Ask me about swords.

[wordwalker]

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 Ämting]

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:

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 Ämting]

"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.

(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 Ämting]

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.

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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]

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 Ämting]

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]

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.