese steel, people tend to misunderstand this issue. It's true Japan has terrible _iron ore deposits,_ tamahagane being produced from iron rich sand. This is absolutely not the same thing as saying Japanese swords were made from inferior steel, though.

Tamahage is specifically the raw steel from a tatara smelter, and it's really not that different from western bloomery iron. The quality will depend on the skill of the person who produced it -bad craftsmanship will of course give you bad steel- but if you do it the right way it will be about as pure as you can get it, almost completely free of defects, and with a very even carbon distribution. 

People still use tamahagane to make swords today, even though modern materials are available. Modern steels are not actually that much better, it's just that making tamahagane is far more labour intensive. The reason it's still used is not so much that modern katana makers are too traditionalist to try anything new, but mostly because tamahagane has a rather particular look that is desirable when making an authentic nihontou.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> Without the shield, however, it seems to demonstrate superior versatility even against armor



"Versatality against armor"?

What does that even mean? Swords that can handle armor well are built for specialization, not versatality.



> (no, neither a longsword nor a katana can pierce chainmail, but a katana is more effective at striking the legs or head which are likely to be uncovered).



Wait, _wait._ The head is_ likely _to be uncovered? Why would anyone wear a heavy chainmail but not bother to put on a helmet?  This is an oddly specific scenario you're suggesting.

Also, you are claiming that a 28" katana will have an advantage in leg attacks over a 36" longsword?

I mean, in a swordfight, attacking the legs is almost always a bad idea but if you'd try it, it would be because you have a longer sword then your opponent.



Kevlar said:


> What you have to watch out with in such demonstrations is that often times they will be pitting a hand-forged katana made of spring steel against what many people, particularily in the bladesmithing community, call a Sword Like Object, or SLO. Often this SLO will be a machine-cut piece without the molecular benefits of forging, hardening, or tempering, and will be evenly thick up to the point.



An SLO, or "sword-like object", is a term we use for swords that are not designed to handle or perform as actual weapons. It has absolutely nothing to do with wether the sword is machined or hand forged. Some of the best swords available today are machine milled, and I bet you anything they stand up to historical swords just fine.



Devor said:


> A more contemporary Japanese weapon to the European longsword would be the _tachi_, a weapon similar to the katana with distinctly inferior qualities.



What inferior qualities?

I have never heard anything suggesting the tachi was inferior to the katana other then that the early kisaki points were difficult to repair if damaged, and they fixed that flaw after the mongol invasion.

Look, guys -and by guys I mostly mean _Devor and Kevlar _- no offense to you, but I would _greatly _appreciate it if you cease hijacking my Q&A thread with your opinionated forum babble. That really isn't why I created this thread. 

I don't want to have to sift through your walls of text just to point out your glaring inaccuracies, partly because I'm lazy that way but mostly because I frankly don't give a damn what you think you know about swords. But on the other hand, this is a thread for sword research and if I let a bunch of bad information float around, it reflects poorly on me.

Now, if you have an issue with any of _my_ claims, just point that out and cite your sources, and I will be happy to look into it and revise my standpoint accordingly.

Otherwise, can you please take your arguments to a more appropriate venue? There are entire separate communities dedicated to what you are doing right now.


----------



## Devor

> "Versatality against armor"?  What does that even mean?



I did try to explain what I meant, which is just that a slashing weapon deals more blunt force through armor than a thrusting weapon.  And although both weapons will slash and thrust, the katana, especially a curved katana, has the edge as a slashing weapon.




> Why would anyone wear a heavy chainmail but not bother to put on a helmet?
> 
> Also, you are claiming that a 28" katana will have an advantage in leg attacks over a 36" longsword?



I'm sorry, you're right of course.  I didn't account for the length of the weapons, I was thinking just about the shape and style of the blade.  Several versions of the longsword were shorter and even one-handed weapons, and some katanas were quite a bit longer.  There's so much variation and overlap and a looseness of terms that it would be hard to give a concrete length to a blade, so I mostly don't think about it.

I don't know why I said the head would be "uncovered," I was even thinking about helmets while I was typing.  I was thinking about "uncovered parts of the body," and somehow it just didn't come out right.  But with the head that's mostly just the neck, and at equal sword lengths, the katana would be more effective because it's designed to be a faster slashing weapon.




Anders Ã„mting said:


> Look, guys -and by guys I mostly mean _Devor and Kevlar _- no offense to you, but I would _greatly _appreciate it if you cease hijacking my Q&A thread with your opinionated forum babble. That really isn't why I created this thread.



Okay, I don't mind bowing out.  I've tried to contribute, and I don't think my statements have been _that_ bad.  But I didn't mean to hijack your thread.  I certainly didn't mean to get into an argument.  So I won't post again unless it's to ask you a question.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Anders, what can you tell us about the practice of the unarmored Longsword Duels, called BloÃŸfechten??


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> I did try to explain what I meant, which is just that a slashing weapon deals more blunt force through armor than a thrusting weapon.



Just a quick question: Have you ever personally taken a hit from sword while wearing any kind of decent armor?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Sheilawisz said:


> Anders, what can you tell us about the practice of the unarmored Longsword Duels, called BloÃŸfechten??



I actually had to look that up, so good job finding something I'm unfamiliar with. ^^;

I do recognise it, though: I learned about this just two weeks ago during longsword practice. Basically, the longsword uses different fighting styles depending on wether or not you are fighting someone using armor. BloÃŸfechten assumes no armor, so the emphasis is simply on freely attacking your opponent's body. I'm pretty sure it's the type of longsword fencing you usually see people train these days.

The other style, which Wikipedia tells me is called harnischfechten, assumes armor and emphasises half-swording techniques (that is, grabbing the blade of the sword and using it as a spear), stabbing attacks, hooking or hammering with the hilt and so on.


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Just a quick question: Have you ever personally taken a hit from sword while wearing any kind of decent armor?



I had thought so, but man, Illidan hits hard.

I really did want to bow out the way you asked me to, so I don't understand why you're asking me this.  I don't really think it's relevant - experiencing one event is more likely to bias you towards those results than to give you a familiarity with all possible outcomes.

But force is something that can be measured, even predicted, and it has been.  I've several times mentioned Deadliest Warrior as a source.  They do scientific tests, though sometimes flawed, which measure psi.  Watching their results, there's a clear pattern of slashing weapons yielding more psi than thrusting weapons.  I don't think that should be surprising.  Several people have mentioned in this thread already that swords become blunt force weapons when the target wears armor.  You've mentioned yourself that the Katana is a heavier blade, per square inch, designed for cutting.  And I'll add that the human arm can gain more momentum and follow through on a swing than on a thrust.

I'm not sure I can see any reason for a katana not to outperform the longsword when striking armor, but if I am mistaken you are more than welcome to correct me - in fact, you could have done so without risking any back and forth.  I was bowing out.


----------



## Ravana

Devor said:


> (I trust Deadliest Warrior more than the other shows.…)



I'm inclined to agree–as long as the qualifier "more than other _shows_" is kept in mind. There's nothing about televised demonstrations that make them _inherently_ flawed… that's just a good starting assumption until proven otherwise. 



> The failure to utilize authentic weapons and armor is a real problem.  According to one article I read, for instance, there's never been a test of an authentic British Longbow against an authentic piece of chainmail to test the actual penetrating power of the bodkin arrow.



Of course, finding an authentic longbow in working quality is somewhat problematic. But there's absolutely no reason an exact replica couldn't be made: unlike steel, yew trees haven't changed all that much in the past few centuries. I suspect part of the reason is that people are still recovering from the shock of the _Mary Rose_ finds… and that few modern bowmen have trained themselves up to the proper pull weight. (Wikipedia does reference a test in which a bodkin arrow was fired through an authentic suit of chain–but when you check the reference, you learn that the test was also conducted at seven yards, so take that for what it's worth.) And unless the chain were made of very tight links–as of course much of it was–a bodkin would likely cause at least a _small_ wound, even with plunging fire, to the extent of the point being smaller than the interior diameter of the links. A half-inch-deep penetration wound could become debilitating fairly rapidly, even if the victim doesn't do the "I'm hit! Time to go to the rear!" bit. It also depends on the mail: the bodkin would easily spread the link if the mail is butted; welded would be less likely, but welds are still more likely to break than riveted or solid links. (Note that butted mail was only commonly used by the Japanese, and it works fine against blades; I'm not sure what kinds of arrow heads they used, as the only images I've found thus far are for target points.)

On the other hand, there's also a link to the Royal Armouries site: the test referenced isn't one where they shot something; rather, they tested the _metallurgy_ of various heads (which leads back around nicely to talking about swords…  ). Their hypothesis/conclusion (it doesn't really deserve to be called the latter) was that one head stood out as 



> unusually carefully constructed using the relatively expensive material, steel, for points and cutting edges and usually being quenched to achieve maximum hardness. This is the Type 16 (B above) compact barbed and socketed head.
> 
> Despite claims that bodkin and quarrel heads were suited to the attack of armour, there is no evidence that these were normally constructed of materials that would provide sufficient mechanical strength to overcome metallic plate armour. By contrast the care and expense expended on the “high-tech” hardened composite iron/steel Type 16 heads suggests that these were intended for such a purpose.



Now, see, this is where "hardness" _is_ an appropriate consideration–though note that they're talking about the same kind of "hardening" that goes into any tempered steel weapon, e.g. swords. 

I'm going to have to poke around on their site some more; looks like it could be a fun one.

Armour-piercing arrowheads | Royal Armouries


----------



## Ravana

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Just a quick question: Have you ever personally taken a hit from sword while wearing any kind of decent armor?



Whether or not he has, I have. And if I'm wearing metal armor, I'd much rather take a hit from a katana than from a broadsword. If I'm wearing leather, I'd probably vote the other way. 

Of course, if I'm facing someone who's a kenjutsu master, I'm going to worry about him being able to hit gaps in the armor on his first shot… usually not as great a concern when dealing with a Western swordsman.

As for thrusting… meh. Pretty much, a point is a point when you put it on a sword. Force generated? Relativize it to striking area before you discount it too much: a cutting blow brings a whole lot more surface to bear on the target than a thrust does. (In the SCA, we whack each other full force with 1.5'' diameter rattan clubs, no problem… but thrusting weapons are required to have 2'' of padding on the tip.) Curved blade? The curve would have to be severe to make thrusting substantially more difficult… even then, you just learn a different technique, using a "scooping" action rather than a straight lunge–and even _that_ only matters when you're talking about trying to ram the whole blade through your target: if I can "only" get three inches into him, I'm good with that. If I had to guess, I'd say a chisel-pointed blade (katana) would have a better chance of penetrating heavy armor than a leaf-pointed one; on the other hand, the odds of either penetrating heavy armor are marginal. As mentioned, some Euro blades didn't bother with points at all… good evidence that they considered thrusting to be, for their purposes, uhm, "pointless." 



> a Chain Coif was the worst thing to protect the head.



Anyone who is wearing only a coif deserves what he gets. Their purpose was to provide flexible protection for the neck, and to cover the area where neck and shoulder meet (difficult with rigid armor), not to guard the head; the only real advantage of using a coif over a helmet with a camail is that the coif will stay in place if the helmet gets turned or lost. (On the other hand, the weight of a camail will aid in preventing that… though it also makes turning the head more difficult.) Considering the much greater vulnerability of the neck to slashing (versus crushing) wounds, and the difficulty of achieving complete coverage with rigid pieces, mail cover is a good idea, unless you have full articulated plate available.

One often-ignored (probably because historically seldom-used) advantage to mail for head defense is to put it over a grillwork face: you lose none of the airflow, but gain substantial protection–almost as good as wearing plate, since the grillwork will prevent the mail from being pushed in, especially if you secure the mail to each bar. Not sure why this wasn't more popular than it was. Probably because by the time they got around to protecting the whole face, they were thinking less of using mail in general, and just went straight to solid visors. Having worn (and fought in) several varieties of helmet, though, I much prefer the more open variety. The closed ones aren't _quite_ as hard to breathe in as many people think (if they were, they'd never have seen use), but the difference is still substantial.


----------



## Ravana

*A quick GENERAL comment to all concerned:* 

This thread will serve its function best, and provide the best value in terms of reserach, if the discussion is restricted to the technical, and pure opinion presented elsewhere. (Example: "Why is the katana considered a superior weapon?" is a technical question; "How does the katana compare to the longsword in cutting power?" is technical to the extent of actual demonstration; "Is the katana the best sword ever made?" is opinion). 

The same is true of other threads in this subforum; however, there is little point in having this (or any other) thread stickied for its content value unless it cleaves to its purpose. Please help out in this. Thank you.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> I had thought so, but man, Illidan hits hard.
> 
> I really did want to bow out the way you asked me to, so I don't understand why you're asking me this.



Curiosity, mostly.



> I've several times mentioned Deadliest Warrior as a source.



I'm going to put this a delicately as I possibly can: Deadliest Warrior does not command a lot of respect among martial history scholars.

In fact, I do not recommend you consider _any_ TV show intended for entertainment as a source of accurate data, no matter how serious they claim to be about the science.


----------



## Kevlar

Anders, and I am very sorry for my part in derailing this thread, as well as any misconceptions I might have caused by my exaggeration of certain aspects, my lack of clarity in others, and my lack of knowledge concering still others.

Now I will ask a question, as an inadequate attempt at apology: I was actually under the impression that the katana was around by the fourteenth century and that it was a couple hundred years later when the Japanese developed Tamahagane (and this, I did not know the word for, I had previously just been calling it Japanese smelting). Is this a failure in research on my part?

Again, I sincerely apologize for the inane debate between me and Devor. Please don't allow this to reflect on either of our characters, as it is the only occurence I've had and the only one I've seen Devor have that wasn't bred by a failure to communicate.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kevlar said:


> Anders, and I am very sorry for my part in derailing this thread, as well as any misconceptions I might have caused by my exaggeration of certain aspects, my lack of clarity in others, and my lack of knowledge concering still others.
> 
> Now I will ask a question, as an inadequate attempt at apology: I was actually under the impression that the katana was around by the fourteenth century and that it was a couple hundred years later when the Japanese developed Tamahagane (and this, I did not know the word for, I had previously just been calling it Japanese smelting). Is this a failure in research on my part?
> 
> Again, I sincerely apologize for the inane debate between me and Devor. Please don't allow this to reflect on either of our characters, as it is the only occurence I've had and the only one I've seen Devor have that wasn't bred by a failure to communicate.



Ah, maturity. 

I wrote a ton of stuff here, but on second glance I seem to have misunderstood a vital part, which unfortunately turned my answer into useless bullshit.

I'll be back as soon as I research this matter a bit more.


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I'm going to put this a delicately as I possibly can: Deadliest Warrior does not command a lot of respect among martial history scholars.



I've mentioned that a few times myself now.  The thing is, that's why _peer review_ is so readily available for Deadliest Warrior episodes.  When taken together, that makes the source and its derivative content more reliable than other sources.

For example, Ravana posted a website about armor-piercing arrowheads.  It looks official, the conclusions sound definitive.  But I have a few questions about those conclusions, like whether the arrowheads were intended to be fired from bows of similar strengths, or about the possibility that an iron arrowhead might be enough for the Bodkin design to pierce iron chainmail, or whether certain arrowheads might be designed on the chance of striking certain parts of the armor, like a helmet.  To be honest, I didn't look thoroughly over the site, so some of that may be addressed.  But the point I mean to make is that peer review on that website and on those conclusions would be hard to find.  It doesn't matter if the process of the testing was more reliable, it doesn't actually become _scientific_ until it faces scientific scrutiny.  But I can find pages upon pages of what Deadliest Warrior is doing right and wrong for each episode.  I also get to witness the test for myself on television instead of reading their claims about the test.  Hence it becomes reliable, at least enough for my purposes.

But I did want to ask you something else about swords.  Do you happen to know to what extent swords were fitted for the individual wielding them?  I would imagine for the most part that someone picked up a sword and said, "That's too heavy, but that one feels right."  But knowing how some cultures, and especially some aristocracies, invented rules for just about everything, I was wondering if there were weapons or cultures which had standards, something like, "The blade should be a little more than the length of your arm" or maybe another proportion of the body.  I'm wondering which cultures, which swords, and which rules might have existed.  Do you know?  It would be a big help.  Thanks.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I actually had to look that up, so good job finding something I'm unfamiliar with. ^^;
> 
> I do recognise it, though: I learned about this just two weeks ago during longsword practice. Basically, the longsword uses different fighting styles depending on wether or not you are fighting someone using armor. BloÃŸfechten assumes no armor, so the emphasis is simply on freely attacking your opponent's body. I'm pretty sure it's the type of longsword fencing you usually see people train these days.
> 
> The other style, which Wikipedia tells me is called harnischfechten, assumes armor and emphasises half-swording techniques (that is, grabbing the blade of the sword and using it as a spear), stabbing attacks, hooking or hammering with the hilt and so on.


So you actually take part in Longsword practices to learn the techniques and everything?? Wow, I am impressed! I would love to do that too, and especially with the Longsword because they are absolutely my favourite swords =)

The different ways of using a Longsword that you have mentioned (not just slashing and stabbing) are why they are my favourite swords, so versatile and deadly- In my stories, my Mages use 1.3m magical Longswords and the Guardians (males of the species) are sometimes seen with 3m long swords because they are 3.7m tall.

It must have taken a hell of a courage to take part in those unarmoured Longsword duels!!


----------



## urcool91

What is the best metel for a sword? I'm writing a short story where the heroine has to go on a quest to find a sword and I want to know what to make the sword be made out of.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor, Kevlar, sorry for not responding to your questions yet. I've been preoccupied, and both of them require long answers.



Sheilawisz said:


> So you actually take part in Longsword practices to learn the techniques and everything??



Well, I've only taken one lesson so far. It should have been three by now, but the guy teaching us has been sick the past two weeks. 



urcool91 said:


> What is the best metel for a sword? I'm writing a short story where the heroine has to go on a quest to find a sword and I want to know what to make the sword be made out of.



Unless you make something up on your own, the best metal for swords is steel, that is to say iron containing a certain percentage of carbon. 

There is this one material people have been researching in modern times, so-called amorphous metal alloys. They are basically metals that have been giving molecular properties similar to glass. I've never heard of anyone making a whole sword out of the stuff, but I know it has been use to create knives with some very special properties. That's the only material I can think of that _may _be able to compete with steel. But then again, it's expensive to produce and really high tech. 

All in all, steel is really the way to go.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@urcool91: In the real world, carbon steel (that means, real steel) is absolutely the best metal for swords- Anyway, when writing a Fantasy story you can create a new wonderful metal for your swords and stuff, like that rare silver or whatever from Middle Earth!! Other stories talk about different metals with magical or near-magical properties =)

Also, why not saying that your characters discovered something that, when added to normal steel, would create a much more powerful metal??

After all, we are Fantasy writers =)


----------



## grahamguitarman

I've only just come across this thread, so I apologise for my late posting (and I hope this isn't classed as hijacking your thread).  

But I'd like to say that as Anders has said, I would not trust Deadliest warrior for accurate information.  I watched a couple of episodes and came away feeling very cheated by the poor attempt at science.  

I can't even remember what weapon they were comparing in the episode I saw (I think it was Chinese warriors against Maori warriors or something) but I do remember that one weapon was tested on an animal skull, the other on a bunch of reeds with a wooden core.  What kind of science is that when the tests are not equivalent and not properly controlled.  The overall impression I got was that the 'tests' were chosen more for visual impact than for proper scientific comparison, ie a skull being smashed by a club type Maori weapon looked impressive, but a sword cutting reeds looked more impressive for the bladed weapon.  

A true scientific test would have both weapons used against those artificial dummies to show the actual damage to a human being.  And even that would have been innacurate due to the fact that humans don't stay still during an attack.  The natural movement of the body away from the attacking weapon, would mitigate the blow to a certain extent compared to a static target.

The point I'm making is that Deadliest Warrior is populist entertainment not accurate science, better you get your information from proper experts in the field (such as I presume Anders), than from entertainment shows created for visual impact.


----------



## Devor

grahamguitarman said:


> I've only just come across this thread, so I apologise for my late posting (and I hope this isn't classed as hijacking your thread).
> 
> But I'd like to say that as Anders has said, I would not trust Deadliest warrior for accurate information.  I watched a couple of episodes and came away feeling very cheated by the poor attempt at science.



I'm sorry, but I do really think this is thread hijacking.  Everyone's already acknowledged this, and I had just said that I also read expert commentary.  You didn't even mention swords.

And honestly, as weapons were designed to fight differently, I would really have said fairly that using different tests for different weapons is one of the few strengths of the show and their science.  I've seen tests and demonstrations which assume that each weapon was supposed to fight in the same way; there's a reason I don't mention them.  They end up failing to test the weapons in a way that's consistent to their actual use.  But don't get me wrong, I could post a paper on the things Deadliest Warrior does wrong; it still wouldn't invalidate the things they do right, if you can recognize them.

But if I've said something wrong about swords, and I'm sure I must have, it's because I've misapplied or over-extrapolated from the material I've been researching about blade design, and not because of anything Deadliest Warrior did.




			
				Anders Ã„mting said:
			
		

> Devor, Kevlar, sorry for not responding to your questions yet. I've been preoccupied, and both of them require long answers.



Thanks, I'd really appreciate it.


----------



## grahamguitarman

I didn't mention swords because I was simply warning against the dangers of relying on TV entertainment for information.

Edit:  I just realised that this could come across as a personal attack on your opinions.  Although my post was triggered by your talking about Deadliest warriors, my response was aimed at all readers in general, some of whom may not perhaps see the innacuracy endemic in the science of these programs.


----------



## Devor

grahamguitarman said:


> Edit:  I just realised that this could come across as a personal attack on your opinions.  Although my post was triggered by your talking about Deadliest warriors, my response was aimed at all readers in general, some of whom may not perhaps see the innacuracy endemic in the science of these programs.



I'm not offended, but a little exasperated, because I feel like I have to respond when I really do want to respect Anders and his discussion on swords.  I'm going to start a new thread on the reliability of sources, which is something that deserves to be talked about at length, and hopefully the tone of this thread can be rebooted to just Q&A, with just a little minor commentary about the posted Answers.


----------



## Sheilawisz

A question for Anders: What can you tell us about medieval Falchions??

I have quite a fascination about Falchions, especially because few people know about them and how they were really popular in medieval Europe =) I have read that they were usually tools for everyday life in the towns and fields, but other Falchions were especially created for Warfare and there were many different designs...

How large could a Falchion be? Were they made from the same steel as more expensive swords??


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Sheilawisz said:


> A question for Anders: What can you tell us about medieval Falchions??
> 
> I have quite a fascination about Falchions, especially because few people know about them and how they were really popular in medieval Europe =) I have read that they were usually tools for everyday life in the towns and fields, but other Falchions were especially created for Warfare and there were many different designs...
> 
> How large could a Falchion be? Were they made from the same steel as more expensive swords??



Falchions were in use in northern Europe from at least as early as the 13th century and throughout the 14th and 15th centuries. They seem to have been popular in England, France and Italy, while the Germans apparently didn't regard them to have much military importance. 

I wouldn't say falchions were less expensive then the regular arming swords - historical evidence tells us they were carried by common soldiers as well as the more well-to-do knights or nobles. The quality of the weapon, I presume, would depend on how wealthy the owner in question happened to be.

Lenght-wise, they tended to be somewhat shorter then the standard double-edged arming sword - I think a longer falchion blade would be something like 27". The shape of the blades varied, but they are typically broad-bladed, single-edged swords, sometimes curved or with a straight spine but with a curved edge. Regardless, they are almost exclusively dedicated cutting weapons and they often broaden near the point of percussion. They can look kinda brutish, but mostly they were surprisingly fast and agile weapons.

The most well-known falchion shape is that of the Thorpe falchion. Here is a high-end reproduction:








Some falchions could have pretty odd designes, though. One of the strangest examples is the "reverse Thorpe falchion", which looks like the Thorpe variety until you realise the edge is on the _opposite_ side of the blade:







Those blades always looked very bizarre to me, like something a Klingon might carry or something, but they were common enough to show up in multiple artworks, so most likely they did fill some kind of nichÃ© in medieval warfare.

Of course, if you want bizarre blades, there's also the "Maciejowski cleavers":







I'm not sure they are normally considered falchions, but then again they are hard to classify at all. The thing about these are, we haven't actually found any of them and all we know is from illustrations in the Maciejowski bible. However, the Maciejowski bible is so accurate otherwise, they are considered to have actually existed. As far as I know, though, nobody has been able to figure out why the two to the right look the way they do.

Moving on, you mentioned falchions being used as tools in times of peace. I can't say I've ever read or heard anything about that - in general, they seem to have been specifically designed to be weapons. The idea of them serving a more versatile purpose may come from mixing them up with the later and somewhat similar messer family.

The messers came in a huge variety of shapes, sizes and styles, but your typical sword-sized grossemesser would be somewhat similar to a typical falchion:







What defines a messer, however, is the hilt. Note the riveted wooden slabs on a full tang construction. This is the same way knifes would have been (and still are) constructed. A falchion, on the other hand, usually had whatever kind of hilt you find on other swords of the same time period.

The thing about the messers is that they were formally knives. (In fact the word "messer" is German for knife.) They were, at least innitially, carried by commoners who may not have had permission to carry actual swords, but could get away with carrying a very large "knife." While one could probably argue they were everyday tools, my guess would be that they were usually self-defense weapons for the common man.

However, just like the falchions, some messers appear to have been owned by nobility or even royalty. It's possible that they evolved into the later hunting swords, though I'm guessing so don't quote me on that.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

And while on the subject of messers, there's a couple of videos of Swedish swordsmith Peter Johnson working on a beautiful two-handed kriegsmesser:

Peter Johnsson Sword Smith -- The making of a Messer sword part I - YouTube
Peter Johnsson Sword Smith -- The making of a Messer sword part II - YouTube


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thank you Anders, you really are an expert in swords of all cultures and styles!! The pictures that you have provided are beautiful =) I think that my favourite Falchion is the reverse Thorpe design because it looks so... threatening!! Falchions should be included in many Fantasy stories! XD!!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Sheilawisz said:


> Thank you Anders, you really are an expert in swords of all cultures and styles!! The pictures that you have provided are beautiful =) I think that my favourite Falchion is the reverse Thorpe design because it looks so... threatening!!



"Reverse Thorpe falchion" being my wording. I'm not sure what they are actually called - most likely they should be named after the original artifact, but I'm not sure where they found it. Might try to dig that up while I'm at it.


----------



## SeverinR

Love the falchion pics.
COmpared to the scimitar, is the falchion stright of less curved than a scimitar(Scimitar being oriental) or basically just a different name for the same general blade?

scimitar - Bing Images

The traditional "metal" ages overlap as the improved metal is perfected.  
What years are mostly known for each metal's age?

Because a good carbon steel is best, but if only in the bronze age or iron age.
Writers of fantasy can blur the lines though.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

SeverinR said:


> Love the falchion pics.
> COmpared to the scimitar, is the falchion stright of less curved than a scimitar(Scimitar being oriental) or basically just a different name for the same general blade?
> 
> scimitar - Bing Images



That's a modern misconception, actually. Actual scimitars do not look like that. (That's actually a fantasy sword. One of Raven Armoury's old models, I've been told.)

To begin with, "scimitar" is an umbrella term that basically means "oriental saber." It particularly encompasses a family of middle easter sabers that include the Persian shamshir, the Arabian saif, the Turkish kilij and sometimes the Indian tulwar.






A typical shamshir.

The kilij in particular tends to have a pronounced yelman, or raised false edge, which kinda sorta might give the impression of a falchion-like shape.







Of course, some of these swords are more extreme then others. Note the top one in this picture:







But, in _general_, scimitar simply refers to an eastern saber.



> The traditional "metal" ages overlap as the improved metal is perfected.
> What years are mostly known for each metal's age?
> 
> Because a good carbon steel is best, but if only in the bronze age or iron age.
> Writers of fantasy can blur the lines though.



...It might be because I haven't slept in a while but I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Would you mind clarifying a bit?


----------



## Kevlar

I believe he is referring to the copper age, the bronze age and the iron age. I hope I'm not overstepping but the answer is that the distinction can be quite fuzzy and varies by region. I'll leave any and all specifics to Anders.

I would also like to know the answer to my previously asked question, if you have it Anders. I don't mean to be pushy, especially after what happened, but I am genuinely interested in the answer. I'm not very proficient at expressing myself as I truly am through written word, so though I might have come across as an opinionated know-it-all please know that whenever there is a chance for me to correct any misinformation I have gathered I jump on it. Usually through my own research, but I haven't found a single source on the age of Tamahagane.


----------



## Ravana

Unfortunately, the "age" systems aren't very good ones: they're overly broad, include a lot more than just the dominant metallurgy (for instance, the "Bronze Age" includes features such as city-states and organized distance trading), and are _highly_ relative to each culture. "Iron Age" Europe and Near East extends back to the 1st millennium BC–during which time bronze was still in wide use throughout; the "Bronze Age" (which, it appears, has subsumed the "copper" age as a subdivision) extends back to the beginnings of recorded history. Basically. Allowing for regional variation. And considerable overlap, even in a single region. 

For a _very_ broad, simplistic date range:
- Neolithic (last part of Stone Age): begins c. 10,000 BCE; ends with transition to Bronze Age.
- Bronze Age: begins c. 3300 BCE; ends c. 1200 BCE (Near East, India)/c. 800-400 BCE (locations in Europe)
- Iron Age: begins anywhere between 1200 BCE and 100 BCE; ends… some time or other in the first five centuries CE. Not clear what, if any, "age" is supposed to succeed it.

Note that there is massive overlap in metals available: iron _production_ has been dated to at least 2000 BCE, and the stray iron implement (possibly hammered out of meteoric sources, rather than mined and smelted) has been dated to well before that. The overlap goes both ways: there was iron available throughout much of the "Bronze" Age; conversely, even in many regions where iron production existed, bronze still saw widespread use–in many ways, it was superior to the iron of the day, as has been mentioned before–and continued to be used well into the "Iron" Age. In other regions, iron rapidly replaced bronze as the preferred metal. Some parts of Africa appear to have skipped bronze altogether. 

So, basically, if you're trying to figure out the metallurgy of a particular setting, you're going to need to look at the historical record for that culture, rather than using what "age" it was in at the time. Sorry: no simple answer.


----------



## SeverinR

Ravana said:


> Unfortunately, the "age" systems aren't very good ones: they're overly broad, include a lot more than just the dominant metallurgy (for instance, the "Bronze Age" includes features such as city-states and organized distance trading), and are _highly_ relative to each culture. "Iron Age" Europe and Near East extends back to the 1st millennium BC–during which time bronze was still in wide use throughout; the "Bronze Age" (which, it appears, has subsumed the "copper" age as a subdivision) extends back to the beginnings of recorded history. Basically. Allowing for regional variation. And considerable overlap, even in a single region.
> 
> For a _very_ broad, simplistic date range:
> - Neolithic (last part of Stone Age): begins c. 10,000 BCE; ends with transition to Bronze Age.
> - Bronze Age: begins c. 3300 BCE; ends c. 1200 BCE (Near East, India)/c. 800-400 BCE (locations in Europe)
> - Iron Age: begins anywhere between 1200 BCE and 100 BCE; ends… some time or other in the first five centuries CE. Not clear what, if any, "age" is supposed to succeed it.
> 
> Note that there is massive overlap in metals available: iron _production_ has been dated to at least 2000 BCE, and the stray iron implement (possibly hammered out of meteoric sources, rather than mined and smelted) has been dated to well before that. The overlap goes both ways: there was iron available throughout much of the "Bronze" Age; conversely, even in many regions where iron production existed, bronze still saw widespread use–in many ways, it was superior to the iron of the day, as has been mentioned before–and continued to be used well into the "Iron" Age. In other regions, iron rapidly replaced bronze as the preferred metal. Some parts of Africa appear to have skipped bronze altogether.
> 
> So, basically, if you're trying to figure out the metallurgy of a particular setting, you're going to need to look at the historical record for that culture, rather than using what "age" it was in at the time. Sorry: no simple answer.



Exactly the answer I wanted.
(I knew they overlapped, the official "age" was when they were most common, not the mere introduction into society.)

Did American indians(Native Americans) even have a time line of metals? I believe some used metal, not sure if that was introduced from the invading cultures or if they actually evolved into them.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kevlar said:


> I would also like to know the answer to my previously asked question, if you have it Anders. I don't mean to be pushy, especially after what happened, but I am genuinely interested in the answer.



No, no, it's good that you remind me. I've just been distracted the past weeks. I can focus on specific things for a long time but I also shift my attention a lot, it's part of the diagnosis. I'll try to get on with putting an answer together.


----------



## Ravana

SeverinR said:


> Did American indians(Native Americans) even have a time line of metals? I believe some used metal, not sure if that was introduced from the invading cultures or if they actually evolved into them.



Glad I could help.

The American cultures were, by and large, metal-poor… one of the reasons the macuahitl was used by the Aztecs was because it didn't have to go up against metal armor, against which it was essentially useless (except as a club). Copper was widely available, but not widely used other than as ornamentation in Central/South America; some North American cultures seem to have been the only ones who put it to use in other applications–and in small amounts: weapons generally continued to be made of stone (flint in particular). Bronze didn't show up anywhere until around 200 BCE or so, and of all the American cultures it appears that only the Incas seem to have employed it in any amount as tools and weapons. So, essentially, in terms of "ages of technology," the Americas went straight from Neolithic to steel, after the Euros arrived.


----------



## Devor

Ravana said:


> So, essentially, in terms of "ages of technology," the Americas went straight from Neolithic to steel, after the Euros arrived.



For its flaws, Deadliest Warrior did clearly show that the stone weapons were just fine in the hands of a skilled warrior.  They didn't have much armor, though, but neither did the Europeans by the time they arrived.  But their stone knives, lances, bows and machetes were very effective weapons.


----------



## Jabrosky

Would it be possible for a sword to break another sword if it was made out of a stronger metal? For instance, could a steel sword break a bronze one?


----------



## ScipioSmith

How did I miss this thread until now?

Do you happen to know if swords in the Roman Empire were made of steel, or if they were still using iron then?

Second, I have a sword in my head: three feet long, curved but not so much so that it cannot be thrust in a pinch, one handed, single edged. Do you know what the name for that kind of sword is? I keep thinking sabre but I want to be sure.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> For its flaws, Deadliest Warrior did clearly show that the stone weapons were just fine in the hands of a skilled warrior.  They didn't have much armor, though, but neither did the Europeans by the time they arrived.  But their stone knives, lances, bows and machetes were very effective weapons.



Well, it's not really surprising that a weapon developed for killing people is actually effective at killing people. Especially in the hands of someone who also happens to be skilled at killing people. 

As usual, context is everything.

For another example, there are Roman accounts that castigate Celtic blades as clearly inferior to those of the Romans, which has given the impression to some historians that the Celtic swords were pretty poor weapons. However, Peter Johnsson (the guy I posted some videos of above) has pointed out that this doesn't make sense given that the Celts were _crazy_ skilled at metalworking. Rather, Celtic swords were not designed to be used against armored opponents: They were slim, delicate and highly specialized weapons meant for single combat between expert swordsmen wearing little to no protection. But against a line of armored infantrists with shields and helmets, they simply didn't stand a chance.



Jabrosky said:


> Would it be possible for a sword to break another sword if it was made out of a stronger metal? For instance, could a steel sword break a bronze one?



Swords can definitely break if they have to take more punishment then they were designed for. In many ways, swords can be surprisingly delicate. It's not really a matter of the surviving sword being stronger, though, but rather the breaking sword being fragile. 

Again, this is a matter of hardness. A harder blade will break, while a softer one will bend and take a set. For obvious reasons, you rather want a bent sword then a broken one.

Other factors are what kind of stress and damage the blade has taken up to the point of breaking, or structural flaws created when making it. There are rare examples of modern swords actually snapping in half from light cuts, because something went wrong with the heat treatment.

Superior metalurgy will keep your sword from breaking longer then your opponent's, true. But no sword is going to break another sword simply because it has "stronger" metal.



ScipioSmith said:


> How did I miss this thread until now?
> 
> Do you happen to know if swords in the Roman Empire were made of steel, or if they were still using iron then?



Well, see, the Romans where around for quite some time - the West Roman Empire existed for just about five hundred years. I'm not too knowledgable of Roman metalurgy, but it would seem they advanced their technology as time went on, either working it out on their own, discovering things on accident or assimilating technology from the people they conquered or traded with.

It's also hard to talk about iron and steel as if they are a dichotomy. To begin with, pure iron is basically impossible to find in nature (and not really something you can make weapons out of anyway) so you'll always have some sort of iron alloy. And there is also a difference between producing steel and producing steel weapons - even the earlier Romans seem to have had techniques for carburizing iron blades to give them higher carbon content. And then there's hardening techniques - some iron age swords actually had enough carbon in them to count as steel but were work-hardened rather then heat-treated, because they hadn't figured out heat treatment yet. 

It was a slow and steady progress, basically. 



> Second, I have a sword in my head: three feet long, curved but not so much so that it cannot be thrust in a pinch, one handed, single edged. Do you know what the name for that kind of sword is? I keep thinking sabre but I want to be sure.



Have you been reading Heinlein's Glory Road, by any chance?

_I've never seen one quite like it, so I don't know what to call it. A saber, I suppose, as the blade was faintly curved and razor sharp on the edge and sharp rather far on the back. But it had a point as deadly as a rapier and the curve was not enough to keep it from being used for thrust and counter quite as well as chopping away meat-axe style. The guard was a bell curved back around the knuckles into a semi-basket but cut away enough to permit full moulinet from any guard. It balanced in the forte less than two inches from the guard, yet the blade was heavy enough to chop bone. It was the sort of sword that feels like an extension of your body.

The grip was honest sharkskin, molded to my hand. There was a motto chased on to the blade but it was so buried in curlicues that I did not take time to study it out. This girl was mine, we fitted! I returned it and buckled belt and scabbard to my bare waist, wanting the touch of it and feeling like Captain John Carter, and the Gascon and his three friends all in one."_



But, yeah. What you are describing is basically some kind of infantry saber. Though, "saber" is another one of those terms that are tricky to nail down, because there's actually no hard definition of what makes a sword into a "saber."


----------



## Androxine Vortex

Not sure if this has been asked before so forgive me if it has

I want my battle-scenes to be realistic and entertaining. Lets say there are two warriors fighting each other and for arguments sake they both have good/decent armor. How should the sword strike to ensure great damage?

In lots of books it will just say something like, "The warrior slashed with his sword, slicing through the other's heart." But sometimes when I'm reading battle passages it doesn't seem realistic. Really? One strike with your sword and it penetrates your opponents armor that easily? 

I know that almost every armor has weaknesses (like maybe under the arms and around the neck) but just how much would it take for swords to jsut clash against armor before actual damage was done?

I know this is kind of a broad question so I appreciate any informative help you can grant me!


----------



## sashamerideth

Androxine Vortex said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been asked before so forgive me if it has
> 
> I want my battle-scenes to be realistic and entertaining. Lets say there are two warriors fighting each other and for arguments sake they both have good/decent armor. How should the sword strike to ensure great damage?
> 
> In lots of books it will just say something like, "The warrior slashed with his sword, slicing through the other's heart." But sometimes when I'm reading battle passages it doesn't seem realistic. Really? One strike with your sword and it penetrates your opponents armor that easily?
> 
> I know that almost every armor has weaknesses (like maybe under the arms and around the neck) but just how much would it take for swords to jsut clash against armor before actual damage was done?
> 
> I know this is kind of a broad question so I appreciate any informative help you can grant me!



From what I have read, armored people would poke at the joints and weak points in metal armor. Blunt objects or axes would also see use. Good armor doesn't get sliced through easily, but writing about your hero poking the other guy to death with his sword isn't as interesting as slashing through the heart of the baddie.


----------



## Ravana

Depends on the material of the armor, mainly. But, no, a sword isn't going to "slash" even decently thick leather all that well (let alone hardened leather), and metal never. Against metal, a sword is a skinny club, unless it can find an unprotected area. At which point it does damage just like any other club of similar weight, though it will have the advantage of putting all its force into a much narrower striking surface. Which is why axes gained increasing popularity, why blunt weapons eventually developed flanges, knobs or spikes, and why pick-shaped weapons were best of all… if all you were concerned about was armor penetration. 

Even against metal plate, swords can still break bones, cause concussions, rupture organs (unlikely, but certainly not impossible), cause internal bleeding, and so on. Consider: putting a one-inch-deep dent in thigh armor may cause a nasty bruise and make the piece highly uncomfortable to wear until it could be dished back out (trust me on this…); the same dent in the upper torso could break a rib or collar bone; the same dent in a helmet will probably remove your opponent from the fight, one way or another.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Androxine Vortex said:


> Not sure if this has been asked before so forgive me if it has
> 
> I want my battle-scenes to be realistic and entertaining. Lets say there are two warriors fighting each other and for arguments sake they both have good/decent armor. How should the sword strike to ensure great damage?
> 
> In lots of books it will just say something like, "The warrior slashed with his sword, slicing through the other's heart." But sometimes when I'm reading battle passages it doesn't seem realistic. Really? One strike with your sword and it penetrates your opponents armor that easily?
> 
> I know that almost every armor has weaknesses (like maybe under the arms and around the neck) but just how much would it take for swords to jsut clash against armor before actual damage was done?
> 
> I know this is kind of a broad question so I appreciate any informative help you can grant me!



Depends on the type of sword and the type of armor. Plate armor? Can't be done, forget about it. You need to stab the guy between the metal plates with a stiff, pointy sword.

Armor in general isn't part of my expertise, though. Frankly, swordsmen in my stories tend to simply not wear armor.



Ravana said:


> Depends on the material of the armor, mainly. But, no, a sword isn't going to "slash" even decently thick leather all that well (let alone hardened leather),



I dunno. Boiled or laquered leather offer decent protection, but I have a hard time seeing ordinary leather take a hit from a good sword and not get badly damaged.



> Even against metal plate, swords can still break bones,



May depend on the type of sword, but I doubt it, honestly. Plate armor doesn't just protect against edges, it also distrubutes the force of an impact across its surface, the same way a good helmet will protect your head from a blow, and most swords simply weren't heavy enough to cause serious blunt damage.


----------



## Ravana

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I dunno. Boiled or laquered leather offer decent protection, but I have a hard time seeing ordinary leather take a hit from a good sword and not get badly damaged.



It will depend a lot on the thickness of the armor: a single layer of suede, no, that won't help much. 16-ounce (1/4'' thick) full-grain? Think about "slicing" that much leather in one stroke–along the surface, not along an edge (which, having worked with the stuff, I can assure you is difficult enough even with the proper tools). Even without the leather being hardened, that isn't too likely for most swords. Not saying it's impossible, just that size matters.  Yes, it will almost certainly be damaged, and if not replaced will have a weak spot that will only get worse over time. As long as the damage is to the armor, not _you_, you're good. 

It can also depend on the technique with which the blow is delivered. A draw-cut will be stopped easily by heavy leather. A properly-delivered blow from a Japanese style combines the force of the "chopping" action with a draw across the target… it is this, as much as any property of the weapon, that makes the style effective. (Plus, it's being delivered with two hands, most likely.) Most European technique manuals I've seen don't emphasize this combination: chopping and slashing tend to get addressed separately… possibly because the manuals are written for people who expected to be facing metal, not other materials, so slashing while chopping would actually reduce the effectiveness of the blow. 



> May depend on the type of sword, but I doubt it, honestly. Plate armor doesn't just protect against edges, it also distrubutes the force of an impact across its surface, the same way a good helmet will protect your head from a blow, and most swords simply weren't heavy enough to cause serious blunt damage.



All armor does that, if it isn't penetrated immediately. How effectively it does this depends on how much force is delivered relative to a given surface area–along with a great many other factors, such as whether or not a rivet or weld gives way, whether that particular spot on the armor has an unsuspected weak point in the metal itself, or whether it has already been weakened by previous blows. Or how close to perpendicular to the surface the strike is: doesn't take much of an angle for the blade to simply slide off.

Remember that swords have much narrower striking surfaces than clubs, so the force is concentrated over a smaller surface area. And that most single-handed mass weapons weren't all that much heavier than swords: they simply tended to have different points of balance. (People might be surprised to learn just how small most maces were.) One of the things you discover in the SCA is that the "swords" we use–rattan, c. 1 1/2'' thick–have almost exactly the same weight and balance as steel swords of the same length. And I've seen them dent armor all the time. (Which is why one of the weapons forbidden in the SCA is the staff: it would be identical to the weapon it's supposed to be "replacing.")

I still wouldn't bet on any _single_ blow from any given sword penetrating–or seriously damaging–plate armor: if that happened routinely, the armor wouldn't have been used. But it can happen. And even distributed force can cause damage to the wearer if it's great enough. Breaking a thigh with a one-handed sword blow is as close to "impossible" as I'd be willing to go–the thigh itself will probably prevent this, given its thickness; breaking a hand bone protected by a plate gauntlet is another story. Ribs would be possible, if less likely; forearm bones, if the blow is to either side of the arm rather than top or bottom; collar bones, the skull, or the neck if the blow is delivered directly to the spine… doable. Which means the result also depends on the size of the piece being struck: a breastplate offers considerably greater inertia, and distributes the force across a considerably wider area of the body beneath it, than a gorget or any given component of a gauntlet… you simply don't have to push those as far, or against as much of the body, to achieve a damaging result even without penetration–without denting, for that matter. And you can cause a concussion, or dislocate a joint, without damaging the armor in the least… if anything, it's more likely to happen if the armor takes no damage, because that means the force hasn't been dissipated by the steel bending inward. It has to go _some_where.…

Keep in mind that's for one-handed swords. If it's a two-handed one, weapon weight and force behind it increase. Two-handed swords were not overwhelmingly common in the west, and had some major disadvantages to their use–such as the lack of a shield in your off-hand–but doing the kind of damage listed above with one? No problem. (One of the few situations I'm aware of where they were "common" in the West was when a line of men at the front of a pike formation would use them to chop off the heads of opposing weapons. Not sure how great the survival rate was among such troops.)

Chopping _through_ a piece of metal, and lopping a limb off cleanly? No. Not without magic. That one at least, you can forget about. 

No, I wouldn't choose a sword if I expected to be facing plate armor; a flanged mace would be far preferable. Someone in full plate could conceivably fight all day against swordsmen, and unless they got lucky he might get away with no worse than armor hickeys and having to replace a couple litres of fluids. But just as the armor wouldn't have been worn if it didn't work, swords wouldn't have seen continued use if _they_ didn't work. Eventually, most fighters who wore plate and expected to face same started carrying maces, picks or flails, yes: no question, they were better. But consider how long the sword lasted up to that point, even when it was routinely faced with _other_ forms of metal armor. And it never did vanish… and it isn't always possible, let alone convenient, to switch weapons in the middle of a battle, and it certainly isn't possible to carry one of everything so that you always have the correctly specialized weapon at hand.


----------



## SeverinR

sashamerideth said:


> From what I have read, armored people would poke at the joints and weak points in metal armor. Blunt objects or axes would also see use. Good armor doesn't get sliced through easily, but writing about your hero poking the other guy to death with his sword isn't as interesting as slashing through the heart of the baddie.


It is the most common way to win for my smaller(sometimes female) chars, since Conan muscle bound sword swingers would win in a blow for blow melee. They simply dodge the heavy blade while jabbing here and there with fencing moves, each little wound contributing to blood loss,  fatigue, and possibly a nerve/artery cut.  Realism- a 5ft tall 85 lb female isn't going beat a 200lb six foot tall man going head to head.



Ravana said:


> Depends on the material of the armor, mainly. But, no, a sword isn't going to "slash" even decently thick leather all that well (let alone hardened leather), and metal never. Against metal, a sword is a skinny club, unless it can find an unprotected area. At which point it does damage just like any other club of similar weight, though it will have the advantage of putting all its force into a much narrower striking surface. Which is why axes gained increasing popularity, why blunt weapons eventually developed flanges, knobs or spikes, and why pick-shaped weapons were best of all… if all you were concerned about was armor penetration.
> 
> Even against metal plate, swords can still break bones, cause concussions, rupture organs (unlikely, but certainly not impossible), cause internal bleeding, and so on. Consider: putting a one-inch-deep dent in thigh armor may cause a nasty bruise and make the piece highly uncomfortable to wear until it could be dished back out (trust me on this…); the same dent in the upper torso could break a rib or collar bone; the same dent in a helmet will probably remove your opponent from the fight, one way or another.



Pike weapons like a pick ax would be a can opener to armor.
I don't believe armor was padded much, a simple thick garment (called a Gambeson) under the plates, a good strike would transfer the force from the weapon to the organ with a simple quilted cloth in between. I would think at least bruised ribs and organs would result. (Bruised ribs feel much like broken ribs, makes it hard to breathe.) but this damage is much prefered to unarmored damage, almost certain death for each blow that landed.
Definately the head took a beating if struck, even with the helm in place.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

SeverinR said:


> It is the most common way to win for my smaller(sometimes female) chars, since Conan muscle bound sword swingers would win in a blow for blow melee.



Do note that while Conan is indeed inhumanly strong, he was often also described as insanely quick, surprisingly agile and incredibly skilled. (He's consistently likened to a panther, in fact.) The best fighters are usually the most balanced ones, after all.

I'm curious, actually: What is a "blow for blow melee" and how does being strong help you win one? Most sword styles do not actually emphesize strenght very much.


----------



## Ravana

SeverinR said:


> Pike weapons like a pick ax would be a can opener to armor.



_Could_ be, not _would_ be. This is certainly the reason why polearms flourished. However, you also have to consider other factors, such as the difficulty of achieving the right kind of hit. A back spike could penetrate armor fairly easily if landed correctly, yes. But there's a reason it was added as an afterthought—as well as a reason spikes were rarely found as the primary striking surface: you can't assume the _only_ people you're going to be fighting are those in full plate. In fact, where they are so found, they're generally one-handed weapons, _not_ polearms, and even there they're rare: more commonly you'd have a hammer-like head—itself dangerous enough against heavy armor, and far more useful against someone who isn't wearing plate—with the spike on the back. 

You also have to take into account the difficulty of wielding the weapon in general, since it is by definition weighted toward the end rather than balanced… and unless you get that striking surface near to perpendicular to the target, it will glance off and you're left trying to recover a weapon of varying awkwardness (depending on precisely which design you're talking about) for a second try. (A hammer head is considerably more forgiving in terms of angles of effective impact, by comparison. Axes fall somewhere in between.) Then there are the weapon's other disadvantages to consider… such as their lack of defensive utility: if you're using a polearm, and your opponent is wielding a one-handed weapon and a shield, you have to be incredibly lucky—or else incredibly good and moderately lucky—to nail him on your first shot, because after that, he's in your face, has your weapon pinned against your body with his shield, and is chopping/smashing you to bits at his leisure. No matter what armor he's wearing.

I recur to my previous point, which I think people don't consider quite enough: _when your life is depending on something, if it doesn't work, you aren't going to use it_. Considering all the disadvantages of plate armor, if were that simple to defeat, it would have gone out of use long _before_ the introduction of firearms… not long _after_ then (the cuirass stuck around well into the 17th century, a couple hundred years after it was confronted with bullets—and helmets have _never_ gone out of use). The same applies to swords (I seem to recall us having a thread about swords around here somewhere…  ): they weren't the best weapon against heavy armor, but if they didn't work against it at all, the rich folk would have chosen something else to carry instead… whereas, generally, at most they carried something in addition. If that.



> I don't believe armor was padded much, a simple thick garment (called a Gambeson) under the plates, a good strike would transfer the force from the weapon to the organ with a simple quilted cloth in between. I would think at least bruised ribs and organs would result. (Bruised ribs feel much like broken ribs, makes it hard to breathe.) but this damage is much prefered to unarmored damage, almost certain death for each blow that landed.
> Definately the head took a beating if struck, even with the helm in place.



A gambeson can do quite a bit of good… though its main purpose is to protect the wearer against his own armor. I mentioned "armor hickeys": getting your skin pinched between two sections of articulating joint protection can be most unpleasant. At least so I've observed—I always had properly-designed and properly-padded armor on, so I never experienced them myself. And properly-_fitted_: one of the least realistic aspects of fantasy RPGs is picking up someone else's armor and having it function as intended. Even draping armor such as chain hauberks won't work out well if the intended wearer's shoulders are much broader than yours—and won't work at all if they're much narrower. (The only reason I ever got to wear Gothic plate was because I had a friend who collected suits custom-ordered to fit… and for the first decade of our acquaintance, I was _exactly_ the same size and build. Down to the pound.) 

The "quilted" cloth of a gambeson isn't two pieces of lightweight broadcloth with some fiber-fill in between: it was built up from multiple layers of heavy cloth (usually what we'd consider canvas—a dozen or more layers, if it was the primary armor rather than padding under some other kind), or from a smaller number of layers stuffed with some other high-density medium such as scrap cloth or horse hair. If you've ever seen rugs made from scrap cloth rolled up and sewn or tied together, that's the sort of thing you should be imagining here. Which is one of the reasons I said that leather armor could provide decent protection against slicing blows: even gambesons were reasonably capable of stopping these, considering how much cloth had to be sliced at one time. And if not stopping them completely, taking so much of the, uhm, "edge" off that the wound wouldn't be nearly as deep, and would be far less likely to be debilitating. It could also stop arrows, if not reliably. Certainly, you wouldn't choose a gambeson alone if you had any better options, but don't underestimate their potential effects. 

In the case of a torso blow, however, even a complete absence of padding wouldn't necessarily lead to bruised ribs: remember, unless you penetrate or significantly deform the armor, the net result is you're pushing a flat piece of steel against the target's _entire_ torso—which spreads the force way out. You'd have to deliver enough force to bruise _all_ the ribs at once, or else you aren't going to bruise any of them. Organ damage would essentially be impossible, if the armor itself isn't damaged… not unless you struck hard enough to turn the wearer into jelly inside it. Possible for some fantasy monsters, maybe; not for a human wielding a weapon. _Maybe_ you could injure a kidney if striking from behind, though this still has the same problem of the force being distributed across the entire torso. (And if you're behind someone in plate armor and throwing body shots, you're an idiot.) I actually _stopped_ wearing additional body armor in the SCA: my gambeson alone was sufficient protection for what I was doing—which did not, however, involve sharp objects. But since we're talking blunt trauma here anyway, that doesn't matter a whole lot.

The head is a different story, since there are ways to damage it even without penetrating armor (i.e. concussions, breaking the neck), but again, apart from those you'd have to deform the armor to achieve meaningful results. And concussions aren't exactly something you can rely on delivering—I think I can recall seeing _one_ in decades of SCA combat, though I know they happen from time to time. And I've never heard of anyone getting a fractured skull, though I can't swear it's never happened at some point. Whereas I _have_ seen some pretty serious dents put into helms from time to time. The padding we wear is somewhat better than you'd expect from quilted cloth; on the other hand, it's far short of what you find in football helmets (minimum half an inch of closed-cell foam; most add open-cell on top of that to achieve a tight fit to the head). So figure an arming cap wasn't _too_ bad at performing its intended function.


----------



## Stari Bogovi

Ravana said:


> Copper was widely available, but not widely used other than as ornamentation in Central/South America; some North American cultures seem to have been the only ones who put it to use in other applications–and in small amounts: weapons generally continued to be made of stone (flint in particular). Bronze didn't show up anywhere until around 200 BCE or so, and of all the American cultures it appears that only the Incas seem to have employed it in any amount as tools and weapons. So, essentially, in terms of "ages of technology," the Americas went straight from Neolithic to steel, after the Euros arrived.



I'm going off of recollection here.  I believe they found copper mace heads in Peru.  Also, there were the Tlingit (Pacific Northwest) daggers that were made of copper.  They would row out into the water and plunge it into the backs of swimming young moose.

Living Landscapes

I've also heard tell of barrels with iron nails (possibly falling off of Chinese or Japanese ships) that washed up in Alaska, and of Inuit coming across meteoric iron.  Further investigation might reveal that to be myth.


----------



## SeverinR

Ravana said:


> _Maybe_ you could injure a kidney if striking from behind, though this still has the same problem of the force being distributed across the entire torso. (And if you're behind someone in plate armor and throwing body shots, you're an idiot.)
> The head is a different story, since there are ways to damage it even without penetrating armor (i.e. concussions, breaking the neck), but again, apart from those you'd have to deform the armor to achieve meaningful results. And concussions aren't exactly something you can rely on delivering—I think I can recall seeing _one_ in decades of SCA combat, though I know they did happen from time to time. And I've never heard of anyone getting a fractured skull, though I can't swear it's never happened at some point. Whereas I _have_ seen some pretty serious dents put into helms from time to time. The padding we wear is somewhat better than you'd expect from quilted cloth; on the other hand, it's far short of what you find in football helmets (minimum half an inch of closed-cell foam; most add open-cell on top of that to achieve a tight fit to the head). So figure an arming cap wasn't _too_ bad at performing its intended function.



If your behind an plated enemy, head or neck would be the best target.

The head shots even if the helmet was undented, the brain still bounces around inside.  Concussions happen more often then people realize. The saying "ring your bell", that is a concussion, a hit to the head that makes you feel different, dizzy, altered vision, staggering temporarily unable to think, are all minor concussions. Which will not lead to the death of an enemy directly.
The easy diagnosis of a concussion would probably been the blow before the kill strike in a battle. 

In the three years I went to SCA meetings and events, I heard of at least two minor concussions by description. But I didn't frequent the battles.

I did see an obvious concussion in Full Metal Jousting(History channel) with an illegal lance to the head.

They only recently realized that with each concussion they tend to add up. One reason why boxers have long term problems later in life.

The only real life experience that would be close, would be using European riot gear, a 6 ft man swinging the rubber baton as hard as he could against the clear plastic shield, did no damage to the shield and the arm that held the shield felt no pain either.
btw it was testing out the equipment, not real violence.


----------



## Ravana

SeverinR said:


> If your behind an plated enemy, head or neck would be the best target.



Almost certainly, barring something that prevented you from getting a good shot at it… or a gap in the target's protection. Back of the knees would be second, as that's extremely difficult to armor (and impossible to cover completely with rigid armor). Depending exactly how the leg protection is designed, groin and upper thigh may or may not be vulnerable (possibly well up the buttocks, perhaps all the way to the lower spine, especially if the target was recently on horseback); depending on how the shoulder protection is designed, the underarm. (Note that here, chain has definite advantages, in that all these areas can be protected by it, at least against blades.) What you would never do is swing directly into the largest single piece of solid steel on the person's body, regardless of what you were wielding. 



> The head shots even if the helmet was undented, the brain still bounces around inside.  Concussions happen more often then people realize. The saying "ring your bell", that is a concussion, a hit to the head that makes you feel different, dizzy, altered vision, staggering temporarily unable to think, are all minor concussions.



Mostly true… ringing a person's bell can just mean the person's been momentarily dazed. It's not going to get diagnosed as a concussion if the measurable symptoms last only seconds, or even a minute or two. (Whereas on the other hand, if you're in hand-to-hand combat, that's all the advantage you're likely to need, whether the symptoms are because the target's concussed or not.) Even being completely knocked out doesn't necessarily mean a concussion has occurred. In fact, the most hazardous thing about isolated concussions is that the sufferer usually _doesn't_ notice anything "different," and thus keeps right on doing whatever he was doing, unaware of being impaired, no matter how obvious it is to everybody around him.

What's also true is that they don't happen _quite_ as often as sports medicine has made us believe over the past couple of years. People wearing no protection get hit in the head every day and do not suffer concussions. (Well, the _same_ person doesn't, or he would, but you know what I mean.  ) And I've been hit in the head thirty or forty times in a day with a helmet on, in fight practices, and never had a problem. It will still be the preferred target in almost all circumstances in real combat, for that reason among others–such as it being the one most likely to prove fatal; just saying the likelihood of a concussion occurring shouldn't be overestimated any more than underestimated.


----------



## Devor

Some interesting stuff happening here.

It really would help me a lot to know a little about where and when and how swords might have been fitted to their wielders.  Could anyone help me out?


----------



## SeverinR

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Do note that while Conan is indeed inhumanly strong, he was often also described as insanely quick, surprisingly agile and incredibly skilled. (He's consistently likened to a panther, in fact.) The best fighters are usually the most balanced ones, after all.
> 
> I'm curious, actually: What is a "blow for blow melee" and how does being strong help you win one? Most sword styles do not actually emphesize strenght very much.



Blow for blow(only in the movies, bascially) fgtr1 swings hits ftgr 2's sword or shield, then the rolls are reversed. 

Being strong(in the movies) allows one to wear the other down, or even break the others sword, destroy their shield. oh, and this is one on one fights, not armies fighting in a field.

Ravana: They are alot more liberal in diagnosing of a concussion(mostly caused by children's sports) almost any change can be linked to it even if just a few seconds long.  Reasoning, the effects were a sign of the brains affect from being hit.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/tc/traumatic-brain-injury-concussion-overview


While a few dings to the head won't hurt the average person, the warrior who gets moderate concussions on a regular basis will probably have long term affects. (Former boxers as an example; Ali, Foreman etc) Not sure if the football world has any good examples of someone taking a few too many hits to the head.  I bet there will be studies on the long term affects of multiple/recurrent concussions in sports players very soon.

Thanks to you, I do have alot more respect to the old time helmet then I did, at least what the SCA recreates it as.  By description I was not impressed, a metal pot with a clump of horse hair to cushion it does not sound very comfortable, nor protective.  I guess there is a lot of horse hair stuffed in a small pad in the helmet.


----------



## Ravana

SeverinR said:


> Thanks to you, I do have alot more respect to the old time helmet then I did, at least what the SCA recreates it as.  By description I was not impressed, a metal pot with a clump of horse hair to cushion it does not sound very comfortable, nor protective.  I guess there is a lot of horse hair stuffed in a small pad in the helmet.



Apart from the modern foam for padding, SCA helmets are pretty much exact duplicates of historical ones. (Well, we use welded grill visors a lot more, since they're a lot easier to breathe in, a bit easier to see out of, and welding's a whole lot easier with electricity.  ) The helm is, in fact, the only part of the armor that is required to be made out of metal: at least 16-gauge steel, though most people I know use 14-gauge… which puts the helmets at the same thickness as the bulk of museum collection pieces. Any other piece of rigid protection you're allowed to make out of plastic. Part of the reason is because metal _can_ be dented–whereas plastic doesn't dent: it either transmits the entire force to the wearer… or it breaks. Of course, the metal doesn't usually dent either, so the first result is fairly normal; it's the second we're mostly worried about. 

But, no, I wouldn't want to trade in the foam for horsehair stuffing. Even when it's packed in fairly tightly, though (and you'd much rather have it tight than loose: you want head and helm to move together, not have the helm bounced _into_ your head), the padding still takes up a fair amount of the blow… which has already been reduced by having the impact spread out across the whole head, plus having to overcome the inertia of the helm itself. Though an even bigger factor can be make of helm and angle of impact–which is why helms with more rounded profiles came to be favored over time. (In the SCA, we refer to barrel helms as "duke's landing strips."  ) If you can get the blade to glance off, it rarely matters how much force is behind it… which is also why I said impact weapons have an advantage: they're much more forgiving (for the wielder) when it comes to angle.

Comfort is another story. While the _dis_comfort of wearing armor is generally overrated, there are very few people I know who don't take their helmets off between fights–even those who do have grillwork faces. Part of that is it's one of the only pieces that can be easily removed and put back on, of course… but you'll notice that football players are the same in this. If they don't expect to go right back onto the field, the hat comes off. Even when you're accustomed to wearing one, having that extra weight on your head is something few people care for; plus, considering the amount of heat your body eliminates through your scalp, taking it off is a good idea even if it were otherwise comfy.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> Some interesting stuff happening here.
> 
> It really would help me a lot to know a little about where and when and how swords might have been fitted to their wielders.  Could anyone help me out?



Well, what do you mean by fitted to their wielder?


----------



## Devor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, what do you mean by fitted to their wielder?



Fitted like a tailor fits clothes.  Whether the blade was supposed to be in certain proportions to the size of the wielder.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> Fitted like a tailor fits clothes.  Whether the blade was supposed to be in certain proportions to the size of the wielder.



You asked about that earlier, right? Sorry if I forgot about it.

Yeah, as I understand it, it was a proportional thing most of the time. The tip of a katana held losely by your side should just clear the ground, the pommel of a longsword should fit under your armpit, etc, etc. I've seen seveal variations on this, but it's usually based on the size of your own body.

Presumably, a wealthy man could have a sword custom made to fit him exactly, while someone less well off may not have been able to afford being too picky. It stands to reason that the average lenght of historical swords corresponds to the average size of the people of that time. If you weren't unusually large or unusually small, you could probably get by with most swords.

(There's also fashion and laws to consider - sometimes longer swords would just happen to become fashionable, and sometimes you weren't allowed to carry swords above a certain lenght. Queen Elizabeth famously passed a law restricting the maximum lenght of the rapier because the extremely long swords everyone had started carrying annoyed her. Similar things occured in Japan: In the Nanbokucho period, swords suddenly became enormous for unclear reasons, seeing the rise of what would become the odachi. Later, laws were passed that restricted the lenght of katana you could carry in public, making said odachi illegal.)

But all that said, we do get these measurements from actual fencing manuals, so it's likely a swordmaster would have instructed his students to at least try to find weapons that fit them.


----------



## Devor

Thanks, Anders. Do you happen to know any examples for one-handed swords?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Devor said:


> Thanks, Anders. Do you happen to know any examples for one-handed swords?



Well, I don't think there's a universial way of determining the ideal lenght of a single-hander since the standard length varies between type and the proper length depends on how the sword is meant to be used.

The only example I know is from George Silver, who said: _"Of the length of weapons, and how every man may fit himself to the perfect length of his weapon, according to his own stature, with brief reasons wherefore they ought to be so. To know the perfect length of your sword, you shall stand with your sword and dagger drawn, as you see this picture, keeping out straight your dagger arm, drawing back your sword as far as conveniently you can, not opening the elbow joint of your sword arm, and look what you can draw within your dagger, that is the just length of your sword, to be made according to your own stature."_

The sword he's talking about being the British baskethilt, which was originally a cavalry sword and thus fairly long. If I understand him correctly, my ideal blade should be about 27" long. That's more then I would be comfortable with, but probably correct. (He further states that the blade of your longsword should be the full length of your sword, which actually seems to correspond to the fit-under-your-armpit thing.)

For medieval arming swords, the problem is that there just aren't a lot of surviving manuscripts to go by. The oldest one is the I.33 manuscript from the 1300s - it may have something on sword lenght but I'd have to ask around to find out.

Also, from what I've _heard_, I think the blade of a Chinese jian is supposed to be as long or slightly longer then your own arm. Don't quote me on that, though.


----------



## Ravana

Speaking purely from experience here, most of the one-handed combat "swords" (i.e. rattan sticks) I've seen used in the SCA fall into a fairly narrow length range: if you drop your sword hand straight down to your side and hold the sword against your arm, the tip tends to come up to about the top of the shoulder, give or take an inch. This isn't based on anything historical, mind you; on the other hand, it also isn't based on scarcity or cost of resources… the only controlling factor here is what the user feels most comfortable with. There are, of course, people who decide they're more comfortable with longer or shorter weapons–you might be surprised how often it's "shorter"–but given the absence of other factors here in choosing a length, this might give a good sense of what works the best for the greatest number of people. (If Anders is correct, this is almost exactly the guideline for the jian.)

Elizabeth probably just got fed up with people tripping over their own weapons… as steel technology improved and swords got narrower, single-handed blades sometimes got so long that putting training wheels on the scabbard would have been desirable.…  Wikipedia, that endlessly reliable source of well-researched information  , gives lengths for the _espada ropera_ of up to 51 inches (130 cm). Which is friggin' excessive for _anybody_. Actually, it says that was the "blade" length, not overall length–which I suspect may be erroneous, though I could well be wrong there: I haven't looked further. It should be noted that this was definitely not a sword intended for use in _armored_ combat. In spite of its name, it was not purely a "dress" weapon, however: it was intended, and used, for dueling.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ravana said:


> Speaking purely from experience here, most of the one-handed combat "swords" (i.e. rattan sticks) I've seen used in the SCA fall into a fairly narrow length range: if you drop your sword hand straight down to your side and hold the sword against your arm, the tip tends to come up to about the top of the shoulder, give or take an inch. This isn't based on anything historical, mind you; on the other hand, it also isn't based on scarcity or cost of resources… the only controlling factor here is what the user feels most comfortable with. There are, of course, people who decide they're more comfortable with longer or shorter weapons—you might be surprised how often it's "shorter"—but given the absence of other factors here in choosing a length, this might give a good sense of what works the best for the greatest number of people. (If Anders is correct, this is almost exactly the guideline for the jian.)



Well, on one hand, the fencing style will depend on which type of weapon most people use. But on the other, that fencing style will still be built around that specific sword. It's kind of a "the chicken and the egg" situation.

One thing to keep in mind is that when modern people first began their attempts to rebuild medival fighting systems, they used weapons based on historical artifacts. But they forgot to take into account that people were actually a lot smaller back in medieval times due to a generally poorer diet, so the swords in question are actually too small on average for us modern westerners.

Now, you could argue that if most people train with swords that are a few inches shorter and they learn to use them well non the less, that's just a natural evolution of the fighting style. (Not that evolution is desirable to people trying to recreate history, but still.) And if they end up prefering shorter swords due to having practiced with them, there is no harm done, right?

But at the same time, some people have moved on to properly sized weapons and they tend to claim this actually gives you a much better understanding of historical techniques. So it's somewhat debatable if "the sword the feels right" is the same thing as "the sword that works best."



> Elizabeth probably just got fed up with people tripping over their own weapons…



She also banned overly large ruffs (those clown-collars people liked to wear back then) around the same time. Legend has it she posted guards at the city gates who's job was to break the swords and tear the ruffs of anyone who violated these laws.



> as steel technology improved and swords got narrower, single-handed blades sometimes got so long that putting training wheels on the scabbard would have been desirable.…



Ha! That actually happened, I've seen pictures. Though, that was in Napoleonic times, when very long, low-slung cavalry sabers came in fashion. Don't think I've seen a rapier with that kind of construction.



> Wikipedia, that endlessly reliable source of well-researched information  , gives lengths for the _espada ropera_ of up to 51 inches (130 cm). Which is friggin' excessive for _anybody_. Actually, it says that was the "blade" length, not overall length—which I suspect may be erroneous, though I could well be wrong there:



Yeah, I kinda doubt that. I don't think I've heard of a rapier much longer then a meter, and those tend to be the late Spanish cuphilts. 

Still, Elizabeth's law set the maximum length at one yard, about 91 cm, so the swords of the time might very well have approached or even exceeded a meter.


----------



## The Din

I haven't read every post, so hopefully this hasn't come up before. In a scene of mine, a sword falls in a fire and proceeds to heat up. My question is: is there a certain type of metal that would better retain its shape when red hot? Also, would such a heated blade pierce chainmail easier? I had hoped to have my MC pull it from the fire and drive it straight through someone wearing chain...


----------



## Ravana

Any metal will retain its shape when "red"-hot–well, assuming that "red" is the color it turns when heated, at least: this is the _coolest_ notable color-change when a piece of iron gets heated. Depending on the fire, it may not get any hotter… or even that hot. A common wood camp- or hearth-fire won't heat it to orange, let alone yellow or white. (You _never_ want to heat iron white-hot, by the by: I've seen it done, and the results are rarely pretty. _Spectacular_, sometimes… but not pretty.) Then it depends on how long the metal is left in the fire: it takes a couple minutes in a coal fire to get it up to even a barely-workable cherry red. (You really don't want to try working it when it's that cool, either: best case, you're going to be expending a lot of effort for minimal results.)

Even after heating, the metal will retain its shape until it gets heated to near its melting point, or until you hit it with/on something capable of deforming it. Which brings us to:

Penetrating metal armor once it's heated? No. It's the sword that's become softer, not the armor… it would perform worse, not better (assuming it was hot enough to affect its performance in any way at all). So, basically, if what you're after is ramming a hot piece of metal into another person, the answer is if it could penetrate anyway, it could do so while red-hot. If what you're after is having it penetrate more readily, 'fraid not.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

The Din said:


> I haven't read every post, so hopefully this hasn't come up before. In a scene of mine, a sword falls in a fire and proceeds to heat up. My question is: is there a certain type of metal that would better retain its shape when red hot? Also, would such a heated blade pierce chainmail easier? I had hoped to have my MC pull it from the fire and drive it straight through someone wearing chain...



Ravana pretty much got it right - metals in general become softer as they are heatened up, which will make them less effective against armor. 

If the sword in question is made of tempered steel, heating it to this point will anneal the blade, which is to say the heat treatment will be completely ruined - even after cooling, the blade will be too soft to keep a decent edge. At the very least, it will have to be rehardened and retempered.



Ravana said:


> (You _never_ want to heat iron white-hot, by the by: I've seen it done, and the results are rarely pretty. _Spectacular_, sometimes… but not pretty.)



True. Granted, getting iron/steel that hot requires _a lot _of heat.


----------



## Mindfire

What are leaf-shaped blades good for, and how long are they typically?


----------



## Ravana

Anders Ã„mting said:


> True. Granted, getting iron/steel that hot requires _a lot _of heat.



I have a friend whose well-earned nickname, among blacksmithing circles, is "Sparky".…


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Mindfire said:


> What are leaf-shaped blades good for, and how long are they typically?



Leaf-shaped swords were popular in the bronze age, reaching a sort of peak at ca 1400 BC and vanishing in the last couple of centuries BC. They were typically short - the longest are from the Hallstatt culture where leaf-bladed swords could be as long as 80 cm. 

I've seen some debate on the purpose of the shape, but the general opinion seems to be that leaf-blades were designed to be both efficient cutters and good thrusters against the armor of the time. This seems to make sense to me - the leaf-blade strikes me like a good way to maximize the performance of short cut-and-thrust swords using the technology and understanding available at the time. The curved edge theoretically* allows for better slicing attacks then a straight one, it can have a finer edge at the foible and a sturdier forte, and the cutting part of the blade naturally becomes wide in relation to the accuteness of the point. Some also argue that the leaf shape concentrated mass at the point of percussion of the blade, letting it deliver heavier blows with a comparably small blade. Others say that a good leaf-blade design has the same mass distribution as a straight one. I have no particular opinion on that since I've never handled one.

The last culture to use leaf bladed swords were probably the Romans (with their Mainz-style gladius) who then moved on to straight blades as their military tactics favored thrusts above cuts and sraighter blades were more economical. (Resulting in the Pompei-style gladius.) After that the metalurgical technology improved and swords become longer and stronger, which made the advantages of the leaf-blade become obselete.

In short, this type of blade has some merit but you will probably only find it on shorter swords, possibly made from inferior metal. You absolutely can make a long steel leaf-blade that does the job, but it won't be that much better then a regular one. Also, this is just something I heard in passing, but apparently long leaf-bladed steel swords are tricker to forge then regular ones.

*I say theretically because there is something of a debate regaring the benefits of curvature in cutting efficiency as well.


----------



## Mindfire

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Leaf-shaped swords were popular in the bronze age, reaching a sort of peak at ca 1400 BC and vanishing in the last couple of centuries BC. They were typically short - the longest are from the Hallstatt culture where leaf-bladed swords could be as long as 80 cm.
> 
> I've seen some debate on the purpose of the shape, but the general opinion seems to be that leaf-blades were designed to be both efficient cutters and good thrusters against the armor of the time. This seems to make sense to me - the leaf-blade strikes me like a good way to maximize the performance of short cut-and-thrust swords using the technology and understanding available at the time. The curved edge theoretically allows for better slicing attacks then a straight one, it can have a finer edge at the foible and a sturdier forte, and the cutting part of the blade naturally becomes wide in relation to the accuteness of the point. Some also argue that the leaf shape concentrated mass at the point of percussion of the blade, letting it deliver heavier blows with a comparably small blade. Others say that a good leaf-blade design has the same mass distribution as a straight one. I have no particular opinion on that since I've never handled one.
> 
> The last culture to use leaf bladed swords were probably the Romans (with their Mainz-style gladius) who then moved on to straight blades as their military tactics favored thrusts above cuts and sraighter blades were more economical. (Resulting in the Pompei-style gladius.) After that the metalurgical technology improved and swords become longer and stronger, which made the advantages of the leaf-blade become obselete.
> 
> In short, this type of blade has some merit but you will probably only find it on shorter swords, possibly made from inferior metal. You absolutely can make a long steel leaf-blade that does the job, but it won't be that much better then a regular one. Also, this is just something I heard in passing, but apparently long leaf-bladed steel swords are tricker to forge then regular ones.



What about a leaf-bladed sword forged by a god out of indestructible volcanic glass? A long shot, I know, but bear with me.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Mindfire said:


> What about a leaf-bladed sword forged by a god out of indestructible volcanic glass? A long shot, I know, but bear with me.



I would say that if the sword is made out of indestructible obsidian (!) the exact shape probably doesn't matter - it's not something you want to be on the business end of regardless. And if the god wants to make it a leaf-blade, I certainly wouldn't argue with him about it. 

What I'm saying is, when you start to use words like "indestructible" and "god", you are sort of past the point of taking realistic limitations into account.


----------



## Mindfire

Ahh. Very true.


----------



## Philippjs

I was wandering how a longsword was made when they where still exclusive to upper-class nobles during the medieaval times. Wasn't the edge made of harder steel and the centre made of softer steel? Also, how does swordplay actually work? I've gatherd that it isn't a matter of smacking the edges into each other's blades, so I would really appriciate an explination of how people actually fought with longswords. Thanks in advance, and sorry if it's an annyoing question


----------



## Drasn

First, I want to say thank you all for the useful information in this thread. Second, my question: Does your knowledge of blades extend to daggers? If so I am interested in the uses of wavy bladed daggers, I believe it's called a kris. Was the wavy blade purely for aesthetics(ie ceremonial or decorative) or did it serve some other purpose?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Philippjs said:


> I was wandering how a longsword was made when they where still exclusive to upper-class nobles during the medieaval times. Wasn't the edge made of harder steel and the centre made of softer steel?



The answer here depends a bit on what you mean by "longsword." Many use it to refer to the typical single-handed medieval sword, but it's more accurately used for the later style of two-handed swords of the late medieval and Renaissance periods.

For the actual historical longsword, I believe they typically weren't laminated - by this time steel technology was advanced enough that lamination wasn't necessary. In fact, most medieval swords would have had monosteel blades. I think I've heard that a few surviving artifacts have something approaching Asian-style differential hardening, but don't quote me on that. Even if it's true, it would have been very rare.

As far as I know, lamination blades were far more common in the earlier iron/viking age and early medieval times, as were pattern welding. Swords of that time were predominantly single-handed cutting swords. 

I should also add that I'm pretty sure swords in Europe were never actually "exclusively" the weapons of the upper class: Anyone who could afford a sword were probably allowed to own one. In fact, the vikings considered owning a sword to be one of the privilages of any free man. And in the feudal era, owning weapons was not only permitted but often _expected _of you.



> Also, how does swordplay actually work? I've gatherd that it isn't a matter of smacking the edges into each other's blades, so I would really appriciate an explination of how people actually fought with longswords. Thanks in advance, and sorry if it's an annyoing question



Exactly how a sword is used is going to depend heavily on the type of sword used. And, again, it depends on what you mean by longsword.

In general, though, the objective of any type of swordfighting is naturally to strike your opponent with the edge of the sword, or pierce him with the point, and to avoid him doing the same to you, typically by employing parries. 

When striking your opponent, you want to hit him with the upper part of the blade close to the point, where most of the momentum of the blow will be focused. This part of the sword is called the "foible", and the point that delivers the most force is called the "point of percussion." When parrying, you want to intercept your opponent's sword with the part of your blade closest to the hilt. This part is called the "forte."

When you cross swords, the ideal is to cross your forte with your opponent's foible. Due to leverage, that gives you control over your opponent's sword - you can push his blade around but he'll have a hard time moving your blade. It also makes it much harder for a blow to break through your guard. This is pretty universial, because a lever is always a lever. 

Ideally, your parry should block or deflect your opponent's attack in a way that opens up his defense and at the same time places your own sword in a position to strike - you don't want to block, then move into and attack position, giving your enemy a chance to defend himself.

Both attacks and parries are carried out from certain stances or guards. These are specific to the weapon and fighting style, but the principles tend to be largely universial - practitioners of kendo often note that longsword stances resemble their own, or rapier fencer will find similarities in Chinese styles, etc, etc. 

Now, as far as I know, iron/viking age and medieval arming swords were almost exclusively used with shields and since there aren't any known surviving fencing manuals for that far back, most reconstruction attempts come down to a lot of educated guessing. I'm pretty sure the only manual that bring the subject of shields up is the I:33, which concerns the smaller buckler rather then full-sized shields. Shields then faded out along with other types of armor and using swords for both attack and defense became the norm.

(In movies and other media, you sometimes see people battle with medieval swords without using shields. As far as we know this wasn't actually done, as the sword was a battlefield weapon where the shield would also be present. However, it's possible to adapt Renaissance messer styles for the medieval arming sword -see video below- so it's at least _theoretically _possible such a fighting style might have existed. We just have no evidence to indicate this really happened.)

Finally, if your fencing style strives for any kind of battlefield realism (as opposed to a dueling style or sport) it will probably include some type of close combat or grappling techniques.

That's the basic gist of how swordsmanship works. Here are some good videos to give you a better idea of differances and similarities of the various styles:

A compilation of longsword techniques.
Example of advanced longsword sparring.
And extensive but _very_ enlightening lesson on sword and shield.
Various messer techniques.
Messer techniques applied to medieval swords.
British-style baskethilt techniques.
Polish (I think) saber fencing.
Some fairly typical kenjutsu kata.
Chinese jian, single-handed.
Chinese jian, two handed.

I know this is a huge list of stuff but, trust me, there's much, _much_ more to be found online. 



Drasn said:


> First, I want to say thank you all for the useful information in this thread. Second, my question: Does your knowledge of blades extend to daggers? If so I am interested in the uses of wavy bladed daggers, I believe it's called a kris. Was the wavy blade purely for aesthetics(ie ceremonial or decorative) or did it serve some other purpose?



I'm not quite as good at daggers and knives, but I do know a guy who is.

As for the kris, I do believe they have a religious importance to the Philippino. However, some are less wavy then others and some have completely straight blades, so I don't think the wavy shape is essential to the weapon in a practical sense, no.

Wavy or flame bladed swords (so-called flammard or flamberge blades) actually started to show up in Europe during the Renaissance as well - predominantly on the large zweihÃ¤nder great swords but they also appeared on more common single-handed cut-and-thrust swords.

There is some debate on wether this shape of blade actually had a practical purpose or if it was just an artistic expression. As with the leaf-blades we just brough up and the issue of curved vs straight swords, you tend to get a different answer depending on who you ask.

Like the leaf-blades, it's possible flame-bladed swords were designed to increase cutting ability in otherwise straight swords. However, my personal theory is that flame-bladed swords were _mostly _made for aestetic appeal - particularly the zweihanders also tend to be fairly ornate in design and were favored by Renaissance mercenairies known for having a distinct showy appearance. Likewise, the shape of the kris appears to have been symbolically rather then practically significant.

It's also worth noting that wavy blades were always uncommon everywhere except in the Phillipines, and that they had vanished completely in Europe come the 19th century - a period that otherwise saw an extreme degree of experimentation with various blade shapes. So it's likely they weren't especially superior to ordinary swords.

On an interesting side note: There are a number of surviving naval cutlasses that actually have _saw_-shaped edges. Apparently the reasoning was that the sword could function both as a weapon and a tool. But, again, this idea never seemed to really catch on.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

You know what thought just occurred to me... what if this whole time Andres was just making all this stuff up XD

(edit: not trying to poke fun at your condition)


----------



## Hans

Androxine Vortex said:


> You know what thought just occurred to me... what if this whole time Andres was just making all this stuff up XD


Unlikely. What he writes seems pretty valid.
If you want to double check with a different source you might follow that link (German forum thread): Waffendesign - Versuch eines Tutorials - Weltenbastel-Theorie - Weltenbastler Forum


----------



## Androxine Vortex

Hans said:


> Unlikely. What he writes seems pretty valid.
> If you want to double check with a different source you might follow that link (German forum thread): Waffendesign - Versuch eines Tutorials - Weltenbastel-Theorie - Weltenbastler Forum



It was just a joke. Some of the stuff he is saying I have heard before so I have no real reason to doubt or question the guy. A good friend of mine had his same condition but it came to history, especially World War II. His entire bookshelf was nothing but text books.


----------



## King Raven Stark

I'm real interested in started a sword collection but my main concern is where do i get a good one, not that cheap busted crap where it breaks everytime you swing. What do I look for when purchasing one? what are the pros and cons?

Thank You


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Androxine Vortex said:


> You know what thought just occurred to me... what if this whole time Andres was just making all this stuff up XD



I think I would try to make my posts shorter if that was the case. -_-

As you may notice, sometimes I have trouble shutting up about swords.



King Raven Stark said:


> I'm real interested in started a sword collection but my main concern is where do i get a good one, not that cheap busted crap where it breaks everytime you swing. What do I look for when purchasing one? what are the pros and cons?



Well, first of all, go to this forum:

SBG Sword Forum &bull; Index page

These people can help you. It's pretty much what they're all about. 

In general though, it comes down to what you are willing to pay, exactly what kind of sword you want, (time period, culture, etc) and how picky you are. Anything stainless is a no go - stainless is too brittle for functional swords and will break dangerously easily. Look for the phrase "battle ready." It usually means that the sword is designed to be used, though it's absolutely not a guarantee for quality. If you find a sword you like, look around for any reviews from people who bought it before you.

In terms of price, functional swords tend to start around $100 and then proceed up to the multiple thousands. In my experience, you should be prepared to shell out at least 200-300 dollars if you want something one might describe as a reliable weapon. You can find the occasional gem for less, but for the most part you get a better sword the more you are willing to spend. Some types of swords are easy to get a hold of - katana are all over the place, for example - while other types are very rare to see reproduced. 

Other things to consider is where you live, what kind of laws apply, shipping fees and import taxes, etc.


----------



## Ravana

King Raven Stark said:


> I'm real interested in started a sword collection but my main concern is where do i get a good one, not that cheap busted crap where it breaks everytime you swing. What do I look for when purchasing one? what are the pros and cons?



In addition to what Anders said, I'd ask the purpose of the collection. If all you want is for it to look cool, go ahead and buy the cheap stuff… or alternately buy expensive museum-replica blades if you're concerned with authenticity, though the metal can still be garbage for all the difference it makes. (If you _are_ after authenticity, you should only buy blades the maker can provide a museum collection reference number on… and which you can verify.)

If you plan to hit things with them, metal quality is of much greater concern–I wouldn't even trust a "battle-ready" label (labels can lie, after all). I'd want to know exactly what kind of metal went into the blade… which also means you'll want to buy from someone you know and trust to tell you the truth about _that_, or at least from someone recommended by someone you trust. Even this won't matter a whole lot unless you also know which alloy does what, so a passing familiarity with metallurgy would also be in order.

If you want to develop a collection of _original_ blades, you're unlikely to be willing to hit anything with them, no matter the quality of metal or craftsmanship: no matter how careful you are, any blade can be damaged… and historical originals can cost more than Black Lotuses do.  (Sometimes. I just looked up the price of Lotuses on ebay. Can't believe I could have stocked up on those for $20 once.…)

And, if like most of us, you plan to mix and match as your resources permit, well… just know which goal you're pursuing with each purchase.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Raven Stark: Laws and weapon regulations vary widely between countries, and sadly this has a tendency to include swords for some odd reason (yeah, like swords would be a threat to a country's national security!!) and if you want to purchase swords from somewhere, first you need to be sure that you will have no trouble with the laws.

For example, where I live I cannot import swords from Canada or the US (or anywhere else) because they are stopped at the customs and then you need a special permit from the military forces to claim your sword, which is not so easy to obtain as far as I know- There are other ways to get swords here, but it's way more difficult than for someone living in the US =(

You can also make your own swords!! Please check my thread Aluminum Swordmaking at the Chit Chat forum.

Aluminum swords are not so difficult to make, they look great, it's very easy to keep them looking good and also they are fast and can be powerful enough to cut and stab soft targets, if that's what you want to do =)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Question: When the gunpowder age dawned on the battlefield & started to become a force, what type of swords were being carried? Also, why were these designs preferred?

I'm mainly talking about the period of early mechanical firearms like wheel-locks & matchlocks.

Thanks.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Question: When the gunpowder age dawned on the battlefield & started to become a force, what type of swords were being carried? Also, why were these designs preferred?
> 
> I'm mainly talking about the period of early mechanical firearms like wheel-locks & matchlocks.
> 
> Thanks.



The earliest guns started showing up in the 1400:s, when plate armor was still in use and various styles of the medieval sword were carried on the battlefield. I mentioned this before, but it's important to remember that the introduction and development of firearms and armor going out of style was a rather gradual process. What gunpowder weapons did first and foremost was to change battle tactics, armors and swords followed that.

This process continued into the Renaissance in the 1500s. You would still see some body armor around that time but it had been rendered much less useful. But Ã­f anything, the fact that it was no longer as important to take armor into account when picking a sword led to a much _wider _variety of swords being used - to the point were it's actually hard to point at a single type of sword as representative for the whole period. 

Just to mention a few examples: The last holdout of the old medieval style sword was the Type XXI and XXII swords, broad at the base with multiple fullers, often highly decorated. They saw a lot of influence from the Italian cinquedea daggers, short broad blades inspired by the Renaissance ideal of emulating the classical styles of Rome and Ancient Greece.

One of the most successful sword types was the XIX, which appeared in the fourteenth century and endured all the way into the seventeenth. It is characterized by a fuller running down the first half of a hexagonal blade, but could otherwise be found in a very broad range of dimensions - some were large and long, some were unusually short. They started out with simple cruciform hilts, then developed finger rings, side rings, knucklebows, etc, eventually becoming true complex hilted swords.

Likewise, the classic longsword was a popular weapon of the early Renaissance. In time they were replaced by the long, complex-hilted bastard swords, many of which had Type XIX blades.

In Spain the civilian espada ropera appeared and quickly evolved into the rapier and its sibling the sidesword. In Germany common knives became longer and more combat oriented, resulting the very varied messer family of swords which notably included the falchion-like grosse messer and the large, two-handed kriegsmesser. A similar weapon was the Swiss saber, which was basically a bastard sword with a saber blade. The landsknecht mercenaries carried the short, cutting specialized katzbalger with it's characteristic hilt, which itself became more and more complex until they turned into true baskethilt swords. And so on, and so forth, etc, etc.

And this is just the swords that can actually be considered distinct styles - there was also a lot of oddities and hybrids being used. People of the time were happy to experiement and go with whatever they found worked best. 

So I'm not sure it's possible to give a straight answer to your question. It would be a lot easier to narrow down what swords were the most typical for a certain region or in a certain context.


----------



## Ankari

Wait....You brought in some terminology that made me scratch my head.  Type XIX and type XXI blades didn't process in my mind.  Where can I find a gallery of swords with descriptions?  If its online, cool.  If its a book, cool too.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Ankari: Check this out: Oakeshott typology.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ankari said:


> Wait....You brought in some terminology that made me scratch my head.  Type XIX and type XXI blades didn't process in my mind.  Where can I find a gallery of swords with descriptions?  If its online, cool.  If its a book, cool too.





Sheilawisz said:


> @Ankari: Check this out: Oakeshott typology.



Thanks for covering that, Sheilawisz. 

The funny thing about swords is that people tended to not really categorize them at all - in medieval times a sword was just a sword. So when talking about distinct types today, all we really have to go by is the numbers Ewart Oakeshott assigned them.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

Not sure if this has been asked but is it possible to melt down swords (and armor) and then make stronger swords (and armor) out of it? It might sound like a weird question, I know.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Androxine Vortex said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been asked but is it possible to melt down swords (and armor) and then make stronger swords (and armor) out of it? It might sound like a weird question, I know.



You can certainly melt them down but the quality of the next item you make with them will depend on the qualities of the original metals and the technique of the craftsman.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

T.Allen.Smith said:


> You can certainly melt them down but the quality of the next item you make with them will depend on the qualities of the original metals and the technique of the craftsman.



But would the new sword be necessarily stronger because it was made from already refined metal?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Androxine Vortex said:
			
		

> But would the new sword be necessarily stronger because it was made from already refined metal?



No... Not necessarily.. It would be the overall chemical content of the combined, smelted metals.

It could be stronger if the combination was superior (the combination of different grades of metals). Some steels have higher carbon counts, some have more chromium, etc. it's the final metal composition that matters most.

You can refine crap metal all you want, you'll end  up with refined crap metal.


----------



## Ravana

Androxine Vortex said:


> But would the new sword be necessarily stronger because it was made from already refined metal?



What he said. ↑↑

It could just as easily be weaker, depending on what kind of metal you're talking about, and what processes you're using, since reworking steel will change the carbon content… and while you do generally want some, you don't want a whole lot. In fact, normal processes of turning iron ore into steel involve adding more carbon than is desirable (to remove the oxygen from the ore); a certain amount needs to be removed again in subsequent processes to get it down to the desired ratio. Any reheating will almost invariably add carbon again, as most normal fuels will be carbon-based. 

Depending on what you mean by "melting" them down, it could completely change the amount of trace metals in any alloy, as some of the ones with lower melting points separate from others. The metal could pick up other trace elements in the process—which will often be the case if you are using the same crucible, forge, etc. for more than one kind of metal, or even different samples of the same metal. Or it could pick them up from other components in the process: the fuel, as mentioned, or even the atmosphere. Or it could burn them off. 

If you're talking about completely liquefying it, you've essentially started all over again—metal can't "remember" what it was previously. (Though note that liquefying iron is beyond the capabilities of most pre-industrial settings.) And even that is assuming you're starting with metal that's all the same quality… which, in pre-industrial settings, is almost never the case: no matter how good your quality controls, each batch will be marginally different. At best, what you're going to do is save some intermediary steps, if you're using metal that has all originated from the same processor using ore that is all from the same location. 

Note also that, at least for steel, and at least for blades, the metal was probably hardened after being shaped: the outer layer will be chemically different from the bulk of the piece, due to the introduction of new elements (mostly carbon) in the finishing processes. The core of the item remains lower-carbon, and thus generally tougher, while a thin surface layer is of a higher-carbon alloy, which will be harder—note that "harder" and "tougher" are _not_ synonymous when discussing materials properties: "tough" is the opposite of "brittle," whereas the harder something is, the _more_ brittle it is: tough bends, hard breaks. The upshot being that something that might have been a wonderful sword would, after being melted down, be nothing more than decent mild steel… at least until it is shaped and hardened again. 

Which, essentially, is why no one ever does what you're suggesting: they take whatever metal of the correct type can be found, throw it all in together, and start over from the beginning.


----------



## Ankari

When you engrave a sword does it weaken the blade?


----------



## Ravana

Ankari said:


> When you engrave a sword does it weaken the blade?



Only if you do it wrong. 

The depth of engraving is so minimal it should never make any difference. Yes, you're removing a tiny bit of the metal… but only along flat surfaces. The chances of this mattering are far lower than, for instance, the chances of the blade having any number of hidden defects: one microscopic hairline flaw in the blade will be far more likely to cause catastrophic failure (i.e. breaking) than any amount of properly-done etching ever could.


----------



## Jabrosky

Could a machete function effectively as a sword, especially against other swords?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Not a normal machete, no. Typically, machete blades are very thin. They are designed to be lightweight tools & not necessarily weapons.

They can slice flesh easily enough but probably wouldn't have much effect on armies. Their narrow blades would likely break under impact from another combat blade.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Machetes are the modern version of the medieval tool/swords called Falchions, and even though they are normally used as tools for a variety of purposes (I have used mine to cut grass, cut plants, slice water bottles for fun and split my Halloween pumpkins!!) when used as weapons they are just as effective and deadly as other types of sword...

All swords have strengths and weaknesses, and the Falchion/machete strength is to deliver heavy, devastating blows that can easily decapitate a person or slice off limbs if used as a weapon- They were used in combat by American troops in the Pacific in WW2.

The weakness of the Falchion is that they are not good to stab (at least, not with the classic machete-style blade) but believe me: I own a really big machete, I practice with it and I can tell you that they are not a joke and they would be a fearsome weapon in any medieval battle =)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Sheilawisz said:
			
		

> Machetes are the modern version of the medieval tool/swords called Falchions, and even though they are normally used as tools for a variety of purposes (I have used mine to cut grass, cut plants, slice water bottles for fun and split my Halloween pumpkins!!) when used as weapons they are just as effective and deadly as other types of sword...
> 
> All swords have strengths and weaknesses, and the Falchion/machete strength is to deliver heavy, devastating blows that can easily decapitate a person or slice off limbs if used as a weapon- They were used in combat by American troops in the Pacific in WW2.
> 
> The weakness of the Falchion is that they are not good to stab (at least, not with the classic machete-style blade) but believe me: I own a really big machete, I practice with it and I can tell you that they are not a joke and they would be a fearsome weapon in any medieval battle =)



Yes this is true of older machete designs and the few that are still made for heavy use. I think the WW2 machetes were Bolo Machetes and fairly stout, different blade style than a typical falchion tho. There are about 20 different machete blade styles (that I'm aware of). 

Most of the modern machetes you will find are very thin & light camp machetes. But, as machete blade styles aren't really standardized; thickness, weighting, and things of this nature are very hard to describe in definite terms.


----------



## Sheilawisz

The other advantage of machetes is that they can be used to cut down vegetation, even small trees in case that your army needs to advance through a dense forest, a jungle or something like that- They can take this kind of abuse and resist it well, while other swords would not be so effective when used in the same situation.

They are not as romantic as a Longsword or a Katana, but I am quite an admirer of that rough, sheer destructive power of machetes =)

Machetes also have certain psychological impact... maybe because they are crude, brutal weapons and also uglier than other swords??


----------



## MorganSorrell

I'm just now posting, but I read through all fifteen pages first both for learning purposes and to make sure my question hasn't already been asked. Anders and other various people have discussed bronze and iron/steel swords, which was extremely helpful, but I have a few more questions that are time period specific.

My book is roughly set around the fifth and/or sixth centuries when King Arthur might have lived, but since it's fantasy, it can be a bit more flexible. Unfortunately, that's during the Dark Ages, which are aptly named. So far, I haven't been able to find anyone who knows anything (at all) about swords, armor, bows, et cetera in that time period. Romans? Sure. Vikings? Yep! In between? Ummm...?

So right now, my main male character has a double edged bronze Spatha, similar to those carried by the Romans (their empire hasn't quite fallen yet). He also wears little to no armor (leather armor when he does wear it), and he does not carry a shield. 

Because bronze is heavier than iron, would I have to make his sword shorter? (I do plan on having other characters mention that his sword is much heavier than theirs.)

Also, would the “double edged bronze Spatha” even be realistic in the first place? 

From what I've read, the last two parts seem like a fairly typical sword that could have been carried by Romans within that time. But the handle is long enough that he wields it with two hands. I know two handed swords didn't evolve until later, when plate armor began to replace shields and knights therefore had two free hands.

So just how historically inaccurate would the double edged and two handed parts be?

The book is based on the legends of King Arthur, which were written centuries later and thus historically inaccurate themselves. I mainly just don't want to write something horribly inaccurate, and I would like to learn as much as I can about the weapons typical to that time period.

PS: Thank you so much for simply staring this thread! It's wonderful to finally find someone who knows what they're talking about!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm not an expert on Roman weaponry by any means. However, I think that the Spatha was developed sometime in the iron age and incorporated some steel in their design. It may have been similar to how modern bladesmiths imitate Damascus steel which is a pattern welding design that gives a rippled effect on the blade (very attractive looking in my opinion).

They were also near the same length as contemporary swords and ranged from 2 1/2' to 3' in length (approximately). 

If my memory serves then the timeline would be wrong to have a bronze Spatha. If the weapon was developed in the iron age then we're talking about a huge jump in time and technology (iron being the more advanced and a thousand or more years later).

Why bronze?


----------



## MorganSorrell

It has been mentioned in this thread several times that bronze is harder than steel, and steel only replaced bronze because it was easier to work with. I want my character to have a very heavy, hard sword. I also want it to be hard enough to be brittle, specifically because it needs to break later on in the novel.

And while 400-600AD is at the end of the Iron Age for Britain, there was also a short mini debate about how the time periods had a lot of overlap, so I'm not all that concerned about the bronze part unless I get too much negative feedback about that part specifically.

I'm mainly concerned with the fact that it's doubled edged and two handed, both qualities that I would really like to keep. I just want to know if and how inaccurate that is.

Also, if Anders or anyone else in this thread knows ANYTHING about the swords, armor, bows, clothing, anything at all about this time period (400-600AD Britain), I would love to know about it. As I mentioned before, I've had a really tough time finding accurate resources that deal with that time period in particular.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I can't imagine that steel would be less hard then bronze, unless it was badly prepared. Iron however is. There is a reason that steel replaced bronze, but also a reason that it took time. To make steel requires a fairly good carbon recipe. Usually about half a percent. Plus of course modern steel is alloyed with other metals. But steel unlike bronze can only be worked when its hot, thus requiring an entirely new technology, and if the recipe is wrong, you'll get something else. Too little carbon and you'll get wrought iron, which is quite soft. Too much and you'll get a steel which is very hard and can take an edge, but is also brittle. A well made bronze weapon would be superior to both of these.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## MorganSorrell

Oh, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I sort of accidentally said both iron AND steel, didn't I? No, the other, regular swords I'm talking about would be made of iron. I might have one sword (Excalibur, obviously) be made from steel and explain it as a metal obtained from a meteorite. I doubt bladesmiths had the ability to forge steel in my time period other than by accident.

So, quick recap. Bronze sword heavier and harder than regular iron swords. Iron swords are softer and may be dented/bent out of shape from heavy repeated use. A bronze sword would be more brittle and therefore more likely to shatter. If Excalibur was forged from steel, a higher quality metal than both bronze and iron for making swords, other swords might shatter or bend when crossed against it. Thus the legend of all other swords breaking before the might Excalibur. 

If any of the above is wrong, please let me know. I hope that explained exactly what I was meaning to do with the different types of swords.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Not sure if its actually been used or just a fantasy myth, but have you considered meteoric iron. Often its an alloy that you get and can then smelt, nickel iron or something of that nature. Its likely to be somewhere between iron and steel in terms of all those characteristics of hardness durability, brittleness etc, comes with its own mythology (steel of the Gods etc), and doesn't require an advanced knowledge of steel making. Of course first you have to find a meteorite.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## MorganSorrell

Yes, that's exactly how I plan to make my novel's Excalibur! That's a long time coming though, so I'm not too worried about that sword. Just interested about swords and medieval weapons in general, and this thread has been really informative


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Jabrosky said:


> Could a machete function effectively as a sword, especially against other swords?



That depends on what you mean by "as a sword" and "against other swords."

Obviously you can use machetes as weapons, especially against lightly armored opponents. There have even been specific military machetes designed to double as weapons. A regular machete isn't actually designed for fencing, granted, so they don't make good substitute for, say, a cutlass. Then again, some fighting styles make use of weapons that tend to resemble machetes, for example escrima and related martial arts from the Philipines.

I'd say it's at least partly a contextual thing: If the blade in question is made with the intent of being used as a weapon, it's probably a sword.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Not a normal machete, no. Typically, machete blades are very thin. They are designed to be lightweight tools & not necessarily weapons.
> 
> They can slice flesh easily enough but probably wouldn't have much effect on armies. Their narrow blades would likely break under impact from another combat blade.



Actually, modern machetes tend to be very sturdy. In fact, they are often expected to stand up to harsher treatment then most swords, precisely because they are tools. Cutting branches off trees with a sword is generally considered abuse.

Machetes do tend to be thin, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing - most combat swords where very slim on the foible. The differance is that they had distal taper, giving them a sturdy base.

The problem with slim blades isn't actually fragility but rather lack of rigidity, leading to "whippyness" and poor handling. This is less of a problem with a shorter blades like the machete, though, since short blades are naturally more rigid than long ones.



Sheilawisz said:


> Machetes are the modern version of the medieval tool/swords called Falchions



I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. At least, I have never heard of any confirmed relation between the falchion and the machete. More likely, the machete developed out of similar knife-like agricultural tools, billhooks and so on. 

Unlike the machete, the falchion was a dedicated military killing weapon that was probably never used as a tool. Interestingly, tools often evolve into weapons, but rarely vice versa.



Sheilawisz said:


> The other advantage of machetes is that they can be used to cut down vegetation, even small trees in case that your army needs to advance through a dense forest, a jungle or something like that



That's pretty much the intended purpose of machetes, in fact.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

MorganSorrell said:


> I'm just now posting, but I read through all fifteen pages first both for learning purposes and to make sure my question hasn't already been asked. Anders and other various people have discussed bronze and iron/steel swords, which was extremely helpful, but I have a few more questions that are time period specific.
> 
> My book is roughly set around the fifth and/or sixth centuries when King Arthur might have lived, but since it's fantasy, it can be a bit more flexible. Unfortunately, that's during the Dark Ages, which are aptly named. So far, I haven't been able to find anyone who knows anything (at all) about swords, armor, bows, et cetera in that time period. Romans? Sure. Vikings? Yep! In between? Ummm...?



The term "dark ages" isn't really used by serious historians these days. What you are refering to is generally called the Migration Period. (Ca 400 to 800 AD.)

European migration period swords kinda represent a transition phase between Roman era spatha and true viking-style swords, though they a usually never the less considered their own specific type. They are characterized by long, broad cutting blades and H-shaped hilts made out of metal, organic components or a combination of both, some of which where very elaborate:














The blades of the time would have been made out of iron or steel, and the better ones would have been forged with pretty spectacular pattern welding:

http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/136-roman_sword/136-hilt-v.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/149-sword/149_hilt-v.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/137-german_spatha/137-corpus-v.jpg



> So right now, my main male character has a double edged bronze Spatha, similar to those carried by the Romans (their empire hasn't quite fallen yet). He also wears little to no armor (leather armor when he does wear it), and he does not carry a shield.
> 
> Because bronze is heavier than iron, would I have to make his sword shorter? (I do plan on having other characters mention that his sword is much heavier than theirs.)
> 
> Also, would the “double edged bronze Spatha” even be realistic in the first place?



Well, by this time, bronze had pretty much been entirely phased out a long time ago. In fact, it was probably already considered old-fashioned by the time the Romans were just getting the whole Empire thing going, certainly by the time they adopted the spatha from their Gaulish and Germanic auxillaries.

I could see him carry a bronze sword if it's very, _very _old, but nobody would actually make a bronze weapon in that era. This would also make it incorrect to call it a spatha, though I don't see any particular reason it would be shorter - I'm fairly sure I've seen pictures of bronze swords that were at least as long as a typical spatha.



> From what I've read, the last two parts seem like a fairly typical sword that could have been carried by Romans within that time. But the handle is long enough that he wields it with two hands. I know two handed swords didn't evolve until later, when plate armor began to replace shields and knights therefore had two free hands.
> 
> So just how historically inaccurate would the double edged and two handed parts be?



I don't really see why it shouldn't be double edged - spathae were universially double edged swords, as were migration era sword, and most bronze swords. 

The two-handed thing is pretty inaccurate, as is your character not carrying a shield. As you yourself mention, these things are related - at the time, fighting with a sword more or less required a shield. There may have been some kind of self-defense fencing styles that didn't require shield, but that's just me theorizing, and even then it wouldn't be a common thing. As far as we know, warriors of that time simply wouldn't head out on the battlefield without a good shield. 

Frankly, I'd say this part is just as implausible as your character still using a bronze sword, at least if you are aiming for some kind of realistic historical fiction.



MorganSorrell said:


> I want my character to have a very heavy, hard sword. I also want it to be hard enough to be brittle, specifically because it needs to break later on in the novel.



Thing is, saying bronze is harder and more brittle than steel is a bit of a sweeping generalization. It's probably generally true, but both materials are alloys, meaning they can both have different properties depending on their exact composition.

You also have to keep in mind that a bronze sword isn't necessarily heavier than a steel sword simply because all swords are not made to the same dimensions.

If I may make a suggestion: In steel, hardness and brittleness depends on the amount of carbon. Now, suppose the maker of this sword had an uncanny gift for metalurgy and developed a steel that was much harder than what was common at the time. This would result in a sword that could keep a much sharper edge, however it would also make the sword somewhat fragile. The swordsmith realizes that, and to offset this weakness he makes the sword extra sturdy, and thereby heavier.

So you get a sword that is heavier than most, very sharp, and relatively fragile for its mass. 



> I'm mainly concerned with the fact that it's doubled edged and two handed, both qualities that I would really like to keep. I just want to know if and how inaccurate that is.



Double edged is not a problem. Pretty much all swords were double edged back then.

Two-handed? That's pretty much pure fantasy. 



> Also, if Anders or anyone else in this thread knows ANYTHING about the swords, armor, bows, clothing, anything at all about this time period (400-600AD Britain), I would love to know about it. As I mentioned before, I've had a really tough time finding accurate resources that deal with that time period in particular.



It's not a period I know that much about, but I think I can definitely direct you to people who do.


----------



## Ravana

As far as two-handed goes, he _could_ always have a longer handle attached (I don't know if this would cause problems attaching pommel to tang, as I don't know how this was done for these swords: Anders might)—but that wouldn't change the length of the blade any, just give him a bit of extra leverage on the same short weapon. Considering he'd be depriving himself of the considerable advantage of a shield in the process, it _isn't_ a good trade to be making. 

It wasn't even a good trade to be making when steel technology advanced to the point where greatsword-length weapons started appearing semi-regularly… as witness the fact that plate-wearing knights overwhelmingly continued to use shields. Greatswords are infantry weapons, not cavalry ones (any weapon requiring two hands makes a poor horseback weapon); most of their wielders would have worn half-plate at most, and most of the time they'd be using their weapons against other infantrymen who had by then also stopped using shields in favor of pikes and polearms. Note also that true two-handed swords were a very late development; prior to the 1500s, most were hand-and-a-half swords, which could still be used in one hand in conjunction with a shield.

As for breaking: any sword can break. It's merely a question of more or less probable… and if bronze swords broke all that often, they would have fallen out of use long before they did. So you can have it break no matter what the metal is. All that's required is sufficient force.


----------



## KorbentMarksman

I'm not sure if this has been asked, because there are a hell of a lot of pages in this thread and the fact that I'm quite stretched for time. My question is; What kind of swords, if any, were used commonly (for display or otherwise) in the early 1600s?


----------



## MorganSorrell

@Anders

Thank you so much for replying to my post and explaining a bit more of bronze vs steel!

As for the two-handed part, I think I'm going to mark that up to the fantasy part of my novel. As much as I would like to keep EVERYTHING in my book historically accurate, sometimes that's just not feasible and/or I simply don't want to do so. I try not to just go about blatantly ignoring historical facts though, so thank you for confirming that it wouldn't be accurate. So far as I know, that should be my only major inaccuracy, and it does work very well with the story I want to have.

I would like to keep just about everything else (minus the parts with actual magic in them) accurate, so I would love it if you could give me a few referrals!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ravana said:


> As far as two-handed goes, he _could_ always have a longer handle attached (I don't know if this would cause problems attaching pommel to tang, as I don't know how this was done for these swords: Anders might)—but that wouldn't change the length of the blade any, just give him a bit of extra leverage on the same short weapon.



Well, the main issue is that this type of swords were made with short, narrow grips deliberatelly due to the way they are supposed to be gripped and swung. Also, making the hilt longer to allow two-handed use also means you have to make the pommel lighter, because a sword is essentially a lever and making it longer will change how it is balanced. 



KorbentMarksman said:


> I'm not sure if this has been asked, because there are a hell of a lot of pages in this thread and the fact that I'm quite stretched for time. My question is; What kind of swords, if any, were used commonly (for display or otherwise) in the early 1600s?



Depends a bit on the context. The rapier would have become the fashionable civilian sword around that time, spreading from Spain to Italy and then north via France to England, replacing the heavier baskethilted swords. (Despite the best efforts of George Silver.) In the militaries, you'd still see more versatile complex-hilted cut-and-thrust swords of different types. The longsword and bastard sword may not have quite fallen out of use either, though they were probably considered old-fashioned.


----------



## KorbentMarksman

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, the main issue is that this type of swords were made with short, narrow grips deliberatelly due to the way they are supposed to be gripped and swung. Also, making the hilt longer to allow two-handed use also means you have to make the pommel lighter, because a sword is essentially a lever and making it longer will change how it is balanced.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends a bit on the context. The rapier would have become the fashionable civilian sword around that time, spreading from Spain to Italy and then north via France to England, replacing the heavier baskethilted swords. (Despite the best efforts of George Silver.) In the militaries, you'd still see more versatile complex-hilted cut-and-thrust swords of different types. The longsword and bastard sword may not have quite fallen out of use either, though they were probably considered old-fashioned.



Thanks for that - I wasn't actually sure if the standard image of a rich 1600s Italian civillian with a rapier around his waist was truth or just a tale.


----------



## Kit

re: Machetes/kukhri- I just got this one a few months ago:

Ka-Bar Black Kukri Machete: Amazon.com: Sports & Outdoors

I am enchanted with it. The balance is sublime. I would *totally* take this up against a sword-weilding opponent.  This is the perfect Zombie Apocolypse weapon.


I did away almost completely with swords in my WIP, and everybody's gonna be armed with THESE puppies.


----------



## Galbatroth

I saw that you said world war 1 was the last war swords were used for combat in.. that is not technically true, because there was a man by the name of: "Mad Jack Church Hill Jackson" (is what his team called him) he rushed into battle with a scottish sword, long bow, and bagpipe, during world war 2!  and only had one defeat his entire military career.  You can find a bunch of biographies about him on google.

also what kind of sword is best for fighting a man with a broad shield?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Galbatroth said:


> I saw that you said world war 1 was the last war swords were used for combat in.. that is not technically true, because there was a man by the name of: "Mad Jack Church Hill Jackson" (is what his team called him) he rushed into battle with a scottish sword, long bow, and bagpipe, during world war 2!  and only had one defeat his entire military career.  You can find a bunch of biographies about him on google.



Right, I correct myself, then: WW1 was the last major conflict where swords were _officially issued _to troops as part of their standard equipment. (That I know of.)



> also what kind of sword is best for fighting a man with a broad shield?



Hard to say. I mean, it's a bit of a vague scenario, and it's always a tricky thing to nail down what is the "best" anything when it comes to swords because they are so contextual. The usual cop-out would be to say: "Whichever sword you happen to be the most skilled at using."

But I don't like cop-outs, so I'll try to answer anyway. In general, the concensus tends to be that a skilled fighter with a shield will usually have the advantage over a swordsman without a shield. If you have a shield as well, and there's no additional armor involved, I suppose any decent single-handed sword would do the job, though your probably want one that was meant to be used along with a large shield. A viking-style sword, for example.

_Theoretically, _swords that are curved in certain ways would allow you to strike around shields. The Ethiopean shotel was developed from this concept, I believe, having a distinct siccle-shaped blade. That approach tends to be very rare, though.


----------



## Astner

Were pattern welded steel swords more durable than regular steel swords?

What kind of steel were rapiers designed by, and were they as resilient as regular swords? Why rapiers preferred over the regular design?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Astner said:


> Were pattern welded steel swords more durable than regular steel swords?



Well, kinda sorta, but not really. 

Back in the iron age when people still hadn't quite gotten the hang of this whole "steel" thing, pattern welding was a way to achieve a blade with a homogenous carbon content. Such blades were better than the plain steel swords that could be produced _at that time_, because the metal they had access to tended to be of uneven quality.

Once people learned to produce good quality steel, pattern welding ended up being basically bling - a luxury that wasn't really necessary. A well-made pattern welded blade is about as good as a plain steel blade with decently uniform carbon content. These days it's mostly an artistic thing - pattern welded blades require more time and work, making them more expensive, and people find the patterns to be pretty. 

On the other hand, if the bladesmith doesn't quite know what he's doing, a pattern welded blade can actually turn out _worse _than a monosteel blade due to carbon being lost in the process. Also, some of the more lazy or unscrupuclous smiths may not be too picky about what metals they put into the weld, while they better ones will pick their steels more carefully.



> What kind of steel were rapiers designed by, and were they as resilient as regular swords?



As far as I know, rapiers would have been made out of whatever weapons grade steel was available at the time - by then people had pretty much gotten the hang of steel. That said, I'm sure the quality varied a bit.

A good rapier would have been at least as durable as any other quality sword, though. They were tempered to be flexible, and the idea of heavier swords snapping them in half is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, they were not very bendy or whippy - rapiers were made to be rather stiff in order to penetrate for example thick clothing.



> Why rapiers preferred over the regular design?



The rapier was a civilian sword, more or less exclusively carried by the better-off city people for self-defense and dueling. As I understand, it evolved into a dedicated thrusting sword because Renaissance cities were built with very narrow allyways. If you were assaulted in such an ally you wanted to keep your attackers away from you but you wouldn't have room to swing a long weapon. Thus, the best methods of defense was a very linear fighting style using a long sword designed for thrusting.


----------



## Ankari

Hello Anders, 

How does someone take care of their sword?  What do they use to protect it from rusting?  How often do they clean it?  I see references to using mineral oil.  Does the oil stay on the blade?  Why or why not?  And did they have mineral oil back in the day?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Most use a coating of oil to keep the blade from rusting. Mineral oil is popular, but apparently any kind of light oil will work just fine. Some people coat the blade in renaissance wax for longer storage, some use modern gun oils or silicon sprays.  When I oil my sword, I use a Loctite anti-corrosion spray. Basically anything that keeps the steel free from moisture and oxygen will do the job. I'm not entirely sure what people used in the old days, might do some research on that, but I'm guessing it varied depending on time and region. 

When maintaining the sword you'll want to clean the oil off, wash the blade with for example alcohol and make sure it is dry, and then apply a fresh coat of oil. If required, you can polish and/or hone the blade after removing the original oil coat. As for how often you should maintain the sword, a typical example would be to clean and reoil it after each use if possible, or once ever two months if it doesn't see use.

This varies depending on climate, though - if you live in a rather dry enviroment you will need to maintain your sword less than someone who lives in a very humid enviroment. Also, I've heard that one should not store swords in their scabbards, though this is apparently mostly an issue with leather scabbards with no wooden core, as the leather can trap moisture that causes the blade to rust. And while all types of steel will rust eventually, some steels are less prone to rust than others, meaning some swords will be more resiliant.

Finally, on a personal note; I'm not convinced all this is really entirely necessary to keep the blade in decent condition - it's probably more like a precaution. I'm usually too lazy to bother messing around with oils, so for the most part I leave my sword as it is, check it for signs of corrosion once in a while and polish it up with a polishing agent and some fine steel wool on a regular basis. So far I haven't had any major rust issues.

Speaking of rust, if you do find rust on your blade, take note of the color. Dark rust spots are unsightly but not dangerous to the sword. Brighter red spots is "active" rust, and needs to be polished off or it will eat into the metal over time.


----------



## Ankari

> I'm not entirely sure what people used in the old days, might do some research on that, but I'm guessing it varied depending on time and region.



That is my problem.  I see reference to mineral oil all the time.  Some just refer to mineral oil as sword oil (I guess there are some added ingredients that make it slightly different).  

Anders, you are an asset.  Thanks for your help.  If you find out what they used back in the olden days, please update.

Thanks!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ankari said:


> That is my problem.  I see reference to mineral oil all the time.  Some just refer to mineral oil as sword oil (I guess there are some added ingredients that make it slightly different).
> 
> Anders, you are an asset.  Thanks for your help.  If you find out what they used back in the olden days, please update.
> 
> Thanks!



Are you interested in any particular time or culture? That might make it easier to find out.


----------



## Ankari

good point.  I would have to say that my setting currently resembles western culture, around the 1100's.  It does have a few subtle hints of eastern culture.


----------



## CupofJoe

I have read that at Vindolanda [on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England] that under a [supposed] barracks they found squares of sheep fleece that had been preserved. These were about a foot across and didn't seem to be from clothing [no sewing holes I guess]. What they came up with was that sheep fleece might have been used to clean the swords or javelins or armour, the lanolin acting as a protective oil/wax. In the cold and wet this was probably okay but I can't help but think that it would really smell in hot dry places...


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ankari said:


> good point.  I would have to say that my setting currently resembles western culture, around the 1100's.  It does have a few subtle hints of eastern culture.



Will see what I can find out.



CupofJoe said:


> I have read that at Vindolanda [on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England] that under a [supposed] barracks they found squares of sheep fleece that had been preserved. These were about a foot across and didn't seem to be from clothing [no sewing holes I guess]. What they came up with was that sheep fleece might have been used to clean the swords or javelins or armour, the lanolin acting as a protective oil/wax. In the cold and wet this was probably okay but I can't help but think that it would really smell in hot dry places...



Afraid I don't know much about lanolin. Though, like I said, steel would corrode slower in dry climates.


----------



## Kit

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Finally, on a personal note; I'm not convinced all this is really entirely necessary to keep the blade in decent condition - it's probably more like a precaution. I'm usually too lazy to bother messing around with oils, so for the most part I leave my sword as it is, check it for signs of corrosion once in a while and polish it up with a polishing agent and some fine steel wool on a regular basis. So far I haven't had any major rust issues.



At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.


----------



## wordwalker

Here's a sword question:

I once saw a demonstration that a swing with a basic broadsword can't cut through chainmail. I have doubts about that test, so I'm wondering, how true is it?

Can you give us a sense of how likely the different conditions around that are to happen? For instance, I'm sure cheaper mail or mail that had been hit a few times before would be more likely to break, but how elite would a soldier or his army likely have to be to have "non-cheap" mail that's __ likely to take the hit? 

(Of course, even if the mail holds you've still belted someone's ribs with a perfectly good crowbar...)


----------



## wordwalker

(Oh, and sorry for the term "basic broadsword." But you see what I mean, I'm trying to build a couple of rules of thumb about the more likely swords and armor and when we might find them.)


----------



## SeverinR

Kit said:


> At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.



I think it would be much like a modern soldier cleaning his weapon frequently. Protecting the item that might protect your life.

In that instant of need, it might come down to the perfect edge, or the reliablility of the firearm to save your life.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kit said:


> At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.



At the risk of being an eyeroller, I think that bonding with a weapon includes a certain degree of trust and understanding - I trust my sword not to degrade into a pile of rust just because I don't feel like obsessively smearing oil all over it. 

I know exactly how much maintance this sword actually demands, so I know neither to ask too much nor dote on it unnecessarily. That's what it means to bond with your weapon, I think.



wordwalker said:


> Here's a sword question:
> 
> I once saw a demonstration that a swing with a basic broadsword can't cut through chainmail. I have doubts about that test, so I'm wondering, how true is it?
> 
> Can you give us a sense of how likely the different conditions around that are to happen? For instance, I'm sure cheaper mail or mail that had been hit a few times before would be more likely to break, but how elite would a soldier or his army likely have to be to have "non-cheap" mail that's __ likely to take the hit?



I had to look this up because armor isn't really my thing. From what I can tell, tests show that mail will resist powerful cuts with only minor damage, but can be pierced by thrusts from stiff swords with acute points. Also, one should bear in mind that most tests like these are done on rigid, stationary targets, not a soft human body who is actively trying to avoid injuries, so if anything they are biased against mail. In short, evidence indicate that a warrior wearing mail would have had little to fear from cutting attacks.

Throughout the medieval era, there was a trend of swords design becoming less geared towards cutting and more geared towards thrusting. You often hear that the purpose of this was to produce swords capable of combating plate armor. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've made that claim earlier in this thread.) But a different theory is that thrusting swords developed to combat mail, and then plate developed in response to that. Which actually makes a whole lot of sense when now that I think about it.

As for "cheap" mail, I'm not sure there even was such a thing. Even low-quality mail would have been kinda pricy, not something you would outfit a whole army with. The most likely reason that cutting swords dominated the early medieval period was probably that mail just wasn't that common - it was something reserved for the richer warriors, while common soldiers would wear lighter armors like gambesons. (For that matter, a mail armor would often have been worn over some kind of padding.)

I should add that non of this is conclusive facts: People are still debating exactly how effective mail really was against swords, and since we don't have a lot of reliable accounts from that time, the real answer is that we don't quite know for sure. However, the general conclusion seems to be: A sword _might_ be able to cut through mail, but even so it was probably something that happened exceedingly rarely.



> (Of course, even if the mail holds you've still belted someone's ribs with a perfectly good crowbar...)



Honestly, I suspect a crowbar makes for a better bludgeoning tool than most swords.

But yes, most seem to agree that even with mail armor, you were still vulnerable to blunt trauma. At least far more so than someone wearing plate.


----------



## wordwalker

Thanks.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> As for "cheap" mail, I'm not sure there even was such a thing. Even low-quality mail would have been kinda pricy, not something you would outfit a whole army with. The most likely reason that cutting swords dominated the early medieval period was probably that mail just wasn't that common - it was something reserved for the richer warriors, while common soldiers would wear lighter armors like gambesons.



I thought "cheap mail" was a bad phrasing,  . So, it's the richer warriors only that have mail-level protection, but against them you're mostly trying to thrust or to reach the unarmored parts. Got it.


----------



## Shadow Fox

I have a question that I'm surprised hasn't come up as of yet, but i shall pose it none the less. I am personally of scottish heritage and so since I was a young lad, I had been exposed to the Iconic scottish claymore. What I'm wondering is that is their any notable progressive difference of the commonly called "great swords" such as the claymore, zweihander and so on. To clarify, I am not asking for a comparison between large swords to other types of swords. I'm asking if their is any appreciable design difference that would play out in combat between, for example, a claymore and a zweihander. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons in comparison to each other? Is there even a difference or is it merely cultural aesthetic?


----------



## Gurkhal

I've got a few questions that I wouldn't mind getting answered. 

Was there any major metallurgical advances in regards to making the swords swords used during Antiquity and the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages)?

What was the most advanced sword possible to make with bronze? Would it have been physically possible to make a longsword using bronze?

What would you say about the saex (spelling?) sword, pros and cons?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Shadow Fox said:


> I have a question that I'm surprised hasn't come up as of yet, but i shall pose it none the less. I am personally of scottish heritage and so since I was a young lad, I had been exposed to the Iconic scottish claymore. What I'm wondering is that is their any notable progressive difference of the commonly called "great swords" such as the claymore, zweihander and so on. To clarify, I am not asking for a comparison between large swords to other types of swords. I'm asking if their is any appreciable design difference that would play out in combat between, for example, a claymore and a zweihander. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons in comparison to each other? Is there even a difference or is it merely cultural aesthetic?



There were some differances. Despite the claymore's reputation as a big sword, apparently the Scottish prefered their twohanders somewhat smaller than the continental variety. They were certainly a lot smaller than the true zweihanders. On the other hand, they tended to have very long hilts in proportion to the rest of the sword.

Based on this I'm guessing that while Scottish swordsmanship probably wasn't _that _exclusive, it would still have had its distinct characteristics.

The blades probably weren't much different, though, since the most common practice of the time was to import blades from major bladesmithing centres like for example Solingen, Germany. Most claymores would thus have been pretty standard greatswords/longswords that were shipped in batches and then hilted in the local flavor, either with the iconic sloping hilt with quatrefoils and langets, or the lesser known clamshell variety.



Gurkhal said:


> I've got a few questions that I wouldn't mind getting answered.
> 
> Was there any major metallurgical advances in regards to making the swords swords used during Antiquity and the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages)?



Bit of a broad question. I can't say if there were any known notable advances in bronze technology. (Though I'm guessing there probably was.) I've just never been very interested in bronze age weapons, honestly. Sheilawisz might be able to help out here. 

(I _have _heard that the ancient Egyptians were supposed to possess some kind of super-alloy that was better than regular bronze. Might just be a myth, though, or perhaps they simply had the best quality bronze of their time.)

Obviously, the major paradigm shift was the introduction of iron. The first to use iron weapons were the Hittites, and historians used to attribute the rise of their empire to a kind of iron monopoly. Though, there is now also a theory that the bronze age collapsed due to shortage of tin, which made bronze expensive and difficult to manufacture. This gave iron technology a chance to advance and iron tools ended up cheaper, stronger, lighter and easier to make even when tin became available again. 

As for the later Iron Age ("Dark Ages" isn't really a PC term among historians nowadays) you would indeed have seen a lot of metalurgical development, with people finding new ways to improve their steel - case hardening, pattern welding, lamination techniques as so on. This pretty much continued until steel production became advanced enough that reliable  monosteel blades could be produced in large quantities, and even then the steel just kept getting better. Even today, there are still interesting things happening in the field.



> What was the most advanced sword possible to make with bronze?



"Advanced" is a tricky word to use about something as contextual as swords. It almost always comes down to how exactly you were planning to use it.

Though, just as an example of what you can achieve with bronze if you really know what you are doing, there's the sword of King Goujian, which rested in a water-soaked underground tomb for two millennia and was still in basically perfect condition when they dug it up. As in, the damn thing was still sharp.



> Would it have been physically possible to make a longsword using bronze?



Well, there's no reason it would be _impossible _- the only real question is how appropriate it is. Bronze is heavier and more brittle than steel and needs to be cast rather than forged. I'd say it can definitely be done but you would still just end up with an inferior longsword for way more effort.



> What would you say about the saex (spelling?) sword, pros and cons?



The seax (also sax, sÃ¦x or scramasax) was generally more of a knife than a sword, though it certainly came in a lot of different dimensions - some being large enough to resemble small swords.  

As far as I can understand, they were basically a very common sidearm, functioning both as a tool and a secondary weapon. The modern equivalent, I think, would probably be the fascine knife or the machete. 

I've seen a reproduction with a hilt long enough for two hands, but I am to understand such seaxes were not actually used two-handed but rather gripped at the end of the hilt and swung somewhat like a hammer.

Anyway, there may have been specialized fighting styles for these weapons, but since there are no surviving records from that time we are basically left with guesswork. 

Also, one theory proposes that the Norweigan single-edged viking sword developed directly from the seax, though I'm pretty sure there's no hard evidence and even if it's true, I'd still consider them distinctly different weapons.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Gurkhal: Bronze and bronze age weapons are a world totally different to steel, but it's very fascinating on its own right.

For great and accurate information about real Bronze Age techniques and weapons, I always recommend a visit to Neil Burridge's site which you can find here.

Modern Bronzesmith Neil describes the process of creation of bronze swords following the same methods that were used back then, it was truly an art and, because of the many factors involved, bronze weapons would vary a lot in quality and properties between different regions and different Bronzesmiths.

Despite the popular belief that Bronze swords were soft, weak and not _real swords_, bronze age swords were lethal and devastating weapons even though they were very short when compared with later steel swords. They are shorter because Bronze tends to bend after very strong blows against a target, but still, I have heard about very long swords made in bronze age China.

Ewart Park type bronze swords were between 50 and 70cm long, but longer blades were used to fight on horseback =)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

If I have a favourite bronze sword, it's probably this one:






I have no idea what the dimensions are, but it does look fairly long.


----------



## Gurkhal

Thanks for all the good replies.  

In regards to the question of development of metallurgy I was more thinking about the time of around 100 BC to 900-1000 AD in Europe. But I should have been more precise so that's one on me.

In regards to Dark Ages I know about it but I very much like the term, even while I am also well aware of the inaccuracy of its use.


----------



## Shadow Fox

Another question I would like to ask pertains to fighting styles regarding swords, and more specifically those with techniques involving a part of the sword other than the blade, and the use of a sword in ways other than with the intent of cutting. For example, by the first I mean attacking using the pommel, handle, or crossbar, and by the latter I mean using the weapon to grab or pin a person, breaking or dislocating limbs in a way other than slashing at them.

My question is more specifically, are certain crossbar, pommel and handle designs made to better enable for this kind of combat? for example, the sloping crossbar of a claymore can be used to catch a blade and twisting to pin it, but it can also conceivably be used to catch the arm and twist it around in order to bear him to the ground.

I'm not asking if using these techniques is practical or not, I am simply wondering if certain weapons allow for better utilization of such techniques than others.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Shadow Fox said:


> Another question I would like to ask pertains to fighting styles regarding swords, and more specifically those with techniques involving a part of the sword other than the blade, and the use of a sword in ways other than with the intent of cutting. For example, by the first I mean attacking using the pommel, handle, or crossbar,



Such techniques do exist - German longsword has a few, for example.

Though, in general I would think these techniques are not really the best way to use the weapon - rather they would normally be desperation moves for when you have kinda messed up. 

All swords have an optimal lethal range, and controlling the range between you and your opponent is part of the art of swordfighting. When fighting with a long sword, you will want to keep your opponent at a range where you can attack with the point or forte of your blade, and if he's close enough for you to strike him with the hilt, it pretty much means you have allowed him to come way too close to you. On the other hand, if you are fighting with a short sword that would potentially take you within striking range, you would still rather want to stab or slice him for more damage. 

So, if you find that you have to pummel your opponent with the hilt, you have probably failed your main objective.



> and by the latter I mean using the weapon to grab or pin a person, breaking or dislocating limbs in a way other than slashing at them.



While most serious fighting systems will have some form of grappling or another, I've honestly never heard of any techniques like that in swordfighting. I wouldn't write it off as impossible, but it sounds kinda complicated. And, well, as a general rule you don't want to trust you life to something overly complicated. (_Difficult, _sure, but not complicated.)

Most grappling techniques in swordfighting tend to aim for unbalancing and/or disarming your opponent so you have an easier time stabbing or cutting him - which, again, should be your priority. If you are actually capable of deliberately placing your blade on a specific part of your opponent's body, why not just cut him?



> My question is more specifically, are certain crossbar, pommel and handle designs made to better enable for this kind of combat? for example, the sloping crossbar of a claymore can be used to catch a blade and twisting to pin it, but it can also conceivably be used to catch the arm and twist it around in order to bear him to the ground.
> 
> I'm not asking if using these techniques is practical or not, I am simply wondering if certain weapons allow for better utilization of such techniques than others.



Well, sure, I guess? It's kind of an odd question, though. _Of course_ some types of sword hilt make for better improvised hammers than others, etc. But it's not like you would deliberatelly design a weapon for anything other than the most practical way of using it. Alternative attacks were something people came up with after the fact.


----------



## Nihilium 7th

Nice to see that there are others with Aspergers on this forum, my interests are in religion, faiths and mythology.

My two favorite types of swords are the rapier and the Scimitar. I was wondering what are the most deadly (in terms of speed and accuracy) configurations of these two swords. Also I was wondering if you could give me some information on the Mameluke Sword. Thanks.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Nihilium 7th said:


> Nice to see that there are others with Aspergers on this forum, my interests are in religion, faiths and mythology.
> 
> My two favorite types of swords are the rapier and the Scimitar. I was wondering what are the most deadly (in terms of speed and accuracy) configurations of these two swords.



I'm not sure what you mean by "configuration," perhaps you can elaborate a bit? Most swords were designed to be deadly, and all swords require speed and accuracy. They generally weren't made to be slower or heavier than they needed to be. (And while it's true some rapiers are heavier than others, that doesn't necessarily relate to their "deadlyness.")

I should also point out that "scimitar" is an umbrella term - it basically refers to any type of middle eastern sword, so it's pretty imprecise.



> Also I was wondering if you could give me some information on the Mameluke Sword. Thanks.



The mameluke sword was, originally, simply the type of scimitar used by the Mamlukes in 18th century Egypt - essentially Arabic saifs, I think. After Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt and Syria, his army brought these swords back as war trophies and cavalry officers started using them in the field. The invasion had sparked a wave of orientalism and since these swords were considered beautiful and exotic, they became high fashion in the European militaries. Soon the French and British were making their own swords in the same style. 

Today the term "mameluke sword" refers to these derivative western swords. They are not exact copies - the hilt construction is usually different and the style of blade vary a lot depending on the model. The mameluke sword is not to be confused with its similar-looking Polish cousin, the karabela.

(Coincidentally, I recent bought a reproduction mameluke saber. It's pretty nice, though like most Napoleonic era repros, it has its issues.)


----------



## Nihilium 7th

Thanks for the info. What I meant by "configuration" was the types of alloys used, the design/shape of the sword, weight and method of crafting. As for the Scimitars I would like to know the which type would have been used for assassinations/stealth.
And for the Rapiers I would like to know which variation(s) had the most piercing and slashing capabilities but where light enough so that strength wasn't a requirement to use them. I hope this post helps clarify things.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Nihilium 7th said:


> Thanks for the info. What I meant by "configuration" was the types of alloys used, the design/shape of the sword, weight and method of crafting.



Still sort of a strange question. It's kinda like asking "which assault rifle makes people the most dead?" Swords are weapons; almost all of them were constructed to be as deadly as possible. Nobody ever made a weapon _less _deadly than it could be.

I mean, you can't even make very accurate comparissons between sword types because it always comes down to the exact context in the end. Like, deadliest in what way? Against whom? In what time and place?



> As for the Scimitars I would like to know the which type would have been used for assassinations/stealth.



Honestly? I'm guessing anything from "non of them" to "any". Swords are, as a general rule, not very good assassination tools, and they are not particularly stealthy. Daggers do the same job but are easier to hide - in fact I believe the dagger was the original hashshashin's primary weapon of choice.

On the other hand, if your assassination attempt was simply a matter of ambushing someone in the street with a sword, you could probably make do with whatever everyone else would carry. You _definitely_ wouldn't want a sword specifically designed for assassins. That's sort of a dead giveaway. (No pun intended.)



> And for the Rapiers I would like to know which variation(s) had the most piercing and slashing capabilities but where light enough so that strength wasn't a requirement to use them. I hope this post helps clarify things.



Well, all rapiers were dedicated thrusters, though a few could cut as well. That said, a bit of strenght would have been required either way. Contrary to popular belief, rapiers are fairly heavy swords due to the often large complex guard. In fact, a considerable difficulty among historical fencers tends to be finding a training weapon that isn't too light, since that can warp your technique and create bad habits. Additionally, the blade of a thrusting sword needs to be pretty stiff. The more cutting oriented blades would have been heavier than the pure thrusters, of course, but not by very much - they wouldn't have been used if they were too heavy to be effective.

That said, the lightest ones would have been the later transitional rapiers that represent the phasing out in favor of the smallsword. As far as I know, these were exclusively thrusting swords.

It comes down to specialization vs versatility. You can have a sword that is great at cutting but poor or decent at thrusting, or vice versa, or you can have a sword that does both jobs well but excels at neither. Which one is preferable once again depends on context.


----------



## Nihilium 7th

Thanks, this actually helped a lot. I'm creating a two types of nobility, one is roughly based on the Hashshashin (they are the secret killers of the royal family.) the other is based roughly on the Crusaders (they are basically the fighting force/police of the religion of their kingdom.). So I guess I'm going to make the assassins use daggers.


----------



## Dan Latham

Anders,

Would you happen to know, or have a source to research, what protective equipment was used in fencing salons of the Renaissance?  Did they wear masks or helmets?  Did they put blunt tips on their blades?  Did they wear padded jackets like fencers do today?

How did beginners keep from poking each others' eyes out?

Thanks


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Nihilium 7th said:


> Thanks, this actually helped a lot. I'm creating a two types of nobility, one is roughly based on the Hashshashin (they are the secret killers of the royal family.) the other is based roughly on the Crusaders (they are basically the fighting force/police of the religion of their kingdom.). So I guess I'm going to make the assassins use daggers.



Friendly advice: Don't overspecialize them. Even though the hashshashin had a preference for assassinations, they were still a military order who controlled a large area. So they probably had a healthy respect for conventional battle tactics and weapons as well. Likewise, there were probably crusaders who knew the value of stealth, guile and intimidation. 

There are times for daggers and there are times for swords, pretty much. Those who want to survive must be prepared for both.



Dan Latham said:


> Anders,
> 
> Would you happen to know, or have a source to research, what protective equipment was used in fencing salons of the Renaissance?  Did they wear masks or helmets?  Did they put blunt tips on their blades?  Did they wear padded jackets like fencers do today?
> 
> How did beginners keep from poking each others' eyes out?



I'll have to ask around for specific info, but I will say that I have never seen any examples of dedicated Renaissance fencing masks, and I'm pretty sure non of the fencing manuals depict them either. (The earliest ones are from the 19th century, I believe.)

They did have training rapiers with flat points, however, though they were probably much closer to real rapiers that the modern epee. It's likely they wore thick clothes to avoid painful thrusts. I assume they simply tried to be careful not to poke each other in the eyes.

Will let you know if I dig up more specifics.


----------



## Cosmolien

I don't know if you will read this. But do you think a metal pole with two blade like ends would be plausible to fight with. Please could you try and get back to me with your thoughts


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Cosmolien said:


> I don't know if you will read this. But do you think a metal pole with two blade like ends would be plausible to fight with. Please could you try and get back to me with your thoughts



You don't want a blades at either end, really. Spears and polearms are all about reach - you have a long pole with you holding on to one end and your opponent getting stabbed in the other end. Assuming we're talking about some kind of slashing polearm, like a glaive, two blades on either side might seem like a good idea intuitively, giving you a more versatile range of attack, but that's not how it works. It really just forces you to sacrifice range, both in terms of weapon reach and in terms of geometry - it limits the angle you can attack from.

Also, if you have to hold this weapon in the middle of the shaft, with two equal weights in either end, you risk turning the whole thing into a see-saw. While this would make the weapon easy to spin around, the leverage would also work against you. You'd have to put more energy into your attacks for the same amount of impact and be twice as strong in order to parry an attack successfully, since you always have a counterweight. 

This weakness mostly applies to slashing and cutting attacks, but the design you propose isn't really optimal for piercing attacks. (Again, if that's what you want a regular spear would still be the best way to go.)

So, yeah. There's a reason there have been no historical double-headed spears. Some spears did have pointy butt caps on the other end that one might have used offensively as a last resort, but the whole point about polearms (no pun intended) is to keep your enemy away from you.

On the other hand, the weapon being made out of metal isn't that unfeasable. The important thing is that it is light enough not to become encumbering but also strong enough not to break or take a set. I imagine it kinda like a very long boar sword except with no sword hilt. This would require fairly good metalurgy and it would be a lot more expensive than a regular spear or glaive, but it can definitely be done.


----------



## wordwalker

I think the image is less two thrusting spears than a bladed quarterstaff, or Klingon batleth. 

But I see the problem: you might be able to get a stafflike double-rain of blows, but they'd be at limited reach and working partly against leverage.


----------



## Cosmolien

Thank you very much for your help.

Cosmolien


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

wordwalker said:


> I think the image is less two thrusting spears than a bladed quarterstaff, or Klingon batleth.
> 
> But I see the problem: you might be able to get a stafflike double-rain of blows, but they'd be at limited reach and working partly against leverage.



Really, even staff-fighters tend to favour one end of the staff:






Like I said, pretty much all pole weapons are used that way. The reason is, if you hold your staff in the middle and your opponent holds his staff at the end, he'll have twice as much range as you. In fact, even a guy with a sword or truncheon half the lenght of your staff will still have better range since he can reach his arm out and not be blocked by his own body. 

The reason you see people do the canoe paddling thing in movies is because A) the staff is easier to swing that way and B) it looks flashier.

Incidentally, this is why the Star Wars double bladed lightsaber is a _terrible _idea in real life, no matter how cool it look.


----------



## craenor

Sheilawisz pointed me in this direction after seeing the sword in my Avatar photo. I've only just scratched the surface of this lengthy thread, but I can tell I've already missed out on a few great conversations. Ah, if only I'd found my way here earlier, I would have loved to expound upon why an Iridium sword is a noble yet horrible idea. 

At any rate, you can bet that I'll keep an eye on this thread going forward.


----------



## Jabrosky

I have a short story in the works (700 words into it now) which features two women fighting in an arena for the king's hand in marriage. One of the women, the story's antagonist, has a big stone sledgehammer she wields with both hands while the other woman (the protagonist) has twin scimitars. Is it practical to fight with two slashing swords at once?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Jabrosky said:


> I have a short story in the works (700 words into it now) which features two women fighting in an arena for the king's hand in marriage.



If I was the king, I think I would want to avoid my future wife risking any disfiguring injuries. But whatever.



> One of the women, the story's antagonist, has a big stone sledgehammer she wields with both hands while the other woman (the protagonist) has twin scimitars. Is it practical to fight with two slashing swords at once?



There's some debate on how viable a dual sword style actually is, but suffice to say it's not completely unrealistic. Escrima uses two short swords, and Miyamoto Musashi advocaded using the wakishashi in tandem with the katana. In kendo tournaments, it's apparently perfectly legal to fight with two swords, one long and one short. (But very few people actually do it.)

Thing is, with the exception of escrima, dual wielding swords is generally considered too tricky to be worth the effort. And especially on a battlefield, a shield is just immensely more practical than an extra sword. Fighting with two weapons does make more sense as a dueling or self-defense style, though. The most common approach is to have a primary sword and a secondary offhand weapon, for example a dagger.

Dual wielding longer swords of equal lenghts is almost unheard of, however. I think they _may_ be some Chinese styles that do that, but I've never heard of any that I would consider reliable. Anyway, the main point of this would be the ability to switch your focus between you left and right hand, or to set up guards with one sword while attacking with the other. I've experimented a bit with this myself, and the theory is not unsound. The problem is that you pretty much have to be ambidexterous to begin with and even then you have to train to fight with both hands, potentionally demanding twice as much work as someone training with just one sword. Plus, carrying around two swords at once would seem excessive in most cultures.

So, it can be done. It's more a question of wether or not it's worth the effort. Since your example is a type of duel, I'd say you can probably get away with it. Plus there's the Rule of Cool to consider. Though, I think I would at least make a point that this character is equally dexterious with either hand.


----------



## Jabrosky

Anders Ã„mting said:


> If I was the king, I think I would want to avoid my future wife risking any disfiguring injuries. But whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> There's some debate on how viable a dual sword style actually is, but suffice to say it's not completely unrealistic. Escrima uses two short swords, and Miyamoto Musashi advocaded using the wakishashi in tandem with the katana. In kendo tournaments, it's apparently perfectly legal to fight with two swords, one long and one short. (But very few people actually do it.)
> 
> Thing is, with the exception of escrima, dual wielding swords is generally considered too tricky to be worth the effort. And especially on a battlefield, a shield is just immensely more practical than an extra sword. Fighting with two weapons does make more sense as a dueling or self-defense style, though. The most common approach is to have a primary sword and a secondary offhand weapon, for example a dagger.
> 
> Dual wielding longer swords of equal lenghts is almost unheard of, however. I think they _may_ be some Chinese styles that do that, but I've never heard of any that I would consider reliable. Anyway, the main point of this would be the ability to switch your focus between you left and right hand, or to set up guards with one sword while attacking with the other. I've experimented a bit with this myself, and the theory is not unsound. The problem is that you pretty much have to be ambidexterous to begin with and even then you have to train to fight with both hands, potentionally demanding twice as much work as someone training with just one sword. Plus, carrying around two swords at once would seem excessive in most cultures.
> 
> So, it can be done. It's more a question of wether or not it's worth the effort. Since your example is a type of duel, I'd say you can probably get away with it. Plus there's the Rule of Cool to consider. Though, I think I would at least make a point that this character is equally dexterious with either hand.


I ended up changing the protag's weapon to a spear, which I think fits her culture better anyway. Thanks for the information though!


----------



## wordwalker

Jabrosky said:


> I ended up changing the protag's weapon to a spear, which I think fits her culture better anyway.



I'd just been starting to think: wouldn't a spear or polearm be one of the better melee choices for a really skilled woman, or any lightweight hero? Their classic problem is being just muscled down, but a well-used spear can fend someone off, and doesn't need as much strength to hit hard because it focuses its power on one thrust.

(Weapon&shield would have a nicer margin for error, but involve beating the bigger guy at maybe his own game, while Anders makes dual-wielding sound like a gamble already. And Big Hammers sound like they'd go only to the woman who's used to being bigger than the men.)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

wordwalker said:


> I'd just been starting to think: wouldn't a spear or polearm be one of the better melee choices for a really skilled woman, or any lightweight hero? Their classic problem is being just muscled down, but a well-used spear can fend someone off, and doesn't need as much strength to hit hard because it focuses its power on one thrust.



Eh, depends. A thing to remember is that a dedicated warrior woman would be in much better physical condition than any "ordinary" housewife or maiden. I mean, even today, if you compare a man who is heavily into martial arts to a woman who _isn't_, of course the man will be quite a bit stronger. 

For that matter, weapons are generally not heavier than they have to be, and brute strenght generally isn't as important as technical skill.

So, I honestly don't think a well-trained woman would have much more trouble with, say, a sword and shield than a small-to-medium sized man with the same training. 

Besides, I'm not even sure inferior muscle mass has ever been regarded as much of an issue for female warriors historically. In old Japan, the naginata was considered a weapon for women, yet naginata are really kinda heavy - you can easily expect them to weight twice as much as a standard katana. (Which also illustrates that you shouldn't rationalize weapon weights - many polearms are relatively massive.)



> (Weapon&shield would have a nicer margin for error, but involve beating the bigger guy at maybe his own game, while Anders makes dual-wielding sound like a gamble already. And Big Hammers sound like they'd go only to the woman who's used to being bigger than the men.)



Honestly, fantasy tends to treat warhammers as these really big and heavy sledgehammer-type mauls, but I don't think I've ever seen a historical example of that. A "two-handed warhammer" would have been another way of saying describing a pole hammer, a variant of the poleaxe.

Again, weapons tend not to be heavier than they really need to be, simply because prolonged fighting is more important than indiviual blows dealing massive damage. Not that strenght wouldn't be valued, but skill and fitness would still be more important.


----------



## wordwalker

Something that came up in the Fight Scenes thread:



Shockley said:


> Mail isn't the end all to fighting though, which is an important thing to consider. A relatively late sword or a well placed arrow will go through chainmail fairly easily, which is why they ended up developing things like plate mail. While our modern versions of chain mail (like the ones you get at the renaissance faire) are particularly difficult to get through, you also have to remember that our lowest-level metal workers in the modern day are working with a higher quality grade of ore than even the best smiths for most of human history.



"Fairly easily," is that true? I've been working on the idea that almost any one-handed sword (or even a katana) against mail needs either to thrust through it or hit an unarmored spot.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

wordwalker said:


> "Fairly easily," is that true? I've been working on the idea that almost any one-handed sword (or even a katana) against mail needs either to thrust through it or hit an unarmored spot.



Ah, well, it's an interesting question. Here's the thing: It's really kinda difficult to accurately test armor durability without putting someone in serious danger. Obviously, you can't risk hitting a guy in mail with a real sword when the point of the experiment is to cause as much damage as possible. And setting armor up on a static target tends to give an unrealistic impression of how a human body wearing armor actually absorbs force. 

(I suppose one could do something like dressing a pig carcas in mail and swing away at it, but I have never heard of that actually being done.)

That said, the general consensus seems to be that cutting attacks can damage the rings in mail armor, but that the damage is typically minor, resulting in very shallow wounds at best. Stabbing attacks works better since an acute, rigid piercing weapon can wrench open rings and deliver a deep wound in relation to the damage on the armor. 

The theory I've heard that made the most sense is that cutting swords came first, then chain was developed as a counter measure. As this type of armor became more common, swords became pointy and rigid to combat them. (Though cutting swords never completely fell out of fashion since metal armor tends to be expensive and thus rare.) Then plate armor was invented as a counter-meassure to those weapons. 

(A different theory is that plate developed as a response to cutting weapons, and that piercing swords were developed in order to penetrate the gaps in the armor. This has been a very common idea and I may actually have said something like that earlier in this thread. But again, plate being a reaction to piercing swords does make more sense to me than vice versa.)

Now, I'm guessing from the context that this is what Shockley means by "a relatively late sword" - a sword with rigid piercing point that can pierce mail. (Though, a caveat: sword technology was never a linear progression from cutting to piercing. For the most part they coexisted, along with many hybrids and variations.)

I can't really comment on his suggestion that modern mail is of higher material quality than medival mail, though, since it's the first time I've seen the subject brough up. On one hand it makes some sense, on the other hand, modern chain isn't necessarily made according to historically accurate standards. (Which I belive is another common complaint in armor tests.)


----------



## wordwalker

Many thanks. 



Anders Ã„mting said:


> (I suppose one could do something like dressing a pig carcas in mail and swing away at it, but I have never heard of that actually being done.)



Guess you've managed to miss every single episode of _Deadliest Warrior_-- which might be a good thing.


----------



## Valentinator

Great thread. It is really nice to find high level specialists here. I have a question about longsword fight duration. How long was a typical fight if both fighters were equally skilled (let's say both are very experienced)? From what I read it seems that the duration must be very short. Is it even possible to have a duel for 10 minutes-1 hour? Was it more like an exchange of many blows in preparation of final attack or like dancing around the fighter looking for one deadly blow?

Another question about about chinese martial arts movies, for example Crouching Tiger. Does it in anyway look realistic (I mean the actual sword fights, not the CGI effects and flying) or it is just a choreography? Can you recommend any movies with realistic battles?


----------



## wordwalker

Depends in large part on armor. Knights in full chainmail or plate have to bash at each other a lot trying to get the right hit in-- but I don't know if even they could take ten minutes for a duel. But samurai have light armor (and the ninjas and mercenaries in a lot of modern katana-fests have _none_) so they were trained to get the kill in literal seconds.

I'm not sure if it's truly realistic, but one movie duel that's better than most is in _Rob Roy_, between Liam Neeson and Tim Roth.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Valentinator said:


> Great thread. It is really nice to find high level specialists here. I have a question about longsword fight duration. How long was a typical fight if both fighters were equally skilled (let's say both are very experienced)? From what I read it seems that the duration must be very short. Is it even possible to have a duel for 10 minutes-1 hour? Was it more like an exchange of many blows in preparation of final attack or like dancing around the fighter looking for one deadly blow?



Well, I'm not really a martial artist, formally speaking, but I'd say it depends on various factors - armor or no armor, the exact style used (German or Italian longsword?), exactly what type of longsword is used, the temperament of the fighters and how defensive they are, luck, things like adrenalin negating pain, etc.

My best guess would is that you'd be looking at the two fighters spending most of the fight feinting and trying to out-manouver each other, followed by short bursts of attacks and counters. It's likely one of them will be wounded in the exchange. If the wound is not serious enough to kill or incapacitate, they'd start over. Long pauses, quick exchanges, and so on.

It's very hard to say how long a "typical" longsword fight would last - swordfights can be decided in one exchange or as little as one move, or it could drag out for several minutes. But between two very skilled fighters I'm guessing it would be relatively short - skilled swordsmen would have smaller marginals of error. 

A serious life and death fight lasting ten minutes? I would call that unlikely, but not impossible. Though, keep in mind that most of that time would be spent with them just kinda staring at each other. Swordsmen constantly exchanging blows for extended periods doesn't really happen.

One factor is the stopping power of the sword - for example rapiers or smallswords are notorious for being very unpredictable when it comes to dealing killing damage. Sometimes a duel would have been measured in seconds, but then again the longest duel I've ever heard about is supposed to have lasted four hours. (That may be a myth or a very exaggerated account, though.)



> Another question about about chinese martial arts movies, for example Crouching Tiger. Does it in anyway look realistic (I mean the actual sword fights, not the CGI effects and flying) or it is just a choreography? Can you recommend any movies with realistic battles?



As a general rule of thumb, movie choreography is not particularly realistic, simply because it's not meant to be. Movie swordfights are highly stylized; they use larger movements so that the audience can see them, and they tend to give the fighters absurdly impenetrable defenses until the last blow is struck, which is always extremely lethal. (Even though instantly killing someone with a sword is very difficult.) This is all especially true for the wuxia genre which tends to be _highly _stylized in general.

You could say movie swordfights are basically abstractions of lethal conflicts between the characters, in sorta the same way the song and dance numbers in musicals are abstracted expressions of what the characters are thinking and feeling. Of course it's not realistic, but then realism isn't really the point. 

Admittedly, it varies depending on the choreographer and director - some do strive for swordfights that look and feel "real". But quite often, I find that they still tend to treat the fights as abstractions, only in the other direction: Maybe the director wants the fight to reflect the inherent brutality of violence, so you end up with what is essentially brawls with swords. That is certainly gritty, but I wouldn't call it realistic. By it's very nature, there is always a style to choreography, even if it tries not to show it.

What's the most realistic movie swordfights? Again, depends a lot about what you are looking at. Some fighting styles certainly look more cinematic than others. 

The final fight from Rob Roy is generally considered to be fairly realistic, without sacrificing drama. Though, one thing I've never liked it how fast Rob runs out of steam. I would expect a master swordsman who spends most his time running around the highlands of Scotland to be in better shape.

The first fight in the above linked The Duelists is also a very realistic portrayal of a smallsword duel. Notice how careful they are not to rush in. 

Yagyu Munenori said: "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down." This is true for pretty much all swordfights. The difficult thing is not to hit your opponent but to avoid being hit yourself. In movie swordfights, it's typically the other way around - it's easy to defend yourself but hard to land a hit.



wordwalker said:


> Depends in large part on armor. Knights in full chainmail or plate have to bash at each other a lot trying to get the right hit in-- but I don't know if even they could take ten minutes for a duel. But samurai have light armor



I think calling Japanese armor "light" is quite a generalization, actually. The lightest armor I know they used would have been a simple _do_, very similar to the breastplate used in kendo. But a full o-yoroi or do-maru, which are the "typical" samurai armors, were suits of iron lamellar. Some may have been made out of leather, or often a combination of metal and leather, but iron was pretty much the material of choice for whoever could afford it and these armors were in no way "light." These things would weigh around 30 kg or 65 pounds, compared to a full suit of medieval plate armor weighing around 20 kg or 44 pounds. (And probably more evently distrubuted at that.)

(For that matter, some samurai actually wore imported European plate cuirasses.)

This is all very contextual, though. What samurai would wear in battle depends on the era and situation. In wartimes, like the Sengoku period, they'd wear armor on the battlefield. But in more peaceful times, like for example the Edo era, samurai were more likely to fight personal duels with no armor.


----------



## Inquisitor

Hi Anders,

What a great thread—although those that tricked me into watching _Deadliest Warrior_: wow, that's some bad comparison action 

I'm curious what the oddest real hand-to-hand war weapon you've encountered is? I mean a weird pole arm, sword variant, etc., that seems like it belongs in fantasy more than in an actual historical setting, but was—for whatever reason—used by people who depended on it for their lives, not livelihoods. 

Cheers


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Inquisitor said:


> I'm curious what the oddest real hand-to-hand war weapon you've encountered is? I mean a weird pole arm, sword variant, etc., that seems like it belongs in fantasy more than in an actual historical setting, but was—for whatever reason—used by people who depended on it for their lives, not livelihoods.



Oooh. That's a tricky one. You said hand-to-hand (by which I assume you actually meant melee) so that leaves out the odd hybrid fireams...

Well, I do have a certain fondness for this weird shield-sword-thingy:








This insane thing is called a lantern shield, because they were originally designed to incorporate small lanterns to blind opponents with. You will notice this one is basically a combined gauntlet and buckler with a sword blade attached to it. The spiky things protruding from the guantlet are sword-breakers/parrying daggers, meant to catch and hook enemy blades.

Note that it's left-handed; this was intended to be an off-hand weapon. So, picture a guy fighting with a sword in his right hand and this contraption strapped to his left.

The runners up include the urumi, an Indian weapon best described as a flexible sword-whip. Those things are actually sharp and absurdly dangerous to use. Some of them have multiple blades. A friend of mine summed up the philosophy behind that weapon as: "That's it, now _everyone _goes to the hospital!"

Another weird Indian sword is the pata. (As seen in the movie Willow for... some reason.) Unlike the lantern shield, where the sword blade seems to have been mostly a back-up, this is a full-lenght sword built into a gauntlet, aligned with the lower arm, and apparently intended to be used as a primary weapon. This, of course, means you cannot swing it in any angle other than the way your arm is pointing. I usually don't like to call historical weapons stupid, because I figure if they were used more than once by more than one person there must be some point to them. But I honestly have _no idea _what the benefit of this design might be. That can't also be achieved by a normal sword, I mean.

Plus, wikipedia tells me it was common practice to _dual wield_ them.

Yeah, I've got nothing.


----------



## Nihal

I know nothing about swords. The only reason I can think to use a weapon as the _pata_ is to avoid accidentally losing the grip of the weapon. I imagine it would be easier to use the strength of the arm as a whole without worrying too much about being disarmed.
... not that it would be so efficient, I can imagine someone being forced to open his defenses and being rather hopeless because he's unable to twist the blade.

Anyway, this topic is awesome! It's kind of you to share your knowledge.

P.s.: Those scenes from The Duelists got me flinching. They aren't banalized like the regular movie swordfights and every little advantage one of the fighters gained made me jump!


----------



## Valentinator

Anders, thanks for the answer. Another question. There were talks already about metals for swords. I am just curious - why not titanium? What's the problem with this metal? Too light or what?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Titanium is not a good metal for making blades. Steel is far better because it can be heat treated properly to keep & hold an edge. Titanium does not retain sharpness like steel.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Valentinator said:


> Anders, thanks for the answer. Another question. There were talks already about metals for swords. I am just curious - why not titanium? What's the problem with this metal? Too light or what?



Too soft, actually. Like Allen says, it can't keep a hard edge, nor can it recieve a blow from a steel sword without damage. 

The misconception that titanium makes for good swords probably stems from the fact that it has a very high strenght-to-weight-ratio, which is why it's used in stuff like aircraft and golf clubs. Now, it's true titanium can be as strong as some _low grade_ steels, while being much lighter. However, as far as I understand this is specifically measured in _tensile strength_, and much of titanium's strenght is due to it's ductility. That is to say, it will deform more easily than steel as well. At the end of the day, titanium is basically just aluminum's somewhat tougher big brother.

And all that aside, the benefit of steel isn't the inherent strenght of the raw material, but rather that the physical properties of steel can be manipulated via heat treatment to become hard, soft, springy, etc, depending on the properties you want in your blade.


----------



## Valentinator

Cool, thanks. Another question concerning relationships between the sword and other weapons. Is it considered the primary choice for fight against other types of cold weapons? I mean of course I understand that it all depends on the context. I actually want to know the exact contexts when one weapon will be better than the other one. When two-handed sword is better than one-handed and when it's worse? When battle axe is better than a one-handed sword? When spear and naginata is better than sword? All other things like the skill of the fighters, metal quality etc. being equal.


----------



## Inquisitor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I usually don't like to call historical weapons stupid, because I figure if they were used more than once by more than one person there must be some point to them.



Oh, that was a joy, Anders. I'm going to guess the lantern shield never saw widespread usage. That takes every absurd fantasy weapon and +1's it a thousand times. And, wow, would i like to see a (simulated) urami fight. Why isn't this weapon in films all the time?

I appreciate your stance on historical weapons. As (I think it was you) you pointed out earlier in the thread, a lot of our notions of weapons "superiority" or usefulness come from either exoticism or nationalism. That said, people tend to be superstitious and strongly believe things that aren't true, even when their lives depend on them. Witness bleeding as a medical treatment. 

I have a suspicion that some weapons stuck around despite not being ideal or even being inferior, because somebody once used it well, there was some other cultural bias for it, or the idea behind it was just convincing. My guess is any instance of the lantern shield beyond the first probably falls into the latter category  How awesome.

Thanks again for your generosity in sharing all of this.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I would say that the strenght of the sword over other weapons is _probably _its versatility. Axes chop, spears stab, but a sword can chop, stab, cut, slash, etc, etc, and they don't have wooden shafts that can be broken or cut or grabbed. They can be used for cavalry charges, civilian self-defense, carried as back-up weapons for archers, etc. They can be designed to pierce armor, or cut exposed flesh, or both at the same time.

I mean, a lot of the appeal was probably romantic - swords have long been a symbol of power, heroism and leadership.* But if I had to point out a reason you would pick a sword over any other weapon, it would probably be versatility. 

Plus, historical weapons development didn't actually follow one coherent plan were each weapon had a specific role to play. Some people probably just prefered a sword-centered fighting style for whatever reason, while others prefered axes, and so on.

*Though not always; the Greeks favoured the spear and didn't even practice formal swordsmanship, since they considered swords to be basically just big knives. And the Persian, Indian and earlier Japanese cultures seem to have considered the bow to be the ultimate weapon.



> When two-handed sword is better than one-handed and when it's worse?



It's generally agreed that a swordsman with a longsword or bastard sword will usually have the advantage over a swordsman with only a single-handed sword. However, a single-hand sword will usually be paired with a shield. (There are fighting styles when you don't, but those are typically dueling or self-defense styles, or in a context where shields simply aren't used. Indeed, a person trained in their use will treat the sword and shield as a coherent weapon system rather than two separate objects.

In general you can say that the advantage of a two-handed sword is leverage and often reach - most two-handed swords are longer than their single-handed equivalents. Though, it's worth noting that using a sword with one hand gives you more reach for the same amount of blade, so a long single-hander might still have equal or even superior reach to a two-hander.

Anyway, from what I can tell, if neither swordsman wear heavy armor the one with the arming sword-shield combo will have the advantage whereas if they are wearing armor the favor tips more towards the longswordsman. Note that sword-and-shield utterly dominated the iron age and the early medieval period but as armor became better longswords started to appear. At the same time, shields also became progressively smaller and eventually turned into the buckler.

At that point, wether you went longsword or sword and buckler probably depended on your training and preference.



> When spear and naginata is better than sword?



Polearms in general have a tremendous advantage in reach over most swords. Spears are also cheaper to make, relatively easy to master, and extremely dangerous in the hands of a skilled fighter. It's pretty much most second favourite weapon.

If polearms have a disadvantage it's probably their size. They aren't the kind of weapons you carry around for defense, and they would be cumbersome to use indoors. Several types, included the naginata, are actually very heavy. And since they can't be sheated, you will always have one hand occupied. Swords are just more practical that way.


----------



## Valentinator

Thanks again. And a few more questions. About the metal quality - it is supposed to be an important factor in the long run, isn't it? Is it really important in a single fight? If I have brand new sharp sword made of shitty steel am I really in disadvantage against a guy with the sword made of superduperawesome steel? Can he really cut through my sword? Is the armor penetration decreasing a lot? 

Another question. Any comments about katar? It seems to me like a very nice weapon with a descent hand protection comparing to ordinary dagger but it seems like wasn't popular at all in Europe. Why?


----------



## PlotHolio

Dear Anders SwordGuy,

In my world, there was an inter-planar war. The invading army was eventually defeated, but they left behind a lot of weapons and equipment made of a stronger metal than the iron typically used by the blacksmiths of Country X.

My questions: How would said blacksmiths learn to work this new metal? Could they do it at all? If so, would the quality drop due to inexperience? If not, what would they likely do with a surplus of alien weaponry?


----------



## craenor

PlotHolio said:


> Dear Anders SwordGuy,
> 
> In my world, there was an inter-planar war. The invading army was eventually defeated, but they left behind a lot of weapons and equipment made of a stronger metal than the iron typically used by the blacksmiths of Country X.
> 
> My questions: How would said blacksmiths learn to work this new metal? Could they do it at all? If so, would the quality drop due to inexperience? If not, what would they likely do with a surplus of alien weaponry?



If the Blacksmiths of Country X were actually using iron, then these could be nothing more than weapons made from carbon steel. They would have vastly superior qualities in developing and retaining a cutting edge, durability, etc. 

They wouldn't be "that" hard to learn to work. If you were to have a skilled, experienced blacksmith figure it out, it wouldn't be a huge leap.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Valentinator said:


> Thanks again. And a few more questions. About the metal quality - it is supposed to be an important factor in the long run, isn't it? Is it really important in a single fight? If I have brand new sharp sword made of shitty steel am I really in disadvantage against a guy with the sword made of superduperawesome steel? Can he really cut through my sword?



Not really, no. Swords cutting through other swords basically never happens. 

As far as I can understand, "bad steel" means uneven carbon content. That's probably more a problem for the blacksmith, but if you get a sword out of it, it may be more prone to damage or have a tendency to dull, or both. It _could _break from an impact if it had a hidden tempering flaw or stress fracture, but that doesn't mean the steel is to blame: Either you simply pushed the blade too hard, or the bladesmith messed up. That said, even good swords can snap in half without warning. It's very rare, but it does happen. 

Mind, a sword breaking generally means it was fragile - that is too hard - which is a matter of hardening and tempering. On the other hand, if the heat-treat simply didn't take in some places due deficient carbon content, it's more likely to bend. And while a bent sword is bad, it's not nearly as bad as a broken sword.

At the end of the day, steel is steel. Iron ore doesn't really come in different degrees of quality when you dig it up. What matters the most is how it's processed afterwards, and how skilled the craftsman working it is.



> Is the armor penetration decreasing a lot?



I don't think it's a matter of varying degrees of penetration. Rather, if you are trying to drive a very sharp point through a mail, for example, obviously you don't want it to bend or break.



> Another question. Any comments about katar? It seems to me like a very nice weapon with a descent hand protection comparing to ordinary dagger but it seems like wasn't popular at all in Europe. Why?



Well, it's a bit of an odd weapon. Not as odd as the pata, but still kinda odd. Odd weapons, more often than not, require unconventional fighting styles. It's likely normal daggers were just easier to use and already easy enough to come by, and the katar design didn't offer enough advantages to have an influence.

As for hand protection, that normally isn't a factor for daggers as they are close combat stabbing weapons. The exceptions are things like the parrying daggers that accompanied the earlier rapier styles, and those often did have elaborate guards.

Anyway, very few oriental weapons actually became popular in Europe. A rare few might have turned out successful, but others never amounted to more than curiosities. Mostly people stuck to what they knew, and what worked best for the type of killing they were most likely to do.



PlotHolio said:


> Dear Anders SwordGuy,
> 
> In my world, there was an inter-planar war. The invading army was eventually defeated, but they left behind a lot of weapons and equipment made of a stronger metal than the iron typically used by the blacksmiths of Country X.
> 
> My questions: How would said blacksmiths learn to work this new metal? Could they do it at all? If so, would the quality drop due to inexperience?



Oh dear, that really depends on a lot of factors.

First of all, how difficult is it to aquire the metal in the first place? If it's the main material for all the weapons in that country it has to be pretty common, but do you simply mine it as ore? Or is it like say aluminium? That is, something that is very abundant chemically speaking but almost impossible to find in the elemental state, meaning you need certain degree of industrial technology to even produce it. 

It gets even more complicated if this metal is an alloy. If so, how advanced? They would have to figure out which material component go into the alloy and in exactly what quantities. 

Assuming they get that far, is it forged the same way as steel? Or must you cast it like bronze? If you forge it does it require specific forging techniques? Does it need to be heat-treated and if so, does it need to be heat-treated in a specific way? 

If we just look at steel, there are a lot of different alloys and many of them require specific heat-treatment to bring out the best qualities of the material. It's entirely possible this metal isn't anything special at all, and the real secret is the method the bladesmiths of Country Z figured out to temper it.

And worst of all: if _multiple _of these factors are at play, and the people of X fail to figure out just _one _of them, it's probably not going to work.

So, depending on how different the process is from what the Xians are used to, reproducing the Zian weapon technology could range from fairly simple to practically impossible.

Then again, humans (I assume we're talking about humans) are very industrious and inventive when challenged. If they have a basic idea how this material is made, they can probably figure it out through trial and error, given enough time. It's also possible they find books or documents describing the process. 

Heck, if they have enough forsight, they may even make sure to capture a few of Z's craftsmen and force the instructions out of them.

But it's also very possible to simply lose a technology forever. The method for producing the famous damascus/wootz steel was lost in the 18th century and _to this day_ we don't actually know how the stuff was made. There are people who have made decent imitations and proposed theories for how to make wootz steel, but we don't actually know. It's effectively a lost art.

I think this is really up to how you want to play it. Anything that suits your story is probably possible.



> If not, what would they likely do with a surplus of alien weaponry?



If they have a lot more weapons than they need or want, they might simply gather them up an sell them to Country Y, which is any wealthy neighbouring country they aren't currently at war with.

At the height of their sword production, it's said the Japanese sold some 100.000 swords to Ming Dynasty China. (Probably not very good ones, but hey, that's still an army's worth of swords.)



craenor said:


> If the Blacksmiths of Country X were actually using iron, then these could be nothing more than weapons made from carbon steel. They would have vastly superior qualities in developing and retaining a cutting edge, durability, etc.



Eh. I think I mentioned this before at some point, but it's basically impossible to even get iron with no carbon in it, at least with conventional methods. And even if you could, pure iron is actually softer than aluminium and oxidizes very quickly, so it's not every useful.

What we think of as iron is technically just another type of carbon-iron alloy, just one with relatively little carbon in it. Anyway, as I understand it, people didn't actually switch from iron to steel at one point - rather they gradually found ways to improve their metalurgy and smithing techniques, resulting in gradually better steel weapons.


----------



## craenor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Iron ore doesn't really come in different degrees of quality when you dig it up.



Disclaimer, I only had a few minutes, so I didn't read your entire post. However, I did get stuck on this one point. The presence of certain micro-traces of other elements close to Iron on the periodic table, can definitely make a difference. In particular, the presence of traces of Vanadium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Niobium, and Manganese can make a big difference, especially for the better - as long as those trace percentages don't get too high. 

Here's a decent (if a bit dense) article on the subject.


----------



## wordwalker

Here's a question: it's come up now and then that in the later plate-armored years knights switched to longswords, as the weapon that might penetrate that armor (or I guess break bones through it). How much was the shift to swords rather than to greataxes or hammers? If so, was it because swords' longer blades were less likely to glance off plate than axes', or just social (swords were always the more "noble" weapon so if you needed something big it was a chance to go sword again)?


----------



## Shaun b.

I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Shaun b. said:


> I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.



Steel is an alloy of iron. It's advantages are greater flexibility & greater hardness. Being harder, steel allows for a keener, more durable edge compared to iron. Flexibility is important in keeping blades from breaking or shattering. The metallurgy of steel can be altered with more or less carbon content. Higher amounts of carbon yield harder blades but the harder they are, the more brittle they become. The ability to manipulate components of steel is another of its advantages. In blade work, a smith could produce spring steel which is very flexible or a much harder steel depending on the application. In sword making, smiths temper the metal blade to reduce the brittle qualities of hard steel. The best blades are formed by using softer, flexible steel for the inner layers and folding the blade so that the outer layers are composed of harder, more carbon-rich steel. This technique produces blades capable of holding a razor edge while being flexible enough to avoid breakage.


----------



## craenor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Steel is an alloy of iron. It's advantages are greater flexibility & greater hardness. Being harder, steel allows for a keener, more durable edge compared to iron. Flexibility is important in keeping blades from breaking or shattering. The metallurgy of steel can be altered with more or less carbon content. Higher amounts of carbon yield harder blades but the harder they are, the more brittle they become. The ability to manipulate components of steel is another of its advantages. In blade work, a smith could produce spring steel which is very flexible or a much harder steel depending on the application. In sword making, smiths temper the metal blade to reduce the brittle qualities of hard steel. The best blades are formed by using softer, flexible steel for the inner layers and folding the blade so that the outer layers are composed of harder, more carbon-rich steel. This technique produces blades capable of holding a razor edge while being flexible enough to avoid breakage.



This is an excellent description. Well done. To this, the only thing that I would add is that some people confuse Stainless Steel with Steel. Stainless Steel is a type (or family of alloys) of steel that typically speaking have >10.5% Chromium. Also, they usually have very low carbon levels. 

Because of the abundance of Chromium and lack of Carbon, stainless steels aren't "hard" enough to form and retain a proper cutting edge. However, even worse, the Chromium makes them brittle. 

You'll sometimes find online sellers, convention sellers, or Ren faire types that will sell Stainless Steel swords that are "ready to use". Never try to cut anything with a stainless steel sword. The chances of it breaking and shards of sharpened metal flying around the room are quite high.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Okay, guys. Sorry for the delay but I had to do some research.



craenor said:


> Disclaimer, I only had a few minutes, so I didn't read your entire post. However, I did get stuck on this one point. The presence of certain micro-traces of other elements close to Iron on the periodic table, can definitely make a difference. In particular, the presence of traces of Vanadium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Niobium, and Manganese can make a big difference, especially for the better - as long as those trace percentages don't get too high.
> 
> Here's a decent (if a bit dense) article on the subject.



I only skimmed that article but it seems to be mostly about wootz and the theoretical role mineral impurities may have served in making it. I'm not sure what that has to do with steel production in general. 

However, I find I do have to revise my previous statement: Turns out there's something called "redshort" and "coldshort" iron, which is iron with too high trace amounts of sulphur and phosphorus respectively. Redshort is maelable when cold but becomes fragile when heated. Coldshort is the opposite: It can be shaped when heated but becomes brittle when cold. These problems would remain if the ore was turned into steel.

So apparently I was wrong: There is such a thing as "bad iron", in the context of weapon crafting. 

Still, the point I was originally trying to make is that steel is something you actually have to _manufacture_, so the quality of steel would have been the responcibility of whoever operated the bloomery. And I imagine making defective steel on purpose would have been a good way to get in trouble with the local smithing guilds.



wordwalker said:


> Here's a question: it's come up now and then that in the later plate-armored years knights switched to longswords, as the weapon that might penetrate that armor (or I guess break bones through it). How much was the shift to swords rather than to greataxes or hammers? If so, was it because swords' longer blades were less likely to glance off plate than axes', or just social (swords were always the more "noble" weapon so if you needed something big it was a chance to go sword again)?



Longswords aren't actually better at countering armor than regular swords. I'm pretty sure armor penetration had nothing to do with that. What matters is the specific shape of the blade - swords designed to counter armor have rigid and acute points that excel at stabbing and thrusting. These points could penetrate mail armor, and when plate armor was introduced they could stab between the joints of the steel plates. I think the rising popularity of longswords had more to do with shield becoming smaller an less important as better armor was developed. Once you could get rid of the shield, it freed up the off-hand so that two-handed swords were an option.

I highly doubt anyone wearing decent plate would have to worry about suffering broken bones from a swordsman - plate armor would disperse the force of the blow evenly across the plate, like a helmet or hard hat protects your head from blows only for your entire body. Thus, breaking your bones through your plate armor would basically require the armor to collapse inward. Swords are not especially heavy weapons and not designed to deliver that type of damage - especially not the highly specialized piercing swords. You need something like a warhammer or flanged mace to deliver sufficient impact damage, and indeed impact weapons did become more popular as plate armor technology advanced.

Axes are a slightly other matter, though - battle axes are cutting and chopping weapons and just like swords, they weren't nearly as heavy as modern people tend to think. I personally have my doubts they were especially useful again plate armor in and of themselves. They were very popular in the viking age, but seem to have kinda sorta fallen out of favour in the middle ages. The 15th century did see the development of the horseman's axe, at the hight of the plate armor's dominance, though they were often equiped with a spike or pick in addition to the cutting blade. We see the same principle in the formidable pole-axe which combined a warhammer, spike, axe and/or pick in various combinations into one long weapon. It seems impact weapons and piercing weapons were equally in favor at the time.

To answer your question in a more concise manner: I don't think it's right to talk about a "shift" in weapon usage. More like, improved armor technology led to a lot of changes including new sword designs, new weapon designs in general, and a certain trend towards using impact weapons. But it's not like everyone sat down and decided swords were old news and that they should switch over to maces or something. For that matter, not every warrior you met on the battlefield would actually wear plate armor. _Far_ from it. Those things were crazy expensive.



Shaun b. said:


> I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.



"Iron" in this context typically refers to wrought iron, which contains a very low carbon content. Though, note that this is still a steel alloy. The modern equivalent is mild steel or low-carbon steel. 

These alloys cannot be hardened and tempered. Because of this, they are in themselves useless for making any kind of cutting implement as they are too soft to hold a good edge or stand up to the rigors of combat. You pretty much never make swords out of this stuff, or if you do they are purely decorative.

However, wrought iron would commonly have been used in lamination swords, especially in the iron age - the main body of the blade would have been made from wrought iron whereas the edges were made from the more expensive carbon steel. This served two purposes - it saved you some valuable steel and produced a more forgiving blade, as the softer wrought iron would bend rather than break. This approach became less desirable as steel technology improved, however, and dependable monosteel blades could be produced with less work.



craenor said:


> Because of the abundance of Chromium and lack of Carbon, *stainless steels aren't "hard" enough to form and retain a proper cutting edge*. However, even worse, the Chromium makes them brittle.



Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.

The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.
> 
> The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.


I agree. The major differences between stainless steel and carbon steel, for making short blades like knives, is a trade off in edge keeping ability vs. corrosion resistance. Stainless blades are preferred today for most applications as they tend to hold an edge well enough and most people would prefer a low-to-no-maintenance knife. For those that demand the sharpest of edges and a superior ability to hold that edge, carbon steel fits the bill better. However, carbon steel must have regular maintenance(cleaned & oiled) or the blade will corrode, rust, and pit.
Sources - a long family heritage of steel mill workers, experience making my own knives from tool grade steel, my last name is Smith


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Well, there are different grades of stainless steel, just like there are different grades of carbon steel. Some surgical scalpel blades are made out of stainless, so it's not like sharpness is always a problem.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Agreed. Although, I wasn't really referring to sharpness as much as edge holding capabilities due to the hardness of carbon steel.


----------



## craenor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.
> 
> The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.



A properly made sword relies on a particular balance of toughness and hardness. It has to be tough enough to deform and bend significantly without breaking. However, it has to be hard enough to retain a sharp edge. 

With stainless steel, in a blade the size of a sword blade (so disregarding knives here), there is no toughness/hardness sweet spot. It works for knives, because knife blades are shorter. They do not have to flex as much as a sword blade does. That's just a factor of scale. 

If it's hard enough to be sharpened to a fine, reasonable retainable edge, then it's too brittle for actual use (it'll snap when you hit something with it). 

If it's ductile and strong enough (tough enough) to endure the rigors of actual use, then it's too soft to retain a decent edge and probably too soft to retain the proper shape when used. 

Carbon Steel, unlike Stainless Steel, does have that toughess/hardness sweet spot. A skilled smith can forge a sword that is able to retain a good cutting edge (hardness) while being strong enough (toughness) to endure actual use. 

In other words, in Stainless Steel you get one or the other - hardness or toughness. In Carbon steel, you get both. 

More often than not, the companies that make Stainless Steel swords (sometimes referred to as Wall Hangers), they tend towards hard, brittle swords, capable of being sharpened to an edge. 

These swords are very dangerous. They will break when you hit something with them. Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.


----------



## Inquisitor

craenor said:


> Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.



The professionalism and control of that presenter is stunning.

This article on kitchen knife steel seems to my non-authoratative eyes to give an incredible overview of the current state of blade steel, including discussions of elements that provide a given benefit (like vanadium being beneficial for abrasion resistance)


----------



## craenor

Inquisitor said:


> This article on kitchen knife steel seems to my non-authoratative eyes...



This is a fantastic website. Thanks. 

While it doesn't really cover swords, it breaks down many of the steels used for knives (and the qualities of those steels), and it also breaks down some of the more common sword steels with contrasting qualities for those. 

Here is what it has to say about 5160 Spring Steel (a commonly-used steel for forging swords):



> A steel popular with forgers, it is popular now for a variety of knife styles, but usually bigger blades that need more toughness. It is essentially a simple spring steel with chromium added for hardenability. It has good wear resistance, but is known especially for its outstanding toughness. This steel performs well over a wide range of hardnesses, showing great toughness when hardened in the low 50s Rc for swords, and hardened up near the 60s for knives needing more edge holding.



The hardness numbers this blurb refers to are hardness as measured by the Rockwell "C" Metal Hardness Scale.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

craenor said:


> A properly made sword relies on a particular balance of toughness and hardness. It has to be tough enough to deform and bend significantly without breaking. However, it has to be hard enough to retain a sharp edge.
> 
> With stainless steel, in a blade the size of a sword blade (so disregarding knives here), there is no toughness/hardness sweet spot. It works for knives, because knife blades are shorter. They do not have to flex as much as a sword blade does. That's just a factor of scale.
> 
> If it's hard enough to be sharpened to a fine, reasonable retainable edge, then it's too brittle for actual use (it'll snap when you hit something with it).
> 
> If it's ductile and strong enough (tough enough) to endure the rigors of actual use, then it's too soft to retain a decent edge and probably too soft to retain the proper shape when used.
> 
> Carbon Steel, unlike Stainless Steel, does have that toughess/hardness sweet spot. A skilled smith can forge a sword that is able to retain a good cutting edge (hardness) while being strong enough (toughness) to endure actual use.
> 
> In other words, in Stainless Steel you get one or the other - hardness or toughness. In Carbon steel, you get both.
> 
> More often than not, the companies that make Stainless Steel swords (sometimes referred to as Wall Hangers), they tend towards hard, brittle swords, capable of being sharpened to an edge.
> 
> These swords are very dangerous. They will break when you hit something with them. Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.



Yes, thank you, I know what a wallhanger is. You may recall, I'm basically obsessed with sword-related trivia.


----------



## craenor

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Yes, thank you, I know what a wallhanger is. You may recall, I'm basically obsessed with sword-related trivia.



Apologies if my response seemed at all condescending. I was trying to reply to you while providing enough detail and information for the lay person who may read this thread next.


----------



## Ankari

Hello everyone, 

I stumbled on this short series of videos that studies medieval pattern wielding.  I thought many of those interested in swords could find this useful.

[video=youtube_share;vyUkYJeZtW4]http://youtu.be/vyUkYJeZtW4[/video]


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

craenor said:


> Apologies if my response seemed at all condescending. I was trying to reply to you while providing enough detail and information for the lay person who may read this thread next.



Well, I'm not actually offended or anything. Though, I _am _starting to think we may need a separate Ask Me About Metalurgy thread, because while I know a bit about steel, I'm really more comfortable answering questions about the actual weapons.



Ankari said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I stumbled on this short series of videos that studies medieval pattern wielding.  I thought many of those interested in swords could find this useful.



I was meaning to post those in their own thread, actually, but I guess I never got around to it. There are, I think, three more part to that. Good stuff.


----------



## craenor

Sorry if this is a repost, but I just came across this fantastic Nova episode on the crafting of an Ulfberht-style Viking Sword. 

Secrets of the Viking Sword (2012) full - YouTube

Richard Furrer is the smith doing the crafting. However, they also mention that Kevin Cashen is assisting him (mostly off camera). I just wanted to throw a shout-out to Kevin Cashen, because his blades are truly amazing. I've always wanted a Kevin Cashen Sword.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

I want to properly portray my characters in battle scenes and due to video games and movies, I am tempted to just have my characters swing their swords wildly around and their foes lay dead on the ground. Sadly, I know this probably wouldn't be credible 

So just how did people back then fight with swords? Did they use a lot of thrusts and jabs trying to get in between gaps in armor? How effective was swinging a sword and having it clash against an enemey's armor? What were good techniques that warriors used to bring down their opponent?


----------



## craenor

Here's a good article from John Clements: Swordfighting: Not What You Think It Is

He's an expert on historically accurate medieval martial fighting, as opposed to cinematic versions of the same. 

In essence, it's hard to answer your question without knowing the level of technology in your world. The level of armor technology dictates the design of swords. The design of swords, and their employment against armored opponents, dictate the styles that must be used.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

craenor said:


> Here's a good article from John Clements: Swordfighting: Not What You Think It Is
> 
> He's an expert on historically accurate medieval martial fighting, as opposed to cinematic versions of the same.
> 
> In essence, it's hard to answer your question without knowing the level of technology in your world. The level of armor technology dictates the design of swords. The design of swords, and their employment against armored opponents, dictate the styles that must be used.



Thanks for that! It was a long article so I didn't have time to read it all but it was really helpful.


----------



## Kittywithpen

I'm experimenting with a blade design meant for powerful invested attacks and downward hacking motions, built to better penetrate armor. It is designed to exploit height advantage, both being used by cavalry and as a "Dwarf-killer" blade on foot (i.e. smaller, but heavily armored), and is meant to strike the helmet, neck, or break the hand behind the shield. Forges are High Middle Ages technology, assisted by some earth magic used to purify and compress the alloyed iron. 

I'm thinking of something curved, weighted at one edge, with a "sweet spot" on the top third of the blade - but I'm asking you to help with specifics, and/or what i'm doing wrong. thanks


----------



## wordwalker

Penetrating serious armor with a cut is always doing it the hard way. Enhancing the thrust works much better, either to split chain or find the gaps in plate-- or a mace works better still on anything but full plate, and swinging it is less clumsy than trying to thrust from a horse.


----------



## Iamfenian

Anders I am being a bit lazy here...meaning I didn't read the whole thread.  But you are perfect (hopefully) to answer this question.  What were the swords made of during the Arthurian period (King Arthur).  Thanks in advance!


----------



## craenor

I'm not Anders, and I'm in a hurry right now, so my answer won't be complete. However, I think you're looking for the Roman Gladius and the Roman Spathion. 

Right around the 6th century time-frame they were changing primarily from the Gladius to the Spathion.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kittywithpen said:


> I'm experimenting with a blade design meant for powerful invested attacks and downward hacking motions, built to better penetrate armor. It is designed to exploit height advantage, both being used by cavalry and as a "Dwarf-killer" blade on foot (i.e. smaller, but heavily armored), and is meant to strike the helmet, neck, or break the hand behind the shield. Forges are High Middle Ages technology, assisted by some earth magic used to purify and compress the alloyed iron.
> 
> I'm thinking of something curved, weighted at one edge, with a "sweet spot" on the top third of the blade - but I'm asking you to help with specifics, and/or what i'm doing wrong. thanks



Well, the first question that comes to mind is: Why is it even a sword? I mean, it sounds to me like you are describing some kind of hammer.

Swords are, by their nature, usually not very good impact weapons, so designing a sword for that purpose is kinda unnatural. Not that it can't be done, but you have to ask yourself _why_ they would do it if there are simpler alternatives.



Iamfenian said:


> Anders I am being a bit lazy here...meaning I didn't read the whole thread.  But you are perfect (hopefully) to answer this question.  What were the swords made of during the Arthurian period (King Arthur).  Thanks in advance!



Well, most place the Arthur legend at the late 5th or early 6th century, so we're looking at early Anglo-Saxon iron age stuff. Swords of that time would be iron, the better ones being pattern-welded steel. Hilts could be made out of organic materials (wood, bone or horn) or be entirely metal, or combine organic and metal parts. Traits of the later Roman spathae would have started to turn into proper migration period swords. 

Examples:

http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/117-germanic_gold_hilt_spatha/a17av.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/149-sword/149_hilt-v.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/152-spatha/152-mec3009tifu-v.jpg

Mind, this is if you absolutely want to place King Arthur in a historically accurate context. The people who wrote down the medieval romances imagined it all as contemporary to their own time, of course, because they had no real concept of what life was like 500-800 years earlier.


----------



## wordwalker

*Why enchant a sword?*



Kittywithpen said:


> I'm experimenting with a blade design meant for powerful invested attacks and downward hacking motions, built to better penetrate armor. It is designed to exploit height advantage, both being used by cavalry and as a "Dwarf-killer" blade on foot (i.e. smaller, but heavily armored), and is meant to strike the helmet, neck, or break the hand behind the shield. Forges are High Middle Ages technology, assisted by some earth magic used to purify and compress the alloyed iron.





Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, the first question that comes to mind is: Why is it even a sword? I mean, it sounds to me like you are describing some kind of hammer.
> 
> Swords are, by their nature, usually not very good impact weapons, so designing a sword for that purpose is kinda unnatural. Not that it can't be done, but you have to ask yourself _why_ they would do it if there are simpler alternatives.



I've always thought of this as "lightsaber logic"-- if you're going to make a super-powerful melee weapon, you might as well make it a sword rather than trade some of the sword's speed for an axe or hammer's weight, when the magic means you won't need it.

(Plus, sure, one reason swords have always been a favorite with writers and real soldiers: it's *just more impressive* to wave a sword around because nobody can look at it and think "That's the symbol of war, honor-- and carpenters.")

And we _do_ assume a weapon's enchantment is going to be for raw penetrating and damaging power; Excalibur has been translated as "cut-steel," Anduril chopped through an orc's helmet and skull, and so on. (Hmm, a Hammer of Perfect Wielding might do the same thing as a Sword of Sharpness...)

But like Anders said, choosing a sword isn't the simple way to build up that force-- for anything that isn't a *top-level weapon* that's got power to spare. And, it assumes nobody's able to improve their *armor* to match it, or otherwise be tougher than human. (Probably why Thor uses a hammer: to kill giants.) So you might have:

enhanced swords, that give some leaders an extra edge against moderately-armored troops, less so against the heavy elite
enhanced heavy weapons, for the enhanced-armored captains to batter at each other
Swords of Power, for a hero to scythe through anything except top magic armor
Master Maces, paired with the best armor for the heroes' showdown


----------



## Iamfenian

Not versed well at all in fae mythology I wonder what their swords are made of as I have read somewhere they have an aversion to iron.


----------



## Ireth

Iamfenian said:


> Not versed well at all in fae mythology I wonder what their swords are made of as I have read somewhere they have an aversion to iron.



Most stories I know of the Fae have them use bronze swords.


----------



## craenor

Ireth said:


> Most stories I know of the Fae have them use bronze swords.



Bronze is sometimes accounted as a common material for mundane Fae weaponry. 

The less mundane swords, sometimes accounted mystical properties, have been often described as Swords of Light. That's not to say that they were lightsabres, but rather that they were crafted from often-unstated materials which gave them a bright silver or golden hue. 

From a mythology standpoint, this material could be attributed to something like Moon Silver, True Silver, or the like. From a historical standpoint, this is probably a mystical quality granted to an extremely well-crafted blade. Keep in mind, the typical sword of the time this mythology was created was crafted from low carbon steel, loaded with slag, and polished only enough to allow a semi-sharpened edge. They were poor quality weapons. 

However, even during that time, some few smiths had harnessed the secrets of making high carbon, tempered blades, that could be polished to a gleaming luster and had far superior cutting and toughness qualities compared to their contemporary peers. 

To many, these swords might even appear magical. And magical, for that time period, was tantamount to saying - of the fae.


----------



## nitoincog

Fellow aspie here, my interests/obsessions are swords, history, martial arts, and magic/fantasy/myths ect. I'm interested to know what you think about damascus steel as a whole as well as what metal and carbon mixtures would make an ideal modern battle ready sword.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Iamfenian said:


> Not versed well at all in fae mythology I wonder what their swords are made of as I have read somewhere they have an aversion to iron.



It's a common theme in European folklore, actually. Around here it's the trolls and vittra who hate iron.

Since I'm not very versed in fairy folkore, though, I'll just leave you at the mercy of Ireth and Creanor for now.



nitoincog said:


> Fellow aspie here, my interests/obsessions are swords, history, martial arts, and magic/fantasy/myths ect. I'm interested to know what you think about damascus steel as a whole



If you mean wootz, I never found it that interesting since I think it looks somewhat dull, no pun intended. Though, I think it's too bad we don't know how to make the stuff anymore, especially considering the whole carbon nanotube thing. 

If you mean pattern welding (which is _technically_ not true damascus, but is called that by enough people that it's a pretty legit way to use the word) I think it's a nice thing to have but these days it's mostly bling. Not that bling is a bad thing - many sword fans these days have taken a kind of strict utalitarian stance to it all, which I don't think was very common historically. Artifacts suggest that warriors of old liked their weapons to be as fancy as they could afford since they were status symbols as well as weapons. But I digress.

The really neat pattern welding is actually found in the modern knifemaking business. Those people do some crazy stuff - I'm a fan of explosion damascus and mosaic damascus, personally. Google them for some nice pictures. (But make sure to specific "explosion damascus _blade_" or you'll be in for some depressing results.)

Sadly, swords with pattern welding actually see a lot less variation and artistic expression than knifes. (But then knives is a bigger business.)



> as well as what metal and carbon mixtures would make an ideal modern battle ready sword.



There are a lot of modern steels to choose from, depending on what you consider to be "ideal." Metalurgy is still very much a thriving science an occasionally people in the field will start buzzing about some new "super steel." At the end of the day, though, you still have to compare and weigh different factors to one another - durability, edge-keeping capacity, resistance to corrosion, price, how difficult it is to work with, and what qualities you actually need in a sword before heading into blatant overkill territory.

If we look at pure carbon steel, then 1045 (that is, steel with 0.45% carbon) is considered pretty ideal since it has a good balance of desirable traits and is relatively easy to work with. 1095 is harder, resulting in more brittle blades but also sharper edges. So, which one you go by depend on wether you prioritize sharp edges or durability. 

If we move on to more advanced alloys, 5160 spring steel is very popular among sword producers. It is also used to make leaf springs for trucks and is very resilient when properly heat treated. 9260 is a similar steel with very good reputation, being possibly even stronger than 5160. Then there is the tool steels: T-10 tungsten alloy steel is used for higher end swords, often found in the more expensive production katanas. It is very hard in proportion to its strenght, resulting in a blade that can keep very sharp edges without sacrificing durability. L6 Bainite is another tool steel made popular by modern katana smith Howard Clark. Also used for bandsaw blades, it can be tricky to work with but is generally considered one of the most durable steel types you can get your hands on.

As you can see, there's a lot to choose from, and these are just the more commons steels available. The information may even be a bit outdated by now, because new steels are still being developed. Anyway, it's vital to keep in mind that it's not just the steel that matters - each alloy requires its own ideal heat treatment method to bring out the best qualities, and some heat treatment methods are trickier than others.


----------



## craenor

Anyone really interested in Wootz/Damascus blades, should track down the work of Kevin Cashen. He mostly makes shorter blades (knives), but he also makes swords, and they are pretty damned amazing.


----------



## Ty Crawford

*Think I could get some info on two different swords?*

Hey Anders, Ive got a quick question for you man. It involves two different versions of the sword. 
The *Flamberge*, and the *Buster Blade*.

Ok, my first question is, What was the effectiveness of the flamberge. Ive tried to research this, and still nobody can give me decent information on the subject. So far, I'm thinking the many curves put on it add to aerodynamics in slicing or what-not, but I've never owned one, so I can't say so for sure. 


My second question is the Buster Blade. If someone wanted one strong enough to defend attacks that a shield could, but still not loose its density, and what-not, what should it be made from? I dont know enough of these swords yet.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ty Crawford said:


> Hey Anders, Ive got a quick question for you man. It involves two different versions of the sword.
> The *Flamberge*, and the *Buster Blade*.
> 
> Ok, my first question is, What was the effectiveness of the flamberge. Ive tried to research this, and still nobody can give me decent information on the subject. So far, I'm thinking the many curves put on it add to aerodynamics in slicing or what-not, but I've never owned one, so I can't say so for sure.



This has been discussed a lot, actually, and the bottom line is: Nobody really seems to know exactly what flame-bladed swords are actually good for. Some think it's just for decoration, others argue there are various benefits to it. I am personally not aware of any conclusing having been reached on either side. Though, most seem to agree that they at least aren't _worse_ than regular swords.



> My second question is the Buster Blade. If someone wanted one strong enough to defend attacks that a shield could, but still not loose its density, and what-not, what should it be made from? I dont know enough of these swords yet.



By "buster blade", you mean like a FF7-style buster sword?

I'm a bit confused by your question. If you want to shield yourself from attacks, high density would be a benefit. And at those dimensions, regular steel would do just fine for that purpose.


----------



## craenor

As Anders mentioned, the flammard (or flambard) was sometimes considered to have had various benefits. The earliest versions had rougher, sawtooth like curves and were thought to be useful at getting through pikes and such. 

They were also (incorrectly) thought to deliver more grievous wounds. 

And lastly, they were believed to slow the opponents sword when parrying and deliver a wicked feedback vibration to the opponent. 

Regardless whether any of this is true, they still were historically popular weapons around the end of the 15th and during the 16th centuries.


----------



## Ty Crawford

*RE: Buster Blade*

Yes, I'm referring to Clouds FF7 Buster blade. Or the same used Buster blade as in Yugioh. Most of them usually have a hole near the front of the blade. Were such swords used back then?

I'm having a berserker in one of my books use one, but I cant describe the combat in the book without decent knowledge on how the sword works. I know its a fantasy blade, but hey, so is the book I'm writing :showoff:


----------



## craenor

Well, if the buster-style sword in your world has some magical properties that allow it to overcome its failing, then you can have it work any way you want. My advice would be to emphasize the "buster" aspects - the name comes, supposedly, from busting or breaking things up with sheer force. 

However, if you want to describe the blade's functionality in real martial use, instead of relying upon some magical or fantasy properties, then I can't help you. This is a horrendous design, doomed to utter and complete failure as a weapon.


----------



## wordwalker

The Buster is partly inspired by the Zanbatō, the fabled "horse-chopping sword" that turns up in some Asian legends-- but was only actually made as an oversized temple offering you weren't even supposed to lift.

A sword like Cloud's (and I've seen them drawn a lot bigger; see _InuYasha_ or early _Ruroni Kenshin_) is just too heavy to be worth trying to swing, and making it a sword (as opposed to an oversized axe or hammer) also means the metal's likely to be too thin and shatter itself. (Plus, in Japan itself, they'd never try making one to real sword standards because they didn't have the iron to waste!)

So yes, a Buster Sword would be a heavily magic weapon, probably spelled to hold itself together and to add force to someone starting to swing it (or just given to someone with superhuman strength; a berserker would love anything that big that wouldn't break on him). Very clumsy, but just the thing to smash a dragon or a wave of knights. But it would still be pure ego not to make it in the form of a hammer, when it's so awkward it can't have the control you'd want a sword for.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Ty Crawford said:


> Yes, I'm referring to Clouds FF7 Buster blade. Or the same used Buster blade as in Yugioh. Most of them usually have a hole near the front of the blade. Were such swords used back then?



As far as I know, no swords had holes in the blade except a few rapiers that could have very small perforations for decorative purposes. Otherwise, it's not a good idea to put a hole in your sword because it weakens it structurally. 

For something like Cloud's sword, that is of course not really an issue. It's mostly aestetic - something the designer put there to make it look more interesting. 



> I'm having a berserker in one of my books use one, but I cant describe the combat in the book without decent knowledge on how the sword works. I know its a fantasy blade, but hey, so is the book I'm writing :showoff:



Well, seeing as this is a fictional sword, your best bet is to simply look up other works of fiction where similar weapons are used - FF7: Advent Children, Beserk, the Soul Calibur games, etc.



craenor said:


> Well, if the buster-style sword in your world has some magical properties that allow it to overcome its failing, then you can have it work any way you want. My advice would be to emphasize the "buster" aspects - the name comes, supposedly, from busting or breaking things up with sheer force.
> 
> However, if you want to describe the blade's functionality in real martial use, instead of relying upon some magical or fantasy properties, then I can't help you. This is a horrendous design, doomed to utter and complete failure as a weapon.



Meh, I don't see what the problem is. It's just a very, very big sword, so it's used like a sword, except bigger. There are crazier weapons out there.



wordwalker said:


> The Buster is partly inspired by the Zanbatō, the fabled "horse-chopping sword" that turns up in some Asian legends-- but was only actually made as an oversized temple offering you weren't even supposed to lift.



Oh God, that Wiki article. I can't even _begin_ to explain what's wrong with it. Please don't link it again.

Look, as far as I know, "zanbatou" in the sense of "huge sword" was only actually mentioned in one single source, and that's Rurouni Kenshin. And don't get me wrong, Rurouni Kenshin is one of my favourite manga of all time. I've read the whole thing like three times. But the fact is, Nobuhiro Watsuki made up a _lot of _BS when it comes to weapons and martial arts history. It's about as reliable as... well, as you would expect from a comic book featuring a two-stories tall giant and a guy riding around in a fully functioning clockwork robot suit in 19th century Japan. 

(For goodness sake, "rurouni" isn't even a real word. Watsuki admited he made it up because it sounded good. This is a man who takes liberties with his own language.)

As far as I can tell, "zanbatou" appears to be a direct translation of the Chinese zhanmadao, and if so the Japanese equivalent weapon would be a nagamaki. There is no actual standardized term for "absurdly huge fantasy sword," and whoever wrote that article has my undying scorn for trying to pass a manga reference off as some sort of established fact. Most of the examples cited are just... well, absurdly huge fantasy swords. Not everything has to be neatly categorized, you know.

The fact is: Any Japanese sword with a blade longer than three shaku (ca 105 cm) was simply an _odachi_, a "great sword", pretty much across the board. Any blade shorter than three shaku but longer than two was a daito, which is to say a regular katana or tachi. Any blade between one and two shaku was a koto, that is to say a wakizashi or kodachi. Any blade shorter than one shaku was a tanto. The Japanese are pretty anal about their sword definitions.

Now, it's true very long odachi were made to be temple offerings, but that had more to do with the fact that they were outlawed as actual weapons at the time. Since they weren't actually meant to be used and because forging very long swords was very difficult, these temple swords were often made oversized on purpose as a way for swordsmiths to show off their skills. Basically, they were publicity stunts. They really don't have anything to do with the oversized swords you see in anime, manga and video games.



> A sword like Cloud's (and I've seen them drawn a lot bigger; see _InuYasha_ or early _Ruroni Kenshin_) is just too heavy to be worth trying to swing, and making it a sword (as opposed to an oversized axe or hammer) also means the metal's likely to be too thin and shatter itself. So yes, a Buster Sword would be a heavily magic weapon, probably spelled to hold itself together



I don't know about that. Sure, the square-cube law is a thing and something like the buster sword would probably have some tricky mass distribution, but it's still a huge chunk of tempered steel. Unless you are cutting tanks and skyscrapers in half, you are not more likely to break it against anything than you are a regular sword. Probably less.

And if you _are _cutting tanks and skyscrapers in half, why would you ever single out that one aspect to be realistic about? It always amuses me how people will look at something absolutely absurd and then focus on relatively minor issues. 

Case in point:



> (or just given to someone with superhuman strength; a berserker would love anything that big that wouldn't break on him). Very clumsy, but just the thing to smash a dragon or a wave of knights. But it would still be pure ego not to make it in the form of a hammer, when it's so awkward it can't have the control you'd want a sword for.



Look, would these swords be impossible to swing around in real life? Sure. _But that's the whole point._ That if you give one to a guy like Cloud Strife - someone who can wield it as a regular sword - most ordinary people aren't going to be able to touch him. If he's not notably slower or clumsier than any other swordsman, but his sword is five feet long and packs a hundred pounds behind every swing, how would you even defend yourself against that? That's _why _you want one of these silly things in the first place.

(Also, why would a giant hammer be _less_ awkward? It's exactly the same thing except dealing blunt damage rather than cutting. Seriously, man, what's your deal with hammers?)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Besides, the _real_ issue isn't being strong enough to swing the sword: It's swinging the sword without being pulled off balance by the weight and falling over. Even if you have superhuman strenght, there is a limit to how much weight you can hold in your hands before it unbalances your own body's weight via simple physics. 

But again, if you put a sword like this in your story, odds are you don't care that much about realism anyway. And that's fine. We're fantasy writers, after all.


----------



## wordwalker

Yeah. Sorry if I sounded selectively nitpicky; of course the whole thing is Rule of Cool, 'nuff said. I just like looking for the path of least resistance when I'm putting some magic together, finding some ways to enchant away just part of the problem and work with the rest.

And, no rest for the wiki.


----------



## KorbentMarksman

I have a question about the quality and accessibility of metal underwater. There's a technologically advanced underwater city in my story called Ictethys, which is considerably more advanced than us but still commonly uses rapiers and maces to supply the military. My question is whether or not large quantities of high-grade steel would be accessible to a city built underwater? I know this isn't technically a sword-making question but it is to do with metalwork.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

KorbentMarksman said:


> I have a question about the quality and accessibility of metal underwater. There's a technologically advanced underwater city in my story called Ictethys, which is considerably more advanced than us but still commonly uses rapiers and maces to supply the military.



Makes sense. Guns probably isn't a very good idea in a large pressurized underwater dwelling.



> My question is whether or not large quantities of high-grade steel would be accessible to a city built underwater? I know this isn't technically a sword-making question but it is to do with metalwork.



Not really my field - you'll have to find a geologist to properly answer this one.

To produce steel, they'll need iron and carbon. I'm _guessing_ iron shouldn't be that hard to aquire, but I'm not sure where they'd get their carbon. They would need to have both an iron mine and a coal mine in the same general area, I guess. 

There may also be some very particular problems inherent to running underwater smelting plants and forges. I imagine anything that risks polluting or reducing the air supply is very tightly regulated.


----------



## Scribe Lord

What would be the best type of sword to use on horse or camel back? Any particular shape? These would be used in a desert area.


----------



## wordwalker

The usual theory is a curved blade, since you're more likely to ride past someone and slash than stab, plus a curved blade's more likely to roll along the body as you pass. Not everyone agrees with that, though.


----------



## Meyer

I agree with Wordwalker and that is the justification used in GoT for the Dothraki weapons.


Strictly theoretical, but what would be the ideal sword for duels or massed combat for someone who is 7' tall with an average to slightly above average reach?  Strength is not a limiting factor.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Scribe Lord said:


> What would be the best type of sword to use on horse or camel back? Any particular shape? These would be used in a desert area.



I have no idea about camels but for horsemen, it would depend a bit on what type of cavalry we are talking (light or heavy) and how these people conduct cavalry warfare, or which real-life culture they most resemble. Practically the only thing all cavalry swords have in common is that they tend to be longer than swords intended for use on foot. Otherwise, they can be curved or straight, very heavy or pointy for lance-like charges, or both, and so on. 



wordwalker said:


> The usual theory is a curved blade, since you're more likely to ride past someone and slash than stab, plus a curved blade's more likely to roll along the body as you pass. Not everyone agrees with that, though.



Big, _big _can of worms, really. At one point all the armies in Europe were really undecided on the merits of straight vs curved, slash vs thrust and so on. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer.

There _may_ be some advantages to curved swords when fighting on horseback, particularly in terms effective range in close melees, but most cavalry swords were straight for several hundred years before the saber gained popularity. So, it seems either way is doable.



Meyer said:


> Strictly theoretical, but what would be the ideal sword for duels or massed combat for someone who is 7' tall with an average to slightly above average reach?  Strength is not a limiting factor.



More often than not, your ideal sword size is measured by your own body size anyway. So, as long a your weapon, body and fighting style all suit each other it probably doesn't matter how large you are. 

In other words, there's probably no such thing as an ideal sword type for a certain size of body. You would simply use whatever is the most suitable weapon for your time and region.


----------



## Meyer

So using a 5' to 6' claymore/two handed sword would be believable?  Or would a hand a half bastard sword be preferable?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Meyer said:


> So using a 5' to 6' claymore/two handed sword would be believable?  Or would a hand a half bastard sword be preferable?



That depends entirely on the context, what your character is trained to use, etc. No one sword is really "better" than any another, though you can have preferences or trends.


----------



## Meyer

This particular character is a monster/witch hunter.  He makes use of various firearms, throwing axes, and a shortsword.  I'm just debating as to what his "heavy" melee weapon should be: a greatsword, warhammer, or battleaxe.

I suppose as long it is well written and I don't do anything silly like a greatsword slashing through plate it will be okay.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Meyer said:


> This particular character is a monster/witch hunter.  He makes use of various firearms, throwing axes, and a shortsword.  I'm just debating as to what his "heavy" melee weapon should be: a greatsword, warhammer, or battleaxe.
> 
> I suppose as long it is well written and I don't do anything silly like a greatsword slashing through plate it will be okay.



I'm getting a bit of Renaissance feel here, and if he mostly hunts witches and monsters, it doesn't seem likely that he encounters opponents in heavy armor very often. Something like a nice all-around bastard sword would probably be a good choice. Or maybe something like a kriegsmesser - that is, a large two-handed saber - if he needs to take someone's head off in a hurry. 

Warhammers are mostly anti-armor weapons, and large battle axes would be rare in an era with guns. There's polehammers and poleaxes, of course, but there's the question of how your guy carries all these weapons around. Pole weapons, and similar stuff like longaxes, pretty much has to be carried around by hand, while a sword can be carried in a sheath.


----------



## LadyofKaos

I want to use swords & daggers for promotional purposes with my book. Do you favor any one website that sells these items over another in regards to quality? I can't afford to go high dollar but at the same time do not want cheap imitations.


----------



## Pat Harris

Anders, Totally awesome thread! I've only read a few pages in and have learned a lot already. So have you written a book about swords? If not, it seems like you should.

So, here's my question:  I need a sword for my next novel that hails from the Middle East around the years 30 to 40 AD (or CE, if you prefer). I understand it needs to be a Roman-type sword, but beyond that I'm fuzzy on the details. Can you suggest what the design and style of the sword should be? 

Also, my sword will have been passed down through the centuries and I'm thinking about giving it an "upgraded" blade sometime in the 1600's in the Central American region (around Henry Morgan's time). I understand it was common for the wealthy to "upgrade" their swords at that time and gemstones and gold were plentiful in Central America then (before they were carried off to Europe or by pirates). Any suggestions on what an "upgraded" blade might be made of, or look like? 

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and sword-wisdom here.


----------



## Meyer

Thanks for your advice Anders.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

LadyofKaos said:


> I want to use swords & daggers for promotional purposes with my book. Do you favor any one website that sells these items over another in regards to quality? I can't afford to go high dollar but at the same time do not want cheap imitations.



What exactly is your budget?



Pat Harris said:


> Anders, Totally awesome thread! I've only read a few pages in and have learned a lot already. So have you written a book about swords? If not, it seems like you should.
> 
> So, here's my question:  I need a sword for my next novel that hails from the Middle East around the years 30 to 40 AD (or CE, if you prefer). I understand it needs to be a Roman-type sword, but beyond that I'm fuzzy on the details. Can you suggest what the design and style of the sword should be?



Tricky question, and I'm not sure I can give a good answer. It's not a region and time period I'm familiar with. If it's actually a Roman sword, I understand it would probably look much the same as other swords within the empire. If it was actually made in the middle east (where in the middle east, exactly?) it may have Persian or Parthian influence, or resemble an acinaces.

That only thing I can say for sure is that it would be double edged and probably relatively short. Wish I could go into more detail than this but my sources seem to have failed me.



> Also, my sword will have been passed down through the centuries and I'm thinking about giving it an "upgraded" blade sometime in the 1600's in the Central American region (around Henry Morgan's time). I understand it was common for the wealthy to "upgrade" their swords at that time and gemstones and gold were plentiful in Central America then (before they were carried off to Europe or by pirates). Any suggestions on what an "upgraded" blade might be made of, or look like?



A sword from the first century AD surviving until the 1600s is _very _unlikely. Most people at that time probably didn't know what a roman sword looked like, and carrying one into battle would be kinda like a modern soldier carrying an arquebus. 

If it did survive, it would have at least received a rehilting at some point or a few to reflect the changing fashions. More likely it might also have been reshaped or cut down to a dagger, etc. People back then weren't anywhere _near _as reverent of old swords as we like to imagine - most would have prefered something more cutting edge, pun intended.

As for "upgrading" your weapon with gold and jewels, that would mainly be something you'd see from wealthy nobles and the like. Such weapons probably wouldn't have been intended for combat but used as fashion accessories and as a way to brag about his crazy rich you were. Your average pirate would have been more likely to pry the jewels off a fancy dagger or sword and sell them for rum money.

Gilded, jewel studded swords were basically not much different from gilded, jewel studded guns of today - surely such things existed, but it wasn't something you would see on an actual battlefield.


----------



## Pat Harris

Anders,
Thanks for the awesome reply. Clever pun - heh heh. In the good-old-days swords were brut, bloody slashers and stabbers, not magical icons, eh? Watching one of the more realistic sword-fighting movies is depressingly sobering. So much for the mystique of swords. 

Wow, those gilded, bejeweled guns at the link you provided are really something. Showpieces for sure. The sword showing up in my novel will hail from Jerusalem, so standard Roman issue. It's to be an icon that's been hidden away, not used for fighting, but also not gilded or jewel-encrusted--actually pretty plain looking. There will be pirates: Henry Morgan and his men. From what I've read his men certainly would pry out the jewels, especially near the end of their "careers." What I'm thinking of doing is giving the sword an upgraded blade shortly after Morgan's time. I'm not sure where I read about the upgrading of blades and hilts; might have been in Esquemeling's (sp?) journal, which was an eye-witness account to Morgan and his antics. Where I read about the wealthy of that time and place "fancy-ing up" their swords was probably some more writings from the era.

Thanks again for your comments.


----------



## Valentinator

If the steel is 4 times lighter (all other physical characteristics being equal) does it make sense to make swords 4 times bigger?Does it make sense to use light steel instead of normal steel? Which changes in weaponry we could expect with introducing light steel in medieval European culture?


----------



## wordwalker

I'll let other people work out the balance (pun, of course) of what quarterweight steel might mean to weapons. 

But I think the biggest game-changer might be in using it for _shields_-- most shields were primarily wood, not only for economy but because an all-metal shield could be exhausting to fight with. But that meant the shield got chopped up in each battle and risked breaking when you needed it. Now if the shield was steel-strong but only a quarter as heavy...

And the non-military uses for that kind of miracle metal could be much further-reaching. I assume it isn't actually stronger or cheaper to work than steel (the two big factors), but just having it lighter might _make_ opportunities that dragged society toward an industrial revolution.


----------



## Sia

How would most of the population in my world  being left-handed affect the way swords are made (I think 'forged' is the proper term) ?


----------



## Malik

Sia said:


> How would most of the population in my world  being left-handed affect the way swords are made (I think 'forged' is the proper term) ?



It depends on the type of sword. A swept-hilt rapier, for instance, where the hilt is designed as rings and branches that form a cage around the hand, would be backwards for a right-handed person and open the hand, wrist, and forearm to wounds. The balance would also be off because the cage would be on the wrong side. Ring-hilted and cup-hilted rapiers, however, were ambidextrous, as were most swords. 

The big difference is that if most people are left-handed, then a right-handed fighter will have an advantage because a left-handed fighter will have to reverse everything. Check it out:

Facing a left-handed fighter you see this:








Facing a right-handed fighter you see this:







Southpaws have an advantage in our world because 90% of people are right-handed, so they are used to fighting against orthodox opponents. Orthodox fighters are at a disadvantage against southpaws because they rarely fight them. 

I'm right-handed but left-eye dominant so I fence and box southpaw. Where is gets confusing is that, as a southpaw, I HATE fighting other southpaws. All the vectors are wrong.

_Edited to add: Throw in shields, and it gets really confusing; fighting southpaw vs. orthodox, the shields and swords are on the same side. That leads to a whole series of complications and strange, gimmicky attacks. If your protagonist is right-handed in a southpaw world, medieval-type "heater" shields, kite shields, and even strap-on roundshields won't work for him. The roundshields might work if the strap is exactly in the middle, but some people like to have the shield a little top- or bottom-heavy, and even if it balances right, the device will be upside down._


----------



## Sia

Huh, that's interesting. Could you expand more on the 'strange complicated gimmicky' attacks please? I know next to nothing about swords.  I could probably point one out as a sword but I have no clue about what type of swords things are. They're mostly pointy stabby things (altough I do know what a hilt is and what a blade is. I have no idea what a pommel is though.)  

Yeah, southpaw world is about right.  Why would swords and shields be on the same side? I'm not saying they wouldn't. You will know more about swords than I did. I'm just trying to figure out why to see if I can make leaps of knowledge and stuff.


----------



## Malik

They'd be on the same side because a right-handed fighter holds his shield in his left hand and his sword in his right, and a left-handed fighter holds his shield in his RIGHT hand, and his sword in his LEFT. When they stand face-to-face, they stand shield to shield and sword to sword. 

Shields are used -- generally -- to defend against swords, so this gets tricky. 

In our world, lefties have a series of tricks that they have to use in sword-and-shield combat. A rudimentary, ugly, but very effective tactic one is to stand with the sword-side forward (usually you stand with your shield forward) and concentrate attacks on disabling the opponent's swordhand and swordarm. Another is to use the shield to move the opponent's shield out of the way, either hooking it with the edge to pull it, or bashing it outright, to make an opening to stab or slash. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Sia

Ah, yes, thanks Malik.  How about the shield wall tactic the Romans favoured? How does that effect culture and such?


----------



## Malik

Another thing is the direction that they'd circle. Generally in a fight, you circle away from the opponent's sword. That's just instinct. Two orthodox fighters slugging it out are going to turn to their right; counterclockwise, looking at them from the top. An orthodox fighter facing a southpaw, though, is going to want to circle to his own left, while the southpaw wants to go to his OWN right, which is ALSO his opponent's left, which screws everything up. The southpaw is used to this and has built his attacks and defenses around it; the orthodox fighter isn't. So there are more breaks and retreats out of attacking distance while the orthodox fighter gets his lines straight for the next assault. I see this in the ring all the time; it's one of the hallmarks of a bout between southpaw and orthodox boxers. You don't get the long exchanges of attacks and counters, what we call "fighting in a phone booth." 

Southpaws are also very good at getting in, striking, and then getting out and winding up someplace that you don't expect. Then you have to turn around and square off again.

I guess the final and biggest thing is that, unless your "unorthodox" fighter is facing a VERY experienced opponent who has fought many unorthodox fighters in his life, that opponent will be at a disadvantage because nothing will ever "feel" quite right. Combat -- whether it's Judo, boxing, fencing, or axes and armor -- is a game of muscle memory. You train and you train and you train until everything just flows on instinct. No one ever thinks, "Okay, I'm going to feint for the leg and then cutover, feint again high, and then thrust down the four line for the touch." It's fluid; it's dynamic. You take what you can get and your opponent counters everything you do, so your attacks and movements have to flow from one to the next as the fight unfolds -- you're always adjusting, and you're doing it instinctively. If you have to think about what you're doing, you're going to lose. Southpaws make an inexperienced opponent have to think, which is why southpaws win a lot, especially early in their careers.


----------



## Malik

A couple of thoughts on the shieldwall and culture. I know this is a sword thread; mods, go ahead and move this to its own thread if it turns into a hijack.

I'm in the military. I'll spare you Internet heroics but I'll tell you that I've been in more than one no-joke life-or-death "Oh My God I'm Gonna F'ing Die" situation -- one sticks out in my head as I write this -- where the lives of others have depended upon me doing exactly what I was trained to do, despite the fact that doing it right then was ridiculously dangerous and would have gone against any sort of better judgment had I stopped to think about it. The only thing that kept me alive was that the guys to my right and left were also doing something retardedly dangerous, and my life at that moment depended on them doing their jobs competently and without hesitation the way theirs depended on me doing mine.

But with all of us together, working in concert, just as we'd trained (and trained, and _trained_ -- no one ever talks about drill in fantasy novels and yet epic battles always have cavalry running formations and archers volleying and shieldwalls and organized battle lines with flanks and attacks and retreats and there is no way in HELL you can do any of that without weeks if not months of drill and practice; battle without drill is just a huge streetfight), it worked and we all walked away and we still raise our glasses and laugh about it. 

I did what I did because I knew that they'd do their part, and vice versa. We're all here today because of each other. That's soldiering in a nutshell: performance, under duress, of such individual caliber that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and together your little team -- or your big team -- accomplishes something that on its face seems impossible. I would imagine that being in a shieldwall would encompass something similar, and the sense of interdependence and group accomplishment would be the core of an infantryman who did that sort of thing regularly. 

The shieldbearers -- "the guys in the wall," or whatever -- might even be a clique in the military, a bunch of guys who have each other's backs no matter what. Heck, you could have a tattoo or brand or something designating these guys as shieldmen, "men of the wall," "wallers," or some nickname to differentiate them from cavalry, spearmen, skirmishers, etc. who, if they're anything like modern military (and personally I don't think the mindset has changed much over the last 3000 years; soldiers are soldiers), will have their own cliques and personalities.


----------



## wordwalker

Valentinator said:


> If the steel is 4 times lighter (all other physical characteristics being equal) does it make sense to make swords 4 times bigger? Does it make sense to use light steel instead of normal steel? Which changes in weaponry we could expect with introducing light steel in medieval European culture?



Nobody's tried answering this for weapons, so:

Quarterweight steel might not be so useful in a lot of weapons; it would make them faster but much less powerful. (And weight and its distribution matter: smiths tell me an axe, which of course hits harder but more clumsily than a sword, often isn't much heavier than the sword, it just has more of its weight at the head for different balance.)

A lightweight sword might be most useful for cutting up unarmored foes, or if someone thought he was fast enough to use a rapier style to thrust through an enemy. Otherwise, the longer the battle goes, the more the weapon starts the blunting most weapons suffer from all the banging against shields and other swords, and the more you're left swinging a lightweight rod that can't hurt people.

--Exactly how _much_ faster quarterweight steel would be, or how much of an advantage that would be compared to the rate it lost its edge and its power, would be harder to say. And of course, a weapon wouldn't have to be exactly 1/4 weight for its size, it could be made with whatever mix of steels (or with different metal in the hilt for balance) gave the best effect.

One trick that might be feasible would be an actual "one-handed zweihander" : a two-handed sword light enough to swing with one hand. It might hit like a shorter weapon, but it would have more reach, while leaving the other hand free for a shield. A nasty combo to try to get past.

I did mention the huge difference lightweight metal for shields might make. Using it in metal armor might not be as big a difference, because chain and plate armor would still be expensive and hard to penetrate anyway. Light but thicker plate or double-layer chain would be nice to have, but maybe not change too much about what already couldn't get through (blades) and what still can (hammers, joint stabs). But light, regular-thickness armor might be useful for rangers or spies (which is to say, at least 50% of the heroes ever written) to let them make runs or long marches/rides in armor without tiring them or the horse-- but even then, most metal armor still clanks away any chance at stealth, a problem when you have to sneak past a thousand orcs to scout out their invasion route.


----------



## Sia

Wow, this is really good stuff, Malik. Yes, I have figured out some stuff about culture and such.  A distinction is totally made in terms of battle and that. I need to figure out the justification for the nickname though.  Like everything, there is some overlap but there do seem to be two main distinct fighting styles which roughly (the history is far more complex) translate to 'shield' and 'sword'.    

In our society, the shield wall tactic worked with each man, benefiting from his shield and the neighbour on his right, according to wikipedia. So, would I be correct in thinking that in my case, you're now benefiting from your shield and that of your left-hand-side neighbour?

As for the two main fighting 'disciplines', if you like, it would go something like this.


Rheans:  These would be the shield wallers and have each other's back, no matter what, as you rightly said. They're the defense, rather than the offense. Even when you make them attack, there's still defensive elements. Hi, shield wall.   

Kubesh:  Sword. As you can imagine, there's more offense in this style and I fully admit to not having fleshed out properly.


Hmm ... let me put it this way. I neednames but let's ask the children of a solider of each style a question. Both children are rather small, say, no more than six or seven. Replies are edited for readibility but the gist remains the same   "Okay, guys, a bully's beating up on your friend and separating them by pulling or whatever is not working. What do you do to stop the bully?"

Rhean child:  That one's easy.  Stand in between my friend and the bully. That can't happen if I'm in the way. 

Kubesh child: The bully is facing my friend, I'll just walk around and punch them or kick them in the back somewhere.

Well, they've solved the original problem, at least. Granted, they now have to deal with the bully whaling on them but that's a new problem.



As for the right/left-handed juxtaposition thing, what happens if said right-hander is up against a very experienced fighter who is used to them?


----------



## Malik

A really advanced fighter facing off against an unorthodox opponent would be cognizant of the advantages and disadvantages on either side and, if he's smart, would use them to lay a trap. In boxing we call it "inviting the punch" -- you intentionally leave an opening in your defense and have a counter ready as soon as the opponent exploits it. 

An experienced orthodox fighter facing an unorthodox fighter would know that the unorthodox fighter expects him to make certain mistakes. _(edit: the unorthodox fighter would think something like, "Ha! This chump is making the same mistake the last ten guys I killed made! This'll be easy!")_ A true master would _intentionally_ make expected mistakes, either to sandbag ("sandbagging" = fighting below your ability to lull your opponent) or to draw the unorthodox fighter in, either way wounding or killing him in a moment of overconfidence.


----------



## Malik

I've been thinking about the quarter-weight steel thing, and I can't make it work in my head. A super-light blade wouldn't cut very well. In fact, it would cut poorly.

As far as the sword being faster, it's a non-issue. A well-balanced "normal" steel or iron sword is as fast as a human hand. It's as fast as it needs to be. You are not swinging a kettlebell at the end of your hand. A sword is a lever, not a barbell. The center of effort and center of gravity of a well-made sword can give even a bastard sword with a 36-inch blade a light, snappy feel.

Secondly, we need to remember what makes a sword cut. Swords don't cut because of "sharpness." Sharpness helps, but cutting through resistance -- especially meat, bone, and the kinds of armor you can cut through -- is a function of inertia and edge geometry. You're not slicing paper, or even water bottles. A sword made of super-light metal would have to be pretty massive to cut as well as, say, a 3- or 4-lb. iron _gran espee de guerre_ with welded steel edges. 

A Type XIIIa warsword -- your typical four-foot, mail-ruining, concussion-dealing, limb-severing one- or two-hander circa 14th Century -- has a wide blade with nearly-parallel edges (technically a very slight concave distal taper, see below) and a spatulate tip for the same reason that Abrams tanks fire rounds in the shape of rods instead of the shape of bullets. You need to "stack" the kinetic energy of the sword and the wielder's body behind the cut in order to penetrate. 

This is a 3 lb. Type XIIIa warsword typical of the 13th-14th C. with 33" of blade and 9" of handle, giving it a total length of 42":







The blade node, AKA the "sweet spot," on this sword is 21" from the guard, so just about 2/3 of the way along the blade. That's the spot you want to hit somebody with if at all possible. It is also, on this sword, _exactly_ where the fuller ends; once again, adding mass behind the maximum center of effort. You WANT your sword to be heavy and fast. This is also because when fighting someone in layers of riveted mail, leather, and plate iron, you're not going to penetrate his armor with anything less than a glorified pickaxe; a _gran espee de guerre_ was used more for knocking someone unconscious or busting him up inside his armor to disable him than anything else. At 3 or even 4 lbs on the end of that much moment arm, it's like getting hit with a crowbar. Repeated hits will ruin mail and a good hit to the helmet will dent it and knock a man cold. With a 1-lb., or 3/4-lb. sword of the same size, you're delivering a fraction of the force and just wasting your time.

A good Type XIII / XIIIa will cut through eight, or even _ten_, six-inch tatami mats in one blow. That's a function of the sword's mass. A light sword of the same size won't "carry" the blow nearly that far. It just can't. When I think about it, I can't imagine a 1-lb. warsword cutting through anything substantial. Any kind of armor would turn a lightweight warsword into a glorified riding crop.

If you had a rapier-type sword made of super-light metal, you'd have an imperceptible advantage in speed over an opponent with a steel sword of the same size. In fact, a good fighter with a heavier weapon would employ _prise de fer_, beats, and enveloping maneuvers more easily with a heavier blade and if he knew what he was doing he would probably hand you your ass. Then there's sectional density, flexibility, ductility, edge hardness, all the things that make a good sword a good sword . . . Oy.

To make a super-light sword deliver anything more than glorified paper cuts, it would cease to be a sword; it would have to be an axe or a meat cleaver, with the center of mass piled up behind the cutting surface. Maybe a breakback saxe with a heavy false edge?
Or a falchion, though the width and impact point would have to be exaggerated, and then it's basically a poleaxe, anyway.

This is a falchion:







TL;DR: 
Swords are shaped the way they are and function the way they do because of the properties of iron and steel. I would go so far as to say that if steel had radically different properties of any sort, warswords wouldn't work. They just wouldn't.


----------



## Malik

Also, if you did build some sort of uber-oversized Manga-type sword out of a material a quarter the weight of steel, by the time you made the sword big enough to cut effectively, the leverage at the end of that sucker would make it more unwieldy than a regular steel sword of the same weight and a fraction of the size. 







To make your idea work, you would have to change everything we know and think of when we visualize swords and armor. That's not a bad thing. And it's not hard; that is, if you decide to devote your life to it. Seriously. It would take me five years just to dream up and refine a combat system based on what you're talking about. It would, however, make for extremely awesome reading.


----------



## Sia

So my right-hander is now in danger of  cockiness? They're not supposed to be trying to kill one another but humans don't exactly have a perfect track record for following the rules. In this particular instance, they're supposed to be going for first blood. However, said advanced fighter may well have killed people before and think something along those lines.  So, sandbagging is creating a false sense of security?


----------



## Valentinator

Malik, wordwalker, thanks a lot for the answers. Yes, I'm writing a story with a completely different combat system based on light metal and some other sorts of metals.  

Malik, it's nice to see experienced combat practitioners here. I also like to box.


----------



## Malik

I wanted to post this, too; with that pic of the Type XIIIa above, it's tough to get a sense of the size of these things. 

This is a Type XIIIa warsword (R, blue) next to a fantasy-style bastardsword (L, green). The Type XIIIa is true to the Oakeshott typology. The fuller is a little longer than the sword I showed above; the original owner probably wanted it a bit lighter and this is just the way the sword came out to make it functional. This was the professional knight's primary battlefield tool from 1200-1400 AD, represented here as best we can reproduce it today. And if you've never handled a real sword, let me tell you it has about as much in common with a stainless-steel LARP sword as Creole cuisine has with the McDonald's Cajun Chicken Sandwich.

The fantasy sword, while not historically accurate, has separate blade dynamics and overall function. We'll get to that in a moment.

The point I'm making here is, they are MASSIVE.












_Edit: This is not a child's hand. This is a fulll-grown man's hand on a Type XIIIa handle._

And these aren't even "two-handed swords" e.g. Claymores, Danish two-handers, etc., which can have blades longer than these entire swords. The _gran espee de guerre_ -- the blue-handled one -- is technically a longsword, meaning it's optimized for use with two hands but perfectly usable with one. 

The green-handled sword is technically a bastardsword, meaning it's designed for use with one hand but with room for a second hand to add cutting power or maneuverability when needed; you typically see a delineation at the midpoint of the handle of a bastardsword, with one half of the handle either a different shape (as in this case), or one half wrapped in wire, etc. Also, the blade tapers to a thrusting point and the handle is longer, which would make it lighter in the hand and more of a slashing rather than a cutting blade; another sign of a bastardsword vs. a warsword. 

With steel four times as light, you could make these swords technically twice this size. They would have eight-foot blades that were four inches across at the base. The trick is that leverage is exponential, so the tip of an eight-foot, one-pound sword would be heavier in your hand than the tip of a four-foot, four-pound sword, and it would be seriously unwieldy. Unless you had a handle two feet long with a massive counterbalance in the pommel. That brings us back to the bastardsword: note that its handle is longer than the warsword's by nearly an inch; that transfers force to the tip. One way to maneuver a big sword is to put your non-dominant hand nearly at the pommel and use your dominant hand as the fulcrum, as opposed to swinging it like a club. Longer handle = faster tip.

Here's what I'm getting at: with enough handle and the right counterbalance, you could -- technically -- fence with eight-foot, super-light, two-handed blades, the ends of which would be moving very fast with terrific leverage. You're not going to get much carry against armor, but in street clothes? Yow. To say nothing of the fact that a duel between two of them would be spectacular to watch . . . from a distance. They'd be ridiculously impractical, so I'd envision a flowing, highly-ritualized martial art.


----------



## Malik

Re-reading this. I hadn't had my coffee yet and did the math backwards for half of it. 

In the second-to-last paragraph:

*The trick is that leverage is exponential, so the tip of an eight-foot, one-pound sword would be heavier in your hand than the tip of a four-foot, four-pound sword, and it would be seriously unwieldy.*

SHOULD read:

*The trick is that leverage is exponential, so the tip of an eight-foot, FOUR-pound sword would be heavier in your hand than the tip of a four-foot, four-pound sword, and it would be seriously unwieldy.*

Also, said swords would be extremely floppy. There's just no way around it. This means you'd need to tweak the density of the metal, too, or just employ a judicious amount of Handwavium; something all fantasy authors do, and often on much larger issues. Sometimes you've got to cut your losses and this would be a great place to do it, IMO.

_EDIT: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device."
—David Langford, "A Gadget Too Far," as a corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law_

Fun thought experiment, though. Let us know what you come up with.


----------



## Valentinator

>_Unless you had a handle two feet long with a massive counterbalance in the pommel._

Yes the counterbalance was partially my choice but I was thinking of long massive handles in general. But of course there is a lot of handwavium as well. My magic system is optimized for handling ridiculously oversized weapons. Some of the warriors are supernaturally strong by channeling special type of energy into them, others use (partial) levitation to wield their weapons. In my universe viliril/vilirium (light "steel") is not generally the metal designed for weapons. It is used mostly for defense purposes, in alloys and as a construction material. There are others, more destructive metals. All of them have high affinity to different types of magic that can change their physical characteristics when the mage is channeling the energy inside them. I don't want to go into details now, it's a little bit off topic, also talking a lot about my worldbuilding concept makes me lose focus.


----------



## Dale13Bruce

*Sword colourings*

So,

It's not a very long question..just a short one lol. 

 Could a sword REALLY be coloured? If so, how? And could it be done by, Rubies, Sapphires, etc? And would this affect it's edge in anyway? I'm thinking mostly short swords or daggers.


----------



## karim

well what about roman swords they were short i think is there an advantage for this or what?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Dale13Bruce said:


> Could a sword REALLY be coloured? If so, how? And could it be done by, Rubies, Sapphires, etc? And would this affect it's edge in anyway? I'm thinking mostly short swords or daggers.



I assume you're talking about the steel since you've mentioned an effect on the edge. Yes, steel can be colored, in a manner of speaking. I don't know if you could truly tint the metal but people have used finishes to protect and color metal for a long time. Modern protective coatings, stonewashed finishes, satin finishes made by rubbing or brushing are one way. Closer to what you're asking would be hot bluing, like the finishes used on older firearms (it is still used but not as common now). Hot bluing is a caustic process that promotes the black oxidation of iron that actually looks blue/black when polished. This protects metal from rust (red oxidation) which corrodes the metal. Black oxide does not corrode like rust. Further, there are other chemical finishes that bind to the metal like parkerizing. If you look at a WW2 firearm (and some modern weapons), you'll see a grey, rough finish. The shade of grey can vary depending on the actual chemicals used, but they are relatively all the same. Some older weapons had what are known as "case colors" which imparts a rainbow-like effect on the metal. It looks somewhat like a thin oil slick, catching light. Recently, modern finishes have colorings as well but most of those are epoxy finishes. There are some though that have been made to show colors similar to case colorings. The firearms reflect rainbow colors everywhere. Personally, I despise it in reality, but it may work for your purposes in a story.

I don't see how any gemstones could be used in coloring metal, at least not from a scientific viewpoint. However, keep in mind that you're writing fantasy. You can do anything you wish, as long as you can make it plausible.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

karim said:


> well what about roman swords they were short i think is there an advantage for this or what?



Short swords serve two main purposes. 

First, shorter weapons work better in close quarters where long swords or other reaching weapons don't have room to operate.

Short swords are also effective as a secondary weapon. In your example of a Roman soldier, they might be equipped with a spear as a primary weapon with a great reach advantage and as a weapon that could be effectively used in conjunction with other soldiers (see phalanx) and also carry a short sword for close quarter combat. Additionally, with the weight of armor & spear, a longsword or other big weapon as secondary might be too much for your average soldier.


----------



## wordwalker

Here's something we haven't talked about: scabbards.

One idea I've come across now and then is that your scabbard can actually trip you up in a fight, and you want to unhook and discard it if you have a chance. Is that just true for the longer swords (katana, bastard, and longer) or is it sometimes a good idea for arming swords too? Does a fighting style like profiled fencing, that controls your footsteps, help?

Edit: And, how feasible is the Xena-style back scabbard? I actually built one in my LARP days and know they slow down an arming sword's draw but make a longer sword basically impossible to get out without shifting off the back. (Though if you're in court or such, they might be the only way to wear a longer sword without it catching on everything. Peter Morwood's quasi-samurai have a back-scabbard that shifts neatly to the hip when they're expecting to fight.)

I do know swords take some attention just to walk around with them sticking out behind you, mostly when you sit down: you either want a couple feet of space behind the left edge of the chair, or you do unhook the thing.


----------



## CupofJoe

wordwalker said:


> One idea I've come across now and then is that your scabbard can actually trip you up in a fight, and you want to unhook and discard it if you have a chance. Is that just true for the longer swords (katana, bastard, and longer) or is it sometimes a good idea for arming swords too? Does a fighting style like profiled fencing, that controls your footsteps, help?


Never fought with a sword but I have drilled with one... a ceremonial sword [mid 19C cavalry design - I think I remember being told] and the hard leather scabbard it came in. These were tough enough to control when marching in close order or resenting arms. It would either trip me or bag into someone else. From that I kind of always thought that a "fighting" scabbard would be soft leather so it didn't get in the way, and there would be a hard/stiff "travelling" scabbard to keep it protected the rest of the time.



wordwalker said:


> I do know swords take some attention just to walk around with them sticking out behind you, mostly when you sit down: you either want a couple feet of space behind the left edge of the chair, or you do unhook the thing.


The scabbard we used clipped on to a belt at two points. When you sat down or had some time off you undid one [the back clip?] and let it hang down you thigh so you pull it across your lap or generally keep it out of the way.

Don't know about Xena-Style - we got reported for carrying our swords over our shoulder. they had to be worn properly or carried in the hand for safety reason - they didn't want us to damage the swords by accident.


----------



## Kit

I'm short, and my jian is too long to comfortably wear at the waist. Drawing it from the back is awkward but possible with practice. Doing any sort of maneuvering with the scabbard on (anywhere) is a pain.  If I was really walking around like that and might be attacked at any moment, I would probably want to have it slung on in such a way that I could shed the scabbard quickly.


----------



## Malik

A scabbard is held on the belt with a frog. The frog holds the sword at an angle so you can draw it easily, and so that a longer warsword doesn't drag on the ground. (Nobody ever wore a sword straight up and down, or tucked under their belt, unless they had never handled one before.) Frogs have been around since Roman times. 

A good frog is adjustable, and holds the scabbard at an angle so you don't trip over it. 








Fine scabbards have integrated swordbelts that serve the same purpose as a frog; holding the sword at an angle and keeping the scabbard out of your way.


----------



## Trick

There's this B movie called Dawn of the Dragon slayer (not particularly impressive IMHO) and near the end the hero/farmboy has his sword (possibly an English longsword?) on his back, hilt over his right shoulder. For someone interested in a scabbard that would be functional in that position you should check it out. It was more of a half-scabbard that held the point of the blade while the hilt rested behind two curved forks. It really looked like the sword could be drawn fluidly and replaced easily enough to maintain function. Best part of the movie actually.


----------



## Malik

And also, fencing rapier-style with a warsword is an elaborate form of suicide. The warsword is for brawling. It's meant to hack, smash, and bludgeon; built to break men apart inside their armor and maim people fool enough to wear no armor. 

Warsword combat is equal parts fencing, Judo, and Greco-Roman wrestling. Lots of locks, throws, trips, and shoving, with the sword as an afterthought once you've made an opening. 

Here's video of a skilled man with a longsword whomping the living crap out of a very good rapier fencer, using the advantages of a heavier, longer, two-handed weapon. This is fencing rules, too; they're using right of way, there's no off-hand contact, no tripping, etc.


----------



## wordwalker

Trick said:


> There's this B movie called Dawn of the Dragon slayer (not particularly impressive IMHO) and near the end the hero/farmboy has his sword (possibly an English longsword?) on his back, hilt over his right shoulder. For someone interested in a scabbard that would be functional in that position you should check it out. It was more of a half-scabbard that held the point of the blade while the hilt rested behind two curved forks. It really looked like the sword could be drawn fluidly and replaced easily enough to maintain function. Best part of the movie actually.



That was about how I built mine too.


----------



## Pat Harris

Hi,
Just a quick question. Is there a term for the sharpened edge of a sword blade--single or double-edged--other than: the edge, long edge or short edge?

Thanks bunches. Write on!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Pat Harris said:


> Hi,
> Just a quick question. Is there a term for the sharpened edge of a sword blade--single or double-edged--other than: the edge, long edge or short edge?


To my knowledge, it's only called an "edge" in English. I don't think there's another term for it.

Now, other weapons, like axes for instance, have different terms. The sharp edge of an axe can be called a "bit".


----------



## craenor

Pat Harris said:


> Hi,
> Just a quick question. Is there a term for the sharpened edge of a sword blade--single or double-edged--other than: the edge, long edge or short edge?
> 
> Thanks bunches. Write on!



If you're talking about like a cavalry sabre that as the long, sharpened edge, but then at the end, the last 1/3 of the length is sharpened along the back edge, then those are respectively referred to as the True Edge and the False Edge.


----------



## Pat Harris

This is too cool - follow this link and click on the 2nd image down for a Video Demonstration of the DSA Two-Handed Gothic's
Sword Strength, Sword Cutting, and Blade Durability. Wondering what it did to his sword. lol  Swords of Valor - Darksword Armory Battle Ready Swords


----------



## Valentinator

Diamond blades, do they work? I mean literally a sword with the blade made of diamond (we don't care about the price here). 

What about diamond blade in the modern sense?


----------



## Malik

A diamond blade would be like having a blade made of glass. Diamonds are hard but brittle. In fact, as anything's hardness increases, so does its tendency to shatter.

Again, swords are swords because steel is steel. If the properties of steel were different, we wouldn't have built swords. If the uses of swords were different, we wouldn't have built them from steel.


----------



## Valentinator

I'm not sure glass/diamond comparison is correct. They are completely different in their chemical structure. Glass is an amorphous non-crystalline material while diamond forms the most stable crystal structure chemically possible. Shattering requires flaws in the material but you can make flawless diamond structure. I mean people used volcanic glass for swords and it worked fine, why not diamonds? Of course the form factor must be different for a diamond blade it must be thicker for sure to compensate lack of flexibility. But it must be definitely extremely sharp.


----------



## Malik

Volcanic glass worked fine until someone came up with something better suited to swordplay: copper. No one ever used a sword made of volcanic glass. Arrowheads and spearpoints and the occasional knife, but not a full-sized sword. 

A diamond will shatter if you drop it or strike it. The harder a substance is, the easier it is to break. That's physics. 

This is why L6 and 5160H -- high hardenability-grade spring steel -- are currently the steels of choice for high-end modern swords. Modern swords are hardened differentially; the spine and tang is drawn back to a forgiving temper and the edges are hardened separately. This makes the sword flexible but still super-sharp with excellent edge retention. L6 is one of the new "super-steels" -- it can retain a Martensitic edge while being drawn back to flexible Bainite at the tang, spine, and shoulders. A properly-drawn L6 sword has an edge like a scalpel but you can swing it like a baseball bat with impunity. (It will also cost you north of five grand, but who's counting?)

I have seen 5160 spring steel warswords that will shave an iron horseshoe but can be flexed over your knee past 45 degrees and spring back to true.

The ability to differentially harden a blade didn't exist until the industrial revolution. Until then, all steels were a compromise. Medieval swords had to combine flexibility, edge retention and overall toughness. Those are the three factors that make up a good sword, and they are all determined by varying levels of hardness. You need a softer-tempered metal for flexibility, a harder-tempered metal for edge retention, and a temper somewhere in the middle for toughness. Temper a blade too hard, the sword will be a bitch to throw an edge on and will break under a heavy blow; temper it too soft, it will sharpen easily but dull quickly, and the blow that would have broken a harder-tempered sword will bend it like it's made of Play-Doh. 

To accomplish this, swords were built with a compromise temper combining the three factors. 

Really good, super-expensive swords back in the day would be welded, using pattern-welded steel (if it was REALLY expensive!) or wrought iron along the spine and tang (wrought iron is springy but doesn't hold an edge) and edges made from harder shear steel. There would be actual weld lines that would be visible along the blade where one type of metal flowed into another.

Again: swords are swords because steel is steel. If we made weapons out of something else, they wouldn't have developed into swords.

If you want to have a sword made of diamond, as I said before, make it out of unobtanium -- the same material as room-temperature superconductors and pixie dust. It's Fantasy. Go nuts.


----------



## Malik

I should point out, too, that sharpness isn't as much of a factor in a sword's deadliness as edge geometry and blade harmonics. A good warsword built to cleave armor would have a trick bevel that wasn't technically sharp -- it wouldn't part silk like a katana and in fact you'd have to punch the edge of the blade to cut yourself on it -- rather, it would have a special edge, something akin to a chisel, built to split plate iron and wreck chainmail. A medieval sword that was super-holy-crap sharp would have an edge so thin that if you drove it against iron armor or another swordblade the edge would fold over (or, if it was really hard, nick and gouge) at each point of impact and it would be useless after about a minute or so. 

The shtick about the hero with his super-sharp sword hacking armored badguys in half all day defies the physics of our universe. And again, if you had a super-sharp sword made of a super-hard material (unobtanium, "iron crystal," annealed pixie dust, etc.) and you wielded it against an armored opponent in a real kicking-and-screaming fight, it would be in fragments at your feet in a matter of seconds.

Edit: this is why a lot of knights carried a second sword, the arming sword, as a sidearm. The arming sword was generally sharper than the warsword and intended for use against unarmed or lightly-armed opponents.


----------



## Valentinator

Malik, thanks for the detailed anwser. I'll still use the diamond at some point but it will be brittle. I am not going to use diamond swords anyway, the question was more about the physics of the diamond to portrait it more realistically. Thanks again.


----------



## Ankari

Malik, I love reading your posts. How can we convince you to write a series concerning physical plausibility in fantasy? Not just for swords, but for all the other things you seem to have great experience with, including actual melee fighting and the resulting injuries.


----------



## Malik

Ankari said:


> How can we convince you to write a series concerning physical plausibility in fantasy? Not just for swords, but for all the other things you seem to have great experience with, including actual melee fighting and the resulting injuries.



You can pay me. 

I'm hoping that my fantasy series will do for swords and mail what Stephen Hunter did for the rifle.


----------



## Malik

Malik said:


> The arming sword was generally sharper than the warsword and intended for use against unarmed or lightly-armed opponents.



Not "unarmed." Unarmored or lightly-armored. 

Coffee makes such a big difference.


----------



## wordwalker

Excellent points, Malik. But I have to nitpick:



Malik said:


> Volcanic glass worked fine until someone came up with something better suited to swordplay: copper. No one ever used a sword made of volcanic glass. Arrowheads and spearpoints and the occasional knife, but not a full-sized sword.



Not a sword made of one huge shard, but some central american tribes used wooden swords studded with obsidian shards. They had a very nasty high-powered slash, but tended to break or lose their "teeth" after a hit-- or, I guess, trying to beat their way past shields and things.

--That's another side of the question: how much of swords' weakness was that their edge got blunted after a few hits?

As for:



Malik said:


> Modern swords are hardened differentially; the spine and tang is drawn back to a forgiving temper and the edges are hardened separately. This makes the sword flexible but still super-sharp with excellent edge retention.
> ...
> The ability to differentially harden a blade didn't exist until the industrial revolution. Until then, all steels were a compromise.



The classic katana also used this method, by coating different parts of the blade in clay (the varying heat also gave it its bend). Not the same process or results as an industrial-age approach to it, but the principle was out there.


----------



## Malik

You are correct. I was going to mention both the things you brought up, but figured it would complicate the issue: "Why can't I have someone clay-forge a _gran espee de guerre?_" Kill me.


----------



## Malik

wordwalker said:


> --That's another side of the question: how much of swords' weakness was that their edge got blunted after a few hits?



That was really the trick back then. There were no tools to truly determine the carbon content of a sword other than the "spark test," where you held steel against a grindstone. Steel sparks differently than iron, and to a degree you can tell the carbon content of steel by the spark, but it takes a practiced eye.

For those of you who don't understand steel, the short of it is that steel is a Goldilocks zone of carbon content in iron. We're talking about a few tenths of a percent -- usable steel for our purposes is in the rough range of .5% - 1% carbon -- and the exact "ideal" percentage of carbon in steel is still, to this day, a point of contention. When added to iron, carbon changes the characteristics considerably. This is why steel is awesome.

Before the invention of the blast furnace, the predominant form of steel was shear steel, which was made from baking iron bars in mounds of charcoal and then folding and hammering them to disperse the carbon (charcoal) throughout the metal. The problem was, this method was wildly inaccurate. Too little carbon and you have wrought iron, which is ductile (flexible); too much carbon and you get cast iron, which is brittle. (Cast iron is called cast iron because carbon lowers the melting point of iron; with enough carbon you can pour hot liquid iron into molds and "cast" it.)

There is no way to know if a sword you buy is wrought-iron, good steel, lousy steel, or cast iron until it either shatters, bends, or successfully gets you through a fight. Further, every smith would have his own "recipe" for steel, which would be a closely-guarded trade secret, so it's very unlikely you would know how they made their steel . . . or if it was steel at all. You're not going to take your new sword to a grindstone to find out.

Without blast furnaces, you cannot make sheets of homogenous, slag-free steel. You simply can't. Most plate armor was iron. So was mail; iron wire is far easier to make and sheet iron is far easier to punch and rivet. Plus, iron has ductility that steel does not; its ability to deform under a blow makes iron mail more practical _(Edit: and easier to repair)_ than steel mail. Riveted steel will break. Riveted iron, however, will bend. 

In my fantasy society, soldiers are paid in steel coins. Having a suit of mail and field harness built from shear steel would be like having a Ferrari made of hammered gold. 

One alternative to shear steel was Damascus (or "Wootz") steel, which is iron and carbon folded many times. The folding is what gives it the pretty patterns. It is also ridiculously expensive because it is time-consuming. I was just reading recently that Damascus steel edges have been found to contain carbon nanotubes that make them super-sharp and immensely durable, not unlike the needle-like microcrystalline structures that result from Martensitic tempering of modern steel.

This wide variation in quality among otherwise indistinguishable swords -- and the jaw-dropping superiority of a sword that comes from a far-off land and has a stunning appearance -- is where legends of "magic swords" came from.

Some swords will dull, bend, or crack after a few blows. Some will seem nearly indestructible and their wielders unstoppable. Your protagonist won't know if their sword is a lemon until he or she gets into a real fight. One more reason that having an heirloom sword, proven in battle, was such a major deal throughout history. If it came off a battlefield in one piece once, it will likely do so again.


----------



## Malik

On that, tempering plays a huge role. Different qualities of steel with different carbon contents will result in radically different blade characteristics from the same tempering process; way too many variables to go into, here. But suffice it to say, a lot can go wrong and the flaws -- or strengths -- will be invisible until your life depends on your sword. 

Think about this when your protagonist loses his or her sword, or it breaks, or whatever, as happens in fantasy so often. I envision a fighting man's attachment to a good sword that mirrors a man's attachment to a good dog. It makes me nuts when authors write about a hero getting another sword at the local smith in the next town, or worse, picking one up off a dead mook at random to replace his broken one. It doesn't work that way. 

It would be emotionally damaging to have a battle-proven sword ruined or stolen, and anyone who fights for his life would be hesitant and uncertain when using a new sword. You're gambling with life, limb, and eyesight until that sword is proven trustworthy.


----------



## wordwalker

Here's another fun read on the basics: A Hammer with an Edge: Swords in Fantasy Literature | Apex Magazine


----------



## Guy

I disagree with what the article said about doing things in threes. Most sword traditions I've studied wanted to put the enemy down as quickly and efficiently as possible, not with a set number of moves; do what it takes. There's a concept called a single-time defense. It means defending and counterattacking simultaneously. For example, one guy executes a downward cut. His opponent responds by cutting up into his sword arm. Then there's the Japanese martial art of iado (sp?), which focuses on drawing and cutting the target in a single motion. Cultural influences on martial arts take a back seat to what works. Compare the stances in German longsword to those of Japanese longsword and you'll see more than a passing resemblance. Body mechanics are body mechanics, regardless of culture or period.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Just a question to check my facts and terms for accuracy.  I have a character with a  two-edged sword - the fuller is made of a fantasy metal of my own creation, Sidhe Steel, and the edges are regular modern steel.  This forging method of combining two metals into one blade is called "pattern welding," correct?  I know it's also the term used for creating the rippled pattern on steel, but is it was correct for both techniques?

Thanks!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I've always thought pattern welding only referred to the process developed to mimic the look of Damascus steel. Once the steel is acid etched, the ripples in the steel show.            

There are modern blades similar to what you're referring to. The knife maker Kershaw makes a composite blade which is stainless along the spine but the blade is D2 tool steel bonded to the main blade body (flexibility, toughness, and hardness in mind). The model is called "The Rake" in case you want to look at images.      

Stainless steels in sword blades are not very good though. Carbon steels are preferred. What can be done is a different tempering of the edges and the blade body, harder toward the edges and softer (more flexible) toward the center line. For an image of what I'm talking about, look to a Japanese hamon on a sword. The line is traditionally made by wrapping part of the blade in clay, protecting that portion from the extremes of heat during tempering. The result is a differing hardness/toughness scale for different portions of the blade.        

Also the fuller is not actually a piece of metal. It is the groove, cut from between the two edges. The purpose of the fuller is to reduce weight.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Thanks for any help you can give me.  This is so incredibly not one of my areas of expertise and I am a menace with what little information I possess! 

So this is called a "composite blade," then?  In the scene I have a POV character looking at it who is familiar enough with swords to know what everything should be called.  Plus, the character wielding the blade is the one who originally forged it.

And, yes, the modern steel portion is carbon steel, not stainless.  I love the idea of incorporating carbon nanotubes in both steel types for wicked sharpness and durability.


----------



## Guy

A. E. Lowan said:


> Just a question to check my facts and terms for accuracy.  I have a character with a  two-edged sword - the fuller is made of a fantasy metal of my own creation, Sidhe Steel, and the edges are regular modern steel.  This forging method of combining two metals into one blade is called "pattern welding," correct?  I know it's also the term used for creating the rippled pattern on steel, but is it was correct for both techniques?
> 
> Thanks!


This is essentially how Vikings made a lot of their swords. The edges would be steel while the core of the blade was iron. They got away from it once they figured out how to forge a monosteel blade.

Pattern weld, Damascus steel, wootz are all pretty much the same thing. Ecery society that has forged iron has developed some form of pattern welding.


----------



## Malik

A. E. Lowan said:


> Just a question to check my facts and terms for accuracy.  I have a character with a  two-edged sword - the fuller is made of a fantasy metal of my own creation, Sidhe Steel, and the edges are regular modern steel.  This forging method of combining two metals into one blade is called "pattern welding," correct?  I know it's also the term used for creating the rippled pattern on steel, but is it was correct for both techniques?
> 
> Thanks!



That's just plain welding. That's historically how most good swords were built, only with steel edges folded into iron spines.

Pattern welding is folding two or more metals together numerous times until the metals swirl together, making an alloy of sorts; also referred to as Damascus steel or Wootz steel. 








Above is a close-up of a spearhead. The point is to your left. The pointy part in the middle is a wrought iron core which leads back to the haft. The iron core is flanked by pattern welded metal (this is what Damascus / Wootz looks like), which is in turn surrounded by a carbon steel edge. This is some intense welding.







This is a close-up of a section of a 9th-Century double edged sword. On the left half of this, you can still see that the center of the blade is made up of a herringbone pattern; likely iron bands twisted and hammered together. This would have given the blade some resiliency and "spring" that would equate to toughness and durability. You can clearly differentiate the steel where it was folded into the iron to make the edges. This is basic welding. (Well, it was super-advanced at the time, but it's "basic welding" as opposed to pattern-welding.)


----------



## Malik

One more. Tool-steel edges hand-folded into a spine of pattern-welded nickel-iron. Not pretty, but very authentically done. The 9th-C sword in the post above would have looked something like this in its heyday.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Just the man I was wanting to see!  Thank you so much for the pictures, they're super helpful.

So, basically my character would just say the sword has been welded together, then?


----------



## Malik

That should work well. You might go into brief detail for those readers who think that historical sword blades looked like this:


----------



## Malik

If you're reading this and you don't know why that last picture is ridiculous, and haven't scrolled back through this thread: homogenous steel wasn't viable for European-style swords until the advent of heat-treating and differential hardening, which required science, which required the Renaissance, and didn't really get dialed-in until about 100 years ago. In fact, homogenous steel wasn't consistently possible until the invention of the blast furnace in the 1700's. We're still working on dialing in heat-treating steel. No joke; engineers have spent their entire careers working on it.

An all-steel sword in a "Planet England" fantasy setting would be outrageously expensive, and either be so hard it snaps on the first bad hit or so soft that it bends or dings against armor.

And mirror polishing? By hand? With the amount of work (and hence expense) that it would require, a polished steel warsword would be the medieval equivalent of owning a Bugatti.

But hey. You know. Use magic to treat your edges. Problem solved.


----------



## Jabrosky

I'm almost 1,000 words into a short story set in the late 17th century. My male lead is a English pirate privateer who escapes to a remote island with his girlfriend to escape Spanish pirate-hunters. This island has dinosaurs living on it, so my hero needs some kind of sword to defend himself (the girlfriend is an African sorceress who can use her powers for her own defense). I think in the climax he will fight a T. Rex.

What kind of sword available to 17th century privateers would best suit this purpose? My first pick was a rapier since that's the weapon I most readily associate with the time period, but I believe those were used mainly for man-to-man duels and so wouldn't work so well against a large and presumably thick-skinned animal.


----------



## FatCat

Jabrosky said:


> I'm almost 1,000 words into a short story set in the late 17th century. My male lead is a English pirate privateer who escapes to a remote island with his girlfriend to escape Spanish pirate-hunters. This island has dinosaurs living on it, so my hero needs some kind of sword to defend himself (the girlfriend is an African sorceress who can use her powers for her own defense). I think in the climax he will fight a T. Rex.
> 
> What kind of sword available to 17th century privateers would best suit this purpose? My first pick was a rapier since that's the weapon I most readily associate with the time period, but I believe those were used mainly for man-to-man duels and so wouldn't work so well against a large and presumably thick-skinned animal.



No expert here, but fighting such a physically imposing animal would be near-suicidal with a close range weapon like a sword. A spear, at the very least, would be needed to prevail, not to mention a bow/crossbow or the more lucrative idea of setting a trap. Either a pit with sharpened spikes or a bundle of heavy rocks dropping on his head would be idealistic. If you're dead set on a sword, I think at this point the style of sword becomes irrelevent outside personal satisfaction.


----------



## Jabrosky

FatCat said:


> No expert here, but fighting such a physically imposing animal would be near-suicidal with a close range weapon like a sword. A spear, at the very least, would be needed to prevail, not to mention a bow/crossbow or the more lucrative idea of setting a trap. Either a pit with sharpened spikes or a bundle of heavy rocks dropping on his head would be idealistic. If you're dead set on a sword, I think at this point the style of sword becomes irrelevent outside personal satisfaction.


I should note that the African sorceress is the proper protagonist at the time being, so perhaps she'll be the one to go up against the T. Rex instead. I'm working with a fairly loose outline at the moment.


----------



## Malik

There were heavy rapiers. Schlager still makes a fairly big rapier blade, with a diamond cross-section and zero taper past the ricossa until the last few inches from the tip, which makes it a wonderful slashing and chopping blade more than a stabbing blade. Heavy rapiers often had swept hilts, which made a cage of rings and branches around the hand. The weight of the swept hilt helped offset the forward balance of the blade. Inigo's Six Fingered Sword from The Princess Bride was represented in the movie as having a Schlager-type blade. It was a beast of a rapier.













_EDIT: As mentioned, it would not, of course, take down a T. Rex._


----------



## Kit

If you really want to slice up the T Rex, how about poisoning a tempting carcass and then hitting him when he's sick?


----------



## Guy

Coincidentally, I'm writing a story in which some characters have to take on a T.rex-type critter, though I was using a small army rather than two people. But what I had mine do was go for the animal's hamstrings. For your story, what could theoretically work would be for your swordsman to use a cutlass, a good cutting sword widely used by sailors, privateers, pirates, etc. and go for the hamstrings while the sorceress does whatever it is you're going to have her do. While cutting the hamstrings won't kill the thing, it would immobilize it, making it easy to outrun if you can't kill it.


----------



## Malik

_There once was a pirate named Gates
who danced the fandango on skates
He fell on his cutlass
which rendered him nutless
and practically useless on dates._


----------



## wordwalker

When it comes to the T-Rex, I had this on Dragonslaying. Warning, it's written in terms of famous tales' spoilers.


----------



## Hainted

For a freelance monster slayer character I have I want a good versatile sword. Something that's not the traditional heroic broadsword, but, since it's a modern setting, avoiding the Katana as well. I've been looking at the Bastard swords  as something that would be versatile, deadly and intimidating. He doesn't usually carry a shield, so something that could be used one or two handed is great. Any other historical swords you could suggest or is the bastard a good choice?


----------



## Guy

The bastard/hand-and-a-half would fit the bill.


----------



## wordwalker

Is a sword really what you want? Swords were relatively _light_ weapons compared to axes-- maybe for cutting up monsters you need more penetrating power. If you look at shows like _Buffy_ and _Angel_ when they geared up to behead or generally chop up a demon they were more likely to go axe.

Malik's _gran epee_ article that we're all reading tells what a bastard-length sword can do, but that seems to be designed to crunch people through armor; it might not be the best choice for foes that are more likely to have only tough hide but superhuman vitality under it. Plus, it's so long you can't conceal it or draw it quickly, let alone use it in something like a tight sewer or tomb, real problems for a contemporary slayer.

So, a broadsword might be better after all, or an axe. Then again, it depends on which monsters he's facing, and what spells or Specialized Materials he can get on the weapon. Up close, nothing beats a shotgun loaded with the right beast-bane.


----------



## Hainted

There are character reasons behind his reluctance to use firearms, but maybe I need to expand his arsenal a little


----------



## TheRedPrince

I would like to ask: What type of sword is the sword of Altaire from the Assassins creed franchise? I've scoured the internet for the answer but can't find it..


----------



## Malik

From looking at it, I can tell you that its closest historical equivalent would probably be an Oakeshotte Type XII. It's an arming sword, the knightly equivalent of a sidearm. That said, the blade is wrong for a sword of that geometry; the Altair has a diamond cross-section with zero taper instead of a fullered or semi-fullered blade with an ovoid cross-section and a distal taper. The fuller, cross-section, and taper lighten areas of the blade to balance it and make it "faster" in the hand. 

Just by looking at it, I can tell you that in real life, the Altair blade would be a dog. It would feel heavy with an extreme forward balance, very difficult to feint with and really tough to defend yourself with. You couldn't _give _that sword to a man who knew anything about swords. 

EDIT: I could see a very funny scene where a sword like that is given to the hero.

"I want you to have this."
"Gee, a -- um, hmm -- a sword. Kinda. Thanks."
"My father bore this sword in the great campaigns of (insert name with lots of apostrophes here)"
"Wow. And he lived?"
"Bear it with honor."
"Sure."

But hey. Fantasy. Go nuts.


----------



## Malik

Here's a long Type XII. This is probably what the artists were going for. It's a one-handed arming sword, 38 inches long with 32" of blade and a center of gravity about 6" forward of the guard.








Note the fuller, and the size of the pommel for a counterweight. I've handled this sword and it dances in the hand. It also has a slight forward balance, which makes it a heavy smash and cutter with considerable forward momentum, but you can maneuver the tip quickly by moving the handle in the opposite direction. Very tough to do with a diamond cross-section blade.

This, as I understand it, is Altair: 







It would feel like it would weigh a ton in your hand, and in real life, it would handle like a length of pipe.

And again, it's an arming sword, a backup sword to wear around town or to use when your real warsword gets broken or dinged up.

I hope this helps.


----------



## TheRedPrince

Ok cool. I have a replica of the altair sword and it is really light to swing and is balanced really well but I didn't know if there was an actual sword like it or if some designer drew it up and thought it was cool hahaha. And the replica is just that, I didn't imagine it to be accurate in the weight and such if it were real. Thanks man


----------



## TheRedPrince

My MC is a spell sword/battle mage, what ever name you like. He's supposed to pretty much only use one hand for his sword. Would the long type XII be a sword that could do any significant damage and is it possible/easyish to wield one handed?


----------



## Guy

TheRedPrince said:


> Would the long type XII be a sword that could do any significant damage and is it possible/easyish to wield one handed?


Yes and yes. How easy would it be? There are a number of variables that come into play. Blade length, thickness, taper, hilt construction and personal preference. They were quite popular for a long time, though, and designed for one handed use, so I'd say yeah, easyish to use.


----------



## Malik

A Type XII with a proper edge? Yow. It would be like getting thrown onto a running table saw. It wouldn't reliably split or pierce riveted mail but it would deliver enough damage against a man in mail to fracture bones and cause contusions; you could beat him up with it enough that he would eventually decide to stop fighting you. But then, that's most of what armored combat really was.

Generally the arming sword had a very sharp edge that would have been extremely delicate, so it wasn't used against an armored foe or for any kind of "fencing" where you'd be doing, say, beat parries and hard enveloping maneuvers _a la_ The Princess Bride. You'd destroy the edge after a few seconds. You could throw an armor-cleaving edge on it, of course, but it wouldn't have the carry of, say, a bigger warsword or bastardsword so I don't know why you would do that.

It was designed for one-handed use. The true Type XII didn't have room for a second hand; your off hand would hold a shield, a dagger, or would be inside a mail glove for parrying. Yes, really.


----------



## Malik

As for "easy," I think the reason that mages aren't "allowed" to use swords in many magical systems in games and fantasy milieus -- generally -- has to do with the fact that using a sword well takes a tremendous amount of study. As much as learning magic; I don't know where someone would find the time to become proficient at both to the point where he could bet his life on either.

Swinging the sword isn't the problem. It's having thousands of hours behind the blade sparring and studying; being able to anticipate, feint, attack, defend, develop and exploit both space and time (seriously, that's a thing), build a unique and complex fight that your opponent hasn't seen before, do sneaky tricks (and see them coming!), and adapt your style to your opponent and the surroundings. You also need to know regional styles well enough to recognize them, you need to know hand-fighting and blade retention, you have to know kinetics ("when I hit him _here_, his head goes _this_ way"), and most of all, you have to have one this all enough that you can remain comfortable and calculating when someone who is fully capable of murdering you is coming at you with something sharp. That's several years of hard study. 

_EDIT: And this isn't for "fencing," either. You have to know all of this stuff well enough that you can do it expertly and reflexively; you might have to do all of the above in the span of *a few seconds.*_

If you don't have all that under your belt, and you draw any sword in the world -- no matter how great or magical -- on a guy who knows all of the above, you will die. In the span of a few seconds.

So yeah. It's not hard to swing a sword effectively; at least, not if you make it your life's work.


----------



## Gryphos

Ayup, I'd quite like to know about sword sticks or cane swords, smallswords that could be drawn from a cane. I know they really were more decorative, representing the shift from swords to canes as a gentleman's status symbol of choice. But could they feasibly have any practical use, perhaps as a weapon for constables to carry around? Or maybe they would hold some kind of advantage in an actual fight as the cane part could be used in the off-hand to parry?


----------



## Guy

They were an attempt at a concealed weapon. The narrow blades inflicted narrow puncture wounds that may or may not kill, but they generally had poor stopping power. I liken them to .22s - they can certainly kill, but they probably won't stop an attacker. The wound they inflict can take hours or days to kill. If you read accounts of duels with small swords or rapier, you'll see several examples of duelists taking hits and remaining active. Their blade design doesn't lend them to chopping or cleaving. I've read an account where a man swung at his sword (either a rapier or small sword, I don't remember which) opponent's head. The only damage he inflicted was to split the skin. The blow actually bent his blade on the opponent's skull. So for constables, who have no need to conceal their weapons, I see no use for it. Sword canes were for a time and place where men did not openly bear arms. They concealed them, and about the only way you can conceal a sword is inside a cane or staff.


----------



## TheokinsJ

Just wondering- How long would it take to make a sword? I understand this is the same as asking 'how long is a piece of string?', but say for your average, standard longsword? I know that engravings in the hilt, the use of precious metals and decoration all add additional time to the making of it, but for an average, simple longsword, how many days/weeks would it take to make?


----------



## Malik

You will often see this on a sign in a true craftsman's shop, and I believe it was just as true a thousand years ago as it is today:







If the metal was ready-formed into a blank and he just needed to grind it into shape, put the hardware on it, and sharpen it? Maybe a week. However, if he was also a smith and he had to make his own steel --

[video=youtube_share;3gSU4kx_fqc]http://youtu.be/3gSU4kx_fqc[/video]

 -- and if then he had to weld the steel onto the iron spine and hammer and grind it all into shape, it could be another week or two. 

This is if he was working from scratch. Most swordsmiths would have an oil-filled barrel of various finished blades ready-to-go that they could just put furniture (handle, crossbar, pommel) on and sharpen fairly quickly; say, in a day or so. There would also be various blanks in different states of readiness.


----------



## Gryphos

Guy said:


> So for constables, who have no need to conceal their weapons, I see no use for it.



Well, I suppose it could prove useful to constables in that it offers a non-lethal alternative, that of just beating someone over the head with the cane. Kind of a two-in-one sword and truncheon.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Actually I have a family friend who collects all sorts of antique weapons, and as one of his he had a sword cane - Victorian I think. I remember playing with it as a kid, and the one thing I do know is that when you smacked it down on a wooden table it could take a chunk out of the wood. I wouldn't write them off as useless.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## wordwalker

> "Good, fast, cheap - pick any two."



I always liked that logic. Another way of saying it is you can only get as much as you pay for, and you have to pay with either time or cash (for someone else's prepackaged time).


----------



## Guy

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Actually I have a family friend who collects all sorts of antique weapons, and as one of his he had a sword cane - Victorian I think. I remember playing with it as a kid, and the one thing I do know is that when you smacked it down on a wooden table it could take a chunk out of the wood. I wouldn't write them off as useless.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.


Useless? No, but there are better choices.


----------



## thedarknessrising

I found this video to be rather helpful.


----------



## Feverfew

I've been including dragons in my stories, lots of different kinds but having general attributes like being tough to kill due to their tough skin or scales depending on their age.
My question is- assuming even a young dragon has tough saltwater crocodile'ish skin. 
What would you look for in a weapon designed to kill dragons? Would the weapon change if the dragon had tough scales instead of just thick leathery skin?
I would assume something strong and able to be used in a hacking motion, more like a greatsword than a katana? I just want to be sure I'm not making my characters cut down the equivalent of an oak tree using the equivalent of a herring.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Jabrosky

I think a thrusting spear might be more useful than a sword when it comes to fighting a dragon. A spear would give you more distance from the dragon's claws and teeth, for one.

Though now that I think about it, I wonder if a ranged weapon (e.g. bow and arrow) would work even better for that purpose...


----------



## wordwalker

We have a couple of threads about the fine art of dragonslaying: 

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/wor...ll-defeat-dragon.html?highlight=dragonslaying
http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/5569-dragonslaying.html?highlight=dragonslaying

But assuming your hero's limited to generalized tactics:

I'd agree, anything with thick skin is liable to push fighters clean past greatswords and toward spears, or at least axes-- and a heavy bow would be better still, if it was heavy enough.

Edit: If you wanted raw hitting power, I think the heaviest are the pick (basically gambling in hitting the right point squarely-- with a pretty sloppy weapon) and the biggest ball-and-chain you could handle. If the beast was just tough enough that those still worked.

Here's a thought, though: if he wants something shorter (easier to maneuver in wilderness) than a spear, what about an estoc? It's an edge-less sword designed purely for thrusting at the weak points in armor. (Or, any sword with a good thrust is still an option, at least if you can get a shot at a weak spot.) 

The way I see it, dragons can be divided between beasts where a human being (without magic weapons) can only swing at its weak spots, and the ones that would get cut to pieces as fast as archers can yell "priority target." The latter would have to stay away from civilization and mostly pick off animals and the occasional farmer or traveler. --Which the majority of a land's dragon legends _were_, until the tales got hyped up.


----------



## Gryphos

In a novel I have planned, I've got a scene in mind in which the protagonist gets into a sword fight in which he uses a smallsword (a which is also a swordstick) and the enemy uses a more medieval style arming sword. Now, ignoring any other factors like skill or armour, what would likely be the outcome of such a fight?


----------



## Feverfew

This is great thanks for the input! 
I'm reading through those threads now and taking notes, but I agree that it seems more of a thrusting weapon with some length would be ideal.  A nice hefty bow and arrow would also be a good option- I will probably use all of the above in some manner. 

A pick is a very interesting idea! Imagine the bragging rights someone would have if they could drive that thing home!
Thanks again for the help


----------



## Guy

Gryphos said:


> In a novel I have planned, I've got a scene in mind in which the protagonist gets into a sword fight in which he uses a smallsword (a which is also a swordstick) and the enemy uses a more medieval style arming sword. Now, ignoring any other factors like skill or armour, what would likely be the outcome of such a fight?


My money's on the guy with the medieval sword. One historical precedent I can think of is the battle of Killicrankie 1689. British soldiers v Highlanders. Once it came to swordstrokes many British officers drew smallswords while the Highlanders used claymores, both basket hilted and two handed. The Brits lost about 2000 men in the first few minutes. I also know of several instances of men armed with rapiers going up against guys armed with sturdier weapons. In every case, the rapier man lost.


----------



## Malik

Gryphos said:


> In a novel I have planned, I've got a scene in mind in which the protagonist gets into a sword fight in which he uses a smallsword (a which is also a swordstick) and the enemy uses a more medieval style arming sword. Now, ignoring any other factors like skill or armour, what would likely be the outcome of such a fight?



The guy with the smallsword is probably going to lose. If I was him, I'd do anything other than swordfight/fence. I'd throw dirt in the other guy's eyes, pick up a chair, throw a glass at him (if we were in a bar), grapple and try to sweep his legs or break his arm, anything. I would not get near that other sword. Not with a swordcane / smallsword. Nope. Just nope. 

There'd be no realistic way to "fence" with that kind of disparity between weapons. You'd be better off not drawing and trying to hit him with something heavy and/or sharp instead. Or just running like hell.


----------



## Guy

Regarding the battle of Killiecrankie I'd mentioned, here's an account I always found interesting. From the memoirs of the Viscount Dundee 1714: British troops facing Highlanders armed with basket hilted and two handed claymores "were cut down through the skull and neck to the breasts, others had skulls cut off above the ears like nightcaps; some had bodies and crossbelts cut through at a blow; pikes and small swords were cut like willows."

Small swords were dueling weapons meant to be matched against each other on the field of honor. They fared exceptionally poorly against heavier weapons on the field of battle or when going up against people who didn't play by rules.


----------



## Gryphos

All right, so what exactly are the reasons the swordstick guy would lose? Would the more slender blade be unable to stop the arming sword? Would reach become an issue? As obviously the blade of the sword would have to be quite short to fit into a cane.


----------



## Bortasz

Gryphos said:


> All right, so what exactly are the reasons the swordstick guy would lose? Would the more slender blade be unable to stop the arming sword? Would reach become an issue? As obviously the blade of the sword would have to be quite short to fit into a cane.



Bigger sword means greater weight, with means greater kinetic energy of the swing. Harder to parry. Also gives you more range.


----------



## Malik

Getting slashed with a smallsword is an inconvenience. Getting hit with an arming sword is like getting hit with a running chainsaw.

NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART: Link downloads a .mov file from The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA).


----------



## Guy

Gryphos said:


> All right, so what exactly are the reasons the swordstick guy would lose? Would the more slender blade be unable to stop the arming sword?


Yes.


> Would reach become an issue? As obviously the blade of the sword would have to be quite short to fit into a cane.


Perhaps, perhaps not. The issue is the narrow blade. It's no good for solid blows that pack stopping power. It has no cutting power beyond maybe - maybe - splitting the skin because, in addition to its light weight, it has no edges. The blades were usually triangular in cross section. It won't cleave limbs or bones or sever muscles or tendons. It's a stabbing weapon, but the narrow blade makes a very small wound channel, as opposed to something like the gladius hispaniensis the Romans so adored. It, too, was a stabbing weapon, but with such a broad blade it would be like getting stabbed with a trowel, and it had good cutting power, too. Think of a small sword as the .22 pistol of swords - they have killing power, but they have no stopping power. Some people died instantly from small sword wounds, but in many more cases a wound inflicted by one could take anywhere from minutes to days to kill, leaving the wounded man plenty of time to dispatch his killer. A strong cut from an arming sword can easily break bones and cut muscles and tendons, or even take the limb off completely. Such a wound may also take time to produce death, but it will likely stop the attack right now. Moreover, effective use of a small sword requires very precise, dexterous technique, which is damn near impossible to do when faced with a screaming maniac trying to take your head off.


----------



## Gryphos

Okay, so defeating the arming sword dude with a small sword is out of the question, it seems. But would it be possible to defend against the arming sword strikes? I realise the narrow small sword blade would not have enough mass to stop the arming sword in its tracks, but what about if it was sheathed within the cane? Would the cane split after one hit or would it last long enough for the protagonist to parry and check a few hits?

(Sorry about all the questions, but this is just a rather important thing I need to get sorted.)


----------



## wordwalker

One thing about light weapons vs heavier ones: the more trouble you have parrying, the more you might fall back on jabs or other threatened attacks as a defense. That is, "either fall back from that attack or this move's going to skewer you." 

This is a _risky_ defense since you already know he hits harder than you-- assuming he's paying attention at all, and not just wading in. It might save you once or twice, but like Malik said, swing a chair, swing _anything_ except your underpowered weapon if you can, or just run.

Then there's the famous _Rob Roy_ film duel, where a lighter swordsman had a massive advantage in skill... but sooner or later... (And if Rob had had proper armor it would never have been a contest.)


----------



## Guy

Gryphos said:


> Okay, so defeating the arming sword dude with a small sword is out of the question, it seems. But would it be possible to defend against the arming sword strikes? I realise the narrow small sword blade would not have enough mass to stop the arming sword in its tracks, but what about if it was sheathed within the cane? Would the cane split after one hit or would it last long enough for the protagonist to parry and check a few hits?
> 
> (Sorry about all the questions, but this is just a rather important thing I need to get sorted.)


Depending on how thick the cane is, yeah, it's possible. It's not something I'd care to try, but it could probably be done. I've seen a technique which showed how a man armed with an arming sword still in its sheath could defend himself from a downward cut. He held the sheathed sword horizontally to stop the cut, pulled the sword out of the sheath and used the sheath to push the enemy blade away while striking with his sword.


----------



## Malik

The other thing about fencing against a big sword with a tiny little blade is that your margin of error is zero. A swordcane doesn't even have a handguard. 

The reason this is important is that with something like a swordcane against a two-pound sword, you can't parry with a beat; the bigger sword will cut yours in half. So you have to bind and envelop, and employ _prise de fer_ to control the bigger blade -- what we call "binding and winding" -- the trick here is that you need to catch it when it's not moving and then control it through continuous motion. Once you've got this, if you have the hand & arm strength to send his blade out of line, a quick thrust or even a bind-thrust would, technically, work. But he's coming after you with that big sword an eyelash later, and now you're in range, committed, and weight forward, and he's not dead -- unless you managed to stab him in the mouth or the eye. You, on the other hand . . . yeah. Cancel Christmas.

The other option is to use prise de fer and get a close bind (pinning his weapon with yours). 







And hope he doesn't have a secondary weapon handy.

The problem here is that you eventually have to disengage. If he disengages with a coule -- sliding his blade down your no-hilted swordcane -- you're losing a thumb. If he comes down on the inside line, you'll lose the hand. That's what crossguards were pretty much for, and you don't have one. So, yow. 

Better to hit him with a chair.


----------



## Nihal

I have a dumb question: How *inefficient* would be a sword of straight blade and no point?

Something along the last sword design:








It wouldn't be good for thrusting, that's clear, and I suspect that slashing would feel a little jarring without any curve to allow the movement to "flow", but I know next to nothing about swords nor fighting to fully understand all the implications of such design. (it's supposed to be an ornamental sword in the story, made also to experiment an alloy, but it would end being used in desperate times)


----------



## CupofJoe

I'm thinking about European hand/hand-and-a-half swords... not that I know much...
Points to swords could just be a by product of the sword-making process that became a useful feature, as is the tapering of most blades, to easy the stresses within the blade and even them out. If it had a very square tip to the blade there would be stress issues on the corners if it was used in combat... So it could be hard to make a sword with no point and it would not be any more useful and almost certainly less useful. 
Those square tipped swords I seen tend to be more of the cleaver type [designed for chopping heads off] so a squared ended sword would give you a little extra mass to do things like that... The sword of a champion [to intimidate] and not of the soldier [to fight]...


----------



## Bortasz




----------



## Bortasz

Nihal said:


> I have a dumb question: How *inefficient* would be a sword of straight blade and no point?
> 
> Something along the last sword design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be good for thrusting, that's clear, and I suspect that slashing would feel a little jarring without any curve to allow the movement to "flow", but I know next to nothing about swords nor fighting to fully understand all the implications of such design. (it's supposed to be an ornamental sword in the story, made also to experiment an alloy, but it would end being used in desperate times)








This type of weapon is for execution=beheading only. It was heavier up to 3 kg, then normal swords and was not use in fights.

Points to swords were for Armour penetration. Cutting have no chance of cut through metal armour. Even Chainmail. 

Remember that many times ornamental armours and weapons were completely useless in combat situation. To fragile/To heavy. Created to look good not to be use in fight. The lack of Point is the least of worries that user of such sword will face.


----------



## Nihal

Oh, see? I failed to consider the weight distribution. Thanks!

I had something more of a Chokutō sword in mind, not so thick, heavy or short. It was a sword design that preceded all the curved blades (which only became popular when they started to fight on horseback).

In a quick research I couldn't dig much information (and I'm combining stuff anyway). Length 23.5—29 in, width up to 1.4 in, forged using metal folding and layers, small guard just like many oriental blades, but unlike them it would be double edged and end in a half hexagon. It's not meant to be used against armour, even if it wasn't ornamental.

Yeah, I'm aware that ornamental armour/weapons are impractical, hence my question. I'm trying to determine what kind of hardship one fighting with such blade would face.


----------



## Bortasz

Nihal said:


> Oh, see? I failed to consider the weight distribution. Thanks!
> 
> I had something more of a Chokutō sword in mind, not so thick, heavy or short. It was a sword design that preceded all the curved blades (which only became popular when they started to fight on horseback).
> 
> In a quick research I couldn't dig much information (and I'm combining stuff anyway). Length 23.5—29 in, width up to 1.4 in, forged using metal folding and layers, small guard just like many oriental blades, but unlike them it would be double edged and end in a half hexagon. It's not meant to be used against armour, even if it wasn't ornamental.
> 
> Yeah, I'm aware that ornamental armour/weapons are impractical, hence my question. I'm trying to determine what kind of hardship one fighting with such blade would face.



On example: 







This is Double edge bronze axe was ceremonial/ornamental.
Pleas take a look on places were Axe is put on the stick. And imagine how thin bronze must be if you see the stick. 
In normal axe you will not see this: 






The biggest problem with that bronze axe is fragility. It so thin that weight is not a problem but it will bend very easy when you strike something. The best option is to bend bronze around the stick to form a mace. 
This are problem with THIS weapon. 

What problems are with you ornamental swords mostly depend on you. 
Another example. 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sword_parts_no_scabbard.PNG
The point of balance should be on guard, so sword be the most agile. 
If it will be more to the point the swords will start resemble axe in use. Stronger punch, but less agile. Not good for fencing, but good for powerful slashes. 
If it will be more to the pommel it will lose power of hits and be more unwieldy. 

Another example: 
To thin sword will break. 
To heavy will not be agile and user will get quickly tired. 

Also does you sword have a guard? 
If not like this sword
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/228/9/d/P3___Thanatos_inspired_Ninjato_by_SnowspireFox.jpg
The user will lose his fingers. 

It's depend on how it is made. On what problems you want to put in it. Don't think like there is one universal problem with ornamental weapons. Think rather like blacksmith. What is purpose of this sword? 

For example:
It will be use in religious ceremonial battle against evil. The ceremony is over hour long, and entire time user must swing it. 

So you want very light weapon, that will be seen from a distance. It will be the best if it will resemble the X sword of the Y god/champion. Also it will not be sharp so the clergy will not cut anybody. 

So we end up with fragile,light weapon, that have no sharp edges. But it is very shiny.


----------



## Gryphos

Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.


----------



## Bortasz

Gryphos said:


> Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.



Why not simple give him a cane with build in Poison Harpoon or Crossbow? 

Battle is not only weapons that you have in hand but also stuff around you. What Armour they have? What is surrounding? 

In theory everybody can defeat anybody. You job is to make it that fight look plausible/probable to reader. 

Make protagonist throw stuff ad his opponent. Kitchen is the most deadly place in building. The very few people will fight when you spill hot oil in there face. 

Because in terms of Duels you cane sword will lose with proper battle weapon. That's why swords in cane were not a battle weapon. 
Don't thread this as obstacle. Rather as a challenge. Long rapier make you protagonist a danger enough so the arming sword men will be careful. Use this to his advantage.


----------



## Guy

Gryphos said:


> Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.


In theory, yes. I'm sure you could make it plausible for the purposes of a fictional story. Sometimes one has no choice but to block a hard swing, which could leave him in a bad position.


----------



## Devor

I have a quick question.

I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.

Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons?  My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons.  But is that right?


----------



## wordwalker

Devor said:


> I have a quick question.
> 
> I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.
> 
> Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons?  My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons.  But is that right?



I've been wondering that one ever since Malik answered a swords-vs-axes question with how there have been any number of schools and teachers of swordsmanship over the ages, and few to none for axes. So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just _how_ good do you have to be before that starts happening?


----------



## Jabrosky

wordwalker said:


> I've been wondering that one ever since Malik answered a swords-vs-axes question with how there have been any number of schools and teachers of swordsmanship over the ages, and few to none for axes. So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just _how_ good do you have to be before that starts happening?


My best guess is that it has something to do with swords being reserved for elite warriors with the best training in certain cultures. Common, levied soldiers on the other hand would usually receive spears, axes, or one of those other "clumsier weapons". It wasn't so much that these levies couldn't learn how to use swords themselves, but rather that getting the best weapons was a privilege reserved for the socioeconomic elites.


----------



## Devor

wordwalker said:


> So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just _how_ good do you have to be before that starts happening?



That's my take as well.  But I'm also remembering a demonstration on how the Roman soldier fought, and it looked like their sword play was fairly simple.  A lot of sword schools teach swordplay that looks more like fencing, where to be honest, it's the rules of the sport that demands most of the finely tuned skills.  The swordsmanship of a soldier doesn't look like that.  But how well does the skill level really out strip those of other weapons?


----------



## Bortasz

Devor said:


> I have a quick question.
> 
> I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.
> 
> Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons?  My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons.  But is that right?



Generally yes. 
Axe + Shield is very dangerous combination fare easier to learn than any type of swordsmanship. And it have greater chance to damage armoured person/destroy shield. 
Also remember that in real world axe and swords were sidearm. Used when primary=spear/lance were not more. Average soldier use Polearm/spear

And yes proper use of sword is more difficult to learn.


----------



## Bortasz

Devor said:


> That's my take as well.  But I'm also remembering a demonstration on how the Roman soldier fought, and it looked like their sword play was fairly simple.  A lot of sword schools teach swordplay that looks more like fencing, where to be honest, it's the rules of the sport that demands most of the finely tuned skills.  The swordsmanship of a soldier doesn't look like that.  But how well does the skill level really out strip those of other weapons?



The Roman are Exception. 
They train soldiers in one crucial move. Thrust. Hide behind big shield. Thrust. And attack guys who are on the right of you. So you are less expose. It's about fighting in formation and discipline. 



Jabrosky said:


> My best guess is that it has something to do with swords being reserved for elite warriors with the best training in certain cultures. Common, levied soldiers on the other hand would usually receive spears, axes, or one of those other "clumsier weapons". It wasn't so much that these levies couldn't learn how to use swords themselves, but rather that getting the best weapons was a privilege reserved for the socioeconomic elites.



This is a myth. 
Swords were elite only in times when they were expensive to make. When metallurgy was improve and price of swords go down everybody buy them. 
And also they were Secondary weapon. Does Clumsy spears, polearm were primary weapon of everybody. 
Even samurai first weapon was Naginata. https://www.google.pl/search?q=Nagi...A4ztaKmpgsAH&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1400&bih=761 
Not a katana. 
Swords/axes were use when primary weapon break, or was no more viable to use. And even than swords was not always the first choice of many people.


----------



## Guy

Devor said:


> I have a quick question.
> 
> I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.
> 
> Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons?  My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons.  But is that right?


Sword use is a bit more technical, but it's not any type of mystical jedi knight type stuff, either. One thing to consider is edge alignment. If you swing a baseball bat, you'll notice the natural movement of your arms causes the bat to rotate. If this happens while using a sword, you swat the opponent with the flat of the blade instead of cutting him. Or, even worse, the blade starts to rotate as its passing through the opponent's body, twisting and torquing the blade to the point of damaging it. If you don't have good edge alignment with an axe, you still beat the daylights out of the target. Likewise, edge alignment is a non-issue with a blunt weapon.

There are period manuals that show fighting with all sorts of weapon in addition to swords. They show axes, spears, daggers, and bare handed fighting. Axes would've been more common and more effective against armor. They're far older than swords, so it's logical to conclude there were systems of fighting with them.

Where sword use gets really technical is when you're using narrow civilian swords that lack stopping power. Precision thrusts are relied upon to compensate for this lack of stopping power. What historical sources I've read indicate it doesn't work very well.


----------



## Malik

I would argue that axes were around long before the sword, but we still developed the sword, which proves the sword's superiority. Swords were expensive to make and laborious to learn. And yet the sword surpassed the axe to become the ultimate way to kill somebody with something sharp for about three thousand years. So there's something to it.

Soldiers use what works, and if a piece of gear doesn't work, they leave it on the sidelines or back in their tent. That's a maxim of warfare dating back from the time we were living in huts and throwing rocks at each other. At some point, enough soldiers said, "This is bullshit; I'm learning to use a sword," that the sword supplanted the axe. The axe hung around as a secondary weapon, but the sword was the standard.

Fencing became an Olympic event. Axe fighting did not. Which is kind of a bummer but maybe we can get it into the X Games.


----------



## Guy

Malik said:


> Soldiers use what works, and if a piece of gear doesn't work, they leave it on the sidelines or back in their tent. That's a maxim of warfare dating back from the time we were living in huts and throwing rocks at each other. At some point, enough soldiers said, "This is bullshit; I'm learning to use a sword," that the sword supplanted the axe. The axe hung around as a secondary weapon, but the sword was the standard.


What's your source for this? I've never heard of swords supplanting axes. Axes were easier and therefore cheaper to make. Thus they were more numerous. I agree soldiers will stick with what works, and axes were far more effective against plate armor, something that would be a factor as armor developed. Moreover, halberds (which were just long axes) were one of the weapons that enabled ordinary foot soldiers to defeat armored knights. Axes as a general rule are more durable and easy to repair. There are plenty of period manuals about axe fighting. Knights engaging in tournament combat and trial by combat often used axes. Swords were often carried as back-up weapons rather than main weapons.

I think the mystique of the sword comes from the fact that it was the first weapon that was designed from the ground up as an antipersonnel device. Other weapons - clubs, axes, spear, and bows and arrows - were either tools or weapons of the hunt adapted to warfare. Swords have no other practical application than disassembling a human being. And they're a lot prettier than axes. Soldiers continued bringing them into battle after they were of little use because of prestige, not practicality.


----------



## Malik

I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword. The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.


----------



## Bortasz

Malik said:


> I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword. The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.



You assuming that somewhere in history somebody invent swords. 
With is false. 
Swords evolve from knife. Look add early bronze swords. There were big knifes. AND there were secondary weapon when spear was not more viable weapon. 
People first create this: 
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/BuiMoaH/BuiMoaH_209a.jpg Because they need a sharp tool to cut the meat, to clean up skin. 
Than when they learn about metal they start creating knifes and daggers. 
http://www.knifecrimes.org/images/001.jpg
Sword evolve from them. 
http://www.womeninthebible.net/images/1.8.De6.jpg
Nobody invent swords. They perfected knife. Make them longer for better reach. 

Second Fencing is a Olympic sport and not axe wielding because:
- Axe are more dangerous. You must have far more padding so both of the users will not end up with broken bones. 
- Axe are tools. And everybody can have one. So the Rich people use a swords, that are good in just one think. Poor people will not buy sword since for the most of time he will hang on the wall. 
This create the legend of the swords. Since it became a status symbol. 
This also safe the art of fencing from extinction, like happen with Axe wielding. Rich people keep it alive. It was something that proof there status.  
And since it was became quite safe sport it became in 20 century a Olympic sport.


----------



## TheokinsJ

I suppose this is a very specific question, but I was wondering the other day about how to quench steel, as in, what do you use? I'd like to think I know a bit about swords and smithing and all that- but I've heard mixed opinions about how you can quench a blade. I know that most modern blacksmiths use oil, and water is the next best thing after that... but I was wondering what about snow?

I looked back on an earlier draft of my WIP and found a scene where a blacksmith quenches a sword is snow- and I've heard conflicting opinions about whether that is an appropriate blacksmithing technique- I've heard some people say that snow is too cold and that the burning hot metal might crack- that the quenching liquid/solution must be room-temperature. So, just looking to clear up, is snow too cold for quenching an iron-hot blade, or was it a legitimate technique used by blacksmiths?


----------



## Bortasz

TheokinsJ said:


> I suppose this is a very specific question, but I was wondering the other day about how to quench steel, as in, what do you use? I'd like to think I know a bit about swords and smithing and all that- but I've heard mixed opinions about how you can quench a blade. I know that most modern blacksmiths use oil, and water is the next best thing after that... but I was wondering what about snow?
> 
> I looked back on an earlier draft of my WIP and found a scene where a blacksmith quenches a sword is snow- and I've heard conflicting opinions about whether that is an appropriate blacksmithing technique- I've heard some people say that snow is too cold and that the burning hot metal might crack- that the quenching liquid/solution must be room-temperature. So, just looking to clear up, is snow too cold for quenching an iron-hot blade, or was it a legitimate technique used by blacksmiths?



Quenching in Oil is the best Quenching. 

Quenching in snow is... well problematic. Not only for the "Does it have right temperate?" reason.
Imagine you put red hot metal rod in to the snow. What happen? The snow around rod melt. Not good. 
You now put red hot metal rod in to bucket of water. What happen? Nice sound effect and water constantly touch the rod. Rod is now cooler. 
Quenching in snow is in practical.


----------



## Malik

Bortasz said:


> You assuming that somewhere in history somebody invent swords.
> With is false.
> 
> Nobody invent swords. They perfected knife. Make them longer for better reach.



From a practical and martial perspective, there is very little difference between inventing and perfecting. 

If the axe was superior, we wouldn't have kept using the sword. That's how engineering works; substandard designs fall out of use. 

The axe remained in use, but the sword was developed anyway, even in axe-using cultures. Therefore the sword had to fill a role that the axe couldn't. 

Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches. 

If the axe was the better weapon, rich people would have axes on their walls. Kings and knights would be ordained with axes instead of swords. 

I would never argue the axe's functionality; I carry a tomahawk along with my M4. But in the long game, at least on this planet, the sword won.


----------



## Devor

I feel that it's worth noting, the sword survived as a weapon into the age of gunpowder.  But, that's because gunpowder killed off armor, which killed off other armor piercing weapons.  It's not clear to me exactly what role the sword played before then.

And fencing is a sport.  It's not soldiery.  It's not relevant.  Rich people protected themselves by surrounding themselves with poor people.  And Knights, who were rich-ish, used a lot more than swords.


----------



## Guy

Devor said:


> I feel that it's worth noting, the sword survived as a weapon into the age of gunpowder.  But, that's because gunpowder killed off armor, which killed off other armor piercing weapons.  It's not clear to me exactly what role the sword played before then.


Largely for prestige/symbolism. Swords are still part of military dress uniforms for that reason.


----------



## Guy

Malik said:


> I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword.


True. I never said the axe was perfect, just that swords were not the superior weapons. Different weapons are designed to fulfill different roles. 


> The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.


Like I said, I think a lot of the mystique of the sword comes from the fact that it was the first antipersonnel device that was designed from the very start for that role. Another reason would be it took a lot more craftsmanship to make a sword than an axe. I think these two factors (and likely others) are what imbued swords with a good deal of symbolism and prestige. The development of one weapon design following another doesn't necessarily mean the newest design was overall superior. It might have been designed for a very specific purpose, like an estoc. I think symbolism played a very significant role in the development of certain swords, namely rapiers and small swords. They were later designs, but that doesn't mean they were superior to war swords. It meant they fulfilled a specific role, which I think was more social than practical. I wrote a thesis on it. From knights to courtiers : the development of civilian swords and Renaissance Englishmen (Book, 2010) [WorldCat.org] 
Another example:  I suspect the development of cruciform hilts had at least as much to do with religious symbolism as it did with practicality. They didn't crop up until the tenth century. Swords were in use for millennia prior to that, but they didn't have cruciform hilts. You generally don't see them on non-European swords, either. They worked fine without them, so the development wasn't likely to be driven for purely utilitarian reasons. 
I think the symbolism and tradition surrounding swords the main reason they were around for so long. They were retained long after they had outlived their usefulness.


> Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches.


Elites did not have unlimited income. Debt was a very common problem for them. They had to outfit themselves and often lost that expensive equipment in tournaments (winners often got the loser's equipment as a prize). Knights generally preferred to capture knights in battle to killing them because the captured knight would have to pay ransom for his release. They were also expected to entertain their fellows and they had to do it properly - cheapness was frowned upon. Due to these factors, they couldn't always afford the best equipment. And they did use other weapons in addition to swords, and their use was also taught by masters. There was chivalric combat using pole axes. Then, of course, there was the ubiquitous lance. Swords are good weapons - when it comes to ancient weapons, the longsword is hands down my first love - but swords became associated with elites for the reasons I mentioned above.


----------



## wordwalker

I wonder if we could narrow down the sword/axe question a bit:

The basic choice is between a sword's *finesse* (and reach) and an axe's *power*. (Plus, swords seem more dependent on quality (thus cost) and skill to bring out their strengths than axes do.) 

But, which times does an axe's power _matter?_ I keep thinking of 

Unarmored foes. If you get a solid hit against basic flesh, you don't need an axe to make the fight pretty much over. (A lot of katana fantasies seem to be based on this.)
Malik's article The Great Sword of War, that for 1100-1350 AD, against some of the best-known armor types of the middle ages, the best sword would still produce what he summarizes as _"BAM. You’re done.”_ Not by cutting through the armor, but the kind of concussion or dislocation that still knocks them flat.

So those are two situations --bad armor and good sword-- where a sword has all the power you need, and more speed to get that hit. That would make an axe better for the cases between those, where the best sword available (or your skill with it) hadn't caught up to the armor you're facing.


----------



## Bortasz

Malik said:


> From a practical and martial perspective, there is very little difference between inventing and perfecting.
> 
> If the axe was superior, we wouldn't have kept using the sword. That's how engineering works; substandard designs fall out of use.
> 
> The axe remained in use, but the sword was developed anyway, even in axe-using cultures. Therefore the sword had to fill a role that the axe couldn't.
> 
> Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches.
> 
> If the axe was the better weapon, rich people would have axes on their walls. Kings and knights would be ordained with axes instead of swords.
> 
> I would never argue the axe's functionality; I carry a tomahawk along with my M4. But in the long game, at least on this planet, the sword won.



People Invent the Wheel, by perfecting legs? 
Inventing and Perfecting is two completely different thinks. 

Sword was perfected knife. 
When Axe was invented tool. 
Claiming that perfecting and inventing is the same is just wrong. 

About does Elite people Guy already write something. 

Also pleas Pleas what's you point in general. Because It get lost. 

If you asking what is Better Sword vs Axe answer is: It depend for what.


----------



## Bortasz

Why Quote obscure other post? 
Does Only I see this? Or rather not see...


----------



## wordwalker

Guy said:


> I'd largely agree. There were axes that could match or exceed a sword's reach, but for the most part I'd agree with you.
> 
> Also true.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds about right. Axes were better for dealing with shields. A big axe could wreck the shield, and pretty much any axe could be used to hook the shield and haul it aside.




Thanks. Ax-tually (yes, I had to), I can think of another advantage they have: increasing the odds once you do connect. We can picture how much a solid hit is likely to end a fight, but it's only "likely:" with adrenaline in the mix, almost anything but an instant kill _could_ be shrugged off long enough for your enemy to still tear you apart. Damage overkill still helps to reduce the odds of that-- if you think you can still make a clumsier weapon hit.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Here's Guy's post, which I had to delete because of a weird error with the quotes. Those who saw most of page 41 obscured by a giant quote bubble know what I'm talking about.



FROM GUY:

_










 Originally Posted by *wordwalker* 



I wonder if we could narrow down the sword/axe question a bit:

The basic choice is between a sword's *finesse* (and reach) and an axe's *power*. (Plus, swords seem more dependent on quality (thus cost) and skill to bring out their strengths than axes do.)
		
Click to expand...


_

I'd largely agree. There were axes that could match or exceed a sword's reach, but for the most part I'd agree with you.
_



			But, which times does an axe's power matter? I keep thinking of 


Unarmored foes. If you get a solid hit against basic flesh, you don't need an axe to make the fight pretty much over. (A lot of katana fantasies seem to be based on this.)


Click to expand...

_



Also true.
Malik's article The Great Sword of War, that for 1100-1350 AD, against some of the best-known armor types of the middle ages, the best sword would still produce what he summarizes as _"BAM. You’re done.”_ Not by cutting through the armor, but the kind of concussion or dislocation that still knocks them flat.


----------



## TheokinsJ

Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?

(I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).


----------



## Bortasz

TheokinsJ said:


> Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?
> 
> (I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).



Do you mean something like this:
http://www.paul-binns-swords.co.uk/Images/Pattern_weld/blade_detail_1.jpg


----------



## Guy

TheokinsJ said:


> Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?
> 
> (I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).


It was more a way of maximizing their resources. The first monosteel blades in Europe didn't appear until the tenth century. Prior to that they had to use mixtures of iron and steel. The core of the blade would be pattern welded and the steel edge welded to it. If done properly, it can also make for a tough blade. The iron and steel has to be forge welded, but there were usually gaps between the welds, called cold shuts. Too many cold shuts and the blade breaks, but if you have the right amount they act as shock absorbers. Nova had a really good documentary on the first all-steel blades in Europe and explained some of it. I think it was called Secrets of the Viking Sword.


----------



## wordwalker

Can anyone answer the "Katana Question"?

That is, if a katana is all about using superb metal quality to hold a sharper edge... how well does that edge really work against *armor*? How has it been different against mainland Asian armor versus samurai armor, and what tests have their been against something like heavier Western armor? 

Or maybe the biggest, simplest question of all: is a katana much good against a *shield*? (Japan and fiction seem to be the only places a soldier shows up without those.)

From what I've learned on Scribes, I wouldn't be surprised if the "ultimate sword" turned out to be more the ultimate specialist in carving up light opponents, if even a well-made sharpness to the blade can't reach a well-armored foe the way a heavier, blunter sword can.

So, what's the evidence here?


----------



## Queshire

I was under the impression that the iron in Japan was generally of inferior quality so they had to fold the metal over and over and over again just to get rid of all the impurities.


----------



## Guy

wordwalker said:


> Can anyone answer the "Katana Question"?
> 
> That is, if a katana is all about using superb metal quality to hold a sharper edge... how well does that edge really work against *armor*? How has it been different against mainland Asian armor versus samurai armor, and what tests have their been against something like heavier Western armor?


It doesn't do well against armor for two reasons. One, it's designed primarily for cutting, and it's difficult to cut through armor. Much easier to pierce it, something katanas aren't very good at. Second, the reason katanas are so sharp is because the steel that comprises their edges is very hard. The problem with hard steel is that it's also brittle. When it encounters stiff resistance, it breaks. I read of a test of a katana against a steel helm. The helm was placed at about waist level and the swordsman held the katana so that it was lying along his back. This creates an ideal positioning that is almost never going to happen in battle. He brought the blade down onto the helm and made a tiny incision in it. Someone wearing it would've been unharmed. Katanas are great for slicing and dicing soft targets, but they aren't much against armor.


> Or maybe the biggest, simplest question of all: is a katana much good against a *shield*? (Japan and fiction seem to be the only places a soldier shows up without those.)


Swords in general aren't, but I'd say shields would pose a bigger problem for Japanese swordsmen simply because they never dealt with them. I don't know why, but the shield was never widely used in Japan.


> From what I've learned on Scribes, I wouldn't be surprised if the "ultimate sword" turned out to be more the ultimate specialist in carving up light opponents, if even a well-made sharpness to the blade can't reach a well-armored foe the way a heavier, blunter sword can.


In the west, a swordsman going up against someone in heavy armor used the point of his blade to pierce the gaps or weak spots in the armor. Japanese armor never advanced to the degree that western plate armor did. Japanese swordsmen aimed their cuts at places armor didn't cover well, like the arm pit or the inside of the elbow.


----------



## 2WayParadox

Let's see if I can offer you something interesting. 

I'm planning on having my main characters use a dual bladed style, two separate styles actually. I'm quite sure that that decision was finalized after reading Musashi's book of five rings. (Musashi is the greatest swordsman in Japanese history, he wrote a book that essentially says that hard work leads to superiority)

Because of this source I naturally tend to see two katanas in my mind's eye. Although these blades have some qualities that are desirable in a sword such as a razor sharp front edge and a shock absorbing back edge, in the end they're made from inferior steel which makes them brittle. From the little research I've done, I've learnt that swords made from Damascus steel were superior in almost every account. Most importantly when it comes to flexibility.

So, is there a style (or are there styles) more suited for dual wielding than the Japanese longsword? For all clarity, I am talking about wielding two full length swords.

This is a bonus, I don't really expect an answer to this: if you are obsessed with swords, are you also obsessed with sword styles? I've never used a sword or anything like it, so I'm having trouble imagining what it's like to be in a swordfight, let alone a swordfight using two swords. That's not to say I can't imagine something, but I don't know how realistic my imagination is. Is there a resource that has detailed, step by step, first person accounts of swordplay? Or anything that would allow for the same depth of understanding?


----------



## Guy

Musashi's two sword style was using katana and wakazashi. Using two katanas would be awkward. They're not heavy swords, but their point of balance is fairly far down the blade, which makes using them one-handed a bit awkward. Unlike western sword manuals, Japanese sword manuals don't really describe technique, so we don't really know what the specifics were of Musashi's style. He never said what they were. 

There are numerous accounts of duels in Europe from the 16th century on. The style of swordplay is different from Japanese, but the mentality would've been the same. A couple of good sources are The Sword and the Centuries by Alfred Hutton and The Secret History of the Sword by J. Christoph Amberger. They're duels in Europe but, like I said, the mentality would've been the same for Japanese swordsmen fighting for their lives. The account of the duel between Sir Edward Sackville and Lord Bruce is a particularly vivid first person account of a duel. There are several accounts of Musashi's duels, as well. One of the notable things about them was how short they were - usually the other guy swung and missed, Musashi swung back and didn't and with that the duel was over.

Damascus steel doesn't really offer any performance advantages over a monosteel blade.


----------



## 2WayParadox

So there's no ideal sword for dual wielding? Also, I'm seeing a dual sword style as a general purpose style, not just for dueling. It's also a trained assassin using them.


----------



## Guy

Those times it's been done it's usually a short sword combined with a long sword. Some southeast Asian martial arts use twin short swords. You could maybe research that some. Brian Boru's son supposedly used twin swords at the battle of Clontarf. Generally, though, twin longswords just aren't terribly practical. Short swords are maneuverable enough for it to work. The longsword/short sword combo makes sense because if the enemy gets past the longsword the short sword is there waiting for him.

Of course, in writing fantasy, you get a certain amount of poetic license. You don't have to be 100% historically accurate.


----------



## 2WayParadox

What about bastard swords?


----------



## wordwalker

Historically, "longsword" is an actual term: it takes in most swords sized so you can swing them two-handed but don't have to. (Katanas probably count here, as a light and too-sharp example.) 

The term "bastard sword" got stuck for this in gaming, but really a bastard or hand-and-a-half sword is a longsword with a hilt just big enough for one hand plus a couple more fingers to grip.

(Edit: Now that I think about it, that name might have been a pun too. Yes it's a bastardization between two hilt lengths, but it also could be a joke about illegitimate children having to save money on their swords. Call it a "budget cuts" sword--oops, another pun. )

Anyway I _think_ longswords are the weapons Malik had in mind here:



Malik said:


> That said, you're rarely "swinging" a two-handed greatsword. Most of the time it was wielded one-handed (unless it was a true, six-foot zweihander or Claymore) and a good deal of the two-handed work is done by changing grips; you can slash and parry by gripping the pommel with the webbing of your thumb and forefinger of your off-hand and levering the tip, which makes for much better point control than fighting with it like it's a baseball bat.


----------



## 2WayParadox

My question remains: would this added hilt length be an advantage to your dual wielding swordsman?


----------



## wordwalker

If he were dual wielding, he'd probably prefer a bastard sword to a full hilt. He'd only have his second hand free if he had to drop that other weapon anyway, and all a full hilt does is have more chance of getting in the way of his other arm as he coordinates the two blades' moves.


----------



## wordwalker

Also, I have to add: dual wielding sounds right for the duelists and assassins you seem to have in mind (or a commando like Drizzt), but not soldiers. It seems to take a _lot_ of work to do right... and on a battlefield you'd still find half your opponents coming at you with a big long spear. Not something you want to risk sidestepping, again and again and again, because you don't have a weapon long enough to match them or a shield to block them.


----------



## 2WayParadox

You're right about it taking a lot of work to master, Musashi describes himself as going through years of solitary mountain training spent endlessly drilling his moves. The goal in mind was to become as proficient as a full fledged swordsman with each arm. So on a battlefield a dual swordsman should be able to fend for himself just fine using only one sword.

About the longsword shortsword combo, what exactly is a shortsword, beyond the obvious? And makes it different from say a longknife or a long dagger? Is it nothing but a miniature sword meant to be wielded by people of smaller stature?


----------



## Guy

2WayParadox said:


> You're right about it taking a lot of work to master, Musashi describes himself as going through years of solitary mountain training spent endlessly drilling his moves. The goal in mind was to become as proficient as a full fledged swordsman with each arm. So on a battlefield a dual swordsman should be able to fend for himself just fine using only one sword.
> 
> About the longsword shortsword combo, what exactly is a shortsword, beyond the obvious? And makes it different from say a longknife or a long dagger? Is it nothing but a miniature sword meant to be wielded by people of smaller stature?


One of the maddening things about researching ancient weapons is terms and definitions are rather fluid. What's the difference between a long knife and a short sword? It's pretty much a matter of opinion. When someone says "short sword" I tend to thing Roman or Greek swords, a blade around 17 - 25 inches in length. There were renaissance martial arts that used sword and dagger combinations. There was a type of gladiator that used twin daggers, but that also could've been twin short swords. Asian short swords are often weapons westerners would probably consider machetes. 

Bastard swords are another example of the fluidity of definitions and terms. To some people, bastard sword is synonymous with longsword. To others, a  bastard sword is a hand-and-a-half sword, meaning the blade was about the same length as a one handed sword, but the hilt is long enough to accommodate two hands.

Twin sword use did exist, it just wasn't the norm. Sword and shield made a lot more sense, but twin sword use existed and there's no reason you can't use it in a story.


----------



## wordwalker

Agreed, there's a lot of confusion. People in a period didn't usually name a weapon type clearly, or change that name at just the moment it evolved into something new, and then picking one name to apply to different cultures' similar weapons... It's hitting a bullet with a bullet while riding on a third bullet.

Still, I think Skalagrim's definition of a longsword saves more trouble than not, as a starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk0GBKaMcgE. 

And it makes sense that not many cultures would have a solid term for "short sword"-- they'd just be swords, where everyone used one that was on the short side. --Except the samurai, of course, who had room to carry two sizes because they didn't keep shields.

Still, samurai used the wakizashi as a backup or close-quarters weapon, they didn't usually dual-wield it with the katana. That Mushashi did is proof of how hard he worked; he also liked to learn or create new weapons just to keep people guessing.


----------



## 2WayParadox

thanks for the video link, it led me to another one of skallagrim's videos, specifically addressing dual wielding.
He goes over a lot of the points that have been made so far and he also described something that I think is probably more suited to an assassin: a combination of a sword, an armshield or a buckler, a katar and a dagger. I like that, it sounds versatile while also having defensive capabilities without being too encumbered by the shield.

It does have some downsides I feel. That's a lot of gear to pull out, it goes from dual wielding to quadruple wielding essentially. It's not something you can do without some preparation time.


----------



## Guy

Got to love Skalagrim.


----------



## Laurence

In many films I see/hear swords that give off a beautiful ringing/humming noise when swung through the air, even at a low speed. Are any real swords at all like this or is this complete fiction?


----------



## Ireth

Laurence said:


> In many films I see/hear swords that give off a beautiful ringing/humming noise when swung through the air, even at a low speed. Are any real swords at all like this or is this complete fiction?



This video may be of interest:


----------



## Laurence

I actually meant while the sword was just moving slowly through the air rather than being drawn/put away but thanks for the link - has some other really interesting videos. I'm afraid I can't remember what movies this happens in - possibly Kill Bill...it's definitely not something that would happen in real life though. It's more that I'm thinking, "I wonder if, at a particular sharpness unobtainable in the real world, this could happen.'


----------



## wordwalker

It's called Audible Sharpness, and it's mainly used just for drama. Nobody expects a sword to make that sound, but it's a fun way to use hearing to imply "don't forget, that thing's wicked sharp." It might be most useful when someone's dodging a blow, to give the viewer the sense of the air (or at least the awareness that _that was a sword_) swooshing by.


----------



## Tom

Laurence said:


> I actually meant while the sword was just moving slowly through the air rather than being drawn/put away but thanks for the link - has some other really interesting videos. I'm afraid I can't remember what movies this happens in - possibly Kill Bill...it's definitely not something that would happen in real life though. It's more that I'm thinking, "I wonder if, at a particular sharpness unobtainable in the real world, this could happen.'



I was curious about this, so I dug my weapons out of my gear bag and conducted a test.*

Results:

All my epee, foil, and cavalry saber make are a dull whooshing sound that has a very slight whistle to it--that's going at a moderate speed. When I'm whipping the epee and saber through the air at a very high speed, they produce a more pronounced whistle that has a hard, almost metallic edge. If I'm swinging it fast enough, the foil, which is the thinnest, will make a high, warbling sound like a wire being plucked. 

Conclusion:

So the idea of a sword making an audible "sharp" sound is slightly feasible, but the real deal sounds nothing like what you hear in the movies.


*Do not attempt to replicate this experiment if you have dizziness, nausea, impaired inner ear, limited hand-eye coordination, or anger management issues.


----------



## Guy

Laurence said:


> In many films I see/hear swords that give off a beautiful ringing/humming noise when swung through the air, even at a low speed. Are any real swords at all like this or is this complete fiction?


At low speed? No. A quick swing with a sharp broad sword with the edges properly oriented will make a fairly chilling sound. Not a ring, and I wouldn't really call it a whoosh or a swish. It's different from the sound you get swinging something like a fishing rod or a whip. I tend to think of it as the blade singing.


----------



## ArenRax

what would you call one of those huge wide and really long swords? sort of like a two handed sword but wider and a bit taller?
im sure its a fictitious and not a real life one but im wondering what you'd call it.


----------



## X Equestris

ArenRax said:


> what would you call one of those huge wide and really long swords? sort of like a two handed sword but wider and a bit taller?
> im sure its a fictitious and not a real life one but im wondering what you'd call it.



You'll have to be a bit more specific.


----------



## Queshire

Well, there's the Japanese Zanbato or Horse-killing sword. It was meant to defeat Calvary by killing the horse under them.


----------



## wordwalker

Queshire said:


> Well, there's the Japanese Zanbato or Horse-killing sword. It was meant to defeat Calvary by killing the horse under them.



That's the closest thing to a real-life term. Whether what actually existed was like that is open for debate.

Other terms you might hear are "Buster Sword" or "BFS" (Big Effin' Sword). 

Or just "Because-He's-The-Hero Sword."  And of the many discussions of how non-realistic those are, here's my favorite: Skalagrim explaining that even someone with enough super-strength to swing one would rip the ground out from under his feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI

(But _Bleach_ still rocks!)


----------



## X Equestris

The term zanbatō doesn't appear in any Japanese manuscripts.  The closest real world equivalent in Japanese swords is the nodachi/odachi.


----------



## Laurence

The places where you can hit a plate wearing enemy are few. Do you think then, that these plated knights may have developed certain movements to avoid being hit in their weak spots and to make attacks glance off their armour? I imagine spinning/rolling your shoulders around could be very handy if it didn't disorientated you. Or am I being overly imaginative?


----------



## Guy

There are historical fight manuals you can look at to get an idea of what they did, but as a general rule armor was for when dodging, parrying or blocking a blow failed. A blow to the helm might fail to penetrate, but it could still ring your chimes and leave you dazed enough for an opponent to get in a killing blow.


----------



## wordwalker

Blocking a blow is absolutely better than being hit, yes. But beyond that, I keep going back to Malik's articles on swords and armor (like The Why of Weapons: The Great Sword of War) and his explanation that armor is all about making blows glance off. 

It can't "stop" a impact because whenever the blow hits the armor, the armor hits _you_, though it does try to disperse the force (big bruise over your ribs vs little hole through your spleen). But the better you are at making the blow glance off, the more your armor deflects the rest of the force and keeps you relatively unscathed. Similarly, the best weapon for the job might not be the one that tries to "pierce" armor but the one that's just sharp enough to dig in and deliver a good game-ending _whack_ instead of glancing off.

Of course just how much a fighter spins his shoulders, guards his armpit (the classic weak point in the heaviest armor), and so on changes from moment to moment in the fight. But it ought to be a big part of fighting in armor.


----------



## Chessie

A couple of questions for the sword wizards here, since I'm having a hard time finding the answers elsewhere:

1. What's the difference in swing between a short and long sword?

2. Does anyone know of any special fencing techniques that would allow a smaller person to overpower a larger one? Thank you!(I'm open to resources).


----------



## Guy

Chesterama said:


> A couple of questions for the sword wizards here, since I'm having a hard time finding the answers elsewhere:
> 
> 1. What's the difference in swing between a short and long sword?


You'll have to be more specific here. By short sword do you mean something like the Roman sword, or anything that can be used one handed? Are we talking differences in speed, power, reach?


> 2. Does anyone know of any special fencing techniques that would allow a smaller person to overpower a larger one? Thank you!(I'm open to resources).


With fencing it would be more a matter of outmaneuvering rather than overpowering. For example, big guy executes a downward cut at smaller guy. Smaller guy slips off to the side, avoiding the blow, and is in a perfect position to hack into the bigger guy's neck or face. Roman soldiers often went up against opponents who were physically larger than they. Two of their approaches that I know of were: 1. Catch the opponent's blow on the shield, then thrust sword into opponent's abdomen at an upward angle, ripping it off to the side as they withdrew it. The result was piercing or slicing heart and lungs and eviscerating the opponent in one stroke. 2. Catch the opponent's blow on the shield while crouched a bit low and reach behind him with the sword to hamstring him. Smaller fighters generally have an easier time dodging blows than bigger fighters. A smaller opponent armed with a short sword could slip under a bigger opponent's defenses and do what the Romans did to their bigger opponents.


----------



## Chessie

Thanks, Guy! I appreciate the response. For the first question, I meant a kindjal (Russian short sword). I've researched it and looked at some videos and it seems like a faster weapon to use.


----------



## Laurence

What kind of iron chain mail would trap a thrusting/stabbing spear/sword best, assuming the weapon twists a little as it goes in? 

Mostly interested in mail used from 1200BC - 1200AD.


----------



## Guy

Chesterama said:


> Thanks, Guy! I appreciate the response. For the first question, I meant a kindjal (Russian short sword). I've researched it and looked at some videos and it seems like a faster weapon to use.


Yeah, I'm convinced swords that size are underrated. They're small enough to be wicked fast but big enough to do much more damage than a knife. The down side is they don't have the reach of a longer sword.


----------



## Guy

Laurence said:


> What kind of iron chain mail would trap a thrusting/stabbing spear/sword best, assuming the weapon twists a little as it goes in?
> 
> Mostly interested in mail used from 1200BC - 1200AD.


Well, physical evidence has mail going back only to the 3rd century BC, but since its inception to when it completely fell out of use it changed very little, if at all. Generally a padded garment was worn underneath to absorb impact, something mail will not do. Rings were either solid or had their ends held shut with tiny rivets. Lots of mail combined the two types of rings. Some rings were round in cross section while others were flattened. Some mail armor combined both types of rings. Properly made mail would stand up to thrusts much better than most people think. I'd watched a documentary on the Vikings in which they showed that the mail would enshroud a stabbing blade and prevent it from piercing the body underneath. Here's a good article on the subject:
Mail: Unchained -- myArmoury.com


----------



## Laurence

Thanks for the answer! As far as trapping a blade went, would riveted mail with some kind of padding behind be the best? So that the blade could poke through a little without breaking the rings before it was twisted and trapped?


----------



## X Equestris

Pretty much all mail had padding underneath, because it doesn't absorb the force of the blow very well.


----------



## Malik

Mail can twist up around a thrusting sword and it's a real bitch to free again. See this at about 2:30. 






Keep in mind this is steel mail and a steel sword. 

A steel-edged sword against iron mail would penetrate better; iron is ductile and will deform -- bend and even stretch -- while steel will not. Keep in mind that steel was expensive,  hard to work with, and made only in small batches until the invention of the Bessemer blast furnace in the mid-1800's. A lot of the "sword vs. armor" / "arrow vs. armor" testing you see is done with modern materials and the results are inaccurate. The physics of the way the rings twist around a thrust is accurate enough, though.


----------



## Tom

ArenRax said:


> what would you call one of those huge wide and really long swords? sort of like a two handed sword but wider and a bit taller?
> im sure its a fictitious and not a real life one but im wondering what you'd call it.



The Scottish Claymore, perhaps? Or maybe an exaggerated longsword...


----------



## X Equestris

ZweihÃ¤nders are pretty big, too.  Bigger than Claymores, even.


----------



## Cassp

Wow this thread has some exception info.


----------



## Malik

Zwiehander against an unarmored target.








A gran espee de guerre or bastardsword would pretty much do the same. 

Also, ewww.


----------



## Galahad W-528

So I've read a lot of the posts here, and this is all incredible history and analysis! I love it! But there's one question I have that I don't see answered since all discussion seems to end at the first world war.  My question is: what kind of sword would be good against modern soldiers, and I mean soldiers like our soldiers not the insurgents we fight today or the cold war relics still left in the world.

I also have another question that's been argued but not fully answered: What would be the perfect "dream sword"?  Something to fight both armored and unarmored opponents, with a sharp edge but also one that maintain its edge. What material would be the best, from Hydrogen to Eka-Bismuth, and what style would work the best?  I'm literally asking you to go nuts on a hypothetical sword that could do everything better.  If it simply can't be done, I'll settle for a maximum of three different swords that would be the absolute best by all measures.  I'm partially curious if it could even be done without using something crazy like ions and plasma or something like that, which I don't want to do.


----------



## DMThaane

Galahad W-528 said:


> So I've read a lot of the posts here, and this is all incredible history and analysis! I love it! But there's one question I have that I don't see answered since all discussion seems to end at the first world war.  My question is: what kind of sword would be good against modern soldiers, and I mean soldiers like our soldiers not the insurgents we fight today or the cold war relics still left in the world.



The simple answer is that it doesn't exist. The nature of the sword renders it simply impractical in the modern world, especially with the rise of drone warfare. Put another way, the best sword to use against modern soldiers is one dropped from space at high enough speeds that the kinetic impact takes out a city block.

In terms of story writing I see two practical swords in the modern world. The first is a modern take on the cane-sword. This is a concealable weapon that offers range advantages over a knife and can be hidden inside a walking stick or umbrella. The second is a utility blade like a machete, which will usually do more damage and has other uses besides killing.



> I also have another question that's been argued but not fully answered: What would be the perfect "dream sword"?  Something to fight both armored and unarmored opponents, with a sharp edge but also one that maintain its edge. What material would be the best, from Hydrogen to Eka-Bismuth, and what style would work the best?  I'm literally asking you to go nuts on a hypothetical sword that could do everything better.  If it simply can't be done, I'll settle for a maximum of three different swords that would be the absolute best by all measures.  I'm partially curious if it could even be done without using something crazy like ions and plasma or something like that, which I don't want to do.



I'll start with material. You want steel. Steel is the best. Steel is the undisputed champion of swords. Some people say metallic glass but that's usually followed by 'samurai sword' so they're a little hard to take seriously. You want a carbon steel like 1060, a spring steel like 5160, or a tool steel like T10. The exact steel you want will depend on the exact qualities you want. At the end of the day any of these steels (plus a whole bunch of others) will make a great sword. If you absolutely must go exotic than metallic glass _may_ be suitable but I won't believe it until I see a sword made of it.

For sword shape, form follows function and there is no 'best'. The sword you want will depend largely on preference and time period. Against a combination of plate armoured and unarmoured opponents I'd take a European longsword for its utility but again, that's just preference. You'll use a different style against an armoured opponent than an unarmoured opponent. At the end of the day the best style is whichever one doesn't get you killed.


----------



## Russ

DMThaane said:


> For sword shape, form follows function and there is no 'best'. The sword you want will depend largely on preference and time period. Against a combination of plate armoured and unarmoured opponents I'd take a European longsword for its utility but again, that's just preference. You'll use a different style against an armoured opponent than an unarmoured opponent. At the end of the day the best style is whichever one doesn't get you killed.



I would thoroughly concur with the opinion that the european longsword (using the word properly) as the best "all rounder".


----------



## M P Goodwin

This, as has already been mentioned, is a fascinating thread and one I intend to read completely. In the setting of my novel(s) iron is as rare as rocking horse fodder, making bronze weapons standard use and after doing a deal of research I came across Neil Burridge and am now the very fortunate owner of a classic leaf-shaped bronze sword, with a hardened live edge and it is without any doubt as sharp to the touch as any modern blade I own and far more beautiful than any other I have seen. As an aid to my imagination it is fantastic and if anyone is looking for the best Xmas present ever I can thoroughly recommend getting your hands on one!


----------



## Galahad W-528

Sorry, I meant best sword against infantry.  The kind where your indoors, round a corner and there he is trying to reload.  With the ballistic armor and fair amount of layers soldiers wear I was wondering what type of sword would be best.

I do agree about the longsword being the best all rounder.  I had a hunch, but wanted to run it by someone else before going with it.


----------



## Guy

I'd say something short and straight, like the Roman sword or the Celtic leaf blade. They'd be good for stabbing areas the armor doesn't cover and wide enough to create a big wound.


----------



## M P Goodwin

Having practised with the Celtic leaf blade I found the hilt too small and the pommel too large to make a stabbing/thrusting attack very effective against armour and I have small so-called Celtic hands. I can't help feel that the Arming sword is an excellent allrounder and given that it was popular for a long time in the hands of armoured knights you might try that. They were single handed and lighter than the longsword and needed much less room to swing.


----------



## DMThaane

I would take literally any firearm I could get my hands on but if I absolutely _had_ to engage a trained infantryman at close range while he was alone and reloading his weapon, I'd take a relatively short falchion with a decent point.  I wouldn't even bother aiming for body armour. Maybe I could get through a vest—and the inserts, and the ribcage—or maybe I hit an ammo pouch and he clubs me in the face and empties a pistol mag into my chest. I'd aim for the face or the neck, striking the arm or the leg until an opening presented itself for a more decisive blow. 

Again though, I stress this would be my personal preference. A sword is a terrible weapon in this situation and that means technique is more important than the exact shape of the blade. Anything short that can cut and thrust reasonable well will work if used right. Also, even unloaded a rifle can deflect a sword and deliver a nasty blow, so maintaining initiative really is key.

Now if you'll excuse I'll be in my living room waiting for the Federal Police to break down my door with some polite questions.


----------



## Russ

I am still with the European long sword.  If there is not enough room to swing (which does not require as much as you might imagine) you switch to the two handed thrust.  Great leathality and good reach.


----------



## Malik

Galahad W-528 said:


> So I've read a lot of the posts here, and this is all incredible history and analysis! I love it! But there's one question I have that I don't see answered since all discussion seems to end at the first world war.  My question is: what kind of sword would be good against modern soldiers, and I mean soldiers like our soldiers not the insurgents we fight today or the cold war relics still left in the world.



First vote goes to a trench knife. It's a 12-18" short sword with a heavy blade and brass knuckles on the handle. I'm in the Army and I would carry one of these if it wasn't banned by the Law of Armed Conflict as "unnecessarily injurious." There's a reason it's considered so.

Second vote is a tomahawk. These are allowed; I've trained on them at Ft. Bragg and I even carried one on deployment. They will cut through soft Kevlar armor, and with the right training they are hell on wheels in close quarters. Fast, light, sharp, and with hundreds of attack vectors; you can use it for trapping and controlling maneuvers to subdue someone non-lethally, as well as making Jackson Pollock paintings out of overly optimistic badguys.






There's really no sword, per se, that would make sense to use against modern soldiers. You'd have to invent something. Even then, you'd have your hands full with a guy in bodyarmor and a helmet with a bayonet on his rifle. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, a properly trained modern-day infantry soldier is a very tough opponent.

But hey, man. It's your book. Make it happen and let us know what you come up with.


----------



## Guy

Malik said:


> First vote goes to a trench knife. It's a 12-18" short sword with a heavy blade and brass knuckles on the handle. I'm in the Army and I would carry one of these if it wasn't banned by the Law of Armed Conflict as "unnecessarily injurious."


I always get a laugh out of laws like this. You can use weapons that turn people into a fine pink mist, things that'll turn entire cities into radioactive slag, but don't you dare use a sharp object with brass knuckles! Them things is dangerous!


----------



## Russ

Guy said:


> I always get a laugh out of laws like this. You can use weapons that turn people into a fine pink mist, things that'll turn entire cities into radioactive slag, but don't you dare use a sharp object with brass knuckles! Them things is dangerous!



Most scholars would suggest that the use of weapons that turn entire cities into radioactive slag would violate the Law of Armed Conflict as it exists now.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Russ said:


> Most scholars would suggest that the use of weapons that turn entire cities into radioactive slag would violate the Law of Armed Conflict as it exists now.



I always smile when discussing international law and stuff because there is this understanding that is best exemplified by the following quotation from Dave Chappelle.

"You don't like (UN) you can sanction me, sanction me with your army. Oh wait a minute, I forgot you don't have an army so you just need to shut the [expletive] up. Just shut the [expletive] up."

We have all of these laws, but if push came to shove and the really powerful countries started to use nukes the LOAC would have not real power.


----------



## Russ

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I always smile when discussing international law and stuff because there is this understanding that is best exemplified by the following quotation from Dave Chappelle.
> 
> "You don't like (UN) you can sanction me, sanction me with your army. Oh wait a minute, I forgot you don't have an army so you just need to shut the [expletive] up. Just shut the [expletive] up."
> 
> We have all of these laws, but if push came to shove and the really powerful countries started to use nukes the LOAC would have not real power.



Very true.  While there is broad agreement on what the rules of Armed Combat currently are, there is a significant dearth of enforcement mechanisms for "the big players".

But if you want to break those rules...you better be darned sure you are going to win or die trying.


----------



## Incanus

I was wondering about the scimitar.  If I'm not mistaken, it was designed for cutting and slicing, and not stabbing or thrusting.  But could it be used that way?  Or would it not work for some reason?  Most of them seem to have a sharp tip.

One reason I was wondering was because I came across this sentence in the novel Silverthorn by Raymond Feist:

The temple guard thrust with his scimitar and impaled the moredhel.

So did the author mess up, or could someone do this with this weapon?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Curved blades in general are more efficient slicers. They can still be used as stabbing weapons, but they aren't as proficient for stabbing as a straight blade.


----------



## Russ

Incanus said:


> I was wondering about the scimitar.  If I'm not mistaken, it was designed for cutting and slicing, and not stabbing or thrusting.  But could it be used that way?  Or would it not work for some reason?  Most of them seem to have a sharp tip.
> 
> One reason I was wondering was because I came across this sentence in the novel Silverthorn by Raymond Feist:
> 
> The temple guard thrust with his scimitar and impaled the moredhel.
> 
> So did the author mess up, or could someone do this with this weapon?



There is no doubt you could use a scimitar for thrusting against an unarmoured target.  Just like I sometimes hammer in nails with the butt end of a big flashlight.  It is not the best tool for the job but sometimes it is all you have.


----------



## Incanus

Thanks folks, that's about what I thought.  In the case I cited, we have someone being impaled by such a weapon.  That's what caught my attention and made me wonder.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Alright, I have questions. I need a big sword. Like a really big sword. Said sword also needs to have a five "slots" available about the size of a quarter to insert a quarter sized magic medallion. As a reference, this is unheard of in his world. Metal cannot be a secondary channel for magic, meaning that unless there is a talismanic etching in the metal or the metal is directly imbued with certain magical energy the metal cannot channel magic. However, my MC is testing a theory of his that blood metal (meaning metal infused with the blood of a certain type of person) can be a secondary channel of magic. This sword is going to be his proof of concept.

My questions are:
1) Is a Scottish claymore a big enough blade to have I believe 5 US quarter sized slots?
2) If this is not big enough what sword would be?
3) Is it reasonable for a kid of 18 to be proficient in bushido and the style of swordplay attached with large European blades? (Note when I say proficient I do not mean a master I mean just a skilled user that can use the weapons properly)
4) How would these slots affect the structural integrity of the blade? (I intend on making magic be the fix, but I still need to know the problems)
5) Would you accept magic as being a reason why the talismans are being held in place during the rigors of combat?


----------



## Russ

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Alright, I have questions. I need a big sword. Like a really big sword. Said sword also needs to have a five "slots" available about the size of a quarter to insert a quarter sized magic medallion. As a reference, this is unheard of in his world. Metal cannot be a secondary channel for magic, meaning that unless there is a talismanic etching in the metal or the metal is directly imbued with certain magical energy the metal cannot channel magic. However, my MC is testing a theory of his that blood metal (meaning metal infused with the blood of a certain type of person) can be a secondary channel of magic. This sword is going to be his proof of concept.
> 
> My questions are:
> 1) Is a Scottish claymore a big enough blade to have I believe 5 US quarter sized slots?
> 2) If this is not big enough what sword would be?
> 3) Is it reasonable for a kid of 18 to be proficient in bushido and the style of swordplay attached with large European blades? (Note when I say proficient I do not mean a master I mean just a skilled user that can use the weapons properly)
> 4) How would these slots affect the structural integrity of the blade? (I intend on making magic be the fix, but I still need to know the problems)
> 5) Would you accept magic as being a reason why the talismans are being held in place during the rigors of combat?



I will do my best.

1) yes.  So would a German or Italian longsword.
2) see above
3) for sure.  If they start training at say 12 or 13 you could be very proficient by 18
4) this I do not know
5) no problem with that at all.


----------



## Metanoiac

I have questions about sabers that would be used by heavy cavalry.

What differences in use, advantage/disadvantage, and so on might there be between use of one on foot, versus use of one by someone still mounted?

Thanks!


----------



## Malik

If you time a swordblow correctly from horseback, some of the horse's momentum can carry through into the stroke. Fiore had a whole treatise on mounted swordplay in which he contended that the walk and the canter were the most important gaits for mounted combat. I won't recite it here, but you can find an encapsulation at Academie Duello. Mounted Mechanics - Academie Duello


----------



## Russ

The sabre is a very different weapon than anything Fiore ever wrote about or used so use the Flower of Battle with caution on that subject.

There are plenty of sabre manuals around to study including one written by Patton.  The field is someone split amongst those who think the sabre should be a slashing weapon, and those, like Patton who say it more as a shock weapon, but some of the difference may come down to design.

Use of saber is tricky, and at various times the weapon has been referred to as "old wrist breaker" by mounted troops.


----------



## Judith Rook

In an extended short story I am writing a character sharpens a scythe blade.  Later on in the story he sharpens a sword blade.  I would like to make the two sharpening techniques different, if that is possible.  For example, would the strokes of the whetstone move away from the body in both techniques?   Thank you.


----------



## Guy

Why two different techniques? It wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## Judith Rook

The story begins in 1950s England.  The scythe belongs to that world.   The action moves into a similar parallel world within the multiverse.  The sword belongs there.   I thought that different sharpening techniques would help to define the different worlds but if, as you suggest, that would not be sensible, then I'll not persist with the idea.  To have access to this type of expert knowledge is one of the reasons why I joined Mythic Scribes.  Many thanks.


----------



## Valentinator

I have a question about a strength-based techniques in swordsmanship. How exactly an exceptionally physically strong swordsman can use his strength as an advantage? I understand that a brute force alone doesn't do much without the skill but what about a combination of skill and strength vs just the skill? I'm interested in a pure swordplay, not a hand-to-hand combat transition (I know the latter relatively well). The skill levels are similar for both fighters.


----------



## Russ

Valentinator said:


> I have a question about a strength-based techniques in swordsmanship. How exactly an exceptionally physically strong swordsman can use his strength as an advantage? I understand that a brute force alone doesn't do much without the skill but what about a combination of skill and strength vs just the skill? I'm interested in a pure swordplay, not a hand-to-hand combat transition (I know the latter relatively well). The skill levels are similar for both fighters.



Off the top of my head the stronger fighter can gain advantage in two ways in a sword fight, other things being equal:

1) is by entering into binds, in which the blades are locked together and strength can then be used to dominate the bind and allow the stronger fighter to move into the better place:

2) if the fight is armoured, half swording techniques, (where one hand is placed above the cross guard) would allow strength to be an advantage.

There might be a third but I will need to think on it a bit.


----------



## glutton

In a fight with swords and shields a larger/stronger fighter could also potentially wear down the opponent faster.


----------



## Guy

Valentinator said:


> I have a question about a strength-based techniques in swordsmanship. How exactly an exceptionally physically strong swordsman can use his strength as an advantage? I understand that a brute force alone doesn't do much without the skill but what about a combination of skill and strength vs just the skill? I'm interested in a pure swordplay, not a hand-to-hand combat transition (I know the latter relatively well). The skill levels are similar for both fighters.


Superior strength might confer superior stamina. Otherwise, I don't really see it conferring a huge advantage. When a guy swings at you with a sword, Plan A is get out of the way. Plan B is redirect or deflect the blow. Plan C is directly block the blow. So only if you were bound to use Plan C would an opponent with superior strength have a definite advantage.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Valentinator said:


> I have a question about a strength-based techniques in swordsmanship. How exactly an exceptionally physically strong swordsman can use his strength as an advantage? I understand that a brute force alone doesn't do much without the skill but what about a combination of skill and strength vs just the skill? I'm interested in a pure swordplay, not a hand-to-hand combat transition (I know the latter relatively well). The skill levels are similar for both fighters.



It's a massive advantage. Games and RPGs especially have given us this strange notion that strength is a completely isolated trait, when in reality, superior strength gives you increased burst and balance. Basically, the stronger you are, the quicker your movements are and the tougher it is to bring you down. A stronger swordsman will be able to strike, lunge and dodge faster than his opponent.


----------



## Valentinator

Thanks a lot for the answers! That was really helpful.


----------



## Guy

TheKillerBs said:


> superior strength gives you increased burst and balance. Basically, the stronger you are, the quicker your movements are and the tougher it is to bring you down. A stronger swordsman will be able to strike, lunge and dodge faster than his opponent.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I've seen plenty of cases where the stronger fighter was also the slower fighter. And someone who's stronger isn't necessarily harder to bring down. Psychological forces play a huge role. Look at cases of gunfights. There are many instances of men of average size and strength and with no drugs in their systems taking multiple hits from major calibers and remaining active. Some people see their own blood and panic. Some people see their own blood and get really pissed. Some people are subdued by pain. Others are almost blind to it. 

“If it was not an art, then the strong would always win.” -- Hanko Dobringer, German fight master, 1389


----------



## TheKillerBs

Guy said:


> I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I've seen plenty of cases where the stronger fighter was also the slower fighter. And someone who's stronger isn't necessarily harder to bring down. Psychological forces play a huge role. Look at cases of gunfights. There are many instances of men of average size and strength and with no drugs in their systems taking multiple hits from major calibers and remaining active. Some people see their own blood and panic. Some people see their own blood and get really pissed. Some people are subdued by pain. Others are almost blind to it.



I was speaking from a purely physical standpoint, with all other things being equal, which is what I thought the question was about. For a given skill level, mentality, and weight, the stronger person will always be quicker and physically tougher to bring down.


----------



## Guy

It's the "always" I disagree with. There are usually exceptions to rules. In swordplay strength can be an advantage, but it is no guarantee. Sword blades generate a good deal of centrifugal force. Even a half-hearted swing can cut deeply or break bones, so you don't need a great deal of strength to use one. In swordplay, control is a far bigger factor than strength. Regardless of how much strength is behind a sword thrust, it takes little force to set it aside. English fight master George Silver said a child with a stick could do it. Like I said earlier, when it comes to blows, Plan A is get out of the way. Strength means nothing if it doesn't hit its target. Plan B is to redirect the blow, like shoving a descending blade aside. A weaker opponent can usually do this easily enough. Plan C is directly stopping the blow. That's when the stronger swordsman will have the advantage.

You also have to take into account the mechanical damage a sword blow can inflict; it doesn't have to kill you to stop you. A decent blow to the wrist or arm can sever muscles, tendons and nerves, rendering the limb useless. A blow to the hand can make it impossible to grasp the weapon. It doesn't matter how strong someone is when their muscles are no longer connected to anything.

Strength can be an advantage, but in swordplay there are many more factors that combine to make that advantage a small one.


----------



## TheKillerBs

You're still not understanding. What I'm talking about is so basic it's not even just about sword fights, it's about human movement in general. The strength of your muscles (in combination with your mass) determines how quickly you can move. This isn't just speed, it's changing speeds quickly and changing direction quickly. This is physics. Force equals mass times acceleration. If you increase the force with a constant mass, the acceleration will be greater. If you increase the acceleration of something, it will reach a certain speed faster, or change direction faster.


----------



## Guy

TheKillerBs said:


> You're still not understanding. What I'm talking about is so basic it's not even just about sword fights, it's about human movement in general.


But the original question was about the advantages of superior strength in sword fights (and the poster specifically said he was not addressing unarmed combat), so that's what my answer was geared towards. My answer was it isn't much of an advantage, for the reasons given. In unarmed combat, yes, superior strength is an obvious advantage, which is why you have different weight classes in boxing, MMA, and the like. But once you start introducing weapons into the equation, that changes significantly (there's a reason why weapons were invented, after all), and since that's what the original question was asking, that's what I'm sticking with. The stronger opponent has more force to apply to his movements, but what happens when he has to move more mass, or over a greater distance? I've experienced this in sparring sessions when my opponent, who was far weaker than I, could hit me before I could move because while I had superior strength, she had superior position. We were using practice longswords, so all she had to do was push with her strong hand and pull with her weak hand to strike me, whereas I had to move my entire body to get out of the way because I wasn't in position to deflect or block. I had to move more mass and I had to move it a greater distance, completely nullifying my strength advantage. Also, significantly greater strength often translates into significantly greater size. In armed combat, this just makes you an easier target. That's why it's not as simple as simple as what you're saying. The principle you're talking about is basic, but an actual armed fight (which was what the original question was about) has many more factors and is therefore much more complicated. The result is superior strength isn't as big an advantage in armed combat as it is in unarmed combat.


----------



## TheKillerBs

You're arguing against physics. Let's take a look at a basic thrust, alright? You have a sword with a mass of _m_, and you apply a force of _F_ in a given direction, which results in it moving in that direction for a length _d_ (because your arm is only so long). The time _t_ it will take for that thrust is easy to figure out.

F=mÂ·a and a=d/t^2, therefore F=mÂ·d/t^2

Solving for t yields t=sqrt(mÂ·d/F)

Now for the sake of simplicity, let's say that the force I'm applying is 1 Newton, the length of the thrust is 1 metre, and the mass of the sword is 1 kg. In this scenario, the time it takes for that thrust is 1 second.

Now let's double the force applied, so instead of 1 N, it's 2 N. The length of the thrust is still 1 m and the mass of the sword is still 1 kg. In this scenario, the thrust would take roughly .7 seconds.

The thrust is faster. All other things being equal, more strength equals faster movement. Undeniable physics. Period.


----------



## Guy

Yes. I never said it wasn't an advantage. I said it wasn't a huge advantage. And strength isn't the only thing that affects speed.


----------



## TheKillerBs

TheKillerBs said:


> I was speaking from a purely physical standpoint, with all other things being equal, which is what I thought the question was about.



You're ignoring this. You keep arguing about other factors when I have twice stated that I was making my point exclusively with strength being the only variable factor.


----------



## glutton

I somehow doubt the hypothetical scenario involves two fighters that are completely identical in everything but strength unless they are clones with one having enhanced strength.

That said, another advantage strength could give that hasn't been brought up is that a stronger fighter could wield a heavier weapon that inflicts more blunt trauma even through an opponent's armor, or wear heavier armor themselves, without being much slowed down. Like so...








That thing could kill a man in full plate in one hit, or maybe even a dragon... she is so BAE XD


----------



## MiguelDHorcrux

I apologize if this has been answered before. I'm on a pc from the Jurassic age and this thing will explode if I leave this page and make it do another task. So my questions are:

Is it true that blood strengthens swords? Like in Naruto, when Zabuza said that the iron in the blood of his enemies keep his cleaver even more powerful? Any truth to that?

Another thing, I want your take on this. I have a country of knightmages in my story. They use broadswords with enchantments that make their weapons lighter and tougher. I also have a country of samurais. Their katanas are bespelled to not be as fragile as they are in real life. Have any of you ever used magic to bypass the fragility of swords?


----------



## DMThaane

MiguelDHorcrux said:


> Is it true that blood strengthens swords? Like in Naruto, when Zabuza said that the iron in the blood of his enemies keep his cleaver even more powerful? Any truth to that?



This is an old myth and I've never been able to find the origin of it. The earliest primary source I've seen is from 1894 in a Berlin newspaper, long removed from any of the periods during which it supposedly happened. Classic versions include wootz steel blades from Damascus, viking swords, and katanas; often quenched in the body of a slave and sometimes in the blood of a dragon. Incidentally, while researching this I found a myth that blades warp if not quenched facing true north so... a lot of forging myths out there on the internet.

To go a bit more in-depth, quenching a blade in a human body would be a _terrible_ idea for a number of reasons, notably the risk of hitting bone and the inconsistency of the quenching medium. A living body would be even worse because they would, understandably, thrash around. Quenching in blood _could_ work and it does have a decently consistent salt content (which is the only thing I've seen mentioned in its favour) but it congeals and would go rancid. Urine, apparently, works better for less hassle. Urine also shows up in more historical sources, often with advice about how to get the _right_ sort of urine. Regardless, oil or water are much more common, almost certainly better if you know what you're doing, and couldn't possibly smell as bad.

Also blood may contain iron but it also contains salt and oxygen, two things that aid in rusting. This shouldn't be a problem in a quenching medium but does make Zabuza's logic somewhat suspect. Of course in your world its your rules so the blood of certain creature could be the quenching medium of choice, especially if its magical. Alternate use for unicorns, maybe?



> Another thing, I want your take on this. I have a country of knightmages in my story. They use broadswords with enchantments that make their weapons lighter and tougher. I also have a country of samurais. Their katanas are bespelled to not be as fragile as they are in real life. Have any of you ever used magic to bypass the fragility of swords?



I have one world where they put different sections of the enchantment on different pieces of iron then pattern-weld them together to form the final enchantment. This is done to sidestep complexity issues that arise when trying to enchant homogenous steel. It's rare, however, as I generally try to keep magic inconvenient for both plot and preference reasons.


----------



## Centinuus

Do you by any chance participate in HEMA to any degree?


----------



## Russ

Centinuus said:


> Do you by any chance participate in HEMA to any degree?



I have been involved in HEMA (which we often called WMA) for over a decade, although I am not as active as I used to be due to time constraints.

The Salle I have always trained at is AEMMA - Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts and I highly reccomend it to anyone.

And blood does not make swords stronger.


----------



## Centinuus

Ah lovely, ive been into historical swordplay for some time and attempted to form my own small group around my area as were sadly rather dry on HEMA establishments. i have a collection of a few people who i regularly fence with,and not the rather silly modern fencing which is more equatable to whip fighting, i own a small collection of historical rapiers, as well as a few longswords and a chinese Dao of decent quality. glad to know others here are as enthusiastic about the sport, as a practitioner of 10 years im sure i could learn alot from you.


----------



## Russ

Centinuus said:


> Ah lovely, ive been into historical swordplay for some time and attempted to form my own small group around my area as were sadly rather dry on HEMA establishments. i have a collection of a few people who i regularly fence with,and not the rather silly modern fencing which is more equatable to whip fighting, i own a small collection of historical rapiers, as well as a few longswords and a chinese Dao of decent quality. glad to know others here are as enthusiastic about the sport, as a practitioner of 10 years im sure i could learn alot from you.



Where are you in Ontario?  I might be able to put you in contact with some practitioners nearby.


----------



## Centinuus

Far too far south, im afraid. about an hour or so north of Windsor, very small town, too many farmers.


----------



## Zack

Is there a one-handed short-ish sword that allows for the user to switch hands as well as grip? (ie: Standard to reverse grip) If so, what is it called? How exactly does one use it? And would it still work if the first inch of so was broken off. Another off the wall question, is there much a difference between a sheath or scabbard?


----------



## Ireth

Zack said:


> Is there a one-handed short-ish sword that allows for the user to switch hands as well as grip? (ie: Standard to reverse grip) If so, what is it called? How exactly does one use it? And would it still work if the first inch of so was broken off. Another off the wall question, is there much a difference between a sheath or scabbard?



No idea about your other questions, but I think sheath and scabbard are two words for the same thing. I may be wrong though.


----------



## Zack

Cool, thanks. One more question. Is it common practice to hold a one handed sword in your right hand and a shield in the left? If so, is it taboo to hold the sword in the left and the shield in the right?


----------



## Russ

Zack said:


> Is there a one-handed short-ish sword that allows for the user to switch hands as well as grip? (ie: Standard to reverse grip) If so, what is it called? How exactly does one use it? And would it still work if the first inch of so was broken off. Another off the wall question, is there much a difference between a sheath or scabbard?



It is a very high risk endevour to change hands or grips in combat unless you have some space to do so.


----------



## Zack

Ok, thanks. If a character was using a shorter sword and not switching or doing anything like that, would it be best to block with the sword or just dodge incoming attacks?


----------



## Russ

Zack said:


> Ok, thanks. If a character was using a shorter sword and not switching or doing anything like that, would it be best to block with the sword or just dodge incoming attacks?



The good swordsman does both.

He takes a step, or half step to either a) adjust the distance to be safe; or
                                                    b) get off the line of the attack;  AND

Parries (rather than "block") in such a fashion that will hopefully allow them to counter attack both safely and successfully.

Think of it this way.  If there is a sword swinging down at your head really fast, you want to both get out of the way and interpose something between you and that sword so that if you don't get out of the way you will still be breathing after that attack is finished.


----------



## Zack

Oh, that seems really obvious now that you mention it. Thanks!


----------



## vaiyt

DMThaane said:


> Also blood may contain iron but it also contains salt and oxygen, two things that aid in rusting. This shouldn't be a problem in a quenching medium but does make Zabuza's logic somewhat suspect.


As far as I know, blood does not contain nearly enough iron to have an appreciable effect even in a regular sword, let alone a humongous cleaver like Zabuza's.


----------



## DMThaane

vaiyt said:


> As far as I know, blood does not contain nearly enough iron to have an appreciable effect even in a regular sword, let alone a humongous cleaver like Zabuza's.



I've never actually watched Naruto, I was only turning the character's logic around on itself. I mean, why would a sword even need extra iron? It's not like swords have an iron deficiency and elemental iron wouldn't do much good if you just slapped it into any chips or pits in the blade. If he was chroming the surface that would make some sense because at least that would reduce rusting but I doubt there's anywhere near enough chromium in the human body for that. So, yeah, there are a lot of places where Zabuza's logic falls down.


----------



## TheKillerBs

The blade uses blood to magically rebuild when it breaks, if memory serves. It's been a long time since I gave a rat's rear about Naruto.


----------



## Zelda of Hyrule

What an incredible discussion about swords! Mythic Scribes is really full of valuable knowledge.

You would benefit greatly from learning more about Hyrulean swords and steel. We have swords in my world that are as good and perhaps even better than any sword of your world, like my personal sword:








You see the elegance and beauty of the design? I designed it myself! My sword is the fastest and sharpest in all of Hyrule. Sometimes, my friend Link has challenged me to a cutting competition (we cut onions, pumpkins, the occasional monster or just some grass to find rupees, you know...) and I always win.

My friend's sword is heavier and clumsier:







My sword is so much better than that, oh yeah!


----------



## Malik

Zelda of Hyrule said:


> You would benefit greatly from learning more about Hyrulean swords and steel. We have swords in my world that are as good and perhaps even better than any sword of your world, like my personal sword



Tell us about Hyrulean swords and steel.


----------



## Malik

I got a warsword for Christmas. Meet "Mister Snappy."







Yes, one quillon is bent. It gives it street cred. 

Anybody got a warsword question?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Malik said:


> I got a warsword for Christmas. Meet "Mister Snappy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, one quillon is bent. It gives it street cred.
> 
> Anybody got a warsword question?



It's gorgeous.


----------



## Russ

Malik said:


> I got a warsword for Christmas. Meet "Mister Snappy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, one quillon is bent. It gives it street cred.
> 
> Anybody got a warsword question?




Enough bragging, we want videos of you working the pell and doing the posta or guards!!!

Have fun with it.


----------



## Malik

We had talked several pages, and likely a couple of years, ago about differentially hardening steel in pre-industrial settings, and about clay-forging katanas. 

This gif is what happens when you have a severe differential between your spine and blade hardness: you get a sword that slices beautifully but sucks as an impact weapon. You can see by the resulting dings in the blades that the edges are roughly equivalent in hardness between the two swords.

This is not a dig at the katana crowd, but it shows the stanchioning effect of a fuller and the advantage of having bilateral hardened edges on a spring-tempered spine instead of just one hard edge and a thicker, softer spine. 

What happens to the katana is also exactly what would happen to a medieval / European-style sword that has a section of low-carbon slag or pig iron in the spine, something that you wouldn't know until it was far too late and you bent it into a pretzel over someone's shield rim or helmet. I'm still surprised it doesn't happen in more fantasy books that are set in worlds without blast furnaces.


----------



## C. A. Stanley

I have to say, this thread is fascinating  I probably should be working right now, but can't pull myself away.

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread as most comments so far relate to real-world examples and materials, but I was wondering how difficult it would be to create believable weapons out of alternative materials... Such as ice (hardened ice that never melts), fictional variations of volcanic glass, special hardwoods etc. Has anyone tried this in their own world building? Can I pretty much apply real-world principles with a bit of a twist?


----------



## C. A. Stanley

C. A. Stanley said:


> I have to say, this thread is fascinating  I probably should be working right now, but can't pull myself away.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread as most comments so far relate to real-world examples and materials, but I was wondering how difficult it would be to create believable weapons out of alternative materials... Such as ice (hardened ice that never melts), fictional variations of volcanic glass, special hardwoods etc. Has anyone tried this in their own world building? Can I pretty much apply real-world principles with a bit of a twist?



Ooops sorry this is Research, not World Building. Apologies, wrong thread.


----------



## Malik

There was a post in this thread about glass / diamond sword blades. The short of it is that you'd have to make it out of unobtanium or annealed pixie dust or something. Or, alternately, throw physics out the window. 

Swords are swords because steel is steel. If you have a material that's not steel, you're generally better off making a weapon out of it that's not a sword.


----------



## Vaporo

I've got some: Exactly how well do copper and bronze swords and armor hold up when pitted against steel? What differences should a copper or bronze sword have from a steel sword to maximize its potential? In general, how would one go about using a copper or bronze sword differently from a steel sword? What about copper and bronze used in other weapons? Would bronze or copper be better used in some other kind of weapon?


----------



## Nomadica

I would not wont to be to one using a copper sword. Too soft


----------



## La Volpe

Vaporo said:


> I've got some: Exactly how well do copper and bronze swords and armor hold up when pitted against steel? What differences should a copper or bronze sword have from a steel sword to maximize its potential? In general, how would one go about using a copper or bronze sword differently from a steel sword? What about copper and bronze used in other weapons? Would bronze or copper be better used in some other kind of weapon?



From my limited knowledge, I'd first point out that bronze and copper are not equivalent. If I recall correctly, bronze was a better material for edged weapons than iron (steel was, of course, superior to both; and copper only better than stone).

As for bronze's performance against steel, I'll leave the details to the experts, but I'd suspect the bronze would break or bend at some point long before the steel does.

Also, it's worth mentioning that if we're talking period-accurate bronze weapons, there would be missing sword technology like the fuller, which I believe only really emerged after steel (I think?). A fuller not only reduces weight, but also strengthens the structure.


----------



## Vaporo

Yes, I know bronze is superior to copper. I'm not lumping them together, I'm asking their individual performance. I'm not too worried about period accuracy. The premise that I'm pursuing is that my main character's region is extremely iron-poor, so they've had to make do with copper and occasionally bronze while other parts of the world have no such limitations. They've gotten just about as far as they can with weapons technology without having access to iron, so they would know about things like fullers.


----------



## Malik

The short answer is that a steel sword is vastly superior. We're talking UFOs vs. cavemen superior.

Copper and bronze are soft and ductile; copper, especially. They'll deform under a blow. You can dent copper and bronze really easily, and that's not good. 

Armor didn't stop weapons. Armor redirected weapons by glancing them off of a hard, curved surface, which is why steel was so important, because steel is super-hard. Steel bites into iron the way a diamond bites glass, which is what made steel ideal for weapon edges, and why we still use it for weapons and tools two thousand years later. Steel gets purchase.

When you drive a steel-edged weapon into a copper piece of armor, it will dig in much deeper and transfer much more force than a copper weapon (the same hardness as the armor) would. The steel sword may not cut through the armor, but it doesn't have to; much more of the impact will transfer, and bronze and copper are comparatively ductile, so the armor will quickly break down. Rivets will pop, plates will bend and no longer articulate properly, mail will deform and even break. And the body under the armor will take a hell of a beating, since the steel weapons aren't being deflected as efficiently and more of the momentum is being transferred to the wearer. 

Bronze lamellar or a coat of plates -- leather with bronze or copper plates sewn beneath -- would slow a steel sword down and might save your life, but it would be sacrificial in the long run. Copper or bronze mail, if it was riveted and augmented with _cuir bouilli, _ might be feasible. You'd be screwed for a helmet, though. 

It's also going to depend on the swords; their weight and their edge geometry. A slashing blade like a katana isn't going to be as much of a threat against disparate armors as a big, hand-and-a-half or two-handed greatsword with an appleseed bevel. Those suckers were built specifically to wreck iron and mild steel armor to the point where the opponent could no longer fight effectively. If you hit a copper helmet with a four-pound, hardened-steel warsword, you'd likely collapse the helmet so severely that you'd shatter the skull beneath. 

You're not going to cut through copper or bronze armor with a steel warsword like it's a lightsaber, but the guy with the steel has every advantage going. It would really suck to face a guy with a steel sword while wearing copper armor. That's a bad day. If you wore enough armor you could survive, assuming he never got a clean shot at your head.

Also, if the guy with the steel sword had iron armor -- which he would; because if he has steel then he sure as hell has iron -- anyone with bronze or copper weapons might as well be using cardboard. He's beatable, but not with your weapons. You'd need to neutralize the steel sword -- tie it up, say, in an enveloping maneuver -- and then grapple: throws, joint locks, maybe break his knee with a diving roll and then monkey-stomp him.


----------



## Malik

Also, Vaporo:

I wrote a piece on greatswords and their uses here on MS, and there's a post about the physics of armor on my blog. Good luck.


----------



## TheKillerBs

One important thing to note. Bronze swords were finishers and were always, _always_ used with a shield. The shield is your main weapon and the one that's gonna get pummeled by the steel sword. The sword is just to deal damage whenever you can.


----------



## Chekaman

How many swords do you have in your sword collection? And what types are they?


----------



## Malik

I used this in my worldbuilding talk last night and it got a great response.







When you toss in the likenesses between Judo and the throws taught to armored knights, it gets a little spooky.







We talked Abrazare and armored wrestling in another thread, and we've touched a few times on applications of Judo and basic wrestling in swordplay, but I'm adding these here to put it in context.


----------



## Russ

Malik said:


> I used this in my worldbuilding talk last night and it got a great response.
> 
> View attachment 1642
> 
> 
> When you toss in the likenesses between Judo and the throws taught to armored knights, it gets a little spooky.
> 
> View attachment 1643
> 
> 
> We talked Abrazare and armored wrestling in another thread, and we've touched a few times on applications of Judo and basic wrestling in swordplay, but I'm adding these here to put it in context.



Good work.  I did a seminar a few years back with a Chinese sword expert at a Spec Fic con on exactly the same topic.  The simple conclusion was the human body only moves efficiently in so many ways and people in both hemispheres were plenty smart enough to figure it out.

I so however have my doubts about Van Tag and Poste di Falcone as being effective or not.


----------



## DMThaane

Russ said:


> I so however have my doubts about Van Tag and Poste di Falcone as being effective or not.



Clearly Vom Tag allows easy access to the pommel so it can be unscrewed and used to end your opponent rightly. This would make it the most superior of all guards, as Kingdom of Heaven taught us.


----------



## Malik

Vom Tag is how you say "Come at me, bro," in Longsword.


----------



## Russ

*"If it ain't Fiore...it's crap!"*


----------



## D. Gray Warrior

How heavy would a shortsword be? I have one character who isn't exactly weak, but I wouldn't consider them muscular, either, and I want them to have a weapon they can wield reasonably well and comfortably other than a knife, dagger, or bow. Also, would there be any practical reasons or advantages for wielding a short-bladed sword in reverse-grip?


----------



## pmmg

A quick internet search shows a roman gladius weighed 1.5-2 lbs. While I would not be an advocate for a reverse grip fighting stance, I suppose in some situations it might have an advantage. I would think this would have to go along with an entire package of a well practiced fighting form, otherwise, I think it would somewhat quickly prove the lesser to forward facing blades. (in other words, its hard to think of any...)


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Not having any great knowledge of swordsmanship, I'd just say that I thought the reverse grip on a knife was done to look cool in movies. However with a knife I can see it being of some use if you're punching. Fingers wrapped around a hilt make for a bigger, possibly harder hitting fist.

As for a short sword in a reverse grip? The only thing I can think of is if you were fighting with two swords, in which case having the reversed sword in your off hand might make a better deflective weapon. But it still wouldn't be as good as a shield.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ

There are rare circumstances where using a short sword in reverse grip makes some sense.  IT is hard to explain in writing, but using a short sword or long dagger that way can offer certain defensive and counter advantages, especially when in armour, and usually limited to when the attacker has larger weapon.  If we were in the same room together I could demonstrate the crossed dagger defense against the fendente cut while armoured, but it would take me a long time to write out.

If you look at Fiore's work on sword vs dagger you can see the dagger used in reverse grip quite often and the same could be done with a short sword.
Fiore de'i Liberi ~ Wiktenauer ~☞ Insquequo omnes gratuiti fiunt

Also if you look at Fiore's work and the posta (guards) know as Full Iron Door Doubled and Crossed as well as Middle Iron Gate Doubled and Crossed you can see how the use of the reverse grip is set up with the long dagger, and if you understand the mechanics of such a fight you can pretty quickly understand how a short sword could be used in the same way.

Fiore de'i Liberi ~ Wiktenauer ~☞ Insquequo omnes gratuiti fiunt

But it is way easier to just demonstrate!  

With a knife or dagger, the reverse grip was the medieval standard for a number of reasons.  Primarily because the weapon was used to stab people fatally, not to cut them like the kids in West Side Story.   A dagger or knife fight where the opponents are trying to stab each other is a very different thing than a knife fight where two people are trying to cut each other.


----------



## Malik

D. Gray Warrior said:


> How heavy would a shortsword be? I have one character who isn't exactly weak, but I wouldn't consider them muscular, either, and I want them to have a weapon they can wield reasonably well and comfortably other than a knife, dagger, or bow. Also, would there be any practical reasons or advantages for wielding a short-bladed sword in reverse-grip?



The key here is that a sword wasn't heavy, even a fairly large one; longswords weighed ~3 lbs., warswords maybe 4, and arming swords--the knightly equivalent of  sidearm--weighed very little; maybe ~2.5 lbs.

Fighting with a sword doesn't take much muscle or physical power, because swordsmanship has almost nothing to do with "swinging a sword." Swordsmanship is much more like dance. Footwork, kinetics, and body placement are 90% of it. Mostly, you need to get your body moving correctly, and then the sword does its thing, and you just have to make it go in the direction you intended it to. The actual mechanical act of lifting the sword and swinging it isn't all that demanding. A good sword, even a heavy warsword or longsword, floats in your hand.

_"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance." 
-- Confucius_

Don't get me wrong; swordsmanship takes physical power. Any kind of combat does. (At least, if it doesn't take power, power helps. A lot.) This is important because if you have someone who doesn't have much physical strength, and they get into a knife fight, they're going to die. Dagger play is basically MMA with something sharp. Trips, throws, joint locks, kicks, punches, blocks, and the knife or dagger as a finishing move. It takes strength, and the accompanying coordination that you build from developing strength, to deliver explosive movements and to build physical speed. You could--technically--knife fight as a game of finesse, but I wouldn't want to.






Similarly, swordplay was mostly wrestling, with punching and kicking thrown in. Almost nobody writes it that way, but that doesn't make it any less true. (I write my fight scenes this way, and I get the occasional strident email from a reader who thinks I don't know anything about swordsmanship. So, pick your poison.)

Note that Richard Mardsen, below, is not someone you'd consider a physical powerhouse. He's one of these raily, endurance-athlete guys, though, and he gets a lot of mileage out of having long limbs and lots of leverage. He whips some serious ass with a big freakin' sword.






Getting back to your original question: yes, you could wield a small sword in a reverse grip, and there are situations in which it would be beneficial. However, if your character is relying on arm strength to swing a sword, (s)he's doing it wrong.


----------



## Rose Torres

Good morning,
I am looking for some guidance. One of my characters is called a Sword Master. I went with the flow of my writing but yet I have no idea what type of swords I should have her be experienced in. The way the story is going she is looking for some special material to increase the swords capacity (not sure if i am using the right word) to cut through anything per se. What I would love is the path to where I should be doing my research. I thank you very much.


----------



## Malik

Rose Torres said:


> Good morning,
> I am looking for some guidance. One of my characters is called a Sword Master. I went with the flow of my writing but yet I have no idea what type of swords I should have her be experienced in. The way the story is going she is looking for some special material to increase the swords capacity (not sure if i am using the right word) to cut through anything per se. What I would love is the path to where I should be doing my research. I thank you very much.



The type of sword that your character uses is going to be dependent on the type of armor that she expects to face. This is why most knights carried more than one sword. They'd have a huge warsword to use against people in armor, and an arming sword that was usually extremely sharp that they'd use against people in no armor.

Swords don't cut through armor. They never have. They never will. People wore armor because it works.

Swords were designed to injure or compromise the person wearing the armor, but you didn't do that by slicing through the armor. You usually did it by breaking their arm or bashing their helmet in and then stabbing them in a lesser-armored spot--say, the armpit or the back of the knee--a few times. Knocking him down and jumping up and down on him works really well, too.







*"Stop hitting yourself! Stop--oh, wait, that's me."*​My books hinge on modern-day knights--one a stuntman for fantasy films and the other a competitor not unlike the maniacs in the gif above--who take modern-steel weapons and armor into a pre-industrial world and proceed to raise holy hell. Their swords will demolish iron armor, especially some of the crap iron and slag that the locals produce by literally beating swords out of rocks by hand.

However, that's not a function of anything special added to their steel. Steel is steel; it's iron and charcoal, heated up and hammered flat. A sword in my series is made from the leaf spring on a 1971 Cadillac. What makes their swords so damned dangerous, though, is a combination of hardening, tempering, and magnificent edge geometry, all of which are a byproduct of modern manufacturing processes. I don't know how you'd replicate that short of magic.

_Their swords still don't slice through armor._ Swords don't do that. They never did.

In Book II, a new villain from Earth comes along who has a longsword with a point specifically designed to break mail that will stab right through an iron hauberk like drywall. He still can't slice a man in a hauberk in half with it, anime-style, though. And when he runs up against the MCs in their steel armor, it just bounces off.

That said, a good, heavy sword with the correct edge and a forgiving temper will ruin iron armor, even iron plate, while beating the everloving shit out of the person wearing it. And that's pretty much what it was supposed to do.

You can use some kind of magical device or unobtanium or something to make a sword into effectively a lightsaber, if that's what your story needs. However, this is Research; that should probably go under Worldbuilding.

I should add too, that just once, I'd love to see an entire enemy army, facing a hero with a cuts-through-anything sword, take off all their armor. Because you're not going to wear armor if it won't do you any good. Armor sucks. (We need an "Ask Me About Armor" thread. Seriously.)

If she finds a way to produce swords that can cut through anything, and if it's reproducible, the entire armor trade will come to an abrupt halt, and an entirely new form of swordsmanship will emerge using the new, magical, lightsaber swords, and it will probably look like one of those non-contact martial arts with the ribbons and aerial kicks. Not that that wouldn't be awesome.

So, to your original question about what type of sword she'd use:

First of all, you'll need to determine the technology level of the area where the story takes place. That will tell you what kind of armor she'd face. The armor would tell you what kind of sword she'd use; history is your guide, here, because soldiers used whatever worked. Then add handwavium and have fun.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Malik is spot on here... but for the fun of it, it would be possible to have a sword in a magical or magic/tech world that is something of the equivalent of primitive firearms in its effect upon armor manufacture. There is this idea that once guns came along, they couldn't make armor to stop bullets. This isn't true in respect to old-time firearms. Stopping an armor piercing 308? Not so much. BUT, it was prohibitively expensive, so the cost/benefit analysis was performed, LOL. So, if you had a world where the manufacture of the superior armor is affordable to one degree or another, you could add in another layer fun to the system.

Considering how mail functions in dispersing energy, and layered with thick linens... I wonder what old black powder firearms would do against that. Hmm.


----------



## Rose Torres

Malik Thank you for the information. Not only was it informative but it was fun to read.


----------



## Rose Torres

Thank you Demesnedenoir. That also was very informative. I did not take into account armor. Truthfully I did not see my characters using armor. The story is a fantasy taking place in an island (or so they thought) and progressing into the depths of Hell to hopefully come back. The swords I was hoping to seek are made at the only blacksmith near the village who is also a cave dweller...Thank you both again for taking the time out to be very informative.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Low armor settings are fun, personally. Turtle shell helmets, armor made from wood, so much fun stuff... shark tooth swords, LOL. Those are wicked looking, and against bare skin couldn't be fun.



Rose Torres said:


> Thank you Demesnedenoir. That also was very informative. I did not take into account armor. Truthfully I did not see my characters using armor. The story is a fantasy taking place in an island (or so they thought) and progressing into the depths of Hell to hopefully come back. The swords I was hoping to seek are made at the only blacksmith near the village who is also a cave dweller...Thank you both again for taking the time out to be very informative.


----------



## Malik

Rose Torres said:


> Malik Thank you for the information. Not only was it informative but it was fun to read.



Thank you. My blog (linked in my sig) has about five years' worth of entries on exactly this kind of stuff. I did most of my research for my series in person, trying my hand at nearly everything I reference in my books, from blacksmithing to BASE jumping. 

The authors on this forum have built a fantastic repository of knowledge, and the search function is also pretty solid.

Good luck, and I look forward to reading your work someday.


----------



## Malik

I'll just show myself out.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I've no idea what the hell that is or what to say... so, I'll just "like" it.
[QU
OTE="Malik, post: 290936, member: 2575"]
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





I'll just show myself out.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Malik

Apparently it's an anime sword pillow that you can cuddle with at night. Which would make it the most heartbreaking thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Wow, that's worse than I ever imagined. Won't even go into potential Freudian interpretations.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior

What influences the design of a blade? What practical pros and cons are there of a traditional European steel sword compared to something like a khopesh, scimitar or katana? I'm no expert on the subject, but I suspect that the curve has something to do with structural support or getting in a little closer to the enemy?


----------



## Malik

The curve in a katana was a result of the way it was made. 

The edge of a sword needs to be hardened much more than the spine, and in Japan, this was accomplished by packing the spine in clay before tempering. During quenching, the difference in cooling rates creates a curve in the blade. 

European swords were often made by welding steel edges onto an iron spine to accomplish effectively the same type of differential hardening.


----------



## Malik

As far as pros and cons, let's start here. These are Japanese guards and European longsword guards. 

As you can see, the fundamentals involved with killing a human being using a long sharp piece of metal are pretty much standard. There are things that, well, just work.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

The curve of the blade... this has been theorized on for some time, not including the construction of the katana which essentially forces a curve. I don’t think there is an absolute answer. Whether using a straight or curved blade on a sword in cases where it was a distinct choice, could very well boil to what might be considered a “fashion choice”. I’ve never seen any conclusive evidence of either being particularly superior for varying purposes. I always assumed there might be some advantage to a curve in mounted combat, because of how common sabres are in cavalry, I’ve never tested a sabre vs straight blade from horseback, but it might be logical that, with the speed of the horse included in a slash, the curve would ease keeping hold of your weapon. With the straight weapon being a more jarring hit with the extra power of a charge. But, I’ve never seen anything conclusive in this.

At one time, I think people thought the khopesh was a POS weapon, more for ceremony than fighting with its wild shape and curve. Much like mail was thought of as junk until they actually tested the stuff, LOL.

The notion that one culture is a superior “swordsman” culture always kind of bugged me, a bit like katana worship. It never made sense. The above illustrations point out just how “basic” the basics are. 

A tangent, testing my failing memory, part of the reason for folding the steel in Japan was due to inferior iron, the folding process beating out impurities. Similar to the Vikings and their bog iron, or even the Celts, using pattern welding techniques. People were damned smart even back then.


----------



## Northern

I'm trying to come up with a description for a sword that would be considered functional, but also ornamental. Mainly in regards to the material it would be made of. It will be used by a wealthy, but minor noble, and carried mostly for show.

The best I can come up with would be a regular steel sword with artistic etchings on the blade and a handle made from carved ivory and wrapped in silver wire.

I'm not sure how available those materials would be, or if they are history accurate at all, but it seems like something that the common folk would recognize as being out of the ordinary quality wise and valuable, but not something over the top like a golden blade encrusted in jewels.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Well, take a look at reality. Head for a website such as Fagan Arms, where they sell a wide range of antique weapons. I always like browsing their stuff, and even bought a couple axes from the Carpathians which inspired the axes a character carries in Eve of Snows, LOL. If you head into their high end weapons, you can find out pretty quick what passed for a wealthy/high ranking man’s weapon. And of course, much would depend on the era and style of your world.

Here’s an interesting piece, as an example:

VERY RARE ITALIAN RAPIER C.1650



Northern said:


> I'm trying to come up with a description for a sword that would be considered functional, but also ornamental. Mainly in regards to the material it would be made of. It will be used by a wealthy, but minor noble, and carried mostly for show.
> 
> The best I can come up with would be a regular steel sword with artistic etchings on the blade and a handle made from carved ivory and wrapped in silver wire.
> 
> I'm not sure how available those materials would be, or if they are history accurate at all, but it seems like something that the common folk would recognize as being out of the ordinary quality wise and valuable, but not something over the top like a golden blade encrusted in jewels.


----------



## Malik

Any sword that is going to be useful is going to be made of steel. If you make a sword out of gold, it would be useless. Steel is almost magical; its properties are ideal for making swords. They just are. Make the blade out of steel (or iron with steel edges if you want to be really authentic) and gild / engrave / bejewel the hell out of the rest of it.


----------



## Northern

Demesnedenoir said:


> Well, take a look at reality. Head for a website such as Fagan Arms, where they sell a wide range of antique weapons. I always like browsing their stuff, and even bought a couple axes from the Carpathians which inspired the axes a character carries in Eve of Snows, LOL. If you head into their high end weapons, you can find out pretty quick what passed for a wealthy/high ranking man’s weapon. And of course, much would depend on the era and style of your world.



Thanks a lot for the link. That is a good resource to have.

Something like this is what I was picturing in my head:

LATE GOTHIC ITALIAN BROADSWORD C.1500-10


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Yeah, if only I had $12,600 laying around, LOL.

And to echo, Malik, steel is the choice in general... unless you have a bronze age culture, of course. As I understand, bronze is rather effective, but there’s a reason that longer bladed swords didn’t develop until after iron/steel came into use.

And steel is almost magic, but not magic... in the middle of worldbuilding I developed a systems of metals which included “elementally infused” ores. The best metals for a weapon’s blade would (even then) be made from an elementally infused iron (Ikoruv) alloy. The system is rather detailed, and a helluva lot of fun, LOL. I even went into percentages of various ores and alloys and varied effects.


----------



## Malik

Demesnedenoir said:


> And steel is almost magic, but not magic...



For those who haven't heard my steel spiel, here it is in a nutshell:

Steel is a Goldilocks zone of carbonization in iron. 

Steel is just charcoal mixed into heated-up iron. That's it. But if you mix too little, you get wrought iron, which will deform under impact; if you mix too much, you get cast iron, which is so hard that it becomes brittle and will crack under impact. (Cast iron is called cast iron because carbon lowers the melting point of iron, allowing iron to be poured into molds and "cast." This is all the more reason that the beginning of Conan was bullshit. Going into battle with a cast-iron sword is really just an elaborate form of suicide.) 

That sweet spot right in the middle between bendy and holy-shit-don't-drop-it is steel. Hard yet resilient. Holds an edge but can be sharpened. 

Swords, which are just long sharp pieces of steel with handles, are shaped the way they are and used the way they are because of the properties of steel, which are unlike literally any other metal. If you had the ability to make swords out of unobtanium or annealed pixie dust or crystal or whatever, they wouldn't perform like swords unless you gave that magical compound the same properties as good steel.

I can totally understand mixing other fantasy substances into iron to replicate various tempering processes for which a pre-industrial society might not have the technology. It would still pretty much perform like modern high-speed steel. Once you get outside of the performance characteristics of good steel, you need to come up with a different kind of weapon. ("Swords are swords because steel is steel.")

The central tenet of my series revolves around swordsmen from modern-day Earth who wind up in a pre-industrial fantasy society but bring modern tool-steel weapons and spring-tempered steel armor, which turns out to be kind of like wearing Iron Man's suit in a bar fight. The power of their weapons--which are just swords and armor--kick off an arms race. That's what good steel is worth.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Well, magic changes a good deal if the system is correct, because there becomes more than the sweet spot of hardness and flexibility. Different forces come into play. Elemental conductivity and other properties more worthy of a world building or magic system thread. Effects and counter effects. But, I would also contend that the sword (and its longevity in warfare) is a sword because its basic design and function is well-suited to both defense and offense in hand to hand combat. Improving its pfysical/magical characteristics wouldn’t demand a redesign.

But then again, if a man had brought a gun (or more specifically, bullets) into the world of the Sister Continents, it wouldn’t have went well for him. If he made it so far as to fire a few rounds, all other rounds (including in the magazine) would’ve fired, and any rounds he was carrying would’ve gone “pop”. The point being, once magic is involved, you can’t really make any definitive statements nor make real world asumptions about the functionality of materials and physics.


----------



## Northern

I assume that after a battle all the swords and other weapons left on the field (from the dead soldiers) would be gathered up and taken to smiths to get the nicks and dents taken out of them so they could be used again.

Would that be something that blacksmiths  could pay for?  For example, would there be such a thing as buying a cart full of battered weapons for a bulk price and then fixing them up for sale at their shop, or would everything be claimed by whatever government or lord won the battle?


----------



## Malik

I have no idea how this would work. Seriously. I wouldn't even know who to ask or where to begin researching it. Good question. What _does_ happen to weapons left on a battlefield? I'd presume looters, but . . . huh. No clue.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Well, I think the answer would depend on a lot of factors... first and foremost, spoils go to the victor. Winning soldiers (if they had time) would quickly nab anything useful, upgrade or replace any of their damaged weapons, scavenge arrows, spears, etc. But, after that, looting as Malik says, is probably the best bet. Locals would be looking for valuables. So many variables involved for speculation, I think one could do pretty much anything that makes sense, LOL.

So, I would absolutely say a smith COULD buy a cart full of damaged weapons and armor (just like gold teeth and other valuables will be plucked from a battlefield), but would it be a norm? And if all that steel is so valuable, would it all be “property of the crown” of the winning side, loaded up and given to smiths who serve that leader? 

One might be able to find info on what happened after civil war battles to get a clue... human natur tends to stay true. But I’m with Malik, I don’t know who to ask... maybe Skip.Knox would know, or know who to ask.


----------



## Northern

Yeah, it is just something I was curious about when I started thinking about it, but there's not really much information on it out there, at least that I could find.

The only record I found was of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 where is said something along the lines that after a battle push the successful defenders picked out the best of the fallen weapons and disposed of the rest.  It never said what 'disposed of' meant, but most likely it means they were given to the smiths to be melted down and reforged later.

And in another article about blacksmithing it basically says that all iron/steel can be recycled, no matter how bad of a condition it is in. But the problem is that the more rusted it gets, the more work and energy is required to remove the impurities.  And different smiths would have different standards about what metal was just not worth the effort to bother reforging.

Which makes me wonder if there wasn't a thing where lesser grade metal would be gathered up and sold to local smiths in smaller villages for cheap while the better stuff would be kept for smiths working for lords or royalty.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Northern said:


> Yeah, it is just something I was curious about when I started thinking about it, but there's not really much information on it out there, at least that I could find.
> 
> The only record I found was of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 where is said something along the lines that after a battle push the successful defenders picked out the best of the fallen weapons and disposed of the rest.  It never said what 'disposed of' meant, but most likely it means they were given to the smiths to be melted down and reforged later.
> 
> And in another article about blacksmithing it basically says that all iron/steel can be recycled, no matter how bad of a condition it is in. But the problem is that the more rusted it gets, the more work and energy is required to remove the impurities.  And different smiths would have different ideas about what metal was just not worth the effort to bother reforging.
> 
> Which makes me wonder if there wasn't a thing where lesser grade metal would be gathered up and sold to local smiths in smaller villages for cheap while the better stuff would be kept for smiths working for lords or royalty.



I think you have to run with what makes sense. Recycling is logical, unless there is abundant high grade ore available. It makes sense, so long as the profit margin is there, including labor time.


----------



## skip.knox

OK, I don't know this stuff but I sure do know whom to ask. MEDIEV-L. Posted and got replies already. Here's the post from Bernie Bachrach, a leading authority on medieval warfare.

"The place to start is Thordeman's two volumes on the Battle of Wisby. Take another look at the Bayeux Tapestry, reread Nithard on Fontenoy, Go through the Annals of St. Bertin and Fulda. Nb. the plan of St. Gall has a workship [sic] for reparing [sic] swords. "

So, Thordeman means _Armour from the Battle of Wisby, 1361_ by Bengt Thordeman, published in 2001. Grotesquely overpriced, like most academic works, but maybe you can get it through a library.

I'm not sure what the Tapestry will tell us, but Nithard is the continuator of Einhard (Charlemagne's biographer), and he has an account of the Battle of Fontenoy in 841. While I can find Einhard in English for free, I'm coming up empty on the continuation. But it's for sale at Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Carolingian-Chronicles-Frankish-Histories-Paperbacks/dp/0472061860

The Annals of Fulda were translated by the redoubtable Timothy Reuter in 2000. Again, best bet will be an academic library.

Professor Bachrach's references are mainly early medieval because that's his stomping grounds. But anyway, there are some references.

As for what happens to the metal afterward, I'm advised that most every metal could and would be melted down and put to some use or other. For anyone scavenging after a battle, it'd be pretty close to free money. Even so, we do have remains from battles (per Thordeman). I guess if the battle took place in a relatively isolated place--even if just twenty miles or so--then the scavenging might be more work that it was worth. And an army, as I said before, might well not want to take time to scoop up more than what was obvious and valuable. Also, if you grab too much stuff, now you have a transport problem.


----------



## Northern

Haha, I kind of feel bad now for bringing up the subject due to all the effort you guys put in trying to answer it.  I was just plotting my story and I wasn't sure if my main character buying a sword from a wagon full of scrap weapons for cheap since he couldn't afford a custom made one was realistic or not.  

I guess the take away from this is that if no one can give you a definite answer either way than anything is fair game and the reader wont care.


----------



## skip.knox

It is my scholarly opinion *snort* that you absolutely could do that. Some rough and seedy types have a wagon full--not as full as they would wish--of scrap weapons (in worse shape than they would wish) and are glad to sell off a sword as a sword rather than as just scrap metal. Most readers won't give it a second thought, and if they do, they'll think it a nice touch.


----------



## Northern

Good to know.

Also, even though this is a thread about swords, I'm curious to know if shields made completely of iron or steel were real things or if that is just a fantasy invention and shields were just made of mainly wood in order to keep the weight down.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I have seen examples of all metal shields, smaller types, but to the best of my knowledge, most shields were made of wood and other lighter materials. I’ve also seen what I was told was a rhino-hide shield. Very cool. Speed with a shield is important. Like all things, the material is going to depend on its use and the availability of material. Some jousting shields can be made from metal, but even then, wood was often used. The heater was sometimes made from metal, from what I understand, but was more often wood reinforced with metal.

Side note: in vikings 1-on-1 duals, it would be common place to go through a few shields as they got destroyed.

But I’m not a shield expert, LOL.



Northern said:


> Good to know.
> 
> Also, even though this is a thread about swords, I'm curious to know if shields made completely of iron or steel were real things or if that is just a fantasy invention and shields were just made of mainly wood in order to keep the weight down.


----------



## Malik

One more thing about the wagon-full-of-swords idea: you wouldn't melt them down. Not unless you had either a blast furnace (invented in the 1800s, and instrumental in kicking off the Industrial Revolution) or a wizard who could put the whammy on your forge and get it superhot. It's almost impossible to get steel hot enough to melt without the aid of modern technology. As we discussed a few posts up, cast iron is iron with lots of carbon in it, which lowers the melting point so that it can be liquefied and poured into molds. Cast iron is brittle due to the carbon content, and therefore a terrible choice for swords. 

The problem with the magical-furnace-to-forge-steel idea is that if you had a furnace that could melt and re-forge steel, you'd have a supply of cheap homogeneous steel, and then you'd have a worldbuilding problem, because you'd have steel everywhere: steel doors, steel stairs, castles with steel-reinforced walls and drawbridges, to say nothing of plate-steel armor and steel helmets that steel weapons would just bounce off of.

What you could do is heat the broken or chipped blades enough to make them malleable and then hammer them into functional shape again. However, the heating and quenching would change the temper of the blade and you'd risk ruining the weapon unless you really knew what you were doing.

Also, you could grind off broken tips (it would take a LONG time with a manual grinding wheel, especially one of those foot-powered jobbies, but technically it's doable; maybe a grinding wheel hooked up to a water wheel?) and then make shorter swords, sword-hilted daggers, or what-have-you out of the remainder of the blade below the useless part.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Malik said:


> One more thing about the wagon-full-of-swords idea: you wouldn't melt them down. Not unless you had either a blast furnace (invented in the 1800s, and instrumental in kicking off the Industrial Revolution) or a wizard who could put the whammy on your forge and get it superhot. It's almost impossible to get steel hot enough to melt without the aid of modern technology. As we discussed a few posts up, cast iron is iron with lots of carbon in it, which lowers the melting point so that it can be liquefied and poured into molds. Cast iron is brittle due to the carbon content, and therefore a terrible choice for swords.
> 
> The problem with the magical-furnace-to-forge-steel idea is that if you had a furnace that could melt and re-forge steel, you'd have a supply of cheap homogeneous steel, and then you'd have a worldbuilding problem, because you'd have steel everywhere: steel doors, steel stairs, castles with steel-reinforced walls and drawbridges, to say nothing of plate-steel armor and steel helmets that steel weapons would just bounce off of.
> 
> What you could do is heat the broken or chipped blades enough to make them malleable and then hammer them into functional shape again. However, the heating and quenching would change the temper of the blade and you'd risk ruining the weapon unless you really knew what you were doing.
> 
> Also, you could grind off broken tips (it would take a LONG time with a manual grinding wheel, especially one of those foot-powered jobbies, but technically it's doable; maybe a grinding wheel hooked up to a water wheel?) and then make shorter swords, sword-hilted daggers, or what-have-you out of the remainder of the blade below the useless part.



I’m glad you tackled tht one, you put that all more succinctly than I would’ve.

Magic causes all kinds of weird issues if it becomes common place. Now, imagine if dwarves are the only ones with the magic tech to make that plate? Who’s going to walk into their caves? heh heh.


----------



## Malik

Demesnedenoir said:


> Now, imagine if dwarves are the only ones with the magic tech to make that plate? Who’s going to walk into their caves? heh heh.



The first time I smashed up an iron plate with a steel weapon I knew I had my entire series laid out . . .


----------



## Gray-Hand

If a steel sword was lying on the ground (say a basket hilt sword) - Would it be possible to snap the blade of a steel sword by stomping on the flat side of the blade close to the hilt? 

Assuming hard boots for the stomping and hard ground or floor that won’t give way.


----------



## Malik

Yes, if it was rusted, damaged, badly tempered, or had a weak spot when it was forged. A well-tempered and properly forged steel sword blade, especially one with the width and sectional density of a basket-hilted broadsword, will flex under impact and spring back to true.

That said, if it was a crap sword with a "rat tail" tang--the kind of sword you buy at a tobacco shop at the mall, for instance--then yes, absolutely. The blade will separate at the tang.

A traditionally crafted sword can take a hell of a beating.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Thank you Malik.
What about a rapier or small sword?
Assume:
1.  top quality forging appropriate to their era of fashionability.
2.  Point of impact of the stomp being, say an inch from the hilt.


----------



## Malik

Gray-Hand said:


> Thank you Malik.
> What about a rapier or small sword?
> Assume:
> 1.  top quality forging appropriate to their era of fashionability.
> 2.  Point of impact of the stomp being, say an inch from the hilt.



Unlikely without a defect of some sort in the blade, which was always possible, given the way that steel was made until the adoption of blast furnaces in the 1800's.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Thank you again.


----------



## bob1thousand

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.
> 
> Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.









I wanted to hear opinions on character weapon choices in a fantasy story i’m making.


In the story, the princess mainly uses a rapier and sword breaker together.

The king’s best soldier and brother in arms switches between using a estoc and a falcata during combat. He also has on gauntlets that can grab blades.

The knight’s daughter (who is a naga/lamia) also uses a falcata and has a pair of butterfly swords.


Are these bad weapon choices? For both adventuring and/or battlefield?


----------



## pmmg

Nothing wrong with the choices. The only question I am asking is would all of these belong to the same culture, and likelihood that they would appear together in a story. If you got that covered, than I am far less questioning.

A sword breaker would seem to only be useful against a rapier, of which the other two swords are not. If the other two swords are more common, than what would be the use of a sword breaker. Further, the rapier kind of proved to be a more successful weapon than the others, if sword technology had advanced to the creation of rapiers I would think they would be more desired than other sword types for all the various reasons they replaced them in the first place.


----------



## Malik

The only issue I see is that the estoc and the falcata are designed for use against heavy armor, and the rapier is designed for use against a lightly-armored or unarmored opponent. Around the end of the popularity of the estoc, late 16th / early 17th Century, is when we saw the rapier really come into vogue, so the idea of them coexisting is no big deal. As long as the princess doesn't, you know, slice through plate armor with her rapier, I think you're pretty good.

Pretty much any heavy glove can grab a blade; it was common practice in swordsmanship, particularly in the armored combat of the estoc/falcata period (there are texts for training knights and soldiers that show them holding the sword by the blade and using the crossbar like a hammer, bare-handed)--






​--so he wouldn't need any kind of special heavy gauntlet for it. Sword blades used in armored combat aren't sharp in the way that we generally think of sharpness, today. They generally had an appleseed-shaped bevel and a dense cross section that allowed them to function more or less like a splitting maul; not to slice through armor, but to damage it and injure the person underneath. (Way more on this on my piece about greatsword combat right here on this very site.)

Super-sharp edges are delicate, and not for battlefield use as much as Hollywood would want us to believe it. Driven into iron plate or even mail, razor-sharp blades get dull really fast. I talk about this in my piece about greatswords, but dropping a straight razor into a marble or granite sink can destroy it.

So, yeah. Solid choices from here. Thumbs up.


----------



## bob1thousand

Malik said:


> The only issue I see is that the estoc and the falcata are designed for use against heavy armor, and the rapier is designed for use against a lightly-armored or unarmored opponent. Around the end of the popularity of the estoc, late 16th / early 17th Century, is when we saw the rapier really come into vogue, so the idea of them coexisting is no big deal. As long as the princess doesn't, you know, slice through plate armor with her rapier, I think you're pretty good.
> 
> Pretty much any heavy glove can grab a blade; it was common practice in swordsmanship, particularly in the armored combat of the estoc/falcata period (there are texts for training knights and soldiers that show them holding the sword by the blade and using the crossbar like a hammer, bare-handed)--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​--so he wouldn't need any kind of special heavy gauntlet for it. Sword blades used in armored combat aren't sharp in the way that we generally think of sharpness, today. They generally had an appleseed-shaped bevel and a dense cross section that allowed them to function more or less like a splitting maul; not to slice through armor, but to damage it and injure the person underneath. (Way more on this on my piece about greatsword combat right here on this very site.)
> 
> Super-sharp edges are delicate, and not for battlefield use as much as Hollywood would want us to believe it. Driven into iron plate or even mail, razor-sharp blades get dull really fast. I talk about this in my piece about greatswords, but dropping a straight razor into a marble or granite sink can destroy it.
> 
> So, yeah. Solid choices from here. Thumbs up.




are estoc considered short or long swords? 
also after hearing some other opinions i've decided to change the naga's falcata and butterfly 
now she's have an estoc but i'm not sure about the secondary. 
Dha 18in
Niuweidao/oxtail Dao 24in
Dao (Naga_sword) 12in

i choose these because they're from southeast asia where naga originate


----------



## Malik

bob1thousand said:


> are estoc considered short or long swords?



The defining feature of a sword isn't its length but its purpose, which is why bastard swords (hand and a half swords) are separate from longswords, and both are separate from greatswords, even though they all have roughly the same overall lengths. They may look similar at a glance, but the blades, edge geometry, handles/grips, and points of balance are all different, and they all require individualized study to make the most of their wildly different capabilities. 

An estoc is its own animal. They ran the gamut in length from smaller weapons comparable to single-hand arming swords to two-handed estocs the length of greatswords that could double as a lance in a pinch. But they're not longswords per se; the longsword is a cut and thrust weapon, while the estoc has no edges. _Estoc_ literally means "thrusting" in French.

So, again: size-wise, they could be anywhere from arming-sword length to greatsword length, but an estoc is a completely different weapon than a longsword.


----------



## bob1thousand

Malik said:


> The defining feature of a sword isn't its length but its purpose, which is why bastard swords (hand and a half swords) are separate from longswords, and both are separate from greatswords, even though they all have roughly the same overall lengths. They may look similar at a glance, but the blades, edge geometry, handles/grips, and points of balance are all different, and they all require individualized study to make the most of their wildly different capabilities.
> 
> An estoc is its own animal. They ran the gamut in length from smaller weapons comparable to single-hand arming swords to two-handed estocs the length of greatswords that could double as a lance in a pinch. But they're not longswords per se; the longsword is a cut and thrust weapon, while the estoc has no edges. _Estoc_ literally means "thrusting" in French.
> 
> So, again: size-wise, they could be anywhere from arming-sword length to greatsword length, but an estoc is a completely different weapon than a longsword.



thanks


----------



## bob1thousand

Malik said:


> The defining feature of a sword isn't its length but its purpose, which is why bastard swords (hand and a half swords) are separate from longswords, and both are separate from greatswords, even though they all have roughly the same overall lengths. They may look similar at a glance, but the blades, edge geometry, handles/grips, and points of balance are all different, and they all require individualized study to make the most of their wildly different capabilities.
> 
> An estoc is its own animal. They ran the gamut in length from smaller weapons comparable to single-hand arming swords to two-handed estocs the length of greatswords that could double as a lance in a pinch. But they're not longswords per se; the longsword is a cut and thrust weapon, while the estoc has no edges. _Estoc_ literally means "thrusting" in French.
> 
> So, again: size-wise, they could be anywhere from arming-sword length to greatsword length, but an estoc is a completely different weapon than a longsword.




could you do me a favor and like two of my posts so i can post links?


----------



## bob1thousand

Malik said:


> The defining feature of a sword isn't its length but its purpose, which is why bastard swords (hand and a half swords) are separate from longswords, and both are separate from greatswords, even though they all have roughly the same overall lengths. They may look similar at a glance, but the blades, edge geometry, handles/grips, and points of balance are all different, and they all require individualized study to make the most of their wildly different capabilities.
> 
> An estoc is its own animal. They ran the gamut in length from smaller weapons comparable to single-hand arming swords to two-handed estocs the length of greatswords that could double as a lance in a pinch. But they're not longswords per se; the longsword is a cut and thrust weapon, while the estoc has no edges. _Estoc_ literally means "thrusting" in French.
> 
> So, again: size-wise, they could be anywhere from arming-sword length to greatsword length, but an estoc is a completely different weapon than a longsword.


thanks


----------



## Gray-Hand

Malik said:


> The defining feature of a sword isn't its length but its purpose, which is why bastard swords (hand and a half swords) are separate from longswords, and both are separate from greatswords, even though they all have roughly the same overall lengths. They may look similar at a glance, but the blades, edge geometry, handles/grips, and points of balance are all different, and they all require individualized study to make the most of their wildly different capabilities.
> 
> An estoc is its own animal. They ran the gamut in length from smaller weapons comparable to single-hand arming swords to two-handed estocs the length of greatswords that could double as a lance in a pinch. But they're not longswords per se; the longsword is a cut and thrust weapon, while the estoc has no edges. _Estoc_ literally means "thrusting" in French.
> 
> So, again: size-wise, they could be anywhere from arming-sword length to greatsword length, but an estoc is a completely different weapon than a longsword.


What is the purpose of a bastard sword?


----------



## Guy

A bastard sword is also known as a hand-and-a-half sword - it's neither a true one-hander or a true two-hander but an attempt to split the difference between the two. The blade is as long as or slightly longer than the blade of a one-hander, but the hilt is long enough to accomodate two hands.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Of course, I know what a bastard sword is.  I’m asking what it’s purpose is?
For example, two ganders were developed to deal with heavily armoured opponents.  Small swords became fashionable when armour became less common.
What niche were bastard swords meant to occupy? Who used them and what type of opponent were they designed to be effective against?  Why would someone buy or equip themselves with a bastard sword in preference to another kind of sword?


----------



## Malik




----------



## Demesnedenoir

I think the video hit the basic notion: versatility. Shield/no shield, mounted, you have it. A zweihander is wicked, but doesn’t leave you as many options, nor the “longsword” which was mainly meant for 2-hand use. 

I glanced at another of his videos and have to disagree with his assertion that the aesthetic of the sword is a main reason for its popularity. When life and death are on the line, history generally teaches that an armor or weapon with longevity has a good reason for its longevity and popularity. But at least he didn’t say something goofy like the crucifix form... that one annoys me, heh heh. The elegance and aesthetics of the sword are just icing on the cake.

The popularity of the sword is multi-faceted, there really isn’t anything else that provides what a sword provides: 1-hand, 2-hand, vs armor, with or without shield, mounted, unmounted, civilian or military, its defensive capabilities smoke most hand-held weapons, and with the ease of portability that a sword has with a sheath it is simply the finest all around tool available. IMO. It is a side-arm. Weapons might be better in a niche form of combat (spears are awesome for what they do), but swords do it all well.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Malik said:


>


Very helpful Malik - thank you.


----------



## Clara Atsinger

Hi! I am writing a story in which someone learns how to use a rapier alone, then picks up the Florentine style with a rapier and a dagger. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on what sword his opponent could use?


----------



## bob1thousand

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.
> 
> Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.



How realistic is Kocho's modified katana from Demon Slayer?

The function of the sword is to inject poison into her opponent since she isn't strong enough to decapitate a demon.


----------



## Yora

It almost looks like a pretty ordinary saber to me. Except that the entire cutting edge has been removed, leaving only a very small piercing tip at the end. Piercing blades do exist, but they still have edges to help them cut deeper. With a thrusting sword, depth of the thrust is what determines the damage.
The curve of this sword is very slight, but if you have a pure thrusting sword any curve is pointless and a straight blade would always be better. Also, the tip only has an edge on one side, while the other side is not sharpened. That's the case with katanas where thrusting is very much secondary. But on a pure thrusting sword with little weight, you really want both sides sharp.
Unless this started as a katana that had half its blade sawed away, a blade like this wouldn't actually curve at all during the forging process.
She really should have just gone with a regular rapier. This blade shape serves no purpose.



Clara Atsinger said:


> Hi! I am writing a story in which someone learns how to use a rapier alone, then picks up the Florentine style with a rapier and a dagger. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on what sword his opponent could use?



With no other information, also a rapier. If the hero has one its probably the standard sword style for the setting, and so most people would use them.


----------



## bob1thousand

Yora said:


> It almost looks like a pretty ordinary saber to me. Except that the entire cutting edge has been removed, leaving only a very small piercing tip at the end. Piercing blades do exist, but they still have edges to help them cut deeper. With a thrusting sword, depth of the thrust is what determines the damage.
> The curve of this sword is very slight, but if you have a pure thrusting sword any curve is pointless and a straight blade would always be better. Also, the tip only has an edge on one side, while the other side is not sharpened. That's the case with katanas where thrusting is very much secondary. But on a pure thrusting sword with little weight, you really want both sides sharp.
> Unless this started as a katana that had half its blade sawed away, a blade like this wouldn't actually curve at all during the forging process.
> She really should have just gone with a regular rapier. This blade shape serves no purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> With no other information, also a rapier. If the hero has one its probably the standard sword style for the setting, and so most people would use them.



The sword was originally a katana that she modified and due to Japan's social bubble, I'm not sure they could have rapiers (this takes place before the 20th century)


----------



## Yora

The correct option to get light stabs would actually be a spear. Much more reach and better handling. A super light katana with no cutting edge would be really weird to use.


----------



## bob1thousand

Yora said:


> The correct option to get light stabs would actually be a spear. Much more reach and better handling. A super light katana with no cutting edge would be really weird to use.


huh, neat.


----------



## Gurkhal

bob1thousand said:


> The sword was originally a katana that she modified and due to Japan's social bubble, I'm not sure they could have rapiers (this takes place before the 20th century)



Forgive me but why couldn't she have a rapier before the 20th century? Japan was very outgoing during most of the Meiji period to my knowledge, an ally with the British Empire for some time and so on. 

If its set before the Meiji then of course what you say makes sense, but there would be half a century or so under Meiji with openess towards the rest of the world.


----------



## Yora

All of Japanese history except under the Tokugawa really. Up to the 10th century, straight narrow swords were also quite common in Japan.

I just looked it up, and that show is actually set in the early 20th century. Getting a rapier from Europe would have been difficult mostly because they weren't being made anymore. Would have to be an antique or custom made.
A European or American cavalry saber wouldn't have been a problem though. Probably plenty of those in trade posts and as military surplus in China.


----------



## Malik

Yora said:


> If the hero has one its probably the standard sword style for the setting, and so most people would use them.



This. For the admittedly narrow set of circumstances under which it was used, the rapier is just about the most perfect offensive and defensive weapon anyone could ask for. The rapier is highly specialized, and pretty much the pinnacle of weapons for its particular martial art, which is itself the result of over a hundred years of dedicated academic research and study. If the hero has one, someone else will, too; in a world where rapiers exist, rapier fighting will be the primary fighting style.

The other piece of this is that left-hand dagger, gloved off-hand techniques, grappling, striking, buckler, use of the cape/cloak, etc. are all part of learning the rapier. Your character wouldn't just decide to learn one of them in addition to learning to fence. That's not how swordfighting works. If your character didn't understand at least the basics of how to fight with a rapier and dagger and someone came at them with a rapier and dagger, they'd die immediately. No teacher would allow their student out the door with a rapier on their belt until they had at least a familiarity with multiple techniques that they might face. (When students get killed dueling, it makes the instructors look bad. This was their livelihood, after all.)

The positive side of this is that, for realism's sake, you don't have to worry about your character "picking up" dagger techniques later. The downside is that learning the rapier is rather like learning the cello. There's an encyclopedic amount of knowledge involved. It's not something anyone masters quickly.


----------



## Pemry Janes

There is another weapon if you're looking solely to puncture an opponent, the estoc.


----------



## Devor

Out of curiosity other weapons like the axe and mace must have had similar distinctions. Is there a word for a “bastard axe” or a “long mace”?


----------



## Yora

I know that at least for woodcutting axes, there are literally dozens of different types. And woodworkers can tell you exactly which ones are best for what jobs.

From my understanding, in most times and places and in most historical sources, people talking about swords simply call them "swords". Because in their time and place, there was just one or two allrounder types of blades that everyone with a sword was using. No need to have different names for different shapes from other places or other times that nobody was using where you lived.
Most modern sword terminology is modern. They are words that were made up, or at least strictly defined by historians who wanted to talk about all swords from all times and places. Of course you could do that with any types of weapons, but anything except swords isn't cool enough to deserve the attention of serious historians.

I personally think you don't need any more words than sword and saber. And yes, I would call a katana a saber. Curved with one edge. That's a saber.


----------



## bob1thousand

Yora said:


> All of Japanese history except under the Tokugawa really. Up to the 10th century, straight narrow swords were also quite common in Japan.
> 
> I just looked it up, and that show is actually set in the early 20th century. Getting a rapier from Europe would have been difficult mostly because they weren't being made anymore. Would have to be an antique or custom made.
> A European or American cavalry saber wouldn't have been a problem though. Probably plenty of those in trade posts and as military surplus in China.


oops, i meant to say before the 21st century.


----------



## Night Gardener

I have a question about blade length:  it's a detail I'd like to get expanded upon for eventual plot purposes, so those of you who are better immersed in the subject than I am, please chime in your opinion.

I have a female MC who has to pass a sword trial for career purposes. The career requires she be competant and proficient with swordsmanship, but this is not a battle-oriented career. Carrying a sword is anticipated as 85% personal/ self-defensive capacity, 15% actual combat.  The combat style she is learning is blended, not strictly HEMA, and she starts off training with either an arming sword or a bastard sword equivalent. She is training hard, so she has the prerequisite strength and stamina, but the story is focused more on refining technique.

I'm writing the scenes up to the actual swordsmanship trial, and I need to get some informed opinions.

Her instructor is trying to get her to 'upgrade' to a fully two handed, longer-bladed sword to better compliment the fact that she is a female fighter that behaves and strategizes more defensively (much to her instructor's frustration, who sees her potential as a better, decisive offensive strategist). A longer blade means more distance between her and an opponent (likely a more powerful male opponent), and a longer blade length means slightly more mass, momentum and leverage with every properly aligned strike. Which, in a real life or death encounter, might be just the advantage she needs.

Would you agree with the instructor's assessment? That for females in general, that strategizing her skills to use a longer blade length to keep her attackers _just that much further away _is a good advantage to employ?

Also, Scribes, follow along in the conversation because I'm simultaneously brainstorming along with the information provided. Feel free to jump in and point out anything  I should also take into consideration.  Thanks!


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Hrrm, first off... swords for self defense will tend (historically) to be more arming sword (or even smallsword/rapier depending on period) and certainly not in the 2handed range, but with the options stated the arming sword is more likely. The strength of a two-handed sword is its offense, IMO, the ability to beat through armor. Now, to quality that, a rapier is not a short-bladed weapon. Reach is a strength along with speed. In a street fight, give me the rapier or even a transitional cut-and-thrust sword. Second, 2-handers tend to lean toward ages where people are wearing heavy armor because you need the big heavy to get through the armor and you are wearing heavy armor and that is acting a bit like your shield. A longsword dual with no armor is going to be short unless they just circle each other, LOL.  A lot also depends on environment, is she defending herself in the city or in wide open spaces? A zweihander in a cramped alley is far from worthless, but it isn’t ideal, either.

I’m not sure if there is a precise answer here, but if reading it my eyebrows would raise unless your instructor really sells it, heh heh.

Mind, I’m just piecing together my limited experience. And I’d say upgrading from an arming sword to longsword would make more sense than going to a true 2-hander.



Night Gardener said:


> I have a question about blade length:  it's a detail I'd like to get expanded upon for eventual plot purposes, so those of you who are better immersed in the subject than I am, please chime in your opinion.
> 
> I have a female MC who has to pass a sword trial for career purposes. The career requires she be competant and proficient with swordsmanship, but this is not a battle-oriented career. Carrying a sword is anticipated as 85% personal/ self-defensive capacity, 15% actual combat.  The combat style she is learning is blended, not strictly HEMA, and she starts off training with either an arming sword or a bastard sword equivalent. She is training hard, so she has the prerequisite strength and stamina, but the story is focused more on refining technique.
> 
> I'm writing the scenes up to the actual swordsmanship trial, and I need to get some informed opinions.
> 
> Her instructor is trying to get her to 'upgrade' to a fully two handed, longer-bladed sword to better compliment the fact that she is a female fighter that behaves and strategizes more defensively (much to her instructor's frustration, who sees her potential as a better, decisive offensive strategist). A longer blade means more distance between her and an opponent (likely a more powerful male opponent), and a longer blade length means slightly more mass, momentum and leverage with every properly aligned strike. Which, in a real life or death encounter, might be just the advantage she needs.
> 
> Would you agree with the instructor's assessment? That for females in general, that strategizing her skills to use a longer blade length to keep her attackers _just that much further away _is a good advantage to employ?


----------



## Gray-Hand

The logic that her instructor is using favours a rapier.  

It’s a long sword that can generate plenty of force, has tons of range -a one handed lunge with a rapier covers more distance than a two handed stroke of a zweihander.

Rapiers are just a really effective sword for an era where shields are out of fashion, but armour still exists.   Just a good all round sword.


----------



## Night Gardener

She is 'anticipating' more open spaces than cramped alleys and taverns, as where she is hoping to go is remote wilderness and sparsely populated... so, maybe highway bandits and drunken rabble-rousers are going to be an occassional problem. The armor of would be opponents is going to be all over the place, but likely not full plate armor. ( Mostly because there really aren't standing armies roaming around in full plate anymore. Fighting styles have... changed. ) 

She can have access to any number of and styles of sword, and carry other weapons like daggers. But, part of the reason for _this conversation with her instructor_ is that if she passes this test, she will earn a _custom_ sword commission. So,  trying to figure out what "kind" and proportion of sword is going to suit her current (and expanded future) fighting styles and needs is something her instructor would be helping her with...

Maybe the conversation could focus on upgrading from a one handed or smaller arming sword, to something with a bit more ..._versatility_?  That I would definetely be open to suggestions... what would be a good, "all purpose" kind of sword for both open and closer-quarters combat? 

Eventually she does pass the test, but due to complications does not get her custom sword... so she ends up stealing one of her ancestor's which would have been from the times of heavier battle/ combat and plate armor...


----------



## Demesnedenoir

If she’s looking to get through armor I’d say the conversation is around moving from an arming sword to longsword. In a pinch she could use a shield with a longsword, so the versatility is a boon. 



Night Gardener said:


> She is 'anticipating' more open spaces than cramped alleys and taverns, as where she is hoping to go is remote wilderness and sparsely populated... so, maybe highway bandits and drunken rabble-rousers are going to be an occassional problem. The armor of would be opponents is going to be all over the place, but likely not full plate armor. ( Mostly because there really aren't standing armies roaming around in full plate anymore. Fighting styles have... changed. )
> 
> She can have access to any number of and styles of sword, and carry other weapons like daggers. But, part of the reason for _this conversation with her instructor_ is that if she passes this test, she will earn a _custom_ sword commission. So,  trying to figure out what "kind" and proportion of sword is going to suit her current (and expanded future) fighting styles and needs is something her instructor would be helping her with...
> 
> Maybe the conversation could focus on upgrading from a one handed or smaller arming sword, to something with a bit more ..._versatility_?  That I would definetely be open to suggestions... what would be a good, "all purpose" kind of sword for both open and closer-quarters combat?
> 
> Eventually she does pass the test, but due to complications does not get her custom sword... so she ends up stealing one of her ancestor's which would have been from the times of heavier battle/ combat and plate armor...


----------



## Night Gardener

Gray-Hand said:


> The logic that her instructor is using favours a rapier.
> 
> It’s a long sword that can generate plenty of force, has tons of range -a one handed lunge with a rapier covers more distance than a two handed stroke of a zweihander.
> 
> Rapiers are just a really effective sword for an era where shields are out of fashion, but armour still exists.   Just a good all round sword.



Thank you for the suggestion... I'll have to look into it. Those are all good points of consideration for sure.

He could be trying to convince her to switch over to mastering the rapier and she is reluctant. I don't have the opportunity at the moment to really test different swords again, but from what I can remember was that my own instinct is to _want the option_ to use two hands to hold and wield a weapon if necessary. A rapier is almost always a one-handed sword... If I'm remembering correctly, the Florentine style uses a rapier in one hand a dagger in the other...which could be another idea he's trying to get her to explore. Hmm.


----------



## Prince of Spires

It mainly depends on what kinds of swords are available to you technology wise and what makes sense to have from the perspective of how much armour your opponents usually wear. This very much determined what swords were common. 

That said, for a woman (or shorter person in general), I would not go with a two-hander. Yes, you get extra range. But that extra range comes with extra weight as well, and you also need to wear that sword somewhere. Now, 2-handers are not as heavy and unwieldy as movies want us to believe. But they are significantly heavier then shorter swords and the point of balance lies a bit further away from the hilt (which means that it hangs down a bit more because there's a bigger leaver). 

So, for a weaker person I would focus on a sword that favors speed and accuracy over strength and reach. Also, for your purpose, you want a flexible weapon that can be used in a lot of different environments and situation. Which could be a rapier or a longsword, which perhaps doesn't sound very exotic, but it's a versatile weapon. Of course, if you want reach, go for a spear or a staff.


----------



## Vaporo

In answer to the original question, I think that yes, the instructor is correct. Broadly speaking, she would be best off with the longest weapon that she could practically carry, regardless of whether she's a man or woman. Of course, the operative word here is _practical_. I believe short swords were used not because they were amazing weapons, but because they were easy to carry without dragging on the ground.

Here's a guy who knows a lot more than me who addresses the subject directly:


----------



## Insolent Lad

Vaporo said:


> I believe short swords were used not because they were amazing weapons, but because they were easy to carry without dragging on the ground.


And able to be concealed, at least to some degree. In more than a few places, there were also laws about how long a sword one might carry, the Italian city-states e.g.


----------



## Night Gardener

Insolent Lad said:


> And able to be concealed, at least to some degree. In more than a few places, there were also laws about how long a sword one might carry, the Italian city-states e.g.



In this setting, there are restrictions are on blade length unless you are commissioned to carry a sword.  Anyone can carry knives, daggers and small blades up to a length somewhere around ...16".  

Outside the realm, restrictions vary wildly in other kingdoms and territories. So, concealment isn't a big deal (until it is)... but my MC will have bigger problems to worry about by that point.


----------



## Night Gardener

Vaporo said:


> In answer to the original question, I think that yes, the instructor is correct. Broadly speaking, she would be best off with the longest weapon that she could practically carry, regardless of whether she's a man or woman. Of course, the operative word here is _practical_. I believe short swords were used not because they were amazing weapons, but because they were easy to carry without dragging on the ground.
> 
> Here's a guy who knows a lot more than me who addresses the subject directly:




Thank you Vaporo very much for sharing that.


----------



## Gray-Hand

If you are looking for a versatile sword, then a rapier is probably the way to go.  They have the reputation of being a delicate fancy sword used by dainty fencing masters, but that is probably a product of Hollywood.  A lot better of people get them confused with small swords.  Rapiers are a lot more brutal than they are portrayed in movies.

They are quite a large sword that can deliver plenty of force. They have excellent range and of course, they are fast.  They can cut and thrust.

A longsword could be a good pick as well, but they tended to be used by people who were wearing quite a bit of armour themselves. 

If a friend of mine told me they were going to have a sword fight tomorrow, and didn’t know what armour or type of sword their opponent would be packing, and asked me to recommend a sword to use, I would recommend a rapier.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.
> 
> Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.



Did greatswords exist in medieval times? I'm talking about actual polearm greatswords, not two handed longswords.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

That sounds more like a transitional cut-thrust sword than what is typically considered a rapier which moves to a thrusting only weapon. A rapier is far from flimsy, a fabulous thrusting weapon, but it really isn’t a cutting blade. It ia more specialized than the longsword. Even sharpened, the thinner blades of the rapier tend not to be great cutters. Many rapiers have a diamond shaped blade in order keep their strength while providing the thrust. A rapier, simply put put, cannot be the devastating thrusting weapon it is while retaining the slicing ability of a heavier bladed sword. From my understanding , there was naturally the effort to develop such a perfect cut-thrust sword, but it really came down to one or other unless willing to sacrifice one or the other. 



Gray-Hand said:


> If you are looking for a versatile sword, then a rapier is probably the way to go.  They have the reputation of being a delicate fancy sword used by dainty fencing masters, but that is probably a product of Hollywood.  A lot better of people get them confused with small swords.  Rapiers are a lot more brutal than they are portrayed in movies.
> 
> They are quite a large sword that can deliver plenty of force. They have excellent range and of course, they are fast.  They can cut and thrust.
> 
> A longsword could be a good pick as well, but they tended to be used by people who were wearing quite a bit of armour themselves.
> 
> If a friend of mine told me they were going to have a sword fight tomorrow, and didn’t know what armour or type of sword their opponent would be packing, and asked me to recommend a sword to use, I would recommend a rapier.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Demesnedenoir said:


> That sounds more like a transitional cut-thrust sword than what is typically considered a rapier which moves to a thrusting only weapon. A rapier is far from flimsy, a fabulous thrusting weapon, but it really isn’t a cutting blade. It ia more specialized than the longsword. Even sharpened, the thinner blades of the rapier tend not to be great cutters. Many rapiers have a diamond shaped blade in order keep their strength while providing the thrust. A rapier, simply put put, cannot be the devastating thrusting weapon it is while retaining the slicing ability of a heavier bladed sword. From my understanding , there was naturally the effort to develop such a perfect cut-thrust sword, but it really came down to one or other unless willing to sacrifice one or the other.



I agree that a rapier is primarily a thrusting sword, but they can definitely cut too, particularly the earlier forms.  It definitely isn’t up there like a katana or longsword, but it’s cutting ability is definitely underrated, probably due to being overshadowed by its exceptional thrusting.


----------



## Malik

Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Did greatswords exist in medieval times? I'm talking about actual polearm greatswords, not two handed longswords.



A polearm and a greatsword are two entirely different things.

I have an article on this site about the greatsword at https://mythicscribes.com/miscellaneous/great-sword . They absolutely existed (hell, I have three of them right here in my office), but they are nothing like the ironing-board swords you see in anime and video games, if that's what you mean.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Malik said:


> A polearm and a greatsword are two entirely different things.
> 
> I have an article on this site about the greatsword at https://mythicscribes.com/miscellaneous/great-sword . They absolutely existed (hell, I have three of them right here in my office), but they are nothing like the ironing-board swords you see in anime and video games, if that's what you mean.



On another source (one that I trust), someone said that a greatsword is so long and thin, and not fought with the same, that it was more of a polearm than a sword. I know that greatswords were no wide, and my question was not if they existed at all, but in fact if they existed in the middle ages,or if they only existed in the renaissance. Also, I know what a polearm is. Spears, lances, halberds, poleaxes, etc.


----------



## Malik

They absolutely existed in the Middle Ages. The greatsword was a sword with 3-4' of blade anywhere from 2 1/2 to 3" wide, a two-handed handle (capable of being swung one-handed), and weighing 3-5 lbs. I have a reproduction of a greatsword from the Wallace Collection circa 1500 that has a 30" blade and a two-handed handle; it weighs nearly 5 lbs. because of the heavy guard furniture and massive pommel to counterbalance the short, thick blade. I also have two longer, fantasy-style greatswords with 36 and 40" blades. 

The greatsword was used in much the same way as a longsword, with a couple of exceptions. A greatsword (the Oakeshott Type XIIIa), had a spatulate tip and carried its balance in the strong end of the blade. So, unlike a longsword, it wasn't a stabbing weapon. Generally. The tip is sharp, but round. As I mention in my article, the greatsword isn't so much a sword as it is a demolition tool that happens to be sword-shaped. It could be used to maul people inside their armor, or break their armor until they couldn't fight anymore.

The later Zwiehanders were completely different weapons with different schools of combat and completely different uses. 16th-Century greatsword combat looked like the video below, and used a much, much larger weapon than the earlier greatswords. Some of these later greatswords could be six feet long.


----------



## bob1thousand

what type of weapon is Johnny Mo using in Kill bill?


----------



## Devor

I read a fantasy book a while ago that talked about swords taking the most skill of any weapon to learn.  Is that true?  Does the sword take more skill than an axe, mace, spear or bow?  And if so how much does that skill pay off in a fight?


----------



## pmmg

Certainly not more than a 3 sectional staff.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Depends what you mean by ‘learn’.

Swords are among the easiest weapons to use.  They are a pretty damn intuitive weapon. You could pick one up for the first time and start killing enemies straight away.  That’s why they are so popular.  

Proper mastery takes years - you could train every day for ten years and still have room to improve your skills.  But that is true of any weapon.

There have probably been more great swordsmen than great mace/axe/spearmen because the sword is such aN effective and flexible weapon and there are only so many hours in the day, and so many days in our lives, that it is the weapon that people choose to devote their time to mastering before any other.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

My kneejerk reaction is to say no, it’s not true. And also, there are swords with different fighting styles. Much would depend on defining skill and what is being talked about. With a sword, you have little chance of hitting yourself (for a quick example) but to employ a 3-section staff or nunchaku (in particular two of the latter) the skill level to fight effectively moves up or you might knock yourself out of the fight, heh heh. Two sword fighting styles would be more complex/require more skill than single sword. That said, the sword is probably more skill oriented than a lot of other weapons. When you consider the skill of judging your opponent “in the bind” it adds another element of complexity, so...

I think it’s a more complex question than it sounds. Rapier vs Greatsword. So many tracks to take.



Devor said:


> I read a fantasy book a while ago that talked about swords taking the most skill of any weapon to learn.  Is that true?  Does the sword take more skill than an axe, mace, spear or bow?  And if so how much does that skill pay off in a fight?


----------



## Malik

Demesnedenoir said:


> I think it’s a more complex question than it sounds. Rapier vs Greatsword.



There's a rapier vs. greatsword fight in my second book.


----------



## Malik

The issue is, there are several hundred different kinds of swords, and they all have different uses, different styles, different strengths and weaknesses.

What takes so long to learn about swordsmanship isn't the simple act of swinging a sword. That part is pretty easy; it's 90% footwork, and 90% of the rest is just aim.

What's tough to learn about swordsmanship is constructing a fight. Guards, lines of attack, feints, misdirection, anticipation, off-hand use, pointwork vs. edgeplay, grappling, striking, measure, distance, timing, body placement, tempo, and how to apply all this against the schools of swordsmanship and styles you're likely to encounter. And this is all different, for every sword. Every sword requires that you relearn, literally, all of this. (This is why it can't be taught to some ten-year-old kid over two weeks of travel. We're talking years upon years of practice and hard sparring until this all comes without thought.)

Because of this, the sword was an intellectual's weapon, a professional's weapon. A thinking man's weapon. And, therefore, an elite weapon. There's a lot to put together to make a sword work in a manner that will keep you alive. You have to solve problems--and create them for your opponent--in the breadth of a thought. Once the fur is flying, you need to be able to link several complex bodies of knowledge together instantly, and make fewer mistakes doing it than your opponent. Usually the swordsman left standing is the swordsman who made one less miscalculation.

So, the sword doesn't necessarily take more skill, but it tended to attract the kind of person who studied incessantly. Swordsmanship was a lifetime endeavor. Any idiot can swing an axe or a hammer. That's why they were rank and file weapons. Spears, while effective, are simple to teach and cheap, which is why the spear was the most common battlefield weapon. (There's something you don't see often: the orphaned farmboy learning to whip some serious ass with a spear during a two-week journey with his mentor. Completely believable, BTW.)

Axe, mace, spear, bow--hell, yes, they're lethal, definitely. They'll kill you just as fast as a sword, but not as creatively. They are much, much faster to learn. There are only so many ways to attack someone with a spear; far fewer options with an axe (I've trained in combat tomahawk, a weapon that's hell on wheels in close quarters but still nothing like a bastardsword or heavy rapier for creativity); and really, like, two or three options with a mace. There is literally only one with a bow. And as I talked about many times in the Ask Me About Archery thread, a bow f***ing SUCKS in a fight. A bow and arrow is just about the stupidest weapon you could bring to a fight outside of a pair of nunchuks.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I think I’d give the nod to rapier and main gauche, for the weapons I’ve handled. Halberd dueling would be interesting in full tin can mode, heh heh.

But then, I have a soft spot for longswords and rapiers.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

The length classifications of swords are as follows:
one handed: Short Sword
Arming Sword
two handed: Bastard Sword (can be wielded one handed as well)   
Long Sword
War Sword
Great Sword


----------



## Demesnedenoir

This goes into terminology that not everyone is going to agree on. There were ridiculously long swords used against cavalry that could be called a “polearm”, but I wouldn’t call those greatswords, while others might. When I think greatsword, I’m thinking something meant to ablate the heaviest plate armors, to crush helms in on the head, just flat maul the enemy. 



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> On another source (one that I trust), someone said that a greatsword is so long and thin, and not fought with the same, that it was more of a polearm than a sword. I know that greatswords were no wide, and my question was not if they existed at all, but in fact if they existed in the middle ages,or if they only existed in the renaissance. Also, I know what a polearm is. Spears, lances, halberds, poleaxes, etc.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Demesnedenoir said:


> This goes into terminology that not everyone is going to agree on. There were ridiculously long swords used against cavalry that could be called a “polearm”, but I wouldn’t call those greatswords, while others might. When I think greatsword, I’m thinking something meant to ablate the heaviest plate armors, to crush helms in on the head, just flat maul the enemy.


I would call what you're describing a war sword, but okay.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Sword terminology gets crazy, it gets a bit like discussing politics and religion. heh heh. Or long bow versus crossbow.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> I would call what you're describing a war sword, but okay.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Demesnedenoir , are you aware that there is a Wikipedia article about you?


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

I would not see why longbow v.s. crossbow terminology would be comparable to this, as a longbow is:






And a crossbow is:


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Expaninding on an arlier comment, I messed around with the main gauche again the other day... I can only draw one conclusion... I HATE ambidextrous people! My left hand is useless! Gah!


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Which is more powerful is the discussion there.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> I would not see why longbow v.s. crossbow terminology would be comparable to this, as a longbow is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a crossbow is:


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Ah. I would not know, as I have next to no background knowledge about archery.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Off topic, but it really gets into the length of limbs and efficiency and questions of physics, and when the math breaks out I whistle and saunter away. 



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Ah. I would not know, as I have next to no background knowledge about archery.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

As do I. I am scared of math.


----------



## GrailNorthwest

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.
> 
> Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.


Anders, wow, you've been at this for a decade! Many thanks for your willingness to share the fruits of your research!

I have a question about research I'm doing for my WIP, a near-future scifi/fantasy take on Arthurian themes. Have you, by any chance, come upon any really good info or sources regarding Excalibur (or its mythic progenitors)? My interest ranges all the way from what such a sword might have been like in, say, 6th century Britain (possibly a Roman gladius?), to the best swords around these days for actual combat (as opposed to ceremony), all the way to the overarching topic of the place of swords in world mythology. 

I'm going to be looking through your ten years of Q & As, but if anything comes to mind to you, I'll be grateful for any leads you can give.

Cheers!


----------



## pmmg

Timeline and History of Swords

This site look like it could answer the question of what type of sword Excalibur likely would have been....only....It might more have been imagined as the type of sword common when the stories about it were fashioned.

Here is a link to a history of Excalibur.

Excalibur


I might also argue that due to is nature as a sword given the lady of the lake (aka, a goddess), the sword could also be of any variety that might be considered a 'best' form of the sword. For me, I would stick with a knightly broad sword or long sword myself.


----------



## GrailNorthwest

pmmg said:


> Timeline and History of Swords
> 
> This site look like it could answer the question of what type of sword Excalibur likely would have been....only....It might more have been imagined as the type of sword common when the stories about it were fashioned.
> 
> Here is a link to a history of Excalibur.
> 
> Excalibur
> 
> 
> I might also argue that due to is nature as a sword given the lady of the lake (aka, a goddess), the sword could also be of any variety that might be considered a 'best' form of the sword. For me, I would stick with a knightly broad sword or long sword myself.


Fantastic web page, pmmg, looks like a great place to start!

And it brings up a typical problem with Arthurian tales, to whit: there are actually TWO swords with two separate origins, both of which have been called "Excalibur" by different sources in different version. One is the one given by the Lady of the Lake, the other the one thrust in the stone by Merlin, which young Arthur pulled out--the only one in the kingdom who could--to prove he was the heir to the throne of Uther Pendragon.  Haven't quite sorted it out in my own mind, TBH.


----------



## pmmg

Well. Just sayin and young Arthur pulled out a gladius from the stone when all the knights had long swords, i am not sure if hed of filled them with a sense of awe.


----------

