This might not be the correct place for this, but I can't think of any other board that would suit this better.
Historically, could a scimitar inflict as much harm as a longsword? Was a longsword superior? Can the two swords dish out roughly the same amount of damage?
Additionally, how were they used? Is the method of using each of the two significantly different? Obviously, they both require great skill to use effectively, but is the longsword more reliant on force of strength, rather than precise motions? Or are their required methods mostly the same?
>>46237956
They're both sharp sticks. Damage isn't quantifiable into hitpoints.
So y'know. Whatever. You stab or slice the bastard you want dead until they're killed.
Probably overthinking this.
>>46237956
scimitars were primarily used as cavalry weapons and, as you can tell by the shape, primarily slashing weapons, while longswords could be used in more varied manners
Scimitars for less armored, long swords for more armored.
>>46237956
Curved swords are for cavalry.
Regions that favored these had a lot of light cavalry.
Straight swords in a 1v1 brawl are far more utilitarian and abusable, regions that relied more on infantry formations favored these.
Curved swords can do maximum damage when mounted against lightly armored targets.
Straight swords can be held upside down and bash a heavily armored dude to death like a blunt object, and can be used effectively for thrusting at all.
Gradually thrusting weapons became more favorable especially as armor started receding, and more arts and weapons designed around thrusting.
Curved weapons remained choice for cavalry.
TL;DR
Get an arming sword
Unless you plan on decapitating people in drive-by slashings, and even the the straight sword still works fine.
>>46238055
>>46238010
Say, two soldiers with roughly the same skill level in using their weapons are fighting on foot, and one has a scimitar while the other has a longsword. Which has greater potential to inflict more grievous wounds? Are they the same?
>>46238098
Both are perfectly capable of killing the other man in a single blow.
>>46238098
well the Europeans certainly didn't win the Crusades
>>46238124
So, in a foot battle, they're roughly equal?
>>46238132
Well no, a longsword has a massive advantage in reach and can be used as an effective thrusting weapon.
Do you understand how weapons actually work IRL?
>>46238098
>On foot only
Longsword can be used in more ways
Longsword does better against any armor
>>46238124
Longsword usage includes more hand-to-hand using said sword as a tool when grappling and holds.
No, really. You got longsword training, you knew how to take someone down with it literally.
>>46238130
And Hitler's tanks froze in the Russian winter, how the fuck were a bunch of Temperate European soldiers/mercs suppose to do well in a hostile land with the wrong equipment?
Do you think the invasion would have gone well the other way? All their gear and tactics were light and fast.
>>46238132
No. Curved blades have garbage reach and can't thrust well. The most lethal part of a blade is the tip for thrusting, not the actual blade for cutting. Mortal wounds are caused by deep penning strikes to the inner organs, which cause immense trauma and put a man down fast. While cuts can be devastating, they're easier to parry and can leave you far more open.
Frankly, curved blades are shitty blades when used outside of a cavalry role. And useless if people are wearing armor.
>>46238158
I mean
they grabbed Spain for a long time and got all the way up to Austria
>>46238173
>They held the border
>>46238173
>hundreds of years apart.
>>46238161
It's understandable that a slashing stroke has little effect against a hard surface like plate armor, and that a straight sword has much more piercing potential than a curved sword. These are both good points and have partially answered my question.
However, can a scimitar slash just as effectively as a longsword can, assuming they're roughly the same length?
I'm going to have to say the scimitar is better because it is the most similar to the greatest sword ever made on this planet: the Katana.
>>46238207
if we're comparing Muslim forays into Europe to the Crusades, it's fine
>>46238161
>>46238098
>>46237956
New question:
Longsword vs later generation sabres?
>>46238230
they can barely be compared.
>>46238158
I'm well aware that longswords are a much more utilitarian weapon than any given curved sword. I was just stating the obvious. Two unarmored men wielding swords, regardless of type, are equally capable, though not equally likely, of dying from a single wound from the other mans weapon.
>>46238217
Definitely, it's the one thing a curved sword really does, much better than a straight blade in fact due to the structure of the sword ensuring less surface area is in contact with the area being sliced. A bit like an axe, only with a lot more finesse and centered gravity.
>>46238217
They're literally designed to be used at different speeds and forces
Scimitar if you're going Sanic Speeds and don't want the end of the blade getting stuck in shit
Longsword if you're on foot and then they're basically the same but the scimitar is like using a wrench as a hammer
>>46238241
true enough, the Muslims did a lot better than the Christians
>>46238239
If you're fighting unarmored dudes, rapier/sabre all the way. Much faster blades with greater reach and greater thrusting ability. They have a SIGNIFICANT advantage over two-handed swords too unless they're ridiculously long like a zweihander.
>>46237956
They're both more or less equal, just one has a better thrust and the other a better slash. You shouldn't confuse military culture with military efficiency like several posters above are doing. A curved sword is not automatically a better horseback weapon, a longsword is not automatically a better infantry weapon. Both were used for both roles throughout history. The true difference between a cavalry sword and an infantry sword is balance, and it's entirely possible to have a heavy cavalry straight sword and a well balanced infantry curved sword. Even two-handing is not unique to the longsword only, it's just that we have so little information on the use of a scimitar compared to the longsword.
>>46238217
>It's understandable that a slashing stroke has little effect against a hard surface like plate armor, and that a straight sword has much more piercing potential than a curved sword.
That's not necessarily true. You're not going to be piercing plate armor to begin with regardless of the shape of your sword. It mostly comes down to whether you want to grapple with an armored opponent and subdue them with a straight blade levered against their body and slipped underneath some gap in the armor, or if you want to smash someone in plate armor while riding by as fast as you can.
>>46238358
I never meant to imply that a straight sword could easily pierce plate armor, just that it can, in general, pierce better than a curved sword.
Sorry if I came off that way.
>>46237956
>This might not be the correct place for this, but I can't think of any other board that would suit this better.
>There is a board literally called "Weapons"
>>46238392
But no, the straight sword can't pierce plate armor. You'd have to make a very specialized sword that's more like a tapering bar with a hardened tip than a flat bladed longsword to succeed, and even then without any guarantee of piercing more than an inch at most.
>>46238412
>Implying /k/ommandos give two shits about anything other than boomsticks
>>46238412
Browsing through /k/, I see maybe 1 thread that's not about modern weapons. If I wanted to get laughed at for asking a question about medieval weaponry, I'd post there, sure.
Mostly I was asking because I don't think how scimitars are statted compared to longswords in most TTRPGS really reflects how they compare in real life very well.
>>46238412
In all fairness, /k/ is usually associated with firearms. That said, they actually know a ton about medieval weapons if you wait until day/k/are ends.
>>46238425
I.. um, my post, which you replied to, never said that a straight sword could pierce plate armor, and in fact was written to clarify that I didn't think so. Maybe give it another read?
>>46238448
is this a stealth folded-one-million-times thread
>>46238471
>much more piercing potential
>pierce better than
>>46238130
Crusades failed because the instant they took Jerusalem, every lord and his cat within 1000 miles declared himself King of Jerusalem, even if they only ruled half a block. They proceeded to spend the next 2 eons fighting amongst one another until the Muslims kicked them out.
>>46238493
Yes, piercing, in general. Never said they could pierce armor. It's like you're only reading half the words.
Sabres or other curved swords are wayyyyy easier to use/master than Double-edged weapons. The saber have a better cutting edge, more easily sharpened (Especially if it is forged). Curved swords are also more versatile (As cutting tools, back in the day, sabres are almost as thick as an ax)
The Long sword has a much longer reach (Depending on make) and is often used against armored opponents (More Durability). The Long sword is heavier and requires a lot more pivot and leverage though. They were also harder to use in formation (Where they were outperformed by the pike/spear).
>>46237956
I'm not sure if you're referring to what D&D calls a longsword (something like an arming sword), or what modern academics refer to as a longsword (a two-handed cruciform straight sword with two edges, becoming slimmer and more pointed as time goes on). Of course scimitars also come in various sizes and profiles.
In any case, a straight sword with two edges is more versatile, but more difficult to use since it is harder to cut with. In practice for comparisons like these, though, it matters a lot more what the skill of the fighters are than what weapons they're using.
>>46238516
What about messers?
>>46238514
There is no piercing in general. Neither can pierce plate armor, full-stop. To suggest one type can pierce better than the other is to say one can and the other cannot, or that both can but one can do so better.
>>46238534
>bringing a knife to a swordfight
>>46238534
These were literally to get around a retarded weapons control law.
>Look! It's built like a knife, it's just a knife! Knives aren't illegal!
Anyway, it's between a machette and an actual sword.
>>46238534
Not the guy you quoted, but in historical fencing manuscripts messers are often compared to some forms of scimitar, either implicitly or explicitly.
>>46238412
/k/ is for americans to shitpost about how free they are because they get to shoot weapons while their government catalogs their email
>>46238534
Or the kopis, or the khopesh
>>46237956
to get the most effectiveness out of a scimitar, you plonk a guy on a horse, point him at the other guy, get the horse going real fast, then hold the scimitar in the general area of where the other guy is as you ride past
a longsword is slightly more versatile
>>46238548
>Neither can pierce plate armor, full-stop.
You're literally repeating the same imaginary thing you think I'm saying over and over at this point.
At no point did I say either sword could pierce plate armor.
I said a longsword was better at piercing.
There are plenty of things that can be pierced, like leather, or flesh.
>>46238623
Flesh (and bone) being the important bit here.
>>46237956
We don't know all that much about how a scimitar was used, so it's hard to say. Most likely they were both functionally the same as most sources I've ever read about the use of straight or curved swords only talk about the thrust or cut if at all. A lot of current stereotypes about the scimitar comes from extrapolating its qualities from the European fencing or cavalry saber, which while logical for curved blades that had similar roles in non-European cultures wouldn't actually work when comparing infantry swords of a different length and weight and balance.
Imagine if we didn't have any of the medieval or renaissance treatises on the longsword, and had to extrapolate everything we know from Chinese longsword forms, or modern foil and epee fencing.
>>46238534
Messers are pretty good for Skirmishers. Shield in one hand and messer on the another.
I would say the Dadao is de facto the most long-lived and versatile design of curved blades. Ridiculously easy to learn and forge. Multiple uses. Lethal even in the hands of a complete amateur.
>>46238659
The Dao is pretty cool.
It's like the Arming Sword of the East.
>>46238659
A yes, the ching-chong-broad-and-slashy. Very Wu-Shu.
>>46238392
>I never meant to imply that a straight sword could easily pierce plate armor, just that it can, in general, pierce better than a curved sword.
That's not necessarily true. Plate armor is obviously a non-issue, but when it comes to anything else the tip of a curved sword can pierce very well, just not while in only one hand (but then again, you're not really going to be piercing any sort of armor in general with one hand even with a straight sword).
>>46237956
They were different. Scimitars were meant for slashing at enemies from horseback, principally (they also weren't as common as they're often depicted, Eastern armies very often used straight swords for infantry and archers) and were basically meant, like all sabers, to attack the unarmored parts of enemies. They were also one-handed.
Longswords are two-handed swords that can cut and thrust with equal measure, and could be used to attack the joints in armor, or to strike in various was, including with the pommel or grip of the sword to overcome armored enemies.
So one wasn't really better than the other inherently, but in certain situations one would obviously be more useful. If you were to fight on horseback you would want a scimitar, if you were to fight on foot you would want a longsword. Many knights carried both a two-handed sword and a shorter "arming sword" and a shield for use in different situations.
Interestingly, despite the fact that one would logically assume a saber or scimitar to be most useful against unarmored enemies, they remained well in use into the age of armored men. The Poles, for example, used sabers with very distinct curves well into the 19th century, despite the proliferation in the 17th and 16th centuries of full mail and plate armor among many soldiers. The Tatars of Crimea often wore full suits of mail and these funny looking mail head-curtains, but the Poles fought them with sabers nevertheless. I think striking for the face or for unarmored limbs is often underestimated as a tactic... It may have been perfectly normal to expect to only be able to wound an enemy on one part of his body, or to have to batter him through his armor until broken bones render him unable to fight.
>>46238693
Not Fan-wanking here. But seriously, that blade requires very little training to operate. It is fantastic for urban/CQC, especially in enclosed areas (As its Operational history would attest).
On a side note, do you suck Ching Chong Ding Dong? yes you do. now shut up and eat your egg roll.
The stabbing vs slashing thing is a holdover from the Napoleonic era where cavalry was very particular about their sword form and technique. A scimitar can stab, a longsword can slash, and both can do so very well.
So was there ever a better "all around" bladed weapon than this?
>>46238739
I think the scimitar=cavalry thing comes primarily from Muslims and their horse culture
>>46238743
Every era and region had its all around sword, none were that much better than another.
>>46238721
The joke here is that I'm actually in a homosexual relationship with a half chinese man.
>>46238754
It comes from Western adoption of Eastern European hussars, which adopted much of the military culture of Central Asian and Turkish light cavalry that happened to have curved blades. It just so happened that the flamboyant reputation of hussar regiments turned their curved swords into an icon. But in practice, both types of blades were in use both on and off horseback, Muslim or non-Muslim.
For a long time before the 14th century, the Muslims preferred straight swords. So did the Persians before them.
>>46238130
The switchover to sabers happened after the crusades.
>>46238448
IRL the only noticable difference between the two is tha sabers and their likes are more forgiving when it comes to sloppy techniqe. The normal way to represent that in an RPGs would be to give them a tighter damage range on cuts.
>>46238288
Rapiers and sabres are entirely different weapons.
A longsword has the reach advantage over the sabre and by default will thrust better than any sabre since its not curved.
>>46238739
Just because it 'can' stab does not mean it will do it very well at all. A blade as curved as the OP picture requires you to get extremely close to do a thrust compared to a straight sword with the same blade length.
>>46238217
Scimitars are better at slashing. Their curve causes them to slice and cut just by being pulled along the target, which is a big part of their design - they were designed to be used from horseback, where you had a height and speed advantage. In addition the curve makes them slightly easier to draw while mounted.
Longsword - Better at stabbing and grappling and generally utilitarian, not quite as good on horseback
Scimitar - Not as good at stabbing (depends on the curveature, less curved ones were still decent at stabbing), better at slashing and cutting. There were all sorts of close range grappling techniques available to them as well though.
Saw a video discussing scimitars where it's speculated that they were used very often in half swording and by using an empty hand on the back of the blade.
>>46238288
Longsword != Two-Handed Sword
Longswords, bastardsword and hand-and-a-half swords are basically the same.
You can use Longswords with one hand.
>>46238516
How much did curved swords weight? According to scalla Longswords weighted between 1.1 and 1.8 kilogram
I'm not an expert obviously and pretty much only citing skallagrim from this video here:
https://youtu.be/dk0GBKaMcgE?t=2m34s
>>46238550
>
I don't see why not.
>>46238659
I assume the Kriegsmesser to be mostly used two-handed and not with only one hand
>>46238484
Actually, for your katanta to have one million layers you need to fold and flatten it only 20 times.
>>46237956
>but I can't think of any other board that would suit this better
We literally have a board dedicated to weapons.
>>46238743
It wasn't that "all around" though, most people went with one handed sword (either arming sword or sideswords) and buckler which is overall a more all around combo of weapon.
>>46240941
Depends how you define "all around". The longsword is probably one of the best weapons for teaching a generic understanding of melee combat since you can use it like a poor man's version of so many other armaments.
In the same vein, it provides a pretty fair solution to just about any tactical problem. For example, I would not want to fight a dude with a zweihander using a sword and buckler, but a longsword would probably be acceptable albeit imperfect.
>>46240999
I meant all-around in its historical use. I'd say most people of the late Middle-Ages, early Modern era used one-handed swords (be them arming swords, messers, sideswords, etc), with or without bucklers and daggers rather than longswords, which were a bit more high-class to me.
Now, I'd agree that longswords, as training weapons are very good because as you said they are kinda at the bridge between the other common weapons.
About the zweihander, it's also situational, of course a longsword is maybe better than sword&buckler against a zweihander, but wouldn't you agree that most of the common people wouldn't face people with zweihander anyway ? Considering they were a guards or shock troop weapon.
For the "common man", 1h sword and buckler is an excellent all-around set weapons, especially since it's easier to wear than a longsword and less "obtrusive" since it's shorter.
>>46241124
>I meant all-around in its historical use.
Yeah, it is a question of whether we mean "all around" as in "in any given situation," or if we mean "all around" as in "in an average situation." Civilian usage contexts were on average more common uses of swords, so in that case it makes sense that something like a sidesword might be considered better.
> wouldn't you agree that most of the common people wouldn't face people with zweihander anyway
Yes, exactly. That is just what I meant by saying it depends. I agree.
>>46240933
That only gets used for speculative dick measuring contests and f-35 shitposting.
If you want Mideival or classical period weapons, /tg/ is where to go.
There's a folk story about some knights meeting some Arab soldiers, and they start talking about swords. The Arabs, wishing to show their sword was superior, threw a handkerchief into the air, and sliced it in half. The knights responded by striking a stone and cleaving it in half. The point is that both swords have different uses and purposes.
>>46237956
Your question is assuming a long list of premises from RPGs that are just flat-out wrong or irrelevant in real life combat.
"Damage ratings" in most RPGs make zero sense. They're gaming conventions, they don't have any relation to the way actual fencing works.
>>46240444
No, it can stab very well. The technique is just a little different, and is actually harder to defend against because of the way the stab can wrap around a defense. At most the difference in range is half a foot to do so.
>>46238098
a longsword is a two-handed sword with a much longer reach than the scimitar, so i would put my money on him, But not because it's a superior weapon, but because there is one life-saving technique that he can rely on. Standing back and poking with his sword.
Curved swords are shit on the stab.
>>46240571
Both are good at stabbing and slashing and grappling. What's actually different about the longsword and scimitar is that one is more forgiving when it comes to slashes but requires more finesse when it comes to stabs, and the other is the opposite way.
A slash from a scimitar can be very effective no matter where on the sword you make contact, while the tip requires quite some skill to guide into a stab. Meanwhile the longsword has about one or two sweet spots where its slash is most effective, but the stab is fairly easy and straightforward.
So rather than damage class, the difference is better represented in a d20 system with varying critical ranges and multipliers.
>>46245018
The reach difference isn't that big, half a foot isn't enough to give such a massive advantage.
Besides, I really wonder where does this technique of yours comes from, because poking while retreating isn't as sound as it looks against a dtermined and agressive opponent.
>>46244869
>at most half a foot
Which is absolutely huge in a sword fight.
>>46245657
At its most extreme, and only in a point-based fencing scenario, and only if the longsword in question is a rapier and not an actual longsword. A more deadly contest makes those few inches almost moot.
>>46240705
It's my understanding that hand-and-a-half swords are a type of longsword and that two-handed swords are as well. Used loosely, however, longsword tends to default to the former rather than latter category (sort of like how "fingers" can either include or exclude your thumb, depending on usage).
