Sword
A sword is a type of melee weapon that's comprised of a long, sharp blade and a hilt to hold it with. In the real world, the blades of swords normally range in between 50 to 150cm and typically weigh between 1 to 4 kilograms, depending on the size and materials used on the weapon. Numerous variants of swords exist and have been employed since some ancient Mesopotamian metalworker decided to make the blade of a dagger much longer than usual.
Why swords were awesome
Spears are good at poking stuff, but were long and clumsy once you got real close, only had a sharp edge at the very end and easily get tangled in stuff. Axes were good at chopping, but were not good at deflecting other blows and took a bit of time and a fair bit of space to build up momentum. Swords were good at both chopping and poking. If you got close up in a fight back then, a sword was your friend. Some swords are more pokey, some more choppy, some were balanced, but they could all do the job in a pinch. If you have a sword, you have more options available to you.
Shortcomings which should be acknowledged
Swords however requires much, much more skill than any other close combat weapon and while untrained militiamen with spears, halberds or axes still could be a threatening foes, untrained men with a swords possess a danger mainly to themselves. On top of that, they were more expensive than either one of those two weapons. Swords are also not the best weapons when it comes to cutting through metallic armor.
Types of Swords
- Khopesh: One of the oldest varieties of sword with a distinct sickle shape. Originally of Egyptian design, this weapon's distinctive blade allowed it to cut, hook shields, and even thrust. It was fairly good for it's day in the bronze age, but in that day armor better than leather or padded cloth was a rarity. It's time was done once chainmail and scale armor became common.
- Gladius: The standard sword of the Roman Legions, a short sword about 60 centimeters long. This sword was the main weapon for the average Roman legionary. It was optimized for the formation fighting which Roman Legionaries excelled in. It was later phased out in favor of the longer spatha, which was itself a precursor to the arming swords and longswords.
- Arming Sword: Or side-sword, was a one handed weapon pretty much carried by every decently equipped man-at-arms/archer/spearman/knight ever. Often carried with a shield of some sort it can also be used if your main weapon breaks or happens to be too long to use in corridors. When most people think of the classic sword-and-shield combo, this sword is what most often comes to mind.
- Longsword: A knightly sword, befit of any self respecting knightly individual, it's your two-handed or hand and a half go-to knight killer with multiple functions such as sword(duh), crowbar, spear, and hammer. Though there are dozens of techniques to use the longsword two of the most common and useful styles are the Italian and German styles. The Italian longsword technique allows you to strike and parry quickly, greatly emphasizing on using the general physics of a longsword combined with well planned footwork. The German style of Half-Sword-ing (that's gripping your sword with right hand on the handle and the left on the percussion point of the sword(or half point)) this technique allows you to use the sword like a crowbar and fight armored opponents more efficiently when in CQC, the objective being to use the sword to catch and topple your opponent so you can shove the pointy end into his visor or other less armored spot. It is also good to note that the longsword strikes faster and harder than the arming sword, due to the fact you're using two hands to operate it.
- Greatsword: Or Zweihander, is a mighty 120-150 centimeter blade that appeared somewhere around the 15th century which was mainly carried by fuckhuge men with fuckhuge biceps and fuckhuge balls whose jobs were to run forth as the vanguard and hack enemy pikes, pikemen, swordsmen and occasionally cavalry to meaty chunks. Greatswords bear many of the same abilities as the longsword though it was a bit slower and struck harder due to the weight, and also require even more training. Good greatswords was like the most expensive close combat weapons in medieval Europe, and good landsknekhts were the most expensive foot soldiers, but for the good reason, as they combined the devastating killing blow and armor piercing capability of axe, speed of the sword, and were also able do chop through tough spear or halberd formations. This, however, comes at a great risk, as while highly skilled landsknekht can swing the Zweihander pretty fast, he cannot react fast enough to reliably block enemy strikes because of fuckhuge momentum of his sword, leaving him vulnerable to counter-attack as something survives his swing - even while they usually wore heavy armour landsknekhts were known to die young.
- Flamberge: So one day one smart fucker thought "Battleaxes are lighter than greatswords, but they still chop through the armour better, maybe that's due to the curved blade". So he went to the blacksmith and ordered the Zweihander with waved blade. The result was BRUTAL. To put it simple, it cuts through fucking anything. ANYTHING! Your opponent carrying a heavy shield and full plate? You still can kill him in two blows - first cut his shield and shield carrying arm in half, second cut HIM in half. If he somehow survive and escapes you he would end with grievous ragged wound and die of gangrene and shitty medieval medicine anyway. On the other hand, you could just hire five men with regular greatswords for the same price it took to make one flamberge.
- Scimitar: A variety of sword of middle eastern design, the scimitar was a curved single bladed sword. These blades were lighter than European counterparts (such as the sabre and the falchion)and had limited flexibility (since they only had one edge), but they were remarkably quick and sharp.
- Katana: No wait come back. Look, katanas get a lot of hate because stupid people believe they are unstoppable God-weapons that can cleave through tanks, cut through time, and cure cancer. And that's bull, no one who isn't stupid disputes this. But, they were perfectly functional swords for their place and time. Sort of a hybrid between the scimitar, with its curved cutting blade, and the thicker, less-flexible blade of a longsword that allowed for more cutting power in the swing. Also, you don't swing it like a baseball bat, you pull inward as you swing so the blade cuts as it goes. Historically, it was often used with a shorter sword called a wakizashi, which was commonly used as an alternative to the katana in situations where the long blade would be a hindrance (e.g. indoor fights). Such a pairing was referred to as a daisho and was considered a symbol of the samurai and their ownership was forbidden to anyone other than them until the late 19th century. While in most circumstances only one of the pair was used at a time, at least one school of martial arts (the Niten Ichi-ryū) exists that allows a swordsman to wield both swords at once.
- Rapier: As firearms became more prominent, swords became relegated to the purposes of self-defense and dueling rather than full-fledged military warfare. Unlike most swords, rapiers possess long, thin blades (commonly about a meter long and 2.5 centimeters wide) with a sharpened point- useless for cutting, but perfect for thrusting. They were frequently made with elaborate hilts meant to guard the wielder's hands more effectively, preventing them from being disarmed (both figuratively and literally). Over time, the rapier evolved into the small sword; as the name suggests, the blade was made shorter and the hilt was simplified. At this point, they served more as status symbols than weapons in their own right, as duels to the death had become increasingly frowned upon. (The foil and épée used in modern fencing were also derivatives of the rapier, much like fencing itself is a distant relative of sword duels.)
- Pistol Sword: In the 1600s, someone got a bright idea: what if you stuck a gun barrel onto the side of a sword so you wouldn't have to fumble around changing your weapons in the middle of a barrel? The answer was not as cool as it sounds- instead of getting a weapon that could be used both as a sword and a pistol, you got a sword that was unbalanced towards its hilt (making it difficult to wield properly) and a pistol that was too heavy to aim with (and was also too expensive to mass-produce). Needless to say, they weren't all that popular.
Sword Related stupidity
There are two types of sword related retards.
- Sword Wankers: Overly romantic morons who believe that the sword is the be all end all weapon until people got good with guns and tragically ended that. Buying into all that chivalry/Bushido nonsense.
- Anti-Sword Wankers: People who respond to the sword wankers by going too far the other way. Seeing swords as worthless weapons that were only carried by overly romantic morons. Sword blades would always shatter on impact with plate armor and ten swordsmen would easily die to one guy with a spear.
Both are stupid. Swords were not the be-all end all of medieval warfare. Other weapons did have their advantages. Maces did concussive damage even if someone was wearing heavy armor and could break bones. Spears had a longer reach and were better against cavalry. Halberds could deliver a devastating chop. This did not mean that swords were worthless. They were versatile- short swords were excellent as a fallback weapon. Double handed Zweihanders could be devastating. Never the less, morons who think in bare basic binary believe that they are either the weapon of the gods or worthless rubbish. Ignoring that any civilization that developed metalworking (and a couple that didn't) eventually came up with swords.
 This article is a stub. You can help 1d4chan by expanding it |