True. If you read the article in the link I provided above they get into this. A titanium alloy sword has the advantage of being extremely resistant to corrosion and is far lighter than the same sized sword made of steel.
However, if you were going into a fight you’d want the steel sword…it’s harder than titanium. They make the comment that a steel sword would likely slice through a titanium sword in combat conditions.
Realize that back when swords were actually used you needed a weapon that would last. You wanted it to hold an edge as good as possible and especially didn’t want it to chip or worse…break. As a result a sword for show sitting in a case or on the hip of a dandy will be a different creature than one meant to be dragged all over in mud and water and blood and banging on shields, swords, clubs and heads.
Unless someone can give a definitive cite otherwise, I believe the single type of sword used for the most bloodshed is the falchion/machete, a simple agricultural tool adapted for combat.
Wang-Ka has already mentioned the fact that swords are now more ceremonial in much of the world than functional. Since we have them lined up in a row, several centuries of technological advance listed in the AD&D rulebook, it’s hard to see why we presently have such a variety. Line them up chronologically, by region, and it makes much more sense. Unfortunately, that’s asking for a history of pre-firearms warfare.
tomndebb already pointed this out: the sword was meant to kill a certain kind of opponent who was armed and armored in a certain way. As armor developed that resisted or protected against a kind of sword, the sword evolved into something that could penetrate through it, or slash around it.
They’re actually kind of cool, in a way. A sword is, for its time period, the result of ruthless no-holds-barred technological evolution, pure form based on a function that does not allow second-best designs to flourish.
I have been involved with this discussion of “what is the best sword” before. They go on forever, and no one’s mind changes.
That having been said, my choice for the single best sword would be a fairly light saber, straight-bladed (point beats edge), basket-hilted. The bottom half of the edge would be fairly blunt (I parry with the edge - horrors), and the top half of the blade sharp, but not excessively so, and serrated (for cuts to the wrist and cuff).
It would be steel, with the “blood” grooves they love to talk about (they are really to lighten the blade). I am assuming cost is no object, and that I am going to be mostly engaged in single combat with no armor against other single opponents, also unarmored.
Maybe I should start the discussion about “who would win - a European knight, or a Japanese samurai?” That should kill a few months.
How is it done? Well, if you look at actual museum collections, you’ll see that it was done with quite a bit of skill, but that is how it was done.
As for claiming that swords were “about getting thwacked”–wrong. My own study of the older styles (medieval, heavy armor renaissance) leads me to the conclusion that, the heavier the swords, the less likely one was to try to defend with them. Instead, one used position and timing to simply not get hit–perhaps deflecting the oncoming attack with a countercut.
It isn’t that black-and-white. This claim is always made by the magnificently ignorant whose “research” has consisted of nothing more than reading comic books or maybe taking half a kendo lesson (at most).
First, the mythically magnificent “samurai sword” is just that–mythical. If one compares Japanese and European swords made during the same centuries, one finds that they are comparable in quality. The great katana were all made in the 16th century or later, at the same time that Europe was turning out some truly magnificent steel weapons.
Second, the weapons of each culture were built to fight the fights of each culture. Japanese swords were built to handle lightly-armored opponents. European swords were built to deal with far heavier armor. It doesn’t matter how “quick” the enemy is if the enemy’s attacks are as so much mosquito bites.
Likewise, anyone who tries to claim that European combat was lumbering and artless is only showing off truly laughable ignorance. I suggest that one look at research like that done by AEMMA and the Hoplological Society.
Finally, even though there is a lot of story-book gee-whizzery about the swordsmanship of Japan, it should be noted that militarily, Samurai were as much mounted archers as they were swordsmen. The knight, on the other hand, was a lancer, his training 100% devoted to close-in combat.
Either that, or a weapon that is not too far from that. One example would be the German Dusack. The reason is simple: They’re cheap.
The Dusack, for example, was just stamped, handle and all, out of a sheet of metal, given an edge, and the handle wrapped in leather. It was a mass-grunt weapon.
From a logistical point of view in that era, they were ideal.
It should also be noted that by the 1600s swords were essentially wasted if issued to British infantry. They were more likely to use them to cut firewood than for fighting. Only elite or unusual units (like Highlanders) made good use of their swords in combat.
A knight is “lumbering”. What comic book did Whack-a-Mole do his historical “research” from? How does he justify his claims of “lumbering” in light of the Anglo’s recent work on the topic of European combat before the Industrial Era?
Indeed, how does he justify his claim of “lumbering” in light of the following work:
It’s a toss-up between D&D and anime as to which has spread more disinformation about swordfighting. No sword intended for actual combat ever weighed more than eight pounds. Anything heavier would have been for parades, display, or official ceremonies. A katana cannot cut through metal plates or other swords and samurai had no “chi” magic to make them super warriors except in their minds.
The dusack was actually a training weapon, not a
“grunt” weapon. Dusack training was part of the core of “Der Ridderliche Kunst,” the German “knightly art.” Their mass production belies their actual use.
