Ask me about swords.

[Nihal]

I have a dumb question: How inefficient would be a sword of straight blade and no point?

Something along the last sword design:

It wouldn't be good for thrusting, that's clear, and I suspect that slashing would feel a little jarring without any curve to allow the movement to "flow", but I know next to nothing about swords nor fighting to fully understand all the implications of such design. (it's supposed to be an ornamental sword in the story, made also to experiment an alloy, but it would end being used in desperate times)

 

[CupofJoe]

I'm thinking about European hand/hand-and-a-half swords... not that I know much...
Points to swords could just be a by product of the sword-making process that became a useful feature, as is the tapering of most blades, to easy the stresses within the blade and even them out. If it had a very square tip to the blade there would be stress issues on the corners if it was used in combat... So it could be hard to make a sword with no point and it would not be any more useful and almost certainly less useful.
Those square tipped swords I seen tend to be more of the cleaver type [designed for chopping heads off] so a squared ended sword would give you a little extra mass to do things like that... The sword of a champion [to intimidate] and not of the soldier [to fight]...

 

[Bortasz]

 

[Bortasz]

I have a dumb question: How inefficient would be a sword of straight blade and no point?

Something along the last sword design:

It wouldn't be good for thrusting, that's clear, and I suspect that slashing would feel a little jarring without any curve to allow the movement to "flow", but I know next to nothing about swords nor fighting to fully understand all the implications of such design. (it's supposed to be an ornamental sword in the story, made also to experiment an alloy, but it would end being used in desperate times)

This type of weapon is for execution=beheading only. It was heavier up to 3 kg, then normal swords and was not use in fights.

Points to swords were for Armour penetration. Cutting have no chance of cut through metal armour. Even Chainmail.

Remember that many times ornamental armours and weapons were completely useless in combat situation. To fragile/To heavy. Created to look good not to be use in fight. The lack of Point is the least of worries that user of such sword will face.

 

[Nihal]

Oh, see? I failed to consider the weight distribution. Thanks!

I had something more of a Chokutō sword in mind, not so thick, heavy or short. It was a sword design that preceded all the curved blades (which only became popular when they started to fight on horseback).

In a quick research I couldn't dig much information (and I'm combining stuff anyway). Length 23.5—29 in, width up to 1.4 in, forged using metal folding and layers, small guard just like many oriental blades, but unlike them it would be double edged and end in a half hexagon. It's not meant to be used against armour, even if it wasn't ornamental.

Yeah, I'm aware that ornamental armour/weapons are impractical, hence my question. I'm trying to determine what kind of hardship one fighting with such blade would face.

 

[Bortasz]

Oh, see? I failed to consider the weight distribution. Thanks!

I had something more of a Chokutō sword in mind, not so thick, heavy or short. It was a sword design that preceded all the curved blades (which only became popular when they started to fight on horseback).

In a quick research I couldn't dig much information (and I'm combining stuff anyway). Length 23.5—29 in, width up to 1.4 in, forged using metal folding and layers, small guard just like many oriental blades, but unlike them it would be double edged and end in a half hexagon. It's not meant to be used against armour, even if it wasn't ornamental.

Yeah, I'm aware that ornamental armour/weapons are impractical, hence my question. I'm trying to determine what kind of hardship one fighting with such blade would face.

On example:

This is Double edge bronze axe was ceremonial/ornamental.
Pleas take a look on places were Axe is put on the stick. And imagine how thin bronze must be if you see the stick.
In normal axe you will not see this:

The biggest problem with that bronze axe is fragility. It so thin that weight is not a problem but it will bend very easy when you strike something. The best option is to bend bronze around the stick to form a mace.
This are problem with THIS weapon.

What problems are with you ornamental swords mostly depend on you.
Another example.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sword_parts_no_scabbard.PNG
The point of balance should be on guard, so sword be the most agile.
If it will be more to the point the swords will start resemble axe in use. Stronger punch, but less agile. Not good for fencing, but good for powerful slashes.
If it will be more to the pommel it will lose power of hits and be more unwieldy.

Another example:
To thin sword will break.
To heavy will not be agile and user will get quickly tired.

Also does you sword have a guard?
If not like this sword
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/228/9/d/P3___Thanatos_inspired_Ninjato_by_SnowspireFox.jpg
The user will lose his fingers.

It's depend on how it is made. On what problems you want to put in it. Don't think like there is one universal problem with ornamental weapons. Think rather like blacksmith. What is purpose of this sword?

For example:
It will be use in religious ceremonial battle against evil. The ceremony is over hour long, and entire time user must swing it.

So you want very light weapon, that will be seen from a distance. It will be the best if it will resemble the X sword of the Y god/champion. Also it will not be sharp so the clergy will not cut anybody.

So we end up with fragile,light weapon, that have no sharp edges. But it is very shiny.

 

[Gryphos]

Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.

 

[Bortasz]

Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.

Why not simple give him a cane with build in Poison Harpoon or Crossbow?

Battle is not only weapons that you have in hand but also stuff around you. What Armour they have? What is surrounding?

In theory everybody can defeat anybody. You job is to make it that fight look plausible/probable to reader.

Make protagonist throw stuff ad his opponent. Kitchen is the most deadly place in building. The very few people will fight when you spill hot oil in there face.

Because in terms of Duels you cane sword will lose with proper battle weapon. That's why swords in cane were not a battle weapon.
Don't thread this as obstacle. Rather as a challenge. Long rapier make you protagonist a danger enough so the arming sword men will be careful. Use this to his advantage.

 

[Guy]

Okay, about my whole swordstick vs arming sword problem again. Let's imagine that the swordstick has a mechanism in place in which when the blade is drawn a hand-guard springs out. And also take into account how the protagonist would essentially be dual-wielding the sword and cane body, and also imagine that the swordstick blade is a bit thicker and longer than what you usually get (more like a short rapier). Would this feasibly even the odds against the arming sword dude? I'm imagining the protagonist being able to either dodge the arming sword attacks or parry them with either the cane body or the smallsword. Obviously he wouldn't be able to outright block a hard swing, but that would just figure into the fight. Now skill is still another matter entirely, but I'm just wondering if the protagonist has the tools at his disposal to defeat the other guy, if he's skilled enough with them.

In theory, yes. I'm sure you could make it plausible for the purposes of a fictional story. Sometimes one has no choice but to block a hard swing, which could leave him in a bad position.

 

[Devor]

I have a quick question.

I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.

Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons? My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons. But is that right?

 

[wordwalker]

I have a quick question.

I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.

Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons? My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons. But is that right?

I've been wondering that one ever since Malik answered a swords-vs-axes question with how there have been any number of schools and teachers of swordsmanship over the ages, and few to none for axes. So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just how good do you have to be before that starts happening?

 

[Jabrosky]

I've been wondering that one ever since Malik answered a swords-vs-axes question with how there have been any number of schools and teachers of swordsmanship over the ages, and few to none for axes. So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just how good do you have to be before that starts happening?

My best guess is that it has something to do with swords being reserved for elite warriors with the best training in certain cultures. Common, levied soldiers on the other hand would usually receive spears, axes, or one of those other "clumsier weapons". It wasn't so much that these levies couldn't learn how to use swords themselves, but rather that getting the best weapons was a privilege reserved for the socioeconomic elites.

 

[Devor]

So logically a sword has a clear advantage (not in every circumstance, of course) when you've got serious skill, and the clumsier weapons don't scale up as easily. But just how good do you have to be before that starts happening?

That's my take as well. But I'm also remembering a demonstration on how the Roman soldier fought, and it looked like their sword play was fairly simple. A lot of sword schools teach swordplay that looks more like fencing, where to be honest, it's the rules of the sport that demands most of the finely tuned skills. The swordsmanship of a soldier doesn't look like that. But how well does the skill level really out strip those of other weapons?

 

[Bortasz]

I have a quick question.

I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.

Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons? My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons. But is that right?

Generally yes.
Axe + Shield is very dangerous combination fare easier to learn than any type of swordsmanship. And it have greater chance to damage armoured person/destroy shield.
Also remember that in real world axe and swords were sidearm. Used when primary=spear/lance were not more. Average soldier use Polearm/spear

And yes proper use of sword is more difficult to learn.

 

[Bortasz]

That's my take as well. But I'm also remembering a demonstration on how the Roman soldier fought, and it looked like their sword play was fairly simple. A lot of sword schools teach swordplay that looks more like fencing, where to be honest, it's the rules of the sport that demands most of the finely tuned skills. The swordsmanship of a soldier doesn't look like that. But how well does the skill level really out strip those of other weapons?

The Roman are Exception.
They train soldiers in one crucial move. Thrust. Hide behind big shield. Thrust. And attack guys who are on the right of you. So you are less expose. It's about fighting in formation and discipline.

My best guess is that it has something to do with swords being reserved for elite warriors with the best training in certain cultures. Common, levied soldiers on the other hand would usually receive spears, axes, or one of those other "clumsier weapons". It wasn't so much that these levies couldn't learn how to use swords themselves, but rather that getting the best weapons was a privilege reserved for the socioeconomic elites.

This is a myth.
Swords were elite only in times when they were expensive to make. When metallurgy was improve and price of swords go down everybody buy them.
And also they were Secondary weapon. Does Clumsy spears, polearm were primary weapon of everybody.
Even samurai first weapon was Naginata. https://www.google.pl/search?q=Nagi...A4ztaKmpgsAH&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1400&bih=761
Not a katana.
Swords/axes were use when primary weapon break, or was no more viable to use. And even than swords was not always the first choice of many people.

 

[Guy]

I have a quick question.

I read a book a while back where a character asked why he wasn't learning swordsmanship, and another responded that swords take a lot of skill to learn, and you can usually do just as much with other weapons that are easier to learn.

Does swordsmanship really take a lot more skill when compared with other weapons? My first thought when I read that was that the author is mistaking fencing for the kind of swordsmanship a soldier does, while also ignoring the skill needed with other weapons. But is that right?

Sword use is a bit more technical, but it's not any type of mystical jedi knight type stuff, either. One thing to consider is edge alignment. If you swing a baseball bat, you'll notice the natural movement of your arms causes the bat to rotate. If this happens while using a sword, you swat the opponent with the flat of the blade instead of cutting him. Or, even worse, the blade starts to rotate as its passing through the opponent's body, twisting and torquing the blade to the point of damaging it. If you don't have good edge alignment with an axe, you still beat the daylights out of the target. Likewise, edge alignment is a non-issue with a blunt weapon.

There are period manuals that show fighting with all sorts of weapon in addition to swords. They show axes, spears, daggers, and bare handed fighting. Axes would've been more common and more effective against armor. They're far older than swords, so it's logical to conclude there were systems of fighting with them.

Where sword use gets really technical is when you're using narrow civilian swords that lack stopping power. Precision thrusts are relied upon to compensate for this lack of stopping power. What historical sources I've read indicate it doesn't work very well.

 

[Malik]

I would argue that axes were around long before the sword, but we still developed the sword, which proves the sword's superiority. Swords were expensive to make and laborious to learn. And yet the sword surpassed the axe to become the ultimate way to kill somebody with something sharp for about three thousand years. So there's something to it.

Soldiers use what works, and if a piece of gear doesn't work, they leave it on the sidelines or back in their tent. That's a maxim of warfare dating back from the time we were living in huts and throwing rocks at each other. At some point, enough soldiers said, "This is bullshit; I'm learning to use a sword," that the sword supplanted the axe. The axe hung around as a secondary weapon, but the sword was the standard.

Fencing became an Olympic event. Axe fighting did not. Which is kind of a bummer but maybe we can get it into the X Games.

 

[Guy]

Soldiers use what works, and if a piece of gear doesn't work, they leave it on the sidelines or back in their tent. That's a maxim of warfare dating back from the time we were living in huts and throwing rocks at each other. At some point, enough soldiers said, "This is bullshit; I'm learning to use a sword," that the sword supplanted the axe. The axe hung around as a secondary weapon, but the sword was the standard.

What's your source for this? I've never heard of swords supplanting axes. Axes were easier and therefore cheaper to make. Thus they were more numerous. I agree soldiers will stick with what works, and axes were far more effective against plate armor, something that would be a factor as armor developed. Moreover, halberds (which were just long axes) were one of the weapons that enabled ordinary foot soldiers to defeat armored knights. Axes as a general rule are more durable and easy to repair. There are plenty of period manuals about axe fighting. Knights engaging in tournament combat and trial by combat often used axes. Swords were often carried as back-up weapons rather than main weapons.

I think the mystique of the sword comes from the fact that it was the first weapon that was designed from the ground up as an antipersonnel device. Other weapons - clubs, axes, spear, and bows and arrows - were either tools or weapons of the hunt adapted to warfare. Swords have no other practical application than disassembling a human being. And they're a lot prettier than axes. Soldiers continued bringing them into battle after they were of little use because of prestige, not practicality.

 

[Malik]

I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword. The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.

 

[Bortasz]

I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword. The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.

You assuming that somewhere in history somebody invent swords.
With is false.
Swords evolve from knife. Look add early bronze swords. There were big knifes. AND there were secondary weapon when spear was not more viable weapon.
People first create this:
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/BuiMoaH/BuiMoaH_209a.jpg Because they need a sharp tool to cut the meat, to clean up skin.
Than when they learn about metal they start creating knifes and daggers.
http://www.knifecrimes.org/images/001.jpg
Sword evolve from them.
http://www.womeninthebible.net/images/1.8.De6.jpg
Nobody invent swords. They perfected knife. Make them longer for better reach.

Second Fencing is a Olympic sport and not axe wielding because:
- Axe are more dangerous. You must have far more padding so both of the users will not end up with broken bones.
- Axe are tools. And everybody can have one. So the Rich people use a swords, that are good in just one think. Poor people will not buy sword since for the most of time he will hang on the wall.
This create the legend of the swords. Since it became a status symbol.
This also safe the art of fencing from extinction, like happen with Axe wielding. Rich people keep it alive. It was something that proof there status.
And since it was became quite safe sport it became in 20 century a Olympic sport.