Ask me about swords.

Ah, chemistry is not one of my strong points. Though, I suppose you might be able to laminate it into the edge of a sword and make the rest of the blade out of a lighter, less hard metal. I guess it ultimately comes down to how fragile it is.

That and, you know, using this stuff in a sword to begin with is complete overkill.

Ah, I see! Your argument relies on these swords having the same mass but not the same size.

Huh. Tricky. Now we're into cross sections and mass distribution. You're taking the advanced class now.

Not sure what you mean by the success of the katana, seeing as it was developed in Japan and, due to Japan's isolationist tendencies, was mostly used by the Japanese to fight wars against other Japanese using the same kind of sword. Sure, today it's extremely popular all over the world, but that's because it's the in vogue sword of our modern age. It's not like it beat all other swords in some kind of international sword contest.

(For that matter, a lot of katana don't actually match your definition of a backsword, because they have backs that are more narrow then their central spines. Actually, I'd fairly sure that's the standard. And that's not even getting into stuff like double edged katana.)

But anyway, I'll be straight with you: This kind of discussion almost always ends up a can of worms one way or another. We folk who are into swords can't even agree if there is actually any real benefit for a sword to be curved rather then straight. Some say straight swords thrust better because thrusts come in straight lines, but other argue that the human arm makes a naturaly curved motion in a thrust anyway. Some say that curved swords focus the force of the cut to a smaller point of the target, but then others argue that the physics don't hold up in reality against human-shaped targets. I have literally never seen this debate come to a satisfying conclusion. The most people seem to agree on is that curved swords are more lethal in draw-cuts at close range while straight swords can strike deadly blows from further away.

Me, I tend to sit those discussions out, because I honestly don't like obsessing about tiny details. Voluntarily, I mean. I personally don't think backswords are technically superior to double edge swords, but I don't think I can convince you of that and honestly, I don't think I want to. I only offered to answer basic questions, not debate the exact qualities of various sword types at lenght.

Though, if you'd like, I could totally send you links to some other communities shock full of people who will happily discuss this issue with you all day long. I'd be honestly interested to see which conclusion you'd arrive at.

 

Alright, then to put it as briefly as I can: I honestly don't know. I have been trying to figure that out myself for a while now, but there doesn't appear to be any particular reason other then: "They just weren't fond of them."

Well... depends on how you define "differances." Obviously they didn't look the same, had different styles and were designed for different fighting styles. But, well, that's true for nearly all swords, ever.

She's a fickle mistress.

 

Like Devor said, swords were still used by cavalry on the battlefield during World War I, and a young Winston Churchill allegedly came very close to crossing swords with an Indian insurgent at one point, but opted against it when enemy reinforcements arrived.

Firearms never actually "replaced" the sword, they just made swords less useful as time went on, due to changing battle tactics.

Actually, Europeans started using gunpower as early as the 1300s - they had primitive firearms and even cannons that were used as seige weapons. During the Hundred Year War, you'd see people with early muskets fight alongside knights in plate armor. The swords of the time would mostly have been variations of the late medieval sword styles.

I'm guessing you had more of a Renaissance setting in mind, though. Actually, the 1500s was a pretty interesting time when it came to swords, because people used a bit of everything. The more elegent complex hilted cut-and-thrust swords and baskethilt broadswords had just started to develop, but there were still be people fighting with longswords or bastard swords, while those of lesser income could rely on the huge variety of the messer family, including the large kriegsmessers - these huge two-handed sabers. There were mercenaries weilding katzbalgers and giant zweihanders. The Italians favored short swords inspired by the antique blades of Rome and Greece, meanwhile the Spaniards invented the espada ropera which would soon evolve into the rapier. There was a lot of different blades to pick from.

The rapier, notably, was specifically a civilian sword. They were used for self-defence and for dueling, but not on the battlefield. Depicting musketeers carrying rapiers while on duty is actually inaccurate - they would have carried more versatile cut-and-thrust swords:



But returning to the rapier: The reason it emphasises the thrust, from what I've managed to find out, has to do with how Renaissance people built their cities. Cities of the time would have a lot of these very narrow allyways, where defending yourself from attackers could be tricky as the cramped space did not allow for much swinging about. In such a situation, a long thrusting sword was the ideal self-defence weapon.

That said, it's true some rapiers were more then capable of cutting, some having almost medieval-style blades.

(I should also mention that its a myth that rapiers were light swords: Many of them were in fact quite heavy. The main reason modern fencing swords are ill suited for rapier fencing is because they are far too light. In fact, most complex hilted swords are heavier then one might believe, often heavier on average compared to medieval swords.)

The rapier was developed in Spain and then spread to France and Italy and then to England, where the fencing master George Silver famously objected heavily to what he saw as a weapon for foreign weaklings and cowards, claiming that real Englishmen should fight with the baskethilt sword. He didn't managed to convince his peers, however, and soon the rapier had conquered Europe.

The demise of the rapier a few hundred years later is, I think, and interesting example of what factors can determin the popularity of a sword: In the early 18th century, the roads improved which made it fashionable for gentement to travel in coaches. The rapier, however, was too long and cumbersome for this mode of travel. For this reason the much lighter Dutch smallsword gianed popularity - they were light enough that one could do away with the baldrics and belt suspensions one would carry a rapier in, which in turn affected how people dressed. The rapier soon became thought of as a large and boisterous weapon for unrefined braggarts. Only the Spaniards insisted on using the rapier for decades longer then the rest of Europe.

 

The sword you are refering to is called a spatha - it's a Roman word but it applies to most longer iron/steel swords of the late Roman and Migration periods.

As I understand it, the spatha was longer because it was a cavalry weapon, whereas the gladius was an infantry sidearm. (Following the Greek model, the primary infantry weapon was still the spear.)

Indeed, I have a few, though not nearly as many as some of the collectors I've gotten to know online. My economy doesn't allow me to buy swords often, nor does it allow me to spend a lot of money on really expensive high-end pieces. I try to stay in the lower middle range, focusing on affordable yet functional swords.

To date I own:

-A 32" o-katana from Dynasty Forge.
-An antique Dutch infantry saber. (Ca 1850.)
-The Valiant Armory Warder. (A fantasy sword inspired by the Wheel of Time books, designed by John Lundemo.)
-A couple of shorter blades I forged myself back in my blacksmithing days, which I need to grind into shape and hilt when I get the time.
-A lower quality medieval sword that I found rather disappointing (it was the first sword I bought) which I have now begun regrinding into a somewhat lighter backsword.
-A cheaper odachi that I've begun to cut down. (Long story.)
-Various other junk blades and half-finished projects.

Out of these, the katana is by far the best. It's not traditionally made - a plain through-hardened monosteel blade, no folding or hamon - but it's sharp and durable and can perform frighteningly powerful cuts.

Lately I've been thinking about getting a new sword to play with, but I've been a bit indecisive. At first I planned on getting a longsword or hand-and-a-halfer, but I've also found a saber-like falchion I'm rather infatuated by. Meanwhile, the nihontophile part of me is trying to convince me to go for another Japanese-style blade. It's hard to decide because my exact taste tends to fluctuate a lot.

 

Hey, at least you are smart enough to not try to play with stainless wallhangers.

Lord knows too many people do that already.

"Made in Spain" suggests it's a souvenir sword, probably from Toledo or something like that. Can't say the rest of the discription rings a bell, though, and the diamond cross-section is a bit unusual.

Oh well. Show me a picture if possible. If I can't identify it, I can direct you to people who can.

Fair warning, though: You shouldn't get your hopes up. Sadly, most old swords people find or get from their relatives are just decorative pieces that aren't worth much.

Not really. Like I said before, hardness isn't the same thing as strenght. Also, the denser the material is, the heavier it will be. One has to consider all properties of the material, not just the most advantageous one.

Now, I don't know much about diamonds, but a quick Google search tells me the following:

So basically, while diamonds are relatively durable for their hardness, they are hardly indestructible. (Pun not... Well, okay, pun intended.) Being crystals, they're rigid and will fracture rather then deform.

I imagine that a diamond sword would be very heavy, quite fragile, and probably not superior enough to a steel sword in cutting power to make it worth it. So you end up with an over-all inferior weapon worth roughly the same as a small kingdom, the cost of which you could hire the best weaponsmiths in the world to manufacture a whole armory of top-class weapons for you.

This scenario is similar to the Iridium idea Neurosis posted on the second page, and it's a common falacy based on the assumption that one can improve a sword by maximizing a single aspect of the weapon. Problem is, unless you involve actual magic, you will probably be doing so at the expense of all the other aspects.

If you're writing a fantasy story and want there to be an incredibly sharp and strong sword, just say it's enchanted, or that it's a mystic metal forged with secret techniques. Or, if you're writing some kind of space opera, write something about monomolecular polymers and nanotechnology. You know, make something up.

But trust me on this: If there was any material more suited for swords than steel, people would already have tried it a long time ago.