Ask me about swords.

[wordwalker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Zweihänders 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]

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.