Ask me about swords.

[Prince of Spires]

Dropping off the visual aids.

View attachment 3775 View attachment 3776 View attachment 3777

I saw the first image and thought to myself, that's lacking the weight of the different swords. And then I scrolled down and realized you always deliver

The second image did make me wonder about creating a character that compared the weight of his sword to a kitten. What sort of person would think As he dove into the fight, the sword in his hand felt like he was swinging a kitten around.
There is a story in there...

Slashing does zero against an armored opponent. Stabbing . . . might.

What about bashing them in the head (helmet) repeatedly with your sword's pommel?

 

[Finchbearer]

The weight of a newborn (human) is about the same as the weight of an adult cat.

What’s the point (forgive the pun) of the wiggly sword??

 

[CupofJoe]

The weight of a newborn (human) is about the same as the weight of an adult cat.

What’s the point (forgive the pun) of the wiggly sword??

Instilling fear and terror. Not all weapons are for fighting. They can be for intimidation.
Or for causing jagged wounds that will heal slower and possibly leave a permanent disability.

 

[Finchbearer]

Instilling fear and terror. Not all weapons are for fighting. They can be for intimidation.
Or for causing jagged wounds that will heal slower and possibly leave a permanent disability.

And there was me thinking it would only be good for stoking the fire.

 

[pmmg]

without much research, the wavy blade sword might have several advantages.

Perhaps it looked more fearful giving a psychological edge against an opponent.

The wavy blade possibly prevented other swords from sliding after impact offering some greater defense.

The wavy blade could hold substances better, such if you wanted to dip in oil and set on fire.

The wavy blade could give more grievous wounds if thrust in and ripped out.

The wavy blade might not break as easily having a better impact energy dispersion quality.

And the wavy blade might have a serated effect while cutting.


Course. It also might not.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think it says to me that I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously, because it’s wiggly, and so I thought it was more ornamental. Maybe if you were to thrust that sword into someone…not recommending you do that, but wouldn’t it take a lot longer to get out, and if you’re in a hurry then it might cost you valuable time.

 

[Finchbearer]

Controversial question on a thread about swords, but what is the more effective and efficient weapon, a battle axe or a sword?

 

[Ban]

Controversial question on a thread about swords, but what is the more effective and efficient weapon, a battle axe or a sword?

In what manner? Cost effective? Axe. Effective for equipping an army on the cheap? Axe. Effective against someone wearing any form of metal armour? Sword, simply because you can stab with them (including the ones better suited to slashing). Effective against an unarmoured opponent? I'd wager the axe and the sword are close to equal, with a slight edge for the sword due to its greater versatility. Effective against a tree? Axe!

 

[Finchbearer]

In what manner? Cost effective? Axe. Effective for equipping an army on the cheap? Axe. Effective against someone wearing any form of metal armour? Sword, simply because you can stab with them (including the ones better suited to slashing). Effective against an unarmoured opponent? I'd wager the axe and the sword are close to equal, with a slight edge for the sword due to its greater versatility. Effective against a tree? Axe!

Killing.

Effective against a tree would be a fell axe I would have thought. I am partial to axes. Not for killing.

In my mind, a battle axe potentially has the edge (forgive another pun) over a sword in terms of cost effectiveness, durability, manoeuvrability, but I could be wrong. Maybe it’s depends on the type of person wielding it and situation.

 

[Ban]

Killing

Effective against a tree would be a fell axe I would have thought. I am partial to axes. Not for killing.

I think my comment covered killing in various forms, but perhaps a more dedicated sword fellow will jump in. Ultimately it's just a piece of sharp metal swung around by a human. Both the axe and the sword are effective there, with the sword more so simply because it adds an additional dimension (stabbing) to the repertoire. Still, it all depends on the person handling the sharp piece of metal.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think my comment covered killing in various forms, but perhaps a more dedicated sword fellow will jump in. Ultimately it's just a piece of sharp metal swung around by a human. Both the axe and the sword are effective there, with the sword more so simply because it adds an additional dimension (stabbing) to the repertoire.

Sorry, I did in fact edit my previous post with more specifics.

 

[Ban]

Sorry, I did in fact edit my previous post with more specifics.

I comment too fast. I often edit mine as well to add more details.

I'd say you're right about the cost effectiveness and durability, and I would add that an axe is also far easier to repair. As for manoeuverability, I think it's debatable. While there are certain things you could do with an axe that you can't with a sword, the same applies vice versa. Perhaps someone on the forum is into HEMA who could confirm or deny that point. Malik maybe?

 

[CupofJoe]

I think might also be an issue on how many there of you in a given area.
Of course, it would depend on the sword and axe in question [and with absolutely no facts to back me up] I feel that a sword could be used in more confined conditions and an axe needs more room to be effective.
So if I'm fighting in a legion or regiment, side by side, I'd want a sword. If I'm charging down a hill at an enemy free style, then the axe might win out.

 

[pmmg]

I think it says to me that I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously, because it’s wiggly, and so I thought it was more ornamental. Maybe if you were to thrust that sword into someone…not recommending you do that, but wouldn’t it take a lot longer to get out, and if you’re in a hurry then it might cost you valuable time.

I think that would kind of be the ideal. You want it to catch and rip more stuff during slicing and pull cutting.

For me, unless I was setting it on fire, I don't see a real advantage to having one. I would prefer a straight blade.

 

[pmmg]

In any question of this weapon vs that is always the question of what type of killing/fight is it.

Generally, a sword is more versatile, so if you dont know what coming, and need something for everything, a sword would be a better choice. If you do know, and you can prepare, an axe has some advantages the sword doesn't. Such as chopping power and PSI at the point of impact.

If it was sword vs axe, I would prefer the sword for its greater versatility, but I would expect the axe might be more likely to be fatal in its first blow. Though both could be fatal quick. If you add more details, I might switch up. An axe might work better against armor, so if we have armor...

If I am building an army, I might hand out more axes. They might be cheaper to make and maintain.

 

[Aldarion]

Did Crusader knights modify their weaponry as they came up against Turk, Arab, and Egyptian foes?

I'm thinking particularly of those who resided in Outremer, more than those who came pounding in during a particular crusade. Those would likely have been equipped as they were back home. But was the lance-based cavalry charge, followed by a dismount and fighting with longsword or flail or mace really a good choice against the armies of Damascus or Cairo or Baghdad?

I know I'm supposedly a medieval historian, but I can't find anything that answers this question. It feels like there ought to have been adjustments because there were resident knights for almost two centuries. Plenty of time to make other choices. Then again, maybe that weaponry, having proved so effective early, continued to be the right choice.

They modified a lot of things... but weaponry was the thing that was least modified IIRC.

Crusaders modified their tactics first and foremost. They adapted the square marching formation from Byzantine army and increased usage of crossbows as compared to Europe. But in the end, you didn't really need to change that much - horse archers were never a decisive arm, they were there to prepare ground for heavy cavalry charge. And heavy cavalry charge is something Westerners were very experienced with.

The only specific "hardware" change I can recall is the adoption of surcoat, but that was due to the heat.

 

[skip.knox]

Thanks. I couldn't find anything, not in Oman or Smail or even Marshall. I'm happy to have some confirmation. Now I think about it, it's a little surprising the Muslim side didn't make more adaptations. Or did they? Did the armies of Baibars fight differently, or with different weapons, than did the armies of Fatimid Egypt? Or Seljuk Turks?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

A good many fighting axes aren't going to be all that great against a tree, either. The edge geometry and weight of a tree axe and weapon axe are different. Not a "battle axe" in particular, weight-wise, but the business end should differ in geometry. It's in a similar sense to how a machete is not a sword, even if a machete and a tree axe are just fine for killing unarmored folks.

Versus armor, an axe, in theory, should focus the impact energy better than a sword, though not like the hammer I pictured above. Plus, thinking about it, it really was the axe that mutated into the pole-arms that became can-openers against plate armor. Hmmm. And I ran out of time, LOL.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Controversial question on a thread about swords, but what is the more effective and efficient weapon, a battle axe or a sword?

I'm sure the schola gladiatoria youtube channel has done some videos on the sword vs axe topic. It's the sort of content he'd dig into. In general he has great content on weapons, though he does take a while to get to the point (in my opinion at least...).

The counter question obviously is which axe and which sword? Also, are we talking only weapons or are people carying shields or wearing armour?

In general though I'd say that a sword is rarely the best in any specific category. That wasn't the point of (most) swords. However, it is the most versatile weapon. It did everything fairly well, though you can almost always find a more specialized weapon that did specific things better.

In terms of pure killing power an axe wins out. With (almost) all the weight concentrated in the head of the axe, it hits with a lot more force if swung with the same strength.

 

[Aldarion]

Thanks. I couldn't find anything, not in Oman or Smail or even Marshall. I'm happy to have some confirmation. Now I think about it, it's a little surprising the Muslim side didn't make more adaptations. Or did they? Did the armies of Baibars fight differently, or with different weapons, than did the armies of Fatimid Egypt? Or Seljuk Turks?

They definitely did make adaptations over time. First Muslim armies - those of Rashidun caliphate, ones that had overrun much of the Roman Empire and entirety of Persia - were basically light infantry with some light cavalry. But later Caliphate armies were basically identical to their Byzantine counterparts, combining heavy cataphract cavalry with light horse archer cavalry and disciplined infantry (heavy and light).