Ask me about swords.

[Malik]

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]

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]

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]

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.