Ask me about swords.

[Demesnedenoir]

From my limited knowledge, I think Zweihanders that push 10lbs and up were mostly ceremonial and typically weighed more in the 4 to 6 pound area. At some point, it basically became a polearm. I've also wanted to look into the books on halberd dueling but never quite got there.

This. My greatsword is maybe 4 lbs. A ten-pound sword would be one of the big Zweihanders, and it would be six feet long with a 3" wide blade. Even then, it might not reach ten pounds.

 

[Malik]

what's a good lightweight but strong sword material? I got a bird race who's primary form of air-to-air combat is melee swooping with swords

There's an idiom in one of my books: "Swords are swords because steel is steel." If steel had different properties, we wouldn't make swords out of it. If swords needed different properties, we wouldn't make them from steel. The factors that make up a good sword--sectional density, flexibility, ductility, edge hardness--are all found in steel and nowhere else. The weight is secondary, and really, negligible considering everything else that steel brings to the table.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I agree with the others that the weight of a sword isn't likely to be much of an issue. Swords aren't heavy. Just check the weight comparisson chart A. E. Lowan posted two pages ago in this thread. Anyone fighting in the air will be able to carry a regular sword to fight with.

Two other thoughts about this. Firstly, I don't expect a lot of armor (if any) on your flying people. Because unlike swords, armor can get heavy and restrict movement. Which has an impact on the kinds of swords you'd see. I would expect longer swords, with a long cutting edge, like a 2-handed sword or a bastard sword.

The other thing is that you could consider other weapons besides swords. I would imagine a spear could be a devastating weapon in the air. It gives you a longer reach than a sword, which means with big, swooping attacks you're at an advantage. It would even give you more reach to target people on the ground if needed.

 

[CupofJoe]

If we are talking Fantasy here...
Then I'd go for something like a bone and [diamond] crystal sword. Hollow bones like birds have and a sharp crystal edge.
People can equate something looking light with actually being light. If you describe it right they won't be thinking of the metallurgy [etc] behind it.
And having a crystal edge to the blade means you have different hues [blue sapphire, red ruby, green emerald, white diamond etc.].
A bit like Light Sabres...

 

[Super Fantasy]

I write about swords all the time, also maces.

 

[Super Fantasy]

What are the different parts of a sword?

 

[pmmg]

 

[pmmg]

Grip might also be called haft.

 

[Archon of Cringe]

So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.

Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.

Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.

I am curious about how effective swords are and why they were a thing when spears are easier to make and have longer reach, and leather armor is enough to block some attacks. Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I am. I want to know more about this stuff.

 

[pmmg]

Well, that poster is long gone...

But....probably because they (spears) were not easy to carry. Most of the hand weapons were effective against some type of defense. A mace, for instance might still break ribs even if the armor was not pierced. Swords are kind of in the middle of somewhat effective in most circumstances, not the best choice in most.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There are a lot of possible reasons, but there is a basic theory I have about all the old weapons and armor: they were popular because they worked. Maille armor was derided for years by moderns despite being a dominate armor for hundreds of years. Turns out maille is wicked good. Some basic thoughts:

Spears are cumbersome and are basically limited to puncture types of attacks. Their impact is minimal on any decent armor. A sword is a short steel spear thrusted, in a sense, but it's also capable of chopping and slicing, and the heavier ones have a serious punch with impact that can still cause damage through armor. A spear can put a hole in you but most likely kills slowly. A sword can take your head off, cut you in half, and open you up from neck to groin for a quick and gruesome end.

Another aspect is that the sword is a great defensive weapon. The design of the sword, its speed, and the strength of its steel... I'm not sure what hand weapon compares to a sword for defense. The Spear has reach, and that's really it. Get inside it, and the options are limited and relatively ineffective. Getting inside the sword isn't fully possible, as you still have to worry about the edge with a draw cut, and the pommel becomes a pretty serious blunt instrument. You don't want someone wailing on your head with the pommel of a longsword, helmet, or no helmet.

My brain is exhausted, but that's what came to mind right off. The sword is an amazing weapon, that's why versions were used all over the world for centuries, surviving even the death of heavy armor until armor's rebirth in modern times. It is a multi-tasker extraordinaire.

I am curious about how effective swords are and why they were a thing when spears are easier to make and have longer reach, and leather armor is enough to block some attacks. Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I am. I want to know more about this stuff.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Not to mention the cool factor. How many other weapons can claim a cross-cultural coolness?

 

[Gray-Hand]

Spears are generally a more effective weapon than swords. Across many cultures over thousands of years, swords were generally a back up weapon for a spear.

Armies made up of spearmen (or pikes) have always been far more common than armies composed of swordsmen.

The reach and speed of a spear offers significant advantages over the flexibility of a sword. The force in a thrust of a spear is also usually more powerful than a swing or a thrust of a sword.

Swords are iconic for several reasons:
1. In popular entertainment, swords are just cooler - the movements look better.
2. In real life, swords (and daggers) were a necessary backup weapon for the front ranks of large formations closed and opponents were shield to shield and too close to each other to use spears.
3. Spears are made of wood and break and wear out easily. You will use many different spears over a lifetime of fighting. Swords are made of metal and can last a lifetime. Users are probably likely to get more attached to their sword that they have owned for years rather than the spear they acquired for this particular battle.
4. Swords are way more convenient. If you are expecting to have a fight, you would bring a spear, but if you are maybe just generally walking the beat or walking around town to show your colours, or maybe just need something to let the thugs know you are more trouble than it’s worth, a sword is probably enough.

 

[Gurkhal]

In favor of the spear as a weapon I would also add costs. To my knowledge a spear needs less metal and is most often thus cheaper to produce than a sword. Hence why its cheaper to equip a large number of soldiers with spears than with swords.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Don't think of it as an either-or situation. You can use a spear as your main weapon and still carry a sword for when your spear shatters, gets dropped, or you're too close for the spear to be useful.

Another reason is that armor is a thing. A spear is a great weapon in an unarmored 1-on-1 fight. You'd win most of the time (assuming equal skill). However, once you add in a large shield (like a Norman kite shield or the Roman scuttum shield), then you can negate most of the range advantage of the spear and your sword becomes exponentially more effective. Even more so with helmets, mail or plate armor involved. The spear does less damage against those and you can close the distance more easily.

Cost is definitely a factor as to why you would see armies of spearmen and not armies of swordmen. A spear is a glorified stick. If you're in a hurry and fighting other unarmored opponents, you can even forget about the pointy metal bit at the end (though it's not advisable). On the other hand, equiping an army with swords and armor becomes a very costly affair.

Skill multiplies the cost factor. A spear is easy to use and it's easy to train someone to use it. Great for farmers who double as part-time soldiers. A sword on the other hand can take years of training to become a skilled user.

Swords are probably the most versatile weapon you can find. It's maybe not the best at any given job, but it does everything pretty well. Yes, a spear is great when you're fighting at long range. However, it's not as good in a close up situation. An Axe can deliver more blunt force, but it sucks at cutting things. A sword does all of that.

This versatility also shows when fighting in larger groups. A Greek phalanx is a formidable force, using spears. However, it's more easily disrupted in rugged terrain than a sword formation, precisely because it relies so much on the tight spear formation.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

In war, the spear was popular for reach and because... It's cheap! You can sharpen a stick. The sword isn't a backup, it's close quarters, similar to the bayonet or side swords in the age of muskets.

It's situational. But, the sword is more useful in more situations.

 

[Gray-Hand]

Some misconceptions here.

Swords aren’t really any better against armour than spears. Spears are probably more effective against most types of armour compared to most types of swords. The piercing ability of a spear is far greater than a sword due to the force that can be put through a spear (or pike) compared to a sword.

Swords can’t cut through plate, have a hard time cutting through chain and can be turned by boiled leather. A spear thrust will push through chain and leather pretty reliably. Plate requires an axe, mace, hammer etc to smash through or a realistically a dagger to fit between weak spots it’s one kind of special anti plate weapon to penetrate.

As to the range issue:
This looks s where spears have a serious advantage. Massive. Go and try it out with a friend with fake weapons . The person with the spear wins 8 times out of ten, even with armour or shields. The guy with the spear can just keep stepping back or circling around the guy with the sword. Te guy with the sword can’t just charge forward as fast as possible because he has to be wary of the spear. ‘Passing the spear’ is hard.

It’s easy to say that the sword just has to slip inside the range of the spear to dominate the fight, it’s waaaaay harder to actually do that. It is very hard to close on an opponent who has a reach advantage unless they are cornered. In a scenario where a spearman is supported by comrades also armed with spears, it is even harder for a swordsman to close the distance.

If a swordsman does get past the spear tip , the spearman probably drops his spear and draws another weapon.

 

[Archon of Cringe]

Some misconceptions here.

Swords aren’t really any better against armour than spears. Spears are probably more effective against most types of armour compared to most types of swords. The piercing ability of a spear is far greater than a sword due to the force that can be put through a spear (or pike) compared to a sword.

Swords can’t cut through plate, have a hard time cutting through chain and can be turned by boiled leather. A spear thrust will push through chain and leather pretty reliably. Plate requires an axe, mace, hammer etc to smash through or a realistically a dagger to fit between weak spots it’s one kind of special anti plate weapon to penetrate.

As to the range issue:
This looks s where spears have a serious advantage. Massive. Go and try it out with a friend with fake weapons . The person with the spear wins 8 times out of ten, even with armour or shields. The guy with the spear can just keep stepping back or circling around the guy with the sword. Te guy with the sword can’t just charge forward as fast as possible because he has to be wary of the spear. ‘Passing the spear’ is hard.

It’s easy to say that the sword just has to slip inside the range of the spear to dominate the fight, it’s waaaaay harder to actually do that. It is very hard to close on an opponent who has a reach advantage unless they are cornered. In a scenario where a spearman is supported by comrades also armed with spears, it is even harder for a swordsman to close the distance.

If a swordsman does get past the spear tip , the spearman probably drops his spear and draws another weapon.

That's what I was thinking. However, the fact that swords were popular across multiple nations, including Europe and Japan, cultures that didn't interact until swords were outdated; both had their versions means that it was an effective weapon. So why do you think they were effective?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

That's what I was thinking. However, the fact that swords were popular across multiple nations, including Europe and Japan, cultures that didn't interact until swords were outdated; both had their versions means that it was an effective weapon. So why do you think they were effective?

Basically, it comes down to a couple of words: three-foot-razor-blade. Spears are great for conscripted infantry, your farmers and your laborers going in with weapons that only took a couple of hours to make. Downside: they're sharpened sticks. They may be fire-hardened, they may be balanced for accuracy (this didn't happen much), or they may be balanced with throwing in mind (literally no one did this. You threw your spear and killed a guy. Grats! Now you're armed only with your eating knife!) but at the end of the day they're sharpened sticks.

Swords come in different flavors, with different jobs in mind. Some have a chiseled edge for breaking through and crushing armor. Some were wickedly sharp because once you deshell a knight things get messy.

I'm a recovering academic, so I tend to assign homework. We're writers. We do homework for a living. So, here we go...

Amazon.com: Warfare in the Medieval World eBook : Carey, Brian Todd, Allfree, Joshua B., Cairns, John, Joshua B. Allfee, John Cairns: Books

Amazon.com: The Knight in History (Medieval Life Book 3) eBook : Gies, Frances: Kindle Store - this entire series, basically, is excellent and accessible

Amazon.com: Special Operations in the Age of Chivalry, 1100-1550 (Warfare in History Book 24) eBook : Harari, Yuval Noah: Kindle Store - another side to a knight's life

That's good enough for now to give you a basic idea of how swords and spears functioned on the battlefield.

 

[pmmg]

If a swordsman does get past the spear tip , the spearman probably drops his spear and draws another weapon.

What would that other weapon be?

Im am wondering why the answer here is not obvious. A sword can cut, stab, hurt and kill people. And did it many times. What does it have to do to be effective?

It may not be the best weapon for any given fight but its the best everyday weapon if one does not what fights are coming. Why would someone want a handgun when rifles are better? Or a spear when they can have a pike? Cause its effective enough and convenient to have.

That is not to say that is why i might arm my MC with it in fiction.