Imagine that you live in the 16th century in a relatively dangerous area. You want to carry a sword to defend yourself with. You can't be bothered to carry around a large shield because of its inconvenience, however you may carry a buckler or a dagger. Greatswords are out of the question, however a longsword/bastard sword or anything of equal or shorter length is fine. The hilt can be whatever type you want.
You are solely concerned with effective self-defense and do not care about what looks "cool" or whatever. Your opponents would be likewise be expected to be equipped with longswords, one-handed cut-and-thrust swords, rapiers, daggers, buckler etc. Which weapon or weapon/off-hand combination would you choose?
Oh and no armor.
>>Greatswords are out of the question, however a longsword/bastard sword or anything of equal or shorter length is fine.
The problem with that being that the boundary between ok and not ok here is definitely on the fuzzy side.
>You can't be bothered to carry around a large shield because of its inconvenience
While probably a good bit less black and white in general, this is something that should be considered for swords too. After all, you're going to be carrying whatever you choose all the bloody time, while actually using it is probably more of a once in a decade occasion.
>and do not care about what looks "cool" or whatever.
If we're that oblivious to the whims of fashion and general opinions then this probably won't end well, being the strange guy around could easily have disastrous consequences in the legal aftermath of a self defence scenario.
Anyway, odds are that what's best isn't the question of the best sword, but the question of which sword you're the best with. (Sadly threads like these seem to exist mostly so fanboys can declare their option of choice the best ever, with justification going from none to deeply misguided.) So for me it'd be a longsword. A metre of blade, a foot of hilt, and at least side rings seems like a good idea if it wasn't for that whole carrying bit, though as I have no experience there it's rather hard to say just how much sword I'd be prepared to lug around. Or possibly something along similar line,s though with a slightly curved blade, I find that such brings about interesting options and slightly improved margins in some cases.
A quite interesting and largely relevant lecture: http://hroarr.com/lecture-on-swords-in-daily-life-of-the-renaissance/
History basically answered this one for us.
No horse, no armor? Go with the current-gen thrusting sword.
>>29922077
>The problem with that being that the boundary between ok and not ok here is definitely on the fuzzy side.
Good point. I'd say that longswords that would be carried around by civilians could be expected to be around the same overall length as rapiers, at maximum. With a shorter but wider blade and a longer handle.
A quarter staff will do nicely
Or if the timeline permits a basket-hilted rapier with parrying dagger
>>29922128
Fashion might be a reason as well. As you would actually use your sword very rarely or perhaps never, what looks good becomes very important if you're going to carry your weapon(s) all the time. Also thrust wounds look less brutal and therefore thrusting weapons might have been perceived as more "civilized" for duels.
>>29922232
>Or if the timeline permits a basket-hilted rapier with parrying dagger
Good luck parrying a longsword with that.
>>29922128
>>29922255
Cut or thrust is a matter which has been debated, well, probably since somewhere back in the bronze age. Looking at history things swing back and forth over time, vary from one region to another, and in a lot of cases we see both cut and thrust optimised designs co-existing with both each other and generalist swords, sometimes within the same sword type.
>>29922311
Don't know shit about medieval weaponry but isn't a rapier longer than a longsword? not by much but like maybe a teeny wince longer?
>>29922357
Yes, usually rapiers have longer blades than longswords.
They're more than capable of parrying longsword blows, a rapier has about the same weight and stiffness as a longsword.
>>29922357
It's one of those "how long is a piece of string" things.
Last I looked the Wallace collection's rapiers ranged from 94cm to 140cm overall length. See pic, each dot is one sword.
Meanwhile the data here http://hroarr.com/longswords-and-their-data/ suggests about 100cm to 140cm for longswords, with two severe outliers sitting down in the 80-90 cm range.
>>29922357
Depends, in general I'd say longswords varied more. Some had basically an average one-handed cut & thrust blade length with a longer handle, some where almost greatswords. In this context they can be assumed to be as long as rapiers or possibly a bit shorter. However even when the overall length is the same the rapierist can use his maximum reach more easily than the longswordsman.
The problem for a rapier & dagger guy is dealing with the leverage and power of the wider sword wielded in two hands. Neither a dagger or a rapier is very good at parrying a longsword.
>>29922255
It's about range and speed, not style.
With no horse, armor or shield you're slow and incredibly vulnerable, which means you need to keep people away from your unprotected body, which means long and light and stabby, which means thrusting swords and spears.
>>29922378
>>29922413
>>29922431
thanks for the info buds
>>29921923
>however you may carry a buckler
Ok
>>29922339
I mean, yeah, there are all shapes and sizes and types. But if people are fighting in their region against other people using the same dopey weapons then it's not much of a recommendation(looking at you khopesh).
For the dudes that were winning and conquering, well, it was bows and spears first and foremost of course, but bronze age swords tended pretty heavily towards the chunky-stabby type.
My understanding is that mounted or heavily armoured dudes were the main places we saw cutting swords, but I don't think lightly armoured foot soldiers ever really got away from stabbing shit even all the way up to bayonets did they?
>>29922833
By and large the cut vs thrust debate is one about swords, as most other weapons will end up naturally favouring one (or neither, for blunt weapons), so there isn't much to talk about there.
Early on in the bronze ages swords often do tend towards stabbing, that is true. That may have been due to flat, wide blades being harder to cast than narrower, thicker ones. Or due to the tang taking some time to develop, a weapon like this bronze age "rapier" would have considerably issue with structural integrity if used for chopping cuts. Later on though we see bronze swords in the cut-n-thrust and probably more cutting focused categories too (Ewart Park and Mindelheim styles respectively for example).
And as I mentioned the co-existence of designs, well, that does suggest that thrusting was around.
As for cavalry, armour, and regions out in the periphery, here's a sword most likely meant for an mroe or less unarmoured 16th century German infantryman. Not that every katzbalger was quite this spatulate, but I've yet to see a needle-like one, and once again, coexistence. We see rapiers around too in that time and place (and even those can be solid cut-n-thrust designs).
Another example of the way people seem to have liked being able to pick and choose in the sabre. In 19th century Europe we should be able to find fencing sabres (and possibly some pipeback sabres) made primarily for thrusting, while on the other end of the spectrum we have the 1796LC/Blücher family.
Had either mode of attack been just all out superior (for swords and similar), I suspect such would have showed itself quite clearly back in the bronze age, with basically everyone sticking to whatever it was that worked the best from there on onwards.
I've read contradictory information about whether cuts or thrusts are more likely to be instantly incapacitating. I guess thrusts are more likely to be lethal, just not quite immediately, and cuts more likely to be immediately incapacitating/deadly?
>>29922604
I bet this was used by a /k/ tier renaissance autist
>>29922311
>parrying
Is this theatrical fencing?
>>29923079
Thrusts can't be immediately incapacitating from physiological point of view. But it difficult to fail thrust. Any pointy objects pierce body through easily producing potentialy lethal wound.
Cuts could be failed, they require good blade design, sharpness, strength of user and proper technique to be effectvie. Failure of every part could lead to blade bouncing off target leaving a scratch (check tameshigiri failures even against static targets). But good cut is immediately incapacitating (cutting limbs off or severing spine or scull).
Often people go like "look this a wide knife/blade etc you cut with it also you can cut like this or that" but then blade bounces off skin because these weapons are not actually designed to cut and this is not real cut technique. Cuts fail all the time. Effective cut needs focus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c
>>29922339
I hate when people carry curvy swords. It's like, we get it, you hate turkroaches and are upset the sun has set on salah ad-din's ayyubid legacy
>>29921923
Could civilians own swords back then?
>>29923242
>Thrusts can't be immediately incapacitating from physiological point of view
>>29923151
While standing there and slamming your swords together isn't proper fencing, the idea that you should avoid blade contact at all cost and that parries are at most an act of utter desperation goes just as far off course in the other direction.
Defending yourself by putting your sword in the way of an incoming attack tends to be the main form of defence, regardless of whether we look at I.33 sword and buckler, longsword, or 19th century sabre. I suspect rapier etc are much the same, though the greater frequency of thrusts can make things a bit less forceful.
>>29923242
>Cuts could be failed, they require good blade design, sharpness, strength of user and proper technique to be effectvie.
Well, here's a cut with minimal power and by the looks of it nothing much in the way of applied technique either, it's basically just a light tap with little room for anything else, and it still causes quite significant damage right through some multi-layered garment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkGF3EqUjU
Now a bad edge will certainly make things a lot harder. As I imagine it would if you hardened your skin by thorough scalding before the fight, like you'd do with a dead pig to help get the hairs off. Though this treatment may have some unpleasant side effects.
A "failed" cut is not always the same as doing no damage though. You're going to need a heavy hit then instead, but significant damage can be done to sensitive parts of the body. Even with feders HEMA has quite some issues with keeping fingers form getting smashed without resorting to gloves like a small safe on each hand.
>Thrusts can't be immediately incapacitating from physiological point of view.
Run a spike through the skull or run in between/through the vertebra to get to the spinal column?
>>29923334
Carrying could be legal in a lot of cases. Simply owning one, well, that'd probably be legal for pretty much anyone anywhere, but I'm sure there's some exception to be found. Once again http://hroarr.com/lecture-on-swords-in-daily-life-of-the-renaissance/
>>29923334
Depends on what back then you are referring to. From my limited reading concerning Scandinavia, all free men could and usually did own martial weaponry. Usually the wealthy owned a sword and any accessories, and the poor just owned a spear or two. I imagine there was a fair amount of gray area vis a vis that subject, but you get the idea.
>>29921923
If maces or morningstars allowed, then get one.
If not, probably a cavalry sabre, scimitar or falchion.
I want a bastard sword and a dirk. I'll be OK.
>Not open carrying your pike everywhere you go
If the peasants have a problem, remind them of the 2nd ammendment to the magna carta.
>>29923530
My fucking nigga. I'm on the fence about buying a mace, a lot of them look like LARP gear but this site seems to sell "battleworthy" maces
http://www.kultofathena.com/maces.asp.
>>29922311
You should read Tom Leoni about parrying a longsword with a rapier because it's totally possible and he did it just like it is advised in treatises of the period, it works fine... if you know what you're doing.
Do I get to practice a lot? If so sidesword and main gauche. If not, >>29923530.
>>29924089
>Do I get to practice a lot?
Why wouldn't you? It's your edc weapon
Talhoffer buckler and a basket-hilt broadsword.
>>29923334
In germany they prohibited common people from carrying swords.
After that they just used "knives" like pic related...
>>29923530
>EDC'ing a morning star when any opponent you'll encounter will not be wearing armor
That's dumb. You're dumb.
Yeah I'd be curious to know what's the reasoning behind choosing mace or morningstar, assuming no armour.
>>29924295
some people simply dont know what weapons are best, and go with what they imagine is "badass"...
reality is, if its unarmoured, a mace or hammer is too short ranged, and no advantages at all.
blades were used by people because they werent idiots.
>>29921923
An imported uchigatana is perfect for civilian EDC.
No I'm serious.
>Fairly short and easy to carry
>Quickdraw techniques
>Poor anti-armor traits is acceptable because it's in a civilian context
It would be like EDCing a glock subcompact. Completely sensible. I'll probably have take it to an English blacksmith and mount the blade in a basket-hilt.
>>29924341
Just use a messer
>>29924323
What about sword breakers and other bar maces though? A bar mace can be wielded similar to a long sword and can render an opponents blade nearly useless.
>>29924375
Sword breaker was just a type of dagger used to catch swords and let you get a thrust into them with yours
bar maces are far heavier than a sword, carrying would be irritating due to the weight, swinging would be harder due to weight, and parrying would be harder due to the weight.
There's a reason the sword was the best side arm to have, and why almost every culture on the planet developed them
>>29924341
>Quickdraw techniques
Implying you can't do them with any sword of similar length. You could do them with a messer alright... especially considering there are drawing techniques for it (and longsword, and sidesword and etc.)
>>29924375
> A bar mace can be wielded similar to a long sword and can render an opponents blade nearly useless.
this strikes me as the sort of statement of fact uttered by someone who has neither used swords, or maces, and who certainly hasnt used a bar mace in combat against a sharp sword.... because no-one in this age has done that.
but here's a hint for you. IF bar maces were great, people would've used them. Because they werent stupid. they used this stuff for life-and-death defence for generations.
and despite that, there's just one bar mace that survives, and two or three depictions in art.
That's pretty good evidence to say that it does not "destroy blades" or was in any way a viable weapon.
>>29924452
>especially considering there are drawing techniques for it (and longsword, and sidesword and etc.)
I've never seen a historical manual describing anything like iaido.
>>29924463
Chinese sword breakers are a type of bar mace that was most definitely used to beat in armored chinks to death while at the same time bending and breaking sword blades. Look it up.
>>29924536
Fiore describes a couple of drawing techniques with the longsword against a dagger assault, Viggiani's sidesword treatise begins with a drawing cut as well, against any sort of attacks. Some german treatise (not my gig so I can't remember which on precisely) portrays the same technique than Viggiani, an upward cut from the scabbard to the hand defending a downward vertical cut, messer against messer.
Now, it's absolutely true that the japanese are probably the only ones who have entire arts dedicated to draw cutting (and this as back as the 16th century) and they certainly investigated the matter much more than others, but many sword styles have a couple of take on drawing cuts. Usually, it's only like 2-3 techniques, some mainly kenjutsu ryu-ha only have a handful of iaï techniques as well mind you, and maybe none at all.
>>29924536
>>29924631
Here's one of Fiore's techniques, he goes for a reverse rise of the sheath then a thrust to the face with the scabbard while simultaneously drawing the sword, then he thrusts with the sword. It's very interesting as it combines the common "italian universal parry" seen in his sword with one hand with a drawing technique, the parry being made with the scabbard.
Notice also that just like the japanese, Fiore has the student push the scabbard while pulling the sword, making the draw faster. He also draws the sword immediately into a guard or an attack, much like in many japanese iaï kata.
>>29923381
>main form of defence,
Main form of defence is staying out of range and striking opponent first. You will see it any sort of training fights, 95% if not 99% of time or so participants spend staying out of range not striking.
>>29921923
Why is Aquaman fighting the Flash?
Rapier and dagger, obviously.
