Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
Surely mace or axe or spear are far easier to make.
Swords are good for what they're made, cutting and stabbing.
>>1228478
>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
Yes.
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
Because it it's üselessness is a meme.
>Surely mace or axe or spear are far easier to make.
Aint got no thrust in axes and maces, spears suck in close confines.
That said, you could *surpise surprise* CARRY MULTIPLE WEAPONS WITH YOU.
>>1228486
Okay, but argument is often ''swords are useless against armored opponents'', so why were they used so much even in medieval warfare if they were really useless?
>>1228491
Not everyone wore the best armor, and they were usually a side arm that you would use after you lost your primary weapon
Every culture which developed metallurgy had swords. I think fighting with a sword is far less exhausting than with an axe or a mace.
>>1228491
Not everyone is a motherfucking knight with a complete full plate in the battlefield.
>>1228478
When people say that, what they usually mean is:
>If you take two groups of peasants, give one group spear and the other swords, dumb them in a field and have them fight eachother, the group with spears is going to win.
While this is undoubtetly true, the people who use this to argue that swords aren't effective in combat are forgetting a lot of factors in any given battle. Things like cavalry, shields, armour, ranged units, sieges, urban combat, guerrilla warfare etc. hugely effects the effectiveness of certain weapons and there are definitely a lot of situations where sword beats spear.
>>1228502
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc
>>1228478
This thread is retarded
>>1228514
Agreed.
>>1228499
God, this so much.
>>1228508
>dumb them
point taken
![pqqd450[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fpO85AL.jpg "pqqd450[1].jpg")
>>1228478
>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
Yes. Swords were the ultimate sidearms right until revolvers came along. From a military point of view they kinda still are, since generally soldiers aren't given sidearms other than a bayonet (pistols are usually for officers and top nco, I don't think there's any army that gives them to everyone).
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
They weren't useless at all. They were in fact the best weapon type for civilian life and non frontline military life, to no mention the perfect sidearm for battle. Every archer had a sword for close combat, every pikeman, every arquebusier.
In fact, many armies even used it as a main weapon.
>>1228495
>>1228499
I've always wondered that if 1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat 2) when fighting against armor you'd want to stab in the gaps of the armor, why weren't rapiers considered the best type of sword in general by that logic. I guess it has to do with partially armored opponents and fighting from horseback (you don't want to get stuck stabbing someone when riding a horse).
>>1228478
Swords are much more useful in single combat than just about any other weapon and also made excellent cavalry weapons, but by the same token they tend to get badly BTFO by most other weapons as far as formation fighting is concerned. The skill ceiling for swordsmanship also tends to be higher than the skill ceiling for other weapons.
If it makes it easier, think of weapon classes having various stats; swords have balanced attack, speed and defense, polearms have high attack and high defense but low speed - in contexts where speed isn't a major factor, such as formation fighting, polearms have a huge advantage but in contexts where speed DOES matter, such as one-on-one contests, then the sword usually wins handily. All it takes is one parry with a sword to get inside of a spearman's reach and from there it's fucking ogre.
>>1228508
>If you take two groups of peasants, give one group spear and the other swords, dumb them in a field and have them fight eachother, the group with spears is going to win.
On the other hand, if you also give them a shield, sword is at least on even ground, perhaps even advantaged.
Spears are good in duels or disciplined formations, a spear armed rabble is not gonna get the better of a sword and shield armed rabble, there's a reason shield wall based armies preferred swords to spears.
Yes they were useless against anything. Ever try to kill someone with a sword? They are too heavy and harder to conceal and scissors just works better.
>>1228490
>That said, you could *surpise surprise* CARRY MULTIPLE WEAPONS WITH YOU.
This. Most soldiers in the middle ages would have a sword or axe or mace in addition to their main weapon. Indo-Persian cavalry would carry very short axes for close engagements, too.
>Not playing M&B Warband
>Not carrying a lance, sword, and mace
>>1228550
>1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat
Yes.
>2) when fighting against armor you'd want to stab in the gaps of the armor, why weren't rapiers considered the best type of sword in general by that logic
Because it's hard as fuck and your opponent is just gonna close you down and wrestle you down. Or perhaps he has some sort of montante and he's gonna outrange you from or simply close down and batter you down with it.
>>1228552
Spears are gonna fuck you up in a duel and sword/shield formations are the best melee unit you could wish for unless you have excellent cavalry to back you up actually (in which case go pikemen).
>>1228552
>All it takes is one parry with a sword to get inside of a spearman's reach and from there it's fucking ogre.
Sword + shield does fairly well against a spear, however I've heard from various HEMA experts that without a shield a sword has a massive disadvantage against a spear, unless we are talking about really big two-handed swords. Spearman can shift his grip on his weapon really quickly, he isn't fucked immediately when the swordsman get's past his maximum reach.
>>1228559
Isn't a "shield wall based army" also a "disciplined formation?"
>>1228591
No. Generally speaking, a shield wall is something you do when you don't have an army drilled enough to do something more complex, like a maniple or a pike wall.
>>1228591
Oh that's not to say that shield wall are made by disciplined fighters, just not disciplined *units*.
>>1228478
They were a meme. A standard longsword would chip if it hit against a suit of gothic full-plate, and even chainmail and leather armour could resist them well. Now maces on the other hand...
>>1228478
See estoc
>>1228478
I always thought that only high ranking and rich knights wielded swords, because a good one is expensive to forge and that he lowly peasants (read: cannon fodder) took their spears or much pickaxes, axes and pitchforks into combat when they inevitably drafted into conflict. Have I been wrong all this time?
>>1228937
Swords were more expensive than axes for example but not all of them were too expensive for commoners. However, carrying them around in towns was restricted to knights for the most of the middle ages.
A sword cant thrust like a spear, cant crush like a mace, or put as much force in to a chop as an axe, but a sword is easy to carry and can and was used in all three of those capacities
One can also argue that a skilled fencer can combat all three of those weapon types in an ideal scenario, but that is largely subjective to conditions.
>>1228937
>Have I been wrong all this time?
Yes. Acceptable swords used to cost around one day wage for a common soldier. You could be quite certain 99% of archers, pikemen, etc would own one.
>lowly peasants (read: cannon fodder)
Didn't take part in wars. Biggest meme of them all, what would be the point? Wasting money in more food just to empty the fields that produce it?
Sure, there would be some amount of conscription, but from militias, not the peasantry.
>>1228550
rapiers do not have alot of leverage because they are one handed weapons.
>>1228491
And people who try to make that argument are morons. You know what happens when plate armour becomes popular? Swords change from wide hacking blades, to fine piercing needles. Ideal for stabbing gaps in armour.
It's a sharp bar of metal with a handle on it, even if someone has armor on you can smack them around. Shit's good at a crowbar too tbqh
>>1229100
You are an idiot, seriously you are one.
>>1228478
Why are sword threads on /his/ almost as horrible as the ones on /k/? For real, either /tg/ or /asp/, everything else is garbage when it comes to swords.
>>1229349
Nah you have no proof.
>>1228570
>1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat
>Yes.
they seem pretty fragile though, like if someone hit a rapier with a solid object while defending themselves it might seriously damage the rapier and impair its functionality.
>>1229418
Rapiers aren't dainty, anon. They're a solid chunk of steel and weigh the same as any other medium-sized sword will. Most swords outside of Japan can bend to an incredible degree and spring back to their normal shape. The rapier is no exception.
>>1229418
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFRxZod-iI0
Here a practice rapier is beaten with various swords, including a longsword wielded in two hands. It is a flexible practice rapier, however when it is beaten on the edge (as it is in this video) it does not flex. Despite being hit with full force many times while the guy holding rapier is just standing there, it ends up being only slightly bent.
Now since it is not a sharp rapier, this doesn't prove anything for sure but it does suggest strongly that breaking a rapier would be very difficult in a fight. At least it proves that even if a rapier looks fragile, it doesn't mean it is.
>Swords useless in real combat
>maces and axes superior
I got your mace / axe right here, fotze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword
Swords were dog shit.
>>1228497
Maybe in Skyrim.
>>1228559
what shield wall based army prefered swords over shields?
>>1228568
Maces in Warband suck besides those few captives are not worth much. Lords on the other hand that's the real deal.
>>1229100
Then why would anyone even wear armor genius?
There were generally specialized weapons for any specific function that were superior to swords.
Swords, however, have high utility and are good general purpose weapons. That's why they were so commonly sidearms.
>>1228478
>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
Yes. Swords were extremely common on battlefields. Easily one of the most common weapon.
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
The answer is: they weren't useless.
>>1229472
>that knight
>>1229472
Is there any point in half-swording when fighting an unarmored opponent, like the knight in the picture?
>>1228893
>A standard longsword would chip if it hit against a suit of gothic full-plate
Swords were quite resilient, actually. They wouldn't hurt the man inside, but they wouldn't get damaged all that easily either. However, people usually didn't attempt to haplessly bash their swords against armour, they're thrust their swords into the gaps.
>Now maces on the other hand...
The effectiveness of maces against plate armour is overestimated. Plate armour protects you quite well against them since they have structural integrity of their own which distributes the impact to a large surface area which is then dampened by the padding underneath. Maces are much more effective against mail armour than against plate.
>>1229647
I thought this picture shows 2 guys training.
Well depends on the swords the heavy, blunt european ones were indeed glorified baseball bats but katanas were great.
>>1229647
Not much, but if your opponent has a dagger and manages to get close you can do it to maybe stab him before he stabs you. You could do the same thing to another swordsman; getting close enough where they can't swing or stab you but you can half sword and stab them.
>>1229672
Pretty sure this is a bait....
>>1229680
The armored guy is half-swording and the unarmored guy is doing a murderstroke/mordhau.
>>1229682
No it's common knowledge european swords were garbage.
>>1229624
Did I say it rendered armor useless?
>>1229693
This.
>>1229726
Yes retard you said you can bash someone wearing plate with a fucking sword.
>>1229752
>fucking sword
What kind of sword is that?
>>1229761
Not him, but what are you 12?
>>1229472
My bad ment to link the mordhau page as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordhau
>>1229647
Yes, when you are in close measure (you closer to your opponent than you usually should be) and need to go trough his defense. Works especially well if you are really fast and shorter than the other guy.
>>1229663
nope, judicial duel
>>1228552
Spears arent that low man, if you parry it with a sword they could recover pretty quick depending on the guy
>>1229046
Ever heard of halfswording, cause that is exactly how you thrust with a sword like a spear and crush like a mace
>>1229898
To the death?
>>1229379
His proof is what you said the first time
I figure weapons evolved for a reason. Swords tended to get larger around the time plate mail was coming into use.
It might also have to do with shifts in tactics around the same time, but the fact is you don't have big two handed swords being at all common until plate was also common.
From what I understand, plate lowered the necessity of having a shield, and large swords, like pole arms, had gave you the weight and torque you needed to smash through heavy armor.
Also, a big sword can be used to fend off multiple opponents, but is more versatile than a pole-arm.
>>1229682
I agree, I was about to correct him but I thought about it
>>1229752
You certainly can do that.
While a one handed sword blow might not do that much to someone in heavy armor, a blow to the head could still concuss them or even knock them out.
A two handed sword to the chest could definitely knock someone over.
Obviously it's more lethal if you can get it into gaps in your opponents' armor.
>>1229900
slow*
>>1228478
>surely mace or axe or spear are fare easier to make
maces are ridiculously hard to make.
>>1229900
This. That's one of the main strengths of the spear it can thrust and move it's point extremely fast.
>>1229994
Exactly, you can even parry with the fucking thing on your own
>>1229919
Usually yes, let god decide and such. Pic is from Hans Talhoffer, he was sword for hire and famous for winning several dozen trials by combat.
>>1228478
They look cool as shit.
>>1229704
That's what is called a meme, friend.
>>1228491
Armor doesn't protect you from blunt force trauma, only cuts and piercing, to an extent.
If you hall off and land a sword strike to the helmet, you might knock the dude right the fuck out, making him helpless. Likewise a blow to one of the appendages might break bones, and if not, will surely reduce the effectiveness of the limb due to the sheer pain and swelling to follow.
>>1228491
Special swords were often the best tool for puncturing armor or stabbing gaps
The knightly weapon of the late middle ages, where full armor plates where more common and better developed, was the Bill, Lucerne, and pole arms in general.
They were made to counter other knights and be useful in all situations. But mainly to 1v1 that knight you were going to face.
Armor was getting pretty damn good by the late 15th century, and basically swords weren't as great as they used to be. You'd wonder how people died at all with all the fucking armor they had on.
/thread
>>1229933
The larger swords where originally intended for use on horseback by knights and the such. I don't know why they use became widespread on the ground.
A big sword had to be used to fight off multiple opponents. One of the reasons the romans did so well was formation fighting and the use of a short thrusting sword and shield. The space required in the ranks to be swinging around a broadsword was huge. With the Romans in their formations, you would be fighting 3-4 people if you were using a broadsword.
>>1229933
>Swords tended to get larger around the time plate mail was coming into use.
Given that we're on /his/ we might as well use more accurate terms when referring to arms and armour. 'mail' is armour made of metal rings ("chainmail"), while armour made of large metal plate is just that - 'plate armour'. There was a period in time when mail armour reinforced with plates was common, approaching the end of the 14th century, but this is not commonly what people mean when using terms such as 'plate mail', which in D&D terms would be just another word for plate armour.
Also, swords actually became larger during the 13th century already. It started with longer hilts, to allow for two-handed usage and later ended up in longer blades as well. When plate armour became common and more elaborate, swords actually became pointier.
Smashing 'through' armour is not generally something you can do. Armour - even mail armour - protects quite well from that. While during the 13th and 14th century it may have still been possible to harm a man with a hefty enough blade through his mail shirt, later plate armour protects exceedingly well from all kinds of blunt trauma. The plates have structural integrity of their own and will distribute the impact over their whole surface area, with padding underneath dampening all impact.
If we look at 15th century treatises, dealing with armoured combat, and depictions of battles, we can see people generally attempt to circumvent their opponent's armour by thrusting it into the gaps. Often grabbing the sword with one hand by the blade in order to use it like a short spear, making it more accurate and giving it more leverage.
Swords are good in the thrust, slice, and chop but I still prefer the warhammer.
>>1228550
Rapiers were so long that many people complained that they took too long to draw and shorter swords were better for their readiness
>>1228490
>carry half your net worth with you and dont play around piercing weapons
Lol
>>1231369
"Plate armor" is just as innaccurate a term as plate mail. In period, if you were talking about plate armor they would think you meant a coat of plates. Armor made of single solid plates was never called plate armor.
>>1228491
a vasty majority of the foot soldiers were unarmored peasants, only a handful on a battle field were actually fully armored. The swords were for cutting and cleaving your way through the trash Dynasty WArriors style while you had other tools for fighting honorably against similarly peer level knights.
>>1228478
>If ak-47s are so great, why are there bb guns??
>>1231685
Sad how many people actually believe this.
>>1228616
wew lad. fucking wew.
>>1231663
I'm talking about semantics, not about period terms. "mail" armour has simply nothing to do with "plate" armour. The first is armour made of interlinked rings, the second is armour made of metal plates of a certain size.
At the time when a coat of plates was worn, knights simply referred to it as their "plates". The mail underneath was their "mail". Under the premise that neither terms were used historically, you might as well say that we shouldn't use modern typology for swords and other types of weapons either. Typology serves a purpose though, and it the typological terms should not be ambiguous and semantically correct - and that's why the terms "mail armour" and "plate armour" are preferable to "chainmail" and "platemail", because "mail" does not refer to armour in general but a specific type of armour - there is no point in attaching it as a suffix to every type of armour. Would you like to call a padded jack "clothmail"? Because that's what we should do by your logic.
>>1228893
>leather armor
>>1228478
Swords are the most versatile, look at history for the evidence.
Against unarmored opposition, obviously.
Against armored opposition, consider that the pommel of the sword is weighted for a reason.
>>1229472
When will the half-swording meme die out? There's no real evidence it was used outside the combat practices illustrated in those German combat manuals made for nobles who would probably never see a battle in their lives.
>>1237406
>nobles
>litterally "those who fight"
>never seen a battle
>in 15th and 16th century central Europe
Kek
>>1237406
They exist in Italian, and in French sources as well. Outside of fighting manuals, there are artistic depictions of it.
Presenting half-swording as a meme exclusive to HEMA should be killed, since every time you mention it, I'm going to post these images at you.
>>1238025
>>1238028
>>1228550
By learned swordsmen, the rapier is often considered the best, or at least one of the best.
It's only knocked on by faggots who think fencing is girly because you don't take 3 full seconds to hit someone, and think that rapiers can be broken if smacked.
>>1228552
Spears actually completely fucking destroy in a duel. It's so damn easy to attack wherever you please, going from attacks to the head to the legs in a blink of an eye.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
>>1229418
>fragile
Long since debunked my dude
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cFRxZod-iI0
>when swordsman parries your thrust, but you sever his hamstring on the backswing.
>>1228491
Swords are useless in actual warfare, aka formation warfare
They are usefull for carrying around as a sidearm during travels and so on
It's like comparing a machine gun (helebards) to a handgun (swords)
>>1228478
just a question, were katanas useless in real combat? just want to know because if it's true it would trigger a lot of weebs
>>1240799
Samurai didn't fight in formation. So for them real combat was indeed meme 1v1 duels. Also they were primarily horse archers. Ronin who couldn't afford a horse probably couldn't afford a good katana either.
>>1240799
There the same as normal sword, That is they were mostly a side arm in combat, but they were used.
>>1228478
>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
A meme? no.
Is it factually wrong, and wholly ignorant of the reality of close to 4,000 years of weapon design? Totally.
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
because they are not useless, they're lethal.
There are points in time where the sword was less lethal in warfare. the 12-16th centuries in particular. On the battlefield in the 6th C - BC or AD, or in the 18th C on horseback, or against unarmoured targets, or in civilian conflicts, or in bronze age war? then it is consistently the most effective weapon - and as such they were the weapon people wanted, not the axe, or mace. the spear outperforms it at range, and in formation. but close, in broken groups? the sword was lethal.
>>1240799
Great for the combat environment they were used in, when they were even used. Samurai ended up being bureaucrats or something with no real need for the things as anything but a status symbol.
>>1241043
That ignores a lot of history. edo period was only for about 250 years, and ended with a good deal of street fighting.
Even then foreign observers saw the samurai as being more maritally fit when it game to the sword than most western military officers who carried one
>>1241061
Yeah fair enough, my Japanese history is beyond rusty. I can believe it though.
>>1241061
This is only really true in the early modern when the sword began to fall out of use in the west and got relegate dot officers and cavalry. Renaissance Europeans considered the Japanese to be formidable, but certainly not better than themselves.
>>1241143
well I said then, that is the late edo.
>>1240799
if a samurai was going to use a sword as a primary weapon on the battlefield they would proabably use a nodachi rather than katana
>>1240778
The roman legions say fuck you and your dirty whore of a mother.
>>1241182
The nodachi was a niche weapon used against mounted soldiers by means of un-legging the horse. They are slow and unwieldy as a primary weapon to be used against foot soldiers armed with normal uchigatana, naganata or yari.
>Carried around for thousands of years
>Were they useless?
>>1240778
This is a fucking tg level of disinfo righr here. Please educate yourself and stop.
>>1243302
Yeah I am going to need a citation for that. Ive read accounts of them used horseback, and in duels. granted it was used to unleg horses but its popularity went beyond that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ejx6DVuV50
>>1240778
Yeah, hi, Roman Legionary here. We had the shortest swords possible and we still conquered half of Europe. Suck a dick.
>>1244665
Just because a sword has been used on occasion historically doesn't mean it was effective.
The rise of the uchigatana during the Sengoku Period of Japan made almost all other styles of swords in the small minority. Tachi were still worn by mounted samurai, but the vast majority of a Sengoku Era army used "bundled swords" in the uchigatana style. They were cheap, mass produced and easy for the ashigaru foot soldiers to use. Dai katana and Nodachi of varying lengths were still seen, but they were in very rare and varied in size. A nodachi can be either just a little longer than a uchigatana or almost twice as long depending on the era of the sword and the swordsmith. Many older nodachi and dai katanas were cut down to be made into crude uchigatanas due to the demand for the weapon during the Sengoku Era.
It's true, modern kenjutsu and kendo artists dabble in the longer blades, but that's only because the older Japanese swords were longer than the Shinto (Tokugawa Era) blades that most people think of as "katana". Many tachi style blades were longer than uchigatana and then considered nodachi.
The real "horse cutters" of the 13th and 14th centuries were often 6 feet in length.
>>1228478
>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
They were not "useless", it's just that many weapons were more effective. Generally, the most effective medieval-era weapon is the spear. It gives you range, can also be used in closer quarters and can basically do anything a sword can do but better. It's also really fucking easy to give to untrained peasants because of how intuitive its use is.
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
They're side arms, as in arms you can carry on your side. The kind you can carry around with zero inconvenience. This made them both good weapons on the battlefield (you're a knight, you're wrecking face with your lance, suddenly some filthy peasant tears your lance out of your hand. Luckily you still have a sword on hand) and great weapons for civillian use/self defense (you could carry one around without it being cumbersome, and you could even get one with a fashionable hilt and look fabulous).
This is why swords were around until WW1, even though technology had much better alternatives to swords at the time (like... you know, rifles).
>>1245444
My reading suggest that most war swords were not cut down until toward the end of the sengoku and the edo period. That ashigaru were armed with mass produced uchigatana is not proof that most samurai armed themselves as such, as far as I know the tachi remained popular through that are and longer swords of 98cm were not uncommon.
The swords in the demo I posted would be at least four or five feet, and in those arts that still do nodachi, training with a sword as long as you are tall is not terribly uncommon though I do not see many of the six foot blades mentioned in some texts. I am not sure if they were counting the hilt in that measurement.
Nor have I read anything that suggested that the nodachi was inferior to the naginata or yari in a one on one engagement, they were more expensive however.
What really reduced it to a niche weapon was the advent of massed ashigaru, not it being in any way inferior to the uchigatana in a straight fight. Many of the permeir swordsmen of the sengoku era such as Matsumoto Bizen no Kami and Tsukuhara Bokuden are noted for using them in one situation or another
>make this thread 4 days ago
>it's still alive
Wow this board is slow as fuck. Thanks for answers guys.
>>1228478
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
They're a lot easier to carry around and do lots of damage to an unarmored human body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQBds6ZYERE
>>1229618
>mission: capture enemy lord
>17 wins against enemy lords later
>literally hunting lords on the battlefield and knocking them out personally in every fucking battle
>still no capture
Fuck this game.
>>1228576
>Spears are gonna fuck you up in a duel
lol
>>1228587
>various HEMA experts
best
>>1229752
yes, you can indeed hitsomeone wearing plate with a sword.
this isn't fucking dnd where you literally can't unless you have some retard feat, go back to /tg/.
>>1240472
oh look two fighters of differing skill
>>1245808
Not him, but even in a duel the ability to attack a nigger before he can attack you is very useful
>Inb4 some anime manouver that allows you to bypass the spear
First of all, bypassing a spearman's attack range without getting hit and getting close enough fast enough to hurt him requires you to have superior skill than the spearman, making the pure weapon comparison moot. Secondly, assuming the spearman is actually skilled, he can always shorten the haft (ie. move his hands closer to the tip of the spear) to fight at a closer distance, and perhaps after that even step back to increase the distance between you two once more.
Historically, ancient and medieval armies preferred the use of spears over swords. The early Romans were a noteworthy exception, and that's because the legions were trained to use their fuckhuge shields, and even then triarii as described by Polybios used spears.
>>1245878
>the ability to attack a nigger before he can attack you is very useful
yes this is the logic that lead to the advent of the lethal projectile
>he can always shorten the haft
this is a less than optimal solution considering you've now got this gangly thing sticking out behind you.
Spears have one main threat dimension, the thrust. You can argue that the shaft has blunt application, but that's secondary. Swords are by leagues more flexible.
>ancient and medieval armies preferred the use of spears over swords
this could be explained by any number of factors, including simple cost effectiveness.
It's cheaper to arm a levy with spears than swords.
>>1229672
Baitiest bait only missing "folded one gajilion times"
>>1234841
Leather armor was a thing just not the biker vest bullshit Hollywood uses
>>1245838
You can bash someone armored with your blade but it is not going to be very effective
>>1245955
ever been hit really hard in the head?
>>1228478
The sword meme was spread by superior spear weilders so that they could more easily dispatch their impressionable foes.
>>1245901
Yeah assuming that a spearman is helpless because you've got around the spear head is a big mistake. this little piece was attached to the back of spears and naginata, notice the angles on it, It was made to drive home a concussive blow.
Its not necessarily a move for the rank and file, but an expert who trains with pole arms like others train with swords has many many options.
Everyone that doesn't have both a spear and a sword pls leave.
>>1245878
It should be considered that nowadays some people tend to overestimate the use of spears. In the Germanic tradition of the Holmgang, the judicial duel, it was fairly common to be armed with a spear, a sword and a number of shields. The Icelandic Sagas (e.g. Egilssaga) tell us, that it was common for the participants to have their swords drawn and tied to their arms so that they'd have them ready immediately. If the spear was significantly more useful to the point where most duels would be decided by them, then people probably wouldn't have come up with this, and not specifically mentioned it either. If we look at late medieval sources, where in judicial combat spear, longsword and dagger were still among the most common combinations of weaponry (source, e.g. Hans Sachs in his poem on the origin of martial arts), and in depictions we often see people wield both spear and longsword at the same time. I think Matt Easton (see the first video in >>1245742) has a point in regards to spears having definitive advantages, especially if we're talking about unarmoured combat, however, I also agree with him in the regard that people shouldn't put too much value on experimentation with blunt weaponry in simulated unarmoured combat. If armour and shields are involved, if the weapons are sharpened, then the situation may be significantly different.
What is also something that should be considered is that a spear was pretty much always accompanied by a sword. There is absolutely no reason not to carry a sword by your side, regardless of which weapon you carry, as they were ideal side-arms.
>>1246051
yeah the Greek hoplites had butt spikes too, but they mainly used them to dispatch wounded enemies if I'm not mistaken.
>>1246153
Well yes they were used to kill downed opponents, but they could also be used vertically, to thrust, Which you will see done if most if not all styles of Japanese pole arms. This is true both for battlefield styles, and unarmored styles
>>1246197
The same applied to western pole-arms of course.
>>1246209
makes sense, I mean if your trying to design a better pole arm its one of the most obvious improvements.
>>1246229
Here some more elaborate design.
>>1246273
At some point one may ask himself what the 'real' end of the weapon is though.
>>1246275
>At some point one may ask himself what the 'real' end of the weapon is though.
The most useful one in the given scenario. you've got an axe, a forward point, and some kind of pick on one side, and all kinds of crazy shit on the other, so you've got a lot of choices.
>>1245961
The head is the exception to what i wrote
Swords were shit.
>>1246275
The end of the weapon is incapacitating ones opponent.
Everything else about the weapon is just the means.
>>1246275
As Matt from Schoolagladiatoria said about medieval weapons ''every part is a weapon''.
European swords were trash but japanese ones were top notch.
>>1247657
lol no
Toledo swords were even better than katanas
>>1245535
>>can also be used in closer quarters
No. Once you get past the tip a spear is just a wooden stick that will bounce off of any sort of armor.
>>and can basically do anything a sword can do but better
Again no. The spear only has it's tip, and is of little to no use against armor.
>>1247676
Experts from Deadliest Warrior called katana the best sword so I trust them more than some anon.
>>1246051
The average levy wasn't trained in any sort of advanced maneuvers like that, and I find it highly doubtful that little thing would be better at dealing concussive blows then a mace.
>>1229649
The shock wave that a mace (hitting plate armour) sends through the body could result in internal bleeding.
>>1247738
First of all, I'd like to see some scientific data on this. Someone should experiment and measure data, or at least do a simulation of sorts. The tools for that exist. I find the whole 'shockwave' thing rather doubtful. Certainly, if you hit someone over the head hard enough, you might knock him out - granted - however, whether something comparable happens at other body parts is something rather doubtful. To me, the whole shockwave thing seems like it was come up with by some video game designer who wanted to balance types of armour, thinking that if plate armour protects too well against everything else, we might at least make it vulnerable to blunt trauma. However, blunt trauma is something plate armour protects exceedingly well against. It's a rigid type of armour that is padded underneath. If I hit you with a mace, the impact is not directly transmitted to the area below, but it's distributed over the surface area of the armour because contrary to popular opinion it does not cave in that easily at all. The padding underneath dampens the distributed impact. If you're wearing something like mail armour, then the impact goes right 'through' the armour and shatters the area below punctually. Just looking at full-contact re-enactment should give you that impression, since people in plate armour have absolutely no issue hitting each other with blunt weapons at full force. You don't see a single tournament of that sort however where people are fighting by attempting to circumvent the armour and thrust something pointy into the gaps - as we see in plenty of historical depictions. The reason for that is: the latter actually kills people, while bashing blunt things against their armour mildly bothers them at best, unless some freak accident happens.
>>1247738
No it could not.
>>1228550
they weren't around then m8
>>1228550
Rapiers didn't really appear until 1500, and were a civilian weapon, literally a "dress sword" because it looks fancy and was in fashion, it never really made it into warfare as a weapon of any importance
>>1231089
also suit like that would literally cost a million dollars in today's money. so it was very few people who could pay some retarded amount for full plate, we just see it constantly in historical art pieces because artists back then here lazy fucks who wanted their military paintings to look cool so they painted everyone in armor
>>1241182
>nodachi rather than katana
do you realize how GOOD you had to be to even use one of those things? also "nodachi" or "odachi" was a bit of a catch all term for "big sword" so it could mean anything from "a bit bigger than normal" to some monstrosity you had to get help unsheathing
>>1247762
People doing full contact "reenactment" are often wearing entirely modern systems of armour, with a lot more padding than their historical counterparts. We're talking enough padding to be armour in its own right, then with plate added over the top. Then they fight to entirely modern rules, using techniques that would not really make sense on a real battlefield.
>>1241182
That sword is so huge it makes zweihander look like a knife.
>>1247738
>shock wave
jesus christ it wasn't your animes
>>1247809
And yet when you look at inventories and other written accounts, there's plenty of armour being described.
>>1247827
Munitions armor =/= full fucking plate. Most line soldiers at least got the chest-piece and the helmet and called it good to go.
>>1247830
Plate armor was useless anyway
>can be pierced with an arrow
>so heavy knights couldn't even walk and had to wear rollerskates and be pushed by their squires
>a fast guy with a knife could easily dispatch a knight
plate is a meme
>>1228478
Swords are also a status symbol. It is only a weapon of war. Everything else has another application but carrying a sword only has one purpose.
>>1247866
Maces and warhammers had no other uses either.
>>1247817
The point remains that even if you used less padding, plate armour protects quite well against blunt trauma - a lot better than any other kind of armour.
>>1247682
Deadliest Warrior has about the same credibility
>>1245847
You can still just analyze the fight itself and see the clear advantages offered by one discipline over the other.
>>1247938
Samurai were the most powerful warriors of all time.
>>1231565
Nice reach
European ones were dull, heavy and generally only good against unskilled peasants ;/
katana on the other hand could actually cut through armor which is why samurai didn't bother with plate their armor was more for show as true warrior needs no other protection than his skills
>>1247977
>>1248106
i cant decide if this is bait or just a typical weeaboo
>>1248120
Same thing
Meme this one /his/
If you had to decided between a sword, an axe and a mace as a secondary weapon for a 14th century battlefield, which one would you go for?
>>1248161
What is my primary weapon? Am I a levy, a knight, mercenary, man at arms?
>>1248167
Why would any of those things matter tho
>>1248175
Different levels of experience and wealth.
>>1228893
>even chainmail and leather armour could resist them well.
I hate to point this out but that is the point of armour. They wouldn't have worn it if it didn't provide some resistance.
Haha ora, ora ora baka gaijin you can't possibly call the pic related butter knife a sword?
>>1247686
The average soldier was not well trained in fencing techniques either, and of course its not going to deliver the same blow as a mace, though interestingly it has a very similar morphology.
>>1247811
Well yes, they were for experts, or at least life long swordsmen. I think today anything beyond three feet can be classified as a nodachi, though I usually think of anything four feet or longer since many tachi were three to four feet.
>>1248120
no one thinks the katana can cut through anything anymore, not on 4chan anyway
>>1248307
4chan doesn't think to begin with people outside of it legit think katana can cut through plate.
>>1248106
I'm friends with a Master Blacksmith of 20+ years, and I asked him about Katanas vs European swords. His insight was that the repeated folding of the steel that was part of the smithing process was only because Japanese steel was shit compared to the European's, and to yield a sword of similar strength and sharpness the europeans didnt have to put such ridiculous effort into their blades.
The fact is, the effort in the forging process + japanese romanticising of the katana during the 200+ years that japan spent in Tokugawa-induced isolation + motherfucking Weeaboos = the highly overrated Blade known as the katana that we know today
>>1250378
You're responding to a troll
>>1247511
it still hurts if I slam your arm or your leg, believe me.
>>1247817
>Then they fight to entirely modern rules, using techniques that would not really make sense on a real battlefield.
yeah like don't kill or maim each other.
>>1247878
not to mention spears
I mean maybe hunting if you're neanderthal.
>>1248161
Personally axe, because I have long experience with them.
>>1247857
i've seen people run at a sprint and do obstacle courses wearing a full set of plate armor
>>1250653
Spears were used for hunting in Medieval times.
>>1247878
They're an evolution of hammers which are obviously tools.
>>1250696
They're used for hunting today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJGd7G2wYuU
>>1228478
If you were a knight, swords were sidearms. Your main weapon would be your lance. If you were a foot soldier, your main weapon would be a sword. They're long, can be used one handed (Arming swords anyways) or two handed for additional strength, and work well for slashing and cutting and stabbing, whereas axes are only good for chopping and maces only for bashing skulls in. Maces typically had a shorter range than most arming swords as well.
>>1245808
It's absolutely true. Even a quarterstaff has an easy advantage over a sword in a one-on-one duel.
Polearms >>>>>>>> swords
>>1245878
He can also use the butt of the spear if you get too close.
>>1251176
I am not sure I would go that far. A staff in the hands of someone highly skilled is a match for a swordsman, but I think a sword is a bit better. I do know of informed fencers who disagree though
Swords have never been useless.
The biggest problem is people seem to think there is only one sword and that it only served one purpose.
There were dozens of different styles, each with their own unique fighting systems and techniques to face opponents of every variety. They actually wrote hand books on how to fight with different styles.
Secondly, not everybody wore plate armor. Most people didn't even have mail. The sword worked fine against at least 75% of the opposition that would be faced in almost any given battle.
During competions and duels, knights may choose something other than a longsword as it's a much more specialized scenario. Even then, a dirk or an arming sword would be kept.
Swords were never useless. There was always a time and place for one variety or another.
>>1228491
Most men at arms had (aside of their helmet) only a brigandine, gloves, a gambeson and Jack-chains.
Which means you can easily cut of the legs and the neck still.
Aside from the richest of knights most armor had weak points. Hit the weak point and you are good to go.
With a spear (which is btw. still better than a sword in most situations) you have to aim for the weak points as well.
The only things that really work against armor are pollaxes, maces and war hammers. Both suffer in their own way from a lack of protection.
>>1247805
That is not true. There were battle versions of the rapier.
You are confusing it with the smallsword.
The main problem with rapiers is that they take too long to draw -> are only good as a primary weapon, not as one to quickly fall back on.
>>1251681
My understanding was most Battle field "rapiers" still had an older style cut and thrust blade on a complex hilt.
I imagine a rapier would be very hard to deal with in a duel but not great for most other situations
>>1250648
Like, you instantly lose if you fall over and that's the only way to lose.
Hence why you see them hugging each other while hacking at each other's knees or mindlessly panel beating each other in the face. They're fighting to the rules of their modern sport, rather than recreating any kind of medieval fighting style.
>>1251681
>That is not true. There were battle versions of the rapier.
Many military 16th and 17th Century swords were merely medieval arming swords with really fancy guards this time.
>>1251681
>battle versions of the rapier
I'm not a fan of this meme. Either rapiers carried to war were not really separate from other rapiers, or if they had a wider and shorter cut & thrust blade they were not rapiers at all but sideswords.
>>1251681
>The main problem with rapiers is that they take too long to draw -> are only good as a primary weapon, not as one to quickly fall back on.
Also the fact that it is not good at close range because it's both long and isn't very good at cutting. That's why rapier & dagger is such a great combination, even if your opponent with a cut & thrust blade gets close he still has to worry about the dagger.
>>1252322
why did Europeans go from two handed blades back to one handed? on the battlefield your presumably dealing with pole arms and other weapons which presumably require leverage to fight against
>>1254465
By the time basket hilts appear, most people carrying them would have guns anyway.
>>1251681
>There were battle versions of the rapier.
then they wouldn't have been rapiers then, just swords with fancier hilts and guards, nobody was bringing a thin light dueling sword to war in the 1500s m8
>>1250378
>I'm friends with a Master Blacksmith of 20+ years
k lol
>>1254465
>why did Europeans go from two handed blades back to one handed?
The use of one-handed swords was always more popular than two-handed ones.
>>1247827
yeah, bits of armor, not full suits, you had to be a fucking millionaire to afford that shit
>>1254524
>thin light dueling sword
They were certainly thin but not light, 1.25kg for a sword is nothing light and it was the standard weight for end of the 16th century rapiers.
Rapiers aren't dueling sword per se, they excel in that role, but really they are all-around sword, they can fight pretty much any weapon decently save pikes and halberds maybe, but it's not like people are roaming around with those.
>>1254524
>rapiers
>light
Pick one. They're massive for one handed swords.
>>1254561
>They were certainly thin but not light, 1.25kg for a sword is nothing light and it was the standard weight for end of the 16th century rapiers.
They were narrow in the direction of the crossguard but thick in another direction to make them rigid which is important for thrusting. And since this "thickness" is not quite as visible it explains (along with the length) why they might look lighter and more frail than they actually are.
>>1254574
To be fair some later rapiers, despite still being long were fairly light because of triangular cross section blade which also made them completely incapable of cutting, so they essentially had long smallsword blades. But generally speaking yes, rapiers were of typical one-handed sword weight.
>>1254671
The wiki article puts it at 1.1kg and 100cm on average. That is pretty long such a light sword
>>1254524
>>1228491
Even if you were wearing full plate, you could still be beaten to death by the blunt force trauma of a sword.
>>1254561
They were not light, but they were also thin. I dont think it would hold up that well under the pressures of the battlefield. a slightly shorter and thicker cut and thrust blade would still offer many of the advantages, but would be more suitable for the battlefield.
I suspect a quarter staff or similar weapons would be excellent against a rapier.
>>1255868
no one is talking about cutting through tempered steel.
swords on the battlefield did break. They got chipped, they got bent, sometimes they snapped. Hard weapon to weapon contact, cutting and entanglement with leather, bone, etc. broke many many weapons, which is one reason why people carried side arms.
Now the rapier has several downsides in a prolonged battle. its very long and one handed, which is an advantage in many situations but will give the sword less leverage, it also tends to be a very poor cutting weapon
Swords like this tended to be popular on the battlefield during the rapier's heyday, for just the reasons I described >>1252322
being shorter gives you greater control, and it can cut and thrust. Being robust means its lesslikely to suffer damage
Swords were easier to control than axes or spears in close combat. Spears and their brethren are long and unwieldy, but have a (relatively) even weight distribution and excellent for thrusting. Axes are much harder to swing their weight around because it's all concentrated at the end, also no thrusting, but were shorter than spears.
Swords are a nice medium. Its weight is not concentrated at one end, making it way easier to control when compared to an axe, but you can thrust with it like a spear, and it's also shorter than a spear. If the spear were a .50 cal, the sword is a 1911, and the axe an AK47
>>1255668
>what is a side sword?
>>1256249
Spears are not unwieldy at all. It's the ultimate close combat weapon, it's just that spears aren't designed to be carried around 24/7.
>>1256744
At least where massed formations were not the norm, other pole arms tended to be more popular than spears
Here's a question, why are so many magical/mythological weapons swords if they, supposedly, weren't useful?
>>1256826
Because they mostly do not exist?
>>1256826
They were useful.
two reasons, most of those myths originiate in societies where "heroic" combat between small groups was the norm.
and the sword was from early times associated with nobility.
>>1251681
>The main problem with rapiers is that they take too long to draw -> are only good as a primary weapon, not as one to quickly fall back on.
I guess since soldiers would have carried a large main weapon like spear and halberd, it would be more important for the sidearm weapon to be good at close range, which rapiers would be worse at compared to cut & thrust swords. In the context of battlefield rapiers would be kind of half-assed, with much shorter range than a spear yet inconvenient to carry and use at close range when compared to cut and thrust swords.
>>1245761
Kek, that's funny. My MnB experience
>no idea what the hell I'm doing, just buying as many soldiers as I can and camping to train them
>accidentally capture the king of the nation my nation has been at war with since the start of the game
>no idea how to take advantage of this
>look everywhere for an option to convince him to end the war, execute him, hold him hostage, anything
>eventually release him just to see what happens
>he vows revenge and starts hunting me down everywhere I go
MnB needs an intuitive interface
>>1256744
Close combat , so long as the combat is happening about 8 feet in front of you. Anything closer and you're fucked unless you can shorten your grip fast enough.
>>1254465
M9. as others have said, Two handers have always been niche swords. Single handed longswords have always been the sword sidearm.
Well, if you a knight that is. Generally most just had a stabby short sword.
Couple this with the fact that in the 16th century most cunts used weapons that required two hands like a musket or a pike. This is theorized to have led to the development of extensive guards on swords, alongside with the disappearance/impracticality of shields.
>>1231369
The inclusion of blood in the drawing is important. That's how you know you're doing it right. What you should expect to see.
>>1257020
>Generally most just had a stabby short sword.
That's news to me.
>>1257052
I think he's including daggers and large knives under "stabby short swords".
>>1231685
>a vasty majority of the foot soldiers were unarmored peasants
any peasant community can make quilted armor (gambeson) which offers some protection
it's just cloth and straw
>>1234841
cuir boile, bro. look it up.
>>1257130
Nah they're around this big. But ignore this picture since its a (very inaccurate) modern replica
>>1257587
He was joking anon.
>>1231054
>gambeson and plate wont help against blunt force
It's one of the hardest things to protect from, but the armour would help a bit
>>1243302
sasaki kojiro disagrees
European ones were indeed useless
>average sword weighted 20kg
>wielded by guy in plate that weighter 200kg
>could be swinged once every 30 minutes
meanwhile katana
>weights as much as a pencil
>used by samurai who worn foam armor
>could cut people in half faster than they can blink
no contest
Longsword was dogshit but katana was godlike.
>>1257630
Musashi Miyamoto laughs at this post
>>1257945
Delet.
What annoys me is that properly curved sabers and almost straight "sabers" are put into the same category of swords, where as the latter type of swords are almost identical to backswords but significantly different from really curved sabers.
Not really related to anything but just wanted to say that.
