Ask me about swords.

[Anders Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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.

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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]

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!