Ask me about swords.

[Russ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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