Are swords basically just a meme weapon?
>>410300
>meme [noun]
2/10, made me reply
No, if you could afford it you would use them as a side to your spear. They where excellent at fighting lightly armored enemies, such as hard leather, and even had some workarounds to fighting enemies with armor.
Yes. Most medieval battlefield casualties were caused by arrows or pole arms. If you are actually using your sword, things were going wrong.
Of course, they are incredibly important as a symbol, both of social status and martial prowess.
All widely-used weapons are meme weapons. That's the idea of memes.
>>410428
>things were going wrong
So a majority of all battles ever then?
>in antiquity
no
>beyond that
yes
>>410300
Daggers are better weapons in a densely packed melee.
No, they were effective in their place, especially as a status symbol and martial art. Think of how defining the longsword and rapier are of their time
>>410435
Something going wrong for the individual with the sword.
They wouldn't throw down their spears, pollaxes, bows, etc and draw their swords when they start losing.
Past the Roman Empire (their tactics with them were really good and the gladius is good due to being thrust-centric at close range); however, as armor became more widely adopted and advanced cavalry tactics developed in Western Europe, they were mostly good for side arms and not much else. Even in Japan where they are idolized, they were not a primary weapon for battle.
>>410458
>rapier
The Irish produced the Rapier from 1500BC to 1200BC.
pic related
>>410465
In literally every battle that had a winner there was a loser for whom things were going wrong. Nobody guarantees you that you're going to be the winner and having a backup weapon for close-quarters battle when the formations clashed or broke or when you were otherwise taken off-guard, e.g. being ambushed, you were well advised to have a sword by your side so you could defend yourself individually.
>>410471
>the Rapier
These weapons were not the same type of weapon as the 16th/17th century rapiers.
>>410540
>implying you can't fight close quarters with a polearm
>implying that's not what they're specifically designed for
>>410614
I'd like to see you try to fight with a pike when the enemy is right before you. As you may notice, the guy has a sword by his side. Most people had, because there's no guarantee that the enemy is going to stay at a distance.
>>410624
You slide your hands further down the length and use it as a shorter spear.
Way to prove my point by the way, hes only using a sword when something has gone wrong.
>>410640
>You slide your hands further down the length and use it as a shorter spear.
There are people left and right to you. There is no way you're going to do some crazy kung-fu tricks with a pike. No, you're simply going to draw your sword and stab the fucker, like a reasonable person would.
>hes only using a sword when something has gone wrong.
Why would he?
The point is, which had you read my post attentively you would have already gotten, is however that there's no guarantee that you're not the one for whom things go wrong, because these things don't depend on just you alone, so you'll definitely want to bring your sword.
>>410656
>slide your hands further up the shaft you are already holding
>crazyd kung-fu fu tricks
It's litterally that simple. Move your left hand backwards, feeding it through your right hand, then move your left hand back to its original place, only now it's further up the shafts. It takes litterally a second and is easier than dropping your pike and trying to draw your sword.
>you would only use a sword when things go wrong
>but what if things go wrong? Then you would need a sword
>>410704
Imagine trying to fight with a spear holding it like that, rather than just bnringing out your fucking sword.
>>410704
Not when you're in a formation and doing that would mean jabbing someone behind you in the gut.
>>410704
The point remains that this is more cumbersome and offers much less versatility than a sword. Literally any man with a polearm depicted in historical art carries a sword by his side. Countless swords were found on historical battlefield sites. People carried swords around because you can't be certain that things are going right. There are plenty of examples in history where people had to defend themselves with swords because things went wrong.
>>410640
>use a pike as a shorter spear
go to bed fahrenkoph
>>410446
right, that's why daggers were always used in shieldwalls
I want /tg/ to go and stay go.
>>410736
It's why when your spear plan fucking fails you pull out your gladius, and if THAT faills you pull out your pugio.
>>410753
b-but i like it in here...
The Roman gladius was very effective when used to quickly stab from outside of a shield wall. The Romans used no lances or spears, and conquered the known world.
>>410757
you know the pilum was primarily a throwing weapon, right?
The gladius was the go to weapon for the legion after the Republic became a thing.
>>410389
Broadswords were designed to be heavy enough to break bones through chainmail but were expensive af
>>410772
your obsession with polearms is unhealthy
>>410720
Bringing out your sword takes time. You need to drop your pike, find and draw your sword and get back into a fighting stance. All under pressure and in a deadly situation. Or you can just move yourl hands slightly and keep the weapons you are already holding.
>>410727
I'm sure he'did appreciate being jabbed in the gut by the blunt end, if it means he doesn't get a sharp end in it instead.
>>410728
You keep agreeing with me. Swords were never primary weapons and were only used in situations where the primary weapon was missing, lost or ineffective.
>>410730
Pic related. But I'm sure you know more about 16th century combat than an actual 16th century century person.
>>410841
>Swords were never primary weapons
this is just fucking wrong
>>410841
"In this device you thus: put your left foot forward, and hold your pike in the middle, with left hand forward, and the right by your left leg. From here you shoot the pike through your hands towards your opponent’s chest."
>>410841
>quarter staffs were used as weapons of war
lol ok kid
I'm sure you would hold a pike like that guy on the right, with both hands on the extreme end of the pole. Must have been what happened, since some one made a picture of it.
>>410841
I don't think you can maneuver in tight corners with a pike as well as you think you can. No matter where on the pike your hands are.
>>410704
>slide your hands further up the shaft you are already holding
>with a fucking pike
You do realize that means you're fighting with 2-5 meters worth of leverage behing you right? Nevermind the fact you're supposed to be in formation, just think at how ridiculously slow and cumbersome that would be. You'd literally be at a disadvantage against unarmed opponents if you attempted that.
>>410844
<citation needed>
What weapons were most soldiers carrying as their main weapon at Hastings? At Hattin? At Crecy? At Agincourt? At Bosworth? At Flodden? At Naseby?
>>410300
In the context of the battlefield, not "just", but mostly. Romans, Indians, and some other societies made swords their primary weapons at certain points. They've always been around as sidearms. They're the kings of combat outside of the battlefield (hence the romanticism), and cavalry have made good use of them in the past.
But if you want a meme weapon, any half and a half or two handed sword is basically a meme weapon.
>>410868
><citation needed>
Fucking seriously? Have you ever heard of the romans?
>>410300
>THE sidearm par excellence
>meme weapon
You're a fucking retard, aren't you?
>>410877
Figures you were going to name the one big exception.
>>410887
Why, did you expect me to ignore it just because it wrecks your argument? I'm not your mommy, I won't coddle you.
>>410855
>ignore that they are clearly pikes
>ignore that plenty of other drawings show people holding the extreme end of the shaft
Obviously you DO know more about 16th century combat than an actual 16th century person.
>>410867
And? Still less slow than dropping the whole thing, fumbling for your sword, drawing it and getting back into position in time to react to whatever is causing you the problem. You're not dueling the guy with it, just getting the point that back in front of him so you can stab him and then go back to normal.
>>410841
>You keep agreeing with me. Swords were never primary weapons and were only used in situations where the primary weapon was missing, lost or ineffective.
The point is: situations where the primary weapon would be missing (e.g. during an ambush), lost (e.g. a knight breaking a lance during a cavalry charge), or ineffective (a clash of pike formations with people being all over the place) could emerge frequently in historical battles so you were best advised to bring your sword. A sword was a side-arm, but side-arm in this context didn't carry the same implications as "pistol" does in a modern warfare context. A sword wasn't completely unlikely to leave its sheath and people were lucky to have a sword in order to survive situations of dire emergency which makes them by no means borderline-unnecessary adornments but versatile weapons.
>>410904
>You're not dueling the guy with it, just getting the point that back in front of him so you can stab him and then go back to normal.
Oh, so you're expecting him to just allow you to do that I suppose. This guy managed to avoid your point when you were at an advantage, yet someone he just gonna stand put and allow you to kill him just when he is in an advantageous situation? You're fucking deluded.
Not to mention
>Still less slow than dropping the whole thing, fumbling for your sword, drawing it and getting back into position
Yeah no. We're not talking about a 2-3m infantry spear, we're talking a fucking pike. You're not just sliding your hands onward once, you're gonna need to do that 3-4 times to go through a whole 5-7m pike. IT IS gonna take more time than just dropping the pike and readying the sword.
>>410904
>they are clearly pikes
they're clearly not pikes, they have no head. Even your filename calls them long staffs.
>>410841
>I'm sure he'd appreciate it if it means he doesn't get a sharp end
You'd be the one getting a sharp end because when it hits your buddy, it's not going to go any farther back and you will have to draw your sword anyway.
>pic related
lol, a duelling treatise for martial combat.
The Spanish had sword and buckler units (rodeleros) specifically intermixed with the Pikes.
![CWR_cavalry_charge[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8YRh5sC.jpg "CWR_cavalry_charge[1].jpg")
>>410868
><citation needed>
dude
>>410927
No more than he's just going to stand there and politely allow you to calmly find your sword, draw it and get back into position.
Moving your arm slightly, even multiple times, will always be faster than trying to reach for another weapon.
>>410933
And yet the accompanying text that I posted immediately afterwards refers to them as pikes. Do you think staffs when you see a 15 foot pole, held at one end?
>>410970
>Moving your arm slightly, even multiple times, will always be faster than trying to reach for another weapon.
Please do quantify for me how long do you think it's gonna take for a soldier to take out his sword. I have the feeling you're gonna say something absolutely outrageous.
>>410938
Because my buddy will just stand there and not move slightly, in order to keep us both alive.
>what to when fighting someone with a pike
>not actually an example of what to do when fighting someone with a pike
>>410970
>accompanying text
what?
>15 ft
assuming that guy on the right is 5'7", that staff he's holding is about 8 foot, which is basically a quarter staff.
>>411010
>posts more dueling pictures
>>410978
About 3 seconds, assuming that he finds it on his belt right away, that he can draw it cleanly, that he doesn't drop it or it get knocked out of his hands, etc etc etc.
>>410970
It would take roughly one or two seconds to draw a sword. It would take more time to slide your hands up to the middle or near the sharp end of the pike.
>>411010
No, he won't, because he won't know you're going to do it ahead of time. His vision is blocked by the formation, and even if he moves, the length of the pike is enough that the guy behind him will probably get hit too.
Duelling treatises are irrelevant to actual formation combat.
>>411016
>stuff you do when fighting for your life, isn't something that you do when fighting for your life
>>411024
Well, I'll admit I was expecting you to say something like 30s, so good on you. Then again, it's still more than I'd wager, and you also added some absolutely retarded caveats (not finding the fucking sword?! Jesus), so not so good.
Even your 3s are less than what would be required to "swim" half a dozen armfuls through your pike however, how could you possibly think otherwise? You wouldn't manage that with no one around you, nevermind in a tight formation.
>>411046
The guy standing directly in front of him is blocked by the formation?
>>411078
>stuff you do fighting alone against another person who is alone is the same thing you do in a group combat
lol
>>411089
No, but the guy the person directly in front of him is reacting to is, so he will have no warning when you immediately start jerking back your pike into his gut at a level he is not really paying that much attention to. He won't have much warning.
>>411078
When fighting *ONE* person for your life. In a formation, you are fighting with and against multiple opponents. Jesus, what did you learn about ancient combat from, fucking 300?
>>411082
You say that like equipment doesn't move around at all, especially after jostling and rushing around in the front lines of battle, possibly also in the wet and that panicked people can reliably and quickly grab a vital piece of equipment, with sweat covered hands and shit filled trousers.
>>411145
But that also applies to fumbling around with a giant weighted stick in their hands. If I had a pike and a sword, I would actually be quite tempted to try to video this though.
Regardless, I think the formation is the most obvious problem to it.
>>411179
>move your arms back slightly
>slightly
Did you forget the "pike" part? We're talking multiple full stroke movements here.
>>411170
I'm sure if you trawl through reenactment battle videos, there will be someone "half piking" somewhere.
>>411179
The point the first person is making is that there would be multiple people on the enemy side too, who are all going to be taking advantage of you while you are having to focus your attention on one guy. There is no reason someone won't just grab your pike or use the opening you are leaving to fuck with the other men on your side by battering their pikes to the ground and charging. You would be much better off either ditching and preparing for close-quarters in such a situation, or, better yet, being in a formation that would allow your mates behind you to use their pikes on people in front of you.
Pike formations could be really tight, lad, see pic
>>410869
>long sword meme weapon
the full plated knights sure had a good use for it.
why is meme weapon even being applied to this entire thread
>>411220
But wouldn't they be doing all of those things anyway? The enemy would be trying to break your pikes or grab them and the guys behind you would be fighting in any gaps they can get, irregardless of you shortening your pike to deal with a guy whosaid getting too close.
>>411277
Yes, which is why you would have mixed ranks or a secondary weapon so that if it happens, you could continue fighting instead of being effectively disarmed.
If you go by fantasy novels, romance novels, bible movies, and historical films, anybody who's anybody would have fought and killed bad guys with a sword.
In reality, swords were obviously used historically but in most of Europe at least you would have seen a lot more soldiers fighting with polearms from classical times to middle ages.
>>410300
Meme???
>>412212
>>412212
>that file name
>dead or wounded
>wounded
sure looks pretty dead
Historically Katanas had the most important role of any sword. They could compete with spears, bows, or even the 1st generation fire arms if the user was skilled enough. European swords were easier to master but had smaller skillcaps.
>>410300
All weapons are meme weapons, arms themselves are a meme
>>412251
He'll be fine once he stops being a baby.
Dr. Pavel, I'm cia
>>412212
an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
Moros
>>412307
your the same guy shitposting about fighting with a short pike just constantly trolling the thread, aren't you?
>>410841
>Bringing out your sword takes time,
>what is training/the draw slash,etc.
It was called getting fucking good. there were maneuvers invented to adress this and you could always train your ass off to get faster. there were also short swords like the Gladys and hand and a half-hour swords that solved this problem
>>410841
holy shit this is outright pathetic
>Bringing out your sword takes time
Less than three seconds are you kidding me?
>he'did appreciate being jabbed in the gut by the blunt end
No, he wouldn't. You're fucking retarded
>Swords were never primary weapon
Except when they were, you know, the Romans and countless other times, do you enjoy making unverifiable, sweeping statements?
>All this arguing about the use of swords
They are the sidearm par excellence, period. Swords aren't the best at any particular task, but they're probably your second or third best option for any task which shores up any weaknesses from using a more specialized weapon.
Also they'd have more visibility for the general public. They're easier to carry about than a friggin' polearm when you aren't on the march. Off-duty but want some weapon to carry along? Sword for sure, just out of sheer convenience. Which is probably where the "meme" part comes in.
>>412659
>Swords aren't the best at any particular task
They're incredibly versatile and can absolutely destroy an unarmed man.
>Off-duty but want some weapon to carry along
That's fantasy crap, in Medieval times you weren't gonna get off carrying a sword, probably not even able to afford one. Maybe in 17th century you could have a rapier but that's irrelevant since it was suited for civilian use and people would take war rapiers (there's a better term) or arming swords in battle.
>>410300
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but it is largely about formation fighting. Short sword/spear for in formation, arming sword for broken formation or staggered fighting.
If you're in formation in the ancient world it was typical to have a short-sword, or spear with a large shield. You would close in close to the enemy position and the fighting would largely be done in jabbing attacks from behind the protection of the shield. Ancient Western Europe in particular had a favourable view of the sword seen in the extensive use of the seax, gladius and other bronze-age swords in their formations.
The reason is that if the formation broke and you were stuck with a shield and spear in a bout against someone with a sword and shield, they could easily close in the distance between you and them. This was why longer swords, typically the late antiquity/early "dark" ages swords came into fashion. The formation would break, your spear would become semi-useless against those who were overrunning your position and you'd need something a bit more "hack-and-slashy" such as an axe or an arming sword.
I was always under the impression that after a cavalry charge, the lance would break and you would then draw your sword.
>>410773
Romans used spears.
Hello Mr. Pike, I'm Zwei
>>414727
"Frisian hero Pier Gerlofs Donia is reputed to have wielded a Zweihänder with such skill, strength and efficiency that he managed to behead several people with it in a single blow. The Zweihänder ascribed to him is, as of 2008, on display in the Frisian museum. It has a length of 213 cm (84 in) and a weight of about 6.6 kg (141⁄2 lb).[5]"
*teleports in front of you*
Heh, how's this for a meme weapon?
*swings Zweihander*
nothing personnel chaps
*heads slump onto ground*
Yeah but I still have some.
>>412212
merelypretending.jpg
>Are pistols basically just a meme weapon?
>I mean they're not nearly as effective as two-handed firearms, which are just as if not more effective at close range, especially with bayonets, so why do people even use pistols?
The argument about swords not being used in the past is like the modern argument that soldiers dont need to carry a gun in a war.
Most kills happen with specialty weapons, thats true. But if you think you dont carry a general purpose sidearm you probably retarded
>>414781
In modern warfare however, pistols aren't the equivalent of swords. Swords saw action both as a main weapon and as the sidearm of many a soldier.
Handguns are rarely standard issue and is heavily depended on the demands of a specific situation's table of organization and equipment.
One area that swords and pistols did occupy with the same roles is civilian life. Its just impractical/threatening to carry a rifle around.
>>414812
They're vaguely comparable as a symbol of status and sidearm, the point is the whole 'meme weapon' is a stupid fucking meme and I hope it dies soon, on all boards, it's just painful.
>>414781
Pistols are a sidearm dummy.
>>414753
What the hell?! How is this bastard taking out all of our men?! Polearms would never lose out to some shitty overgrown sword! This is impossible!!!!
>>410787
>Broadswords were designed to be heavy enough to break bones through chainmail
no they weren't
>>414871
So have swords been throughout much of actual military history.
>>410787
Why would you design and take care of a sword when a rock on a pole can break bones better (because leverage is more important than overall weight) for far cheaper.
>>414877
it's not that difficult to break a bone. a rock that fits in your fist can do it.
>>415016
no if there's heavy padding and layer of solid metal rings between the rock and the bone
>>415016
try to go into battle with a fucking rock
>>414914
it's not just about breaking bones, you would have the possibility to cut unprotected limbs and severely cripple them if they had heavy armor on
>>415053
have you ever even held a sword? you can break small bones like wrist or clavicle with heavy sparring sword if your opponent doesn't wear anything thicker than t-shirt, but there is no way that you could cause severe blunt damage through gambeson and mail and possible brigandine with real sharp sword. only thing that would happen is that you'd ruin your blade.
>>415053
Swords require heavy maintenance to be able to cut anything. And hitting it like a club on a piece of steel won't exactly keep it straight and edgy. You'll have a blunt piece of metal not balanced to actually do percussive damage and you wasted a perfectly good sword.
Just use a mace or an axe ,way easier to use and Heavy tip for a better leverage and you can make more axe with 3 pounds of steel. Just stop trying to defend swords as bone crushing weapon of mass destruction. It just isn't their purpose.
>>412307
fucking damn it
>>414668
Not after the formation of the Republic they didn't.
>I don't know the difference between pilum and spear
>>414871
are you actually autistic?
>>415051
ok
>>411277
>irregardless
>>410773
>conquered the known world.
They knew about persia germany and scotland
>>416608
maybe in your country
but here in America everybody gets to have guns. It's awesome.
>>416574
>Not after the formation of the Republic they didn't.
Pretty sure hastae kept being used all the way to the polybian period actually.
>>412387
>implying everyone in a pike block would have chance to get good or even train beyond basic drilling
>implying even well trained and drilled soldiers don't fumble or panic when in a real battle
>>412654
> 3 seconds isn't a long time in a life or death battle, where an enemy is already close enough to be inside your weapons range.
>the guy behind you will be pissed off because you hit him whilst fighting for both your lives
>him being pissed off matters for some reason
>implying Romans didn't use spears or throw javelins as their main weapon
>>416613
>but here in America everybody gets to have guns. It's awesome.
Kek no way, handgun presence in the US military is extremely spotty, there's nowhere near enough of them to equip all the infantrymen, so usually only officers and higher NCOs get them.
>>416635
>implying everyone in a pike block would have chance to get good or even train beyond basic drilling
Actually the pike sqare was a very discipline-reliant formation, so generally it was used by highly professional troops (usually mercs).
Fuck swords man, the true question is were AXES A MEME WEAPON??
>>410446
not really
short swords are better tho
why do you think the romans kicked so much ass?
>>416624
the Triarii used them, but they were delegated to the third battle line after the Gauls sacked Rome.
Phalanx is strong, but usually inflexible. The Hastati and Principes fought in front of them. Though this is all before the Marian Reforms so I don't really know what was up in the years leading up to the Empire.
>>416663
Actually the gladius was about the size of a medieval arming sword, so I don't know where you're getting this short-sword shit.
>>416676
>the Triarii used them, but they were delegated to the third battle line after the Gauls sacked Rome.
That means they used the spear in republican times you know.
>>416661
Well they're good against a shield wall and can be stuck on a long pole as a main arm or on a short one as a side arm and you can throw them.
All told 8/10 would cleave.
>>416661
They are very situational weapons, but they had their uses, so it's unwarranted to call them a meme weapon.
>>416684
>they used the spear
yeah but it seems as if it was usually a weapon of last resort, a formation behind which the other soldiers could regroup and throw things over.
>>416697
Yeah but it was still the main weapon of a republican period military unit.
>>416574
I know very well the difference between the two. They were used at least up to the Polybian which is mid-republic. You act like they were never used at all by Roman troops.
Have you Fucking rejects never studies Nordic sword and shield fighting tactics?
Smh
>>416637
I think he meant civilians as well.
>>416652
That is very true, however, how much training would say, the average pike man in a Landsknecht block actually get? How much of it would consist of moving around and staying in formation. How much time would be given to just drawing their secondary weapon, over and over and over until they get good?
>>416734
And you act as if it was somehow more important than the gladius.
This is the dispute outlined earlier in OP's bait.
>>416749
>over and over and over until they get good?
I think you're dramatically overstating the difficulty of drawing a fucking katzbalger.
>>416706
Also, the Roman auxiliary, and cavalry used spears.
>>416743
But in Europe people get to have gun too (well aside from Britain, but they're pretty much Asia anyway), so his comment is still silly
>>416756
No, it was stated Romans never used spears. Which was incorrect. I never said or implied they were more important than the Gladius.
>>416767
how do I even know that you're the same guy?
I never assume I'm talking to the same person or holding an exclusive discussion. I just say things into the void and then listen to the echo.
>>416757
It's not difficult at all. In a perfect environment. In the middle of a chaotic battle, with a man who is intending to kill you a few feet away and getting closer, with your hands covered in sweat or mud or piss, with the katzbalger in a different place than expected because it's shifted in all the jostling? That'd be quite a bit more difficult.
>>412718
>this
Facts don't matter anon you should know thst
>>416777
>a man who is intending to kill you a few feet away
And you're holding a pike, with a threat area the man is already well within and past. You're gonna need to get your shank or a buddy to help you out.
>>414812
>handguns are rarely standard issue
What is Calvary before the invention of carbines
>>416801
>What is Calvary before the invention of carbines
A hill?
>>416798
Yup, those options are available. Or you can reduce the length of your pike and bring him back into your threat area. Kinda like this guy.
>>416834
go to your local hardware store and buy one.
Then sharpen it and go cut down some trees.
But if you meant a battleaxe, idk maybe use the internet.
>>416608
Sometimes they carry them so they can shoot themselves, and their drivers, should they ever find themselves trapped inside a burning combat vehicle.
>>416801
>In modern warfare
>modern.
>warfare.
>>416801
>Calvary
>Cal
>vary
You dun goofed
>>416590
Didn't David go to battle with just the sling, and actually pick up the rock on the battleground?
>>417351
Ever use a sling?
It's hard to find rocks that really work well for it, cause the best ones are smooth and rounded for aerodynamics and shit. You certainly can just pick up more rocks though, that's part of why they're actually good.
>>417363
>Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.
You're right, this piece does seem to imply that he went to battle with the rocks, even if he had picked them up just before going to face Goliath. I misremembered that.
>>417385
You can also use balled lead, which is particularly harsh.
>>414781
god damn that is a sexy pistol
>>416590
hey look Goliath is using a spear as his main weapon and his sword is a sidearm
ANYWAYS
Armaments were never homogeneous through out history. So you have to pick a specific period and region to make generalizations.
the most common image of the use of a sword that we have in the western world is the armored knight. These people absolutely used a spear first and then a sword was the next course of action(assuming their formation broke, which it eventually did)
Any other culture or era would likely be variant.
