That’s just it. I have one of these (although I’ve had it a long time and don’t remember who I got it from). Just over 2 pounds, which really isn’t all that much. But when I show it to people, I say “Now forget being hit on the head with that thing, because it would clearly kill you outright. Just consider how your arm would feel after someone bashed it against your shield for a while.”
And consider that all the impact is going to be on one or two flanges and likely on the edges or points of those flanges.
Based upon actual weapons historians saying that they never existed and nobody being able demonstrate how such a weapon could even be used.
There’s nothing mythical about the meteor ball. It is well attested in both period documents an archaeological finds, unlike the ball and chain flail. The meteor hammer of course was used as a retrievable thrown weapon, not as a flail of any sort.
As I said, if you do find any credible evidence of the existence of a ball-and-chain flail I would love to see it, as would many others. So by all means keep looking.
I assume this is a joke. None of those weapons have any degree of versatilty.
The gladius design was adopted because that is the best you can do with bronze. As iron and then steel working became more refined the Roman sword ceased to be a gladius and transformed into a basic arming sword. IOW the gladius wasn’t even versaltile enough to impress the Romans once they had an alternative. Added to that, the gladius was just one of many weapons issued to a Roman soldier. It was very much a niche tool.
The rapier is about as specialised and un-versatile as a weapon can become. It relies entirely upon rapid thrusts and keeping the opponent at range. It is all but useless against any form of armour and at a considerable disadvantage against almost any other sword or axe at extremely short distances. There is a reasons why it was never issued to soldiers and why even civialns who had to travel in uncivilised regions carried much heavier swords.
It wasn’t primarily personal preference. It mostly came down to cost, tactics and armour. There was almost always a “best” weapon design for a given situation, but not everybody could afford it. Also, specialised weapons lacked adaptability, so while they worked great so long as the fight went as planned, as soon as the formation broke up they ceased to be effective. A stabbing hand-and-a-half sword was great for a knight fighting another knight, but they when the knights were overrun by infantry they were too slow and cumbersome to be effective and were often abandoned in favour of daggers. An edged hand-and-a-half sword was less useful against armour, but remained viable in all situations. It wasn’t down to personal preference so much as what was expected to happen.
I would have to disagree with some of your points Blake.
Much heavier swords? The rapier weighed about the same as most other swords of similar size. It’s within the range of a longsword (2 to 4 pounds). During the time period when rapiers were popular you would see the smaller cut and thrust sword/arming sword (sometimes paired with a buckler or dagger), the longsword (although by this time it was definitely out of fashion outside the battlefield).
These weapons are all long swords. They varied in blade geometry, but this is the type of weapon I would choose as the more versatile blade. Specifically one with a geometry which emphasizes the point.
I understand that a weapon is designed for a specific set of circumstances. But within a weapons design, say the “stabbing hand a half sword”, there is a lot of variation. I am just trying to understand the advantages and disadvantages of these variations. Its variation without changing the intended use. Like i may have a pole hammer with a 3 pound head where you might have one with a 2.5 pound head, and mine may be 47 inches overall where yours may be 55. They would both still be used for the same situation and with the same tactics. Thats what lead me to conclude that it must be personal preference.
Also please don’t think that wooden swords are cumbersome or slow. If using the right wood for the job (hickory is the clear choice for any force on force practice) they can be very accurate representation of a real sword. I like how they break if improperly used, similar to a real weapon. I really like making wooden weapons, it’s given me a lot of insight into distribution of mass as well as the compromises that must be made between weight, length, power, and controllability.
As a more versatile weapon is because it is lethal against unarmored opponents, while still maintaining the ability to be effective against armor by leveraging the point against the articulations and vulnerable areas, as well as providing leverage to use against an armored foe when used at the half sword:
So it’s effective at long and short ranges, it remains effective against armor, and it’s design makes it a resilient weapon.
I have studied historical European martial arts, and have used wooden wasters. They are handy tools, but they do not handle like live steel. They “fight” you due to greater drag and smaller inertia, and they feel… dead when striking another blade. Specially for realistic blade on blade work it’s not very good.
But for practicing basic technique, and developing footwork while sparing, it’s certainly a great, safer choice.
Hmm interesting. So the basic conclusion is that a weapons design is dictated entirely by a particular scenario. So even though the long sword is designed as an overall weapon (not the best at cutting or thrusting but can fit many situations), the small variations are to suit a particular situation (like type of armor it will be up against). I still feel like personal preference must have played a roll in the final product however. I know as for me i tend to favor the lighter examples of long swords with a fairly particular length so i don’t strike things i don’t want to like the ground.
My experience with wooden swords has been different than yours it would seem. I don’t understand why there would be any difference in inertia, and as for drag there is definitely some truth to that, but i find it negligible. As far as feeling dead they certainly don’t resinate the same as a metal sword, but being wood they do resinate quite a lot so, to me, they don’t feel dead at all. But i could see how someone with a lot of steel experience would feel that way especially if the wooden sword they are using isn’t the best example.
now i curios. when sparring what material are you’r swords made of? They offer sparring weapons made from all sorts of things. whats your preference? and if theres a site or someplace you get your sparring weapons could you list it?
The gladius continued on as a standard weapon of your erstwhile superpower in tempered steel form. the only opposing design to it was the greek/persian yatagan which was a cutting weapon. What sword type had better use and exposure before the carburized tanged european sword came out?
You’re basically saying the whole of Europe turned specialized and un-versatile, after more than a millenium of sword fighting, when it switched to rapier-like weapons. Just remember that a sword must have basic properties that give you a competitive edge: reach, lightness, thrusting efficiency. The thrust is more effective than the cut. The rapier is light enough for a nobleman or foot soldier to keep strapped to his side while he’s wielding a heavy armor-defeating weapon with both hands. Elsewise, against un-armored soldiers, out comes the rapier. In civilian life where you hardly encounter armor, the rapier is the only way to go besides projectile weapons. Sword smiths (and swordsmen) were obviously willing to sacrifice everything else. So when forging and heat treatment improved to a certain degree, it’s goodbye cutting edge, goodbye two-hand hold, and goodbye excess weight. The rapier is the best fighting sword in history, and is basically the last in its evolution.
Nope. That you think it is the terminal Western sword (it isn’t - ever hear of the sabre?) doesn’t make it the best. As even you note, it completely sucks against armoured opponents. It’s also pretty useless against mounted soldiers or anyone armed with a polearm or bayonet. Which, even in the period of highest rapier usage, would render it absolutely useless for military use. Side-swords didn’t die out when the rapier was developed & other soldiers didn’t carry rapiers as their holdout weapon for good reason.
You are making the same mistake that people clueless about evolution make. That it always works towards some unkown but “better” form. That’s not necessarily true. Instead it tries to fill a niche, it works to adapt an organism to it’s environment.
The rapier isn’t the “best” sword. It’s just well suited to civilian self-defense.
But it’s not a weapon for the battlefield. Soldiers did not fight with rapiers. By that time they were fighting with pikes, polearms, spears, long swords, cut and thrust (arming) swords, and early gun powder weapons.
And again, rapiers were not the smallsword of a century later. They weighed about the SAME as an arming sword or even the larger long sword. Go take a look at descriptions of museum pieces and compare the weights if you don’t believe me.
People who have never seen an actual rapier tend to think it’s similar to a modern fencing foil. It is NOT.
Wasters are lighter than steel, and tend to feature different balance points and blade geometry vs a steel blade. Since they are lighter they do not have the same inertia of a steel blade. Since they present a higher surface ratio as they move, they cause more drag, which combined with the smaller inertia definitive changes their feel vs a steel blade.
Wooden swords tend to bounce of each other and they don’t feel “alive” when in contact with each other. Steel blades will bind, rather than bounce and will readily slide around one another.
To study the art as it was intended you NEED to supplement work with wooden weapons with steel.
I tend to use both for different things. But for exercises thast include a lot of binding and blade work, I definitely prefer a steel blade.
I use several types of rebated steel swords for practice and sparing as well as various wasters for the same. Actual replicas are preferred for test cutting and I sometimes use them for solo practice, but they are very dangerous, so I don’
t take them out often.
the difference in air resistance is pretty small, my perception of things is more to do with balance. Wood or rattan weapons tend to have more erratic points of balance which makes them feel weird to those who use steel. One of my SCA swords has a point of balance that is too far forward making it feel very slow to whip around. It almost feels more like swinging an axe than a sword. They also respond differently to impact. Metal swords vibrate when you hit things. Wooden weapons do not. More people may be able to relate in the form of the differences between using a wood or aluminum baseball bat. Both are bats, both hit a ball just fine, but they feel much different when you hit the ball with them.
I suspect you may be right in that the differences in feel when wielding them (aside from the differences when blade touches blade) may be mostly due to the difference in the vibration and balance than cross section and drag, though there is a difference there as well.
I really think you guys are underestimating the potential quality of a wooden sword. I have made wooden swords with the exact same weight, distribution of mass, and balance point as period examples. If you want to see some high quality examples you can purchase, check out www.kingfisherwoodworks.com site. They make the best bokken you can buy.
(warning terrible music)
